Topic:"Incentive Costs" in M09096

Table 16: 2020-2022 BNI Efficient Product Rebates Performance Indicators Year Investment ($ million) First-Year Energ Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Peak Demand Savings Savings (GWh) (MW) Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) a Program Administrat...

AI summary Table 16 outlines the performance indicators for the BNI Efficient Product Rebates program from 2020 to 2022, including investment, energy savings, cost metrics, and participation levels. The data shows consistent growth in energy savings and participation over the years.

ducted to evaluate the current incentive levels versus the three incentive level thresholds: 1. Cost to Customer 2. Program Budget 3. Cost Effectiveness For Instant Savings, most of the incentive levels were within an appropriate range, bu...

AI summary The document evaluates the incentive levels in EfficiencyOne's programs against three thresholds: cost to customer, program budget, and cost effectiveness. It recommends further investigation and financial simulation for certain incentives, particularly for heavy-duty timers and outdoor clotheslines, and emphasizes the need for consistent, consolidated analysis and documentation.

ay consider the retail price/project cost, the incremental cost or the project payback in the calculation. The PAC is used for this activity since it captures incentive costs; unlike the TRC. SUMMARY OF INFLUENCES ON INCENTIVE RATES The di...

AI summary The text discusses the factors influencing incentive rates in programs, including budget impact, administrative costs, and the need to balance participation goals. It emphasizes that setting incentives is a complex process that involves both scientific and artistic considerations.

enditure over multiple (2+) years). The $400,000 value was obtained from a high-level evaluation of ENS’s current individual incentive expenditure compared to the total portfolio expenditure.

AI summary The text discusses a $400,000 value derived from a high-level evaluation of ENS’s current individual incentive expenditure compared to the total portfolio expenditure over multiple years.

supply chain research? details of the research? 4) Financial Impact Analysis: 1) What is the current participation? 2) What are the incentive screening thresholds in terms of cost to customer, program budget and cost effectiveness? 3) What...

AI summary The document outlines a new incentive development process, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive analysis that includes participation, cost-effectiveness, and financial impact. It highlights the importance of following a structured approach to ensure accurate forecasting and evaluation of incentives.

historical expenditures, the costs for program administration have been between 20-30 percent of the total expenditure. Therefore, the incentive expenditure, on a $/kWh basis is as follows: Program Budget Incentive Level Parameter Threshol...

AI summary The text discusses historical program administration costs, which have ranged between 20-30% of total expenditures for the Instant Savings Program. It provides incentive expenditure levels per kWh based on different program administration cost assumptions.

5 $24,106 Table 29: Program Budget Incentive Level Threshold for Average Project in Custom Retrofit Cost Effectiveness Incentive Level Threshold EfficiencyOne has a PAC target of 4.9 for this program. For the calculation, it is assumed tha...

AI summary This text discusses the Program Budget Incentive Level Threshold for Custom Retrofit Projects, including the EfficiencyOne Program Administrator Cost (PAC) target of 4.9. It outlines how program administration costs are assumed to be 40% of total expenditure, with 60% allocated to incentives. The cost effectiveness threshold varies based on energy savings persistence, with higher persistence leading to higher thresholds.

Natural Gas Savings (MM 6.0 6.1 5.8 6.0 Therms) INCENTIVE-TO-ADMINISTRATION EXPENSE RATIOS Below are the incentive-to-administration expense ratios by year obtained from the annual approved budgets for the Energy Trust’s Annual Budget and...

AI summary The document presents incentive-to-administration expense ratios for energy efficiency programs from 2013 to 2016 and outlines the 2015-2019 strategic plan goal of achieving 240 average megawatts of electricity and 24 million therms of natural gas savings. It highlights the balance between incentive costs and administrative expenses.

d stakeholder communication. For incentive changes, cost effectiveness is checked. Typically, incentive changes feature reductions, so cost effectiveness impact is usually positive. During the incentive setting process, a formal document i...

AI summary The text discusses the process of changing incentives in energy efficiency programs, emphasizing cost effectiveness checks, the involvement of the Public Service Commission, and the use of a measures list to document savings and costs. The process does not require formal submissions but follows regular program change procedures.

We change the way people use energy Date Filed: March 29, 2019 NS Power IR-15 Attachment 1 Page 185 of 206 the state’s electric utilities to collect the applicable budget from their customers and remit it to the Trust for its programs. An...

