E-22010 DSM Evaluation Reports - Final Report - February 28, 2011 2/28/2011
940 passages
.41 Small Business Lighting Solutions 13.98 3.30 11.21 1.53 C&I TOTAL 63.94 12.37 62.60 10.49 PORTFOLIO TOTAL 81.13 16.63 84.97 16.38 Includes the Power Down (Retail) and Appliance Retirement and Replacement program components. Includes Re...
AI summary The DSM Administrator's 2010 conservation programs exceeded energy savings targets by 5% (3.84 GWh) and nearly met demand savings goals. Key programs like Efficient Products - Residential (153% over target) and EnerGuide for Existing Houses (65% over target) drove results, with CFL markdowns contributing 72% of Retail program savings.
In 2010, the CFL component of the Efficient Products – Retail program accounted for 88% of the program‘s energy savings from retail product sales. As a result of the upcoming phase-out of incandescent bulbs starting in January 2012, the...
AI summary The Efficient Products programs face challenges as CFLs near their energy-saving limits due to incandescent bulb phase-outs, while the Direct Install program may have peaked. The EnerGuide program exceeded targets despite federal rebate changes, but other programs like Low Income Households and Business Energy Rebates underperformed significantly.
<1 <1 1 5 1 3 BER 1 <1 <1 <1 In summary, the portfolio has relied heavily on deriving savings from the commercial sector and, until now, the DSM Administrator has not been able to establish a solid foothold in the residential sector, aside...
AI summary The DSM Administrator faces challenges in achieving residential energy savings goals due to reliance on commercial sector savings and diminishing returns from legacy programs. Efficiency Nova Scotia, as a new organization, must expand residential programs like EEH and ARR while navigating growth challenges and stakeholder relationship-building.
n of implementing electric DSM programs in the province, Efficiency Nova Scotia has an opportunity to create relationships anew, not only with customers, but with stakeholders and interest groups.6 5 The Appliance Retirement and Replacemen...
AI summary Efficiency Nova Scotia aims to rebuild stakeholder relationships post-DSM program transitions. The 2010 DSM program evaluation focused on documenting objectives, estimating energy savings, and identifying performance improvements. The Appliance Retirement and Replacement program differed from other efficiency initiatives. Evaluations used surveys, on-site data, and net-to-gross ratios to account for free ridership.
will become increasingly important for the DSM Administrator to monitor the performance of Delivery Agents in order to achieve 2011 targets and to ensure continued high levels of customer service. NMR Evaluation 2010 DSM Programs Executive...
AI summary The DSM Administrator must monitor Delivery Agents to meet 2011 targets and maintain service quality. The Power Down (PD) program's CFL component faces challenges due to the 2012 incandescent bulb phase-out, necessitating diversification into other efficiency measures. However, other retail products under PD are unlikely to match CFLs' energy savings contribution.
ased only if needed. The PD program should consider focusing instead on new construction and major renovation projects for promoting fixtures and controls such as programmable thermostats and dimmers. 3.4.3 Appliance Rebates Component As w...
AI summary The PD program should focus on new construction and major renovations for energy-efficient fixtures and controls. Appliance rebate programs may need to target higher efficiency levels to reduce free-ridership, with recommendations to rebate Tier 3 appliances and offer packaged rebates for multiple energy-efficient purchases.
service-lamps-dec08.cfm?attr=4 NMR Evaluation 2010 DSM Programs Executive Summary Page 15 3.5 Efficient Products – Direct Install Program (DI) The DI program continues to perform strongly and customers continue to be happy with the program...
AI summary The DI program's performance remains strong, with customer satisfaction. However, increasing self-installation of CFLs may lead to higher free-ridership. The program may need revised incentives and design, such as requiring customer co-payments for energy efficiency measures.
One possible approach might be to require customers to pay for a portion of the cost for the energy efficiency measures offered by the program and to continue to offer installation services for free. 3.6 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Progr...
AI summary The EnerGuide for Existing Houses (EEH) program faced challenges due to the withdrawal of federal rebates by NRCan and the transition of administration from Nova Scotia Power to Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation, leading to staff layoffs and uncertainty about the program's future. Despite these issues, the program exceeded its energy savings goals, and there is a need to rebuild trust with Delivery Agents and re-establish the program's infrastructure.
he DSM Administrator work to overcome these barriers as a cursory review of statistics from NRCan suggest that there are substantial opportunities for an existing home retrofit program such as EEH. NMR Evaluation 2010 DSM Programs Executiv...
AI summary The 2010 New Houses (NH) program had limited influence on energy efficiency due to the 2010 Nova Scotia building code raising energy efficiency standards. Participation was largely driven by heat pump incentives, and the program had high levels of free-ridership among builders and homeowners.
omeowners. Thus, at first glance the NH program may have been mostly a heat pump program. That said, survey respondents reported strong interest in energy efficiency and satisfaction with the program. 3.8 Appliance Retirement and Replaceme...
AI summary The text discusses the NH program's initial focus on heat pumps and high interest in energy efficiency. It highlights the success of the Appliance Retirement Program (ARR) pilot, despite high free ridership, and the need for future programs to address issues such as free rider screening, incentive structures, and communication planning.
gn of any future program needs to address a number of issues including screening free riders, revising incentive structures, timing of promotions, and careful attention to planning and communications. 3.8.2 Appliance Replacement The replac...
AI summary The ARR program's replacement component faced challenges in reaching the multi-family market due to limited resources and the pilot nature of the program. NMR recommends continuing the program to establish a foothold in this sector and build relationships for future initiatives.
as unclear. Despite this, the DSM Administrator has implemented an alternative program design that would eliminate issues in the future. Under this alternate program design, instead of Delivery Agents using a sole source Materials Vendor s...
AI summary The DSM Administrator has implemented an alternative program design to eliminate future issues by allowing Delivery Agents to source their own lighting materials and select vendors competitively. Some respondents identified barriers to implementing additional energy efficiency measures, including lack of recommended measures, financing, information, and time. Spillover effects among participants were relatively low.
2010 respondents (97%) Since the majority of DI program participants have not participated reported no prior participation in DSM Administrator run energy in an energy efficiency program before, it is crucial that the DI efficiency program...
AI summary The 2010 DSM programs saw high participation, with 97% of DI program participants reporting no prior involvement in energy efficiency initiatives. Ensuring the DI program delivers positive outcomes is critical to encourage future participation in other programs. The DSM administrator is advised to provide participants with updates on their energy and cost savings via email.
Program Finding Recommendation Efficient DI-F4. DI-R4. Lighting In 2010, respondents cited lack of time as the number one barrier to At the time of participant contact, provide additional information or Products pursuing additional energy...
AI summary The text discusses barriers to energy efficiency implementation, citing lack of time and limited financing as key issues. It also suggests providing more information and adjusting incentive levels for CFLs as potential solutions. The findings are from a program evaluation related to direct installation and small business lighting solutions.
DI-R6. Nearly seven out of ten 2010 respondents (69%) reported that they Consider adjusting incentive levels for CFLs. This may, for example, were aware of the benefits of CFLs; about two out of five (44%) include free installation service...
AI summary The 2010 DSM program evaluation indicates that 69% of respondents were aware of the benefits of CFLs, while 44% were aware of LED exit lights. Over 60% had CFLs installed in their businesses prior to the program, with 45% having 25% or more of their screw-based sockets filled with CFLs. Adjustments to incentive levels for CFLs, including free installation and negotiated pricing, are suggested.
Program Finding Recommendation Efficient DI-F7. DI-R7. Lighting According to self-reported data, even after participating in the DI The DSM Administrator should make an effort to install CFLs in all Products program, there is significant p...
AI summary The Direct Installation (DI) program for efficient lighting products has shown potential for improvement. Despite participation, many respondents reported that not all screw-based sockets had CFLs installed, and awareness of LED exit lights remained low. Recommendations include promoting LED exit lights and ensuring full installation of CFLs during initial visits.
rior to the BER program and relatively few respondents reported and reduce costs. taking any additional energy efficient actions after participating in the program.
AI summary The text discusses the BER program and notes that prior to its implementation, few respondents took additional energy-efficient actions after participating in the program, suggesting potential limitations in the program's effectiveness in encouraging further energy efficiency measures.
Program Finding Recommendation New NH-F1. NH-R1. Houses Implementation of the NH program entailed multiple phases and a Under these circumstances, the program has two choices for its Program variety of people were involved in delivering th...
AI summary The New Houses Program (NH) has evolved into a heat pump program, with recommendations to raise EnerGuide (EG) ratings to 85 or 90 over time or shift to direct incentives for specific measures to improve cost-effectiveness and efficiency.
2. Starting in January 2010, Nova Scotia building code required all new Before designing any future residential new construction energy homes to have a minimum EnerGuide rating of 80. Builders or efficiency programs, the DSM Administrator...
AI summary Starting in January 2010, Nova Scotia building code required new homes to have a minimum EnerGuide rating of 80. Builders or homeowners had to either have their homes tested or follow prescriptive measures. Building inspectors are key stakeholders for future residential energy efficiency programs and have insights into how builders comply with the building code.
Program Finding Recommendation New NH-F3. NH-R3. Houses Despite the increased awareness about NH in 2010 from newspaper Continue to build awareness through marketing to homeowners in Program ads or stories (cited by homeowners regarding wh...
AI summary The New Houses Program (NH) saw increased awareness in 2010 due to newspaper ads and stories. Homeowners and builders expressed a need for continued marketing emphasizing energy cost savings and the benefits of energy-efficient homes, including the EnerGuide label.
system were not used (i.e., incentives for specific measures mentioned in NH-R1 were used instead), this would not be an option. NH-F6. NH-R6. Aside from the HOT 2000 reports and EnerGuide rating, builders The NH program should develop an...
AI summary The document highlights issues with the NH program, including confusion among builders regarding program requirements, incentives, and support for HOT2000. Builders received limited marketing materials and lacked sufficient training on the Nova Scotia energy code and program details.
out the NH program. Builders did not understand the HOT2000 understanding the HOT2000 report and the R-2000 approach. report very well in terms of how it worked and how it was measured. NMR Evaluation of 2010 DSM Programs Executive Summary...
AI summary The NH program faced challenges as builders did not fully understand the HOT2000 report and the R-2000 approach, which impacted their ability to effectively implement the program. This lack of understanding may have hindered program effectiveness.
gular communication with builders will also help improve satisfaction with this aspect of program delivery. NH-F12. NH-R12. Prescriptive measures, such as solar hot water heaters and water Solar hot water heaters and water heater tank insu...
AI summary The document discusses the need for improved communication with builders and issues related to modeling energy efficiency measures in HOT2000, such as double counting, inconsistent modeling of CFLs, and the inclusion of prescriptive savings for certain insulation and heat recovery measures.
rating or energy consumption of program homes. NH-F15. NH-R15. All homes that entered the program in 2010 had to adhere to Nova The code upgrade baseline home (EnerGuide rating of 80) and the Scotia‘s new residential energy code and achiev...
AI summary The 2010 DSM programs required homes to meet Nova Scotia's new residential energy code with a minimum EnerGuide rating of 80. The evaluated savings per EnerGuide point was 1,032 kWh relative to the code upgrade baseline home, which has an EnerGuide rating of 80.
Program Finding Recommendation EnerGuide EEH-F1. EEH-R1. Existing When approaching program design the DSM Administrator should In the near term, the DSM Administrator should consider the Houses keep in mind that the Delivery Agents have ha...
AI summary The document discusses challenges in the EnerGuide Existing Houses Program, noting staff reductions at Delivery Agents and the need for a ramp-up period for future programs. It also highlights the importance of federal funding, which has been withdrawn by NRCan, and recommends a market potential study if no federal funds are available.
Program Finding Recommendation EnerGuide EEH-F3. EEH-R3. Existing The program changes caused a lot of misunderstanding among The DSM Administrator will need to work to regain the trust and Delivery Agents who were frustrated with the chang...
AI summary The EnerGuide Existing Houses Program faced challenges due to changes causing confusion among Delivery Agents. These changes led to frustration and a lack of engagement until they were resolved. The DSM Administrator is advised to rebuild trust and ensure future programs have agreements with NRCan for easier data sharing and waiver forms for participants.
participants to sign during the initial audit and the final audit. This form would allow the DSM Administrator access to customer contact information which would aid in program evaluations. EEH-F5. EEH-R5. The 2009 evaluation had found tha...
AI summary The EEH program places the burden of contractor selection on customers and lacks contractor training. The 2009 evaluation recommended pre-approved and certified contractors to improve program effectiveness and customer choice.
Program Finding Recommendation EnerGuide EEH-F6. EEH-R6. Existing The EEH program has both resource acquisition and market In order to achieve its market transformation goals, any future transformation goals. A pool of well trained contrac...
AI summary The EEH program aims to achieve market transformation goals through contractor training. Proper training ensures correct installation of energy efficiency measures and increases the likelihood of contractors recommending energy-efficient products. The withdrawal of federal rebates in 2010 and the transition of DSM program administration are also discussed.
Program Finding Recommendation EnerGuide EEH-F10. EEH-R10. Existing Among the most important reason mentioned for having homes Promotions for the new program should emphasize to customers Houses evaluated by an Energy Advisor were that res...
AI summary The evaluation of the Existing Houses Program highlights that participants value energy bill savings and home efficiency information. Many reported reduced energy bills after upgrades, but cost was a barrier to installing recommended measures. Comfort improvements were also noted, with even temperature distribution being a key benefit.
change in the comfort of their homes. They most frequently reported energy benefits. It is possible that customers are unaware of the that temperatures were more even throughout their homes (71%) and effect that program upgrades can have o...
AI summary The text discusses customer feedback on energy efficiency program upgrades, highlighting improved home comfort and energy benefits. It emphasizes the effectiveness of certain measures like electronic thermostats and heat pumps, while noting the ineffectiveness of others such as hot air furnaces and central hydronic systems.
Program Finding Recommendation EnerGuide EEH-F14. EEH-R14. Existing NMR found that the program was double counting savings for a The new program should remove the potential for double counting Houses number of measures. Any of the five hea...
AI summary The EnerGuide Existing Houses Program was found to have double-counted savings for certain measures. The recommendation is to remove double counting by applying prescriptive savings only to measures that do not affect EnerGuide ratings or energy consumption in HOT2000 models.
point system, not through prescriptive savings estimates. EEH-F15. EEH-R15. There are different savings estimates for every prescriptive measure The new program should consider coordinating with any new that is sponsored by the existing an...
AI summary The document discusses the variability in prescriptive savings estimates for energy efficiency measures in existing and new houses programs, highlighting differences in savings estimates for various measures. It also notes the need for clarity in how savings estimates are developed and the assumptions used in the tracking database.
Program Finding Recommendation Low LIH-F4. LIH-R4. Income Customers were motivated to participate in the program primarily Continue to promote the savings benefits of the program with an Households because of energy savings and the associa...
AI summary The Low Income Households Program was found to motivate participation through energy savings and financial benefits. Participants reported significant reductions in energy bills and improved comfort. The program was successfully promoting savings, but there was some skepticism about it being free. The recommendation is to emphasize the program's cost-free nature and the comfort benefits of the installed measures.
Program Finding Recommendation Low LIH-F20. LIH-R20. Income Some respondents reported a substantial discrepancy between the Continue to require the Delivery Agent to walk participants around Households measures that were recorded as having...
AI summary The Low Income Households Program faced issues with verification of installed energy efficiency measures, with a drop in verification rates from 95% in 2009 to 77% in 2010. Quality control activities increased in 2010, including third-party inspections and participant sign-off. Education on energy efficiency practices was highlighted as beneficial for long-term energy savings.
consumers on continued energy efficient information from the energy audit, there was a change in their behavior practices offers a payback in energy savings long after a customer with regard to their use of energy at home: 51% now turn off...
AI summary The program has achieved high overall satisfaction (90%) with participants reporting increased energy efficiency interest and knowledge. However, satisfaction with specific aspects like energy conservation measures, presentations, and work quality declined between 2009 and 2010. The top recommendation for improvement is enhancing the quality of work.
Program Findings Recommendations Efficient PD:CFL-F1. PD:CFL-R1. Products – With the approaching phase-out of incandescent bulbs in 2012, the PD The DSM Administrator should start paring back on incentives for Retail program will need to d...
AI summary The Efficient Products – Retail Program (Power Down - CFLs) found that the phase-out of incandescent bulbs in 2012 necessitated a reduction in rebates for regular CFLs. The program fell short of its 2010 goal of 30% specialty CFL sales. Recommendations include increasing incentives for specialty CFLs and reintroducing in-store giveaway events to boost their adoption.
Program Findings Recommendations Efficient PD:CFL-F3. PD:CFL-R3. Products – A number of program and non-program factors indicate that there is The PD program should work with retailers to develop/expand Retail likely to be a substantial ne...
AI summary The document discusses the need for increased education and recycling programs for CFLs in Nova Scotia due to increased adoption and the phase-out of incandescent bulbs. Recommendations include expanding CFL recycling locations and considering an incandescent bulb bounty program.
Program Findings Recommendations Efficient PD:F&C, APP-F1. PD:F&C, APP-R1. Products – While lighting products are often purchased in the fall, major Consider starting the program earlier in the year, to avoid Retail appliances such as refr...
AI summary The Efficient Products – Retail Program (Power Down – Fixtures, Controls & Appliance) findings indicate that major appliances are often purchased year-round, but not at the end of the year due to holiday focus. Retailers requested more advance notice for program implementation to order stock and promote the program effectively.
improving the energy efficiency of the properties such as increased tenant comfort, higher tenant satisfaction, and reduced tenant turnover. NMR Impact and Process Evaluation: Efficient Products Retail Program 2010 February 25, 2011 Final...
AI summary This document discusses the evaluation of the 2010 Power Down Program, focusing on the impact of improving energy efficiency in properties, including benefits such as increased tenant comfort, higher tenant satisfaction, and reduced tenant turnover. The evaluation was conducted by NMR Group, Inc. and submitted to Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation.
Executive Summary This report presents the results of the process and impact evaluations of the Efficient Products Retail program which was marketed under the name Power Down (PD). NMR Group, Inc. (NMR) conducted the evaluation. In 2010, t...
AI summary This report evaluates the Efficient Products Retail program, marketed as Power Down, which offered rebates for energy-efficient products in Nova Scotia. The evaluation was conducted by NMR Group, Inc. and divided into three components: CFLs, light fixtures and controls, and appliances. Methods included interviews and surveys with program participants and retailers.
n-depth interviews with DSM Administrator staff and implementation contractors as well as telephone surveys with 16 store managers, including nine with chain retailers and seven with independent retailers. All the interview guides and surv...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Power Down Program involved interviews and surveys to estimate energy savings, using data from previous studies and databases like CALMAC and CEE. The findings include first-year energy and demand savings estimates, accounting for line losses and interactive effects of heating.
d savings estimates can be found in Table 1. All savings presented are at the generator level (based on line losses of 11.88%) and the CFL savings include the impact of interactive effects of heating. Table 1: 2010 Program Energy Savings E...
AI summary The text presents 2010 program energy savings estimates, including gross and net savings at the generator level, with line losses of 11.88% factored in. The data includes savings from various energy efficiency measures such as CFLs, programmable thermostats, and ENERGY STAR appliances.
es washers 114.2 548 15% 17.1 82 Total Program 2,078.0 9,678 107% 2,234.8 10,361 Findings and Recommendations3 The CFL component of the PD program is faced with the upcoming phase-out of incandescent bulbs starting in January 2012.4 The fi...
AI summary The CFL component of the PD program is reaching the limits of its energy-saving value due to the phase-out of incandescent bulbs starting in 2012. The program diversified in 2010 in anticipation of this change. Free-ridership and net-to-gross ratios were estimated based on surveys and interviews, with programmable thermostats and dimmer switches excluded due to low projected energy savings.
-dec08.cfm?attr=4 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page III
AI summary This document evaluates the 2010 Power Down Program, focusing on its effectiveness in reducing energy consumption and achieving program goals. It discusses program design, implementation, and outcomes, providing insights into its impact on energy efficiency and customer participation.
its sources for achieving energy efficiency goals by expanding the range of energy efficiency measures that it incentivized. At the retail level, these other energy efficiency measures included ENERGY STAR indoor light fixtures, programmab...
AI summary The document discusses the effectiveness of various energy efficiency measures in the Power Down program, noting that while CFLs accounted for most energy savings, other products like refrigerators and thermostats had lower net-to-gross ratios and were purchased infrequently, often by free-riders. NMR concludes that these other products are unlikely to contribute significantly to energy savings.
difficult for the PD program to have these other retail products provide anywhere near the energy savings that were derived from the CFLs. Under these circumstances, NMR believes that the PD program should consider the following steps to h...
AI summary The NMR suggests that the PD program should take steps to mitigate the impact of removing regular CFLs, such as focusing on specialty CFLs, incandescent bounty programs, rebating LEDs, and expanding consumer education. The program's limited rebate periods may have contributed to high free ridership.
renovation market instead. Programmable thermostats may also be promoted in tandem with installations of new HVAC systems.
AI summary The text discusses the promotion of programmable thermostats alongside new HVAC system installations, emphasizing their role in energy efficiency within the renovation market.
Findings and Recommendations for Appliances Findings Recommendations PD:APP-F1. PD:APP-R1. The conducted evaluation estimated high free-ridership rates for Free-ridership rates can be lowered by rebating higher efficiency both the refriger...
AI summary The evaluation found high free-ridership rates for refrigerators and clothes washers rebated through the PD program, suggesting many sales would have occurred without the program. Recommendations include rebating only high-efficiency models and notifying retailers early to ensure product availability and promotion.
rovided on the DSM Administrator‘s and CNS‘s websites, associate training, and associate contests. Unlike in 2008 and 2009, the program did not include any in-store events or an educational component. 1.1.1 CFL: Program Theory The program...
AI summary The 2010 Power Down Program revised its program theory and logic model, focusing on both resource acquisition and market transformation for CFLs. The program aimed for complete saturation of all available sockets in Nova Scotia, with high CFL usage already observed in the province prior to the program's implementation.
residential customers said they used CFLs.8 Therefore, the CFL component of the PD program aims to encourage customers to ―think beyond the mini-twister‖ and learn that there are specialty CFL bulbs for almost every application in the hous...
AI summary The CFL component of the PD program encourages residential customers to use ENERGY STAR-qualified compact fluorescent light bulbs by offering incentives and discounts through retail partnerships. The program shifted strategies in 2010 to provide discounts on all ENERGY STAR-qualified CFLs, regardless of type or pack size, and works with retailers to promote and support the initiative.
ocessing required since retailers can provide one invoice for all POS rebates. The PD program provides coupons for stores where discounts cannot be automatically rung up at the cash register. Customer education and outreach. The PD progr...
AI summary The PD program provides coupons for energy-efficient products, collaborates with retailers for marketing, and relies on customer education and outreach to increase awareness and promote the purchase of CFLs. The program assumes that retailer outreach, marketing materials, and discounts will drive increased sales and installations.
Installation. The CFLs purchased through the program will be installed in residential homes in Nova Scotia. Availability of CFLs. The above strategy and projections for uptake are based on retailers having sufficient CFL bulbs availabl...
AI summary The program aims to install CFLs in residential homes in Nova Scotia, relying on retailer participation and customer awareness. Barriers include saturation of CFLs, lack of retailer interest, and potential free-ridership. Short-term outcomes include discounted CFLs, customer awareness, and energy savings through installation.
by the program, customers purchase ENERGY STAR CFLs. Energy savings and bill reductions. Energy savings are achieved when customers install CFLs in their homes. Mid-Term Outcomes Participants are more knowledgeable about energy efficie...
AI summary The 2010 Power Down Program encourages customers to purchase energy-efficient lighting, such as ENERGY STAR CFLs, leading to energy savings, bill reductions, and increased awareness of energy efficiency. The program also promotes the demand for energy-efficient lighting and helps retailers recognize energy efficiency as a business opportunity.
programs and promote energy efficiency. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 4 Long-Term Outcomes Improved availability of energy efficient equipment. Increased understanding of the benefits of energy efficiency and the sustain...
AI summary The document outlines the long-term outcomes of the 2010 Power Down Program, focusing on improved availability of energy-efficient equipment, residential adoption of energy-efficient practices, and sustained energy savings in the residential market.
1-1: Power Down CFLs Logic Model NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 1 1.2 F&C: Program Description The Light Fixtures and Controls (F&C) portions of the 2010 Nova Scotia Power Down (PD) program began on October 1st 2010 and ran...
AI summary The 2010 Power Down Program's Light Fixtures and Controls (F&C) portion aimed to achieve annual energy savings of 1,163,744 kWh by promoting energy-efficient products. The program exceeded its projections, with rebate sales significantly higher than expected across various products such as ENERGY STAR indoor light fixtures and programmable thermostats.
rmostats for electric baseboard heaters (single and multi-packs), 524 indoor lighting timers, 2,139 heavy duty outdoor or pool timers, 221 power bars with integrated timers, and 3,781 dimmer switches.
AI summary The text lists the number of various energy-efficient devices distributed, including thermostats, lighting timers, power bars, and dimmer switches, indicating efforts in promoting energy efficiency.
1.2.1 F&C: Program Theory The program logic model and program theory for the PD program was revised for 2010. The program theory and logic model for the F&C components are included below. Program Background The F&C component of the PD prog...
AI summary The F&C component of the PD program aims to install energy-efficient fixtures and controls in every home in Nova Scotia. The program works with retailers to offer discounts and educational materials to promote energy efficiency. It also provides training to sales personnel and offers point-of-sale discounts to reduce the cost of energy-efficient products.
Customer education and outreach. The PD program designs and distributes marketing materials to increase awareness among residential customers. Marketing efforts include radio, print, in-store signage, mail drop and the Internet. Collab...
AI summary The PD program focuses on customer education and outreach through various marketing channels and collaborative efforts with retailers. It assumes that retailer participation and effective marketing will lead to increased sales of energy-efficient fixtures. Barriers include low awareness and retailer engagement.
Incentives and rebates. The program provides point-of-sale (POS) discounts to offset the cost of purchasing ENERGY STAR refrigerators and clothes washers at retailers throughout Nova Scotia. Buying down the cost of these appliances at PO...
AI summary The program provides point-of-sale discounts for ENERGY STAR appliances to encourage purchases, along with customer education and collaborative marketing. It assumes sufficient retailer participation, effective marketing, and appliance availability to achieve increased sales.
ve strategy and projections for uptake are based on retailers having sufficient ENERGY STAR refrigerators and clothes washers available for the Nova Scotia market. Program Barriers Awareness. While it is not necessary that customers are...
AI summary The document discusses the 2010 Power Down Program, focusing on program barriers such as customer awareness, purchase readiness, and retailer involvement. It highlights short-term outcomes like the availability of discounted ENERGY STAR appliances and retailer outreach efforts.
Customers are aware of the program. Customers are made aware of the available discounts through marketing materials, such as in-store signage and direct mailings. Customers may also learn about the program through collaborative marketing...
AI summary The program increases customer awareness of energy efficiency through marketing, leading to purchases of ENERGY STAR appliances. This results in energy savings and bill reductions. Long-term outcomes include increased availability of energy-efficient appliances and greater retailer engagement with energy efficiency initiatives.
etailers look for more opportunities to leverage energy efficiency programs and promote energy efficiency. Long-Term Outcomes Improved availability of energy efficient appliances. Increased understanding of the benefits of energy efficie...
AI summary The document discusses long-term outcomes of energy efficiency programs, including increased availability of efficient appliances, standard practices among residential customers, and sustained energy savings. It also mentions the evaluation of the 2010 Power Down Program, specifically the CFL component, and the use of a logic model and difference-in-differences approach to estimate energy savings.
ote that, since the discount was available only for ENERGY STAR-qualified CFLs, NMR adapted the questionnaire to determine the number of ENERGY STAR-qualified CFLs purchased and other CFL purchases. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Progra...
AI summary The NMR adapted its questionnaire to account for ENERGY STAR-qualified CFLs and used data from retailers to validate energy savings parameters for the 2010 Power Down Program, finding that the displaced wattage was nearly identical to New England's parameter.
st-Year Estimated Energy and Demand Savings The first-year estimated energy and demand savings at the meter are calculated using the following formulas: First year energy savings calculations CFLs: 10 In the New England Markdown study, the...
AI summary The document outlines the calculation of first-year energy and demand savings from the 2010 Power Down Program, using ENERGY STAR-qualified CFLs. It includes formulas for energy and demand savings at the meter and generator levels, with a line loss factor applied to estimate generator-level savings.
tor (kW) 2,058 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 12 2.1.2 Lifetime Energy and Demand Savings Lifetime energy and demand savings are presented for three possible scenarios based on future availability of incandescent lamps in N...
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Power Down Program, analyzing lifetime energy and demand savings under three scenarios based on the potential phase-out of incandescent lamps by 2012. It considers the impact on the CFL component of the program and assumes varying levels of regulation and availability of incandescent lamps.
y that existing household stocks and stocks remaining in storage in distribution channels will mean that incandescent bulbs will be available through the life of CFLs installed in the 2008 program.‖ NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Progra...
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Power Down Program under three scenarios, considering the implementation of new energy performance standards for general-service lamps in Nova Scotia, and how this affects the calculation of lifetime energy and demand savings from CFL installations.
Table 2-3: CFL Component Estimated Energy and Demand Savings Markdown CFLs Gross sales of all ENERGY STAR-CFLs 179,591 Net-to-gross ratio 1.33 Net sales of CFLs 238,856 First year net energy savings at the meter (MWh) 8,545 First year net...
AI summary The table provides detailed estimates of energy and demand savings from the sale and use of ENERGY STAR-CFLs, including gross and net sales, energy and demand savings at both the meter and generator levels across multiple scenarios.
2,058 Lifetime net energy savings at the generator – scenario three (MWh) 16,378 Lifetime net demand savings at the generator – scenario three (kW) 2,110 2.1.3 Interactive Effects For the 2010 evaluation, the NMR team sought to estimate th...
AI summary The NMR team evaluated interactive effects for the CFL portion of the PD program in 2010. Interactive effects refer to changes in electrical use of other devices due to energy conservation measures, particularly involving HVAC systems. The evaluation used simplified engineering methods to estimate HVAC interaction, assuming zero positive electric cooling effects for conservatism.
an effort to be as conservative as possible, the positive electric cooling interactive effects were assumed to be zero. To calculate the heating interaction impacts the following formulas were used: NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Progra...
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Power Down Program, focusing on the energy and demand savings of CFL components with and without interaction effects. It uses a coefficient of performance (COP) of 1.013 for electric heating systems and assumes 30% of homes in Nova Scotia are electrically heated. Interaction factors between lighting and heating systems are applied in the calculations.
er Authority (OPA) report titled ―2010 Prescriptive Measures and Assumptions‖.17 This is reasonable as the OPA report offers savings estimates for each of the products rebated through the PD program. 3.1 ENERGY STAR Qualified Indoor Light...
AI summary The Nova Scotia Utility Board (NMR) evaluated the savings assumptions for ENERGY STAR qualified indoor light fixtures under the Program Administrator (PD) program, reviewing studies including those from the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) and RLW Analytics to determine the reasonableness of the 125.27 kWh annual savings estimate.
d Assumptions. January, 2010. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 18 Quantec (2004). Residential New Construction High Efficiency Appliance Lighting: End of Year Assessment. April, 2004.18 NMR and RLW (2007). Process and Imp...
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Power Down Program, referencing studies on energy savings from lighting upgrades. It uses data from the OPA and NMR's evaluation of the Efficiency Maine Lighting Program, estimating annual savings per unit based on fixture usage and displacement of wattage.
that the average displaced wattage from the rebated fixtures was 50 Watts. Using the equation below, the NMR team developed annual gross per unit savings estimates for interior fixtures of 34 kWh. NMR applied the annual savings value ident...
AI summary The NMR report estimates annual energy savings of 34 kWh per unit for interior fixtures, resulting in total program savings of 274,074 kWh. This is a 73% decrease compared to the program’s tracking database, attributed to differences in assumptions about bulb replacement and usage hours.
avings estimates for any of the ―controls‖ measures rebated through the program. This section details the reports we reviewed, and outlines the assumptions made by the OPA for their savings estimates. 3.2.1 Programmable Thermostats for Ele...
AI summary The Nova Scotia Utility Board (NMR) evaluated the savings estimates for programmable thermostats used in electric baseboard heaters under the 2010 Power Down Program. The review included studies from Quantec (2004), Opinion Dynamics Corporation (2006), and the Ontario Power Authority (2010), which provided higher savings estimates than the program's current assumption of 63.15 kWh per year.
kWh, likely because these studies did not focus on programmable thermostats for electric baseboard heating.19 Electric baseboard heating is not nearly as common in the United States as it is in Canada, for this reason the results from the...
AI summary The text discusses the energy savings from programmable thermostats used with electric baseboard heating, noting that savings are lower compared to central heating systems. It references the OPA report, which estimates 63.15 kWh savings per electric baseboard, and confirms this value is reasonable based on the program’s tracking data of 466,236 kWh saved from 7,383 thermostats rebated.
d 7,383 programmable thermostats between October and November of 2010, resulting in savings of 466,236 kWh—we believe these savings estimates are accurate and do not recommend any changes. (Table 3-2) Table 3-2: Tracked and Evaluated Savin...
AI summary The document evaluates the savings from 7,383 programmable thermostats installed between October and November 2010, reporting total savings of 466,236 kWh. It also discusses the savings estimates for indoor light timers, citing the OPA report and confirming their reasonableness based on the 2007 Every KiloWatt Counts Program.
s Program. June 17, 2008. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 21 from five hours to two hours per day as a result of an indoor light timer. As the OPA notes, the savings from an indoor light timer are inherently behavioral, and...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Power Down Program found that the use of indoor light timers reduced energy consumption by decreasing the usage of a 200 Watt fixture from five to two hours per day. A total of 524 timers were rebated, leading to 114,756 kWh in savings. The evaluation team does not recommend changing these savings estimates.
Number of units 524 Savings per unit (kWh) 219 Total savings (kWh) 114,756 3.2.3 Outdoor/Heavy Duty Timers The NMR team reviewed two reports to determine whether or not the program‘s current savings estimate for heavy duty timers (for pool...
AI summary The NMR team evaluated the savings estimate for heavy duty timers used in pool pumps, reviewing reports from ADM (2002) and OPA (2010). The OPA report assumed a reduction in pool pump operation from ten to six hours per day, leading to an estimated savings of 383.65 kWh per unit. NMR concluded that the assumptions were reasonable and that the tracked savings estimates should remain unchanged.
11,799 26 Entertainment electronics, computer equipment, lighting, and other electrical equipment all impacted the estimated savings for power bars with integrated timers. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 23 3.3 Gross Impacts...
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Power Down Program, highlighting that power bars with integrated timers had a smaller impact on energy savings compared to other measures like ENERGY STAR light fixtures and outdoor timers, which contributed more significant savings.
outdoor/heavy duty timers provided the most savings under the evaluated estimates (821 MWh at the meter). Power bars with timers and dimmer switches had the smallest impact on overall program savings. Table 3-7: Detailed Comparison of Savi...
AI summary The table compares the savings from various energy efficiency measures. Outdoor/heavy duty timers provided the most savings (821 MWh at the meter), while power bars with timers and dimmer switches had the smallest impact. Overall program savings decreased by 29% from tracked to evaluated estimates.
er Down Program Page 32 The following tables show the final overall unweighted and weighted free-ridership for each measure. Table 3-15: Free-Ridership by Measure—Fixtures and Controls Free-ridership Measure Unweighted Weighted ES indoor l...
AI summary The text discusses free-ridership rates for various energy efficiency measures in the Fixtures and Controls category, as well as the net energy and demand savings generated by the Program Administrator (PD) program in 2010. The free-ridership rates range from 0% to 84%, and the program's net impacts are estimated at 1,071 MWh of energy savings and 225.7 kW of demand savings.
rio Power Authority report titled ―2010 Prescriptive Measures and Assumptions.‖30 This is reasonable as the OPA report offers savings estimates for each of the products rebated through the PD program. 4.1.1 ENERGY STAR Refrigerators Accord...
AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of the program's savings estimate for ENERGY STAR refrigerators, based on the Ontario Power Authority's 2010 report and other studies. It outlines the number of rebates issued and the sources reviewed to assess the program's energy savings.
33 This study was sponsored by Nova Scotia Power. 34 This study was prepared for the California Public Utilities Commission CPUC and sponsored by California‘s Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs). NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page...
AI summary Nova Scotia Power sponsored a study evaluating the 2010 Power Down Program, which included rebates for ENERGY STAR qualified refrigerators. The study reviewed reports from OPA and Mowris & Carlson, both of which estimated energy savings using similar methods. The OPA estimate was retained as it was deemed reasonable.
Number of units 2,191 Savings per unit (kWh) 112.8 Total savings (kWh) 247,145 4.1.2 ENERGY STAR Clothes Washers The PD program currently assumes that ENERGY STAR qualified clothes washers have savings of 181.27 kWh per year. The program‘s...
AI summary The PD program assumes ENERGY STAR qualified clothes washers save 181.27 kWh per year, based on reports including the OPA and Cadmus. The NMR team reviewed multiple reports to assess the reasonableness of this assumption and ultimately used data from the Cadmus report for savings estimates.
Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs). NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 35 and electric washing machines to determine the savings from ENERGY STAR clothes washers. The Cadmus report justified the decision to include dryer and water...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Power Down Program discusses the energy savings from ENERGY STAR qualified clothes washers, including dryer and water heater savings. The savings per unit were estimated at 242 kWh annually, leading to a total of 490,050 kWh saved from 2,025 units, a 34% increase over previous estimates.
2,025 2,025 Savings per unit (kWh) 181.27 242 Total savings (kWh) 367,072 490,050 4.2 Gross Impacts—Appliances Table 4-3 displays a comparison of the tracked and evaluated savings for ENERGY STAR refrigerators and clothes washers. NMR esti...
AI summary The document evaluates the savings from the 2010 Power Down Program, specifically for ENERGY STAR refrigerators and clothes washers. NMR estimated savings at the meter and generator, noting a 20% increase in total savings compared to tracked estimates. Line loss factors were applied to calculate generator-level savings.
ame na 3 50% 100% 20% 8 20% 50% 10% 25% 100% na lower 50% 5 20% 40% 8% 9 50% 50% 50% 50% na na same na 2 50% 100% 20% Overall Program 59% 86% 85% NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 40 The following tables show the final overall...
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Power Down Program, focusing on free-ridership rates for appliances like refrigerators and clothes washers, and presents net energy and demand savings from the program.
gy and demand savings for the APP component of the PD program in 2010. For the 2010 program year, the generator-level impacts were estimated at 160 MWh of energy savings and 31.5 kW of demand savings. Table 4-9: Appliance Energy Savings Es...
AI summary The 2010 Power Down Program's appliance energy savings were estimated at 160 MWh of energy and 31.5 kW of demand savings. The evaluation included interviews with program staff and contractors, as well as residential customer surveys to assess the program's impact and process.
presentative tested this by trying to purchase an outdoor timer and the discount did not automatically ring up. When told about the discount, the cashier did not know anything about it and did not know how to ring it up; she needed to get...
AI summary The document discusses a customer's experience with a discount not being applied correctly during a purchase and highlights survey results on awareness of the ENERGY STAR™ label. Participants showed higher familiarity with the label but had similar knowledge levels regarding product availability, with a notable gap in awareness about ENERGY STAR™-qualified heat pumps.
energy efficiency. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 46 Table 5-2: Level of Familiarity with ENERGY STAR™[39][40] 2010 2010 Non- 2010 Total Participants Participants (Weighted)41 Sample size 70 70 140 Very familiar 36% 20%Ω 24...
AI summary This section discusses the evaluation of the 2010 Power Down Program, focusing on participants' familiarity with the ENERGY STAR™ program. The table shows varying levels of familiarity among participants and non-participants in 2010.
t at all familiar before description 16 27 26 Don‘t know 1 1 Table 5-3: ENERGY STAR™ Products Available - 2010 Non- Total Participants Participants (Weighted) Sample size 70 70 140 CFLs 88% 78% 76% Light Fixtures 73% 64% 64% Refrigerators...
AI summary Table 5-3 presents data on the availability of ENERGY STAR™ products in 2010, including participation rates for various products such as CFLs, light fixtures, refrigerators, clothes washers, and heat pumps among participants and non-participants.
Clothes Washers 90% 94% 90% Heat Pumps 25% 40%Ω 32% Table 5-4: Knowledge of ENERGY STAR™ Label - 2010 (multiple response) Non- Total Participants Participants (Weighted) Sample size 59 50 109 Energy efficient 59% 62% 62% Label on products...
AI summary The table presents data on consumer knowledge of the ENERGY STAR™ label in 2010, highlighting that only a small percentage of participants recognized the label on products or understood its rating system, while the majority were aware of energy-efficient products.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 47 5.8 Program Awareness In 2010, participants exhibited a high overall awareness of CFLs: nine out of ten (90%) were familiar with CFLs after being read a description and about six out of ten...
AI summary The 2010 Power Down Program had high participant awareness of CFLs, with 90% familiar and 63% very familiar, compared to lower rates among non-participants. Previous CFL programs from 2007 to 2009 likely contributed to this awareness. Increased program participation in 2010 may have led to a smaller, less engaged non-participant group.
articipants in 2010 (31%) than in 2009 (17%). With these higher levels of program participants, the non-participant group is likely to consist primarily of relative laggards in the adoption of CFLs. Table 5-5: Level of Familiarity with CFL...
AI summary The text discusses the increased participation in a program in 2010 compared to 2009, noting that the non-participant group may consist of individuals who are slower in adopting CFLs. Table 5-5 provides data on the level of familiarity with CFLs among participants and non-participants in 2010.
as the second-most frequently mentioned motivation (33%). Compared to 2008 and 2009, relatively few non-participants purchased CFLs during the program period (6 out of 70). (Table 5-9 and Table 5-10)
AI summary The document highlights that CFL purchases by non-participants were minimal during the program period, with only 6 out of 70 purchasing CFLs, indicating low participation rates compared to previous years.
Table 5-9: Customers’ Reasons for Purchasing CFLs – 2010 (multiple response) Non- Total Participants Participants (Weighted) Sample size 70 61 131 † To save energy/electricity 63% 74% 69% †ϐ Ω†ϐ †ϐ To replace bulbs 17% 5% 11% †ϐ Wanted lon...
AI summary The table presents data from 2010 on customers' reasons for purchasing compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), showing that the primary motivation was saving energy and electricity, followed by replacing bulbs and wanting long-life bulbs.
Table 5-10: Customers’ Reasons for Purchasing CFLs – 2008 and 2009 2008 2009 Non- Total Non- Total Participants Participants (Weighted) Participants Participants (Weighted) Sample size 60 64 124 70 58 128 To save energy/electricity 82% 63%...
AI summary The table compares customer reasons for purchasing compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) in 2008 and 2009, highlighting factors such as saving energy, cost savings, and environmental benefits. The data shows a shift in motivations over time, with a notable increase in customers citing cost savings and trying new products in 2009.
Table 5-11: Non-Participant Barriers to Purchasing CFLs (multiple response) 2008 2009 2010 Sample size 64 51 60 †ϐ Don't need them 34% 53%∑ 73% †ϐ Waiting for bulbs to burn out 23% 16% 7% Too expensive 6% 8% 5% Others in household purchase...
AI summary The table presents data on non-participant barriers to purchasing CFLs from 2008 to 2010. The most significant barrier increased from 34% in 2008 to 73% in 2010, indicating a growing perception that CFLs are not needed.
0% 2% 0% Bulb contains mercury 0% 2% 0% Renting 0% 2% 0% Blind 0% 2% 0% Don‘t know what they are 0% 2% 0% I‘m old, stick with what I have 0% 2% 0% Paperwork is inconvenient 0% 2% 0% Unaware of multipacks 0% 2% 0% Not that interested in ene...
AI summary The text presents data on non-participant CFL use and installations from 2008 to 2010, showing a slight decline in the percentage of participants using CFLs and an increase in the average number of CFLs installed.
57 55 65 Average # of CFLs Installed 11.1 13.3 13.9 5.11 CFL Purchase and Use Behaviors 5.11.1 Quantities of CFLs Purchased Table 5-13 shows the estimated number of CFLs purchased by participants and non-participants during October and Nov...
AI summary The text discusses CFL purchase behaviors during October and November 2010, highlighting that participants in the program purchased significantly more CFLs than non-participants. Participants averaged 6.9 CFLs purchased, while non-participants averaged 0.7. A significant portion of participants purchased at least six CFLs, whereas very few non-participants did so.
26 8 10 9σ 1Ω σ 2 16 or more 26 3 6 19 6Ω 7 Out of the 483 CFLs purchased by participants during the program period, 327 (67%) were qualifying CFL bulbs and were, therefore, counted as having been purchased through the program. Over the co...
AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of the 2010 Power Down Program, noting that 327 out of 483 CFLs purchased were qualifying bulbs. Participants in 2010 purchased significantly fewer qualifying CFLs on average compared to 2008 and 2009 participants. Qualifying bulbs were those purchased from participating retailers, either in multipacks or specialty CFLs.
327 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 54 In the months prior to the program period, participant purchases (0.48) were almost the same as non- participant (0.51) purchases. In 2010 as a whole, participants (1.05) purchased more...
AI summary The 2010 Power Down Program led to increased CFL purchases by participants compared to non-participants. Participants purchased an average of 12.6 CFLs, while non-participants purchased 7.0 on average. This suggests the program effectively motivated customer participation in energy efficiency initiatives.
6 †ϐ †ϐ 16 or more 21 10Ω 12 Table 5-17: All CFL Purchases – Past Year – 2008 and 2009 2008 2009 Non- Total Non- Participants Participants (Weighted) Participants Participants Total (Weighted) Sample size 59 70 129 67 58 125 Average 17.3 8...
AI summary Table 5-17 presents data on CFL purchases by participants in 2008 and 2009, including sample sizes, average purchases, total purchases, and distribution across purchase categories. The data indicates variations in participation and purchase quantities between the two years.
10σ 12 30 12σ 17 16 or more 43 17σ 20 37 19σ 20 Table 5-18: All CFL Purchases – Outside the Program Period – 2010 2010 Non- Total Participants Participants (Weighted) Sample size 70 70 140 Ten month average 4.8 5.1 4.9 Monthly average 0.48...
AI summary The document presents data on CFL purchases outside the program period for 2008, 2009, and 2010, including sample sizes, averages, and totals. This data is used to evaluate the 2010 Power Down Program.
0.46 0.62 .61 0.82 0.56 0.61 Total 268 391 696 487 336 732 5.11.2 In-Service Rate Table 5-20 summarizes participant installations of CFLs purchased during the program period. We asked participants how many of the CFLs they had purchased du...
AI summary The text discusses the installation rates of CFLs purchased by participants during a program period. 83% of CFLs were in use, 17% were never installed, and less than 1% were installed and later removed. Participants plan to install 55% of uninstalled CFLs within the next year. Installation rates were similar between 2010 and 2009 participants and higher than those of 2008 participants.
installed CFLs (55%) within the next year. 2010 participants had installed about the same proportion of CFLs as 2009 participants (81%) and significantly more CFLs compared to 2008 participants (68%). Table 5-20: Installation of CFLs Purch...
AI summary The document discusses the installation and removal of CFLs under the Power Down Program, noting that 2010 participants installed a higher proportion of CFLs compared to previous years. Some CFLs were removed due to malfunction or breakage, with participants either discarding or storing the bulbs.
en and the other participant said that the bulbs had not worked in a touch lamp. One of these participants subsequently threw the bulbs away, while the other had put them away in storage. (Table 3-14) Table 5-21: CFLs Installed and Later R...
AI summary The text discusses participants' experiences with CFLs installed under the Power Down Program, noting issues such as bulbs not working in touch lamps, breaking, burning out, and not being bright enough. Some bulbs were stored, while others were discarded or returned to stores.
ed this than 2009 participants (91%). Similar to 2008 and 2009, the large majority of participants (88%), reported that the CFLs that had not yet been installed were currently in storage. (Table 5-22)
AI summary The text indicates that over 91% of participants in a program reported that CFLs not yet installed were in storage, similar to participation rates in 2008 and 2009.
Table 5-22: CFLs Not Yet Installed Primary Reason for Not Installing CFLs 2008 Participants 2009 Participants 2010 Participants Sample size 29 32 17 σ ϐ Bought as spares 69% 91% 65% Only recently received the bulbs 7 3 12 Running out of pl...
AI summary The table shows the primary and secondary reasons participants in 2008, 2009, and 2010 did not install CFLs, with the most common reason being that the bulbs were bought as spares. Other reasons include not having enough space, dissatisfaction with light quality, and forgetting to install them.
places to put them 0 0 6% Haven‘t got around to it or forgot 0 3 0 Do not work with three-way switch or dimmer 4 3 0 Don‘t know 86 94 0 Disposition of CFLs Not Installed 2008 Participants 2009 Participants 2010 Participants Sample size 29...
AI summary The table summarizes the disposition of CFLs not installed by participants in the Power Down Program in 2008, 2009, and 2010. Most CFLs were stored, and a small percentage were thrown away or given away. The text also discusses the types of bulbs replaced by recently-purchased CFLs and their installation locations, with most replacing incandescent bulbs.
Table 5-23: Disposition of Installed CFLs Bulb Type Replaced 2008 Participants 2009 Participants 2010 Participants Sample size 55 69 68 Incandescent bulb 80% 85% 79% CFL 9 6 15 Installed in new 11 8 6 fixture Room Where CFL 2008 2009 2010...
AI summary Table 5-23 presents data on the disposition of installed compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) across different bulb types and room locations for participants in 2008, 2009, and 2010. It highlights the percentage of CFLs replaced with incandescent bulbs and the distribution of CFLs across various room types.
