E-1Application
15 passages
4.2 PROGRAM DELIVERY COSTS - In the development of its Settlement Plan, E1 has taken into consideration cost-efficiencies and a full - accounting of value to minimize the cost of delivering saved energy in the near-term and to maximize the...
AI summary E1 outlines cost-efficiency strategies in its Settlement Plan, including benchmarking, competitive procurement, independent reviews, and process improvement. It emphasizes ongoing cost management aligned with its 2020-2022 DSM Plan and references the 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan (M06733) for methodology validation.
CUSTOM INCENTIVES Custom Customized incentives for retrofits and new construction opportunities based on case specific energy and demand savings. Open to eligible existing and new construction Nova Scotia business, non-profit, institutiona...
AI summary The Custom Incentives program offers customized financial incentives for energy efficiency retrofits and new construction in Nova Scotia. It targets larger energy users and addresses challenges like upfront costs and internal capacity constraints through feasibility studies, energy modelling, and rebates. However, some companies may lack internal commitment and technical expertise in energy efficiency.
7 Table 4: Key Global Assumptions in the 2023-2025 Settlement Plan Development Key Global Assumptions Model ITEM DESCRIPTION OF MODEL INPUTS & ASSUMPTIONS EE DR Incentive thresholds contained in the Incentive Setting Methodology, as accept...
AI summary The document outlines key global assumptions in the 2023-2025 Settlement Plan Development, including incentive thresholds and the development of DR incentives based on updated information and pilot insights.
1 Table 9: 2023-2025 Settlement Plan Investment and Savings, by Program Component 2023-2025 Investment a ($ million) Lifetime Benefits b ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak EE Demand Savings (MW)...
AI summary Table 9 outlines the investment and savings from the 2023-2025 Settlement Plan, detailing energy efficiency and demand response programs. It includes program components such as residential and business energy efficiency, enabling strategies, and demand response, with metrics like investment amounts, energy savings, and cost-effectiveness.
Table 11: 2024 Settlement Plan Investment and Savings, by Program Component 2024 Investment a ($ million) Lifetime Benefits b ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak EE Demand Savings (MW) Available D...
AI summary Table 11 outlines the 2024 Settlement Plan investment and savings by program component, including residential and business energy efficiency programs, enabling strategies, and demand response initiatives. It provides data on investment amounts, lifetime benefits, energy savings, and administrative costs.
11 Table 12: 2025 Settlement Plan Investment and Savings, by Program Component Lifetime First-Year Lifetime Peak EE Available esource gram rator Cost 2025 Investment Benefits b Energy Energy Demand DR Cost Tes st (TRC) c Test (PAC) d ($ mi...
AI summary Table 12 outlines the 2025 Settlement Plan Investment and Savings by Program Component, detailing investments, benefits, energy savings, and demand reductions for various energy efficiency and demand response programs in Nova Scotia, including residential, business, and enabling strategies.
5. BUSINESS, NON-PROFIT & INSTITUTIONAL PROGRAMS & SERVICES For over a decade, E1 has been a leader in designing and implementing business, non-profit, and institutional (BNI) energy efficiency programs. E1 has built an extremely successfu...
AI summary E1 has been a leader in designing and implementing BNI energy efficiency programs for over a decade. The Settlement Plan focuses on expanding equity, streamlining delivery, and increasing awareness of energy efficiency. It aims to help businesses overcome participation barriers and shift towards more challenging energy savings, including system-peak demand reduction.
16 Table 37: Settlement Plan – BNI Sector Offerings Program Program Component Target Market Segment Delivery Approach Enhancements in Settlement Plan Section Reference BNI Efficient Product Rebates Business Energy Rebates Existing and new...
AI summary Table 37 outlines the BNI Sector Offerings under the Settlement Plan, including programs such as Business Energy Rebates, Custom Incentives, and Direct Installation. These programs target various market segments and include delivery approaches like point of sale rebates, facilitated assistance, and financial incentives. Enhancements include mid-stream commercial kitchen rebates and pay-for-performance models.
14 5.1.2 OVERVIEW - 15 The Efficient Product Rebates program provides BNI customers with financial incentives, in the form of - 16 prescriptive/semi-prescriptive rebates or financing, for the installation of energy efficient and system-pea...
AI summary The Efficient Product Rebates program offers BNI customers financial incentives for installing energy-efficient and demand-reducing equipment, focusing on equipment with broad applicability and predictable energy savings. The program includes the Business Energy Rebates component, which provides two participation pathways.
5.1.2.1 BUSINESS ENERGY REBATES PROGRAM COMPONENT - The Business Energy Rebates program component offers two participation pathways Instant Rebates and - Mail-In rebates: - Instant Rebates: customers have access to prescriptive rebates on...
AI summary The Business Energy Rebates program offers two participation pathways: Instant Rebates and Mail-In rebates. Instant Rebates provide point-of-purchase discounts for a limited suite of energy efficiency equipment, while Mail-In rebates allow for adjustments based on specific facility conditions. Prescriptive rebates are calculated prior to purchase for eligible measures, and Table 39 summarizes key program details over three years.
Table 39: Three-Year Summary of the Business Energy Rebates Program Component Annual Plan Investment ($M) Energy Savings (GWh) Demand Savings (MW) Participation (products) 2023 Total 7.4 35.3 6.7 207,143 Low-income 0.09 0.47 0.12 2,738 202...
AI summary Table 39 provides a three-year summary of the Business Energy Rebates Program, showing investment amounts, energy and demand savings, and participation numbers for 2023, 2024, and 2025, including a breakdown for low-income participants.
Item Description Eligible Customers • Interruptible Rider • Large C&I Program Enrollment Assumptions • Enrollment varies by customer segment (business type) and ranges from 5% to 50% of total eligible customers/load. These percentages repr...
AI summary The document outlines the parameters and assumptions for a demand-side management program, including eligible customers, enrollment rates, event timing, notification methods, and incentives. It projects a 9 MW peak load reduction in 2025 with estimated program costs of approximately $3.3 million for the 2023-2025 period.
POINT-OF- SALE DISCOUNT PROGRAM COMPONENTS - E1 operates two program components that offer rebates at the point-of-sale: residential Instant Savings - and the Instant Rebates portion of Business Energy Rebates (BER-IR). These program compo...
AI summary E1 offers point-of-sale rebate programs, including residential Instant Savings and the Instant Rebates portion of Business Energy Rebates. Participant data is estimated using transaction records and research, with the assumption that all large commercial, industrial, and municipal customers participate annually.
Table 2: 2023-2025 Alternate Scenario Investment and Savings, by Program Component 2023-2025 Investment a ($ million) Lifetime Benefits b ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings Lifetime Energy Savings Peak EE Demand Savings Available DR Cap...
AI summary Table 2 outlines investment and savings for energy efficiency and demand response programs in Nova Scotia from 2023 to 2025. It details program components, including residential and business initiatives, along with their associated investment costs, lifetime benefits, energy savings, and demand savings.
1 Table 4: 2024 Alternate Scenario Investment and Savings, by Program Component 2024 Investment a ($ million) Lifetime Benefits b ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak EE Demand Savings (MW) Availab...
AI summary Table 4 presents investment and savings data for energy efficiency and demand response programs in 2024, including details on residential and business programs, enabling strategies, and overall portfolio performance. The data highlights investments, lifetime benefits, energy savings, and other metrics for various program components.
E-22021 DSM Evaluation Reports
84 passages
Table 1: 2021 Portfolio Evaluation Plan DSM Program Program Components Impact Process Market Residential Residential Efficient Appliance Retirement (ARet) Condensed Products Rebates Instant Savings Comprehensive X Efficient Product Install...
AI summary The 2021 Portfolio Evaluation Plan outlines various energy efficiency programs, including appliance retirement, efficient product installation, and business energy rebates, with different levels of impact and market evaluation themes. Selected program components are highlighted for additional evaluation activities.
2.2 Process and Market Evaluation The process and market evaluations were conducted using a range of activities such as program component documentation and secondary data reviews and in-depth interviews with program staff, stakeholders, an...
AI summary The process and market evaluations involved activities such as program documentation, secondary data reviews, and interviews with staff, stakeholders, and participants. Key tasks included evaluating the New Construction process and market evaluations for Instant Savings, Green Heat, and Business Energy Rebates.
Table 6: Comparison of 2021 Evaluated and Tracked Energy Savings at the Generator Portfolio Total 141.346 111.047 138.896 0.79 109.418 1,548.786 99% BNI Subtotal 90.978 71.663 88.668 0.77 68.142 970.670 95% Direct Installation Small Busine...
