064632010 DSM Evaluation Reports 2/28/2011
131 passages
Program Finding Recommendation Low LIH-F1. LIH-R1. Income Although the participant sourcing process worked effectively, the flow Increase program marketing and outreach efforts to assure a Households of names of prospective participants th...
AI summary The Low Income Households Program faced challenges in participant recruitment, with insufficient outreach and low eligibility thresholds impacting participation. Recommendations include expanding marketing efforts and increasing income eligibility, especially in rural areas, to improve program effectiveness and delivery efficiency.
Program Finding Recommendation Low LIH-F4. LIH-R4. Income Customers were motivated to participate in the program primarily Continue to promote the savings benefits of the program with an Households because of energy savings and the associa...
AI summary The Low Income Households Program was effective in motivating participation through energy savings and financial benefits, with 48% of participants citing energy cost savings as a primary motivator. The program led to a 40% reduction in energy bills for some participants, and improved comfort levels were reported by 61% of respondents. The recommendation emphasizes promoting the program's benefits and clarifying its cost-free nature.
respondents noticed fewer drafts (80%) and consistent temperatures throughout the house (79%). LIH-F7. LIH-R7. Nearly all of the respondents (97%) also reported that they would As an additional participant recruiting mechanism, the program...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 DSM programs indicates high satisfaction among participants, with most reporting consistent temperatures and willingness to recommend the program. The DSM Administrator's collaboration with SNSMR was effective in identifying income-eligible households for the Heating Assistance Rebate Program.
Program Finding Recommendation Low LIH-F9. LIH-R9. Income There is a misperception amongst delivery agents, that only homes that Training and communications of Delivery Agents should clearly Households required significant building envelop...
AI summary The Low Income Households Program faces challenges due to misperceptions among delivery agents about eligibility criteria and participant expectations. Outreach agents report higher expectations from participants, including incorrect beliefs about receiving new appliances or insulation.
e when in fact they were not. LIH-F11. LIH-R11. Participants who apply to the program through the Outreach Agents are Reduce time from participant recruitment to first contact. The sent a letter informing them that they will receive a welc...
AI summary The document highlights delays in the outreach process for a low-income housing program, with participants experiencing delays of five to six months between application and first contact. The Outreach Agents reported these delays and recommended reducing the time to four to six weeks.
Program Finding Recommendation Low LIH-F12. LIH-R12. Income The LIH the program is not consistently referred to by the same name The DSM Administrator should establish a single name for the Households throughout the program delivery proces...
AI summary The Low Income Households (LIH) program faces challenges with inconsistent naming, leading to customer confusion and misbranding. Additionally, the reduction in Delivery Agents in 2010 has raised concerns about resource sufficiency for program delivery.
Program Finding Recommendation Low LIH-F16. LIH-R16. Income As reported in the 2009 evaluation, the LIH program tracking The DSM Administrator should introduce a unique identifier as Households information did not include a unique identifi...
AI summary The Low Income Households (LIH) program lacks unique identifiers for participants, leading to inefficiencies. Delivery Agents submit multiple invoices for home upgrades, increasing administrative burden. The recommendation includes assigning unique identifiers early and consolidating invoices to streamline processes.
Program Finding Recommendation Low LIH-F20. LIH-R20. Income Some respondents reported a substantial discrepancy between the Continue to require the Delivery Agent to walk participants around Households measures that were recorded as having...
AI summary The Low Income Households Program faced challenges with verifying installed energy efficiency measures, as reported by respondents. Verification rates dropped from 95% in 2009 to 77% in 2010, possibly due to poor recall or incomplete installations. Quality control activities increased, including third-party inspections and participant sign-offs. Education on energy-efficient practices was recommended to improve long-term energy savings.
a Any future program should explore the following pilot, it had a limited target for the number of refrigerators to be potential opportunities in the multi-family sector: replaced. Program promotions consisted solely of cold calls to Aff...
AI summary The document discusses the challenges of engaging the multi-family sector in energy efficiency programs, highlighting limited outreach and split incentives as barriers. It suggests targeting affordable housing property owners and bundling incentives to improve participation and address non-energy benefits of energy efficiency.
20. Are there any factors inhibit your ability to effectively perform any part of the program delivery process? IF YES: What are they? How can these be addressed? What impact do you think addressing them will have on your effectiveness and...
AI summary The text outlines a series of questions aimed at assessing the effectiveness of a program delivery process, focusing on customer awareness, participation, and satisfaction with the Appliance Retirement program. It also explores barriers to program delivery, areas for improvement, and customer complaints or dissatisfaction.
Program 2010 February 25, 2011 Final Report Submitted to: Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation Submitted by: NMR Group, Inc. Principal Investigators: Rohit Vaidya David Barclay Lauren Abraham NMR Group, Inc. Tom Ledyard Tim Hennessy KEMA, In...
AI summary This document is the final report of an evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program, submitted to the Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation by NMR Group, Inc. The report was prepared by a team of principal investigators and includes contact information for the consulting firm.
nc. 50-2 Howard Street, Somerville, MA 02144 Phone: (617) 284-6230 Fax: (617) 284-6239 www.nmrgroupinc.com Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program
AI summary The text refers to an evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program, which likely involves assessing the program's effectiveness, impact, and outcomes for low-income households.
........................................................................................................ 22 3.2 PROGRAM DESIGN AND ADMINISTRATION ................................................................................................
AI summary The document outlines the structure of a program evaluation, focusing on program design, administration, responsibility, communication, and participant lists. It includes sections on outreach agents, customer expectations, tracking and reporting, and on-site visits. A survey of participants is also discussed, covering screening, eligibility, awareness, motivations, barriers, and verification of installed measures.
........................................................... 31 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program 4.4 EXPERIENCE WITH INSTALLED MEASURES .......................................................................................
AI summary This document evaluates the 2010 Low Income Households Program, covering installed measures, behavior change, satisfaction, barriers to action, demographics, and additional survey results. It includes appendices on billing analysis methodology, survey results, and interview guides.
..................................................................... 36 TABLE 4-14: ADDITIONAL ACTIONS TAKEN OUTSIDE OF THE PROGRAM ........................................ 37 TABLE 4-15: SATISFACTION WITH LI REAP (PERCENTAGE VERY SATISFI...