4 Utility room 5% 0% 3% <1% 6% 2 Office 7% 2% 4% 1% 3% 0 Closet 9% 1% 1%∑ 0%∑ 3% 1 Recreation room na na 1% <1% 2% 0 Garage 7% 1% 7% 2% 0 Den 3% 6% 1% <1%∑ 0 Other na na 1% 1% 6% 6 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 59
AI summary The document presents a table showing energy usage percentages across different room types in a building, with varying data points across multiple columns. The table is part of an evaluation of the 2010 Power Down Program by the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NMR).
Table 5-24: Average Wattage of Replaced Bulbs 2008 2009 2010 Room Sample size Wattage Sample size Wattage Sample size Wattage Average for All Rooms 15 52 65 56 64 61 Living room or family room 10 56 36 61 29 60 Kitchen 9 56 29 56 27 64 Din...
AI summary Table 5-24 presents the average wattage of replaced bulbs across different rooms from 2008 to 2010, showing variations in wattage for each room type and year.
n room 0 0 1 60 1 60 Other 0 0 1 60 4 70 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 60 5.11.3 CFL Purchase Plans Participants and non-participants were asked how likely they would be to purchase CFLs in the next year. Similar percentag...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Power Down Program examines participants' and non-participants' likelihood of purchasing CFLs in the next year, finding similar percentages between the two groups, with slight variations compared to 2008 and 2009.
ntage of 2008 non-participants (56%) but significantly fewer 2009 non-participants (35%) reported that they would be ―extremely likely‖ to purchase CFLs in the next year. (Table 5-25 and Table 5-26) Table 5-25: Likelihood of Purchasing CFL...
AI summary The data shows a decrease in the likelihood of purchasing CFLs among non-participants from 2008 to 2009, with 56% in 2008 and 35% in 2009 reporting they would be 'extremely likely' to purchase CFLs in the next year. Tables 5-25 and 5-26 provide the detailed distribution of responses.
0 0 5σ∑ 3 0 'Extremely 5 8 7 3 12σ 8 unlikely' NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 61 Respondents who were unlikely to purchase CFLs in the next year (rated likelihood of five or less) were asked what would encourage them to pur...
AI summary The 2010 Power Down Program evaluation found that respondents unlikely to purchase CFLs in the next year cited more rebates or promotions as the most frequent motivation to encourage CFL purchases.
of five or less) were asked what would encourage them to purchase CFLs in the next year. In 2010, more rebates or promotions were the most frequently-mentioned motivations. (Table 5-27 and Table 5-28)
AI summary The text discusses customer motivations for purchasing CFLs, noting that in 2010, rebates or promotions were the most frequently mentioned incentives. This information is presented in tables 5-27 and 5-28.
Table 5-27: Factors that Would Encourage CFL Purchases – 2010 Non- Total – Participants Participants (Unweighted) Sample size 9 9 18 More rebates/promotions 11% 22% 22% If current CFLs burn out 22% 11% 18% If they fit in fixtures better 0...
AI summary The table presents factors that would encourage the purchase of compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) in 2010, based on participant responses. Key factors include more rebates/promotions, lower prices, and better fit in fixtures, with varying levels of importance among participants.
Table 5-28: Factors that Would Encourage CFL Purchases – 2008 and 2009 2008 2009 Non- Total Non- Total Participants Participants (Unweighted) Participants Participants (Unweighted ) Sample size 12 6 18 12 22 34 More rebates/promotions 0% 0...
AI summary The table compares factors that encouraged CFL purchases in 2008 and 2009. It shows that lower price and improved performance features were key drivers, with minimal impact from rebates or promotions.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 63 5.12 Satisfaction Both participants and non-participants exhibited high levels of satisfaction with the installed CFLs. More than nine out of ten participants and non-participants (95% and...
AI summary The 2010 Power Down Program saw high satisfaction levels among both participants and non-participants with installed CFLs, though satisfaction with CFLs decreased from 2008 to 2010. A small number of participants and non-participants reported dissatisfaction, citing issues such as burnout, delay in lighting, and preference for different light quality.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 72 6 Process Evaluation: Fixtures and Controls 6.1 Program Description The Light Fixtures and Controls (F&C) portion of the 2010 Nova Scotia Power Down (PD) program began on October 1st 2010 a...
AI summary The 2010 Power Down Program's Light Fixtures and Controls portion exceeded energy savings projections, with significant rebate redemptions for various energy-efficient products. A telephone survey of 47 chain store managers was conducted to evaluate the program's implementation and effectiveness.
Familiar 65% Somewhat Familiar 34% Neither Familiar nor Unfamiliar 1% As shown in Table 6-3, nine out of ten retailers (90%) interviewed sold ENERGY STAR light fixtures and electronic baseboard thermostats in 2010. More than four out of fi...
AI summary The text presents survey results showing that most retailers sold ENERGY STAR products and offered rebates under the Power Down program in 2010. The data highlights high participation rates in selling rebated items such as light fixtures, dimmer switches, and timers.
1 Don‘t carry rebated 1 products 6.4 Program Impact on Product Sales For each of the four different products classes (light fixtures, power bars with timers, indoor light timers, and heavy duty outdoor or pool timers), retailers were asked...
AI summary The program significantly increased the sales of rebated products in October and November 2010 compared to the previous nine months. However, sales dropped in December 2010 after rebates ended, with ENERGY STAR light fixtures experiencing the most dramatic decline. Year-over-year comparisons also showed increased sales for all product classes during the program period.
ovember 2010. The lowest average increase was a 10% increase for outdoor timers from 60% to 66%; the highest average increase was a 78% increase for power bars with timers from 36% to 64%. (Table 6-5) Table 6-5: Average Percent of Rebated...
AI summary The text provides data on the average percent of rebated product sales for various products under the 2010 Power Down Program, showing increases in sales from 2009 to 2010, with the highest increase observed for power bars with timers.
rovided responses to the questions on increase over October - November of 2009, increase over December of 2010, and average number of months that the program effects were expected to last. (Table 6-6) Table 6-6: Average Percentage of Sales...
AI summary The document presents a table summarizing the average percentage of sales increase attributed to various energy efficiency programs, including ENERGY STAR Light Fixtures, Power Bars, Indoor Light Timers, and Pool/Outdoor Timers, across different time periods, along with the expected duration of follow-on effects from these programs.
volume believed sales would have been the same. Estimates of how much lower sales would have been without the program ranged from 33% for outdoor timers to 58% for power bars with timers. (Table 6-7) Table 6-7: Predicted Sales in the Absen...
AI summary The document discusses the impact of an energy efficiency program on sales, estimating that without the program, sales would have been significantly lower, ranging from 33% to 58% depending on the product. Retailers reported limited rebate offerings during the promotion period, with most rebates being in-store and ranging from $3 to $15.
. The additional rebates offered ranged from $3 to $15; again, the percentages shown for the additional rebates are based on the small number of interviewees that answered these questions. (Table 6-8) Table 6-8: Whether Other Rebates were...
AI summary The text discusses the additional rebates offered during the 2010 Power Down Program, with values ranging from $3 to $15. The data shows that only a small percentage of participants received these rebates, and the sources of the rebates were primarily in-store or unspecified sales.
100% 100% NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 77 When asked about the importance of the program rebates to the customers‘ purchasing decisions, there was much more agreement among the retailers that the rebates were important. A...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Power Down Program highlights that retailers strongly agree that program rebates significantly influence customers' purchasing decisions, particularly for ENERGY STAR light fixtures, power bars with timers, and timers for indoor and outdoor use.
ht off the retail price, so people questioned whether they were getting a rebate; [it] came off at the register so they didn't see they were getting a rebate; people prefer coupons.” Table 6-13: Reasons for Dissatisfaction with Program Asp...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Power Down Program highlights customer dissatisfaction due to confusion about rebate mechanisms, with some customers not realizing they were receiving rebates. Retailers generally did not face barriers to program participation.
would be a good idea to do.” NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 80 On the time of year, an interviewee said, “Once we get into Christmas, people aren’t concentrating on buying light fixtures.” Interviewees also noted that recei...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Power Down Program highlights feedback from retailers regarding challenges with timing, information delivery, and process efficiency. Suggestions include better signage, including more ENERGY STAR items, and streamlining the rebate process.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 82 7 Process Evaluation: Appliances 7.1 Methodology According to the work plan, NMR had planned to conduct a survey of customers who had purchased a rebated ENERGY STAR refrigerator or clothes...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Power Down Program's appliance rebate component was impacted by retailers' refusal to provide customer names due to confidentiality concerns. NMR adjusted the evaluation method by piggybacking appliance rebate questions onto a survey of retail store managers. Interviews were conducted with store managers and program staff to assess program administration and delivery.
ontractor‘s program manager. Additionally, during the course of the evaluation, NMR had numerous discussions with these program staff regarding various aspects of program administration and delivery. 7.2 Program Goals and Design The Applia...
AI summary The 2010 Nova Scotia Power Down program's Appliance Rebate portion aimed to achieve 73,517 kWh of annual energy savings by offering $50 rebates for ENERGY STAR refrigerators and washers. The program was initially limited to chain retailers but expanded to include independent retailers after protests. Rebate participation exceeded projections, with 2,191 refrigerators and 2,025 washers sold.
nd November. Although the program was expanded to include independent retailers and extended to December, the program targets remained the same. In the in-depth interview, the program manager at the NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Progra...
AI summary The 2010 Power Down Program was expanded to include independent retailers and extended until December, though targets remained unchanged. The program's budget was adjusted to accommodate the expansion. The evaluation discusses rebate processing, verification procedures, and retailer participation, noting that most store managers were familiar with sales trends of rebated items.
16) were either somewhat or very familiar with the stocking patterns or sales trends of the rebated items. (Table 7-1) Table 7-1: Familiarity with Stocking Patterns or Sales Trends Chain Retailers Independent Retailers Total Sample size 9...
AI summary The text discusses the familiarity of retailers with stocking patterns and sales trends of rebated appliances, specifically ENERGY STAR refrigerators and clothes washers. All sixteen retailers sold and provided rebates for these appliances through the PD program in 2010.
9 7 16 9 7 16 Received Rebate 9 7 16 9 7 16 7.4 Program Impact on Product Sales Table 7-3 shows the average percentages of overall ENERGY STAR refrigerator and clothes washer sales that were models that would qualify for rebates through th...
AI summary This section discusses the impact of the Power Down program on ENERGY STAR refrigerator and clothes washer sales, showing average percentages of qualifying models for rebates across different time periods before and after the program's implementation.
sold an overall average NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 84 of 54% of refrigerators and 61% of clothes washers that were qualifying models later rebated by the program. During the program period (September to December for cha...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Power Down Program reports varying percentages of qualifying refrigerators and clothes washers sold by chain and independent retailers during different time periods, with estimates from retailers indicating that a significant portion of sales were qualifying models that received rebates.
60% NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 85 Retailers who reported an increase in sales of qualifying models during the program period as compared with the time period before the program were asked the percentage of that increase...
AI summary The Power Down program in 2010 led to increased sales of ENERGY STAR appliances. Chain retailers attributed 86% of the increase to the program, while independent retailers attributed 67%. Some retailers indicated the increase was entirely due to the program.
100% 1 100% 2 100% 2010 Increase from Oct/Nov-Dec 2 50% 2 50% 2009 The respondents were asked if, in the absence of the rebates from the Power Down program, the sales of the rebated equipment would have been lower, the same, or higher. If...
AI summary The Power Down program's impact on the sales of ENERGY STAR refrigerators and clothes washers was assessed. Most chain retailers believed sales would have been significantly lower without the program, while independent retailers were more divided, with some predicting no change in sales.
les would have been lower for refrigerators, estimated that sales would have been 50% lower, while for clothes washers independent retailers estimated that sales would have been 23% lower. (Table 7-5) Table 7-5: Predicted Sales in the Abse...
AI summary The text discusses the impact of the 2010 Power Down Program on refrigerator and clothes washer sales, estimating that sales would have been significantly lower in the absence of the program, with independent retailers reporting the largest declines.
0 1 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 87 When asked to rate the importance of the program rebate to the customer purchase decision, the majority of chain retailers rated rebate as either important or extremely important for bo...
AI summary The 2010 Power Down Program's rebate was considered important by most chain retailers but less so by independent retailers, particularly for ENERGY STAR refrigerators. Independent retailers were more divided on the impact of the rebate for ENERGY STAR clothes washers.
t to customers‘ purchasing decisions to buy ENERGY STAR clothes washers, while two out of five stated that the rebate had not been important to the purchase decision for clothes washers. ( Table 7-7) Table 7-7: Importance of Program Rebate...
AI summary The text discusses customer purchasing decisions related to ENERGY STAR appliances, highlighting that rebates were important for some but not for others. It also mentions retailer experiences, noting that most found no barriers to participation, though some faced challenges like confusing signage or initial exclusion from the program.
Most Important Concern Independent Retailers Sample size 1 Reimbursements for discounts 1 Three out of four independent retailers stated that the most important reason for participating in the program was to be competitive, with the remain...
AI summary Independent retailers participating in the 2010 Power Down Program cited competitiveness and sales growth as primary motivations. Only a few made changes to their store practices, such as adjusting stocking, appliance placement, and advertising for rebated appliances.
Presentation of Rebate/Incentive to Customer (Multiple responses) Independent Retailers Sample size 6 Displayed next to full price 3 Showed price after rebate 2 Displayed rebate information but ask sales associate 1 rebate value NMR Evalua...
AI summary The document discusses the advertising practices of independent retailers regarding ENERGY STAR appliances participating in the 2010 Power Down program. It highlights the frequency and methods of advertising, including newspaper, flyers, and radio/TV, with varying levels of participation across different time periods.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 92 Table 7-18: Marketing of ENERGY STAR Appliances Nov-Dec 2009 Jan-Oct 2010 Sample size 5 4 Yes 2 3 No 3 1 Media Used to Market ES Appliances Sample size 9 Newspaper 4 Flyers 3 Radio/TV 2 Fre...
AI summary The text provides a table summarizing the marketing of ENERGY STAR appliances during Nov-Dec 2009 and Jan-Oct 2010, including sample sizes, responses, and media used for promotion.
1 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 93 Independent retailers joined the Power Down program in November though the program had actually started in October for chain retailers. Therefore, independent retailers were allowed to re...
AI summary The text discusses the application of retroactive rebates by independent retailers in the Power Down program. Three out of five retailers did not apply for retroactive rebates, citing reasons such as it being too much work or a decision not to apply, while two retailers did apply and contacted customers who had purchased qualifying appliances in October.
Environmentally friendly 2 NSP added credibility 1 Table 7-26 shows respondents‘ recommendations for improving the Power Down program. Almost one- half of the chain retailers (3 out of 7) suggested expanding the program to include more ite...
AI summary Respondents recommended expanding the Power Down program to include more ENERGY STAR items and increasing rebate values. Some suggested higher rebates for purchasing pairs of appliances, while others recommended involving independent retailers and adjusting the program timing.
r. One chain retailer remarked that since the program had been run around Christmas time, people had been focused on spending their money on gift items as opposed to refrigerators and clothes washers. Table 7-26: Recommendations for Power...
AI summary A chain retailer noted that the Power Down Program ran around Christmas, leading customers to focus on gift purchases rather than energy-efficient appliances. Table 7-26 outlines recommendations for improving the program, including higher rebates, including more ENERGY STAR items, and running the program at a different time of year. Table 7-27 highlights differences in employee numbers between chain and independent retailers.
NERGY STAR equivalency table. As such, these calculations are best used as a validation of the parameter from the New England study, which included on-site visits and the installation of data loggers. Table A-1: ENERGY STAR Table of Lighti...
AI summary The document presents an ENERGY STAR equivalency table comparing incandescent bulbs with ENERGY STAR qualified light bulbs in terms of light output and wattage. It also references an evaluation of the 2010 NSPI Power Down Program.
Table A-2: Displaced Wattage Validation Incandescent Estimated Total Estimated CFL Wattage Equivalent # of CFLs Sold Displaced Wattage Displaced Wattage 4 na 232 na na 5 na 98 na na 7 na 720 na na 9 40 3,762 31 116,622 10 40 1,521 30 45,63...
AI summary Table A-2 presents data on displaced wattage validation for compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) compared to incandescent bulbs, showing the number of CFLs sold and estimated wattage displaced. The table highlights the energy efficiency benefits of CFLs over traditional lighting solutions.
150 50 118 5,900 33 150 101 117 11,817 40 150 146 110 16,060 Unknown na 61,389 na na Total na 179,591 na na NMR Evaluation of 2010 NSPI Power Down Program Page B1 Appendix B - Questionnaire and Interview Guides NOVA SCOTIA POWER RESIDENTIA...
AI summary This document outlines a questionnaire used by the Nova Scotia Utility Regulator (NMR) to evaluate the Nova Scotia Power residential lighting program. The survey aims to gather customer feedback to improve energy efficiency initiatives, with assurances of confidentiality.
tter. Your responses will be kept strictly confidential—that is your name will not be associated with any of your responses. This survey will take about 15 minutes of your time. Would that be okay? [IF REFUSE, ASK ―Can we schedule a more c...
AI summary This survey assesses respondents' familiarity with the ENERGY STAR™ label and their awareness of purchasing ENERGY STAR™-qualified products, including CFLs, light fixtures, refrigerators, clothes washers, and heat pumps.
d] [RANDOMIZE LIST] 1. Compact fluorescent light bulbs or CFLs 2. Light Fixtures 3. Refrigerators 4. Clothes washers 5. Heat Pumps AB. AWARENESS OF CFLS AB1. Some of my questions will be about energy-saving lighting, such as compact fluore...
AI summary This section of the document focuses on awareness and familiarity with compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs), including their appearance and energy efficiency. It also includes a conditional flow for respondents who are not familiar with CFLs, directing them to another section of the evaluation.
1. Yes 2. No 3. DK/Refused [IF AB1=4 OR 5 AND AB2.A = 2 OR 3 and AB2.B = 2 OR 3 (Not familiar with any type of CFL at all) THEN GO TO D1] PB. PURCHASES OF BULBS PB2b1a. [ASK IF AB1 = 1, 2, OR 3 OR AB2.A=1 or AB2.B=1] Between October 1st an...
AI summary The text outlines a survey question regarding the purchase of compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) between October 1st and November 30th 2010, including instructions for respondents to count individual bulbs and provide the number of bulbs purchased in different pack sizes.
_ PB2b1a9. Number of nine-pack CFLs PB2b1a10. Number of ten-pack CFLs PB2b1a11. Number of eleven-pack CFLs PB2b1a12. Number of twelve-pack CFLs [PROGRAMMING NOTE: CALCULATE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL CFL BULBS PURCHASED FROM THE DIFFER...
AI summary The document contains a series of questions aimed at collecting data on the number of compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs purchased by respondents, specifically focusing on ENERGY STAR-qualified CFLs between October 1st and November 30th, 2010. The data is collected by pack size.
RGY STAR CFLs PB2b1b6. Number of six-pack ENERGY STAR CFLs PB2b1b7. Number of seven-pack ENERGY STAR CFLs PB2b1b8. Number of eight-pack ENERGY STAR CFLs PB2b1b9. Number of nine-pack ENERGY STAR CFLs PB2b1b10. Number of ten-pack ENERGY STAR...
AI summary The document contains survey questions related to the purchase of ENERGY STAR compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) by households in 2010, including the number of bulbs purchased in different pack sizes and instructions for calculating the total number of bulbs.
[CHECK: PB2B2a >= PB2B1a] Purchases by pack size January-December 2010: PB2b2a1. Number of single CFL bulb packs PB2b2a2. Number of two-pack CFLs PB2b2a3. Number of three-pack CFLs PB2b2a4. Number of four-pack CFLs PB2b2a5. Number of five-...
AI summary The text presents a series of questions related to the purchase of compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs in 2010, specifically focusing on pack sizes and the number of ENERGY STAR-qualified bulbs purchased. Respondents are asked to report quantities for various pack sizes and the total number of ENERGY STAR-qualified CFLs acquired.
2B2B12 SERIES. 999=DON’T KNOW] PB2B2B. RECORD NUMBER OF ENERGY STAR CFL BULBS— JANUARY – DECEMBER 2010 _ [CHECK: PB2B2b >= PB2B1b] Purchases by pack size of ENERGY STAR CFLs January-December 2010: PB2b2b1. Number of single CFL bulb packs P...
AI summary The document includes a series of data collection fields related to the purchase of ENERGY STAR CFL bulbs in 2010, including pack sizes and quantities. It also references a programming note for calculating the total number of bulbs purchased and mentions the Nova Scotia Utility Regulator (NMR) and the 2010 NSPI Power Down Program.
F PB2b1a=0 OR DON’T KNOW THEN SKIP TO NP1a] NMR Evaluation of 2010 NSPI Power Down Program Page B9 PB2e. Were any of [Insert value from PB2B1A] CFLs that you purchased in October and November specialty CFL bulbs? Specialty compact fluoresc...
AI summary The text contains questions from a regulatory proceeding related to the purchase of compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) in October and November. It asks whether specialty CFL bulbs were purchased, the reasons for purchasing CFLs, and the stores from which they were purchased.
3 L. Any other stores I did not mention? a. SPECIFY1 b. SPECIFY2 c. SPECIFY3 d. SPECIFY4 [IF PB4L = 2 or 3 SKIP PB5][REPEAT FOR EACH OTHER SPECIFIED IN PB4L] NMR Evaluation of 2010 NSPI Power Down Program Page B10 PB5. What type of store i...
AI summary The text outlines a survey process related to the 2010 NSPI Power Down Program, asking respondents about store types and reasons for purchasing ENERGY STAR™-qualified CFL bulbs during specific months. It includes instructions for data collection and conditional logic based on responses.
STORE NAME FROM PB4 – . KEEP A RUNNING COUNT OF PB6b EACH TIME THROUGH: PB6b COUNT SHOULD NOT EXCEED PB2b1. IF NECESSARY, REMIND RESPONDENT OF PB2b1, OR CHANGE PB2b1 VALUE IF RESPONDENT RECONSIDERS NMR Evaluation of 2010 NSPI Power Down Pr...
AI summary The text outlines a survey process for collecting data on the number of compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) purchased at a specific store, including whether they were ENERGY STAR-qualified and whether Nova Scotia Power promotions were seen. Respondents are asked to track purchases and provide detailed counts.
ulbs at [PB4 STORE NAME]? This may have included such things as representatives providing information, and signs, or posters. [REPEAT FOR EACH STORE]. 1. Yes 2. No 3. (Don‘t Know PB6a2. Were you aware that Nova Scotia Power was offering a...
AI summary The text outlines survey questions related to customer awareness and purchasing behavior regarding compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) offered with a discount by Nova Scotia Power. It includes questions about prior purchase intentions and the influence of the discount on purchasing decisions.
o 5, where 1 indicates the discount ‗had no influence at all on you purchase decision‘ and 5 indicate that the discount was ‗extremely influential to your purchase decision.‘ C. CFL IN-SERVICE RATE C2. Earlier you said that you purchased a...
AI summary The text discusses a survey on the purchase and installation of compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs), including the influence of discounts on purchase decisions, the number of bulbs currently in use, and reasons for removal from service.
1. (Bulb is too bright) 2. (Bulb is not bright enough) 3. Don‘t like the overall quality of the light) 4. Don‘t like the color of the light—it is too [SPECIFY: _]) Function/Performance 5. (Delay in light coming on) 6. (Interference with ra...
AI summary The text presents a survey questionnaire related to the evaluation of the 2010 NSPI Power Down Program, focusing on user experiences with compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs), including reasons for dissatisfaction, bulb performance issues, and actions taken with removed bulbs.
ever installed. What is the main reason why the remaining [#C6] bulb(s) have never been installed at this address? [SINGLE MENTION, DON‘T READ] [IF ‗DON‘T KNOW‘ THEN GO TO #C8a] NMR Evaluation of 2010 NSPI Power Down Program Page B15 C7b-d...
AI summary The text is a questionnaire related to the installation of compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs as part of the 2010 NSPI Power Down Program. It asks respondents about reasons for not installing bulbs and what they did with the unused bulbs.
you have yet to install do you plan on installing within the coming year? ENTER NUMBER OF BULBS _ [NOTE: IF #C2 (#installed) = 0, THEN SKIP to #C13 (Satisfaction)] Installed CFLs C10. Of the [INSERT #C2(number installed)] compact fluoresce...
AI summary The text outlines a survey regarding the installation of compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs), including questions about the number of bulbs installed, which rooms they were installed in, and the type and wattage of bulbs replaced. It is part of an evaluation of the 2010 NSPI Power Down Program.
er (Specify) C12c. [IF C12b= 1 OR 2] What was the wattage of the bulb(s) you replaced in [C11 ROOM]? (If there was more than one bulb, use the average wattage) ENTER AVERAGE WATTAGE C13. [IF #C2>0 (has CFLs installed) or #C3>0(has removed...
AI summary The text includes survey questions about bulb wattage and satisfaction with CFLs distributed by Nova Scotia Power. It also lists reasons for dissatisfaction with the bulbs, including issues with light quality, performance, and physical limitations.
b is ugly 15. (Bulb is too heavy) 16. (Bulb contains mercury) 17. (Other [Specify _]) 18. Don‘t know NP. NON-PARTICIPANTS [ASK ONLY NON-PARTICIPANTS] NP1a. [IF PB2b2a 0 haven‘t purchased CFLs in past year}] Have you ever purchased a compac...
AI summary The document contains survey questions related to the purchase of compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs), including reasons for not purchasing them, reasons for purchasing them, and responses from non-participants. It also includes a reference to the Nova Scotia Utility Regulator (NMR) and a page reference from an evaluation of the 2010 NSPI Power Down Program.
d to try) 5. (Wanted long-life bulb) 6. (To save energy/electricity) 7. (To save money on electric bills) 8. (Good for environment) 9. (Other - specify ) 10. Don‘t Know NP3a. Do you recall any seeing any promotions from Nova Scotia Power r...
AI summary The text contains survey questions related to customer awareness and satisfaction with Nova Scotia Power's compact fluorescent light bulb promotions and installations. It asks about reasons for bulb usage, awareness of promotions, and satisfaction levels with the bulbs.
1. (Bulb is too bright) 2. (Bulb is not bright enough) 3. Don‘t like the overall quality of the light 4. Don‘t like the color of the light—it is too [SPECIFY: _]) Function/Performance 5. (Delay in light coming on) 6. (Interference with rad...
AI summary The document outlines customer dissatisfaction with compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) based on various issues such as brightness, quality of light, energy savings, and physical limitations. It also includes questions about future purchases of CFLs and potential factors that could encourage their adoption.
2. Not familiar 3. Neither familiar nor unfamiliar 4. Somewhat familiar -[SKIP TO Q1] 5. Very familiar - [SKIP TO Q1] 9. Don‘t know / Refused I4. Is there someone else at this store who would be familiar with the stocking patterns or sales...
AI summary The text outlines a survey conducted to assess familiarity with product stocking and sales trends, and to evaluate the 2010 NSPI Power Down Program. The survey includes questions about job titles, product sales, and rebate participation for specific energy-efficient products.
ers 4 Indoor Light Timers 5 Heavy Duty Pool or Outdoor Timers 6 Electronic Baseboard Thermostats 7 ENERGY STAR Refrigerators 8 ENERGY STAR Clothes washers Q2c. FOR ANY PRODUCT WHERE Q2a=1 (sold in 2010) and Q2b=2 (not rebated by Power Down...
AI summary The document contains a series of questions from the Nova Scotia Utility Regulator (NMR) regarding the Power Down program, specifically asking retailers about their participation and sales of energy-efficient products, including ENERGY STAR light fixtures, during and around the program's promotion period in 2010.
wer Down program period in December 2010 NMR Evaluation of 2010 NSPI Power Down Program Page B28 than they were before Power Down program period, between January and September 2010. What percentage of that increase in sales do you attribut...
AI summary The document contains survey questions related to the impact of the Power Down program on ENERGY STAR light fixture sales. Retailers are asked about the percentage increase in sales attributed to the program and the expected duration of this effect, as well as the influence of the $15 rebate on sales during the promotion period.
rogram discounts, you would have only sold [100 - (% FROM Q5B 100)] ENERGY STAR light fixtures that week without the program discounts? IF RESPONSE IS ≠ YES THEN CLARIFY RESPONSE TO Q5B Q6A. During the October-November promotion period, be...
AI summary The text contains survey questions evaluating the impact of the Power Down Program on customer purchases of ENERGY STAR light fixtures, including rebate availability and perceived importance of the program.
ov Dec 2010 Oct-Nov 2009 2010 Percent Rebated % % % % Q14. [RECORD PERCENTAGE _%; 998 Refused; 999 Don't know/Not sure/Can‘t remember] A. [IF % SALES OF REBATED POWER BARS ARE HIGHER IN OCT-NOV 2010 (COL. B) THAN IN JAN-SEPT. 2010 (COL A)]...
AI summary The text presents a question regarding the impact of the Power Down rebate program on the sales of power bars during specific time periods in 2009 and 2010. It asks what percentage of increased sales during the Power Down program period can be attributed to the program's promotion and rebates.
Dec 2010 Oct-Nov 2009 THERMOSTATS 2010 2010 Percent Rebated % % % % Q29. [RECORD PERCENTAGE _%; 998 Refused; 999 Don't know/Not sure/Can‘t remember] A. [IF % SALES OF REBATED ELECTRONIC BASEBOARD THERMOSTATS ARE HIGHER IN OCT-NOV 2010 (COL...
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 NSPI Power Down Program by analyzing the percentage of electronic baseboard thermostats rebated during different periods, specifically comparing October-November 2010 with January-September 2010 and October-November 2009. It seeks to determine the impact of the rebate program on thermostat sales.
m promotion and rebates? % NMR Evaluation of 2010 NSPI Power Down Program Page B43 C. [IF % SALES OF REBATED ELECTRONIC BASEBOARD THERMOSTATS ARE HIGHER IN DEC. 2010 (COL. C) THAN IN JAN-SEPT. 2010 (COL A)]: You just indicated that the per...
AI summary The text discusses the evaluation of the 2010 NSPI Power Down Program, focusing on the impact of rebates on the sales of electronic baseboard thermostats. It asks respondents to estimate the percentage of increased sales attributed to the program and how long the follow-on effects are expected to last.
sales, roughly what percent of all the refrigerators that your store sold in October and November OF 2009 were ENERGY STAR refrigerators that were later rebated by the Power Down program? [IF RESPONDENT DOES NOT KNOW, ASK THEM FOR THEIR BE...
AI summary The question asks about the percentage of ENERGY STAR refrigerators sold in October and November 2009 that were later rebated by the Power Down program. The respondent is asked to provide an estimate or range if they cannot provide an exact percentage.
Dec 2010 Oct-Nov 2009 2010 2010 Percent Rebated % % % % Q34. [RECORD PERCENTAGE _%; 998 Refused; 999 Don't know/Not sure/Can‘t remember] A. [IF % SALES OF REBATED REFRIGERATORS ARE HIGHER IN OCT-NOV 2010 (COL. B) THAN IN JAN-SEPT. 2010 (CO...
AI summary The text discusses the evaluation of the 2010 NSPI Power Down Program, focusing on the percentage of ENERGY STAR refrigerator sales attributed to the rebate program during different time periods, including comparisons between October-November 2010 and earlier periods.
cated that the percentage sales of ENERGY NMR Evaluation of 2010 NSPI Power Down Program Page B46 STAR refrigerators that qualified for the Power Down rebate was higher after the Power Down program period in December 2010 than they were be...
AI summary The text discusses the evaluation of the 2010 NSPI Power Down Program, focusing on the impact of rebates on ENERGY STAR refrigerator sales. It asks retailers to estimate the percentage of increased sales attributed to the program and how long the follow-on effects are expected to last.
Down Program was to customers‘ decisions to purchase the ENERGY STAR refrigerators? Please give your response on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is not at all important and 5 is extremely important. NMR Evaluation of 2010 NSPI Power Down Program...
AI summary The text contains a series of questions aimed at evaluating the impact of the 2010 NSPI Power Down Program on the sales of ENERGY STAR clothes washers, focusing on the percentage of ENERGY STAR washers sold before, during, and after the program promotion period, as well as in the same period in the previous year.
ASK THEM FOR THEIR BEST GUESS. IF THEY CANNOT PROVIDE A SINGLE BEST GUESS, ASK THEM FOR AN APPROXIMATE RANGE. TRY, AS FAR AS REASONABLY POSSIBLE, TO AVOID A DON‘T KNOW RESPONSE] A. B. C. D. CLOTHES WASHERS Jan-Sept. 2010 Oct-Nov Dec 2010 O...
AI summary The text outlines a survey question regarding the impact of the Power Down rebate program on the sales of ENERGY STAR clothes washers during different time periods, asking respondents to estimate the percentage of increased sales attributable to the program.
n and rebates? % C. [IF % SALES OF REBATED CLOTHES WASHER ARE HIGHER IN DEC. 2010 (COL. C) THAN IN JAN-SEPT. 2010 (COL A)]: You just indicated that the percentage sales of ENERGY NMR Evaluation of 2010 NSPI Power Down Program Page B49 STAR...
AI summary The document evaluates the impact of the 2010 NSPI Power Down Program on the sales of ENERGY STAR clothes washers, asking retailers about the percentage increase in sales attributed to the rebate program and the expected duration of this effect.
during the October-November promotion period if the $XXX Power Down program rebate had not been available? RECORD PERCENTAGE _%; [998 Refused; 999 Don't know/Not sure/Can‘t remember] C. I want to make sure I understand you correctly when y...
AI summary The text discusses a survey evaluating the impact of the Power Down program rebate on the sales of ENERGY STAR clothes washers during the October-November promotion period. It explores how sales would be affected if the rebate was not available and asks about other rebates offered during the same period.
E TIME TO RESPOND TO THIS SURVEY.] NMR Evaluation of 2010 NSPI Power Down Program Page B54 INDEPENDENT RETAIL STORE MANAGER QUESTIONNAIRE NSPI RETAIL MARKDOWN PROGRAM: APPLIANCE REBATES Final: January 6, 2011 Hello may I please speak with...
AI summary This document is a questionnaire from NMR Group evaluating the 2010 NSPI Power Down Program, specifically focusing on appliance rebates. It aims to gather information from retail store managers about their participation and knowledge of the program's appliance stocking and sales trends.
st heard about Power Down program? [If felt excluded] What actions, if any, did you take to become involved in the program? 6. Did you have any concerns about participating in the program? NMR Evaluation of 2010 NSPI Power Down Program Pag...
AI summary The document contains survey questions related to the 2010 NSPI Power Down Program, focusing on customer concerns, participation reasons, barriers to participation, and the program's impact on sales and store practices.
r store? 12. Did you make any changes to your advertising and promotions for these appliances? (PROBE: media advertising (flyers, newspaper ads, radio, tv), in-store signage, shelf talkers) SALES SPECIFIC QUESTIONS APPLIANCES ENERGY STAR R...
AI summary The text includes questions about advertising changes for appliances and sales data on ENERGY STAR refrigerators during and before the Power Down program promotion in 2010. It also references a table with data related to the evaluation of the 2010 NSPI Power Down Program.
ct-Dec Oct-Dec 2009 2010 Percent Rebated % % % Q34. [RECORD PERCENTAGE _%; 998 Refused; 999 Don't know/Not sure/Can‘t remember] E. [IF % SALES OF REBATED REFRIGERATORS ARE HIGHER IN NOV-DEC 2010 (COL. B) THAN IN JAN-OCT. 2010 (COL A)]: You...
AI summary The text presents survey questions about the impact of the Power Down program on the sales of ENERGY STAR refrigerators, specifically asking about the percentage of sales attributed to the rebate and whether the rebate influenced sales volume.
promotion period, besides the Power Down program rebates, were there any other rebates provided on refrigerators? 3. Yes 4. No 8. Refused 9. Don‘t know Q36B. [IF Q36A=YES]: Who offered the rebates and what was the value of the rebates? 9....
AI summary The text includes survey questions about rebate programs for ENERGY STAR refrigerators during the Power Down Program's promotion period, specifically asking about other rebates and their importance to customer purchasing decisions. It also references the NMR Group as the entity responsible for the evaluation.
ortant and 5 is extremely important. NMR Evaluation of 2010 NSPI Power Down Program Page B59 IF Q2B1=8 ENERGY STAR CLOTHES WASHERS Q38. I now have a few questions about your sales of clothes washers. E. Roughly what percent of ALL the clot...
AI summary The text includes a series of questions from an evaluation of the 2010 NSPI Power Down Program, focusing on the sales of ENERGY STAR clothes washers before, during, and after the program. The questions aim to determine the percentage of ENERGY STAR washers sold and later rebated by the program in different time periods.
ct-Dec Oct-Dec 2009 2010 Percent Rebated % % % Q39. [RECORD PERCENTAGE _%; 998 Refused; 999 Don't know/Not sure/Can‘t remember] E. [IF % SALES OF REBATED CLOTHES WASHER ARE HIGHER IN NOV-DEC 2010 (COL. B) THAN IN JAN-OCT. 2010 (COL A)]: Yo...
AI summary The text presents a question (Q39) asking about the percentage of increased sales of ENERGY STAR clothes washers in November-December 2010 compared to earlier periods, attributing the increase to the Power Down rebate program. The document is part of an evaluation of the 2010 NSPI Power Down Program.
period, besides the Power Down program rebates, were there any other rebates provided on ENERGY STAR clothes washers? 3. Yes 4. No 8. Refused 9. Don‘t know Q41B. [IF Q41A=YES]: Who offered the rebates and what was the value of the rebates?...
AI summary The text asks whether rebates were provided on ENERGY STAR clothes washers besides the Power Down program and inquires about the value of the rebates. It also asks about the importance of the Power Down Program rebate in influencing customer purchases and whether the program was marketed.
Down program or the available rebates in any way? [Probe: flyers, newspaper ads, radio, tv, circulars, posters, in-store signage, shelf-talkers, direct mail, etc.] a. Why or why not? 14. During the past year that is between January and Oct...
AI summary The text consists of a series of questions directed at retailers regarding their advertising and rebate practices for ENERGY STAR appliances under the Power Down program. It inquires about media used, frequency of promotion, and methods of presenting and processing rebates.
to fill-out a form to receive the rebate after the purchase? Now, I‘d like to ask you a few questions about how you processed and tracked the rebates/incentives as part of the program. 17. How did you track the rebates/incentives? [Excel s...
AI summary The text outlines a survey conducted to evaluate the 2010 NSPI Power Down Program, focusing on rebate processing, tracking methods, submission procedures, and overall participant satisfaction with the program.
rier affecting customer participation? Any others? 25. Do you have any recommendations for improving the Power Down program? NMR Evaluation of 2010 NSPI Power Down Program Page B63 26. Approximately how many full-time equivalent workers ar...
AI summary The document includes questions about the Power Down program and its impact on customer participation, as well as evaluations of the 2010 NSPI Power Down Program and appliance retirement and replacement programs conducted by NMR Group, Inc. for Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation.
vel energy and demand savings estimates can be found in Table 1. For the 2010 program year, the generator-level impacts were estimated at 2,286 MWh of energy savings and 476.4 kW of demand savings.1 Table 1: 2010 Program Energy and Demand...
AI summary The text provides energy and demand savings estimates from the 2010 program year, including data on appliance retirement and replacement. The table shows gross and net savings for various appliances, with percentages indicating the net-to-gross ratio for each category.
differences. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Programs Page iv
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Programs, focusing on their effectiveness and impact.
Findings and Recommendations Finding Recommendation ARR-F4. ARR-R4. The appeal of the Appliance Retirement Program lies in the ease Any future program design should seek to replicate with which customers can enroll as well as the relative...
AI summary The Appliance Retirement Program was found to be appealing due to its ease of enrollment and pickup services. Participants had varied motivations, with some driven by convenience and others by energy savings or incentives. The program's incentive was a key factor in participation, especially for certain appliance types.
ARR-R6. The single most influential factor influencing customers‘ decision Any future program design should consider reducing to participate in the program was the removal and recycling the incentive amounts offered for appliances. The ser...
AI summary The program's free removal and recycling services were the most influential factor in customer participation. Incentives had less impact, and there was concern about the cost of removing smaller appliances. Respondents had mixed views on the necessity of secondary refrigerators and freezers, with most reporting no drawbacks after disposal.
ir appliance. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Programs Page v
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Programs, focusing on their effectiveness and impact.
program. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Programs Page viii
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Programs. It provides an overview and analysis of the program's effectiveness and outcomes.
Findings and Recommendations Finding Recommendation ARR-F14. ARR-R14. The appliance replacement participant identified two areas of Any future program should make sure that dissatisfaction with the program—both relating to payment for part...
AI summary The Appliance Replacement Program faced issues with payment methods and rebate timing, leading to dissatisfaction among participants. The program was also limited in scope as a pilot, and recommendations suggest exploring opportunities in the multi-family sector for future programs.
energy benefits of improving the energy efficiency of the properties such as increased tenant comfort, higher tenant satisfaction, and reduced tenant turnover. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Programs Page 1 2 Pro...
AI summary The text discusses the energy benefits of improving property energy efficiency, including increased tenant comfort and satisfaction, and reduced tenant turnover. It also references the Evaluation of 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Programs.
ck-up service (Recycler). Worked with the Appliance Retirement program component to pick up the old appliances from single family homes in Nova Scotia and transport them to the recycler. Retailer. Worked with the Appliance Replacement pr...
AI summary The 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement (ARR) program aimed to remove inefficient appliances from single-family homes and multi-residential buildings in Nova Scotia, promoting energy efficiency and environmental benefits. It involved recycling old appliances, providing energy-efficient replacements, and implementing a campaign from March to November 2010.
, local recycler and shipping companies were identified, incentive levels were determined, and a marketing communication plan was developed. The program was implemented between June and November 2010. 2.2.1 Appliance Retirement Program The...
AI summary The Appliance Retirement Program was a pilot initiative aimed at removing inefficient appliances from the grid through recruitment, marketing, and rebate processing. The program was implemented between June and November 2010 and included activities such as driver training, appliance pickup, and rebate disbursement for working appliances.
appliances in the market. Energy savings are achieved when old appliances are removed from the home and fewer inefficient products are in the market. Old appliances recycled. Most of the materials in the old appliances are recycled. NMR...
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Programs, highlighting outcomes such as energy savings, bill reductions, environmental benefits from recycling, and participant incentives. It also outlines a logic model for the program.
Appliance Retirement Program Logic Model NMR Evaluation of 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Programs Page 6
AI summary The document evaluates the logic model of the Appliance Retirement Program, focusing on the 2010 appliance retirement and replacement programs. It provides an analysis of the program's structure and objectives.
ords/building management are sufficient generate interest for the program. Prospective customers have available budget. The prospective customers have the budget available to purchase multiple refrigerators through the program. Vendor...
AI summary The document outlines conditions for the success of a refrigerator replacement program, including customer budget availability, vendor stock, delivery capabilities, and staff skills. These factors are essential for generating interest and ensuring program implementation.
Transfer of understanding. Multi-residential unit owners will remember the energy and bill savings they realized from participating in the program and consider energy efficient options when making decisions to purchase other energy using...
AI summary The text discusses a program aimed at replacing inefficient refrigerators in multi-residential units, highlighting barriers such as program timing and inadequate staff, as well as outcomes like energy savings, bill reductions, and environmental benefits from appliance recycling.
eading to sustained energy savings and a reduction in energy costs. Environmental benefits. Removed appliances are recycled instead of land-filled while toxins are blocked from entering the environment. Participants receive rebates. Pa...
AI summary The document discusses the 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Programs, highlighting energy savings, environmental benefits from recycling, and participant rebates. It also outlines long-term outcomes such as increased customer engagement in energy efficiency programs and reduced emissions.
Program Logic Model NMR Evaluation of 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Programs Page 10 3 Impact Evaluation 3.1 Methodology for Refrigerators and Freezers This section describes the methodology and calculations used by NMR to calcul...
AI summary This section outlines the methodology used by NMR to evaluate energy savings from the Appliance Retirement and Replacement program, focusing on refrigerators and freezers. AHAM data was used to calculate average unit energy consumption, with adjustments for device degradation and field performance.
s indoors at a relatively stable temperature. We weighted each of the results in Table 3-1 based on sample size, to develop a lab-to-on-site factor of 0.79. Below is an example of this calculation. 10 Cadmus et al. (2010). Residential Retr...
AI summary The text discusses the evaluation of 2010 appliance retirement and replacement programs, including the use of a lab-to-on-site factor of 0.79 calculated based on weighted results from Table 3-1. It references a report by Cadmus et al. (2010) on residential retrofit high impact measure evaluations.
3.1.2 Degradation Factor A number of refrigerator metering studies have found that refrigerators and/or freezers degrade over time, in turn increasing their annual energy consumption. The NMR team reviewed three reports to determine what d...
AI summary The document discusses the degradation factor for refrigerators based on studies, including one by Miller and Pratt which found a 1.37% annual degradation rate. This rate was applied to both refrigerators and freezers in Nova Scotia's appliance retirement program due to lack of specific freezer data.
tion rate specific to freezers. For this reason we applied the same degradation rate (1.37%) to freezers recycled through the retirement program component. 3.2 Appliance Retirement Program Component 3.2.1 Retirement Tracking Database Accor...
AI summary The Appliance Retirement Program component retired various appliances between June and December 2010, including refrigerators, freezers, and dehumidifiers. The program assumed average annual energy consumption for these appliances and replaced dehumidifiers with ENERGY STAR units due to the humid climate in Nova Scotia.
341 1,405 706 706 Annual energy 1,437 1,001 1,106 1,005 consumption (kWh/year) Based on the consumption estimates and number of units listed in Table 3-2, the tracking database reported program savings of 4,841 MWh at the meter and 5,416 M...
AI summary The text discusses energy savings from an appliance retirement program, noting 4,841 MWh at the meter and 5,416 MWh at the generator after applying a line loss factor. It also outlines participant categories for refrigerators and freezers based on survey data and secondary research.
ppliance Retirement & Replacement Programs Page 15 Table 3-4 shows the distribution of participants by category. Most participants retired secondary appliances. Table 3-4: Participant Categories Participant Categories Refrigerators Freezer...
AI summary The text discusses the distribution of participants in appliance retirement programs, focusing on refrigerators and freezers. It outlines the methodology used to calculate unit energy consumption (UEC) based on AHAM data, degradation rates, and a lab-to-on-site factor. The final UEC estimates are lower than the program's current assumptions.
tor we developed final UEC estimates of 1,252 kWh for refrigerators and 979 kWh for freezers. The UEC for both refrigerators and freezers were lower than the program‘s current assumptions (Table 3-5). Table 3-5: Comparison of UEC Estimates...
AI summary The document presents updated unit energy consumption (UEC) estimates for refrigerators and freezers, which are lower than current program assumptions. A partial use factor is introduced to adjust UEC estimates based on the actual usage patterns of appliances removed through the replacement program.
Occasionally 27 21 Never 7 7 14 For each category of participants, usage (in months) was divided by 12 to develop the partial use factors for the various plug-in time frames. Below is an example of the partial use factor for participants w...
AI summary The document discusses the calculation of partial use factors for participants in the appliance retirement and replacement programs, specifically for refrigerators and freezers. These factors are derived based on whether the appliance was primary or secondary and whether it was replaced or not.
ts for the secondary replaced refrigerator UEC is shown below: Similar calculations were applied to the other UECs. Table 3-10 shows the adjusted gross savings using each of the NMR methodologies. Table 3-10: Adjusted Gross Savings per Uni...
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Programs by comparing adjusted gross savings estimates with tracking database estimates, showing a 42% decrease for refrigerators and 37% for freezers.
and freezers at 3,364 MWh and 1,948 MWh respectively. Our evaluated savings estimates represented a 42% decrease from the tracking database estimates for refrigerators and a 37% decrease for freezers. Table 3-11: Refrigerator and Freezer S...
AI summary The text presents evaluated savings estimates for refrigerators and freezers under a program, showing a 42% decrease from tracking database estimates. Table 3-11 details the number of units, program proportions, and savings per unit for both categories.
868 833 776 557 705 (kWh/year) Total savings (MWh/year) 853.9 331.5 763.2 391.6 495.2 3.2.3 Dehumidifiers The program‘s tracking database currently assumes that all dehumidifiers retired through the program are ultimately replaced by ENERG...
AI summary The document discusses the energy consumption of conventional and ENERGY STAR qualified dehumidifiers based on studies from the Ontario Power Authority and a report by PA Consulting and Patrick Engineering. It outlines assumptions about water removal capacity, energy factors, and annual operating time to estimate energy savings from replacing conventional models with ENERGY STAR qualified ones.
develop a weighted annual energy consumption estimate for both conventional and ENERGY STAR dehumidifiers. Specifically, the study looked at six capacity classes of dehumidifiers, all with varying energy factors, and developed annual consu...
AI summary The text discusses the development of weighted annual energy consumption estimates for conventional and ENERGY STAR dehumidifiers using data from the FOE report and the DSM Administrator. It highlights the differences in capacity assumptions between the FOE study and the OPA study, favoring the FOE's more realistic capacity ranges.
line with the program‘s current assumptions than the OPA report. 2) Energy factors for conventional dehumidifiers range from 1.1 to 1.9 in the FOE report. Again, these values are more in line with the program‘s estimate of 1.182 for any re...
AI summary The document compares energy consumption estimates for dehumidifiers from the FOE and OPA reports with the program's assumptions. It highlights discrepancies in energy factors, operating time, and efficiency calculations, emphasizing the program's use of local weather data for more accurate estimates.
er Eff: Dehumidifier efficiency (liters/kWh) Using this equation and the values in Table 3-12, NMR developed an annual energy consumption of 735 kWh for conventional dehumidifiers. Table 3-12: Conventional Dehumidifier—Annual Energy Cons...
