E-22024 DSM Programs Evaluation Reports
57 passages
Custom - › Compared to 2023, Custom participation decreased in 2024. While Retrofit and Building Optimization participation levels decreased, New Construction participation significantly increased in 2024. - › Following the project reviews...
AI summary Custom program participation decreased in 2024, with Retrofit and Building Optimization participation declining while New Construction increased. The Evaluator adjusted energy and peak demand savings estimates, noting reduced free-ridership (15% for Retrofit, 28% for New Construction) and no spillover. Evaluated savings were 8% and 5% higher than E1's tracked figures.
Table 7: 2024 Free-ridership, Spillover, and NTGRs Program Component and Measure Type Free-ridership Levels Spillover Levels NTGR Residential Appliance Retirement a Refrigerators 43% 0% 0.57 Freezers 45% 0.55 Air Conditioners 47% 0.53 Smal...
AI summary Table 7 presents data on free-ridership, spillover, and net-to-gross ratios (NTGR) for various energy efficiency programs in 2024. It includes metrics for residential and non-residential programs, highlighting levels of free-ridership and spillover across different measures and participant categories.
4.1 Participant and Partner Satisfaction The 2024 evaluation revealed high participant satisfaction with E1 and its programs. Affordable Multifamily Housing, Affordable Single-family Homes, Efficient Product Installation, Custom (New Const...
AI summary The 2024 evaluation showed high participant satisfaction with E1 and its programs, with scores of 7.9 or higher for several initiatives. Program partners were generally satisfied but less so than participants. A table presents the average satisfaction scores for program components on a 0-to-10 scale.
Table 1: Summary of 2024 Residential Efficient Product Rebates Program Evaluation Program Evaluation Type Component Impact Process Market Methodology Appliance Retirement Condensed › Tracking sheet audit › Unitary savings review › Calculat...
AI summary The 2024 Residential Efficient Product Rebates Program Evaluation includes assessments of the Appliance Retirement and Instant Savings components. The evaluation uses methods such as tracking sheet audits, unitary savings reviews, and GHG emission reduction calculations. The Instant Savings component also includes participant surveys and market effects analysis.
ARet Findings and Recommendations This subsection presents the key findings from the 2024 ARet evaluation. The Evaluator has no specific recommendation for ARet. 2024 ARet-Finding: ARet achieved both its net electrical energy savings and p...
AI summary The 2024 ARet program met its energy and peak demand savings targets by 22% and 18%, respectively, with a 39% increase in participation driven mainly by refrigerator and freezer retirements. Savings tracked by the Evaluator were slightly lower than those by E1.
lates. Recommendation #3: Investigate the possibility of improving the audit reporting templates to improve time efficiencies for EAs, for example by streamlining the reports as much as possible. 2024 AMH-Finding: Costs and lack of budget...
AI summary The 2024 AMH findings highlight barriers like budget constraints and rental rate disparities, leading to lower-than-expected energy savings. Recommendations include improving audit templates for EAs and clarifying co-financing options. AMH achieved 39% less energy savings than planned, with 83 projects generating 21% fewer electrical savings compared to 2023.
Residential Behaviour Findings and Recommendations This subsection presents the key findings from the 2024 Residential Behaviour evaluation. The Evaluator has no specific recommendation for Residential Behaviour. 2024 Residential Behaviour...
AI summary The 2024 Residential Behaviour program achieved 6.270 GWh in energy savings, below its 8.000 GWh target, but shows promise as it scales. Attrition rates reached 5.2-7.0% among participants, and treatment group customers showed higher engagement in other programs compared to controls.
1.3 Participation History Since 2021, AMH savings are generated by two types of projects, namely comprehensive and prescriptive projects. In 2024, 83 projects generating electrical energy savings were completed under AMH, including 19 comp...
AI summary The Affordable Multifamily Housing (AMH) program in Nova Scotia saw 83 projects completed in 2024, generating 1.159 GWh of electrical energy savings and 0.570 MW of peak demand savings. Prescriptive projects dominated (80% of savings), though savings per project decreased compared to 2023. Comprehensive projects increased from 11 to 19, reflecting stabilization after prior growth driven by heat pump projects.
3.2.3 Barriers to Participation and Program Completion For the dropped-out participants who started but did not complete the program component, financial barriers were cited most often as reasons for dropping out of AMH. Dropped-out partic...