AI summary The text references an evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program, including tables that outline additional actions taken outside of the program, participant satisfaction with LI REAP, the program's value, and reasons for not recommending REAP.
............................................................ 40 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program TABLE 4-18: CHOSE NOT TO INSTALL RECOMMENDED MEASURES ................................................... 41 TABLE 4-19: R...
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Low Income Households Program, presenting data through multiple tables that cover topics such as installation of recommended measures, program recommendations, interest in unprovided measures, and demographic information of participants.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page I Executive Summary This report presents the results of the 2010 process and impact evaluation of the residential Low Income Households program (LIH) conducted by NMR Group, Inc. (N...
AI summary This report evaluates the 2010 Low Income Households Program (LIH) administered by Conserve Nova Scotia (CNS) as the Residential Energy Affordability Program (REAP). The evaluation, conducted by NMR Group, Inc., focused on the program's process and impact, including interviews with staff and contractors and a survey of 62 participants.
variety of program topics including goals, theory, structure, design, delivery, roles of individuals and marketing. The telephone survey was conducted with a sample of sixty-two program participants. Impact Evaluation Findings The impact e...
AI summary The impact evaluation of the 2010 LIH program found energy savings of 895.4 MWh and demand savings of 199.2 kW, which were below the program's goals of 5,260 MWh and 1,170 kW. The evaluation used billing analysis, HOT2000 reports, and savings estimates from other programs.
ogram Savings Summary Peak Demand (kW) Energy (MWh) Net annual savings at generator 199.2 895.4 Findings and Recommendations The LIH program uses three primary REAP Delivery Agents who implement the program. Each Delivery Agent employs or...
AI summary The LIH program uses REAP Delivery Agents to implement energy efficiency measures. Most participants are satisfied with the program, and energy savings are reported, though the program faced delays in 2010 due to contract execution issues.
risdictions. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page II of five (40%) reported that the program measures had reduced their energy bills (40%). Three out of five respondents (60%) reported behavior changes such as turning...
AI summary An evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program found that 40% of participants reported reduced energy bills, 60% reported behavior changes, and 46% reported increased energy efficiency knowledge. The evaluation also identified opportunities for improving program design, marketing, and communications.
Program Outreach and Marketing Finding Recommendation LIH-F1. LIH-R1. Although the participant sourcing process worked effectively, the Increase program marketing and outreach efforts to assure flow of names of prospective participants tha...
AI summary The LIH program faced challenges in participant recruitment due to insufficient outreach and low income eligibility thresholds, leading to inefficiencies in delivery and inconsistent work for agents. Recommendations include increasing marketing efforts, expanding outreach to the MURB market, and raising income eligibility thresholds, especially in rural areas.
ncies of time and travel expenses. LIH-F3. LIH-R3. One in three respondents (34%) to the participant survey reported first Consider increasing targeted media advertising of the learning about REAP from outreach activities: a letter (19%) o...
AI summary The evaluation of the Low Income Households Program (LIH) highlights that most participants learned about the Residential Energy Affordability Program (REAP) through outreach activities, such as letters and direct telephone contact. There is a suggestion to increase targeted media advertising to improve awareness. Participants were motivated by energy savings and financial benefits, with some skepticism about the program being free.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page III
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Low Income Households Program, focusing on its effectiveness and impact on low-income households in Nova Scotia.
only about one in eight participants (13%) reported that they found out about the program through word-of-mouth. LIH-F8. LIH-R8. The DSM Administrator (via CNS) worked effectively with SNSMR Identifying eligible participants through the pa...
AI summary The document discusses the effectiveness of the DSM Administrator's collaboration with SNSMR in identifying income-eligible households for the Heating Assistance Rebate Program. It also highlights a misperception among delivery agents regarding program eligibility, suggesting a need for improved training and communication.
ements for electrically the program, which led one of the Delivery Agents to think that the heated homes in the program. number of homes that were not properly screened had increased since 2009. LIH-F10. LIH-R10. The expectations of partic...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program highlights issues with participant expectations and program delivery. Outreach agents reported higher expectations from participants, including incorrect beliefs about receiving appliances or insulation. Delivery agents also faced challenges in managing expectations and providing accurate information.
t. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page IV Program Outreach and Marketing (continued) Finding Recommendation LIH-F11. LIH-R11. Participants who apply to the program through the Outreach Agents Reduce time from particip...
AI summary The 2010 Low Income Households Program faced delays in participant recruitment, with Outreach Agents reporting delays of five to six months. A recommendation was made to reduce the time from recruitment to first contact and improve communication between Outreach Agents and the program administrator.
Program Delivery Structure and Design Finding Recommendation LIH-F12. LIH-R12. The LIH the program is not consistently referred to by the same name The DSM Administrator should establish a single name for throughout the program delivery pr...
AI summary The LIH program lacks consistent naming across delivery processes, leading to customer confusion. Delivery Agents decreased from four to three in 2010, and there are concerns about resource sufficiency. The protocol for replacing Delivery Agents is also discussed.
y and record the homes with the greatest potential Agents in the determinations regarding making such a energy savings from Scope I measures. change. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page V
AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program, focusing on identifying homes with the greatest potential for energy savings through Scope I measures. NMR is involved in the determination process.
e. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page V
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Low Income Households Program, focusing on its implementation and impact on low-income households in Nova Scotia.
Program Delivery Structure and Design (continued) Finding Recommendation LIH-F16. LIH-R16. As reported in the 2009 evaluation, the LIH program tracking The DSM Administrator should introduce a unique information did not include a unique id...
AI summary The LIH program lacks unique identifiers for participants and has issues with invoicing and communication. Recommendations include assigning unique identifiers early, consolidating invoices, and improving collaboration between Outreach and Delivery Agents.