AI summary The document calculates the annual energy consumption of conventional and ENERGY STAR qualified dehumidifiers using data from Table 3-12 and a similar methodology. Conventional dehumidifiers consume 735 kWh annually, while ENERGY STAR models consume 627 kWh annually.
Source: DSM Administrator Applying the same methodology displayed in Table 3-12, we developed an annual energy consumption estimate of 627 kWh for ENERGY STAR qualified dehumidifiers. (Table 3-13) Table 3-13: ENERGY STAR Dehumidifier—Annua...
AI summary The DSM Administrator used a methodology from Table 3-12 to estimate the annual energy consumption of ENERGY STAR qualified dehumidifiers, resulting in an estimate of 627 kWh. The evaluated UEC estimates for both conventional and ENERGY STAR qualified dehumidifiers were found to be significantly lower than those listed in the tracking spreadsheet (Table 3-14).
Page 22 Our evaluated UEC estimates for both conventional and ENERGY STAR qualified dehumidifiers were significantly lower than those listed in the tracking spreadsheet (Table 3-14). Table 3-14: Dehumidifier UEC Estimates Tracked Evaluated...
AI summary The evaluated unit energy consumption (UEC) estimates for dehumidifiers were lower than the tracked estimates, but resulted in higher per-unit energy savings. The total program savings for dehumidifiers were estimated at 76,248 kWh based on evaluated UEC, which is 7.6% higher than the tracked savings of 70,849 kWh.
four appliances retired through the program. Evaluated savings were lower than the tracked savings for all measures except room air conditioners—the program did not calculate savings for these units. Table 3-16: Program Savings by Measure...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Programs found that evaluated savings were significantly lower than tracked savings, with overall gross program savings estimated at 2,911MWh at the meter and 3,256 MWh at the generator, which is 40% below tracked savings estimates.
s Meter Generator Meter Generator Energy Savings (MWh) 4,841 5,416 2,911 3,256 We calculated the demand savings for the replacement program by obtaining the ratio of all residential target peak demand savings to target energy savings for t...
AI summary The document discusses energy savings and demand savings calculations for an appliance replacement program, highlighting the replacement of refrigerators in multifamily residential buildings and their impact on energy consumption. Energy savings and demand savings are calculated using data from the tracking database and the 2010 DSM Targets.
ator Refrigerator Number of units 305 305 Annual energy consumption (kWh/year) 950 363 22 Per Program Development Working Group on January 26, 2010. 23 All replacement refrigerators were ENERGY STAR qualified. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Applia...
AI summary The replacement of 305 refrigerators with ENERGY STAR qualified units resulted in energy savings of 179 MWh at the meter and 200 MWh at the generator, calculated using a line loss factor of 1.1188.
Savings—Replacement Program Total Savings Meter Generator Energy Savings (MWh) 179 200 3.3.2 Evaluated Program Impacts Based on the program‘s tracking database, NMR determined that the program was replacing retired equipment with two diffe...
AI summary The Savings—Replacement Program replaced retired refrigerators with ENERGY STAR qualified models, resulting in significant energy savings. The program's energy savings were calculated using average annual consumption estimates, which were lower than those from other studies due to differences in the age and type of refrigerators replaced.
ith an average manufacture year of 1993. The evaluations referenced above included secondary refrigerators and often included refrigerators much older than those retired in the replacement program. 24 The two models of refrigerators being...
AI summary The text evaluates the energy consumption of retired and replacement refrigerators in a 2010 appliance retirement program. Retired refrigerators had an average annual energy consumption of 716 kWh, while replacement models consumed 279 kWh, leading to estimated energy savings of 134 MWh at the meter and 150 MWh at the generator.
rators, resulting in total program savings of 134 MWh at the meter and 150 MWh at the generator.30 These savings represented a 25% decrease in comparison to the tracked savings estimates. (Table 3-22) Table 3-22: Replacement Program Energy...
AI summary The document discusses energy savings from a refrigerator replacement program, showing 134 MWh savings at the meter and 150 MWh at the generator, which is a 25% decrease from tracked estimates. Demand savings were calculated using an energy-to-demand ratio of 4.8, resulting in 27.9 kW at the meter and 31.2 kW at the generator.
ngs and do not account for any potential program free ridership. For the 2010 program year, the generator-level impacts were estimated at 2,286 MWh of energy savings and 476.4 kW of demand savings. Table 3-27: 2010 Final Energy and Demand...
AI summary The 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Programs resulted in estimated energy and demand savings, with generator-level impacts of 2,286 MWh of energy savings and 476.4 kW of demand savings. Table 3-27 summarizes the gross and net savings across various appliance categories.
Table 4-7: Why Participants Decided to Dispose of Appliance (multiple responses) Refrigerators Freezers Dehumidifiers Sample size 36 28 15 Bought new refrigerator / freezer / dehumidifier 28% 18% 13% Easy/convenient to turn it in 22% 18% 2...
AI summary The table presents reasons why participants disposed of appliances, with refrigerators, freezers, and dehumidifiers being analyzed. Key factors include rebates/incentives, convenience, and environmental considerations, with varying responses across appliance types.
lacement together had made a big difference. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Programs Page 39 4.5.3 Staff and Contractor Perspectives Program staff and contractors believed that cost savings were the primary motiv...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Programs highlights that cost savings were a primary motivation for participation, with ease of use and environmental responsibility also playing a role. Program staff and contractors noted that the ARR program provided significant convenience compared to other options, such as CBRM's pickup service, which required customers to arrange and pay for pickups themselves.
nd only 32% rated this program aspect as extremely influential. Within the dehumidifier group, 67% of respondents said the $10 incentive had been extremely influential to their participation decision. Table 4-12: Influence of Incentive on...
AI summary The text discusses the influence of incentives and program information on participation in energy efficiency programs. Respondents in the refrigerator, freezer, and dehumidifier groups reported varying levels of influence, with the dehumidifier group showing the highest percentage of respondents who found the $10 incentive extremely influential.
influential. Note, however, that a substantial number of respondents in the dehumidifier group gave a ―Don‘t know/Refused‖ response, suggesting that they had not been given any information or advice. Table 4-13: Influence of Program Inform...
AI summary The text discusses the influence of program information and advice on participation decisions for appliance replacement programs. It highlights that while many participants found incentives and services extremely influential, the information or advice provided was only somewhat influential for some.
who had removed a freezer thought it was necessary (gave a rating of six to ten). Overall, freezers (mean rating of 6.4) were judged to be more important than spare refrigerators (mean rating of 3.9). Table 4-31: Importance of Secondary Re...
AI summary The document evaluates the importance of secondary refrigerators and freezers based on user ratings. Freezers were rated as more important than spare refrigerators, with an average rating of 6.4 compared to 3.9. This data was collected from respondents who had secondary fridges or who removed a freezer.
3.9 6.4 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Programs Page 53 4.10.1 Appliances Remaining in Home Respondents were asked how many appliances were remaining in their home after they had turned in that type of appliance...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Programs in Nova Scotia shows that most respondents retained at least one refrigerator after replacing one, while freezer and dehumidifier replacements were more evenly distributed, with some households keeping one unit and others not keeping any.
one (―extremely dissatisfied‖) to five (―extremely satisfied‖). About three-fourths (74%) were satisfied and nearly one-half (48%) were extremely satisfied with their electricity savings. (Table 4-37) Table 4-37: Satisfaction with Electric...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Program found that 74% of participants were satisfied with their electricity savings, with 48% extremely satisfied. However, one participant expressed neutral satisfaction with the appliance replacement program due to issues with payment methods and slow rebate processing.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Program Page A21 1. Yes 2. No 98. (Don‘t know) 99. (Refused) FFR10. How influential were the following elements to your decision to participate in the Nova Scotia Power appliance re...
AI summary The document evaluates participant responses to the 2010 Nova Scotia Power appliance retirement program, focusing on the influence of incentives, information, and removal services on participation decisions, as well as willingness to pay for removal or recycling services if the program was not available.
) 98. (Don‘t know) 99. (Refused) NMR Evaluation of 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Program Page A27 DHR3. Now I would like to ask you to consider what actions you would have taken in the absence of the Nova Scotia Power appliance r...
AI summary This section of the document evaluates the impact of the Nova Scotia Power appliance retirement program by asking respondents what actions they would have taken in its absence, including delaying disposal, not disposing, or disposing through various methods.
e and pick it up [GO TO FB1] 7. Or would you have done something else? [SPECIFY] ] [GO TO FB1] 98. (Don‘t know) [GO TO FB1] 99. (Refused) [GO TO FB1] [ASK IF DHR5=1 (Sold it)] DHR6. Would you have sold the dehumidifier to a private party,...
AI summary The text contains survey questions related to the disposal of a dehumidifier, including options such as selling it, giving it away, or continuing to use it. These questions are part of an evaluation of the 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Program.
Y. IF RESPONSE INDICATES WOULD HAVE GOTTEN RID OF UNIT, GO BACK TO FFR3 AND CLARIFY RESPONSE, ASKING FFR4 THROUGH FFR7 IF NECESSARY] 98. (Don‘t know) 99. (Refused) DHR9. Nova Scotia Power paid for the dehumidifier to be removed from your h...
AI summary The text discusses a survey question regarding the influence of a $10 incentive and information received from Nova Scotia Power's appliance retirement program on a participant's decision to remove a dehumidifier. It also references the cost of recycling the dehumidifier and whether the participant could have afforded it without the program.
0 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Program Page A35 Staff and Contractor Interview Guide ARR, August 2010 Date: Name: Programs responsible for: Introduction: [This interview should take about an hour] Your comments are confidential. By t...
AI summary This document outlines an interview guide for evaluating the Appliance Retirement & Replacement Program in 2010. It includes questions for staff and contractors regarding their roles, program implementation, successes, challenges, and marketing efforts.
it provided? How frequently is it provided? Approximately how much of your organization‘s effort for the Appliance Retirement Program is spent on fulfilling data tracking requirements? 14. In general, how well do you think the program trac...
AI summary The text outlines a series of questions aimed at evaluating the Appliance Retirement Program, focusing on data tracking, program delivery processes, and customer participation. It seeks insights into the efficiency of data capture, program delivery timelines, challenges faced, and reasons for customer engagement.
[SAY ―Perhaps you can help me anyway.‖ GO TO INTRODUCTION] Hello, my name is from NMR Group. I am calling on behalf of the Appliance Retirement program from Nova Scotia Power. We are calling customers who participated in the program to rep...
AI summary The text is a script for a phone interview conducted by NMR Group on behalf of Nova Scotia Power to evaluate the 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Program. The interview aims to gather information about the number of refrigerators replaced and the participation of multifamily residential buildings in the program.
remove all environmentally hazardous materials, such as capacitors, mercury switches and refrigerants. Ninety-five percent of the unit is recycled including the metal, rubber, plastic and coolants.‖] P3. Using a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 i...
AI summary The text outlines a survey assessing participant satisfaction with the 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Program, including questions about satisfaction levels, reasons for dissatisfaction, enrollment methods, and areas for improvement.
8. Is there anything that could be done in the future to improve the program. (INTERVIEWER: CLARIFY RESPONSES AS NEEDED) [OPEN END, 96=NO RECOMMENDATIONS, 98=Don‘t know, 99=Refused] REFRIGERATORS RF1. On average, how old were the refrigera...
AI summary The text includes survey questions related to the 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Program, focusing on refrigerator age, heating and cooling of the space where the refrigerator was located, and whether participants had already considered replacing refrigerators before the program.
YES, 2 = NO, 98 = Don‘t know, 99 = REFUSED] RFR3a. Postponed replacing the refrigerators by more than one year RFR3b. not have replaced the refrigerators RFR3c. have replaced the refrigerators anyway - Without the program would not have re...
AI summary This section of the document asks respondents about their refrigerator replacement behavior in relation to the Nova Scotia Power appliance retirement program. It explores whether they would have replaced refrigerators sooner without the program and what they would have done with old refrigerators if the program had not been available.
ervices provided for free as no extremely DK influence influential part of the program RF11. If the Nova Scotia Power appliance retirement program had not been available, how much, if anything, would you have been willing to pay someone to...
AI summary The text includes survey questions related to the Nova Scotia Power appliance retirement program, asking participants about their willingness to pay for refrigerator removal, energy-saving actions taken, and satisfaction with electricity savings. It also references an evaluation of the 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Program.
‖ and 5 is ―extremely satisfied.‖ NMR Evaluation of 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Program Page A8 SO9. What, if any, potential drawbacks have you experienced from removing your appliances through the Appliance retirement program?...
AI summary The text presents survey responses regarding the 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Program, highlighting potential drawbacks such as loss of storage space, increased humidity, and appliances being discarded. The survey is part of an evaluation process and includes confidentiality statements.
Staff Interview Guide for Appliance Retirement Program Date: Name: Organization: Introduction: [This interview should take about 30 minutes] Your comments are confidential. By the way, if I ask you about areas you don‘t know about, please...
AI summary This document outlines an interview guide for the Appliance Retirement Program, focusing on the subcontractor's role, program goals, training, payment processes, and areas for improvement. It emphasizes confidentiality and includes questions about program effectiveness and participant feedback.
the program be run better? 9. What is the period of the program? When did it start? When will/did it end? 10. What do you see as the main goals of the Appliance Retirement Program? 11. What are the 2010 energy savings goals for this progra...
AI summary The text includes questions about the Appliance Retirement Program, focusing on its duration, goals, and 2010 energy savings targets. It also references an evaluation document related to the program.
ay? What is the timing for that? NMR Evaluation of 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Program Page A11
AI summary The text references the Evaluation of the 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Program, with a question about timing. The entity NMR is mentioned, likely involved in the evaluation.
20. Are there any factors inhibit your ability to effectively perform any part of the program delivery process? IF YES: What are they? How can these be addressed? What impact do you think addressing them will have on your effectiveness and...
AI summary The text outlines a series of questions aimed at assessing the effectiveness of a program delivery process, including challenges, successful aspects, and opportunities for improvement. It also explores customer awareness, participation rates, and satisfaction with the Appliance Retirement program.
NMR Group, Inc. 50-2 Howard Street, Somerville, MA 02144 Phone: (617) 284-6230 Fax: (617) 284-6239 www.nmrgroupinc.com Evaluation of 2010 Existing Houses Program
AI summary The document presents an evaluation of the 2010 Existing Houses Program, which is likely related to energy efficiency or home improvement initiatives. It is authored by NMR Group, Inc., a consulting firm based in Massachusetts.
........................................................... 21 NMR Evaluation of 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program, focusing on its effectiveness and impact on energy efficiency in residential buildings.
ESTIMATES .................................................. 18 NMR Evaluation of 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program
AI summary The document provides an evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program, focusing on estimates related to energy efficiency initiatives in Nova Scotia.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 Existing Houses Program Page I Executive Summary This report presents the results of the 2010 impact and process evaluation of the EnerGuide for Existing Houses (EEH) program conducted by NMR Group, Inc. (NMR). NMR c...
AI summary This report evaluates the 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses (EEH) program, finding that it exceeded its energy and demand savings goals. The evaluation was conducted by NMR Group for Nova Scotia Power and Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation, using interviews and HOT2000 reports to assess program impact.
MWh of energy savings and 2,174 kW of demand savings. These evaluated program savings substantially exceeded the program‘s goal of 4,930 MWh of energy savings and 1,410 kW of demand savings (Table 1). Table 1: 2010 Program Energy Savings P...
AI summary The 2010 Existing Houses Program achieved significant energy and demand savings, exceeding its goals. The evaluation highlights potential double counting of savings due to funding from multiple agencies, including Natural Resources Canada.
laimed savings. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Existing Houses Program Page II
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Existing Houses Program, focusing on its outcomes and claimed savings. It is part of a regulatory proceeding and includes input from NMR.
Findings and Recommendations The EnerGuide for Existing Homes program has been somewhat confusing for potential participants since the withdrawal of the rebates from NRCan in March 2010. In March, 2010 NRCan announced that new participants...
AI summary The EnerGuide for Existing Homes program exceeded its energy and demand savings goals despite confusion caused by the withdrawal of federal rebates and administrative changes. The program faces uncertainty about its continuation past March 31, 2011, which has affected delivery infrastructure and prompted NMR to emphasize the importance of maintaining relationships with Delivery Agents.
ire the DSM Administrator to regain the trust and confidence of Delivery Agents and to re- build the program delivery infrastructure. While an assessment of market potential is beyond the scope of this evaluation, even a cursory review of...
AI summary The text discusses the need to rebuild trust and infrastructure for the DSM Administrator and highlights the potential for energy savings through home retrofits in Nova Scotia, citing data from Natural Resources Canada on housing stock and energy use.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 Existing Houses Program Page III
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Existing Houses Program, focusing on its implementation and outcomes. It provides a detailed analysis of the program's impact on energy efficiency and residential energy use in Nova Scotia.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 Existing Houses Program Page IV Program Design & Delivery (continued) Findings Recommendations EEH-F6. EEH-R6. The EEH program has both resource acquisition and market In order to achieve its market transformation go...
AI summary The EEH program aims to achieve resource acquisition and market transformation goals. Training contractors is recommended to ensure proper installation of energy efficiency measures and promote the adoption of energy-efficient products and services.
to install energy efficient products will be more likely to recommend and offer energy efficient products and services to their clients, both within any future EEH program and outside of the program.
AI summary The text suggests that individuals who install energy-efficient products are more likely to recommend and offer such products and services to their clients, both within and outside of any future energy efficiency programs.
vities delivery agents said that most people hear about the program such as home shows. through word-of-mouth. Other ways that customers frequently mentioned finding out about the program were though the Internet (14%) and the newspaper (1...
AI summary The document discusses customer awareness and participation in an energy efficiency program. Most respondents learned about the program through word-of-mouth, while others found out via the Internet or newspapers. Many had already considered energy-efficient upgrades before participating, and the program helped reduce energy bills for over half of the participants.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 Existing Houses Program Page V Program Marketing and Outreach (continued) Findings Recommendations EEH-F11. EEH-R11. Three out of four 2010 respondents (76%) mentioned at least one The new program marketing materials...
AI summary The 2010 Existing Houses Program evaluation found that 76% of respondents decided not to install recommended energy efficiency measures due to cost concerns, with 46% citing expense as the main reason. However, 89% of respondents noted improved home comfort, including more even temperatures and fewer drafts.
peratures were more even throughout their homes impact that program upgrades can have on the comfort levels in (71%) and that there were fewer drafts (29%) in their homes. their homes. EEH-F13. EEH-R13. The Measure Effectiveness Index reve...
AI summary The text discusses the effectiveness of various energy efficiency measures in the 2010 program, highlighting that electronic thermostats and high-efficiency heat pumps were particularly effective, while ETS measures like hot air furnaces were less effective. It also notes improved comfort and reduced drafts in homes following program upgrades.
heater exposed pipe insulation, high efficiency ductless mini split measures for the 2010 program. heat pumps, and electric water heater tank insulation.
AI summary The text mentions specific energy efficiency measures from the 2010 program, including heater exposed pipe insulation, high efficiency ductless mini split heat pumps, and electric water heater tank insulation.
Program Performance and Savings Findings Recommendations EEH-F14. EEH-R14. NMR found that the program was double counting savings for a The new program should remove the potential for double counting number of measures. Any of the five hea...
AI summary The document discusses issues with double counting savings in energy efficiency programs, particularly in measures like heat pumps and solar hot water heaters. It recommends removing double counting by using prescriptive savings only for specific measures that do not affect EnerGuide ratings. It also suggests coordination between programs for consistent savings estimates.
ent savings estimates for every prescriptive The new program should consider coordinating with any new measure that is sponsored by the existing and new houses houses program to maintain consistency with regards to programs. Savings estima...
AI summary The document discusses variations in prescriptive savings estimates for energy efficiency measures across existing and new houses programs. It highlights discrepancies, such as significant differences in savings estimates for programmable thermostats, and calls for greater transparency in how savings estimates are developed and calculated.
ates. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Existing Houses Program Page 1
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Existing Houses Program, focusing on its effectiveness and impact. It provides an analysis of the program's outcomes and considerations for future improvements.
1 Program Description and Data Tracking The 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses (EEH) program was primarily administered by Conserve Nova Scotia (CNS) and encouraged homeowners in Nova Scotia to improve the energy efficiency of their houses...
AI summary The 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses (EEH) program in Nova Scotia was administered by Conserve Nova Scotia and initially partnered with Natural Resources Canada's ecoENERGY Retrofit Homes program. Federal rebates were discontinued in March 2010, and the program ended on March 31, 2011, with no decision made on its continuation. The program involved pre-retrofit evaluations, retrofit activities, and post-retrofit evaluations.
of optional upgrades. The data is also uploaded to NRCan for review and validation. Retrofit Activities After the pre-retrofit evaluation, homeowners have 18 months to complete any suggested upgrades and schedule a post-retrofit evaluation...
AI summary The document outlines the retrofit process for the 2010 Existing Houses Program, including pre- and post-retrofit evaluations, homeowner responsibilities, and rebate eligibility. Data is reviewed by NRCan, and the program is supported administratively by NRCan with quality assurance and training for advisors.
funding the provincial government‘s rebates for houses that have electric heating, the DSM Administrator‘s contribution to the EnerGuide for Existing Houses program covers the following DSM measures:
AI summary The DSM Administrator contributes to the EnerGuide for Existing Houses program, which provides funding for provincial government rebates for houses with electric heating, covering specific DSM measures.
individual residences NMR Evaluation of 2010 Existing Houses Program Page 3
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Existing Houses Program, focusing on individual residences and their energy efficiency improvements. It is prepared by NMR and provides an analysis of the program's effectiveness and outcomes.
1.1 Program Theory Program Background The 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses (EEH) program was primarily administered by Conserve Nova Scotia (CNS) and encouraged existing home owners in Nova Scotia to improve the energy efficiency of thei...
AI summary The 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses (EEH) program aimed to improve energy efficiency in Nova Scotia homes through market transformation and resource acquisition. It involved pre-retrofit evaluations, retrofit activities, and post-retrofit evaluations, with support from Natural Resources Canada and the provincial government. The program was administered by Conserve Nova Scotia and the DSM Administrator.
ter systems. Energy Evaluators input pre-retrofit information into HOT2000 software and upload the data to NRCan. The Energy Evaluators prepare a pre-retrofit report that includes an initial EnerGuide rating and recommendations for energy...
AI summary The 2010 Existing Houses Program involves pre- and post-retrofit evaluations using HOT2000 software, with Energy Evaluators submitting data to NRCan. Homeowners receive rebates after retrofit activities. The program assumes sufficient marketing, outreach, and availability of evaluators.
ost-retrofit evaluation activities. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Existing Houses Program Page 4
AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of the 2010 Existing Houses Program, focusing on retrofit activities. NMR Group is involved in the evaluation process.
Skills and equipment. Delivery Agents have the equipment, tools and skills required to complete evaluations of participating homes or they can contract for such services. Understanding of savings. Homeowners will understand the energy...
AI summary The document outlines the requirements and barriers related to the Energy Efficiency for Homes (EEH) program. It emphasizes the importance of skills, equipment, and awareness in achieving energy savings, while also identifying challenges such as lack of awareness, cost concerns, and the need for proper training.
nd equipment. Without such contractor training, the measures might not be installed or the savings opportunity might not be fully realized. Short-Term Outcomes Participants learn the energy efficiency levels of their homes. The pre-retro...
AI summary The document outlines the short-term and mid-term outcomes of an energy efficiency program for existing homes. Short-term outcomes include home evaluations, identification of energy-saving opportunities, and installation of efficiency measures. Mid-term outcomes focus on energy savings, bill reductions, and increased participant knowledge about energy efficiency.
efficiency among participants. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Existing Houses Program Page 5 Confidence in energy savings estimates. Based on their experience with the EEH program, homeowners will have confidence in energy savings estimates for...
AI summary The document evaluates the long-term outcomes of the 2010 Existing Houses Program, highlighting increased confidence in energy savings, growth in the energy efficiency market, and reduced emissions due to improved access to energy-efficient products and services.
vings reduce the need for new generation. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Existing Houses Program Page 6 1.2 Logic Model Figure 1-1: EnerGuide Existing Houses Program Logic Model NMR Evaluation of 2010 Existing Houses Program Page 7 2 Impact Evalua...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Existing Houses Program (EEH) involved reviewing program records and comparing pre- and post-audit data to estimate energy savings. The NMR team calculated savings per EnerGuide point and applied these to the program’s tracking database, revealing 9.72 GWh of meter savings and 10.88 GWh of generator savings for 2010.
Wh of energy savings at the meter and 10.88 GWh of energy savings at the generator. (Table 2-1)[10][11] Generator savings were calculated by applying a line loss factor of 1.1188 to the meter savings. Table 2-1: Tracking Database Savings—2...
AI summary The document discusses energy savings calculations for a program, distinguishing between savings at the meter and at the generator. It uses a line loss factor to adjust meter savings to generator savings and references the use of EnerGuide point savings and prescriptive measure savings from the Low Income Houses program.
0 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Existing Houses Program Page 8 Table 2-2: Prescriptive Measures and Tracking Database Savings Values Measures Annual Savings (kWh) Ground source heat pump 12,745 Ductless, mini-split air source heat pump 7,325 Air...
AI summary The document presents a table outlining the energy savings from various prescriptive measures implemented in the 2010 Existing Houses Program, including both annual energy savings in kilowatt-hours and demand savings in kilowatts for different types of heating and insulation measures.
ETS central hydronic system 45 ETS room unit 10 The prescriptive savings were added to the EnerGuide point savings. The equation below gives an example of how savings would have been calculated for a project that had a D pre-audit EnerGuid...
AI summary The document discusses energy savings calculations using EnerGuide ratings for projects under the EEH program. It provides an example of how savings are calculated based on pre- and post-audit EnerGuide ratings and outlines the average ratings and most common prescriptive measures implemented.
pacts of the program. These results were matched to the difference in EnerGuide ratings to calculate a value for the relationship between the EnerGuide point differential and the savings differential. 13 There were 156 projects in the trac...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Existing Houses Program analyzed the impact of the program by matching results to EnerGuide ratings and calculating the relationship between EnerGuide point differentials and savings differentials. The data included 156 projects missing D audit EnerGuide ratings, and participants installed an average of 1.26 programmable thermostats per home, often due to the presence of electric baseboard heat.
Eleven of the participating projects that were sampled had undergone a fuel switch, most often from heating oil to electric based heat. In all 11 cases, the participating project had converted their primary heating system from a non-electr...
AI summary The analysis found that 11 projects had switched from heating oil to electric heat pumps, which increased EnerGuide ratings but also increased electricity consumption, leading to negative savings. These projects were excluded from the EnerGuide point savings analysis. Additionally, five projects were excluded due to missing EnerGuide ratings, leaving 71 projects for analysis.
ings between the pre- and post-audits was almost the same for the sampled projects (6.0) and the rest of the program‘s projects (6.2). These results suggest that the sampled projects reasonably represent the rest of the program. Table 2-3:...
AI summary The audit results show that sampled projects had similar energy efficiency measures and EnerGuide ratings compared to the rest of the program, suggesting that the sampled projects are representative of the overall program.
5.1 Average E Audit EnerGuide rating 73.1 71.2 Indicates differences that are significant at the 90% confidence interval For each project, we calculated the overall electricity savings between the pre- and post-audits and the difference in...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Existing Houses Program calculated the average electricity savings per EnerGuide point based on 71 projects. The total EnerGuide point difference was 428, leading to annual savings of 448,102 kWh, resulting in an estimated 1,047 kWh savings per EnerGuide point.
428 Total savings—D and E audit difference (kWh) 448,102 Per EnerGuide point savings (kWh) 1,047
AI summary The text provides data on total energy savings from D and E audit differences, with 448,102 kWh saved and 1,047 kWh saved per EnerGuide point.
2.4 Prescriptive Savings As previously mentioned, the total program savings listed in the program‘s tracking spreadsheet were calculated by adding the prescriptive savings values listed in Table 2-2 to a per EnerGuide point savings estimat...
AI summary The document discusses the potential for double counting of energy savings in a program, particularly with measures modeled in HOT2000 and prescriptive savings. It outlines that only specific measures should have prescriptive savings applied to avoid double counting, while others are captured in a fixed energy consumption value per EnerGuide point increase.
sumption of the model, thus removing any possibility of double counting.18 Water heater pipe wrap insulation could not be modeled in HOT2000 so we assumed prescriptive savings should be applied to that measure as well. 17 HOT2000 is the so...
AI summary The text discusses the evaluation of the 2010 Existing Houses Program, noting that certain insulation measures could not be modeled in HOT2000 and that four measures had no impact on the EnerGuide rating and energy consumption of the model.
the model. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Existing Houses Program Page 11
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Existing Houses Program, focusing on the use of the HOT2000 software by the EEH program to calculate energy savings and provide EnerGuide ratings to participating homes.
2.5 2010 Program Impacts To calculate the impacts of the 2010 existing houses program, the NMR team applied the evaluated EnerGuide point savings value of 1,047 kWh, and the prescriptive savings values for drain water heat recovery measure...
AI summary The 2010 existing houses program's impacts were calculated using EnerGuide point savings values and prescriptive savings for specific measures. Adjustments were made based on the Ontario Power Authority's guidelines and the LIH program's 2009 impact evaluation, considering fuel switches and non-electric heating systems.
rain water heat recovery systems, water heater tank wrap insulation, and water heater pipe wrap insulation to reflect our secondary research and the prescriptive values used in the new houses program. Table 2-5: Comparison of Prescriptive...
AI summary The text compares prescriptive and evaluated savings from various energy efficiency measures, including solar domestic hot water heating systems, drain water heat recovery systems, and insulation measures. It highlights discrepancies between tracked and evaluated savings, particularly for programmable thermostats and specific efficiency levels of drain water heat recovery systems.
ater pipe wrap insulation 122 74 Evaluated prescriptive savings only were applied to the 48 participants that underwent a fuel switch Excepting the 48 participants who had undergone a fuel switch, all the other participants had the prescri...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Existing Houses Program in Nova Scotia discusses the application of prescriptive savings to participants, excluding those who underwent a fuel switch. The program's savings were estimated at 9,571 MWh at the meter and 10,708 MWh at the generator, with the tracking database showing slightly higher estimates.
Table 2-6: Comparison of Detailed Tracking and Evaluated Savings Estimates Tracking Savings Evaluated Savings Estimate Number of Estimate (MWh) (MWh) Projects Meter Generator Meter Generator EnerGuide rating 1,46824 8,288 9,272 9,418 10,53...
AI summary Table 2-6 compares detailed tracking and evaluated savings estimates for various energy efficiency programs, showing discrepancies between meter and generator savings for different initiatives such as EnerGuide ratings, programmable thermostats, solar DHW, and heat pumps.
1,516 9,723 10,878 9,571 10,708 Evaluated prescriptive savings only were applied to the 48 participants that underwent a fuel switch 24 The tracking database only calculated savings for 1,312 participants using the EnerGuide point system....
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Existing Houses Program showed that it achieved nearly double the targeted energy savings with slightly over half the number of projects. The program's demand savings were calculated using a 6.5 energy-to-demand ratio and additional ETS measures, resulting in significant savings at both the meter and generator levels.
ur initial estimates.26 We found that the total demand savings from all ETS measures was 1,085 kW, resulting in total demand savings of 2,557 kW at the meter and 2,861 kW at the generator. (Table 2-7) Table 2-7: Gross Savings Evaluated Imp...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Existing Houses Program found that total demand savings from ETS measures was 1,085 kW, leading to 2,557 kW savings at the meter and 2,861 kW at the generator. These estimates are based on prescriptive savings values from the program's tracking data.
Slightly 25% [IF FR3c = YES] Would you have made slightly, somewhat, or Somewhat 25% FR3ci. significantly fewer energy efficiency upgrades to your home? Significantly 0% Don‘t know 25% Yes 50% Would have made the same amount of energy effi...
AI summary The text presents survey responses regarding the impact of energy efficiency programs on home upgrades, with 50% indicating they would have made the same amount of upgrades regardless of the program, and 25% indicating they would have made slightly or somewhat fewer upgrades.
made through the program Don‘t know 25% Stated Intent Score = average of FR3a, FR3b, FR3c+ci, and FR3d. Table 2-9: Free-ridership Program Influence Questions Free- Question Question Responses Rider Number Score How influential were the fol...
AI summary The text presents data from a survey assessing the influence of various program elements on participants' decisions to install equipment or make energy efficiency upgrades through the EnerGuide Existing Houses program. Responses are categorized by influence scores, with incentives or rebates being the most influential factor.
5 0% Don‘t know 25% Program Influence Score = maximum of FR5a, FR5b, or FR5c. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Existing Houses Program Page 15
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Existing Houses Program, with a focus on its influence score calculated as the maximum of FR5a, FR5b, or FR5c. A significant portion of respondents indicated they do not know the program's influence.
of FR5a, FR5b, or FR5c. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Existing Houses Program Page 15
AI summary The text references the evaluation of the 2010 Existing Houses Program, indicating a review or analysis of its effectiveness or outcomes.
t Check Nova Scotia Power paid $[prompt with actual incentive] for the energy efficient upgrades made to your home. If you had not Yes FR4. received the incentive from Nova Scotia Power, could your budget No N/A have accommodated the full...
AI summary Nova Scotia Power provided incentives for energy-efficient home upgrades. NMR categorized respondents into full, partial, and non-free-riders based on their responses to questions about pre-existing plans, contractor contact, and budget accommodation. Full free-riders were those who would have installed the same measures without the program.
16, 2003 NMR Evaluation of 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program Page 18 2.7 Energy Savings Estimation Table 2-11 presents the final estimates of savings for the EEH program including the impact of free- ridership. The evaluated energ...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses (EEH) program indicates that it exceeded its energy and demand savings goals. The program achieved 7,274 MWh of energy savings and 1,943 kW of demand savings, surpassing the 2010 DSM plan's targets of 4,930 MWh and 1,410 kW, respectively.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program Page 19 3 Process Evaluation 3.1 Methodology The 2010 process evaluation of the EnerGuide Existing Houses (EEH) program drew upon in-depth interviews conducted with program staff...
AI summary The 2010 process evaluation of the EnerGuide Existing Houses (EEH) program involved in-depth interviews with program staff, contractors, and delivery agents, as well as surveys of participants. The evaluation focused on program delivery, tracking, reporting, and suggestions for improvement.
e EEH program. Thus, to the extent feasible, interviews with staff or delivery agents who worked on both programs were combined to avoid having to conduct multiple interviews with the same person. 3.1.2 Participant Survey NMR completed a t...
AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses program, including the integration of interviews with staff involved in both the EnerGuide and EEH programs, and a participant survey conducted with 2010 program participants. The survey aimed to assess satisfaction, motivations, and program value, with sampling errors provided for both 2009 and 2010.
am may take its place if EEH does not continue. In 2010, the program contracted with six competitively-selected service providers, termed ―Delivery Agents,‖ to provide services throughout Nova Scotia. 3.2.1 Exit of NRCan NRCan suddenly end...
AI summary The EEH program faced significant challenges following the sudden withdrawal of NRCan funding in 2010, leading to reduced participation, staff layoffs, and confusion among Delivery Agents. The program's primary goal was to improve energy efficiency, but the loss of federal funding was seen as critical to its continuation.
een withdrawn by NRCan, was necessary for the program to exist. All of the Delivery Agents also observed that a large majority of the public was unaware of the fact that a provincial program existed. 3.3 Program Responsibility and Communic...
AI summary The EEH program's success is hindered by low public awareness, despite promotional efforts by CNS and Delivery Agents. Delivery Agents increased marketing activities after NRCan's withdrawal but faced resource constraints. Marketing staff addressed contractor concerns through radio and print promotions.
g and articles in publications. NMR Evaluation of 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program Page 21 3.3.2 Contractor Training and Contractual Relationships The Delivery Agents have contracts with the Province of Nova Scotia (via CNS) to o...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses program discusses contractor training and customer responsibilities, noting that the program places full responsibility on customers for selecting contractors and does not provide training for installers. Delivery agents report increased burdens due to quality assurance requirements and reduced participation.
ance requirements and data tracking forms; the other indicated that the decrease in overall participation had resulted in participants being more spread out, which increased travel distances and time. 3.4.2 On-Site Visits NMR conducted two...
AI summary NMR conducted on-site visits for the 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program, finding that contractor services were professional and comprehensive. Energy Advisors performed thorough audits and tests, and participants noted immediate benefits such as reduced electric bills.
he measures rebated by the program. NMR Evaluation of 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program Page 22 3.5 Program Tracking and Reporting Delivery Agents were responsible for using the HOT2000 software from NRCan to create audit reports...
AI summary The 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program involved Delivery Agents using HOT2000 software from NRCan to create audit reports for the EEH program. Issues with information sharing between NRCan, CNS, and the DSM Administrator hindered data retrieval. Consolidation under ENSC may resolve these issues, but collaboration with NRCan is needed for effective data exchange.
mation and HOT2000 audit reports. NMR Evaluation of 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program Page 23 3.6 Program Awareness and Participation 3.6.1 Program Awareness When asked how they had learned about the program, two-fifths of partici...
AI summary The document discusses program awareness and participation in the 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program. Two-fifths of participants learned about the program through word-of-mouth, while other sources included the Internet and newspaper.
tion Community center Don‘t know All of the delivery agents said that customers in their service territory were not aware that, even though NRCan has withdrawn its rebates, the provincial program was still in place. Only one delivery agent...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program found that few respondents had concerns about participation, with those who did believing the program might delay renovations. Delivery agents noted barriers included lack of work to do at some homes, apathy, and reluctance to engage with government.
e size 23 70 Yes 9% 7% No 91 93 Respondents were asked about the reasons they had been interested in having their homes evaluated by an Energy Advisor. (Table 3-4) In 2010, the most important reasons mentioned by respondents were that they...
AI summary Respondents were asked about their reasons for wanting their homes evaluated by an Energy Advisor. In 2010, the top reasons were saving on energy bills (26%) and already thinking about energy-efficient upgrades (24%). In 2009, the primary reason was already thinking about energy-efficient upgrades (39%).
was (20%). In contrast, the single most important reason that 2009 respondents mentioned for having their homes evaluated was that they had already been thinking about energy efficient upgrades (39%). Table 3-4: Reasons for Interest in Hav...
AI summary The text compares the reasons respondents in 2009 and 2010 had for wanting to have their homes evaluated for energy efficiency. The primary reason in 2009 was thinking about energy efficient upgrades, while in 2010, saving on energy costs became a more significant factor.
test 4 1 No other reasons na 13 na 30 NMR Evaluation of 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program Page 25 3.7 Participant Plans & Actions 3.7.1 Prior Plans and Actions Respondents were asked if they had had plans to pursue any of the reco...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program found that only 40% of respondents had prior plans to install recommended improvements before engaging with the EEH program, with fewer than 10% having specific plans for any single measure.
o out of five respondents reported prior plans to install at least of one of the measures. However, fewer than one in ten respondents reported specific plans to install any single measure. (Table 3-5) Table 3-5: Prior Plans to Install Meas...
AI summary The text discusses respondents' prior plans to install energy efficiency measures and their interactions with contractors before energy audits. Few respondents had specific plans, and only a small fraction had contacted contractors beforehand.
water heating equipment that they later installed as part of the EEH program. Nearly one in three respondents reported having made such contact with a contractor prior to the first audit. (Table 3-6) Table 3-6: Contacted Contractor Prior t...
AI summary The document discusses findings from the 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program, noting that nearly one in three respondents contacted a contractor before their first audit. This data is presented in Table 3-6, which compares responses from 2009 and 2010.
now 0% 3% NMR Evaluation of 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program Page 26 3.7.2 Recommendations and Installations through the Program Respondents were asked about the measures they recalled being recommended after the pre-retrofit aud...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program shows that programmable electronic thermostats were the most frequently recommended and installed measure. Other notable installations included solar domestic water heating and electric thermal storage room units, while electric water heater tank insulation was recommended but less frequently installed.
ir heat pump with electric backup (9%). Although electric water heater tank insulation was the second most frequently recommended measure (43%), very few respondents (7%) followed up on installing it.
AI summary The text discusses energy efficiency measures, noting that while electric water heater tank insulation was the second most frequently recommended, only a small percentage of respondents followed through with installation.
Table 3-7: Recommended and Installed Measures 2009 2010 Recommended Installed Recommended Installed Sample size 23 23 70 70 Electronic thermostats 70% 43% 66% 41% Solar domestic water heating system 30% 13% 26% 11% Electric Thermal Storage...
AI summary The table presents data on recommended and installed energy efficiency measures in 2009 and 2010, including electronic thermostats, solar water heating systems, and heat pumps. The data shows the percentage of recommendations that were actually installed, with some measures having low installation rates.
6% NMR Evaluation of 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program Page 27 Table 3-8 shows measure uptake (installations as a percentage of recommendations), estimated annual energy savings, EEH program incentive amount, and cost per kWh of a...
AI summary This section evaluates the 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program, highlighting the Measure Effectiveness Index and Measure Opportunity Index derived from installation rates, energy savings, and incentive amounts. Electronic thermostats and high-efficiency heat pumps were identified as particularly effective measures.
, electric water heater exposed pipe insulation, high efficiency ductless mini split heat pump, and electric water heater tank insulation had been particularly effective measures for the 2010 program.
AI summary The text highlights that specific energy efficiency measures, such as insulation for electric water heater pipes and tanks, and the installation of high-efficiency ductless mini-split heat pumps, were particularly effective in the 2010 program.
Table 3-8: Effectiveness of Measures Per Unit Cost Annual per Energy Per Unit kWh of Measure Measure Savings EEH annual Effectiveness Uptake (kWh/yr) Incentive savings Index High efficiency air to air heat pump with 70% 7,208 $1,200 $0.17...
AI summary Table 3-8 evaluates the effectiveness of various energy efficiency measures, including high-efficiency heat pumps, thermostats, solar water heating, and insulation, based on energy savings, cost per unit, and cost per kWh of annual savings. The data shows varying levels of effectiveness for each measure, with some having higher energy savings but also higher costs.
because they had only demand savings. Estimates from the DSM Administrators consultant in EEH program tracking spreadsheet. There were no installations of drain water recovery with 30% - 41.9% efficiency. NMR Evaluation of 2010 EnerGuide f...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program indicates that 76% of respondents decided not to install at least one recommended measure, primarily due to high costs. This aligns with previous findings from 2009 and feedback from Delivery Agents about cost being a major barrier to program participation.
ended measure. This also paralleled remarks by the Delivery Agents who said that the cost of installing the measures was the main reason that people had dropped out of the program after the ―D‖ Audit.
AI summary The text discusses the reasons for program dropouts, noting that the cost of installing energy efficiency measures was the primary factor, as highlighted by the Delivery Agents following the ―D‖ Audit.
Table 3-9: Reasons All Recommended Measures Were Not Installed 2009 2010 Primary Secondary Reasons Primary Secondary Reasons Reason (Multiple Response) Reason (Multiple Response) Sample size 15 15 50 41 Too expensive 33% 7% 46% 17% Don‘t t...
AI summary The table outlines the reasons why recommended energy efficiency measures were not installed in 2009 and 2010. The primary reasons included cost, lack of perceived need, and the desire to install upgrades not covered by the program. A significant number of respondents also indicated they did not know the reasons.
No other reasons 47% 63% Don‘t Know 22α Respondents who reported not having installed recommended measures were asked if they had any intentions to install those measures in the future. Only two respondents reported that they were planning...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program indicates that information from energy audits was the most influential factor in respondents' decisions to install energy-efficient measures, followed by program incentives. Only a small percentage of respondents who did not install recommended measures planned to do so in the future.
on, advice, or services provided by a contractor was the least influential factor with about two out of five respondents (41%) giving the factor a rating of extremely or very influential. (Table 3-10) Table 3-10: Influence of Various Facto...
AI summary The text discusses the influence of various factors on customer decisions to install energy efficiency measures, noting that program incentives and rebates were the most influential, followed by information from energy audits. About 43% of respondents installed non-program recommended measures, such as additional insulation and new windows, in 2010.
installing additional insulation (67%) and new windows (40%). In 2009, respondents most frequently mentioned installing insulation (55%) followed by new doors (36%) and new windows (27%). (Table 3-11) Table 3-11: Other Installed Upgrades N...
AI summary The document presents data on upgrades installed by program participants in 2009 and 2010, with insulation and windows being the most common upgrades. The data highlights changes in participant behavior over time, particularly in the frequency of insulation and window installations.
r rebates under the program NMR Evaluation of 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program Page 30 3.8 Satisfaction and Program Impact 3.8.1 Satisfaction with the Program Respondents exhibited very high satisfaction with the program overall....
AI summary Respondents showed very high satisfaction with the 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program, with 95% and 96% satisfied or very satisfied in 2010 and 2009, respectively. Most were satisfied with aspects like the initial audit, Energy Advisor's service, and scheduling, though some dissatisfaction arose due to the cost of hiring a contractor for upgrades.
t report and recommendations, and the final energy audit overall. It is important to note that, at the time of the survey, not all respondents had received their final rebate cheques from the program. Table 3-13: Overall Satisfaction with...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program highlights high levels of satisfaction among participants, with 97% of respondents expressing satisfaction with the energy efficient upgrades they received. Satisfaction was also high for aspects such as the first and final energy audits, scheduling, and information provided by Energy Advisors.
2009 2010 Sample size 22 65 Very satisfied / Satisfied 100% 97% Respondents were asked to rate the overall value of the program to themselves as well as to the other occupants of their homes. Based on a scale of one to five, where one is l...
AI summary The 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program received high satisfaction ratings, with 91% of respondents rating its overall value as four or five. Most participants noted improved comfort and fewer drafts in their homes, although the percentage reporting fewer drafts decreased compared to 2009.
Table 3-16: Change in Comfort Noticed Change in Comfort Levels 2009 2010 Sample size 22 65 Yes 86% 89% No 9 8 Don‘t know 3 Refused 5 2009 2010 (multiple (multiple Changes Noticed response) response) Sample size 19 59 Even temperatures thro...
AI summary The table shows a slight increase in the percentage of respondents who noticed a change in comfort levels between 2009 and 2010. The data also indicates a decrease in the percentage of respondents who noticed improvements such as even temperatures and fewer drafts, while the percentage of respondents who noticed negative changes remained low.
2% Other 7%α Don‘t Know 2% NMR Evaluation of 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program Page 33 Nearly three out of five 2010 respondents (57%) reported a decrease in their energy bills since the installation of their upgrades. About one i...
AI summary The 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program saw 57% of participants report a decrease in energy bills after upgrades, with 11% reporting no change or an increase. Satisfaction with economic savings was high among those who saw reductions, with no significant differences between 2010 and 2009 participants.
icipants on the program impacts. In 2010 and 2009 over one-half of all participants reported that their electric bill had decreased and they were very satisfied with the economic savings. (Table 3-17) Table 3-17: Impacts of the Program Tim...
AI summary The program's impacts on participants' electric bills were evaluated in 2009 and 2010. Over half of participants reported a decrease in their bills and high satisfaction with the economic savings. The data shows varying levels of satisfaction and bill changes over different time periods after installation.
isfied 9 13 Dissatisfied 5 5 Don‘t know 5 10 In an on-site visit where NMR accompanied the Energy Advisor to an ―E‖ audit, the customer remarked that they had observed an immediate and substantial difference in their electric bill as a res...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program found that 41% of participants believed the EEH program should offer rebates for additional upgrades, such as renewable power and energy-efficient appliances. This reflects a desire for broader support beyond current program offerings.
Yes 35% 41% No 57 46 Don‘t know 9 0 Respondents were asked if they had any recommendations for improving the program. About one-half of 2010 participants (54%) offered at least one recommendation, significantly fewer than in 2009 (78%). On...
AI summary The text discusses survey results from 2009 and 2010 regarding program improvements, showing a decrease in participant recommendations from 78% to 54%. Respondents suggested increasing rebates, tax deductions, and incorporating more renewable technologies. Most respondents lived in single-family homes with at least three bedrooms.
46α 3.9 Demographics The overwhelming majority of the 2010 respondents (93%) were likely to live in single family homes (Table 3-20) with at least three bedrooms (93%). (Table 3-21) Table 3-20: Type of Residence 2009 2010 Sample size 23 70...
AI summary The 2010 EnerGuide program respondents were predominantly from single-family homes with at least three bedrooms, and a majority had an annual income of $50,000 or more, a decrease from 2009. The data highlights changes in demographic and income patterns among participants.
o 64 30 34 65 or older 11α About three out of five 2010 respondents (59%) had earned a university diploma. (Table 3-26) Table 3-26: Educational Attainment 2009 2010 Sample size 23 70 Less than high school 0% 6% High school graduate 13 19 T...
AI summary The text provides demographic data from the 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program, showing that 59% of respondents had a university diploma and 66% were male. The data is presented in tables comparing 2009 and 2010 survey results.
EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program Page A1 Appendix A Participant Survey NSPI – EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program – Participant Survey Hello may I please speak with [INSERT NAME]? 1 Yes [GOTO INTRODUCTION] 2 No [SAY ―Perhaps you can...
AI summary This text is from a participant survey for the EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program, conducted by the NMR Group on behalf of Nova Scotia Power and Conserve Nova Scotia. It includes a script for contacting participants and confirming their involvement in the program.
the EnerGuide for Existing Houses program from Nova Scotia Power and Conserve Nova Scotia. 1. We understand you participated in the EnerGuide for Existing Houses rebate program. Is that correct?
AI summary The text references participation in the EnerGuide for Existing Houses rebate program by Nova Scotia Power and Conserve Nova Scotia, and asks if the individual participated in the program.
