E-22010 DSM Evaluation Reports - Final Report - February 28, 2011 2/28/2011
319 passages
Small Business Lighting Solutions program, which fell short of its program target by 20%, or 2.8 GWh; and the New Houses program, which fell short of its program target by 66%, or 1.3 GWh. The C&I Custom program nearly achieved its program...
AI summary The 2010 DSM program evaluations highlight shortfalls in the Small Business Lighting Solutions (20% below target) and New Houses (66% below target) programs, while the C&I Custom program nearly met its goal. The Low Income Households program struggles with recruitment, BER is a new program expected to improve, and SLC may become obsolete due to future T8 lighting legislation. The 2010 building code's energy efficiency standards also influence program effectiveness.
ns (e.g. monthly portfolio and program reports). If possible, incorporate data likely to be needed for project assessments (such as historical billing data) into the data tracking system. 1.4 Looking Ahead to 2011 As Efficiency Nova Scot...
AI summary Efficiency Nova Scotia evaluated program performance from 2008-2010, finding that commercial/industrial sectors contributed over two-thirds of total energy and demand savings annually, while residential programs accounted for less than one-third. Key reliance on Efficient Products Direct Install and CFL programs faced challenges due to the 2012 incandescent bulb phase-out.
<1 <1 1 5 1 3 BER 1 <1 <1 <1 In summary, the portfolio has relied heavily on deriving savings from the commercial sector and, until now, the DSM Administrator has not been able to establish a solid foothold in the residential sector, aside...
AI summary The DSM Administrator faces challenges in achieving residential energy savings goals due to reliance on commercial sector savings and diminishing returns from legacy programs. Efficiency Nova Scotia, as a new organization, must expand residential programs like EEH and ARR while navigating growth challenges and stakeholder relationship-building.
iew with a Delivery Agents, eight interviews with Contractors, and four in-depth interviews with program participants. A summary of the interviews completed for each program is presented in Table 2-2. Table 2-2: 2010 Process Evaluation In-...
AI summary The 2010 DSM program evaluation involved 12 staff interviews, 15 delivery agent interviews, 8 contractor interviews, and 4 participant interviews across programs like C&I Custom, SBLS, DI, and LIH, with results summarized in Table 2-2. The evaluation focused on stakeholder perspectives and program implementation details.
ased only if needed. The PD program should consider focusing instead on new construction and major renovation projects for promoting fixtures and controls such as programmable thermostats and dimmers. 3.4.3 Appliance Rebates Component As w...
AI summary The PD program should focus on new construction and major renovations for energy-efficient fixtures and controls. Appliance rebate programs may need to target higher efficiency levels to reduce free-ridership, with recommendations to rebate Tier 3 appliances and offer packaged rebates for multiple energy-efficient purchases.
respondents (29%) reported that participation in the SBLS program actions after participating in the SBLS program. The DSM had influenced them to take additional actions on their own. When Administrator should consider expanding program of...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 DSM programs found that 29% of respondents attributed additional energy efficiency actions to participation in the SBLS program. However, 49% of respondents indicated they were unaware of additional measures, highlighting a need for expanded program offerings to better inform small businesses about energy efficiency opportunities.
Program Finding Recommendation New NH-F1. NH-R1. Houses Implementation of the NH program entailed multiple phases and a Under these circumstances, the program has two choices for its Program variety of people were involved in delivering th...
AI summary The New Houses Program (NH) has evolved into a heat pump program, with recommendations to raise EnerGuide (EG) ratings to 85 or 90 over time or shift to direct incentives for specific measures to improve cost-effectiveness and efficiency.
Program Finding Recommendation New NH-F3. NH-R3. Houses Despite the increased awareness about NH in 2010 from newspaper Continue to build awareness through marketing to homeowners in Program ads or stories (cited by homeowners regarding wh...
AI summary The New Houses Program (NH) saw increased awareness in 2010 due to newspaper ads and stories. Homeowners and builders expressed a need for continued marketing emphasizing energy cost savings and the benefits of energy-efficient homes, including the EnerGuide label.
Program Finding Recommendation New NH-F9. NH-R9. Houses Builder training from Nova Scotia Labour & Workforce Development ENSC could work with trainers at Nova Scotia Labour & Workforce Program did not make clear that NH is an alternative t...
AI summary The New Houses Program faces challenges with builder training, audit timing, and interpretation of energy reports. Recommendations include better collaboration with Nova Scotia Labour & Workforce Development and NRCan to improve training and communication.
rating or energy consumption of program homes. NH-F15. NH-R15. All homes that entered the program in 2010 had to adhere to Nova The code upgrade baseline home (EnerGuide rating of 80) and the Scotia‘s new residential energy code and achiev...
AI summary The 2010 DSM programs required homes to meet Nova Scotia's new residential energy code with a minimum EnerGuide rating of 80. The evaluated savings per EnerGuide point was 1,032 kWh relative to the code upgrade baseline home, which has an EnerGuide rating of 80.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 DSM Programs Executive Summary Page 31 Program Finding Recommendation New NH-F16. NH-R16. Houses Some builders and homeowners were participating in the program Consider revising the program objectives and components...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 DSM programs highlights that some participants in the New Houses Program received rebates for pre-planned energy efficiency measures. Builders and homeowners benefited from rebate transfers, but builders were not incentivized sufficiently, leading to delays in program administration.
Program Finding Recommendation EnerGuide EEH-F10. EEH-R10. Existing Among the most important reason mentioned for having homes Promotions for the new program should emphasize to customers Houses evaluated by an Energy Advisor were that res...
AI summary The evaluation of the Existing Houses Program highlights that participants value energy bill savings and home efficiency information. Many reported reduced energy bills after upgrades, but cost was a barrier to installing recommended measures. Comfort improvements were also noted, with even temperature distribution being a key benefit.
Program Finding Recommendation Low LIH-F9. LIH-R9. Income There is a misperception amongst delivery agents, that only homes that Training and communications of Delivery Agents should clearly Households required significant building envelop...
AI summary The Low Income Households Program faces challenges due to misunderstandings among delivery agents about eligibility criteria and participant expectations. Outreach agents report higher expectations from participants, including incorrect beliefs about receiving appliances or insulation, leading to dissatisfaction.
consumers on continued energy efficient information from the energy audit, there was a change in their behavior practices offers a payback in energy savings long after a customer with regard to their use of energy at home: 51% now turn off...
AI summary The program has achieved high overall satisfaction (90%) with participants reporting increased energy efficiency interest and knowledge. However, satisfaction with specific aspects like energy conservation measures, presentations, and work quality declined between 2009 and 2010. The top recommendation for improvement is enhancing the quality of work.
Program Finding Recommendation Appliance ARR-F12. ARR-R12. Retirement The Appliance Retirement Program included a number of Close planning and coordination, and clear lines of internal & Replace- organizations that had to work together to...
AI summary The Appliance Retirement Program faced communication challenges among multiple organizations involved in its delivery, leading to issues such as delayed announcements and underpreparedness for the program's second phase. These problems contributed to lower participation in the second phase.
Program Finding Recommendation Appliance ARR-F14. ARR-R14. Retirement The appliance replacement participant identified two areas of Any future program should make sure that participants can pay for & Replace- dissatisfaction with the progr...
AI summary The Appliance Replacement Program faced participant dissatisfaction due to payment method limitations and delayed rebate processing. Recommendations include allowing credit card payments and timely reimbursement, as well as exploring opportunities in the multi-family sector for future programs.
ntial had a limited target for the number of refrigerators to be replaced. opportunities in the multi-family sector: Program promotions consisted solely of cold calls to potential Affordable housing property owners. This may be one the e...
AI summary The pilot program had limited success in engaging the multi-family sector due to limited outreach and a small target for refrigerator replacements. Opportunities include targeting affordable housing property owners and bundling incentives for multiple appliance replacements to overcome split incentives barriers.
difficult for the PD program to have these other retail products provide anywhere near the energy savings that were derived from the CFLs. Under these circumstances, NMR believes that the PD program should consider the following steps to h...
AI summary The NMR suggests that the PD program should take steps to mitigate the impact of removing regular CFLs, such as focusing on specialty CFLs, incandescent bounty programs, rebating LEDs, and expanding consumer education. The program's limited rebate periods may have contributed to high free ridership.
residential customers said they used CFLs.8 Therefore, the CFL component of the PD program aims to encourage customers to ―think beyond the mini-twister‖ and learn that there are specialty CFL bulbs for almost every application in the hous...
AI summary The CFL component of the PD program encourages residential customers to use ENERGY STAR-qualified compact fluorescent light bulbs by offering incentives and discounts through retail partnerships. The program shifted strategies in 2010 to provide discounts on all ENERGY STAR-qualified CFLs, regardless of type or pack size, and works with retailers to promote and support the initiative.
ocessing required since retailers can provide one invoice for all POS rebates. The PD program provides coupons for stores where discounts cannot be automatically rung up at the cash register. Customer education and outreach. The PD progr...
AI summary The PD program provides coupons for energy-efficient products, collaborates with retailers for marketing, and relies on customer education and outreach to increase awareness and promote the purchase of CFLs. The program assumes that retailer outreach, marketing materials, and discounts will drive increased sales and installations.
Installation. The CFLs purchased through the program will be installed in residential homes in Nova Scotia. Availability of CFLs. The above strategy and projections for uptake are based on retailers having sufficient CFL bulbs availabl...
AI summary The program aims to install CFLs in residential homes in Nova Scotia, relying on retailer participation and customer awareness. Barriers include saturation of CFLs, lack of retailer interest, and potential free-ridership. Short-term outcomes include discounted CFLs, customer awareness, and energy savings through installation.
1-1: Power Down CFLs Logic Model NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 1 1.2 F&C: Program Description The Light Fixtures and Controls (F&C) portions of the 2010 Nova Scotia Power Down (PD) program began on October 1st 2010 and ran...
AI summary The 2010 Power Down Program's Light Fixtures and Controls (F&C) portion aimed to achieve annual energy savings of 1,163,744 kWh by promoting energy-efficient products. The program exceeded its projections, with rebate sales significantly higher than expected across various products such as ENERGY STAR indoor light fixtures and programmable thermostats.
1.2.1 F&C: Program Theory The program logic model and program theory for the PD program was revised for 2010. The program theory and logic model for the F&C components are included below. Program Background The F&C component of the PD prog...
AI summary The F&C component of the PD program aims to install energy-efficient fixtures and controls in every home in Nova Scotia. The program works with retailers to offer discounts and educational materials to promote energy efficiency. It also provides training to sales personnel and offers point-of-sale discounts to reduce the cost of energy-efficient products.
Customers are aware of the program. Customers are made aware of the available discounts through marketing materials, such as in-store signage and direct mailings. Customers may also learn about the program through collaborative marketing...
AI summary The program increases customer awareness of energy efficiency through marketing, leading to purchases of ENERGY STAR appliances. This results in energy savings and bill reductions. Long-term outcomes include increased availability of energy-efficient appliances and greater retailer engagement with energy efficiency initiatives.
5.6 NMR On-Site Visits NMR conducted on-site visits to two retail store locations. At the first location, the NMR representative reviewed the shelves where lighting and controls products were located. Both the lighting and controls shelves...
AI summary The NMR conducted on-site visits to two retail locations to assess the implementation of the Power Down program. At both locations, signage and promotion practices varied, and there was an issue with the cash register system not automatically applying discounts for rebatable items.
energy efficiency. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 46 Table 5-2: Level of Familiarity with ENERGY STAR™[39][40] 2010 2010 Non- 2010 Total Participants Participants (Weighted)41 Sample size 70 70 140 Very familiar 36% 20%Ω 24...
AI summary This section discusses the evaluation of the 2010 Power Down Program, focusing on participants' familiarity with the ENERGY STAR™ program. The table shows varying levels of familiarity among participants and non-participants in 2010.
tion NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 49 5.9 CFL Purchase Motivations 5.9.1 Participants and Non-participants When asked their reasons for purchasing CFLs during the program period, almost two out of three 2010 participants (...
AI summary The 2010 Power Down Program saw 63% of participants cite energy savings as their primary motivation for purchasing CFLs, with bulb replacement being the second most common reason. Non-participants also cited energy savings as their main motivation, though fewer purchased CFLs during the program period.
2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Heard they were safer 0% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% Because of an ad 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Because of ad 0% 3% 3% 0% 0% 0% Recommended 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 1% Fit better in fixtures 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% <1% Don't know 0% 3% 3% 0% 3% 2% NMR Evaluatio...
AI summary The 2010 Power Down Program saw 73% of non-participants cite not needing CFLs as the primary reason for non-participation, a significant increase from previous years. Many non-participants already had CFLs installed, suggesting lack of need rather than resistance to the program.
0% 2% 0% Bulb contains mercury 0% 2% 0% Renting 0% 2% 0% Blind 0% 2% 0% Don‘t know what they are 0% 2% 0% I‘m old, stick with what I have 0% 2% 0% Paperwork is inconvenient 0% 2% 0% Unaware of multipacks 0% 2% 0% Not that interested in ene...
AI summary The text presents data on non-participant CFL use and installations from 2008 to 2010, showing a slight decline in the percentage of participants using CFLs and an increase in the average number of CFLs installed.
57 55 65 Average # of CFLs Installed 11.1 13.3 13.9 5.11 CFL Purchase and Use Behaviors 5.11.1 Quantities of CFLs Purchased Table 5-13 shows the estimated number of CFLs purchased by participants and non-participants during October and Nov...
AI summary The text discusses CFL purchase behaviors during October and November 2010, highlighting that participants in the program purchased significantly more CFLs than non-participants. Participants averaged 6.9 CFLs purchased, while non-participants averaged 0.7. A significant portion of participants purchased at least six CFLs, whereas very few non-participants did so.
installed CFLs (55%) within the next year. 2010 participants had installed about the same proportion of CFLs as 2009 participants (81%) and significantly more CFLs compared to 2008 participants (68%). Table 5-20: Installation of CFLs Purch...
AI summary The document discusses the installation and removal of CFLs under the Power Down Program, noting that 2010 participants installed a higher proportion of CFLs compared to previous years. Some CFLs were removed due to malfunction or breakage, with participants either discarding or storing the bulbs.
en and the other participant said that the bulbs had not worked in a touch lamp. One of these participants subsequently threw the bulbs away, while the other had put them away in storage. (Table 3-14) Table 5-21: CFLs Installed and Later R...
AI summary The text discusses participants' experiences with CFLs installed under the Power Down Program, noting issues such as bulbs not working in touch lamps, breaking, burning out, and not being bright enough. Some bulbs were stored, while others were discarded or returned to stores.
0 na NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 57 In all three program years, 2008 through 2010, the majority of participants reporting at least one CFL had not been installed indicated ―bought as spares‖ as the primary reason for not...
AI summary The 2010 Power Down Program saw a decrease in the percentage of participants who reported buying CFLs as spares, from 91% in 2009 to 65% in 2010. Most uninstalled CFLs were stored, with 88% of participants indicating this.
ed this than 2009 participants (91%). Similar to 2008 and 2009, the large majority of participants (88%), reported that the CFLs that had not yet been installed were currently in storage. (Table 5-22)
AI summary The text indicates that over 91% of participants in a program reported that CFLs not yet installed were in storage, similar to participation rates in 2008 and 2009.
places to put them 0 0 6% Haven‘t got around to it or forgot 0 3 0 Do not work with three-way switch or dimmer 4 3 0 Don‘t know 86 94 0 Disposition of CFLs Not Installed 2008 Participants 2009 Participants 2010 Participants Sample size 29...
AI summary The table summarizes the disposition of CFLs not installed by participants in the Power Down Program in 2008, 2009, and 2010. Most CFLs were stored, and a small percentage were thrown away or given away. The text also discusses the types of bulbs replaced by recently-purchased CFLs and their installation locations, with most replacing incandescent bulbs.
4 Utility room 5% 0% 3% <1% 6% 2 Office 7% 2% 4% 1% 3% 0 Closet 9% 1% 1%∑ 0%∑ 3% 1 Recreation room na na 1% <1% 2% 0 Garage 7% 1% 7% 2% 0 Den 3% 6% 1% <1%∑ 0 Other na na 1% 1% 6% 6 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 59
AI summary The document presents a table showing energy usage percentages across different room types in a building, with varying data points across multiple columns. The table is part of an evaluation of the 2010 Power Down Program by the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NMR).
ntage of 2008 non-participants (56%) but significantly fewer 2009 non-participants (35%) reported that they would be ―extremely likely‖ to purchase CFLs in the next year. (Table 5-25 and Table 5-26) Table 5-25: Likelihood of Purchasing CFL...
