E-22010 DSM Evaluation Reports - Final Report - February 28, 2011 2/28/2011
133 passages
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 NMR team conducted on-site evaluations for 11 programs, calculating net-to-gross ratios to account for free ridership and spillover effects. Five programs showed low free ridership, while methods for determining net impacts are detailed in program reports.
and Appliance Retirement & Replacement), NMR evaluated a total of 11 programs. Five of these eleven programs showed relatively low levels of free ridership— Efficient Products –Retail: CFLs, LIH, C&I 7 Free ridership and spillover were not...
AI summary NMR evaluated 11 DSM programs in 2010, finding five with low free ridership. The LIH program lacked free ridership/spillover data, while the SLC program had over 5,000 completed projects. Verification calls were made to refine savings estimates.
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 low levels indicate effectiveness in attracting non-self-motivated customers. High free-ridership is observed in Efficient Products –Retail, New Houses, and Business Energy Rebates programs due to products typically purchased regardless of incentives. The New Houses program's building code did not set significant stretch goals beyond baseline efficiency standards.
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 Business Energy Rebates program's prescriptive measures led to higher free-ridership due to high transaction volumes. Table 2-1 shows net-to-gross ratios for various programs, with the LIH program exempt from free-ridership calculations as it offers free participation. The Efficient Products –Retail: CFLs program used a difference-of-differences approach to estimate its net-to-gross ratio.
a net-to-gross ratio using a difference-of-differences approach and was presumed to have had spillover. Free ridership was not calculated for the LIH program which is free to low income participants. NMR Evaluation 2010 DSM Programs Execut...
AI summary The evaluation of 2010 DSM programs used a net-to-gross ratio with a difference-of-differences approach, acknowledging spillover effects. Free ridership was not calculated for the LIH program due to its free access for low-income participants. Process evaluations included interviews, surveys, and site visits to assess program implementation.
3.1 C&I Custom Program (C&I) The C&I Custom program is a well run program with a well-documented and detailed data tracking process, rigorous policies and procedures to screen out free-riders, and a rigorous monitoring and verification (M&...
AI summary The C&I Custom program demonstrated strong energy savings in 2010 but missed demand targets. NMR recommends adapting incentives to include demand response. Program success was driven by expanded outreach via Sales Leads, though long implementation timelines may delay impact realization. The program's rigorous M&V and free-rider screening were noted as strengths.
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.
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.
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 between 2008 and 2010. NMR is not currently concerned but suggests monitoring and adjusting screening procedures if free-ridership continues to rise.
p levels continue to rise, consider adjusting the if it continues to increase it may become an area of concern. screening procedures used to identify free-riders. C&I-F2. C&I-R2. Due to the compressed time frame between the end of the prog...
AI summary The text discusses challenges in the C&I Custom program's evaluation process, including compressed timelines, data entry errors, and the need for improved screening procedures and evaluation schedules to ensure accurate and rigorous impact assessments.
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 been effective in encouraging small businesses to purchase energy-efficient lighting products, with a majority of participants purchasing CFLs or LED exit lights prior to joining. However, the program's influence on participants taking additional energy efficiency actions after participation was limited, with only 29% reporting such actions.
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 BER program lacks checks to ensure participants have funding from the DSM Administrator before proceeding with implementation. Free-ridership was high at 46% in 2010, compared to low levels for the C&I Custom program. As the BER program matures, it is recommended to introduce a free-ridership screening process, particularly for larger projects over $2,000. Awareness and outreach efforts should also be intensified in 2011.
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 various products, suggesting that many rebated sales would have occurred without the program. Recommendations include dropping small products with high free-ridership rates and focusing on customer education and promoting products to 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 rebated through the PD program, suggesting many sales would have occurred without the program. Strategies to reduce free-riding include rebating higher efficiency appliances and offering package deals. 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 had high free ridership (66%), but achieved its savings goals. Most respondents reported that replaced appliances were used regularly. The program should expand and improve screening to reduce free ridership and consider the energy savings implications of appliance replacements.
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.
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 with high free-ridership, suggesting a need for higher efficiency targets and packaged rebates. Retailers noted that consumer interest in appliances wanes near year-end, suggesting a year-round program may be more effective.
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 Evaluation of the 2010 Power Down Program found 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 rates and focusing on new construction and major renovation markets.
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.
