2005 evaluation report final...effectiveness screening process, or total resource cost (trc) test,...

DSM 2005 Evaluation Report Union Gas Limited

December 2006

Audited Final Report

Table of Contents 1. Introduction................................................................................................................. 1 2. Planning and Evaluation Overview ............................................................................ 2

2.1. Cost Effectiveness Screening.............................................................................. 2 2.2. Monitoring and Tracking .................................................................................... 3 2.3. 2005 Program Evaluation ................................................................................... 3 2.4. 2005 Evaluation Report Audit ............................................................................ 3

3. 2005 Union Gas DSM Program.................................................................................. 4 4. Residential Market ...................................................................................................... 9

4.1. 2005 Residential Program Results ...................................................................... 9 4.1.1. Residential m3 Savings and Participation................................................. 11 4.1.2. Residential Program Cost Summary......................................................... 12 4.1.3. New Home Construction (NHC) Results.................................................. 13

4.1.3.1. New Builder Pipe Insulation Pilot Initiative..................................... 13 4.1.3.2. Build Comfort Program .................................................................... 14 4.1.3.3. R2000 Program ................................................................................. 15

4.1.4. Home Retrofit (HR) Program ................................................................... 15 4.1.4.1. Front Load Washers Program ........................................................... 15 4.1.4.2. HVAC Partnership Program ............................................................. 16 4.1.4.3. Energy Savings Kit (ESK) Program ................................................. 16 4.1.4.4. Programmable Thermostat................................................................ 20

4.2. Residential Customer Energy Efficiency Education and Awareness Efforts ... 23 4.2.1. Wise Energy Guide (WEG) ...................................................................... 23 4.2.2. In-Touch Monthly Newsletter................................................................... 24 4.2.3. Residential Energy Efficiency Website .................................................... 25 4.2.4. Project Insulate.......................................................................................... 26

4.3. Lessons Learned................................................................................................ 28 5. Commercial Market .................................................................................................. 29

5.1. 2005 Commercial Programs and Results.......................................................... 29 5.2. Commercial Program Results ........................................................................... 31

5.2.1. Commercial m3 Savings and Participation............................................... 31 5.2.2. Commercial Program Cost Summary ....................................................... 32 5.2.3. Program Framework – Program Delivery................................................. 33

5.2.3.1. The Channel Approach ..................................................................... 33 5.2.3.2. Direct-to-Customer ........................................................................... 33

5.2.4. Program Framework - Commercial Programs.......................................... 34 5.2.5. New Initiatives in 2005............................................................................. 34

5.2.5.1. Hot Water Conservation (HWC) ...................................................... 34 5.2.5.2. Low Flow Spray Nozzles.................................................................. 35

5.2.6. Existing Initiatives .................................................................................... 35 5.2.6.1. Energy Savings Program (ESP) ........................................................ 35 5.2.6.2. Custom Projects ................................................................................ 36 5.2.6.3. Infra-Red Manufacturer Partnership ................................................. 36 5.2.6.4. Design Assistance Program (DAP)................................................... 37 5.2.6.5. Feasibility Studies and Boiler Audits ............................................... 37 5.2.6.6. Other Market Support Initiatives ...................................................... 37

5.3. Program Developments..................................................................................... 37 5.3.1. Commercial Hot Water Conservation Program........................................ 37 5.3.2. Low Flow Spray Nozzle Program............................................................. 38

5.4. Custom Projects – Performance and Audits ..................................................... 39 5.5. The Industrial General Service Market – A Sub-Segment of the Commercial Market 41 5.6. Lessons Learned................................................................................................ 42

6. Distribution Contract Market.................................................................................... 43 6.1. 2005 Distribution Contract Programs and Results............................................ 44

6.1.1. Distribution Contract m3 Savings and Participation ................................ 45 6.1.2. Program Costs........................................................................................... 45

6.2. Program Framework ......................................................................................... 46 6.2.1.1. Boiler performance testing and steam plant audits ........................... 47 6.2.1.2. Steam trap surveys ............................................................................ 47 6.2.1.3. Engineering analysis and energy audits............................................ 47 6.2.1.4. Equipment incentives........................................................................ 48 6.2.1.5. Demonstration of new technology.................................................... 48 6.2.1.6. Education and promotion.................................................................. 48

6.3. Custom Project Performance and Facility Audit Results ................................. 49 6.3.1. Custom Project Analysis........................................................................... 49 6.3.2. Facility Audit Results ............................................................................... 50

6.4. Lessons Learned................................................................................................ 51 7. Evaluation and Audit ................................................................................................ 52

7.1. Residential Evaluation and Audit Projects: ...................................................... 52 7.1.1. Build Comfort Program Audit .................................................................. 53 7.1.2. HVAC Partnership Program Audit ........................................................... 54 7.1.3. ESK Program Audit .................................................................................. 54

7.2. Commercial Custom Project Audits ................................................................. 55 7.3. Distribution Contract Evaluation ...................................................................... 56

8. Research - Input Assumptions .................................................................................. 57 9. Lost Revenue Adjustment Mechanism (LRAM)...................................................... 58 10. Shared Savings Mechanism (SSM) .......................................................................... 59

Appendix A – 2005 Input Assumptions Appendix B – Input Assumptions (LRAM) Appendix C – Program Screening Results Appendix D – 2004/2005 DSM Results Appendix E – Detaile d P R ltAppendix F – Web Site Example Appendix G – Residential Initiative Audit Results Appendix H – Commercial Custom Project Audit Results Appendix I – Updated Input Assumption Methodology

Appendix J– Detailed Program Results (LRAM) Appendix K – 2005 LRAM Statement Appendix L – Measure TRC Results Glossary

1

1. Introduction The purpose of this evaluation report is to assess Union Gas’ energy efficiency initiatives and provide detailed information on the programs delivered through the Demand Side Management (DSM) program in 2005. 2005 is significant for a number of reasons. First, 2005 was the first year that Union operated outside of a five year plan. Second, 2005 was the first year Union had access to a Shared Savings Mechanism (SSM) incentive. In order to achieve the SSM incentive, Union was required to significantly increase savings results and corresponding program cost effectiveness. This evaluation report plays an important role in documenting 2005 program results, and demonstrates Union’s success in achieving greater results than it has in previous years. In 2005, Union’s DSM program generated 71.8 million m3 in savings and net Total Resource Cost (TRC) benefits of $97.1 million. Program spending in 2005 totalled $8,092, 14% lower than the Ontario Energy Board approved budget. The 2005 TRC result of $97.1 million equates to a SSM incentive of $3.9 million.

2

2. Planning and Evaluation Overview DSM programs operated under a one year DSM plan for 2005. The programs principally targeted “lost opportunities” - energy efficiency opportunities that would have been lost or become more costly to achieve if not implemented at a specific point in time. For 2005, Union has further developed the scope of programs delivered through the DSM portfolio, incorporating new incentives and technologies as well as eliminating or ramping down efforts on programs deemed not to be cost effective. The cost effectiveness screening process, or Total Resource Cost (TRC) Test, is detailed further in this section of the evaluation. The evaluation of the 2005 DSM year is based upon two sets of planning input assumptions. The planning input assumptions used in this evaluation report are reflective of those established through the ADR EB-2005-0211. The Lost Revenue Adjustment Mechanism (LRAM) section of the evaluation report has been calculated using the most up-to-date input assumptions available at the time of the evaluation reports completion. Appendix A outlines the input assumptions agreed to in ADR EB-2005-0211 which are used in the savings and TRC calculations throughout the majority of this evaluation report. The detailed report of input assumptions used in the calculation of the LRAM statement is found in Appendix B .

2.1. Cost Effectiveness Screening All DSM measures and programs are screened using the Total Resource Cost (TRC) Test. The TRC benefit/cost test measures the overall net benefits of DSM measures assuming a value of zero for the environmental benefit of the reduced CO2 equivalent (CO2e) emissions and other externalities. Benefits are the avoided costs of the reduction in usage of natural gas, electricity and water as well as incentives for participants (net of free riders). Savings benefits are calculated over the life of the measure and discounted back to a net present value. Costs include equipment purchase and installation costs for participants and incentives and other program costs for the utility. Some of the benefits and costs net to zero – incentives, for example, which are a benefit to participants and a cost to the utility. All TRC results are net of free riders. Preferably, measures delivered through Union’s DSM program should pass the TRC screening with benefits greater than costs. Programs are evaluated annually to determine if they pass the cost effectiveness screening. In addition to the TRC, Union Gas provides Societal Cost Test (SCT) results taking into account the environmental impact of a reduction in natural gas use with CO2e emission reductions valued at $40 per tonne and at $60 per tonne. Results of the Participant Cost Test (PCT) and the Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM) for each of the sector programs are also provided.

3

The avoided costs currently used in cost effectiveness screening date back to 1999. Commodity prices have dramatically increased in the past several years, and as a result, the screening results underestimate the value of Union’s DSM programs. Program screening results are reported in Appendix C .

2.2. Monitoring and Tracking Effective and reliable tracking of energy efficiency programs is essential to accurately report on program results. With proper reporting processes, Union can make informed projections of program potential, pinpoint trends, and identify problems. Union Gas has put in place a complete tracking system supported by data checks at various points in the monitoring process. Over the past three years a number of checks have been put in place to prevent double entry of data. The system also captures rate class detail for all customers for the development of the LRAM statement.

2.3. 2005 Program Evaluation Program evaluation includes impact evaluation, process evaluation, and/or market evaluation studies. Impact evaluations are designed to verify participation and savings associated with given programs. Process evaluation assesses the effectiveness of channels and approaches to DSM delivery. The same study may look at impact and process issues. Market evaluation is directed at understanding markets and establishing market shares. A summary of evaluations undertaken in 2005 is provided in the Evaluation and Audit section of this report.

2.4. 2005 Evaluation Report Audit This evaluation report will be subject to an external audit in order to provide further confidence to DSM stakeholders around reported results. To complete the stated goal, the audit will involve a review of results, evaluation activities undertaken, and the monitoring and tracking processes used in the collection of program results.

4

3. 2005 Union Gas DSM Program Union’s DSM program delivered over 71.8 million m3 in savings in 2005, with a net TRC of $97.1 million.

m3 Contribution by Sector

Residential8%

Commercial30%

Distribution Contract

62%

TRC Contribution by Sector

Commercial42%

Residential5%


53%

2005 was a growth year for Union’s DSM program. For 2005 Union had originally filed a one year interim transitional DSM plan with a m3 target of 64.7 million m3, a significantly higher target than any previous year - an 11% and 53% increase over the 2004 and 2003 targets respectively. Union gained the ability to earn a Shared Savings Mechanism (SSM) incentive in April 2005 as part of the ADR EB-2005-0211 settlement. This settlement resulted in a 37% increase in Union’s m3 savings target to 88.5 million m3, with a corresponding TRC target of $100 million. Union re-focused its efforts to account for the increased TRC target. With the late completion of the 2005 plan, as well as the need for Union staff to re-focus and adjust to the new DSM guidelines, 2005 can be considered to be a success. Table 3.1 summarizes the results of the 2005 DSM year.

