Topic:"Residential Energy Affordability Program" in M03452

Table 3-16: Change in Comfort Noticed Change in Comfort Levels 2009 2010 Sample size 22 65 Yes 86% 89% No 9 8 Don‘t know 3 Refused 5 2009 2010 (multiple (multiple Changes Noticed response) response) Sample size 19 59 Even temperatures thro...

AI summary The table presents data on changes in comfort levels noticed by participants in 2009 and 2010. The majority of respondents reported noticing a change in comfort, with significant percentages noting improvements in even temperatures and fewer drafts, though some aspects like affordability and convenience showed lower percentages.

................................................ 1 TABLE B-5: IMPACT OF MEASURES .................................................................................................................. 2 Figures FIGURE 1-1: RESIDENTIAL ENERGY AF...

AI summary The document presents an evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program, including figures and tables that analyze the impact of energy efficiency measures. It references the PRISM approach and the LIREAP program, highlighting efforts to improve residential energy affordability.

Behavior Changes and Satisfaction Finding Recommendation LIH-F22. LIH-R22. Three out of five respondents (60%) reported that after receiving Education of low-income consumers on continued energy information from the energy audit, there was...

AI summary A majority of low-income participants in the LIH program reported behavioral changes and increased interest in energy efficiency after receiving energy audit information. Satisfaction with the program was high, but decreased between 2009 and 2010, particularly regarding installed energy conservation measures, presentations, and work quality.

a detailed renovation plan including photographs of areas of homes requiring upgrades and the proposed costs for each upgrade for those homes considered to have enough potential for energy efficiency upgrades. Once CNS has approved the ren...

AI summary The REAP program involves detailed home renovation plans, contractor implementation, homeowner education, and final EnerGuide evaluations. CNS recruits delivery agents and trains energy evaluators. Referrals come from DCS and SNSMR, and outreach agents conduct province-wide recruitment.

he Outreach Agent believed that the Delivery Agents were not clearly explaining the purpose of the abbreviated audit, and commented, ―The person just thinks that they haven‘t been given the program.‖

AI summary The Outreach Agent expressed concern that Delivery Agents were not adequately explaining the purpose of the abbreviated audit, leading to confusion among participants who thought they had not been given the program.

3.7 Program Tracking and Reporting The REAP program collects data from customers regarding their energy usage before and after participation in the program. This is done by asking the homeowners to sign a waiver that allows CNS and the DSM...

AI summary The REAP program tracks energy usage before and after upgrades through customer data collection and EnerGuide evaluations. Delivery Agents submit monthly tracking sheets and invoices to CNS, though a unique identifier for participants has not been assigned. The program maintains records of energy savings and greenhouse gas reductions, but details on implemented measures are currently in hard copy.

4.2 Awareness, Motivations and Barriers As Table 4-2 shows, two out of five respondents to the survey (40%) reported first learning about REAP from outreach activities: a letter (19%), a direct telephone contact (15%), or an agency contact...

AI summary The survey shows that 40% of respondents learned about the Residential Energy Affordability Program (REAP) through outreach activities, such as letters, phone calls, and agency contacts. Word of mouth accounted for 13%, while 24% could not recall how they first learned about the program. There was a significant decrease in the number of respondents who learned about the program through agency contact from 33% in 2009 to 6% in 2010.

9% 5% Advertisement 2% 3% Other 5% β Don‘t know 13% 24% β Significantly different from 2009 LI REAP sample at the 90% confidence level. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 29

AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program indicates that 9% of participants were aware of the Residential Energy Affordability Program (REAP), while 5% were aware of other programs. A significant portion (13%) indicated they did not know, showing a notable change from the 2009 LI REAP sample.

Both the Delivery Agents and Outreach Agents reported that customer awareness regarding REAP was low. Customer awareness was generally greatest in the southwest region of the province. To illustrate the low level of awareness, one of the O...

AI summary Customer awareness of the REAP program is low, particularly outside the southwest region of Nova Scotia. Outreach Agents noted that delays in program delivery, inconsistent naming, and communication gaps have hindered awareness and participation. Participants often failed to recognize welcome letters as related to the program they applied for.

suggested customizing the letter to reflect recruitment channel in order to enhance participant recall of the program. The Outreach Agents reported confusion among individuals between the REAP program and EnerGuide Existing Homes program f...

