Topic:"Free Ridership Measurement" in M03452

d that incorporated impacts of free ridership and, in some cases, spillover. The net-to-gross ratio was applied to the gross savings impacts in order to estimate net savings impacts for each program.7 2.2.1 On-site Evaluations In total, th...

AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of energy efficiency programs, including on-site evaluations and the calculation of net-to-gross ratios to estimate net savings impacts, considering free ridership and spillover effects. The NMR team visited multiple participant sites to collect data for engineering analyses.

Custom, SBLS, and SLC.10 Low levels of free ridership indicate that the DSM programs have been effective in attracting customers who would not have taken actions without the influence of the DSM Administrator programs. Programs that had re...

AI summary The text discusses free ridership in DSM programs, noting that low levels indicate program effectiveness. Certain programs, like Efficient Products –Retail and New Houses, had higher free-ridership. The analysis highlights that products with longer lifespans, such as fixtures and appliances, are often purchased regardless of the program, and the New Houses program's efficiency standards were not sufficiently challenging for participants.

f 2010. However, even the new minimum requirement of EnerGuide 83 did not set significant stretch goals for participants, who could exceed this rating simply by installing a heat pump. The Business Energy Rebates program was a new program...

AI summary The document discusses the Business Energy Rebates program and its higher free-ridership rates due to prescriptive measures. It also highlights net-to-gross ratios for various energy efficiency programs, with some programs like Efficient Products –Retail: CFLs showing high ratios due to spillover effects.

ce any effort to improve the program through a process evaluation would have been of limited value as the SLC program will be terminated once the expected legislation mandating T8 lighting is enacted. 3.3 Small Business Direct Install Ligh...

AI summary The Small Business Direct Install Lighting Program (SBLS) has shown increasing energy impacts and high customer satisfaction since 2008. However, material delivery issues led to a change in program design in 2011, with Delivery Agents now responsible for sourcing materials and adhering to price constraints. NMR recommended monitoring performance to ensure continued success.

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 is advised to focus on new construction and major renovations to promote energy-efficient fixtures and controls. The appliance rebate component should target higher efficiency levels to reduce free-ridership and increase energy savings, potentially using CEE's SEHA performance tiers and offering packaged rebates for multiple efficient appliance 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 shows strong performance, but customer self-installation of CFLs may increase free-ridership. Most respondents were aware of CFL benefits and had previously purchased them. LED adoption was lower, suggesting potential adjustments to incentives and program design.

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 Program (NH) saw increased participation due to the 2010 Nova Scotia building code raising energy efficiency standards. However, the program's impact on energy efficiency was limited, as participation was largely driven by heat pump incentives rather than overall energy efficiency goals. Free-ridership was also high among builders and homeowners.

4 Key Findings and Recommendations This section provides a summary of the key findings and recommendations for each of the programs. Table 4-1 presents summary findings and recommendations organized by program as well as comparative findin...

AI summary The C&I Custom program includes checks to ensure funding is provided before project implementation. Free-ridership levels were low but increasing from 2008 to 2010. NMR is not currently concerned but recommends continued monitoring and potential adjustments to screening procedures if free-ridership rises.

Program Finding Recommendation Small SBLS-F6. SBLS-R6. Business About one-half of the 2010 respondents (54%) said they had The SBLS program is a crucial source of information, assistance and Lighting purchased some type of energy efficient...

AI summary The SBLS program has had moderate success in encouraging small businesses to adopt energy-efficient lighting, with most purchases being CFLs and LED exit lights. Free-ridership levels were low, indicating the program's effectiveness. However, few participants took additional energy efficiency actions after participating in the program.

Program Finding Recommendation Business BER-F1. BER-R1. Energy Unlike the C&I Custom program, the BER program did not While higher levels of free-ridership may be acceptable for a new Rebate incorporate any checks to ensure that participan...

AI summary The Business Energy Rebate (BER) program lacks checks to ensure participants have funding before implementation, leading to higher free-ridership. The C&I Custom program had lower free-ridership. As the BER program matures, it should include screening processes, particularly for larger projects. Awareness and outreach should be improved in 2011.

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's implementation involved multiple phases and stakeholders. Despite a minimum EnerGuide 83 requirement, many homes could meet this by installing heat pumps, making the program function as a heat pump initiative. The program is advised to raise the EnerGuide level to 85 or 90 over time or shift to direct incentives for specific measures to improve cost-effectiveness and efficiency.

Program Findings Recommendations Efficient PD:F&C-F1. PD:F&C-R1. Products – This study estimated high free ridership rates for all of the evaluated The program should consider dropping small products with high Retail fixtures and controls...

AI summary The evaluation of the Efficient Products – Retail Program found high free ridership rates for fixtures, controls, refrigerators, and clothes washers, indicating that many rebated sales would have occurred without the program. Recommendations include dropping small products with high free-ridership and focusing on customer education and targeting new construction and renovation markets.

onducted evaluation estimated high free-ridership rates for both Free-ridership rates can be lowered by rebating higher efficiency Retail the refrigerators (72%) and the clothes washers (85%) rebated through appliances only, such as models...

AI summary The evaluation found high free-ridership rates for refrigerators and clothes washers in the PD program, suggesting many purchases would have occurred without the program. Strategies like rebating higher efficiency appliances and offering package deals are suggested to reduce free-ridership. Independent retailers joined the program late but achieved significant sales.

Program Finding Recommendation Appliance ARR-F1. ARR-R1. Retirement Around four out of five respondents who retired each appliance type Appliances picked up by any future program have the potential to & Replace- (76% for refrigerators; 79%...

AI summary The Appliance Retirement Program achieved its savings goals despite high free ridership. Most appliances replaced were in regular use, and the program had a 66% free ridership rate. Recommendations include expanding the program and improving screening to reduce free ridership.

.................................................................................. 21 3.2.4 Dimmer Switches ......................................................................................................................................

AI summary The text outlines sections of an impact evaluation report, focusing on fixtures, controls, and appliance rebates. It discusses gross and net impacts, free-ridership, and spillover effects related to energy efficiency programs. Sections include dimmer switches, power bars, and ENERGY STAR appliances.

NMR 4.3 FREE-RIDERSHIP ............................................................................................................................................. 36 4.4 NET IMPACTS—APPLIANCES ...............................................

AI summary The text outlines sections of a regulatory proceeding related to free-ridership, net impacts of appliances, and an evaluation of the CFL (Compact Fluorescent Lamp) program, including methodology, program goals, outreach, and rebate processing.

Tables TABLE 1: 2010 PROGRAM ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATES.........................................................................II TABLE 2-1: ENERGY AND DEMAND SAVINGS ESTIMATION PARAMETERS ....................................... 10 TABLE 2-...

AI summary The text presents a series of tables that outline energy savings estimates and evaluations for various programs and measures. The tables include data on energy and demand savings, estimation parameters, tracked savings, and free-ridership estimation questions. These tables are likely used for assessing the effectiveness of energy efficiency initiatives.

...... 23 TABLE 3-9: FREE-RIDERSHIP AND SPILLOVER ESTIMATION QUESTIONS ........................................ 25 TABLE 3-10: FREE-RIDERSHIP ESTIMATION EXAMPLE ........................................................................... 26...

AI summary The document contains multiple tables related to free-ridership and spillover estimation, including examples and energy savings estimates for various programs and measures. These tables are part of an analysis or evaluation process for energy efficiency initiatives.