AI summary The data shows a decrease in the likelihood of purchasing CFLs among non-participants from 2008 to 2009, with 56% in 2008 and 35% in 2009 reporting they would be 'extremely likely' to purchase CFLs in the next year. Tables 5-25 and 5-26 provide the detailed distribution of responses.
Table 5-28: Factors that Would Encourage CFL Purchases – 2008 and 2009 2008 2009 Non- Total Non- Total Participants Participants (Unweighted) Participants Participants (Unweighted ) Sample size 12 6 18 12 22 34 More rebates/promotions 0% 0...
AI summary The table compares factors that encouraged CFL purchases in 2008 and 2009. It shows that lower price and improved performance features were key drivers, with minimal impact from rebates or promotions.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 63 5.12 Satisfaction Both participants and non-participants exhibited high levels of satisfaction with the installed CFLs. More than nine out of ten participants and non-participants (95% and...
AI summary The 2010 Power Down Program saw high satisfaction levels among both participants and non-participants with installed CFLs, though satisfaction with CFLs decreased from 2008 to 2010. A small number of participants and non-participants reported dissatisfaction, citing issues such as burnout, delay in lighting, and preference for different light quality.
ants were more likely to have higher incomes and own their homes. In 2010, participants (96%) were significantly more likely than non-participants (83%) to own their homes. (Table 5-32) Table 5-32: Home Ownership Status – 2010 Non- Total P...
AI summary The data indicates that participants in the program were more likely to own their homes compared to non-participants. In 2010, 96% of participants owned their homes, compared to 83% of non-participants. Similar trends were observed in 2008 and 2009.
Page 65 The majority of participants (83%) and non-participants (86%) lived in a single family detached home. (Table 5-34) Table 5-34: Type of Residence – 2010 Participants Non-Participants Total (Weighted) Census Sample size 70 70 140 376...
AI summary The majority of participants (83%) and non-participants (86%) in the study lived in single-family detached homes, as shown in Table 5-34. The table also provides data on the distribution of residence types among participants, non-participants, and the general population.
Table 5-35: Type of Residence – 2008 and 2009 2008 2009 Non- Total Non- Total Participants Participants (Weighted) Participants Participants (Weighted) Census Sample size 60 70 130 69 69 138 376,845 σ Single family detached 90% 70% 73% 93%...
AI summary Table 5-35 presents data on the type of residences for participants in 2008 and 2009, showing percentages of single-family detached, semi-detached, townhouses, row houses, apartments, and mobile homes, along with weighted totals and census data.
14 18 3 57 54 51 4 or more 27 29 27 Table 5-37: Number of Bedrooms – 2008 and 2009 2008 2009 Non- Total Non- Total Participants Participants (Weighted) Participants Participants (Weighted) Sample size 60 70 130 70 70 140 1 2% 4% 4% 3% 7% 1...
AI summary The text presents data on the number of bedrooms in households from 2008 to 2009, along with income distribution comparisons between participants and non-participants in 2010. It notes that 2010 participants had higher incomes and that income distributions were similar across years.
29 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 67 Table 5-39: Annual Income – 2008 and 2009 2008 2009 Non- Total Non- Total Participants Participants (Weighted) Participants Participants (Weighted) Census Sample size 50 57 107 53 53 106...
AI summary The document presents data on the annual income distribution of participants and non-participants in the 2010 Power Down Program, comparing it to 2008 and 2009. It indicates that most participants and non-participants lived in their homes year-round, as shown in Table 5-40 and Table 5-41.
21 16 29 Just as in 2008 and 2009, practically all of the 2010 participants and non-participants lived in their homes year-round. (Table 5-40 and Table 5-41) Table 5-40: Seasonal Home – 2010 Participants Non-Participants Total (Weighted) S...
AI summary The 2010 Power Down Program participants and non-participants mostly lived in their homes year-round, with similar household sizes of around 2.5 full-time residents. Tables 5-40, 5-41, and 5-42 provide data on seasonal home residency and household size.
2.4 2.6 As in 2008 and 2009, the large majority of participants (96%) and non-participants (94%) reported that they were responsible for paying their electric bills. (Table 5-45) Table 5-44: Responsible for Electric Bill – 2010 Non- Total...
AI summary In 2010, 96% of participants and 94% of non-participants in the Power Down Program reported being responsible for paying their electric bills, similar to 2008 and 2009. Both groups had similar age distributions, with the majority being 35 years or older.
Power Down Program Page 71 The survey respondents were about equally split between males and females. (Table 5-50 and Table 5-51) Table 5-50: Respondent Gender – 2010 Non- Total Participants participants (Weighted) Sample size 70 70 140 Fe...
AI summary The Power Down Program's 2010 survey showed a roughly equal split between male and female respondents, with slight variations between weighted and non-weighted data. The evaluation focuses on process aspects, specifically fixtures and controls.
90% 94% NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 74 Retailers offered various reasons for not participating in the program; the most common was that there were no sales made during the rebate period followed by confusion over the SKU...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Power Down Program found that retailers cited reasons such as no sales during the rebate period and confusion over eligible SKUs for not participating. These responses were based on a small number of interviewees.
ovember 2010. The lowest average increase was a 10% increase for outdoor timers from 60% to 66%; the highest average increase was a 78% increase for power bars with timers from 36% to 64%. (Table 6-5) Table 6-5: Average Percent of Rebated...
AI summary The text provides data on the average percent of rebated product sales for various products under the 2010 Power Down Program, showing increases in sales from 2009 to 2010, with the highest increase observed for power bars with timers.
. The additional rebates offered ranged from $3 to $15; again, the percentages shown for the additional rebates are based on the small number of interviewees that answered these questions. (Table 6-8) Table 6-8: Whether Other Rebates were...
AI summary The text discusses the additional rebates offered during the 2010 Power Down Program, with values ranging from $3 to $15. The data shows that only a small percentage of participants received these rebates, and the sources of the rebates were primarily in-store or unspecified sales.
ht off the retail price, so people questioned whether they were getting a rebate; [it] came off at the register so they didn't see they were getting a rebate; people prefer coupons.” Table 6-13: Reasons for Dissatisfaction with Program Asp...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Power Down Program highlights customer dissatisfaction due to confusion about rebate mechanisms, with some customers not realizing they were receiving rebates. Retailers generally did not face barriers to program participation.
would be a good idea to do.” NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 80 On the time of year, an interviewee said, “Once we get into Christmas, people aren’t concentrating on buying light fixtures.” Interviewees also noted that recei...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Power Down Program highlights feedback from retailers regarding challenges with timing, information delivery, and process efficiency. Suggestions include better signage, including more ENERGY STAR items, and streamlining the rebate process.
ontractor‘s program manager. Additionally, during the course of the evaluation, NMR had numerous discussions with these program staff regarding various aspects of program administration and delivery. 7.2 Program Goals and Design The Applia...
AI summary The 2010 Nova Scotia Power Down program's Appliance Rebate portion aimed to achieve 73,517 kWh of annual energy savings by offering $50 rebates for ENERGY STAR refrigerators and washers. The program was initially limited to chain retailers but expanded to include independent retailers after protests. Rebate participation exceeded projections, with 2,191 refrigerators and 2,025 washers sold.
16) were either somewhat or very familiar with the stocking patterns or sales trends of the rebated items. (Table 7-1) Table 7-1: Familiarity with Stocking Patterns or Sales Trends Chain Retailers Independent Retailers Total Sample size 9...
AI summary The text discusses the familiarity of retailers with stocking patterns and sales trends of rebated appliances, specifically ENERGY STAR refrigerators and clothes washers. All sixteen retailers sold and provided rebates for these appliances through the PD program in 2010.
1 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Power Down Program Page 93 Independent retailers joined the Power Down program in November though the program had actually started in October for chain retailers. Therefore, independent retailers were allowed to re...
AI summary The text discusses the application of retroactive rebates by independent retailers in the Power Down program. Three out of five retailers did not apply for retroactive rebates, citing reasons such as it being too much work or a decision not to apply, while two retailers did apply and contacted customers who had purchased qualifying appliances in October.
Table 7-22: Satisfaction with Specific Aspects of Program – Chain and Independent Retailers Chain Independent Retailers Retailers Total Sample size 9 6 15 Very satisfied 4 4 Program Marketing and Satisfied 3 2 5 Advertising Neither satisfi...
AI summary The table presents survey results on customer satisfaction with various aspects of a program among chain and independent retailers. It includes metrics on satisfaction with program marketing, support, items covered by the program, and rebates, with varying sample sizes and responses across categories.
150 50 118 5,900 33 150 101 117 11,817 40 150 146 110 16,060 Unknown na 61,389 na na Total na 179,591 na na NMR Evaluation of 2010 NSPI Power Down Program Page B1 Appendix B - Questionnaire and Interview Guides NOVA SCOTIA POWER RESIDENTIA...
AI summary This document outlines a questionnaire used by the Nova Scotia Utility Regulator (NMR) to evaluate the Nova Scotia Power residential lighting program. The survey aims to gather customer feedback to improve energy efficiency initiatives, with assurances of confidentiality.
2B2B12 SERIES. 999=DON’T KNOW] PB2B2B. RECORD NUMBER OF ENERGY STAR CFL BULBS— JANUARY – DECEMBER 2010 _ [CHECK: PB2B2b >= PB2B1b] Purchases by pack size of ENERGY STAR CFLs January-December 2010: PB2b2b1. Number of single CFL bulb packs P...
AI summary The document includes a series of data collection fields related to the purchase of ENERGY STAR CFL bulbs in 2010, including pack sizes and quantities. It also references a programming note for calculating the total number of bulbs purchased and mentions the Nova Scotia Utility Regulator (NMR) and the 2010 NSPI Power Down Program.
ever installed. What is the main reason why the remaining [#C6] bulb(s) have never been installed at this address? [SINGLE MENTION, DON‘T READ] [IF ‗DON‘T KNOW‘ THEN GO TO #C8a] NMR Evaluation of 2010 NSPI Power Down Program Page B15 C7b-d...
AI summary The text is a questionnaire related to the installation of compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs as part of the 2010 NSPI Power Down Program. It asks respondents about reasons for not installing bulbs and what they did with the unused bulbs.
you have yet to install do you plan on installing within the coming year? ENTER NUMBER OF BULBS _ [NOTE: IF #C2 (#installed) = 0, THEN SKIP to #C13 (Satisfaction)] Installed CFLs C10. Of the [INSERT #C2(number installed)] compact fluoresce...
AI summary The text outlines a survey regarding the installation of compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs), including questions about the number of bulbs installed, which rooms they were installed in, and the type and wattage of bulbs replaced. It is part of an evaluation of the 2010 NSPI Power Down Program.
er (Specify) C12c. [IF C12b= 1 OR 2] What was the wattage of the bulb(s) you replaced in [C11 ROOM]? (If there was more than one bulb, use the average wattage) ENTER AVERAGE WATTAGE C13. [IF #C2>0 (has CFLs installed) or #C3>0(has removed...
AI summary The text includes survey questions about bulb wattage and satisfaction with CFLs distributed by Nova Scotia Power. It also lists reasons for dissatisfaction with the bulbs, including issues with light quality, performance, and physical limitations.
d to try) 5. (Wanted long-life bulb) 6. (To save energy/electricity) 7. (To save money on electric bills) 8. (Good for environment) 9. (Other - specify ) 10. Don‘t Know NP3a. Do you recall any seeing any promotions from Nova Scotia Power r...
AI summary The text contains survey questions related to customer awareness and satisfaction with Nova Scotia Power's compact fluorescent light bulb promotions and installations. It asks about reasons for bulb usage, awareness of promotions, and satisfaction levels with the bulbs.
1. (Bulb is too bright) 2. (Bulb is not bright enough) 3. Don‘t like the overall quality of the light 4. Don‘t like the color of the light—it is too [SPECIFY: _]) Function/Performance 5. (Delay in light coming on) 6. (Interference with rad...
AI summary The document outlines customer dissatisfaction with compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) based on various issues such as brightness, quality of light, energy savings, and physical limitations. It also includes questions about future purchases of CFLs and potential factors that could encourage their adoption.
FY: ]) 10. Don‘ know NMR Evaluation of 2010 NSPI Power Down Program Page B22 CUSTOMER CHARACTERISTICS [ASK ALL RESPONDENTS] These final questions are asked for statistical purposes only. The information collected is strictly confidential....
AI summary This section of the document contains survey questions related to customer characteristics, including residence type, number of bedrooms, ownership status, electricity bill payment, occupancy status, number of residents, and age. The questions are part of an evaluation of the 2010 NSPI Power Down Program and are intended for statistical purposes only.
hat is your age? [DO NOT READ] 1. (18 to 24) 2. (25 to 34) 3. (35 to 44) 4. (45 to 54) 5. (55 to 64) 6. (65 or over) 7. (Refused) D8. What is the highest grade of schooling completed by the head of your household? [DO NOT READ] 1. (Less th...
AI summary The text contains survey questions related to age, education, income, and gender, followed by a questionnaire for a retail store manager regarding the NSPI Retail Markdown Program, including controls, fixtures, and appliance rebates. The document is part of an evaluation process conducted by the NMR Group on behalf of the Power Down Program from Nova Scotia Power.
2. Not familiar 3. Neither familiar nor unfamiliar 4. Somewhat familiar -[SKIP TO Q1] 5. Very familiar - [SKIP TO Q1] 9. Don‘t know / Refused I4. Is there someone else at this store who would be familiar with the stocking patterns or sales...
AI summary The text outlines a survey conducted to assess familiarity with product stocking and sales trends, and to evaluate the 2010 NSPI Power Down Program. The survey includes questions about job titles, product sales, and rebate participation for specific energy-efficient products.
6. Provincial Government $ 7. City/Town/Municipality $ 8. Other $ 98. Refused 99. Don‘t know Q42. During the October-November program promotion period, how important would you say the rebate from the Power Down Program was to customers‘ de...
AI summary The text includes survey questions assessing customer satisfaction with the Power Down Program, focusing on the importance of rebates and reasons for dissatisfaction. It asks participants to rate their satisfaction and identify the most important reason for dissatisfaction.
]) 5. (No other reasons) 98. Refused 99. Don‘t know Q43c. Were there any other reasons you were dissatisfied? [PROBE FOR SPECIFIC REASONS. ACCEPT MULTIPLE] 1. (Too much paperwork) 2. (Rebates were too small) 3. (Not enough items covered by...
AI summary The text presents survey questions related to customer dissatisfaction with the Power Down program, including reasons for dissatisfaction and specific aspects of the program such as marketing, support, items covered, and rebates. It includes response options and follow-up questions for further details.
promotion period, besides the Power Down program rebates, were there any other rebates provided on refrigerators? 3. Yes 4. No 8. Refused 9. Don‘t know Q36B. [IF Q36A=YES]: Who offered the rebates and what was the value of the rebates? 9....
AI summary The text includes survey questions about rebate programs for ENERGY STAR refrigerators during the Power Down Program's promotion period, specifically asking about other rebates and their importance to customer purchasing decisions. It also references the NMR Group as the entity responsible for the evaluation.
with the Appliance Replacement Program and use it as an opportunity to gain a foothold in the multi-family sector. As the program establishes itself, it will provide opportunities to deepen 2 NMR also encountered similar difficulties in at...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Appliance Replacement Program highlights challenges in participant engagement, with only seven participants and limited interview data due to the program's slow adoption. NMR relied on interviews with staff and contractors for insights.
Transfer of understanding. Multi-residential unit owners will remember the energy and bill savings they realized from participating in the program and consider energy efficient options when making decisions to purchase other energy using...
AI summary The text discusses a program aimed at replacing inefficient refrigerators in multi-residential units, highlighting barriers such as program timing and inadequate staff, as well as outcomes like energy savings, bill reductions, and environmental benefits from appliance recycling.
. In contrast, the pickup contractor voiced expressed concerns about the low density of population in Nova Scotia and the costs of managing routes where there can be long distances between residences. 4.2.3 Appliance Replacement Program Sc...
AI summary The pickup contractor raised concerns about the low population density in Nova Scotia and the high costs of managing routes with long distances between residences. Program delivery staff also expressed concerns about the timing and challenges of the Appliance Replacement program, including difficulties in reaching property managers, budget constraints, and accessing decision-makers.
rator. In addition, at the start of the program, communication issues delayed the delivery of the postal codes served by the program to the pickup contractor. Despite these oversights, the extension of the program was not without its benef...
AI summary The 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Programs faced initial communication issues that delayed delivery, but program extension brought benefits such as improved customer service through expanded call center hours.