AI summary The analysis identifies financial barriers, low incentives, lengthy payback periods, and affordability covenant issues as key reasons for AMH program dropout. Participants cited insufficient budgets, unexpected costs, and dissatisfaction with rental rates. Program ineligibility and external factors like property sales or illness also contributed. E1 staff and EAs highlighted ongoing challenges with affordability and upfront costs.
2024 AMH-Finding: In 2024, despite a slight increase in participation compared to 2023, AMH achieved lower savings than in 2023. AMH reached its highest participation rate since inception with 83 completed projects generating electrical sa...
AI summary In 2024, AMH achieved lower energy and peak demand savings compared to 2023 despite an 83-project completion rate (5% higher than 2023). Prescriptive projects showed 31% and 29% declines in energy and demand savings, while comprehensive projects saw 85% and 89% increases, but overall savings remained 21% and 23% lower than 2023.
ASFH Challenges: - › The software tools used to manage/deliver the program require more training, communications, and efficiencies to reduce administrative burden (DAs and contractors) - › Existence of scams leads to participant mistrust o...
AI summary Challenges in the Affordable Single-family Homes (ASFH) program include software training needs, scams causing mistrust, confusion with OHPA, information gaps, long E1 processing times, and communication delays between E1 and heat pump contractors.
2024 ASFH-Finding: In 2024, 1,210 homes participated in ASFH, nearly five times the number recorded in 2023. Among the 1,210 ASFH participants, 880 implemented building envelope measures, with 696 of them also installing a heat pump. Addit...
AI summary In 2024, 1,210 homes participated in ASFH, a fivefold increase from 2023. Participants implemented building envelope measures, heat pumps, and smart thermostats. While gross energy savings rose 158% and peak demand savings 233%, average savings per participant fell 48% due to updated adjustment ratios and a shift toward projects with lower impact, like smart thermostats and non-modelled heat pumps.
2024 EPI Participant Perspective Highlights - › Participants learned about EPI mainly through word of mouth followed by online advertisements and social media. - › Satisfaction with the service overall is very high as is satisfaction with...
AI summary Participants in the 2024 EPI program primarily learned about it through word-of-mouth, online ads, and social media. Overall satisfaction with the service and its specific aspects is very high, with most participants having no recommendations for improvement.
14.2.1 Installation Rates Installation rates represent the proportions of products recorded in the tracking sheet that remain installed in participant homes. During the 2024 evaluation, the Evaluator conducted 60 on-site visits to update i...
AI summary The 2024 evaluation of installation rates for EPI measures involved 60 on-site visits, with some products having unreliable rates. Thermostatic shower valves retained an 89% rate due to proximity to prior data, while smart thermostats for MSHPs had 84% due to participant disconnections. Margins of error influenced these decisions.
2024 EPI-Finding: Participation slightly increased in 2024, although not enough to increase savings compared to 2023. While participation increased by 2% in 2024, average electrical energy savings per participant decreased by 6.3%. This re...
AI summary Participation in the 2024 EPI program increased by 2%, but average electrical energy savings per participant fell by 6.3%. This decline was driven by updates to the 2024-2025 DSM MA, including reduced savings estimates for smart thermostats (28%) and LED lamps (39%) in EPI gross savings.
The NTGR is calculated using the following equation. NTGR = (1 – % Free-ridership + % Participant Spillover) The NTGR values calculated with the free-ridership and spillover levels established for HEA are presented in [Table](#page-165-1)...
AI summary The NTGR is calculated using the formula (1 – % Free-ridership + % Participant Spillover), with values based on free-ridership and spillover levels established for HEA, as presented in Table 64.
25 MHEEP Overview This section describes the Mi'kmaw Home Energy Efficiency Project (MHEEP or the Project) program component, follows up on past evaluation recommendations, and provides an overview of MHEEP participation history.
AI summary This section outlines the Mi'kmaw Home Energy Efficiency Project (MHEEP), detailing its program component, follow-up on prior evaluation recommendations, and an overview of historical participation in the initiative.
25.3 Participation History As presented in [Figure](#page-42-0) 16 below, 192 participants completed projects and achieved electrical energy savings under MHEEP in 2024, representing a 19% increase in participation compared to 2023 and the...
AI summary The MHEEP program saw a 19% increase in participants in 2024, but average energy savings per participant dropped by 41% due to updated adjustment ratios. Appliance replacements also occurred, and peak demand savings increased despite lower energy savings.
Analysis of Participation in Other Programs The Evaluator compared the participation levels between the treatment and control groups in other residential program components offered by E1, namely Efficient Product Installation (EPI), Green...