AI summary The REAP program's outreach faced challenges due to confusion with the EnerGuide Existing Homes program after federal rebates were cancelled. Participants primarily joined REAP to save money on electric bills, with a significant increase in this motivation from 2009 to 2010. Outreach methods and participant sources also differed between the two years.

home 2 To improve resale 2% value Other 2 4% 3 2% Don‘t know 5 35% 10 52% β Refused 4% 5% β Significantly different from 2009 LI REAP sample at the 90% confidence level. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 31 Responde...

AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program found that only four respondents had concerns about participation, including misunderstandings about program costs and contractor behavior. This data is presented in Table 4-4.

talled free of charge, one respondent did not believe the program was free of charge, and one respondent was concerned that the contractors would make a mess while performing the upgrades. (Table 4-4) Table 4-4: Participation Concerns (num...

AI summary Respondents had mixed concerns about a program, including doubts about it being free and worries about contractors causing messes. An outreach agent noted that income thresholds were too low and that interpreting the LICO chart for eligibility was challenging for some participants.

refore reflect respondent confusion or misunderstanding. Table 4-6: Other Measures provided through Program (multiple response) Other Measures 2009 2010 Sample size 15 12 Fan (bathroom, ceiling, or house) 33% 33% Plugs 33% 33% Toilet measu...

AI summary The text discusses the experience of respondents with energy savings measures installed through the REAP program, noting that 40% had measures installed within six months and 45% had them installed seven or more months ago. It also provides data on the types of measures installed, such as fans, plugs, and toilet measures.

of five respondents (45%) reported that the REAP program measures had been installed seven or more months ago. (Table 4-7) Table 4-7: Length of Time since REAP Program Installed Measures 2009 2010 Sample size 55 62 Less than one month 2% 5...

AI summary The REAP program's impact on low-income households was evaluated, with 45% of respondents reporting that energy efficiency measures had been installed seven or more months ago. Survey results showed improvements in comfort, interest in energy efficiency, and energy bill reduction, though knowledge of energy efficiency improved less significantly.

reduction in NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 34 energy bills (41%). In contrast, relatively fewer respondents reported improvement in the value of their homes (29%). Compared to 2009, significantly fewer 2010 resp...

AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program shows that while 41% of participants reported a reduction in energy bills, there was a decline in reported improvements in comfort (61% in 2010 vs. 75% in 2009), energy efficiency knowledge (46% in 2010 vs. 70% in 2009), and home value (29% in 2010 vs. 55% in 2009).

r energy efficiency knowledge 70% 46%β β Significantly different from 2009 LI REAP sample at the 90% confidence level When asked about the impact of the measures installed through REAP on their comfort levels, about four out of five 2010 r...

AI summary The REAP program has had a positive impact on participants' comfort levels, with many reporting fewer drafts, even temperatures, and improved convenience in temperature control. However, the percentage of respondents noting these benefits was slightly lower than in 2009.

at the measures had on the comfort of the house. Table 4-9: Specific Impacts on Comfort (Multiple response) 2009 2010 Sample size 55 62 Noticeably fewer drafts throughout home 85% 80% Provided even temperatures throughout the home 80% 79%...

AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program highlights the impact of energy efficiency measures on household comfort, with a focus on temperature control, drafts, and appliance noise, showing some improvements and areas of decline.

nce level. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 35 Respondents were asked to report what changes, if any, they noticed in their energy bills since the measures were installed. Two out of five respondents (40%) reported...

AI summary An evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program found that 40% of respondents reported a decrease in energy bills, 21% reported an increase, and 27% reported no change. The savings for those who saw a decrease averaged $42 per month, but fewer participants in 2010 compared to 2009 reported lower bills.

decrease in their bill, ten mentioned an average monthly savings of $42. Significantly fewer 2010 respondents (40%) than 2009 respondents (60%) reported that their bills had gone down. (Table 4-10) 20 Table 4-10: Changes and Savings to Ene...