AI summary Table 6 compares the 2021 evaluated and tracked energy savings across different programs and portfolios, including BNI, residential, and DSM initiatives. It highlights energy savings metrics such as annual gross and net savings, NTGR, and lifetime net energy savings for various programs like Small Business Energy Solutions, Strategic Energy Management, and the Mi'kmaw Home Energy Efficiency Project.
Efficient Product Rebates Efficient Product Rebates is comprised of one program component-, Business Energy Rebates, which is further comprised of two services, namely Mail-in and Instant Rebates. In 2021, Business Energy Rebates achieved...
AI summary The Efficient Product Rebates program includes Business Energy Rebates, which offers Mail-in and Instant Rebates. In 2021, the program achieved 33.491 GWh in net energy savings and 5.401 MW in net peak demand savings at the generator.
Business Energy Rebates - › BER net electrical energy and peak demand savings fell short of targets. - › Participation increased for both Mail-in and Instant Rebates in 2021 and total gross energy and peak demand savings increased compared...
AI summary Business Energy Rebates (BER) did not meet their energy and peak demand savings targets. Participation in Mail-in and Instant Rebates increased in 2021, but savings were adjusted downward following site visits. Free-ridership increased, and evaluated savings were 10% and 13% lower than tracked by EOne.
Table 8: 2021 Free-ridership, Spillover and NTGRs Program Component and Measure Type Free-ridership Levels Spillover Levels NTGR Residential Refrigerators - 0.56 Freezers - 0.47 Appliance Retirement a Air Conditioners - 0% 0.53 Small Refri...
AI summary Table 8 presents data on free-ridership, spillover, and net-to-gross ratios (NTGRs) for various energy efficiency programs in 2021, including appliance retirement, LED lighting, home energy assessments, and business energy rebates. The table highlights varying levels of free-ridership and spillover across different program components and participant groups.
Table 11: 2021 Satisfaction Results DSM Program Program Component Participant Satisfaction Partner Satisfaction Residential Residential Efficient Product Rebates Instant Savings - 8.0 Green Heat 9.0 - Existing Residential Efficient Product...
AI summary Table 11 presents 2021 satisfaction results for various energy efficiency programs in Nova Scotia. Participant and partner satisfaction scores are listed for different program components, with most scoring 8.0 or higher on a 10-point scale.
Table 13: Evaluated Net Energy Savings at the Generator, 2017-2021 Energy Savings (GWh) Energy Savings (%) DSM Program Program Component 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2017 2018 2019 2020 Appliance Retirement 3.094 2.657 2.545 2.111 2.474 2% 2%...
AI summary Table 13 presents evaluated net energy savings from various demand-side management (DSM) programs in Nova Scotia from 2017 to 2021, highlighting energy savings in gigawatt-hours and percentages for initiatives such as appliance retirement, home energy assessments, and business energy rebates.
Business Energy Rebates: LED Lamps and Fixtures To establish key market indicators and understand the state of the Nova Scotia BNI LED lighting market, the Evaluator analyzed Electrofed commercial and industrial market data for lamps and f...
AI summary The analysis of the Nova Scotia BNI LED lighting market from 2018 to 2020 shows a significant decline in commercial and industrial lamp shipments, particularly for LED lamps. However, LED fixtures have seen increased adoption, with a growing share of total fixture shipments and stabilizing prices and rebate values.
Green Heat: Mini-split Heat Pumps Key sources of information for the market evolution assessment were heat pump data and assumptions included in the 2020 and 2021 NS Power load forecast and associated regulatory filings. In addition, the E...
AI summary The market for mini-split heat pumps (MSHPs) in Nova Scotia is growing, with increased sales and incentives from EOne. NS Power's load forecasts and distributor reports indicate sustained consumer interest and growth potential for MSHPs, especially during and after the pandemic.
OPTION B [ASK IF TOTAL SALES = NO AND IF REBATE ELIGIBLE TOTAL SALES = YES] According to data you provided to Efficiency Nova Scotia, during the spring campaign, you sold [REBATE ELIGIBLE TOTAL SALES - PACKAGES] Non A-type LED packages of...
AI summary This section of the document asks about the sales of Non A-type LED bulbs during the spring and fall campaigns, specifically focusing on rebate eligibility. It inquires about expected sales trends and proportions of total sales in 2021.
7 GREEN HEAT PARTICIPANT PERSPECTIVES Awareness about Green Heat was driven largely by contractors, retailers, or distributors (34%) through word-of-mouth (19%) or online (14%). Sources of awareness are generally consistent with the previo...
AI summary The Green Heat program has high participant satisfaction, with households rating it 9.0 out of 10. Awareness was driven by contractors and online sources, and the main motivations for participation were saving on energy costs and receiving rebates. Participants were concerned with equipment reliability and selection, and some expressed dissatisfaction with rebate amounts.
Table 1: Summary of Existing Residential Program Evaluation Program Evaluation Type Component Impact Process Market Methodology BER Comprehensive X › Instant Rebates and Mail-in participant survey › Distributor interviews › Instant Rebates...
AI summary Table 1 summarizes the evaluation of the Business Energy Rebates (BER) program, detailing the impact, process, market considerations, and methodology used, including participant surveys, distributor interviews, and GHG emission reduction calculations.
2021 BER-Finding: The LED fixtures market is approaching maturity yet still has some growth potential as suggested by increasing LED fixture shares, stabilizing prices, and distributors' opinions on the popularity of the products and sales...
AI summary The 2021 BER-Finding indicates that the LED fixtures market is nearing maturity but still has growth potential. Additionally, evaluated net energy and peak demand savings were 10% and 13% lower than tracked values by EOne, as shown in Table 5.
1 BER OVERVIEW This section describes Business Energy Rebates (BER), follows up on past evaluation recommendations, and presents participation history.
AI summary This section provides an overview of Business Energy Rebates (BER), discusses past evaluation recommendations, and outlines participation history related to the program.
1.2 Follow-up on Past Evaluation Report Recommendations The Evaluator evaluated BER in previous years and issued improvement recommendations. [Table](#page-32-1) 7 provides one past recommendation that has been carried forward; no recommen...
AI summary The Evaluator reviewed past recommendations for the Business Energy Rebates (BER) program and noted that one recommendation from previous years has been carried forward. Implementation was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and no new recommendations were issued in 2020.
# Past Recommendations Status Comments 2018 BER-R3 Investigate ways to liaise more clients with non-lighting contractors. Deferred Due to COVID-19 constraints, EOne was unable to offer training to lighting distributors in 2021. EOne contin...
AI summary The table shows the status of past recommendations related to the Business Energy Rebates (BER) program. A 2018 recommendation to investigate ways to liaise more clients with non-lighting contractors was deferred due to COVID-19 constraints, but efforts continue through collaboration with the Efficiency Trade Network (ETN).
BER Mail-in In 2021, 301 Mail-in projects were implemented by 187 unique participants. 2 [Figure](#page-32-2) 6 below illustrates how Mail-in participation has evolved since 2015. The number of participating businesses increased in 2021, w...
AI summary In 2021, the Business Energy Rebates (BER) Mail-in program saw 301 projects implemented by 187 participants. Participation increased by 18% compared to 2020 but remained below pre-pandemic levels. Gross savings per participant decreased to 87.518 MWh. Lighting and motor/VFD measures accounted for the majority of savings, though lighting's share declined due to smaller project sizes. The pandemic and delayed recovery are cited as key factors.
BER Instant Rebates Although participant information tracking has improved over the past three years, the available data collected by distributors make it difficult to reliably establish the total number of Instant Rebates participants. Th...
AI summary The BER Instant Rebates program saw an 18% increase in measures rebated in 2021 compared to 2020, with LED linear fixtures contributing the largest share of gross energy savings. Participation in some product categories, like booster pumps and LED directional fixtures, declined significantly.
BER Overall As presented in Figure 11 below, BER generated a total of 48.962 GWh in gross energy savings at the generator in 2021, which represents a 10% increase compared to 2020 results. In 2021, gross peak demand savings totalled 7.979...
AI summary The Business Energy Rebates (BER) program achieved 48.962 GWh in gross energy savings in 2021, a 10% increase from 2020, and 7.979 MW in gross peak demand savings, a 6% increase, due to increased participation, especially in Instant Rebates, following the resumption of activities post-COVID-19.
Unitary Savings Review As part of the 2020-2022 Measure Assessment activities, the Evaluator reviewed the equations, parameters, and assumptions used to establish savings values for eight BER measures. In 2021, unitary peak demand savings...
AI summary The Evaluator reviewed equations and assumptions for eight BER measures as part of the 2020-2022 Measure Assessment. Savings values for booster pumps and RTU controls were updated based on project data and literature reviews.