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 text discusses the calculation of net energy savings using a difference of differences approach, focusing on CFL purchases by participants and non-participants in a program. It highlights the impact of free-ridership and spillover effects, and provides data on average monthly purchases before and during the program period.
1,988 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 24 3.4 Free-ridership and Spillover
AI summary This section discusses free-ridership and spillover effects related to the 2010 Power Down Program. It examines how some participants may benefit from the program without directly contributing to its costs, and how the program may have broader impacts beyond its intended participants.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 24 3.4 Free-ridership and Spillover
AI summary This section discusses free-ridership and spillover effects in the context of the 2010 Power Down Program, highlighting how these factors may impact program effectiveness and equity.
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) designed a retail survey to estimate 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 rebate impact to evaluate program effectiveness.
same, lower, or higher. Retailers, who said that their sales would have been lower in the absence of the program, were asked to indicate the percentage that their sales would have been lower. As a final question, retailers were asked to ra...
AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of the 2010 Power Down Program, including how retailers assessed the impact of the program on their sales and the importance of rebates to customer purchasing decisions. An alternative method for calculating free-ridership is also mentioned.
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 series of questions aimed at estimating free-ridership and spillover effects related to the Power Down program. It asks retailers to provide percentages of sales of specific measures before, during, and after the program promotion period, as well as attributing increased sales to the program.
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 Nova Scotia Utility Board (NMR) evaluated the 2010 Power Down Program by estimating free-ridership and spillover effects. It calculated the percentage of sales that would have occurred without the program by comparing sales data during and before the program period.
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 explains the calculation of free-ridership in the context of a program's impact on sales. It provides an example where 70% of sales during the program period are attributed to factors other than the program itself, indicating a high level of free-riding.
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 text discusses the estimation of program spillover impact and free-ridership in the context of the 2010 Power Down Program. It mentions the calculation of spillover percentages and challenges in estimating free-ridership due to incomplete or inconsistent retailer responses, with some retailers reporting 100% free-ridership.
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 Table 3-11 presents data on free-ridership related to ENERGY STAR light fixtures, showing the percentage of fixture sales attributed to the program and estimated sales in the absence of the program. The table highlights the importance of rebate programs in driving sales and the percentage of free-ridership across different time periods.
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 Table 3-12 presents data on free-ridership related to rebated power bars with timers, showing the percentage of sales attributed to the program and estimated sales in the absence of the rebate. The table evaluates the impact of the rebate on customer purchasing decisions and the importance of the rebate to sales.
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, showing the percentage of rebated timers relative to total sales, estimated sales in the absence of the program, and the importance of the rebate to customer purchase decisions. The table highlights varying levels of program impact across different scenarios.
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 Table 3-14 presents data on free-ridership related to rebated heavy duty pool/outdoor timers, showing percentages of sales attributed to the program, estimated sales in the absence of the program, and the importance and weighted percent of rebate to customers.
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 2010 Power Down Program. It highlights varying percentages across different categories, indicating the extent of free-riding in the program.
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 the estimation of free-ridership in a program by the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NMR). NMR calculated the percentage of sales that would have occurred without the program by analyzing data from the program period and pre-program period, using a mathematical formula to estimate sales without the program's influence.
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 document evaluates the 2010 Power Down Program by analyzing free-ridership, which measures the proportion of energy savings that would have occurred without the program. It uses an example calculation to demonstrate how free-ridership is estimated based on sales data before and during the program period.
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 explains the calculation of free-ridership percentage based on sales data from a program, using an example where 70% free-ridership was calculated. It also notes that no spillover effects were observed due to the short time between the program's end and the evaluation. In some cases, free-ridership was estimated at 100% when retailers reported no change in sales.
dership was estimated to be 100%. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 38
AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of the 2010 Power Down Program, with a focus on the estimated free-ridership rate of 100%.
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 refrigerators under a rebate program, showing the percentage of rebated refrigerators relative to total sales, estimated sales in the absence of the program, and the importance of the rebate to customers. The data spans different time periods and scenarios.
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 clothes washers, showing the percentage of rebated washers relative to total sales, the importance of the rebate to customer purchase decisions, and the estimated percentage of sales that would occur without the program.
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.
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 the implementation contractor handling program development, implementation, and tracking. Activities included developing a project plan, evaluating products, executing marketing plans, and tracking sales and energy savings. Outreach efforts included direct mail, radio ads, and in-store promotions, which contributed to increased sales compared to previous years.
