E-22021 DSM Evaluation Reports
210 passages
2021 DSM PROGRAMS EVALUATION REPORTS EFFICIENCYONE Final DSM Reports March 17, 2022
AI summary EfficiencyOne submitted final 2021 Demand-Side Management (DSM) program evaluation reports to Nova Scotia regulators on March 17, 2022. The documents assess the effectiveness of energy efficiency initiatives but contain no detailed analysis or findings in the provided text.
2021 DSM PROGRAMS EVALUATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EFFICIENCYONE Final Report March 17, 2022
AI summary The 2021 DSM Programs Evaluation Executive Summary by EfficiencyOne, dated March 17, 2022, provides an overview of demand-side management program evaluations, though the content is not detailed in the provided text.
Evaluated savings Gross and net energy or peak demand savings calculated by the Evaluator using the parameters (unitary savings values, installation rates, interactive effects, net-to-gross ratio, etc.) validated or measured during the eva...
AI summary The text defines key terms related to energy efficiency program evaluations, including evaluated savings, gross savings, free-ridership, and interactive effects. These definitions provide clarity on how program impacts are measured and analyzed.
INTRODUCTION EfficiencyOne (EOne), an independent, non-profit organization, is responsible for helping Nova Scotians improve the energy efficiency of their homes and workplaces by designing, marketing, and delivering energy efficiency and...
AI summary EfficiencyOne (EOne) evaluates its 2021 demand-side management (DSM) programs, achieving 109.418 GWh in net energy savings and 27.484 MW in peak demand savings, avoiding 63,911 tonnes of CO2 eq annually. The evaluation, conducted by Econoler and partners, highlights program effectiveness and recommends enhancements.
1 EVALUATION SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES The 2021 Portfolio Evaluation Plan was based on the Evaluation Schedule outlined in the Overall Strategic Evaluation Plan, 2 which provides a framework and approach to guide evaluation planning and impleme...
AI summary The 2021 Portfolio Evaluation Plan outlines the approach to evaluating demand-side management (DSM) activities from 2020–2022. It emphasizes prioritizing evaluations based on factors such as program savings, uncertainty, changes in program design, regulatory requirements, and evaluation scheduling. The plan also considers the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on evaluation activities and categorizes evaluations into impact, process, and market evaluations.
1.1 Impact Evaluation Objectives and Scope The impact evaluation activities were aimed at determining: - › Gross electrical energy and peak demand savings at the meter and at the generator - › Net-to-gross ratios (NTGRs), including free-ri...
AI summary The impact evaluation objectives include assessing energy and peak demand savings, net-to-gross ratios (NTGRs), effective useful life (EUL), and GHG emissions. Two evaluation types are outlined: comprehensive (reviewing baseline definitions, savings methodologies, parameters, and NTGRs) and condensed (using prior parameters). Evaluations occur every three years, with adjustments for pandemic-related uncertainties in 2021 data.
Measure Assessment Document The impact evaluation scope for 2021 also included an update of the Measure Assessment (MA) document. The MA was updated with a new edition to include new products added to program offerings or new savings param...
AI summary The 2021 Measure Assessment (MA) document was updated to include new products, parameters, and annual updates for LED lighting, heat pumps, appliance retirements, and solar air heating. EUL values were added for new measures, while other measures retained 2020 data.
1.2 Process and Market Evaluation Objectives and Scope Process evaluation activities were completed for New Construction in 2021 and were aimed at achieving the following objectives: - › Collect information on the New Construction particip...
AI summary Process evaluations for New Construction in 2021 focused on decision-making processes and freeridership assessments. Market evaluations targeted residential LED lighting (Instant Savings), commercial LED lighting (Business Energy Rebates), and mini-split heat pumps (Green Heat), aiming to assess market trends, program satisfaction, and influence. Footnotes note low rebate data confidence and evolving appliance efficiency.
1.3.1 Market Transformation and Codes and Standards The objectives of this research were as follows: - › Identify practices of other jurisdictions concerning Market Transformation (MT) and Codes and Standards (C&S) attribution in terms of...
AI summary This research aims to identify practices in other jurisdictions regarding Market Transformation (MT) and Codes and Standards (C&S) attribution, understand regulatory contexts enabling savings evaluation from MT/C&S programs, identify measures under MT frameworks, and guide EOne on evaluating influences on new residential construction markets.
1.3.2 Evaluation Approaches for Event-based Demand Response Pilots EOne began developing demand response projects focused on reducing demand during the Nova Scotia peak period in 2021. The objective of the research was to explore options t...
AI summary EOne initiated demand response projects in 2021 to reduce Nova Scotia's peak demand, focusing on evaluating and reporting peak demand reductions from event-based DR pilots and future programs.
2 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY This section presents the methodology used and the activities carried out to evaluate EOne DSM program components and services through impact, process, and market evaluations as well as other research for 2021.
AI summary This section outlines the methodology for evaluating EOne's Demand-side Management (DSM) program components and services in 2021, focusing on impact, process, and market evaluations alongside other research activities.
2.1 Impact Evaluation The impact evaluations were conducted through a range of activities such as tracking sheet audits, datacollection tool development, energy model reviews assisted by participant follow-up interviews, as well as other d...
AI summary Impact evaluations were conducted using activities like tracking sheet audits, data collection tool development, energy model reviews with participant interviews, and other analyses to assess program effectiveness and outcomes.
2.1.1 Tracking Sheet Audits The final tracking sheets submitted to the evaluator by EOne contain data for all completed projects for 2021 and the tracked results required to calculate final savings. The final tracking sheets were audited t...
AI summary The audit of EOne's 2021 tracking sheets by the Evaluator identified data inconsistencies, leading to a 0.8% reduction in gross energy savings and a 1.9% increase in gross peak demand savings. Corrected tracked savings values were compiled for reporting purposes.
2.1.2 Data-collection Tool Development and Sampling Strategy Data-collection tool development and sampling were carried out for Instant Savings, Efficiency Product Installation, Affordable Multifamily Housing, Green Heat, Business Energy R...
AI summary The section outlines the development of data-collection tools and sampling strategies for programs like Instant Savings, Efficiency Product Installation, and Business Energy Rebates. Instruments included surveys, interviews, and review protocols, informed by documentation and staff interviews, with an integrated approach to support process and market evaluations.
Surveys and Interviews This subsection describes the data-collection activities conducted for the impact evaluations. It should be noted that surveys and interviews were often integrated to collect impact, process, and market information,...
AI summary This subsection outlines the data collection methods used for impact evaluations, including participant surveys conducted by telephone and online to gather information on free-ridership and spillover effects. Surveys were conducted between October and December 2021 with 502 participants.
5 EMIS participant was also an SEM participant Project No. 6372 & lt;sup>2 AMH: Participant interviews were completed as part of a participant follow-up phone interview, on-site visits, or desk reviews & lt;sup>3 Custom: Six program manage...
AI summary The text details participant interviews and data collection methods conducted as part of a project involving energy efficiency programs, including Retrofit, New Construction, and Building Optimization. It mentions interviews with program managers, EOne staff, and participants, as well as follow-up interviews and on-site visits.
Site Visits The Evaluator performed a total of 106 on-site visits during the summer and fall of 2021. For Business Energy Rebates, the objective of on-site visits was to collect data to establish or validate some of the parameters used in...
AI summary The Evaluator conducted 106 on-site visits in 2021 to validate data and parameters for various programs, including Business Energy Rebates, Affordable Multifamily Housing, and Efficient Product Installation. These visits aimed to ensure accuracy in savings calculations and model simulations.
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.
Table 5: 2021 Project Reviews with Follow-up Interviews Program Component 2021 Project Reviews Completed BNI Custom 47 Energy Management Information Systems 1 Strategic Energy Management 6 Total 54 This number differs from Table 3 (Custom...
AI summary Table 5 summarizes the 2021 project reviews with follow-up interviews under the BNI program, including Custom, Energy Management Information Systems, and Strategic Energy Management. A total of 54 projects were reviewed, with 47 under the Custom component. The note explains that the number differs from Table 3 due to follow-up interview challenges.
Other Data-collection Activities This subsection provides descriptions of other data-collection and evaluation activities carried out to achieve the impact evaluation objectives, as follows: - › Desk reviews Desk reviews were carried out f...
AI summary This section outlines data-collection and evaluation activities, including desk reviews for Affordable Multifamily Housing and savings calculation reviews for various programs such as the Mi'kmaw Home Energy Efficiency Project and Business Energy Rebates, aimed at validating savings tracking and consistency.
Net-to-gross Assessment and Net Savings Calculations Free-ridership levels were established for most program components by conducting surveys or in-depth interviews. These surveys and interviews included a set of questions used to establis...
AI summary The document outlines the methodology used to assess free-ridership levels for various program components, including surveys and interviews with participants. It details updates to free-ridership levels for specific programs in the 2021 evaluation and the use of new questionnaires to capture influence factors on building design decisions.
Documentation Review The Evaluator reviewed all relevant evaluation and program component specific documentation such as program manuals, marketing materials, application forms, tracking sheets, and any other information on changes made to...
AI summary The Evaluator reviewed program documentation and conducted staff interviews to assess changes and improvements in program components since the last evaluation.
Data-collection Tool Development and Sampling Strategy As described in Subsection [2.1.2](#page-16-3) above, the Evaluator used an integrated approach to developing datacollection tools that serve all three evaluation types where possible....
AI summary The Evaluator developed integrated data-collection tools to serve all three evaluation types, reducing respondent burden and ensuring integrated evaluation results. Interview guides included questions for process, market, and impact evaluations.
Analysis The results of the process and market evaluation activities were analyzed in relation to the research objectives identified in Section [1.2.](#page-14-0) Results from all evaluation activities were consolidated and triangulated to...
AI summary The analysis consolidates and triangulates results from process and market evaluation activities to ensure findings are based on a preponderance of evidence, aligning with the research objectives outlined in Section 1.2.
Efficient Product Installation - › EPI net electrical energy and peak demand savings fell short of targets. - › Savings per participant continued to decrease, driven by a further decrease in the number of LED lamps installed per household...
AI summary The Efficient Product Installation (EPI) program's net electrical energy and peak demand savings have fallen short of targets. Savings per participant have decreased, partly due to fewer LED lamps being installed per household. Free-ridership levels remain similar to 2019, but spillover has increased. Discrepancies between evaluated savings and initial estimates are minimal.
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.
Custom The key findings of the Custom impact evaluation overall were as follows: - › Custom net electrical energy and peak demand savings fell short of targets in 2021. - › Compared to 2020, Custom participation increased in 2021 due in pa...
AI summary The Custom impact evaluation found that energy and peak demand savings fell short of targets in 2021, though participation increased. Adjustments were made to savings estimates, and free-ridership trends were noted. The Retrofit and New Construction evaluations highlighted successful client-led M&V approaches and design influences, while the OEM Operational Demand Savings Pilot showed positive results but opportunities for improvement in program guidelines and M&V methodologies.
Small Business Energy Solutions - › Net energy savings were within 1% of targets, while peak demand savings fell short of targets. - › Although participation in the Audit path remained low, participation, as well as gross energy and peak d...
AI summary The Small Business Energy Solutions program achieved net energy savings close to targets, but peak demand savings were below expectations. Participation in the Audit path was low, though overall participation and savings improved in 2021. Free-ridership among DIY participants was estimated at 15%, and there was a 7% discrepancy between the Evaluator's net savings and EOne's tracked savings.
through training and tool development, support to code enforcement, and development of marketing tools. The design of market interventions in this sector can therefore be based on proven initiatives. Several jurisdictions were found to be...
AI summary The text discusses the integration of codes and standards (C&S) programs with market transformation (MT) initiatives, highlighting that C&S programs can be a form of MT program. It emphasizes the importance of regulatory and stakeholder support in developing evaluation frameworks for MT programs, which are increasingly seen as a cost-effective method for achieving energy savings.
6.2 Evaluation Approaches for Event-based Demand Response Pilots The 2021-2022 winter peak period is the first time EOne will have a demand response pilot implemented, piloting a domestic hot water demand response pilot as well as a demand...
AI summary EOne is implementing demand response pilots during the 2021-2022 winter peak period, requiring evaluation approaches. Econoler recommends using ex-ante evaluation methods, refined with ex-post analysis, to validate DR capacity available to the grid operator. This ensures demand savings are accurately assessed and aligns with energy efficiency portfolio evaluations.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Overall savings achieved in 2021 were below target levels, with the residential portfolio coming closer to meeting targets than the BNI portfolio. The Evaluator made a cross-cutting recommendation in the 2020...
AI summary Overall savings in 2021 were below target, with residential programs performing better than BNI. EOne adapted to the pandemic by adjusting incentives and marketing, which helped some programs recover pre-pandemic savings. However, some programs still lagged due to shutdowns and slower customer response. Market evolution work highlighted potential supply issues for certain measures.
Table 16: 2021 Recommendations on Business, Non-profit, and Institutional Program Components No. Recommendation OEM – R1 If operational demand programs are offered in the future, leverage pilot findings to deploy improved M&V and savings c...
AI summary The text outlines recommendations for improving measurement and verification (M&V) protocols for operational demand programs, retrofit, and building optimization initiatives. It emphasizes the need for detailed M&V guidance, including methods for measuring demand before and during peak windows, capturing the full effects of load-shifting projects, and ensuring that reductions are well outside the margin of error.
APPENDIX I BIBLIOGRAPHY Program Components Bibliographic References NREL, The Uniform Methods Project: Methods for Determining Energy-Efficiency Savings for Specific Measures, Chapter 11: Sample Design Cross-Cutting Protocol, September 201...
AI summary The document provides a list of bibliographic references cited in a regulatory proceeding, including studies, reports, and guidelines related to energy efficiency, cost of service, and strategic energy management. It includes references from organizations such as NREL, Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board, and Emera Inc.
APPENDIX II CALCULATION OF MARGINS OF ERROR This appendix presents some examples of how the Evaluator established the margins of error for participant surveys, adjustment ratios, installation rates, and free-ridership levels. For participa...
AI summary This appendix provides examples of how margins of error were calculated for various evaluations, including participant surveys, adjustment ratios, installation rates, and free-ridership levels, using data from 2021 evaluations such as the Green Heat and Business Energy Rebates programs.
Calculation of the Weighted Standard Deviation and Margin of Error Since the free-ridership level is based on a weighted average, the Evaluator used the weighted standard deviation of the free-ridership for the calculation instead of the s...
AI summary The text explains the calculation of the weighted standard deviation and margin of error for free-ridership in a regulatory proceeding. The weighted standard deviation formula is provided, and the margin of error is calculated using a t-coefficient from Table 1. Table 2 summarizes the parameters and intermediary results for the DIY path of the 2021 SBES evaluation.
APPENDIX III NTGR CALCULATIONS This appendix provides some examples to illustrate the Evaluator's calculations of free-ridership, participant spillover, and net-to-gross ratio values in the 2021 evaluation. To demonstrate how to apply the...
AI summary This appendix provides examples of the Evaluator's calculations for free-ridership, participant spillover, and net-to-gross ratios in the 2021 evaluation, using lighting measures from the SBES do-it-yourself path as an example. Similar methods were applied to other program components, with more details available in individual evaluation reports.
DEFINITIONS Accuracy Reflects the proximity of measurements to the true value. 1.2 Follow-up on Past Evaluation Report Recommendations 1.3 Participation History 2 _ ET EVALUATION APPROACH 3 ET IMPACT EVALUATION • 3.1 Tracking Sheet Audit 3...
AI summary The document outlines an evaluation approach and impact assessment for energy efficiency programs, focusing on metrics such as accuracy, gross savings, net savings, realization rate, and participant perspectives. It includes sections on follow-up on past recommendations, participation history, and key findings.
Evaluation Approach The evaluation was aimed at calculating program component gross and net results, namely electrical first-year and lifetime energy savings, peak demand savings, as well as avoided greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. [Table](...
AI summary The evaluation approach focuses on calculating program component gross and net results, including electrical first-year and lifetime energy savings, peak demand savings, and avoided greenhouse gas emissions. A table summarizes the evaluation type and methodology for each program component.
Table 1: Summary of 2021 Residential Efficient Product Rebates Program Evaluation Program Evaluation Type Methodology Component Impact Process Market Appliance Retirement Condensed › Tracking sheet audit › Measure Assessment (MA) update ›...
AI summary This section summarizes the evaluation of the 2021 Residential Efficient Product Rebates Program, focusing on two components: Appliance Retirement and Instant Savings. It outlines the evaluation types, methodologies, and key activities such as tracking sheet audits, measure assessments, participant surveys, and GHG emission reduction calculations.
Table 6: Types of Evaluations Conducted for Each Program Component, 2021 Program Program Component 2021 Process Market Impact ARet Condensed Residential Efficient Product Rebates Instant Savings X Comprehensive To carry out this evaluation...
AI summary In 2021, an evaluation was conducted for the Residential Efficient Product Rebates program's Instant Savings component, focusing on market and impact aspects. Econoler led the evaluation, coordinating activities and preparing reports, while Narrative Research conducted interviews and surveys and analyzed data.
1 ARET OVERVIEW This section describes the ARet program component, follows up on past evaluation recommendations, and provides an overview of participation history.
AI summary This section provides an overview of the Appliance Retirement (ARET) program, discusses past evaluation recommendations, and outlines participation history.
3.1 Tracking Sheet Audit To ensure program results are reliably compiled, the Evaluator first performed a tracking sheet audit aimed at verifying the completeness and consistency of the data submitted by EOne. The verification and correcti...
AI summary The Evaluator conducted a tracking sheet audit to ensure the completeness and consistency of data submitted by EOne, resulting in corrected tracked savings results presented in the report.
3.3.1 Free-ridership and Secondary Market Impacts The free-ridership and secondary market impacts account for the fact that some participants would have disposed of their appliances (free-ridership) or would have transferred their old appl...
AI summary This section discusses free-ridership and secondary market impacts in the context of appliance retirement programs. It explains how some participants may have disposed of appliances or transferred them without the program, and how these factors are calculated using data from a 2018 survey and UMP methodology. Dehumidifier retirements are excluded due to limited data.
3.3.2 Participant Spillover For ARet, participant spillover occurs when participants decide to retire or replace other appliances pursuant to participating in the program component and due to its influence. The Evaluator also considered th...