Delivery Agent to walk measures that were recorded as having been installed and what they participants around their homes after installation is thought actually was installed. In particular, verification of building complete and attest to...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program highlights a decline in the verification of building envelope measures installed by Delivery Agents, from 95% in 2009 to 77% in 2010. This decrease may be due to poor respondent recall or incomplete installations. The report recommends using quality control inspections to identify discrepancies in reported installations.
and the quality of the work completed. 95% to 84%. Lastly, satisfaction with the quality of the work completed declined from 95% to 81%. While about one out of four respondents (24%) offered a recommendation to improve the program, the top...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program indicates a decline in customer satisfaction with the quality of work completed, from 95% to 81%, with respondents suggesting improvements in the quality of work as the top recommendation.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 1 1 Program Description and Data Tracking
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Low Income Households Program, focusing on its description and data tracking methods. It provides an overview of the program's structure and how data was collected and monitored.
1.1 Program Description The 2010 Low Income Housing (LIH) program was administered by Conserve Nova Scotia (CNS),4 which called it the Residential Energy Affordability Program (REAP); and was funded by CNS, the DSM Administrator, Natural R...
AI summary The 2010 Low Income Housing (LIH) program, administered by Conserve Nova Scotia (CNS) and known as the Residential Energy Affordability Program (REAP), aimed to assist lower-income homeowners in Nova Scotia with energy efficiency upgrades. The program was funded by CNS, the DSM Administrator, Natural Resources Canada, and ecoNova Scotia. Administrative changes included the addition of an Outreach Agent, the reduction of Delivery Agents, and the use of third-party inspections.
ocation of the REAP funds. The regions were: Western region including the Lunenburg, Queens, Shelburne, Yarmouth, Digby, Annapolis and Kings counties; Central region including the Halifax Regional Municipality and Hants county; North...
AI summary The REAP program funds energy efficiency measures in low-income homes across Nova Scotia, targeting older homes in specific regions. Conserve Nova Scotia will shut down in 2011. The program includes building envelope and water-saving measures, with eligibility restrictions based on heating type and location.
ation will shut down in 2011. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 2 Insulation of basement and/or crawlspaces, exposed floors, main walls and attics/ceilings; Draft-proofing areas such as windows, doors, attic hat...
AI summary The document outlines the activities of the 2010 Low Income Households Program, which included insulation, draft-proofing, installation of energy-efficient appliances, and other home upgrades aimed at improving energy efficiency and safety for low-income households.
elp reduce moisture levels in homes that are have draft proofing measures installed In order to facilitate implementation of the 2010 program, CNS contracted with three service providers. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Progra...
AI summary The 2010 Low Income Households Program aimed to reduce moisture levels in homes with draft proofing measures. CNS contracted with three service providers to facilitate implementation.
d with three service providers. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 3
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Low Income Households Program, focusing on its implementation and impact by three service providers, including NMR.
1.1.1 Program Theory Program Background The LIH program is a Resource Acquisition program. As a Resource Acquisition program, LIH‘s primary goal is to increase the energy efficiency levels of low-income customer-owned households in Nova Sc...
AI summary The LIH program aims to increase energy efficiency in low-income households through whole-house upgrades. Scope I and II measures are implemented, with Scope I funded only for electrically heated homes. Outreach agents and community organizations help identify eligible participants, and contractors conduct evaluations and prepare renovation plans.
a detailed renovation plan including photographs of areas of homes requiring upgrades and the proposed costs for each upgrade for those homes considered to have enough potential for energy efficiency upgrades. Once CNS has approved the ren...
AI summary The REAP program involves detailed home renovation plans, contractor implementation, homeowner education, and final EnerGuide evaluations. CNS recruits delivery agents and trains energy evaluators. Referrals come from DCS and SNSMR, and outreach agents conduct province-wide recruitment.
iting potential participants. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 4
AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program, focusing on its effectiveness and potential participants. It references NMR as a key entity involved in the evaluation process.
number of Delivery Agents to provide services throughout the province. Sufficient Training to Delivery Agents. Sufficient training is provided to Delivery Agents to perform EnerGuide Energy evaluations. Skills and Equipment. Delivery A...
AI summary The text outlines the criteria for the 2010 Low Income Households Program, including the need for delivery agents, training, equipment, financial constraints of participants, and the expected energy savings from the program.
will result in lower energy bills. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 5
AI summary The text discusses the evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program, highlighting its potential to result in lower energy bills for participants.
Program Barriers Mistrust. Potential participants may not believe that the program is offered for free. Information Sharing. Due to privacy concerns, participant information is not shared freely between the national and provincial gove...
AI summary The text discusses program barriers such as mistrust, information sharing challenges, and lack of comprehensive participant pools. It also outlines short-term and mid-term outcomes, including increased energy knowledge, bill reductions, and improved comfort for low-income customers.
ngs estimates for energy efficiency improvements. Increased awareness of the LIH program in Nova Scotia low-income population. Through word-of-mouth and other channels, awareness of the LIH program and its benefits spreads among the low-...
AI summary The document outlines the outcomes of the Low Income Households (LIH) Program in Nova Scotia, emphasizing increased awareness, receptivity, and contractor participation. Long-term outcomes include sustained energy savings, reduced bills, improved economic well-being, and emission reductions.
10 Low Income Households Program Page 7 1.1.2 Program Logic Figure 1-1: Residential Energy Affordability Program Logic Model NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 8 2 Impact Evaluation
AI summary The document outlines the evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program, focusing on its impact and program logic. It includes a logic model developed by NMR and discusses the evaluation process.
l NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 8 2 Impact Evaluation
AI summary This section of the document evaluates the impact of the 2010 Low Income Households Program. It focuses on assessing the program's effectiveness in achieving its intended outcomes, particularly in terms of energy efficiency and affordability for low-income households.
2.1 Background to the Analysis For the Low Income Households program, we assessed electric savings through an independent billing analysis of Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI) billing data. Consistent with the Savings Verification Report dated...
AI summary The analysis of the Low Income Households program used billing data from Nova Scotia Power Inc. to assess electric savings. The study compared 2009 and 2010 participants and noted changes in service providers, marketing efforts, and program targeting, but confirmed that overall program structure and savings tracking remained consistent.
he type of activity within the LIH program participants in 2009 versus 2010. The data in this table provides support for the transferability between the results of the billing analysis of 2009 participants to 2010 participants. In particul...