31.2 149.8 100% 31.2 149.8 Total Program 639.8 3,070.5 476.4 2,285.9 1 NMR conducted one in-depth interview with a participant from the Appliance Replacement program component. NMR determined that it was not appropriate to project the free...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Programs shows gross and net savings data for various appliance categories. NMR conducted an interview but found it inappropriate to use it for free ridership estimates, so no estimates were calculated for the Appliance Replacement program component.
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. The program achieved its savings goals and was extended into a second phase. Future programs should 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 had high free ridership (66%) and achieved savings goals despite this. Most respondents reported that replaced appliances were used frequently. The program should expand and improve screening to reduce free ridership and consider energy savings implications of appliance replacements.
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 evaluation discusses energy consumption degradation of retired refrigerators and free-ridership rates in the 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Programs. It estimates free-riders based on participant behavior and considers the impact of replacement appliances on energy savings.
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 in a program, but such impacts were not considered when estimating 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 used to estimate free-ridership rates by analyzing respondents' intentions regarding appliance disposition in the absence of the program. Free-riders (FRs) and non-free-riders (NFRs) are defined based on their responses, with additional considerations for possible free-riders (PFRs) and financial barriers to disposal.
(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 text evaluates free-ridership rates for appliance replacement programs in 2010, showing that 31% of refrigerator owners, 18% of freezer owners, and 47% of dehumidifier owners were free-riders. It also discusses financial barriers respondents faced in the absence of the program.
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 2010 appliance retirement and replacement programs found that free-ridership rates varied depending on whether respondents replaced removed appliances. Free-ridership was higher among those who removed primary refrigerators compared to secondary units, and lower among those who replaced secondary units.
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 analysis shows that free-ridership rates vary based on whether secondary units were replaced. Refrigerators with replaced secondary units had lower free-ridership rates (17%) compared to those without replacement (27%). Similarly, freezers with replaced units had a higher free-ridership rate (27%) compared to those without replacement (7%).
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 document discusses the evaluation of the 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement (ARR) program, noting that free ridership could not be estimated due to limited data. Net savings were calculated based on original population tracking and participant survey data, resulting in 2,286 MWh of energy savings and 476.4 kW of demand savings.
rily to the expanded of hours of operation. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Programs Page 34 4.3.2 Administrative Structure and Processes Out of necessity, many pilot programs are designed operate for a limited ti...
AI summary The document discusses the administrative structure and processes of the 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement (ARR) program. It notes that pilot programs are often limited in time and geography, which can hinder performance but also allow for quick evaluation. The ARR program faced challenges related to staffing and free-ridership, with suggestions for improving future programs.
Basement 2. Kitchen 3. Garage 4. Porch 5. Laundry room 97. Some other place [SPECIFY _] 98. (Don‘t know) 99. (Refused) DEHUMIDIFER FREE-RIDERSHIP [DHR Series] Please continue thinking about just that one dehumidifier. DHR1. Had you already...
AI summary The text includes survey questions related to the disposal of dehumidifiers through the Nova Scotia Power appliance retirement program, focusing on reasons for participation and prior consideration of disposal methods.
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 includes a series of questions about program marketing, delivery, effectiveness, and gaps in coverage related to the 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Program. It also asks about program strengths, weaknesses, and potential improvements, as well as about individuals or groups to interview for further evaluation.
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 discusses the evaluation of free-ridership in the 2010 Existing Houses Program, analyzing how the program influenced participants' decisions and their prior intentions to install energy efficiency measures.
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 text discusses the categorization of free-ridership questions into three categories: program influence, stated intent, and screening/cross-check questions, referencing specific tables.
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 This table presents free-ridership stated intent questions related to the EnerGuide Existing Houses Program, asking respondents what actions they would have taken without participation, including postponing upgrades, not making upgrades, or making 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.
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 outlines free-ridership screening questions related to the EnerGuide for Existing Houses program, including whether participants had planned or installed energy efficiency improvements prior to engagement and whether they contacted contractors before an energy audit.
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.
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, while three were identified as non-free-riders who would not have made energy efficiency upgrades without the program.
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 discusses the classification of respondents in the EEH program, identifying three non-free-riders who installed energy-efficient measures. It describes the methodology used to calculate partial free-ridership rates based on stated intentions and program influence, with an example illustrating the calculation of a free-ridership rate.
