E-22010 DSM Evaluation Reports - Final Report - February 28, 2011 2/28/2011
65 passages
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 shows a slight increase in the percentage of respondents who noticed a change in comfort levels between 2009 and 2010. The data also indicates a decrease in the percentage of respondents who noticed improvements such as even temperatures and fewer drafts, while the percentage of respondents who noticed negative changes remained low.
ncies of time and travel expenses. LIH-F3. LIH-R3. One in three respondents (34%) to the participant survey reported first Consider increasing targeted media advertising of the learning about REAP from outreach activities: a letter (19%) o...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program found that outreach activities like letters and direct calls were the main sources of awareness for the Residential Energy Affordability Program (REAP). Participants were primarily motivated by energy savings and financial benefits, though some remained skeptical about the program being free.
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 60% of low-income households reported changes in energy behavior after receiving energy audit information, including turning off lights and lowering thermostats. Satisfaction with the program was high (90%), but decreased between 2009 and 2010, particularly regarding energy conservation measures, presentations, and work quality.
ocation of the REAP funds. The regions were: Western region including the Lunenburg, Queens, Shelburne, Yarmouth, Digby, Annapolis and Kings counties; Central region including the Halifax Regional Municipality and Hants county; North...
AI summary The REAP funds were distributed across four regions in Nova Scotia, targeting low-income households in older homes with building envelope and water-saving improvements. Conserve Nova Scotia was scheduled to shut down in 2011.
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 provides energy efficiency upgrades to low-income households through a detailed renovation plan, including educational discussions and final evaluations. CNS recruits delivery agents and trains energy evaluators, while DCS and SNSMR refer eligible households. Outreach agents also help recruit participants.
will result in lower energy bills. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 5
AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program, highlighting its potential to result in lower energy bills for participating households.
10 Low Income Households Program Page 7 1.1.2 Program Logic Figure 1-1: Residential Energy Affordability Program Logic Model NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 8 2 Impact Evaluation
AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program, focusing on its impact and program logic. It includes a logic model for the Residential Energy Affordability Program, indicating a focus on low-income households and energy affordability.
2.2 Research Design & Methodology The research design chosen for the billing analysis of the LIH program utilized a time-series comparison/cross sectional approach. This research design essentially determines the program impacts by examini...
AI summary The research design for evaluating the LIH program's billing data uses a time-series/cross-sectional approach to assess program impacts by comparing usage patterns of participants and a control group over time, ensuring internal and external validity of the results.
also appear to have relatively low consumption for residential customers who primarily use electric heat. Based on this comparison, the control group was accepted for the next stages of the analysis. Table 2-2: Participant & Control Group...
AI summary The document compares the annualized electricity usage between participants and a control group in the 2010 Low Income Households Program. The control group was accepted for further analysis due to similar consumption patterns, particularly among residential customers using electric heat. The methodology for developing the control group is detailed in Appendix A.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 14 Table 2-6: Average Savings Estimates from the Simple Model Using Pre NAC as a Savings Variable Proxy Bounds (consumption) n Weight Pre NAC Net Savings Percent Savings <5100 kWh 5...
AI summary The text presents average savings estimates from the 2010 Low Income Households Program, comparing two methods: using Pre NAC as a proxy and using a tracking system estimate. Savings percentages vary across consumption brackets, with overall savings ranging from 6% to 16%.
ticipant were estimated at 1,044 kWh/year, or an 11% reduction from the pre-installation NAC. The 90% confidence interval around the estimate was ±220 kWh. This was a 21% relative confidence interval. Table 2-7: 2009 WLS Savings Estimates...
AI summary The 2009 WLS savings estimates indicate an average net savings of 1,044 kWh/year, representing an 11% reduction from pre-installation NAC. The 90% confidence interval was ±220 kWh, or 21% relative. The WLS model addressed heteroscedasticity, making it appropriate for use.
measure verification AMP (electric focus): 968 kWh (Massachusetts), AMP and Low Income 15 and HEAT analysis tool AMP (electric focus): 827 kWh (Rhode Island) Baseload Program (no electric heat) net savings: Pre/post treatment/ compar...