5

Table 3.1 - Overall 2005 Program Results by Sector

2005 DSM Program Results Residential Commercial Distribution

Contract Total Program

m3 Savings (000's) 5,712 21,681 44,415 71,807

Total Participants 178,330 53,129 246 231,705

Direct Expenditure ($ 000’s) $2,154 $1,118 $2,165 $5,437

Cost / m3 $0.377 $0.052 $0.049 $0.075

Benefits / Cost 1.57 4.85 3.96 3.64

Tonnes of CO2 Reduced 189,858 885,132 1,715,256 2,790,245

Lifecycle m3 Savings (000’s) 98,458 396,381 884,438 1,379,277

Program TRC ($ 000’s) $5,219 $41,813 $52,727 $99,761

TRC / $ Spent $2.4 $37.4 $24.4 $18.3

For purposes of this evaluation, Union’s DSM results have been calculated using the agreed to input assumptions from the ADR EB-2005-02-11 (see Appendix A ). To generate results in 2005, DSM initiatives were delivered through the sector programs outlined in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 - Sector Programs Sector Programs/Markets Residential New Home Construction; Home Retrofit Commercial (including General Service Industrial)

New Building Construction; Building Retrofit

Distribution Contract Custom Project and Audit Programs These programs are designed to achieve savings in the areas of space heating, water heating and building envelope as well as process specific energy applications. Sector specific programs are targeted at all distribution customer segments. As previously stated, savings expectations were increased significantly in 2005 over previous years. Figure 3-1 demonstrates historic m3 savings results.

6

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

m3

Savi

ngs (

000'

s)

Figure 3-1 Historic m3 Savings Results

Table 3.3 outlines the high level 2005 program results.

Table 3.3 - 2005 Overall DSM Program Results

m3 Savings (000’s) Participants Total Program Costs

(000’s) Net TRC (000’s)

71,807 231,705 $8,092 $97,106 In 2005, total natural gas savings across all programs was 71.8 million m3. This is 29% greater than the 2004 m3 savings result. Table 3.4 demonstrates the contribution to the overall savings results by sector and by program.

7

Table 3.4 - Detailed Sector and Program Results

m3

Savings (000’s)

Participants Costs (000’s)

Program TRC

(000’s) New Home

Construction 896 8,765 $289 -$1,726

Home Retrofit 4,816 169,565 $1,865 $6,945 Residential

Total Residential 5,712 178,330 $2,154 $5,219 New Building Construction 4,479 2,368 $241 $5,769

Building Retrofit 17,080 50,756 $868 $35,954 Industrial General

Service 122 5 $9 $90 Commercial Total Core

Commercial / Industrial

General Service

21,681 53,129 $1,118 $41,813

Distribution Contract 44,415 246 $2,165 $52,727

Distribution Contract Total


44,415 246 $2,165 $52,727

Total Program Results 71,807 231,705 $5,437 $99,761

Research and

Evaluation $603 -$603

Overhead $1,700 -$1,700 Salaries $352 -$352

Indirect Costs

Total Indirect Costs $2,655 -$2,655

Net TRC (000’s)

TOTAL 2005 PROGRAM RESULTS 71,807 231,705 $8,092 $97,106

In previous years, Union has demonstrated DSM results (m3 savings, participants and costs) against the planned sector and program targets. However, because of the late inception of the 2005 DSM plan, no official program targets were set, and thus the comparison cannot be made. Union needed to rapidly adjust focus following the ADR, and attention was paid to driving results rather than setting specific targets. Specific details regarding sector program savings, participation and costs are detailed in the sector specific analysis contained in this evaluation report.

8

The direct expenditure budget for 2005 was $7.75 million. Actual direct budget expenditures in 2005 totalled $5.4 million – 30% under budget and 27% over 2004 levels. The overall direct DSM program costs are listed in Table 3.5 below.

Table 3.5 - Overall Direct DSM Program Costs

DSM Sector Direct Program Costs

Incentives ($000’s)

Market Support ($000’s)

Total Direct ($000’s)

Residential 1,436 719 2,154 Commercial 1,104 14 1,118

Distribution Contract 2,058 106 2,165 Total 4,598 839 5,437

When compared to 2004, overall direct costs per m3 increased noticeably in 2005, up 19%. This was largely the result of new educational programs directed at residential customers and the increased participation in feasibility study and DAP programs in the commercial and distribution contract sectors. The overall direct DSM program costs/m3 are listed in Table 3.6. Benefits to Union’s participation in these various research based programs are discussed further on in this evaluation report.

Table 3.6 – Direct Costs per m3

Sector Direct Costs ($000’s)

2005 Costs Per m3 of Savings

2004 Cost Per m3 of Savings

Residential 2,154 $0.377 $0.360 Commercial 1,118 $0.052 $0.035

Distribution Contract 2,165 $0.049 $0.032 Total 5,437 $0.075 $0.064

Indirect costs including research and evaluation, salaries and overhead were $2.7 million in 2005. Indirect costs are not attributed to specific programs. Total DSM expenditures in 2005 were $8.1 million.

9

4. Residential Market Residential programs accounted for 8% of DSM savings in 2005, totalling over 5.7 million m3 with a net program TRC of $5.2 million.



62%

Commercial30%

Residential8%



53%

Residential5%

Commercial42%

In 2005 the Residential DSM program was faced with substantial challenges. Several previously successful residential initiatives, such as the high efficiency furnace campaign, were not cost effective and produced negative TRC results. In order to maximize overall and sector specific program results, it was necessary to limit the impact of these negative TRC programs. As such, the residential market was required to shift focus away from these programs to initiatives with positive TRC results. Union responded well to this challenge, generating significant m3 savings and TRC results in the residential sector for 2005. An investment was also made in 2005 to advance the education of residential customers on the multiple options available to them to improve the energy efficiency of their homes. Through various data gathering and research projects, such as the residential program audits discussed in the Evaluation and Audit section of this evaluation report, it was apparent that residential customers have a notable interest in obtaining a better understanding of energy efficiency options as they look to ways to control their energy costs.

4.1. 2005 Residential Program Results Table 4.1 summarizes residential program results for 2005.

10

Table 4.1 - 2005 Residential Program Results 2005 Residential Results Summary

New Home Construction Home Retrofit Total

Program m3 Savings (000's) 896 4,816 5,712

Total Participants 8,765 169,565 178,330

Direct Expenditure ($ 000’s) $289 $1,865 $2,154

Cost $ / m3 $0.32 $0.39 $0.38

Benefits / Cost Ratio 0.51 2.25 1.57

Tonnes of CO2 Reduced 39,547 150,311 189,858

Lifecycle m3 Savings (000’s) 20,509 77,949 98,458

Program TRC ($ 000’s) ($1,726) $6,945 $5,219

TRC / $ Spent ($5.9) $3.7 $2.4

The Residential DSM Program delivered natural gas savings through the New Home Construction and Home Retrofit markets in 2005. Prior to 2005, the Home Retrofit market consisted of two separate programs, Home Equipment Replacement and Home Retrofit; however, these two merged in 2005. The merger resulted in substantial process improvements for tracking and reporting of program results. No programs were discontinued as a result of this merger. Residential programs are designed to achieve savings in the areas of home heating, water heating and building envelope in both new build and retrofit applications for residential M2 and RO1 customers. Programs are delivered through a variety of channels, utilizing existing trade allies and partnership relationships as well as direct to customer promotions designed to cost effectively promote energy efficiency within Union’s residential customer base.

Within the two Residential Programs, several changes were made in 2005. In the New Home Construction Program, the New Builder Pipe Insulation program was added. In the Home Retrofit program, the Front Load Washers measure was added, while the Living Wise Program was eliminated. These initiatives as well as the overall program results are detailed in Appendix D (note: the 2005/2004 variance analysis compares measure results only and not complete program results). The 2005 results variance analysis indicates four initiatives with significant differences in m3 savings when compared to 2004, as shown in Table 4.2.

11

Table 4.2 Residential Variance Analysis Highlights

Initiative 2005 m3 Savings 2004 m3 Savings Variance High Efficiency Furnace 1,367,441 2,870,479 -1,503,038

Programmable Thermostat 1,071,913 857,792 214,121

ESK 2,119,332 464,682 1,654,650 Build Comfort 847,178 1,231,799 -384,621

The variance in results is expected when the change in DSM direction is considered. Several programs which historically generated substantial volumetric savings did not pass the TRC screening and were ramped down (such as the High Efficiency Furnace Campaigns and HVAC Partnership Programs). Conversely, efforts surrounding programs with high benefits to cost ratios (such as the ESK and Programmable Thermostat programs) were increased, and a corresponding increase of program take-up was seen. The results in Table 4.2 above (and Appendix D are based on the savings assumptions, free riders and adjustments to reflect verified installation rates contained in Appendix E . These planning assumptions form the basis of the reported program savings represented above.

4.1.1. Residential m3 Savings and Participation Table 4.3 demonstrates the program specific results for 2005.

Table 4.3 - 2005 Residential Program Results

Program m3 Savings

% of 2005 m3 Total Participants % of 2005

Participant Total New Home Construction 895,575 16% 8,765 5%

Home Retrofit 4,816,301 84% 169,565 95%

Total 5,711,876 100% 178,330 100%

The majority of m3 savings and participation in the residential sector occurred through Home Retrofit initiatives in 2005. The primary reason for this is that the Home Retrofit market is substantially larger. Each year, approximately 25,000 new homes are constructed in Union’s franchise compared to approximately 1.1 million existing residential customers. Also, programs were only actively promoted if they passed the TRC Screening. Largely, the New Home Construction program consists of initiatives which generate negative TRC results. Although not eliminated from the program mix,

12

these programs were not actively marketed in 2005 and a corresponding decline in program take-up and associated m3 savings was seen. The decision was made to continue with these programs as value was observed in holding onto programs which allowed channel partners and trade allies to remain as participants in these initiatives. As well, Union had the expectation that new, updated avoided costs would be included going forward in the program screening which would improve the benefit to cost ratios of these programs in future years. It would not have been beneficial to the program, or its participants, to eliminate the program one year and bring it back the next. The Home Retrofit program contained the majority of initiatives that generated positive TRC results. Specific programs in this area, including the ESK and Programmable Thermostat initiatives, were heavily promoted in 2005. The strong emphasis on these cost effective programs resulted in a substantial increase in the TRC result for the program when compared to previous years.

4.1.2. Residential Program Cost Summary Actual direct budget expenditures in 2005 totalled $2.2 million – 4% under 2004 levels. The list of Residential direct expenditures is shown in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4 - Residential Direct Expenditures

Program Incentives ($000’s)


Total Direct ($000’s)

New Home Construction $195 $94 $289

Home Retrofit $1,240 $625 $1,865

Total $1,435 $719 $2,154

When compared to 2004, residential costs per m3 savings increased in 2005 as shown in Table 4.5. The residential sector incurred several major costs relating to the Home Retrofit ESK program as well as with education efforts targeted at residential customers. For the ESK program, participation in the initiative exceeded expectations. As a result, program delivery, implementation and incentive costs associated with this program increased above expected levels. Additionally, education efforts including bill inserts, monthly “Intouch” newsletters, on-bill messaging, energy efficiency website development and Project Insulate were costs associated with the residential sector.