(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, with ratings indicating varying levels of influence. It also describes a method used to assess the impact of budget constraints on program participation, adjusting free-ridership rates based on respondents' ability to afford projects 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 outlines the methodology used by NMR to calculate free-ridership rates for the 2010 EEH program. The free-ridership rate was determined to be 24%, with a net-to-gross ratio of 0.76, which was significantly higher than the 3% rate for 2009. Two different methods were used in 2009 and 2010 for this calculation.
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 presents responses to a question about free-ridership in the 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program, with respondents indicating whether they planned to install energy efficiency measures before engaging with 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 document outlines a series of questions related to program marketing, delivery, success, free-ridership safeguards, coverage gaps, and the adoption of 2009 recommendations. It also asks about program strengths, 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 text outlines a series of questions posed to evaluate the success, challenges, and improvements needed for energy efficiency and conservation programs. It covers marketing, delivery, free rider safeguards, program gaps, and a review of past recommendations.
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.
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.
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.
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 the evaluation of the 2010 New Houses Program, focusing on free-ridership. Respondents were asked about their plans to pursue program measures before participation and the influence of the program on their decisions. Questions were divided into three categories: program influence, stated intent, and screening/cross-check questions.
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 text discusses the classification of respondents into full, non, and partial free-riders based on their energy efficiency upgrade behaviors. Full free-riders are those who would have installed the same energy efficiency measures even without the program, as identified by NMR.
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 document discusses the classification of free-riders in the context of the EnerGuide for New Houses program. It identifies full free-riders among builders and homeowners, and outlines criteria for identifying non-free-riders and partial free-riders based on survey responses.
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 analysis evaluates free-ridership in the 2010 New Houses Program by calculating free-ridership rates based on respondents' stated intentions and program influence. Two rates are calculated and averaged to determine a final free-ridership 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, with some stating it had no influence and others saying it was extremely influential. A cross-check was performed for respondents with a 50% free-ridership rate based on their budget's ability to accommodate 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 This section discusses the evaluation of the 2010 New Houses Program, focusing on free-ridership rates calculated using different methods in 2009 and 2010. The overall free-ridership rate in 2010 was 54%, similar to 2009, with a net-to-gross ratio of 0.46.
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 a revised free-ridership analysis in 2010, comparing it to the 2009 methodology. It found that homes with lower EnerGuide ratings had higher free-ridership rates, suggesting that raising the building code to require higher EnerGuide ratings reduced free-ridership.
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 adjusted for free-ridership, estimating 680 MWh of energy and 810 kW of demand savings. These figures fell short of the energy savings target of 2.0 GWh but exceeded the demand savings target of 640 kW.
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 related to program marketing, delivery, success, free-ridership safeguards, coverage gaps, and evaluation of past recommendations. It also asks about program strengths, weaknesses, and needed improvements.
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 free-ridership in the context of the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program. Participants were asked about their plans to install program measures before joining and the program's influence on their decisions. Questions were categorized into program influence, stated intent, and screening/cross-check questions.
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 The text presents a table with questions related to free-ridership screening for the Efficient Lighting Products Program. It asks organizations whether they had plans to install CFLs or LED exit lights prior to the program and whether their budgets could have accommodated the cost of installing these lights without the program.
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 evaluation of the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program found that among participants with CFLs installed, 5 were classified as full free-riders and 5 as non-free-riders, while among those with LED exit lights, none were full free-riders and only one was a non-free-rider. The criteria used to classify free-riders included pre-existing plans, influence of program elements, and installation intentions without 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 DI program installed LED exit lights for respondents, but only one was classified as a non-free-rider. Partial free-ridership values were assigned to respondents based on their stated intentions and the influence of the program, using a method outlined by Research Into Action in 2006.
-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 the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program, including the calculation of free-rider rates based on respondents' answers and the impact of the program on their decisions to install energy-efficient lighting. It also mentions a cross-check involving budget considerations for respondents with a 50% free-rider rate.
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, using a combination of stated intent scores and program influence scores, weighted by the number of CFLs and LEDs installed. The free-ridership rates for the CFL portion was 22%, and for the LED portion was 13%. The document also notes that NMR used different methods to calculate free-ridership between 2008 and 2010.
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, detailing changes in free-ridership calculation methods from 2008 to 2010. In 2009, NMR used an arithmetic mean and a more conservative scoring method, and in 2010, the methodology was revised based on the DSM Administrator's symposium and aligned with the Energy Trust of Oregon's approach. The net-to-gross ratio for the 2010 program was 77% for CFLs and 83% for LED Exit Lights.