..................................................................... 38 TABLE 4-7: FREE-RIDERSHIP: CLOTHES WASHERS................................................................................... 39 TABLE 4-8: FREE-RIDERSHIP BY MEASURE—...

AI summary The text references tables related to free-ridership and appliance energy savings estimates, indicating a focus on program evaluation and energy efficiency measures.

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 NMR suggests steps to mitigate the impact of removing regular CFLs from the PD program, including focusing on specialty CFLs, incandescent bounty programs, LED rebates, consumer education, and promoting energy-efficient appliances. The evaluation of the program's free ridership highlights limitations in rebate timing and the net-to-gross ratio for certain products.

esponses. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page V Appliance Rebates Component As with fixtures and controls, retailers interviewed reported that the majority of refrigerator and clothes washer sales would likely have taken place i...

AI summary The 2010 Power Down Program's appliance rebate component faced challenges due to high free-ridership. Retailers indicated that most appliance sales would have occurred regardless of the program. To improve effectiveness, the DSM Administrator could rebate Tier 3 appliances and offer packaged rebates for multiple efficient appliances. A year-round program may be more effective to align with customer purchasing behavior.

NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page VIII Findings and Recommendations for Fixtures and Controls Findings Recommendations PD:F&C-F1. PD:F&C-R1. This study estimated high free ridership rates for all of the The program should cons...

AI summary The 2010 Power Down Program had high free ridership rates for fixtures and controls, suggesting many rebated sales would have occurred without the program. Recommendations include dropping small products with high free ridership and focusing on new construction and major renovations.

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 appliances and involving retailers early to ensure product availability and promotion.

e effects of free-ridership and spillover. Using the difference of differences approach based on establishing a counterfactual, the formula for computing the net energy savings is as follows: And Where, NTGR = Net-to-Gross-Ratio A = Partic...

AI summary The document discusses the calculation of net energy savings using a difference of differences approach to assess the impact of free-ridership and spillover effects. It provides data on CFL purchases by participants and non-participants, and estimates the average monthly purchases of qualifying CFLs during the program period.

1,988 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 24 3.4 Free-ridership and Spillover

AI summary The section discusses free-ridership and spillover effects in the context of the 2010 Power Down Program. Free-ridership refers to situations where some participants benefit from the program without contributing, while spillover refers to unintended benefits or impacts on non-participants.

NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 24 3.4 Free-ridership and Spillover

AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of the 2010 Power Down Program, focusing on free-ridership and spillover effects, which are important considerations in assessing the program's impact and effectiveness.

3.4.1 Retail Survey Questions In order to determine the magnitude of free-ridership and spillover, retailers were asked a series of questions related to their sales of fixtures and controls before, during and after the Power Down program p...

AI summary The Nova Scotia Utility Board (NMR) conducted a retail survey to assess free-ridership and spillover effects from the Power Down program. Only measures with higher projected savings were included in the survey, while lower-saving measures like dimmer switches and thermostats were excluded from free-ridership estimation. Retailers were asked about sales trends and the impact of rebates on their sales.

Table 3-9: Free-ridership and Spillover Estimation Questions Percentage of Sales Roughly what percent of ALL [MEASURE CATEGORY] that your store sold between January and September 2010, BEFORE the Power Down program promotion, were [MEASURE...

AI summary The text presents a set of questions aimed at estimating free-ridership and spillover effects related to the Power Down program. It asks retailers to report the percentage of sales of specific energy efficiency measures before, during, and after the program promotion period, as well as the program's attributed impact on sales.

e from the Power Down Program was to customers‘ decisions to purchase the [MEASURE NAME]? Please give your response on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is not at all important and 5 is extremely important. 3.4.2 Free-ridership and Spillover Estim...

AI summary The document outlines the methodology used by the Nova Scotia Utility Board (NMR) to estimate free-ridership and spillover effects in the 2010 Power Down Program. It describes how sales without the program were estimated by comparing program and pre-program sales data, and by attributing program impacts to specific retailers.

10 Xt-1 = Sales of rebated measure as percent of measure category sales in the pre-program period of January–September 2010 Zt-1 = Percent of higher sales in Xt relative to Xt-1 attributed to program Free-ridership These estimated sales re...

AI summary The text discusses the calculation of free-ridership in the context of a program's impact on sales, using an example involving ES Light Fixtures. It explains how sales during the program period are compared to pre-program sales to estimate the percentage of sales that would have occurred without the program.

t-1 = Percent of higher sales in Xt+1 relative to Xt-1 attributed to program spillover impact The resulting absolute spillover percentage was subtracted from the estimated sales without the program. Case-by-Case Estimation Note, however, t...

AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of the 2010 Power Down Program, focusing on the estimation of free-ridership. It notes that some retailers provided inconsistent responses, leading to a 100% free-ridership estimate for those cases where sales were reported as unchanged pre- and during the program.

Table 3-11: Free-ridership: ENERGY STAR Light Fixtures Percent of Higher Estimated Sales in Importance ES Light Fixtures as Percent of Sales Attributed to Absence of of Rebate to Percent All Fixture Sales Program relative to: Program Custo...

AI summary The table presents data on free-ridership related to ENERGY STAR light fixtures, showing the percentage of fixture sales attributed to the program and the estimated importance of the rebate to customer purchase decisions, along with the percent of sales without the program and weighted free-ridership percentages.

Table 3-12: Free-ridership: Power Bars with Timers Rebated Power Bars with Timers as Percent of Higher Estimated Sales in Importance Percent of Sales Attributed to Absence of of Rebate to Percent All Power Bars with Timers Program relative...

AI summary The table presents data on free-ridership related to rebated power bars with timers, showing the percentage of sales attributed to the program and estimated importance of the rebate to customer purchase decisions. It includes various scenarios and their impact on free-ridership.

Table 3-13: Free-ridership: Indoor Light Timers Rebated Indoor Light Timers as Percent of Higher Estimated Sales in Importance Percent of Sales Attributed to Absence of of Rebate to Percent All Indoor Light Timers Program relative to: Prog...

AI summary Table 3-13 presents data on free-ridership related to indoor light timers, including rebate percentages, sales attribution, and estimated importance of the rebate to customer purchase decisions. The table evaluates different scenarios and their impact on free-ridership.

Table 3-14: Free-ridership: Heavy Duty Pool/Outdoor Timers Rebated Heavy Duty Pool/Outdoor Percent of Higher Sales Estimated Sales in Importance Weighted Timers as Percent of Attributed to Program relative Absence of of Rebate to Percent F...

AI summary The table presents data on free-ridership related to the rebate program for heavy duty pool/outdoor timers. It includes metrics such as the percentage of higher sales attributed to the program, estimated sales in the absence of the program, and the importance of rebate to customer purchase decisions.

90% na 100% lower 30% 5 33% 37% 5% 6 20% 60% 20% 60% 50% na na lower 15% 5 40% 67% 17% 7 5% 15% 5% 5% 20% 20% na same na 1 13% 87% 0% 8 100% 100% 100% 100% na na na same na 3 100% 100% 0% 9 10% 20% 0% na 10% na na same na 5 19% 95% 0% 10 3...

AI summary The text presents tables showing the final overall unweighted and weighted free-ridership for each measure in the evaluation of the 2010 Power Down Program. The data includes percentages and numbers associated with different measures.

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 document presents tables showing free-ridership rates for various energy efficiency measures under the Power Down Program, including indoor light fixtures, timers, and thermostats. It also provides net energy and demand savings for the Fixtures and Controls (F&C) components of the program in 2010.

