Topic:"Incentive Costs" in M07544

Due to ongoing program management, the costs of the products are always monitored. This monitoring allows the Program Manager to understand whether incentives are too high compared to the incremental cost, and whether the 50 percent financ...

AI summary The Program Manager continuously monitors product costs to ensure incentives remain appropriate relative to incremental costs and to track whether the 50 percent financial cap is being reached.

2013 2014 2015 2016 Incentive Costs $85,792,815 $87,475,385 $81,650,474 $90,618,627 Administration $68,482,871 $71,734,454 $72,025,504 $77,017,143 Incentive-to Administration Ratio 56:44 55:45 53:47 65:35 2015-2019 STRATEGIC PLAN 13

AI summary The table presents incentive costs and administration costs from 2013 to 2016, along with the ratio of incentive-to-administration costs. The 2015-2019 Strategic Plan is referenced as a key document in the context of these figures.

Efficiency Vermont's spending for 2013 and 2014 is provided below: Prior Year Current Year 2014 Cumulative starting 1/1/12 Cumulative starting 1/1/12 # participants with installations 37,483 54,135 131,094 131,094 Operating Costs 1 Adminis...

AI summary Efficiency Vermont's spending for 2013 and 2014 is detailed, including operating costs, technical assistance, support services, and incentive costs. The data highlights the distribution of expenses and participant engagement metrics.

Financial Considerations as Related to Participant Perceived Value There are several different costs and metrics that may affect the financial considerations involved a participant's perceived value: - 1. Retail Price - 2. Project Costs -...

AI summary The text outlines financial considerations related to participant perceived value in energy efficiency programs, focusing on retail price, project costs, project payback, and incremental equipment costs. It emphasizes the importance of defining a base case for accurate incremental equipment cost analysis, which is critical for incentive setting and program design.

These metrics depend on the value of the incentive. Table 3: Participant Cost Test and Relationship to Incentive Setting from a Participant Perceived Value Perspective The analysis involved in determining the Incremental Equipment Cost and...

AI summary This text discusses the relationship between participant cost tests and incentive setting, highlighting that both analyses require defining a base case and calculating cost differences between efficient options and the base case. The Incremental Equipment Cost can include O&M and fuel costs depending on the program and technology.

Research and Engagement Phase Financial Impacts & Risks Using preliminary incentive rates identified in the previous phase and participation forecast, the impact on the aggregate administrator budget and the program budget can be determine...

AI summary The text discusses the financial impacts and risks associated with incentive rates in energy programs, emphasizing the need to balance administration and incentive funding to overcome market barriers. The Energy Trust of Oregon is highlighted as an example of an organization that considers these impacts during program development.

EfficiencyOne has a PAC target of 4.9 for this program. For the calculation, it is assumed that program administration costs are 40 percent of total expenditure, which leaves the incentive costs at 60 percent of expenditure. Therefore the...

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

Measure Energy Savings Persistence Cost Effectiveness Threshold Custom Project Retrofit Track 10 3.14 Custom Project Retrofit Track 15 4.50 Custom Project Retrofit Track 20 5.69 Table 34: Cost Effectiveness Incentive Level Threshold for Av...

AI summary The table outlines the cost effectiveness incentive level thresholds for the Custom Project Retrofit Track based on energy savings persistence. The PAC is greater than 4.9 for measures with energy savings persistence over 15 years, with a break-even point between 16-17 years. EfficiencyOne should consider energy savings persistence when evaluating individual project incentives.

2013 2014 2015 2016 Incentive Costs $85,792,815 $87,475,385 $81,650,474 $90,618,627 Administration $68,482,871 $71,734,454 $72,025,504 $77,017,143 Incentive-to Administration Ratio 56:44 55:45 53:47 65:35 2015-2019 STRATEGIC PLAN 13

AI summary The table shows incentive costs and administration costs from 2013 to 2016, along with the ratio of incentive-to-administration costs. The 2015-2019 Strategic Plan is referenced as a key document in the context.