1% More than two out of three respondents (70%) had enrolled in the program over the phone, and nearly one in three (29%) had enrolled online. (Table 4-4) Table 4-4: How Participants Enrolled in Program Method of enrollment All Respondents...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Programs shows that 70% of respondents enrolled via phone and 29% online. Most found enrollment easy, with 89% of phone enrollees and 100% of online enrollees rating it as extremely easy or easy. A few phone enrollees faced challenges like long wait times and needing a postal code.
of one or two. When asked to describe specific difficulties with enrolling, responses included having to wait a long time for a call back and the call center requiring a postal code with the address. Table 4-5: Ease of Program Enrollment b...
AI summary Respondents found it relatively easy to enroll in the 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Programs, with an average difficulty rating of 4.6 for online enrollment and 4.5 for scheduling appliance pickups. Most respondents rated the process as easy, though some noted issues with scheduling and communication.
Other 8% Don‘t know/Refused 3% 4.5.2 Participant Perspectives – Appliance Replacement The Appliance Replacement participant interviewed said that, while she did not replace all of her properties‘ refrigerators, she had targeted those refri...
AI summary A participant in the Appliance Replacement program discussed replacing old refrigerators, citing reasons such as the age of appliances, cost savings, and the influence of rebates and recycling services. The decision was also influenced by who was responsible for the electric bill.
influential. Note, however, that a substantial number of respondents in the dehumidifier group gave a ―Don‘t know/Refused‖ response, suggesting that they had not been given any information or advice. Table 4-13: Influence of Program Inform...
AI summary The text discusses the influence of program information and advice on participation decisions for appliance replacement programs. It highlights that while many participants found incentives and services extremely influential, the information or advice provided was only somewhat influential for some.
of respondents with refrigerators and 79% of respondents with freezers said it had been plugged in all the time, and 53% of respondents with dehumidifiers said it had been plugged in most of the time. Table 4-21: Amount of Time Appliance w...
AI summary The text discusses survey results regarding appliance usage, showing that a majority of respondents with freezers and dehumidifiers had been using them for over ten years, with many having been plugged in all the time or most of the time.
e 4-22). More than two out of three respondents had been using the freezers (72%) for over ten years and nearly three out of five respondents had been using the dehumidifiers (57%) for over ten years. Table 4-22: Length of Use for Freezer...
AI summary The text discusses the usage duration of freezers and dehumidifiers among respondents, indicating that over 70% of freezer users and nearly 57% of dehumidifier users have been using the devices for more than ten years. The data is presented in a table highlighting the distribution of usage periods.
7 20 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Programs Page 49 About two-fifths (39%) of the refrigerator group, two-thirds (68%) of the freezer group, and practically all (93%) of the dehumidifier group had kept their app...
AI summary The evaluation of 2010 appliance retirement and replacement programs found that most respondents kept their removed appliances in heated spaces during winter and cooled spaces during summer, with significant proportions storing them in basements or kitchens. This data highlights usage patterns and storage preferences for retired appliances.
ore than 20 years old Don‘t know/refused Table 4-34: Age of Remaining Freezers First Freezer Second Freezer Sample size 15 2 0 to 5 years old 87% 50% 6 to 10 years old 7 11 to 15 years old 16 to 20 years old More than 20 years old 7 50 Don...
AI summary The text presents data on the age distribution of remaining freezers and dehumidifiers from a 2010 appliance retirement and replacement program. The data indicates that most freezers are less than five years old, while dehumidifiers are also predominantly less than five years old. This information is part of an evaluation of the program's impact.
ed. In addition, the call center at the start NMR Evaluation of 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Program Page 58 of the program had limited hours of operation, creating a problem for customers who had wished to register outside of r...
AI summary The 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Program faced challenges including limited call center hours, a short program duration, unclear roles among stakeholders, and coverage gaps for certain appliances such as air conditioners and washers/dryers. These issues impacted customer participation and program effectiveness.
55 to 64 14 65 or over 27 Don‘t know/refused 4 Nearly all the respondents (97%) paid their electric bills themselves. (Table 5-7) Table 5-7: Method of Electric Bill Payment All Respondents Sample size 70 Yes 97% No 1 Don‘t know/refused 1 N...
AI summary The document provides demographic data on respondents, including age distribution, bill payment methods, residency patterns, and income levels. Most respondents pay their bills themselves, live in their homes year-round, and have higher household incomes, though a notable portion refused to answer income-related questions.
come under $50,000 per year and over two-fifths reported an annual household income of $50,000 per year or higher. About one-fourth (27%) of the respondents refused to answer the question. (Table 5-9) Table 5-9: Household Income All Respon...
AI summary The document presents data on household income distribution among 70 respondents, with a significant portion earning over $50,000 annually. It also discusses the structure of a company involved in the Appliance Replacement program, noting that it manages multiple apartment buildings but lacks dedicated staff for energy management.
umidifier plugged in? Was it plugged in [READ, CHECK ONLY ONE]: 5. All the time 6. Most of time 7. Occasionally 8. Never 100. (Don‘t know) 101. (Refused) DH2. Approximately how old was the dehumidifier you had removed through the program?...
AI summary The text contains a series of survey questions related to the usage, age, condition, and location of dehumidifiers removed through a program. The questions are designed to gather information about how often the dehumidifier was used, its age, whether it was functional, and where it was located in the home.
e and pick it up [GO TO FB1] 7. Or would you have done something else? [SPECIFY] ] [GO TO FB1] 98. (Don‘t know) [GO TO FB1] 99. (Refused) [GO TO FB1] [ASK IF DHR5=1 (Sold it)] DHR6. Would you have sold the dehumidifier to a private party,...
AI summary The text contains survey questions related to the disposal of a dehumidifier, including options such as selling it, giving it away, or continuing to use it. These questions are part of an evaluation of the 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Program.
Y. IF RESPONSE INDICATES WOULD HAVE GOTTEN RID OF UNIT, GO BACK TO FFR3 AND CLARIFY RESPONSE, ASKING FFR4 THROUGH FFR7 IF NECESSARY] 98. (Don‘t know) 99. (Refused) DHR9. Nova Scotia Power paid for the dehumidifier to be removed from your h...
AI summary The text discusses a survey question regarding the influence of a $10 incentive and information received from Nova Scotia Power's appliance retirement program on a participant's decision to remove a dehumidifier. It also references the cost of recycling the dehumidifier and whether the participant could have afforded it without the program.
ave any other suggestions for improving the program delivery process? Customer Issues 20. Why do you think most customers participate in the program? What other reasons drive participation? NMR Evaluation of 2010 Appliance Retirement & Rep...
AI summary The document includes questions related to customer participation in the 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Program, including reasons for participation, barriers to participation, customer satisfaction, program strengths and weaknesses, and areas for improvement. It also includes a discussion guide for multifamily participants.
have accommodated the full cost of purchasing the new ENERGY STAR refrigerators and recycling the old refrigerators? 3. Yes 4. No 100. (Don‘t know) 101. (Refused) RFR10. How influential were the following elements to your decision to parti...
AI summary The text asks respondents about their participation in Nova Scotia Power's appliance retirement program, specifically regarding the influence of incentives, information received, and free removal and recycling services on their decision to remove an old refrigerator.
ervices provided for free as no extremely DK influence influential part of the program RF11. If the Nova Scotia Power appliance retirement program had not been available, how much, if anything, would you have been willing to pay someone to...
AI summary The text includes survey questions related to the Nova Scotia Power appliance retirement program, asking participants about their willingness to pay for refrigerator removal, energy-saving actions taken, and satisfaction with electricity savings. It also references an evaluation of the 2010 Appliance Retirement & Replacement Program.
Staff Interview Guide for Appliance Retirement Program Date: Name: Organization: Introduction: [This interview should take about 30 minutes] Your comments are confidential. By the way, if I ask you about areas you don‘t know about, please...
AI summary This document outlines an interview guide for the Appliance Retirement Program, focusing on the subcontractor's role, program goals, training, payment processes, and areas for improvement. It emphasizes confidentiality and includes questions about program effectiveness and participant feedback.
f yes, what was involved? If yes, how frequent is this? 29. How satisfied do you think customers are overall with the program? What feedback have you received from customers once the new appliances have been installed and the old appliance...
AI summary The evaluation discusses customer satisfaction with the appliance replacement program, noting requests for different fridge sizes and the lack of smaller energy-efficient models. It also outlines the program's strengths and weaknesses and invites suggestions for improvement.
Skills and equipment. Delivery Agents have the equipment, tools and skills required to complete evaluations of participating homes or they can contract for such services. Understanding of savings. Homeowners will understand the energy...
AI summary The document outlines the requirements and barriers related to the Energy Efficiency for Homes (EEH) program. It emphasizes the importance of skills, equipment, and awareness in achieving energy savings, while also identifying challenges such as lack of awareness, cost concerns, and the need for proper training.
0 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Existing Houses Program Page 8 Table 2-2: Prescriptive Measures and Tracking Database Savings Values Measures Annual Savings (kWh) Ground source heat pump 12,745 Ductless, mini-split air source heat pump 7,325 Air...
AI summary The document presents a table outlining the energy savings from various prescriptive measures implemented in the 2010 Existing Houses Program, including both annual energy savings in kilowatt-hours and demand savings in kilowatts for different types of heating and insulation measures.
. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Existing Houses Program Page 9
AI summary This chunk discusses the evaluation of the 2010 Existing Houses Program, likely focusing on its effectiveness, outcomes, and any associated performance metrics or feedback.
een withdrawn by NRCan, was necessary for the program to exist. All of the Delivery Agents also observed that a large majority of the public was unaware of the fact that a provincial program existed. 3.3 Program Responsibility and Communic...
AI summary The EEH program's success is hindered by low public awareness, despite promotional efforts by CNS and Delivery Agents. Delivery Agents increased marketing activities after NRCan's withdrawal but faced resource constraints. Marketing staff addressed contractor concerns through radio and print promotions.
g and articles in publications. NMR Evaluation of 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program Page 21 3.3.2 Contractor Training and Contractual Relationships The Delivery Agents have contracts with the Province of Nova Scotia (via CNS) to o...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses program discusses contractor training and customer responsibilities, noting that the program places full responsibility on customers for selecting contractors and does not provide training for installers. Delivery agents report increased burdens due to quality assurance requirements and reduced participation.
that most people had heard about the program through word-of-mouth. Other ways that customers frequently mentioned finding out about the program were though the Internet (14%) and the newspaper (10%). Table 3-2: How Customers Learned About...
AI summary The program was primarily discovered by customers through word-of-mouth, with additional awareness coming from the Internet and newspapers. The data shows a decrease in word-of-mouth awareness from 2009 to 2010, while awareness through other channels remained relatively stable.
now 0% 3% NMR Evaluation of 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program Page 26 3.7.2 Recommendations and Installations through the Program Respondents were asked about the measures they recalled being recommended after the pre-retrofit aud...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program shows that programmable electronic thermostats were the most frequently recommended and installed measure. Other notable installations included solar domestic water heating and electric thermal storage room units, while electric water heater tank insulation was recommended but less frequently installed.
because they had only demand savings. Estimates from the DSM Administrators consultant in EEH program tracking spreadsheet. There were no installations of drain water recovery with 30% - 41.9% efficiency. NMR Evaluation of 2010 EnerGuide f...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program indicates that 76% of respondents decided not to install at least one recommended measure, primarily due to high costs. This aligns with previous findings from 2009 and feedback from Delivery Agents about cost being a major barrier to program participation.
icipants on the program impacts. In 2010 and 2009 over one-half of all participants reported that their electric bill had decreased and they were very satisfied with the economic savings. (Table 3-17) Table 3-17: Impacts of the Program Tim...
AI summary The program's impacts on participants' electric bills were evaluated in 2009 and 2010. Over half of participants reported a decrease in their bills and high satisfaction with the economic savings. The data shows varying levels of satisfaction and bill changes over different time periods after installation.
Yes 35% 41% No 57 46 Don‘t know 9 0 Respondents were asked if they had any recommendations for improving the program. About one-half of 2010 participants (54%) offered at least one recommendation, significantly fewer than in 2009 (78%). On...
AI summary The text discusses survey results from 2009 and 2010 regarding program improvements, showing a decrease in participant recommendations from 78% to 54%. Respondents suggested increasing rebates, tax deductions, and incorporating more renewable technologies. Most respondents lived in single-family homes with at least three bedrooms.
EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program Page A1 Appendix A Participant Survey NSPI – EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program – Participant Survey Hello may I please speak with [INSERT NAME]? 1 Yes [GOTO INTRODUCTION] 2 No [SAY ―Perhaps you can...
AI summary This text is from a participant survey for the EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program, conducted by the NMR Group on behalf of Nova Scotia Power and Conserve Nova Scotia. It includes a script for contacting participants and confirming their involvement in the program.
the EnerGuide for Existing Houses program from Nova Scotia Power and Conserve Nova Scotia. 1. We understand you participated in the EnerGuide for Existing Houses rebate program. Is that correct?
AI summary The text references participation in the EnerGuide for Existing Houses rebate program by Nova Scotia Power and Conserve Nova Scotia, and asks if the individual participated in the program.
1 Yes [CONTINUE] 2 No [PROMPT: ―Are you sure? Someone would have come to your house to evaluate the energy efficiency of your home and sent you a report telling you about upgrades you could make to your home to improve its energy efficienc...
AI summary The text outlines a survey process for participants in the EnerGuide for Existing Houses rebate program, aiming to gather feedback to improve the program and related services. It includes prompts for respondents to confirm their participation and provides instructions for handling various responses.
ry dissatisfied with your experience with that specific aspect of the program. V.Satisf Satisf Neither Dissat V.Dissat DK/Ref 10a. The First Energy Audit Overall 1 2 3 4 5 9 This was the first audit of your home's energy use that identifie...
AI summary The text presents a series of survey questions related to customer satisfaction with the energy audit process and rebate programs, focusing on aspects such as the first and final energy audits, scheduling, information provided, and rebate satisfaction.
1. Within the next six months 2. Within seven to twelve months 3. More than a year from now 4. (Don‘t know) 19. [ISA: THIS QUESTION HAS THREE ALTERNATE WORDINGS DEPENDING ON PREVIOUS RESPONSES] [IF Q14 >= 2 AND Q16 >= 3] What is the ONE mo...
AI summary The text presents survey questions related to customer responses regarding the installation of energy efficiency upgrades, including reasons for not proceeding with recommended upgrades and follow-up questions for clarification. It includes options for responses such as cost, lack of cash, and payback period.
j. (High efficiency ductless mini split heat pump) k. (Electric water heater tank insulation) l. (Electric water heater exposed pipe insulation) 22. I am now going to read you a list of electricity related upgrades that, according to our r...
AI summary The text lists various electricity-related home upgrades and asks the respondent to confirm if they were installed. It includes a list of items such as heat pumps, water heater insulation, and thermostats, and references an evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program.
98 (Refused) 24. Are there any other reasons you‘re not planning to implement these recommended measures in your home? [PROBE FOR SPECIFIC REASONS; MULT RESPONSE; SAME LIST AS Q0] ASK Q25 and Q26 IF Q0=8 OR Q24=8 AND FOR ANY ITEM IN Q21a t...
AI summary The text outlines survey questions related to residential energy efficiency upgrades, asking respondents about reasons for not implementing recommended measures and future plans for installation. It includes options for various energy-efficient technologies and timelines for installation.
residence 2. Seasonal / vacation home 7. (Other Specify _) 8. (DK/RF) 44. 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] 45. What is your age? [DO...
AI summary The text contains survey questions related to household demographics, including residence type, number of occupants, age, education, income, and gender. These questions are part of an evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program.
Date: Name: Organization: Introduction: [This interview should take about 30 minutes] Your comments are confidential. By the way, if I ask you about areas you don‘t know about, please feel free to tell me and we will move on. For transcrip...
AI summary This document outlines an interview protocol for gathering information about the EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program. It includes questions about organizational responsibilities, training, program goals, and stakeholder interactions. The focus is on understanding the program's implementation and effectiveness.
IF YES: Why is it that you are the manager for the Existing Houses program but have a separate program manager for the New Houses program? To what extent does handling the management and communications for the Existing Houses program impac...
AI summary The text consists of a series of questions aimed at understanding the management structure, program coordination, and impact of the EnerGuide for Existing Houses Program on an organization. It explores responsibilities, interactions with other entities, challenges in communication, payment processes, and the program's influence on business operations.
Customer Issues 26. In general, how aware and knowledgeable are consumers in your service territory about the program? How important do you think it is to increase consumer awareness levels about the program? Why do you feel this way? What...