548 Energy-demand ratio 4.8 4.8 Ratio demand savings (kW) 57.7 114.2 4.3 Free-ridership For each measure, NMR evaluated the responses to these questions separately on a case-by-case basis for each individual respondent to the retailer surv...

AI summary The document discusses NMR's method for estimating free-ridership in a program by analyzing sales data before and during the program period. It outlines a mathematical formula used to calculate the percentage of sales that would have occurred without the program.

s in the pre-program period of January–September 2010 Zt-1 = Percent of higher sales in Xt relative to Xt-1 attributed to program 38 Per Program Development Working Group January 26, 2010. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 37...

AI summary The text discusses free-ridership estimation in the context of the 2010 Power Down Program, explaining how the percentage of sales attributed to the program is calculated relative to sales that would have occurred without the program. An example calculation is provided in Table 4-5.

Jan-Sep 2010 Oct-Nov 2010 to Jan-Sep 2010 without Program ridership 50% 75% 90% 52.5% 70% In the above example, the retail store manager attributed the following as the percentage of additional sales due to the program: 90% (75% - 50%) = 9...

AI summary The text evaluates the 2010 Power Down Program by analyzing sales data and free-ridership percentages. It calculates that 70% of sales would have occurred without the program, and notes that spillover effects were not measured due to timing constraints. Some retailers reported 100% free-ridership as they claimed all customers would have purchased rebated measures regardless of the program.

Table 4-6: Free-ridership: Refrigerators Percent of Higher Estimated Sales in Importance Rebated Refrigerators as Percent of Sales Attributed to Absence of of Rebate to Percent All Refrigerators Program relative to: Program Customer of Sal...

AI summary The table presents data on free-ridership related to a refrigerator rebate program, including percentages of rebated refrigerators, estimated sales, and the importance of the rebate to customers. It evaluates the impact of the program and the percentage of sales that would occur without it.

Table 4-7: Free-ridership: Clothes Washers Rebated Clothes Washers as Percent Percent of Higher Estimated Sales in Importance of Sales Attributed to Absence of of Rebate to Percent All Clothes Washers Program relative to: Program Customer...

AI summary Table 4-7 presents data on free-ridership related to rebated clothes washers, showing the percentage of rebated washers relative to total sales, the importance of the rebate to customer purchase decisions, and estimated free-ridership percentages for different scenarios.

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 such as refrigerators and clothes washers, and presents net energy and demand savings from the program. Unweighted and weighted free-ridership rates are provided, along with estimated energy and demand savings.

h the current level of communication. Per its contract, the implementation contractor was responsible for the following program development, implementation and tracking activities: Program Development  Developing a detailed project plan ...

AI summary The 2010 Power Down Program involved detailed planning, implementation, and tracking activities by the implementation contractor. Outreach and marketing efforts were expanded compared to previous years, with earlier marketing activities and increased retailer engagement contributing to higher sales.

METHODOLOGY FOR REFRIGERATORS AND FREEZERS................................................................................ 10 3.1.1 Lab-to-On-site Factor ........................................................................................

AI summary The document outlines a methodology for assessing energy efficiency in refrigerators and freezers, including lab-to-on-site factors and degradation factors. It also discusses components of appliance retirement and replacement programs, as well as free-ridership estimation.

...................................................................................................... 26 3.4.1 Estimation of Free-ridership Rates ...............................................................................................

AI summary The text outlines sections related to the estimation of free-ridership rates and net savings in a program evaluation process. It includes methodology details such as in-depth interviews and surveys of participants, as well as considerations for sampling error and program planning and communications.

MPTION ........................... 21 TABLE 3-14: DEHUMIDIFIER UEC ESTIMATES ............................................................................................. 22 TABLE 3-15: TOTAL PROGRAM SAVINGS—DEHUMIDIFIERS ....................

AI summary The text presents a series of tables related to energy efficiency programs, including dehumidifier and refrigerator replacement initiatives, with data on energy consumption, savings, and free-ridership rates. These tables provide detailed metrics on program performance and participant engagement.

ent Refrigerators 31.2 149.8 100% 31.2 149.8 Total 639.8 3,070.5 74% 476.4 2,285.9 Program NMR Evaluation of 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Programs Page iii Findings and Recommendations The process evaluation drew upon in-depth i...

AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Programs in Nova Scotia found substantial demand for such programs, despite high free ridership levels. The program achieved its savings goals and was extended into a second phase. Future programs need to address free ridership, incentive structures, promotion timing, and planning and communications.

Findings and Recommendations Finding Recommendation ARR-F1. ARR-R1. Around four out of five respondents who retired each appliance Appliances picked up by any future program have the type (76% for refrigerators; 79% for freezers; and 80% f...

AI summary The Appliance Retirement Program achieved its energy savings goals despite high free ridership. Most participants used the replaced appliances regularly. The program should expand and improve screening to reduce free ridership and consider the impact of appliance replacements on energy savings.

primary refrigerators that were plugged in year round. We used the program‘s tracking database to determine the energy consumption of replacement refrigerators for the replacement program component. 3 AHAM (2010). Trends in Energy Efficien...

AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Programs involved calculating energy savings by accounting for partial use and replacement equipment. Net savings were determined by applying a free-ridership rate to adjusted gross savings estimates, and the results were used to calculate total program savings attributable to the DSM Administrator.

133.8 149.8 Energy-Demand ratio 4.8 4.8 Demand savings (kW) 27.9 31.2 29 The annual energy consumption for retired refrigerators includes a degradation factor of 1.37% per year. Replacement refrigerators did not include this adjustment bec...

AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Programs, including energy consumption data and free-ridership estimates. Free-riders are defined as participants who would have taken actions similar to those encouraged by the program without its intervention.

moved the appliance in a manner that would lead to its use by someone else. Replacement appliances impact the energy savings of the program but were not considered in estimating free- ridership rates.

AI summary The text discusses how replacing appliances can affect energy savings within a program, but these impacts were not factored into the estimation of free-ridership rates.

3.4.1 Estimation of Free-ridership Rates We estimated free-ridership rates for each appliance type by determining the FR status of respondents on the basis of questions about the intended disposition of appliances in the absence of the pro...

AI summary The text outlines the methodology for estimating free-ridership rates in a program by categorizing respondents based on their intended actions regarding appliance disposal. Free-riders (FRs) are those who would have recycled or disposed of appliances, while non-free-riders (NFRs) are those who would have sold, given away, or kept the appliance. Possible free-riders (PFRs) are those with ambiguous responses or third-party involvement.

(PFRs). Two additional questions asked respondents about possible financial barriers to their disposal decision. One of these questions asked respondents whether, in the absence of the program, their NMR Evaluation of 2010 Appliance Retire...

AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Programs, focusing on financial barriers to appliance disposal. It discusses free-ridership rates for refrigerators, freezers, and dehumidifiers, with 31%, 18%, and 47% free-ridership rates respectively. Respondents were also asked about willingness to pay for appliance removal if the program was not available.

18% 47% NFR (non-free-riders) 56 75 47 PFR (possible free-riders) 13 7 6 Free-ridership rates were also calculated separately for respondents who replaced the appliance that had been removed through the program with another unit versus res...

AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Programs found that 42% of respondents in the refrigerator group removed a primary refrigerator. Free-ridership rates were higher among those who disposed of a primary unit (40%) compared to those who disposed of a secondary unit (20% overall), with lower rates for those who replaced the secondary unit (17%).

sposed of a secondary unit (20% overall), and respondents who had removed secondary units were less likely to be free-riders if they had replaced the unit (17%) than if they had not replaced it (27%). Table 3-25: Refrigerator Free-ridershi...