3 BER PARTICIPANT AND DISTRIBUTOR PERSPECTIVES This section summarizes the findings obtained during the Mail-in participant survey, Instant Rebates participant survey, and interviews conducted with Instant Rebates distributors.
AI summary This section summarizes findings from the Mail-in participant survey, Instant Rebates participant survey, and interviews with Instant Rebates distributors, focusing on participant and distributor perspectives related to the Business Energy Rebates program.
3.4 Distributor Successes and Challenges with Instant Rebates Distributors are generally pleased with BER Instant Rebates and how it benefits their business through the earlier adoption and increased sales of LED products. One distributor...
AI summary Distributors are generally satisfied with BER Instant Rebates, which boost sales and customer satisfaction. However, challenges include administrative burdens, the need for quick product eligibility checks, and suggestions for expanding eligible products and improving rebate percentages.
2021 BER Participant and Distributor Perspective Highlights - › Awareness about Mail-in and Instant Rebates primarily stems from contractors, distributors, or suppliers. - › BER participants are primarily motivated to implement energy effi...
AI summary The 2021 BER Participant and Distributor Perspective Highlights show high satisfaction with the Business Energy Rebates (BER) program, particularly with Mail-in and Instant Rebates. Participants are motivated by energy cost savings and improved efficiency. Distributors report high satisfaction with Instant Rebates but note administrative costs as a concern.
Table 17: Evaluated 2021 Mail-in GHG Emission Reductions Total Net Energy Savings – at the Generator (GWh) 12.111 Nova Scotia-specific GHG Emissions Factor for Electricity Production (kg of CO2 eq/GWh) 0.5841 Net Annual GHG Emission Reduct...
AI summary Table 17 evaluates the 2021 mail-in GHG emission reductions, showing net energy savings of 12.111 GWh and a reduction of 7,074 tonnes of CO2 eq. This data is associated with the Business Energy Rebates program.
The free-ridership levels obtained for each measure category range between 30% and 40%, meaning that approximately one-third of rebated LED products would have been sold in the absence of the service. For reference, the overall free-riders...
AI summary The free-ridership levels for energy-efficient lighting programs range between 30% and 40%, indicating that a significant portion of rebate-eligible LED products would have been sold without the program. Most distributors believe the program has been successful in encouraging the purchase of energy-efficient lighting products, with Instant Rebates playing a key role in influencing consumer choices and distributor product offerings.
Table 24: Evaluated 2021 Instant Rebates Net Energy and Peak Demand Savings Measure Category LED Linear Fixtures LED Linear Lamps LED Outdoor Fixtures LED Directional and Architectural Fixtures Occupancy Sensors Circulator Pumps Booster Pu...
AI summary Table 24 evaluates the net energy and peak demand savings from the 2021 Instant Rebates program, detailing energy savings across various measures such as LED lighting and occupancy sensors, along with their effective useful life and line loss factors.
Business Energy Rebates Appendix I BER: Mail-in Participant Survey Questionnaire Appendix II BER: Mail-in Participant Survey Results Appendix III BER: Instant Rebates Participant Survey Questionnaire Appendix IV BER: Instant Rebates Partic...
AI summary The document contains appendices related to the Business Energy Rebates (BER) program, including survey questionnaires, results, tracking sheets, sampling methodologies, and algorithms for calculating free-ridership and participant spillover. It also includes a section with 2021 recommendations.
- 2. No [ SAY "Perhaps you can help me anyway." GO TO INTRODUCTION] [INTRODUCTION] Hello, my name is _____________ and I am calling from Narrative Research, a Halifax based survey research company. We are performing an evaluation of energy...
AI summary A representative from Narrative Research is contacting individuals who participated in Efficiency Nova Scotia's Business Energy Rebates Program to gather feedback for program evaluation and improvement.
A. Verification and Recall - A1. Our records indicate that your organization has received a mail-in rebate for energy efficiency measures that were implemented at your facility located at in , as part of Efficiency Nova Scotia's Business E...
AI summary The text is part of a verification and recall process in a regulatory proceeding, asking if the respondent is the most knowledgeable person regarding their organization's experience with Efficiency Nova Scotia's Business Energy Rebates Program and requesting contact information for that individual.
B. Program Awareness - B1. How did you first hear about the Business Energy Rebate (BER) program? [DO NOT READ – ACCEPT ONE RESPONSE] - 1. (A contractor) - 2. (A distributor or supplier) - 3. (An ENS representative or employee) - 4. (A tra...
AI summary The text outlines survey questions related to program awareness, specifically focusing on how businesses first learned about the Business Energy Rebate (BER) program and the reasons for implementing energy-efficient measures. It also includes questions about the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on participation in the program.
Response 98 Don't Know 99 Refused - C4. [ASK IF MEASURE CATEGORY=LIGHTING] Were you aware that the lighting products rebated through the Business Energy Rebates Program are premium products certified by Design Light Consortium or ENERGY ST...
AI summary The question asks whether the respondent is aware that the lighting products rebated through the Business Energy Rebates Program are premium products certified by Design Light Consortium or ENERGY STAR®.
- 1. Yes - 2. No - 98. (Don't know) - 99. (Refused) [READ FIRST TIME THROUGH ONLY] Now I would like to ask you to consider which actions your organization would have taken if the Business Energy Rebates Program had NOT been available. I wi...
AI summary The text presents a survey question asking respondents to consider the likelihood of their organization taking specific actions if the Business Energy Rebates Program had not been available, using a scale from 0 to 10.
READ AND ROTATE [(D1](#page-103-0) + [D2-](#page-103-1)[D4)](#page-104-0) AND [(D5](#page-104-1) + [D6](#page-104-2)[-D8)](#page-105-0) SEQUENCES - D1. Before participating in the Business Energy Rebates program in , had your organization...
AI summary This document contains a series of questions aimed at understanding the factors influencing a company's participation in energy efficiency programs, particularly the Business Energy Rebates program. It explores previous program participation, the influence of promotional materials, and the impact on decision-making processes related to energy-efficient measures.
E. Satisfaction - E1. For your most recent Business Energy Rebates Program supported project, which of the following statements best describes who completed your rebate application? [READ IN ORDER, SINGLE RESPONSE] - 1. I completed the app...
AI summary The text outlines a survey related to the Business Energy Rebates Program, asking participants about their experience with the application process, interaction with Efficiency Nova Scotia, satisfaction levels, and reasons for dissatisfaction. The survey includes both quantitative and open-ended questions.
F. Recommendations - F1. Do you have any suggestions to improve the Business Energy Rebates Program? Consider all aspects of the program: process, measures covered, marketing, interactions with program staff, and program forms. PROBE: Anyt...
AI summary The document presents recommendations for improving the Business Energy Rebates Program, focusing on aspects such as information sessions, marketing, rebate amounts, processing speed, form usability, and staff knowledge. Respondents are asked to provide specific suggestions for improvement.
APPENDIX II BER: MAIL-IN PARTICIPANT SURVEY RESULTS B1. How did you first hear about the Business Energy Rebate (BER) program? First Heard About the Business Energy Rebate (BER) Program 2021 Sample Size 42 A contractor 29% A distributor or...
AI summary The appendix presents survey results from participants in the Business Energy Rebate (BER) program. It details how participants first learned about the program and the most important reasons their organizations implemented energy-efficient measures, with saving on energy costs being the primary motivation.
B2/B3. What was the most important reason your organization chose to implement energy-efficient measures? TOTAL MENTIONS Most Important Reasons Organization Implemented Efficient Measure 2019 2021 Sample Size 70 42 Save on energy costs/bil...
AI summary The document presents survey results on the reasons organizations implemented energy-efficient measures, with cost savings being the primary motivation. It also explores the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on participation in the Business Energy Rebates program, where most respondents indicated no significant influence.
B5. How did the COVID-19 pandemic influence your decision to participate in the program? How COVID-19 Pandemic Influenced Business Decision to Participate in BER Program 2021 Sample Size 3 (#) May not have been able to buy energy efficient...
AI summary The pandemic influenced some businesses' decisions to participate in the Business Energy Rebates Program, with factors including uncertainty about the pandemic's duration and the inability to purchase energy-efficient equipment if they were not operational.
- C2. I just want to make sure I understand Before you decided to participate in the Business Energy Rebate Program, you had already made the decision to implement energy efficient [MEASURE CATEGORY] measures?
AI summary The question seeks clarification on whether the participant's decision to implement energy efficient measures was made prior to their participation in the Business Energy Rebate Program.