AI summary The text discusses participant spillover in the Appliance Retirement (ARET) program, where participants retired or replaced ineligible appliances due to the program's influence. A 2018 telephone survey found that 2 participants reported retiring additional appliances, resulting in 770 kWh of energy savings, but no spillover from appliance retirement was observed.
6 INSTANT SAVINGS EVALUATION APPROACH The 2021 Instant Savings evaluation includes a market evaluation and a comprehensive impact evaluation. The main objectives of the 2021 Instant Savings evaluation are as follows: - › Collect informatio...
AI summary The 2021 Instant Savings evaluation aims to collect participant and partner perspectives, calculate energy savings and GHG emissions, and analyze the market evolution of LED lamps and fixtures. The evaluation includes both market and impact assessments, with specific research questions and methods outlined in Table 21.
Table 21: 2021 Instant Savings Evaluation Approach Evaluation Objectives Research Questions Methodology Collect information on participant and partner perspectives › What is the awareness level about Instant Savings and how did participant...
AI summary Table 21 outlines the 2021 Instant Savings Evaluation Approach, detailing objectives, research questions, and methodology for evaluating the program. It includes data collection methods such as participant surveys and retailer interviews to assess awareness, satisfaction, and the program's impact on energy savings and market evolution of LED products.
Tracking Sheet Audit Prior to performing the unitary savings review, the Evaluator performed an audit of the final 2021 tracking sheet to ensure it was complete and the entered data was consistent. The detailed protocol used for the tracki...
AI summary An audit of the final 2021 tracking sheet was conducted prior to the unitary savings review to ensure completeness and data consistency. The protocol and results are detailed in Appendix VII.
Note on Margin of Error For evaluation activities that yield quantitative results based on a sample, the Evaluator aimed to achieve a maximum margin of error of 10% at a confidence level of 90%. This means that if measurements were conduct...
AI summary This note explains the margin of error used in the evaluation of quantitative results from sampled data, aiming for a 10% margin of error at a 90% confidence level. It highlights that the margin of error reflects precision, not accuracy, and that it only accounts for random sampling errors, not non-sampling errors.
8.1 Tracking Sheet Audit To ensure program component results are reliably compiled, the Evaluator first performed a tracking sheet audit aimed at verifying the completeness and consistency of the data submitted by EOne. The verification an...
AI summary An audit of the tracking sheets was conducted to ensure the completeness and consistency of data submitted by EOne. The Evaluator took corrective actions where necessary, and the reported savings results reflect these corrections.
8.3.2 Spillover Throughout the year, sales of eligible products may have occurred due to the influence of Instant Savings even if no discount was offered. This influence is due to better knowledge and awareness about energy efficient produ...
AI summary The text discusses the 'spillover' effect of the Instant Savings program on the sales of energy-efficient products, particularly non-A-type LED lamps and LED fixtures. Retailer interviews and sales data were used to estimate the market effects, with spillover levels measured at 9% for non-A-type LED lamps and 32% for LED fixtures in 2021.
[Table](#page-153-2) 38 compares the energy and peak demand savings established through this evaluation to those tracked by EOne. The realization rate representing the ratio of evaluated net savings to tracked net savings, was established...
AI summary Table 38 compares energy and peak demand savings tracked by EOne with those evaluated in the proceeding. The realization rate for both energy and peak demand savings is 104%, indicating that evaluated net savings slightly exceed tracked net savings.
2021 Instant Savings Impact Evaluation Highlights - › Instant Savings achieved 14.314 GWh in net electrical energy savings and 1.629 MW in net peak demand savings at the generator in 2021. - › Free ridership for LED fixtures decreased in 2...
AI summary In 2021, the Instant Savings program achieved 14.314 GWh in net electrical energy savings and 1.629 MW in net peak demand savings. Free ridership for LED fixtures decreased due to increased participant awareness of discounts, while spillover increased due to higher sales outside the rebate period. These factors contributed to a 4% increase in both net energy and peak demand savings compared to tracked values.
Instant Savings Appendix IV IS: Participant Online Survey Questionnaire Appendix V IS: Participant Survey Results Appendix VI IS: Interview Guide with Retailer Partners Appendix VII IS: Tracking Sheet Audit Appendix VIII IS: Unitary Saving...
AI summary The document outlines various appendices related to the Instant Savings program, including survey questionnaires, interview guides, audit tracking sheets, savings calculations, free-ridership algorithms, spillover methodologies, and 2021 recommendations.
After the correct values were established (as per [Table](#page-179-1) 1), the Evaluator validated whether the equations in the tracking sheet correctly calculated each of the main program component results, the results of which are presen...
AI summary The Evaluator validated the equations in the tracking sheet to ensure they correctly calculated the main program component results, as presented in Table 3.
APPENDIX VII IS: TRACKING SHEET AUDIT This appendix presents the results of the tracking sheet audit performed by the Evaluator, which was aimed at: - › Verifying that all data fields required for the evaluation were included and filled ou...
AI summary This appendix outlines the results of a tracking sheet audit conducted by the Evaluator to verify the completeness and accuracy of data submitted by EOne, ensuring consistency in parameters and calculation methods used for program evaluation.
Table 1: Verification of 2021 Instant Savings Data Field Completeness and Accuracy Data Fields Complete (Y/N/Partial) Consistent with Previous Evaluation If Incomplete or Inconsistent, Action Taken by the Evaluator Data for Each Project or...
AI summary This table verifies the completeness and accuracy of 2021 Instant Savings data fields. It notes some data fields as incomplete, such as model numbers and wattage, but no action was needed. Discrepancies were found in unitary savings values for specific measures, but the evaluator used the correct values in calculations.
Table 1: Summary of Existing Residential Program Evaluation Program Evaluation Type Component Impact Process Market Methodology › Tracking sheet audit › Unitary savings review HEA Condensed › Calculations using evaluation results › GHG emi...
AI summary The document presents a summary of the evaluation of existing residential programs, including methods such as participant surveys, tracking sheet audits, on-site visits, and GHG emission reduction calculations. It outlines different evaluation types, such as condensed and comprehensive, and includes specific programs like HEA, Green Heat, Efficient Product Installation, MHEEP, and AMH.
HEA Findings and Recommendations This section presents the key findings and recommendations from the HEA evaluation. 2021 HEA-Finding: HEA net electrical energy and peak demand savings fell short of targets. As outlined in [Figure](#page-7...
AI summary The 2021 HEA evaluation found that net electrical energy and peak demand savings fell short of targets by 37% and 40%, respectively. Savings per home decreased, though the rate of decline slowed. The tracking sheet has become more complex, increasing the risk of calculation errors. A recommendation is made to update and simplify the tracking sheet for the next evaluation.
Table 3: Comparison of 2021 HEA Tracked and Evaluated Savings at the Generator Gross Savings NTGR Net Savings Realization Rate Value Unit Value Value Unit Value Energy Savings Tracked Savings by EOne 3.618 GWh 0.96 3.481 GWh Evaluation Res...
AI summary Table 3 compares 2021 Home Energy Assessment (HEA) tracked and evaluated savings, including energy and peak demand savings. It highlights gross savings, net savings, and realization rates, with NTGR values calculated as the ratio of net to gross savings. The table also notes the inclusion of unconverted D assessment spillover savings and deductions from Green Heat and EPI savings.
EPI Findings and Recommendations This section presents the key findings from the EPI evaluation. The Evaluator has no specific recommendation for EPI. Deferred recommendations from the previous year are summarized in Appendix XVI. 2021 EPI...
AI summary The EPI evaluation found that net electrical energy and peak demand savings fell short of targets by 27% and 47% respectively in 2021. Savings per participant decreased due to fewer LED lamps installed per household. Free-ridership levels remained stable, and overall participant satisfaction was high. Evaluator and EOne tracked results showed minimal differences due to adjustments in NTGR and installation rates.
Table 7: Comparison of 2021 MHEEP Tracked and Evaluated Savings at the Generator Gross Savings Net Savings Realization Value Unit NTGR Value Unit Rate Energy Savings Tracked Savings by EOne 0.316 GWh 1.00 0.316 GWh Evaluation Results 0.316...
AI summary Table 7 compares the 2021 MHEEP tracked and evaluated savings at the generator level, showing 100% realization for both energy and peak demand savings. The AMH Findings and Recommendations section follows, likely addressing outcomes and next steps based on these results.
This section presents the key findings from the AMH evaluation. 2021 AMH-Finding: AMH net electrical energy and peak demand savings fell short of targets. As outlined in [Figure](#page-83-0) 9, AMH net electrical energy and peak demand sav...
AI summary The 2021 AMH evaluation found that net electrical energy and peak demand savings fell short of targets by 74% and 55%, respectively. Despite increased participation, energy savings per project decreased in 2021. The Evaluator made downward adjustments to energy savings and upward adjustments to peak demand savings, with the largest adjustments to prescriptive projects. Participant satisfaction remained high.
g: The evaluated net energy savings determined by the Evaluator were lower than the savings tracked by EOne, while the evaluated net peak demand savings were higher than the savings tracked by EOne. [Table](#page-84-0) 8 compares the track...
AI summary The evaluated net energy savings were lower than the tracked savings by EOne, while evaluated net peak demand savings were higher. Differences are attributed to adjustments made by the Evaluator following project reviews, as shown in Table 8.
INTRODUCTION EfficiencyOne (EOne), an independent, non-profit organization, is responsible for helping Nova Scotians improve the energy efficiency of their homes and workplaces by designing, marketing, and delivering energy efficiency and...
AI summary EfficiencyOne (EOne), a non-profit organization, delivers energy efficiency programs in Nova Scotia, funded by Nova Scotia Power (NS Power) ratepayers. EOne's 2021 DSM program portfolio includes residential programs evaluated by Econoler, focusing on impact evaluation components such as baseline definitions, savings calculation methodologies, and net-to-gross ratios.
Table 9: Types of Evaluations Conducted for Each Program Component, 2021 Program Program Component 2021 Process Market Impact HEA Condensed Green Heat X Condensed Existing Residential EPI Comprehensive MHEEP Condensed AMH Comprehensive \ S...
AI summary Table 9 outlines the types of evaluations conducted for each program component in 2021, including process, market, and impact evaluations, with specific details for programs like HEA, Green Heat, EPI, MHEEP, and AMH.
1 HEA OVERVIEW This section describes Home Energy Assessment (HEA), follows up on past evaluation recommendations, and provides an overview of participation history.
AI summary This section provides an overview of the Home Energy Assessment (HEA), follows up on past evaluation recommendations, and outlines participation history.
1.2 Follow-up on Past Evaluation Report Recommendations The Evaluator evaluated HEA in previous years and issued improvement recommendations. [Table](#page-89-0) 10 below provides a summary of the implementation status of each recommendati...
AI summary The Evaluator reviewed past recommendations from the 2020 Evaluation Report, noting that one of six recommendations has been partially implemented, with most planned for implementation in 2022. A table summarizes the status of these recommendations.
Reporting Requirements HEA incentives originate from two sources of funding and are thus reported to two different parties via the 2021 DSM evaluation and the 2021/22 PNS evaluation reports. The DSM evaluation is focused on reporting elect...
AI summary HEA incentives are funded from two sources and reported in two evaluations: the 2021 DSM evaluation and the 2021/22 PNS evaluation. Equations were developed to avoid double counting and better reflect energy savings from fuel switching and the distribution of savings between DSM and PNS programs. The 2019 formulas were updated and remained valid for the 2021 evaluation.
For HEA, participant spillover occurs when participants implement additional energy efficiency measures recommended in their initial energy assessments after their participation in the program component, i.e. after having completed the fin...
AI summary The document discusses participant spillover in the Home Energy Assessment (HEA) program, where participants implement additional energy efficiency measures after completing their initial assessments without further program support. The 2020 spillover level was used in the evaluation as no data collection was conducted in 2021.
Table 21: 2021 HEA NTGR Free-ridership Participant Spillover NTGR 26% 1% 0.75 3.3.4 Unconverted Assessment Spillover
AI summary Table 21 presents the 2021 HEA NTGR with values for free-ridership, participant spillover, and NTGR. Section 3.3.4 discusses unconverted assessment spillover, indicating the impact of unconverted assessments on program effectiveness.
2021 HEA-Finding: The HEA tracking sheet is becoming more prone to calculation errors and other mistakes. The number of HEA tracking sheet fields has expanded a lot over the last few years with such additions as a new demand savings calcul...
AI summary The HEA tracking sheet has become more error-prone due to increased complexity, including a new demand savings calculation approach. It will further change in 2022 with the integration of the federal Greener Homes program. A recommendation is made to simplify and reorganize the tracking sheet to reduce calculation errors.
Table 28: 2021 Green Heat Evaluation Approach Evaluation Objectives Research Questions Methodology Collect information on participant perspectives › How did participants become aware of Green Heat? › Why did participants want to participat...
AI summary This table outlines the 2021 Green Heat Evaluation Approach, which includes collecting participant perspectives, calculating gross and net results, and analyzing the market evolution of MSHPs. The evaluation uses surveys, tracking sheet audits, and interviews to assess program effectiveness and energy savings.
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 46: 2021 EPI Evaluation Approach Evaluation Objectives Research Questions Methodology Collect information on participant perspectives › How did participants become aware of EPI? › Why did participants want to participate in EPI? › Wh...
AI summary Table 46 outlines the 2021 EPI Evaluation Approach, detailing objectives, research questions, and methodologies for evaluating the Efficient Product Installation program. It includes participant surveys, tracking sheet audits, on-site visits, and calculations for gross and net results, including free-ridership and spillover levels.
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.
[Table](#page-199-2) 60 compares the energy and peak demand savings established through this evaluation to those tracked in the 2021 tracking sheet. The realization rate, representing the ratio of evaluated net savings to tracked net savin...
AI summary Table 60 compares energy and peak demand savings from this evaluation to those in the 2021 tracking sheet, showing a realization rate of 103% for both energy and peak demand savings.
2021 EPI-Finding: Free-ridership levels for EPI remains similar to the previous levels established in 2019, while spillover increased. The NTGR was evaluated at 0.96 in 2021 compared to 0.91 in 2020. The Evaluator established freeridership...
AI summary In 2021, free-ridership levels for the Efficient Product Installation (EPI) program remained largely stable compared to 2019, while spillover increased significantly. The Net-to-Gross Ratio (NTGR) rose to 0.96 in 2021, and spillover increased from 3% in 2019 to 10% in 2021, likely due to lower savings per participant.
Calculations Using Evaluation Results Building on all the above methods and collected data, the Evaluator calculated the first-year and lifetime energy and peak demand savings as per the calculation methodology presented in Section [23](#p...
AI summary The Evaluator calculated first-year and lifetime energy and peak demand savings using the methodology described in Section 23, based on collected data and various methods.
23.1 Tracking Sheet Audit To ensure program component results were reliably compiled, the Evaluator first performed a tracking sheet audit aimed at verifying the completeness and consistency of the data submitted by EOne. The verification...
AI summary The Evaluator conducted a tracking sheet audit to verify the completeness and consistency of data submitted by EOne, ensuring reliable compilation of program component results. Corrective actions are detailed in Appendix XIX, and the report refers to corrected tracked savings.
[Table](#page-26-1) 73 below compares the energy and peak demand savings established through this evaluation to those calculated in the 2021 tracking sheet. The realization rate, representing the ratio of evaluated net savings to tracked n...
AI summary The table compares energy and peak demand savings from the current evaluation to those from the 2021 tracking sheet, noting a 77% realization rate for energy savings and a 121% realization rate for peak demand savings.
24 AMH KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS As mentioned previously, the main objectives of the 2021 AMH evaluation were as follows: - › Collect information on AMH participant perspectives - › Calculate gross and net AMH results, namely electr...
AI summary The 2021 AMH evaluation found that net electrical energy and peak demand savings fell short of targets, with energy savings decreasing by 41% compared to 2020. Despite this, participation increased, driven by prescriptive projects. Adjustments to savings calculations were made, leading to discrepancies between Evaluator and EOne tracked savings. Participant satisfaction with AMH remained extremely high.
APPENDIX I HEA: TRACKING SHEET AUDIT This appendix presents the results of the tracking sheet audit performed by the Evaluator, which was aimed at: - › Verifying that all data fields required for the evaluation were included and filled out...
AI summary This appendix outlines the results of a tracking sheet audit conducted by the Evaluator to ensure the completeness and accuracy of data submitted by EOne, including verification of parameters and calculation consistency.
Table 1: Verification of 2021 HEA Data Field Completeness and Accuracy Data Fields Complete (Y/N/Partial) Consistent with Previous Evaluations If Incomplete or Inconsistent, Action Taken by the Evaluator Data for Each Project or Participan...
AI summary This table verifies the completeness and accuracy of 2021 HEA data fields. Most data fields are marked as complete, but Green Heat and EPI energy savings deductions are partially consistent with previous evaluations. The Evaluator adjusted savings for some participants based on past tracking sheets.
APPENDIX III HEA: 2021 RECOMMENDATIONS This appendix summarizes all the recommendations made by the Evaluator as part of the 2021 HEA evaluation as well as all past evaluation recommendations that were not fully implemented or deferred. Se...
AI summary This appendix outlines the 2021 HEA evaluation recommendations, including updates to tracking sheets, improvements to data calculations, and strategies for contractor engagement. It also highlights deferred or partially implemented recommendations from previous years, such as revising spillover calculations and improving participant understanding of incentives.
Table 5: Overview of Data Collection Activity Descriptor This Instrument Instrument Type Participant Survey Estimated Time to Complete 15 minutes Target Audience Participants who purchased a solar systems or home heating equipment Expected...
AI summary Table 5 outlines a participant survey aimed at collecting data from individuals who purchased solar systems or home heating equipment. The survey is expected to be completed by 140 participants and will be fielded by Narrative Research between October and November. Table 6 lists the research objectives, including verification, awareness, free-ridership, cross-influence, satisfaction, barriers, and recommendations for program improvements.
Table 1: Verification of 2021 Green Heat Data Field Completeness and Accuracy Data Fields Complete (Y/N/Partial) Consistent with Previous Evaluation If Incomplete or Inconsistent, Action Taken by the Evaluator Heating Seasonal Performance...
AI summary Table 1 verifies the completeness and accuracy of 2021 Green Heat data fields. The Evaluator adjusted or corrected several fields, including HSPF, heating capacity, and COP at -15ºC, based on information from specification sheets and the NEEP list. Some data fields were incomplete or inconsistent, requiring corrective actions.