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

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

PACT at the Measure Level: - Costs incurred from the measure (Incremental Equipment Costs) - Incentive costs

AI summary The text discusses two key cost categories related to PACT at the measure level: incremental equipment costs and incentive costs.

Financial Considerations as Related to Participant Perceived Value There are several different costs and metrics that may affect the financial considerations involved a participant's perceived value: - 1. Retail Price - 2. Project Costs -...

AI summary The document outlines financial considerations related to participant perceived value, focusing on retail price, project costs, project payback, and incremental equipment costs. Incremental equipment costs are calculated as a net present value over the useful life of the efficient option, with the base case being critical for accurate analysis.

Research and Engagement Phase Financial Impacts & Risks Using preliminary incentive rates identified in the previous phase and participation forecast, the impact on the aggregate administrator budget and the program budget can be determine...

AI summary The text discusses the financial impacts and risks associated with incentive rates in energy programs, emphasizing the need to balance administration and incentive funding. It outlines activities for program administrators to identify these impacts based on preliminary rates and participation forecasts.

With respect to program budgets, there may be an acceptable incentive level threshold that is based on total expenditure or unit costs. For certain programs, this threshold is often set at a maximum incentive for a project, or on some kind...

AI summary The text discusses the importance of setting incentive thresholds for energy efficiency programs based on total expenditure or unit costs, emphasizing that customer cost should take precedence over budget constraints when determining incentive levels.

Measure 2014 Retail Price 2014 PMI 2014 PME Estimated 2016 Retail Price 2016 Cost to Consumer (Estimated 2016 Retail Price – Current Incentive) Estimated 2016 PME Cost to Consumer Less than PME? Current Incentive as % of Retail Price ENERG...

AI summary The table outlines the cost to customer incentives for various energy efficiency measures, comparing 2014 and estimated 2016 retail prices, PMI, and PME. The analysis indicates that most incentives are suitable, with exceptions for the dimmer switch and motion sensor with dimmer switch, where the customer cost exceeds the PME by ≤2%.

Measure Project Cost ($) Simple Project Payback Cost to Customer Threshold Custom Project Retrofit Track $96,424 4 years 25% 50% 2 years Table 322832: Cost to Customer Incentive Level Threshold for Average Project in Custom Retrofit The co...

AI summary Table 322832 outlines the cost to customer incentive level threshold for an average project in a custom retrofit. It indicates that neither the project cost nor the simple payback period breaches the threshold, suggesting that the project is within acceptable limits for customer cost incentives.

EfficiencyOne has a PAC target of 4.9 for this program. For the calculation, it is assumed that program administration costs are 40 percent of total expenditure, which leaves the incentive costs at 60 percent of expenditure. Therefore the...

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

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

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

- 4. Net Levelized cost ($/kWh)1 = PV (costs all benefits except for electric energy benefits) / PV (energy savings) Benefits Costs Avoided electric energy costs Avoided electric capacity costs Avoided non-electric fuel costs Customer non-...

AI summary The text outlines the calculation of net levelized cost per kWh, which is determined by dividing the present value of costs (excluding electric energy benefits) by the present value of energy savings. It lists various categories of benefits and costs associated with energy efficiency programs.

2013 2014 2015 2016 Incentive Costs $85,792,815 $87,475,385 $81,650,474 $90,618,627 Administration $68,482,871 $71,734,454 $72,025,504 $77,017,143 Incentive-to Administration Ratio 56:44 55:45 53:47 65:35 2015-2019 STRATEGIC PLAN 13

AI summary The table provides incentive costs, administration costs, and the incentive-to-administration ratio for the years 2013 to 2016. The 2015-2019 Strategic Plan is referenced in the text.

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

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

PACT at the Measure Level: - Costs incurred from the measure (incremental costsIncremental Equipment Costs) - Incentive costs

AI summary The text discusses costs related to a measure, specifically incremental equipment costs and incentive costs, under the PACT framework.

As can be seen in the Recommendations, a full financial analysis should be documented for all incentive-setting including analysis of both current and estimated future retail pricing, Incremental Equipment Costs, running the Participant Co...