AI summary The Evaluator analyzed participation rates in E1's residential programs (EPI, Green Heat, HEA) between treatment and control groups to verify higher engagement in treatment groups and adjust savings calculations to prevent double-counting.
Home Energy Assessment Appendix XXVI: HEA Past Participant Survey Questionnaire Appendix XXVII: HEA Past Participant Survey Results Appendix XXVIII: HEA Expired Participant Survey Questionnaire Appendix XXIX: HEA Expired Participant Survey...
AI summary The document outlines appendices related to the Home Energy Assessment (HEA) program, including past and expired participant surveys, audit tracking sheets, billing analysis methodologies, reporting requirements, and 2024 recommendations. These appendices focus on program evaluation, performance monitoring, and participant engagement metrics.
D. Challenges/Barriers to Completion - D1. In your experience, what reasons would lead someone who completed an energy audit of their building to choose not to go ahead with the recommended upgrades and discontinue their participation in t...
AI summary The section outlines open-ended questions about barriers to program completion, including reasons participants might discontinue upgrades post-audit, challenges faced, requested support (e.g., better communication), and strategies for Efficiency Nova Scotia to improve participation rates.
F. Recommendations for Program Improvements - F1. What information, tools, support, or training would make your role in the Affordable Multifamily Housing program easier? [OPEN END] - F2. Do you have any ideas how to better communicate or...
AI summary The section seeks stakeholder input on improving the Affordable Multifamily Housing (AMH) program through better tools, communication strategies, and additional recommendations. Four open-ended questions focus on enhancing program effectiveness, participant engagement, and overall improvements.
Table 1: Overview of Data Collection Activity Descriptor This Instrument Instrument Type Telephone participant interview Estimated Time to Complete 25-30 min Target Audience Participants who completed the Affordable Multifamily Housing pro...
AI summary This document outlines the data collection activity for a telephone interview targeting participants of the Affordable Multifamily Housing program (AMH). The survey aims to verify program effectiveness, assess participant awareness, motivations, satisfaction, challenges, and recommendations for improvement. It is to be adapted by Econoler.
A. Program Awareness and Initial Motivations to Participate - A1. To start, how did you first learn about Efficiency Nova Scotia's Affordable Multifamily Housing program? [DO NOT READ LIST. ACCEPT MULTIPLE RESPONSES] - 1. (Efficiency Nova...
AI summary The text outlines survey questions about awareness and motivations for participating in Efficiency Nova Scotia's Affordable Multifamily Housing program. It asks how respondents learned about the program, what attracted them, and their expectations. It also mentions two participation pathways: Prescriptive and Comprehensive.
This appendix summarizes all the recommendations made by the Evaluator as part of the 2024 ASFH evaluation. Section Recommendations Executive Summary Recommendation #1: To assess progress with participant wait times, E1 could track wait ti...
AI summary The appendix outlines seven recommendations from the Evaluator for improving the 2024 ASFH evaluation, focusing on participant experience, program clarity, communication, and administrative efficiency for delivery agents and contractors.
[VOLUNTEERED] - 98. Don't know - 99. Refused - G4. [IF ANY OF [G3](#page-115-0)[A](#page-115-1)[-H](#page-115-2) > 0; SHOW ONLY PRODUCTS FROM [G3](#page-115-0) IF > 0] Did you receive an instant rebate at the cashier for the [INSERT PRODUC...
AI summary The text includes survey questions about customers' receipt of instant rebates for energy-efficient products and their perception of the influence of the Efficient Product Installation Service on their purchasing decisions, focusing on program participation and customer experience metrics.
A. Verification and Recall - A1. We understand you participated in the program in for your house located at [IF GH, ADD] by installing a . Is that correct? - 1. Yes [CONTINUE] - 2. No [END]
AI summary This section outlines a verification process for program participation, asking respondents to confirm installation of specific energy efficiency measures in their homes as part of a program during a specified year. The text includes a yes/no response option with branching logic.
Where: - › = A number between 1 and 12 to identify the given month - › _ℎ, = The control group's average daily consumption in a given month of the post-program period - › _ℎ, = The treatment group's average daily consumption in a given mon...
AI summary The document outlines the methodology for calculating monthly electricity savings in 2024 for high, medium, and low users, noting discrepancies in active treatment participants due to inactivity or solar transitions between group selection and program launch.