Table 1: Verification of 2021 EPI Data Field Completeness and Accuracy Data Fields Complete (Y/N/Partial) Consistent with Previous Evaluation If Incomplete or Inconsistent, Action Taken by the Evaluator Net-to-gross Ratios (Column BC; Refe...
AI summary This table verifies the completeness and accuracy of 2021 EPI data fields, highlighting inconsistencies in net-to-gross ratios and effective useful life values compared to the 2020 evaluation. EOne used slightly different values for lighting measures and low-flow showerheads, as well as for several LED replacement measures.
APPENDIX XV EPI: ALGORITHM FOR PARTICIPANT SPILLOVER CALCULATION Participant spillover was measured using a participant survey. Participants were asked, pursuant to participating in EPI, whether they implemented any additional energy effic...
AI summary This appendix outlines the algorithm used to calculate participant spillover in the EPI program. It involves surveying participants to determine if they implemented additional energy efficiency measures outside of rebates, and quantifying the influence of the program on these decisions. The spillover level is calculated by dividing additional savings attributable to the program by total program savings.
APPENDIX XVII MHEEP: TRACKING SHEET AUDIT This appendix presents the results of the tracking sheet audit performed by the Evaluator, which was aimed at: - › Verifying that all data fields required for the evaluation were included and fille...
AI summary This appendix outlines the results of a tracking sheet audit conducted by the Evaluator to ensure that EOne's submitted tracking sheet contained complete and accurate data, including consistent parameters and calculation steps for evaluating program results.
APPENDIX XIX AMH: TRACKING SHEET AUDIT This appendix presents the results of the tracking sheet audit performed by the Evaluator, which was aimed at: - › Verifying that all data fields required for the evaluation were included and filled o...
AI summary This appendix outlines the tracking sheet audit conducted by the Evaluator to verify that EOne's submitted tracking sheet included all required data fields and that the tracked results were accurate, ensuring consistency in calculation steps and parameters used for program evaluation.
Table 1: Summary of 2021 New Residential Program Evaluation Program Evaluation Type Component Impact Process Market Methodology NHC Condensed - - › Tracking sheet audit › Use of the net-to-gross ratio (NTGR) results from 2020 › Calculation...
AI summary This section presents a summary of the 2021 New Residential Program Evaluation, focusing on the New Home Construction (NHC) component. It outlines the evaluation methodology, including tracking sheet audits, the use of net-to-gross ratio (NTGR) results from 2020, and calculations related to GHG emission reductions.
Table 6: Implementation Status of Past Recommendations for NHC # Recommendations for NHC Status Comments 2018 NHC-R4 Conduct a billing analysis to review overestimation ratios (Ors) when a sufficient NHC participant sample becomes availabl...
AI summary Table 6 outlines the implementation status of past recommendations for New Home Construction (NHC). Three recommendations from 2018 and 2020 have been deferred. The 2018 recommendation regarding billing analysis was postponed due to changes in the evaluation scope. The 2020 recommendations regarding increasing measure uptake and reviewing data-collection strategies were deferred due to changes in evaluation methods and will be addressed in future years.
3.1 Tracking Sheet Audit To ensure program component results were reliably compiled, the Evaluator first performed a tracking sheet audit aimed at verifying the completeness and consistency of the data submitted by EOne. The verification a...
AI summary The Evaluator conducted a tracking sheet audit to ensure the reliability of program component results compiled by EOne, verifying data completeness and consistency. Corrective actions, where applicable, are detailed in Appendix I, leading to corrected tracked savings results presented in the report.
A comparison of the energy and peak demand savings values established through the 2021 evaluation to those tracked by EOne is presented in [Table](#page-2-1) 16. The realization rate, representing the ratio of evaluated net savings to trac...
AI summary The 2021 evaluation of energy and peak demand savings shows a realization rate of 103% for both metrics, indicating that the evaluated net savings slightly exceeded the tracked net savings as reported by EOne.
APPENDIX I TRACKING SHEET AUDIT This appendix presents the results of the tracking sheet audit performed by the Evaluator, which was aimed at: - › Verifying that all data fields required for the evaluation were included and filled out in t...
AI summary This appendix outlines the tracking sheet audit conducted by the Evaluator to verify the completeness and accuracy of data submitted by EfficiencyOne (EOne), focusing on consistency of parameters used to calculate program results and ensuring accurate calculation steps.
Evaluation Approach The evaluation was aimed at calculating program component gross and net results, namely electrical first-year and lifetime energy savings, peak demand savings, as well as avoided greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. [Table](...
AI summary The evaluation approach focuses on calculating program component gross and net results, including electrical first-year and lifetime energy savings, peak demand savings, and avoided greenhouse gas emissions. A table summarizes the type of evaluation and methodology used for each program component.
BER Findings and Recommendations This subsection presents the key findings and recommendations from the BER evaluation. 2021 BER-Finding: BER net electrical energy and peak demand savings fell short of targets. As outlined in Figure 1, BER...
AI summary The 2021 BER evaluation found that net electrical energy and peak demand savings fell short of targets by 6% and 25%, respectively. Participation in Mail-in and Instant Rebates increased, and overall satisfaction with BER was high. However, inaccuracies in reported parameters such as hours of use and peak coincidence factors were identified, leading to downward adjustments in savings. The Evaluator recommended changes to the lighting measure worksheet to improve accuracy.
INTRODUCTION EfficiencyOne (EOne), an independent, non-profit organization, is responsible for helping Nova Scotians improve the energy efficiency of their homes and workplaces by designing, marketing, and delivering energy efficiency and...
AI summary EfficiencyOne (EOne) is an independent non-profit organization that delivers energy efficiency programs in Nova Scotia, funded by Nova Scotia Power (NS Power) ratepayers. EOne's 2021 DSM program portfolio includes the Efficient Product Rebates program, specifically the Business Energy Rebates (BER) component, which was evaluated by Econoler. The evaluation focused on baseline definitions, savings calculation methodologies, parameter values, and net-to-gross ratios.
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.
Table 8: 2021 BER Evaluation Approach Evaluation Objectives Research Questions Methodology Collect information on participant and partner perspectives › How do participants become aware of BER Instant Rebates? › How do participants become...
AI summary Table 8 outlines the 2021 BER Evaluation Approach, including objectives such as collecting participant perspectives, calculating gross and net results, and analyzing the market evolution of LED lamps. The methodology involves surveys, interviews, site visits, and calculations to assess program effectiveness and energy savings.
Mail-in Participants There was a high level of satisfaction with Mail-in, with an average rating of 9.1 on a 10-point scale (where 1 indicates "Not at all satisfied" and 10 indicates "Completely satisfied"). As illustrated in [Figure](#pag...
AI summary The Mail-in program received high satisfaction ratings, with an average of 9.1 on a 10-point scale. Respondents praised interactions with ENS staff and the application process but noted issues with product rebates, website navigation, and rebate amounts. Suggestions for improvement included better marketing, expanding rebates, and increasing information availability.
3.3 Distributor Satisfaction with Instant Rebates Distributors were asked to express their level of satisfaction with various aspects of Instant Rebates using a 10-point scale where 1 means "Not at all satisfied", and 10 means "Very satisf...
AI summary Distributors expressed generally high satisfaction with Instant Rebates, though some noted challenges with administrative costs and customer information collection. Service support and communication from ENS were well-received, though one distributor raised concerns about unfair competition from other ENS programs. Rebate processing and reporting received high ratings, though one distributor cited time constraints as a challenge.
4 IMPACT EVALUATION FOR MAIL-IN The objective of the 2021 Mail-in impact evaluation was to determine gross and net electrical energy and peak demand savings.
AI summary The 2021 Mail-in impact evaluation aimed to assess gross and net electrical energy and peak demand savings.
4.1 Tracking Sheet Audit To ensure program component results were reliably compiled, the Evaluator first performed a tracking sheet audit aimed at verifying the completeness and consistency of the data submitted by EOne. The verification a...
AI summary A tracking sheet audit was conducted to ensure the reliability of program component results compiled by EOne. The Evaluator verified data completeness and consistency and applied corrective actions, resulting in corrected tracked savings results presented in the report.
4.2 Gross Savings Gross savings refer to changes in energy consumption resulting from actions taken by participants regardless of their reasons for participating. 7 For each Mail-in project, EOne tracks annual gross savings using the equat...
AI summary Gross savings are changes in energy consumption from participant actions. EOne uses the CIRx Screening Tool to track annual gross savings for Mail-in projects, except for the 2021 horticultural lighting measure, which used EOne-proposed assumptions. The Evaluator recommends reviewing and updating the tool for future evaluations.
5.1 Tracking Sheet Audit To ensure program service results were reliably compiled, the Evaluator first performed a tracking sheet audit aimed at verifying the completeness and consistency of the data submitted by EOne. The verification and...
AI summary The Evaluator conducted a tracking sheet audit to ensure the completeness and consistency of data submitted by EOne, leading to corrected tracked savings results presented in the report.
8 BER KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The main objectives of the 2021 BER evaluation were as follows: - › Collect information on BER participant and partner perspectives - › Calculate gross and net BER results (for both Mail-in and Instan...
AI summary The 2021 BER evaluation found that net electrical energy and peak demand savings fell short of targets. Participation in both Mail-in and Instant Rebates increased, leading to higher gross energy and peak demand savings. Overall satisfaction with BER among participants and distributors was high.
Table 1: Overview of Data Collection Activity Descriptor This Instrument Instrument Type Participant Survey Estimated Time to Complete 15 minutes Target Audience Participants who received a mail-in rebate Expected Number of Completions 70...
AI summary This document outlines the data collection activity for a participant survey targeting individuals who received a mail-in rebate. The survey aims to assess awareness, satisfaction, and potential improvements for the BER Mail-in program, with research questions divided into sections and a timeline of October to November.
- 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.
D2. Your company's previous participation in an Efficiency Nova Scotia program was a major factor in the decision to implement energy-efficient [MEASURE CATEGORY] measures.\ Previous Participation in Another ENS Program Component Was a Maj...
AI summary The text discusses how participation in Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS) programs influenced companies' decisions to implement energy-efficient measures, examine energy options, and assess cost-effectiveness. Survey data from 2017 to 2021 shows high agreement rates among respondents regarding these impacts.
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.
- b. If less than 8, please explain the reason(s) for your score. Aspects of the program Score Reason 1. The overall program 2. The program support and communications provided by ENS 3. The rebate processing, tracking and reporting What, i...
AI summary The text presents a table with aspects of a program and asks for scoring and feedback on its success and challenges. It includes open-ended questions for respondents to provide their insights.
Table 1: Verification of 2021 Mail-in Data Field Completeness and Accuracy Data Fields Complete (Y/N/ Partial) Consistent with Previous Evaluation If Incomplete or Inconsistent, Action Taken by the Evaluator Data for Each Project or Partic...
AI summary The document verifies the completeness and accuracy of 2021 mail-in data fields, identifying partial completeness in some fields and actions taken to correct inconsistencies, such as recalculating peak demand savings and adjusting line loss factors and effective useful life values.
Table 2: Verification of 2021 Mail-in Data Field Consistency Data Field 1 Data Field 2 Consistent (Y/N) If Not, Action Taken by the Evaluator Calculated Line Loss Factor (Gross Energy Savings at the Generator / Gross Energy Savings at the...
AI summary This table verifies the consistency of data fields in the 2021 mail-in data, confirming that key metrics such as line loss factor, energy savings, and project duplication are consistent across different levels of measurement.
Equations and Compilation Once the correct values were established (as per Table 1), the Evaluator validated that the equations in the tracking sheet correctly calculated each of the main program component results as presented in Table 3.
AI summary The Evaluator confirmed that the equations in the tracking sheet accurately calculated the main program component results after the correct values were established, as outlined in Table 1 and Table 3.
APPENDIX X BER: MAIL-IN ALGORITHM FOR PARTICIPANT SPILLOVER CALCULATION The Mail-in participant spillover level was measured using a participant survey conducted during on-site visits. Participants were asked, pursuant to participating in...
AI summary This appendix describes the methodology used to calculate the Mail-in participant spillover level for the Business Energy Rebates (BER) program. It involves surveying participants to determine if they implemented additional energy efficiency measures outside of the program and quantifying the program's influence on these actions.
APPENDIX XI BER: INSTANT REBATES TRACKING SHEET AUDIT This appendix presents the results of the tracking sheet audit performed by the Evaluator, which was aimed at: - › Verifying that all data fields required for the evaluation were includ...
AI summary This appendix outlines the audit of the Instant Rebates tracking sheets conducted by the Evaluator. The audit aimed to verify the completeness and accuracy of data fields and calculation methods used in the Lighting and Pumping tracking sheets submitted by EOne.
APPENDIX XII BER: INSTANT REBATES ALGORITHM FOR FREE-RIDERSHIP CALCULATION The figure below presents the algorithms for calculating the free-ridership level for Instant Rebates measures. The algorithm is based on participant survey questio...
AI summary This appendix outlines the algorithm used to calculate free-ridership levels for Instant Rebates measures. The algorithm relies on survey data from participants and interviews with distributors to assess various factors, which are then used to determine program attribution and free-ridership levels.
Evaluation Approach The evaluation was aimed at calculating program component gross and net results, namely electrical first-year- and lifetime energy savings, peak demand savings, as well as avoided greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. For Cus...
AI summary The evaluation approach focuses on calculating program component gross and net results, including energy savings, peak demand savings, and avoided GHG emissions. It also assesses process questions for Custom New Construction. A table summarizes the evaluation types and methodologies.
Table 1: Summary of Custom Incentives Program Evaluation Program Evaluation Type Component Impact Process Market Methodology Custom Comprehensive X - NC › Participant phone interviews (New Construction) or participant follow-up interview d...
AI summary The document presents a summary of the Custom Incentives Program Evaluation, including the evaluation type, impact, process, market, and methodology for various programs. It outlines methods such as participant interviews, desk reviews, tracking sheet audits, and GHG emission reduction calculations.
2021 Custom-Finding: Participant satisfaction with Custom continues to be very high across the three services. Participant satisfaction was also high with the OEM Operational Demand Savings Pilot. 2021 Custom-Finding: Following the project...
AI summary Participant satisfaction with Custom services remains high, particularly with the OEM Operational Demand Savings Pilot. The Evaluator adjusted energy and peak demand savings for several programs due to M&V methodology errors, missing data, and documentation issues, though New Construction project files were well-documented.
OEM Operational Demand Savings Pilot Key Findings and Recommendations 2021 OEM Operational Demand Savings Pilot Finding: The incentive had the desired effect of prompting participants to look for rapid and low-cost measures to reduce their...
AI summary The 2021 OEM Operational Demand Savings Pilot found that incentives successfully encouraged participants to reduce energy demand during peak periods. However, improvements in M&V methodologies and savings calculation protocols are recommended for future operational demand programs. Guidance on M&V requirements and load shifting projects is also suggested to ensure accurate demand reductions.
Retrofit Key Findings and Recommendations 2021 Retrofit-Finding: The pay-for-performance projects reviewed by the Evaluator included an excellent client-led M&V approach that required almost no adjustments, had a free-ridership level of ze...
AI summary The 2021 Retrofit evaluation found that a structured pay-for-performance approach in Retrofit, Building Optimization, and Operational Demand Savings programs led to minimal adjustments, zero free-ridership, and high customer satisfaction. It also noted that solar PV and compressed air leak repair projects used a quasi-prescriptive M&V approach, which is suitable for these project types but requires clear distinctions from traditional custom projects to avoid confusion and ensure accurate evaluation.
New Construction Key Findings and Recommendations 2021 New Construction-Finding: EOne succeeds in influencing New Construction building design through the many influence factors, and influence on design occurs by the end of the design phas...
AI summary EOne effectively influences new construction building design through various factors, including energy models, incentives, and technical assistance. The evaluation confirmed these influences and led to the development of a new phone interview questionnaire to assess free-ridership. The timing of free-ridership assessment should be adjusted to align with major design decisions made by the end of the design phase.
2021 New Construction Recommendation 1: Interview participants shortly after having signed the CPA. - › To do so, EOne could identify participants who have signed a CPA at the end of every quarter and ask a third party to interview them. T...
AI summary EOne is recommended to interview participants shortly after signing the CPA, using a third party to ensure confidentiality. If initial contact attempts fail, a web survey or free-ridership questionnaire should be used. A second contact should be provided for better reach.
EMIS Findings and Recommendations This subsection presents the key findings and recommendations resulting from the EMIS evaluation. 2021 EMIS-Finding: EMIS net energy savings did not reach target levels due to low participation. As outline...
AI summary The 2021 EMIS evaluation found that net energy savings were far below targets, with only 9% of electrical energy savings achieved and minimal peak demand savings. Participation was extremely low, with only one participant. The evaluation confirmed that free-ridership and spillover levels remained nil, maintaining a NTGR of 1.
1 CUSTOM OVERVIEW This section describes the Custom component of the Custom Incentives program, follows up on past evaluation recommendations, and provides an overview of participation history.
AI summary This section provides an overview of the Custom Incentives program, outlines the Custom component, addresses past evaluation recommendations, and discusses participation history.
m projects over multiple years since certain phases or measures can be fully operational before the entire project is completed. The four types of projects for which savings were tracked in 2021 were: - › Projects not completed in 2021. Fo...
AI summary The document outlines four types of energy efficiency projects tracked in 2021, including partially completed projects, completed projects, multiyear projects, and Pay-for-Performance (P4P) projects. Each type has specific rules for claiming savings and applying adjustment and net-to-gross ratios.
2 CUSTOM EVALUATION APPROACH The 2021 Custom evaluation comprises a comprehensive impact evaluation for Retrofit, Building Optimization, and New Construction and a process evaluation for New Construction. The main objectives of the 2021 Cu...
AI summary The 2021 Custom evaluation focuses on assessing the impact and process of Retrofit, Building Optimization, and New Construction programs. Key objectives include gathering participant perspectives, understanding decision-making processes, collecting free-ridership data, and calculating energy savings and GHG emissions.
Table 9: 2021 Custom Evaluation Approach Evaluation Objectives Research Questions Methodology Collect information on participant perspectives › How satisfied are participants with Custom? › What challenges or barriers, if any, have partici...