AI summary The text discusses the funding and evaluation of energy efficiency programs in Maine, emphasizing that energy efficiency is the lowest-cost energy resource. It mentions the role of the MPUC in approving budgets and the use of various funding sources, including ratepayer contributions and market revenues.

 Costs of running the energy efficiency programs (delivery and administration costs) TRC at the Measure level:  Costs incurred from the measure (incremental costs) PACT at the Program Level:  Costs incurred from the measure (incremental...

AI summary The text outlines the costs associated with energy efficiency programs, distinguishing between TRC at the Measure level and PACT at both Program and Measure levels. It includes incremental costs, delivery and administration costs, and incentive costs. The document also references benefit-cost ratios for electric and natural gas programs from 2015.

We change the way people use energy Date Filed: March 29, 2019 NS Power IR-15 Attachment 1 Page 206 of 206 Outputs  Total Gross Energy Savings;  Total Gross Demand Reduction;  Total Net Energy Savings;  Total Net Demand Reduction;  TR...

AI summary The text outlines key outputs and inputs for reviewing incentive protocols in energy efficiency programs. Outputs include energy savings, demand reduction, TRC and PAC metrics, and cost calculations. Inputs involve cost thresholds, program delivery channels, and financial considerations for setting review guidelines.

The interviewed program staff reported that the Consolidated Calculator was helpful in making incentive decisions, although they reported difficulty finding some of the required inputs. 4.5. Conduct Financial Simulations of Existing Incent...

AI summary The interviewed program staff found the Consolidated Calculator useful for making incentive decisions but faced challenges in locating required inputs. CLEAResult conducted financial simulations for two program components, Instant Savings and Custom, and recommended that ENS perform simulations for all program components to evaluate current incentive levels against cost to participants, program budget, and cost effectiveness thresholds.

Q12. What information, if any, played a role in your decision that you might not have considered if the incentive setting workbook had not asked you to provide it? Q13. Of all the information in the incentive setting workbook, what, if any...

AI summary The text consists of a series of questions aimed at understanding the impact of a new incentive-setting process on decision-making, including what information influenced decisions, what was unhelpful, and how the process may vary across different measures and incentive structures.

Please refer to Table 1 on the next page for a summary of incentive costs in the Instant 24 Savings and Appliance Retirement program components for 2016-2018 by product type. 25 26 27 28 29 Date Filed: March 29, 2019 E1 (NS Power) IR-21 Pa...

AI summary The text references Table 1, which summarizes incentive costs for the Instant Savings and Appliance Retirement program components from 2016 to 2018 by product type. It also mentions that enhancements have been included in the Alternate Scenario.

ear demand unit cost for demand-focused projects, relative to energy-focused projects All other cost information identical in both cases Incremental Energy Demand Savings Incremental Cost Savings (kWh) (kW) ($) Admin Cost ($) Incentives ($...

AI summary The text presents a comparison of cost and savings for demand-focused and energy-focused projects, including incremental energy savings, demand savings, and associated costs and incentives. It details the impact of removing demand-focused efforts from a custom retrofit base characterization and revising it with demand-focused efforts.

Table 17: Recommendations on Business, Non-profit and Institutional Program Components No. Recommendation BER-R4. Analyze the incentive levels for non-lighting measures with a higher payback period. Meeting company payback thresholds remai...

AI summary The recommendation suggests analyzing incentive levels for non-lighting energy efficiency measures with longer payback periods. Meeting company payback thresholds is a key barrier for some participants, and ENS may need to review incentives for high-potential measures to encourage adoption.

FRM4a. Before you heard about the Green Heat Program, had you already made the decision to install a high-efficiency heat pump model? Previously Decided to Install High Efficiency Heat Pump 2018 Sample Size 26 Yes 81% No 15% Don't know 4%...

AI summary The document discusses responses to questions about the Green Heat Program. Most respondents (81%) had already decided to install a high-efficiency heat pump before learning about the program. Additionally, participants indicated they would have paid nearly the full cost (mean score of 9) for the heat pump even without the rebate.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 incremental costs based on ongoing secondary research. It should be noted that the 2 Business Energy Solutions Program Component limits incentive payments to 60 percent 3 of project costs as verified by project invoices....