AI summary The text discusses free-ridership rates in the context of refrigerator and freezer replacements. It finds that replacing a removed unit reduces the likelihood of being a free-rider, with lower free-ridership rates observed in refrigerators and freezers that were replaced compared to those that were not.

27% 7% NFR (non-free-riders) 57 93 PFR (possible free-riders) 14 0 3.5.2 Appliance Replacement Component NMR was able to conduct only one in-depth interview with a participant in the Appliance Replacement program component. NMR determined...

AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Programs highlights that free ridership could not be estimated for the Appliance Replacement component due to limited interview data. Net savings for the 2010 program were estimated at 2,286 MWh of energy and 476.4 kW of demand savings, based on original population tracking and participant survey data.

program effectiveness and success in short-, intermediate-, and long-term? Marketing, Participating Retailers, and Verification: 17. Please explain the various marketing activities utilized by each program. What do you think is particularl...

AI summary The text outlines a set of questions aimed at evaluating the effectiveness and success of energy efficiency programs, focusing on marketing strategies, program delivery, free-ridership safeguards, coverage gaps, and areas for improvement. It also includes a request for additional individuals or groups to interview regarding the program.

........................... 10 2.5 2010 PROGRAM IMPACTS ............................................................................................................ 11 2.6 FREE-RIDERSHIP .......................................................

AI summary The document outlines sections related to program impacts, free-ridership, energy savings estimation, and process evaluation, including methodology and program goals. It discusses segmentation of free-riders into full, non, and partial categories, and covers evaluation techniques such as in-depth interviews and participant surveys.

................................................ 1 APPENDIX B INTERVIEW GUIDES ......................................................................................................... 1 Tables TABLE 1: 2010 PROGRAM ENERGY SAVINGS............

AI summary This document provides an evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program, including tables that detail energy savings, incentives, and free-ridership questions. The evaluation includes tracking database savings, prescriptive measures, and comparisons between sampled and other projects.

ng data. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Existing Houses Program Page 14 2.6 Free-ridership In order to determine the extent of free-ridership, respondents were asked a series of questions related to their plans to pursue program measures before pa...

AI summary The document evaluates free-ridership in the 2010 Existing Houses Program by asking respondents about their pre-program intentions and the program's influence on their decisions to install energy efficiency measures. The questions were categorized into program influence, stated intent, and screening/cross-check questions.

program measures. The free-ridership questions were divided into three general categories: program influence, stated intent, and screening/cross-check questions. (Table 2-8, Table 2-9, and Table 2-10)

AI summary The document discusses free-ridership questions divided into three categories: program influence, stated intent, and screening/cross-check questions, referencing tables 2-8, 2-9, and 2-10.

Table 2-8: 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 Existing Houses Program. If yo...

AI summary The text presents a table from a regulatory proceeding discussing free-ridership in the context of the EnerGuide Existing Houses Program. It asks respondents about their behavior if they had not participated in the program, focusing on whether they would have postponed or reduced energy efficiency upgrades.

Table 2-10: Free-ridership Screening and Cross-check Questions Free- Question Question Responses Rider Number Score Screening Planned and Did you have any specific plans to pursue any of the recommended installed Q15 improvements that you...

AI summary This table presents free-ridership screening and cross-check questions related to energy efficiency programs, specifically focusing on whether participants had prior plans or contacted contractors before receiving incentives for home improvements.

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's energy efficiency program is being evaluated to determine the extent to which participants would have installed energy efficiency measures without the program. Respondents are categorized into full free-riders, non-free-riders, and partial free-riders based on their responses to budget and planning questions.

pgrades including the incentive: NMR Evaluation of 2010 Existing Houses Program Page 16 FR4 = YES (see Table 2-10) AND  They said that, in the absence of the EEH program, they would have made the same amount of energy efficient upgrades a...

AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Existing Houses Program, identifying free-riders and non-free-riders based on their responses. One respondent was classified as a full free-rider due to installing a heat pump, while three respondents were classified as non-free-riders based on specific criteria, including unplanned installation and the influence of program elements on their decisions.

Among the 70 respondents, three respondents were classified as non-free-riders (0%). Two of these respondents had installed programmable thermostats and one reported having installed pipe insulation. 2.6.3 Partial Free-riders Respondents n...

AI summary The document evaluates free-ridership in the context of the 2010 Existing Houses Program. It classifies respondents into non-free-riders and partial free-riders based on their responses to questions about their intentions and the influence of the program. A method from Research Into Action is used to calculate free-ridership rates.

(0%)  FR3b = No (50%)  FR3c = Yes; FR3ci = Somewhat (25%)  FR3d = Yes (50%) 2.6.3.2 Program Influence In order to determine the influence of the program on respondents, they were asked to rate the influence of three program elements on...

AI summary The text discusses the influence of a program on respondents' decisions to install energy efficient measures, using a rating scale from 1 to 5. It also outlines a method to adjust free-ridership rates based on respondents' budget capabilities, reducing scores to 25% if their budget could not accommodate the project without the program.

their budget could have accommodated the project, no adjustments were made, if they said their budget could not have accommodated the project, their free- rider stated intent score was reduced to 25%. 2.6.4 Combining Scores and Weighting F...

AI summary The document discusses the methodology used to calculate free-ridership rates for the 2010 EEH program. It outlines how scores were combined and weighted, resulting in a free-ridership rate of 24% and a net-to-gross ratio of 0.76. This was significantly higher than the 2009 rate of 3%, with different methods used in each year.

2 3 NMR Evaluation of 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program Page A11 Section 4 – Free-ridership FR1. Did you have any specific plans to pursue any of the recommended improvements that you have installed BEFORE talking with anyone abou...

AI summary The document asks respondents if they had plans to install any energy efficiency improvements before engaging with the EnerGuide for Existing Houses program. Most respondents indicate they planned to install various energy efficiency measures, such as heat pumps and water heater insulation, prior to the program.

Marketing and Verification: 16. Please explain the various marketing activities utilized by each program. What do you think is particularly good about program marketing? How could program marketing be improved? 17. Overall, how successful...

AI summary The text outlines a set of questions to be addressed in a regulatory proceeding, focusing on program marketing, delivery, success, free-ridership safeguards, coverage gaps, and evaluation of past recommendations. It also asks for an assessment of program strengths and weaknesses and potential improvements.

a. Again at the broadest level, what were the areas that were not so successful? b. To what do you trace the difficulties you encountered? How might they be addressed in future programs? Marketing and Verification: 8. Please explain the va...

AI summary The document outlines a series of questions related to the evaluation of energy efficiency programs, including their marketing, delivery, success, and gaps in coverage. It also touches on the impact of changes in incentive structures and the review of past recommendations.

.3 INCREMENTAL ENERGUIDE POINT SAVINGS ....................................................................20 3.4 PROGRAM IMPACTS ..........................................................................................................22...

AI summary The text outlines various sections of an evaluation report, including incremental energy savings, program impacts, validation of energy models, heat pump analysis, free-ridership assessment, and energy savings estimation. These sections are part of a broader process evaluation methodology.

: BUILDER NH FREE-RIDERSHIP STATED INTENT QUESTIONS ............................... 27 TABLE 3-14: BUILDER NH FREE-RIDERSHIP PROGRAM INFLUENCE QUESTIONS ..................... 28 TABLE 3-15: BUILDER NH FREE-RIDERSHIP SCREENING AND CROSS-CHE...

AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of the 2010 New Houses Program, focusing on free-ridership and the influence of the Builder NH Free-Ridership Program. It includes tables analyzing program influence, screening, and overall tracking savings adjusted for free-ridership.

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 In 2010, the EnerGuide for New Houses and PerformancePlus (NH) program saw participation driven largely by heat pump incentives, despite increased energy efficiency standards. Free-ridership was high, and the program's effectiveness in promoting energy efficiency is questioned.

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 evaluation of the 2010 New Houses Program assessed program savings using a sample of homes, updated baseline models, and software comparisons. Tracked savings for 2010 were 1,700 MWh at the meter and 1,900 MWh at the generator, with the latter adjusted using a line loss factor. Free-ridership rates were calculated through a survey of 47 participants.

eling the addition of a heat pump to a home with a central heating system or different envelope characteristics may influence a difference in pre and post EnerGuide ratings that those discussed here. NMR Evaluation—2010 New Houses Program...

AI summary The document discusses free-ridership in the context of the 2010 New Houses Program, analyzing how participants' pre-program intentions and the program's influence affected their decisions to install energy efficiency measures. Respondents were asked about their plans before participation and the program's impact on their decisions.

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 This table presents responses to questions about free-ridership in the EnerGuide New Houses Program, specifically asking if participants would have postponed building their homes or built them 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 table related to a free-ridership screening process for the EnerGuide for New Houses program. It includes questions aimed at determining whether builders had prior plans for energy-efficient construction and whether they could afford upgrades without incentives. The focus is on assessing program influence and identifying potential free-riders.

N/A of the energy efficient upgrades incorporated into this home Don‘t know including the incentives? Refused Based on their responses to these questions, NMR divided respondents into three distinct groups:  Full free-riders – Those parti...

AI summary The document categorizes respondents into full, partial, and non-free-riders based on their energy efficiency upgrade behaviors. Full free-riders are those who would have achieved similar energy efficiency levels without the program. Three builders and 16 homeowners were classified as full free-riders.

R2b = 1 (see Table 3-13) Among the four builders who responded to the survey, three were classified as full (100%) free- riders. Sixteen of the 43 homeowners in the 2010 sample were full free-riders. 3.7.2 Non-Free-riders Respondents were...

AI summary The text discusses the classification of free-riders in the 2010 New Houses Program, identifying three out of four builders and 16 out of 43 homeowners as full free-riders. No non-free-riders were identified among builders or homeowners. Partial free-riders are determined based on responses to free-ridership questions.

of their responses to free-ridership questions. The NMR Evaluation—2010 New Houses Program Page 30 analysis of responses followed the method outlined by Research Into Action for the Energy Trust of Oregon in their 2006 document ―Free-Rider...

AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of the 2010 New Houses Program, focusing on free-ridership analysis. It outlines a method for calculating free-ridership rates based on respondents' stated intentions and the program's influence on their decisions. Two free-ridership rates are calculated and averaged to determine a final rate.

e one meant the program had ‗had no influence at all‘ on their decision and five meant that the program had been ‗extremely influential‘ to their decision to improve the energy efficiency of the home. 3.7.3.3 Impact of Budget For responden...

AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 New Houses Program found that the program had varying levels of influence on respondents' decisions to improve home energy efficiency. A cross-check was performed to assess the impact of budget on free-ridership rates, adjusting scores for those who could not have afforded the project without the program.

core was reduced to 25%. NMR Evaluation—2010 New Houses Program Page 31 3.7.4 Combining Scores and Weighting Finally, to compute the overall free-ridership rate for each participant, their free-rider stated intent score was averaged with t...

AI summary The 2010 New Houses Program free-ridership rate was 54%, similar to 2009. The net-to-gross ratio was 0.46, close to 2009's 0.45. Methods for calculating free-ridership changed in 2010, influenced by the DSM Administrator's symposium and the Energy Trust of Oregon's approach.

letely revised the free-ridership questions included in the 2010 survey and mirrored the free-ridership calculations developed for the Energy Trust of Oregon by Research into Action. Table 3-16: Free-ridership 2009 2010 Builders Homeowners...

AI summary The document discusses free-ridership analysis in the context of Nova Scotia's building code requirements, comparing data from 2009 and 2010. It notes that raising the minimum EnerGuide rating to 80 reduced free-ridership, particularly among homes with ratings below 83.

er comparison was not done. NMR Evaluation—2010 New Houses Program Page 32 Table 3-17: Free-ridership by EnerGuide Rating 2010 Builders Homeowners Total Sample size 4 43 47 All respondents greater than or equal to EG80 79% 52% 54% Responde...

AI summary The 2010 New Houses Program's energy savings were estimated at 680 MWh and 810 kW of demand, after accounting for a free-ridership rate of 54%. These results fell short of the energy savings target of 2.0 GWh but exceeded the demand savings target of 640 kW.

[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 presents a survey on energy efficiency measures, including air source heat pumps and solar water heaters, and asks participants about reasons for not installing recommended measures. It also includes a section on free-ridership, asking whether respondents had plans to build energy-efficient homes before engaging with the EnerGuide for New Houses program.

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 recommended but not installed. It also references the Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources (NMR) and the EnerGuide for New Houses Program.

Marketing and Verification: 17. Please explain the various marketing activities utilized by each program. What do you think is particularly good about program marketing? How could program marketing be improved? 18. Overall, how successful...

AI summary The text outlines a series of questions aimed at evaluating the marketing, delivery, and effectiveness of energy efficiency programs, as well as identifying gaps and areas for improvement. It also requests feedback on the adoption of 2008 recommendations and an assessment of program strengths and weaknesses.

.............. 10 3.2.1 Tracking Data Review ........................................................................................................................... 10 3.2.2 Facility Walk-Through ..........................................

AI summary The document outlines various sections related to tracking data review, facility walk-throughs, lighting loggers, and lighting savings analysis. It also addresses in-service rates, spill-over effects, free-ridership, and the net-to-gross ratio, providing detailed subsections on different types of free-riders and methods for combining scores and weighting.

ROGRAM INFLUENCE QUESTIONS .............................................. 17 TABLE 3-10: CFL FREE-RIDERSHIP SCREENING AND CROSS-CHECK QUESTIONS .......................... 18 TABLE 3-11: FREE-RIDERSHIP .........................................

AI summary The document presents a series of tables related to energy efficiency programs, focusing on free-ridership screening, program participation, barriers, and energy savings. It includes data on CFL and LED installations, sampling errors, and participant motivations.

allations 2,772 593 20,906 637 6,237 256 Spillover rate 4% 1% 5% 1% 1% 4% 3.5 Free-ridership In order to determine the extent of free-ridership, participants were asked a series of questions related to their plans to pursue program measure...

AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program, focusing on free-ridership. Participants were asked about their plans to install program measures before joining and the influence of the program on their decisions. The evaluation used three categories of questions: program influence, stated intent, and screening/cross-check questions.

Table 3-8: CFL Free-ridership Stated Intent Questions Free- Question Question Responses Rider Number Score If your organization had not participated in the Efficient Lighting Products Program, which of the following actions do you think yo...

AI summary The table presents free-ridership questions related to the Efficient Lighting Products Program, focusing on the actions respondents would have taken if they had not participated, including delaying or reducing the installation of CFLs and LED exit lights.