13

Table 4.5 - Residential Costs Analysis Residential Program

% of Total Costs



New Home Construction 13% $0.32 $0.29

Home Retrofit 87% $0.39 $0.38

Total 100% $0.38 $0.36

4.1.3. New Home Construction (NHC) Results The 2005 New Home Construction program generated 16% of savings within the residential sector (895,575 m3), mainly through the Build Comfort Program. New Home Construction programs are delivered through new home builders who participate in Union’s DSM programs. Table 4.6 shows the results for the New Home Construction program.

Table 4.6 - New Home Construction Program Results

m3 Savings (000’s)

Participants Program

Costs (000’s)

Program TRC

(000’s) 896 8,765 $289 ($1,726)

4.1.3.1. New Builder Pipe Insulation Pilot Initiative The New Build Pipe Insulation initiative began in 2005 as a pilot to promote builder installation of two meters of water heater pipe wrap in new homes prior to homeowner occupancy. For the pilot, two new home builders in Brantford and Cambridge were targeted for program delivery with support from the local Union Gas representative. The program was successful, and 222 new build homes had the pipe wrap installed representing 3,397 m3 in savings. Union receives detailed tracking information back from the participating builders in order to determine results. Based on the success of the program, it is expected that going forward this program will be expanded to incorporate a greater number of builders in other locations. As the majority of the new home construction programs have negative TRC net benefits, it is important to develop programs such as the new builder pipe insulation initiative which generates a positive TRC, and cost effective m3 savings.

14

4.1.3.2. Build Comfort Program The Build Comfort Program provides training and marketing materials (i.e. point of purchase displays, program literature, window decals and participation plaques) to participating builders. Builders receive up to $1,000 per year to include Build Comfort information and branding in their advertising. The program also provides builders with a $50 incentive per home, to promote the customer purchase of a Build Comfort Package. The Build Comfort Program generated 95% of the savings in the Hew Home Construction program in 2005, and -$1.715 million in TRC. Program Offerings – Table 4.7 outlines the measures included in the various build comfort packages available, as well as their historical participation.

Table 4.7 - Build Comfort Packages

Participants Package Package Detail 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Windows - Low emissivity glass with argon-gas fill

599 1,052 1,184 1,039 1,001

Mechanical Systems

- High Efficiency Furnace - Programmable Thermostat - Heat Recovery Ventilator (HRV)

803 1,445 1,272 1,781 1,396

Basement

- Full Height Insulation - Layer of exterior Waterproofing - Optional under slab insulation

2,422 3,704 3,987 5,540 3,297

As a result of negative TRC screening, the Build Comfort program saw a decrease in promotion by Union in 2005. The result of this decrease is apparent when current vs. historical results are examined. For the past several years efforts around promoting the Build Comfort program have been increased, and an increase in participation was observed. However, in 2005 program promotion was limited and a decrease in take-up was apparent. An audit of the Build Comfort program was undertaken with the primary objective of validating consumer’s awareness of products installed and verifies that information provided by participating channel partners to Union Gas is accurate and reflects the actual products that were installed in the residential locations. Details of the audit of the Build Comfort program can be found in the Evaluation and Audit section of this report.

15

4.1.3.3. R2000 Program In addition to the Build Comfort and New Builder Pipe Wrap initiatives, savings in the New Home Construction program were generated through the R2000 program which accounted for 5% of the total program savings.

4.1.4. Home Retrofit (HR) Program The Home Retrofit program generated 84% of savings within the residential sector (4,816,301 m3) in 2005, mainly through the ESK and programmable thermostat programs. The Home Retrofit initiatives are delivered through channel partners, trade allies and direct to customer strategies aimed at increasing the energy efficiency of the existing home market. Table 4.8 shows the results for the Home Retrofit program.

Table 4.8 - Home Retrofit Program Results


Participants Program Costs (000’s)

Program TRC

(000’s) 4,816 169,565 $1,865 $6,945

The major drivers of savings within the Home Retrofit Program - ESK’s and Programmable Thermostats - have high benefits to costs ratios, resulting in the strong TRC result.

4.1.4.1. Front Load Washers Program The Front Load Washers program ran from May to August of 2005 and targeted residential customers in the market for a new clothes washer and dryer. The program utilized an end user funding strategy, providing six months worth of gift certificates for Tide high efficiency laundry detergent and six months of Bounce dryer sheets. The cost of the incentive was shared evenly between Union and Proctor and Gamble. The initiative was communicated to customers via two bill inserts throughout the campaign lifecycle. As well, point of purchase material was displayed at participating white goods retailers. To qualify for the incentive the customer was required to submit the proof of purchase of a qualifying front load washer (including make and model) to Union. The listing of qualified models was available on the NRCan website. Following the submission, Union would send coupons for the incentives to eligible participants.

16

This program acted as a promotional tool, making residential customers increasingly aware of this new energy efficient technology, and was effective in achieving 299 participants.

4.1.4.2. HVAC Partnership Program The HVAC Partnership is designed to promote, through channel partners, the sale of high efficiency natural gas options to customers at the time of equipment replacement. Participating channel partners are educated on high efficiency measures and provided with the promotional tools to effectively influence the purchase of energy efficient technologies. As well, participants are eligible to receive an incentive based on installed measures as listed in Table 4.9.

Table 4.9 - HVAC Program Incentives

Technology Incentive Paid High-Efficiency Furnace $50 Condensing Gas Water Heater $50 Condensing Boiler $50 Power Combustion Boiler $25 Programmable Thermostat $15

An audit of the Home Retrofit HVAC Partnership program was completed with the objective of validating consumers’ awareness of products purchased and verifies that information provided by participating channel partners to Union is accurate. Details of the audit of the HVAC Partnership program can be found in the Evaluation and Audit section of this report.

4.1.4.3. Energy Savings Kit (ESK) Program Energy Savings Kits are packages of retrofit measures designed to improve the energy efficiency of water consuming technologies as well as provide consumers with additional education on the efficient use of energy. Each individual measure is considered to be one participant. In 2005, kits were distributed in a variety of ways including through various channels including HVAC Partnerships, in franchise home shows and large retail locations. Included in the ESK package:

1) Pipe Wrap ( 2 metres) 2) Low Flow Shower Head 3) Low Flow Kitchen and Bathroom Faucet Aerators 4) Wise Energy Guide

The ESK Program played an increasingly important role within the Home Retrofit portfolio in 2005, contributing close to half of all savings generated

17

and 75% of the participants. Program results increased 350% over 2004 results. Table 4.10 presents the ESK results for 2004 and 2005.

Table 4.10 - 2005& 2004 ESK Results

ESKs 2005 2004 Variance Participants 126,600 28,175 ↑ 98,425 m3 Savings 2,119,332 464,682 ↑ 1,654,650

To achieve these results Union built upon its learnings from the 2004 Home Depot ESK campaign, which utilized a successful direct to customer approach to ESK distribution. It was apparent through this experience that a direct to customer approach is an extremely effective means of ESK distribution. Additional direct-to-customer approaches to delivery employed by Union in 2005 included: large retailers, in franchise home shows, targeted community events, and in franchise county fairs. In order to effectively promote the ESK’s during these events, Union invested in new point of purchase material which acted to both generate traffic to the Union display booths as well as educate consumers on the value associated with the ESK. An example of the new point of purchase signage is shown in Figure 4-1.

18

Figure 4-1 ESK Signage

The direct to customer delivery process utilized for ESK distribution is outlined in Figure 4-2.

19

Union employee displays

ESK’s at in franchise home show, local fair,

Home Depot or other large retailer

Union customerindicates interest in

kit and valueexplained to them by Union employee

Random selectionof tracked customers

is completed forprogram audit

Audit undertaken bythird party firm to

assess the installationrates of ESK

measures

Tracking forms sentto monitoring group

at Union Gas forinput into database – all

customer informationis input

Audit results and associated free-riders

used to calculateand report

program savings

Customer asked to fill outtracking form as proof

of receipt of the kit

Figure 4-2 Direct to Customer Delivery Process

As well, Union continued with the HVAC Partnership delivery method of ESKs in 2005. Through the HVAC Partnership ESKs are distributed to in franchise customers by HVAC partners who issue kits to customers with the purchase of energy efficient products.

The delivery and tracking process of the HVAC ESK Program is outlined in Figure 4-3.

20

Participating HVAC retailer educated on the

value of the ESK.Kits made available

for customerdistribution

HVAC customer purchases

energy efficient equipment and is

offered kit by participating HVAC

Random selectionof tracked customers

is completed forprogram audit

Audit undertaken bythird party firm to

assess the installationrates of ESK

measures

Tracking forms sentto monitoring group

at Union Gas forinput into database – all

customer informationis input

Audit results and associated free-riders

used to calculateand report

program savings

Customer asked to fill outtracking form as proof

of receipt of the kit

Figure 4-3 - HVAC Partnership Delivery Process

In order to fully assess the impact of the ESK program on participants, Union undergoes a program audit. This audit provides the adjustment factors used in the calculation of program savings results. The adjustment factor ensures that only those participants who install, and keep installed, the ESK measures are included in the program savings calculation. The adjustment factors determined through the 2005 audit process, for both the Direct-to-Customer and HVAC Partnership initiatives, are detailed in the Evaluation and Audit section.

4.1.4.4. Programmable Thermostat In 2005, the programmable thermostat measure was actively promoted and expanded to become a significant generator of DSM savings within the residential sector. Table 4.11 presents the programmable thermostat results for 2004 and 2005.

Table 4.11 – Programmable Thermostat Program Results Programmable Thermostat 2005 2004 Variance

Participants 17,869 14,330 ↑ 14,330 m3 Savings 1,079,913 857,792 ↑ 222,121

The following campaigns drove the significant results in this program in 2005:

21

1) Direct-to-Customer Campaign: $15 Programmable Thermostat Rebate Union conducted a 4 month rebate campaign for the installation of any programmable thermostat. The offer was $15 for the purchase and installation of any programmable thermostat, and was administered as a credit on the customer's gas bill. The communication for the direct-to-customer rebate offer was executed through two bill inserts, one in August with a second insert in October of 2005. To support the primary communication of the bill insert, and to drive additional participants in this program, rebate coupons were created for our HVAC Channel Partners and for Home Depot locations across Ontario (within the Union franchise area). Coupons were also made available on our website at www.uniongas.com by clicking on the visual link on the homepage. Participating Union customers received the rebate as a credit on their gas bill. This offer was available to customers from August 15 to December 15, 2005 and customers had until December 31, 2005 to submit for their rebate. Customers were required to submit a copy of the bill of sale for the purchase of the programmable thermostat, the original UPC symbol and the rebate coupon in order to qualify for the rebate. The thermostat rebate coupon is shown in Figure 4-4.

Figure 4-4 - Thermostat Rebate Coupon

2) Energy Smarts Campaign: $35 Honeywell Programmable Thermostat Rebate (at Home Depot) Union Gas, in partnership with the Clean Air Foundation and Honeywell, participated in the September energy efficiency program at Home Depot called Energy Smarts. The Energy Smarts program is a national retail promotion campaign to motivate consumers to purchase energy efficient Energy Star qualified products. The program brings together key industry players including manufacturers which market products that drive energy efficiency, and utilities interested in promoting energy efficiency. This

22

national in-store program ran from September 15th to September 25th, 2005 at all Home Depot locations across Ontario.

