Topic:"Participant Costs Benefits" in M10473

Technical Project Reviews Assisted by Participant Follow-up Interviews For those program components whose savings were established based on customized calculations for each measure, the Evaluator reviewed the savings calculations for a sam...

AI summary The Evaluator conducted technical reviews of program components with customized savings calculations and conducted follow-up interviews with participants to assess accuracy, consistency, and gather information on free-ridership, spillover, and participant perspectives, particularly for Custom New Construction projects.

DEFINITIONS Accuracy Reflects the proximity of measurements to the true value. 10 INSTANT SAVINGS KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS76 CONCLUSION79 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Summary of 2021 Residential Efficient Product Rebates Program Evaluat...

AI summary The text provides definitions and lists tables related to the evaluation of energy efficiency programs, including the 2021 Residential Efficient Product Rebates Program and the ARet program. It includes details on tracked and evaluated savings, free-ridership, and other metrics.

13 EPI PARTICIPANT PERSPECTIVES A survey with 100 participating households was conducted as part of the EPI evaluation. Surveyed participants were asked questions regarding their awareness, motivations for participating, satisfaction and c...

AI summary A survey of 100 EPI participants revealed high satisfaction with the program, with motivations primarily centered on energy cost savings. Most participants were informed through word-of-mouth or social media, and overall satisfaction averaged 8.7 on a 10-point scale. Participants were generally satisfied with the installer, information provided, and service quality. A small percentage suggested improvements in information dissemination and product variety.

APPENDIX XI EPI: PARTICIPANT SURVEY RESULTS The participant survey results are presented in the following tables.

AI summary This section introduces the participant survey results, which are detailed in the following tables. It provides insights into the effectiveness of Efficiency Nova Scotia programs based on participant feedback.

Participant Phone Interviews To collect information on participant free-ridership and participant perspectives, the Evaluator conducted participant phone interviews in the fall of 2021 and in January 2022 to cover 10 out of the 12 sampled...

AI summary The Evaluator conducted participant phone interviews in 2021 and 2022 to gather information on free-ridership and participant perspectives, covering 10 out of 12 sampled New Construction projects and all three participants of the OEM Operational Demand Savings Pilot.

Table 1: Summary of 2021 Direct Installation Program Evaluation Program Evaluation Type Component Impact Process Market Methodology Small Business Energy Solutions Condensed - - › Participant survey › Tracking sheet audit › Measure Assessm...

AI summary The 2021 Direct Installation Program Evaluation focuses on the Small Business Energy Solutions program, using methods such as participant surveys, tracking sheet audits, and GHG emission reduction calculations to assess program performance and impact.

4.2.1 Summary of 2021 Gross Savings Adjustments As part of the 2019 evaluation, the Evaluator conducted site visits (n=50) to establish adjustment ratios and determine evaluated savings. Based on the observations made on site and an analys...

AI summary The 2021 Gross Savings Adjustments were based on 2019 adjustment ratios calculated from site visits and evaluations of 50 projects. These ratios were applied to all energy savings due to low margins of error. For the CDI pilot, different savings calculation methods were used, and 2019 EPI adjustment ratios were applied instead of SBES ratios.

4.3.2 Participant Spillover For SBES, spillover occurs when participants implement eligible energy efficiency measures due to the influence of previously participating in the program component without having received any kind of additional...

AI summary The document discusses participant spillover in the SBES program, noting that no activity was conducted in 2020 and 2021 to update spillover levels. The 2019 evaluation found negligible spillover, so a nil spillover level was applied to the 2021 net savings calculations.

Request IR-02: Do you plan to ensure that having a certificate of title will not be a requirement for eligibility for participation in the new Affordable Single-family Home Program for residents of African Nova Scotian communities? As you...

AI summary The request questions whether the Affordable Single-family Home Program (ASHP) will exclude property title requirements for African Nova Scotian communities, where historical racism has caused unclear titles. This could create barriers to participation, as obtaining clear titles is a lengthy process, preventing eligible families from accessing low-income efficiency upgrades.

E1 Responses to Affordable Energy Coalition (AEC) Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL Request IR-03: - Is the ENS considering improved incentives for landlords that heat with electricity to improve - enrolment in the Affordable Multi-fam...