Table 3-10: CFL Free-ridership Screening and Cross-check Questions Free- Question Question Responses Rider Number Rate Screening Yes – CFLs and LEDs Did your organization have any specific plans to install Yes – just CFLs FR1. CFLs or LED...

AI summary This table presents free-ridership screening and budget check questions related to the Efficient Lighting Products Program. It asks organizations if they had plans to install CFLs or LED exit lights prior to the program and whether their budgets could have accommodated the full cost of installing these items without the program.

FR4. installing the LED exit lights? Not including installation costs, the LED exit lights would have cost approximately [read: cost from program records]. Based on their responses to these questions, NMR divided respondents into three dis...

AI summary The document discusses the categorization of respondents in the DI program based on their likelihood of installing energy efficiency measures without the program. Respondents are divided into full free-riders, non-free-riders, and partial free-riders based on specific criteria, including pre-existing plans, budget capacity, and installation intent.

1 and FR2h = 1 (see Table 3-8) NMR Evaluation of 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program Page 19 Among the 75 respondents who, according to program records, had CFLs installed by the DI program, five respondents were classi...

AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program, analyzing free-riders and non-free-riders. It found five full free-riders with 610 CFLs installed and no full free-riders among LED exit light installations. Only five CFL and one LED respondent were identified as non-free-riders, with minimal installations attributed to the program.

records, had LED exit lights installed by the DI program, only one was classified as a non-free-rider (0%). According to program records, this respondent had 4 LED exit signs installed by the program. 3.5.3 Partial Free-riders Respondents...

AI summary The document evaluates the DI program's free-ridership, noting that only one respondent out of several was classified as a non-free-rider. The analysis uses a method from Research Into Action to calculate free-ridership rates based on stated intentions and program influence.

-8. Based on their responses, NMR Evaluation of 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program Page 20 each respondent was assigned a free-rider rate for each question and then their overall stated intention free-ridership rate wa...

AI summary The text discusses the evaluation of a 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program. It outlines the methodology used to calculate free-rider rates based on respondents' answers and how the program influenced their decisions to install energy-efficient lighting. The impact of budget considerations on free-rider rates is also addressed.

d their budget could have accommodated the project, no adjustments were made; if they said their budget could not have accommodated the project their free-rider stated intent score was reduced to 25%. 3.5.4 Combining Scores and Weighting F...

AI summary The document discusses the calculation of free-ridership rates for the Direct Install (DI) program in 2010, combining stated intent scores and program influence scores, with weights based on the number of CFLs and LEDs installed. Free-ridership rates were 22% for CFLs and 13% for LEDs. Methods used by NMR between 2008 and 2010 included a multiplicative approach and standardized methods from PA Consulting.

Report. Submitted June 16, 2003 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program Page 21  In 2009, NMR used a similar approach as in 2008. However, for the 2009 free-ridership calculations, the NMR team adopted th...

AI summary The report evaluates the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program, noting changes in free-ridership calculation methods from 2008 to 2009 and a complete revision in 2010 based on a symposium decision. The free-ridership rates and net-to-gross ratios for CFLs and LED exit lights are presented, with the 2010 net-to-gross ratio at 77% for CFLs and 83% for LED exit lights.

OGRAM ACTIVITY ............................................................................................... 9 3.2 SAVINGS METHODOLOGY .........................................................................................................

AI summary This section of the document discusses program activity, savings methodology, evaluated program impacts, spillover effects, free-ridership, and the net-to-gross ratio. It includes detailed analyses of lighting, motor and drive, and HVAC savings, as well as classifications of free-riders and methods for combining scores and weighting.

Combining Scores and Weighting ......................................................................................................... 23 3.6 NET-TO-GROSS RATIO ...............................................................................

AI summary The document discusses methods for combining scores and weighting, including the net-to-gross ratio and net savings estimation. It also covers impact evaluation of the SLC, focusing on DSM program savings, evaluation methodology, and free-ridership analysis.

NMR 5 PROCESS EVALUATION .............................................................................................................................. 33 5.1 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................

AI summary The document outlines the process evaluation methodology for a program, including in-depth interviews, telephone surveys, sampling error, program goals and design, outreach and marketing, measure installations, and discussions on program awareness, motivation, barriers, free-ridership, and spillover effects.

Findings and Recommendations Finding Recommendation BER-F1. BER-R1. Unlike the C&I Custom program, the BER program did not incorporate While higher levels of free-ridership may be acceptable for any checks to ensure that participants do no...

AI summary The BER program lacks checks to ensure participants do not proceed without funding from the DSM Administrator, unlike the C&I Custom program. Free-ridership was low for C&I Custom but high (46%) for BER. As BER matures, the DSM Administrator should implement a free-ridership screening process, particularly for larger projects. Awareness and outreach with customers should be enhanced in 2011.

DSM Administrator had begun offering incentives for energy efficiency projects the participant had made every attempt to take advantage of rebates and incentives for all projects they implemented. 7 We used a factor of 1.069 to calculate t...

AI summary The DSM Administrator has been offering energy efficiency project incentives, and the participant has made efforts to take advantage of all available rebates and incentives. The evaluation of the 2010 Prescriptive Rebate Programs includes an analysis of free-ridership, focusing on respondents whose projects were credited to the 2010 program year.

program measures. The free-ridership questions were divided into three general categories: program influence, stated intent, and screening/cross-check questions. (Table 3-8, Table 3-9, and Table 3-10)

AI summary The text discusses free-ridership questions divided into three categories: program influence, stated intent, and screening/cross-check questions, referencing tables 3-8, 3-9, and 3-10.

Table 3-8: 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 BER program. If your company / organizat...

AI summary The text presents a table from a regulatory proceeding that asks respondents about their actions in the absence of the Building Efficiency Rebate (BER) program, including delaying or reducing energy-efficient equipment installations.

0% FR4e. NSPI funded feasibility study Don‘t know 25% Program Influence Score = maximum of FR4a, FR4b, FR4c, FR4d and FR4e. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Prescriptive Rebate Programs Page 21 Table 3-10: Free-ridership Screening and Cross-check Qu...

AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of prescriptive rebate programs, including a free-ridership screening process. It includes questions about whether organizations had prior plans to pursue specific measures and whether they could have afforded the full cost of a project without the incentive.

s FR3. Power, could your budget have accommodated the full cost of the No N/A project including the incentive? Don‘t know Based on their responses to these questions, NMR divided respondents into three distinct groups:  Full free-riders –...

AI summary The document discusses the classification of respondents into full, partial, and non-free-riders based on their responses to questions about energy efficiency program participation. Full free-riders are those who would have installed the same measures without the program, and two such respondents accounted for a significant portion of energy and demand savings.

fficient equipment in the absence of the program: Free-rider rate for FR2ci = Significantly less (see Table 3-8) Among the six respondents, none were classified as non-free-riders (0%). 3.5.3 Partial Free-riders Respondents not identified...

AI summary The analysis evaluates free-ridership rates among respondents to the BER program. None of the six respondents were classified as non-free-riders, and partial free-ridership values were calculated based on their responses to questions about stated intentions and program influence.

(0%)  FR2b = No (50%)  FR2c = Yes; FR2ci = Somewhat (25%)  FR2d = Yes (50%) Program Influence In order to determine the influence of the program on respondents, they were asked to rate the influence of five program elements on their dec...

AI summary The text discusses the calculation of free-ridership rates for the Building Efficiency Rebate (BER) program in 2010. Respondents were asked about the influence of the program on their decisions and whether their budgets could have accommodated the project without the program. Free-ridership rates were calculated based on these responses and weighted accordingly.