Would Have Paid 20 17 201 18 201 19 2021 Cost of Project Sample Size Mean Sample Size Mean Sample Size Mean Sample Size Mean Paid cost of project 70 6.0 69 6.3 67 6.4 42 7.8 Don't know/Refused excluded from calculations C4. Were you aware...
AI summary The text presents data on awareness of premium certification for lighting products under the Business Energy Rebates Program. It shows varying percentages of respondents who were aware of the certification across different years, with a general trend of increasing awareness from 2017 to 2019, followed by a slight decrease in 2021.
C5-C8. Now I would like to ask you to consider which actions your organization would have taken if the Business Energy Rebates Program had NOT been available. I will read you a few options. For each one, please answer on a scale of 0 to 10...
AI summary The text asks the respondent to consider and rate the likelihood of actions their organization would have taken if the Business Energy Rebates Program had not been available, using a scale from 0 to 10.
Actions Taken in Absence 20 17 201 8 20 19 202 :1 of Program Component Sample Size Mean Sample Size Mean Sample Size Mean Sample Size Mean Implemented exactly the same quantity of lighting products that you installed through the program 41...
AI summary The table presents data on actions taken in the absence of program components, including the implementation of lighting products and energy-efficient measures, with sample sizes and mean values across different years. The data indicates varying levels of participation and implementation over time.
D1. Before participating in the Business Energy Rebates program in , had your organization at any time in the past already participated in the Business Energy Rebates program or any other Efficiency Nova Scotia programs?\
AI summary The document is asking if the organization has previously participated in the Business Energy Rebates program or any other Efficiency Nova Scotia programs before applying on the specified date.
Previous Participation in Another ENS Program Component 2017 2018 2019 2021 Sample Size 70 70 70 42 Yes (Total) 47% 49% 51% 33% Yes, in Business Energy Rebates - - - 5% Yes, in another program(s) - - - 5% Yes, in both Business Energy Rebat...
AI summary This table presents participation rates in ENS program components from 2017 to 2021. It shows a decline in participation, particularly in 2021, with a notable increase in respondents who participated in both Business Energy Rebates and other programs.
D5. Before participating in the Business Energy Rebates program in [DATE], had you at any time in the past already seen Efficiency Nova Scotia promotional materials advertising the benefits of energy efficiency?
AI summary The document asks whether the respondent had previously seen Efficiency Nova Scotia promotional materials advertising energy efficiency benefits before participating in the Business Energy Rebates program.
Previously Seen ENS Energy Efficiency Promotional Materials Led to Assess Product Cost-effectiveness 2017 2018 2019 2021 Sample Size 65 53 53 35 Agree 77% 75% 64% 63% Disagree 23% 23% 36% 37% Don't know/refused - 2% - - Base: Respondents w...
AI summary The text presents survey data on customer responses to ENS energy-efficiency promotional materials and Business Energy Rebates Program application processes from 2017 to 2021, highlighting trends in agreement, application completion, and interaction with ENS staff.
E6. What was the most important reason you were not more satisfied with the program overall? Any other reasons? Key Reasons Not More Satisfied 2017 2018 2019 2021 Sample Size 7 (#) 5 (#) 7 (#) 5 (#) I don't like the products/measures rebat...
AI summary The table presents key reasons for dissatisfaction with the Business Energy Rebate (BER) program from 2017 to 2021. Common issues include small rebate amounts, difficulty in signing up, and unhelpful Efficiency Nova Scotia/ENS staff. The data highlights program challenges and areas for improvement.
Multiple responses E7. On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is 'not at all satisfied' and 10 is 'completely satisfied', how was your organization's experience with each of the following aspects of the Business Energy Rebates Program?
AI summary The text asks for a rating on a scale of 1 to 10 regarding satisfaction with various aspects of the Business Energy Rebates Program.
E8c. Why were you not more satisfied with the rebate amounts? Reasons Not More Satisfied with Rebate Amounts 2017 2018 2019 2021 Sample Size 16 (#) 16 (#) 13 (#) 11 (#) Rebate is too small/expected higher rebate 13 15 11 9 Rates are differ...
AI summary Respondents expressed dissatisfaction with rebate amounts, citing that rebates were too small and expected higher rebates. A small number of respondents also mentioned differences in rates across facilities and the high cost of measures. The data is based on responses from 2017 to 2021.
\ Multiple responses F1. Do you have any suggestions to improve the Business Energy Rebates Program? Consider all aspects of the program: process, measures covered, marketing, interactions with program staff, and program forms. PROBE: Anyt...
AI summary The text asks for suggestions to improve the Business Energy Rebates Program, considering aspects such as process, measures covered, marketing, interactions with program staff, and program forms.
A. INTRODUCTION A – Business with a contact name Could I speak with ? - 1. Yes [GO TO INTRODUCTION] - 2. No [SAY "PERHAPS YOU CAN HELP ME ANYWAY." GO TO INTRODUCTION] Hello, I am with Narrative Research, and we are performing an evaluation...
AI summary This text outlines the introduction and initial steps of a survey conducted by Narrative Research evaluating Efficiency Nova Scotia's Business Energy Rebates Program. It includes prompts for contacting individuals within an organization who are knowledgeable about the purchase of rebated products in 2021.
B. INTRODUCTION B – Business with no contact name Hello, I am with Narrative Research, and we are performing an evaluation of energy efficiency services provided by Efficiency Nova Scotia. We have a few questions about your recent experien...
AI summary Narrative Research is conducting an evaluation of energy efficiency services provided by Efficiency Nova Scotia, specifically focusing on the Business Energy Rebates Program and the recent purchase of a rebated product by the organization.
[ASK [D9](#page-139-0) TO [D12](#page-139-1) IF AWARE OF REBATE [(D1=](#page-137-0)1 OR [D2=](#page-137-1)2), RANDOMIZE D9 TO D12] READ FIRST TIME THROUGH ONLY: Now I would like to ask you to consider which actions your organization would...
AI summary The text asks respondents to consider actions their organization would have taken if a rebate was not available, using a scale from 0 to 10 to indicate likelihood. The focus is on assessing the impact of rebate programs on organizational behavior.
F. Satisfaction - F1. [ASK ALL] Using a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is "not at all satisfied" and 10 is "completely satisfied" how would you rate your satisfaction with the Business Energy Rebates program overall? [RECORD NUMBER, 98=DON'T K...
AI summary The text outlines a survey on customer satisfaction with the Business Energy Rebates program, asking participants to rate their satisfaction on a scale from 1 to 10 and providing options for reasons for dissatisfaction if the rating is below 8. It also asks about satisfaction with specific aspects of the program, such as communication with distributors, rebate amounts, and eligible products.
C6. Did your distributor recommend [PRODUCT] to you? Distributor Recommended Product 2018 2019 2020 2021 Sample Size 49 60 51 50 Yes 51% 62% 71% 60% No 43% 33% 29% 40% Don't know 6% 5% - - C7. For what type of project did you purchase the...
AI summary The text presents survey data on whether distributors recommended [PRODUCT] to customers between 2018 and 2021, along with the types of projects for which the product was purchased, including replacement of existing fixtures, new construction, and participation in the Business Energy Rebates Program.
C9. In what state were your existing fixtures or lamps when you decided to purchase the [PRODUCT]? Were they… Condition of Existing Fixtures or Lamps 2018 2019 2020 2021 Sample Size 31 36 35 33 Working but at the end of their useful life 2...
AI summary The text includes survey data on the condition of existing fixtures or lamps when businesses decided to purchase new products, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on participation in the Business Energy Rebates (BER) program. The data shows that most fixtures were working but nearing the end of their useful life, and the pandemic had minimal influence on participation in the BER program.
- D1. Were you aware that you had received a rebate when purchasing these [PRODUCT]?
AI summary The question asks if the individual was aware of receiving a rebate for purchasing a specific product, likely related to energy efficiency or utility programs.
- D2. I just want to make sure I understand When you purchased [PRODUCT], you were unaware that a rebate was given to reduce the product's total cost? Aware of Product Rebate Prior to Purchase 2018 2019 2020 2021 Sample Size 50 60 51 50 Ye...
AI summary The text discusses customer awareness of product rebates and the Business Energy Rebates Program offered by Efficiency Nova Scotia. It presents survey data from 2018 to 2021 showing the percentage of respondents who were aware of rebates before purchasing products and who knew the rebate was offered by Efficiency Nova Scotia.
Actions Taken in Absence of 20 18 20 19 202 20 20 21 BER Instant Rebates Sample Size Mean Sample Size Mean Sample Size Mean Sample Size Mean If the rebate had not been offered, what is the likelihood that you would have purchased the exact...
AI summary The table presents survey data on the Business Energy Rebate (BER) Instant Rebates program, showing respondents' likelihood of purchasing the same lighting products, quantities, and timing without the rebate. The data indicates that the rebate had a moderate influence on purchase decisions, though not universally significant.