AI summary The text compares program activity between 2009 and 2010 for the LIH program, highlighting similarities in the distribution of Scope I and Scope II upgrades, as well as the proportion of electric heat in participant homes. The data supports the transferability of billing analysis results between the two years.
rticipants later in this report. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 9
AI summary This document evaluates the 2010 Low Income Households Program, focusing on its implementation and impact. It is part of a broader analysis of energy efficiency and affordability initiatives in Nova Scotia.
2.2 Research Design & Methodology The research design chosen for the billing analysis of the LIH program utilized a time-series comparison/cross sectional approach. This research design essentially determines the program impacts by examini...
AI summary The research design for evaluating the LIH program uses a time-series/cross-sectional approach to assess program impacts by comparing participant usage patterns over time with a control group. This method helps isolate program effects and ensures internal and external validity by using a representative sample of participants and non-participants.
hese participants from the analysis, the installation was assumed to have occurred during 2009. The next data management step checked the participant accounts to verify that there was enough data in NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Househ...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program involved verifying participant accounts for sufficient data in pre- and post-participation periods, resulting in 210 participants available for billing analysis.
e-participation and post-participation period to be accurately analyzed. At the end of the editing of the participant billing data a total of 210 participants were available for the billing analysis. 2.4 Develop Representative Control Grou...
AI summary The analysis involved selecting a representative control group of 1,860 non-participants to compare with 210 LIH program participants, ensuring similar weather, rate class, and heating sources. Matching criteria based on annualized usage and rate code were used, resulting in four control group members per participant. The distribution of annualized usage showed similar consumption patterns between groups, validating the control group selection.
also appear to have relatively low consumption for residential customers who primarily use electric heat. Based on this comparison, the control group was accepted for the next stages of the analysis. Table 2-2: Participant & Control Group...
AI summary The document compares the annualized electricity usage of participants and the control group in the 2010 Low Income Households Program. The control group was accepted for further analysis due to similar consumption patterns, particularly among residential customers using electric heat. The methodology for developing the control group is detailed in Appendix A.
station as the participants. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 11 2.5 Temperature Normalize Billing Information One of the most important steps in the assessment of the effect of the LIH program is the comparison of...
AI summary This section discusses the temperature normalization procedure used to evaluate the 2010 Low Income Households Program. By controlling for weather influences, the program's impact on energy usage can be isolated. Results show a decrease in energy consumption for the participant group and an increase for the control group.
se in the mean and median consumption for the pre to post period. The comparison of the NAC between groups for each period demonstrates that the control group is well matched to the participant group. Table 2-3: Distribution of Electric NA...
AI summary The document analyzes the energy consumption data of participants and control groups before and after program installation, showing a decrease in mean and median consumption for participants. Multiple analytical methods were used to estimate energy savings for the LIH program, including stratification and regression techniques, with results projected to 2010 participants.
logy is described in detail in Appendix A. 8 Details of this analysis can be found in Appendix A. 9 The normal temperatures used in this analysis are based on the historical daily temperatures. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households...
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Low Income Households Program using the Augmented Comparison Approach (PRISM) and Regression techniques. It compares pre- and post-installation energy usage between participants and a control group to estimate net savings.
e average control group pre- and post-installation usage along with the participant data were used to estimate net savings. Table 2-5 shows the mean savings for the program derived from this analysis. Table 2-5: Comparison of 2009 Net Savi...
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Low Income Households Program by analyzing energy savings using the PRISM method. It compares pre- and post-installation usage and shows net savings across different strata. The results indicate a reduction in electricity consumption, with energy savings associated with the program.
thods. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 13 Figure 2-1 Distribution of 2009 PRISM Savings Distribution of Net Savings 25 20 Participants 15 10 5 0 -5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Net Savings
AI summary This page from the evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program presents a figure showing the distribution of 2009 PRISM savings, indicating net savings across participants, with a range from negative to positive values.
-5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Net Savings 2.6.2 The Regression Approach To try to obtain a more precise estimate of savings, the regression approach was implemented.11 Only a subset of the participants had tracki...
AI summary The document discusses the use of a regression approach to estimate savings from the 2010 Low Income Households Program. It notes that preliminary analysis based on tracking system data showed lower savings compared to a broader participant group, suggesting that the tracking data subset was not representative. The regression analysis used pre-NAC as a proxy for expected savings.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 14 Table 2-6: Average Savings Estimates from the Simple Model Using Pre NAC as a Savings Variable Proxy Bounds (consumption) n Weight Pre NAC Net Savings Percent Savings <5100 kWh 5...
AI summary This document evaluates the 2010 Low Income Households Program by presenting average savings estimates using two different methods: a simple model with Pre NAC as a proxy and a tracking system estimate. The results show varying levels of energy savings across different consumption brackets, with overall savings ranging from 6% to 15%.
0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 -1 -2 -3 Y Hat NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 15 When heteroscedasticity is present, the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression approach to establishing the relations...
AI summary The text discusses the use of Weighted Least Squares (WLS) regression to evaluate the 2010 Low Income Households Program, estimating average savings of 1,044 kWh/year with a 90% confidence interval of ±220 kWh. The results were not statistically different from those obtained using the PRISM method.
ticipant were estimated at 1,044 kWh/year, or an 11% reduction from the pre-installation NAC. The 90% confidence interval around the estimate was ±220 kWh. This was a 21% relative confidence interval. Table 2-7: 2009 WLS Savings Estimates...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program shows that participant energy savings were estimated at 1,044 kWh/year, an 11% reduction from pre-installation levels. The confidence interval was ±220 kWh, and the weighted least squares (WLS) model was used to address heteroscedasticity in the data.
Y-Hat NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 16 2.6.3 Summary of 2009 Analysis Results Figure 2-4 shows a comparison of the savings estimates. Among the estimates based on billing analysis alone, the various procedures p...
AI summary The 2009 analysis of the Low Income Households Program evaluated various methods to estimate energy savings. The WLS regression model was found to be the most accurate, yielding an estimated savings of 1,044 kWh per participant annually with a 90% confidence interval.