Demand Energy Sample size 6 6 Free-ridership rate 46% 46% 3.6 Net-to-Gross Ratio For the BER program, the net-to-gross ratio was calculated based on spillover and free-ridership. For the 2010 program year, the net-to-gross ratio for the BE...

AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 BER program, calculating a net-to-gross ratio of 54% for energy and demand savings. It estimates net annual energy savings at 503.3 MWh and demand savings at 0.72 MW, based on spillover, free-ridership, and survey data.

nected and peak demand savings at the meter were 2,040.0 kW and 1,324.0 kW, respectively. At the generator, the connected demand savings were 2,191.0 kW, while the peak demand savings were 1,422.0 kW. Table 4-5: Gross SLC Savings Summary D...

AI summary The text provides details on energy savings from the Smart Lighting Choices (SLC) program, including both meter and generator-level metrics. It also discusses free-ridership estimates from the 2010 SLC evaluation, which were based on findings from the 2009 evaluation and responses to questions about purchasing decisions and willingness to pay for energy-efficient lighting systems.

for their recently-installed HP T8 lighting systems. Based on these responses, we estimated a free-ridership value of 16%. In 2009, NMR estimated that the SLC program had resulted in no spillover. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Prescriptive Rebate...

AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of the 2010 SLC and BER programs, including free-ridership estimation at 16% and net energy and demand savings. It also outlines the process evaluation methodology, involving interviews and surveys.

2 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Prescriptive Rebate Programs Page 38 Nearly all of the respondents (ten out of eleven) reported that they had experienced no barriers to participating in the BER program. The one respondent who had reported facing...

AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Prescriptive Rebate Programs indicates that nearly all respondents faced no barriers to participating in the BER program, with only one respondent citing delays in eligibility determination. The section also discusses free-ridership and spillover effects, examining participants' pre-program intentions and post-program energy-efficient actions.

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 The text outlines a series of questions related to free-ridership evaluation for the 2010 Business Energy Rebate Program. It asks participants whether they had plans to install energy-efficient equipment prior to the program and how their actions would have differed without the rebate incentives.

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 outlines an interview guide used to evaluate the 2010 Business Energy Rebate Program by NMR Group, Inc. The guide includes questions about company independence, number of facilities in Nova Scotia, and interactions with Nova Scotia Power's energy efficiency programs. The evaluation focuses on free-ridership and spillover effects.

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 energy efficiency programs administered by NSPI, focusing on rebate implementation, project execution, and free-ridership. It also asks respondents about their plans and actions regarding energy efficiency upgrades in the absence of NSPI incentives.

primary motivations for participating in the program? What are the major barriers to their participation in the program? 20. What has changed about the program since the beginning, and why? Marketing and Verification: 21. Please explain th...

AI summary The text presents a series of questions related to program evaluation, including participation motivations, program changes, marketing and delivery effectiveness, free-ridership safeguards, and coverage gaps. It also includes a reference to an impact and process evaluation of a commercial and industrial custom program from 2010.

..........................................................................................4 2.3.2 Traffic Lighting ...............................................................................................................................

AI summary This section outlines the structure of a proceeding, including topics such as traffic lighting, motors, whole building site assessments, refrigeration, results, spillover effects, and free-ridership analysis, including classifications of full, non, and partial free-riders, and methods for combining scores and weighting.

........................ 11 2.6.4 Combining Scores and Weighting ......................................................................................................... 12 2.7 NET-TO-GROSS RATIO .............................................

AI summary The text outlines the methodology for evaluating a program, including scoring and weighting, net-to-gross ratio, energy savings estimation, and process evaluation through interviews, surveys, and data tracking. It also touches on program goals, free-ridership assessment, and outreach strategies.

Tables TABLE 1: 2010 PROGRAM ENERGY AND DEMAND SAVINGS SUMMARY ............................................... I TABLE 2-1: TRACKING ESTIMATES OF 2010 C&I CUSTOM SAVINGS AT GENERATOR ..................... 2 TABLE 2-2: FINAL SAMPLE DESIGN ....

AI summary The text presents a series of tables summarizing energy and demand savings from 2010 programs, including tracking estimates, sample designs, and free-ridership questions. These tables are part of an evaluation of program effectiveness and participant behavior.

Program Design and Delivery Finding Recommendation C&I-F1. C&I-R1. The C&I Custom program incorporated checks to ensure that The DSM Administrator should continue to include free- participants would not proceed with project implementation...

AI summary The C&I Custom program had low but increasing levels of free-ridership, prompting a recommendation to continue monitoring and possibly adjust screening procedures. Additionally, due to a compressed timeframe, the program faced challenges in completing M&V activities and incorporating results into the tracking system, leading to a recommendation to adopt a non-calendar year evaluation schedule.

ce the DSM Administrator began offering incentives for C&I energy efficiency projects, they have made every attempt to take advantage of rebates and incentives for all projects they have implemented. 2.6 Free-ridership In order to determin...

AI summary The DSM Administrator has taken advantage of rebates and incentives for C&I energy efficiency projects. The evaluation discusses free-ridership, asking participants about their intent to pursue program measures before joining and the program's influence on their decisions.

l program measures. The free-ridership questions are divided into three general categories: program influence, stated intent, and screening/cross-check questions (Table 2-6, Table 2-7, and Table 2-8).

AI summary The text discusses free-ridership questions divided into three categories: program influence, stated intent, and screening/cross-check questions, referencing tables 2-6, 2-7, and 2-8.

Table 2-6: 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 C&I Custom program. If your company / or...

AI summary This table presents responses to questions about free-ridership in the context of the C&I Custom program, asking respondents what actions they would have taken if they had not participated in the program. The responses indicate that 50% would have postponed or not installed energy-efficient equipment, while 25% indicated uncertainty.

0% FR4e. NSPI funded feasibility study Don‘t know 25% Program Influence Score = maximum of FR4a, FR4b, FR4c, FR4d and FR4e. NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page 10 Table 2-8: Free-ridership Screening and Cross-check Questions Fre...

AI summary The document discusses a free-ridership screening process for the 2010 C&I Custom Program, including questions about prior plans for energy efficiency measures and budget capabilities without incentives. The evaluation includes responses and scoring.

es FR3. Power, could your budget have accommodated the full cost of the No N/A project including the incentive? Don‘t know Based on their responses to these questions NMR divided respondents into three distinct groups:  Full free-riders –...

AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 C&I Custom Program by classifying respondents into free-riders and non-free-riders. Full free-riders were defined by pre-existing plans, budget capacity, and intent to install the same measures without the program. Among 13 respondents, none were classified as full free-riders.

as a full (100%) free-rider. NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page 11 2.6.2 Non-Free-riders Respondents were identified as non-free-riders if they simultaneously met the following four criteria:  They stated that their organizati...

AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 C&I Custom Program, identifying four non-free-riders among 13 respondents. These four respondents account for 49% of total energy and 45% of total demand savings. Non-free-riders are defined by specific criteria, including no pre-existing plans for energy efficiency, program influence, budget constraints, and significantly less equipment installation without the program.

were classified as non-free-riders (0%). According to program records, these four respondents account for 49% of the total energy and 45% of the total demand savings for the sample of 13 respondents. 2.6.3 Partial Free-riders Respondents n...

AI summary The document discusses the classification of respondents in the C&I Custom program, with 49% of energy and 45% of demand savings attributed to four non-free-riders. Partial free-ridership values are calculated based on responses to questions about intentions and program influence, using a method from Research Into Action.