BER Application Rebates In 2024, 15,644 units were rebated through 262 projects that were implemented by 199 unique participant[s](#page-39-2) 2 under Application Rebates. [Figure](#page-40-0) 2 below illustrates how Application Rebates pa...
AI summary In 2024, 15,644 units were rebated through 262 projects under BER Application Rebates, with 18% more businesses participating than 2023. Lighting and motors accounted for 82% of energy savings, driven by a large project yielding 2.998 GWh. Energy savings per participant rose 16%.
BER Instant Rebates While participant information tracking has improved in the past few years and the tracking sheet indicates the total number of measures rebated through the service, the available data collected by distributors do not al...
AI summary The BER Instant Rebates program saw a 26% decrease in total rebated measures in 2024 compared to 2023, with significant drops in LED linear lamps (-41%) and increases in other measures like occupancy sensors. LED linear fixtures accounted for 56% of gross energy savings in 2024.
7.1.1 BER-IR Incented LED Products The total number of LED lamps and fixtures per measure category incented through Instant Rebates since 2020 is presented in [Figure](#page-72-3) 12 below. The Evaluator considers that sales through BER re...
AI summary The document discusses participation trends in BER-IR incentivized LED products from 2020-2024, noting increased rebates for linear fixtures/lamps between 2022-2023 but 10% and 41% declines in 2024. LED linear fixtures comprised 46% of rebated products in 2024, with stable outdoor fixture proportions. The Evaluator argues BER's broad accessibility and distributor coverage reflect market trends.
Previous BER and/or ENS Program Participation Led to Assess Cost-Effectiveness of Different Energy-Efficient Options 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2024 Sample Size 29 37 35 29 34 28 Agree 86% 89% 94% 86% 88% 93% Disagree 7% 11% 6% 14% 12% 7% Do...
AI summary The table shows the percentage of respondents who agreed, disagreed, or were unsure about the cost-effectiveness of energy-efficient options based on their participation in the BER or ENS programs from 2018 to 2024. Agreement levels are generally high, with the highest at 94% in 2020.
D. Free-Ridership - D1. [ASK ALL] Were you aware that you received a rebate when purchasing these ? [SINGLE RESPONSE] - 1. Yes - 2. No - 98. (Don't know) - D2. [ASK IF [D1=](#page-95-0)2 OR 98] Have I understood correctly that you were not...
AI summary The document outlines survey questions to assess free-ridership in Efficiency Nova Scotia's Business Energy Rebates Program, focusing on rebate awareness, purchase decisions, and program participation. Questions aim to determine if rebates influenced adoption of efficient products and identify non-participants who may have benefited indirectly.
Table 2: Instant Rebates Participant and Overall Free-ridership Algorithm 2022 Algorithm 2024 J Algorithm D8 If BER rebate had not been offered, what is 1) Answer: (scale 0-10) Answer x 10% Without the BER rebate, what is the likelihood th...
AI summary Table 2 outlines the algorithm used to assess free-ridership in the Business Energy Rebates – Instant Rebates program, comparing participant responses in 2022 and 2024. It includes questions about likelihood of purchasing premium lighting products without the rebate and calculates consistency based on efficiency scores and responses.
Program Performance Table 2 below presents the participation levels, average net-to-gross ratios (NTGRs), evaluated gross and net savings at the generator, annual GHG emission reductions, as well as average EUL values for each program comp...
AI summary Table 2 provides data on program performance, including participation levels, net-to-gross ratios, gross and net savings, GHG emission reductions, and EUL values for various program components and Custom Incentives as a whole.
New Construction In 2024, 28 projects claimed savings under New Construction: 27 complete projects and 1 project, a new industrial facility, that was partially completed and for which savings were claimed because the building was commissio...
AI summary In 2024, 28 New Construction projects achieved energy savings, including 27 completed projects and one partially completed industrial facility commissioned in 2024. Savings reached record highs, with 21.495 GWh and 4.004 MW in gross energy and peak demand savings. The number of completed projects increased after a decline between 2021–2023.
Table 6: 2024 Custom Evaluation Approach Evaluation Objectives Research Questions Methodology Calculate gross results › Are the data in the tracking sheet complete, accurate, and consistent? › Are the gross savings calculated for a sample...
AI summary Table 6 outlines the 2024 Custom Evaluation Approach, focusing on calculating gross and net results, exploring opportunities to expand program presence, and updating program service logic. It includes research questions, methodologies, and evaluation objectives for various projects and programs.
4.1 Evolution of Program Participation The New Construction service supported a total of 100 completed new construction projects over the 2019– 2024 period, with an average of 17 projects per year. The year 2024 saw the greatest number of...