1 Yes [CONTINUE] 2 No [PROMPT: ―Are you sure? Someone would have come to your house to evaluate the energy efficiency of your home and sent you a report telling you about upgrades you could make to your home to improve its energy efficienc...
AI summary The text outlines a survey process for participants in the EnerGuide for Existing Houses rebate program, aiming to gather feedback to improve the program and related services. It includes prompts for respondents to confirm their participation and provides instructions for handling various responses.
about your experience with participating in the EnerGuide for Existing Houses rebate program. Your opinions are very important to us and will help us improve this program and other services for NMR Evaluation of 2010 EnerGuide for Existing...
AI summary This text outlines a survey for participants of the EnerGuide for Existing Houses program, seeking feedback on their experience and reasons for participation. It includes questions on how they learned about the program and the most important reason for participating.
tion and participate in the EnerGuide program. What was the ONE most important reason you were interested in having your home evaluated by an EnerGuide Energy Advisor? [SAME LIST AS IN Q4 below] 4. Were there any other reasons? [DO NOT REA...
AI summary This text includes survey questions about customer motivations for participating in the EnerGuide program and concerns they had before joining. It focuses on understanding the primary reasons for participation and any pre-program concerns.
t I installed) 7. (The process would take too long) 8. (Other) [SPECIFY _]) 9. Don‘t know 10. Refused Section 2 – Satisfaction with program 7. Thinking of your OVERALL experience with the EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program up to this po...
AI summary The text outlines survey questions related to customer satisfaction with the EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program, including overall satisfaction, reasons for dissatisfaction, and satisfaction with specific aspects of the program.
3 4 5 9 10i. The rebates provided by the program for 1 2 3 4 5 9 electric space and water heating measures 11. [IF Q10a = 4 or 5 or Q10f=4 or 5] You indicated that you were not satisfied with the first and/or final energy audit was that wa...
AI summary The text outlines survey questions related to customer dissatisfaction with energy audits and verification of energy efficiency upgrades. It focuses on gathering reasons for dissatisfaction and verifying if recommended electric heating measures were implemented.
lectric space or water heating equipment that may have been recommended by the Energy Advisor for your home. For each one, can you please tell me if that measure was recommended for your home? [1 = YES, RECOMMENDED, 2 = NO, NOT RECOMMENDED...
AI summary The text asks respondents about energy efficiency measures recommended for their homes and whether they have implemented any of them. It includes a list of specific measures and options for answering, such as whether they were recommended or not, and whether they have been implemented.
. (Don‘t Know) 9. (Refused) NMR Evaluation of 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program Page A6 15. [IF Q14 = 1] Which of the following recommendations have you implemented? [ASK FOR EACH ITEM IN Q13a THRU Q13l = 1] [1 = YES, IMPLEMENTED,...
AI summary The text presents a set of questions from an evaluation form related to the implementation of energy efficiency recommendations, including heat pumps, thermal storage systems, and insulation. Respondents are asked whether they have implemented specific upgrades and whether they plan to install any in the future.
2: Do you plan to install any of the other recommended upgrades in the future? IF ALL Q0a thru l ≠ 1 OR Q14 = 2, 8, 9: Do you plan to install any of the recommended upgrades in the future? 1. (Yes, plan to implement all of the recommended...
AI summary The text presents a survey question regarding the installation of recommended energy efficiency upgrades, with conditional branching based on responses. It also references the Evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program by NMR.
9. (Refused) >SKIP TO Q19 NMR Evaluation of 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program Page A7 17. Which of the following recommended upgrades do you plan to install in the future? [ASK FOR EACH ITEM IN Q15a THRU Q15l = 1 AND Q0a thru l≠1]...
AI summary The text presents a survey question asking respondents about future plans to install recommended energy efficiency upgrades, including heat pumps, thermal storage systems, and insulation. It also asks about the timing of these installations.
1. Within the next six months 2. Within seven to twelve months 3. More than a year from now 4. (Don‘t know) 19. [ISA: THIS QUESTION HAS THREE ALTERNATE WORDINGS DEPENDING ON PREVIOUS RESPONSES] [IF Q14 >= 2 AND Q16 >= 3] What is the ONE mo...
AI summary The text presents survey questions related to customer responses regarding the installation of energy efficiency upgrades, including reasons for not proceeding with recommended upgrades and follow-up questions for clarification. It includes options for responses such as cost, lack of cash, and payback period.
f electric space or water heating upgrades that may have been recommended by the Energy Advisor for your home. For each one, can you please tell me if that upgrade was recommended for your home? [1 = YES, RECOMMENDED, 2 = NO, NOT RECOMMEND...
AI summary The text asks respondents to indicate whether specific electric space or water heating upgrades were recommended for their homes, providing options such as heat pumps, thermal storage systems, and insulation. This appears to be part of a survey or data collection process related to energy efficiency programs.
j. (High efficiency ductless mini split heat pump) k. (Electric water heater tank insulation) l. (Electric water heater exposed pipe insulation) 22. I am now going to read you a list of electricity related upgrades that, according to our r...
AI summary The text lists various electricity-related home upgrades and asks the respondent to confirm if they were installed. It includes a list of items such as heat pumps, water heater insulation, and thermostats, and references an evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program.
Q21a thru i = 1 AND Q22a thru i≠1]: NMR Evaluation of 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program Page A9 23. So it seems that there were some recommended upgrades that you decided not to install. What is the ONE most important reason you d...
AI summary The text presents survey questions related to the 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program, asking respondents about reasons for not installing recommended energy efficiency upgrades. Key themes include affordability, payback periods, and rebate incentives.
next six months 2. Within seven to twelve months 3. More than a year from now 8. (Don‘t know) 9. (Refused) NMR Evaluation of 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program Page A10 [ASK Q27 IF ANY Q0a thru l=1 or Q22a thru l=1] 27. How satisfi...
AI summary This section of the document includes survey questions about customer satisfaction with energy efficiency upgrades installed in homes under the EnerGuide program, as well as additional upgrades made by homeowners. It also includes options for respondents to indicate dissatisfaction and provide reasons.
water heater tank insulation) 10. (Yes, planned to install water heater exposed pipe insulation) 11. (NO) 12. (Don‘t know) 13. (Refused) FR2. Before your initial energy audit, had you contacted any contractors about any of the electric spa...
AI summary The document includes survey responses related to the EnerGuide for Existing Houses program, including whether participants contacted contractors before an energy audit and their hypothetical actions without the program. It also asks about budget considerations for energy-efficient upgrades.
e incentive from Nova Scotia Power, could your budget have accommodated the full cost of the energy efficient upgrades including the incentive? 1. Yes 2. No 3. (Don‘t know) FR5. How influential were the following elements to your decision...
AI summary The text includes survey questions about the influence of program incentives, energy audits, and contractor services on participants' decisions to install energy efficiency upgrades through the EnerGuide Existing Houses program. It also references an evaluation of the 2010 program by Nova Scotia Power's evaluation team.
luation of 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program Page A13 [IF IN SAMPLE FILE ‘AUDIT STAGE’ = ‘D’ AND Q22a THRU I ≠1 SKIP TO Q37, OTHERWISE CONTINUE] Section 4 - Impact of measures on comfort level and value of the program to customers...
AI summary The text outlines a survey section assessing the impact of energy efficiency measures on comfort levels and the perceived value of the EnerGuide for Existing Houses program. It includes questions about changes in comfort and customer satisfaction with the program's effects on energy bills.
VALUE and five is IMMENSE VALUE, how would you rate the overall value of the program? [ENTER VALUE] _ Section 5 - Satisfaction with the effects of measures on their energy bills 34. How long has it been since you installed the energy effic...
AI summary This section of the evaluation survey asks participants about the overall value of the program, changes in their energy bills since installing energy efficiency measures, and their satisfaction with these changes. It also explores receptivity to additional energy efficiency upgrades not covered by the program.
ades that were not covered by the program that you would like to have had covered through the program? 1. (Yes) 2. (No) 8. (Don‘t know) 9. (Refused) 38. [IF Q37 = 1] Which energy efficiency upgrades would you like to have covered by the pr...
AI summary The text includes survey questions related to the EnerGuide for Existing Houses program, asking participants about energy efficiency upgrades they would like to have covered and their demographic information. It also includes a section for recommendations for program improvements.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program Page B1 Appendix B Interview Guides
AI summary This document is part of an evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program, focusing on interview guides used in the assessment process. It includes information from Nova Scotia Power's evaluation team.
Staff Interview Guide for EnerGuide Existing Houses Date: Name: Programs responsible for: Introduction: [This interview should take about an hour] Your comments are confidential. By the way, if I ask you about areas you don‘t know about, p...
AI summary This document outlines an interview guide for the EnerGuide Existing Houses program, focusing on program responsibilities, stakeholder interactions, communication challenges, program timelines, and energy savings goals. It aims to gather insights on program implementation and performance.
of specific areas later in the interview, but from an overall perspective, what would you say are the successes you were able to achieve in planning and implementing the program(s) this year? a. Again at the broadest level, what were the a...
AI summary The text discusses an evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program, focusing on its successes, challenges, and theoretical framework. It explores whether the program's primary goal is resource acquisition, market transformation, or a combination of both.
formation program, where the focus is on changing practices and building adoption, and ultimately effect changes in NS provincial energy standards? Or is it a combination of the two? Why?
AI summary The text questions whether an energy efficiency program focuses on changing practices and building adoption, changing provincial energy standards, or a combination of both, and seeks to understand the reasoning behind the approach.
in and promote the program g. Characteristics of target customers that make them the appropriate target for the program h. Customer energy usage and operational characteristics that will result in the achievement of program goals by the im...
AI summary The document outlines questions related to the evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program, focusing on key program targets, their motivations, barriers to participation, and changes in the program over time.
ll need to be made to the program? 24. Are there any other program issues we have not discussed that you would like to mention? 25. We are planning on conducting interviews with [below] are there any other individuals or groups we should s...
AI summary The text is an interview guide for delivery agents of the EnerGuide for Existing Houses program, used to gather feedback and insights about the program. It includes questions about program issues, additional stakeholders to interview, and is associated with an evaluation of the program conducted by Nova Scotia Power's evaluation team.
Houses Delivery Agents Primary Contact NMR Evaluation of 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program Page B4
AI summary The document presents a page from an evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program, focusing on the role of delivery agents and primary contacts, with NMR as the evaluating entity.
Date: Name: Organization: Introduction: [This interview should take about 30 minutes] Your comments are confidential. By the way, if I ask you about areas you don‘t know about, please feel free to tell me and we will move on. For transcrip...
AI summary This document outlines an interview protocol for gathering information about the EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program. It includes questions about organizational responsibilities, training, program goals, and stakeholder interactions. The focus is on understanding the program's implementation and effectiveness.
he program manager at Conserve Nova Scotia? What is the nature of these interactions? Do you have any contacts with Natural Resources Canada, the Federal administrator of the EnerGuide Program? IF YES: How frequently and what is the nature...
AI summary The text includes questions about the management structure of the EnerGuide for Existing Houses program, specifically regarding the program manager at Conserve Nova Scotia and interactions with Natural Resources Canada. It also asks about efficiencies from managing both the Existing and New Houses programs and the impact on the President's responsibilities.
program? To what extend does handling the management and communications for the Existing Houses program impact your other responsibilities as President of [Name of DA-4]?
AI summary The question asks about the extent to which managing and communicating for the Existing Houses program impacts the President of [Name of DA-4]'s other responsibilities.
IF YES: Why is it that you are the manager for the Existing Houses program but have a separate program manager for the New Houses program? To what extent does handling the management and communications for the Existing Houses program impac...
AI summary The text consists of a series of questions aimed at understanding the management structure, program coordination, and impact of the EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program on an organization. It explores responsibilities, interactions with other entities, challenges in communication, payment processes, and the program's influence on business operations.
at times are you not busy enough? How does this affect your business? 13. Would you be able to handle more business from the program if it became available? Program Tracking and Reporting 14. Please describe the tracking and reporting data...
AI summary The text discusses program tracking and reporting requirements for the EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program, asking about data formats, recipients, frequency, and the effort required. It also probes whether the process is effective and if all necessary data is being captured and shared with Conserve Nova Scotia.
on to Conserve Nova Scotia? To Nova NMR Evaluation of 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program Page B6
AI summary The document presents an evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program by NMR, focusing on its effectiveness and outcomes.
Scotia Power? If not, what data should be captured? Do you think the data is being captured and communicated in the most efficient possible way? IF NO: How could the data capture and communication be improved? 16. [IF NOT MENTIONED ABOVE]...
AI summary The text outlines a series of questions related to data collection and program delivery processes for energy efficiency initiatives. It focuses on data capture, communication, and program implementation, including audit timelines, customer follow-up, and challenges in program delivery.
that can be done to encourage these customers to implement recommended measures? 22. For customers who go on to do the final audit, typically, how soon after the first audit do they implement the measures and how much time after the first...
AI summary The text outlines a series of questions aimed at evaluating the 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program, focusing on customer behavior, program effectiveness, vendor practices, and areas for improvement.
ng the program delivery process? NMR Evaluation of 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program Page B7
AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program, focusing on the program delivery process and its effectiveness.
additional electric measure rebates from Nova Scotia Power? 34. How does the pre-retrofit evaluation serve the customers‘ needs? How often does the information provided confirm what they already know about their homes? How often does it le...
AI summary The text includes a series of questions about the effectiveness of energy efficiency programs, including customer satisfaction, program barriers, and program improvements. It also references an evaluation report on the Low Income Households Program from 2010, submitted to Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page I Executive Summary This report presents the results of the 2010 process and impact evaluation of the residential Low Income Households program (LIH) conducted by NMR Group, Inc. (N...
AI summary This report evaluates the 2010 Low Income Households (LIH) program, also known as the Residential Energy Affordability Program (REAP), administered by Conserve Nova Scotia (CNS). The evaluation was conducted by NMR Group, Inc. for Nova Scotia Power and Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation, and included interviews with staff and contractors, as well as a telephone survey with 62 participants.
variety of program topics including goals, theory, structure, design, delivery, roles of individuals and marketing. The telephone survey was conducted with a sample of sixty-two program participants. Impact Evaluation Findings The impact e...
AI summary The impact evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households (LIH) program found that it achieved 895.4 MWh of energy savings and 199.2 kW of demand savings, which were below the program's goals of 5,260 MWh and 1,170 kW. The evaluation used billing analysis and reviews of HOT2000 reports.
ogram Savings Summary Peak Demand (kW) Energy (MWh) Net annual savings at generator 199.2 895.4 Findings and Recommendations The LIH program uses three primary REAP Delivery Agents who implement the program. Each Delivery Agent employs or...
AI summary The LIH program uses three REAP Delivery Agents to implement energy efficiency measures. Most participants reported satisfaction and improved comfort. Delays in contract execution in 2010 impacted program delivery. Savings estimates were lower than alternative calculations based on CNS data.
ergy efficiency (46%). This evaluation identified opportunities to improve program design, marketing and communications. The major survey findings and recommendations are provided below.
AI summary An evaluation of energy efficiency programs found that they achieved 46% effectiveness, with opportunities identified to improve program design, marketing, and communications. Major survey findings and recommendations are outlined.
Behavior Changes and Satisfaction Finding Recommendation LIH-F22. LIH-R22. Three out of five respondents (60%) reported that after receiving Education of low-income consumers on continued energy information from the energy audit, there was...
AI summary 60% of low-income households reported changes in energy behavior after receiving energy audit information, including turning off lights and lowering thermostats. Satisfaction with the program was high (90%), but decreased between 2009 and 2010, particularly regarding energy conservation measures, presentations, and work quality.
1.1 Program Description The 2010 Low Income Housing (LIH) program was administered by Conserve Nova Scotia (CNS),4 which called it the Residential Energy Affordability Program (REAP); and was funded by CNS, the DSM Administrator, Natural R...
AI summary The 2010 Low Income Housing (LIH) program, administered by Conserve Nova Scotia (CNS) and known as the Residential Energy Affordability Program (REAP), aimed to assist low-income homeowners with energy efficiency upgrades. Key changes included the addition of an Outreach Agent, reduction in Delivery Agents, and the use of third-party inspections. The program targeted energy savings in 875 homes.
ation will shut down in 2011. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 2 Insulation of basement and/or crawlspaces, exposed floors, main walls and attics/ceilings; Draft-proofing areas such as windows, doors, attic hat...
AI summary The document outlines the various home energy efficiency upgrades provided under the 2010 Low Income Households Program, including insulation, draft-proofing, thermostat installation, and the replacement of inefficient appliances with ENERGY STAR-rated alternatives.
1.1.1 Program Theory Program Background The LIH program is a Resource Acquisition program. As a Resource Acquisition program, LIH‘s primary goal is to increase the energy efficiency levels of low-income customer-owned households in Nova Sc...
AI summary The LIH program aims to improve energy efficiency in low-income households through a whole-house approach, with Scope I and Scope II measures. The DSM Administrator funds Scope I measures in electrically heated homes, and CNS identifies potential participants through various sources and outreach efforts.
a detailed renovation plan including photographs of areas of homes requiring upgrades and the proposed costs for each upgrade for those homes considered to have enough potential for energy efficiency upgrades. Once CNS has approved the ren...
AI summary The REAP program provides energy efficiency upgrades to low-income households through a detailed renovation plan, including educational discussions and final evaluations. CNS recruits delivery agents and trains energy evaluators, while DCS and SNSMR refer eligible households. Outreach agents also help recruit participants.
Pre-Retrofit Evaluation. The Delivery Agents contact homeowners, collect signed waivers, and conduct an EnerGuide for Houses evaluation. The Delivery Agents then prepare a detailed renovation plan including photographs of areas of homes...
AI summary The process involves evaluating homes for energy retrofits, obtaining approvals, implementing upgrades, and collecting data. Program assumptions include the adequacy of outreach and delivery agents, as well as sufficient training for agents to perform evaluations.
ngs estimates for energy efficiency improvements. Increased awareness of the LIH program in Nova Scotia low-income population. Through word-of-mouth and other channels, awareness of the LIH program and its benefits spreads among the low-...
AI summary The document outlines the expected outcomes of the Low Income Households (LIH) program in Nova Scotia, focusing on increased awareness, participation, and long-term benefits such as energy savings, bill reductions, improved economic well-being, and emission reductions. It also mentions the program's logic model.
rticipants later in this report. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 9
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Low Income Households Program, focusing on its implementation and impact. It discusses the program's objectives and outcomes, particularly in relation to energy efficiency and affordability for low-income households.
icipants. The participant and nonparticipant billing data used in the analysis extended from January of 2008 through present. This data was analyzed in a systematic way to estimate program impacts. Specifically, the initial analysis determ...
AI summary The document outlines the methodology used to analyze billing data for program participants and nonparticipants from January 2008 to the present. The analysis includes developing participant billing information, creating a control group, temperature normalizing data, and quantifying energy impacts using various statistical methods.
station as the participants. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 11 2.5 Temperature Normalize Billing Information One of the most important steps in the assessment of the effect of the LIH program is the comparison of...
AI summary This section discusses the temperature normalization process used to evaluate the 2010 Low Income Households Program. By controlling for weather influences using heating and cooling degree-days, the program's impact on energy usage was isolated. Results show a decrease in normalized annual consumption for participants and an increase for the control group, indicating the program's effectiveness.
se in the mean and median consumption for the pre to post period. The comparison of the NAC between groups for each period demonstrates that the control group is well matched to the participant group. Table 2-3: Distribution of Electric NA...
AI summary The text discusses the analysis of energy consumption data for participants and control groups before and after program installation, using statistical methods to quantify energy impacts. The analysis involved stratification based on pre-participation NAC to ensure accurate projections of program savings.
logy is described in detail in Appendix A. 8 Details of this analysis can be found in Appendix A. 9 The normal temperatures used in this analysis are based on the historical daily temperatures. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households...
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Low Income Households (LIH) program by comparing participant and control group Normal Annual Consumption (NAC) before and after program participation. Two methods—Augmented Comparison Method (PRISM) and Regression—were used to estimate energy savings.
e average control group pre- and post-installation usage along with the participant data were used to estimate net savings. Table 2-5 shows the mean savings for the program derived from this analysis. Table 2-5: Comparison of 2009 Net Savi...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households (LIH) program uses control group data and participant usage to estimate energy savings. Table 2-5 shows mean savings by stratum, with overall net savings of 13%. The distribution of savings is roughly normal, and initial analysis confirms the program's impact on reducing electric consumption.
0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 -1 -2 -3 Y Hat NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 15 When heteroscedasticity is present, the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression approach to establishing the relations...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program used Weighted Least Squares (WLS) regression to estimate average energy savings. The analysis found an average savings of 1,044 kWh/year, or 11% reduction from pre-installation NAC, with a 90% confidence interval of ±220 kWh.
ticipant were estimated at 1,044 kWh/year, or an 11% reduction from the pre-installation NAC. The 90% confidence interval around the estimate was ±220 kWh. This was a 21% relative confidence interval. Table 2-7: 2009 WLS Savings Estimates...
AI summary The 2009 WLS savings estimates indicate an average net savings of 1,044 kWh/year, representing an 11% reduction from pre-installation NAC. The 90% confidence interval was ±220 kWh, or 21% relative. The WLS model addressed heteroscedasticity, making it appropriate for use.
Y-Hat NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 16 2.6.3 Summary of 2009 Analysis Results Figure 2-4 shows a comparison of the savings estimates. Among the estimates based on billing analysis alone, the various procedures p...
AI summary The 2009 analysis of the Low Income Households Program compared various methods for estimating energy savings. The WLS regression model was determined to be the most accurate, yielding an estimate of 1,044 kWh per participant annually with a 90% confidence interval of 823 to 1,265 kWh.
e stratum level savings, the 2010 average expected savings was 1,117 kWh, (or 9%) with a 90% confidence interval of 854 kWh per year to 1,381 kWh per year. This was a 24% relative confidence interval. Table 2-8: 2010 Savings Estimates per...
AI summary The 2010 Low Income Households Program achieved an average energy savings of 1,117 kWh per participant, or 9%, with a 90% confidence interval ranging from 854 kWh to 1,381 kWh per year. The savings varied across different consumption strata.
sumption, the LIH program is higher than the PECO study (5.6% and 7.4%) but less than the 2010 CT Low Income study (12.4%), which were the only two studies identified that provided such a benchmark. Table 2-9: Comparison of Savings to Othe...
AI summary The document compares the savings achieved by the LIH program with other programs across different jurisdictions. The LIH program's savings (5.6% and 7.4%) are lower than the 2010 CT Low Income study (12.4%) but higher than the PECO study (5.6% and 7.4%). The table provides a detailed comparison of average savings per participating home across various programs.
measure verification AMP (electric focus): 968 kWh (Massachusetts), AMP and Low Income 15 and HEAT analysis tool AMP (electric focus): 827 kWh (Rhode Island) Baseload Program (no electric heat) net savings: Pre/post treatment/ compar...
AI summary The text presents energy savings data from various programs, including the AMP and HEAT analysis tool, with specific kWh savings reported from different regions and programs. It also references evaluation reports and studies on low-income household energy programs.
AP%20Evaluation%20Report.pdf NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 19 Table 2-10 presents the final estimates of savings for the LIH program based upon the billing analysis results described above. This table utilizes t...
AI summary The 2010 Low Income Households (LIH) Program achieved 800.3 MWh in energy savings at the meter and 895.4 MWh at the generator. The program had a 30% realization rate compared to the tracking estimate. Demand savings were estimated at 178 kW at the meter and 199.2 kW at the generator.
In considering what might be driving the low realization rate for this program, we looked at ten HOT2000 reports each from the three 2010 program Delivery Agents. In examining these 30 reports, we found an average space heating consumption...
AI summary The analysis compares space heating electricity consumption estimates from HOT2000 reports and billing data, revealing a significant discrepancy. Billing data suggests much lower usage than HOT2000 estimates, leading to the development of an alternative impact estimate for the LIH program.
3.2 Program Design and Administration The 2010 Low Income Households (LIH) program operated in concert with the Conserve Nova Scotia Residential Energy Affordability Program (REAP) which had overall administrative responsibility for the pr...
AI summary The 2010 Low Income Households (LIH) program operated in conjunction with the Conserve Nova Scotia Residential Energy Affordability Program (REAP), which managed administrative responsibilities. The program included two types of energy efficiency upgrades, with different funding structures based on heating sources. Three Delivery Agents implemented the program in 2010, with one leaving due to an unsuccessful bid to remain.
homes (10 from each service territory) were inspected by one of two third-party contractors. Other program changes implemented in 2010 included requiring Delivery Agents to supply CNS with photographs of participants‘ homes prior to instal...
AI summary The REAP program implemented changes in 2010, including new protocols for replacing refrigerators and freezers based on their age rather than energy consumption data. This was done to address issues with unreliable data from metering. Delivery Agents were already taking photos, so new photography requirements did not impact the process.
ators and freezers. The guidebook is contained as an appendix within the LIH program manual. If the age of the appliance could not be determined from the guidebook, Delivery Agents were expected to consult web- based resources in order to...
AI summary The LIH program manual provided guidance for identifying appliance ages, but initial lack of information caused challenges for Delivery Agents. Program administrators are considering separating Scope I and Scope II audits to improve cost-effectiveness, with Scope II audits focusing on homes with higher energy savings potential.
r to perform the Scope I upgrades. The EnerGuide audit would not be performed for homes receiving only Scope II upgrades. While they had heard about the discussions regarding separating Scope I and Scope II audits, at the time of the in-de...
AI summary The document discusses the implementation of the REAP program by Delivery Agents, including the distinction between Scope I and Scope II upgrades, and the challenges associated with separating the audits. The DSM administrator is considering these challenges during the program redesign.
3.7 Program Tracking and Reporting The REAP program collects data from customers regarding their energy usage before and after participation in the program. This is done by asking the homeowners to sign a waiver that allows CNS and the DSM...
AI summary The REAP program collects energy usage data from participants before and after upgrades, using waivers to access information from fuel providers and NSPI. Delivery Agents maintain a database and submit monthly tracking sheets. While tracking has improved, feedback mechanisms and data integration are areas for improvement.
2009 2010 Most Other Reasons for Most Other Reasons for Important Participating Important Participating Motivation (multiple response) Motivation (multiple response) Sample size 55 52 62 56 To save money on 18% 29% 48%β 21% my electric bil...
AI summary The table presents survey results from 2009 and 2010 regarding participants' motivations for joining energy efficiency programs. Key motivations include saving money on electric bills, receiving insulation, and improving energy efficiency. The data highlights the importance of cost savings and comfort as primary drivers for participation.
2009 2010 Sample DK/ Sample DK/ Measures size Yes No Ref size Yes No Ref Building envelope measures 37 95% 5 39 77%β 23 Programmable thermostats 14 93% 7 24 100% Tank wrap for electric hot water 40 70% 30 22 91%β 9 heater Pipe wrap for exp...
AI summary The table presents participation rates for various energy efficiency measures in 2009 and 2010, including building envelope measures, programmable thermostats, and low-flow fixtures. It shows the sample size, percentage of participants, and non-participants for each measure.
at the measures had on the comfort of the house. Table 4-9: Specific Impacts on Comfort (Multiple response) 2009 2010 Sample size 55 62 Noticeably fewer drafts throughout home 85% 80% Provided even temperatures throughout the home 80% 79%...
AI summary The text presents a table comparing the impacts of energy efficiency measures on the comfort of homes in 2009 and 2010, showing slight changes in responses from participants regarding factors like drafts, temperature control, and appliance noise.
in satisfaction with the energy conservation measures installed, the energy efficiency presentation, and the quality of the work completed was statistically significant at the 90% confidence interval. Table 4-15: Satisfaction with LI REAP...
AI summary The satisfaction levels of participants in the Low Income Residential Energy Affordability Program (LI REAP) were analyzed, showing statistically significant differences at the 90% confidence level between 2009 and 2010 for several aspects, including the energy efficiency presentation, energy conservation measures installed, and the quality of the work completed.
2 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 40 Nine respondents (15%) stated that they had not recommended the program to a family member or friend. When asked to explain why they had not recommended the program to anyone,...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program found that 15% of respondents did not recommend the REAP program to others, primarily due to eligibility requirements. Additionally, 11% of respondents did not install recommended energy efficiency measures, with reasons varying among participants.
2009 2010 Sample size 55 62 Yes 4% 11% No 96 87β Don‘t know/Refused 2 Number of Number of Respondents Respondents Measures not installed (multiple response) (multiple response) Sample size 2 7 Incandescent lamp replacement with CFLs 2 Buil...
AI summary The text presents data from surveys conducted in 2009 and 2010 regarding energy efficiency measures installed by respondents. It shows a small sample size and low installation rates of energy-efficient measures such as CFLs, building envelope improvements, and low-flow fixtures. A majority of respondents did not install any measures, and a significant number did not know or refused to answer.
Table 4-20: Interest in measures not provided by program Interest 2009 2010 Sample size 55 62 Yes 40% 55%β No 56 42 Don‘t know 4 3 2009 2010 Specific Measures (multiple response) (multiple response) Sample size 22 34 Additional windows/env...
AI summary The table presents data on consumer interest in energy efficiency measures not provided by the program, showing increased interest from 2009 to 2010. Specific measures such as additional windows and doors saw varying levels of interest, with some showing significant increases and others remaining low.
valuation of 2010 Low Income Households program Page A6 Equation 7 - The Augmented Comparison Approach, Determination of Net Savings NACPost Pr ogram (Ci ) S adjusted NAC pre program ( Pi ) NAC post Pr ogram ( Pi ) NACPre Pr ogram (...
AI summary The document discusses two methods for evaluating the 2010 Low Income Households program: the Augmented Comparison Approach and the Regression Approach. The Augmented Comparison Approach adjusts savings based on control group averages, while the Regression Approach uses a systematic four-step process to quantify program impact.
e the RMSE to find the best choice of z and use this particular WLS regression to obtain the best estimate of savings. During this step, a residual analysis is performed. If heteroscedasticity is suspected, the models are estimated using W...
AI summary The text discusses a statistical approach for estimating energy savings using WLS regression and references academic sources. It also includes a table from an evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households program, showing that all 55 respondents inhabited the same house.
NSTALLED, 8=REFUSED, 9=DON'T KNOW) NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households program Page C6 1. Building envelope measures such as: insulation, air sealing, weather stripping, or exterior door installation or replacement (Electric Space...
AI summary The document outlines the 2010 Low Income Households program, listing energy efficiency measures provided, such as insulation, programmable thermostats, and appliance replacements. It also asks about additional actions taken by participants beyond the program's offerings.
2. No [SKIP TO Q#32] 8. Don‘t know [SKIP TO Q#32] 9. Refused [SKIP TO Q#32] [IF YES TO Q#29] 30. Which measures did you choose not to install in your home? 1. Building envelope measures such as: insulation, air sealing, weather stripping,...
AI summary The text outlines a survey question asking respondents who chose not to install energy efficiency measures in their homes to specify which measures they avoided and the reasons for their decision. It includes options for various energy efficiency measures and reasons for non-installation.
daily routine 3. Did not believe any changes will result in lower energy bills 4. Did not trust in energy professionals installing new measures 5. Other [SPECIFY _]) Section 8 - Interest in other possible measures 32. Are there any energy...
AI summary The text outlines survey responses from participants in the 2010 Low Income Households program, highlighting reasons for not expecting lower energy bills, lack of trust in energy professionals, and interest in additional energy efficiency measures not covered by the program. It also asks for recommendations to improve the REAP program.
E TIME TO RESPOND TO THIS SURVEY.] NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households program Page C12
AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households program, focusing on its impact and effectiveness in addressing energy affordability for low-income households.
16. In general, how well do you think the program tracking and reporting process is working? Do you believe all the necessary data is being captured and passed on to Conserve Nova Scotia? To Nova Scotia Power? If not, what data should be c...
AI summary The text asks about the effectiveness of the program tracking and reporting process, data capture, program delivery timing, vendor selection, and factors affecting program delivery. It seeks improvements and insights into the delivery process and vendor relationships.
................................ 13 NMR Evaluation—2010 New Houses Program Page 1 1 Executive Summary This report presents the results of the process and impact evaluation of the 2010 New Houses (NH) program conducted by NMR Group, Inc. (N...
AI summary This report evaluates the 2010 New Houses program, focusing on its process and impact. Key changes included a new building code requiring EnerGuide ratings and a transition to the PerformancePlus program. The evaluation involved surveys and interviews to assess program administration, satisfaction, and barriers to participation.
Targets Revised Jan 26 2010. Note, however, that the ENH program manual shows 2010 targets of 1,000 new houses and energy savings of 4.37 GWh; the manual did not include any demand savings target. NMR Evaluation—2010 New Houses Program Pag...
AI summary The 2010 New Houses Program in Nova Scotia had 260 participants, but its impact on energy efficiency was limited due to the new building code raising minimum standards. Participation was driven largely by heat pump incentives, with high free-ridership rates among builders and homeowners. Despite this, participants expressed strong interest in energy efficiency and satisfaction with the program.
mostly a heat pump program. That said, survey respondents reported strong interest in energy efficiency and satisfaction with the program. Specific findings and recommendations are provided below. 2 During 2010, the EnerGuide New Houses pr...
AI summary The document discusses a heat pump program and highlights strong interest in energy efficiency and satisfaction with the program. It also mentions the re-launch of the EnerGuide New Houses program as PerformancePlus in 2010, using the abbreviation NH for both programs.
Program Participation and Incentive Structure Finding Recommendation NH-F1. NH-R1. Implementation of the NH program entailed multiple phases and a Under these circumstances, the program has two choices variety of people were involved in de...
AI summary The NH program's implementation involved multiple phases and stakeholders. With the EnerGuide 83 minimum requirement, many homes could achieve this rating through heat pump installations, making the program effectively a heat pump initiative. The recommendation suggests raising the EnerGuide level to 85 or 90 over time or exiting the EnerGuide system to provide direct incentives for specific measures.
NH-R2. Starting in January 2010, Nova Scotia building code required all new Before designing any future residential new construction homes to have a minimum EnerGuide rating of 80. Builders or energy efficiency programs, the DSM Administra...
AI summary The Nova Scotia building code since 2010 requires new homes to have a minimum EnerGuide rating of 80. Building inspectors are crucial in enforcing these energy efficiency standards. Marketing efforts for the NH program were effective in 2010 but require further enhancement. Homeowners are motivated by potential energy cost savings.
ause they wanted a house that would save on emphasize energy cost savings from constructing a house energy costs and bills. through the program. NMR Evaluation—2010 New Houses Program Page 5
AI summary The text discusses the motivation behind constructing energy-efficient homes through the 2010 New Houses Program, emphasizing energy cost savings for residents. It highlights the program's focus on reducing energy bills through efficient home construction.
NH-R10. Delivery Agents reported that reviewing HOT2000 reports was a The NH program should work with NRCan to provide time-consuming process. Program staff observed that NH program additional training to Delivery Agents on reviewing and c...
AI summary Delivery Agents found reviewing HOT2000 reports time-consuming. The NH program is advised to provide training on interpreting these reports and help track energy savings, particularly differentiating plug load from building envelope measures.
Program Performance and Savings Finding Recommendation NH-F11. NH-R11. Only one of the four builders reported being satisfied with the The program should work to improve the scheduling and scheduling and timing of the audit. timing of the...
AI summary The document highlights issues with the scheduling of energy audits and the modeling of energy efficiency measures in the New Houses program. It recommends improvements in communication with builders and the proper handling of prescriptive savings in HOT2000 to avoid double counting and ensure accurate energy savings calculations.
NH-R14. Water heater pipe wrap insulation could not be modeled in HOT2000. It is appropriate to add prescriptive savings for water Drain water heat recovery measures and programmable thermostats heater pipe wrap insulation, thermostats and...
AI summary The document discusses energy efficiency measures in new residential homes in Nova Scotia, including issues with modeling insulation and thermostat savings, EnerGuide ratings, and program rebates. It highlights the need to revise program objectives to reduce administrative costs and leverage existing building code requirements.
e rating of 80, and simply by purchasing a heat occurring through the Nova Scotia building code. pump, participants could increase their EG rating to 83 and take advantage of program rebates. Rebates Finding Recommendation NH-F17. NH-R17....
AI summary The 2010 New Houses Program allowed builders to transfer rebates to reduce up-front costs, improving upon the 2009 program. However, builders typically did not receive incentives, leading to delays in paperwork completion. The recommendation suggests providing more direct incentives to builders to improve program administration and energy efficiency outcomes.
2.1 Program Description The NH program was administered by Conserve Nova Scotia (CNS). The DSM Administrator joined the program in 2009 by adding incentives for specific measures. The new independent program administrator, Efficiency Nova...
AI summary The NH program, administered by Conserve Nova Scotia and later by Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation, provides rebates for energy efficiency upgrades in new homes. The program includes incentives for specific measures such as heat pumps, thermal storage systems, and water heating improvements, with Energy Advisors assisting in evaluating and recommending upgrades.
r heating systems Electric water heater pipe wrap Aluminum foil or fibreglass electric water heater tank wrap At least 10 energy efficient lights in fixtures 3 Conserve Nova Scotia also provided rebates for other non-electric measure...
AI summary The text outlines specific energy efficiency measures for heating systems and electric water heaters, including rebates provided by Conserve Nova Scotia. It also mentions the exclusion of R-2000 from the DSM program and provides a detailed description of R-2000 certification standards. The document references the Nova Scotia Home Builders' Association for more information on R-2000.
2000program.html. NMR Evaluation—2010 New Houses Program Page 8 Through the NH program, electrically heated houses receiving a final EnerGuide rating of 85 or higher were eligible for an additional incentive of $300. This increased substan...
AI summary The 2010 New Houses Program provided incentives for energy-efficient homes, increasing from $300 to up to $7,000 for higher EnerGuide ratings after being re-launched as PerformancePlus. Registration fees were rebated for homes achieving certain EnerGuide ratings, though this changed after September 7, 2010.
houses achieving an EnerGuide rating of 85 or higher qualified for an additional $300 rebate. For homes registered on or after September 7, 2010, the program no longer offers registration fee rebates. 2.1.1 Program Theory Program Backgroun...
AI summary The 2010 New Houses (NH) program in Nova Scotia aimed to improve energy efficiency in new homes through market transformation and resource acquisition. It was administered by Conserve Nova Scotia (CNS) and involved collaboration with Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). The program required homes to achieve an EnerGuide rating of 80.5 and offered rebates for higher ratings. It included activities such as training delivery agents and energy evaluators, and engaging builders and developers.
house construction. Helping them to specify energy efficient construction practices and measures for houses will ensure long-term savings. Marketing and outreach. The program utilizes advertising directed to commercial and private builde...
AI summary The document outlines a program aimed at promoting energy-efficient construction practices in new homes. It includes marketing efforts, registration and modeling of house plans, construction activities, and evaluation of completed houses to ensure compliance with energy efficiency standards.
audit the completed house (including a blower door test) and verify the energy saving measures that were installed. Energy Evaluators input audited data into HOT2000 software and upload information to NRCan. Based on the results, the house...
AI summary The 2010 New Houses Program involves auditing completed homes with a blower door test, inputting data into HOT2000 software, and assigning an EnerGuide rating. Rebates are processed by CNS and provided to the homeowner or builder. The program assumes builder and customer support through effective outreach.
Adequate availability of Energy Evaluators. NRCan is able to train a sufficient number of Delivery Agents/Energy Evaluators to model the house plans and audit the completed house. Skills and equipment. Delivery Agents/Energy Evaluators...
AI summary The document discusses the adequacy of Energy Evaluators and the availability of materials and skills required for the program, as well as potential barriers such as lack of awareness, reluctance to change practices, and concerns about quality. It highlights the benefits of energy savings for home buyers.
program incentives (which are sent directly to the home buyers).6 Participants who are building the houses for themselves may be reluctant to make investments in more efficient measures because they may not be confident that the rebates wi...
AI summary The text discusses challenges in implementing energy efficiency programs, including reluctance among self-building participants due to rebate uncertainty, lack of availability of efficient measures, inadequate training, and restrictions on marketing homes as energy efficient. It also mentions short-term outcomes like awareness of the program and identification of energy-saving opportunities.
outreach efforts. Energy Evaluators identify energy saving opportunities. The reports from the modeling of the house plans that are provided to customers identify energy savings opportunities and help inform participants about what they...
AI summary The 2010 New Houses Program encourages energy efficiency in new homes through outreach, energy evaluations, and rebate transfers. Builders and developers are motivated to use energy-efficient materials and equipment, and rebates can be transferred to builders to reduce upfront costs for homeowners.
Home owners receive rebates and incentives. Home owners receive rebates for applicable energy efficiency measures from the provincial government and the DSM Administrator. Intermediate Outcomes Energy savings and bill reductions. Energ...
AI summary The program provides rebates and incentives to homeowners for energy efficiency measures, leading to energy savings, bill reductions, and increased awareness. Over time, the program aims to standardize energy-efficient construction practices, increase consumer demand for energy-efficient homes, and revise the Nova Scotia building code to reflect widespread adoption.
tock of energy efficient houses across Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia building code is revised. Building code in the province is revised to be consistent with the widespread adoption of the energy efficient building practices. Sustained ener...
AI summary The document outlines the impact of the New Houses Program in Nova Scotia, focusing on energy efficiency improvements, code revisions, and energy savings achieved through increased demand for energy-efficient homes, which also reduces the need for new generation plants.
NMR Evaluation—2010 New Houses Program Page 14 3 Impact Evaluation 3.1 Methodology The NMR team‘s approach to evaluating the 2010 impacts of the NH program was based on a review of the program records to assess the approach taken by the DS...
AI summary The NMR team evaluated the 2010 New Houses Program by reviewing program records and tracking data to assess savings calculations and adjust estimates. A sample of homes was used to update baseline characteristics and calculate savings using HOT2000 and REM/Rate software. Free-ridership rates were determined via a survey of 47 participants. Total tracked savings for 2010 were 1,700 MWh at the meter and 1,900 MWh at the generator.
vings estimates for 2010 were 1,700 MWh at the meter and 1,900 MWh at the generator. (Table 3-1) Savings at the generator were calculated by applying a line loss factor of 1.1188 to the meter savings. Table 3-1: Tracking Database Savings—2...
AI summary The document outlines energy savings estimates for the 2010 New Houses Program, noting 1,700 MWh at the meter and 1,900 MWh at the generator. Savings were calculated using an EnerGuide rating baseline of 73 and a line loss factor. Three homes were excluded due to not being invoiced yet.
lculations. NMR Evaluation—2010 New Houses Program Page 15 value of 611 kWh per EnerGuide point was applied to the difference in EnerGuide ratings. 11 In addition, the program savings also included a host of prescriptive measures whose sav...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 New Houses Program calculates energy savings based on EnerGuide ratings and prescriptive measures. Specific measures such as drain water heat recovery and solar domestic hot water heating systems are listed with their corresponding annual savings in kWh.
74 Programmable electronic thermostat 643 13 watt CFL compatible fixtures 43 NMR validated the prescriptive savings listed in the tracking spreadsheet through a review of the 2009 Low Income Households (LIH) report and the Ontario Power Au...
AI summary NMR validated prescriptive savings values for energy efficiency measures, adjusting the savings for programmable thermostats and CFL fixtures based on reports from 2009 and 2010. The adjusted values were found to be more conservative and consistent with other programs.
Table 3-3: Comparison of Sampled Projects vs. Other Projects Measures Sampled Projects Other Projects Sample Size 25 235 13 watt CFL compatible fixtures 72% 55% Programmable electronic thermostat 44% 19% Air source heat pump with electric...
AI summary This table compares the prevalence of various energy efficiency measures in sampled projects versus other projects. Key measures include air source heat pumps, programmable thermostats, and insulation. The sampled projects show higher adoption rates for several measures, such as 13 watt CFL compatible fixtures and programmable thermostats.
backup ETS room unit 5% ETS forced air furnace <1% Average EnerGuide rating 83.5 82.4 Indicates results that are significantly different at the 90% confidence interval 16 Larger homes often ―score‖ better than homes that have identical fea...
AI summary The 2010 New Houses Program evaluation found that larger homes scored better in EnerGuide ratings compared to smaller homes with similar features. The updated baseline home in 2010 had a higher energy consumption due to larger building components like ceiling area, wall area, and window area compared to the 2009 baseline.
the code upgrade baseline home was 26,605 kWh, while the consumption of the updated baseline home was 33,740 kWh. This represents a difference of 7,135 kWh between the two baseline homes. (Table 3-5) Table 3-5: Comparison of 2010 Baseline...
AI summary The table compares the energy consumption and insulation R-values of updated and code upgrade baseline homes in 2010. The updated home had higher insulation values and consumed more electricity (33,740 kWh) compared to the code upgrade home (26,605 kWh).
0 vs. 2009. In fact, the average electricity savings in 2010 (10,746 kWh) represented a 100% increase over the electricity savings in 2009 (5,374 kWh). NMR calculated the EnerGuide point savings by dividing the electricity savings by the d...
AI summary The text discusses the increase in electricity savings from 2009 to 2010 under the New Houses Program, noting a 100% increase in savings. NMR calculated EnerGuide point savings by dividing electricity savings by the difference in EnerGuide ratings, showing that despite a higher denominator in 2010, the increase in electricity savings led to higher EnerGuide point savings.
) Updated baseline home 74 n/a 33,740 n/a n/a Average participating home 83.5 9.5 22,994 10,746 1,131 Performing the same analysis with the code upgrade baseline home resulted in an EnerGuide rating difference of 3.5 between the average pa...
AI summary The analysis compares the energy efficiency of a code upgrade baseline home and an average participating home, showing a 3.5 EnerGuide rating difference and 3,611 kWh annual electricity savings. The savings per EnerGuide point are 1,032 kWh. These results differ from 2009 estimates due to changes in baseline home characteristics.
611 Updated baseline home 74 1,131 Code upgrade baseline home 80 1,032 NMR added the prescriptive savings estimates for each of the drain water heat recovery measures, hot water pipe insulation, programmable thermostats, and CFLs. Solar ho...
AI summary NMR adjusted prescriptive savings estimates for various energy efficiency measures, excluding solar hot water heaters and water heater tank insulation due to potential double counting. Adjustments were made to CFL and programmable thermostat savings values for consistency with other programs and more accurate impact analysis.
plied to the EnerGuide for Existing Houses program.31 Table 3-9 compares the prescriptive savings estimates applied in the program‘s tracking database to the estimates applied for our impact analysis. 30 Within our sample of 25 projects, w...
AI summary The document compares prescriptive savings estimates for the 2010 New Houses Program between the tracking database and impact analysis. It highlights discrepancies, such as double counting in some instances and differences in estimated savings, with the tracking database estimating 29% higher savings than the evaluated results.
ed in the new houses program in 2010 saved a total of 1,321 MWh at the meter. The program‘s tracking database estimated total savings at 1,702 MWh at the meter—29% higher than the evaluated savings. Table 3-10: Comparison of Detailed Track...
AI summary The 2010 New Houses Program achieved 1,321 MWh in meter savings, while the tracking database estimated 1,702 MWh—29% higher. Table 3-10 compares detailed tracking and evaluated savings estimates for various energy efficiency measures.
As of January 17, 2011, the 2010 new houses program had a total of 260 participants resulting in an estimated 1,321 MWh of gross savings at the meter and 1,478 MWh at the generator. Initial demand estimates for the new houses program were...
AI summary The 2010 new houses program had 260 participants and achieved estimated energy savings of 1,321 MWh at the meter and 1,478 MWh at the generator. Initial demand savings were calculated using an energy-to-demand ratio of 6.8, but this was validated with a ratio of 7.5. Additional demand savings from ETS units were included, resulting in total demand savings of 1,574 kW at the meter and 1,761 kW at the generator.
have been slightly inaccurate. Other factors that may have led to differences in the models include differing weather data, different water heating assumptions, and different internal calculations.37 3.6 Heat Pumps NMR conducted an analysi...
AI summary The text discusses the impact of heat pumps on EnerGuide ratings in new homes in Nova Scotia, noting that adding a heat pump can increase the rating. It also highlights that participation in the New Houses program may be driven by incentives for achieving higher EnerGuide ratings, with a significant proportion of participants installing heat pumps.
Table 3-13: Builder NH Free-ridership Stated Intent Questions Free- Question Question Responses Rider Number Score Now I would like to ask you to consider what actions you would have taken in the absence of the EnerGuide New Houses Program...
AI summary The table presents survey responses regarding builder intentions regarding the EnerGuide New Houses Program, specifically asking whether they would have postponed construction or built to a lower energy efficiency standard without the program.
0% FR4d. The EnerGuide label and designation itself 0 (DK) 25% Program Influence Score = maximum of FR4a, FR4b, FR4c, or FR4d. Table 3-15: Builder NH Free-ridership Screening and Cross-check Questions Free- Question Question Responses Ride...
AI summary The text presents a portion of a free-ridership screening questionnaire used to assess whether participants in the EnerGuide for New Houses program would have undertaken energy efficiency upgrades without the incentive. The questions focus on pre-program intentions and budget considerations.
MWh) 2,000 1,702 1,905 608 680 Demand (kW) 640 Na Na 724 810 NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page 33 4 Process Evaluation 4.1 Methodology The 2010 process evaluation of the NH program was based on a telephone survey of...
AI summary The 2010 process evaluation of the EnerGuide for New Houses Program involved telephone surveys of builders and homeowners, as well as in-depth interviews with program staff and a delivery agent. The evaluation covered program delivery, tracking, and participant satisfaction.
ing Error Table 4-1 shows the estimated population, sample size and sampling error for the telephone survey. For the participant survey, the sampling error was +10.88% at the 90% confidence level. Table 4-1: Sample Size and Sampling Error...