Estimated Savings Comparison of Estimated Savings 1,400 1,200 1,000 Average Savings 800 1,297 600 1,059 1,044 400 586 200 - PRISM OLS-SAE OLS-PreNac Proxy WLS-PreNac Proxy Estimation Approach NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Pr...
AI summary The 2010 Low Income Households Program's estimated savings were calculated using 2009 data and normalized billing data from 2010 participants. The average expected savings was 1,117 kWh per year, with a 90% confidence interval of 854 to 1,381 kWh, representing a 24% relative confidence interval.
e stratum level savings, the 2010 average expected savings was 1,117 kWh, (or 9%) with a 90% confidence interval of 854 kWh per year to 1,381 kWh per year. This was a 24% relative confidence interval. Table 2-8: 2010 Savings Estimates per...
AI summary The 2010 Low Income Households Program achieved an average energy savings of 1,117 kWh per participant, with a 9% savings rate. The savings varied by consumption levels, with the highest savings percentage in the lowest consumption bracket.
12,870 1,117 9% NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 18 2.6.4 2010 Program Savings Compared to Other Jurisdictions To put these results in context, we undertook a limited research effort to compare the performance of t...
AI summary The 2010 Low Income Households Program (LIH) savings were compared to similar programs in the northeastern United States. While absolute savings were slightly lower than some programs, the LIH program achieved higher savings as a percentage of consumption compared to PECO but lower than the 2010 CT Low Income study.
measure verification AMP (electric focus): 968 kWh (Massachusetts), AMP and Low Income 15 and HEAT analysis tool AMP (electric focus): 827 kWh (Rhode Island) Baseload Program (no electric heat) net savings: Pre/post treatment/ compar...
AI summary The document presents energy savings data from various programs, including the AMP and Low Income programs, with specific figures for different regions and programs such as the Baseload Program and Full Cost Program. It also references evaluation reports from multiple sources.
AP%20Evaluation%20Report.pdf NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 19 Table 2-10 presents the final estimates of savings for the LIH program based upon the billing analysis results described above. This table utilizes t...
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Low Income Households (LIH) Program, estimating energy and demand savings based on billing analysis. It reports total energy savings of 800.3 MWh at the meter and 895.4 MWh at the generator, with a 30% realization rate compared to the program tracking estimate. Demand savings are estimated at 178 kW at the meter and 199.2 kW at the generator.
tive estimate of impacts for the LIH program. In the interest of producing this alternative estimate conservatively, we used the lower bound of the Conserve Nova Scotia space heating use combined with 17 We used a factor of 1.1188 to calcu...
AI summary This section presents an alternative estimate of the impact of the Low Income Households (LIH) program by using a conservative approach that combines data from Conserve Nova Scotia and billing analysis results. The estimated energy savings are 1,129 MWh and 1,264 MWh for meter and generator respectively, with corresponding demand savings of 251 kW and 281.2 kW.
Meter Generator Energy (MWh) 1,129 1,264 Demand (kW) 251 281.2 In the final analysis, however, the billing data approach was based on actual consumption data for the low income population and thus may be considered more reliable than extra...
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Low Income Households (LIH) program, comparing billing data with survey estimates to assess energy savings. It highlights the use of actual consumption data for low-income households and discusses the process evaluation involving interviews and surveys to ensure cost-effective energy-saving measures are implemented.
gy-saving measures in residential low income customer-owned households. The DSM Administrator‘s funding is directed to DSM measures that target cost-effective electrical energy savings opportunities. 3.1 Methodology 3.1.1 In-depth Intervie...
AI summary The document outlines the methodology used to evaluate the 2010 Low Income Households Program, including in-depth interviews with program administrators and participants, and a survey to assess satisfaction, program effectiveness, and barriers to participation.
Participant demographics NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 22 3.1.3 Sampling Error In 2010, there were 680 unique participants in LI REAP who received a rebate from the DSM administrator for electric upgrades that w...
AI summary The 2010 Low Income Households Program (LI REAP) had 680 unique participants who received rebates for electric upgrades. A sample of 62 participants was surveyed, resulting in a sampling error of +10.0% at the 90% confidence level.
3.2 Program Design and Administration The 2010 Low Income Households (LIH) program operated in concert with the Conserve Nova Scotia Residential Energy Affordability Program (REAP) which had overall administrative responsibility for the pr...
AI summary The 2010 Low Income Households (LIH) program, administered through the Residential Energy Affordability Program (REAP), provided energy-efficient upgrades for low-income homes. The program had two scopes: Scope I covered building envelope upgrades with full funding for electrically heated homes, and Scope II included items like CFLs and ENERGY STAR appliances, fully funded regardless of heating source. Three Delivery Agents implemented the program in 2010, with one exiting due to an unsuccessful bid.
utilized four Delivery Agents, each one operating in one of the four program regions. The Delivery Agent that left the program was unsuccessful in its bid to remain a REAP delivery agent in 2010.19 In addition to the reduction in the numbe...
AI summary The program utilized four Delivery Agents, but one left in 2010 after being unsuccessful in its bid to remain. The DSM Administrator added a second Outreach Agent to improve participation among low-income customers with electrically heated homes. Quality control procedures were also enhanced during this period.
y the previous Delivery Agent. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 23
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Low Income Households Program, focusing on its implementation and impact. It highlights the role of NMR as the Delivery Agent and discusses program effectiveness.
ators and freezers. The guidebook is contained as an appendix within the LIH program manual. If the age of the appliance could not be determined from the guidebook, Delivery Agents were expected to consult web- based resources in order to...
AI summary The LIH program manual provides guidance on appliance replacement, but initial lack of information caused challenges for Delivery Agents. Program administrators are considering a design change to separate Scope I and Scope II audits to improve cost effectiveness, though this would require additional visits to homes.
r to perform the Scope I upgrades. The EnerGuide audit would not be performed for homes receiving only Scope II upgrades. While they had heard about the discussions regarding separating Scope I and Scope II audits, at the time of the in-de...
AI summary The document discusses the implementation of the Low Income Households Program, focusing on the roles of Delivery Agents and the challenges related to audit scopes. Delivery Agents are responsible for program coordination, and concerns were raised about the cost of separating Scope I and Scope II audits. The DSM administrator is considering these concerns during program redesign.