AI summary The New Construction service supported 100 projects (2019–2024), with 27 in 2024. The Evaluator analyzed project characteristics, focusing on MURBs vs. non-MURBs and locations within/external to HRM, to identify underrepresented markets for program expansion.
Econoler reviewed available secondary data to assess trends in MURB and non-MURB new construction in Nova Scotia. Multiple publicly available datasets were investigated; however, data providing information on building size, building type,...
AI summary Econoler analyzed Nova Scotia building permit data, finding MURBs dominate new construction in HRM (2021–2024). While MURB participation in the NC service rose from 48% to 89%, non-MURB permits also increased. The report recommends targeting non-MURB sectors for expanded program outreach.
mated by multiplying the building footprint area by the number of stories. Figure 7: Participation Inside and Outside the HRM, 2019–2024 The HRM contains 50% of Nova Scotia's population so, given the population density, a higher proportion...
AI summary The evaluation of regional participation in the program from 2019–2024 shows higher participation rates in the HRM (5%) compared to outside (<1.0%) due to population density, permitting processes, and building size. Limited data outside HRM and eligibility criteria affect outreach opportunities.
4.2 Awareness and Motivations This section presents the findings from interviews with two newly participating modellers and three nonparticipant modellers to understand their awareness of the program, and perspectives on the motivation of...
AI summary Interviews with modellers reveal varying awareness of the Custom New Construction program, with non-participants showing limited familiarity. Builders are motivated by cost reduction, sustainability goals, and incentives. Modellers note clients prioritize long-term value, operational cost savings, and compliance with energy codes. Some builders aim to meet market demand for green buildings or government mandates.
4.3 Barriers to High-Efficiency Buildings and Program Participation Participating builders, non-participant modellers, and new energy modellers were asked about concerns and barriers related to building high-efficiency buildings. When aske...
AI summary Financial barriers, including measure costs and low incentives, are primary concerns for builders and modellers in adopting high-efficiency buildings. Builders also cite lack of local expertise and limited understanding of energy efficiency value. Modellers note that cost and time constraints discourage energy modelling, while builders may not prioritize exceeding code requirements due to perceived low returns.
2024 New Construction-Finding: The share of completed projects supported by the service that are MURBs has increased in recent years, consistent with the growth of the MURB market inside the HRM. MURBs have comprised the majority of New Co...
AI summary New Construction projects in Nova Scotia show increased MURB participation, driven by HRM's population density and streamlined permitting. E1's program faces challenges in non-MURB outreach and participant satisfaction with ROI estimation. Program adjustments to building size criteria and improved ROI communication are recommended.
Table 3: Overview of Data Collection Activity Descriptor This Instrument Instrument Type Semi-directed in-depth interview Estimated Time to Complete 15-20 Minutes Target Audience › Participant Builders Expected Number of Completions › Part...
AI summary This document outlines data collection activities involving semi-directed in-depth interviews with 12 participant builders to assess free-ridership levels, program satisfaction, and barriers to participation in New Construction projects. Econoler is responsible for fielding the interviews, with an estimated timeline of November 2024.
B. Free-ridership - B1. Why did your organization decide to build a better-than-code building? [DO NOT READ. MULTIPLE RESPONSE] - 1. Lower operation costs - 2. Energy policy in my organization - 3. Environmental reasons/energy efficiency -...
AI summary The section includes survey questions about motivations for building better-than-code structures, pre-incentive design decisions, and confidence in receiving Efficiency Nova Scotia incentives, focusing on free-ridership implications in energy efficiency programs.
- b. If less than 8, please explain the reason(s) for your score. Aspects of the program [READ AND RANDOMIZE] Score Reason 1. The overall program Response 98 DK99 Ref _97 N/A 2. The responsiveness of Efficiency Nova Scotia employees to you...
AI summary The text includes a survey assessing the Efficiency Nova Scotia program, covering aspects such as program responsiveness, approval speed, and value. It also explores challenges faced and suggestions for improvement. Additionally, it addresses the importance of reducing GHG emissions and the influence of electrification on participation in construction programs.
Table 7: Overview of Data Collection Activity Descriptor This Instrument Instrument Type Semi-directed in-depth interview Estimated Time to Complete 45 min for Program Manager, 45 min for BDM Target Audience E1 program staff: › Commercial...