AI summary The text outlines a 2021 Custom Evaluation Approach focused on collecting participant perspectives and evaluating the OEM Operational Demand Savings Pilot. It includes research questions about participant satisfaction, challenges, and impacts on operations, as well as methodologies such as phone interviews with participants and EOne staff.
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.
Project File Reviews and Participant Follow-up Phone Interviews In the fall of 2021 and January 2022, Econoler and its subcontractor CDM Energy Solutions carried out a full technical review of project documentation for 26 Retrofit projects...
AI summary In 2021 and early 2022, Econoler and CDM Energy Solutions reviewed 26 Retrofit and 6 Building Optimization projects, conducting follow-up interviews with participants and OEMs to finalize reviews and gather data on free-ridership, spillover, and project performance. Protocols from Appendices V to VIII were used for these evaluations.
Note on Margin of Error For evaluation activities that yield quantitative results based on a sample, the Evaluator aimed to achieve a maximum margin of error of 10% at a confidence level of 90%. This means that if measurements were conduct...
AI summary The document discusses the margin of error used in quantitative evaluations based on sampling, aiming for a 10% margin of error at a 90% confidence level. It explains that this margin of error reflects the precision of measurements and does not account for non-sampling errors. Margins of error were calculated for Retrofit and New Construction but not for Building Optimization, as all projects were reviewed in 2021.
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.
Overall, the gross evaluated peak demand savings were 0.465 MW, or 90% of tracked savings. Gross energy savings were evaluated at 0.634 GWh, or 99% of tracked savings, and the service effective useful life (EUL) was adjusted upward to 6.3...
AI summary The evaluation of energy and peak demand savings showed 90% and 99% of tracked savings, respectively. Adjustments were made to the service effective useful life. Participant 2 had savings recalculated due to the impact of the pandemic, while Participants 1 and 3 had appropriate savings calculation methodologies.
6 RETROFIT IMPACT EVALUATION The objective of the 2021 Retrofit impact evaluation was to determine gross and net electrical energy and peak demand savings, annually avoided GHG emissions, as well as EUL and associated lifetime energy savin...
AI summary The 2021 Retrofit impact evaluation assessed energy and peak demand savings, GHG emissions reduction, and lifetime energy savings. It categorized projects into partial savings, final savings of 2021 projects, multiyear projects, and unsubstantiated closures. Table 16 summarizes the distribution of these projects.
6.2.1 Sampling Methodology The Evaluator selected a sample of 26 projects from a total of 72 projects completed in 2021 (only completed projects are considered for sampling). The overall sample of 26 projects represented 53% of total track...
AI summary The Evaluator sampled 26 completed energy efficiency projects from 72 total in 2021, representing 53% of tracked energy savings. A stratified sampling approach was used, with a focus on the Pay-for-Performance (P4P) stratum. The sample included a mix of project types, and the Evaluator noted that a more complete sample would yield more representative results due to the influence of larger projects.
industry best practices - › Projects for which demand savings were not adequately considered and developed - › Projects for which there were keying and typographical errors relating to process quality The Evaluator notes that a relatively...
AI summary The evaluation found that a significant percentage of sampled files required adjustments, particularly in areas like M&V and demand savings. In 2021, 46% of sampled files needed adjustments, which is consistent with past years except for 2019, where the percentage was notably higher at 83%.
6.3 Net Savings The Evaluator determined net energy and peak demand savings, i.e. the electrical energy and peak demand savings that can be reliably attributed to a service, by estimating a net-to-gross ratio (NTGR). More precisely, the NT...
AI summary The Evaluator calculated net energy and peak demand savings by estimating a net-to-gross ratio (NTGR), which accounts for factors like free-ridership and spillover effects. These factors influence the energy savings attributed to a service, particularly for Retrofit programs.
or of 10.6% for 2021. This result represents the latest data point in what appears to be a continuing trend of small incremental increases in free-ridership since the inception of the service in 2014. While the overall free-ridership level...
AI summary The free-ridership rate for 2021 was 10.6%, showing a small upward trend since 2014. While overall levels are reasonable, the Evaluator suggests that the influence section of the algorithm may be reducing free-ridership. For P4P projects, free-ridership was 0%. The Evaluator attempted a multisource approach for collecting decision-maker views but faced challenges in 2021.
6.3.2 Participant Spillover For Retrofit, participant spillover occurs when participants implement eligible energy efficiency measures due to influence from previously participating in the service without receiving any kind of additional s...
AI summary The document discusses participant spillover in energy efficiency programs, specifically in Retrofit and Pay-for-Performance. It found negligible spillover effects from Retrofit participants and no spillover from Pay-for-Performance participants. The Evaluator used phone interviews and an algorithm to estimate spillover levels.
2021 Retrofit Impact Evaluation Highlights - › Retrofit gross energy savings at the generator were established at 14.570 GWh and total gross peak demand savings were established at 3.007 MW at the generator. - › Retrofit gross lifetime ene...
AI summary The 2021 Retrofit Impact Evaluation highlights significant energy and peak demand savings from the retrofit program, including 14.570 GWh in gross energy savings, 12.821 GWh in net energy savings, and 7,489 tonnes of annually avoided CO2 eq. The evaluation also reports a 16% free-ridership level and a realization rate of 107% for energy savings.
7 NEW CONSTRUCTION PROCESS EVALUATION This section provides a summary of the key findings from the New Construction process evaluation. The Evaluator collects information on the New Construction participant decision-making process only onc...
AI summary This section summarizes the evaluation of the New Construction process, highlighting that information on participant decision-making is collected post-project completion, which may be years after decisions were made. The Evaluator explored ways to collect this information closer to the time decisions are made.
Timing The Evaluator asked surveyed New Construction staff, BDMs, and the modelling consultant about the most appropriate time to interview participants about their decision-making process. All parties agreed that interviewing participants...
AI summary The Evaluator recommends interviewing participants about their decision-making process after they sign the CPA, as this is when key energy use decisions are made. Free-ridership assessments should be conducted soon after project completion, but the Evaluator suggests doing so at the CPA signing stage for practicality. In some cases, the CPA is signed later, but interviews should still occur after the CPA is signed.
Frequency Jurisdictions that adopt a rapid feedback approach generally survey participants between one and three months following project completion. The Evaluator therefore suggested that EOne identify, at the end of every quarter, partic...
AI summary The Evaluator recommended that EOne identify participants who signed a CPA and interview them quarterly to gather feedback, following a rapid feedback approach used in other jurisdictions.
Risks and Mitigation Strategies The Evaluator identified the following risks with the proposed approach and mitigation strategies: - › Risk: Participants could be worried that their answers affect the implementation incentive amount obtain...
AI summary The Evaluator identified risks related to participant honesty, capturing free-ridership, and the effectiveness of early free-ridership assessment. Mitigation strategies include third-party interviews, algorithm adjustments, and testing the approach with a small group of participants.
7.3 Key Findings and Recommended Approach for Future Data Collection The Evaluator tested the new approach during the fall of 2021 with five projects in which participants had recently signed the CPA. The Evaluator had planned to interview...
AI summary The Evaluator tested a new data collection approach for the Custom Project Agreement (CPA) in 2021 with five projects. The new methodology and data-collection instruments were found to be effective, though reaching builders for interviews proved challenging. The Evaluator recommends interviewing participants shortly after signing the CPA and using a third party to conduct interviews and safeguard responses.
2021 New Construction Process Evaluation Highlights - › The evaluation served to confirm that EOne succeeds in influencing building design through many avenues such as the mandatory energy model, implementation incentives, as well as techn...
AI summary The evaluation highlights the effectiveness of EOne in influencing building design through various methods, including mandatory energy models and technical assistance. It also recommends collecting feedback earlier in the process, specifically when participants sign the CPA, to improve free-ridership assessments and recommends using a new phone interview questionnaire for future evaluations.
9.1 Tracking Sheet Audit To ensure service results are reliably compiled, the Evaluator first performed a tracking sheet audit aimed at verifying the completeness and consistency of the data submitted by EOne. The verification and correcti...
AI summary A tracking sheet audit was conducted to verify the completeness and consistency of data submitted by EOne. The Evaluator performed verification and corrective actions, ensuring the tracked savings results presented in the report refer to corrected data.
9.2.1 Sampling Methodology For the energy model review, the Evaluator selected a sample of 12 projects from a total of 21 projects completed in 2021. The project sample represented 91% of total tracked energy savings for projects completed...
AI summary The Evaluator selected a sample of 12 projects from 21 completed in 2021 for the energy model review, representing 91% of total tracked energy savings. The sample was designed using industry best practices, with selection probability proportional to project size, ensuring a variety of project types were included.
9.3.1 Free-ridership In the case of New Construction, free-ridership occurs when participants would have still implemented energy efficiency measures in their new building in the absence of the service. The free-ridership level was assesse...
AI summary The evaluation of free-ridership in New Construction projects found a weighted average free-ridership level of 15% in 2021, down from 30% in 2020. A new questionnaire and algorithm were used to assess the influence of EOne activities on building design decisions, including energy models and implementation incentives. The multisource approach had limited impact on results.
2021 Building Optimization Participant Perspective Highlights - › Overall satisfaction with Building Optimization was high among interviewed participants who provided an average rating of 8.5 on a 10-point scale. - › Most respondents did n...
AI summary Participants in the 2021 Building Optimization program reported high satisfaction with an average rating of 8.5 out of 10. Most did not face challenges in their participation, and the main area for improvement identified was reducing processing times for application and incentive approvals.
11.1 Tracking Sheet Audit To ensure service results were reliably compiled, the Evaluator first performed a tracking sheet audit aimed at verifying the completeness and consistency of the data submitted by EOne. The verification and correc...
AI summary The Evaluator conducted a tracking sheet audit to verify the completeness and consistency of data submitted by EOne, ensuring reliable compilation of service results. Corrective actions are detailed in Appendix I, and the reported tracked savings reflect the corrected figures.
11.3.2 Participant Spillover Since the Evaluator opted to measure free-ridership for Building Optimization in 2021, the participant phone interviews were leveraged to measure spillover as well. For Building Optimization, participant spillo...
AI summary The Evaluator measured participant spillover for Building Optimization in 2021 by conducting phone interviews. No respondents reported implementing additional energy efficiency measures beyond those provided through the service, resulting in no spillover effects.
Table 31: Evaluated 2021 Building Optimization NTGR Projects Fully Claimed in 2021 Energy Savings Free-ridership Level 9% Participant Spillover Level 0% NTGR 0.91
AI summary Table 31 presents the 2021 Building Optimization NTGR with a free-ridership level of 9% and a participant spillover level of 0%, indicating that the program's energy savings were primarily achieved by participants without significant spillover effects.
13 CUSTOM KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The main objectives of the 2021 Custom evaluation were as follows: - › Collect information on participant perspectives - › Collect information on the New Construction participation decision-making...
AI summary The 2021 Custom evaluation aimed to collect participant perspectives, understand decision-making processes, gather free-ridership data, and calculate energy savings and GHG emissions. The findings and recommendations are presented, with some applying broadly and others specific to certain Custom services.
2021 Custom-Finding: Participant satisfaction with Custom continues to be very high across the three services. Participant satisfaction was also high with the OEM Operational Demand Savings Pilot. All participants rated the OEM Operational...
AI summary Participant satisfaction with the Custom program and the OEM Operational Demand Savings Pilot is very high, with all participants rating the service between 8 and 10. The Evaluator adjusted energy and peak demand savings for various programs, with adjustment ratios varying across services. More robust M&V methodologies could reduce future adjustments.
Retrofit Key Findings and Recommendations 2021 Retrofit-Finding: The pay-for-performance projects reviewed by the Evaluator included an excellent client-led M&V approach that required almost no adjustments, had a free-ridership level of ze...
AI summary The 2021 Retrofit evaluation found that pay-for-performance projects had minimal adjustments, zero free-ridership, and high satisfaction. It recommended expanding structured pay-for-performance approaches for Retrofit, Building Optimization, and Operational Demand Savings. Solar PV and compressed air leak repair projects were found to be suitable for quasi-prescriptive methods, requiring distinct evaluation protocols and documentation.
New Construction Key Findings and Recommendations 2021 New Construction-Finding: EOne succeeds in influencing New Construction building design through the many influence factors, and influence on design occurs by the end of the design phas...
AI summary EOne successfully influences new construction building design through various factors such as energy models, implementation incentives, and technical assistance. The evaluation process led to the development of a new phone interview questionnaire to assess free-ridership, with the timing for this assessment adjusted to align with the end of the design phase when participants sign the CPA.
2021 New Construction Recommendation 1: Interview participants shortly after having signed the CPA. - › To do so, EOne could identify participants who have signed a CPA at the end of every quarter and ask a third party to interview them. T...
AI summary This recommendation outlines a process for EOne to interview participants shortly after signing a CPA, ensuring confidentiality and increasing the likelihood of contacting key decision-makers. It suggests using third-party interviews, follow-up surveys, and a free-ridership questionnaire as necessary.
16.2 Tracking Sheet Audit To ensure program component results are reliably compiled, the Evaluator first performed a tracking sheet audit aimed at verifying the completeness and consistency of the data submitted by EOne. The verification a...
AI summary The Evaluator conducted a tracking sheet audit to verify the completeness and consistency of data submitted by EOne, ensuring reliable compilation of program component results. Corrective actions are detailed in Appendix XV, and the report refers to corrected tracked savings.
16.3 Gross Savings Gross savings correspond to the change in energy consumption resulting from actions taken by participants regardless of why they participated. This subsection describes the methodology used to review the EMIS project tha...
AI summary Gross savings refer to changes in energy consumption due to participant actions, regardless of participation reasons. This section outlines the methodology for reviewing the EMIS project's 2021 savings and summarizes findings, including assessments of interactive effects, EUL values, and revised gross savings. The focus is on incremental savings reported by EOne.
16.3.1 Project Review Findings The Evaluator considered the savings calculations appropriate and adequately documented. No changes were made to tracked savings.
AI summary The Evaluator found the savings calculations to be appropriate and adequately documented, and no changes were made to tracked savings.
18.2 Follow-up on Past Evaluation Report Recommendations The Evaluator evaluated SEM in previous years and issued improvement recommendations. [Table](#page-108-2) 42 below provides a summary of the implementation status of the recommendat...
AI summary The Evaluator assessed SEM in previous years and provided improvement recommendations. Table 42 summarizes the implementation status of these recommendations from the 2020 Evaluation Report, with no carry-forward of past recommendations.
19 SEM EVALUATION APPROACH The 2021 SEM evaluation comprised a comprehensive impact evaluation. The main objective of the SEM evaluation was as follows: › Calculate gross and net SEM results, namely electrical first-year and lifetime energ...
AI summary The 2021 SEM evaluation aimed to calculate gross and net results, including energy savings, peak demand savings, and avoided GHG emissions. The evaluation involved auditing tracking sheets, desk reviews, site visits, phone interviews, and calculations using evaluation results.
Tracking Sheet Audit Prior to performing the savings review, the Evaluator audited the final 2021 tracking sheet to ensure it was complete and the data entry was consistent. The detailed protocol used for the tracking sheet audit and the r...
AI summary The Evaluator conducted an audit of the final 2021 tracking sheet prior to the savings review to ensure its completeness and consistent data entry. The audit protocol and results are detailed in Appendix XVII.
Project Reviews and Phone Interviews In January 2021, savings reviews were conducted for each continuing participant through desk reviews supported by phone interviews. Richard Patterson performed the review of one of the continuing projec...
AI summary In January 2021, project reviews for continuing participants were conducted through desk reviews and phone interviews, with Richard Patterson and Econoler leading the process. Site visits were canceled due to the pandemic, and evaluations of free-ridership were postponed to 2022. The evaluation protocol and project review adjustments are detailed in appendices.
20.1 Tracking Sheet Audit To ensure program component results are reliably compiled, the Evaluator first performed a tracking sheet audit aimed at verifying the completeness and consistency of the data submitted by EOne. The verification a...
AI summary The Evaluator conducted a tracking sheet audit to ensure the completeness and consistency of data submitted by EOne. Corrective actions were taken where necessary, and the reported tracked savings reflect these corrections.
year with a more comprehensive M&V approach. The adjustments made by the Evaluator resulted in a 99% realization rate for energy savings. The two projects for which energy savings were reduced also saw their peak demand savings decrease by...
AI summary The Evaluator made significant adjustments to energy savings and peak demand savings for various projects, leading to a 99% realization rate for energy savings and a 163% realization rate for peak demand savings. Adjustments were made due to unclaimed savings and incorrect application of a peak coincidence factor.
2021 SEM-Finding: The savings measurement approaches are now more diversified, and an increasing proportion of participants use a bottom-up approach. The Evaluator noted that only two of the six participants used a whole-facility energy mo...
AI summary The 2021 SEM-Finding highlights that savings measurement approaches are more diversified, with an increasing use of bottom-up methods. The Evaluator expressed concerns that bottom-up approaches may miss operational and behavioral improvements, leading to fewer overall savings. Guidelines for bottom-up approaches are recommended to align with program objectives and ensure consistency with energy management strategies.
Custom Appendix I Custom: Tracking Sheet Audit Appendix II Custom: OEM Operational Demand Savings Pilot Participant Interview Guide Appendix III Custom: New Construction CPA Stage Participant Interview Guide Appendix IV Custom: New Constru...
AI summary The text lists various appendices related to audits, interview guides, project review protocols, and algorithms for a custom tracking sheet and energy management system. These appendices are likely part of a regulatory or program evaluation process involving energy efficiency initiatives.
APPENDIX I CUSTOM: TRACKING SHEET AUDIT This appendix presents the results of the tracking sheet audit performed by the Evaluator. Its objectives were as follows: - › Verify that all data fields required for the evaluation were included an...
AI summary This appendix outlines the objectives of the tracking sheet audit conducted by the Evaluator, which included verifying data completeness and accuracy of program results, ensuring consistency in calculation methods, and validating that parameters used for energy and demand savings were aligned with prior evaluations.
D. Cross-Influence - D1. Before participating in the Custom New Construction program for the building we discussed today, had you already participated in Custom New Construction or in another Efficiency Nova Scotia program? - 1. Yes, Custo...
AI summary This section of the proceeding asks participants about their prior involvement in Efficiency Nova Scotia programs and seeks their agreement with statements on a scale from 0 to 10. It focuses on customer participation and program evaluation.