Union’s participation in the Energy Smarts program consisted of a $35 mail-in rebate coupon for the purchase of a selected Honeywell Energy Star programmable thermostat. The $35 rebate was a combined offer between Union Gas and Honeywell in the Union franchise area. The rebate was executed in the form of a coupon, made available at the Honeywell programmable thermostat product location and at the Energy Smarts promotion table in store which ran for the duration of the program. Upon submitting a copy of the bill of sale for the purchase of a Honeywell Energy Star programmable thermostat, the original UPC symbol and the rebate coupon, participating Union customers received the rebate as a credit on their gas bill. Customers had until October 15, 2005 to submit for the rebate. During the month of September, an on-bill message also appeared to provide further support for this campaign. The on-bill message directed customers to Home Depot locations to obtain further information about the program and a rebate coupon. In addition to on-bill messaging, the coupon was available to customers on the website until September 25th and directed customers to Home Depot locations to purchase a Honeywell Energy Star programmable thermostat. The thermostat rebate coupon is shown in Figure 4-5.

23

Figure 4-5 - Thermostat Rebate Coupon

2005 was the third straight year Union ran these successful promotions in conjunction with the noted parties which generated substantial m3 and TRC results for the sector.

4.2. Residential Customer Energy Efficiency Education and Awareness Efforts

A key goal of Union’s DSM efforts is to educate consumers on energy efficiency. Over the past few years Union has dedicated substantial funding to improve on existing materials and increase the number of tools available to educate residential customers on energy efficiency. These tools all work to allow residential consumers to become increasingly aware of both the benefits of using energy wisely as well as descriptions on how to succeed in their efforts. Residential consumers are now able to learn ways to improve their level of energy efficiency knowledge from a variety of mediums, including the packaged message contained in the monthly In-Touch bill insert and the new interactive online website.

Investments in residential energy efficiency education are described in the following subsections.

4.2.1. Wise Energy Guide (WEG) A major revision completed in 2004 significantly improved the content and consumer reaction. Over 30,000 WEG’s were distributed in 2005, with a large quantity distributed through Union’s Energy Savings Kits. The WEG was revised in 2005 to include more recent information, including greater information on ENERGY STAR qualified natural gas products and the EnerGuide for Existing Houses Retrofit Incentive. The WEG also provides information on a wide variety of related energy issues including:

an easy-to-use checklist to help get started

24

simple solutions to cut heating costs tips to prevent air leakage weather-stripping and caulking advice home insulation tips suggestions to solve moisture problems natural gas equipment options energy efficient product choices

4.2.2. In-Touch Monthly Newsletter Union also educated consumers through the monthly In-Touch newsletter (monthly bill insert) which contained an educational message on residential energy efficiency. The following example is taken from the January 2006 version of the In-Touch Newsletter.

25

Examples of energy efficiency messages included on the monthly Intouch newsletter in 2005 include: 1) ENERGY STAR Symbol Represents Superior Energy Efficiency 2) Union Gas Helps You Manage Energy Costs This Summer 3) EnerGuide for Houses Program Makes Your Home More Efficient 4) Manage Your Energy Costs This Fall and Winter 5) Energy Saving Tips 6) Is Your Home Leaking Money?

4.2.3. Residential Energy Efficiency Website In May 2005, an interactive online educational tool was launched on the Union Gas website aimed at informing residential customers on the various opportunities available to improve their energy efficiency and help to control their energy costs. Included on the website are details around:

- Saving Money and Energy - Comparing Energy Costs - One Tonne Challenge - Details on ENERGY STAR and EnerGuide - Downloadable Wise Energy Guide - Rebates and Incentives - Engee’s Kids – Energy Efficiency Information for Kids

26

The website generated numerous visits from customers interested in learning more about energy efficiency. Figure 4-6 demonstrates the results of the top 10 web pages visited from May 1, 2005 – December 31, 2005.

Legend

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Num

ber

of V

isit

s

Union’s Residential Energy Efficiency Website Results

1. Natural Gas High-Efficiency Furnace

2. Rebates and Incentives 3. Energy Efficiency Portal

(Energy Ideas Home) 4. Basement – Furnace 5. WEUG – Equipment Options 6. Natural Gas Water Heater

Efficiency 7. Energy Ideas Home Foyer 8. Energuide for Houses 9. WEUG – Simple ways to cut

Heating Costs 10. Thermostats – Energy Efficiency

Figure 4-6 - Energy Efficiency Website Results

Contained on these pages are links which re-direct the visitors to details on the specific DSM programs associated with these technologies. As well, additional links are provided to websites which feature information on either energy efficiency measures or promotional offers accessible to residential customers implementing energy efficiency. The site can be viewed at: http://www.uniongas.com/home/ngforhome/energyEfficiencyIndex.asp Additional information on the website, as well as an example of its functionality, are included in Appendix F .

4.2.4. Project Insulate Project Insulate launched December 2, 2005 with the purpose of further educating residential customers on the multiple options available to them to reduce their natural gas consumption and thus their energy bills. Project Insulate took the form of nine Energy Clinics which were held at in franchise shopping locations. The Energy Clinic locations included Orillia, Belleville, Brantford, North Bay, Chatham, Windsor, Burlington, Oakville, and Cambridge.

The clinics were advertised through print media and the Union booth positioned in the various retail locations. The booth was equipped with promotional signage such as the ESK poster.

27

At each clinic an energy specialist was situated at the booth and demonstrated practical and efficient ways to reduce energy costs. As well, both Wise Energy Guides and ESK kits were available at the locations for dissemination to interested customers. The energy specialist was also available to have one-on-one discussions with customers in order to discuss additional energy savings issues. As well, Project Insulate also took the form of an educational bill insert intended to increase residential customer awareness of energy savings potential.

28

4.3. Lessons Learned 1) Up-to-date Avoided Costs are Critical

In order to accurately screen programs and report on program results, up-to-date avoided costs are essential. For 2005, the avoided costs used during program screening and in program evaluation dated back to 1999. As such, the true value delivered through the program was substantially understated.

2) Expansion of the Retailer Channel

In 2004, Union began to explore further the potential of the using the retail chain as a delivery agent for DSM programs with the Home Depot ESK program. In 2005 the retail chain was utilized to drive ESK program savings with Home Depot and other retailers. Successes through these partnerships is apparent, and it is seen as prudent to further explore the retailer chain and determine if additional program delivery is viable through this channel.

3) Research and Development into new TRC Positive Measures

The residential sector has few measures which generate positive TRC results, specifically in the New Build program. Thus, it is imperative that research is undertaken in order to identify new technologies or measures which generate positive TRC results and can be incorporated into the residential program portfolio.

29

5. Commercial Market Commercial programs accounted for 30% of DSM savings in 2005, totalling over 21.5 million m3 with a net program TRC of $41.7 million.



62%

Commercial30%Residential

8%


Commercial42%

Residential5%


53%

In 2005 the Commercial DSM program achieved notable success in generating savings in both the New Build Construction and Building Retrofit markets. In particular, a major accomplishment in 2005 was the realization of substantial savings generated through new programs including the Hot Water Conservation and Low Flow Spray Nozzle initiatives. As well, in 2005 a shift was observed in the programs from which commercial savings were generated. Overall, 79% of sector savings were generated through the Building Retrofit program in 2005 compared to 70% in 2004. Additionally, within both of the commercial programs savings generated through custom projects fell noticeably, from 16.5 million m3 in 2004 to 7.3 million m3 in 2005 which will be discussed in more detail further on in this section. This reduction was to some extent offset by the success of the new initiatives. For 2005, increased attention was given to program awareness and the future success of commercial DSM initiatives through the increased promotion of the Feasibility Study and Design Assistance Programs. Participation in these programs increased 74% over 2004 and is an important piece in promoting energy efficiency in new build design and in maintaining sector sustainability.

5.1. 2005 Commercial Programs and Results Table 5.1 summarizes overall and sector specific commercial program results for 2005.

30

Table 5.1 - 2005 Commercial Program Results

2005 Commercial Results Summary

New Building Construction

Building Retrofit

Total Program

m3 Savings (000's) 4,479 17,080 21,559

Total Participants 2,368 50,756 53,124

Direct Expenditure ($ 000’s) $241 $868 $1,109

Cost $ / m3 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05

Benefits / Cost Ratio 3.3 5.3 4.8

Tonnes of CO2 Reduced 169,116 711,553 880,669

Lifecycle m3 Savings (000’s) 87,682 306,385 394,069

Program TRC ($ 000’s) $5,769 $35,954 $41,723

TRC / $ Spent $23.9 $41.4 $37.6

The Union Gas Commercial DSM Program delivered natural gas savings through the New Building Construction and Building Retrofit markets in 2005. Prior to 2005, the Building Retrofit market consisted of two separate programs, Building Equipment Replacement and Building Retrofit; however, these two were merged for 2005. This resulted in substantial process improvements for tracking and reporting of program results. No programs were discontinued as a result of this merger. Commercial programs are designed to achieve savings in the areas of space heating, water heating and building envelope across nine customer segments – office, institutional, retail, multi-family, food service, hotel/motel, warehouse, recreational and small agricultural within the commercial M2, RO1 and R10 rate classes. Union Gas Account Managers market the programs both directly to customers and indirectly through trade allies and channel partners and work to cost effectively promote energy efficiency within Union’s commercial customer base.

The strong TRC result, specifically in the Building Retrofit program, was the result of Union’s emphasis on programs with the highest benefit to cost ratios such as the Hot Water Conservation and Custom Project programs. By focusing on those programs with the highest benefits to cost ratios, Union ensures maximum value for stakeholders.

Within the two Commercial Programs, several energy savings initiatives were undertaken in 2005. These initiatives as well as the overall program results are

31

detailed in Appendix D (note: the 2005/2004 variance is based on initiative results and not full program results).

Three programs generated the majority of savings (88%) within the commercial sector in 2005. Table 5.2 presents the major savings drivers for the commercial sector in 2005.

Table 5.2 - Major Savings Drivers in 2005

Program 2005 m3 Results (000’s)

2004 m3 Result (000’s)

2003 m3 Result (000’s)

Infrared Manufacturer Partnership

9,018 9,313 6,157

Custom Projects 7,318 16,577 4,007

Hot Water Conservation 2,617 117 0

Total 18,953 26,006 10,164

The planning assumptions in Appendix E form the basis of the reported program savings represented above.

5.2. Commercial Program Results

5.2.1. Commercial m3 Savings and Participation Success from both an m3 savings and participant perspective in the commercial market is apparent, especially when the late inception of the 2005 DSM plan is considered. As a result of the late inception and increase in targets, the commercial team had to adjust their efforts mid year, focusing their attention on new initiatives and new plan parameters. As shown in the Table 5.3, the Building Retrofit program accounted for 96% of the participants in the sector, and only 78% of the savings. The cause of this discrepancy is explainable when an analysis of the variance reporting (see Appendix D ) is completed. The Hot Water Conservation programs generated significant participant results in 2005, however they have a low associated per measure savings (m3/unit) when compared with other commercial programs. As a result, although participation was strong in these programs, the corresponding m3 savings per participant for the program were comparatively lower.