AI summary The Affordable Energy Coalition (AEC) requested improved incentives for landlords heating with electricity to boost participation in the Affordable Multi-family Housing and Non-Profit Organization program. E1 responded that recent program changes allow higher incentives and zero-interest financing via NS Power, reducing upfront costs for landlords.

Follow these simple steps to ensure you're taking advantage of the good things efficiency brings. Book an initial Home Energy Assessment Start - Step 1 - Visit our website or call us at 1-877-999-6035 to be connected with an Efficiency Par...

AI summary The text provides a step-by-step guide for enrolling in an energy efficiency program, emphasizing booking a Home Energy Assessment, contacting a local Efficiency Partner, completing work within 12 months of enrollment, and meeting eligibility criteria. Full details are available on the program's website.

E1 Responses to Investment Property Owners Association of Nova Scotia (IPOANS) Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL E1 wishes to note that energy shifting, as described in the question, may be a means of producing winter peak demand savin...

AI summary E1 clarifies that energy shifting reduces winter peak demand but not annual energy use. It supports demand-saving measures via the Custom program, including battery projects, and references the 2019 DSM Plan and 2023-2025 DSM Plan's DR program. Neothermal Energy Storage Inc. is noted as a monitored technology developer.

DSM PROGRAMS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING & LOW INCOME HOUSING PROVIDERS : The requirements of the Affordable Multiple Family Housing programs could be said to be very onerousrelating to allowable rental levels, and the commitment for essentiall...

AI summary The Affordable Multi-family Housing program's strict rental caps are criticized as overly burdensome during inflation, with providers facing pressure to maintain rent below CPI increases. A proposal suggests expanding eligibility to include participation in CMHC or Housing Nova Scotia programs. EfficiencyOne plans stakeholder consultations in 2022, with potential 2023 changes.

Existing Residential, Efficient Product Rebates (BNI), and Direct Installation. 2025 Investment a Lifetime Benefits b First-Year Energy Savings Lifetime Energy Savings Peak EE Demand Savings Available DR Capacity ource Cost (TRC) c Prog Ad...

AI summary The document presents a detailed breakdown of various energy efficiency and demand response programs, including their investments, benefits, energy savings, and cost ratios. It highlights the performance of residential, BNI, and direct installation programs, along with enabling strategies and demand response initiatives.

9 Table 25: Three-Year Summary of the Efficient Product Installation Program Component Annual Plan Investment ($M) Energy Savings Demand Savings (GWh) Participation (products) Market Barriers • Affordability: the cost difference between ef...

AI summary The table highlights market barriers to participation in the Efficient Product Installation Program, including affordability, awareness, lack of trust, lack of information, resource constraints, and split incentives in rental properties.

4.4 Cost-effectiveness Testing [65] Cost-effectiveness testing assesses the relative value of the Settlement Plan through a comparison of benefits and costs expressed as both the dollar value of the net benefit (or cost) and as a ratio of...

AI summary The document discusses cost-effectiveness testing for E1's Settlement Plan, emphasizing TRC and PAC tests. TRC evaluates benefits-to-cost ratios at the program level, requiring a 1:1 ratio. E1 included avoided carbon costs and non-electric benefits, but Synapse argued this contradicts Board rulings (M08888), recommending greater reliance on PAC tests or jurisdiction-specific methods.

4.4.1 Findings [71] In Matter M08888, the Board found that it does not have the jurisdiction to consider non-energy impacts in DSM cost-effectiveness testing. In the current proceeding, ETs inclusion of non-energy benefits (such as avoided...

AI summary The Board ruled that non-energy benefits (e.g., avoided water/fuel costs) should not be included in TRC calculations for E1's Settlement Plan, citing Matter M08888. Despite Synapse's assertion that removal would not affect cost-effectiveness, E1 must revise its TRC and PAC calculations. E1 proposed a review of cost-effectiveness methodologies, including PAC and jurisdiction-specific tests, to be led by DSMAG before the 2026-2028 DSM Plan. The Board endorsed this approach.

[122] The E1 response referenced by the Industrial Group stated: There are several reasons why a measure might be included despite having a TRC ratio less than one. Given that many of the reasons are global across all measures, E1 has prov...

AI summary E1 argues that measures with TRC ratios below 1 can still be justified due to understated avoided costs, non-energy benefits, bundling with higher TRC measures, and program-level cost-effectiveness screening. The Industrial Group recommends individual measure justification for TRC failures, while E1 emphasizes program-level screening and customer experience benefits.