AI summary The text outlines a series of questions aimed at understanding customer awareness and participation in a program. It explores how consumers learn about the program, outreach efforts, barriers to participation, and the impact of Nova Scotia Power’s involvement.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page I Executive Summary This report presents the results of the 2010 process and impact evaluation of the residential Low Income Households program (LIH) conducted by NMR Group, Inc. (N...
AI summary This report evaluates the 2010 Low Income Households (LIH) program, also known as the Residential Energy Affordability Program (REAP), administered by Conserve Nova Scotia (CNS). The evaluation was conducted by NMR Group, Inc. for Nova Scotia Power and Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation, and included interviews with staff and contractors, as well as a telephone survey with 62 participants.
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.
Program Outreach and Marketing (continued) Finding Recommendation LIH-F5. LIH-R5. Participation in the program resulted in 40% of the respondents Prospective participants should be made aware of the reporting a reduction in their energy bi...
AI summary The program has led to significant energy bill reductions and improved comfort for participants, with high satisfaction and likelihood of recommendation. However, word-of-mouth participation remains low, suggesting a need for enhanced outreach and incentives.
only about one in eight participants (13%) reported that they found out about the program through word-of-mouth. LIH-F8. LIH-R8. The DSM Administrator (via CNS) worked effectively with SNSMR Identifying eligible participants through the pa...
AI summary The DSM Administrator, through CNS, collaborated with SNSMR to identify income-eligible electrically heated households for the Heating Assistance Rebate Program. However, there was a misperception among delivery agents regarding eligibility criteria, leading to potential screening issues.
ements for electrically the program, which led one of the Delivery Agents to think that the heated homes in the program. number of homes that were not properly screened had increased since 2009. LIH-F10. LIH-R10. The expectations of partic...
AI summary The 2010 Low Income Households Program faced challenges with participant expectations and program delivery. Outreach agents recruited participants with higher expectations, including incorrect assumptions about receiving appliances or insulation. Delivery agents also faced challenges in properly screening homes, leading to concerns about program effectiveness.
Program Delivery Structure and Design Finding Recommendation LIH-F12. LIH-R12. The LIH the program is not consistently referred to by the same name The DSM Administrator should establish a single name for throughout the program delivery pr...
AI summary The program delivery structure and design for the Low Income Households (LIH) program faces issues with inconsistent naming, leading to customer confusion. The number of Delivery Agents was reduced, and there are concerns about the protocol for replacing Delivery Agents.
1.1 Program Description The 2010 Low Income Housing (LIH) program was administered by Conserve Nova Scotia (CNS),4 which called it the Residential Energy Affordability Program (REAP); and was funded by CNS, the DSM Administrator, Natural R...
AI summary The 2010 Low Income Housing (LIH) program, administered by Conserve Nova Scotia (CNS) and known as the Residential Energy Affordability Program (REAP), aimed to assist low-income homeowners with energy efficiency upgrades. Key changes included the addition of an Outreach Agent, reduction in Delivery Agents, and the use of third-party inspections. The program targeted energy savings in 875 homes.
ation will shut down in 2011. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 2 Insulation of basement and/or crawlspaces, exposed floors, main walls and attics/ceilings; Draft-proofing areas such as windows, doors, attic hat...
AI summary The document outlines the various home energy efficiency upgrades provided under the 2010 Low Income Households Program, including insulation, draft-proofing, thermostat installation, and the replacement of inefficient appliances with ENERGY STAR-rated alternatives.
quired due to other upgrades installed by the program. For example, bathroom fans are installed to help reduce moisture levels in homes that are have draft proofing measures installed.
AI summary The text discusses the installation of bathroom fans as part of a program aimed at reducing moisture levels in homes that have draft proofing measures installed, highlighting the integration of multiple upgrades.
1.1.1 Program Theory Program Background The LIH program is a Resource Acquisition program. As a Resource Acquisition program, LIH‘s primary goal is to increase the energy efficiency levels of low-income customer-owned households in Nova Sc...
AI summary The LIH program aims to improve energy efficiency in low-income households through a whole-house approach, with Scope I and Scope II measures. The DSM Administrator funds Scope I measures in electrically heated homes, and CNS identifies potential participants through various sources and outreach efforts.
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.
Pre-Retrofit Evaluation. The Delivery Agents contact homeowners, collect signed waivers, and conduct an EnerGuide for Houses evaluation. The Delivery Agents then prepare a detailed renovation plan including photographs of areas of homes...
AI summary The process involves evaluating homes for energy retrofits, obtaining approvals, implementing upgrades, and collecting data. Program assumptions include the adequacy of outreach and delivery agents, as well as sufficient training for agents to perform evaluations.
number of Delivery Agents to provide services throughout the province. Sufficient Training to Delivery Agents. Sufficient training is provided to Delivery Agents to perform EnerGuide Energy evaluations. Skills and Equipment. Delivery A...
AI summary The document outlines the key factors for the successful delivery of energy evaluations under the Low Income Households Program, including the availability of trained delivery agents, financial constraints of participants, and the potential for energy savings through program participation.
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.
hese participants from the analysis, the installation was assumed to have occurred during 2009. The next data management step checked the participant accounts to verify that there was enough data in NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Househ...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program involved verifying participant accounts to ensure sufficient data for analysis, resulting in 210 participants available for billing analysis after data editing.
e-participation and post-participation period to be accurately analyzed. At the end of the editing of the participant billing data a total of 210 participants were available for the billing analysis. 2.4 Develop Representative Control Grou...
AI summary The analysis involved 210 participants in the LIH program and the creation of a control group of 1,860 customers to assess the program's impact on electricity consumption. The control group was selected based on similar temperature, rate class, and heating source. Matching criteria included annualized usage and rate code, with four control group customers selected for each participant. The distribution of annualized usage showed similar consumption patterns between the groups.
station as the participants. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 11 2.5 Temperature Normalize Billing Information One of the most important steps in the assessment of the effect of the LIH program is the comparison of...
AI summary This section discusses the temperature normalization process used to evaluate the 2010 Low Income Households Program. By controlling for weather influences using heating and cooling degree-days, the program's impact on energy usage was isolated. Results show a decrease in normalized annual consumption for participants and an increase for the control group, indicating the program's effectiveness.
e average control group pre- and post-installation usage along with the participant data were used to estimate net savings. Table 2-5 shows the mean savings for the program derived from this analysis. Table 2-5: Comparison of 2009 Net Savi...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households (LIH) program uses control group data and participant usage to estimate energy savings. Table 2-5 shows mean savings by stratum, with overall net savings of 13%. The distribution of savings is roughly normal, and initial analysis confirms the program's impact on reducing electric consumption.
0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 -1 -2 -3 Y Hat NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 15 When heteroscedasticity is present, the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression approach to establishing the relations...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program used Weighted Least Squares (WLS) regression to estimate average energy savings. The analysis found an average savings of 1,044 kWh/year, or 11% reduction from pre-installation NAC, with a 90% confidence interval of ±220 kWh.
Y-Hat NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 16 2.6.3 Summary of 2009 Analysis Results Figure 2-4 shows a comparison of the savings estimates. Among the estimates based on billing analysis alone, the various procedures p...
AI summary The 2009 analysis of the Low Income Households Program compared various methods for estimating energy savings. The WLS regression model was determined to be the most accurate, yielding an estimate of 1,044 kWh per participant annually with a 90% confidence interval of 823 to 1,265 kWh.
Estimated Savings Comparison of Estimated Savings 1,400 1,200 1,000 Average Savings 800 1,297 600 1,059 1,044 400 586 200 - PRISM OLS-SAE OLS-PreNac Proxy WLS-PreNac Proxy Estimation Approach NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Pr...
AI summary The 2010 Low Income Households Program's estimated savings were calculated using 2009 results and normalized billing data. The average expected savings was 1,117 kWh (9%) with a 90% confidence interval of 854 to 1,381 kWh per year.
e stratum level savings, the 2010 average expected savings was 1,117 kWh, (or 9%) with a 90% confidence interval of 854 kWh per year to 1,381 kWh per year. This was a 24% relative confidence interval. Table 2-8: 2010 Savings Estimates per...
AI summary The 2010 Low Income Households Program achieved an average energy savings of 1,117 kWh per participant, or 9%, with a 90% confidence interval ranging from 854 kWh to 1,381 kWh per year. The savings varied across different consumption strata.
In considering what might be driving the low realization rate for this program, we looked at ten HOT2000 reports each from the three 2010 program Delivery Agents. In examining these 30 reports, we found an average space heating consumption...
AI summary The analysis compares space heating electricity consumption estimates from HOT2000 reports and billing data, revealing a significant discrepancy. Billing data suggests much lower usage than HOT2000 estimates, leading to the development of an alternative impact estimate for the LIH program.
Participant demographics NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households Program Page 22 3.1.3 Sampling Error In 2010, there were 680 unique participants in LI REAP who received a rebate from the DSM administrator for electric upgrades that w...
AI summary The text discusses the evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program, focusing on sampling error. It mentions 680 unique participants who received rebates for electric upgrades, and a sample size of 62 with a 10.0% sampling error at the 90% confidence level.
3.2 Program Design and Administration The 2010 Low Income Households (LIH) program operated in concert with the Conserve Nova Scotia Residential Energy Affordability Program (REAP) which had overall administrative responsibility for the pr...
AI summary The 2010 Low Income Households (LIH) program operated in conjunction with the Conserve Nova Scotia Residential Energy Affordability Program (REAP), which managed administrative responsibilities. The program included two types of energy efficiency upgrades, with different funding structures based on heating sources. Three Delivery Agents implemented the program in 2010, with one leaving due to an unsuccessful bid to remain.
homes (10 from each service territory) were inspected by one of two third-party contractors. Other program changes implemented in 2010 included requiring Delivery Agents to supply CNS with photographs of participants‘ homes prior to instal...
AI summary The REAP program implemented changes in 2010, including new protocols for replacing refrigerators and freezers based on their age rather than energy consumption data. This was done to address issues with unreliable data from metering. Delivery Agents were already taking photos, so new photography requirements did not impact the process.
r to perform the Scope I upgrades. The EnerGuide audit would not be performed for homes receiving only Scope II upgrades. While they had heard about the discussions regarding separating Scope I and Scope II audits, at the time of the in-de...
AI summary The document discusses the implementation of the REAP program by Delivery Agents, including the distinction between Scope I and Scope II upgrades, and the challenges associated with separating the audits. The DSM administrator is considering these challenges during the program redesign.
3.4 Production of Participant Lists In 2010, the proportion of participants recruited through DCS decreased while the proportion recruited by the Outreach Agents increased. In addition, a third recruitment method was implemented to generat...
AI summary In 2010, the recruitment of participants for energy efficiency programs in Nova Scotia shifted from DCS to Outreach Agents, with a third method introduced through CNS and SNSMR. While this method was deemed cost-effective, it led to an insufficient number of participant names, causing inefficiencies and inconsistent work for Delivery Agents. Screening processes were also criticized as inadequate.
A lot of it is the outreach agents don‘t know exactly what we‘re looking for.‖ The lack of regularity in the provision of prospective participant names was identified as a significant weakness of the 2009 REAP program year. The 2010 in- de...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Low Income Households Program highlights issues with outreach agents' lack of clarity on program goals and irregular provision of participant names, identified as significant weaknesses. Improper screening of participant homes was also noted as an ongoing issue.
e of the local radio stations, and classified ads were placed in circulars distributed to households in rural areas. Both of the Outreach Agents believed that incorporating an advertising budget into the program would allow them to recruit...
AI summary The REAP program faced challenges in participant recruitment and communication. Outreach Agents believed expanding income eligibility, especially for rural areas, would increase participation. Communication gaps existed between Outreach Agents and CNS, leading to unresolved customer concerns and significant delays in the program process.
Page 26 Administrator has discussed these gaps with the Outreach Agents and regular check-ins have been put into place. Thus the Program Administrator has addressed these issues. 3.6 Customer Expectations The in-depth interviews uncovered...
AI summary The document discusses inconsistencies in customer expectations regarding the CNS program, with participants recruited through outreach channels having higher expectations, such as receiving new appliances and full energy audits, compared to those recruited through other channels. Some customers were dissatisfied with abbreviated audits and the lack of clear communication from Delivery Agents.
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.
or rural inhabitance, was difficult for some participants and could potentially represent a barrier to participation. However, outreach agents focus on explaining the chart to potential participants. 4.3 Verification of Measures Installed...
AI summary The document discusses verification rates of energy efficiency measures installed in homes under the REAP program. Verification rates varied across different measures, with some showing improvement from 2009 to 2010, while others, like building envelope measures, saw a decline. Lower verification rates may be attributed to respondents' difficulty recalling installations due to the time elapsed since installation.
ame house in program Respondents n 55 Yes 100% Table B-2: Reasons for Participating Most Second Most Important Important Motivation Motivation Sample size 55 59 To save energy 27% 15% To save money on my electric 25 25 bill No cost for ser...
AI summary The table presents the reasons for participation in a program, with the majority of respondents (27%) citing energy savings as the most important motivation, followed by 25% who aimed to save money on their electric bill. Other reasons include no cost for services, comfort, and environmental concerns, though these are less frequently cited.
NSTALLED, 8=REFUSED, 9=DON'T KNOW) NMR Evaluation of 2010 Low Income Households program Page C6 1. Building envelope measures such as: insulation, air sealing, weather stripping, or exterior door installation or replacement (Electric Space...
AI summary The document outlines the 2010 Low Income Households program, listing energy efficiency measures provided, such as insulation, programmable thermostats, and appliance replacements. It also asks about additional actions taken by participants beyond the program's offerings.
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.
Staff Interview Guide for LI REAP Delivery Agents Primary Contact Date: Name: Organization: Introduction: [This interview should take about 30 minutes] Your comments are confidential. By the way, if I ask you about areas you don‘t know abo...
AI summary This document outlines an interview guide for Low Income Residential Energy Affordability Program (LI REAP) delivery agents, focusing on their roles, training, program goals, business impact, and reimbursement processes. It seeks to gather feedback on program effectiveness and areas for improvement.
c. Again at the broadest level, what were the areas that were not so successful? d. To what do you trace the difficulties you encountered? How might they be addressed in future programs? PROGRAM OUTREACH 11. Do you have any goals for the p...
AI summary The text focuses on evaluating the success and challenges of the Low-Income Residential Energy Assistance Program (LI REAP), including outreach efforts, awareness levels, participation barriers, and opportunities for improvement, particularly in reaching low-income consumers and renters.
NMR Group, Inc. 50-2 Howard Street, Somerville, MA 02144 Phone: (617) 284-6230 Fax: (617) 284-6239 www.nmrgroupinc.com Evaluation—2010 New Houses Program
AI summary The document text includes the name of a company, NMR Group, Inc., and a reference to an 'Evaluation—2010 New Houses Program.' This appears to be a document related to an evaluation of a residential housing program from 2010.
....................................................................... 33 NMR Impact and Process Evaluation—2010 New Houses Program
AI summary The document discusses an impact and process evaluation of the 2010 New Houses Program, focusing on its effectiveness and implementation.
................................................................. 1 NMR Impact and Process Evaluation—2010 New Houses Program
AI summary The document discusses the Impact and Process Evaluation of the 2010 New Houses Program, focusing on its effectiveness and implementation process.
Targets Revised Jan 26 2010. Note, however, that the ENH program manual shows 2010 targets of 1,000 new houses and energy savings of 4.37 GWh; the manual did not include any demand savings target. NMR Evaluation—2010 New Houses Program Pag...
AI summary The 2010 New Houses Program in Nova Scotia had 260 participants, but its impact on energy efficiency was limited due to the new building code raising minimum standards. Participation was driven largely by heat pump incentives, with high free-ridership rates among builders and homeowners. Despite this, participants expressed strong interest in energy efficiency and satisfaction with the program.
mostly a heat pump program. That said, survey respondents reported strong interest in energy efficiency and satisfaction with the program. Specific findings and recommendations are provided below. 2 During 2010, the EnerGuide New Houses pr...
AI summary The document discusses a heat pump program and highlights strong interest in energy efficiency and satisfaction with the program. It also mentions the re-launch of the EnerGuide New Houses program as PerformancePlus in 2010, using the abbreviation NH for both programs.
rformancePlus program. NMR Evaluation—2010 New Houses Program Page 4
AI summary The document references the Evaluation—2010 New Houses Program and mentions NMR. It appears to be a page from a regulatory proceeding document.
Program Participation and Incentive Structure Finding Recommendation NH-F1. NH-R1. Implementation of the NH program entailed multiple phases and a Under these circumstances, the program has two choices variety of people were involved in de...