AI summary The text emphasizes the need for a comprehensive financial analysis of incentive-setting, including retail pricing, incremental equipment costs, participant cost testing, and measure-level TRC and PAC analysis, to assess budget and cost effectiveness impacts.

Research and Engagement Phase Financial Impacts & Risks Using preliminary incentive rates identified in the previous phase and participation forecast, the impact on the aggregate administrator budget and the program budget can be determine...

AI summary The text discusses the financial impacts and risks associated with incentive rates in a program, emphasizing the need to balance these rates with market barriers. It outlines steps that program administrators should take to identify these financial impacts.

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

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

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

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

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

AI summary The document compares the current incentive level in the Custom Project Retrofit Track to established thresholds, indicating that none of the thresholds have been exceeded. It concludes that the Custom Program has appropriate incentive levels for the average project.

2013 2014 2015 2016 Incentive Costs $85,792,815 $87,475,385 $81,650,474 $90,618,627 Administration $68,482,871 $71,734,454 $72,025,504 $77,017,143 Incentive-to Administration Ratio 56:44 55:45 53:47 65:35 2015-2019 STRATEGIC PLAN 13

AI summary The table provides data on Incentive Costs and Administration costs from 2013 to 2016, along with the Incentive-to-Administration Ratio for each year. The 2015-2019 Strategic Plan is mentioned as a reference.

Efficiency Vermont's spending for 2013 and 2014 is provided below: Prior Year Current Year 2014 Cumulative starting 1/1/12 Cumulative starting 1/1/12 # participants with installations 37,483 54,135 131,094 131,094 Operating Costs Administr...

AI summary Efficiency Vermont's spending for 2013 and 2014 is detailed, showing increases in operating and incentive costs, with a focus on participant and trade ally incentives. The data also includes metrics like MWh savings and cost-effectiveness ratios.

Financial Considerations as Related to Participant Perceived Value There are several different costs and metrics that may affect the financial considerations involved a participant's perceived value: - 1. Retail Price - 2. Project Costs -...

AI summary The document outlines financial considerations affecting participant perceived value, focusing on retail price, project costs, payback, and incremental equipment costs. Incremental equipment costs are defined as the net present value of differences in purchase, installation, and lifecycle costs between efficient options and base cases, emphasizing the importance of defining the base case for accurate analysis.

As can be seen from the above analysis, the PAC is greater than 4.9 for measures that have an energy savings persistence greater than 15 years. The break-even point at current incentive and program administration cost targets is an energy...

AI summary The analysis indicates that the Participant Cost (PAC) is greater than 4.9 for measures with energy savings persistence over 15 years. The break-even point for current incentive and program administration cost targets is between 16-17 years of energy savings persistence. EfficiencyOne is advised to consider the energy savings persistence when evaluating individual project incentives.

2013 2014 2015 2016 Incentive Costs $85,792,815 $87,475,385 $81,650,474 $90,618,627 Administration $68,482,871 $71,734,454 $72,025,504 $77,017,143 Incentive-to Administration Ratio 56:44 55:45 53:47 65:35 2015-2019 STRATEGIC PLAN 13

AI summary The table presents incentive costs and administration costs from 2013 to 2016, along with the incentive-to-administration ratio. The Strategic Plan for 2015-2019 is mentioned as a reference.

Efficiency Vermont's spending for 2013 and 2014 is provided below: Prior Year Current Year 2014 Cumulative starting 1/1/12 Cumulative starting 1/1/12 # participants with installations 37,483 54,135 131,094 131,094 Operating Costs Administr...

AI summary Efficiency Vermont's spending for 2013 and 2014 is detailed, with a focus on operating costs, technical assistance, support services, and incentive costs. The data includes participant numbers, cost breakdowns, and energy savings metrics, highlighting the program's effectiveness in energy efficiency.

PACT at the Measure Level: - Costs incurred from the measure (Incremental Equipment Costs) - Incentive costs

AI summary The text discusses two types of costs related to energy efficiency measures: incremental equipment costs and incentive costs. These costs are likely associated with implementing and promoting energy efficiency initiatives.