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, it should adopt a screening process for larger projects. Awareness and outreach by contractors are recommended to improve customer engagement.
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 provided incentives for energy efficiency projects, and participants attempted to take advantage of rebates for all implemented projects. The evaluation used a 1.069 factor to calculate generator savings and discussed spillover effects from program participation. The free-ridership analysis focused on respondents whose projects were credited to the 2010 program year and included questions on program influence and intent.
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 free-ridership questions in the program were categorized into three types: program influence, stated intent, and screening/cross-check questions, as detailed in 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 This table presents free-ridership stated intent questions related to the Building Energy Retrofit (BER) program, asking respondents what actions they would have taken in the absence of the program, including delaying installation or choosing less efficient equipment.
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 text discusses the evaluation of 2010 prescriptive rebate programs, focusing on free-ridership screening through questions such as whether organizations had prior plans to pursue specific measures and whether they could have afforded projects without incentives.
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 classifies respondents into free-riders based on their pre-existing plans, budget capacity, and installation intentions. Two of six respondents were identified as full free-riders, contributing significantly to energy and demand savings, both within the sample and the broader population.
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 document evaluates the free-rider rate for participants in the BER program. It discusses how respondents were classified as full or partial free-riders based on their stated intentions and the influence of the program. None of the six respondents were classified as non-free-riders, and the analysis used methods outlined by Research Into Action for the Energy Trust of Oregon.
(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 document discusses the methodology used to determine free-ridership rates for the Building Energy Retrofit (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. The free-ridership rate was calculated by averaging stated intent scores and program influence scores, resulting in a 46% free-ridership rate.
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 presents energy savings data from the SLC program, including meter and generator-level savings for lamps and systems, along with connected and peak demand reductions. It also discusses free-ridership estimates from the 2010 SLC evaluation, which relied on findings from the 2009 evaluation, estimating a 16% free-ridership rate and no spillover.
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 program, estimating a free-ridership value of 16% and net energy and demand savings. It also outlines the process evaluation methodology for the 2010 BER program, including interviews and surveys conducted.
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 Nearly all respondents (10 out of 11) reported no barriers to participating in the BER program, with one respondent citing delays in eligibility determination. The section also discusses free-ridership and spillover effects, examining participants' energy efficiency intentions and actions before and after program participation.
atus. In addition, respondents were asked about any energy efficient actions taken since participating in the program and the extent to which the BER program had influenced them to take these actions. 5.6.1 Free-ridership Respondents were...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Prescriptive Rebate Programs includes questions about energy-efficient actions taken by respondents and their prior plans to install upgrades. Seven out of nine respondents had specific plans to install upgrades before participating in the BER program.
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.
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.
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 outlines a set of questions related to energy efficiency programs, focusing on participant motivations, barriers, program changes, marketing strategies, program success, delivery improvements, free-ridership safeguards, and coverage gaps. It also mentions an evaluation of a specific program, the Commercial and Industrial Custom Program 2010, from February 25, 2011.
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 free-ridership levels, which may become a concern if they continue to rise. The program also faced challenges with a compressed timeframe for evaluation and M&V activities, affecting the timely incorporation of results into the tracking system.
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 document discusses the DSM Administrator's efforts to take advantage of rebates and incentives for C&I energy efficiency projects, and outlines the methodology used to assess free-ridership by asking participants about their pre-program plans 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 C&I Custom program, asking participants what actions they would have taken if they had not participated. The data shows that 50% of respondents would have installed the same amount of energy-efficient equipment, while others indicated they would have postponed or installed less efficient equipment.
lled through the program Don‘t know 25% Stated Intent Score = average of FR2a, FR2b, FR2c+ci, and FR2d. Table 2-7: Free-ridership Program Influence Questions Free- Question Question Responses Rider Number Score How influential were the fol...
AI summary The text presents survey data on the influence of various factors in the decision to participate in the C&I Custom program, including incentives, installation contractors, and NSPI representatives. The data indicates varying levels of influence, with the NSPI incentive being the most influential.
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 text discusses the evaluation of the 2010 C&I Custom Program, including a table on free-ridership screening and cross-check questions. It includes responses to questions about whether the organization had plans to pursue specific measures prior to the program and whether the company could have accommodated the full cost of the project without the incentive.
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 based on their pre-existing plans, budget capacity, and installation intentions. None of the 13 respondents were classified as full free-riders.