E1. Before participating in the Business Energy Rebates program in 2021, had your organization at any time in the past already participated in the Business Energy Rebates program or any other Efficiency Nova Scotia programs?
AI summary The question asks whether the organization had previously participated in the Business Energy Rebates program or any other Efficiency Nova Scotia programs before joining in 2021.
Previous Participation in Another ENS Program Component 2018 2019 2020 2021 Sample e Size 50 60 51 50 Yes, in Business Energy Rebates 62% 69% 22% Yes Yes, in another program(s) 58% 2% (Total) Yes, in both Business Energy Rebates and anothe...
AI summary The table shows participation rates in Nova Scotia Power's Business Energy Rebate program and other ENS program components from 2018 to 2021. Participation in Business Energy Rebates decreased from 62% in 2019 to 22% in 2021, while participation in other program components also declined significantly over the same period.
E5. Before participating in the Business Energy Rebates program, had you at any time in the past already seen Efficiency Nova Scotia promotional materials advertising the benefits of energy efficiency?
AI summary The question asks whether the individual had previously seen Efficiency Nova Scotia promotional materials advertising energy efficiency benefits before participating in the Business Energy Rebates program.
F3. On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is 'not at all satisfied' and 10 is 'completely satisfied,' how was your organization's experience with each of the following aspects of the Business Energy Rebates Program? If your organization did not h...
AI summary The text asks respondents to rate their satisfaction with various aspects of the Business Energy Rebates Program on a scale from 1 to 10, and to indicate if they had no experience with any of the aspects.
20 19 2020 2021 Satisfaction with Aspects of BER Sample Size Mear Mean Sample Size Mean Sample Size Mean Interaction and communication with distributors 56 9.0 48 8.4 48 9.2 Rebate amounts 58 8.3 51 7.9 49 8.9 Eligible products 58° 7.9° 48...
AI summary The table presents satisfaction data from participants in the Business Energy Rebate (BER) program across different years, focusing on aspects like interaction with distributors, rebate amounts, and eligible products. The data shows varying levels of satisfaction with mean scores and sample sizes for each year.
F5. Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the Business Energy Rebates program? Suggestions to Improve BER 2019 2020 2021 Sample Size 60 51 50 Better marketing/awareness 3% - 8% Offer more measures rebated 7% 4% 4% More information...
AI summary The Business Energy Rebates (BER) program received suggestions for improvement, including better marketing, offering more rebated measures, and increasing rebate amounts. However, the majority of respondents (78% in 2019, 71% in 2020, and 72% in 2021) had no recommendations.
INTRODUCTION Thank you for taking the time to speak with me today. I am interested in your opinion regarding Efficiency Nova Scotia's Business Energy Rebates program, from your perspective as a program partner. As you may recall, Econoler,...
AI summary The introduction outlines a program evaluation for Efficiency Nova Scotia's Business Energy Rebates program, conducted by Econoler and Narrative Research. The evaluation seeks input from program partners to improve the program, with confidentiality assurances provided to participants.
ASK IF LINEAR LED FIXTURES WERE REBATED THROUGH THE PROGRAM I have a few questions about your sales of linear LED fixtures that are promoted by the Business Energy Rebates Program. This category includes the following measures (as defined...
AI summary The text asks if linear LED fixtures were rebated through the Business Energy Rebates (BER) program, referencing sales data up to September 2021 and questioning whether sales increased or decreased compared to 2020, seeking explanations for any changes.
- B2. [ASK IF SALES DATA NOT AVAILABLE] If things stay the course for the remainder of this year, will you sell more, less or the same number of linear LED fixtures by the end of 2021 than the number of units you sold in 2020? If "more" or...
AI summary The text includes questions about the sales of linear LED fixtures in 2021, specifically whether sales would increase, decrease, or remain the same compared to 2020, and the impact of the Business Energy Rebates Program on these sales.
B6. I am interested in understanding the impact of the Business Energy Rebates program on customers' product choice. Using a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 is "not at all important" and 10 is "extremely important", how would you rate the prog...
AI summary The text asks about the impact of the Business Energy Rebates program on customers' product choices, specifically regarding the influence of the program on the selection of linear LED fixtures over fluorescent tube fixtures. It also inquires if the incentive amounts are sufficient to encourage the purchase of LED fixtures.
- B8. Through the Business Energy Rebates Program, only products meeting the program's criteria, such as DLC or Energy Star certifications, are eligible for rebate. I would like to understand the impact of the program on your company's dec...
AI summary The Business Energy Rebates Program requires products to meet certain certifications, such as DLC or ENERGYSTAR, to be eligible for rebates. The question seeks to understand how important this program is to the company's decision to carry these certified products.
ASK IF LED LINEAR LAMPS WERE REBATED THROUGH THE PROGRAM I have a few questions about your sales of LED linear lamps that are promoted by the Business Energy Rebates Program. This category includes lamps such as two-foot and foot-foot line...
AI summary The text contains a series of questions directed at a company regarding the sales of LED linear lamps under the Business Energy Rebates Program, including inquiries about sales trends, the impact of rebates on sales, and the influence of the program on product choice and certification.
RECORD RATING: RECORD EXPLANATION: - D7. Is the incentive ranging from $15 to $450 per fixture enough to encourage customers who would not have done so otherwise to purchase Outdoor LED fixtures? Why?
AI summary The document asks whether an incentive range of $15 to $450 per fixture is sufficient to encourage customers who would not have otherwise purchased Outdoor LED fixtures, seeking reasons for or against this incentive level.
- D8. Through the Business Energy Rebates Program, only products meeting program's criteria, such as DLC or Energy Star certifications, are eligible for rebate. I would like to understand the impact of the program on your company's decisio...
AI summary The Business Energy Rebates Program requires products to meet certain certifications, such as DLC or Energy Star, to be eligible for rebates. The question seeks to understand how influential this requirement is in a company's decision to carry DLC certified Outdoor LED fixtures, on a scale from 0 to 10.
Table 1: Verification of 2021 Instant Rebates Data Field Completeness and Accuracy – Lighting Data Fields Complete (Y/N/Partial) Consistent with Previous Evaluation If Incomplete or Inconsistent, Action Taken by the Evaluator Data for Each...
AI summary This table verifies the completeness and accuracy of data fields related to 2021 instant rebates for lighting. Issues were identified with wattage baseline, hours of operation, and energy savings calculations, which were corrected based on 2020 evaluation standards.
Table 5 and Table 6 present the corrected tracked savings resulting from all changes made by the Evaluator, as described in this appendix. Program Component Result Value Tracked by EOne Corrected Tracked Value Relative Difference Value Uni...
AI summary Table 5 and Table 6 present corrected tracked savings for the BER Instant Rebates - Lighting program, showing reductions in both energy and peak demand savings compared to initial values.
3 OEM OPERATIONAL DEMAND SAVINGS PILOT PARTICIPANT PERSPECTIVES During the interviews with participants and OEMs, interviewees commented on their motivations, experience, and satisfaction with the pilot. All participants who completed proj...
AI summary Participants in the OEM Operational Demand Savings Pilot expressed high satisfaction, driven by financial incentives and cost savings. All participants and OEMs indicated a willingness to participate in future programs, with many already exploring new opportunities.
Project Types All three projects involved scheduling fans to be turned off during the system peak period, and two also involved reducing the speed of VFDs for certain fans. The Evaluator notes for context that typical demand reduction prog...
AI summary The document discusses three projects aimed at reducing system peak demand by turning off fans and adjusting VFDs. While the pilot intended to focus on low-cost/no-cost demand reduction, only one project fully aligned with this goal. The Evaluator recommends rethinking incentive structures to better align with participant benefits and operational realities.
2021 Retrofit Participant Perspective Highlights - › Overall satisfaction with Retrofit was high among interviewed participants who provided an average rating of 8.4 on a 10-point scale. - › Most respondents did not face challenges related...
AI summary Participants in the 2021 Retrofit program reported high satisfaction with an average rating of 8.4. Most did not face challenges, but suggested improvements such as higher incentives, clearer eligibility criteria, and faster processing times.
C. Free-ridership - C1. Why did your organization decide to build a better-than-code building? [DO NOT READ] - 1. Lower operation costs - 2. Energy policy in my organization - 3. Environmental reasons/energy efficiency - 4. Competitors are...
AI summary The section discusses free-ridership in the context of energy efficiency programs, asking respondents about their motivations for building better-than-code buildings, whether incentives influenced their decisions, and the impact of financial incentives on project financing.