AI summary The text discusses changes in energy bills and customer satisfaction with energy savings from a program. In 2010, fewer respondents reported a decrease in bills compared to 2009, and average monthly savings were $42. Most respondents were satisfied with the savings, though some were unable to provide a satisfaction rating.

satisfied and over one-third (35%) said they were very satisfied. It is important to note that over one in ten respondents were unable to provide a rating of their level of satisfaction. (Table 4-11) Table 4-11: Satisfaction with Savings f...

AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program shows that 60% of respondents reported behavior changes after receiving energy audit information from REAP. Satisfaction levels with program savings were high, though over one in ten respondents could not provide a satisfaction rating.

66% 60% No 29 35 DK/Refused 5 5 More than one-half of the respondents (51%) now turn off lights when they may not have before. Additionally, over one in five (22%) now set their heating thermostats lower and turn off appliances. (Table 4-1...

AI summary The text presents survey results showing behavioral changes among respondents, with over half turning off lights more frequently and over one in five adjusting heating and appliance usage. The data is from Table 4-13, comparing responses from 2009 to 2010, and relates to the evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program.

2% Other 4% 6% No other actions reported 55% 69% NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 38 4.6 Satisfaction and Value The survey respondents were asked several questions regarding their satisfaction with specific aspects...

AI summary The 2010 Low Income Households Program (REAP) had high overall satisfaction, with 90% of respondents satisfied. However, satisfaction with specific aspects like energy conservation measures and the quality of work declined slightly from 2009, with some dissatisfaction attributed to expectations and issues with Delivery Agents.

in satisfaction with the energy conservation measures installed, the energy efficiency presentation, and the quality of the work completed was statistically significant at the 90% confidence interval. Table 4-15: Satisfaction with LI REAP...

AI summary The satisfaction levels with the REAP program and its various aspects decreased from 2009 to 2010, with statistically significant differences at the 90% confidence level for several components such as the energy efficiency presentation, energy conservation measures installed, and the quality of the work completed.

eduling of work 93% β Significantly different from 2009 LI REAP sample at the 90% confidence level. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 39 In addition to high levels of satisfaction, almost four out of five respondent...

AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program shows high levels of satisfaction and perceived value among participants, with 79% reporting substantial value and 58% reporting immense value. Nearly all respondents (97%) would recommend the program, though two expressed dissatisfaction with eligibility requirements and service quality.

pes of measures that participants had chosen not to install and their reasons for not installing them varied. (Table 4-18) Table 4-18: Chose not to Install Recommended Measures

AI summary The text discusses that participants had different reasons for not installing recommended energy efficiency measures, as outlined in Table 4-18.

Number of Number of Respondents Respondents Reason (multiple response) (multiple response) Sample size 2 6 Did not believe any changes will result in lower energy bills 2 Hassle factor, too much disruption to my daily routine 1 They would...

AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program found that 76% of respondents did not provide recommendations, while those who did emphasized the need for improved work quality by Delivery Agents. Respondents also expressed concerns about the program's impact on energy bills and the hassle factor.

four respondents (76%) did not offer any recommendations. The most commonly mentioned specific recommendation pertained to improving the quality of work performed by the Delivery Agents. (Table 4-19) Table 4-19: Recommendations to improve...

AI summary The majority of respondents (76%) did not offer any recommendations for improving the program. The most common recommendations included improving the quality of work performed by Delivery Agents, completing work faster, and improving communication. Other recommendations included increasing awareness through advertisement and including basement insulation.

3% Ventilation 9% Lighting 5% Programmable Thermostat 5% Stove Furnace 5% Other 5% 9% β Significantly different from 2009 LI REAP sample at the 90% confidence level. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 44 4.8 Demograp...

AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program highlights demographic characteristics of participants, including housing types, bedroom counts, and household composition, with 69% living in detached single-family homes and 56% being sole full-time residents.

Table 4-21: Residence Type of home 2009 2010 Sample size 55 62 Detached single-family home 82% 69%β Mobile home or house trailer 16 15 Apartment building that has fewer than five stories 6β Townhouse or duplex which share adjacent walls 2...

AI summary The table provides a breakdown of residence types and ownership in 2009 and 2010, showing changes in the proportion of detached single-family homes and other housing types over time. It also includes data on the number of bedrooms in homes during these years.

4 3 6 2 Don‘t know/refused 2 Full time inhabitants 2009 2010 Sample size 55 62 1 56% 56% 2 33 27 3 6 6 4 2 5 5 4 6 3 8 2 β Significantly different from 2009 LI REAP sample at the 90% confidence level. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Hous...

AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program indicates that most respondents were aged forty-five or older, with nearly one-third being sixty-five or older, and nearly seven out of ten being female.

uation certificates. Fewer than one in ten (8%) held university certificates or diplomas. Two out of five of the respondents (40%) had total annual household incomes of less than $15,000. (Table 4-23) Table 4-23: Education and Income Educa...

AI summary The data shows that in 2009 and 2010, a majority of respondents had less than a high school diploma, with significant improvements in 2010. Additionally, over 40% of respondents had household incomes below $15,000, highlighting economic challenges among the population surveyed.

Equation 1 - The Calculation of Annualized Usage AU =( Ui) 365 (Di) Where; AU = Annualized Usage Ui = Monthly Billed Consumption Di = Monthly Days in the Cycle NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households program Page A2 Step 3: Eliminat...

AI summary The document outlines a method for calculating annualized usage and establishing a control group for evaluating the 2010 Low Income Households program. It describes steps to eliminate known participants and calculate the absolute relative deviation between potential control group members and participants.

the optimal model. However, in building mathematical regression models, the R2 statistic has a tendency to increase as the number of independent variables increases. Therefore, when comparing models with different numbers of regressors, th...

AI summary The text discusses the evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households program, focusing on statistical methods used to determine the optimal model for analysis. It mentions the use of R2 statistic and mean squared error (MSE) to compare models with different numbers of variables.

valuation of 2010 Low Income Households program Page A6 Equation 7 - The Augmented Comparison Approach, Determination of Net Savings NACPost Pr ogram (Ci ) S adjusted  NAC pre program ( Pi )  NAC post Pr ogram ( Pi ) NACPre Pr ogram (...

AI summary The document discusses two methods for evaluating the 2010 Low Income Households program: the Augmented Comparison Approach and the Regression Approach. The Augmented Comparison Approach adjusts savings based on control group averages, while the Regression Approach uses a four-step process to quantify program impact using statistical models.

sticity is present, the OLS regression coefficients are unbiased estimates of the true parameters, but they are subject to greater statistical variation than the appropriate estimates. Moreover, the standard errors produced by the OLS regr...

AI summary The text discusses the use of Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression and its limitations in the presence of heteroscedasticity, and introduces Weighted Least Squares (WLS) as a method to address this issue. It also explains the concept of confidence intervals in statistical estimation.

Yes 4 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households program Page B2 Table B-5: Impact of Measures 2009 2010 Rating: 5= ‘considerable Rating: 5= ‘considerable improvement’ improvement’ and 1 = ‘no improvement’ and 1 = ‘no improvement’ n 5 4...

AI summary The text discusses the evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households program, including survey data on participants' perceptions of comfort, value of the house, energy bill reduction, and energy efficiency knowledge. It also includes an interview guide used in the evaluation process.

(Don‘t know) 9. Refused NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households program Page C2 SC3. Do you use ELECTRICITY to heat the hot water heater in your home? 1. (Yes) 2. (No) 8. (Don‘t know) 9. (Refused)[IF SC2 OR SC3 = 1 (YES), CONTINUE. OT...

AI summary The text contains survey questions from an evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households program, focusing on participants' knowledge of the Residential Energy Affordability Program (REAP), their current residence, and reasons for participating in the program.

(Concern that participation will affect eligibility for other assistance programs – social assistance, heating assistance rebate) 8. Don‘t know 9. Refused 6. Thinking of your OVERALL experience with the Residential Energy Affordability Pro...

AI summary The text presents survey questions related to customer satisfaction with the Residential Energy Affordability Program (REAP), including concerns about eligibility for other assistance programs and reasons for dissatisfaction with the program.

bulbs I received) 5. (I did not like the evaluator who visited the home) 6. (Other) [SPECIFY _]) 8. Don‘t know 9. Refused Now I am going to read a list of specific aspects of the REAP program. For each one, please tell me if you are very s...