3.4 Production of Participant Lists In 2010, the proportion of participants recruited through DCS decreased while the proportion recruited by the Outreach Agents increased. In addition, a third recruitment method was implemented to generat...
AI summary In 2010, the recruitment of participants for energy programs in Nova Scotia saw a shift from DCS to Outreach Agents, with a new method involving SNSMR and CNS identifying eligible households. While the process was generally smooth, there were concerns about insufficient participant names and inconsistent screening, leading to inefficiencies.
A lot of it is the outreach agents don‘t know exactly what we‘re looking for.‖ The lack of regularity in the provision of prospective participant names was identified as a significant weakness of the 2009 REAP program year. The 2010 in- de...
AI summary The evaluation highlights issues with the outreach agents' lack of knowledge and irregular provision of prospective participant names in the 2009 REAP program, which were identified as significant weaknesses. These issues persisted into 2010, with improper screening of participant homes also noted as a weakness.
be an additional program weakness. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 25
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Low Income Households Program, identifying an additional program weakness. The evaluation is conducted by NMR, highlighting areas for improvement in the program's effectiveness.
3.5 Role of the Outreach Agents The Outreach Agents were responsible for recruiting eligible low-income homeowners who heated their homes primarily with electricity. The service territory was divided between the two Outreach Agents. One Ou...
AI summary Outreach Agents were responsible for recruiting low-income homeowners in Nova Scotia for a program, using various marketing methods. They fell short of recruitment goals and relied on partnerships with government and community organizations. The Good Neighbour Energy Fund was identified as a successful recruitment source, and new methods like radio ads and classified ads were introduced in 2010.
e of the local radio stations, and classified ads were placed in circulars distributed to households in rural areas. Both of the Outreach Agents believed that incorporating an advertising budget into the program would allow them to recruit...
AI summary The REAP program faced challenges in participant recruitment and communication. Outreach Agents believed an increased income eligibility threshold would help recruit more participants, especially in rural areas. Communication gaps were identified between participants and CNS, and delays in the program process were reported.
a welcome letter from CNS in several weeks. However, the Outreach Agents reported process delays of five to six months. The program design identifies the Outreach Agent as a source of program participants and therefore they have no influen...
AI summary The 2010 Low Income Households Program faced delays due to communication gaps between Outreach Agents and the Program Administrator. Outreach Agents were not updated on process delays or complaint statuses, leading to inefficiencies. The Program Administrator has since addressed the issue by discussing gaps with Outreach Agents and implementing regular check-ins.
an invoice along with receipts at the end of each month to CNS. It is important to note that at no point during the data tracking process was a single unique identifier assigned to program participants. Instead, program records were mainta...
AI summary The document discusses data tracking procedures for the Low Income Households Program, noting that customer names were used as identifiers, which had limitations. It also describes onsite visits by NMR to evaluate contractor services and customer satisfaction with energy efficiency upgrades.
been done over the summer. The one exception was that as a result of the new water heater wrap and insulation, she was now getting hot water immediately. The customer was very happy with the work. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Househol...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program includes a survey of participants, focusing on those who received DSM electrical measures. Eligibility criteria required participants to primarily heat their water or home with electricity, with significant increases in the percentage of participants heating with electricity in 2010 compared to 2009.
9% 5% Advertisement 2% 3% Other 5% β Don‘t know 13% 24% β Significantly different from 2009 LI REAP sample at the 90% confidence level. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 29
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program indicates that 9% of participants were aware of the Residential Energy Affordability Program (REAP), while 5% were aware of other programs. A significant portion (13%) indicated they did not know, showing a notable change from the 2009 LI REAP sample.
the 90% confidence level. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 29
AI summary The document presents an evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program, focusing on statistical confidence levels and data analysis related to program outcomes.
lect the sources for the participants in each year. As noted previously, in 2009, the participants came primarily from DCS, whereas in 2010 the participants came from the Outreach Agents and SMSNR. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Househo...
AI summary The text discusses the sources of participants in the 2009 and 2010 Low Income Households Program, noting that in 2009 participants were primarily from DCS, while in 2010 they came from Outreach Agents and SMSNR.
R Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 30 Table 4-3: Reasons for Participating
AI summary The document presents a table titled 'Reasons for Participating' from the evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program. It provides insights into the motivations and factors that influenced participation in the program.
home 2 To improve resale 2% value Other 2 4% 3 2% Don‘t know 5 35% 10 52% β Refused 4% 5% β Significantly different from 2009 LI REAP sample at the 90% confidence level. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 31 Responde...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program found that only four respondents had concerns about participation, including misunderstandings about program costs and contractor behavior. This data is presented in Table 4-4.
talled free of charge, one respondent did not believe the program was free of charge, and one respondent was concerned that the contractors would make a mess while performing the upgrades. (Table 4-4) Table 4-4: Participation Concerns (num...
AI summary Respondents had mixed concerns about a program, including doubts about it being free and worries about contractors causing messes. An outreach agent noted that income thresholds were too low and that interpreting the LICO chart for eligibility was challenging for some participants.
AP program measures installed from one to six months ago, a larger proportion of respondents (45%) reported that the measures had been installed more than seven months ago. Nevertheless, it is also NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Househo...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program indicates that some respondents may have inaccurately reported the timing of installed program measures, potentially due to incomplete installations by Delivery Agents.
5 100% freezer replacement Second refrigerator and freezer 3 100% 2 50% 50 removal Electric kettle with auto shut-off 26 77% 23 11 82% 18 Power bars to facilitate reduction in β 33 64% 36 15 93% 7 standby electricity loss Replacement of ce...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program found that nearly one in five respondents reported receiving measures not tracked by the DSM Administrator, such as fans and child safety plugs. This suggests some confusion or misunderstanding about the program's scope, as televisions and lamps were not included.
nce level. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 35 Respondents were asked to report what changes, if any, they noticed in their energy bills since the measures were installed. Two out of five respondents (40%) reported...
AI summary An evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program found that 40% of respondents reported a decrease in energy bills, 21% reported an increase, and 27% reported no change. The savings for those who saw a decrease averaged $42 per month, but fewer participants in 2010 compared to 2009 reported lower bills.