32

Table 5.3 – Commercial m3 Savings Results

Commercial Programs


% of Total

2005 m3 Result

Participants

% of Total 2005

Participant Result

New Building Construction (m3)

4,479 21% 2,368 4%

Building Retrofit (m3) 17,080 79% 50,756 96%

Total 21,559 100% 53,124 100%

5.2.2. Commercial Program Cost Summary Direct commercial program expenditures in 2005 totalled $1.1 million – 11% over 2004 levels. Table 5.4 presents the direct expenditures for the commercial sector in 2005.

Table 5.4 – Commercial Direct Expenditures

Program Incentives ($000’s)


Total Direct

($000’s)New Building Construction

238 3 241

Building Retrofit 857 11 868

Total 1,095 14 1,109

In 2005, Commercial DSM programs were given additional budget dollars over 2004 levels in order to pursue higher DSM efforts. As such, account managers worked to effectively incorporate these funds to increase results. In the commercial market, direct costs per m3 savings were up over 43% from 2004 levels. The increased cost per m3 of savings is largely attributable to the improved performance of the Feasibility Study and Design Assistance Programs in 2005. Participation in these programs grew 74% in 2005 over 2004 (from 43 projects in 2004 to 75 in 2005). Although these programs serve an important role in the sustaining and promoting of DSM initiatives, they do not generate any m3 savings and thus act to increase the overall cost per m3 within the sector. Table 5.5 presents a comparison of the direct costs.

33

Table 5.5 – Direct Costs Analysis

Commercial Program

Direct Costs

($000’s)

% of Total Costs

2005 Cost per m3 of Savings

2004 Cost per m3 of Savings

New Building Construction 241 22% $0.05 $0.05

Building Retrofit 868 78% $0.05 $0.03

Total 1,109 100% $0.05 $0.04

5.2.3. Program Framework – Program Delivery Union’s Commercial DSM program participants are located throughout the service area. In educating and delivering DSM savings to this customer segment, Union relies on eleven highly skilled Account Managers. A substantial effort is required by these managers to ensure that all potential participants are educated on the DSM programs offered by Union as well as how they can benefit most from participation. Union’s Account Managers utilize a variety of communication methods to reach all potential participants. The various communication techniques are discussed in the following subsections.

5.2.3.1. The Channel Approach The channel approach to program delivery involves Union Account Managers’ interaction with channel partners (i.e. engineering, design/build firms and HVAC Contractors), who are influential in the end user decision making process for their specific energy equipment. Channel partners influence end users a variety of ways, from including energy efficient technologies in the design phase in new build and retrofit plans, to directly educating and selling upgraded efficient technologies to end users looking to replace existing equipment. Participating channel partners are provided with incentives for the promotion of higher efficiency measures which lead to installation. Union works to attain channel partner success by providing the tools to channel partners to help them effectively relay the message to end users on the advantages of efficient technologies.

5.2.3.2. Direct-to-Customer The direct-to-customer approach to delivering DSM savings involves direct Union Account Manager interaction with the potential participant, or end user. Through this technique, the account manager works directly with the end user, educating them on programs and potential options to improve their existing energy efficiency and linking them with delivery channels. Major accounts are another direct-to-customer approach and are defined as those customers with multiple property locations throughout various Union

34

territories including retail chains, property management firms, food service chains and others. Major accounts managers work with these large customers in order to educate them on DSM initiatives and drive DSM savings. By working with these large customers substantial gains can be made at one time through a centralized decision making process. In order to drive significant DSM results, strong relationship building and maintenance is required throughout all levels of the commercial customer chain to deliver the programs outlined below.

5.2.4. Program Framework - Commercial Programs The portfolio of technologies included in the commercial DSM plan was available to participants in both new build and retrofit applications. Examples of these technologies are listed below:

• Condensing boilers • Condensing gas water heaters • Energy recovery ventilators • Heat recovery ventilators • Infrared heaters • Power combustion boilers • Programmable thermostats • Low flow showerheads • Faucet aerators • Rooftop units • Additional technologies which pass screening for Custom Projects (e.g.

building controls, make-up air units, condensing economizers, and agricultural technologies)

5.2.5. New Initiatives in 2005 Two new initiatives in the Commercial portfolio of programs, Hot Water Conservation and Low Flow Spray Nozzles, were introduced in 2005. These programs achieved significant results, and Union will look to build upon these successes and lessons learned in future years. Efforts in new initiatives for 2005 included educating Union Account Managers on the value of the technologies and delivery methods, thus, allowing them to educate potential participants on these new initiatives and associated benefits as well as how they can become involved. Both programs were available to participants in the Building Retrofit program.

5.2.5.1. Hot Water Conservation (HWC) This initiative was introduced in late November 2004 and was fully deployed in 2005. Primarily targeting the Non-Profit / Social Housing Service sector, this initiative was designed to educate related decision makers on reducing

35

energy related costs for social housing facilities. In 2005, this program expanded to include end users and property managers of multi-family facilities outside the social housing sub-segment. Approximately 80% of savings generated from this program came from the social housing/non-profit sector. This program was aimed at reducing hot water consumption through the installation of Low Flow Showerheads and Faucet Aerators, which leads directly to natural gas savings. Union supplies the low flow showerheads and low flow faucet aerators at no charge to participating agencies who install these measures as a part of their maintenance programs.

5.2.5.2. Low Flow Spray Nozzles Union initiated this program working in conjunction with ECOLAB in 2005. This program targets locations where commercial kitchens exist and can benefit from the installation of a low flow spray nozzle for the pre-dishwashing process. Union pays the full cost of the nozzle and installation for participating customers.

5.2.6. Existing Initiatives The following initiatives were continued in the commercial program for 2005. Efforts with existing programs included Union Account Managers educating new potential participants on the value and benefits of the programs as well as working with knowledgeable existing participants to build upon past results. With the exception of the Design Assistance Program, these initiatives are promoted to customers in both the New Building Construction and Building Retrofit markets.

5.2.6.1. Energy Savings Program (ESP) The Energy Savings Program was designed to promote the sale of high efficiency natural gas technologies through commercial HVAC channel partners. In order to ensure partner success Union provides incentives (presented in Table 5.6), information, tools and support to fully educate and promote participation. The ESP program includes technologies with predictable savings by size class.

36

Table 5.6 - Financial Incentives to Channel Partners in 2005 Technology Incentive per Unit ERV $250-$1000 Power Combustion Boilers $50-$300

Condensing Boilers $500-$1500 Rooftop Units $500 Infrared Heaters $50 HRV $100 Commercial Condensing Water Heaters $500

High Efficiency Furnaces $50 Water Heater De-Scaling $50 Boiler Audit $100

5.2.6.2. Custom Projects Custom projects cover projects where savings are linked to unique building specifications/uses and technologies. This may involve new technologies or design concepts. The program targets channel partners in the design and engineering communities as well as commercial key customers (multiple facility end users such as national accounts, retail chains, property management firms, non-profit housing authorities, school boards and municipalities). The program includes incentives and educational support. Custom projects incentives are set at $0.05/m3 saved, up to a maximum of $20,000.

5.2.6.3. Infra-Red Manufacturer Partnership The Infra-Red Manufacturer Partnership promotes further penetration of this energy efficient equipment in Union’s commercial markets. Incentives are provided to manufacturers to assist with the promotion of the technology and for the reporting of results (shipments into the Union Gas service area). The program works to promote sales by providing a utility endorsement at the highest levels of market reach. The manufacturer partnership complements the ESP promotion of IR technologies through the contractor segment of the value chain. To avoid double counting, units delivered in the ESP and sourced from one of the participating manufacturers are subtracted from the results. During the 2004 DSM evaluation audit process, this program was identified as requiring further analysis and research to validate the influence levels relating to program delivery. This research was completed during the 2005 audit process. The findings relating to the study, which were approved by the auditor, are included in the 2005 Audit Report. The results of this study are reflected in the final LRAM calculation for 2005.

37

5.2.6.4. Design Assistance Program (DAP) The Design Assistance Program is a partnership initiative with Enbridge Gas Distribution to promote applications to Natural Resources Canada’s Commercial Building Incentives Program (CBIP). The program targets channel partners in the design and engineering communities as well as commercial key customers (multiple facility end users such as national accounts, retail chains, property management firms, non-profit housing authorities, school boards and municipalities). The program provides incentives to approved facilitators to assist with the design or modeling costs associated with meeting the Commercial Building Incentive Program (CBIP) target for building energy efficiency. A $4,000 incentive is paid to eligible participants on a per project basis. The DAP program is available to New Build Construction participants only.

5.2.6.5. Feasibility Studies and Boiler Audits The feasibility study and boiler audit programs provide financial support to channel partners and key end users and work to promote energy efficiency audits. These audits include an efficiency analysis of natural gas equipment as well as other utilities such as electricity and water. No natural gas savings are attributed to the programs, however, participation is tracked. Feasibility studies and boiler audits help to ensure the sustainability of the sector.

5.2.6.6. Other Market Support Initiatives Market support initiatives include information pieces such as EnerCases, Leading Edges, the Union Gas website, and computerized E-Tools. Customer and channel education: Lunch and Learn sessions, sponsorship of energy efficiency workshops and program flyers. Work with other stakeholders on a wide range of Canadian Standards Association standards and testing committees and work with internal energy management committees for multi-facility end-users.

5.3. Program Developments The most significant development in the program mix for 2005 in the commercial sector was the addition or expansion of programs related to the reduction of hot water usage. Two programs in particular worked to achieve substantial savings results in 2005, the Hot Water Conservation Program, and the Low Flow Spray Nozzle Program.

5.3.1. Commercial Hot Water Conservation Program As previously stated, the HWC program was fully deployed in 2005. The program launched in November 2004 as a pilot, with significant interest. As such,

38

in 2005, the program was fully funded and supported by Union. Figure 5-1 outlines the HWC program delivery process. Examples of participating parties in HWC program are listed below:

1) Municipal Housing Authorities 2) Old-Age and Nursing Home Residences 3) Health Care Facilities

UnionAccount Manager informs potential

participants (I.E. property management firms) on

the details of theprogram

Participant expressesinterest in the program

and the associated benefits

Order of measures sentdirectly to participant

facility location

Measures to be installedby participant (by

Building Superintendentor Contractor)

Installer sends trackingback to Union reportingon all measures installedin the specific locations

Union Account Manager

places order for the number of measures required to retrofit various properties’

for participant

Figure 5-1 - HWC Program Delivery

5.3.2. Low Flow Spray Nozzle Program The Low Flow Spray Nozzle program was introduced as a pilot to the commercial program mix in July 2005. This program was developed in conjunction with ECOLAB and for 2005 was aimed at reducing hot water consumption for participants within the food service sector. ECOLAB was selected as the delivery agent for the program due to their well established relationships with Union customers inside the food services industry. The low flow spray nozzle dramatically reduces the amount of the hot water used during the pre-dishwashing processing in commercial kitchens without compromising the quality of dish cleaning. Figure 5-2 outlines the Low Flow Spray Nozzle program delivery process.