AI summary The NH program's implementation involved multiple phases and stakeholders. With the EnerGuide 83 minimum requirement, many homes could achieve this rating through heat pump installations, making the program effectively a heat pump initiative. The recommendation suggests raising the EnerGuide level to 85 or 90 over time or exiting the EnerGuide system to provide direct incentives for specific measures.
NH-R2. Starting in January 2010, Nova Scotia building code required all new Before designing any future residential new construction homes to have a minimum EnerGuide rating of 80. Builders or energy efficiency programs, the DSM Administra...
AI summary The Nova Scotia building code since 2010 requires new homes to have a minimum EnerGuide rating of 80. Building inspectors are crucial in enforcing these energy efficiency standards. Marketing efforts for the NH program were effective in 2010 but require further enhancement. Homeowners are motivated by potential energy cost savings.
e program. NMR Evaluation—2010 New Houses Program Page 5 Program Marketing (continued) Finding Recommendation NH-F5. NH-R5. Builders were motivated to participate in the NH program because NH program marketing to builders should emphasize...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 New Houses Program highlights that builders were motivated to participate due to the opportunity to benchmark energy efficiency and market energy-efficient homes. However, marketing materials were limited, and recommendations suggest emphasizing the benefits of the EnerGuide label and developing an information package for homebuyers.
Program Administration and Delivery Finding Recommendation NH-F7. NH-R7. The program underwent changes in the past year including changing ENSC should work to provide a cohesive program with its name as well as changes in program requireme...
AI summary The New Houses (NH) program has undergone changes, including a name change and updates to requirements and incentives, which have caused confusion among builders. There is a need for clearer communication and better training regarding the Nova Scotia building code, the NH program, and the HOT2000 report. Program delivery agents also found the review of HOT2000 reports to be time-consuming.
NH-R10. Delivery Agents reported that reviewing HOT2000 reports was a The NH program should work with NRCan to provide time-consuming process. Program staff observed that NH program additional training to Delivery Agents on reviewing and c...
AI summary Delivery Agents found reviewing HOT2000 reports time-consuming. The NH program is advised to provide training on interpreting these reports and help track energy savings, particularly differentiating plug load from building envelope measures.
Program Performance and Savings Finding Recommendation NH-F11. NH-R11. Only one of the four builders reported being satisfied with the The program should work to improve the scheduling and scheduling and timing of the audit. timing of the...
AI summary The document highlights issues with the scheduling of energy audits and the modeling of energy efficiency measures in the New Houses program. It recommends improvements in communication with builders and the proper handling of prescriptive savings in HOT2000 to avoid double counting and ensure accurate energy savings calculations.
NH-R14. Water heater pipe wrap insulation could not be modeled in HOT2000. It is appropriate to add prescriptive savings for water Drain water heat recovery measures and programmable thermostats heater pipe wrap insulation, thermostats and...
AI summary The document discusses energy efficiency measures in new residential homes in Nova Scotia, including issues with modeling insulation and thermostat savings, EnerGuide ratings, and program rebates. It highlights the need to revise program objectives to reduce administrative costs and leverage existing building code requirements.
e rating of 80, and simply by purchasing a heat occurring through the Nova Scotia building code. pump, participants could increase their EG rating to 83 and take advantage of program rebates. Rebates Finding Recommendation NH-F17. NH-R17....
AI summary The 2010 New Houses Program allowed builders to transfer rebates to reduce up-front costs, improving upon the 2009 program. However, builders typically did not receive incentives, leading to delays in paperwork completion. The recommendation suggests providing more direct incentives to builders to improve program administration and energy efficiency outcomes.
2.1 Program Description The NH program was administered by Conserve Nova Scotia (CNS). The DSM Administrator joined the program in 2009 by adding incentives for specific measures. The new independent program administrator, Efficiency Nova...
AI summary The NH program, administered by Conserve Nova Scotia and later by Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation, provides rebates for energy efficiency upgrades in new homes. The program includes incentives for specific measures such as heat pumps, thermal storage systems, and water heating improvements, with Energy Advisors assisting in evaluating and recommending upgrades.
2000program.html. NMR Evaluation—2010 New Houses Program Page 8 Through the NH program, electrically heated houses receiving a final EnerGuide rating of 85 or higher were eligible for an additional incentive of $300. This increased substan...
AI summary The 2010 New Houses Program provided incentives for energy-efficient homes, increasing from $300 to up to $7,000 for higher EnerGuide ratings after being re-launched as PerformancePlus. Registration fees were rebated for homes achieving certain EnerGuide ratings, though this changed after September 7, 2010.
houses achieving an EnerGuide rating of 85 or higher qualified for an additional $300 rebate. For homes registered on or after September 7, 2010, the program no longer offers registration fee rebates. 2.1.1 Program Theory Program Backgroun...
AI summary The 2010 New Houses (NH) program in Nova Scotia aimed to improve energy efficiency in new homes through market transformation and resource acquisition. It was administered by Conserve Nova Scotia (CNS) and involved collaboration with Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). The program required homes to achieve an EnerGuide rating of 80.5 and offered rebates for higher ratings. It included activities such as training delivery agents and energy evaluators, and engaging builders and developers.
onserveNS-2009-2010-Business-Plan.pdf. NMR Evaluation—2010 New Houses Program Page 9
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 New Houses Program, focusing on its implementation and outcomes. It highlights the program's goals and performance, providing an overview of its impact and effectiveness in promoting energy efficiency in new residential construction.
house construction. Helping them to specify energy efficient construction practices and measures for houses will ensure long-term savings. Marketing and outreach. The program utilizes advertising directed to commercial and private builde...
AI summary The document outlines a program aimed at promoting energy-efficient construction practices in new homes. It includes marketing efforts, registration and modeling of house plans, construction activities, and evaluation of completed houses to ensure compliance with energy efficiency standards.
audit the completed house (including a blower door test) and verify the energy saving measures that were installed. Energy Evaluators input audited data into HOT2000 software and upload information to NRCan. Based on the results, the house...
AI summary The 2010 New Houses Program involves auditing completed homes with a blower door test, inputting data into HOT2000 software, and assigning an EnerGuide rating. Rebates are processed by CNS and provided to the homeowner or builder. The program assumes builder and customer support through effective outreach.
Adequate availability of Energy Evaluators. NRCan is able to train a sufficient number of Delivery Agents/Energy Evaluators to model the house plans and audit the completed house. Skills and equipment. Delivery Agents/Energy Evaluators...
AI summary The document discusses the adequacy of Energy Evaluators and the availability of materials and skills required for the program, as well as potential barriers such as lack of awareness, reluctance to change practices, and concerns about quality. It highlights the benefits of energy savings for home buyers.
ge of the program could lead to poor participation by local business associations. Cost-driven construction and competitive markets. Some builders or customers may be interested in building only the most economical house that meets build...
AI summary The 2010 New Houses Program may face challenges in participation due to cost-driven construction, competitive markets, and misplaced incentives that discourage home builders from investing in energy-efficient measures.
rally receive the NMR Evaluation—2010 New Houses Program Page 11
AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of the 2010 New Houses Program. It appears to be a report or analysis conducted by NMR Group, Inc. on the program's performance and outcomes.
program incentives (which are sent directly to the home buyers).6 Participants who are building the houses for themselves may be reluctant to make investments in more efficient measures because they may not be confident that the rebates wi...
AI summary The text discusses challenges in implementing energy efficiency programs, including reluctance among self-building participants due to rebate uncertainty, lack of availability of efficient measures, inadequate training, and restrictions on marketing homes as energy efficient. It also mentions short-term outcomes like awareness of the program and identification of energy-saving opportunities.
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.
Home owners receive rebates and incentives. Home owners receive rebates for applicable energy efficiency measures from the provincial government and the DSM Administrator. Intermediate Outcomes Energy savings and bill reductions. Energ...
AI summary The program provides rebates and incentives to homeowners for energy efficiency measures, leading to energy savings, bill reductions, and increased awareness. Over time, the program aims to standardize energy-efficient construction practices, increase consumer demand for energy-efficient homes, and revise the Nova Scotia building code to reflect widespread adoption.
tock of energy efficient houses across Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia building code is revised. Building code in the province is revised to be consistent with the widespread adoption of the energy efficient building practices. Sustained ener...
AI summary The document outlines the impact of the New Houses Program in Nova Scotia, focusing on energy efficiency improvements, code revisions, and energy savings achieved through increased demand for energy-efficient homes, which also reduces the need for new generation plants.
eboard heating systems. NMR Evaluation—2010 New Houses Program Page 16 Calculating savings in this manner allowed for double counting as some of the prescriptive measures could also be modeled in HOT2000. For example, if a solar hot water...
AI summary The document discusses the calculation of energy savings in the 2010 New Houses Program, highlighting issues with double counting when using HOT2000 software. It also outlines the creation of two baseline homes to account for changes in building codes after December 31, 2009.
two baseline homes, one to address program homes permitted before December 31, 2009 (updated baseline home) and another to address homes permitted after December 31, 2009 (code upgrade baseline home). 3.2.1 Updated Baseline Home NMR estima...
AI summary NMR updated the baseline home model to reflect average building dimensions from a sample of 25 homes, addressing a six-month lag between home permits and construction. The updated model did not adjust heating systems or insulation values, as these were influenced by the program. The 25 sampled homes were more efficient than the rest of the program's projects.
.51 of HOT2000. NMR Evaluation—2010 New Houses Program Page 17 programmable electronic thermostat installed through the program. The sampled projects also had a significantly higher average EnerGuide rating (83.5) than all other participat...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 New Houses Program indicates that homes with programmable thermostats had higher EnerGuide ratings, suggesting they may have been larger in size compared to other program projects.
home. NMR Evaluation—2010 New Houses Program Page 20
AI summary The document is titled 'Evaluation—2010 New Houses Program' and is on page 20. It appears to be part of a regulatory proceeding document from Nova Scotia, likely related to an evaluation of a new houses program from 2010.
plied to the EnerGuide for Existing Houses program.31 Table 3-9 compares the prescriptive savings estimates applied in the program‘s tracking database to the estimates applied for our impact analysis. 30 Within our sample of 25 projects, w...
AI summary The document compares prescriptive savings estimates for the 2010 New Houses Program between the tracking database and impact analysis. It highlights discrepancies, such as double counting in some instances and differences in estimated savings, with the tracking database estimating 29% higher savings than the evaluated results.
ed in the new houses program in 2010 saved a total of 1,321 MWh at the meter. The program‘s tracking database estimated total savings at 1,702 MWh at the meter—29% higher than the evaluated savings. Table 3-10: Comparison of Detailed Track...
AI summary The 2010 New Houses Program achieved 1,321 MWh in meter savings, while the tracking database estimated 1,702 MWh—29% higher. Table 3-10 compares detailed tracking and evaluated savings estimates for various energy efficiency measures.
1,321 1,478 NMR Evaluation—2010 New Houses Program Page 24
AI summary The document presents an evaluation of the 2010 New Houses Program, focusing on the performance and outcomes of the initiative. It includes data and analysis related to the program's impact and effectiveness.
m/products/remrate NMR Evaluation—2010 New Houses Program Page 25 3.5.1 Comparison of Savings The NMR team recreated a sample of ten participating projects and each of the baseline homes in the REM/Rate software. The ten projects were sele...
AI summary The NMR team compared savings calculated using HOT2000 and REM/Rate software for the 2010 New Houses Program. Results showed small differences between the two programs, suggesting HOT2000 can accurately calculate program savings.
have been slightly inaccurate. Other factors that may have led to differences in the models include differing weather data, different water heating assumptions, and different internal calculations.37 3.6 Heat Pumps NMR conducted an analysi...
AI summary The text discusses the impact of heat pumps on EnerGuide ratings in new homes in Nova Scotia, noting that adding a heat pump can increase the rating. It also highlights that participation in the New Houses program may be driven by incentives for achieving higher EnerGuide ratings, with a significant proportion of participants installing heat pumps.
Table 3-13: Builder NH Free-ridership Stated Intent Questions Free- Question Question Responses Rider Number Score Now I would like to ask you to consider what actions you would have taken in the absence of the EnerGuide New Houses Program...
AI summary The table presents survey responses regarding builder intentions regarding the EnerGuide New Houses Program, specifically asking whether they would have postponed construction or built to a lower energy efficiency standard without the program.
If yes: Would you have built the house to achieve a (i. Somewhat 25% FR2ci. Slightly, ii. Somewhat, iii. Significantly) lower level of Significantly 0% energy efficiency? ] Don‘t know 25% The final energy efficiency level of the house woul...
AI summary The text discusses participant responses to questions about energy efficiency in new homes, particularly whether they would have built to a lower level of efficiency if not for the program. It includes percentages of responses and calculates a stated intent score based on participant feedback.
of FR2a, FR2c+ci, and FR2b. NMR Evaluation—2010 New Houses Program Page 28 Table 3-14: Builder NH Free-ridership Program Influence Questions Free- Question Question Responses Rider Number Score How influential were the following elements i...
AI summary The table evaluates the influence of the 2010 New Houses Program on builders' decisions to achieve an EnerGuide Rating. Respondents rated the influence of program incentives, information, feedback, and the EnerGuide label on a scale of 1 to 5, with the highest rating determining the program's influence score.
upgrade options. Upon completion of construction, the Energy Advisor verified the upgrades that had been completed and notified the homeowners about which rebates that they were eligible to receive. 4.3 Program Communication and Delivery I...
AI summary The document discusses the NH program's communication and delivery challenges, including training for building inspectors, confusion due to changes in support from Natural Resources Canada, and efforts by service providers to promote the program. Respondents learned about the program through various channels, including contractors and the Nova Scotia Power website.
0, two of four builders surveyed had learned about the program from contractors, one had learned about it from the Nova Scotia Power website, and one had learned about it from an unspecified source.43 42 By contrast, in 2009 the program ha...
AI summary The 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program was primarily learned about by homeowners through builders, newspaper ads, and home shows. A smaller number of builders learned about the program from Nova Scotia Power and other sources. The survey sample was small, which may have affected the results.
lation, before Final Review of home 2 3 Don‘t Know 1 The survey asked homeowners who had reported being involved in decision-making since the initial planning stage who had made the decision to participate in the program. As Table 4-4 show...
AI summary The survey found that more than half of the homeowners involved in decision-making made joint decisions with builders, while about one-third made the decisions themselves. Program Staff believed homeowners could have been more involved in the decision-making process.
Joint decision (homeowner and builder) 1 9 This also includes owners who built their own homes. 4.6 Motivations and Barriers 4.6.1 Participant Perspectives The survey asked builders and owners about their motivations and barriers to partic...
AI summary The survey explored motivations and barriers for builders and homeowners participating in the EnerGuide for New Houses program. Builders were motivated by energy efficiency, helping homeowners save energy, and receiving rebates. About half of the homeowners participated to save on energy costs, while others were interested in rebates or had already planned energy-efficient measures.
Builders‘ secondary reasons for participating in NH program were to find out how energy efficient the new houses would be, to save energy, and to help the environment. Four homeowners reported that they had wanted to help save energy and t...
AI summary Builders and homeowners participated in the NH program for various reasons, including wanting to save energy, help the environment, and evaluate the energy efficiency of new homes. The data comes from a survey of builders and homeowners in 2009 and 2010.
I was thinking about/planning to get energy efficient 1 1 measures in my house anyway Comfort in the home 2 1 Make houses that reduce 1 1 2 energy costs/bills Get rebates 1 1 Make house more attractive to 1 1 potential buyers Request by to...
AI summary The text discusses respondents' reasons for wanting to implement energy-efficient measures in their homes, including reducing energy costs, increasing home value, and receiving rebates. It also mentions that no builders had concerns about participating in the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program, while one homeowner was concerned about the costs.
erns about doing so. In 2010, no builders indicated a concern about participating in the NH program. One homeowner reported that they had been concerned that the measures would cost a lot. (Table 4-8) Table 4-8: Concerns about the NH Progr...
AI summary The text discusses concerns about the NH program, noting that in 2010, no builders indicated concerns about participating, while one homeowner expressed concern about the costs of the measures. Table 4-8 provides data on the number of builders and homeowners who had concerns prior to participation.
Page 42 important reason for not installing these measures, these homeowners most frequently indicated that the measures were too expensive (4).48 Table 4-10: Decided not to Install Some Recommended Measures (Base: Builders and owners invo...
AI summary The text discusses reasons why homeowners decided not to install recommended energy efficiency measures, with cost being the primary factor. It also highlights that prior to the NH program, few builders and homeowners planned to build to high EnerGuide ratings, but after the program, more did so, indicating the program's influence.