AI summary The text presents energy savings data from various programs, including the AMP and HEAT analysis tool, with specific kWh savings reported from different regions and programs. It also references evaluation reports and studies on low-income household energy programs.
utilized four Delivery Agents, each one operating in one of the four program regions. The Delivery Agent that left the program was unsuccessful in its bid to remain a REAP delivery agent in 2010.19 In addition to the reduction in the numbe...
AI summary The REAP program reduced the number of Delivery Agents, with one leaving due to an unsuccessful bid. Additional changes included hiring a second Outreach Agent to increase participation among low-income electrically heated homes and enhanced quality control procedures in 2010.
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 believed they had not been enrolled in 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 collects energy usage data from participants before and after upgrades, using waivers to access information from fuel providers and NSPI. Delivery Agents maintain a database and submit monthly tracking sheets. While tracking has improved, feedback mechanisms and data integration are areas for improvement.
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 REAP respondents learned about the program through outreach activities, with letters and telephone contacts being the most common methods. Word of mouth accounted for 13%, while 24% could not recall how they learned about the program. Agency contact decreased significantly 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 shows that 9% of participants were aware of the Residential Energy Affordability Program (REAP), while 5% were aware of the Low Income Cut-Offs (LICO). A significant difference in awareness between 2009 and 2010 is noted at the 90% confidence level.
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 Residential Energy Affordability Program (REAP) is low, particularly outside the southwest region of Nova Scotia. Outreach Agents noted that program delays, inconsistent branding, and communication issues have hindered awareness and participation. Participants often failed to recognize welcome letters as part of the REAP program, leading to confusion and reduced engagement.
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 efforts faced confusion with the EnerGuide Existing Homes program due to the cancellation of federal rebates. Participants primarily joined REAP to save money on electric bills, with a notable increase in this motivation from 2009 to 2010. Outreach agents confirmed that cost savings and improved comfort were the main drivers.
2009 2010 Most Other Reasons for Most Other Reasons for Important Participating Important Participating Motivation (multiple response) Motivation (multiple response) Sample size 55 52 62 56 To save money on 18% 29% 48%β 21% my electric bil...
AI summary The table presents survey results from 2009 and 2010 regarding participants' motivations for joining energy efficiency programs. Key motivations include saving money on electric bills, receiving insulation, and improving energy efficiency. The data highlights the importance of cost savings and comfort as primary drivers for participation.
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 participating, including worries about potential costs and contractor behavior, despite the program offering free services and installations.
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 varying concerns about a program, including doubts about its cost and potential messiness during upgrades. Outreach agents noted that income thresholds were too low and that interpreting eligibility based on urban or rural status 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 installation timeline of energy savings measures under the REAP program, noting that 40% of respondents had measures installed within six months, while 45% had them installed seven or more months ago.
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 installed measures were reported by 45% of respondents to have been installed seven or more months ago. Survey results show that improvements in comfort and interest in energy efficiency were reported by at least 61% of 2010 respondents, while 46% noted improved knowledge of energy efficiency.
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 a reduction in the percentage of respondents reporting 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). However, 41% of respondents reported a reduction in energy bills.
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 Residential Energy Affordability Program (REAP) has had a positive impact on participants' comfort levels, with 80% reporting fewer drafts and 79% noting even temperatures throughout their homes. However, the percentage of respondents who found it more convenient to control temperature automatically decreased from 84% in 2009 to 66% in 2010.
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 text presents a table comparing the impacts of energy efficiency measures on the comfort of homes in 2009 and 2010, showing slight changes in responses from participants regarding factors like drafts, temperature control, and appliance noise.
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 The 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% saw no change. On average, those who saw a decrease saved $42 per month, though this was lower than the 60% decrease reported in 2009.
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-saving programs between 2009 and 2010. It shows a decrease in the percentage of respondents reporting lower bills and an increase in savings per month. Most respondents were satisfied with the program's 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, with 35% very satisfied in 2010, though over one in ten could not provide a 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 data shows that 51% of respondents now turn off lights, and 22% set their heating thermostats lower and turn off appliances. These behavioral changes were observed in a survey of low-income households, with a sample size of 36 in 2009 and 37 in 2010.