(0%)  FR2b = No (50%)  FR2c = Yes; FR2ci = Somewhat (25%)  FR2d = Yes (50%) 2.6.3.2 Program Influence In order to determine the influence of the program on respondents, they were asked to rate the influence of five program elements on t...

AI summary The text discusses a survey on the influence of a program on respondents' decisions to install energy-efficient lighting, with ratings on a scale from 1 to 5. It also covers how the impact of budget constraints was considered in adjusting free-ridership rates.

their budget could have accommodated the project, no adjustments were made; if they said their budget could not have accommodated the project, their free- rider stated intent score was reduced to 25%. 2.6.4 Combining Scores and Weighting F...

AI summary The text describes a methodology for calculating free-ridership rates for the C&I Custom program between 2008 and 2010. It outlines how scores were combined and weighted, noting that in 2010, weighting was not used due to a skewed sample. Three different methods were used over the years, with references to standardized evaluation methods.

e use of an arithmetic mean for two components of the 5 See Section 3.6 6 PA (2003) Standardized Methods for Free-Ridership and Spillover Evaluation—Task 5 Final Report. Submitted June 16, 2003 NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Pag...

AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of the 2010 C&I Custom Program, focusing on free-ridership calculations and the net-to-gross ratio. In 2010, NMR revised free-ridership questions based on a symposium and used a more conservative scoring method. The net-to-gross ratio for energy and demand savings was 90%.

of the DSM Administrator. NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page 17  Incentives could not exceed $0.15 per kWh of first-year projected energy savings;  Incentives could not exceed a prorated share of the total C&I incentive budge...

AI summary The C&I Custom program set incentive limits based on energy savings and budget allocation. Incentives were calculated using factors like energy savings, project costs, and payback. The program ensured that only projects dependent on incentives would qualify, requiring feasibility studies to confirm that customers could not proceed without funding.

(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 motivations for participating in energy efficiency programs, including saving on energy costs, reducing maintenance, and environmental benefits. It also references a feasibility study and includes instructions for asking about free-ridership for each measure.

EAT Q 13-14 FOR EACH MEASURE AND DO NOT ASK Q15 AGAIN. ASKING Q15 ONCE IS SUFFICIENT. FREE-RIDERSHIP [ASK EACH QUESTION FR1 - FR FOR THE FEASIBILITY STUDY AND EACH MEASURE RECALLED] FR1. Did your company / organization have any specific pl...

AI summary The text outlines a set of questions related to free-ridership and the Commercial and Industrial Custom Program, asking whether the company had specific plans to pursue certain measures prior to engaging with the program, and what actions would have been taken in its absence.

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 energy efficiency programs administered by NSPI, focusing on rebate implementation, project execution, and free-ridership. It also asks respondents about their plans and actions regarding energy efficiency upgrades in the absence of NSPI incentives.

...................................................................... 6 2.3 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 7 2.4 RESULTS .........

AI summary The text outlines a methodology for evaluating energy efficiency programs, focusing on spill-over effects, free-ridership, and net-to-gross ratios. It discusses the evaluation of energy savings and the overall process of program evaluation.

ation was based on in-depth interviews with the DSM Administrator‘s staff, Delivery Agents, the Materials Vendor and the Recycling Contractor as well as a telephone survey of 65 program participants. Impact Evaluation Findings The impact e...

AI summary The impact evaluation of the 2010 SBLS program found that it achieved 11,210 MWh of energy savings and 1,529.5 kW of demand savings, falling short of its energy and demand savings goals. The evaluation used interviews, surveys, and program records to estimate free-ridership and spillover effects.

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 and free-ridership at about 13% in 2010. NMR recommended monitoring the performance of Delivery Agents and other partners to maintain quality and satisfaction.

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 The evaluation of the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions (SBLS) program found that participants faced barriers such as lack of financing and information in implementing additional energy efficiency measures. The program was identified as a crucial source of assistance and funding, with participants showing low free-ridership and limited spillover effects.

e participant from program records EstEnergySav = Estimated energy savings for the participant from program records QuanAddLight = Percentage of additional lighting installed as reported in the survey Table 2-6: Spillover 2008 2009 2010 Sa...

AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program, including metrics like estimated energy savings and spillover effects from 2008 to 2010. It also mentions the assessment of free-ridership through participant surveys and categorizes questions into program influence, stated intent, and screening/cross-check categories.

Table 2-7: CFL 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 Small Business Lighting Solutions Pr...

AI summary The text presents a table from a regulatory proceeding discussing free-ridership in the context of the Small Business Lighting Solutions Program. It asks respondents about their intended actions if they had not participated in the program, with responses indicating a mix of delayed installation, no installation, and installation of less efficient lighting.

5 0% Don‘t know 25% Program Influence Score = maximum of FR4a, FR4b, or FR4c. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program Page 12 Table 2-9: CFL Free-ridership Screening and Cross-check Questions Free- Question Questio...

AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program, focusing on free-ridership screening through questions about prior lighting improvement plans and budget considerations. It includes a table with screening and budget check questions to assess program influence and free-ridership.

Don‘t know including the incentive? Again, the full cost of the project would have been [prompt with project cost]. Based on their responses to these questions NMR divided respondents into three distinct groups:  Full free-riders – those...

AI summary The document discusses the classification of respondents into full, partial, and non-free-riders based on their participation in the SBLS program. It outlines criteria for identifying full free-riders and notes that only one respondent was classified as such, contributing minimally to energy savings.

gy (0.09%) and demand (0.14%) savings for the sample of 65 respondents. 2.6.2 Non-Free-riders Respondents were identified as non-free-riders if they simultaneously met the following three criteria: NMR Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lig...

AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program identifies free-riders and non-free-riders among 65 respondents. Only 2 respondents were classified as non-free-riders, contributing 7.2% of energy and 7.6% of demand savings. The methodology used to determine free-ridership rates is based on a 2006 document by Research Into Action.

ing the influence of the program. After calculating the individual free- ridership rates for stated intentions and program influence, the results are averaged to determine a final free-ridership rate. 2.6.3.1 Stated Intentions In order to...

AI summary The document discusses the methodology used to calculate free-ridership rates for the Small Business Lighting Program (SBLS). It outlines how respondents' stated intentions and the program's influence on their decisions are assessed to determine the overall free-ridership rate.

ll energy efficient lighting. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program Page 14 2.6.3.3 Impact of Budget For respondents who received a stated intentions free-ridership rate of 50%, a cross-check was performed with a...

AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program discusses how budget constraints influenced free-ridership rates, adjusting scores based on whether respondents could afford the project without the program's support.

their budget could have accommodated the project no adjustments were made; if they said their budget could not have accommodated the project, their free- rider stated intent score was reduced to 25%. 2.6.4 Combining Scores and Weighting Fi...

AI summary The text outlines the methodology used to calculate free-ridership rates for the SBLS program from 2008 to 2010, including adjustments in scoring methods and weights based on energy and demand savings. The free-ridership rates were 13.1% for demand and 13.6% for energy savings in 2010.

mpletely revised the free-ridership questions included in the 2010 survey and mirrored the free-ridership calculations developed for the Energy Trust of Oregon by Research into Action. Table 2-10: Free-ridership9 2008 2009 2010 Demand Ener...

AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions (SBLS) program, including free-ridership rates and the net-to-gross ratio for energy and demand savings. It also highlights that the program's energy and demand savings fell short of the goals set for 2010.