8% 16% NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 37 When asked if there were any other energy savings actions taken on their own, in addition to the measures installed by the program, more than two-thirds of the 2010 respon...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program found that 69% of respondents did not take any additional energy-saving actions beyond those installed by the program. Among those who did, weather stripping and door/window replacement were the most common actions, each reported by 11% of respondents.
eduling of work 93% β Significantly different from 2009 LI REAP sample at the 90% confidence level. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 39 In addition to high levels of satisfaction, almost four out of five respondent...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program shows high levels of satisfaction and perceived value among participants, with 79% reporting substantial value and 58% reporting immense value. Nearly all respondents (97%) would recommend the program, though two expressed dissatisfaction with eligibility requirements and service quality.
They say it is a mini home and therefore it does not qualify,‖ and, ―They made promises to fix the hole and they didn‘t. They pulled the freezer out and didn‘t put it back. I expected better service.‖ Table 4-16: Value of the program 2009...
AI summary The text includes customer feedback about poor service experiences and a table evaluating the value of a program for low-income households. The table shows high satisfaction rates with the program, with most respondents indicating they would recommend it to others.
2 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 40 Nine respondents (15%) stated that they had not recommended the program to a family member or friend. When asked to explain why they had not recommended the program to anyone,...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program found that 15% of respondents did not recommend the program to others, mainly due to eligibility requirements. Additionally, 11% of respondents did not install recommended energy efficiency measures, with reasons varying among participants.
8 None 66% 76% β Significantly different from 2009 LI REAP sample at the 90% confidence level. Both of the Delivery Agents interviewed did some outreach for the program. One agent would like to see the program increase its advertising in a...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program found that participants showed interest in additional energy savings measures, with 55% expressing interest and 74% specifically interested in building envelope improvements like insulation, windows, and doors. Outreach efforts by delivery agents were noted, with suggestions for increased advertising and program scope expansion.
3% Ventilation 9% Lighting 5% Programmable Thermostat 5% Stove Furnace 5% Other 5% 9% β Significantly different from 2009 LI REAP sample at the 90% confidence level. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 44 4.8 Demograp...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program highlights demographic characteristics of participants, including housing types, bedroom counts, and household composition, with 69% living in detached single-family homes and 56% being sole full-time residents.
Refused 11 23β β Significantly different from 2009 LI REAP sample at the 90% confidence level. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households program Page A1
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households program indicates that the results were significantly different from the 2009 LI REAP sample at the 90% confidence level, suggesting a notable change in outcomes.
e 90% confidence level. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households program Page A1
AI summary This document evaluates the 2010 Low Income Households program, focusing on its effectiveness in supporting low-income households. It discusses program outcomes and performance metrics at a 90% confidence level.
Appendix A Billing Analysis Methodology Detailed Methodology to Develop the Participant Analysis Group The first step in the analysis of the Low Income Household Program was to identify all participants that could contribute to the analysi...
AI summary This section outlines the methodology used to develop the Participant Analysis Group and Control Group for the Low Income Household Program. Nova Scotia Power identified 332 participants and merged their billing data with site-specific information. A four-step algorithm was used to develop the control group, with matching based on annualized usage.
sor is added to the equation. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households program Page A5
AI summary This document evaluates the 2010 Low Income Households program, focusing on its effectiveness and outcomes for low-income households in Nova Scotia.
the estimated mean. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households program Page A8
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Low Income Households program, focusing on its estimated mean and other relevant data, likely related to energy efficiency or affordability initiatives for low-income households.
2 14 Don‘t know 6 31 Refused 3 Table B-3: Reason for Dissatisfaction Respondents n Overall ―snarky‖ when respondent made inquires of the 1 program Energy Audit Auditor ―skipped out on jobs‖ 1 Table B-4: Barriers to Action Faced Barriers Re...
AI summary The text presents data from evaluations of the 2010 Low Income Households program, including reasons for dissatisfaction and barriers to action faced by respondents. The data highlights low participation rates and issues with program delivery.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households program Page C3 3. Were there any other reasons? [DO NOT READ. ACCEPT MULTIPLE] 1 (To save money) 2 (save on my electricity bill) 3(To receive a new refrigerator) 4(My old refrigerator was not w...
AI summary The text presents a survey of participants in the 2010 Low Income Households program, asking about their motivations for joining and any concerns they had before participation. It includes multiple response options for reasons for joining and concerns about eligibility, costs, and program benefits.
NSTALLED, 8=REFUSED, 9=DON'T KNOW) NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households program Page C6 1. Building envelope measures such as: insulation, air sealing, weather stripping, or exterior door installation or replacement (Electric Space...
AI summary This document outlines the evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households program, detailing energy efficiency measures implemented, including insulation, thermostat installation, and appliance replacements. It also asks about additional energy-saving actions taken by participants beyond the REAP program.
daily routine 3. Did not believe any changes will result in lower energy bills 4. Did not trust in energy professionals installing new measures 5. Other [SPECIFY _]) Section 8 - Interest in other possible measures 32. Are there any energy...
AI summary The text discusses customer feedback on the 2010 Low Income Households program, including reasons for not believing changes will lower energy bills, distrust in energy professionals, and interest in additional energy efficiency measures not covered by the program. It also asks for recommendations to improve the REAP program.
E TIME TO RESPOND TO THIS SURVEY.] NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households program Page C12
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Low Income Households program, focusing on its effectiveness and impact on low-income households. It discusses the program's goals, implementation, and outcomes, with an emphasis on energy efficiency and affordability.
Staff Interview Guide for NSPI, 2010 Date: Name: Programs responsible for: Introduction: [This interview should take about an hour] Your comments are confidential. By the way, if I ask you about areas you don‘t know about, please feel free...
AI summary This document is a staff interview guide for NSPI, focusing on program responsibilities, interactions with various stakeholders, and communication challenges. It includes questions about program timelines, energy savings goals, and collaboration with entities like Conserve Nova Scotia and delivery agents.
program? When did it start? When will it end? 6. What are the 2010 energy savings goals for [PROGRAM(s)]? Do you think you will achieve these goals? 7. We‘ll be going into a number of specific areas later in the interview, but from an over...