39

ECOLAB identifiespossible participants

during site visitsto their foodservice

customers

ECOLAB identifies to customer the spray nozzle program andeducates them on the

benefits

Monitoring and Trackinggroup ensures customer

is in-franchise andinforms ECOLAB

Verified customers are visited by ECOLAB

and the nozzle is installedfree of charge

Customer signs tracking sheet, verifying

installation and is sentback to Union for

tracking

If customer desires measure they

complete an application form

which is sent to Union’smonitoring and tracking

group

Figure 5-2 – Low Flow Spray Nozzle Program Delivery

The total cost associated with the low flow spray nozzle and installation is paid for by Union. The customer’s only obligation is to verify the installation of the measure. In future years, Union will look to expand on this program, including various other customer segments which could benefit from the measure and program. The Low Flow Spray Nozzle program was targeted towards commercial kitchens in the retail chain food service customers and institutional facilities.

5.4. Custom Projects – Performance and Audits Historically, custom projects have been one of the main drivers of savings in the commercial sector. This is again true for 2005 where 34% of savings were generated through custom project efforts. Although still a major generator of savings in the commercial market, the custom project m3 savings results decreased in 2005 when compared to 2004 as shown in Table 5.7.

Table 5.7 – Custom Projects Program m3 Savings Results

Program 2005 Results (m3) 2004 Result (m3) Variance (m3) Custom Savings 7,317,617 16,577,053 -9,259,436

40

This decrease in program savings was greatest in the New Building Construction Program where savings dropped more than 5.5 million m3 (from 6.7 mm m3 in 2004 to 1.1 million in 2005). Savings generated in the Building Retrofit program also fell well below 2004 results, from 9.8 million m3 to 6.5 million m3.

Conversely, participation rates in the Custom Program went up in 2005 as shown in Table 5.8.

Table 5.8 - Custom Project Participation Results

Program 2005 Results 2004 Result Variance Custom Participants 691 447 ↑ 244

The major reason for the decline in savings associated with the custom program is that although more projects were claimed, their associated m3 savings claimed per project was reduced. This could be an indication that the majority of larger projects are now complete, making it increasingly challenging to achieve increased savings results. The average custom project m3 savings claims are presented in Table 5.9.

Table 5.9 – Average Custom Project Savings

Program 2005 Avg. m3 2004 Avg. m3 Variance m3 Custom (Avg. Project) 42,900 78,834 ↓ 28,228

Another possibility for the sharp decline in average project savings can be explained by current market conditions. It has been noted during discussions with several customers that in 2005 the same budgets were not in place for major facility upgrades or improvements. Thus, although more customers participated in the program, they did so in a much smaller scale than in previous years, driving down the overall savings attributable to the program. As custom projects are such a high driver of savings, it is important that Union undertake research in order to verify that the claimed savings reported through the application process are accurate. Union has enhanced the previous custom audit process to be in accordance with the principles of the Ontario Energy Board issued TRC guide for electric utilities. Results of the audit to verify the accuracy of custom project claimed savings are found in the Evaluation and Audit section of this report.

41

5.5. The Industrial General Service Market – A Sub-Segment of the Commercial Market

Industrial General Service programs accounted for less than 1% of the total DSM savings in 2005, totalling 122 thousand m3 with a gross TRC of approximately $90 thousand. Industrial General Service programs are designed to achieve savings in the areas of space heating; water heating and building envelope as well process specific energy applications. These programs are marketed to industrial customers in the M2, R01 and R10 rate classes. Union’s account managers market the programs both directly to customers and indirectly through trade allies, channel partners and work to cost effectively promote energy efficiency within Union’s industrial customer base. Industrial general service market savings are generated through custom projects.

42

5.6. Lessons Learned

1) Greater Union Involvement Results in Greater Take-up In 2005, because of the increased emphasis on DSM results, Union Account Managers allocated a greater amount of their time towards generating DSM Savings. In particular, the managers worked heavily in generating savings through the Custom Projects program, HWC program and the Low Flow Spray Nozzle program. Although, custom project savings were down, participation was up 55%. In the case of the HWC program, greater account manager involvement resulted in program success for these new programs.

2) Relationship Management and Understanding

One of the keys to program success in 2005 was the selection of the appropriate parties to involve in program design and delivery, for example, the selection of ECOLAB for delivery of the Low Flow Spray Nozzle program. ECOLAB, a well established member of the food service community, was key to program success by leveraging their relationships with potential participants. As well, by partnering with social housing and non-profit housing authorities for delivery of the HWC program, Union worked with the top of the value chain to achieve results. It is key to program success that during the program development process serious thought is given to ensure that the right partners for program implementation and delivery are involved.

3) Budgets for Energy Efficiency Declining

It became apparent in 2005, in particular through the Custom Project program, that commercial customers do not have the same budget for equipment and facilities upgrades as they have had previously. Because of the increased pressure of a high Canadian dollar and increased competition from off-shore manufacturers, many businesses are now more concerned with remaining competitive, rather than with improving energy efficiency. The increased use of end-user funding may help to improve the attractiveness of DSM Programs by helping to off-set the incremental costs associated with improving energy efficiency.

4) Increased Emphasis on the End Use Customer

Currently, many of the incentives for participation in specific DSM programs are paid to either channel partners or trade allies. New programs in 2005, including the HWC and Low Flow Spray Nozzle programs, work to provide maximum incentive to the end-user. These programs have received strong support from participants and significant take-up has been seen.

43

6. Distribution Contract Market Distribution Contract EnergyWise programs accounted for 62% of total DSM savings achieved in 2005, totalling over 44.4 million m3 with a net program TRC of $52.7 million.



62%

Commercial30%

Residential8%



53%

Residential5%

Commercial42%

In 2005, Union’s distribution contract market team achieved higher m3 savings in previous years. This achievement was the result of a group effort among distribution contact and core market program managers whose hard work resulted in a 48% increase in program savings over 2004 levels. As well, in 2005 increased attention was paid to the feasibility study program, increasing participation over 300%. This program is an essential tool in working to ensure the future success and sustainability of the distribution contract sector. Table 6.1 summarizes the distribution contract market program results for 2005. Programs are not differentiated by new build and existing as there is very little new build activity in this market segment.

44

Table 6.1 – 2005 Distribution Contract Results

2005 Distribution Contract Results Summary


m3 Savings (000's) 44,415

Actual Participants 246

Direct Expenditures (000’s) $2,165

Cost $ / m3 $0.05

Benefits / Cost Ratio 3.96

Tonnes of CO2 Reduced 1,715,256

Lifecycle m3 Savings (000’s) 884,438

Program TRC (000’s) $52,728

TRC / $ Spent $24.4

The net societal benefit associated with the Distribution Contract sector is the result of Custom Project activity. By insuring all projects had a TRC screening of one or greater, Union assured only cost effective projects would be funded.

6.1. 2005 Distribution Contract Programs and Results 2005 was a successful year for the Distribution Contract sector, generating over 44 million in m3 savings, 48% more than in 2004. The increase in volume savings achieved in this market was due to increased effort over the last several years to identify, then in 2005 to complete, larger multi-year projects. There was also an increase in dedicated communication and technical initiatives with customers to help them identify and implement shorter term projects. Participation rates in the Custom Applications program also grew substantially in 2005, increasing over 70% from 2004. Participation in the Boiler Audit program increased 53% in 2005. Feasibility Study participation also increased substantially, from 7 completions in 2004 to 29 in 2005 - an increase of over 300%.

45

6.1.1. Distribution Contract m3 Savings and Participation The Union Gas Distribution Contract EnergyWise DSM Program delivered natural gas savings through the Distribution Contract market in 2005. EnergyWise programs are designed to achieve savings in the areas of boiler and process specific energy applications, as well as space heating, water heating and building envelope. These programs are marketed to large volume contract rate customers. Union Gas Account Managers market the programs both directly to customers and indirectly through trade allies, channel partners as well as through ESCO’s, engineering firms and equipment manufacturers and work to cost effectively promote energy efficiency within Union’s Distribution Contract customer base.

Table 6.2 summarizes the results for the two market approaches that were focused on in 2005. The initiatives, as well as the overall program results are presented in Appendix D .

Table 6.2 – Distribution Contract m3 Savings Results


Actual m3

Savings (000’s)

% of Total

2005 m3 Result

Actual Participants

% of Total 2005

Participant Result

Total 44,415 100% 246 100% The 2005 variance analysis shows an increase in Distribution Contract participation and m3 savings in 2005. Only one m3 savings measure exists in the Distribution Contract market, custom projects. All savings related claims are generated through custom projects in this market. For Appendix D the current listing of savings assumptions along with free riders are given in Appendix E . These planning assumptions form the basis of the reported savings.

6.1.2. Program Costs Actual direct budget expenditures in 2005 totalled $2.164 million – 127% over 2004 levels as presented in Table 6.3.

46

Table 6.3 – Distribution Contract Expenditures Distribution Contract Direct Program Costs

Incentives ($000’s)


Total ($000’s)

2005 2,058 106 2,165

Direct costs per m3 savings went up 56% in 2005 over 2004 levels, as shown in Table 6.4. This can be explained through the increased number of boiler audits and feasibility studies completed in 2005. As stated previously, the Boiler Audit and Feasibility Study program participation increased 53% and 300% respectively. These additional study costs which do not have direct m3 savings increased the overall cost per m3. Identifying and prioritizing energy savings opportunities within a customer facility are vital steps towards driving future results. Custom project equipment incentive levels increased from 3% of installed costs in 2004 to 10% of installed costs in 2005. The increased incentives were implemented to have an impact on the project payback, and in turn have an influence on the competition for capital within customer organizations. Off setting the incremental costs of these projects has worked well in generating both participants and savings in the sector. The results seen in 2005 speak to the impact increased incentives can have on program performance.

Table 6.4 - Distribution Contract Costs Analysis

Program

2005 Cost per

m3 of Savings

2004 Cost per

m3 Savings

Distribution Contract $0.049 $0.032

6.2. Program Framework The following outlines the programs available to Distribution Contract participants as well as their delivery method in 2005. Table 6.5 shows the program funding guidelines for 2005 Distribution Contract programs. All programs are delivered through Union’s account managers, technical project managers or channel account managers. Their knowledge and ability to build positive relationships is key to influencing the market and achieving successful implementation of the programs. Incentives are used to leverage energy efficiency

47

activity by shortening project paybacks and enhancing the business case to compete with other uses for capital.

Table 6.5 – Program Incentives

Program Elements 2005 Funding Levels Available

2004 Funding Levels Available

Education and Promotion Up to 100% Up to 100% Demonstration of New Technologies 10% up to $50K 3% up to $50k

Boiler Performance Testing and Steam Plant Audits 2/3 up to $20K 2/3 up to $20k

Steam Trap Survey 1/2 up to $6K 1/2 up to $6k Equipment Incentive 10% up to $30K 3% up to 6k Engineering Analysis and Energy Audits 50% up to $10K 30% up to $10k

6.2.1.1. Boiler performance testing and steam plant audits The Boiler Performance program is designed to reduce losses from steam generation systems. The program works to support performance testing and analysis of industrial boilers, total steam plants, thermal fluid heaters, vaporizers, furnaces and special process equipment. Analysis of the testing identifies and quantifies energy and cost saving opportunities, implementation costs and payback periods as well as NOx and CO2 impacts.