Table 4-11: Prior Plans and Program Influence (Base: Builders and owners involved in decisions to participate) Intention to build house with 2009 2010 EnerGuide rating of 80 or higher Builders Homeowners Total Builders Homeowners Total Sam...
AI summary The table presents data on builder and homeowner intentions to build homes with specific EnerGuide ratings in 2009 and 2010, as well as the influence of rebates and technical assistance on final EnerGuide ratings. The data highlights the impact of programs on energy efficiency in housing.
11 3 23 26 Lower 7 2 9 1 17 18 Don‘t know 1 1 2 3 3 None of the builders included in the survey had achieved an actual EnerGuide rating of 83 or higher, so their intentions to build to this level of efficiency prior to participating was no...
AI summary The survey found that none of the builders had achieved an EnerGuide rating of 83 or higher, and few homeowners indicated they would have postponed building by more than a year without the NH program. Most builders believed their budgets could have covered the full cost of energy-efficient upgrades, even without rebates.
5 38 No 1 5 6 Don‘t Know 3 3 The 2010 survey asked respondents about the influence of various elements of the NH program on their decision to build to the EnerGuide rating. Two out of the four builders and nearly one- half of the homeowner...
AI summary The 2010 survey examined the influence of the NH program's elements on achieving EnerGuide ratings. Builders and homeowners found information from building plan examinations, rebates, feedback from plan reviews, and the EnerGuide label to be influential in their decisions.
er of respondents giving a rating of ―4‖ or ―5‖ on a scale of 1to 5 where 5= ‗immense value‘ and 1 = ‗little value.‘ A detailed breakdown of these data is provided in the appendix. (Table B-2) 4.10 Program Satisfaction Respondents were ask...
AI summary The NH program received high satisfaction ratings from builders and most homeowners in 2010, though some dissatisfaction was noted regarding audit scheduling, interpersonal skills of auditors, and rebate amounts. Specific issues were raised by a few homeowners.
on with program elements such as the first review, ease of review process, and the report received about house plan‘s current efficiency; they did not specify the reasons for their dissatisfaction. NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Hou...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program highlights satisfaction levels among builders and homeowners regarding program elements like the first review of house plans, scheduling, and the report on house plan efficiency. However, some dissatisfaction was noted without specific reasons provided.
owners would like to have had covered by the program. Two of the four builders and ten of the 43 homeowners said there had been other measures that they had wanted covered by the program. (Table 4-20) Table 4-20: Desire for Program Coverag...
AI summary The text discusses survey results showing that some builders and homeowners felt the program should have covered additional upgrades. In 2010, a higher proportion of builders and homeowners expressed a desire for expanded coverage compared to 2009, with statistically significant differences noted at the 90% confidence level.
12α Don‘t know 5 5 α Significantly different from the 2009 sample at the 90% confidence level. Two of the four builders provided suggestions for additional upgrades they would like to see covered by the program. One indicated that he would...
AI summary The survey highlights feedback from builders and homeowners regarding the EnerGuide for New Houses program. Builders requested more recommendations for achieving higher EnerGuide ratings and coverage of electric hot water and in-floor heating. Homeowners requested higher rebates for solar power and heat pumps, as well as more information and advertising about the program.
l rebate. It can get confusing.” NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page 50 Two homeowners said that they would like higher or more accurate efficiency ratings. Two homeowners wanted a faster certification process and two...
AI summary Homeowners expressed a desire for higher or more accurate efficiency ratings, faster certification processes, and increased support for the New Homes (NH) program. They also emphasized the need for continued and higher rebates, increased program awareness, and greater clarity regarding the program.
Table 4-21: Recommendations for improvement (Base: Builders, owners; multiple responses) 2009 2010 Builders Homeowners Builders Homeowners Sample size 13 10 4 43 More marketing/advertising 1 2 3 Make process simpler (e.g. consolidate rebat...
AI summary The table presents recommendations from builders and homeowners for improving energy efficiency programs, including more marketing, simplifying processes, providing accurate efficiency ratings, and increasing communication with builders.
customer attention to the program. The ductless heat pump measure was added to the program. The program builds toward future increases in building code requirements. The program showed that building energy efficient homes was feasible an...
AI summary The 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program aimed to promote energy efficiency in new homes. Strengths include increased customer awareness and market transformation through industry collaboration. Weaknesses include delays in paperwork submission by builders due to lack of monetary incentives and uncertainty around the program's future.
4 Independent 13 4 Part of a larger company In 2010, three of the four builders had been in the residential homebuilding industry more than 20 years; one builder had been in the industry two years. These builders reported having built betw...
AI summary The text discusses the experience of builders in Nova Scotia's residential homebuilding industry, noting that most have been in the industry for over 20 years and highlights the distribution of homeowners living in different types of housing units, with over 80% in detached single-family homes.
Page 54 5.2 Homeowners As Table 5-3 shows, more than 80% of homeowners live in detached single-family homes. Note that five of the 2010 homeowners reported living in townhouses or duplex units. Table 5-3: Type of Residence Owners 2009 2010...
AI summary The text discusses the types of residences occupied by homeowners in 2009 and 2010, highlighting that the majority live in detached single-family homes. It also notes the distribution of bedroom counts among the homes surveyed.
building, at least 5 stories Twenty-four of the 43 homes had three bedrooms, while seven had two bedrooms and three had five or more bedrooms. (Table 5-4) Table 5-4: Number of Bedrooms Owners 2009 2010 Sample size 10 43 0 1 2 7α 3 7 24 4 3...
AI summary The text provides data on the number of bedrooms in homes sampled in 2009 and 2010, noting significant differences in the distribution of bedroom counts. It also includes information on homeownership rates among respondents in 2010, with most respondents owning or buying their homes.
y.‖ GOTO INTRODUCTION] INTRODUCTION Hello, my name is _, from NMR Group. I am calling on behalf of the EnerGuide for New Houses program from Conserve Nova Scotia and Nova Scotia Power. 1. We understand you participated in the EnerGuide for...
AI summary The text is an introduction to a survey conducted by the NMR Group on behalf of the EnerGuide for New Houses program. It seeks to confirm participation in the program by a respondent at a specific address and provides information about the program's purpose and benefits.
icipated in the EnerGuide program?‖] Yes [ASK TO SPEAK TO THEM AND REPEAT INTRODUCTION] No [THANK & TERMINATE] Refused [THANK AND TERMINATE] NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page A2 ―I‘m NOT calling about your electrici...
AI summary This text outlines a survey script for participants in the EnerGuide for New Houses rebate program. It includes instructions for conducting the survey, handling responses, and navigating through various questions based on the participant's role and experience.
gh the EnerGuide New Homes program? 1. Yes 2. No / Not building any houses through program – SKIP TO Q7 8. Don't know – SKIP TO Q7 9. Refused– SKIP TO Q7 NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page A3 5. For any houses that w...
AI summary The text includes survey questions related to the EnerGuide for New Homes program, asking participants if they have built homes through the program, had an Energy Advisor review initial plans, and conducted final audits. The questions also inquire about how participants first learned about the program.
't know 9. Refused Section 1 - How Learned about Program/Reasons for Participating 7. How did you first learn about the EnerGuide for New Houses program? [DO NOT READ. ACCEPT MULTIPLE] 1. (Nova Scotia Power Bill insert) 2. (A utility other...
AI summary The text contains survey questions about how respondents learned about the EnerGuide for New Houses program and their reasons for participating. It lists various channels through which individuals became aware of the program, including utility bills, websites, and word of mouth.
ipating in the program? [SAME LIST AS IN Q9 below; ACCEPT ONE RESPONSE. PROBE FOR SPECIFIC REASONS] 9. Were there any other reasons? [DO NOT READ. ACCEPT MULTIPLE; PROBE FOR SPECIFIC REASONS] 1. (To make house that would save buyers / home...
AI summary The text outlines survey questions related to participation in the EnerGuide for New Houses program, including reasons for participation and non-participation. It lists various motivations such as energy cost savings, environmental benefits, and compliance with building codes.
CEPT ONE RESPONSE; PROBE FOR SPECIFIC REASONS] NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page A5 11. Were there any other reasons? [DO NOT READ. ACCEPT MULTIPLE; PROBE FOR SPECIFIC REASONS] 1. (That my ―bottom line‖ would suffer...
AI summary The document contains survey questions related to the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program, focusing on participants' reasons for not participating and their concerns about the program. It also includes a section on satisfaction with the program.
(Refused) NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page A6 Section 2 – Satisfaction with program 14. Thinking of your OVERALL experience with the EnerGuide for New Houses Program up to this point, including any services receive...
AI summary The text presents survey questions about participant satisfaction with the EnerGuide for New Houses Program, including reasons for dissatisfaction such as delays in rebate processing, insufficient coverage, and excessive paperwork.
17. Now I‘m going to ask you about your experience with specific aspects of the EnerGuide Program for New Houses. For each one, please tell me if you are very satisfied, satisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, dissatisfied, or very...
AI summary The text outlines a survey asking respondents to rate their satisfaction with various aspects of the EnerGuide Program for New Houses, including reviews of house plans, the competence of Energy Advisors, the audit process, and rebate provisions.
m overall 1 2 3 4 5 9 k. The rebates provided by the program for 1 2 3 4 5 9 electric space and water heating measures 18. [IF Q17a = 4 or 5; OTHERWISE SKIP TO Q20] You indicated that you were not satisfied with the first review of the hou...
AI summary The text outlines survey questions related to customer dissatisfaction with energy efficiency reviews and upgrades, focusing on reasons for dissatisfaction with initial house plan reviews and final energy audits, as well as upgrades not installed.
[RECORD VERBATIM - ALLOW FOR SIX OPEN END RESPONSES] 1. Air source electric heat pump (ANY HEAT PUMP) 2. Solar domestic water heater (ANY SOLAR WATER HEATER) 3. (OTHER) 8. (Don‘t know) 9. (REFUSED) INCENT3. What is the ONE most important r...
AI summary The text contains survey questions related to energy efficiency measures, including heat pumps and solar water heaters, and explores reasons for not installing recommended measures. It also includes a question about pre-existing plans for energy-efficient home construction, specifically targeting an EnerGuide Rating of 80 or higher.
ild houses that achieve a level of energy efficiency similar to the level required to earn an EnerGuide Rating of 80 or higher? 1 Yes 2 No 8 (Don‘t know) 9 (Refused) FR2. [IF ENERGUIDE RATING FROM FILE IS 83 OR HIGHER]: The house you built...
AI summary The text asks participants about their energy efficiency plans and the impact of the EnerGuide New Houses Program on their construction decisions, including whether they would have postponed building the house or achieved a lower energy efficiency level without the program.
ad not participated in the program FR2ci. [If yes: Would you have built the house to achieve a (i. Slightly, ii. Somewhat, iii. Significantly) lower level of energy efficiency? ] FR3. According to our records, you received [$XX - READ FROM...
AI summary The text contains survey questions aimed at understanding the influence of the EnerGuide New Houses program on homebuilders' decisions to improve energy efficiency. It asks about participation, budget impact, and the influence of program incentives, information, and feedback on energy efficiency improvements.
re employed by your company/organization? 1 Fewer than 5 2 5 to 9 3 10 to 19 4 20 to 49 5 50 to 99 6 100 to 249 7 250 or More 99 Don‘t know NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page A14 30. How many years has your company b...
AI summary The text includes survey questions directed at company representatives and homeowners regarding their involvement in energy efficiency programs, specifically the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program. Questions cover employment size, years in the residential homebuilding industry, and the number of housing units completed in Nova Scotia and outside of it.
ESTIONS Section 9 – Screening 34. Which of the following statements would you say best describes when you became involved in the decisions about the energy efficiency of your home? Would you say.. 1. You were involved from the initial plan...
AI summary The text outlines a questionnaire section regarding homebuyers' involvement in energy efficiency decisions during home construction, specifically focusing on participation in the EnerGuide for New Houses program. It asks when individuals became involved in these decisions and who made the decisions regarding participation and energy efficiency measures.
Page A16 Section 10 - How Learned about Program/Reasons for Participating 37. How did you first learn about the EnerGuide for New Houses program? [DO NOT READ. ACCEPT MULTIPLE] 1. (Home Builder) 2. (Nova Scotia Power Bill insert) 3. (A uti...
AI summary This section asks respondents how they learned about the EnerGuide for New Houses program and the reasons for their participation. It includes multiple methods of learning about the program and asks for the most important reason for participating.
know) 99. (Refused) 40. Before participating, did you have any concerns about taking part in the program? 1. Yes 2. No 8. Don‘t know 9. Refused 41. [IF Q40 = 1] What were those concerns? [DO NOT READ. ACCEPT ALL RESPONSES] 1. (That my ―bot...
AI summary The text includes survey questions about participant concerns and satisfaction with the EnerGuide for New Houses Program. It asks about concerns before participation and overall satisfaction with the program, including reasons for dissatisfaction.
CEPT ONE RESPONSE–SAME LIST AS Q44] NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page A18 44. Were there any other reasons you were dissatisfied? [PROBE FOR SPECIFIC REASONS. ACCEPT MULTIPLE] 1. (The review of the plans took too lo...
AI summary The text outlines dissatisfaction reasons with the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program, including delays, rebate issues, eligibility concerns, and program coverage. It also asks respondents to evaluate specific aspects of the program.
ASK ONLY f thru k) VS S Neither Dissat V.Dissat DK/Ref a. The First Review of the house plans, overall 1 2 3 4 5 9 (This was the review of the house plans evaluating the house‘s energy efficiency with recommended measures.) b. Scheduling a...
AI summary The text presents a survey evaluating customer satisfaction with the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program, focusing on aspects like the energy efficiency review process, the competence of Energy Advisors, the clarity of reports, and the rebates provided for energy-efficient measures, particularly for electric space and water heating.
2. No 8. (Don‘t know) 9. (Refused) NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page A20 INCENT21. [IF INCENT20 = YES] What measures were those? [RECORD VERBATIM - ALLOW FOR SIX OPEN END RESPONSES – DO NOT READ] 1. Air source elect...
AI summary The text outlines questions from an evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program, focusing on incentives for energy-efficient measures, reasons for not installing recommended measures, and pre-program plans for building or buying energy-efficient homes.
ked with anyone about the EnerGuide for New Houses NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page A21 program did you have specific plans to build this house to achieve an energy efficiency level similar to what is required to e...
AI summary The text presents survey questions regarding participation in the EnerGuide for New Houses program, including whether respondents planned to achieve an EnerGuide Rating of 83 or higher, the impact of the program on energy efficiency levels, and whether financial incentives influenced their ability to afford energy-efficient upgrades.
2 3 4 5 9 no extremely DK and designation influence influential itself Section 14 - Impact of measures on comfort level and value of the program to customers 50. Do you think the energy efficiency measures installed through the program hav...
AI summary The text presents survey questions assessing the impact of energy efficiency measures on home comfort and energy bill reduction, as well as customer perceptions of the value of the EnerGuide for New Houses program and recommendations for improvement.
gram? [PROBE FOR SPECIFIC UPGRADES; ACCEPT MULTIPLE] Section 16 - Recommendations for program improvements 55. Do you have any recommendations for improving the EnerGuide for New Houses program? NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses...
AI summary The text outlines a section of a program evaluation focusing on recommendations for improving the EnerGuide for New Houses program, followed by demographic questions related to residence type, bedroom count, home ownership, electricity bill payment, and home occupancy.
8. (Refused) NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page A26 65. [DO NOT READ] Gender 1. Male 2. Female [READ: THAT IS ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE FOR YOU. THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO RESPOND TO THIS SURVEY.] NMR Evaluation...
AI summary The text includes a survey and interview guide related to the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program. It outlines the structure of the interview, including questions about staff roles, program responsibilities, and interactions with delivery agents and partners.
Guide New Homes program i. Brian Hayes at Conserve Nova Scotia ii. Delivery agents 1. Sustainable Housing and Education Consultants – 50% NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page A28
AI summary The document discusses the Guide New Homes program, mentioning Brian Hayes from Conserve Nova Scotia and Sustainable Housing and Education Consultants as delivery agents. It also references the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program and Nova Scotia Power (NMR).
2. Nova Scotia Home Builders‘ Association – 50% c. Low Income REAP i. Kate McDonald at Conserve Nova Scotia ii. Delivery agents 1. MJM Energy 2. Clean NS 3. Trinity Maintenance Solutions 4. ACAP Cape Breton iii. Low income outreach agent [...
AI summary The document discusses the implementation and evaluation of energy efficiency programs, including interactions with various stakeholders such as the Nova Scotia Home Builders‘ Association and low-income outreach agents. It explores program goals, communication challenges, and the effectiveness of initiatives like the EnerGuide New and Existing Homes Programs.
ticipate in and promote the program g. Characteristics of target customers that make them the appropriate target for the program h. Customer energy usage and operational characteristics that will result in the achievement of program goals...