AI summary The 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program was administered by Conserve Nova Scotia, with rebates provided for energy efficiency upgrades. Three Delivery Agents and eight Energy Advisors were involved in the program, which included evaluating building plans and verifying completed upgrades.
upgrade options. Upon completion of construction, the Energy Advisor verified the upgrades that had been completed and notified the homeowners about which rebates that they were eligible to receive. 4.3 Program Communication and Delivery I...
AI summary The document discusses the NH program's communication and delivery challenges, including training for building inspectors, confusion due to changes in support from Natural Resources Canada, and efforts by service providers to promote the program. Respondents learned about the program through various channels, including contractors and the Nova Scotia Power website.
0, two of four builders surveyed had learned about the program from contractors, one had learned about it from the Nova Scotia Power website, and one had learned about it from an unspecified source.43 42 By contrast, in 2009 the program ha...
AI summary The 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program was primarily learned about by homeowners through builders, newspaper ads, and home shows. A smaller number of builders learned about the program from Nova Scotia Power and other sources. The survey sample was small, which may have affected the results.
1 1 Program Delivery Agent: Nova Scotia Home Builders 8 8 α Association R-2000 Manager 1 1 2 α Nova Scotia/Ideal new home 1 1 2 α show Letter (unspecified source) 1 1 Nova Scotia government 1 1 website Conserve Nova Scotia website 1 1 Prev...
AI summary The document presents a table summarizing responses from various entities regarding program delivery and experience with EnerGuide. It includes data on the Nova Scotia Home Builders Association, Nova Scotia/Ideal new home, and other unspecified sources, highlighting their involvement in the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program.
level. NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page 36 4.5 Homeowner Involvement in Decision-Making Homeowners were asked a series of questions regarding their involvement in the decision to participate in the program and the...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program shows that about half of the surveyed homeowners became involved in the program during the initial planning stage of their homes, while slightly under one-third became involved after equipment installation.
of 29) reported that they themselves had made these decisions, nearly 44 However, the program may have had limits to such early involvement given that some houses are built on speculation. NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Progr...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program indicates that homeowners were primarily responsible for decisions regarding energy efficiency measures, with some joint decisions made with builders. The program faced limitations in early involvement due to speculative housing construction.
Joint decision (homeowner and builder) 1 9 This also includes owners who built their own homes. 4.6 Motivations and Barriers 4.6.1 Participant Perspectives The survey asked builders and owners about their motivations and barriers to partic...
AI summary The survey explored motivations and barriers for builders and homeowners participating in the EnerGuide for New Houses program. Builders were motivated by energy efficiency, helping homeowners save energy, and receiving rebates. About half of the homeowners participated to save on energy costs, while others were interested in rebates or had already planned energy-efficient measures.
omeowner sample. NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page 38
AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program, focusing on its implementation and outcomes.
Table 4-6: Most Important Reason for Participating (Base: Builders, owners who made the decision to participate; multiple responses) 2009 2010 Motivations Builders Homeowners Total Builders Homeowners Total Sample size 13 2 15 4 21 25 To h...
AI summary The table presents the motivations of builders and homeowners for participating in an energy efficiency program in 2009 and 2010. Key reasons include saving on energy costs, receiving rebates, evaluating home energy efficiency, and supporting environmental goals.
1 1 energy efficiency programs Energy efficiency 3 1 4 Already using many components/practices of the 1 1 program For expert advice about measures to install or how to make home 1 1 more energy efficient Option through R2000 1 1 Make house...
AI summary The text discusses energy efficiency programs, including the R2000 program and the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program, highlighting their use as marketing tools and for expert advice on home energy efficiency.
NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page 39
AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program, focusing on its implementation and effectiveness in promoting energy efficiency in new residential construction in Nova Scotia.
Builders‘ secondary reasons for participating in NH program were to find out how energy efficient the new houses would be, to save energy, and to help the environment. Four homeowners reported that they had wanted to help save energy and t...
AI summary Builders and homeowners participated in the NH program for various reasons, including wanting to save energy, help the environment, and evaluate the energy efficiency of new homes. The data comes from a survey of builders and homeowners in 2009 and 2010.
I was thinking about/planning to get energy efficient 1 1 measures in my house anyway Comfort in the home 2 1 Make houses that reduce 1 1 2 energy costs/bills Get rebates 1 1 Make house more attractive to 1 1 potential buyers Request by to...
AI summary The text discusses respondents' reasons for wanting to implement energy-efficient measures in their homes, including reducing energy costs, increasing home value, and receiving rebates. It also mentions that no builders had concerns about participating in the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program, while one homeowner was concerned about the costs.
21 25 Had concerns about NH 1 1 1 1 prior to participation 4.6.2 Delivery Agent Perspectives Starting in January 2010, Nova Scotia building code required all new homes to have an equivalent minimum EnerGuide rating of 80. Builders or homeo...
AI summary The document discusses the motivations and barriers to participation in the New Homes (NH) program in Nova Scotia. Builders and homeowners were motivated by the requirement to achieve a minimum EnerGuide rating of 80, but some were confused or put off by the performance-based program. Program staff noted that builders were less motivated by rebates since they were received by homeowners, and confusion arose due to the discontinuation of EEH support.
d thought that it had ended because NRCan had ceased support for EEH. However, as a result of lost EEH business, service providers were more aggressive in promoting the NH program. 46 Homeowners typically receive the rebates. As the Progra...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program highlights that the Harmonized Sales Tax increase from 13% to 15% in 2010 affected new home building activity. Most builders and homeowners reported that energy efficiency measures improved comfort and reduced energy bills significantly.
table. All four builders and about two-thirds of the homeowners (28 of 43) thought that the energy efficiency measures installed through the program would result in significantly lower energy bills. Table 4-9: Impact of Measures on Comfort...
AI summary A survey of builders and homeowners indicates that most believe energy efficiency measures installed through the program will significantly lower energy bills, with a majority of respondents (builders and homeowners) reporting increased home comfort.
3 3 Don‘t know / refused 1 3 4 12 12 4.8 Program Incentives and Measure Installation Decision 4.8.1 Recommended Measures Not Installed The 2010 survey asked respondents to indicate if there were any upgrades recommended in the initial revi...
AI summary The 2010 survey found that one builder and five homeowners opted not to install recommended energy efficiency measures, with cost being the primary reason cited. The measures included in-floor heating, solar domestic water heaters, skylights, and solar panels.
Page 42 important reason for not installing these measures, these homeowners most frequently indicated that the measures were too expensive (4).48 Table 4-10: Decided not to Install Some Recommended Measures (Base: Builders and owners invo...
AI summary The text discusses reasons why homeowners decided not to install recommended energy efficiency measures, with cost being the primary factor. It also highlights that prior to the NH program, few builders and homeowners planned to build to high EnerGuide ratings, but after the program, more did so, indicating the program's influence.
rebates and technical assistance provided by the program. 48 Note that skylights would likely reduce the energy efficiency of the house, and thus the EnerGuide rating, rather than increase it. NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses P...
AI summary The text discusses the impact of skylights on the energy efficiency of a house, noting that they would likely reduce the EnerGuide rating rather than increase it. It references the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program and is associated with Nova Scotia Power.
ather than increase it. NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page 43
AI summary The text references the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program and mentions Nova Scotia Power (NMR) in the context of an evaluation.
Table 4-11: Prior Plans and Program Influence (Base: Builders and owners involved in decisions to participate) Intention to build house with 2009 2010 EnerGuide rating of 80 or higher Builders Homeowners Total Builders Homeowners Total Sam...
AI summary The table presents data on builder and homeowner intentions to build homes with specific EnerGuide ratings in 2009 and 2010, as well as the influence of rebates and technical assistance on final EnerGuide ratings. The data highlights the impact of programs on energy efficiency in housing.
11 3 23 26 Lower 7 2 9 1 17 18 Don‘t know 1 1 2 3 3 None of the builders included in the survey had achieved an actual EnerGuide rating of 83 or higher, so their intentions to build to this level of efficiency prior to participating was no...
AI summary The survey found that none of the builders had achieved an EnerGuide rating of 83 or higher, and few homeowners indicated they would have postponed building by more than a year without the NH program. Most builders believed their budgets could have covered the full cost of energy-efficient upgrades, even without rebates.
5 38 No 1 5 6 Don‘t Know 3 3 The 2010 survey asked respondents about the influence of various elements of the NH program on their decision to build to the EnerGuide rating. Two out of the four builders and nearly one- half of the homeowner...
AI summary The 2010 survey examined the influence of the NH program's elements on achieving EnerGuide ratings. Builders and homeowners found information from building plan examinations, rebates, feedback from plan reviews, and the EnerGuide label to be influential in their decisions.
plans as extremely or very influential. Two of four builders and about one-half of homeowners (23 of 43) rated the EnerGuide label and designation itself as extremely or very influential. (Table 4-14) Table 4-14: Rating of Program Elements...
AI summary The EnerGuide label and designation were rated as extremely or very influential by two of four builders and about half of homeowners. The data from 2009 and 2010 show that the label had a significant impact on decision-making regarding building to EnerGuide ratings.
provided in the appendix. (Table B-1) NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page 45 4.8.3 Awareness and Influence of Nova Scotia Energy Efficiency Requirements The survey asked builders about the energy efficiency requiremen...
AI summary The survey found that all four builders were aware of the 2010 Nova Scotia building code energy efficiency requirements and had working knowledge of them. Two of the four builders reported receiving training on energy efficient construction practices, with one citing the Nova Scotia Home Builders Association as the source.
d not know where they had received their training. Table 4-16: Training on energy efficient construction practices (Base: Builders) Received training on energy efficient construction practices Builders Sample size 4 Yes 2 No 2 NMR Evaluati...
AI summary The 2010 survey found that among four builders, two used prescriptive measures to comply with the new building code, one used the EnerGuide Rating, and one was unsure of their method. Only two of the four builders had received training on energy-efficient construction practices.
Rating 1 R-2000 Don‘t Know 1 Three builders indicated that before the code went into effect, 100 percent of their houses were constructed to meet or exceed the standards now required by the new code. One builder indicated one percent met o...
AI summary The document discusses the impact of a new building code on construction practices and the value of the New Homes (NH) program. Builders reported minimal changes in practices, with most already meeting new standards. The NH program was highly valued by both builders and homeowners, with most rating it as adding high value.
h value ratings to the NH program. NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page 47 Table 4-18: Rating of Program as Immense/High Value (Base: Builders, owners) 2009 2010 Builders Homeowners Builders Homeowners Sample size 13 1...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses program indicates that occupants perceive high value from the program, with 34% rating it as immense or high value. Builders and homeowners showed lower levels of perceived value, with smaller sample sizes and less consistent responses.
on with program elements such as the first review, ease of review process, and the report received about house plan‘s current efficiency; they did not specify the reasons for their dissatisfaction. NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Hou...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program highlights satisfaction levels among builders and homeowners regarding program elements like the first review of house plans, scheduling, and the report on house plan efficiency. However, some dissatisfaction was noted without specific reasons provided.
2 13 4 16 20 current efficiency Sample size 12 5 17 4 28 32 Final energy audit, overall 12 3 15 4 24 28 Overall rebates provided by program 10 3 13 4 23 27 Recommendations for energy efficient 10 2 12 4 22 26 measures Scheduling and timing...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program highlights participant perspectives, noting that some builders and homeowners felt there were energy efficiency upgrades not covered by the program. Two builders and ten homeowners indicated a desire for additional measures to be included.
12α Don‘t know 5 5 α Significantly different from the 2009 sample at the 90% confidence level. Two of the four builders provided suggestions for additional upgrades they would like to see covered by the program. One indicated that he would...
AI summary The survey highlights feedback from builders and homeowners regarding the EnerGuide for New Houses program. Builders requested more recommendations for achieving higher EnerGuide ratings and coverage of electric hot water and in-floor heating. Homeowners requested higher rebates for solar power and heat pumps, as well as more information and advertising about the program.
l rebate. It can get confusing.” NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page 50 Two homeowners said that they would like higher or more accurate efficiency ratings. Two homeowners wanted a faster certification process and two...
AI summary Homeowners expressed a desire for higher or more accurate efficiency ratings, faster certification processes, and increased support for the New Homes (NH) program. They also emphasized the need for continued and higher rebates, increased program awareness, and greater clarity regarding the program.
Table 4-21: Recommendations for improvement (Base: Builders, owners; multiple responses) 2009 2010 Builders Homeowners Builders Homeowners Sample size 13 10 4 43 More marketing/advertising 1 2 3 Make process simpler (e.g. consolidate rebat...
AI summary The table presents recommendations from builders and homeowners for improving energy efficiency programs, including more marketing, simplifying processes, providing accurate efficiency ratings, and increasing communication with builders.
1 Encourage ratings for all existing homes when they 5 are sold. 4.11.2 Program Staff Recommendations Program Staff offered the following program improvement recommendations: Provide more information on HOT2000 and how to track or adjust...
AI summary Program staff recommended improving the EnerGuide for New Houses Program by providing more information on HOT2000, addressing potential consequences of raising minimum ratings, and offering builders information packages to assist customers.
e information to their customers. NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page 51
AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program, focusing on its implementation and effectiveness in promoting energy efficiency in new residential construction.
customer attention to the program. The ductless heat pump measure was added to the program. The program builds toward future increases in building code requirements. The program showed that building energy efficient homes was feasible an...
AI summary The 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program aimed to promote energy efficiency in new homes. Strengths include increased customer awareness and market transformation through industry collaboration. Weaknesses include delays in paperwork submission by builders due to lack of monetary incentives and uncertainty around the program's future.
ple, 19 of 43 were between ages 35 and 44, seven were between ages 45 and 54, and nine between ages 55 and 64. Three homeowners were over 65 years old and four were between ages 25 and 34. (Table 5-9) Table 5-9: Respondent Age Owners 2009...
AI summary The 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program evaluation shows that 31 out of 43 homeowners had college or university degrees, indicating a higher level of education among participants. The age distribution of respondents was also analyzed, with the majority aged between 35 and 44.
43 Male 8 27 Female 2 16 NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page A1 Appendix A: Interview Guides PARTICIPANT QUESTIONNAIRE: NSPI ENH PROGRAM Draft: July 22, 2010 Hello may I please speak with [INSERT NAME]? 1 Yes [GOTO IN...
AI summary This document is a participant questionnaire for the EnerGuide for New Houses (ENH) program, conducted by NMR Group on behalf of Conserve Nova Scotia and Nova Scotia Power. The questionnaire includes a script for contacting participants and an introduction explaining the purpose of the evaluation.
y.‖ GOTO INTRODUCTION] INTRODUCTION Hello, my name is _, from NMR Group. I am calling on behalf of the EnerGuide for New Houses program from Conserve Nova Scotia and Nova Scotia Power. 1. We understand you participated in the EnerGuide for...
AI summary The text is an introduction to a survey conducted by the NMR Group on behalf of the EnerGuide for New Houses program. It seeks to confirm participation in the program by a respondent at a specific address and provides information about the program's purpose and benefits.
icipated in the EnerGuide program?‖] Yes [ASK TO SPEAK TO THEM AND REPEAT INTRODUCTION] No [THANK & TERMINATE] Refused [THANK AND TERMINATE] NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page A2 ―I‘m NOT calling about your electrici...
AI summary This text outlines a survey script for participants in the EnerGuide for New Houses rebate program. It includes instructions for conducting the survey, handling responses, and navigating through various questions based on the participant's role and experience.
gh the EnerGuide New Homes program? 1. Yes 2. No / Not building any houses through program – SKIP TO Q7 8. Don't know – SKIP TO Q7 9. Refused– SKIP TO Q7 NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page A3 5. For any houses that w...
AI summary The text includes survey questions related to the EnerGuide for New Homes program, asking participants if they have built homes through the program, had an Energy Advisor review initial plans, and conducted final audits. The questions also inquire about how participants first learned about the program.
't know 9. Refused Section 1 - How Learned about Program/Reasons for Participating 7. How did you first learn about the EnerGuide for New Houses program? [DO NOT READ. ACCEPT MULTIPLE] 1. (Nova Scotia Power Bill insert) 2. (A utility other...
AI summary The text contains survey questions about how respondents learned about the EnerGuide for New Houses program and their reasons for participating. It lists various channels through which individuals became aware of the program, including utility bills, websites, and word of mouth.
ipating in the program? [SAME LIST AS IN Q9 below; ACCEPT ONE RESPONSE. PROBE FOR SPECIFIC REASONS] 9. Were there any other reasons? [DO NOT READ. ACCEPT MULTIPLE; PROBE FOR SPECIFIC REASONS] 1. (To make house that would save buyers / home...
AI summary The text outlines survey questions related to participation in the EnerGuide for New Houses program, including reasons for participation and non-participation. It lists various motivations such as energy cost savings, environmental benefits, and compliance with building codes.
CEPT ONE RESPONSE; PROBE FOR SPECIFIC REASONS] NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page A5 11. Were there any other reasons? [DO NOT READ. ACCEPT MULTIPLE; PROBE FOR SPECIFIC REASONS] 1. (That my ―bottom line‖ would suffer...
AI summary The document contains survey questions related to the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program, focusing on participants' reasons for not participating and their concerns about the program. It also includes a section on satisfaction with the program.
99. Refused [IF Q4 = 2, 8 OR 9 SKIP Q17] NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page A7
AI summary The text refers to a refusal and skips a question based on a conditional statement. It mentions the '2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program' and includes a reference to 'NMR'.
17. Now I‘m going to ask you about your experience with specific aspects of the EnerGuide Program for New Houses. For each one, please tell me if you are very satisfied, satisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, dissatisfied, or very...
AI summary The text outlines a survey asking respondents to rate their satisfaction with various aspects of the EnerGuide Program for New Houses, including reviews of house plans, the competence of Energy Advisors, the audit process, and rebate provisions.
m overall 1 2 3 4 5 9 k. The rebates provided by the program for 1 2 3 4 5 9 electric space and water heating measures 18. [IF Q17a = 4 or 5; OTHERWISE SKIP TO Q20] You indicated that you were not satisfied with the first review of the hou...
AI summary The text outlines survey questions related to customer dissatisfaction with energy efficiency reviews and upgrades, focusing on reasons for dissatisfaction with initial house plan reviews and final energy audits, as well as upgrades not installed.
[RECORD VERBATIM - ALLOW FOR SIX OPEN END RESPONSES] 1. Air source electric heat pump (ANY HEAT PUMP) 2. Solar domestic water heater (ANY SOLAR WATER HEATER) 3. (OTHER) 8. (Don‘t know) 9. (REFUSED) INCENT3. What is the ONE most important r...
AI summary The text contains survey questions related to energy efficiency measures, including heat pumps and solar water heaters, and explores reasons for not installing recommended measures. It also includes a question about pre-existing plans for energy-efficient home construction, specifically targeting an EnerGuide Rating of 80 or higher.
ild houses that achieve a level of energy efficiency similar to the level required to earn an EnerGuide Rating of 80 or higher? 1 Yes 2 No 8 (Don‘t know) 9 (Refused) FR2. [IF ENERGUIDE RATING FROM FILE IS 83 OR HIGHER]: The house you built...
AI summary The text asks participants about their energy efficiency plans and the impact of the EnerGuide New Houses Program on their construction decisions, including whether they would have postponed building the house or achieved a lower energy efficiency level without the program.
ad not participated in the program FR2ci. [If yes: Would you have built the house to achieve a (i. Slightly, ii. Somewhat, iii. Significantly) lower level of energy efficiency? ] FR3. According to our records, you received [$XX - READ FROM...
AI summary The text contains survey questions aimed at understanding the influence of the EnerGuide New Houses program on homebuilders' decisions to improve energy efficiency. It asks about participation, budget impact, and the influence of program incentives, information, and feedback on energy efficiency improvements.
2 3 4 5 9 from review of home no extremely DK plans influence influential NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page A11 d. The EnerGuide label 1 2 3 4 5 9 and designation itself no extremely DK influence influential Now I w...
AI summary The text discusses questions about awareness and understanding of recent energy efficiency changes in Nova Scotia's building code, including training received and methods for compliance, such as EnerGuide Rating and R-2000.
3. R-2000 4. (don‘t know) NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page A12 FR10. Before the code went into effect, about what percentage of your houses were constructed to meet or exceed the standards now required by the new c...
AI summary The text includes survey questions related to the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program, asking about compliance with new building codes, changes in building practices, and the impact of energy efficiency measures on comfort and energy bills.
2. No 8. Don‘t know 9. Refused NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page A13 24. Overall how would you rate the value of the EnerGuide for New Houses program to your company? On a scale from one to five, where one is LITTLE...
AI summary The text presents a survey evaluating the EnerGuide for New Houses program, asking respondents to rate its value to their company and customers, identify uncovered energy efficiency upgrades, and provide recommendations for program improvements. It also collects firmographic data such as the number of full-time employees.
re employed by your company/organization? 1 Fewer than 5 2 5 to 9 3 10 to 19 4 20 to 49 5 50 to 99 6 100 to 249 7 250 or More 99 Don‘t know NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page A14 30. How many years has your company b...
AI summary The text includes survey questions directed at company representatives and homeowners regarding their involvement in energy efficiency programs, specifically the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program. Questions cover employment size, years in the residential homebuilding industry, and the number of housing units completed in Nova Scotia and outside of it.
ESTIONS Section 9 – Screening 34. Which of the following statements would you say best describes when you became involved in the decisions about the energy efficiency of your home? Would you say.. 1. You were involved from the initial plan...
AI summary The text outlines a questionnaire section regarding homebuyers' involvement in energy efficiency decisions during home construction, specifically focusing on participation in the EnerGuide for New Houses program. It asks when individuals became involved in these decisions and who made the decisions regarding participation and energy efficiency measures.
Page A16 Section 10 - How Learned about Program/Reasons for Participating 37. How did you first learn about the EnerGuide for New Houses program? [DO NOT READ. ACCEPT MULTIPLE] 1. (Home Builder) 2. (Nova Scotia Power Bill insert) 3. (A uti...
AI summary This section asks respondents how they learned about the EnerGuide for New Houses program and the reasons for their participation. It includes multiple methods of learning about the program and asks for the most important reason for participating.
ating in the program? [SAME LIST AS IN Q39 below] [ACCEPT ONE RESPONSE; PROBE FOR SPECIFIC REASONS\ 39. Were there any other reasons? [DO NOT READ. ACCEPT MULTIPLE; PROBE FOR SPECIFIC REASONS] 1. (To have a house that would save on energy...
AI summary The text includes survey questions about participants' motivations for joining an energy efficiency program and their concerns before participation, with a focus on reasons such as saving on energy costs, receiving expert advice, and environmental benefits. The Nova Scotia Power (NMR) is referenced in the document.
know) 99. (Refused) 40. Before participating, did you have any concerns about taking part in the program? 1. Yes 2. No 8. Don‘t know 9. Refused 41. [IF Q40 = 1] What were those concerns? [DO NOT READ. ACCEPT ALL RESPONSES] 1. (That my ―bot...
AI summary The text includes survey questions about participant concerns and satisfaction with the EnerGuide for New Houses Program. It asks about concerns before participation and overall satisfaction with the program, including reasons for dissatisfaction.
CEPT ONE RESPONSE–SAME LIST AS Q44] NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page A18 44. Were there any other reasons you were dissatisfied? [PROBE FOR SPECIFIC REASONS. ACCEPT MULTIPLE] 1. (The review of the plans took too lo...
AI summary The text outlines dissatisfaction reasons with the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program, including delays, rebate issues, eligibility concerns, and program coverage. It also asks respondents to evaluate specific aspects of the program.
ASK ONLY f thru k) VS S Neither Dissat V.Dissat DK/Ref a. The First Review of the house plans, overall 1 2 3 4 5 9 (This was the review of the house plans evaluating the house‘s energy efficiency with recommended measures.) b. Scheduling a...
AI summary The text presents a survey evaluating customer satisfaction with the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program, focusing on aspects like the energy efficiency review process, the competence of Energy Advisors, the clarity of reports, and the rebates provided for energy-efficient measures, particularly for electric space and water heating.
the program overall 1 2 3 4 5 9 k. The rebates provided by the program for 1 2 3 4 5 9 electric space and water heating measures 46. [IF Q45a = 4 or 5; OTHERWISE SKIP TO Q48] You indicated that you were not satisfied with the first review...
AI summary The text includes survey questions related to customer dissatisfaction with energy efficiency reviews and audits, as well as inquiries about measures not installed following initial house plan reviews. It also references the Nova Scotia Power (NMR) and the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program.
2. No 8. (Don‘t know) 9. (Refused) NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page A20 INCENT21. [IF INCENT20 = YES] What measures were those? [RECORD VERBATIM - ALLOW FOR SIX OPEN END RESPONSES – DO NOT READ] 1. Air source elect...
AI summary The text outlines questions from an evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program, focusing on incentives for energy-efficient measures, reasons for not installing recommended measures, and pre-program plans for building or buying energy-efficient homes.
ked with anyone about the EnerGuide for New Houses NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page A21 program did you have specific plans to build this house to achieve an energy efficiency level similar to what is required to e...
AI summary The text presents survey questions regarding participation in the EnerGuide for New Houses program, including whether respondents planned to achieve an EnerGuide Rating of 83 or higher, the impact of the program on energy efficiency levels, and whether financial incentives influenced their ability to afford energy-efficient upgrades.
a Power, could your budget have accommodated the full cost of the energy efficient upgrades incorporated into your home including the incentive? 1. Yes 2. No 3. (Don‘t know) FR16. How influential were the following elements to your decisio...
AI summary The text includes survey questions about the influence of various program elements on a homeowner's decision to build a highly energy-efficient home with an EnerGuide Rating of 83. The survey asks about the influence of incentives, information, feedback, and the EnerGuide label.
2 3 4 5 9 no extremely DK and designation influence influential itself Section 14 - Impact of measures on comfort level and value of the program to customers 50. Do you think the energy efficiency measures installed through the program hav...
AI summary The text presents survey questions assessing the impact of energy efficiency measures on home comfort and energy bill reduction, as well as customer perceptions of the value of the EnerGuide for New Houses program and recommendations for improvement.
gram? [PROBE FOR SPECIFIC UPGRADES; ACCEPT MULTIPLE] Section 16 - Recommendations for program improvements 55. Do you have any recommendations for improving the EnerGuide for New Houses program? NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses...
AI summary The text outlines a section of a program evaluation focusing on recommendations for improving the EnerGuide for New Houses program, followed by demographic questions related to residence type, bedroom count, home ownership, electricity bill payment, and home occupancy.
8. (Refused) NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page A26 65. [DO NOT READ] Gender 1. Male 2. Female [READ: THAT IS ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE FOR YOU. THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO RESPOND TO THIS SURVEY.] NMR Evaluation...
AI summary The text includes a survey and interview guide related to the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program. It outlines the structure of the interview, including questions about staff roles, program responsibilities, and interactions with delivery agents and partners.
Guide New Homes program i. Brian Hayes at Conserve Nova Scotia ii. Delivery agents 1. Sustainable Housing and Education Consultants – 50% NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page A28
AI summary The document discusses the Guide New Homes program, mentioning Brian Hayes from Conserve Nova Scotia and Sustainable Housing and Education Consultants as delivery agents. It also references the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program and Nova Scotia Power (NMR).
. Sustainable Housing and Education Consultants – 50% NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page A28
AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program by Sustainable Housing and Education Consultants, with Nova Scotia Power (NMR) involved in the process.
2. Nova Scotia Home Builders‘ Association – 50% c. Low Income REAP i. Kate McDonald at Conserve Nova Scotia ii. Delivery agents 1. MJM Energy 2. Clean NS 3. Trinity Maintenance Solutions 4. ACAP Cape Breton iii. Low income outreach agent [...
AI summary The document discusses the implementation and evaluation of energy efficiency programs, including interactions with various stakeholders such as the Nova Scotia Home Builders‘ Association and low-income outreach agents. It explores program goals, communication challenges, and the effectiveness of initiatives like the EnerGuide New and Existing Homes Programs.
g Now, turning to the EnerGuide New Homes Program / Now, turning to the EnerGuide Existing Homes Program 8. Does the program have an explicit program theory and logic model? 9. In general, how would you characterize the overall goals of th...
AI summary The discussion focuses on the EnerGuide New Homes Program and its program theory, logic model, and overall goals. It asks whether the program is primarily a Resource Acquisition program, a Market Transformation program, or a combination of both, and why.
formation program, where the focus is on changing practices and building adoption, and ultimately effect changes in NS provincial energy standards? Or is it a combination of the two? Why?
AI summary The text questions whether an energy efficiency program is focused on changing practices and building adoption, changing provincial energy standards, or a combination of both, and seeks to understand the rationale behind the approach.
ticipate in and promote the program g. Characteristics of target customers that make them the appropriate target for the program h. Customer energy usage and operational characteristics that will result in the achievement of program goals...
AI summary The document outlines questions for evaluating the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program, focusing on key program targets, their motivations, barriers to participation, and changes to the program over time.
far, what are the most important improvements that still need to be made to the program? 25. Are there any other program issues we have not discussed that you would like to mention? NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page...
AI summary The document outlines a list of individuals and groups to be interviewed as part of the evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program, including delivery agents and energy advisors from both new and existing programs, as well as outreach agents and representatives from Low Income REAP.
Page A32 Interview Guide for EnerGuide for New Houses Delivery Agents Primary Contact Date: Name: Organization: Introduction: [This interview should take about 30 minutes]
AI summary This document provides an interview guide for EnerGuide for New Houses delivery agents, outlining a 30-minute interview process to gather information from primary contacts.
Your comments are confidential. By the way, if I ask you about areas you don‘t know about, please feel free to tell me and we will move on. For transcription purposes we will be recording this call. Do you have any questions before we star...
AI summary The text outlines a series of questions aimed at gathering information about an individual's role and experience with the EnerGuide for New Houses Program, including their responsibilities, training, and perceptions of the program's goals and effectiveness.
rganizations and individuals do you primarily interact with for this program? What is the nature of these interactions? How frequently are you in contact with them? [PROBE IF NOT MENTIONED: How frequent are you in contact with Jordan Dorey...
AI summary The text asks about the primary organizations and individuals interacted with for the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program, the nature of these interactions, and their frequency. It also probes about interactions with Jordan Dorey.
uent are you in contact with Jordan Dorey, the program NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page A33
AI summary The text references an evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program, which focuses on energy efficiency in residential construction. It mentions Jordan Dorey as a contact person for the program.
manager at Nova Scotia Power? What is the nature of these interactions? How frequently are you in contact with Brian Hayes, the program manager at Conserve Nova Scotia? What is the nature of these interactions? Do you have any contacts wit...
AI summary The text outlines a series of questions regarding interactions between program managers, delivery agents, and other organizations involved in energy efficiency programs. It explores the frequency and nature of these interactions, potential efficiencies, and challenges in communication and collaboration.
fic barriers to communication or collaboration with others involved in the program, such as turf issues or bureaucratic red tape? Are there any other overall issues with communication, or opportunities for improvement? 12. Describe how you...
AI summary The document asks about communication barriers, payment processes, and data tracking and reporting for the EnerGuide for New Houses Program. It seeks insights into challenges, opportunities for improvement, and the frequency and form of data submission.
h of your organization‘s effort for the EnerGuide for NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page A34 New Homes Program is spent on fulfilling data tracking requirements specifically for electric measures rebated by Nova Scot...
AI summary The text includes a series of questions directed at the Nova Scotia Home Builders' Association (NSHBA) regarding the EnerGuide for New Houses Program, focusing on data tracking, program management, and program delivery processes. It explores concerns about the lack of a dedicated program manager and the efficiency of data collection and communication.
ess; for example, how long does it take to complete the initial EnerGuide rating, provide information to the customer, make changes to plans, complete construction, receive rebate checks? 18. Are there any factors that inhibit your ability...
AI summary The text outlines a series of questions related to the delivery process of the EnerGuide for New Houses Program, including the time required for various steps, factors affecting program delivery, the impact of Nova Scotia Power's involvement, customer behavior post-EnerGuide rating, and effects on equipment vendors.
es of equipment vendors? IF YES: In what way? NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page A35
AI summary The document text references the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program and includes a question about equipment vendors. It appears to be part of a regulatory proceeding related to energy efficiency programs.
22. In general, which parts of the program process do you think work particularly well? Why? Which parts work less well? Why? 23. Do you have any other suggestions for improving the program delivery process? Builder Issues 24. How aware an...
AI summary The text outlines a series of questions aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of a program, focusing on builder and customer awareness, participation, and suggestions for improvement. It seeks feedback on which aspects of the program process work well or poorly and explores ways to enhance outreach and engagement.
keeps customers from participating in the program? NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page A36 34. What impact, if any, has the entry of Nova Scotia Power into the program had on customer awareness and/or response to the...
AI summary The evaluation questions focus on customer awareness, satisfaction, and feedback regarding the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program, including the impact of Nova Scotia Power's involvement and the program's strengths and weaknesses.
n for an energy advisor? NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page B1 Appendix B: Detailed Tables The following table provides a detailed view of Table 4-14 in the report.
AI summary The document text refers to an evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program and includes an appendix with detailed tables, specifically referencing Table 4-14 from the report.
Table B-1: Importance of Program Elements in Achieving Rating (Base: Builders, owners) 2009 2010 Rating: 5= ‘extremely Rating: 5= ‘extremely influential’ influential’ and 1 = ‘no influence’ and 1 = ‘no influence’ Builders n 5 4 3 2 1 DK n...
AI summary The table presents data on the importance of various program elements in achieving EnerGuide ratings from the perspectives of builders and homeowners in 2009 and 2010, with ratings ranging from 5 (extremely influential) to 1 (no influence).
3 2 1 DK n 5 4 3 2 1 DK Influence- Importance of information/advice 9 1 1 3 2 1 1 43 9 11 10 3 8 2 from energy audit on EnerGuide rating Influence- Importance of incentives/rebates from 9 2 2 4 1 43 6 13 7 6 9 2 EnerGuide program Feedback...
AI summary The text presents survey data on the influence of various factors related to the EnerGuide program, including the importance of energy audit information, incentives/rebates, feedback from home plan reviews, and the EnerGuide label. The data shows responses rated on a scale from 1 to 5, with 5 being 'extremely influential' and 1 being 'no influence'. The results indicate a significant difference from the 2009 sample at the 90% confidence level.
nerGuide label and designation itself 47 14 11 7 6 6 2 α Significantly different from the 2009 sample at the 90% confidence level. NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page B2 The following table provides a detailed view of...
AI summary This document provides an evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program, including a detailed view of Table 4-18 from the report. It includes statistical data showing significant differences from the 2009 sample at the 90% confidence level.
NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page B2 The following table provides a detailed view of Table 4-18 in the report. Table B-2: Value of Program (Base: Builders, owners) 2009 2010 Rating: 5= ‘immense value’ Rating: 5= ‘im...
AI summary The document presents a table evaluating the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program, showing responses from builders, owners, and homeowners on the program's value, with ratings from 5 (immense value) to 0 (little value). The data includes responses from 2009 and 2010, with some responses marked as 'don’t know' or 'refused'.
2 1 refused n 5 4 3 2 1 refused Value to 10 3 5 1 1 43 12 22 7 1 1 occupants NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page B3 The following table provides a detailed view of Table 4-19 in the report.
AI summary The text discusses the evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program, referencing a detailed table that provides an in-depth view of Table 4-19 from the report.
Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page B3 The following table provides a detailed view of Table 4-19 in the report.
AI summary The document provides an evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program, referencing a detailed table from the report (Table 4-19).
Builders 13 7 4 1 1 4 1 3 review Homeowners 5 1 3 1 21 10 6 2 1 2 Competence of Energy Builders 13 9 3 1 4 2 2 Advisor Homeowners 5 2 1 1 1 21 10 6 1 1 - 3 Builders 13 8 5 4 1 3 Ease of review process Homeowners 5 2 2 1 21 9 7 1 1 1 2 Repo...
AI summary The table presents data on builder and homeowner responses regarding various aspects of energy efficiency measures and the review process. It includes metrics such as competence of the energy advisor, ease of the review process, and recommendations for energy-efficient measures.
4 1 2 1 with measures installed Homeowners 5 2 1 1 1 28 8 11 2 1 1 5 Builders 12 4 8 4 1 3 Final energy audit, overall Homeowners 5 2 1 1 1 28 10 14 0 2 1 1 Scheduling and timing of Builders 12 5 6 1 3 1 audit Homeowners 5 1 2 1 28 14 9 1...
AI summary This document presents the final report of an impact and process evaluation for the Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program 2010, submitted to Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation. It includes data on the number of measures installed, energy audits conducted, scheduling, and rebates provided by the program.
tion: Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program 2010 February 25, 2011 Final Report Submitted to: Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation Submitted by: NMR Group, Inc. Principal Investigators: Rohit Vaidya David Barclay NMR Group, Inc....
AI summary This document is a final report evaluating the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program submitted by NMR Group, Inc. to Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation. It includes the principal investigators and contact information for the firm.
50-2 Howard Street, Somerville, MA 02144 Phone: (617) 284-6230 Fax: (617) 284-6239 www.nmrgroupinc.com Evaluation of 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program
AI summary The document provides an evaluation of the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program, which aimed to promote the installation of energy-efficient lighting products.
PACE ............................................................................................................ 42 TABLE 4-25: FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT WORKERS ....................................................................................
AI summary This report evaluates the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program, conducted by NMR Group, Inc. for Nova Scotia Power and Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation. It includes process and impact evaluations, comparing results from 2008, 2009, and 2010. The evaluation involved interviews and surveys to assess program implementation and outcomes.
s with DSM Administrator staff and the implementation contractors, as well as telephone surveys with program participants. All the interview guides and survey instruments were developed by NMR staff. Impact Evaluation Findings The DI progr...
AI summary The DI program has been performing well, exceeding its energy and demand savings goals in 2010. Energy savings were estimated at 25,233 MWh and demand savings at 5,291 kW, surpassing the targets of 19,960 MWh and 3,240 kW respectively. The findings are based on interviews and surveys conducted by NMR staff.
LED Exit Lights 1,957 410 83% 1,624 341 Total program 32,617 6,839 77% 25,233 5,291 Findings and Recommendations Despite changes to the free-ridership calculations from year to year, both the CFL and LED free-ridership rates remained stati...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program found that free-ridership rates for CFLs remained stable, with many businesses already installing CFLs before the program. In contrast, LED exit light adoption was lower, suggesting a need to reconsider program incentives and design.
rtion of the cost for the energy efficiency measures offered by the program and to continue to offer installation services for free. Detailed findings and recommendations are provided below. Customer Awareness, Motivations and Barriers Fin...
AI summary The Direct Install (DI) program's evaluation highlights that email became a more effective method for customer awareness compared to phone calls. Customers were primarily motivated by financial benefits, such as energy cost savings, as the program offered free installation and energy-efficient measures.
articipant. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program Page III
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program, focusing on its implementation and outcomes. It provides an analysis of the program's effectiveness in promoting energy efficiency through direct installation of efficient lighting products.
ason that they information for identifying other energy efficiency had not pursued additional energy efficiency measures. This may measures they could implement. With the expansion indicate that respondents didn‘t have the time to research...
AI summary Respondents indicated that they did not pursue additional energy efficiency measures due to lack of time and awareness. Some also cited a lack of available financing as a barrier. The DI installation teams are encouraged to provide region-specific contact information for SBLS delivery agents. A potential financing program for energy efficiency measures is suggested.
local banks. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program Page IV
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program, focusing on its implementation and outcomes. It highlights the role of NMR in the process and discusses the program's impact on energy efficiency and customer participation.
contain CFLs even after participating in the program. In addition, nearly one in five respondents (19%) said that fewer than 50% of their sockets contained CFLs after participating in the program. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Efficient Lighting...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program found that nearly 19% of participants had fewer than 50% of their sockets containing CFLs even after participating in the program, indicating incomplete adoption of energy-efficient lighting.
in the program. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program Page V LEDs Finding Recommendation DI-F8. DI-R8. About two out of five respondents (44%) reported that they had Given the unchanged awareness levels...
AI summary The 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program had limited impact on LED exit light adoption. Most participants were not aware of LED benefits before the program, and few had installed LEDs prior to or after participation. Despite the program, many exit signs still lacked LEDs, indicating a need for more active promotion and installation efforts.
that 30% of their exit signs did not contain LEDs. In addition, nearly three out of ten respondents (27%) said that even after participating in the DI program none of their exit signs contained LEDs. Satisfaction with the Program Finding R...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program found that 30% of exit signs did not contain LEDs, and 27% of respondents reported no LED exit signs even after participating in the program. Overall, 97% of respondents were satisfied with the program, and 85% were very satisfied.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program Page 1 2 Program Description and Data Tracking 2.1 Program Description The DI program was first launched in 2008 as a pilot program with an energy savings target of...
AI summary The 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program significantly exceeded its energy savings targets, with goals increasing from 2,641 MWh in 2008 to 19,960 MWh in 2010. The program was extended due to its popularity and the availability of CFLs, and it operated with 12 teams across eight regions in Nova Scotia.
2.1.1 Program Theory The program theory and logic model was updated to reflect any changes to the program compared to 2009. The program theory and logic model are included below. Program Background The Efficient Lighting Products – Direct...
AI summary The Direct Install Program for 2010 aims to transform the market for efficient lighting products by promoting the adoption of CFLs and LED exit lights. It seeks to close the gap in awareness and usage of CFLs in the commercial sector and replace incandescent lights with energy-efficient alternatives. The program also aims to increase market acceptance of these technologies through broader customer participation.
opportunity for transforming the market. 2 NMR (2010) Impact and Process Evaluation: Efficient Lighting Products Retail Markdown Program 2009. Submitted February 25th, 2010 3 See Table 4-11. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Efficient Lighting Produc...
AI summary The document discusses an evaluation of the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program, referencing a prior impact and process evaluation from 2010 and citing Table 4-11 for additional details.
The DI program's marketing and outreach channels include direct contact through a subcontractor, the program contractor, and partnerships with local business associations such as chambers of commerce and business improvement areas. Program...
AI summary The DI program utilizes various marketing and outreach strategies, including partnerships with local business associations, direct contact by trained representatives, and on-site visits to promote and install energy-efficient lighting products in small businesses.
areas to partner with the program. Telephone outreach. The telephone calls made by trained representatives generate interest among potential participants. On-site visits. Sufficient training is provided to representatives that visit cu...
AI summary The document outlines the implementation and effectiveness of the Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program, detailing outreach methods, installation processes, and the benefits of switching to energy-efficient lighting for small businesses in Nova Scotia.
Transfer of understanding. Small business owners will remember the energy and bill savings they realized from participating in the program and consider energy efficient options when making decisions to purchase other energy using equipme...
AI summary The document outlines program barriers and short-term outcomes for the Direct Installation (DI) program. Barriers include liability concerns, perceptions of lighting quality, and inaccessibility of equipment. Short-term outcomes highlight increased awareness and participation in the program through various outreach methods.
Customers allow DI representatives to install CFLs and LEDs. After becoming aware of the opportunities offered by the program, customers allow DI program representatives to install qualifying equipment: o 13 Watt, 23 Watt, 14 Watt (R20)...
AI summary The Direct Install Program (DI) allows small businesses to have energy-efficient lighting installed by program representatives, leading to increased energy savings and awareness. The program aims to transform market practices by promoting the adoption of energy-efficient lighting as standard practice, resulting in long-term energy savings.
Model NMR Evaluation of 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program Page 7 2.2 Program Tracking The subcontractor tracked installations and also conducted brief satisfaction calls with participants after lights were installed....
AI summary The 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program tracked installations by recording business details, installation data, and energy savings. The subcontractor collected information on the types and quantities of lighting products installed, wattage replaced, and estimated energy savings, though limited data was recorded on the pre-existing conditions of exit signs.
e-existing conditions. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program Page 8 3 Impact Evaluation The NMR team evaluated the impacts of the 2010 Efficient Products Direct Install Program through on- site visits to...
AI summary The NMR team evaluated the 2010 Efficient Products Direct Install Program by conducting on-site visits and applying engineering algorithms to estimate site-level energy savings. A total of 41,349 MWh in energy savings was tracked across 5,447 locations, with the majority of installations being 13W CFL twist style bulbs.
ing purposes Program Administrators and the NMR Team collapsed some sites to reflect all activity performed at the site in instances where installations at a given location occurred over several days. Table 3-1: Population Summary Quantity...
AI summary The text discusses the methodology used by the NMR team to evaluate the impact of the Efficient Products Direct Install program, including the use of Model-Based Statistical Sampling (MBSS) and the stratification of the population. It also references the installation of energy-efficient lighting products and the projected energy savings for 2010.
ng the sample population by 4 Since there were multiple technologies installed at some sites, the number of sites in Table 3-1 exceeds the number of sites that participated in the program in 2010. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Efficient Lighting...
AI summary The document discusses the sample design and evaluation of the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program. A sample size of 25 was targeted to achieve ±10% precision at the 90% confidence interval, but only 22 sites were visited due to scheduling and physical access challenges. Table 3-2 outlines the final sample design, including strata, energy savings cut points, and case weights.
ugh selected for the purpose of estimating energy savings, provides a fairly good representation of those building types. Table 3-3: Final Sample Design: Building Type Building Type Population Sample Church 241 3 Charity 57 0 Community Fac...
AI summary The document discusses the methodology used in evaluating the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program. It outlines the four-part on-site work process, including a review of installed lighting, facility walk-throughs, logger installation/removal, and savings analysis, leading to the development of gross savings estimates for the sample.
stallation/removal, and a savings analysis. Each part is described below. The on-site engineering assessment process culminated in the development of gross estimates of savings for the on-site sample. 3.2.1 Tracking Data Review The first s...
AI summary The document outlines the process for on-site engineering assessments, including a review of tracking data and facility walk-throughs to verify installed energy efficiency measures and assess their savings. The NMR team collected data on installed lighting and other measures to evaluate their performance and energy savings.
Install time-of-use lighting loggers to gather operating hours of unique schedules identified on- site; Collect available information with which to assess interactive effects. 3.2.3 Lighting Loggers So as to compile the most accurate d...
AI summary Lighting loggers were installed to collect operating hours data for different room types, and standard spreadsheets were used to calculate energy and demand savings before and after retrofits. The methodology involved connected kW savings and peak kW savings using coincidence factors based on site-specific operating schedules.
hedule of the lighting at the 5PM-6PM hour for each location according to information provided by each site contact. Peak kW Savings = Connected kW Savings Coincidenc e Factor The fundamental calculation of annual energy savings is...
AI summary The document outlines methods for calculating peak kW and annual energy savings from lighting upgrades. It references the use of site-specific data, coincidence factors, and a 7.1% loss multiplier for Small General Commercial customers to estimate savings at the generator level.
KEMA calculated the impact of interactive effects for each site. In the context of energy savings analysis, the term ―interactive effect‖ refers to a related change in another devices‘ electrical use as influenced by the implementation of...
AI summary The document discusses the calculation of interactive effects in energy savings analysis, focusing on how energy conservation measures, such as lighting retrofits, influence heating and cooling systems. Interactive savings are estimated using factors like direct lighting kW reduction, cooling and heating system efficiencies, and empirical data.
hting coincidence factor as determined from specific measured logger interval data or from a reported schedule when data was not available. While on-site, evaluators assessed whether areas with lighting were served by cooling systems and t...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program calculates cooling kWh and kW energy savings based on onsite kWh savings, percentage of space cooled, and cooling system COP. The energy interaction factor and timing of lighting use are also considered in these calculations.
te kW Savings (% of space cooled) (% of lights on at 5 - 6 PM) 0.80 Cooling System COP Where 0.80 is the demand interaction factor between the lights and cooling system at 5-6 PM. The HVAC System Efficiencies were taken from...
AI summary The text discusses the calculation of kW savings based on factors such as space cooling, lighting usage, and the cooling system COP. It references a lookup table for HVAC system efficiencies, including cooling and heating COP values for various systems.
0.90 Refrigerated Area 2.00 Water to Air Heat Pump 4.21 Non-Electric 40.0 The following calculations were used in the instances that electric heating occurred in the space equipped with retrofitted lighting. However, the majority of sites...
AI summary The text discusses calculations for heating kWh and kW energy savings related to the retrofitted lighting in the Direct Install Program. It highlights the energy interaction factors between lighting and heating systems, with minimal impact from heating due to most sites being heated via oil or gas.
There were two sites that required unique methods to estimate their energy savings. One facility operating as a furniture retailer had received 22 – 13 W CFL‘s to replace 60 W incandescent bulbs used in display lamps. It was determined tha...
AI summary The document describes methods used to estimate energy savings from two unique sites. One site involved a furniture retailer where some CFLs were sold, and residential usage data was applied. Another site was an apartment complex with limited access, where data from a study was used for savings calculations. The NMR team used stratified ratio estimation and LRS software to estimate program-level impacts.
or the on-site sample, including interactive effects. A one-to-one reference line is the plotted line on the diagonal, which would represent the line on which all points would fall if the tracking system savings estimates were exactly corr...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program found discrepancies between on-site savings and tracking system estimates. At some sites, fewer lights were installed than recorded, and operating hours were lower than assumed. These factors contributed to a 77.8% installation rate across all sites.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program Page 14 Figure 3-1: Observed On-site versus Tracking System Savings
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program, focusing on the comparison between observed on-site savings and tracking system savings as illustrated in Figure 3-1.
Table 3-5 shows the installed annual energy and demand savings for the 2010 Efficient Products Direct Install Program. This table is comprised of the original population tracking savings followed by the expanded savings estimates from the...
AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of the 2010 Efficient Products Direct Install Program, highlighting discrepancies in installation rates identified by the NMR team. These discrepancies led to an overestimation of program savings by 2,294 MWh, and the implementation contractor conducted audits to address the issue.
lize this information to inform an alternative savings estimate, we can assume that the reduction in savings of 2,294 MWh (or 5.5% of tracking) can also be considered an estimate of the installation rate, albeit a rate that is determined t...