6.2.1.2. Steam trap surveys Steam Trap surveys are designed to reduce losses from steam distribution systems. The program works to support steam trap surveys conducted by qualified service companies. The surveys identify leaking traps, over-sized or under-sized traps, and blocked or flooded traps, and assess the need for improvements in condensate return systems.

6.2.1.3. Engineering analysis and energy audits The engineering analysis and energy audit program supports engineering feasibility studies and energy efficiency audits that include an analysis of natural gas equipment as well as other utilities such as electricity, compressed air, water and wastewater. The completed audit is used by Union to help customers formulate a prioritized list of energy efficiency projects geared to site-specific energy plans and budget. Where appropriate, Union also assists customers, manufacturers, and installers to put together business cases that

48

customer technical staff can utilize to secure corporate capital budget energy efficient equipment replacement and/or process changes.

6.2.1.4. Equipment incentives Equipment incentives are available for eligible high-efficiency equipment installations, identified with or without an audit. Under both circumstances, Union provides third party cross-sector expertise in energy efficiency opportunities. The industrial trend over the past several years has been to reduce overhead costs as many smaller enterprises lack in-house experts who can be consulted to analyze potential projects. Union helps fill this gap, using its knowledge and reputation, as well as incentives, to influence equipment choices.

Union’s role in promoting and implementing energy efficient choices helps these companies to control energy costs and remain competitive in an environment of a high valued Canadian dollar, global competition and internal competition for new production lines and plants.

6.2.1.5. Demonstration of new technology The program provides financial incentives for demonstration projects to encourage the adoption of new energy efficient technologies. Demonstration opportunities lie with technologies that are market ready, and do not have an installation in an Ontario facility. These technologies need extra funding to help customers overcome the additional performance risk that is inherent in a new installation.

6.2.1.6. Education and promotion In 2005, a major investment in the educational and promotional tools available to encourage participation in the distribution contract programs was made.

Educational and Promotional efforts include newsletters, technology magazines and other publications and workshops offered to promote the efficient use of natural gas and to increase the awareness of energy saving opportunities. In addition to our own activities, Union Gas develops and sponsors specific educational forums where an interest is seen as beneficial. When independent professional development groups, trade organizations or government workshops are available for a topic, Union promotes these activities to our customers rather than trying to compete with our own initiatives.

Union’s account managers and technical project managers also work closely with different government efficiency, environmental and professional organizations including the Office of Energy Efficiency (OEE), the Canadian

49

Industry Program for Energy Conservation (CIPEC), CANMET Energy Technology Centre, Conservation Bureau and municipal Economic Development Coordinators. Union sales representatives helped to organize and/or presented presentations at seven (7) Municipal Energy Forums targeted to industrial customers in each of the individual communities. In 2005 Union developed a promotional EnergyWise program brochure that has been very successful in promoting our program to customers and facilitating partnerships with industry groups that can now help inform and educate customers. The brochure and application form were used as the basis to develop a website page that also contains technology information, conversion calculations, and a series of links for additional references. Technical presentations that are presented at our customer meetings are archived and can be accessed at the Union Gas website. A customized email address was also setup to facilitate electronic transfer of project information.

6.3. Custom Project Performance and Facility Audit Results All m3 savings driven in the industrial sector are done so through custom projects. As the Distribution Contract sector represents the greatest amount of m3 savings generated within the entire DSM program, it is prudent that Union evaluates the results appropriately. As such, in 2005, Union continued with its Custom Project program audit process for Distribution Contract projects. Traditionally, Union had completed audits around 3 custom projects in the Distribution Contract sector. However, in 2005, due to the significant savings associated with the program, Union increased the number of custom project audits to 5, representing approximately 28% of program savings. The results and methodology behind these audits can be found in the Evaluation and Audit section of this report. Further, these audits work to ensure compliance with the Board issued TRC handbook.

6.3.1. Custom Project Analysis In 2005, although participation increased in the Distribution Contract sector, the m3 savings per project decreased as expected. There was an increased effort to influence smaller customers to undertake efficiency initiatives. The projects and equipment is very similar as for larger accounts, however, the smaller projects don’t have the economies of scale working in their favour. In comparison, capital costs are not significantly lower but there is a lower level of savings achieved. The volume savings ratio was also influenced by the fact that projects initiated by larger customers also had a lower volume savings associated with them. Projects with larger savings were tackled in previous years and now the customers are progressing down the prioritized list of initiatives which have lower savings associated with them. Table 6.6 represents the average savings per project generated from the Distribution Contract customers.

50

Table 6.6 – Custom Project Analysis Distribution Contract

2005 (m3) 2004 (m3) Variance (m3)

Avg. Custom Project 510,512 592,951 ↓ 82,439

On average, project savings dropped more than 82,000 m3 from 2004 levels, or 14%. It is expected that the volume savings per project will continue to trend downwards in this sector. The downward trend is also supported by the fact that there is increasing competition for budgeted dollars for efficiency upgrades versus increased pressure for customers to increase and improve production in order to be cost competitive in a global marketplace.

6.3.2. Facility Audit Results As stated, participation in the feasibility study program increased over 300% in 2005 from 2004 levels as shown in Table 6.7.

Table 6.7 – Feasibility Study Participation

2005 Studies Completed 2004 Studies completed Variance 29 7 ↑ 22

The feasibility study program continues to gain importance, specifically in the Distribution Contract sector as customer dollars to complete facility efficiency upgrades are at a premium. Many customers are overwhelmed by energy efficiency issues, and are unaware of the right places to start evaluating their facility’s potential. This is largely due to the fact that until recently, energy has been a small component of total production costs, therefore in house expertise and executive interest in the matter was limited. Feasibility Studies work to effectively demonstrate the potential and cost savings associated with improving energy efficiency within customer’s facilities and thus are a tool that can be used to obtain appropriate internal support and eventually the necessary funding to implement one or more projects. Union must work with customers from start to finish, both identifying potential energy efficiency opportunities, as well as helping to direct these projects through to implementation. The existence of a feasibility study program is essential to drive future year savings.

51

6.4. Lessons Learned

1) Union Involvement is Critical Through Union’s account manager experience, it has been identified that many Distribution Contract customers lack the internal expertise to understand the potential benefits as well as ability to implement energy efficiency projects in their facilities. Many customers are overwhelmed with energy efficiency issues, and are unaware of the right places to start evaluating their facilities potential. This is largely due to the fact that until recently, as a result of the low cost of energy, in house expertise and executive interest in the matter was limited. Union must work to identify these customers, and work with them from start to finish both identifying potential energy efficiency opportunities as well as helping to direct these projects through to implementation. 2) Budget Constraints on Participants It has been noted through discussions with customers and past participants that capital budgets for facility improvements are difficult to obtain. Payback thresholds are becoming shorter, as little as 6 months, while equipment costs are increasing along with the Canadian dollar. At the same time the market advantage of selling Canadian products into the U.S. is decreasing. The expectation is that going forward this trend will likely continue as the Canadian dollar continues to stay strong. 3) Industry Moving East For various reasons, including the high valued Canadian dollar, high energy costs, and consumer pressure for lower priced goods, industries in Canada are being forced to compete by minimizing production costs between facilities and potentially developing facilities overseas. This trend is particularly relevant to the pulp and paper and the automotive sectors. As such, it is imperative that Union work with Distribution Contract customers, promoting and implementing energy efficiency efforts in order for these companies to control energy costs and remain competitive. 4) Increased Incentives will be Required Increased incentives are needed in order to both sustain and increase program participation. However, a market correction will occur at some point as the availability of the much greater customer capital continues to be an issue. Industrial equipment life can be twenty years or greater and this can be extended with lower cost patches vs upgrades when capital for replacement is hard to obtain. As many of the lower cost/ high return projects have been completed, increased incentives are a method to generate participants with projects with longer pay-back periodsOff setting these higher incremental costs with increased incentives has worked well over the past two years in generating greater participation and savings for the sector.

52

7. Evaluation and Audit In order for Union to provide assurance to the accuracy of claimed savings, several evaluations or audit projects are undertaken each year. These evaluation projects work to ensure that claimed participation and installation rates of technologies delivered through Union’s programs are accurate. As well, an assessment of claimed savings obtained through the custom project programs is completed in order to ensure accuracy.

Related research is also completed to allow Union to better understand the overall impacts and benefits that specific programs provide our customers.

7.1. Residential Evaluation and Audit Projects: For 2005 Residential Programs Union undertook four evaluation projects in order to achieve the goals stated above. Union also uses the collected information in order to assess areas of program success and areas of possible improvement. Table 7.1 lists the residential project audits undertaken for 2005.

Table 7.1 – Summary of Project Audits for Residential Programs

Program Title Source Objective ESK’s – Home Depot

Final Report Following an Audit in 2006 of the Union Gas ESK- Home Depot Initiative

Beslin Communications Group Inc.

- Verify product installation - Gauge customer satisfaction with

equipment - Determine reasons why customer

did not install products - Gauge customer understanding

regarding benefits of products - Collection of opinions on other

incentives Union could consider offering

ESK’s – HVAC Partnership

Final Report Following an Audit in 2006 of the Union Gas ESK- Residential Initiative



equipment - Determine influence of channel

partner in decision to install products

- Gauge customer understanding regarding benefits of products

- Gauge performance of Channel Partners in delivery of products and ESK info.

Build Comfort

Final Report Following an Audit of the Union Gas Build Comfort Program


- Validate consumers awareness of products installed and verify info provided by participants is correct

- Gauge end-user satisfaction and program awareness

53

- Better understand purchase decision

HVAC Partnership

Final Report Following an Audit in 2006 of the Union Gas HVAC Program



equipment - Better understand purchase

decision - Increase understanding of

customer behaviour and usage patterns of programmable thermostats

The executive summaries and high level results of these evaluations are detailed in Appendix G (Executive Summaries are copied directly from the auditors report). As well, examples of the survey instruments used to collect the information used in the generation of these reports are included.

7.1.1. Build Comfort Program Audit An audit of the Build Comfort program was undertaken with the primary objective of validating consumer’s awareness of products installed and verifies that information provided by participating channel partners to Union Gas is accurate and reflects the actual products that were installed in the residential locations.

Table 7.2 presents the high level results of the audit, indicating the percent of participants who have indicated awareness of the measures installed.

Table 7.2 - Build Comfort Audit Results

Package

Respondents: # Verified Installed

Respondents: Total # survey completions

Respondents: % Verified Installed

Basement 158 172 92%

Window 30 39 77%

Mechanical Systems* 55 57

96%

Natural Gas Water Heaters

174

190

92%

*Includes 3 items: High Efficiency Furnace, Heat Recovery Ventilator, Programmable Thermostat

54

7.1.2. HVAC Partnership Program Audit An audit of the Home Retrofit HVAC Partnership program was completed with the objective of validating consumer’s awareness of products purchased and verifies that information provided by participating channel partners to Union is accurate. Table 7.3 presents the high level results of the audit, indicating the percent of participants who have verified installation of the measure.