Cost - E1. Efficiency Nova Scotia gave your organization a rebate of $ for the [Investigation or Feasibility] study and $ for the project implementation. Did the financial incentives have an impact on the financial case for your energy eff...
AI summary The text discusses the impact of financial incentives provided by Efficiency Nova Scotia on the financial case for an energy efficiency project, asking whether the incentives influenced the decision-making process.
[ASK IF $ ≥0] E2a. As part of its Custom [Retrofit or Building Optimization] program, Efficiency Nova Scotia gave your organization a $ incentive for the [Investigation or Feasibility] study. In the absence of the program, what is the like...
AI summary Efficiency Nova Scotia provided an incentive for a study under its Custom Retrofit or Building Optimization program. The question asks about the likelihood of conducting the study without the incentive, on a scale from 0 to 10.
3.2 Satisfaction and Barriers As illustrated in [Figure](#page-33-0) 8 below, there is a high degree of general satisfaction with SBES and with all of the aspects assessed. The main points of dissatisfaction are the rebate payment period b...
AI summary Participants in the SBES program expressed high levels of satisfaction, particularly with the quality of work, financing, and rebate process. However, some dissatisfaction was noted regarding the length of rebate payment periods and the time required to complete program components. Suggestions for improvement included increasing rebates, speeding up payments, and improving marketing and communication.
3 BNI MEASURE GROSS SAVINGS PARAMETERS The following sections outline all necessary parameters to calculate gross energy savings for BER Instant Rebates semi-prescriptive measures as well as measures added to the BER Mail-in and SBES offer...
AI summary This section outlines the parameters needed to calculate gross energy savings for BER Instant Rebates semi-prescriptive measures and additional measures added to the BER Mail-in and SBES offerings between 2020 and 2022.
E-12E1(NSUARB) RIR-1 to RIR-41
30 passages
t, a pay-for-performance pilot and additional focus on compressed air management in 25 Custom, and performance-based incentives for large industrial customers in Strategic Energy 26 Management. Date Filed: April 29, 2022 E1 (NSUARB) IR-03...
AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) seeks NSUARB approval for a supply agreement with NS Power under the 2023-2025 DSM Plan, including a pay-for-performance pilot and industrial compressed air management initiatives. The filing date is April 29, 2022, with reference to matter M10473.
ities between E1 and NS Power (2023-2025 DSM Plan) E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB) Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Financial barriers to participation in E1 programs increased with the onset of the COV...
AI summary E1 increased incentives in several programs to address pandemic-related financial barriers and supply chain delays impacting project timelines. Safety protocols were implemented to ensure safety during the pandemic, with ongoing reviews to adapt to public health guidelines.
oduct Rebates in the Business, Non- 23 Profit & Institutional (BNI) sector. These factors influenced the outcome of the unit cost 24 result in 2015 as compared to the approved Plan. 2 Ibid, page 32-33 Date Filed: April 29, 2022 E1 (NSUARB)...
AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) submitted an application for approval of a supply agreement with NS Power under the 2023-2025 DSM Plan, noting factors influencing unit cost results in 2015 compared to the approved plan, including Business, Non-Profit & Institutional (BNI) sector rebate impacts.
Residual Suggested ID # Original finding Original Finding Description Status Remaining gaps Recommendations risk level timeframe 3.1 Access controls While EfficiencyOne has developed various Remediated + While EfficiencyOne has EfficiencyO...
AI summary EfficiencyOne has implemented logical access controls, but there are inconsistencies, especially with third-party IT providers, leading to a high risk. The original recommendations have been addressed, but further action is needed to align with the rate of access and permissions reviews.
ressing total energy spending as well as utility bill impacts in isolation) associated with electrification (Program Administrators Brief at 20, citing Exhs. DPU-Comm 3-6; DPU-Comm 5-11; DPU-Comm 11-7; DPU-Comm 11-8). Date Filed: April 29,...
AI summary The Program Administrators argue that their proposed ADR offerings are cost-effective and that they engage stakeholders to ensure clarity and understanding. They also claim that broad residential lighting programs are no longer cost-effective due to increased consumer adoption of LEDs.
trators Brief at 35-37; Program Administrators Reply Brief at 8-9). The Program Administrators argue that the savings from residential propane and gas condensing heating measures are now very small because the baseline is already efficient...
AI summary The Program Administrators argue that residential propane and gas condensing heating measures offer minimal energy savings due to already efficient baselines, making program intervention unnecessary. They also claim that incentive levels for these measures are unclear, with incremental costs ranging widely, and suggest that higher incentives may be imprudent. Additionally, they argue that oil boilers should be removed from the program as they meet code requirements and do not provide claimable savings.
moderate income customers as a prerequisite to accessing enhanced heat pump incentives (Exhs. DPU-Comm 5-7; DPU-Comm 12-11; DPU-Comm 12-21). A differentiated incentive approach, like the proposed moderate income offering, may provide some...
AI summary The Department recommends a differentiated incentive approach for heat pump installations, requiring moderate income customers to weatherize before receiving enhanced incentives. This approach aims to encourage all residential customers to reduce energy consumption and optimize fuel conversions during the early phases of electrification efforts.
ovide additional direct resource benefits to electric or gas customers above planned levels. After review and subject to the directives set forth above, the Department finds that the Program Administrators have demonstrated their proposed...
AI summary The Department of Public Utilities reviews proposed strategic electrification strategies and active demand reduction (ADR) offerings by Program Administrators, emphasizing cost-effective GHG emissions reductions and minimizing costs to ratepayers. The ADR proposals include performance-based incentives for technologies like thermostats and battery storage.
9, 2022 NSUARB IR-17, Attachment 3, Page 127 of 343 D.P.U. 21-120 through D.P.U. 21-129 Page 114 incentives will be paid only for actual performance. 2019-2021 Three-Year Plans Order, at 34. In addition, the electric Program Administrators...
AI summary The Department approves a five-year incentive rate lock for battery energy storage systems installed as part of daily dispatch offerings, but notes that as more storage is deployed, the lock may no longer be necessary. An evaluation of the rate lock's efficacy is required.
benefits. The Department fully supports the Program Administrators prioritization of heat pumps and encouraging adoption of low-carbon technologies through market transformation. However, as the Program Administrators have explained, some...
AI summary The Department supports the prioritization of heat pumps and low-carbon technologies but emphasizes the need to address technical and financial barriers for some customers. It highlights that fully replacing oil heat with heat pumps may increase lifetime costs and stresses the importance of ensuring affordability and equity in program implementation.
022 NSUARB IR-17, Attachment 3, Page 143 of 343 D.P.U. 21-120 through D.P.U. 21-129 Page 130 With regard to the Program Administrators’ arguments regarding difficulty determining the appropriate incentive level, the Department notes that t...
AI summary The Department acknowledges the Program Administrators' historical flexibility in setting incentive levels for energy efficiency measures and directs them to continue offering incentives for heating systems. The Program Administrators propose eliminating residential oil-fired boilers due to increased efficient baselines, while MEMA argues heat pumps may not fully replace fossil-fueled heating systems in the near future.
yses submitted using the $128 per short ton social value of GHG emissions reductions, however, did not include the December 21, 2021, updates to the Program Administrators’ BCR screening model and energy efficiency data tables (Statewide P...
AI summary The document discusses the social value of GHG emissions reductions, setting it at $128 per short ton based on the AESC Study. Program Administrators are required to update their BCR screening models and data tables to reflect this value. The Green Communities Act mandates performance incentives for Program Administrators based on their success in meeting plan goals.
ncentive mechanism for each year of the Three-Year Plan term (Statewide Plan, Exh. 1, Apps. A at 25-26; C.1 - Electric (Rev.); C.2 - Gas (Rev.); S.1 - Electric (Rev.); S.2 – Gas (Rev.)). The Program Administrators propose a statewide incen...
AI summary The Program Administrators propose a new performance incentive mechanism for the 2022-2024 Three-Year Plans term, consisting of an equity component, an electrification component, and a standard component. They also propose discontinuing the value component, citing concerns that it would discourage targeting more costly equity and electrification measures.
ally more costly equity and electrification measures (Statewide Plan, Exh 1, App. A at 26).120 The Program Administrators propose to collect performance incentive dollars through each component at predetermined common payout rates, subject...
AI summary The Program Administrators propose a performance incentive structure with predetermined payout rates, thresholds, and caps based on design level performance, which is defined as 100% of projected benefits and net benefits. A total portfolio cap of 125% of design level performance is proposed for the total possible performance incentive, with no individual caps for equity or electrification components.
D.P.U. 21-120 through D.P.U. 21-129 Page 181 the performance incentive mechanism (Statewide Plan, Exh. 1, Apps. A at 27; S.1 - Electric (Rev.); S.2 - Gas (Rev.)). The Program Administrators state that the proposed payout rate for the equit...