AI summary The document outlines questions for evaluating the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program, focusing on key program targets, their motivations, barriers to participation, and changes to the program over time.
Your comments are confidential. By the way, if I ask you about areas you don‘t know about, please feel free to tell me and we will move on. For transcription purposes we will be recording this call. Do you have any questions before we star...
AI summary The text outlines a series of questions aimed at gathering information about an individual's role and experience with the EnerGuide for New Houses Program, including their responsibilities, training, and perceptions of the program's goals and effectiveness.
h of your organization‘s effort for the EnerGuide for NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page A34 New Homes Program is spent on fulfilling data tracking requirements specifically for electric measures rebated by Nova Scot...
AI summary The text includes a series of questions directed at the Nova Scotia Home Builders' Association (NSHBA) regarding the EnerGuide for New Houses Program, focusing on data tracking, program management, and program delivery processes. It explores concerns about the lack of a dedicated program manager and the efficiency of data collection and communication.
ess; for example, how long does it take to complete the initial EnerGuide rating, provide information to the customer, make changes to plans, complete construction, receive rebate checks? 18. Are there any factors that inhibit your ability...
AI summary The text outlines a series of questions related to the delivery process of the EnerGuide for New Houses Program, including the time required for various steps, factors affecting program delivery, the impact of Nova Scotia Power's involvement, customer behavior post-EnerGuide rating, and effects on equipment vendors.
al customers to the program? Who is targeted in your marketing (i.e Home buyers, Builders)? How do you market to them specifically? Do you have access to adequate materials and information for customer presentations and meetings?] 31. Are...
AI summary The text contains a series of questions about customer participation in a program, focusing on target segments, marketing strategies, and barriers to participation. It also references an evaluation of the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program.
keeps customers from participating in the program? NMR Evaluation—2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program Page A36 34. What impact, if any, has the entry of Nova Scotia Power into the program had on customer awareness and/or response to the...
AI summary The evaluation questions focus on customer awareness, satisfaction, and feedback regarding the 2010 EnerGuide for New Houses Program, including the impact of Nova Scotia Power's involvement and the program's strengths and weaknesses.
Table B-3: Satisfaction with Program (Base: Builders and owners —based on role in planning/involvement) 2009 2010 Rating: 1= ‘very satisfied’ Rating: 1= ‘very satisfied’ Builder / and 5 = ‘very dissatisfied’ and 5 = ‘very dissatisfied’ Asp...
AI summary The table presents survey results from builders and homeowners regarding their satisfaction with a program, with data collected in 2009 and 2010. It includes ratings from 1 (very satisfied) to 5 (very dissatisfied) and shows responses for different aspects of the program, such as the first review of house plans and scheduling and timing of reviews.
tion: Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program 2010 February 25, 2011 Final Report Submitted to: Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation Submitted by: NMR Group, Inc. Principal Investigators: Rohit Vaidya David Barclay NMR Group, Inc....
AI summary This document is a final report evaluating the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program submitted by NMR Group, Inc. to Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation. It includes the principal investigators and contact information for the firm.
s with DSM Administrator staff and the implementation contractors, as well as telephone surveys with program participants. All the interview guides and survey instruments were developed by NMR staff. Impact Evaluation Findings The DI progr...
AI summary The DI program has been performing well, exceeding its energy and demand savings goals in 2010. Energy savings were estimated at 25,233 MWh and demand savings at 5,291 kW, surpassing the targets of 19,960 MWh and 3,240 kW respectively. The findings are based on interviews and surveys conducted by NMR staff.
Customer Awareness, Motivations and Barriers (continued) Finding Recommendation DI-F3. DI-R3. As in 2008 and 2009, the majority of 2010 respondents (97%) Since the majority of DI program participants have reported no prior participation in...
AI summary The majority of DI program participants in 2010 had no prior participation in energy efficiency programs, highlighting the importance of the DI program's positive impact. Lack of time was the top barrier to pursuing additional energy efficiency measures, with some respondents unable to provide a reason for not pursuing them.
ason that they information for identifying other energy efficiency had not pursued additional energy efficiency measures. This may measures they could implement. With the expansion indicate that respondents didn‘t have the time to research...
AI summary Respondents indicated that they did not pursue additional energy efficiency measures due to lack of time and awareness. Some also cited a lack of available financing as a barrier. The DI installation teams are encouraged to provide region-specific contact information for SBLS delivery agents. A potential financing program for energy efficiency measures is suggested.
local banks. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program Page IV
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program, focusing on its implementation and outcomes. It highlights the role of NMR in the process and discusses the program's impact on energy efficiency and customer participation.
that 30% of their exit signs did not contain LEDs. In addition, nearly three out of ten respondents (27%) said that even after participating in the DI program none of their exit signs contained LEDs. Satisfaction with the Program Finding R...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program found that 30% of exit signs did not contain LEDs, and 27% of respondents reported no LED exit signs even after participating in the program. Overall, 97% of respondents were satisfied with the program, and 85% were very satisfied.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program Page 1 2 Program Description and Data Tracking 2.1 Program Description The DI program was first launched in 2008 as a pilot program with an energy savings target of...
AI summary The 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program significantly exceeded its energy savings targets, with goals increasing from 2,641 MWh in 2008 to 19,960 MWh in 2010. The program was extended due to its popularity and the availability of CFLs, and it operated with 12 teams across eight regions in Nova Scotia.
2,641 7,430 2009 15,300 32,100 2010 19,960 25,233 Table 2-2: Maximum number of Installation Teams Targeted Community # of Teams Halifax Regional Municipality 3 Amherst 2 Annapolis Valley and surrounding area 2 Bridgewater and surrounding a...
AI summary The document discusses the reduction in the number of installation teams for the Direct Install Program in 2010, reflecting the saturation of compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) in the small business sector. Table 2-2 outlines the maximum number of installation teams allocated to various regions in Nova Scotia.
areas to partner with the program. Telephone outreach. The telephone calls made by trained representatives generate interest among potential participants. On-site visits. Sufficient training is provided to representatives that visit cu...
AI summary The document outlines the implementation and effectiveness of the Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program, detailing outreach methods, installation processes, and the benefits of switching to energy-efficient lighting for small businesses in Nova Scotia.
Transfer of understanding. Small business owners will remember the energy and bill savings they realized from participating in the program and consider energy efficient options when making decisions to purchase other energy using equipme...
AI summary The document outlines program barriers and short-term outcomes for the Direct Installation (DI) program. Barriers include liability concerns, perceptions of lighting quality, and inaccessibility of equipment. Short-term outcomes highlight increased awareness and participation in the program through various outreach methods.
Customers allow DI representatives to install CFLs and LEDs. After becoming aware of the opportunities offered by the program, customers allow DI program representatives to install qualifying equipment: o 13 Watt, 23 Watt, 14 Watt (R20)...
AI summary The Direct Install Program (DI) allows small businesses to have energy-efficient lighting installed by program representatives, leading to increased energy savings and awareness. The program aims to transform market practices by promoting the adoption of energy-efficient lighting as standard practice, resulting in long-term energy savings.
Model NMR Evaluation of 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program Page 7 2.2 Program Tracking The subcontractor tracked installations and also conducted brief satisfaction calls with participants after lights were installed....
AI summary The 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program tracked installations by recording business details, installation data, and energy savings. The subcontractor collected information on the types and quantities of lighting products installed, wattage replaced, and estimated energy savings, though limited data was recorded on the pre-existing conditions of exit signs.
used is 1.0926 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program Page 16 3.4 Spillover Spillover is additional energy-efficient equipment installed by participants due to program influences and in the absence of dir...
AI summary The 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program led to spillover effects, with 19% of participants installing additional CFLs and 3% installing additional LEDs. The program influenced 78% of those who made additional installations, with varying spillover rates for CFLs and LEDs compared to previous years.
s not installed. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program Page 17
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program, focusing on the implementation and impact of the program. It highlights the involvement of NMR and the evaluation process undertaken.
at or significantly fewer LED exit lights? Don‘t know 25% Would have installed the same number of CFLs that were FR2g. Yes 50% installed through the program No 25% Would have installed the same number of LED exit lights FR2h. Don‘t know 25...
AI summary The text presents survey responses regarding customer intent to install LED exit lights or CFLs, with 50% indicating they would install the same number as provided through the program, and 25% unsure. It calculates stated intent scores for both LED and CFL installations based on survey responses.
mum of FR6a, FR6b, or FR6c. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program Page 18
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program, focusing on its implementation and outcomes. It is part of a regulatory proceeding in Nova Scotia and includes references to specific forms and entities involved.
ported facing no barriers to participation in the 2010 Direct Install program. Among those who did mention a barrier, the majority were associated with fixture incompatibility (60%). (Table 4-7)
AI summary The 2010 Direct Install program faced participation barriers, with 60% of those who encountered issues citing fixture incompatibility as the main obstacle. This is detailed in Table 4-7.
σ 13 requirements Some fixtures retrofitted σ 13 before program Not considered a small σ 13 business Perceived danger of 2 CFL‘s σ† Too little incentive 12 Too little information σ† 12 about the program Scheduling 1 2 Don‘t know/None 88 98...
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program, noting issues such as perceived danger of CFLs, lack of incentive, insufficient information about the program, and scheduling challenges. A significant percentage of respondents indicated they did not know or had no opinion.
4 † † Don‘t know 16 20 40 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program Page 31 4.7 Purchase and Use Behaviors 4.7.1 Socket Saturation In the survey, 2009 and 2010 respondents were asked to quantify the penetrat...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program highlights significant increases in the use of CFLs and LED exit lights post-participation. However, a notable portion of respondents still reported low penetration of LEDs in exit signs, suggesting potential gaps in program effectiveness or outreach.
ts surveyed (31%) had had any LED exit lights installed. This may indicate the need for program teams to more thoroughly examine opportunities for LED exit lights or opportunities may be lost. Table 4-9: Socket Saturation 2009 2010 Percent...
AI summary The survey found that only 31% of respondents had LED exit lights installed, suggesting potential missed opportunities for LED adoption. Table 4-9 shows socket saturation data for CFLs and LEDs in 2009 and 2010, indicating increasing use of LEDs over time.
33 69 Average 27% 76% 29% 65% 30% 80% 36% 70% Question not asked in 2008; Unweighted data NMR Evaluation of 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program Page 32 4.7.2 CFLs Installed and Removed The majority of respondents (86%)...
AI summary The majority of respondents (86%) did not remove CFLs installed through the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program. Of those who did, reasons included bulb failure, breaking, and negative perceptions. Disposal methods varied, with some discarding them and others storing them.
Doesn‘t fit properly 2 Bulb not bright enough 1 Don‘t know 1 1 1 2 2008 2009 2010 Disposition of Removed Lights CFLs LEDs CFLs LEDs CFLs LEDs Sample size 3 2 8 1 7 0 Threw away 1 4 Put in storage 2 1 6 2 Gave away 1 Don‘t know 1 1 1 1 NMR...
AI summary The document presents a table summarizing the disposition of removed lighting products (CFLs and LEDs) from 2008 to 2010, including responses from participants regarding bulb brightness and disposal methods. It is part of an evaluation of Nova Scotia Power's 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program.
% σ Aware of benefits of LED exit lights 37% 40% 44% Table 4-12: Prior Purchases of Efficient Lighting Products Respondents Previously Purchased Products 2008 2009 2010 Sample size 70 70 77 Yes 70% 65% 69% Type of Purchases 2008 2009 2010...
AI summary The document presents data on the adoption of efficient lighting products, including LED exit lights, and evaluates the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program. It includes statistics on prior purchases of efficient lighting products from 2008 to 2010.
<1 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program Page 34 Slightly more than one-quarter of 2010 respondents (26%) reported having had plans to install CFLs or LEDs prior to participating in the DI program, with...
AI summary The 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program led to additional CFL and LED installations, with 19% of respondents installing more after participation. Most of these additional installations were CFLs, and 78% of those who installed additional bulbs indicated the program influenced their decision.
fficient equipment, and four out of five respondents (80%) reported that they would be ‗very likely‘ to purchase energy-efficient equipment when replacing equipment in the future. (Table 4-18) Table 4-18: Future Energy Efficiency Purchases...
AI summary The text discusses survey results showing high customer satisfaction with the Direct Install (DI) program for energy-efficient lighting products. Most respondents were very likely to purchase energy-efficient equipment in the future and reported high satisfaction with the program, though satisfaction with installation scheduling was lower in 2010 compared to 2009.
Table 4-19: Satisfaction with DI Program Rating: 5= ‘very satisfied’ and 1 = ‘not at all satisfied’ 2008 2009 2010 n 5 4 3 2 1 n 5 4 3 2 1 n 5 4 3 2 1 Program overall 66 82% 14 3 2 0 68 77% 18 5 0 0 68 84% 13 3 CFLs installed as part of th...
AI summary The text presents a table showing customer satisfaction ratings for the DI Program, CFLs, LEDs, and various aspects of the installation process across the years 2008 to 2010. Ratings range from 1 ('not at all satisfied') to 5 ('very satisfied'), with percentages and counts provided for each category.
2 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program Page A1
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program by NMR, focusing on the implementation and outcomes of the initiative aimed at promoting energy-efficient lighting solutions.
. 2003 5. 2004 6. 2005 7. 2006 8. 2007 9. 2008 10. 2009 11. 2010 99. Don‘t Know 8. How did you first learn about the Efficient Lighting Products Program? [RANDOMIZE AND READ 1-8, THEN 9] (Choose one) 1. From a phone call from an Efficient...
AI summary The text includes a list of years and a survey question about how respondents first learned about the Efficient Lighting Products Program, with multiple response options. It also references the Evaluation of the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program and includes the acronym NMR.
T-12 lighting with high efficiency lighting T-8s or T-5s 4. Metal Halide or High Pressure Sodium 5. Other (Specify: _) 9. (Don‘t know/Don‘t recall) 14c. Before participating in the Efficient Lighting Products Program, what percentage of yo...
AI summary The text includes survey questions related to lighting products and participation in the Efficient Lighting Products Program, focusing on the percentage of screw-base light sockets and exit signs containing CFLs or incandescent lamps before and after program participation. It also references the Nova Scotia Power (NMR) and the evaluation of the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program.
am, which of the following actions do you think you would have taken? Please select all that apply. Would you have… [For FR2a – h 1 = YES, 2 = NO, 9 = Don’t know; For FR2e-f if YES ask FR2ei & FR2fi] FR2a. [IF CFLFlag = 1] Postponed instal...
AI summary The text outlines survey questions related to the impact of Nova Scotia Power's free installation of CFLs and LED exit lights on customer behavior, including whether customers would have postponed or reduced installations if the program had not existed, and how influential the program was in their decision-making.
tremely influential to your decision to install the LED exit lights.‖ How influential was / were the: Element (READ) (a) Performance of Measure 1 2 3 4 5 9 a. Free LED exit lights no extremely DK influence influential b. Free Installation...
AI summary The text presents survey questions related to customer satisfaction with the Efficient Lighting Products Program, specifically focusing on the installation of LED exit lights and CFLs, including factors influencing installation decisions and reasons for dissatisfaction.
arriers that your company / organization faced in implementing the energy efficiency measures provided through the program? Yes No [Go to Q45] 9. (Don‘t know/Don‘t recall) [Go to Q45] What was the most important barrier? (Do not read) (Con...
AI summary The text includes survey questions about barriers to implementing energy efficiency measures and the importance of reducing energy usage. It lists various barriers such as lack of information, insufficient incentives, and financing challenges. The survey is part of an evaluation of the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program.
Hour (0000 - 2400) Closing Hour (0000 - 2400) A. Monday B. Tuesday C. Wednesday D. Thursday E. Friday F. Saturday G. Sunday Other than scheduled holidays (e.g. national holidays, Christmas, New Year, etc.) and regular days of the week that...
AI summary The text includes a table for recording business closure days and periods, and a question about lighting usage under different conditions. It also references the Evaluation of the 2010 Efficient Lighting Products Direct Install Program, involving NMR (Nova Scotia Power).
1 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Prescriptive Rebate Programs Page 44 Concomitantly, there was a wide range of building floor space reported by the respondents. Two out of eleven respondents reported having facilities with less than 5,000 square f...
AI summary The text discusses the variation in building floor space and number of employees among respondents in the 2010 Prescriptive Rebate Programs. It highlights the wide range of sizes and employee counts reported, with data presented in tables.