AI summary The Business Energy Solutions Program Component limits incentive payments to 60 percent of project costs as verified by project invoices. This is based on ongoing secondary research and incremental cost considerations.

b) Please refer to the table below. Incentive Cost ($M) Total Cost ($M) Incentive as percent of total cost 2020 2021 2022 2020 2021 2022 2020 2021 2022 Efficient Product Rebates 6.1 6.2 6.5 7.3 7.5 7.8 83% 83% 84% Residential Efficient Pro...

AI summary The table compares incentive and total costs for two efficiency programs (Efficient Product Rebates and Residential Efficient Products Rebates) across 2020-2022, showing incentive costs as 83-84% and 62-66% of total costs respectively. Key factors differentiate these programs regarding incentive cost percentages.

Document: 268936 Date Filed: April 29, 2019 Synapse (E1) Page 1 of 11 1 2 Request IR-1: programs. costs of Please describe how EfficiencyOne proposes to recover the its proposed 2 3 b. Customer incentive costs, including rebates, grants, e...

AI summary The document outlines a request for information regarding the costs associated with EfficiencyOne's proposed programs, including customer incentives, marketing, training, and research and development related to Demand Side Management (DSM) resource plans. It also asks about the allocation of costs for developing and filing subsequent DSM resource plans.

Overview of participation in 2016-2018 In 2016-2018, EfficiencyOne overestimated customer participation in higher cost program components and program component measures. The level of customer participation and the measures that customers c...

AI summary EfficiencyOne overestimated customer participation and resource costs in several program components during 2016-2018, leading to an underspend on incentive costs of approximately $7.38 million. These estimates were based on third-party studies, including the 2013 Potential Study.

Numbers may not total due to rounding. In discussion with EfficiencyOne, as well as in a review of the annual report, we identified a number of factors that contributed to the underspend, including: 1. Incentive costs were approximately $5...

AI summary EfficiencyOne identified factors contributing to underspending in the DSM Plan, including lower-than-expected participation in RDI and Direct Installation programs, changes in program structure, and fewer new construction projects in the Custom component. These issues affected incentive costs and overall program performance in 2015.

2016-2018 incentive cost variance analysis Within the DSM Resource Plan, incentive costs are defined as rebate costs. Overall, each year of the 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan saw an underspend on incentive costs. The underspend by year on inc...

AI summary The 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan experienced an underspend on incentive costs each year, which is the main reason for the overall underspend. A variance analysis is provided to highlight this issue.

Table 12: 2016-2018 Incentive Cost Variance Analysis, Actual to Plan Approved DSM Variance Incentive Cost Resource Plan Actual (underspend) ($ million) ($ million) ($ million) 2016 21.81 19.53 (2.27) 2017 22.39 18.83 (3.57) 2018 23.14 21.6...

AI summary Table 12 presents a variance analysis of incentive costs from 2016 to 2018, showing that actual costs were consistently lower than approved amounts, resulting in an overall underspend of $7.38 million. This indicates a gap between planned and actual spending on demand-side management incentives.

Variance in incentive costs are driven by the below main factors: - 1. Variance between estimated and actual program component and measure uptake. Participant levels are variable, as customer participation is dependent on the market. Any s...

AI summary Variance in incentive costs is driven by differences between estimated and actual program participation, changes in rebate levels, and variations in the mix of measures used. These factors impact EfficiencyOne's program costs and are illustrated in a table showing variances between the DSM Resource Plan and actual spending.

Table 13: 2016-2018 Incentive Cost Variance Analysis Actual to Plan by Program Component Three Year Plan Total ($ million) 2016 2017 2018 Variance Variance - Actual to Plan (underspend) Residential DSM Programs Appliance Retirement 0.63 0....

AI summary Table 13 presents a variance analysis of incentive costs from 2016 to 2018 for various residential and business programs, showing underspending across multiple components such as appliance retirement, instant savings, and custom incentives, with total underspend amounting to $7.38 million over three years.

Management identified that approximately $2.1 million of the variance was related to programs. Of this $2.1 million, EfficiencyOne identified that approximately $2 million was related to incentive cost. In 2013 there were variances in each...

AI summary The text discusses program variances, particularly in incentive costs and energy savings, with a focus on the Low Income Homeowner and BNI Direct Install programs. EfficiencyOne identified significant underspending in 2013, while energy savings exceeded targets due to successful programs like Instant Savings and Residential Direct Install. The 2014 DSM Resource Plan was adjusted based on NSUARB directives.