AI summary The Program Administrators propose performance incentive payout rates for the equity component of the electric and gas programs, set at $0.0173 and $0.0136, respectively. These rates are higher than the standard component rates by 20% and 55%. A threshold of 85% of planned portfolio equity benefits is proposed to trigger incentives, aiming to increase equity benefits beyond previous terms.
for gas and $37.6 million for electric from the statewide incentive pool to a new electrification component of the performance incentive mechanism (Statewide Plan, Exh. 1, Apps. A at 27; S.1 - Electric (Rev.); S.2 - Gas (Rev.)). The Progra...
AI summary The Program Administrators propose allocating $37.6 million for electric and gas from the statewide incentive pool to a new electrification component of the performance incentive mechanism. The payout rates for the electrification component are $0.0173 for electric and $0.0136 for gas, with thresholds set at 60% of planned portfolio electrification benefits.
27; S.1 - Electric (Rev.); S.2 - Gas (Rev.)). The Program Administrators state that the purpose of the standard component is to provide an incentive for the Program Administrators to 60 percent in Statewide Plan, Exh. 1, App. A at 29. Duri...
AI summary The Program Administrators propose a standard component of the incentive program with a 60% threshold for Targeted Communities and moderate-income customers, aiming to avoid double-counting benefits. The payout rates for the standard component are set at $0.0144 for electric and $0.0087 for gas. The threshold for achieving incentives is either 75% of planned benefits or the statewide weighted portfolio threshold.
Program Administrators submitted a revised exemplar performance incentive mechanism that included a value component (Exh. DPU-Comm 3-16, Att.). C. Positions of the Parties 1. Program Administrators The Program Administrators assert that it...
AI summary Program Administrators submitted a revised performance incentive mechanism, arguing that discontinuing the value component would better align with energy and climate goals by encouraging equity and electrification measures, despite increased uncertainty in cost estimation due to expanded program scope.
unting (Program Administrators Brief at 78-79, citing Guidelines § 3.6.2(c)). Date Filed: April 29, 2022 NSUARB IR-17, Attachment 3, Page 201 of 343 D.P.U. 21-120 through D.P.U. 21-129 Page 188 2. Attorney General The Attorney General subm...
AI summary The Attorney General supports a three-component performance incentive approach that aligns with equity and electrification priorities, citing Department precedent and regulatory principles. The value component is recommended for elimination as it may discourage investment in these priorities. Alternative approaches to the value mechanism design are suggested if inclusion is required.
etains the value component, DOER recommends reducing its weight compared to past plans (DOER Brief at 35; DOER Reply Brief at 5). DOER argues that the applied weight should be lower than the 20 percent allocation offered by the Program Adm...
AI summary DOER recommends reducing the weight of the value component in the program's performance mechanism. Acadia argues that the proposed performance incentive mechanism, including new components related to equity and electrification, meets statutory criteria and the Department’s guidelines, and addresses design defects from past plans.
erm (Statewide Plan, Exh. 1, App. A at 25-26). Specifically, the Program Administrators propose a new performance incentive structure comprised of an equity component, an electrification component, and a standard component (Statewide Plan,...
AI summary The Program Administrators propose a new performance incentive structure with three components—equity, electrification, and standard—and a statewide incentive pool of $131.8 million for electric and $38.2 million for gas. They do not propose a value component and suggest capping incentives at the total portfolio level.
to its standard for setting a fair and reasonable return on equity, we may exercise discretion in considering various factors to determine the appropriate level of performance incentives, including qualitative factors such as compliance wi...
AI summary The document discusses the determination of a fair and reasonable return on equity, considering compliance with the Green Communities Act and other factors. It also references past decisions and the approval of incentive pools for electric and gas Program Administrators in the 2019-2021 Three-Year Plans, noting changes in the proposed incentive pool for the current Three-Year Plans.
rein, is constructed in such a way to encourage the pursuit of all cost-effective energy efficiency opportunities, consistent with the Green Communities Act. G.L. c. 25, §§ 19(a), 19(b), 21(a), 21(b)(1), 21(b)(2), 21(d)(2); Guidelines § 3....
AI summary The document discusses the approval of an electrification component in a performance incentive mechanism, aligned with the Green Communities Act. A standard component is also proposed, with funds allocated from a statewide incentive pool, and excludes marginal abatement cost benefits from fossil fuel measures to encourage strategic electrification.
arguing that it is redundant to other components of the proposed performance incentive mechanism (Attorney General Brief at 23, citing Tr. 3, at 290-291; DOER Brief at 33). DOER suggests that if the Department directs the Program Administr...
AI summary The Department of Energy Resources (DOER) argues that the value component of the performance incentive mechanism is essential for ensuring equity, electrification, and standard energy efficiency. It emphasizes that previous energy efficiency plans have included this component as a central element to maximize net benefits and ensure cost-effectiveness of programs.
at 97-98. The Department is not persuaded by the Program Administrators’ argument that a value component may disincentivize their pursuit of equity and electrification measures. Rather, the Department has found that a portion of the incent...
AI summary The Department rejects the Program Administrators’ argument that a value component may disincentivize equity and electrification measures, finding that tying a portion of the incentive pool to net benefits ensures cost-effective administration of energy efficiency programs. The Department also dismisses DOER’s suggestion of distinct value components, favoring a unified approach.
Page 206 Department finds it necessary to ensure that the Program Administrators possess a clear incentive to minimize administrative costs when implementing the Three-Year Plans. Accordingly, the Program Administrators shall include a val...
AI summary The Department mandates that Program Administrators include a value component in performance incentive mechanisms to minimize administrative costs and ensure adequate incentives for net benefits. At least 30% of the incentive pool must be allocated to the value component, with a threshold of 75% of planned portfolio net-benefits.
ut rates for the electrification, equity, and standard components must be adjusted to incorporate the addition of the value component for the gas and electric Program Administrators.128 128 When revising the performance incentive mechanism...
AI summary The text discusses adjustments to payout rates for different components of the gas and electric Program Administrators, including requirements for uniformity and specific thresholds. It also addresses the proposal to avoid capping incentives for equity and electrification components, provided the total performance incentive does not exceed 125% of the design level.
argue that substituting a portfolio-level cap for component-level caps allows for flexibility over the Three-Year Plans term and across sectors, thereby appropriately encouraging Program Administrators to achieve savings where they exist t...
AI summary The Department supports the equity, electrification, and standard components of the performance incentive mechanism but rejects the Program Administrators' proposal to discontinue the value component and use a portfolio-level cap. Instead, the Department requires component-level caps to ensure cost containment and proper prioritization of equity and electrification measures.
the modifications and directives contained herein. The Department does not approve the Program Administrators’ proposal to discontinue the value component and use a total portfolio cap. Instead, the Program Administrators shall include a v...
AI summary The Department disapproves the Program Administrators’ proposal to discontinue the value component and instead mandates its inclusion in the performance incentive mechanism. Performance incentives are to be capped at the design level until component thresholds are met. Cost-ineffective programs will have their incentives removed. The Department approves the proposed statewide incentive pool with a 10% reduction.
ng enhancements: (1) incentives up to 100 percent for low-and moderate-income residential multifamily new construction projects; (2) a strategic electrification offering called the “Cape and Vineyard Electrification Offering (“CVEO”)”; and...
AI summary The document outlines proposed enhancements to energy efficiency programs, including 100% incentives for low- and moderate-income multifamily new construction, a strategic electrification offering called CVEO, and incentives for municipal and small business customers. The Cape Light Compact also proposes specific incentives for weatherization and heat pumps in income-eligible and moderate-income buildings.
E-12-(i)NSUARB IR-17 Attachment 2_ACEEE’s Entire State Database - Excel
19 passages
in progress. Draft rules released June 26, 2015 are available here and a ruling is still pending, but the commission has recommended utilities use the draft regulation until regulations are finalized. The state's utilities independently de...
AI summary Arizona utilities established interconnection procedures for distributed generation before the ACC's proceeding. CHP is eligible under EERS for energy savings targets, with incentives like tax exemptions and rebates. Net metering rules were updated to net billing in 2016, crediting excess generation at avoided cost rates.
d net metering rules in October 2008 that took effect in May 2009. These were updated to ""net billing rules"" in 2016 that credit net excess generation to the customer's bill at an avoided cost rate. Last Updated: August 2017 ","Arizona h...