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program, adjusting initial savings estimates based on installation rates. The initial estimate was 26,401 MWh, but after applying an adjusted installation rate of 72.2%, the final estimate becomes 29,853 MWh. This adjustment accounts for discrepancies in the implementation process.
r Installation Rate Evaluated Annual Energy Savings (Meter) 2929,853 72.2% 6,259 Evaluated Annual Savings (Generator) 3232,617 78.9% 66,839 As part of the analysis, we also reviewed the self-reported hours of operation at the time of our v...
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program, analyzing energy savings, hours of operation, and in-service rates of installed lighting. It notes that the in-service rate was lower than reported, and the generator scale factor used was 1.0926.
used is 1.0926 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program Page 16 3.4 Spillover Spillover is additional energy-efficient equipment installed by participants due to program influences and in the absence of dir...
AI summary The 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program led to spillover effects, with 19% of participants installing additional CFLs and 3% installing additional LEDs. The program influenced 78% of those who made additional installations, with varying spillover rates for CFLs and LEDs compared to previous years.
decision to install 10 additional LED exit lights. The resulting spillover rates were relatively lower for CFLs and relatively higher for LEDs compared to 2008 and 2009, although not significantly so. Table 3-7: Additional Purchases of CFL...
AI summary The text discusses the spillover rates of additional purchases of CFLs and LEDs in 2008, 2009, and 2010. It notes that spillover rates were relatively lower for CFLs and higher for LEDs compared to previous years, though not significantly. The data shows the influence of the Direct Install Program on installation decisions.
at or significantly fewer LED exit lights? Don‘t know 25% Would have installed the same number of CFLs that were FR2g. Yes 50% installed through the program No 25% Would have installed the same number of LED exit lights FR2h. Don‘t know 25...
AI summary The text presents survey responses regarding customer intent to install LED exit lights or CFLs, with 50% indicating they would install the same number as provided through the program, and 25% unsure. It calculates stated intent scores for both LED and CFL installations based on survey responses.
that were installed through the program CFL Stated Intent Score = average of FR2a, FR2c, FR2e+ei, and FR2g. LED Stated Intent Score = average of FR2b + FR2d + FR2f+fi, and FR2h.
AI summary The text outlines a method for calculating stated intent scores for CFL and LED installations under a program, using specific form responses (FR2a, FR2b, etc.) as the basis for averaging.
Table 3-9: CFL Free-ridership Program Influence Questions Free- Question Question Responses Rider Number Score How influential were the following to your decision to install [CFLs or/LEDs]? Please give your answer on a scale of 1 to 5, whe...
AI summary The table evaluates the influence of the CFL and LED free-ridership programs on participants' decisions to install energy-efficient lighting. Respondents rated the influence of factors such as free CFLs, free installation services, and information from program representatives on a scale of 1 to 5.
77% 83% NMR Evaluation of 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program Page 22 3.7 Energy Savings Estimation Table 3-13 presents the net installed annual energy and demand savings for the 2010 Efficient Products Direct Install p...
AI summary The 2010 Efficient Products Direct Install program achieved significant energy and demand savings, exceeding its goals and surpassing the combined savings of previous years. The program's success was largely driven by CFL installations, with LED Exit Lights contributing a smaller but notable portion.
Table 4-1: CFLs and LEDs Installed 2008 2009 2010 Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed All Participants All Participants All Participants Participants Participants Participants Sample size 70 1,087 70 3,436 77 5,447 of CFLs or LED CFLs LEDs CFLs LED...
AI summary The table shows the number of CFLs and LEDs installed by participants in Nova Scotia from 2008 to 2010, highlighting the distribution of installation quantities across different ranges.
4-2 shows the estimated population, sample size and sampling error for the 2008, 2009 and 2010 telephone surveys. For each survey, the sampling error was less than 10% at the 90% confidence interval. Table 4-2: Sample Size and Sampling Err...
AI summary The document discusses the sample size and sampling error for telephone surveys conducted in 2008, 2009, and 2010, as well as the design and outcomes of a program aimed at installing energy-efficient lighting in small businesses in Nova Scotia. The program installed CFLs and LED exit lights to achieve energy and demand savings targets.
names and over-stated the NMR Evaluation of 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program Page 26 number of measures they installed was removed from the program. In addition, the implementation vendors sought to determine the sco...
AI summary The 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program faced issues with overstated savings due to inaccuracies in the tracking system. The implementation vendor conducted audits and site visits to estimate the overstatement and implemented new checks to prevent future errors. The program's awareness sources included phone calls, email, and word of mouth.
2008 2009 2010 Sample size 70 70 77 Previous participation 7% 6% 3% Table 4-5: Prior Energy Efficiency Programs Reported Programs 2008 2009 2010 Direct Install Program 1 Unspecified Conserve 1 Nova Scotia Program Lighting Program 2006 to 5...
AI summary The table presents data on the participation rates in prior energy efficiency programs from 2008 to 2010, showing a low percentage of previous participation and the types of programs that were reported. It also references the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program evaluated by NMR.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program Page 28 4.5 Participation Motivations When asked their reasons for participating in the DI program in 2010, the majority of respondents reported a financial benefit...
AI summary The 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program attracted participants primarily motivated by financial benefits, with 84% citing energy cost savings as their main reason. Environmental concerns were a secondary motivation for 25%, while 28% also noted financial incentives as a secondary factor, including reduced maintenance costs.
Table 4-6: Reasons for Participating 2008 2009 2010 Second Second Second Most Most Most Most Most Most Important Important Important Most Important Important Important Important Motivation Motivation Motivation Motivation Motivation Motiva...
AI summary The table presents participation motivations in energy efficiency programs from 2008 to 2010, showing that saving on energy costs was the primary motivation, followed by environmental protection and taking advantage of incentives.
1 6 5 4 3 Reduce carbon † 4 2 3 11 footprint Reduce σ† 3 10 <1 13 maintenance costs Improve existing 3 9 5 4 lighting conditions Past program 1 participation Part of a green 1 initiative Assistance with 1 changing lighting Offer at our 1 f...
AI summary The text presents data on initiatives aimed at reducing carbon footprint, improving lighting conditions, and reducing maintenance costs. It also includes information on past program participation and assistance with changing lighting, with some responses indicating that these efforts did not require much work. The data includes numerical values and symbols, suggesting it may be part of a survey or analysis.
σ 13 requirements Some fixtures retrofitted σ 13 before program Not considered a small σ 13 business Perceived danger of 2 CFL‘s σ† Too little incentive 12 Too little information σ† 12 about the program Scheduling 1 2 Don‘t know/None 88 98...
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program, noting issues such as perceived danger of CFLs, lack of incentive, insufficient information about the program, and scheduling challenges. A significant percentage of respondents indicated they did not know or had no opinion.
fewer mentioned a lack of additional measures to pursue; this may indicate that potential participants are beginning to recognize additional opportunities but lack the resources (time) to pursue them. Table 4-8: Barriers to Pursuing Additi...
AI summary The text discusses barriers to pursuing additional energy efficiency, with a notable increase in the percentage of respondents citing a lack of time as a barrier from 2008 to 2010. Other barriers include lack of financing, lack of interest, and lack of information, though these show varying trends over the years.
4 † † Don‘t know 16 20 40 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program Page 31 4.7 Purchase and Use Behaviors 4.7.1 Socket Saturation In the survey, 2009 and 2010 respondents were asked to quantify the penetrat...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program highlights significant increases in the use of CFLs and LED exit lights post-participation. However, a notable portion of respondents still reported low penetration of LEDs in exit signs, suggesting potential gaps in program effectiveness or outreach.
ts surveyed (31%) had had any LED exit lights installed. This may indicate the need for program teams to more thoroughly examine opportunities for LED exit lights or opportunities may be lost. Table 4-9: Socket Saturation 2009 2010 Percent...
AI summary The survey found that only 31% of respondents had LED exit lights installed, suggesting potential missed opportunities for LED adoption. Table 4-9 shows socket saturation data for CFLs and LEDs in 2009 and 2010, indicating increasing use of LEDs over time.
Table 4-10: Removal of CFLs and LEDs Products Removed 2008 2009 2010 Sample size 70 70 77 Did not remove any lighting 93% 88% 86% Removed only LED exit lights 3 σ Removed only CFLs 1 12 9% Removed some CFLs and some LEDs 1 <1 Don‘t know 1...
AI summary The table presents data on the removal of Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs) and Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) from 2008 to 2010. It outlines the percentage of products removed, reasons for removal, and sample sizes for each year.
% σ Aware of benefits of LED exit lights 37% 40% 44% Table 4-12: Prior Purchases of Efficient Lighting Products Respondents Previously Purchased Products 2008 2009 2010 Sample size 70 70 77 Yes 70% 65% 69% Type of Purchases 2008 2009 2010...
AI summary The document presents data on the adoption of efficient lighting products, including LED exit lights, and evaluates the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program. It includes statistics on prior purchases of efficient lighting products from 2008 to 2010.
<1 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program Page 34 Slightly more than one-quarter of 2010 respondents (26%) reported having had plans to install CFLs or LEDs prior to participating in the DI program, with...
AI summary The 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program led to additional CFL and LED installations, with 19% of respondents installing more after participation. Most of these additional installations were CFLs, and 78% of those who installed additional bulbs indicated the program influenced their decision.
Table 4-14: Post-Program Installations Respondents Installed Additional Lights 2008 2009 2010 Sample size 70 70 77 Installed CFLs only 21% 19% 16% Installed CFLs and LEDs 4 4 3 No additional installations 71 78 79 Don‘t know 3 <1 3 Efficie...
AI summary The table presents data on post-program installations of additional lights and efficiency levels of new CFLs from 2008 to 2010. It shows a decrease in the installation of CFLs and LEDs over time, and a significant drop in the percentage of respondents who reported that the program influenced their decision to install CFLs.
rgy efficient lighting. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program Page 36 Respondents were also asked if participation in the DI program had influenced them to pursue additional energy efficiency actions, ot...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program found that about one-third of respondents reported taking additional energy efficiency actions beyond lighting improvements, with behavior change and heating system modifications being the most common.
five respondents (17%). (Table 4-16) Table 4-16: Influence of Program on Additional Energy Efficiency Actions Respondents
AI summary The text mentions five respondents (17%) and references Table 4-16, which discusses the influence of a program on additional energy efficiency actions.
Influenced Additional Actions 2008 2009 2010 Sample size 70 70 77 σ† Yes 27% 47% 31% σ† No 73 47 66 σ Don't know 5 3 Additional Actions Taken Sample size 19 39 24 † σ Behavior change 58 19 25 σ† Heating 32 4 25 σ Lighting 11 35 17 Windows...
AI summary The document presents data on influenced additional actions and their impact on energy efficiency behaviors from 2008 to 2010, including sample sizes, percentages of responses, and actions taken such as behavior change, heating, lighting, and insulation.
ut instead of other less efficient lighting.‖ The majority of respondents (82%) reported that they used their new lighting ‗about the same‘ as the lighting that had been replaced. (Table 4-17) Table 4-17: Use of New Lighting Respondents 20...
AI summary The majority of respondents (82%) used their new lighting about the same as the old lighting, with minimal changes in usage patterns. Additionally, 95% of respondents indicated they would be likely to purchase energy efficiency equipment in the future, and 80% said they would be very likely to do so when replacing equipment.
fficient equipment, and four out of five respondents (80%) reported that they would be ‗very likely‘ to purchase energy-efficient equipment when replacing equipment in the future. (Table 4-18) Table 4-18: Future Energy Efficiency Purchases...
AI summary The text discusses survey results showing high customer satisfaction with the Direct Install (DI) program for energy-efficient lighting products. Most respondents were very likely to purchase energy-efficient equipment in the future and reported high satisfaction with the program, though satisfaction with installation scheduling was lower in 2010 compared to 2009.
red to 2009 respondents (83%). (Table 4-19) Significantly more respondents in 2010 (83%) than in 2009 (61%) were ‗very satisfied‘ with the CFLs that were installed through the program.
AI summary The text highlights a significant increase in customer satisfaction with CFLs installed through the program, with 83% of respondents in 2010 reporting being 'very satisfied,' compared to 61% in 2009.
installation σ σ Installation process 61 90% 10 0 0 0 66 80% 12 8 0 0 67 84% 13 3 Installers or contractors doing the 61 89% 10 2 0 0 65 84% 12 3 <1 61 82% 13 5 installation work Completion of project on 63 84% 10 5 2 0 64 86% 11 3 <1 0 65...
AI summary The 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program evaluation found that energy costs accounted for an average of 18% of annual operating budgets, with less than 20% for three out of five respondents and more than 20% for two out of five respondents.
90-99% Average 21.4% 15.4% 18.0% As in 2008 and 2009, the large majority of respondents reported that reducing energy usage (96%) and managing energy costs (95%) was important to their businesses and around four out of five respondents rep...
AI summary The document highlights that most respondents consider reducing energy usage and managing energy costs important to their businesses. In 2010, 79% of respondents found reducing energy usage very important, and 85% found managing energy costs very important. Additionally, nearly 38% of participants in the Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program required energy efficiency measures to pay for themselves within one year.
nizations‘ payback requirements for energy efficiency measures. Among them, nearly two out of five (38%) required that energy efficiency measures pay for themselves in less than one year. (Table 4-22) Table 4-22: Required Payback for Energ...
AI summary The document discusses the required payback periods for energy efficiency measures, with nearly 38% of respondents requiring payback within one year. It also notes changes in the firmographic profiles of survey respondents, particularly a decrease in retail businesses participating in the 2010 survey compared to previous years.
σ 1 1 7 4 mall Service 3 6 5 7 3 2 Public order & 1 1 3 safety † σ Religious worship 19 10 14 8 † † Education 4 3 7 † Seniors‘ home 1 8 6 27 2 σ† Recreation 5 Manufacturing 2 Other/Missing 11 4 1,924 3 2,563 (Count) Based on program tracki...
AI summary The 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program saw participation from businesses with facilities of varying sizes, with 62% having less than 50,000 square feet and 39% having less than 5,000 square feet of floor space, according to Table 4-24.
2 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program Page A1
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program by NMR, focusing on the implementation and outcomes of the initiative aimed at promoting energy-efficient lighting solutions.
2 h 1 N h nh s h2 e ek eh 2 1 nh 1 ksh ek y k b xk ^ Next, the relative precision of the estimate Y ra was calculated using the equation: ^ 1.645 V Y ra rp ^ Y ra NMR Evaluation of 2010 Efficien...
AI summary This document outlines the methodology for evaluating the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program, including a participant questionnaire administered by NMR Group on behalf of Nova Scotia Power to gather feedback on program participation.
answer some questions related to your participation in this program, the information you provide will be used to help Nova Scotia Power evaluate and improve the program. Is this a good time for you? 1. Our records indicate that your compan...
AI summary The text outlines a survey process for participants in Nova Scotia Power's Efficient Lighting Products Program, asking about their involvement and experience with the program. It includes questions about participation confirmation, identification of the most knowledgeable person, and scheduling follow-up interviews.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program Page B2 Section I. Reasons for participating & Previous Purchases 5. Did your company / organization participate in any other Nova Scotia Power energy efficiency pro...
AI summary This document is part of an evaluation of the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program. It includes questions about prior participation in Nova Scotia Power energy efficiency programs, including specific inquiries about the years of participation in previous programs.
_) 99. Don‘t know NMR Evaluation of 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program Page B3 9. What was the ONE most important reason your company / organization chose to participate in the program? (Do not read) 1. (To take advant...
AI summary The text presents survey questions about the reasons for participating in the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program, with options such as taking advantage of program incentives, saving on energy costs, and reducing carbon footprint.
ded by contractor) 11. (Past participation in utility programs) 12. (Other (Please explain )) 99. (Don‘t know/Don‘t recall) 11. Prior to your company / organization participating in the Efficient Lighting Products Program were you aware th...
AI summary This section of the document contains survey questions related to prior awareness and participation in the Efficient Lighting Products Program, specifically focusing on the installation of CFLs and LED exit lights, as well as prior purchases of energy-efficient lighting products.
_% [999 = Don‘t know/Don‘t recall] NMR Evaluation of 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program Page B5 14g. After participating in the Efficient Lighting Products Program, what percentage of your company‘s / organization‘s ex...
AI summary The text contains survey questions related to the participation and outcomes of the Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program. It asks about the percentage of LED lamps in exit signs and whether participants removed any installed bulbs, including CFLs and LED exit lights.
do with the LED exit lights you removed? (Threw away) (Put them away, stored them) (Gave them away) (Installed them at another location) (Other [Specify _]) 9. Don‘t know/Don‘t recall FREE-RIDERSHIP FR1. Did your company / organization hav...
AI summary The text includes survey questions about the disposal of LED exit lights and whether companies had prior plans to install CFLs or LED exit lights before the Efficient Lighting Products Program. It also asks about actions that would have been taken in the absence of the program.
am, which of the following actions do you think you would have taken? Please select all that apply. Would you have… [For FR2a – h 1 = YES, 2 = NO, 9 = Don’t know; For FR2e-f if YES ask FR2ei & FR2fi] FR2a. [IF CFLFlag = 1] Postponed instal...
AI summary The text outlines survey questions related to the impact of Nova Scotia Power's free installation of CFLs and LED exit lights on customer behavior, including whether customers would have postponed or reduced installations if the program had not existed, and how influential the program was in their decision-making.
d no influence at all on your NMR Evaluation of 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program Page B9 decision to install the energy efficient CFLs‖ and 5 indicates that the program was ―extremely influential to your decision to...
AI summary The text evaluates the influence of various elements of the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program on participants' decisions to install energy-efficient CFLs and LED exit lights, using a scale from 1 to 5.
tremely influential to your decision to install the LED exit lights.‖ How influential was / were the: Element (READ) (a) Performance of Measure 1 2 3 4 5 9 a. Free LED exit lights no extremely DK influence influential b. Free Installation...
AI summary The text presents survey questions related to customer satisfaction with the Efficient Lighting Products Program, specifically focusing on the installation of LED exit lights and CFLs, including factors influencing installation decisions and reasons for dissatisfaction.
) 10. (Doesn‘t save energy) Physical Limitations 11. (Burned out) 12. (Broke) 13. (Doesn‘t fit properly) 14. (Don‘t like appearance in fixture/ light is ugly) 17. (Other [Specify _]) NMR Evaluation of 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direc...
AI summary The text presents survey questions related to the performance and usage of efficient lighting products installed through the Direct Install Program. It includes categories for physical limitations and user feedback, as well as questions about spill-over effects and additional purchases of energy-efficient lighting products.
o to Q0] 9. Don‘t know/Don‘t recall [If purchased and installed both CFLs and LED exit lights, Go to Q0, Else go to Q0] [IF Q0=YES] About what quantity of these additional CFLs did your company / organization purchase on its own since part...
AI summary The text is a survey questionnaire related to the Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program, asking participants about their purchase of CFLs and LED exit lights, the influence of the program on their decisions, and whether participation influenced other energy efficiency actions.
pation in the Efficient Lighting Products Program influenced any other energy efficiency actions taken by your company / organization? Yes No [Go to Q0] 9. (Don‘t know/Don‘t recall [Go to Q0]) What are the other measures that your company...
AI summary The text includes questions from a regulatory proceeding related to energy efficiency measures, specifically asking about the influence of the Efficient Lighting Products Program and the reasons for not pursuing additional measures. It also inquires about payback requirements for energy efficiency initiatives.
n require energy efficiency measures pay for themselves in order for your company / organization to implement a measure—that is, what are your payback requirements? [999 = Don‘t know/don‘t recall] Section III. Satisfaction with Program & F...
AI summary The text outlines survey questions related to energy efficiency programs, focusing on payback requirements, customer satisfaction with the Efficient Lighting Products Program, and barriers to implementing energy efficiency measures. It includes questions about future purchase intentions and program improvements.
arriers that your company / organization faced in implementing the energy efficiency measures provided through the program? Yes No [Go to Q45] 9. (Don‘t know/Don‘t recall) [Go to Q45] What was the most important barrier? (Do not read) (Con...
AI summary The text includes survey questions about barriers to implementing energy efficiency measures and the importance of reducing energy usage. It lists various barriers such as lack of information, insufficient incentives, and financing challenges. The survey is part of an evaluation of the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program.
ow/Don‘t recall) On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1=‗not at all important‘ and 5=‗very important‘, how important is reducing energy usage to your company / organization? [9 = Don‘t know/Don‘t recall] On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1=‗not at all im...
AI summary The text contains survey questions about energy usage importance, energy cost management, and the percentage of annual operating budgets attributed to energy costs. It also asks for suggestions to improve the Efficient Lighting Products Program and inquires about business hours of operation.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program Page B18 Cloudy % Dark % Bright % Section IV. Firmographics What is the principal building activity where the energy efficiency improvements were implemented? [DO NO...
AI summary The document contains a form evaluating the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program. It includes questions about building activity, floor space, number of employees, and company structure, aimed at gathering data on energy efficiency improvements.
ny independent, or part of a larger company? Independent Part of a larger company Don‘t know Refused Other ( _) 9. (Don‘t know/Don‘t recall) NMR Process and Impact Evaluation: Prescriptive Rebate Programs 2010 February 25, 2011 Final Repor...
AI summary This document is a final report on the process and impact evaluation of prescriptive rebate programs from 2010, submitted by NMR Group, Inc. to Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation. It was prepared by a team of investigators including Rohit Vaidya, David Barclay, Cheryl Browne, Tom Ledyard, and Aditya Rohilla, with support from KEMA, Inc.
will be terminated once the legislation is enacted. The impact evaluation was based on visits to nine sites with installed lighting and visits with four of the six major distributors for the program. Impact Evaluation Findings For the BER...
AI summary The impact evaluation of the BER and SLC programs found that combined net generator-level impacts were 6,748.3 MWh of energy savings and 1,267.3 kW of demand savings, falling short of the combined program targets of 10,000 MWh and 2,420.0 kW. The evaluation used site visits, program records, and telephone surveys to estimate free-ridership and spillover effects.
Net-to-Gross Ratio (%) 54% 54% 84% 84% N/A N/A Net Savings at Generator 72.8 503.3 1,194.5 6,245.0 1,267.3 6,748.3 1 These two programs are known collectively as the Prescriptive Rebate Programs. 2 These targets included 8 GWh of energy sa...
AI summary The BER program, part of the Prescriptive Rebate Programs, was launched in 2010 and saw 13 participants. While satisfaction was high, participants suggested improvements in incentive levels and structure to enhance energy savings.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 Prescriptive Rebate Programs Page III
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Prescriptive Rebate Programs, likely focusing on their effectiveness, implementation, and impact on energy efficiency and customer participation.
Findings and Recommendations Finding Recommendation BER-F3. BER-R3. Customers were motivated to participate in the BER program primarily When working with customers and training contractors, because of a financial benefit—nine said energy...
AI summary The BER program motivated customers primarily through financial benefits, with energy savings and bill reductions being key motivators. Most participants faced no barriers, but one noted delays in determining eligibility. Recommendations include focusing on savings opportunities and ensuring sufficient resources for customer support.
r inquiries; and, when appropriate, to elevate customers quickly to the C&I Custom program if their projects appear to be too complex to be quickly approved. BER-F5. BER-R5. The majority of respondents were satisfied with the program. On a...
AI summary Respondents are generally satisfied with the BER program, but express dissatisfaction with rebate amounts. The program is noted as being new, with some rebates not providing sufficient incentives for implementation. Adjustments to incentives are suggested as necessary for future program years.
se of qualified energy efficient equipment. Eligible product categories include: lighting, motors and drives, HVAC, refrigeration and compressed air equipment. The BER program was modeled closely after successful prescriptive pro...
AI summary The BER program focuses on the use of energy-efficient equipment in categories such as lighting, motors, HVAC, refrigeration, and compressed air. It was modeled after Efficiency Vermont's prescriptive programs and includes eligibility criteria, savings estimates, and approved product lists.
Program Assumptions The following assumptions underlie the program‘s process: Outreach and marketing. The outreach performed by the Sales Leads, a marketing contractor, and the outbound commercial call group will be sufficient to generat...
AI summary The document outlines program assumptions, barriers, and short-term outcomes related to energy efficiency initiatives. Key assumptions include sufficient outreach, funding, and equipment availability. Barriers include lack of knowledge, time, and capital. Short-term outcomes focus on generating interest, purchasing, and installing energy-efficient equipment.
oming aware of the program, customers identify and purchase energy efficient equipment. Customers install energy efficient equipment. After purchasing energy efficient equipment, customers install the energy efficient equipment. Mid-Term...
AI summary The document outlines the outcomes of a prescriptive rebate program aimed at promoting energy efficiency. It describes mid-term outcomes such as energy savings, increased knowledge, and higher demand for energy-efficient equipment, as well as long-term outcomes like emission reductions and standardization of energy-efficient practices among businesses.
Program Assumptions The following assumptions underlie the program‘s process: Availability of HP lighting products. The distributors have access to sufficient quantities of the HP lighting products to meet customer demands. Program inc...
AI summary The document outlines program assumptions and barriers related to high-performance (HP) lighting. Key assumptions include product availability and the passing on of incentives to end customers. Barriers include misplaced incentives, higher first costs, product availability issues, lead times, and a lack of information and experience with HP lighting.
ses for smaller projects. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Prescriptive Rebate Programs Page 7 Short-Term Outcomes All eligible distributors are enrolled into the program. Distributors become more active in the program and continue promoting the...
AI summary The evaluation highlights short-term, mid-term, and long-term outcomes of the 2010 Prescriptive Rebate Programs, focusing on increased adoption of high-performance (HP) lighting, education of stakeholders, and long-term energy savings and emission reductions.
visited, including the project number, type of equipment installed, and tracking connected demand and energy savings. Our on-site sample represented nearly one-third of the total 2010 tracked savings. Table 3-2: 2010 BER Population Trackin...
AI summary The text discusses a 2010 BER project tracking summary, including details on energy and demand savings from various projects. The sample frame represents nearly one-third of the total tracked savings, with specific data on different categories such as HVAC, Motors and Drives, and Lighting.
0.2 K-11 Lighting 132.9 31.6 Total 203.4 47.7 At the conclusion of 2010, the NMR team received the final file of program activity. As noted earlier, there were two more sites that received rebates between when the sample was pulled and the...
AI summary The NMR team evaluated the 2010 Prescriptive Rebate Programs by reviewing project documentation and conducting site visits to verify savings. Two additional sites, one a lighting site and the other with motors and drives, were included due to their high savings. Savings were calculated using on-site data, program documentation, and secondary sources.
of the approach taken for each NMR Evaluation of 2010 Prescriptive Rebate Programs Page 11 measure type included in the sample. The evaluated savings used the most accurate information available; secondary sources and assumptions were empl...
AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of 2010 prescriptive rebate programs, focusing on lighting savings analysis. It outlines the methodology used to calculate energy savings, including the use of interactive effects and the formula applied by the DSM Administrator.
Energy Savings ConnectedLoad 1,000 1,000 Peak Demand Savings ConnectedLoad Energy Savings ConnectedLoad CF 1,000 Where: PPre = power of existing equipment, W. PPost = power of new equipment, W. QTYPre = quantity...
AI summary The document provides formulas for calculating energy and peak demand savings from connected load, along with details on verifying existing and new lighting equipment during site visits. Information includes power ratings, quantities, operating hours, and verification methods for lighting installations.
xture and lamp make and model. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Prescriptive Rebate Programs Page 12 The quantity of lamps or fixtures installed was verified on-site through observation and through discussion with the site contact. The site contacts...
AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of 2010 prescriptive rebate programs, focusing on verifying installed lamps and fixtures, estimating annual operating hours, and calculating energy savings, including interactive savings from cooling systems.
priate type and size of the cooling system were applied. The total energy savings for lighting projects was the combination of the connected load energy savings and cooling interactive energy savings. Lighting Results A summary of lighting...
AI summary The evaluation of lighting projects under the 2010 Prescriptive Rebate Programs indicates that energy savings were influenced by changes in operating hours and interactive effects. Total electric savings were estimated at 514.9 MWh, with a realization rate of 104%.
kW savings of 75.5. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Prescriptive Rebate Programs Page 13 Table 3-3: Lighting Savings Results Evaluated Savings Tracking Peak Demand Project # Savings (MWh) Energy (MWh) (kW) K-07 5.8 2.1 1.4 K-09 13.0 4.8 0.5 K-10 0....
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 prescriptive rebate programs, focusing on lighting and motor/drive savings. It presents data from Table 3-3, showing total energy savings of 514.9 MWh and peak demand savings of 75.5 kW. The analysis also discusses motor and drive savings, particularly variable frequency drives (VFDs) and their energy efficiency benefits.
uilding, and prescriptive savings were appropriate. For this project, the energy and demand savings used the same methodology as the tracking savings estimates: Energy Savings ESF motor hpCXS Peak Demand Savings DSFmotor hpC...
AI summary The document outlines the methodology used to calculate energy and peak demand savings for motor efficiency projects. It uses energy savings factor (ESF), demand savings factor (DSF), and commissioning savings factor (CXS) for standard projects, and load profile and hourly bin analysis for projects with unique conditions.
Flow0 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Prescriptive Rebate Programs Page 14 Where: Ppre = input power of existing equipment for each flow bin, watts. Ppost = input power of new equipment for each flow bin, watts. HoursPre = annual operating hours o...
AI summary The document provides a technical evaluation of 2010 prescriptive rebate programs, focusing on motor efficiency calculations. It outlines formulas for determining input power before and after equipment upgrades, including assumptions about motor efficiency and operating conditions.
ews. All three of the sampled projects had constant speed motors with no flow control mechanism. 6 Electric Power Research Institute, Adjustable Speed Drives Directory, Table 3.1, p18, 1991 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Prescriptive Rebate Progra...
AI summary The text discusses sampled projects with constant speed motors and no flow control mechanism, referencing a 1991 Electric Power Research Institute directory. It is part of an evaluation of 2010 prescriptive rebate programs.
8 25 100 56 68 6 20 100 51 64 5 Each of the projects had unique operating conditions. Data collection was limited by control system software and the knowledge of the staff. Equipment schedules and load profiles were collected. For one proj...
AI summary The document discusses the unique operating conditions of VFD projects, highlighting data collection limitations and discrepancies in motor sizing. Load profiles were developed for each motor, and savings estimates were based on a prescriptive approach. However, discrepancies were found, such as a 10 hp motor being incorrectly reported as 5 hp, affecting savings calculations.
luation found the baseline operating hours to be much higher than the program had estimated for one of the motors. With the installation of VFDs, the motors ran for less time and at a reduced load. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Prescriptive Rebat...
AI summary The evaluation of 2010 prescriptive rebate programs found that the installation of VFDs on motors and fans led to significant energy savings, particularly in Project K-04 and K-12. The savings were higher than expected due to reduced operating hours and improved efficiency from VFDs.
vely. The demand savings factor for supply and return fans were 0.173 kW/hp and 0.263 kW/hp, respectively. The commissioning factor was 1.05, since the equipment was calibrated by an engineering firm. Table 3-5: Motor and Drive Savings Res...
AI summary The document discusses motor and drive savings results, highlighting specific projects with evaluated energy savings and peak demand reductions. The demand savings factor for fans and commissioning factors are mentioned, along with a table showing savings for different projects.
205.5 205.5 35.5 Total 248.1 345.2 47.7 Savings assessed over the phone 3.2.3 HVAC Savings Analysis Four HVAC projects were visited and evaluated. Each of these sites had new high efficiency air-source heat pumps installed. These heat pump...
AI summary The evaluation team assessed four HVAC projects with new high-efficiency air-source heat pumps, which save energy by providing space conditioning at higher efficiencies. Adjustments were made to the program's methodology for calculating savings, including using the actual SEER and HSPF of installed units and considering both heating and cooling capacities.
1 1 1,000 HSPFPre HSPFPost Energy Savings Energy Savings C Energy Savings H Where: QTY = quantity of units installed, n CapacityC = rated cooling capacity, BTU/hr EFLHC = Annual equivalent full load cooling hours, hr/ y...
AI summary The document outlines a formula for calculating energy savings from HVAC unit replacements, using parameters such as capacity, efficiency ratios, and full load hours. It references the use of baseline efficiency values for existing units and program-specific assumptions for full load hours and coincidence factors.
nits less than 65 kBTU/hr was 57%. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Prescriptive Rebate Programs Page 18 HVAC Results Two of the four HVAC evaluated savings estimates fell within 15% of one another. One of them (K-01) was around 60% higher. There we...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Prescriptive Rebate Programs found discrepancies between tracked and evaluated HVAC savings. Differences arose from variations in full load hours, SEER ratings, and the method of calculating demand savings. Evaluated savings were significantly higher than tracked savings, with a 140.5% realization rate.
HVAC savings from this program were greater than that assumed in the tracking system. The tracked HVAC savings was 8,386 kWh, while our evaluated savings was 11,779 kWh, or a 140.5% realization rate. Table 3-6: HVAC Savings Results Evaluat...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Prescriptive Rebate Program found that HVAC savings were higher than initially tracked, with a 140.5% realization rate. The BER program also showed significant energy and peak demand savings, with gross estimates of 932.0 MWh and 134.8 kW respectively.
ed or contacted as part of the evaluation, these results represent the entire population of 2010 participants. Our gross estimate of savings at the generator was 932.0 MWh and 134.8 kW in peak demand. Table 3-7: Evaluated Program Savings E...
AI summary The evaluated program savings from the 2010 participants show a total of 791.8 MWh in energy savings and 126.1 kW in peak demand reduction at the meter level, with corresponding savings of 932.0 MWh and 134.8 kW at the generator level. The savings are categorized across lighting, motors and drives, and HVAC measures.
alled through the program Don‘t know 25% Stated Intent Score = average of FR2a, FR2b, FR2c+ci, and FR2d. Table 3-9: Free-ridership Program Influence Questions Free- Question Question Responses Rider Number Score How influential were the fo...
AI summary The text presents a table assessing the influence of various elements on participation in the Building Energy Retrofit (BER) program, with responses indicating the level of influence on a scale from 1 to 5. The data shows the percentage of respondents who selected each rating for different factors, such as NSPI incentives and NSPI representatives.
(14,670), the watts reduced per ballast system (5) and the assumed hours per year (3,400).9 The estimated savings associated with 2-lamp T8F32 ballasts sold was, therefore, determined to be 249.4 MWh.
AI summary The document calculates energy savings based on the number of ballasts sold, watts reduced per system, and assumed annual hours of operation, estimating 249.4 MWh of savings from 2-lamp T8F32 ballasts.
Table 4-2: Ballast and Bulb System Savings Summary Watts Energy Savings Replacing T12F34 Lamp System… Ballasts Lamps Reduced (MWh) … of 30 Watts with 1-Lamp… HPT8F32 (27 Watts) 1,295 1,295 3 13.2 HPT8F28 (24 Watts) 2,500 2,500 6 51.0 HPT8F...
AI summary The table summarizes energy savings from replacing T12F34 lamp systems with more efficient HPT8F32, HPT8F28, and HPT8F25 systems, using different ballast and lamp configurations. The energy savings are measured in MWh, with total savings across all configurations amounting to 2,698.3 MWh.
12 50 34 1.4 Total 66,407 164,205 N/A 2,698.3 The baseline for lamps sold separately from ballasts was T8F32 fixtures with electronic ballasts. This assumed baseline was predicated on the belief that a customer purchasing lamps without bal...
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Prescriptive Rebate Programs by calculating energy savings from lamp and ballast sales. It assumes a baseline of T8F32 fixtures with electronic ballasts and estimates savings based on lamp-only sales and reductions in wattage.
l of the savings associated with ballasts and lamp systems and the savings associated with lamp-only sales in 2010 was, therefore, estimated to be 2,698 MWh plus 1,024 MWh, or 3,722 MWh at the meter. 4.2 Impact Evaluation Methodology To pe...
AI summary The document estimates total energy savings from lighting technologies in 2010 at 3,722 MWh. An impact evaluation methodology is described, involving site visits, distributor interviews, and analysis of previous evaluations to assess program effectiveness.
the savings for the SLC program. These totals matched within reason, indicating that the quantities tracked matched the data provided on a monthly basis to program administrators by the distributors. 4.2.2 Installation Rates At the nine si...
AI summary The evaluation of the SLC program found that installation rates were around 89.8% based on site visits, but combined with 2009 survey data, an average estimate of 93% was used for the 2010 installation rate. This indicates a high level of program implementation.
pproximately 33% higher than those assumed by the program and observed during the 2010 evaluation. The NMR team also examined other resources to determine estimates of average annual lighting hours. In particular, the current Connecticut P...
AI summary The NMR team evaluated lighting hours and interactive effects for the SLC program. They found that assumed lighting hours were 33% lower than actual estimates from other sources and identified interactive effects between lighting changes and HVAC systems.
10 http://www.dpuc.state.ct.us/dockcurr.nsf/8e6fc37a54110e3e852576190052b64d/c530ebcb3a3e701f852577af005d 20e6?OpenDocument 11 http://www.ma-eeac.org/docs/MA%20TRM_2011%20PLAN%20VERSION.PDF NMR Evaluation of 2010 Prescriptive Rebate Progra...
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Prescriptive Rebate Programs, analyzing lighting usage in electrically conditioned spaces across various programs. Data from site visits and program evaluations were used to calculate weighted averages for fixtures installed in cooled and heated spaces.
I Custom 2009 and 2010 14,644 66% 32% Weighted Average N/A 24,724 58.6% 19.1% Table 4-4: HVAC Efficiencies Fixtures in Fixtures in Electric Cooling Electric Heating Heating Program Year Sample Cooling COP Sample Efficiency Smart Lighting C...
AI summary The text presents data on HVAC efficiencies for various lighting programs, including Smart Lighting Choices and Small Business Lighting Solutions, along with formulas used to calculate cooling savings and heating penalties based on fixture performance and operational factors.
r is the average annual operation of all fixtures installed. % coincident cooling is the percentage of total annual lighting hours that the cooling equipment operates. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Prescriptive Rebate Programs Page 30 Average...
AI summary The document discusses formulas used to evaluate the 2010 Prescriptive Rebate Programs, including terms like average COP, winter waste heat factor, and average efficiency. These formulas are used to calculate energy savings and performance metrics for lighting and heating systems.
ncy of the heating equipment. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Prescriptive Rebate Programs Page 31 4.3 Program Impact Results Table 4-5 presents the final estimates of savings for the SLC program based upon the analyses described above. This table...
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 SLC program's energy savings, reporting 6,922.1 MWh at the meter and 7,434.5 MWh at the generator. It also notes connected and peak demand savings, using a 64.9% average operation time from 5pm to 6pm for lighting products.
Sampling Error at 90% Population Sample Size (n) Confidence Interval Participants 2010 30 11 +20.1% 5.2 Program Goals and Design The Business Energy Rebate (BER) program was a new addition to the DSM Administrator‘s portfolio of energy eff...
AI summary The Business Energy Rebate (BER) program, launched in mid-2010, provided financial incentives for businesses to purchase energy-efficient equipment. It was modeled after Efficiency Vermont (EVT) and aimed to increase market penetration of efficient technologies and raise customer awareness of energy-efficient products.
y the C&I Sales Lead, through a marketing subcontractor, Delivery Agents, and an outbound calling center. In addition, the program was advertised in newspapers and on the DSM Administrator‘s website. 5.4 Measure Installations Respondents t...
AI summary The BER program used multiple channels to promote energy-efficient installations, including marketing subcontractors, delivery agents, and outbound calling. Survey results indicate that participants installed various energy-efficient products, such as lighting, HVAC upgrades, and variable speed drives, though some could not recall specific installations.
2 Manufacturer representative 1 Someone within their company/organization 1 5.5 Program Awareness, Motivation and Barriers When asked how they had first become aware of the BER program, four out of eleven respondents cited sources associat...
AI summary The BER program's awareness sources include NSPI, contractors, trade newsletters, and previous participants. Four out of eleven respondents were informed by NSPI, while three were informed by contractors or vendors. This aligns with the program's marketing strategies.
Respondents participated in the program for a variety of reasons. The most frequently cited reason was to save on energy costs, with six respondents citing this as their most important motivation and three citing it as their second most im...
AI summary Respondents participated in the program primarily to save on energy costs, with six citing it as their most important motivation and three as their second most important. Other motivations included ease of process, environmental concerns, and energy conservation, while program incentives were less frequently cited as a primary motivation.
1 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Prescriptive Rebate Programs Page 37 Respondents were also asked why they had decided to install energy efficient equipment. Table 5-6 shows respondents‘ most and second most important motivations by type of equipm...
AI summary Respondents cited saving on energy bills as the primary motivation for installing energy efficient equipment. Other motivations included improving lighting conditions, reducing maintenance costs, and taking advantage of program incentives. These findings highlight the importance of cost savings and incentives in driving energy efficiency adoption.
by one respondent). Other motivations for respondents who had installed HVAC equipment included reducing maintenance costs, taking advantage of program incentives, and reducing their carbon footprint. Table 5-6: Importance of Motivations f...
AI summary Respondents who installed HVAC equipment were motivated by reducing maintenance costs, taking advantage of program incentives, and reducing their carbon footprint. Table 5-6 outlines the importance of various motivations for product installation, with energy cost savings being the most frequently cited reason.
1 2 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Prescriptive Rebate Programs Page 39 Respondents were asked four questions about actions they would have taken in the absence of the BER program. (Table 5-9) As the questions were asked separately, respondents we...
AI summary Respondents were asked about their actions in the absence of the BER program. Three respondents said they would have postponed installation for over a year, three said they would not have installed any equipment, five said they would have installed less energy-efficient equipment, and three said they would have installed the same quantity of equipment as under the program.
9 3 6 Installing less energy efficient equipment 9 5 4 Installing the same quantity of equipment 9 3 5 1 Eight out of the nine respondents indicated that their budget could have accommodated the equipment that had been installed in the abs...
AI summary Eight out of nine respondents indicated that their budgets could have covered the installation of less energy-efficient equipment without program rebates, suggesting that rebates played a significant role in enabling the installation of more efficient equipment.
1 3 1 3 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Prescriptive Rebate Programs Page 40 5.6.2 Spillover When respondents were asked whether they had installed any additional equipment of the type they had installed through the BER program (i.e., additional li...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Prescriptive Rebate Programs found that none of the nine respondents installed additional equipment of the types covered by the BER program. However, three out of eleven respondents indicated that the program influenced them to take additional energy efficiency actions, such as installing HVAC upgrades and energy-efficient lighting.
n influenced to take additional actions including installing HVAC upgrades, energy efficient lighting, and occupancy sensors.12 Table 5-13: Influence of Program on Additional Energy Efficiency Actions Program Influenced Additional Actions...
AI summary The 2010 Prescriptive Rebate Programs influenced some participants to take additional energy efficiency actions, such as installing HVAC upgrades, energy-efficient lighting, and occupancy sensors. However, these actions were not completed by 2010 and were included in the process evaluation but excluded from the impact evaluation.
from the 2010 impact evaluation. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Prescriptive Rebate Programs Page 41 5.7 Energy Attitudes and Importance As shown in Table 5-14, all of the respondents indicated that managing energy was important to their business....
AI summary The evaluation of 2010 prescriptive rebate programs shows that all respondents considered energy management important to their business, with energy usage reduction and cost management rated highly. Energy costs were generally low as a percentage of annual budgets, except for one respondent where energy costs made up 60% of their total budget.
5.8 Satisfaction and Program Improvement Suggestions The majority of respondents were satisfied with the program. On a scale from one (―not at all satisfied‖) to five (―very satisfied‖), eight out of the eleven respondents gave a rating of...
AI summary Most respondents were satisfied with the BER program, rating it four or five out of five. However, rebate amounts were a point of dissatisfaction, with some respondents feeling they were too low. One BER participant noted that rebates for LED parking lot lighting were insufficient, suggesting they should be in the $300 to $400 range.
5= ‘very satisfied’ and 1 = ‘not at all satisfied’ Aspect of program n 5 4 3 2 1 DK NA Program overall 11 3 5 3 Program application, forms and paperwork 11 3 3 4 1 Interaction and communication with staff 11 6 1 2 2 Availability of NSP sta...
AI summary The table presents survey results on customer satisfaction with a program, including aspects like application processes, interaction with staff, and rebate amounts. Nearly all respondents indicated they are likely to purchase energy-efficient products in the future.
acing equipment in the future NMR Evaluation of 2010 Prescriptive Rebate Programs Page 43 Seven of the eleven respondents gave suggestions for improving the program. Three respondents suggested that the program increase the rebate amounts,...
AI summary Seven of eleven respondents suggested improvements to the 2010 prescriptive rebate program, including increasing rebate amounts, clarifying eligible products, improving form usability, and enhancing customer-program staff communication. Four respondents had no recommendations.
1 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Prescriptive Rebate Programs Page 44 Concomitantly, there was a wide range of building floor space reported by the respondents. Two out of eleven respondents reported having facilities with less than 5,000 square f...
AI summary The text discusses the variation in building floor space and number of employees among respondents in the 2010 Prescriptive Rebate Programs. It highlights the wide range of sizes and employee counts reported, with data presented in tables.
A Interview Guides Participant Survey 2009-10 NSPI Business Energy Rebate Program DRAFT 8-6-10 Could I speak with [INSERT NAME]? 1. Yes [GO TO INTRODUCTION] 2. No [SAY ―Perhaps you can help me anyway.‖ GO TO INTRODUCTION] [INTRODUCTION] He...
AI summary This document outlines an interview guide for evaluating the 2009-10 NSPI Business Energy Rebate Program. It includes a participant survey to gather feedback on the program's effectiveness, targeting individuals or firms that participated in the rebate initiative.
E] 99. (Refused) – [CONTINUE] NMR Evaluation of 2010 Business Energy Rebate Program Page A7 FREE-RIDERSHIP [FR series] [ASK EACH QUESTION IN THIS SECTION FOR EACH MEASURE CATEGORY VERIFIED IN V1 –V5] FR1. Did your company / organization ha...
AI summary This section of the document evaluates the 2010 Business Energy Rebate Program by asking participants about their prior plans, alternative actions without the program, and whether the rebate influenced their budgeting for energy-efficient upgrades.
cility open? [998 = Don’t know, 999 = Refused] NMR Evaluation of 2010 Business Energy Rebate Program Page A14 F5. Is your company independent, or part of a larger company? 1. Independent 2. Part of a larger company 98. (Don‘t know) 99. (Re...
AI summary This document is part of an evaluation of the 2010 Business Energy Rebate Program, focusing on free-ridership and spillover effects. It includes a participant interview guide used by NMR Group, Inc. to gather information from respondents regarding their interactions with Nova Scotia Power's energy efficiency programs and any additional upgrades they have implemented.
y represent your responses. No one but NMR staff members will listen to the recording. NMR will keep all recordings in its files. Do I have your permission to record the interview _ Yes _ No Background and interaction with staff 1. Are you...
AI summary This text outlines an interview process with a representative of a company to gather information about their participation in Nova Scotia Power's energy efficiency rebate programs, particularly focusing on the 2010 Business Energy Rebate Program and prior programs.
ebate Program Page A16 5. In general, how often do you interact with NSPI energy efficiency program staff? Who do you interact with at NSPI? a. What types of interactions do you typically have with NSPI staff? [Probe: status calls, meeting...
AI summary The text outlines questions related to interactions with NSPI energy efficiency program staff, the use of design professionals in project scoping, and the C&I Custom program delivery process, including steps such as preliminary audits, feasibility assessments, and verification.
cipate in the NSPI rebate programs? [Probe: Save energy, rebates offered, reduce maintenance costs, protect environment, recommended by utility, concerns with carbon, etc.] 12. Were there any challenges or barriers that you faced in making...
AI summary The document includes questions about participation in NSPI rebate programs, challenges faced, barriers to participation, and satisfaction with program implementation and communication. It also asks about gaps in energy efficiency programs and overall satisfaction with various NSPI programs.
ith NSPI staff [Does this vary by program at all?] e. Project implementation f. Rebate amounts [Does this vary by program at all?] g. Measurement and verification h. Application, rebate/incentive and associated paperwork [Does this vary by...
AI summary The text includes questions about rebate programs offered by NSPI, focusing on implementation, rebate amounts, and free-ridership. It also asks about energy efficiency improvements and whether the company would have taken similar actions without the rebate programs.
the program 22. If you had not received the incentive from Nova Scotia Power, could your budget have accommodated the full cost of the energy efficient upgrades including the incentive? 23. How influential were the following elements to yo...
AI summary The text includes survey questions about the influence of NSPI rebate programs on participants' decisions, focusing on incentives, information, and contractor services. It also asks if the incentive helped participants afford energy-efficient upgrades.
2 3 4 5 9 no extremely DK influence influential Spillover Now I‘d like you to think about any energy efficient equipment or upgrades that your company is currently pursuing or has installed in the past two years on its own. These measures...
AI summary The text asks respondents about energy-efficient equipment and upgrades their company has implemented or is pursuing, including whether they are using Nova Scotia Power rebate programs, and the expected electricity savings in 2010 from these measures.
t measures and processes; or the NMR Evaluation of 2010 Business Energy Rebate Program Page A20 savings could be from PLANNED OR END-OF-LIFE replacements and installations of higher efficiency rather than standard efficiency measures and p...
AI summary The text discusses the evaluation of the 2010 Business Energy Rebate Program, focusing on energy savings from efficiency measures and the influence of the program on participants' decisions. It also asks about the importance of reducing energy usage and managing energy costs to organizations.
Introduction: [This interview should take about an hour] Your comments are confidential. By the way, if I ask you about areas you don‘t know about, please feel free to tell me and we will move on. For transcription purposes we will be reco...