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 as non-free-riders, partial free-riders, and the methodology used to calculate free-ridership rates based on stated intentions and program influence.
(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 Respondents were asked to rate the influence of program elements on their decision to install energy efficient lighting, with ratings ranging from 1 to 5. A cross-check was performed to assess the impact of budget on project accommodation, adjusting free-rider stated intent scores based on whether the budget could 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 C&I program between 2008 and 2010. Adjustments were made to free-rider scores based on budget capacity, and weighting methods were applied in 2008 and 2009. In 2010, an unweighted average was used due to potential skewing from a small number of respondents. NMR used different methods across the years, including a multiplicative approach and arithmetic mean for certain components.
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. It outlines changes in methodology, including the use of an arithmetic mean and a more conservative scoring method, as well as a revision of free-ridership questions based on a symposium and the Energy Trust of Oregon's approach.
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 constraints. Free-ridership checks ensured that only projects needing financial assistance would qualify, with criteria including inability to meet investment thresholds or raise capital.
(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.
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 in the context of the Commercial and Industrial Custom Program. It asks whether the company had specific plans to pursue certain measures prior to engaging with the program and considers what actions would have been taken in the absence of the program.
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, free-ridership, and the impact of rebate programs on company behavior. It asks whether companies would have taken energy efficiency actions without the programs and how rebate amounts, paperwork, and implementation vary by program.
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 the program achieved 11,210 MWh of energy savings and 1,529.5 kW of demand savings, falling short of the 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. NMR recommended monitoring Delivery Agents and Contractors to maintain quality and satisfaction. In 2010, customer satisfaction remained strong despite program expansion.
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.
2.1 Research Design Consistent with the free ridership summit recommendation, The NMR Team performed a billing analysis to determine the impacts of the SBLS Program. This evaluation methodology encountered two critical issues that resulted...
AI summary The evaluation of the SBLS Program faced challenges due to incomplete billing data and the inability to form a representative control group. As a result, the performance of the 2010 program was based on site work from 2008, and the 2011 evaluation is recommended to use time-of-use metering for better accuracy.
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 free-ridership in the context of the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program, analyzing participants' pre-program intentions and the influence of the program on their decisions. It includes survey data 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 table presents free-ridership stated intent questions related to the Small Business Lighting Solutions Program, asking respondents what actions they would have taken if they had not participated in the program. The responses indicate varying degrees of impact on energy-efficient lighting installation.
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 a series of questions. It assesses whether businesses would have pursued lighting improvements without the program's incentives and considers the financial impact of the program on participants.
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 text discusses the classification of respondents into full free-riders, non-free-riders, and partial free-riders based on their participation in an energy efficiency program. It outlines specific criteria used to identify full free-riders and provides statistics on their impact.
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 document evaluates the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program by analyzing free-ridership rates among 65 respondents. It identifies non-free-riders and partial free-riders based on criteria such as pre-existing plans, program influence, and stated intentions. Only two respondents were classified as non-free-riders, contributing 7.2% of total energy savings and 7.6% of demand savings.
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 evaluates the free-ridership rate of the Small Business Lighting Solutions (SBLS) program by analyzing respondents' stated intentions and the influence of the program on their decisions. Respondents were asked about their actions without the program and how the program influenced their installation of energy-efficient lighting.
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 considers the impact of budget constraints on free-ridership rates, adjusting the free-rider stated intent score based on whether the project could have been accommodated within the respondents' budgets.
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 document outlines the methodology used to calculate free-ridership rates for the SBLS program between 2008 and 2010. Adjustments were made to scoring methods and weighting factors, with the 2010 free-ridership rate for demand savings at 13.1% and energy savings at 13.6%. Multiple calculation methods were used across the years, including changes in scoring and survey questions.
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 Program, focusing on free-ridership rates and the net-to-gross ratio. It highlights that the net-to-gross ratio for the program was 86.6% for energy savings and 87.0% for demand savings, but the actual savings fell short of the goals set for the program year.
Agent and Recycling Contractor. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program Page 17 Table 3-1: Final Sample Population Sample Region N = 418 n= 65 Cape Breton 8% 8% Central 28% 32% Dartmouth 30% 25% Halifax 8% 6% South...
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions (SBLS) program through a participant survey, focusing on spillover effects, free-ridership, participant motivations, and energy attitudes. It also discusses sampling error in the telephone surveys conducted as part of the evaluation.