Table 1: Free-ridership Algorithm for Retrofit and Building Optimization Question Response Score Satisfaction B1. Using a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is "not at all satisfied" and 10 is "completely satisfied" how would you rate your satisfa...
AI summary This table outlines a survey designed to assess participant satisfaction and perspectives regarding the Custom Retrofit or Building Optimization program. It includes questions about satisfaction levels, factors influencing participation, challenges faced, and suggestions for improvement.
APPENDIX XII CUSTOM: RETROFIT AND BUILDING OPTIMIZATION ALGORITHM FOR PARTICIPANT SPILLOVER CALCULATION Table 1 below presents the algorithm for calculating the participant spillover levels for the Custom Retrofit and Building Optimization...
AI summary This document outlines an algorithm used to calculate participant spillover levels in the Custom Retrofit and Building Optimization Programs. It involves assessing whether participants implemented additional energy efficiency measures post-program and quantifying the program's influence on these decisions to determine attributable savings.
Question Response Score I4. Did your experience with the energy efficiency project implemented through Custom [Retrofit or Building Optimization] program influence your decision to implement these additional energy efficiency measures on y...
AI summary The text includes a questionnaire regarding the influence of the Custom Retrofit or Building Optimization program on the implementation of energy efficiency measures. It also references a spillover calculation based on responses to questions I3 and I4. The responses include a high score of 98 indicating strong influence, but the main reasons for implementing the project without program assistance are not provided.
Table 1: Participant Interview Questionnaire and Free-ridership Algorithm Question (From the Custom New Construction Participant Interview Guide) Response Score Identifying Key Decision-makers A1. We hope to interview the key decision-make...
AI summary This table outlines a participant interview questionnaire focused on identifying key decision-makers in the context of building better-than-code construction, with a specific emphasis on free-ridership algorithm considerations.
APPENDIX XIV CUSTOM: 2021 RECOMMENDATIONS Sections Recommendations EOne staff mentioned many challenges associated with providing M&V on behalf of participants, including difficulty in obtaining data, challenges with understanding project...
AI summary The document discusses challenges faced by EOne in providing M&V support for projects, including difficulties in data collection and project changes. It recommends that EOne address these challenges or require applicants to submit their own M&V plans. Additionally, a new phone interview questionnaire was developed and found effective for New Construction free-ridership assessments.
APPENDIX XV EMIS: TRACKING SHEET AUDIT This appendix presents the results of the tracking sheet audit performed by the Evaluator, which was aimed at: - › Verifying that all data fields required for the evaluation were included and filled o...
AI summary This appendix outlines the tracking sheet audit conducted by the Evaluator to verify data completeness and accuracy in EOne's submitted tracking sheet, ensuring consistency in parameters and calculation steps used to determine program results.
Table 1: Verification of 2021 EMIS Data Field Completeness and Accuracy Data Fields Complete (Y/N/Partial) Consistent with Previous Evaluation If Incomplete or Inconsistent, Action Taken by the Evaluator Data for Each Project or Participan...
AI summary This table verifies the completeness and accuracy of 2021 EMIS data fields, focusing on energy savings, peak demand savings, rate class, and net-to-gross ratios. It notes that the Effective Useful Life (EUL) of 3 years is uniformly applied, though it will be reviewed individually for each participant.
Once the correct values were established (as per Table 1), the Evaluator validated that the equations in the tracking sheet correctly calculated each of the main program component results, the results of which are presented in Table 3.
AI summary The Evaluator confirmed that the equations in the tracking sheet accurately calculated the main program component results after the correct values were established, as outlined in Table 1 and presented in Table 3.
APPENDIX XVI SEM: TRACKING SHEET AUDIT This appendix presents the results of the tracking sheet audit performed by the Evaluator, which was aimed at: - › Verifying that all data fields required for the evaluation were included and filled o...
AI summary This appendix outlines the results of a tracking sheet audit conducted by the Evaluator to verify the completeness and accuracy of data submitted by EOne, ensuring consistency in parameters and calculation steps used for evaluating program results.
Once the correct values were established (as per Table 1), the Evaluator validated that the equations in the tracking sheet correctly calculated each of the main program component results, the results of which are presented in Table 3.
AI summary The Evaluator confirmed that the equations in the tracking sheet accurately calculated the main program component results once the correct values were established, as shown in Table 3.
APPENDIX XVII SEM: PROJECT REVIEW PROTOCOL The 2021 SEM impact evaluation involved conducting project reviews for four continuing participants and two new participants. One of the continuing participants was also an EMIS participant. For t...
AI summary The 2021 SEM impact evaluation involved project reviews for continuing and new participants, adapting the protocol to assess both bottom-up and top-down approaches. The Evaluator reviewed baseline energy regression, engineering calculations, and M&V results, while interviews were conducted after reviewing EOne digital files. This appendix focuses on the technical aspects of the protocol for continuing participants.
COVID Did Covid had an impact on the implemented measures? Are the savings calculations impacted by Covid? Were any adjusments made by the SP regarding Covid? Are the reported savings based on a typical year? IMPACT EVALUATION NOTES Projec...
AI summary The document discusses impact evaluation and savings adjustments, focusing on the measurement and verification (M&V) approach for energy efficiency measures. It includes questions about the impact of COVID-19 on savings calculations, baseline and reporting periods, regression equations, and adjustments made by the service provider (SP). It also covers evaluation methods and documentation of energy savings.
This appendix summarizes all the recommendations made by the Evaluator as part of the 2021 EMIS and SEM evaluations along with past evaluation recommendations that remain unimplemented. Sections Recommendations 1. Executive Summary (SEM) S...
AI summary This appendix outlines recommendations from the 2021 EMIS and SEM evaluations, including ongoing implementation efforts and unimplemented past recommendations. Key points include developing guidelines for bottom-up approaches in SEM and using peak demand savings calculation guidelines for tracking purposes.
Evaluation Approach The evaluation was aimed at calculating program component gross and net results, namely electrical first-year and lifetime energy savings, peak demand savings, as well as avoided greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. [Table](...
AI summary The evaluation approach focuses on calculating program component gross and net results, including energy savings, peak demand savings, and avoided greenhouse gas emissions, with methodology summarized in a table.
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.
SBES Findings and Recommendations This subsection presents the key findings from the SBES evaluation. The Evaluator has no specific recommendation for SBES in 2021. 2021 SBES-Finding: Net energy savings were within 1% of target, while peak...
AI summary In 2021, the SBES program achieved energy and peak demand savings close to its targets, with a 77% increase in participation. However, peak demand savings fell short of targets, and free-ridership among DIY participants increased to 15%. The Evaluator's findings showed a 7% discrepancy in net savings compared to EOne's tracking.
Table 5: 2021 SBES Evaluation Approach Evaluation Objectives Research Questions Methodology Collect information on participant perspectives › How do participants become aware of SBES? › What is the level of satisfaction with SBES among par...
AI summary Table 5 outlines the 2021 SBES Evaluation Approach, focusing on collecting participant perspectives, calculating gross and net results, and evaluating the effectiveness of the SBES program. The methodology includes participant surveys, tracking sheet audits, peak demand savings reviews, and GHG emission reduction calculations.
Unitary Savings Review As part of the 2021 evaluation, the Evaluator established unitary savings for new SBES measures, which include all measures of the CDI pilot, and updated the 2020-2022 Measure Assessment 5 document accordingly.
AI summary The 2021 evaluation established unitary savings for new SBES measures, including all measures of the CDI pilot, and updated the 2020-2022 Measure Assessment document accordingly.
4 SBES IMPACT EVALUATION The objectives of the 2021 SBES impact evaluation were to determine gross and net electrical energy and peak demand savings. This section discusses the gross and net savings results.
AI summary The 2021 SBES impact evaluation aimed to assess gross and net electrical energy and peak demand savings, with this section discussing the results of those evaluations.
4.1 Tracking Sheet Audit To ensure program component results were reliably compiled, the Evaluator first performed a tracking sheet audit aimed at verifying the completeness and consistency of the data submitted by EOne. The verification a...
AI summary The Evaluator conducted a tracking sheet audit to ensure the completeness and consistency of data submitted by EOne, leading to corrected tracked savings results presented in the report.
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.
[Table](#page-35-1) 6 summarizes the adjustment ratios for the 2021 evaluation. Energy Savings Peak Demand Savings SBES Path Overall Adjustment Ratio Margin of Error Overall Adjustment Ratio Audit 0.925 5.67% 1.000 DIY 0.972 8.39% 1.000 CD...
AI summary Table 6 summarizes the adjustment ratios for the 2021 evaluation of the Small Business Energy Solutions (SBES) program, including energy savings and peak demand savings for various paths such as Audit, DIY, and CDI Pilot for different products.
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.
[Table](#page-48-2) 17 compares the tracked energy and peak demand savings values with those established by the Evaluator.
AI summary Table 17 compares tracked energy and peak demand savings values with those established by the Evaluator, highlighting discrepancies or confirmations in the data.
5 SBES KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The objectives of the 2021 SBES evaluation were to calculate gross and net SBES results, namely electrical first-year and lifetime energy savings, peak demand savings, as well as avoided GHG emission...
AI summary The 2021 SBES evaluation found that net energy savings were close to targets, but peak demand savings fell short. Participation increased significantly, driven by higher incentives and the CDI pilot. Satisfaction among participants was high, but free-ridership for DIY participants rose to 15%. Evaluated net savings were 7% lower than EOne's tracked values due to higher free-ridership.
Table 18: Overall 2021 Direct Installation Participation and Evaluated Savings 12 Participation Level Gross Savings NTGR Net Savings Value Unit Value Unit Value Value Unit SBES Energy Savings 11.105 GWh 0.85 9.486 GWh Lifetime Energy Savin...
AI summary Table 18 and the associated text outline the 2021 performance of the Direct Installation program, highlighting energy and peak demand savings, as well as participation levels. Despite the ongoing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, participation increased significantly due to incentive changes. The program achieved net energy savings close to its target but fell short of its peak demand target.
Small Business Energy Solutions Appendix I SBES: Participant Survey Questionnaire Appendix II SBES: Participant Survey Results Appendix III SBES: Tracking Sheet Audit Appendix Iv SBES: Commercial Direct Install Pilot - Gross Savings Parame...
AI summary The document outlines various appendices related to the Small Business Energy Solutions (SBES) initiative, including survey questionnaires, results, tracking sheets, savings parameters, free-ridership calculation algorithms, and 2021 recommendations. These materials support the evaluation and implementation of energy efficiency programs for small businesses.
Previous ENS Program Component Participation Impacted Asking Contractor/Distributor About Different Energy Efficiency Options Before Participating in SBES 2021 Sample Size 3 (#) Agree 2 Disagree 1 Base: Respondents who previously participa...
AI summary The text presents survey results regarding the impact of previous participation in Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS) programs on the decision-making process of small businesses when considering energy efficiency upgrades. It highlights that a majority of respondents took into account the cost-effectiveness of upgrades and had previously seen ENS promotional materials.
F1. 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 program overall? Overall Satisfaction with SBES 2017 2019 2021 Sample Size 70 50 50 Mean 8.8 9...
AI summary The SBES program has seen high levels of satisfaction over the years, with mean scores of 8.8 in 2017, 9.2 in 2019, and 9.1 in 2021. However, some dissatisfaction was reported, with common reasons including delays in the process, lower-than-expected incentives, poor communication, and issues with contractor performance.
APPENDIX III SBES: TRACKING SHEET AUDIT This appendix presents the results of the tracking sheet audit performed by the Evaluator, which was aimed at: - › Verifying that all data fields required for the evaluation were included and properl...
AI summary This appendix outlines the tracking sheet audit conducted by the Evaluator to verify the completeness and accuracy of data submitted by EOne, ensuring consistency in parameters and calculations used for evaluating program results such as energy and peak demand savings.
Data Completeness and Accuracy Table 1 and Table 2 below list all the parameters required for the SBES and the Commercial Direct Install Pilot evaluation. The Evaluator validated whether the data contained in the tracking sheet submitted b...
AI summary The document discusses the validation of data completeness and accuracy for the SBES and Commercial Direct Install Pilot evaluation. The Evaluator assessed the data submitted by EOne against previous results and adjusted it when necessary.
Table 1: Verification of 2021 SBES Data Field Completeness and Accuracy Data Fields Complete (Y/N/Partial) Consistent with Previous Evaluation If Incomplete or Inconsistent, Action Taken by the Evaluator Data for Each Project or Participan...
AI summary Table 1 verifies the completeness and accuracy of 2021 SBES data fields. Issues identified include negative energy savings without justification, zero demand savings with no explanation, and missing rate codes. The evaluator made assumptions to address these gaps.
Table 3: Verification of 2021 SBES Data Field Consistency Data Field 1 Data Field 2 Consistent (Y/N) If Not, Action Taken by the Evaluator Calculated Line Loss Factor (Gross Energy Savings at the Generator / Gross Energy Savings at the Met...
AI summary This text presents two tables verifying data consistency in the 2021 SBES and Commercial Direct Install Pilot programs. Key findings include inconsistencies in energy savings data at the measure and project levels, with corrective actions taken by the evaluator.
Free-ridership – Audit Path C3/C4. If your business had not received the rebate or financing from ENS as well as the free audit, would you have paid for the full cost of the energy-efficient upgrades you installed? (Scale 0 to 10) C3orC4 =...
AI summary The text discusses a survey question related to free-ridership in energy efficiency programs, asking businesses if they would have paid for energy-efficient upgrades without receiving rebates or financing from Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS), and whether ENS's programs and promotions influenced their decisions.
be done through multiple approaches, such as using comparison groups in non-programmatic jurisdictions, structured expert judgment or estimating the nonintervention (or natural) baseline. 20 The evaluation of attribution is an important an...
AI summary The text discusses evaluation methodologies for market transformation (MT) savings, highlighting approaches like comparison groups, expert judgment, and baseline estimation. It contrasts different jurisdictions' methods, such as using attribution percentages or naturally occurring baselines, and notes variations in how savings are attributed and adjusted based on policy frameworks and stakeholder input.
peg) evaluation approach and is agreed upon with key stakeholders (including the implementer and the evaluator) has been very helpful in jurisdictions where MT savings have been successfully claimed. The experience from other jurisdictions...
AI summary The text discusses the benefits and challenges of implementing Market Transformation (MT) programs, emphasizing the importance of stakeholder agreement and regulatory acceptance. It notes that MT programs are becoming more accepted as cost-effective solutions but highlights the difficulty in convincing regulators and establishing evaluation frameworks, particularly for EOne, which has focused on Retrofit Assistance (RA) programs.
Summary [Table](#page-55-0) 103 presents a summary of the values used to calculate heavy-duty outdoor timer savings. The detailed methodology follows. 143 Research into Action, Final Report: 2012 ConsumerProgram Evaluation ,Report presente...
AI summary The text references a table summarizing values used to calculate heavy-duty outdoor timer savings and cites a report by Research into Action on a 2012 consumer program evaluation presented to the Ontario Power Authority.
E-12E1(NSUARB) RIR-1 to RIR-41
67 passages
between E1 and NS Power (2023-2025 DSM Plan) E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB) Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-12: 2 3 Page 15 of 65 of the Application notes that E1 is taking a strategic appr...
AI summary E1 responded to the NSUARB's information request regarding its process improvement methodology, clarifying that it uses Lean Six Sigma rather than the TRC or PAC Test. The methodology involves a five-phase approach (DMAIC) to identify and eliminate inefficiencies.
hree-year energy efficiency plan with the Department of Public Utilities (“Department”) for calendar years 2022 through 2024 (“Three-Year Plans”).1 The Program Administrators filed their Three-Year Plans pursuant to An Act Relative to Gree...
AI summary Program Administrators have submitted Three-Year Energy Efficiency Plans for 2022–2024 to the Department of Public Utilities, seeking approval for proposed programs, budgets, cost-recovery mechanisms, and performance incentives. These plans are filed under various docket numbers and are based on multiple legislative acts, including the Green Communities Act and the Energy Act of 2012.
lan, including proposed programs, program budgets, cost-recovery mechanisms and, with the exception of the Compact, a proposed performance incentive mechanism. Pursuant to the Energy Act of 2012, the Program Administrators also have incorp...
AI summary The document outlines the submission of Three-Year Energy Efficiency Plans by Program Administrators, including proposed programs, budgets, and cost-recovery mechanisms. The Massachusetts Attorney General and various organizations have intervened in the proceedings, and the Department issued procedural guidelines and memoranda for the filings.
)(1). The Department is required to conduct a public hearing to allow interested persons to be heard on the Three-Year Plans. G.L. c. 25, § 21(d)(1). Within 90 days of the filing date, the Department must approve, modify, or reject and req...
AI summary The Department is required to hold a public hearing on the Three-Year Plans and approve, modify, or reject them within 90 days. The Council worked with Program Administrators to develop the Statewide Plan under the Green Communities Act and must approve it with a two-thirds majority vote. The Council conducted workshops and public comment sessions to aid in the development of the plan.
Climate Act requires that the Department and the entities it regulates (e.g., the Program Administrators) prioritize safety, security, reliability of service, affordability, equity, and reductions in GHG emissions to meet statewide GHG emi...
AI summary The Climate Act mandates that the Department and regulated entities prioritize service reliability, affordability, equity, and GHG emission reductions. The Department emphasizes balancing cost-effective energy efficiency with prudent use of ratepayer funds and requires Program Administrators to consider both cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Energy efficiency costs must initially be funded from non-ratepayer sources.
ent of the Three-Year Plans and adjudicate all disputes related to the proposed programs within 90 days. G.L. c. 25, § 21(d)(2). Completing a full, fair, and thorough evaluation of every element of the Three-Year Plans in this short amount...
AI summary The text discusses the challenges faced by the Department of Public Utilities in evaluating Three-Year Plans within a 90-day statutory deadline. It emphasizes the need for complete and well-supported filings to streamline the review process and minimize the need for discovery. The Department has developed guidelines and has conducted investigations to refine its energy efficiency requirements.
the energy efficiency market, the Department issues a pre-filing memorandum to identify any additional information the Program Administrators must include in their filings to facilitate the Department’s review and reduce the need for disco...
AI summary The Department of Energy and Environmental Regulation expresses disappointment with the 2022-2024 Three-Year Plans submitted by Program Administrators, noting repeated issues despite prior guidance and the administrators' proven capability in energy efficiency planning.