8% 16% NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 37 When asked if there were any other energy savings actions taken on their own, in addition to the measures installed by the program, more than two-thirds of the 2010 respon...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program found that 69% of respondents did not take any additional energy-saving actions beyond those installed by the program. The most frequently reported actions were weather stripping and door/window replacement, each at 11%.
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 under REAP had high overall satisfaction (90%), but there were slight declines in satisfaction with specific aspects like energy conservation measures, energy efficiency presentations, and work quality compared to 2009. Some dissatisfaction was attributed to unmet 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 of participants in the Low Income Residential Energy Affordability Program (LI REAP) were analyzed, showing statistically significant differences at the 90% confidence level between 2009 and 2010 for several aspects, including 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 satisfaction and perceived value among participants, with 79% reporting substantial value and 58% reporting immense value. Most respondents would recommend the program, although a few expressed dissatisfaction with eligibility criteria and service quality.
They say it is a mini home and therefore it does not qualify,‖ and, ―They made promises to fix the hole and they didn‘t. They pulled the freezer out and didn‘t put it back. I expected better service.‖ Table 4-16: Value of the program 2009...
AI summary The text includes customer feedback about poor service and a table evaluating the value of a program for low-income households in 2009 and 2010. The table shows high levels of satisfaction with the program, with most respondents indicating they would recommend it.
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 chosen not to install recommended energy efficiency measures, with varying reasons for their decisions. Table 4-18 provides details on these choices.
2009 2010 Sample size 55 62 Yes 4% 11% No 96 87β Don‘t know/Refused 2 Number of Number of Respondents Respondents Measures not installed (multiple response) (multiple response) Sample size 2 7 Incandescent lamp replacement with CFLs 2 Buil...
AI summary The text presents data from surveys conducted in 2009 and 2010 regarding energy efficiency measures installed by respondents. It shows a small sample size and low installation rates of energy-efficient measures such as CFLs, building envelope improvements, and low-flow fixtures. A majority of respondents did not install any measures, and a significant number did not know or refused to answer.
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 offer recommendations, while those who did focused on improving the quality of work by Delivery Agents. Respondents also expressed concerns about the program's impact on energy bills and daily disruption.
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 provide any recommendations for improving the program. The most common recommendations focused on improving the quality of work performed by Delivery Agents, with other suggestions including faster completion of work, better communication, and increased awareness through advertising.
8 None 66% 76% β Significantly different from 2009 LI REAP sample at the 90% confidence level. Both of the Delivery Agents interviewed did some outreach for the program. One agent would like to see the program increase its advertising in a...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program found that over half of the respondents expressed interest in additional energy savings measures, particularly building envelope improvements like insulation and windows. Delivery agents suggested increasing advertising and program scope to address health and safety issues.
Table 4-20: Interest in measures not provided by program Interest 2009 2010 Sample size 55 62 Yes 40% 55%β No 56 42 Don‘t know 4 3 2009 2010 Specific Measures (multiple response) (multiple response) Sample size 22 34 Additional windows/env...
AI summary The table presents data on consumer interest in energy efficiency measures not provided by the program, showing increased interest from 2009 to 2010. Specific measures such as additional windows and doors saw varying levels of interest, with some showing significant increases and others remaining low.
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 discusses demographic data, including housing types, number of bedrooms, and household composition. The majority of respondents lived in single-family homes and had two or three bedrooms, with most being sole full-time residents.
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 found that the majority of 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 a significant portion of respondents (40%) had household incomes below $15,000, and only 8% held university certificates or diplomas. Education levels and income distribution are presented in Table 4-23, highlighting disparities in education and income between 2009 and 2010.
Refused 11 23β β Significantly different from 2009 LI REAP sample at the 90% confidence level. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households program Page A1
AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households program, noting that results were significantly different from the 2009 LI REAP sample at the 90% confidence level.
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 This text outlines the methodology for eliminating known participants from a control group and calculating the absolute relative deviation in annualized usage between potential control group members and participants in the 2010 Low Income Households program.