AI summary The text outlines a series of questions for an interview regarding the status and implementation of a program, including legislative status, program launch delays, energy savings goals, and stakeholder interactions. It focuses on program evaluation, coordination, and challenges in communication and collaboration.
about the program? Thank You NMR Impact and Process Evaluation: Commercial and Industrial Custom Program 2010 February 25, 2011 Final Report Submitted to: Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation Submitted by: NMR Group, Inc. Principal Investiga...
AI summary This document is the final report of an impact and process evaluation of the 2010 Commercial and Industrial Custom Program conducted by NMR Group, Inc. and submitted to Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation. The report was prepared by a team of principal investigators.
......... 1 NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page I Executive Summary This report presents the results of the process and impact evaluations of the Commercial and Industrial Custom Program (C&I) conducted by NMR Group, Inc. (NMR)....
AI summary This report evaluates the 2010 Commercial and Industrial Custom Program (C&I) by NMR Group, Inc., finding energy savings of 19,413 MWh and demand savings of 2,405.5 kW, which fell short of targets but showed significant improvement over 2008 and 2009 combined.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page 1 1 Program Description 1.1 Program Description2 The C&I Custom program was first implemented in May of 2008. The program offers financial incentives to large commercial and industrial custome...
AI summary The C&I Custom program, implemented in 2008, provides financial incentives for large commercial and industrial customers to conduct energy audits and implement energy efficiency measures. In 2010, the DSM Administrator introduced the C&I New Construction program to support energy-efficient building designs, focusing on criteria such as building envelopes, lighting, and HVAC systems.
rmance in: o Building envelopes; o Lighting; o HVAC; o Power systems; o Controls; o Design guidance; o Verification. This document reports the results of the evaluation of the C&I Custom program. Although the C&I New Construction program l...
AI summary This document evaluates the performance of the C&I Custom program in areas such as building envelopes, lighting, HVAC, and power systems. The C&I New Construction program launched in 2010 but had no completed projects that year, so the evaluation focused on two projects enrolled in the C&I Custom program prior to the launch.
action of installations performed and their associated savings. The total installed savings for the 2010 projects was 22,758 MWh of energy savings and 2,805 kW of peak demand savings at the generator. Table 2-1: Tracking Estimates of 2010...
AI summary The text provides data on energy and peak demand savings from 2010 commercial and industrial (C&I) custom installations. A total of 102 projects resulted in 22,758 MWh of energy savings and 2,805 kW of peak demand savings at the generator level.
Other3 10 3,469 409 Total 102 22,758 2,805 2.2 Sample Methodology At the time of sampling for this study, the program year was only 80% complete. At that point in time, the C&I Custom program manager provided a best-estimate population of...
AI summary The 2010 C&I Custom Program's evaluation used a sample methodology based on an 80% complete program year. The C&I Custom program manager estimated 93 sites would be completed, with 29,488 MWh of energy savings and 3,691 kW of demand savings. The NMR team applied Model-Based Statistical Sampling (MBSS) to stratify the population based on estimated annual kWh savings.
le was designed and drawn from a projected status of sites at year end. Overall, the final sample design remained fairly optimal in capturing greater savings at the larger sites than the smaller ones. Table 2-2: Final Sample Design Max Sav...
AI summary The text discusses the final sample design for evaluating the 2010 C&I Custom Program, highlighting how the sample was optimized to capture greater savings at larger sites. Table 2-2 shows strata based on maximum savings, and Table 2-3 indicates the diversity of measure types in the sample, with lighting measures being the most common.
tracking estimate of savings. NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page 4 Table 2-3: Summary of Final Sample Number of Measure Type Projects Lighting Retrofit (incl. LED) 11 Refrigeration 1 Motors 1 HVAC 1 Envelope 1 2.3 Savings Metho...
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 C&I Custom Program, summarizing the types of energy efficiency measures implemented, including lighting retrofits, refrigeration, motors, HVAC, and envelope improvements. It outlines the methodology used to assess the impact of these measures.
site contacts were also asked to verify that the pre-retrofit fixture counts seemed appropriate. Issues with the pre-retrofit equipment specification were not identified at any of the sites. 2.3.2 Traffic Lighting The 2010 sample included...
AI summary The text outlines on-site verification activities for energy efficiency projects in 2010, including traffic lighting and motor installations. It details how site contacts and municipal offices were involved in verifying equipment specifications, fixture counts, and motor data collection.
nistrator did not include the M&V data. For more information on the on-site activities performed at this facility, as well as a synopsis of the motor data collected while on site, refer to Appendix A. 2.3.4 Comprehensive “Whole Building” S...
AI summary The 2010 sample included a newly constructed facility characterized as a whole building energy efficiency project, incorporating HVAC, insulation, and lighting measures. A building simulation modeling approach was used to evaluate savings, with on-site data collection focused on occupancy schedules, lighting and HVAC set points, and facility plans.
d to verify that the proposed HVAC and lighting measures were installed and operating as proposed. Nameplate data were also collected from the HVAC equipment to assist in informing the facility model.
AI summary The text discusses the verification of installed HVAC and lighting measures and the collection of nameplate data from HVAC equipment to inform a facility model.
2.3.5 Refrigeration The 2010 sample included a refrigeration project where control and operational modifications were made at 19 different locations. The refrigeration measures focused on beverage coolers in the stores. Evaporator fan cont...
AI summary This section discusses a 2010 refrigeration project that included control modifications at 19 locations, focusing on beverage coolers. Measures included evaporator fan controls and anti-condensate heater controls, and some sites had outside air cooling. Site visits verified installations and data were collected for energy savings calculations and program-level impact estimation.
program level impacts through the use of stratified ratio estimation techniques. For more information on this process and the statistical process surrounding this expansion of results see Appendix A. 2.4 Results Figure 2-1 presents a scatt...
AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of the 2010 C&I Custom Program, using stratified ratio estimation techniques and on-site sample data to estimate annual energy and demand savings. The results show a strong correlation between tracking system estimates and on-site observations, with installed annual energy savings of 21,570 MWh and peak demand savings of 2,672.8 kW.
vings for the C&I Custom program is determined to be 21,570 MWh at the generator level with a realization rate of 94.8%. The peak demand savings are calculated to be 2,672.8 kW at the generator level. Table 2-4: 2010 Installed C&I Custom A...
AI summary The 2010 C&I Custom Program evaluation shows annual energy savings of 21,570 MWh with a 94.8% realization rate and peak demand savings of 2,672.8 kW with a 95.3% realization rate. The realization rates have historically been stable between 95% and 110%, but 2010 saw a 14% decrease due to revisions at a motor site.
e, where some revisions to the inputs and the savings approach caused the savings to go down approximately 14%. This, among other factors, contributed to the relatively lower realization rate in 2010. Table 2-5: Comparison of 2008, 2009 an...
AI summary The realization rates for energy efficiency programs decreased from 107% in 2008 to 95% in 2010, largely due to revisions in input data and savings approaches. The table shows the number and type of sites evaluated each year, with 2010 having the lowest realization rate.
Don‘t know 25% Yes 50% Would have installed the same amount of energy efficient FR2d. No 25% equipment that was installed through the program Don‘t know 25% Stated Intent Score = average of FR2a, FR2b, FR2c+ci, and FR2d.
AI summary The text presents survey responses regarding customer intent to install energy-efficient equipment, with 50% indicating they would have installed the same amount regardless of the program, 25% indicating they would not, and 25% unsure. The Stated Intent Score is calculated as the average of four related responses.
0% for demand savings. NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page 14 2.8 Energy Savings Estimation Table 2-10 presents the net installed annual energy and demand savings for the 2010 C&I Custom program. The net annual savings were base...
AI summary The 2010 C&I Custom Program achieved 19,413 MWh of energy savings and 2,405.5 kW of demand savings, falling short of the 20,000 MWh and 3,410 kW goals. However, these savings exceeded the combined 2008 and 2009 results, indicating growth in the program.
3.2 Program Goals and Design The C&I Custom program was developed in-house by DSM Administrator staff; some features were modeled after the Manitoba Hydro Performance Optimization Program. The program offers incentives for commercial and i...
AI summary The C&I Custom program offers incentives for energy audits and efficiency improvements for commercial and industrial customers. It includes stages such as preliminary audits, feasibility studies, and implementation. Some projects are directed to the BER program, while others are handled through the C&I Custom program based on their complexity.
Customer was unable to raise the needed capital Project was a lost opportunity. For example, a customer had to upgrade equipment but could not buy a more energy-efficient option.
AI summary The customer was unable to secure the necessary capital to fund an energy-efficient upgrade, resulting in a lost opportunity to improve energy efficiency.
members to the program. NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page 19 One of the 2010 participants said they had participated in another energy efficiency program in 2009 but had been unable to provide a description of the program. (Ta...
AI summary The 2010 C&I Custom Program evaluation indicates that most participants had not participated in prior energy efficiency programs, with some uncertainty about the details of past programs. One participant mentioned involvement in a 2009 program but could not describe it.
Descriptions Electric water heating program Description na Don‘t know (1) (1) 3.5 Participation Motivations and Barriers When asked their primary reason for participating in the C&I Custom program, the majority of 2010 respondents reported...
AI summary The 2010 C&I Custom Program saw participants primarily motivated by financial benefits, such as saving on energy costs and program incentives. Environmental considerations were also mentioned as secondary motivations. The evaluation highlights the importance of cost savings in driving participation in energy efficiency initiatives.
Table 3-4: Participant Motivations 2008 Participants (n=11) 2009 Participants (n=13) 2010 Participants (n=13) Reasons for Participating in C&I Most Second Most Most Second Most Most Second Most Custom program Important Important Important...
AI summary The table presents participant motivations for engaging in C&I programs and pursuing feasibility studies from 2008 to 2010. Key motivations include saving on energy costs, receiving incentives, and protecting the environment, with varying percentages across years.
nt Important Important Save on energy/energy costs 45% 36% 50% 36% 69% Incentives 36 8 9 15 8 Part of existing retrofit efforts 9 8 Help protect the environment 9 25 9 8 17 Reduce maintenance costs 17 Reduce carbon footprint 17 See what wa...
AI summary The text presents survey results on reasons for implementing energy efficiency measures, with a focus on saving on energy costs, incentives, and environmental protection. The data highlights varying percentages of respondents citing different motivations, such as cost savings, carbon reduction, and program verification.
t Important Important Important Important Important Save on energy/energy costs 64% 36% 64% 9% 85% 0% Incentives 9 8 8 Reduce maintenance costs 9 9 23 Reduce carbon footprint 9 15 Improve existing lighting conditions 9 9 36 8 Help protect...
AI summary The document presents survey results showing varying levels of importance placed on energy efficiency incentives and programs by different stakeholders. Key themes include energy cost savings, carbon reduction, and maintenance cost reduction, with notable emphasis on incentives and energy efficiency.
Table 3-5: Participant Barriers 2008 Participants (n=11) 2009 Participants (n=13) 2010 Participants (n=13) Most Second Most Most Second Most Most Second Most Barriers Faced During Program Important Important Important Important Important I...
AI summary The table presents participant barriers to program participation across three years (2008, 2009, 2010). It highlights that the majority of participants did not face barriers, but issues such as communication, remote location, and voltage change were noted as challenges.
principles behind the project Lack of personnel 15 Payback timeframe 8 Contract language 8 Consultant error 8 Complicated communication 8 Legal issues 8 Don‘t know 36 23 31 These are not program-related barriers. 3.6 Implemented Measures T...
AI summary The text discusses barriers to implementation of energy efficiency measures, including lack of personnel, payback timeframe, contract language, consultant error, and complicated communication. It also notes that legal issues and uncertainty ('Don’t know') are significant barriers. The section also highlights that the 2010 survey respondents implemented measures similar to the general population, with lighting retrofits being the most common through the C&I Custom program.
ofit companies. NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page 22 Table 3-6: Measures Implemented – Participants Measure 2008 2009 2010 Implemented Respondents Population Respondents Population Respondents Population Sample size 11 15 13 3...
AI summary This table presents the implementation of energy efficiency measures by participants in the 2010 C&I Custom Program, showing the percentage of respondents and population across the years 2008 to 2010. Lighting retrofit is the most commonly implemented measure, while other measures like HVAC, low-e ceilings, and refrigeration show lower implementation rates.
Table 3-7: Additional Purchases of Energy Efficiency Equipment 2008 Respondents 2009 Respondents 2010 Respondents Sample size 11 13 13 Additional energy efficiency measures 27% 23% 15% Additional feasibility studies 18 39 8 Have not pursue...
AI summary The table presents data on additional purchases of energy efficiency equipment by respondents in 2008, 2009, and 2010. It shows the percentage of respondents who pursued additional energy efficiency measures, feasibility studies, or did not pursue any, along with the types of equipment purchased.
Utility account manager 9 8 Don‘t know 7 8 3.9 Firmographics Respondents were asked to rate the importance of reducing energy usage and managing energy costs to their organization on a scale of one to five, where one equaled ‗not at all im...
AI summary The survey indicates that 92% of 2010 respondents found reducing energy usage and managing energy costs very or somewhat important. Energy costs accounted for 37% of annual operating budgets on average, with 81% of respondents reporting energy costs made up 20% or more of their budgets.
39 Government 8 Non-profit 8 8 NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page A1 Appendix A Individual On-Site Reports Technical Note on Stratified Ratio Estimation The on-site engineering assessment used engineering analysis and surveys t...
AI summary This document discusses the evaluation of a 2010 C&I Custom Program, focusing on the use of stratified ratio estimation to calculate energy savings. It outlines the methodology for combining on-site engineering assessments with statistical analysis to estimate program impacts and net savings.
^ Y ra NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page A2 Project ID: C-4142145-1 1.0 Facility Overview This is a grocery distribution warehouse. The main areas of the facility include offices, loading docks, and extensive warehouse floor s...
AI summary This document evaluates the 2010 C&I Custom Program at a grocery distribution warehouse. It includes facility details, operational hours, and energy usage. New lighting systems were installed, resulting in energy and demand savings. Adjustments were made to account for transmission and distribution losses, with evaluated energy savings being 6.9% less than tracking savings.
Generator savings are customer savings plus a 7.01% scale factor to account for transmission and distribution losses. The evaluated energy savings were ultimately 6.9% less than the tracking savings. Table 1: Summary of Tracking and Evalua...
AI summary The text provides a comparison between tracking and evaluated energy savings for lighting and interactive lighting, showing a 6.9% reduction in evaluated savings. It also includes tables summarizing installed fixtures and their wattage, as well as generator savings calculations that account for transmission and distribution losses.
tures were inventoried in offices and hallways. Two-lamp and four-lamp fixtures were also present. Conversions from eight-foot T12 can include two or four T8 lamps installed in the eight foot troffer. 4.0 Tracking Savings Review and Calcul...
AI summary The document describes the process of calculating energy savings from a lighting retrofit program in commercial and industrial settings. Savings were determined by comparing pre- and post-retrofit wattage and multiplying by annual operating hours for each lighting group.
Page A4 where, ES L = Direct savings from the lighting retrofit (kWh) n = Number of fixtures W = Fixture wattage i = Lighting group i h = Assumed lighting annual hours of operation 1000 = Wh to kWh conversion factor. No loggers were insta...
AI summary The document discusses the calculation of energy savings from a lighting retrofit project, including direct savings and interactive cooling savings. It mentions the use of formulas to calculate these savings, as well as the assumptions made regarding operating hours, heat gain factors, and cooling system performance. No loggers were installed to monitor operating hours, and values were reviewed with facility personnel.
d at 33% of the annual lighting operating hours. A heat gain factor of 0.208 was used in the spreadsheet. An electric heating penalty was not assessed for this facility as it is heated by #2 fuel oil. 5.0 On-Site Methodology A detailed lig...
AI summary The document discusses on-site methodology and observations for evaluating the 2010 C&I Custom Program. It highlights challenges in comparing baseline and installed equipment due to insufficient detail, and notes discrepancies in fixture counts and wattage ratings that were corrected in the evaluation.
lculations also used incorrect wattage for one fixture type. The 250-Watt high pressure sodium fixtures were rated at 465-Watts in the baseline system. This was changed to 295-Watts in the evaluation. 7.0 Conclusions Annual energy savings...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 C&I Custom Program at a hardware store facility found that annual energy savings were 93.1% of tracking savings, with variances attributed to reductions in fixture quantity and modifications to baseline calculations. Customer and generator demand savings were also lower than expected, though interactive cooling contributed additional savings.
to 8 PM Thursday through Friday, 8 AM to 6 PM Saturday, and 10 AM to 5 PM Sunday. Employees typically arrive and leave the facility 15 minutes before opening and 30 minutes after closing respectively. 2.0 Summary of Savings and Adjustments...
AI summary The project involved lighting renovations in the retail, basement, and shipping areas of a facility, resulting in energy and demand savings. Customer savings were 25% less than tracking savings, and generator savings were adjusted by 7.1% to account for transmission and distribution losses.
ows: Replace 2L 4‘ T12 (120W) and 2L 8‘ T12 (68W) fixtures with 2L (48W) and 4L (98W) low wattage T8 fixtures. Replace metal halide (457W) fixtures with 6L T8 (221W) high bay fixtures. 4.0 Tracking Savings Review and Calculations Tra...
AI summary The document outlines the replacement of high-wattage lighting fixtures with low-wattage T8 fixtures in a commercial setting. It describes the method used to calculate energy savings from the retrofit, including grouping fixtures by area, comparing wattage before and after installation, and using annual operating hours to estimate annual savings.
(n preiWprei n postiWposti )h ES i 1000 (1) where, ES = Direct savings from the lighting retrofit (kWh) n = Number of fixtures W = Fixture wattage i = Store area i h = Assumed lighting annual hours of operation 1,000 = Wh to kWh...
AI summary The document calculates direct energy savings from a lighting retrofit project using a formula that considers the number of fixtures, wattage, and annual operating hours. Savings were calculated based on lighting logger data and assumptions about store operations. Peak demand savings were estimated using a coincidence factor. On-site verification confirmed fixture types but noted discrepancies in quantities.
ed those listed in the application. The quantities, however, were slightly different. Table 2 below compares the fixtures found on-site with the fixtures specified in the tracking savings analysis. NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program...
AI summary The document compares the number of fixtures found on-site with those specified in the tracking savings analysis for the 2010 C&I Custom Program. Discrepancies are noted in some areas, such as the basement and renovation area, where verified counts differ slightly from tracking counts.
24 2L T8 4' 28W 0 1 Main Entry 6L T8 4' 28W 16 16 The site contact was able to explain the presence of two additional 4L fixtures in the basement. He stated that after the project had been completed, the lighting levels were still too low...
AI summary The document discusses the installation of additional lighting fixtures in a basement due to insufficient lighting levels after project completion. It also reviews amperage data collected during the implementation of a monitoring and verification (M&V) process, highlighting discrepancies in lighting circuit data and the presence of non-lighting loads on monitored circuits.
factor was then multiplied by the operating hours in Equation 1 to scale the lighting hours to ―Equivalent Full Load Lighting Hours.‖ Data from the basement loggers (B and C) and the ―Main Entry‖ and ―Renovation‖ area loggers were cleaned...
AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of the 2010 C&I Custom Program, focusing on the use of data from various loggers to update operating hours and the exclusion of data from logger A due to load inconsistencies.
was assumed based on the site contact‘s claim that the store is open continuously during the peak period. Peak demand savings for all lighting areas were summed to generate gross peak demand savings. 7.0 Conclusions Annual energy savings w...
AI summary The document discusses energy savings from a lighting project, noting that annual energy savings were 74.5% of the tracking savings due to discrepancies in fixture counts, improper logger data use, and rounding of baseline values. Peak demand savings exceeded tracking estimates by 140.2%, primarily due to outdated tracking system data and differences in peak coincidence factors used in evaluations.
lly predicted primarily because the load weighted average peak coincidence factor using in the evaluation analysis (.96) was larger than the peak coincidence factor using in the M&V analysis (.75). NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program...
AI summary A lighting retrofit project was completed across six buildings, including food processing and packaging plants. The project involved replacing lighting systems in various areas, resulting in energy and demand savings. Savings were recalculated after a site visit and review of documentation, showing evaluated energy savings were 4.7% greater than tracking savings.
nerator savings are customer savings plus a 4.1% scale factor to account for transmission and distribution losses. The evaluated energy savings were ultimately 4.7% greater than the tracking savings. Table 1: Summary of Tracking and Evalua...
AI summary The document evaluates energy savings from a C&I custom program, comparing tracking savings and evaluated savings. It shows that evaluated savings are higher than tracking savings, with a 4.7% increase in energy savings and a 23.2% increase in demand savings. The results are presented in tables for lighting and interactive lighting categories.
2 lamp T8 88 64 Stores 6 lamp T8 17 192 Total 851 208.5 Avg kW NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page A13
AI summary This section evaluates the 2010 C&I Custom Program, focusing on the number of lamps and their wattage across different locations, such as stores, and provides an average kW usage. It appears to be part of a broader evaluation of energy efficiency programs.
4 290 Hillaton N.S. 150HPS 4 175 Total 813 334.1 Avg kW Fixture types and wattages for the pre-existing fixtures were taken at face value since pre-existing fixtures were unavailable for verification at the time of the evaluation-site visi...
AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of a lighting retrofit project, including fixture types, wattages, and the calculation of energy savings using a spreadsheet-based approach. It notes that pre-existing fixtures were not verified and that savings were estimated based on installed and pre-retrofit fixture data.
(1) NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page A14 where, ES L = Direct savings from the lighting retrofit (kWh) n = Number of fixtures W = Fixture wattage i = Lighting group i h = Assumed lighting annual hours of operation 1,000 = Wh...
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 C&I Custom Program by analyzing direct lighting retrofit savings and interactive cooling savings. It calculates energy savings using equations that consider lighting wattage, annual operating hours, and heat gain and seasonality factors. Site personnel confirmed the accuracy of the data, and the results showed reduced cooling costs due to lower waste heat from new lighting systems.
ghting savings [kWh] = Heat gain factor (fraction of the lighting energy assumed to become a load on the space) = Seasonality factor (fraction of the year assumed to require cooling) = Coefficient of performance of the cooling system. A he...
AI summary The document evaluates energy savings from a 2010 C&I Custom Program, focusing on lighting efficiency improvements. It calculates savings from reduced waste heat, cooling system efficiency, and adjustments for electric heating penalties. Peak demand savings are also estimated based on system load factors.
to demand savings. The cooling equipment operated with a reduced load due to the reduction in waste heat. The electric resistance heating operated at slightly greater loads, affecting demand savings. 5.0 On-Site Methodology The installatio...
AI summary The document details the on-site methodology used to assess demand savings from new lighting equipment installations. It discusses discussions with site personnel, verification of baseline assumptions, and challenges in matching fixture quantities between tracking spreadsheets and on-site counts. A complete lighting inventory was performed, and annual operation data was collected to populate a savings re-creation spreadsheet.
xtures according to general usage along with the fixture type. Annual lighting operation was also obtained for each location. The savings re-creation spreadsheet was populated from the collected data. 6.0 On-site Observations and Findings...
AI summary The document details on-site observations of lighting fixtures and cooling/refrigeration equipment in a facility. There are discrepancies between installed and tracked fixtures, and COP values used for cooling calculations are deemed too low, impacting savings estimates. Electric resistance heating and infrared systems are also noted.
ve heating penalties were generated for this project. Electric resistance heating exists in offices and some equipment spaces. Some areas are heated by infrared radiant system. These units operate by NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Progr...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 C&I Custom Program shows that annual energy savings exceeded tracking savings by 104.7%, with adjustments due to fixture changes. Heating penalties were reduced from 82,022 kWh to 30,017 kWh by eliminating interactions in spaces with radiant heat or fuel oil. Cooling savings were adjusted from 97,427 kWh to 45,587 kWh due to corrected COP values. Peak demand savings were 142.8% of the tracking estimate, influenced by fixture changes and interactive heating and cooling effects.
er holds parties, weddings, remembrance services, seminars, and other events. A typical weekend event runs from 4 PM on Saturday to 1 AM on Sunday. The civic center is generally unoccupied on Sundays. 2.0 Summary of Savings and Adjustments...
AI summary The project involved installing occupancy sensors, high-efficiency ground source heat pumps, and additional insulation to reduce energy consumption at a civic center. Savings were recalculated using updated energy models, resulting in a 1.6% increase in gross evaluated energy savings over tracking savings.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page A18 Table 1: Summary of Tracking and Evaluation Savings Results Customer Savings kWh kW Tracking Evaluated Difference Tracking Evaluated Difference Lighting 4224 1800 -2424 0.5 0.0 -0.5 HVAC 1...
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 C&I Custom Program by comparing tracking and evaluation results for customer and generator savings in kWh and kW across lighting, HVAC, and insulation categories, showing discrepancies between tracked and evaluated savings.
3.6 -17.5 Insulation 57,894 7,031 -50,863 6.7 0.1 -6.6 Total 247,408 251,470 4,062 28.4 3.7 -24.7 3.0 Project Overview As mentioned in Section 2.0, this project consisted of lighting, HVAC, and building shell measures. The lighting compone...
AI summary This project involved lighting, HVAC, and building shell improvements. Lighting upgrades included occupancy sensors reducing lighting usage. The HVAC system included GSHPs for heating and cooling, replacing older systems with lower efficiency. Baseline conditions were based on 1997 MNEC standards.
the installed and base cases consisted of identical sensible heat recovery ventilators. Exhaust fans and ventilation requirements were also consistent between the installed and baseline conditions. NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program...
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 C&I Custom Program, focusing on the installation of improved wall and roofing insulation at a facility. The project achieved higher R-values than required by the Model National Energy Code. Savings calculations were performed using building energy modeling software, comparing baseline and installed scenarios to determine energy savings from insulation and HVAC measures.
rgy savings. In long form, insulation energy savings were calculated with the following equation: (1) where, = Insulation Energy Savings [kWh] = Month = Baseline building monthly cooling loads [kBtu] = Baseline building monthly heating loa...
AI summary The document outlines methods for calculating energy savings from insulation and HVAC upgrades in commercial and industrial buildings. It provides equations for calculating insulation energy savings and HVAC energy savings, using baseline and installed building loads and equipment efficiencies.
(2) where, = HVAC Energy Savings [kWh] = Month = Baseline building monthly cooling loads [kBtu] = Baseline building monthly heating loads [kBtu] = Energy Efficiency Rating of baseline cooling equipment (8.5) [kBtu/kWh] = Heating Coefficien...
AI summary The text describes the calculation of HVAC energy savings in a building retrofit project, comparing baseline and improved conditions. It explains that energy savings were calculated separately for insulation and HVAC upgrades, but the actual savings from combining both measures was determined through a third calculation.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page A21 where, = HVAC Energy Savings [kWh] = Month = Baseline building monthly cooling loads [kBtu] = Baseline building monthly heating loads [kBtu] = Installed building monthly cooling loads [kBt...
AI summary The text provides a formula for calculating HVAC energy savings in the context of a 2010 C&I Custom Program. It includes variables representing baseline and installed building loads, energy efficiency ratings, and coefficients of performance for heating and cooling equipment.
ving the ground loop, hot water loop, and chilled water loop. Other plan details, such as the locations of HRVs and fan coils, were also verified to ensure that the building would be modeled properly. 6.0 On-site Observations and Findings...
AI summary The document describes on-site observations and findings related to the installation of heat pumps and other energy efficiency measures in a building. Occupancy sensors and heat pumps were installed as proposed, but the insulation measures could not be verified due to completed construction. Occupancy, lighting, and HVAC scheduling data were provided to assist in constructing a new energy model.
ncillary equipment associated with the installed system, such as the chilled water pumps and the ground source loop pump (modeled as a condenser pump). In addition, this solution provided a method of modeling the air side fan coils as they...
AI summary The text discusses the modeling of an in-slab radiant heating system using an electric boiler with a full load COPh of 4.15 and part load efficiency curve of a generic GSHP, as well as the modeling of air side fan coils and other equipment.
eekdays) were averaged. The final step in the evaluation analysis was assessing the proportions of project savings attributable to each measure. Lighting savings were calculated first on the basis of the difference between the lighting ene...
AI summary The evaluation analysis assessed the proportion of project savings attributable to each measure. Lighting savings were calculated based on the difference between base case and as-built models. For HVAC and insulation, two additional models were run to separate their effects. Heat pumps accounted for 97.9% of savings, while insulation accounted for 2.1%.
lation measure was responsible for the other 2.1%. These percentages were then multiplied by the gross annual savings (less lighting savings) to estimate savings directly attributable to each measure. 7.0 Conclusions When assessed in the a...
AI summary The project achieved energy savings slightly above the tracking estimate, primarily due to higher HVAC efficiency. However, insulation savings were lower than expected, contributing to a reduction in overall savings.
d period. NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page A27 Project ID: C-276-166-9 1.0 Facility Overview Changes in refrigeration controls and operation were implemented in 19 convenience stores in this project. These are small individua...
AI summary This document evaluates the 2010 C&I Custom Program, which involved refrigeration control changes in 19 convenience stores. Modifications included evaporator fan controls, anti-condensate heaters, and outside air dampers. All equipment was operational and well maintained, with no variance between evaluated and tracking savings.
e. Generator savings are customer savings plus a 7.1% scale factor to account for transmission and distribution losses. There is no variance between the evaluated energy savings and tracking savings. Table 1: Summary of Tracking and Evalua...
AI summary The text discusses energy savings results from a 2010 C&I custom program, showing no variance between evaluated and tracking savings for various equipment, with generator savings calculated as customer savings plus a 7.1% scale factor for transmission and distribution losses.
1 1 1 2.5 Condenser Fan 240 2.2 1 1 2 Door Heaters 120 8 1 1 4 Dartmouth Fans or Equipment Volts Amps Phase # of Units Doors/Unit COP Evaporators 120 6 1 2 3 Compressor 240 30.7 1 1 1 2.5 Condenser Fan 240 3 1 1 2 Door Heaters 120 5.53 1 1...
AI summary The text provides technical details about equipment specifications in different locations, including voltage, amperage, and COP values. It also mentions the installation of energy efficiency measures such as evaporator fan and door humidity controls, and the use of free cooling in Truro and Dartmouth.
4.0 Tracking Savings Review and Calculations Tracking savings were generated by vendor software. Savings for the evaporator fan controls, outside air free cooling, and condensate heater controls are calculated individually and results summ...
AI summary The document outlines the methodology used to calculate tracking savings for various energy efficiency measures, including evaporator fan controls, outside air free cooling, and condensate heater controls. Savings are calculated based on fixed reduction percentages, power factors, and annual operating hours.
ed 1,512 annual reduction in operation. New air fans are installed in the cooler to move the outside air. The power consumption of 0.17 kW is set for these fans. The 0.17 kW is multiplied by the reduction in operating hours to account for...
AI summary The document evaluates energy savings from the 2010 C&I Custom Program by analyzing reductions in power consumption from new air fans, anti condensate heater controls, and peak demand savings. Savings are calculated based on reduced operation hours and connected loads of various systems.
alculation changes for this project. NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page A31 There are no heating or cooling interactive savings or penalties for these measures. Peak demand savings are also 100% of the tracking estimate. Peak c...
AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of the 2010 C&I Custom Program, focusing on the calculation of demand savings for various measures, including adjustments for evaporator fan controls, outside air equipment, and door heaters. It also provides an overview of a facility involved in the program, describing its operations and schedule.
ng processes typically run 24 hours per day and 6 days per week during their peak season of May to October. During off peak months, the manufacturing schedule drops to 8 hours a day for 5 days a week. 2.0 Summary of Savings and Adjustments...
AI summary The document discusses a lighting retrofit project completed in 2009 and 2010 at a facility, detailing energy and demand savings. The project involved retrofitting the entire building, including manufacturing, storage, and office areas. Savings were recalculated after a site visit, showing a 3.0% difference between tracking and evaluated savings.
4.2 26.2 Interactive Lighting 4,260 4,507 247 0.0 1.0 1.0 Total Savings 515,484 500,160 -15,325 48.0 75.1 27.1 Generator Savings kWh kW Tracking Evaluated Difference Tracking Evaluated Difference Lighting 542,409 525,887 -16,522 50.9 78.7...
AI summary The document presents data on energy savings from lighting and interactive lighting programs under the 2010 C&I Custom Program. It includes metrics such as kWh and kW savings, tracking versus evaluated results, and differences between them. The data indicates a reduction in savings for both lighting and interactive lighting categories.
148 4' 1L T-12 92 4' 1L T828 72 Note that these fixture quantities reflect slight changes to the counts made during the evaluation. 4.0 Tracking Savings Review and Calculations Tracking savings were calculated using a spreadsheet based app...
AI summary The document details the calculation of tracking savings from a lighting retrofit project. Savings were calculated by comparing pre- and post-retrofit fixture wattages, multiplied by annual operating hours. Operating hours were determined using logger data and amperage readings to estimate the percentage of time lights were on.
culate annual run hours. NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page A34 Interactive cooling savings were also claimed for space conditioned areas of the facility. Since the new fixtures operate at lower wattages, and thus impart less h...
AI summary The document evaluates energy savings from the 2010 C&I Custom Program, including interactive cooling savings and peak demand savings. Calculations involve factors like heat gain, seasonality, and coincidence, while adjustments are made for prior savings claims from 2009.
ccount for the fact that 24% of project savings had already been claimed during the 2009 program year. Total project energy and demand savings were multiplied by .76 to arrive at 2010 project savings. 5.0 On-Site Methodology During the sit...
AI summary The document discusses the methodology used to evaluate the 2010 C&I Custom Program, including adjustments to project savings based on previous claims and verification of fixture installations and operating hours during a site visit.
e peak coincidence factors, which could have assisted in calculating peak demand savings. For the evaluation savings estimate, these data were further analyzed to determine the percentage of time lights in each monitored area were on durin...
AI summary The document describes a method for calculating peak demand savings from lighting retrofits and interactive cooling effects. It discusses the use of peak coincidence factors and connected load reduction to estimate energy savings, as well as a formula for calculating interactive cooling demand savings.
d savings. As in the tracking analysis, project energy and demand savings were scaled by a factor of .76 to account for the fact that 24% of project savings had been claimed for the 2009 program year. 7.0 Conclusions Annual energy savings...
AI summary The evaluation found that annual energy savings were 97% of tracking savings, but tracking system data were outdated and based on the PDA rather than M&V results. Peak demand savings were 156.5% of tracking estimates due to differences in coincidence factors used in calculations.
open 24 hours per day and 7 days per week to allow students to work on projects at all hours. The university only closes for one week between Christmas and New Years, otherwise it operates year round. 2.0 Summary of Savings and Adjustments...
AI summary A comprehensive lighting retrofit was completed across the entire campus, including offices, classrooms, and other facilities. The project's energy and demand savings were recalculated, resulting in a 0.7% reduction in evaluated energy savings compared to tracking savings. Table 1 provides a detailed summary of the savings results.
-3.8 Interactive Lighting 14,174 13,720 -454 0.0 2.1 2.1 Total Savings 398,635 395,693 -2,943 64.4 62.7 -1.7 Generator Savings kWh kW Tracking Evaluated Difference Tracking Evaluated Difference Lighting 411,758 409,092 -2,665 69.0 64.9 -4....
AI summary The document presents savings data from the 2010 C&I Custom Program, including interactive lighting and total savings in kWh and kW. It also outlines the retrofit project, listing the number of new fixtures installed, such as T8 fixtures and CFLs, and notes slight changes in fixture counts during the evaluation.
151 23W CFLs 4 2x14W CFLs 14 2.4W LED Fixtures Note that these fixture quantities reflect slight changes to the counts made during the evaluation. 4.0 Tracking Savings Review and Calculations Tracking savings were calculated using a...
AI summary The document outlines the calculation of energy savings from a lighting retrofit project. Savings were calculated using a spreadsheet approach, grouping fixtures by type and location. The equation provided estimates annual savings based on wattage differences and operating hours. The retrofit also resulted in interactive heating and cooling savings due to reduced heat output from lower wattage fixtures.
ve cooling savings in the summer months. The heating penalty and cooling bonus were calculated with the following equation: (2) where, NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page A40 = Interactive Effects Savings [kWh] = Direct lighting...
AI summary The text discusses the calculation of cooling savings and the inclusion of a heating penalty and cooling bonus using an equation that incorporates factors such as interactive effects savings, direct lighting savings, and seasonality factors for both heating and cooling seasons.
. Peak demand savings were calculated by a applying a coincidence factor of .9 to the gross change in connected load for the entire campus. Demand savings from interactive effects were not considered. 5.0 On-Site Methodology Since this pro...
AI summary The document details the methodology used to calculate peak demand savings and on-site verification of lighting installations for a project involving over 1,300 fixtures. A sampling approach was used, and findings indicated that most installed fixtures matched the tracking savings spreadsheet, with minor discrepancies in some cases.
retrofitted on a 1-for-1 basis. NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page A41
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 C&I Custom Program, focusing on retrofitted measures implemented on a 1-for-1 basis, as part of a broader assessment.
In one area, the retrofits were found to be incomplete. According to the site contact, the gallery was retrofitted with 31 CFLs as proposed, but then returned to the original state at the request of students who thought the new lights prod...
AI summary A retrofit project at a college involved installing 31 CFLs in a gallery, but they were later removed due to student concerns about lighting conditions. Lighting logger data from two areas were used to estimate energy savings, but due to limited data, peak demand savings were calculated using a standard coincidence factor of .9. Adjustments were made to fixture counts in sampled areas to reflect actual conditions.
hat demand savings result from cooling and a demand penalty occurs for heating. The coincidence factor accounts for the fact that lights may not necessarily be operating during the peak demand period. 7.0 Conclusions Annual energy savings...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 C&I Custom Program shows that annual energy savings were 99.3% of the tracking savings, with peak demand savings at 97.3% of the tracking estimate. Issues included incorrect data entry in the tracking database and unimplemented retrofit projects, which were partially offset by increased savings in other areas.
g database. NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page A43 Project ID: C-348218-2 1.0 Facility Overview This lighting project was installed across eight different buildings in three locations. These were air maintenance facilities and...
AI summary This document evaluates a 2010 C&I Custom Program lighting retrofit project across eight buildings. The project involved replacing lighting systems in high bay areas, assembly spaces, and offices. Energy savings were recalculated, showing evaluated savings were 19.6% less than tracking savings due to transmission and distribution losses.
8 188 90 Area 5 FB 6L T5HO 83 351 Area 6 FB 6L T-5HO 61 351 Area 7 1L 4' T-8 6 23 Area 7 2L 4' T-8 77 42 Area 7 2L T-8 HBF 60 76 Area 7 4L 8' T-8 482 90 Total 3,163 98.9 Avg/Fixt NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page A45 Table 3:...
AI summary The text presents a table summarizing the removal of fixtures across various areas, including the number of fixtures removed and their average per fixture. The table is part of an evaluation of the 2010 C&I Custom Program.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page A45 Table 3: Summary of Removed Fixtures
AI summary The document presents a summary of removed fixtures under the 2010 C&I Custom Program, as detailed in Table 3. This table likely contains information about fixtures that were removed as part of energy efficiency initiatives.
96 160 Area 5 1000W MH 77 1,075 Area 5 175W Wall Pks 44 205 Area 5 1L 4' T-12 71 50 Area 5 2L 4' T-12 902 80 Area 5 2L 8' T-12 12 137 Area 5 400W MH 6 450 Area 5 4L 4' T-12 132 160 Area 6 400W MH 450 61 Area 7 1L 4' T-12 6 50 Area 7 2L 4'...
AI summary The document presents a table listing various lighting fixtures with their wattages, quantities, and areas in a facility. It notes that pre-existing fixtures were taken at face value due to unavailability for verification during the site visit. Lighting replacements at a remote maintenance location are included in the tracking savings, even though that site was not visited.
te visit and those fixtures are not NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page A46 included in the lighting summary. Site personnel could not confirm the installation matches tracking estimates at that site. Fixture tables do not inclu...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 C&I Custom Program shows that 87.3% of installed fixtures are T8 lamps and ballasts, while 12.7% are T5 equipment. Some original fixtures remain in the facilities and are not included in the counts.
Total T-8 2,760 87.3% Total T-5 403 12.7% Totals 3,163 100.0% 4.0 Tracking Savings Review and Calculations Tracking savings were calculated using a spreadsheet based approach. The lighting retrofit was broken down into groups of lights by...
AI summary The document discusses the calculation of tracking savings for a lighting retrofit program. Savings were calculated using a spreadsheet approach by comparing pre- and post-retrofit wattage and multiplying by annual operating hours for each group of lights.
ES L = Direct savings from the lighting retrofit (kWh) n = Number of fixtures W = Fixture wattage i = Lighting group i h = Assumed lighting annual hours of operation 1,000 = Wh to kWh conversion factor Logger information and trend logs we...
AI summary The document discusses the calculation of energy savings from lighting retrofits, including direct savings based on fixture wattage and operating hours. It also mentions the use of logger data to verify lighting operation hours and the impact of reduced waste heat on cooling costs. The analysis includes comparisons of logger data with site-provided operation schedules and identified discrepancies in logger readings.
es heating costs. Air conditioning loads are reduced resulting in lower cooling costs. The new lighting systems provide additional refrigeration savings for the entire year. The cooling bonus was calculated with the following equation: (2)...
AI summary The document discusses energy savings from new lighting systems, including reductions in cooling and heating costs. Calculations involve factors like direct lighting savings, heat gain, seasonality, and cooling system efficiency. Peak demand savings are also estimated based on location and operation.
location and operation. These adjustment factors ranged from 28.68% in a remote maintenance facility to 100.0% in main high-bay work areas. Demand savings from interactive effects were not considered. 5.0 On-Site Methodology The installati...
AI summary The document discusses the on-site methodology used to assess lighting installations and their impact on energy savings. Adjustments were made based on facility conditions, and discrepancies between tracking data and on-site counts were noted. The process included verifying baseline assumptions, reviewing calculations, and creating a savings re-creation spreadsheet.
xtures according to general usage along with the fixture type. Annual lighting operation was also obtained for each location. The savings re-creation spreadsheet was populated from the collected data. 6.0 On-site Observations and Findings...
AI summary The document details discrepancies between inventory records and on-site observations of lighting fixtures, including missing fixtures, differences in installed technologies, and variations in fixture counts, which impacted annual energy savings calculations.
d 6. These fixtures are located in NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page A49 support/service areas. They are not included in the high-bay work area circuits and do not operate 8760 hour per year. Interactive heating and cooling ef...
AI summary The document evaluates energy savings from a 2010 C&I Custom Program, noting that annual energy savings were 80.4% of tracking estimates, with reductions due to changes in fixture counts and technology. Peak demand savings were 91.6% of tracking estimates. The facility described is a multistory office building in Halifax with 230,000 square feet of leasable space.
in downtown Halifax. The building comprises 230,000 square feet of leasable space spanning 15 floors. Most offices operate on typical 8 AM to 6 PM weekday schedules with occasional weekend occupancy. 2.0 Summary of Savings and Adjustments...
AI summary The document outlines a lighting retrofit project in a 230,000 square foot building in downtown Halifax. The project involved replacing T12 fixtures with T8 fixtures, resulting in energy and demand savings. Table 1 summarizes the tracking and evaluation savings, showing a slight difference between the two.
9.1 -0.6 Interactive Lighting -3,022 -3,006 16 0 -0.7 -0.7 Total Savings 644,536 641,059 -3,477 149.8 148.5 -1.3 Generator Savings kWh kW Tracking Evaluated Difference Tracking Evaluated Difference Lighting 693,534 689,793 -3,741 160.4 159...
AI summary The document presents data on energy savings from lighting projects, including interactive lighting and total savings in kWh and kW. It references a project overview and Table 2, which summarizes new fixtures installed and those they replaced as part of the 2010 C&I Custom Program evaluation.
t and the fixtures they replaced. NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page A51 Table 2: Summary of New and Pre-existing Fixtures New Fixture Preexisting Fixture Type Quantity Type Quantity 14W CFL 70 100a Table Lamp (?) 1 16W CFL 82...
AI summary The table summarizes the replacement of pre-existing fixtures with new ones under the 2010 C&I Custom Program, highlighting changes in fixture types and quantities. Some pre-existing fixture types have unclear names, indicated by question marks.
he counts made during the evaluation. Question marks next to fixture types indicate cases where the meanings of the pre-existing fixture type names in the tracking spreadsheet were not entirely clear. 4.0 Tracking Savings Review and Calcul...
AI summary The document discusses the method used to calculate tracking savings from a lighting retrofit, including the use of a spreadsheet approach, grouping lights by fixture type and location, and using operating hours data to estimate annual energy savings.
four data loggers. NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page A52 Interactive heating and cooling savings were also claimed for this project. Since the new fixtures operate at lower wattages, and thus impart less heat to the buildings,...
AI summary The document discusses interactive heating and cooling savings from a project involving new fixtures that operate at lower wattages. These fixtures result in negative heating savings in winter and positive cooling savings in summer, with the net effect calculated using a specific equation that includes factors like heat gain, seasonality, and cooling system efficiency.
ghting peak demand savings were calculated by a applying a coincidence factor of .9 to the gross change in connected load for the building. Demand savings from interactive effects were not considered. 5.0 On-Site Methodology Since this pro...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 C&I Custom Program discusses the methodology used to calculate peak demand savings, including the application of a coincidence factor and the use of a sampling approach to verify proper installation of lighting fixtures across selected floors of a building.
5 0 1L F28 T8 12 12 0 Floor 3 (Men's WR) 2L F28 T8 4 4 0 Since all retrofits were performed on a 1-for-1 basis, the slightly lower evaluation counts reflect a reduction in savings. However, since the discrepancies were relatively minor, it...
AI summary The evaluation of lighting retrofit savings involved adjusting fixture counts based on verified quantities and using logger data to refine peak demand calculations. Emergency and office lighting schedules were analyzed to determine more accurate coincidence factors for energy savings estimates.
od. Equation 3 was applied to all retrofitted areas of the building served by HVAC systems (100% in this case). Savings from all areas were summed to arrive at interactive effects peak demand savings. 7.0 Conclusions Annual energy savings...
AI summary The document evaluates a 2010 C&I Custom Program project at a dairy plant, assessing energy savings. Annual energy savings were 99.5% of the tracking savings, while peak demand savings were 99.1%. The slight reduction in savings was attributed to fewer retrofitted fixtures and interactive effects from heating and cooling penalties.
llow a more weekday schedule of roughly 8 am to 5 pm. Heating is provided by #2 oil. Direct expansion cooling equipment provides space cooling. Ammonia chillers are used for refrigeration at the site. 2.0 Summary of Savings and Adjustments...
AI summary A lighting retrofit project was completed in a facility, resulting in energy and demand savings. The project included replacing lighting systems in various areas, and the savings were recalculated based on a review and verification. Evaluated energy savings were 13.6% greater than tracking savings.
-8.8 Interactive Lighting 49,531 96,113 46,583 0.0 11.4 11.4 Total Savings 372,900 423,785 50,885 50.8 53.4 2.6 Generator Savings kWh kW Tracking Evaluated Difference Tracking Evaluated Difference Lighting 343,095 347,660 4,565 53.9 44.5 -...
AI summary The document presents data on energy savings from lighting installations and removals, including interactive lighting and total savings in kWh and kW. It also provides an overview of installed fixtures in the 2010 C&I Custom Program.
ec. Ball 112 21 4' 6L T8 154 11 6L T5 200 245 Table 3: Summary of Removed Fixtures Fixture Type Quantity Fixt. Wattage 4' 2L mag. Ball 20 88 4' 4L mag. Ball 60 156 8' 2L mag. Ball 21 170 HPS 14 225 HPS 35 360 MH 10 225 MH 8 250 MH 189 360...
AI summary The text summarizes the removal and replacement of various lighting fixtures, including HPS and MH, with more energy-efficient T5 and T8 units in different areas of a facility. The quantities and wattages of the removed fixtures are listed, and the reasons for replacement are outlined, such as energy savings and quicker re-strike in large areas.
lamp T8 equipment. These new units provide quicker re-strike in these large areas as well as energy savings. The remaining T8 equipment was installed in the offices, lunch room, and mechanical spaces. 4.0 Tracking Savings Review and Calcul...
AI summary The document discusses the installation of new T8 lighting equipment and the calculation of energy savings from a lighting retrofit. Savings were estimated using a spreadsheet approach, grouping fixtures by type and location, and calculating differences in wattage and annual operating hours.
1000 (1) where, ES L = Direct savings from the lighting retrofit (kWh) n = Number of fixtures W = Fixture wattage i = Lighting group i h = Assumed lighting annual hours of operation 1,000 = Wh to kWh conversion factor No loggers were inst...
AI summary The document details the calculation of energy savings from a lighting retrofit project, including direct lighting savings and interactive cooling savings. It explains the assumptions used in the calculations, such as the heat gain factor, seasonality factor, and COP of the cooling system. The facility uses fuel oil for heating, so no heating penalty was applied.
erating hours. Interactive refrigeration savings was applied to 100% of the annual lighting operation. An electric heating penalty was not assessed for this facility as it is heated by 2 fuel oil. NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program...
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 C&I Custom Program, calculating peak demand savings using system peak coincidence factors. Interactive refrigeration savings applied to 100% of annual lighting operations, and electric heating penalties were not assessed due to heating via #2 fuel oil. Adjustments added 11.4 kW to customer demand savings and 12.1 kW to generator demand savings.
% in the production areas. The average system peak adjustment factor is 69.5%. Demand savings from interactive effects added 11.4 kW to customer demand savings and 12.1 kW to generator demand savings. 5.0 On-Site Methodology The installati...
AI summary The document discusses the on-site methodology used for assessing lighting equipment installation, including improvements in light levels and challenges in matching fixture counts with documented data due to unclear area boundaries and labeling. Savings re-creation spreadsheets were populated based on collected data.
tures according to general usage along with the fixture type. Annual lighting operation was also obtained for each location. The savings re- creation spreadsheet was populated from the collected data. 6.0 On-site Observations and Findings...