, 2022 NSUARB IR-17, Attachment 3, Page 33 of 343 D.P.U. 21-120 through D.P.U. 21-129 Page 20 First, as noted above, in a Three-Year Plan filing (or any regulatory filing), it is imperative that the filing contain all required information,...
AI summary The text discusses issues with the submission of Three-Year Plan filings, highlighting missing information, incomplete testimony, and failure to follow directives from the Department. Multiple rounds of discovery were required to obtain necessary data, and service territory-specific information was not adequately provided.
29, 2022 NSUARB IR-17, Attachment 3, Page 35 of 343 D.P.U. 21-120 through D.P.U. 21-129 Page 22 and the results of certain studies (see, e.g., Exh. EGMA-2, at 56-61). However, for the 2022-2024 Three-Year Plan term, the Program Administrat...
AI summary The Program Administrators have delayed developing their renter strategic plan until the second quarter of 2022, which is inconsistent with the Green Communities Act. They also failed to submit a formal process for addressing Council data requests as previously directed by the Department.
eloped until months after the conclusion of the Department’s review. For example: (1) a proposal for allowing mixed-income buildings to participate in the low-income programs will not be developed until the second quarter of 2022; (2) the...
AI summary The text discusses delays in developing program proposals, adjustments to budget allocations targeting environmental justice communities, and the need for more comprehensive program descriptions in future Three-Year Plans. It also highlights errors in initial filings and data anomalies discovered during the proceeding.
Page 25 these measures, the Program Administrators responded that they “have not defined any measure as an equity measure” (Exh. DPU-Comm 3-1). Further, a cornerstone proposal of the Program Administrators’ equity efforts is the Community...
AI summary The Program Administrators' equity efforts, including the Community First Partnership Program, faced criticism for unclear criteria and lack of transparency. The Department of Public Utilities had to address inconsistencies and ensure clarity in the proposed budget increase of $1.2 billion, which is 29.3% higher than the 2019-2021 Three-Year Plans.
are appropriate to be made so close to the filing of a multi-billion dollar, ratepayer funded Three-Year Plan. Such actions erode the credibility of the foundational elements that these Three-Year Plans have been built on. With regard to t...
AI summary The Department of Energy and Environmental Regulation (DOER) criticizes the timing of actions related to a multi-billion dollar, ratepayer-funded Three-Year Plan, arguing it undermines credibility. The DOER emphasizes the importance of reliable avoided cost studies, referencing the AESC Study and prior orders, and indicates it will not reject filings solely due to procedural deficiencies in energy efficiency plans.
nue to deliver nation-leading energy efficiency services is not in question. The Department must acknowledge the nation-leading status of the Program Administrators; their innovation and success in the area of energy efficiency remains a c...
AI summary The Department acknowledges the nation-leading energy efficiency services provided by Program Administrators but criticizes the poor quality of recent filings. A reduction to the performance incentive pool is proposed due to filing deficiencies, with further reductions possible if compliance issues persist. The Climate Act and new benefit-cost screening model requirements are noted as additional challenges.
re that the Statewide Plan development process is sufficiently transparent to ensure that stakeholders are made aware of any significant revisions from the draft to final Statewide Plan. During prior three-year energy efficiency planning c...
AI summary The document discusses the development process of the Statewide Plan and highlights concerns about its transparency and timeliness. While collaboration with the Council and stakeholders is supported, the process has not resolved all issues in a timely manner, impacting the Program Administrators' ability to submit complete and accurate plans.
ion The Program Administrators propose to continue the evaluation framework that they previously employed to support third-party EM&V efforts (Statewide Plan, Exh. 1, at 176). (Exh. DPU-Comm 2-4). The Program Administrators state that they...
AI summary The Program Administrators propose to continue using an evaluation framework for third-party EM&V efforts and focus on four research areas, including residential and C&I energy efficiency, demand in various sectors, and special cross-cutting studies. They also propose allocating $57,587,446 for statewide EM&V activities over the next three years.
t 8). The EM&V study budget is included in the Evaluation and Market Research line item under the hard-to-measure category, along with other evaluation and market research costs, such as potential studies, the AESC Study, maintenance of th...
AI summary The Program Administrators outline their EM&V study budget and its inclusion in the Evaluation and Market Research line item. They emphasize the importance of EM&V in supporting electrification, quantifying benefits of heat pumps, addressing barriers to adoption, and increasing participation among underrepresented groups.
rs plan to implement a workforce development program with a focus on introducing new skills to the existing workforce and bringing underrepresented groups into the field (Statewide Plan, Exh. 1, App. H at 4). Through EM&V research, the Pro...
AI summary The Program Administrators are implementing a workforce development program aimed at enhancing skills and increasing diversity in the workforce. They have established an Evaluation Management Committee and developed a strategic evaluation plan to guide evaluation activities for the 2022-2024 Three-Year Plan. The Three-Year Plan includes energy efficiency and demand reduction goals aligned with GHG emissions targets.
other low carbon fuels, while recognizing the higher costs of heat pumps and marginal grid emissions impacts, rather than an average grid emissions profile (MEMA Brief at 3-5; MEMA Reply Brief at 3-5). Lastly, MEMA argues that overreliance...
AI summary MEMA argues that relying on heat pumps may harm low-income and environmental justice communities due to higher costs and grid impacts, suggesting preserving rebates for fossil-fuel heating equipment could reduce emissions. Sunrun supports ADR programs but highlights concerns with mid-cycle changes, device qualification, and stakeholder involvement in program transitions.
to implement the proposed solar PV inverter measure: (1) proposed incentive values and program structure; (2) eligibility criteria; (3) terms and conditions for participation, including interaction with other programs; and (4) proposed fra...
AI summary The text discusses the implementation of a proposed solar PV inverter measure, including incentive values, eligibility criteria, and stakeholder engagement. It also outlines the Department's evaluation process for Three-Year Plans, focusing on energy savings, cost-effectiveness, and GHG emissions reduction goals.
and to conduct an updated residential non-participant customer profile study prior to the 2025-2027 Three-Year Plan filing. Each Program Administrator also shall include detailed Program Administrator-specific testimony in the 2025-2027 Th...
AI summary The Program Administrators are required to conduct an updated residential non-participant customer profile study and include detailed testimony in the 2025-2027 Three-Year Plan filing. They are also developing a renter-unit strategic plan, but have not yet submitted it, and its implementation is delayed until late 2022. The Department has previously emphasized the need to address participation barriers for renters.
ng The Program Administrators eliminated the residential lighting upstream program and in-unit direct install lighting for market rate customers (see, e.g., Exh. NG-Gas-2, at 87; Exh. DPU-Comm 2-4). The Program Administrators, however, pro...
AI summary The Program Administrators propose eliminating residential lighting programs for market rate customers and renters, citing market transformation and cost-efficiency. However, they acknowledge opportunities for savings in lighting measures, though at a reduced level. DOER argues that lighting measures still provide net savings, though this is not supported by the record.
2022 NSUARB IR-17, Attachment 3, Page 139 of 343 D.P.U. 21-120 through D.P.U. 21-129 Page 126 are within a renter’s control (CLF Brief at 25, citing Statewide Plan, Exh. 1, at 63-64). The Program Administrators are obligated to serve rente...
AI summary The document discusses the need to evaluate the impact of eliminating a lighting measure on renters and hard-to-reach customers, emphasizing the potential for inequitable outcomes. Program Administrators propose a study to assess remaining lighting savings opportunities and understand renter purchasing habits.
ents from the Three-Year Plans based solely on an agreement with another party. To the extent the Program Administrators develop parameters for implementing projects, these parameters 100 The Department supports the efforts of the Program...
AI summary The Department emphasizes that the Term Sheet is not part of the Statewide Plan or the Program Administrators’ Three-Year Plans. Program Administrators must include any elements from the Term Sheet in their Three-Year Plans with full documentation and record evidence to be considered by the Department. The text also references evaluation, measurement, and verification (EM&V) of energy efficiency programs.
r Plans Order, at 35; 2016-2018 Three-Year Plans Order, at 30; 2013-2015 Three-Year Plans Order, at 58; 2010-2012 Electric Three-Year Plans Order, at 125; 2010-2012 Gas Three-Year Energy Efficiency Plans, D.P.U. 09-110 through D.P.U. 09-11...
AI summary The Program Administrators propose a $57.6 million budget for statewide EM&V activities during the Three-Year Plans term, including specific research areas and study types to evaluate energy efficiency programs, with oversight from the Evaluation Management Committee.
tion Management Committee will provide oversight of the EM&V activities (Statewide Plan, Exh 1, at 177-178). The Program Administrators have demonstrated that their proposed EM&V framework is appropriate in terms of funding, scope, oversig...
AI summary The document discusses the oversight of EM&V activities by the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, approval of an EM&V framework, and the requirement for potential studies aligned with the Climate Act and EEA Secretary’s Goal Letter. The Department finds the proposed framework consistent with guidelines and approves its implementation.
conduct a Department-mandated study on the best practices for minimizing administrative costs (“PP&A Study Report”) (Program Administrators Brief at 54, citing 2016-2018 Three-Year Plans Order, at 42).101 The Program Administrators argue t...
AI summary The Program Administrators reference a Department-mandated study on minimizing administrative costs and assert that they have implemented its recommendations. They also highlight their use of competitive procurement processes for services such as energy assessments and program evaluation.
29, 2022 NSUARB IR-17, Attachment 3, Page 157 of 343 D.P.U. 21-120 through D.P.U. 21-129 Page 144 (2) quality control; (3) monitoring and evaluation; (4) potential studies; and (5) marketing (Program Administrators Brief at 58, citing Stat...
AI summary The Program Administrators argue that competitive procurement is not always appropriate for certain services due to specialized requirements or cost considerations. They also state that their proposed low-income program budgets meet statutory minimums and that they will continue to collaborate with LEAN to ensure cost-effective energy efficiency in the low-income sector.
laboratively with LEAN to capture all available cost-effective energy efficiency in the low-income sector (Program Administrators Brief at 58, citing Statewide Plan, Exh. 1, at 108-115). No other party addressed low-income program budgets...
AI summary The document discusses the minimization of administrative costs in energy efficiency programs, noting that some Program Administrators have kept their PP&A costs flat or slightly increased, while others have seen a significant increase, such as electric Program Administrators who proposed an $8.4 million increase over the Three-Year Plan period.
Table IV.C.2.2 (Rev.)). The electric Program Administrators have proposed an increase of approximately $8.4 million (or 8.6 percent) in planned PP&A costs over the Three-Year Plans term (Statewide Plan, Exh. 1, App. C.1 - Electric, Table I...
AI summary The document discusses proposed increases in Program Planning and Administration (PP&A) costs for both electric and gas Program Administrators over the Three-Year Plans term. Electric Program Administrators propose an 8.6% increase, while gas Program Administrators propose a 40% increase. NSTAR Electric is the only electric Program Administrator proposing a decrease in PP&A costs, though it still represents a significant increase from 2019 to 2022.
s term) the gas Program Administrators have proposed a $4.5 million (or a 48.8 percent) increase in PP&A costs (c.f., Statewide Plan, Exh. 1, App. C.2 – Gas (Rev.), Table IV.C.2.2, cells E75 and J75). NSTAR Gas is the only gas Program Admi...
AI summary The gas Program Administrators have proposed a significant increase in PP&A costs, with NSTAR Gas being the only one proposing a decrease, though still showing a 52% increase compared to prior years. There are data inconsistencies in the PP&A budget tables, and the Program Administrators did not explain the increase in planned PP&A costs.
nd develop new program designs during the 2022-2024 Three-Year Plans term.103 However, the Program Administrators propose significant enhancements in every Three-Year Plan. D.P.U. 18-110 through D.P.U. 18-119, Statewide Plan, Exh. 1, at 13...
AI summary The Program Administrators propose significant enhancements to energy efficiency programs during the 2022-2024 Three-Year Plans term, including new initiatives, realignments, and outreach strategies. However, there is a discrepancy in the reported PP&A budget, and the Department emphasizes the need for accurate and complete filings to ensure an efficient review within the statutory 90-day period.
should be completely and fully described in the Three-Year Plan filings. Date Filed: April 29, 2022 NSUARB IR-17, Attachment 3, Page 161 of 343 D.P.U. 21-120 through D.P.U. 21-129 Page 148 the record how or why these new enhancements propo...
AI summary The Department of Public Utilities acknowledges the Program Administrators' efforts to minimize administrative costs through collaboration and implementation of recommendations from the PP&A Study Report. The discussion focuses on the expected continuation of cost-reducing strategies in the 2022-2024 Three-Year Plans.
recommendations were adopted. 2019-2021 Three-Year Plans Order, at 50. The Program Administrators have implemented many of the recommendations in the PP&A Study Report, which has led to 104 The Best Practices for Minimizing Program Plannin...
AI summary The document references the implementation of recommendations from the PP&A Study Report, which led to the minimization of administrative costs through updated accounting systems, streamlined data reporting, and the establishment of a cost review working group. These efforts are intended to continue under the 2022-2024 Three-Year Plan.
, at 103-104; NG-Gas-2, at 110-111; NSTAR Gas-2, at 105-106; Compact-2, at 102-103;FGE (electric)-2, at 100-101; NG-Electric-2, at 108-109; NSTAR-Electric-2, at 100-101).105 Finally, the Program Administrators state that they will seek to...
AI summary The Department of Public Utilities acknowledges the Program Administrators' efforts to minimize administrative costs through collaboration and joint vendor services. It emphasizes the need to include Key Performance Indicators in the Three-Year Plans and continue streamlining reporting and data request processes as recommended in the PP&A Study Report.
ta request process. PP&A Study Report at 18. As directed by the Department, in the 2019 Annual Reports, the Program Administrators provided a detailed explanation of the progress towards implementing each recommendation contained in the PP...
AI summary The document discusses the implementation of recommendations from the PP&A Study Report by Program Administrators, focusing on creating a formal process for Key Performance Indicators and addressing data requests from stakeholders while minimizing administrative costs. The Department of Public Utilities has directed the Program Administrators to adopt revised guidelines and work with the Council to develop a formal process for handling data requests.
Program Administrators Brief at 59, citing Statewide Plan, Exh. 1, App. C (Rev.), Table V.D.1). The Department will not make any substantive findings on the reasonableness of the Program Administrators’ decision not to competitively procur...
AI summary The Department of Public Utilities finds that Program Administrators' 2022-2024 Three-Year Plans meet statutory requirements for competitive procurement and low-income program budgets, but will not make substantive findings on the reasonableness of the Program Administrators’ decision not to competitively procure services at this time.
ow. The Department also will consider whether adopting a different social value of GHG emissions reductions and discount rate would materially impact what measures, core initiatives, and programs would potentially be included or excluded f...
AI summary The Department is evaluating the impact of changes to the social value of GHG emissions reductions and discount rates on the Three-Year Plans. Program Administrators argue that updated information from the Supplemental Study was necessary, though the basis for the change is based on a literature review of non-peer-reviewed materials.
of 343 D.P.U. 21-120 through D.P.U. 21-129 Page 175 Program Administrators provide recalculated BCR screening models using the AESC Study-derived $128 per short ton social value of GHG emissions reductions (Tr. 2, at 288-290). The data the...
AI summary The Department of Energy Resources (DOER) evaluates the Program Administrators' recalculated BCR models and social value of GHG emissions reductions. It finds that the revised social value, derived from a non-peer-reviewed literature review, does not justify increasing the Three-Year Plans' benefits from $9.2 billion to $12.9 billion without additional quantitative support.
(Rev.) at 14; C.2 – Gas (Rev.) at 9). Although the proposed performance incentive Date Filed: April 29, 2022 NSUARB IR-17, Attachment 3, Page 207 of 343 D.P.U. 21-120 through D.P.U. 21-129 Page 194 The Department finds that the proposed st...
AI summary The Department of Public Utilities has determined that the proposed statewide incentive pool is consistent with previous plans but has reduced it by 10% for each gas and electric Program Administrator due to deficiencies in their filings, which impacted reviewability and reliability.
torney General Brief at 21; DOER Brief at 28, 33; 36-37; Acadia Brief at 21-22; CLF Brief at 43). The Department finds that the addition of an equity component will encourage the Program Administrators to pursue all cost-effective energy e...
AI summary The Department finds that the equity component of the energy efficiency program lacks clearly defined measures, making it difficult to monitor, quantify, and verify performance. The Department requires Program Administrators to revise their data tables and provide detailed methods for tracking equity measures in compliance filings.
nent. Accordingly, each Program Administrator shall provide the following information in its required compliance filing: (1) revised Energy Efficiency Data Tables identifying specific 126 As discussed above, the Department has modified the...
AI summary The Department has modified the criteria for the equity component of the program, making electrification measures in certain communities ineligible for the electrification component. Program Administrators must provide detailed compliance filings, including Energy Efficiency Data Tables and methods for tracking strategic electrification measures at the ZIP code level. The Department accepts the modified electrification component as consistent with energy policies and necessary to overcome barriers in the fuel conversion market.
018 Three-Year Plans Order, at 57-58; 2013-2015 Three-Year Plans Order, at 92-93; 2010-2012 Gas Three-Year Plans Order, at 82-83; 2010-2012 Electric Three-Year Plans Order, at 95-96. The Department finds that a savings component is an esse...
AI summary The Department of Public Utilities (DPUE) approves the inclusion of a savings component in the performance incentive mechanism for the 2022-2024 Three-Year Plan, requiring 75% of planned benefits or the statewide weighted portfolio threshold. The Program Administrators propose removing the value component, arguing it may discourage targeting costly equity and electrification measures, a position supported by the Attorney General and DOER as redundant.
ram Administrator must demonstrate that an increase in budget results in an increase in kWh or therm savings.139 Together, the Department finds that these steps are an important means to ensure that the Program Administrators deliver the f...
AI summary The text discusses the need for Program Administrators to demonstrate that increased budgets lead to increased energy savings, ensuring cost-efficiency and delivering benefits of the Three-Year Plans to ratepayers at the lowest possible cost. It also highlights the significance and materiality of the bill impacts associated with these plans.
Three-Year Plans are significant and material. Notably, these Three-Year Plans are one of several statutory policy initiatives that the Department has overseen in recent years to further 138 Pursuant to Guidelines § 3.8.2(c), a Program Adm...