2 3 4 5 9 no extremely DK influence influential Spillover Now I‘d like you to think about any energy efficient equipment or upgrades that your company is currently pursuing or has installed in the past two years on its own. These measures...
AI summary The text asks respondents about energy-efficient equipment and upgrades their company has implemented or is pursuing, including whether they are using Nova Scotia Power rebate programs, and the expected electricity savings in 2010 from these measures.
16.4 16.7 0.3 NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page A61 3.0 Project Overview Table 2 below provides a summary of the new and pre-existing fixtures affected by this project. Table 2: Summary of New and Pre-existing Fixtures Pre-exi...
AI summary The document presents a table summarizing the new and pre-existing fixtures affected by a project, including their quantities and wattages. It is part of an evaluation of a 2010 C&I Custom Program.
n‘t know/Don‘t recall NMR Evaluation of 2010 C&I Custom Program Page C10 IMPLEMENTED MEASURES Q21A1. FOR EACH Q21=1 (except scoping, feasibility or technical assessments): Did you implement this energy efficient upgrade through a Nova Scot...
AI summary This section outlines a questionnaire used to evaluate the implementation of energy-efficient upgrades under the 2010 C&I Custom Program. It asks respondents whether they received rebates from Nova Scotia Power and collects information on the timing and expected electricity savings from these upgrades.
cipate in the NSPI rebate programs? [Probe: Save energy, rebates offered, reduce maintenance costs, protect environment, recommended by utility, concerns with carbon, etc.] 12. Were there any challenges or barriers that you faced in making...
AI summary The text outlines a series of questions aimed at understanding participants' experiences with NSPI rebate programs, including barriers to participation, challenges in implementation, satisfaction levels, and gaps in program coverage. It focuses on feedback from customers regarding the effectiveness and accessibility of these programs.
NMR Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program Page III
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program, focusing on its implementation and outcomes. It assesses the program's effectiveness in promoting energy efficiency and reducing costs for small businesses in Nova Scotia.
Nova Scotia. A lack of interested electrical contractors could lead to inadequate resources to perform installations. Short-Term Outcomes Generate customer interest. Customers are made aware of the program by Delivery Agents. Lighting...
AI summary The 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program aims to increase customer awareness, conduct lighting audits, and implement energy-efficient retrofits. Short-term outcomes include generating interest and contracts, while mid-term outcomes focus on energy savings, increased knowledge, and cost reductions for small businesses.
achieve improved lighting quality. NMR Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program Page 3 Increase in demand for energy efficient lighting equipment. Participants who install energy efficiency lighting recognize its bene...
AI summary The document outlines the long-term outcomes of the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program, including increased demand for energy-efficient lighting and equipment, sustained energy savings, emission reductions, and the adoption of energy-efficient practices by small businesses.
34,035 100 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program Page 7
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program, focusing on its implementation and outcomes. It provides data and analysis to assess the program's effectiveness in promoting energy efficiency among small businesses in Nova Scotia.
al %20Lighting%20Program.pdf NMR Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program Page 8
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program, focusing on its effectiveness and outcomes.
g material disposal and/or recycling NMR Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program Page 19
AI summary The document evaluates the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions (SBLS) Program, focusing on its implementation and outcomes related to energy efficiency and cost savings for small businesses in Nova Scotia.
ition, the DSM Administrator should consider requiring that Materials Vendors chosen by Delivery Agents in 2011, and future program years, meet minimum criteria for reliability and materials quality. 3.4 Outreach and Marketing Direct marke...
AI summary The document discusses outreach and marketing efforts for the SBLS program, noting that Delivery Agents increased active outreach, including phone calls and in-person visits, to meet program goals. Awareness sources included NSPI, SBLS, word of mouth, and electricians. The document also mentions a quality improvement plan by the Materials Vendor starting June 24, 2010.
sentative 10 8 NSPI (unspecified mode of contact) 2 NSPI e-mail 2 NSPI bill insert 2 †ϐ Don‘t know 9 Other 2 13 Throughout this report, the symbol ‗σ‘ is used to indicate that results between 2008 and 2009 participants are significantly di...
AI summary The report discusses the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions (SBLS) program, noting that about half of the participants had previously purchased energy-efficient lighting products, with a significant portion buying CFLs and retrofitting T-12 lighting with T8s or T5s.
ad previously purchased energy efficient products, more than seven out of ten (71%) reported having purchased CFLs and two-fifths (20%) reported retrofitting T-12 lighting with T8s or T5s. (Table 3-4) Table 3-4: Prior Purchases of Efficien...
AI summary The text discusses the adoption of energy-efficient lighting products among respondents in 2008, 2009, and 2010. It highlights that CFLs were the most commonly purchased product, with a significant increase in 2010. The data also shows that a majority of respondents had plans to improve lighting before being informed about the Small Business Lighting Solutions Program.
fic plans to pursue lighting improvements prior to talking with anyone about the Small Business Lighting Solutions Program— similar to 2008 (42%) and significantly more than in 2009 (22%). (Table 3-5) Table 3-5: Prior Plans to Pursue Light...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program indicates that only 12% of participants installed additional energy-efficient lighting post-participation, with only four using equipment of the same or higher efficiency. Participation in the program influenced these additional installations.
talled through the SBLS program. All four of the respondents who had installed additional equipment, reported that participation in the SBLS program had influenced their decision to do so. (Table 3-6) Table 3-6: Post-Program Lighting Insta...
AI summary The SBLS program influenced some small businesses to install additional lighting equipment beyond what was provided through the program. In 2010, 12% of participants reported installing additional lighting, with 4 out of 8 indicating that the program influenced their decision.
the effort of applying Work not yet 1 completed Timing and scheduling 1 1 of work to be done Finding out point of 1 contact Required to be here at 1 least one year Issues with building 2 tenants Problems with existing 1 wiring Lack of info...
AI summary The document outlines challenges faced in implementing the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions (SBLS) program, including incomplete work, scheduling issues, lack of contact points, tenant issues, wiring problems, insufficient information, communication problems, and other unspecified issues. The evaluation is conducted by NMR.
2 6 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program Page 29 About three-fourths of the 2010 respondents (74%) reported that they owned their own buildings. Respondents who reported that they did not own their buildings wer...
AI summary The evaluation of the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions (SBLS) program indicates that most respondents owned their buildings, and for those who did not, obtaining permission from building owners was generally not a significant barrier to participation in the program.
4 NMR Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program Page 30 3.10 Satisfaction with the Program The great majority of 2010 respondents (97%) reported that they were satisfied with the program overall, and seven out of ten (70...
AI summary The 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions (SBLS) Program received high satisfaction ratings, with 97% of respondents expressing overall satisfaction and 70% very satisfied. However, one participant in an in-depth interview expressed dissatisfaction with the program contractor.
Table 3-14: Satisfaction with SBLS Program (% Very Satisfied / Satisfied) Aspect of program 2008 2009 2010 Sample size 50 50 65 Program overall 100% 94% 97% ϐ Delivery agent (single point of contact) 94% 98% 91% Assistance with program app...
AI summary The table presents customer satisfaction rates for the SBLS program from 2008 to 2010, highlighting high satisfaction with aspects like program overall, delivery agent, and audit technician, while showing some variability in satisfaction with scheduling and initial contact with contractors.
duling and timing of installation 86% 94% 86% Interaction/ communication with contractors 94% 94% 87% Installation process 87% 92% 94% Completion of the project on schedule 87% 90% 84% Rebate/Incentive amount 96% 93% 98% Paperwork and proc...
AI summary Respondents expressed high satisfaction (93% or greater) with various aspects of the lighting equipment installed through the SBLS program, similar to previous years. Key areas included installation, communication with contractors, and rebate amounts.
l of the participants (93% or greater) reported that they were satisfied with the different aspects of the lighting equipment installed through the SBLS program, similar to 2008 and 2009. (Table 3-15) Table 3-15: Satisfaction with Lighting...
AI summary Participants in the SBLS program reported high satisfaction with the lighting equipment installed, with over 90% expressing satisfaction across various aspects. Most respondents indicated they would likely purchase energy-efficient equipment in the future.
f 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program Page 34 Respondents in the 2008, 2009 and 2010 samples represented a diverse variety of business types. (Table 3-22)
AI summary The 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program included respondents from a diverse range of business types, as indicated in Table 3-22.
14 More than three out of four 2010 respondents (77%) reported having fewer than 20 employees and three out of five respondents (60%) reported having fewer than 10 employees. (Table 3-24) Table 3-24: Full-time Equivalent Workers 2008 2009...
AI summary The 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program evaluation shows that most respondents had fewer than 20 employees and operated less than 80 hours per week, with an average of 60 hours per week.
ur-fifths of 2010 respondents (86%) reported that their businesses operated less than 80 hours each week. Overall, 2010 respondents reported average operating hours of 60 hours each week. (Table 3-25) Table 3-25: Hours of Operation Hours 2...
AI summary The text provides statistical data on the operating hours and company types of 2010 respondents, highlighting that most businesses operated less than 80 hours per week and were independent. It also references the Small Business Lighting Solutions (SBLS) Program and mentions the use of an interview questionnaire for evaluation.
Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program Page B1 Appendix A Interview Guides Draft participant QUESTIONNAIRE: NSPI SBLS PROGRAM Final: July 22, 2010 Hello, I am with NMR Group, and we are performing an evaluation of ene...
AI summary This document is a draft participant questionnaire for evaluating Nova Scotia Power's Small Business Lighting Solutions (SBLS) program. It aims to gather feedback from participants about their experience with the program, previous participation in energy efficiency initiatives, and their reasons for involvement.
Scotia Power energy efficiency programs before participating in the Small Business Lighting Solutions Program? 1. Yes 2. No (Go to Q7) 9. Don‘t know (Go to Q7) 5. Which programs did your company / organization participate in prior to the S...
AI summary The text contains a series of questions related to participation in energy efficiency programs, specifically the Small Business Lighting Solutions Program, and asks respondents to identify other programs they participated in prior to this program and the years of participation.
003 6. 2004 7. 2005 8. 2006 9. 2007 10. 2008 11. 2009 12. 2010 99. (Don‘t Know) 7. How did you first learn about the Small Business Lighting Solutions Program? [RANDOMIZE AND READ 1-8, THEN 9] (choose one) 1. From a phone call from a Small...
AI summary The text contains survey questions about participation in the Small Business Lighting Solutions Program, including how participants learned about the program and their reasons for joining. The questions are randomized and include multiple response options.
ficient lighting‖ and 5 indicates that the program was ―extremely influential to your decision to install the energy efficiency lighting.‖ [record response on scale of 1 to 5, 9 = Don‘t know] 25. Has your participation in the Small Busines...
AI summary This section of the document asks participants about their experience with the Small Business Lighting Solutions Program and whether it influenced other energy efficiency actions. It also explores reasons for not pursuing additional energy efficiency measures.
7. (Decision made elsewhere) 8. (Do not own building – have to work through owner) 9. (Other (Specify: _) ) 99. (Don‘t know/Don‘t recall) 28. In number of years or months, how quickly does your company / organization require energy efficie...
AI summary The text presents a survey with questions about payback requirements for energy efficiency measures and customer satisfaction with the lighting installed through the Small Business Lighting Solutions Program. It includes a scale for satisfaction ratings and options for respondents to indicate they don't know or don't recall.
c. How long it takes them to come on d. Flickering e. How long they last f. Energy savings provided by the measure 30. Also on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means ‗not at all satisfied‘ and 5=‗very satisfied‘, how satisfied are you with the f...
AI summary The text includes survey questions about the Small Business Lighting Solutions Program, focusing on customer satisfaction with various aspects of the program and future likelihood of purchasing energy-efficient products. It also references barriers to action and recommendations for improvements.
) when installing or replacing energy-using products for your business in the future? [9=Don‘t know/Don‘t recall] Section IV. Barriers to Action & Recommendations for Improvements 32. Does your company / organization own or lease the space...
AI summary The text presents survey questions related to barriers faced by businesses in implementing energy efficiency measures, particularly focusing on the Small Business Lighting Solutions Program. It asks about ownership of space, permission from building owners, and challenges encountered during program participation.
n implementing the energy efficiency measures provided through the program? 1. Yes 2. No (Go to Q30) 9. (Don‘t know/Don‘t recall) (Go to Q30) 36. What was the ONE most important barrier? (Do not read) 1. (Concern that actual bill savings w...
AI summary The document includes questions about barriers to implementing energy efficiency measures under the Small Business Lighting Solutions (SBLS) program. Respondents are asked to identify the most and second most important barriers, such as concerns about savings, lack of information, and financing issues.
ding – have to work through owner) NMR Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program Page B9 l. (Other (Specify: _)) 99. (Don‘t know/Don‘t recall) 38. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1=‗not at all important‘ and 5=‗very importan...
AI summary The text includes survey questions related to the importance of energy usage reduction and cost management for small businesses, as well as feedback on improving the Small Business Lighting Solutions Program. It focuses on customer perspectives and program evaluation.
IN CBECS 16. Other NMR Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program Page B10 17. Vacant 99. (Don‘t know/Don‘t recall) 43. Into which of the following categories does your building floor space fall? (square meters) (square f...
AI summary This section contains a series of questions from the Evaluation of the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program, focusing on building floor space, number of employees, hours of operation, and company structure. These questions are part of a data collection effort to assess the program's impact.
9. (Don‘t know/Don‘t recall) NMR Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program Page B11 Delivery Agent Interview Guide: NSPI SBLS Program Interviewer: Date of Interview: Time Begun: Time Ended: Respondent Name: Respondent Ti...
AI summary This text is a portion of an interview guide used by Nexus Market Research (NMR) to evaluate the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions (SBLS) Program delivered by Nova Scotia Power. The guide includes questions for delivery agents about their role in the program, their company's services, and their experience with the SBLS Program.
orms the post-installation inspections? If deficiencies are discovered what process is in place to correct these deficiencies and how much time is required before they are corrected?] 20. In what ways has participating in the SBLS program...
AI summary The text outlines a series of questions related to the SBLS program, including post-installation inspections, program benefits, challenges, and data tracking procedures. It also includes a request for evaluation of the program and asks for feedback on specific aspects of the program.
b. On-site lighting audit NMR Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program Page B14 c. Preparation of cost and savings analysis d. Presentation of cost and savings analysis to customer e. Obtaining participant authorization...
AI summary The text outlines the steps involved in the SBLS program, including on-site lighting audits, cost and savings analysis, customer authorization, and installation of energy-efficient lighting. It also asks about customer motivations, barriers to participation, and any post-program energy efficiency measures taken by participants.
9. Don‘t know/Don‘t recall NMR Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program Page B16 Materials Vendor Interview Guide: NSPI SBLS Program Interviewer: Date of Interview: Time Begun: Time Ended: Respondent Name: Respondent Ti...
AI summary The document outlines an interview guide used by Nexus Market Research (NMR) to evaluate the Small Business Lighting Solutions (SBLS) Program provided by Nova Scotia Power. The guide includes questions to assess the vendor’s role, experience, and satisfaction with the program.
ranty replacements? d. The agreed list of lighting products? [PROBE: Are there other products that should be on the list? Are there products that should not be on the list?] 11. Are there other incentives or rebates available, not provided...
AI summary The document contains a series of questions aimed at evaluating the Small Business Lighting Solutions (SBLS) program, including inquiries about product lists, incentives, program impact on sales, and customer satisfaction with NSPI staff.
alent workers are employed by your company/organization? NMR Evaluation of 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions Program Page B19 15. Fewer than 5 16. 5 to 9 17. 10 to 19 18. 20 to 49 19. 50 to 99 20. 100 to 249 21. 250 or More 9. Don‘t k...
AI summary The document contains a portion of an evaluation of the 2010 Small Business Lighting Solutions (SBLS) Program, including survey questions and an interview guide for recycling contractors. It focuses on gathering information about company size, independence, and contractor involvement in the program.
me aware of the SBLS program? [PROBE IF NOT MENTIONED: Were you recruited by the SBLS program staff? IF NO: Did you approach SBLS program staff about being their recycling contractor?] 45. What are your responsibilities with regards to the...
AI summary The text includes questions about the SBLS program, focusing on responsibilities, interactions with program staff and stakeholders, training received, and the recycling process. It also inquires about coordination challenges with Delivery Agents.
In what format is this provided to NSPI and how frequently? b. IF THEY DO NOT TRACK: Why not? Contractor Perceptions Now I‘d like to ask you a few questions about contractor perceptions. 18. What do you think motivates contractors (electri...
AI summary The text includes survey questions directed at contractors regarding their participation in the SBLS program, including motivations, barriers, and suggestions for improvement. It also includes firmographic questions about company size and structure.