AI summary The text discusses on-site observations and findings related to lighting fixture installations, highlighting discrepancies between evaluated and tracked fixtures. The evaluation identified 356 fixtures, while tracking data showed 334, with differences attributed to fixture configurations and identification methods. The increased fixture count resulted in a minimal load increase of 4.3 kW.
6L T5 250 6L T5 245 Total 334 Total 356 Difference 22 There was also a small variation in equipment type installed. Six-lamp T8 fixtures were observed in production and dry storage areas. These fixtures did not exist prior to the project....
AI summary The text discusses variations in lighting fixtures installed during a project, including potential labeling errors for 6-lamp T5 fixtures. It also evaluates cooling and refrigeration equipment, noting differences in COP values for various refrigeration systems and their impact on energy savings calculations.
efrigeration plant and extensive low temperature loads. Loads in freezers are continuous and year round. A 1.56 COP was assigned to low temperature freezers and a 1.72 COP for all other refrigeration. 7.0 Conclusions Annual energy savings...
AI summary The document discusses energy efficiency improvements at a large hotel in Downtown Dartmouth, including the installation of additional lighting fixtures and adjustments to the coefficient of performance (COP) for refrigeration systems, resulting in increased energy and peak demand savings.
oject ID: C-528984-1 1.0 Facility Overview This facility is a large hotel in Downtown Dartmouth. The hotel contains numerous conference rooms, a large banquet hall, and a full service restaurant. 2.0 Summary of Savings and Adjustments An e...
AI summary The document outlines an energy efficiency project at a large hotel in Downtown Dartmouth, including a lighting retrofit and installation of occupancy sensors. The project achieved customer savings of 113,812 kWh and 15.6 kW, with generator savings adjusted by a 7.1% scale factor. Evaluated energy savings were 17.1% less than tracking savings.
0.4 Interactive Lighting -644 -534 110 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 Total Savings 137,354 113,812 -23,542 15.3 15.6 0.3 Generator Savings kWh kW Tracking Evaluated Difference Tracking Evaluated Difference Lighting 147,796 122,464 -25,332 16.4 16.8 0.4 In...
AI summary The document provides an evaluation of the 2010 C&I Custom Program, presenting data on savings from lighting and interactive lighting initiatives, including kWh and kW metrics, as well as differences between tracking and evaluated figures.
16.4 16.7 0.3 NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page A61 3.0 Project Overview Table 2 below provides a summary of the new and pre-existing fixtures affected by this project. Table 2: Summary of New and Pre-existing Fixtures Pre-exi...
AI summary The document presents a table summarizing the new and pre-existing fixtures affected by a project, including their quantities and wattages. It is part of an evaluation of a 2010 C&I Custom Program.
g credited to the program under the gross savings work, although the circumstances surrounding their installation suggests they might be considered spillover had they been fully explored at the site. 4.0 Tracking Savings Review and Calcula...
AI summary The document discusses the methodology used to calculate energy savings from a lighting retrofit project under the C&I Custom Program. Savings were calculated using a spreadsheet-based approach, grouping lights by fixture type and location, and applying a formula that considers the difference in wattage before and after installation, multiplied by annual operating hours.
iW prei n postiW posti )h ES L i 1000 (1) where, ES L = Direct savings from the lighting retrofit (kWh) n = Number of fixtures W = Fixture wattage i = Lighting group i h = Assumed lighting annual hours of operation 1,000 = Wh to...
AI summary The text discusses the calculation of energy savings from a lighting retrofit, including direct savings and interactive effects on heating and cooling systems. It outlines equations used to estimate these savings and highlights assumptions made, such as heat gain factors for heating and cooling.
(3) where, = Savings weighted average operating hours [h] = Lighting group i = Operating hours for lighting group i = Energy savings for lighting group i The peak coincidence factor was then determined by dividing (5,813 hours) by 8,760 ho...
AI summary The document discusses the methodology for calculating energy savings in a lighting project, using weighted average operating hours and a peak coincidence factor. It also mentions the use of Metrix software for M&V projects, due to challenges with existing spreadsheets and disorganized lighting panels at the hotel.
areas. Since the Metrix analysis was not available for review at the time of the evaluation, savings were calculated relative to the feasibility study savings values available in the tracking system. 5.0 On-Site Methodology The on-site met...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 C&I Custom Program involved verifying the installation of retrofit fixtures and reviewing lighting operating schedules. Of 655 retrofit fixtures, 582 were verified, accounting for a significant portion of the connected load reduction and energy savings. Adjustments to lighting schedules were made based on discussions with the hotel’s maintenance manager.
6.0 On-site Observations and Findings In general, the fixture counts verified on-site matched the counts specified in the tracking savings spreadsheet. There was however one major exception. In the tracking analysis, fixture counts for the...
AI summary On-site verification found that fixture counts in the banquet room area were double-counted in the tracking analysis, and some lighting operating schedules were overestimated. Adjustments were made to fixture counts and peak demand calculations based on verified data.
od. Equation 3 was applied to all retrofitted areas of the building served by HVAC systems (100% in this case). Savings from all areas were summed to arrive at interactive effects peak demand savings. 7.0 Conclusions Annual energy savings...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 C&I Custom Program found that annual energy savings were 82.9% of the tracking savings, with reductions partly due to removing double-counted savings and adjusting operating hours. Peak demand savings exceeded tracking projections by 1.9% due to higher coincidence factors used in the evaluation.
ngs. NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page A66 Project ID: C-675561-1 1.0 Facility Overview This facility manufacturers disposable paper food products such as plates, bowls and egg cartons. The business runs a continuous manufactu...
AI summary This document evaluates the 2010 C&I Custom Program at a facility manufacturing disposable paper food products. A motor retrofit project was completed in 2009 and 2010, replacing 42 motors with premium efficiency models. Energy and demand savings were recalculated, showing evaluated savings were 14.3% less than tracking savings.
for transmission and distribution losses. The evaluated energy savings were ultimately 14.3% less than the tracking savings. Table 1: Summary of Tracking and Evaluation Savings Results Customer Savings kWh kW Tracking Evaluated Difference...
AI summary The document evaluates energy savings from a C&I Custom Program, showing that evaluated energy savings were 14.3% less than tracking savings. Tables detail the differences in kWh and kW savings for motors under both tracking and evaluated results, as well as an overview of installed and replaced motors.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page A67 Table 2: Summary of Installed and Replaced Motors
AI summary The document provides a summary of installed and replaced motors under the 2010 C&I Custom Program, highlighting the program's impact on energy efficiency in commercial and industrial settings.
50 91.6 50 94.1 22 50 92.3 50 94.1 23 50 91.6 50 94.1 24 50 91.6 50 94.1 25 50 91.6 50 94.1 26 50 91.6 50 94.5 27 75 92.2 75 95.4 28 75 92.2 75 95.4 29 75 91.9 75 95.0 30 75 91.9 75 95.0 31 75 91.9 75 94.5 32 75 91.9 75 95.0 33 75 91.9 75...
AI summary The document presents a table with numerical data, possibly related to energy efficiency or program performance metrics, and references an evaluation of the 2010 C&I Custom Program on page A68. The data may be used to assess program outcomes or performance.
92.4 150 96.2 NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page A68 Note that the motor efficiencies and sizes listed in Table 2 reflect changes made during the evaluation. With respect to motor size, only motor #6 was changed based on site c...
AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of the 2010 C&I Custom Program, focusing on motor efficiency changes and the calculation of tracking savings using a spreadsheet-based approach. It also notes errors in the tracking analysis and provides formulas for calculating the power factor of both preexisting and installed motors.
(2) where, = Installed Motor Power Factor = Installed Motor Nameplate Horsepower [HP] = Installed Motor Nameplate Efficiency NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page A69 = Phase-to-Phase Conversion Factor = Preexisting Motor Phase-to...
AI summary The text discusses the calculation of power draw for preexisting and installed motors in the context of a C&I Custom Program evaluation. It highlights the use of the preexisting motor's nameplate amperage and the installed motor's power factor, raising questions about the methodology used.
(4) where, = Installed Motor Power Draw [kW] = Preexisting Motor Power Draw [kW] = Preexisting Motor Efficiency NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page A70 = Installed Motor Efficiency Finally, savings for a given motor were calcula...
AI summary The document outlines a method for calculating energy savings from motor upgrades in the 2010 C&I Custom Program. It defines variables such as installed and preexisting motor power draw and efficiency, and uses these to calculate energy savings using a formula.
(5) where, = Installed Motor Energy Savings [kWh] = Preexisting Motor Power Draw [kW] = Installed Motor Power Draw [kW] = Annual Operating Hours [h] The operating hours, h, used in Equation 5 were calculated based on the percentage of the...
AI summary The document outlines errors in the methodology used to calculate energy and demand savings from a motor efficiency project. Issues include incorrect power factor calculations, reliance on limited operating data, and flawed peak demand savings estimation. These were later corrected in the evaluation analysis.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page A72 Table 3: Summary of Installed and Replaced Motors
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 C&I Custom Program, focusing on the summary of installed and replaced motors as presented in Table 3.
94.1 50 94.1 0.0 23 50 94.1 50 94.1 0.0 24 50 94.1 50 94.1 0.0 25 50 94.1 50 94.1 0.0 26 50 94.5 50 94.5 0.0 27 75 95.4 75 95.4 0.0 28 75 95.4 75 95.4 0.0 29 75 94.5 75 95.0 0.5 30 75 94.5 75 95.0 0.5 31 75 94.5 75 94.5 0.0 32 75 94.5 75 9...
AI summary The text presents a table with numerical data, likely related to performance metrics or evaluations, and includes a heading referencing the evaluation of a 2010 C&I Custom Program. The data appears to be structured in rows with varying values and percentages, but no narrative explanation is provided.
95.8 150 96.2 0.4 NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page A73 Notice that in all cases but one (Item 13), the specifications of the installed motors met or exceed the specifications claimed in the tracking analysis. In addition to g...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 C&I Custom Program shows that motor specifications met or exceeded claims, with revised operating hour data collected for analysis. This data was gathered as part of a power factor correction project and used in the evaluation process.
Table 4 fed directly into the evaluation analysis. NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page A74
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 C&I Custom Program, focusing on its performance and impact within the Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding.
50 94.1 80.6 116 53.3 21 50 94.1 80.6 136 64.2 22 50 94.1 80.6 121 22.1 23 50 94.1 80.6 146 72.7 24 50 94.1 80.6 146 59.6 25 50 94.1 80.6 122 76.2 26 50 94.5 84.2 168 42.2 27 75 95.4 85.6 168 67.0 28 75 95.4 85.6 0 Not Logged 29 75 95.0 88...
AI summary The document presents a table with numerical data, likely related to evaluations of a 2010 C&I Custom Program. The values may represent program performance metrics or outcomes, though the context and specific meaning of the numbers are not elaborated in the provided text.
96.2 88.5 40 Not Logged NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page A75 Using the data collected on-site, a revised analysis methodology was employed to correct for the errors in the tracking analysis. For the 34 motors where roughly on...
AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of the 2010 C&I Custom Program, focusing on the methodology used to calculate energy savings. It details two calculation approaches: one using post-installation amperage data for 34 motors and another using pre-installation data for 8 instances.
tt to kW Conversion Factor [W/kW] NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page A76 = Installed Motor Nominal Efficiency = Preexisting Motor Nominal Efficiency = Weekly Operating Hours [h] = Annual Schedule Scale Factor In cases where bot...
AI summary The evaluation discusses the methodology used to calculate energy savings from motor efficiency upgrades in the 2010 C&I Custom Program. It explains that post-installation amperage data were used in some cases due to changes in motor load conditions, and outlines the approach for calculating peak demand savings.
lated using the following methodology in cases where post-installation amperage data were available: (8) All variables in the above equation were defined as in Equation 6. The parameter, , acts as a coincidence factor, scaling the demand s...
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 C&I Custom Program, noting that annual energy savings were 85.7% of the tracking estimate. Adjustments to post-installation power factor calculations and motor efficiencies contributed to the savings.
s (net positive effect on savings) NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page A77 Adjustments to the operating hours of the installed motors based on facility data (net negative effect on savings) Usage of post-implementation met...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 C&I Custom Program found that adjustments to motor operating hours and differences in peak coincidence factors significantly impacted energy and demand savings estimates. The use of post-implementation metered data had an indeterminate effect. The evaluation did not find issues with equipment installation but noted methodological changes in savings calculations.
view Traffic lights throughout a regional municipality were replaced as part of this project. As with any city, traffic lights are required to operate 24 hours per day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. 2.0 Summary of Savings and Adjustments...
AI summary This project involved replacing incandescent traffic signals with LED signals at 108 intersections, resulting in energy and demand savings. The evaluation showed that energy savings were 7.0% higher than tracking savings, with both customer and generator savings reported.
kW Tracking Evaluated Difference Tracking Evaluated Difference Traffic Lighting 1,232,524 1,318,411 85,887 139.9 150.5 10.6 NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page A79 3.0 Project Overview Table 2 below provides an overview of the i...
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 C&I Custom Program by comparing the number and wattage of pre-existing incandescent fixtures with newly installed LED fixtures, showing a significant reduction in total connected load from 352.3 kW to 38.4 kW.
4,027 Total Connected Load (kW) 352.3 Total Connected Load (kW) 38.4 Note that the fixture quantities listed in Table 2 reflect changes made during the evaluation. 4.0 Tracking Savings Review and Calculations Since the project was not comp...
AI summary The document discusses the calculation of energy savings from a lighting retrofit project using a spreadsheet-based approach. It outlines how energy consumption was determined for pre-existing and installed fixtures based on quantities, wattage, and operating schedules, and how savings were calculated by subtracting the installed case from the pre-existing case.
ated as, (1) where, = Direct savings from the lighting retrofit (kWh) 8,760 = Annual Hours [hours] NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page A80 = Intersection number = Quantity of affected intersections = Incandescent light of type a...
AI summary This text provides a formula for calculating direct energy savings from a lighting retrofit, using variables such as the number of affected intersections, wattage of incandescent and LED fixtures, and conversion factors. It is part of an evaluation of a 2010 C&I Custom Program.
tage [W] = Incandescent fixture operating factor = LED fixture quantity = LED fixture wattage [W] = LED fixture operating factor 1009 = W to kW conversion factor The various operating schedule factors, and , used in the analysis were deriv...
AI summary The text provides detailed assumptions about the operating schedules of traffic signals, including incandescent and LED fixtures, and their respective operating factors. These factors are used in the M&V savings analysis to calculate energy consumption and efficiency improvements.
e only 87.5% of the time since the second half of the green light cycle displays a flashing red hand. Table 3 below displays the full schedule of operating factors used in the M&V savings analysis. NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program...
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 C&I Custom Program by analyzing peak demand savings from traffic signal lighting systems. It compares LED and incandescent lighting configurations, calculating savings based on operating factors and peak demand differences at intersections.
was then subtracted from the instantaneous peak demand of the incandescent case to calculate demand savings. Demand savings from each intersection were then summed to calculate project demand savings. 5.0 On-Site Methodology The evaluation...
AI summary The document outlines the on-site methodology used to evaluate the 2010 C&I Custom Program. It describes how demand savings were calculated by comparing LED and incandescent fixtures and includes a site visit to verify installations and fixture counts.
ues used in NSPI‘s M&V analysis. NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page A82 Table 4: Summary of verified and M&V signal wattages Signal Type Verified Wattage M&V Wattage 12" Green Traffic Signal 12 12 12" Amber Traffic Signal 13 17...
AI summary The document provides a summary of verified and M&V signal wattages for various traffic signals and pedestrian signals under NSPI's 2010 C&I Custom Program. The table lists wattages for different signal types, with some discrepancies between verified and M&V wattages.
l 10 14 PED Walk/Don't Walk Signal 6 6 PED Countdown Unverified 9 Although the verified wattages were lower than the wattages used in the M&V analysis, the site contact noted that the light types used throughout the project have changed. A...
AI summary The document discusses discrepancies between verified wattages and M&V analysis wattages for LED lights in a 2010 C&I Custom Program project. The site contact noted changes in light types, and the M&V wattages may have been accurate for earlier installations. The evaluation used M&V data for consistency, and a spreadsheet provided by the site contact was used to verify the number of retrofitted intersections.
ancies between the two data sets. NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page A83
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 C&I Custom Program, focusing on the analysis of differences between two data sets. It provides an assessment of the program's performance and outcomes.
0 0 0 0 1 1 0 -4 Intersection 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intersection 10 0 1 1 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 Intersection 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In general, the discrepancies were relatively minor and were not all biased in the same direction. However, it...
AI summary The text discusses minor discrepancies in fixture counts at intersections, with 7 out of 11 verified intersections showing errors. The discrepancies were deemed trivial, so no further verification or scaling was applied. Energy savings calculations used updated operating factors in the M&V analysis, which previously failed to account for protected left turns at intersections.
following three combinations: NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page A85
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 C&I Custom Program, focusing on its performance and impact on commercial and industrial energy efficiency initiatives.
uring which either the green or yellow circular signals are illuminated, or 16.5% of the time ([31%+2%]/2). For the other half of this portion of the lighting cycle, the ―don‘t walk‖ signals flash. The ―don‘t walk‖ signal also remains on f...
AI summary The text discusses the operating factors of traffic signals at protected and permissive intersections, including the timing of green, yellow, red, and pedestrian signals. These factors are used in the evaluation analysis for the 2010 C&I Custom Program.
% 62.875% LED Pedestrian Countdown 16.500% 24.750% Incandescent Pedestrian 91.750% 87.625% Notice in Table 6 that the ―Incandescent Pedestrian‖ operating factor is equivalent to the sum of the LED pedestrian ―Walk‖ and ―Don‘t Walk‖ factors...
AI summary The text discusses the calculation of energy and peak demand savings from retrofitting pedestrian signals with LED technology. It highlights the difference between the operating factors for incandescent and LED signals and explains the methodology used for calculating energy and demand savings.
oximate the mean demand savings, which is simply the annual energy savings divided by 8,760 hours. For the purposes of the evaluation, demand savings were calculated using this simplified methodology. 7.0 Conclusions Evaluated annual energ...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 C&I Custom Program found that annual energy savings were 107.0% of the tracking estimate, and peak demand savings were 107.6% of the tracking estimate. The differences in savings between the evaluation and tracking analyses are attributed to differing operating factors, with the evaluation placing more emphasis on red lights, which provide greater energy savings compared to baseline incandescent fixtures.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page C1 Appendix C Interview Guides PARTICIPANT QUESTIONNAIRE: C&I Custom Program Final: July 22, 2010 Hello, my name is from NMR Group. I am calling on behalf of Nova Scotia Power, as part of an e...
AI summary This document is a participant questionnaire for Nova Scotia Power's Commercial and Industrial Custom Program, used to evaluate and improve the program through feedback from participants. It includes questions about program participation and knowledge of the program.
person in your company / organization who is most knowledgeable about your experience with the Commercial and Industrial Custom Program? Yes (If YES go to Q5) No 4. We would like to talk to the person who is the most knowledgeable about yo...
AI summary The text is a survey form seeking information about participation in Nova Scotia Power's Commercial and Industrial Custom Program, including contact details for the most knowledgeable person and prior participation in energy efficiency programs.
2. Contractor 3. Manufacturer representative 4. Utility account manager 5. Someone within your company / organization 9. Don‘t know/Don‘t recall (ASK QUESTIONS Q13 – Q15 FOR THE FEASIBILITY STUDY AND EACH MEASURE RECALLED.) [NOTE: Two-thir...
AI summary The text outlines factors that motivated companies to implement energy efficiency measures, with incentives and cost savings being key motivators. It also references an evaluation of the 2010 C&I Custom Program by NMR.
(To take advantage of program incentives) NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page C5 2. (To see what else I should be doing as part of a planned project) 3. (To save on energy costs/bills) 4. (To reduce maintenance costs) 5. (To imp...
AI summary The text outlines participant motivations for energy efficiency measures, including cost savings, environmental benefits, and recommendations from utility representatives. It also includes instructions for evaluating multiple measures and addressing free-ridership in a program evaluation context.
1. Yes Measure x _ _ _% 2. No 9. Don’t know 20. Has your participation in the Commercial and Industrial Custom Program influenced other energy efficiency actions that your company / organization has taken? 1. Yes. We have implemented addit...
AI summary The document asks whether participation in the Commercial and Industrial Custom Program has influenced other energy efficiency actions, and if so, what specific measures have been implemented or are being pursued.
n‘t know/Don‘t recall NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page C10 IMPLEMENTED MEASURES Q21A1. FOR EACH Q21=1 (except scoping, feasibility or technical assessments): Did you implement this energy efficient upgrade through a Nova Scot...
AI summary This section outlines a questionnaire used to evaluate the implementation of energy-efficient upgrades under the 2010 C&I Custom Program. It asks respondents whether they received rebates from Nova Scotia Power and collects information on the timing and expected electricity savings from these upgrades.
OR $ _ (88888=Measure uses fuel other than electricity: What fuel is that? _ IF NON-ELECTRIC FUEL (88888) SKIP TO NEXT MEASURE IN Q21=1.) NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page C11 Q21A5. (IF Q21A4 ≠ 88888): And how many kilowatt h...
AI summary This document includes a form used to evaluate the 2010 C&I Custom Program, focusing on energy-efficient measures and their expected electricity savings. It outlines procedures for collecting data on kilowatt-hour savings and whether participants plan to implement upgrades through Nova Scotia Power programs.
ct to have [energy efficient upgrade from Q21=2] implemented? 1. 2011 2. 2012 3. 2013 4. 2014 or later 5. (Don‘t know / not sure) NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page C12 6. (Refused) Q21B4. Approximately, how many kilowatt hours...
AI summary The text includes a series of questions related to the implementation of energy-efficient upgrades by commercial and industrial (C&I) customers, focusing on the year of implementation and expected electricity savings. Respondents are asked to estimate savings in kilowatt hours or dollars, with specific instructions for handling non-electric fuel and uncertainty.
l Calendar Year Savings: _ kWh OR $ _ WHEN ALL MEASURES WHERE Q21=2 HAVE BEEN COVERED IN Q21B SERIES CONTINUE TO SECTION III, Q22. Section III. Satisfaction with Program & Recommendations for Improvements 22. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1=...
AI summary The text outlines a survey section evaluating the Commercial and Industrial Custom Program, focusing on satisfaction with various aspects of the program and identifying barriers to implementing energy efficiency measures. Respondents rate their experience and provide feedback on program components such as communication, eligibility, audits, and incentives.
24. Were there any challenges or barriers that you faced in implementing these energy efficiency measures? 1. Yes 2. No (SKIP TO Q30) 9. Don‘t know/Don‘t recall 25. What was the ONE most important barrier? (Do not read) 1. (Concern that ac...
AI summary The text presents a survey question regarding challenges faced in implementing energy efficiency measures, with options for barriers such as lack of information, insufficient incentives, and lengthy approval processes. It also references a document titled 'Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program' and includes the entity 'NMR'.
3. (Too little incentive) NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page C14 4. (Too much work required to obtain funding) 5. (Too little information about the program) 6. (Cost savings not worth the effort of applying) 7. (Approval takes...
AI summary The text lists reasons why commercial and industrial customers may not participate in energy efficiency programs, including insufficient incentives, excessive administrative burden, lack of information, and long approval times. It also asks respondents to rate the importance of reducing energy usage and managing energy costs to their organizations.
l? b. To what do you trace the difficulties you encountered? How might they be addressed in future programs? 7. Since last year there have been a few changes to the C&I program i. Assignment of an NSPI project owner, who manages projects c...
AI summary The document outlines changes made to the C&I Custom Program, including the assignment of an NSPI project owner, improved tools for lighting savings calculations, simplified feasibility studies, enhanced data tracking systems, increased financing flexibility, and higher incentive levels. Questions are raised about the rationale for these changes and their effectiveness.
ound and interaction with staff 1. Are you the person at [company] who is most knowledgeable about your experiences with energy efficient equipment or upgrades rebated by Nova Scotia Power? 2. What is your job title? What roles and respons...
AI summary The document contains a series of questions aimed at gathering information about a company's experience with Nova Scotia Power's energy efficiency rebate programs, including participation in specific programs and interactions with NSPI staff.
t pose a barrier to participation in the C&I Custom program? [Probes: Assistance, availability, or interaction with program staff; requirements of any of the four-steps;] The BER program was designed to streamline the rebate process for C&...
AI summary The document discusses the C&I Custom program and BER program, focusing on participation barriers, program processes, and motivations for energy efficiency upgrades. It includes questions about the experience with the BER program and factors influencing participation in NSPI rebate programs.
cipate in the NSPI rebate programs? [Probe: Save energy, rebates offered, reduce maintenance costs, protect environment, recommended by utility, concerns with carbon, etc.] 12. Were there any challenges or barriers that you faced in making...
AI summary The text outlines a series of questions aimed at understanding participants' experiences with NSPI rebate programs, including barriers to participation, challenges in implementation, satisfaction levels, and gaps in program coverage. It focuses on feedback from customers regarding the effectiveness and accessibility of these programs.
5 9 no extremely DK influence influential Spillover Now I‘d like you to think about any energy efficient equipment or upgrades that your company is currently pursuing or has installed in the past two years on its own. These measures could...
AI summary The text asks respondents to consider energy-efficient equipment or upgrades implemented or pursued by their company in the past two years, including whether these measures were done independently or through NSPI rebate programs, and the expected electricity savings in 2010.
ent measures and processes; or the NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page C26 savings could be from PLANNED OR END-OF-LIFE replacements and installations of higher efficiency rather than standard efficiency measures and processes....
AI summary The text discusses energy efficiency measures and their impact on electricity savings, asking participants about the influence of programs like C&I Custom and BER on their decisions to implement energy efficiency actions. It also asks about the importance of reducing energy usage and managing energy costs to organizations.
sts to your company / organization? [9=Don‘t know/Don‘t recall] 32. What percent of your annual operating budget do energy costs account for? [999=Don‘t know/Don‘t recall] % 33. Do you have any suggestions on how to improve any of the NSPI...
AI summary The document is a final report on the impact and process evaluation of the Small Business Direct Install Program 2010, submitted by NMR Group, Inc. to Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation. The report was conducted by NMR Group, Inc. and KEMA, Inc., with principal investigators Rohit Vaidya, David Barclay, Tom Ledyard, and Tim Hennessy.
nerator 1,758.5 12,944 Net-to-Gross Ratio (%) 87.0% 86.6% Net annual savings at generator 1,529.9 11,210 Key Findings The net energy impacts of the SBLS program have increased steadily since 2008. They have more than tripled from 1,522 MWh...
AI summary The SBLS program's net energy impacts have increased significantly since 2008, with customer satisfaction remaining high. NMR recommended monitoring Delivery Agents and Contractors to maintain quality and satisfaction. In 2010, customer satisfaction remained strong despite program expansion.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program Page III
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program, focusing on its implementation and outcomes. It assesses the program's effectiveness in promoting energy efficiency and reducing costs for small businesses in Nova Scotia.
uirements. SBLS-F5. SBLS-R5. Some respondents cited barriers to implementing additional energy At the time of participant contact, the DSM Administrator efficiency measures (beyond those covered by the program) including should continue to...
AI summary Respondents identified barriers to implementing additional energy efficiency measures, including lack of financing and information. The SBLS program was found to be a crucial source of assistance for small businesses, with low free-ridership indicating its effectiveness in encouraging energy efficiency improvements.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program Page IV Findings and Recommendations Finding Recommendation SBLS-F7. SBLS-R7. While nearly all of the 2010 respondents (63 out of 65) said they would Despite the importance o...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program found that while most respondents were likely to purchase energy-efficient equipment in the future, few took additional energy efficiency actions after participating in the program. The report recommends expanding program offerings to help small businesses identify and pursue other energy efficiency measures.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program Page 1 1 Program Description 1.1 Program Description The DSM Administrator‘s 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program (SBLS) was designed to achieve annual energy savin...
AI summary The 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program aimed to achieve energy savings by offering lighting retrofits to small businesses at 20% of the installed cost. The program was expanded in 2010 to cover the entire province and included a recycling component that was improved and expanded.
ved in 2010. In 2009, Delivery Agents were required to box and ship lamps from outlying regions. In 2010, the Recycling Contractor coordinated the pickup of lamps and ballasts throughout the province. 1.1.1 Program Theory Program Backgroun...
AI summary The SBLS program aims to assist small businesses with lighting retrofits by reducing installation costs by 80% and offering interest-free financing. The program involves customer screening, outreach, material arrangement, and on-site lighting audits conducted by Delivery Agents and the DSM Administrator.
udits of participants‘ facilities. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program Page 2
AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program, focusing on audits of participants' facilities.
Nova Scotia. A lack of interested electrical contractors could lead to inadequate resources to perform installations. Short-Term Outcomes Generate customer interest. Customers are made aware of the program by Delivery Agents. Lighting...
AI summary The 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program aims to increase customer awareness, conduct lighting audits, and implement energy-efficient retrofits. Short-term outcomes include generating interest and contracts, while mid-term outcomes focus on energy savings, increased knowledge, and cost reductions for small businesses.
achieve improved lighting quality. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program Page 3 Increase in demand for energy efficient lighting equipment. Participants who install energy efficiency lighting recognize its bene...
AI summary The document outlines the long-term outcomes of the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program, including increased demand for energy-efficient lighting and equipment, sustained energy savings, emission reductions, and the adoption of energy-efficient practices by small businesses.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program Page 5 2 Impact Evaluation
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program, focusing on its impact. It is part of a broader assessment of energy efficiency initiatives.
e use of a line loss factor of 1.074, consistent with that used by NSPI for the small business sector, provides an overall 2010 tracking estimate of 13,829 MWh of tracked savings at the generator. Table 2-1: Summary of SBLS 2010 Program Tr...
AI summary The text discusses the use of a line loss factor of 1.074 for the small business sector, resulting in 13,829 MWh of tracked savings in 2010. Tables 2-1 and 2-2 provide details on monthly demand and energy savings, as well as lighting technology installations in 2008 and 2010.
y similar between the two years. T8 fixtures represent the vast majority of activity in each year, with CFL and exit signs showing the greatest amount of activity among the remaining technologies. Table 2-2: Summary of SBLS 2008 and 2010 S...
AI summary The text discusses energy savings from the Small Business Lighting Solutions Program in 2008 and 2010, highlighting T8 fixtures as the primary contributor to energy savings, with CFL and exit signs also showing significant activity.
34,035 100 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program Page 7
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program, focusing on its implementation and outcomes. It provides data and analysis to assess the program's effectiveness in promoting energy efficiency among small businesses in Nova Scotia.
2.3 Evaluation Methodology The approach to determining the impacts of the SBLS program in 2010 was based upon the evaluation results from the 2008 program year. The 2008 program year evaluation comprised 39 site visits with spot watt meter...
AI summary The evaluation methodology for the SBLS program in 2010 relied on results from the 2008 program year, which included site visits, watt metering, and verification of installed lighting technologies. Realization rates for energy savings ranged from 85% to 120%, with the 2008 SBLS program achieving 93.6% at the meter and 100% at the generator.
at the realization rate for energy savings in the SBLS program in 2008 was determined to be 93.6% at the meter and 100% at the generator, which also falls into this range of realization rates. Table 2-3: Recent Small Business Impact Study...
AI summary The document discusses the realization rates for energy savings in the SBLS program in 2008, noting a 93.6% rate at the meter and 100% at the generator. It also references various studies from different states and regions, including Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, which report varying realization rates for lighting programs.
: 99.6%, CFL: 85.2%, On-site visits New Hampshire4 NHEC, PSNH, Unitil, 2003 Exits: 102.5% with M&V New York5 NYSERDA Small Commercial On-site visits 94%, + 14% Precision Lighting, 2006 with M&V 1 http://www.ctsavesenergy.org/files/CT%20SBE...
AI summary The document presents evaluation data from various energy efficiency programs in different states, including participation rates and methods such as on-site visits and M&V (Monitoring and Verification). It includes references to external reports and evaluations, with a focus on the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program in Nova Scotia.
al %20Lighting%20Program.pdf NMR Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program Page 8
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program, focusing on its effectiveness and outcomes.
To more fully assess the transferability of the 2008 SBLS results to the 2010 program year, the NMR Team spoke with program implementers to assess differences in program operations between the two program years. The SBLS program was confir...
AI summary The document discusses the transferability of the 2008 SBLS results to the 2010 program year, noting that program operations have remained largely consistent, with the exception of the program now being available province-wide. It also highlights differences in wattage assumptions between the tracking system and actual measurements, which affected savings estimates.
ings at Meter with Interaction 12,052 3,712.7 Annual Savings at Generator with Interaction 12,944 3,987.5 The 2008 coincident demand factors calculated at the hour ending 6PM were determined to be 44.1% at the meter. Utilizing this factor,...
AI summary The document calculates energy and peak demand savings from the SBLS Program in 2010. At the meter level, annual energy savings were estimated at 12,052 MWh and peak demand savings of 1,637.3 kW. At the generator level, these figures were 12,944 MWh and 1,758.5 kW, respectively. The calculations used a 2008 coincident demand factor of 44.1%.
8, and Table 2-9) NMR Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program Page 11
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program, focusing on its implementation and outcomes. It includes data and analysis from Table 2-9 and is associated with Nova Scotia Power.
Don‘t know 25% Yes 50% Would have installed the same amount of energy efficient lighting FR2d. No 25% that was installed through the program Don‘t know 25% Stated Intent Score = average of FR2a, FR2b, FR2c+ci, and FR2d.
AI summary The text presents survey responses regarding customer intent to install energy-efficient lighting, with 50% indicating they would have installed the same amount regardless of the program, 25% stating they would not, and 25% unsure. The Stated Intent Score is calculated as the average of four related responses.
el impacts were estimated to be 11,210 MWh of energy savings and 1,529.5kW of demand savings. These savings fell short of the energy savings goal of 13,980 MWh and the demand savings goal of 3,300 kW. Table 2-11: Program Energy Savings Est...
AI summary The 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program achieved energy savings of 11,210 MWh and demand savings of 1,529.5 kW, falling short of the energy savings goal of 13,980 MWh and the demand savings goal of 3,300 kW. A process evaluation was conducted using interviews and surveys.
g material disposal and/or recycling NMR Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program Page 19
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions (SBLS) Program, focusing on its implementation and outcomes related to energy efficiency and cost savings for small businesses in Nova Scotia.
June 24 th and August 23rd NMR Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program Page 20 2010.11,12 Despite requests made to the Delivery Agents and Materials Vendor for additional information, NMR was unable to determine the tr...
AI summary NMR was unable to determine the full extent of materials delivery issues in the 2010 SBLS program. In response, the DSM Administrator shifted to an alternate program design in 2011, allowing Delivery Agents to source their own materials while adhering to price constraints. This change aims to improve program performance and customer service.
sentative 10 8 NSPI (unspecified mode of contact) 2 NSPI e-mail 2 NSPI bill insert 2 †ϐ Don‘t know 9 Other 2 13 Throughout this report, the symbol ‗σ‘ is used to indicate that results between 2008 and 2009 participants are significantly di...
AI summary The report discusses the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions (SBLS) program, noting that about half of the participants had previously purchased energy-efficient lighting products, with a significant portion buying CFLs and retrofitting T-12 lighting with T8s or T5s.
fic plans to pursue lighting improvements prior to talking with anyone about the Small Business Lighting Solutions Program— similar to 2008 (42%) and significantly more than in 2009 (22%). (Table 3-5) Table 3-5: Prior Plans to Pursue Light...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program indicates that only 12% of participants installed additional energy-efficient lighting post-participation, with only four using equipment of the same or higher efficiency. Participation in the program influenced these additional installations.
talled through the SBLS program. All four of the respondents who had installed additional equipment, reported that participation in the SBLS program had influenced their decision to do so. (Table 3-6) Table 3-6: Post-Program Lighting Insta...
AI summary The SBLS program influenced some small businesses to install additional lighting equipment beyond what was provided through the program. In 2010, 12% of participants reported installing additional lighting, with 4 out of 8 indicating that the program influenced their decision.
1 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program Page 24 Respondents were also asked if participation in the SBLS program had influenced them to pursue additional energy efficiency actions other than lighting improvements...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions (SBLS) program found that 29% of respondents reported taking additional energy efficiency actions beyond lighting improvements, including upgrades to heating systems, insulation, and air conditioners, among others.
. Other subsequent actions reported by respondents included upgrading insulation and actions related to air conditioners, water tanks, lighting, energy audits, windows and air compression. (Table 3-7)
AI summary Respondents reported various energy efficiency actions, including upgrading insulation, air conditioners, water tanks, lighting, energy audits, windows, and air compression, as detailed in Table 3-7.
Table 3-7: Influence of Program on Additional Energy Efficiency Actions Program Influenced Additional Actions 2008 2009 2010 Sample size 50 50 65 No 62% 76% 66% Yes 34 22 29 Don‘t Know 2 2 5 Type of Action Taken 2008 2009 2010 Sample size...
AI summary The table shows the influence of energy efficiency programs on additional energy efficiency actions taken by participants from 2008 to 2010. The data indicates that a majority of participants did not take additional actions, while a smaller percentage did, with various types of actions being taken.
- 11 Additional energy efficient lighting 10 5 Technical assessments/audit 6 20 5 Windows 5 Air Compression 5 Continue program at another facility 12 10 Awareness of energy consumption 10 Refrigeration 6 Changed lights at home 6 Fuel switc...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions (SBLS) program indicates that behavioral changes among participants did not significantly affect energy savings. Most respondents reported using new lighting similarly to their previous lighting, with no major shifts in usage patterns.
of other less efficient lighting. As in 2008 and 2009, these results indicate that energy savings were not impacted by behavioral changes as a result of the influence of the SBLS program. (Table 3-8) Table 3-8: Use of New Lighting Relative...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions (SBLS) program indicates that energy savings were not significantly influenced by behavioral changes, similar to findings in 2008 and 2009. The primary motivation for participation was saving on energy costs, with over 70% of respondents citing this as their main reason.
Table 3-9: Reasons for Participating 2008 2009 2010 Second Second Second Most Most Most Most Most Most Important Important Important Important Important Important Motivations Motivation Motivation Motivation Motivation Motivation Motivatio...
AI summary The table presents the motivations for participating in energy efficiency programs from 2008 to 2010, with the primary motivation being saving on energy costs, which decreased in percentage over time, while other motivations such as improving lighting conditions and reducing maintenance costs showed varying levels of importance.
2 2 2 Already changing 2 out lights Reduce carbon 4 4 8 footprint Get experts to do 2 audit and installation Replace non-working 2 3 equipment To increase resale 2 value † Don‘t Know 6 18 17 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lighting S...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions (SBLS) program found that 88% of respondents faced no barriers to participation, similar to 2008 and 2009. A small percentage of respondents reported barriers, with 12% indicating they faced some challenges.
the effort of applying Work not yet 1 completed Timing and scheduling 1 1 of work to be done Finding out point of 1 contact Required to be here at 1 least one year Issues with building 2 tenants Problems with existing 1 wiring Lack of info...
AI summary The document outlines challenges faced in implementing the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions (SBLS) program, including incomplete work, scheduling issues, lack of contact points, tenant issues, wiring problems, insufficient information, communication problems, and other unspecified issues. The evaluation is conducted by NMR.
l of the participants (93% or greater) reported that they were satisfied with the different aspects of the lighting equipment installed through the SBLS program, similar to 2008 and 2009. (Table 3-15) Table 3-15: Satisfaction with Lighting...
AI summary Participants in the SBLS program reported high satisfaction with the lighting equipment installed, with over 90% expressing satisfaction across various aspects. Most respondents indicated they would likely purchase energy-efficient equipment in the future.
Efficiency Actions The large majority of 2010 respondents (63 out of 65) reported that they would be likely to purchase energy efficient equipment when replacing equipment in the future. (Table 3-16) Table 3-16: Likelihood of Purchasing En...
AI summary The majority of respondents in 2010 indicated they would likely purchase energy-efficient equipment in the future. However, nearly 36% of those who did not pursue additional energy efficiency measures cited a lack of resources, such as financing or information, as a barrier, while 38% stated they did not need or were unaware of additional measures.
Table 3-17: Barriers to Pursuing Additional Energy Efficient Equipment Barrier 2008 2009 2010 Sample size 33 39 44 No need/No additional measures to upgrade 27% 23% 20% Lack of financing 15 20 16 Lack of information 3 13 11 Lack of time 12...
AI summary The table presents barriers to adopting energy-efficient equipment across three years, highlighting reasons such as lack of financing, information, and time, with some improvement in responses over time.
† SBLS program still in progress 15 5 Have not considered other measures 6 5 Switched to another utility 3 Installed other measures before program 3 Not aware of rebates for other measures 6 3 ϐ Other 7 †ϐ Don‘t know 3 18 NMR Evaluation of...
AI summary The 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions (SBLS) program is still in progress, with some respondents not considering other measures or being unaware of rebates. Energy costs accounted for an average of 12.1% of annual operating budgets in 2010, slightly higher than 2009 but not significantly so.
costs (96%) were important to their businesses; about one out of four respondents reported that reducing energy usage (75%) and managing energy costs (74%) were ‗very important‘ to them. (Table 3-19) Table 3-19: Importance of Energy Manage...
AI summary The text discusses the importance of energy management to businesses, with a focus on reducing energy usage and managing energy costs. It also highlights the payback requirements for energy efficiency measures among respondents to the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program.
Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program Page B1 Appendix A Interview Guides Draft participant QUESTIONNAIRE: NSPI SBLS PROGRAM Final: July 22, 2010 Hello, I am with NMR Group, and we are performing an evaluation of ene...
AI summary This document is a draft participant questionnaire for evaluating Nova Scotia Power's Small Business Lighting Solutions (SBLS) program. It aims to gather feedback from participants about their experience with the program, previous participation in energy efficiency initiatives, and their reasons for involvement.
nded by contractor) 11. (Past participation in utility programs) 12. (Other (Please explain )) 99. (Don‘t know/Don‘t recall) NMR Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program Page B3 9. What was the second most important rea...
AI summary The text presents survey questions related to participation in the Small Business Lighting Solutions (SBLS) program, asking about reasons for participation and prior purchases of energy-efficient lighting products. It includes response options and instructions for respondents.
program, had your company / organization purchased any energy efficient lighting products? 1. Yes 2. No (Go to Q12) 9. (Don‘t know/Don‘t recall (Go to FR1)) 11. What purchases of energy efficient lighting had your company / organization ma...
AI summary The text includes survey questions regarding energy efficient lighting purchases prior to participation in the Small Business Lighting Solutions (SBLS) program and asks about pre-existing plans for lighting improvements before engagement with the program.
sue lighting improvements prior to talking with anyone about the Small Business Lighting Solutions Program? 1. Yes 2. No 9. (Don‘t know/Don‘t recall) Now I would like to ask you to consider what actions you would have taken in the absence...
AI summary The text asks respondents about their actions in the absence of the Small Business Lighting Solutions Program, including whether they would have postponed installations, installed less lighting, or not installed any energy-efficient lighting. It also asks about the influence of the program on their decision to participate.
e energy efficient lighting ‖ and 5 indicates that the program was ―extremely influential to your decision to install the energy efficient lighting.‖ How influential was / were the: NMR Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions...
AI summary The text evaluates the influence of various factors on the decision to install energy-efficient lighting through the Small Business Lighting Solutions (SBLS) Program. It includes a survey asking participants to rate the influence of incentives, information provided by program representatives, and NSPI-funded lighting audits.
aced 3. Use lights the same amount as the lights that were replaced 4. Use the lights more, but instead of other less efficient lights 9. (Don‘t know/Don‘t recall) SPILLOVER 21. Now I'd like you to think of the time since you participated...
AI summary The text includes survey questions about the usage and impact of the Small Business Lighting Solutions (SBLS) program, asking participants about their lighting usage, additional upgrades, and how the program influenced their decisions. It also includes a question about the percentage of lighting upgrades purchased independently after participating in the program.
ficient lighting‖ and 5 indicates that the program was ―extremely influential to your decision to install the energy efficiency lighting.‖ [record response on scale of 1 to 5, 9 = Don‘t know] 25. Has your participation in the Small Busines...
AI summary This section of the document asks participants about their experience with the Small Business Lighting Solutions Program and whether it influenced other energy efficiency actions. It also explores reasons for not pursuing additional energy efficiency measures.
7. (Decision made elsewhere) 8. (Do not own building – have to work through owner) 9. (Other (Specify: _) ) 99. (Don‘t know/Don‘t recall) 28. In number of years or months, how quickly does your company / organization require energy efficie...
AI summary The text presents a survey with questions about payback requirements for energy efficiency measures and customer satisfaction with the lighting installed through the Small Business Lighting Solutions Program. It includes a scale for satisfaction ratings and options for respondents to indicate they don't know or don't recall.
) when installing or replacing energy-using products for your business in the future? [9=Don‘t know/Don‘t recall] Section IV. Barriers to Action & Recommendations for Improvements 32. Does your company / organization own or lease the space...
AI summary The text presents survey questions related to barriers faced by businesses in implementing energy efficiency measures, particularly focusing on the Small Business Lighting Solutions Program. It asks about ownership of space, permission from building owners, and challenges encountered during program participation.
n implementing the energy efficiency measures provided through the program? 1. Yes 2. No (Go to Q30) 9. (Don‘t know/Don‘t recall) (Go to Q30) 36. What was the ONE most important barrier? (Do not read) 1. (Concern that actual bill savings w...
AI summary The document includes questions about barriers to implementing energy efficiency measures under the Small Business Lighting Solutions (SBLS) program. Respondents are asked to identify the most and second most important barriers, such as concerns about savings, lack of information, and financing issues.
_ Section V. Firmographics 42. What is the principal building activity where the energy efficiency improvements were implemented? [DO NOT READ—BUT CONFIRM WITH RESPONDENT THAT THE CATEGORY YOU CHOOSE IS CORRECT] 1. Education 2. Food Sales...
AI summary This section asks respondents to identify the principal building activity where energy efficiency improvements were implemented, with multiple categories provided. The text also references the Evaluation of the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program.
9. (Don‘t know/Don‘t recall) NMR Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program Page B11 Delivery Agent Interview Guide: NSPI SBLS Program Interviewer: Date of Interview: Time Begun: Time Ended: Respondent Name: Respondent Ti...
AI summary This text is a portion of an interview guide used by Nexus Market Research (NMR) to evaluate the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions (SBLS) Program delivered by Nova Scotia Power. The guide includes questions for delivery agents about their role in the program, their company's services, and their experience with the SBLS Program.
What is the average length of an on-site lighting audit? 12. How much time typically passes between the on-site audit and the presentation of cost and savings analysis to the customer? 13. As a percent about how much of this time is spent:...
AI summary The document consists of a series of questions focused on the process of conducting on-site lighting audits, the time taken to prepare and present cost and savings analyses, and the time between customer authorization and project completion. It also inquires about procedures, rules, and follow-up activities related to retrofit work.
orms the post-installation inspections? If deficiencies are discovered what process is in place to correct these deficiencies and how much time is required before they are corrected?] 20. In what ways has participating in the SBLS program...
AI summary The text outlines a series of questions related to the SBLS program, including post-installation inspections, program benefits, challenges, and data tracking procedures. It also includes a request for evaluation of the program and asks for feedback on specific aspects of the program.
b. On-site lighting audit NMR Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program Page B14 c. Preparation of cost and savings analysis d. Presentation of cost and savings analysis to customer e. Obtaining participant authorization...
AI summary The text outlines the steps involved in the SBLS program, including on-site lighting audits, cost and savings analysis, customer authorization, and installation of energy-efficient lighting. It also asks about customer motivations, barriers to participation, and any post-program energy efficiency measures taken by participants.
Since participating in the SBLS program, have you implemented any other energy efficiency measures for any of the SBLS participants that you worked with? [IF NO SKIP TO FIRMOGRAPHICS] 36. Did participation in the SBLS program influence the...
AI summary The text asks participants in the SBLS program if they implemented additional energy efficiency measures and how much energy those improvements are expected to save. It also seeks suggestions for improving the SBLS program and collects firmographic data about the participants.
9. Don‘t know/Don‘t recall NMR Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program Page B16 Materials Vendor Interview Guide: NSPI SBLS Program Interviewer: Date of Interview: Time Begun: Time Ended: Respondent Name: Respondent Ti...
AI summary The document outlines an interview guide used by Nexus Market Research (NMR) to evaluate the Small Business Lighting Solutions (SBLS) Program provided by Nova Scotia Power. The guide includes questions to assess the vendor’s role, experience, and satisfaction with the program.
ranty replacements? d. The agreed list of lighting products? [PROBE: Are there other products that should be on the list? Are there products that should not be on the list?] 11. Are there other incentives or rebates available, not provided...
AI summary The document contains a series of questions aimed at evaluating the Small Business Lighting Solutions (SBLS) program, including inquiries about product lists, incentives, program impact on sales, and customer satisfaction with NSPI staff.
f 17. Incentive level provided NMR Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program Page B18 18. Program paperwork 19. Program delivery process and procedures 20. Availability of information about the program 21. The program ov...
AI summary The text discusses the evaluation of the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions (SBLS) program, focusing on data tracking, contractor perceptions, and firmographics. It includes questions on how data is tracked, contractor motivations and barriers, and suggestions for program improvement.
sites, need to be recycled?] NMR Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program Page B21 a. Does the SBLI program require that all bulbs, replaced through the program, be recycled? IF NO: Why not? Are there additional incenti...
AI summary The text includes questions about the SBLI program's recycling requirements, incentives for bulb recycling, and the impact of the SBLS program on businesses. It also asks about data tracking and contractor perceptions.