AI summary The text discusses budgeting procedures for Program Administrators under the Three-Year Plans, allowing a 10% overspend without prior approval but requiring review by the Council and Department for larger budget changes. The process includes submitting justification and supporting documentation if the Council opposes the change.
ressly charged with reviewing the reasonableness of the budget and expenditures, and may modify the budget. St. 1980, c. 465 § 7(b). The Program Administrators must include a description of the activities that support the requested budget....
AI summary The Department of Energy and Resources (DOER) is reviewing the reasonableness of the Residential Conservation Standards (RCS) budgets proposed by Program Administrators. It approves most of the budgets but notes that the portion allocated to home energy scorecards lacks supporting proposals and documentation, raising concerns about the justification for these expenditures.
S operating budgets pursuant to G.L. c. 164 App., § 2-7(b). Each filing shall include prefiled testimony and exhibits addressing: (1) a detailed home energy scorecard proposal;154 and 152 The Department will address the prudence of any hom...
AI summary The Department of Energy and Resources (DOER) is reviewing the prudence of home energy scorecard expenditures as part of the 2019-2021 Three-Year Plans. It notes that the Program Administrators have not finalized a plan for home energy scorecards, and thus cannot authorize the Residential Conservation Standards (RCS) budget as reasonable for this purpose.
n its CVEO proposal in D.P.U. 20-40 and its CVEO proposal in the instant proceeding:158 (1) an increase in assumed battery costs from $10,000 per battery to $12,000 per battery, based on more recent experience; (2) a reduction in battery o...
AI summary The document discusses updates to the Compact's CVEO proposal, including higher battery costs, revised battery output estimates, delayed SMART revenue projections, and changes in incentive structures and participant enrollment timing. The Department rejected the earlier CVEO proposal due to funding issues and legal inconsistencies.
ratepayer protections in the Green Communities Act regarding cost effectiveness, funding, and bill impacts. G.L. c. 25, § 21(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(iv). Customers within the Compact’s member municipalities may opt out of participation in the C...
AI summary The text discusses the Green Communities Act and its provisions related to cost effectiveness, funding, and bill impacts. It highlights that customers in the Compact's municipalities may opt out of the municipal aggregation program but not of having the Compact as their energy efficiency Program Administrator. The Department is required to ensure the Compact spends its funds reasonably and prudently.
age 263 (Statewide Plan, Exh. 1, App. D). Use of non-energy efficiency measures to reach energy efficiency goals would create an imbalance among the other goals set by the EEA Secretary. Therefore, the claim that the proposed CVEO should b...
AI summary The Department of Energy and Resources (DOER) denies the implementation of the Strategic Electrification Offering (CVEO) in the Compact’s 2022-2024 Three-Year Energy Efficiency Plan, citing inconsistencies with the Green Communities Act and significant bill impacts for a limited number of participants. The claim that CVEO helps achieve climate goals is deemed a red herring.
ough its EES (Exhs. Compact-2, at 115, 144; Compact-4 (Rev.) at 3). After review, the Department approves the Compact’s proposed residential multifamily new construction and C&I existing buildings167 enhancements to the Statewide Plan purs...
AI summary The Department of Energy and Resources has approved certain enhancements to the Compact's Statewide Plan but questions the reasonableness of increased incentive levels without a supporting study. The Compact failed to complete a required analysis prior to filing its Three-Year Plan as directed.
rd with its residential new construction and C&I existing buildings enhancements, but makes no substantive findings on the prudence of these incentive levels at this time. The Department again directs the Compact to complete prior to the f...
AI summary The Department of Energy and Resources requires the Compact to analyze enhanced incentives in its 2025-2027 Three-Year Plan, ensuring they are justified and necessary for participation levels. The Compact must provide detailed support for these incentives, including stakeholder review and budget breakdowns, in future filings.
keted as D.P.U. 16-169. That docket remains open and a final resolution of these issues will occur there. Below, the Department addresses the service of Mutual Customers by National Grid (gas) and the Compact during the interim period. 2....
AI summary The text discusses the administration of energy efficiency programs by the Compact and National Grid (gas) for Mutual Customers, highlighting concerns about potential subsidization of gas services using electric efficiency funds. An interim agreement was filed in December 2015 to address joint administration of these services.
ervice territories. 2019-2021 Three-Year Plans Order, at 146, citing 2016-2018 Three-Year Plans Order, at 118. Given the lack of a more specific directive, however, the Compact continued its practice of providing energy efficiency services...
AI summary The document discusses the continuation of energy efficiency services for Mutual Customers heating with natural gas by the Compact, emphasizing the need for adherence to statewide coordination protocols to ensure consistent implementation and prevent subsidization by electric ratepayers. This directive is interim and subject to final resolution in D.P.U. 16-169.
ng mechanism otherwise available to municipal aggregators pursuant to a municipal aggregation plan or G.L. c. 164, § 134(b).179 It is a fully funded reconciling mechanism available to 176 As we have stated previously, while the Compact is...
AI summary The text discusses the oversight of energy efficiency programs by the Department of Public Utilities (D.P.U.) and the legal framework governing municipal aggregation plans and energy efficiency cost recovery mechanisms. It emphasizes the Department's role in ensuring proper cost allocation and the standards applied to energy efficiency plans.
to apportion shared costs under these circumstances, the Department must now consider whether 2021 is an appropriately representative period upon which to set allocation factors for the 186 In its 2022 EES filing, the Compact stated that t...
AI summary The Department is evaluating whether using 2021 as the representative year for cost allocation in the Compact's 2022-2024 Three-Year Plan is reasonable, given the rigorous process of preparing such filings and the potential for higher employee hours in development years.
, where applicable, resulting allocation factor for the 2022-2024 Three-Year Plan term. As we noted above, the Department is currently investigating the Compact’s proposed allocations in several dockets and we expect our findings there wil...
AI summary The Department is investigating the Compact’s proposed allocations in several dockets and expects findings to inform future shared cost allocation methods. The Compact is required to submit a detailed cost allocation proposal in its next Three-Year Plan filing, and must maintain thorough documentation. The Department may require an outside review of the Compact’s allocation policy before the next three-year plan term. The Compact must demonstrate that all expenditures were reasonable and prudently incurred, with direct energy efficiency benefits to customers.
omm 2-14, Att. A). Of those 15 towns, eleven have a participation rate for electric combined at or below 30 percent and seven are at or below 25 percent (Exh. DPU-Comm 2-14, Att. A). In 189 As discussed in Section XI.C., above, National Gr...
AI summary The document highlights low energy efficiency participation rates in most of the Compact's service area, with many municipalities below 30% participation. The Department of Energy and Resources finds these rates concerning and notes the Compact's historically high customer incentives compared to other Program Administrators.
entive mechanism easily applicable to the Compact. As investor-owned utilities, all other Program Administrators are subject to performance incentives and penalties, and poor performance will be the responsibility of the utility’s sharehol...
AI summary The Department emphasizes the need for additional scrutiny of the Compact's performance due to its historical poor performance and the necessity of ensuring that municipal aggregators meet energy efficiency goals and deliver programs safely and equitably.
§ 1A. If the Compact fails to improve on its record of underspending on low-income customers, historically low participation rates among all residential customers relative to the statewide average, and overall cost-effective and cost-effic...
AI summary The Department of Energy and Resources may decertify the Compact’s energy efficiency investment plan if it fails to improve performance, particularly in low-income participation and cost-effectiveness. Certification will be based on performance and ability to meet goals equitably. The text also mentions the consolidation of EGMA/NSTAR Gas three-year plans following an acquisition.
of performance incentive thresholds will allow greater flexibility in pursuing cost-effective efficiency, specifically for strategic electrification (Program Administrators Brief at 82). NSTAR Gas and EGMA also argue that treatment as a co...
AI summary NSTAR Gas and EGMA propose a combined energy efficiency program to reduce implementation costs and improve cost-effectiveness, citing successful integration of previous Three-Year Plans. They argue that a unified approach will streamline planning, reduce costs, and provide a consistent customer experience across service territories.
program design and to jointly implement their programs, asserting that such treatment has the potential to reduce implementation costs (Exhs. NSTAR Gas-2, at 137-138; EGMA-2, at 137-138; Program Administrators Brief at 81). In addition, NS...
AI summary The document discusses the joint implementation of energy efficiency programs by NSTAR Gas and EGMA, citing potential cost savings and consistent customer engagement. The Department of Energy and Resources supports this approach, aligning with the Green Communities Act and aiming to minimize implementation costs through a unified budgeting system.
st effectiveness separately (Exhs. DPU-EGMA 1-1; DPU-NSTAR Gas 1-1). NSTAR Gas and EGMA shall submit separate BCR models and data tables in all filings for the 2022-2024 Three-Year Plans term. The Department will review the performance of...
AI summary The Department of Public Utilities (DPU) requires NSTAR Gas and EGMA to submit separate BCR models and data tables for their 2022-2024 Three-Year Plans. It also mandates that performance incentives be calculated and reported on an individual-company basis, rather than jointly, to ensure cost-effectiveness and avoid underperformance in one service territory.
ut sufficient evidentiary support (Statewide Plan, Exh. 1, at 39). Here, however, the Program Administrators maintain that the Council’s EM&V consultant, at the direction of a councilor, would not authorize the study they submit is necessa...
AI summary The Program Administrators' proposal for the CSCS initiative was not clearly described in the Three-Year Plans filings. DOER required significant details through discovery and directed the Program Administrators to complete a standards attribution evaluation study to support their energy efficiency claims, which must be submitted with their 2022 Annual Reports.
the Council’s EM&V consultant (Exh. DOER-Comm 1-1, at 2). The Program Administrators shall submit such study with their 2022 Annual Reports. Pending the Department’s review of the study, the Program Administrators may include a ten percent...
AI summary The Department is concerned about the Program Administrators' alleged actions under the EM&V process and their decision not to appeal a decision affecting their ability to present information. The EM&V framework, approved in the 2019-2021 Three-Year Plans Order, ensures independence and objectivity through the EM&V consultant and the Council's oversight.
015 Three-Year Plans, Order on Motions for Interim Continuation (2012); 2010-2012 Three-Year Plans, Order on Motions for Interim Continuation (2009). In order to ensure the continuity of energy efficiency programs in the future and to obvi...
AI summary The document discusses the continuation of energy efficiency and RCS programs by Program Administrators until the Department completes its review of the 2025-2027 Three-Year Plans. It references past orders and emphasizes the need for cost-effective resource acquisition in the Three-Year Plans.
c. 25, §§ 19(a), 21(b)(2)(vii). In particular, the Department finds that the proposed budgets are appropriately designed to achieve savings goals while minimizing customer rate impacts. Subject to the modifications and disallowances addres...
AI summary The Department approves the Program Administrators' Three-Year Plans and budgets, subject to modifications and disallowances, aligning with the Green Communities Act and guidelines. Compliance filings with updated data, BCR models, and performance indicators are required within 60 days.
1 • reduced costs through shared resources between energy efficiency and demand 2 response (such as marketing, program administration, measurement and 3 verification); 4 • E1 has valuable experience in delivering similar types of programs....
AI summary The text discusses E1's proposal for integrated energy efficiency and demand response programs, highlighting cost savings, E1's experience, and customer benefits. It also mentions the challenges of implementing new demand response initiatives and E1's commitment to transparency and third-party evaluation.
E-12-(i)NSUARB IR-17 Attachment 2_ACEEE’s Entire State Database - Excel
52 passages
s 2020 fiscal year and ramp up to 2% beginning in FY 2018. Last reviewed: April 2022 "," Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: societal cost test Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: none The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy...
AI summary Arizona's energy efficiency programs use the Societal Cost Test (SCT) as the primary cost-effectiveness metric, evaluating non-energy benefits like health, safety, and environmental impacts. Regulatory orders (A.A.C. R14-2-2409 and R14-2-2415) mandate third-party evaluations, with procedures documented in state rules. The Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP) and National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP) provide additional context on Arizona's screening practices.
ch include provisions for demand-side resources. The most recent budgets for energy efficiency programs and electricity and natural gas savings can be found in the State Spending and Savings Tables. For further reading, in March 2011, as p...
AI summary The text discusses energy efficiency programs in Arkansas, including the establishment of energy efficiency resource standards, cost recovery mechanisms, and the expansion of programs by utilities to meet annual targets. It references regulatory actions and reports related to these initiatives.
: April 2022 "," Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test, participant cost test, ratepayer impact measure test The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy...
AI summary Arkansas evaluates energy efficiency programs using the Total Resource Cost (TRC) as the primary cost-effectiveness test, alongside the Utility Cost Test (UCT), Participant Cost Test (PCT), and Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM). The Arkansas Public Service Commission (APSC) mandates independent evaluations and compliance with the Arkansas Technical Reference Manual (TRM). The state also aligns its practices with the National Standard Practice Manual (NSPM).
nditures. Last Reviewed: July 2019 ","No policy in place or proposed. Last Reviewed: July 2019 ",0 out of 3,"Arkansas has not set appliance standards beyond those required by the federal government. Last Reviewed: June 2019 ", California,1...
AI summary Arkansas has not implemented appliance standards beyond federal requirements, while California offers a range of energy efficiency incentives, including PACE financing, high performance grants, and leads by example through energy benchmarking and building efficiency requirements.
3, the CPUC developed new electric and natural gas goals in 2008 for years 2012 through 2020, which call for 16,300 GWh of gross electric savings over the 9-year period (see CPUC Decision 08-07-047). In 2015, California essentially doubled...
AI summary The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has set energy efficiency goals since 2008, including doubling targets with SB 350 in 2015 and updating them in 2019. The evaluation of energy efficiency programs uses cost-effectiveness tests and is overseen by the CPUC.
creening Project. Further information on health and environmental benefits is available in ACEEE’s Overview of State Approaches to Account for Health and Environmental Benefits of Energy Efficiency. Independent evaluation, measurement, and...
AI summary Connecticut’s energy efficiency programs, including the HES-Income Eligible program, are evaluated through an independent process and are aimed at reducing energy costs for low-income customers. These programs are supported by Public Act 11-80 and are central to the state’s goal of weatherizing 80% of existing homes by 2030.
21 Plan, the utilities also plan to introduce an MMBtu-based or a greenhouse gas emissions reductions-based metric for tracking purposes. Last reviewed: July 2019 ","Guidelines for Third Party Access Under Gen. Stats. §16-245o(d) and Regul...
AI summary The document discusses energy use data policies in Connecticut, including third-party access requirements, public availability of non-residential building energy data, and the use of dashboards to track energy efficiency programs and consumption metrics. It also mentions the introduction of new metrics for tracking purposes.
ent of enforcement mechanisms. Given the lack of final implementation rules, and the funding and institutional challenges outlined above, Delaware's energy savings targets are considered voluntary. Established by SB 150, House Amendment 2...
AI summary Delaware's energy efficiency targets are voluntary due to a lack of final implementation rules and institutional challenges. The EEAC, established by SB 150, sets incremental energy savings goals for utilities, with targets increasing annually to reach cumulative 3-year goals. Evaluations of energy efficiency programs are mandated by the Energy Efficiency Resource Standards Act of 2009 and administered by DNREC.
ve mandates (Energy Efficiency Resource Standards Act of 2009). The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control administers evaluations. Statewide evaluations are conducted. According to the Database of State Efficie...
AI summary Delaware uses the Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) as its primary cost-effectiveness test for energy efficiency programs, incorporating environmental and health benefits. The state's EM&V regulations, established in 2017, require energy providers to demonstrate compliance with energy savings targets and define methods for measuring energy savings.
annually) from customers to be forwarded to the Department of Health and Social Services, Division of State Service Centers, to be used to fund low-income fuel assistance and weatherization programs. The Delaware Weatherization Assistance...
AI summary The Delaware Weatherization Assistance Program aims to complete 400 homes annually and is funded by a $4 million allocation from the merger of Exelon and Delmarva Power. The program's funds are used to support energy efficiency initiatives for low-income households and must be approved by the Energy Efficiency Advisory Council and the Public Service Commission.
ers. The EM&V Committee recommended a proposed net-to-gross ratio for low-income programs to be 1. This includes income-eligible HES, low-income multi-family, and low-income new construction programs. The EM&V Committee in 2016 recommended...
AI summary The EM&V Committee recommended a net-to-gross ratio of 1 for low-income energy efficiency programs and specific non-energy benefits. These programs are coordinated with WAP and other funding sources. The Low-Income Energy Efficiency Committee of the EEAC was formed to develop cost-effective programs, including working with existing services like WAP, LIHEAP, and others.
entered microgrids for critical infrastructure, which will use CHP. The DC Public Service Commission is also examining a potential CHP-centered microgrid pilot project which will provide resiliency. Last Updated: August 2019 ",9.5 out of 2...
AI summary The District of Columbia has implemented energy efficiency programs funded by a systems benefits charge, initially through the Reliable Energy Trust Fund and later replaced by the Sustainable Energy Trust Fund. The DCSEU administers these programs, with performance incentives and penalties tied to meeting energy efficiency targets.
mation within its annual FEECA report to the governor and legislature. For more information on energy efficiency as a resource, click here. Last reviewed: June 2020 ","Florida does not have an EERS. The Florida Energy Efficiency and Conser...
AI summary Florida's Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act (FEECA) sets energy and peak demand savings goals for utilities, which are reviewed every five years. The Public Service Commission adopted goals in 2014 and 2019, which are lower than those set in 2009 due to factors like more stringent building codes and lower natural gas prices. The evaluation of energy efficiency programs uses the ratepayer impact measure test and total resource cost test.
y cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test, participant cost test, societal cost test, ratepayer impact measure test Program evaluations are required. EM&V repor...
AI summary Georgia uses the Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) as its primary cost-effectiveness test for energy efficiency programs, with secondary tests including utility cost, participant cost, societal cost, and ratepayer impact measure tests. Program evaluations and EM&V reports are required periodically, and environmental externalities are factored into the TRC. Information is available in the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP).
e Energy Circuit Rider. The Idaho Code Collaborative includes the Office of Energy and Mineral Resources, the state’s electric investor-owned utilities, and the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. Last Updated: July 2021 ",,"The state ha...
AI summary Idaho has limited policies to encourage CHP deployment, with no interconnection standards or state-wide policies to acquire energy savings or generation from CHP. Some financing options exist, such as low-interest energy loans and the Renewable Energy Project Bond Program. Energy efficiency programs are administered by investor-owned utilities under the oversight of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission.