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 document evaluates the impact of the 2010 Low Income Households program by analyzing survey responses on comfort, value of the house, energy bill reduction, and energy efficiency knowledge. It includes a questionnaire used during interviews with participants.
exus Market Research) on behalf of the REAP (Residential Energy Affordability Program) from Nova Scotia Power and Conserve Nova Scotia. We understand you participated in this program. Is that correct? IF PARTICIPANT IS NOT SURE OR DOES NOT...
AI summary The text discusses a survey conducted by exuxus Market Research on behalf of the REAP program, which aims to gather feedback from participants about their experience with the Residential Energy Affordability Program. The survey includes questions about participation, energy-saving measures, and heating methods.
(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 presents a survey related to the Residential Energy Affordability Program (REAP), focusing on participants' awareness, reasons for participation, and whether they still live in the homes that underwent the program. It includes screening questions and response options.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households program Page C3 3. Were there any other reasons? [DO NOT READ. ACCEPT MULTIPLE] 1 (To save money) 2 (save on my electricity bill) 3(To receive a new refrigerator) 4(My old refrigerator was not w...
AI summary The text presents survey responses from low-income households participating in a 2010 program, highlighting reasons for participation such as saving money, receiving appliances, and environmental concerns. It also includes questions about concerns participants had before joining the program, such as eligibility, costs, and impact on other assistance programs.
(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 discusses customer feedback on the Residential Energy Affordability Program (REAP), including concerns about eligibility for other assistance programs and overall satisfaction with the program. Dissatisfaction reasons include delays in installation, product dissatisfaction, and poor evaluator experiences.
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 the REAP program, focusing on customer satisfaction with various aspects of the program, including communication, energy evaluations, scheduling of work, and the quality of installed energy conservation measures.
y conservation measures installed 1 2 3 4 5 9 b. Quality of the work completed 1 2 3 4 5 9 14. [IF DISSATISFIED WITH ENERGY EVALUATION—Q#0=4 or 5] You indicated that you were not satisfied with the energy evaluation that was done of your h...
AI summary The text presents survey questions related to customer satisfaction with energy evaluations conducted as part of the 2010 Low Income Households program. It asks respondents to identify the most important reason for dissatisfaction and whether the evaluation influenced their energy usage behavior.
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 outlines a survey process to evaluate changes in energy behavior and verify program installations for the 2010 Low Income Households program. It includes questions about behavior changes and verification of installed energy efficiency measures.
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), focusing on customer satisfaction with energy conservation measures and their impact on energy bills. It includes questions about the time since installation, changes in energy bills, and levels of satisfaction.
. 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 The text contains survey questions assessing the impact of the REAP Program on low-income households, focusing on comfort levels, energy efficiency improvements, and the program's overall value to participants.
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 and barriers to action related to energy efficiency measures. It inquires whether respondents recommended the REAP program to others and if they installed all recommended measures.
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 outlines survey responses from participants in the 2010 Low Income Households program, highlighting reasons for not expecting lower energy bills, lack of trust 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 a question about improving the REAP program and demographic questions related to housing and energy use. The demographic questions aim to collect statistical data on residence type, bedroom count, ownership, electricity bill payment, and home occupancy.
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 contains a survey form with questions about residence type, household size, age, education, income, and gender. It is followed by a reference to an 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 outlines an interview guide for NSPI programs, focusing on program responsibilities, stakeholder interactions, and operational timelines, particularly for the Low Income REAP program and its associated partners.
ow you are paid for your work on the LI REAP program. Are the payments timely? How might the reimbursement process be improved? 9. Is the program set up in a way that works for you and your business? What specifically works? What does not?...
AI summary The LI REAP program's reimbursement process and effectiveness are being evaluated. Questions focus on payment timeliness, program structure, and improvements. The evaluation considers the 2010 Low Income Households program as a reference.
main goals of the LI REAP Program? NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households program Page C15
AI summary The document text references the evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households program, focusing on its main goals. It is part of a regulatory proceeding, likely related to energy efficiency or affordability initiatives.
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 rebate transfers. 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.