AI summary The text presents a survey questionnaire related to customer satisfaction with the REAP program, focusing on aspects such as communication, energy evaluation, scheduling of work, and the quality of installed energy conservation measures.

n you received from the energy evaluation changed your behavior in terms of how you use energy at home? 1. Yes [ASK Q#17] 2. No 8. Don‘t know 9. Refused 17. [IF Q#16=1] How has your behavior changed? [DO NOT READ. ACCEPT ALL RESPONSES] 1....

AI summary The text includes survey questions about changes in energy usage behavior and verification of installed energy efficiency measures in homes. It focuses on assessing the impact of the 2010 Low Income Households program on energy consumption patterns.

ir sealing / (weather stripping) 2. Appliances (Energy Efficient) 3. Doors & Windows Replaced 4. Heating system 5. Water heating & usage _ 6. Other (Specify) Section 4 - Satisfaction with the effects of the energy conservation measures on...

AI summary The text outlines a survey section related to the Residential Energy Affordability Program (REAP), asking participants about the time since energy-saving measures were installed, changes in energy bills, and their satisfaction with the program's impact on their energy costs.

. Don‘t know 9. Refused NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households program Page C8 Section 5 - Impact of measures on comfort level 25a. Please indicate how each of the following has changed since participating in the REAP Program. On a s...

AI summary This section of the document evaluates the impact of the REAP Program on low-income households, focusing on changes in comfort, energy efficiency, and program value. It includes questions about improvements in home comfort, energy bill reduction, and overall program satisfaction.

ogram to a family member or friend? 1. Yes 2. No 8. Don‘t know 9. Refused 28. [IF Q27 = 2 (NO)] If No, why: (record verbatim accept multiple responses) 28b. [If Q27 = 1 (YES)] Have you recommended the REAP program to a family member or fri...

AI summary The text includes survey questions about program recommendations, specifically whether respondents recommended the REAP program to others and whether they installed energy efficiency measures recommended by the REAP program.

daily routine 3. Did not believe any changes will result in lower energy bills 4. Did not trust in energy professionals installing new measures 5. Other [SPECIFY _]) Section 8 - Interest in other possible measures 32. Are there any energy...

AI summary The text discusses customer feedback on the 2010 Low Income Households program, including reasons for not believing changes will lower energy bills, distrust in energy professionals, and interest in additional energy efficiency measures not covered by the program. It also asks for recommendations to improve the REAP program.

ecommendations for program improvements 33. Do you have any recommendations that you think would help improve the REAP program? Section 10 - Demographic characteristics [ASK ALL RESPONDENTS] These final questions are asked for statistical...

AI summary The text includes questions about improving the REAP program and demographic questions related to housing, ownership, and energy bill payment. These questions are part of a statistical survey for a regulatory proceeding.

Year round residence 2. Seasonal / vacation home 7. (Other Specify _) 8. (DK/RF) 39. Including yourself, how many people live in this residence on a full-time basis? Number of people: [NOTE: DON‘T ALLOW ZERO FOR A RESPONSE] 40. What is you...

AI summary The text presents a survey form containing questions about residence type, household size, age, education level, income, and gender. It is followed by a reference to the evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households program.

Staff Interview Guide for NSPI, 2010 Date: Name: Programs responsible for: Introduction: [This interview should take about an hour] Your comments are confidential. By the way, if I ask you about areas you don‘t know about, please feel free...

AI summary This document is a staff interview guide for NSPI, focusing on program responsibilities, interactions with various stakeholders, and communication challenges. It includes questions about program timelines, energy savings goals, and collaboration with entities like Conserve Nova Scotia and delivery agents.

outreach efforts.  Energy Evaluators identify energy saving opportunities. The reports from the modeling of the house plans that are provided to customers identify energy savings opportunities and help inform participants about what they...

AI summary The 2010 New Houses Program encourages energy efficiency in new homes through outreach, energy evaluations, and incentives. Builders and developers are motivated to use energy-efficient materials and equipment, and rebates can be transferred to builders to reduce upfront costs for homeowners.

12% 37% Slightly more than one-half of 2010 respondents were sports facilities (54%). Manufacturing was the second most common business type at 15%. (Table 3-12) Table 3-12: Business Type 2008 Respondents 2009 Respondents 2010 Respondents...

AI summary The text provides statistical data on the distribution of business types among respondents in 2008, 2009, and 2010. Sports facilities were the most common business type in 2010, followed by manufacturing and retail.