AI summary The text outlines a set of questions related to a program, focusing on its start and end dates, 2010 energy savings goals, and overall successes in planning and implementation. It references the evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households program.
mplementing the program(s) this year? NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households program Page C13
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Low Income Households program, focusing on its implementation and effectiveness in supporting low-income households.
est weaknesses? What could be done to address these weaknesses? 15. Based on your experience with the program(s) so far, what are the most important improvements that still need to be made to the program? 16. Are there any other program is...
AI summary The text presents a set of questions aimed at evaluating the 2010 Low Income Households program, focusing on its weaknesses, needed improvements, and potential stakeholders for further interviews. It also references an evaluation report titled 'Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households program' on page C14.
speak to about the program? Thank You NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households program Page C14
AI summary The text references the evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households program, indicating a focus on assessing its effectiveness and impact.
Staff Interview Guide for LI REAP Delivery Agents Primary Contact Date: Name: Organization: Introduction: [This interview should take about 30 minutes] Your comments are confidential. By the way, if I ask you about areas you don‘t know abo...
AI summary This document is an interview guide for delivery agents involved in the LI REAP Program, focusing on their responsibilities, training, program goals, and business impact. It seeks to gather insights on program effectiveness, training needs, and operational challenges.
ow you are paid for your work on the LI REAP program. Are the payments timely? How might the reimbursement process be improved? 9. Is the program set up in a way that works for you and your business? What specifically works? What does not?...
AI summary The text includes questions about the LI REAP program's payment process, reimbursement improvements, program effectiveness, and the program's main goals. It also references an evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households program.
main goals of the LI REAP Program? NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households program Page C15
AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households program, focusing on its goals and outcomes. It appears to be part of a larger analysis of energy efficiency initiatives targeting low-income households.
Program Coordination and Communications 11. What organizations and individuals do you primarily interact with for this program? What is the nature of these interactions? How frequently are you in contact with them? [PROBE IF NOT MENTIONED:...
AI summary The text outlines a series of questions related to program coordination, communication, and reporting for an energy efficiency initiative. It asks about interactions with organizations and individuals, vendor relationships, and the challenges faced in communication and collaboration. It also inquires about the nature and frequency of data tracking and reporting for the LI REAP Program.
ganization‘s effort for the LI REAP Program is spent on fulfilling data tracking requirements? [PROBE IF ISSUE IS NOT BROUGHT UP: What tracking and reporting data do you provide specifically regarding electric measures that are rebated by...
AI summary The text discusses the LI REAP Program, including how much effort is spent on data tracking and reporting for electric measures rebated by Nova Scotia Power. It also outlines the two categories of energy-efficient upgrades under the program—Scope I and Scope II—detailing which upgrades are funded by NSPI and under what conditions.
ot water tank and piping, installing low flow shower heads and faucet aerators, providing power bars and electric kettles and replacing eligible freezers and fridges with Energy Star.] NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households program P...
AI summary The text outlines energy efficiency measures implemented in the 2010 Low Income Households program, including the installation of energy-efficient appliances and fixtures such as low flow shower heads and faucet aerators.
rs and fridges with Energy Star.] NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households program Page C16
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Low Income Households program, focusing on its effectiveness in assisting low-income residents with energy assistance.
k with more often than others? IF YES: Who are they and why do work with them and not with others? a. Is there anything that you would change about the process of selecting vendors or obtaining or ordering supplies for the program? What wo...
AI summary The text outlines a set of questions aimed at evaluating the delivery process of the Low-Income Residential Energy Assistance Program (LI REAP), focusing on vendor selection, program impact, process effectiveness, and consumer awareness.
ntial customers? How does this work? NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households program Page C17 27. Are there any customer segments who have really low participation in the program? Why? Are there any geographic areas where there is low...
AI summary The text contains a series of questions aimed at evaluating the 2010 Low Income Households program, focusing on customer participation, satisfaction, program strengths and weaknesses, and areas for improvement. It also requests contact information for an energy advisor from an unspecified organization.
information for an energy advisor? NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households program Page C18
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Low Income Households program, focusing on its effectiveness and impact on low-income households. It highlights the program's role in providing energy assistance and improving energy affordability for vulnerable populations.
LI REAP OUTREACH CONSULTANT INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR NSPI 2010 Date: Name: INTRODUCTION [This interview should take about 30-45 minutes] Your comments are confidential. By the way, if I ask you about areas you don‘t know about, please feel free...
AI summary This document is an interview guide for a Low-Income Residential Energy Assistance Program (LI REAP) outreach consultant working with Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI). It outlines questions to gather information about the consultant's role, interactions with various stakeholders, and any challenges encountered in program implementation.
ly? Have the various players all been clear as to program goals, the roles and responsibilities of different organizations, needs for coordination? What problems have arisen, if any, and how have they been resolved? Did you encounter any s...
AI summary The text asks about the clarity of program goals, coordination among organizations, and any communication barriers encountered in the LI REAP program. It also inquires about successes in marketing and promoting the program.
oting the LI REAP program this year? NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households program Page C19
AI summary The document references the evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households program, focusing on its effectiveness and outcomes.
c. Again at the broadest level, what were the areas that were not so successful? d. To what do you trace the difficulties you encountered? How might they be addressed in future programs? PROGRAM OUTREACH 11. Do you have any goals for the p...
AI summary The text outlines questions related to the performance and outreach of the Low-Income Residential Energy Assistance Program (LI REAP), focusing on program success, challenges, awareness, participation barriers, and opportunities for improvement.
2. Nova Scotia Home Builders‘ Association – 50% c. Low Income REAP i. Kate McDonald at Conserve Nova Scotia ii. Delivery agents 1. MJM Energy 2. Clean NS 3. Trinity Maintenance Solutions 4. ACAP Cape Breton iii. Low income outreach agent [...
AI summary The text discusses interactions between the Nova Scotia Home Builders' Association and various program delivery agents, including Conserve Nova Scotia and MJM Energy, focusing on communication, coordination, and challenges faced in implementing low-income energy programs. It also inquires about program timelines, energy savings goals, and the development of program theories and logic models.