Request IR-39: Appendix A, pages 98 of 149: Please describe the criteria to determine what types of facilities, projects, measures and costs are eligible for the Custom Program Component.

AI summary Request IR-39 seeks clarification on the eligibility criteria for the Custom Program Component, specifically what facilities, projects, measures, and costs qualify. The inquiry references Appendix A, page 98 of 149, and focuses on defining parameters for program eligibility under Nova Scotia's regulatory framework.

30 1 2 (a) Please restate the 2023-2025 Plan, using the most current Statistics Canada data for Low-Income classification, i.e. 12.1%? 13 14 Reference: EfficiencyOne 2023-2025 DSM Resource Plan Filing, Appendix A - 2023-2025 DSM Plan, 7. E...

AI summary The text includes requests for the restatement of the 2023-2025 DSM Plan using updated Statistics Canada data for Low-Income classification, clarification on Enabling Strategies and cost allocation, and the provision of cost allocation tables for various scenarios. It also asks about E1's current thinking on credit levels for Direct Load Control.

the exploration, through the DSMAG, of cost-effectiveness testing methodologies. Identifying and implementing the appropriate test should be given a high priority. New Home Construction (Section 9) The Consumer Advocate intends to closely...

AI summary The Consumer Advocate supports the Settlement Plan, emphasizing DSMAG's cost-effectiveness testing, monitoring new home construction under Section 9, and collaboration between E1 and NSP for behavioral programs. They request quarterly updates from E1 and prioritize reducing ratepayer costs.

ratio of 1.0 into those that pass the costeffectiveness test. Failure to do so makes the plan more expensive for ratepayers and achieves less savings for participants than could otherwise be achieved. The SBA and Mr. Athas recognize that s...

AI summary The Small Business Advocate (SBA) and Mr. Athas argue that applying the TRC ratio of 1.0 to low-income energy efficiency programs disproportionately harms ratepayers and reduces savings. They support separate performance metrics for low-income sectors to ensure effective funding without compromising the TRC test, citing Synapse's 2022 testimony on the benefits of targeting low-income populations.

Background Review In 2009, NSPI sought Board approval of its 2010 DSM Plan and DSM Rider 7 . Among the issues adjudicated was the cost effectiveness of certain activities. When considering cost effectiveness, the basic question is whether...

AI summary In 2009, NSPI sought approval for its 2010 DSM Plan, including measures with TRC ratios below 1.0. The Board ruled that such measures can only be included if their removal jeopardizes the program's overall effectiveness. NSPI argued bundling with other measures justifies inclusion, while the Board agreed with experts that criticality is required.

- 1 E1's balanced portfolio design aligns with the aspects of the "Balanced Plan Approach" outlined in the 2 Standardized Filing Framework. E1 has applied these aspects in its Settlement Plan, with the following 3 outcomes and initiatives:...

AI summary E1's Settlement Plan balances short- and long-term energy and capacity avoidance through DSM and demand response, minimizing costs and maximizing savings. It emphasizes cost-efficiency, diverse programs, and non-energy benefits, with Synapse noting its high cost-effectiveness. The plan maintains E1's market presence and business relationships.

4.4 Cost-effectiveness Testing [65] Cost-effectiveness testing assesses the relative value of the Settlement Plan through a comparison of benefits and costs expressed as both the dollar value of the net benefit (or cost) and as a ratio of...

AI summary The document discusses cost-effectiveness testing of E1's Settlement Plan using TRC and PAC tests. TRC evaluates net benefits, requiring a 1:1 benefit-to-cost ratio, while PAC focuses on utility perspective. E1 included avoided carbon costs and non-electric benefits, but Synapse argues this contradicts Board decisions (M08888), recommending reliance on PAC or a new jurisdiction-specific test.

4.4.1 Findings [71] In Matter M08888, the Board found that it does not have the jurisdiction to consider non-energy impacts in DSM cost-effectiveness testing. In the current proceeding, ETs inclusion of non-energy benefits (such as avoided...

AI summary The Board directs E1 to remove non-energy benefits from TRC and PAC calculations, citing Matter M08888. E1 proposes reviewing cost-effectiveness methodologies due to legislative changes and demand response advancements, suggesting collaboration with DSMAG before the 2026-2028 DSM Plan. The Board supports this approach.