2019 "," Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test (Avista, PacifiCorp) Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test and participant cost test Each utility is required to conduct an impact and proces...
AI summary The document outlines the cost-effectiveness tests used by utilities, including the utility cost test (UCT) and total resource cost test (TRC), and mentions Order No. 33365, which directed Idaho Power Company to use these tests for program evaluation. It also references the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP) and recommendations from PUC staff regarding low-income energy efficiency programs.
rcial and industrial. Energizing Indiana was administered by a single independent, third-party entity, which was contracted by all of the utilities. Utilities were able to oversee additional programs. In March 2014, the Indiana legislature...
AI summary In 2014, Indiana legislature ended the Energizing Indiana program, eliminating the state's Energy Efficiency Resource Standards (EERS). Governor Pence supported energy efficiency but encouraged new frameworks. SEA 412, signed in 2015, requires utilities to submit integrated resource plans and include EM&V procedures. The IURC is updating administrative rules for integrated resource planning and DSM cost recovery. The primary cost-effectiveness test is the total resource cost test, with secondary tests including the utility cost test and participant cost test.
er 2018 "," Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test, participant cost test, ratepayer impact measure test Regulatory orders lay out the process for eval...
AI summary The document outlines the cost-effectiveness tests used in Indiana for evaluating energy efficiency programs. The primary test is the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test, with secondary tests including the Utility Cost Test (UCT), Participant Cost Test (PCT), and Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM) test. These are governed by 170 IAC 4-8 Guidelines for Demand-Side Cost Recovery by Electric Utilities.
red for overall portfolio and program level screening. According to the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), Indiana relies on the TRC test as its primary cost-effectiveness test. Effective December 31, 2014, SEA 340 e...
AI summary Indiana's energy efficiency programs are governed by SEA 340, which ended the state-wide core program and shifted program oversight to utilities. EM&V is required for natural gas programs, with oversight by a Joint Oversight Board. The TRC test is used for cost-effectiveness screening, and further information is available in the DSESP.
"Summary: For the 2019-2023 planning period, targets vary by utility, with average incremental electricity savings of 0.89% per year and natural gas savings between 0.10% and 0.29% of retail sales. For the 2019-2023 planning period IPL set...
AI summary For the 2019-2023 planning period, Iowa's rate-regulated utilities set incremental energy savings goals, with varying targets for electricity and natural gas. The primary cost-effectiveness test used is the societal cost test, and secondary tests include the utility cost test, participant cost test, and others. Evaluations of energy efficiency programs are conducted by utilities under Iowa Administrative Code.
ita basis, the Maryland electric utilities and cooperatives as a whole met the 10% reduction goal for energy use, but did not meet the 15% demand reduction goal, with 11% and 8% achieved respectively. The PSC issued new EmPOWER targets wit...
AI summary Maryland's energy efficiency programs are evaluated using the total resource cost test and societal cost test. Legislative mandates and regulatory orders, including Order 87082, guide these evaluations. Utilities and the PSC collaborate, with EM&V contractors conducting annual assessments and the PSC verifying results.
incremental savings totaling 357,400 MWh over 2018-2020, or approximately 2.4% of annual sales. Natural gas - Three-year annual incremental savings of 192,599 Mcf spanning 2018-2020, or 0.5% of sales. Vermont does not have traditional EERS...
AI summary Vermont's energy efficiency programs focus on incremental savings in electricity and natural gas, with no traditional EERS legislation. Instead, the PUC sets budgets and goals every three years through a Demand Resource Plan proceeding, with compensation tied to performance. The EEU structure is reviewed every six years, and the administrator may be replaced if goals are not met.
r integration of forecasting (EEU Structure Docket 7466). Every 6 years there is a performance review for the three EEUs to determine if each appointment should be extended for an additional 6 years. In addition to the EEU Structure the st...
AI summary The document discusses the structure and performance review cycle of Energy Efficiency Utilities (EEUs) in Vermont, the Renewable Energy Standard (Act 56) requiring distribution utilities to reduce fossil fuel use, and the evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs under legislative and regulatory frameworks.
in the year following the year in which they were achieved. Excess credits cannot be banked if a utility has opted to receive incentive payments for exceeding its savings targets in a particular year. Regulated investor-owned utilities are...
AI summary In Michigan, energy efficiency programs are evaluated using the Utility Cost Test (UCT) as the primary cost-effectiveness measure, with secondary tests including Total Resource Cost (TRC), Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM), and Participant Cost Test (PCT). The Michigan Energy Measures Database (MEMD) supports these evaluations, and formal rules are established under PA 342.
U-16302, U-16303, U-16736, U-17281, U-17601). The Commission also approved a performance incentive for SEMCO Gas (U-17362) and Indiana Michigan Power Company (U-17353) for program years 2014 and 2015. PA 295 (2008) contained two provisions...
AI summary The Commission approved performance incentives for several utilities, including SEMCO Gas and Indiana Michigan Power Company, for program years 2014 and 2015. PA 295 (2008) allowed utilities to capitalize energy efficiency program costs and earn performance incentives for exceeding annual energy savings targets. The MPSC updated its administrative rules in 2017 regarding data privacy and accessibility.
ing, in August 2011, as part of the State Clean Energy Resource Project, ACEEE completed the report Missouri's Energy Efficiency Potential: Opportunities for Economic Growth and Energy Sustainability. Last reviewed: July 2019 ","Missouri h...
AI summary Missouri's energy efficiency goals are voluntary and include incremental and cumulative annual savings targets. The state uses the Total Resource Cost (TRC) and Utility Cost Test (UCT) as primary and secondary cost-effectiveness tests for evaluating energy efficiency programs.
ed in the California Standard Practice Manual. These are the Total Resource Cost (TRC) and utility cost test (UCT). The benefit-cost tests are required for portfolio and total program level screening. According to the Database of State Eff...
AI summary The text discusses Missouri's use of the Total Resource Cost (TRC) as its primary benefit-cost test for energy efficiency programs, including non-energy benefits. It also mentions the approval of technical reference manuals for Ameren Missouri and KCP&L, and the development of a statewide TRM for gas and electric measures, which has not yet been approved by the Missouri Public Service Commission. Natural gas utilities use all five cost effectiveness tests as governed by specific regulations.
gh EM&V reports as a percentage of annual demand savings targets. Utilities may also propose recovery of lost revenues as measured and verified through EM&V prior to recovery on a retrospective basis. In early 2016, the Commission approved...
AI summary The document discusses the approval of DSM programs and DSIMs for Ameren Missouri, KCP&L, and KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company, allowing utilities to bill customers for estimated lost revenues and recover them through EM&V. Performance incentives are tied to achieving energy and demand savings targets over a 3-year period, with recovery over a 2-year period.
energy and/or demand savings for programs are determined through retrospective net-to-gross EM&V performed by each utility’s independent EM&V contractors and reviewed by the Commission’s EM&V auditor. In October 2017, the Commission promul...
AI summary The document outlines the process for determining energy and demand savings through retrospective net-to-gross EM&V conducted by utility contractors and reviewed by the Commission's auditor. It also references regulatory changes in October 2017, including the promulgation and revision of CSR regulations related to demand-side programs and investment mechanisms.
nd general terms for the implementation of an EERS in New Hampshire. A Settlement Agreement, including the establishment of an EERS, was approved by the Commission in Order No. 25,932 in August 2016. For more information on Energy Efficien...
AI summary New Hampshire implemented an Energy Efficiency Resource Standard (EERS) through a Settlement Agreement approved by the Commission in Order No. 25,932 in August 2016. The evaluation of energy efficiency programs is guided by legislative mandates and regulatory orders, with the total resource cost being the primary cost-effectiveness test. The EERS expansion has increased EM&V activities, including hiring independent experts and developing technical manuals.
impact evaluations on a number of specific programs; and adding a representative from the Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Energy (EESE) board to the EM&V working group established in DE 15-137.? According to the Database of State Efficie...
AI summary The text discusses the use of the Total Resource Cost (TRC) as a primary test for decision-making in energy efficiency programs in New Hampshire, including non-energy costs and benefits. It also references the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP) and other resources for further information on cost-effectiveness screening practices and health and environmental benefits.
Last reviewed: August 2021 "," Gap Analysis/Strategic Compliance Plan: NJ has an Evaluation Plan which was last made public in May 2017. The BPU’s Office of Clean Energy, in conjunction with the independent evaluator, Rutgers Center for Gr...
AI summary New Jersey has an ongoing Evaluation Plan updated by the BPU and Rutgers Center for Green Building, with a baseline study completed in 2019. A Code Compliance Study is underway, and the Clean Energy Act mandates the development of quantitative performance indicators by utilities. Utilities can participate in advisory groups and committees related to energy codes.
s, within five years of implementation of their energy efficiency and peak demand reduction programs, and until such time as all cost-effective energy efficiency is achieved in each utility territory. The Board of Public Utilities has adop...
AI summary The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (NJBPU) has set energy efficiency and peak demand reduction targets for utilities, based on the 2019 market potential study. The program includes triennial reviews, cost recovery mechanisms, and performance incentives. Evaluation is conducted annually by a third party, Rutgers University CEEEP, to ensure independence.
exico’s utilities, and representatives of the Public Regulation Commission, and preserved the targets but reduced the energy savings requirement in 2020 for electric utilities from 10% to 8% of sales. In early 2019, the New Mexico legislat...
AI summary New Mexico passed HB 291 in 2019, which sets energy efficiency program requirements for utilities, reduces the energy savings target for electric utilities from 10% to 8% in 2020, and mandates the development of energy savings targets for 2026–2030. Distribution cooperatives must self-impose electricity reduction targets and report annually to the PRC. Energy efficiency programs are subject to cost-effectiveness testing and independent evaluation for measurement and verification.
3% for gas in 2025. Last Updated: August 2020 "," Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: societal cost test Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test, ratepayer impact measure Both utilities and the New York State Ener...
AI summary The text outlines the cost-effectiveness tests used in New York for evaluating energy efficiency programs, including the societal cost test and utility cost test. It mentions the use of a technical reference manual and guidance from NYSERDA and the Public Service Commission for program evaluations. The societal cost test includes environmental and non-energy benefits.
will measure direct impacts (i.e., impacts expected from pilots and projects directly funded by NYSERDA) as well as indirect impacts (i.e., longer-term market effects from follow-on market activity). Further information on cost-effectivene...
AI summary The text discusses the EmPower New York program, administered by NYSERDA, which provides no-cost energy services for low-income households. It also references a PSC Order requiring NYSERDA to invest in LMI initiatives using Market Development funds from the Clean Energy Fund.
.75% annually through 2018. Last Updated: May 2020 "," Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency prog...
AI summary Ohio evaluates ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs using the Total Resource Cost (TRC) and Utility/Program Administrator (UCT) tests. The TRC is the primary test and considers non-energy benefits like productivity, water savings, and environmental impacts. Low-income programs are subject to a different evaluation standard.
t revenues and earn an incentive for implementing successful energy efficiency programs. Last reviewed: July 2020 ","There is currently no policy in place that treats energy efficiency as a resource. Last reviewed: July 2020 ","There is cu...
AI summary The evaluation of energy efficiency programs in Oklahoma uses multiple cost-effectiveness tests, including the total resource cost test, utility cost test, participant cost test, societal cost test, and ratepayer impact measure. These tests are mandated by regulatory orders and Commission rules, and apply to all levels of program evaluation.
1. Natural gas: ~0.5% of sales annually for 2020–2021. SB 1157 (2016) directs electric utilities to plan for and pursue all cost-effective energy efficiency. ETO's 2021 Action Plan can be found here. Annual goals for Energy Trust reflect a...
AI summary The text discusses Oregon's energy efficiency programs, including the use of cost-effectiveness tests such as the total resource cost test and utility cost test. It references regulatory orders and the role of the Energy Trust of Oregon in administering evaluations of ratepayer-funded programs. Annual goals are set based on the Energy Trust's Strategic Plan and incorporated into Integrated Resource Plans (IRP).
. Evaluations are mainly administered by the Energy Trust of Oregon. Oregon has formal requirements for evaluation articulated in Docket UM 551, Order 94-590. Statewide evaluations are conducted. Oregon uses two of the five classic benefit...
AI summary Oregon evaluates energy efficiency programs using the Total Resource Cost (TRC) and Utility Cost Test (UCT) as primary benefit-cost tests. Exceptions to cost-effectiveness requirements are allowed under specific conditions, such as for low-income programs, pilots, or when non-energy benefits are significant.
ow 150% of the Federal Income Poverty Guidelines. Details are available in each years’ Universal Service Report on the PUC website. Cost-Effectiveness Rules for Low-Income Energy Efficiency Programs In Order M-2015-2468992, the PUC specifi...
AI summary The Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission (PUC) uses the total resource cost (TRC) test as its primary cost-effectiveness test for low-income energy efficiency programs. There is no separate TRC test for low-income programs, and no performance incentives are in place for successful programs. Coordination between weatherization and energy efficiency programs is managed through a 2016 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that has not been publicly posted.
urement mandate, National Grid is required to participate in strategic long-term planning and invest in all energy efficiency that is cost-effective and cheaper than supply on behalf of its customers. The act also established requirements...
AI summary Rhode Island's EERS policy mandates strategic long-term planning and energy efficiency procurement by utilities like National Grid. Utilities must submit 3-year and annual plans with spending and savings goals, reviewed annually by the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission. Energy efficiency cost-effectiveness is evaluated using state-specific tests, with deemed savings and technical reference materials provided by utilities.
l utilities perform integrated resource planning (IRP), which considers energy efficiency as a potential resource to meet demands. For more information on energy efficiency as a resource, click here. Last Updated: July 2018 ","There is cur...
AI summary The text discusses how South Dakota evaluates energy efficiency programs using cost-effectiveness tests, including the Total Resource Cost (TRC) as the primary test and several secondary tests. It also notes the absence of an Energy Efficiency Resource Standard (EERS) and the voluntary participation of utilities in the state's Renewable, Recycled, and Conserved Energy Objective.
test, ratepayer impact measure test Evaluations in Tennessee are mainly administered by the Tennessee Valley Authority. There are no specific legal requirements for these evaluations in Tennessee. According to the Database of State Efficie...
AI summary In Tennessee, evaluations for energy efficiency programs are primarily administered by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), which uses the Total Resource Cost (TRC) model as its primary cost-effectiveness test and the Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM) and Utility Cost Test (UCT) as secondary tests. TVA conducts ongoing evaluations every three to four years and has engaged third-party contractors for data collection and process improvements. Flexibility exists for low-income programs, pilots, and new technologies.
by December 31, 2009 (Texas House Bill 3693). The legislation also required utilities to submit energy savings goals. The Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) approved these rules in March 2008. While the 2007 legislation required uti...
AI summary Texas legislation and regulatory actions, including Senate Bill 1125 and PUCT orders, establish energy savings goals and cost caps for utilities. The PUCT uses the utility cost test as the primary cost-effectiveness test for evaluating ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs.
requirements for annual reporting PacifiCorp are articulated in Docket No. 17-035-04. The PSC’s formal requirements for evaluation for Dominion are articulated in Docket Nos. 05-057-T01 and 07-057-05. Utah uses four of the five classic ben...
AI summary The document outlines the regulatory requirements for energy efficiency programs in Utah, including the use of benefit-cost tests and the support provided by Rocky Mountain Power for low-income weatherization services through partnerships with state agencies.
ding of 50% of the cost of approved measures is leveraged by HCD with the federal funding they receive, allowing more homes to be served each year. Services are at no cost to the program participants. Dominion annually provides $500,000 of...
AI summary The text discusses low-income energy efficiency programs in Utah, including funding sources, eligibility criteria, and cost-effectiveness rules. It highlights Dominion's contribution of $500,000 annually, the use of specific tests for program approval, and coordination with the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP).
taking effect by 2022. Last reviewed: August 2021 "," Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test The Regional Technical Forum (RTF), a part of the Northwes...
AI summary The Regional Technical Forum (RTF) provides regional-deemed savings values for energy efficiency measures, which electric investor-owned utilities must use unless they can justify using company-specific values. In Washington, electric utilities are required to evaluate their ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs using independent third-party consultants and file EM&V Frameworks and Plans with each Biennial Conservation Plan.
information on energy efficiency as a resource, click here. Last reviewed: July 2019 ","There is currently no EERS in place. For more information on Energy Efficiency Resource Standards, click here. Last reviewed: July 2019 ","Appalachian...
AI summary The text discusses the absence of Energy Efficiency Resource Standards (EERS) and outlines requirements for Appalachian Power's third-party program evaluations, including gross and net savings reporting. It also covers low-income energy efficiency programs, noting the lack of cost-effectiveness tests and coordination with WAP services. Opt-out provisions for large customers are mentioned, with future evaluation by the Commission.
was approved by the Joint Finance Committee of the state legislature, the state limited funding to Focus on Energy to 1.2% of revenues, which resulted in a major reduction in energy efficiency goals. The Commission in May 2018 set four-yea...
AI summary The Joint Finance Committee limited Focus on Energy's funding to 1.2% of revenues, reducing energy efficiency goals. The Commission set four-year savings targets for 2019-2022, using lifecycle terms. Wisconsin's evaluation of energy efficiency programs is guided by Act 141 and PSC Chapter 137, with an independent evaluator required for annual evaluations.
federal, state, and utility funding is unique in that Wisc. Stat. §16.957 directs agencies to aggregate all funding streams into a single public benefit fund to coordinate distribution of assistance. Last reviewed: June 2020 ","While self-...
AI summary The text discusses funding aggregation under Wisconsin Statute §16.957, requirements for large customer self-direct programs, and a gas cost recovery mechanism approved in 2011. It also mentions a performance bonus mechanism in a 2019-2022 contract with SEERA and Aptim Government Solutions.
ide-management programs for Rocky Mountain Power (RMP) that began January 1st, 2009 (see Docket No. 20000-264-EA-06). These programs represent the state’s first significant energy efficiency activity. RMP’s 2011 Integrated Resource Plan (I...
AI summary The document discusses energy efficiency programs for Rocky Mountain Power (RMP) and other utilities in Wyoming, including their Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and the lack of an Energy Efficiency Resource Standard (EERS). The primary and secondary cost-effectiveness tests used for evaluating these programs are outlined, along with the regulatory oversight by the Wyoming Public Service Commission.