AI summary This document outlines data collection activities for a program evaluation, focusing on interviews with program staff to explore opportunities for expanding participation and updating service logic. Research questions address participation trends, barriers, and relationships with modelers.
A. Respondent Involvement in the Program A1. [FOR BDM Interviews] To begin, please tell me about your role as a < Business development Manager> as it relates to Custom New Construction program services?
AI summary The text requests a Business Development Manager (BDM) to explain their role in the Custom New Construction program. The focus is on the BDM's involvement in program services, highlighting their responsibilities and contributions to the initiative.
Table 1: Participant Interview Questionnaire and Free-ridership Algorithm Question Answer Score [ASK IF B2=1] When you decided to build a better-than-code building, how 2) Somewhat confident 25% B3 confident were you that you would 3) Not...
AI summary The table presents a questionnaire related to participant confidence in receiving incentives for building energy efficiency, with responses indicating low confidence levels and a planning score calculation based on adjusted confidence factors.
DEFINITIONS Accuracy Reflects the proximity of measurements to the true value. First-year savings The first full year of energy or peak demand savings generated by an energy efficiency measure. Free-ridership Percentage of gross savings at...
AI summary The document defines key terms related to energy efficiency programs, including accuracy, first-year savings, free-ridership, gross savings, induced consumption, interactive effects, and in-service rate. These definitions are crucial for evaluating the effectiveness and impact of energy efficiency initiatives.
3.2 Program Participation and Barriers Among non-participants who had heard of SBES, five had applied to participate in the past, while 11 had not. Among those who had participated in SBES, three completed their participation and received...
AI summary The section discusses barriers to participation in the Small Business Energy Solutions (SBES) program. Among non-participants, common reasons included pre-existing lighting upgrades, lack of awareness, and disinterest in leased spaces. Only 5 out of 13 non-participants had previously applied, with 11 citing barriers to participation.
4.2.2 Installation Rates Installation rates are accounted for in the adjustment ratios for SBES Audit and DIY projects, as documented in the 2024-2025 DSM MA update. The CDI pilot adjustment ratios do not encompass installation rates. For...
AI summary Installation rates are included in adjustment ratios for SBES Audit and DIY projects per the 2024-2025 DSM MA update. However, CDI pilot adjustment ratios exclude installation rates, with an assumed 100% rate due to no evaluation activities in 2024.
Table 14: 2024 SBES NTGRs Project Path Free-ridership Participant Spillover NTGR DIY 20% 0% 0.80 Audit 12% 0% 0.88 CDI Pilot - - 1.00 4.3.5 Evaluated Net Savings
AI summary Table 14 presents 2024 SBES NTGRs for different project paths, including DIY, Audit, and CDI Pilot. The table shows free-ridership, participant spillover, and NTGR values. Section 4.3.5 discusses evaluated net savings.
Installation Rates The installation rate is assumed to be 100%. 2024-2025 DSM Measure Assessment 24 NMR Group Inc. and DNV GL, Residential Lighting Hours-of-Use Quick Hit Study , March 31, 2020, p. 22. 25 NMR Group Inc. and DNV GL, Northea...
AI summary The installation rate is assumed to be 100% for the 2024-2025 DSM Measure Assessment. Footnotes reference studies on residential lighting usage and an OPA document regarding prescriptive measures.
Installation Rates Installation rates for solar DHW systems are estimated at 100% due to their relatively high cost.
AI summary Installation rates for solar DHW systems are estimated at 100% due to their relatively high cost, implying full adoption under current economic conditions.
Table 367: Participant Spillover Types Like Spillover Program-induced actions taken outside of the program that are similar to the actions taken as part of the program. (i.e. if a participant in a program that offers rebates on a menu of m...
AI summary The text discusses 'like' and 'unlike' spillover effects in energy efficiency programs, explaining that like spillover occurs when participants take similar actions outside the program, while unlike spillover involves different actions. Like spillover is more commonly captured in studies, whereas unlike spillover is harder to measure through surveys and often requires educational components in program design.
- › The sample size should be designed to aim for a 90% confidence level and a 10% margin of error when based on the available population of projects in a program. Project-level sampling is best practice as survey questions are posed on a...
AI summary The text discusses sampling methodologies for program evaluation, emphasizing project-level sampling for 90% confidence and 10% margin of error. It addresses NTGR scoring adjustments for midstream programs, recommending inclusion of distributor influence on free-ridership, with E1's BER-IR program as a case study. Econoler advises incorporating stakeholder perspectives in NTGR scoring for accurate program evaluation.