AI summary Arizona's policies promote renewable-fueled CHP, WHP, and biomass systems under its Renewable Energy Standard (RES), expanded to 15% by 2025. The RES includes distributed energy technologies and allows tax incentives via SB 1403 (expiring 2019) for renewable energy manufacturers meeting job requirements.
rate case (Docket No. E-01345A-11-0224). In June 2013, an LRAM was also approved for Tucson Electric Power Company (Docket No. E-01933A-12-0291). UniSource Energy Services also operates under an LRAM. Arizona Public Service (APS) has a tie...
AI summary The text discusses Arizona's rate cases involving Tucson Electric Power and Arizona Public Service, including LRAM mechanisms and performance incentives. It also covers Arizona's lack of policies for energy data release and transportation-land use integration efforts through the 'Growing Smarter' Acts.
13) allocates incentive earnings among four major categories: Energy Efficiency Resource Savings; Ex Ante Review Process Performance; Codes and Standards Advocacy Programs; and Non-Resource Program: Incentives for energy efficiency resourc...
AI summary The text outlines the allocation of incentive earnings across four categories, including caps on energy efficiency incentives and management fees for utility involvement in codes and standards programs. It also discusses the ESPI mechanism and the Commission's approval of third-party access to energy data through the EDRP and Energy Data Access Committee.
in Proceeding No. 07R-371G and adopted in Decision No. C08-0248, which was issued on March 7, 2008. The ALR is only calculated for first-year savings. Electric utilities do not recover lost revenues. The 2009/10 Demand-Side Management (DSM...
AI summary The 2009/10 DSM Plan aimed to remove disincentives for efficiency, offset revenue erosion, and reward utility performance for the Public Service Company of Colorado. The PUC provided a fixed payment of $2 million after taxes for achieving 80% of annual energy savings goals, with incentives capped at 20% of annual DSM expenditures.
ities achieving efficiency targets can earn a percentage of the net economic benefits generated by those savings. Combined total incentive payments are capped at 20% of PSCo’s annual DSM expenditures. In 2018, the Commission ruled that, gi...
AI summary The document outlines performance incentive structures for PSCo based on energy savings goals, with specific thresholds and caps. It also references a 2015 decision that modernized rules for third-party access to customer energy use data with consent.
he DOT must go to public transit. This applies to debt funding authorized by SB 17-267, and is anticipated to result in approximately $92 million of debt financed transit dollars in the next few year. Last Reviewed: May 2020 ","Colorado of...
AI summary Colorado has implemented policies to promote public transit funding and electric vehicle adoption, including a flat credit for purchasing light-duty electric vehicles and phase-out of low-efficiency plumbing fixtures. The state also offers credits for medium- and heavy-duty trucks and leased electric vehicles, with amounts decreasing over time.
Report: Supplement 2; Evaluation, page 1). More information on large customer self-direct programs can be found in the ACEEE report, Follow the Leaders: Improving Large Customer Self-Direct Programs. Last reviewed: July 2019 ","Idaho Power...
AI summary The document discusses Idaho Power's Fixed-Cost Adjustment (FCA) mechanism, which was implemented in 2007 and made permanent in 2013. It also mentions that Idaho does not offer energy efficiency performance incentives to its investor-owned utilities and that customer energy usage data is not released without customer consent.
various performance-based incentives. For example, BGE, Delmarva Power, and Pepco each program offers offer $0.07/kWh for net electricity produced during the 18 months following system commissioning. Last Updated: August 2019 ","Incentives...
AI summary The text discusses performance-based incentives for electricity production and a CHP Grant Program in Maryland aimed at increasing energy resiliency and supporting energy savings targets. Incentives range from $425/kW to $575/kW and include financing options through various programs.
os. E008/GR-13-316; G007,G011/GR-10-977; and G004/GR-15-879). In addition, the Minnesota Commission approved full revenue decoupling for one electric utility, Xcel Energy (Docket No. E002/GR-13-868.) Minnesota has had a shared benefit ince...
AI summary Minnesota has implemented a shared benefit incentive program for utilities, with varying thresholds and caps based on energy savings. There is no policy requiring utilities to release individual energy use data, though guidelines exist for third-party access and aggregate data disclosure.
whole house"" program and provide funding in the 5th quarter FY20 budget extension to design and establish this program. Last reviewed: September 2020 ","There are no opt-out programs in New Jersey. A Societal Benefits Credit (SBC) program...
AI summary The text discusses energy efficiency programs in New Jersey, including a proposed 'whole house' program and funding for its establishment. It also describes the Societal Benefits Credit (SBC) program and the Large Energy Users Program, which provide incentives for energy efficiency and combined heat and power projects. Performance incentives and penalties are tied to utility-specific energy savings targets.
roved annual program costs and its weighted average cost of capital. PNM, EPE, and SPS all earn an incentive award. NM Gas proposed an incentive award in its Plan Year 2017 program for the first time. El Paso Electric's 2016 profit incenti...
AI summary This text discusses profit incentive mechanisms for utilities in New Mexico, including specific cases and conditions for earning incentives based on energy savings and program budgets. It also notes the absence of policies requiring energy use data disclosure and mentions ongoing efforts to adopt California’s ZEV program.
that provides up to $500,000 for CHP projects with generating capacities less than 500 kW (not to exceed 50% of the project cost) The rebates include $0.08 per kWh generated and $100 per kW capacity. Last Updated: September 2018 ","Incenti...
AI summary Ohio provides financial incentives for CHP projects, including rebates and tax exemptions, but energy efficiency programs have faced legislative challenges, including the elimination of most programs by HB 6 in 2019. Technical assistance is available in certain areas.
ted to low-income or hard-to-reach customers may have lower threshold cost-effectiveness results than other efficiency programs. Coordination of Ratepayer-Funded Low-Income Programs with WAP Services Beginning in 2017 ONG combined the deli...
AI summary The text discusses the coordination of low-income energy efficiency programs with WAP services, the opt-out policies for transportation-only gas and electric customers, and the revenue recovery mechanisms and performance-based ratemaking used by Oklahoma gas utilities, including shared benefit incentive plans.
e of utility programs. Utilities must achieve at least 80% of goals to gain an incentive; the incentive is adjusted based on performance to goal. Incentives are capped at 15% of total program costs. Oklahoma Natural Gas and CenterPoint Okl...
AI summary Oklahoma's utility programs require achieving at least 80% of goals to qualify for incentives, which are capped at 15% of total program costs. Previously, Oklahoma Natural Gas and CenterPoint Oklahoma were allowed a shared benefit incentive plan based on the Total Resource Cost (TRC) Test. The Electric Usage Data Protection Act allows utilities to provide third-party access to customer energy use data under contract. Oklahoma lacks policies to encourage efficient transportation systems and has no policies for transportation and land use integration, VMT targets, or Complete Streets initiatives.
ty Commission issued an final order amending interconnection rules that reflected a number of adjustments, including raising the size-limit on customer generation capacity. Last Updated: July 2018 ","CHP in energy efficiency standards: CHP...
AI summary The text discusses the amendment of interconnection rules by the Commission, increasing the size-limit on customer generation capacity. It also outlines Pennsylvania's Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard (AEPS), which includes Combined Heat and Power (CHP) as an eligible resource, and mentions revenue streams and incentives available for CHP systems.
g Practices (DSESP), a resource of the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP). Last Reviewed: January 2020 ","Requirements for State and Utility Support of Low-Income Energy Efficiency Programs No specific required spending or saving...
AI summary South Dakota does not have specific spending or savings requirements for low-income energy efficiency programs, and coordination with WAP services is unclear. Lost revenue adjustments are used by utilities, with mechanisms approved by the Public Utilities Commission. Performance incentives are in place, using fixed percentages to cover lost revenues from energy efficiency programs. No policy mandates the release of energy use data to customers or third parties.
.2 million of Volkswagen (VW) settlement funds to these objectives (Link). Last Revised: June 2020 ",0 out of 3,"Maine has not set appliance standards beyond those required by the federal government. Last Reviewed: June 2019 ", Virginia,25...
AI summary The text discusses energy efficiency initiatives in Maine and Virginia, including the use of Volkswagen settlement funds, appliance standards, and various incentive programs. It highlights efforts such as the CEDS Program and Commonwealth Energy Fund aimed at promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy.
(c) defining the standard criteria that shall be satisfied by an applicant in order to notify the utility, including means of evaluation measurement and verification and confidentiality requirements.” Last Updated: December 2020 ","Virgini...
AI summary Virginia's 2020 Clean Economy Act provides performance incentives for utilities achieving energy savings goals, with additional rewards for exceeding targets. Natural gas utilities are allowed to decouple profits from sales, while electric utilities are not. A 2008 plan implemented by Virginia Gas includes an Energy Conservation Plan and a decoupling mechanism called the RNA Rider.