Table 7.3 Results of Home Retrofit Participation Audit

Product 2005 % Verified 2004 % Verified Boilers 100% 70% Furnaces 100% 99% Thermostats 96% 97%

7.1.3. ESK Program Audit In order to fully assess the impact of the ESK program on the participants, Union undergoes a program audit. This audit provides the adjustment factors used in the calculation of program savings results. The adjustment factor ensures that only those participants who install, and keep installed, the ESK measures are included in the program savings calculation. The results from the audit of the ESK program for the two delivery methods, HVAC Partnership and Direct-to-Customer are presented in Table 7.4 and Table 7.5.

Table 7.4 - Adjustment Factors - HVAC

ESK – HVAC Measure Verified Installed

Measure Remained Installed

Adjustment Factor

Low-Flow Shower Head 70.0% 96.0% 67.2%

Faucet Aerator 60.0% 96.5% 57.9% Pipe Wrap 66.0% 100.0% 66.0%

Table 7.5 - Adjustment Factor - Home Depot

ESK – Home Depot

Measure Verified Installed

Measure Remained Installed

Adjustment Factor

Low-Flow Shower Head 71.0% 96.0% 68.2%

Faucet Aerator 58.0% 83.5% 48.4% Pipe Wrap 64.0% 94.0% 60.2%

Adjustments factors related to these programs have been relatively consistent year over year as shown in Table 7.6.

55

Table 7.6 - Historical Adjustment Factors

ESK’s – HVAC Historical

Adjustments Factors

2005 2004 2003

Low-Flow Shower Head 70% 62% 66%

Faucet Aerator 60% 60% 67% Pipe Wrap 66% 70% 63%

Results suggest the ESK program is still valuable to Union’s residential customers.

7.2. Commercial Custom Project Audits Each year Union conducts an audit of the commercial sector custom projects program. In completing this work, Union looks to validate that the claimed savings reported through the custom projects process are accurate. For 2005, five custom projects from the commercial sector were audited. These five projects were selected randomly, in the presence of the auditor, Building Innovation Inc. The objectives of these audits were as follows:

• Determine if savings calculation made in application was reasonable based on information available at time made

• Compare provided savings with secondary estimate of gas savings • Verify equipment installation was completed at site

Appendix H contains the executive summary taken from the audit report. The results of the 5 audit projects undertaken are presented in Table 7.7.

Table 7.7 – Custom Project Audit Results

Natural Gas Savings Site Claimed Savings

(m3/year) Audited Savings

(m3/year) Site #1 8,540 6,242 Site #2 10,700 11,462 Site #3 14,311 6,013 Site #4 21,184 21,518 Site #5 162,241 147,297 Total of Above 216,976 192,531

Through the audit process, it is apparent that the claimed savings supplied on the application forms are accurate against the modeled savings calculations completed by

56

Building Innovation. The audit provides assurance to stakeholders that claimed savings generated through the program are accurate.

7.3. Distribution Contract Evaluation Each year Union conducts an audit of the distribution contract sector custom projects program. In completing this work, Union looks to validate that the claimed savings reported through the custom projects process are accurate. For 2005, five custom projects from the distribution contract sector were audited. These five projects were selected randomly, in the presence of the auditor, TopPEM. The objectives of these audits were as follows:

• Determine if savings calculation made in application was reasonable based on information available at time made

• Compare provided savings with secondary estimate of gas savings • Verify equipment installation was completed at site

The results of the 5 audit projects undertaken are detailed in Table 7.8.

Table 7.8 - Distribution Contract Custom Project Audit Results

Natural Gas Savings

Site Claimed Savings

(m3/year)

Audit Results (m3/year)

Site #1 (Steam boiler exhaust energy recovery)

482,715 394,052 – 466,295

Site #2 (Tank roof insulation, boiler & process heater air preheat, convert high pressure steam to low pressure )

1,810,722 1,371,231 – 2,367,759

Site #3 (Alkaline heat exchanger) 1,332,032 1,343,628

Site #4 (Various projects) 8,628,888 9,787,790 – 10,163,674

Site #5 (boiler replacement project) 554,942 450,803

Total 12,809,299 13,347,504 – 14,792,159

It is apparent through the findings of the Audit that Union’s claimed savings are accurate.

57

8. Research - Input Assumptions In 2005, a complete internal review and update of the DSM input assumptions for prescriptive programs was undertaken by the Market Knowledge department (Technology, Research, and Standards) at Union Gas. Natural gas, electricity, and water savings were calculated for each measure based on the best information available at that time. The updated savings values were based on a number of different sources which included engineering calculations, simulation programs, and research reports. Generally, savings from water conservation measures e.g., low flow showerheads, can be determined from simple engineering calculations based on typical usage assumptions reported by organizations such as ASHRAE and NRCan. Space heating measures, because of their inherent complexity, generally require the use of detailed simulation programs e.g., HOT2XP, or field testing data (initiated internally or reported by credible third parties such as NRCan) to develop savings claims. The savings numbers were calculated to be reflective of what a “typical” Union Gas customer would achieve by undertaking each measure. A “typical” residential customer is defined by their household size, home size, resource consumption patterns, and building and equipment characteristics. This information has been collected from a number of sources such as Statistics Canada, NRCan, ASHRAE, and internal market research data. A “typical” commercial customer is generally specific to a certain market segment such as food service or offices. A “typical” commercial customer may be defined by their building size, occupancy schedule, resource consumption patters, and building and equipment characteristics. This information has been collected from a number of sources such as NRCan, ASHRAE, and internal market research data. Savings numbers are quoted for two regions in the Union Gas franchise area, Union South and Union North - typically represented by London and North Bay weather conditions. The methodology and calculations used in the creation of these updated assumptions are included in Appendix I . These assumptions have been used in calculating the 2005 pre-audit LRAM statement found in this evaluation report.

58

9. Lost Revenue Adjustment Mechanism (LRAM) The LRAM is the Ontario Energy Board approved mechanism which allows the utility to recover the lost distribution revenues associated with DSM activity. These lost revenues are calculated for each rate class impacted by DSM energy efficiency programs. Calculation:

∑(Rate Class Volume Reduction x 2005 Delivery Rate) = LRAM Claimed

The LRAM statement has been prepared using the measure input assumptions detailed in the Research section of this evaluation report. Both these input assumptions, as well as the free riders used in the calculation of the savings number are deemed to be the most up-to-date and accurate as of the time of this report. Free rider assumptions used reflect those established through the 2004 audit process with the exception of the Infrared Manufacturer Participation initiative. For this initiative, the free riders established through the marketPOWER research project (conducted in 2004) have been used. A new study to determine free riders for the Infrared Manufacturer Participation initiative will be conducted in 2006 and these assumptions will be used to update the LRAM statement when completed. The detailed results sheet representing these inputs is included in Appendix J. For 2005 the full year LRAM amount is $1.5 million based on 2005 delivery rates and savings of 64.8 million m3. The 2005 LRAM statement is included in Appendix K .

59

10. Shared Savings Mechanism (SSM) For 2005, Union is eligible for an SSM incentive based on DSM program results. The SSM incentive payment has been calculated using the methodology determined in the ADR. The SSM incentive is calculated using the following equation:

SSM = (Net TRC – 75,000,000) x 18%

The net TRC calculation for 2005 is shown in Table 10.1.

Table 10.1 – 2005 Net TRC New Home Construction ($1,725,815)

Home Retrofit $6,945,228 Total Residential $5,219,413

New Building Construction $5,768,840

Building Retrofit $35,954,428 Industrial General Service $90,177

Total Commercial $41,813,445

Distribution Contract $52,727,835

Program TRC $99,760,694

Salaries and Wages ($351,519) Research and Evaluation ($603,273)

Overhead ($1,700,000) O&M Expenditures ($2,654,792)

NET TRC $97,105,902

SSM = [($99,760,694 – $2,654,792) – $75,000,000] x 18% = $3.98 million

A measure by measure detailed TRC results table is available in Appendix L.

Programs Participants Annual Unit Savings

Free Rider %

Measure Life

Unit Incremental

Cost

Direct Program

Costs

All Measures ACTUAL Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed ACTUAL

All Measures ACTUAL Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed ACTUAL

Condensing Boiler - 1000 to 1499 MBtu/h ACTUAL Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed ACTUALCondensing Boiler - 300 to 999 MBtu/h ACTUAL Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed ACTUALCondensing Boiler - up to 299 MBtu/h ACTUAL Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed ACTUALCondensing Gas Water Heater ACTUAL Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed ACTUALCustom Application ACTUAL ACTUAL Fixed ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUALERV - 1001 to 10000 cfm ACTUAL Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed ACTUALERV - up to 1000 cfm ACTUAL Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed ACTUALHeat recovery ventilator HRV ACTUAL Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed ACTUALInfrared Heating - LI - 20 to 75 MBtu/hr ACTUAL Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed ACTUALInfrared Heating - LI - 76 to 150 MBtu/hr ACTUAL Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed ACTUALInfrared Heating - LI - Over 150 MBtu/hr ACTUAL Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed ACTUALInfrared Procurement ACTUAL Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed ACTUALPower Comb Boiler - 1000 to 1499 Mbtu/h ACTUAL Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed ACTUALPower Comb Boiler - 300 to 999 Mbtu/h ACTUAL Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed ACTUALPower Comb Boiler - up to 299 Mbtu/h ACTUAL Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed ACTUALRooftop Unit ACTUAL Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed ACTUALBUILDING RETROFITCondensing Boiler - 1000 to 1499 MBtu/h ACTUAL Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed ACTUALCondensing Boiler - 300 to 999 MBtu/h ACTUAL Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed ACTUALCondensing Boiler - up to 299 MBtu/h ACTUAL Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed ACTUALCondensing Gas Water Heater ACTUAL Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed ACTUALCustom Application ACTUAL ACTUAL Fixed ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUALERV - 1001 to 10000 cfm ACTUAL Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed ACTUALERV - up to 1000 cfm ACTUAL Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed ACTUALFurnace - High Efficiency ACTUAL Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed ACTUALHeat recovery ventilator HRV ACTUAL Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed ACTUALInfrared Heating - LI - 20 to 75 MBtu/hr ACTUAL Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed ACTUALInfrared Heating - LI - 76 to 150 MBtu/hr ACTUAL Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed ACTUALInfrared Heating - LI - Over 150 MBtu/hr ACTUAL Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed ACTUALInfrared Procurement ACTUAL Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed ACTUALPower Comb Boiler - 1000 to 1499 Mbtu/h ACTUAL Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed ACTUALPower Comb Boiler - 300 to 999 Mbtu/h ACTUAL Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed ACTUALPower Comb Boiler - up to 299 Mbtu/h ACTUAL Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed ACTUALRooftop Unit ACTUAL Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed ACTUALPre-Rinse Low-Flow Spray Valves ACTUAL Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed ACTUALLow-Flow Showerhead ACTUAL Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed ACTUALLow-Flow Aerators ACTUAL Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed ACTUALWater Heater Tank De-liming ACTUAL Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed ACTUALINDUSTRIAL GENERAL SERVICECustom Application ACTUAL ACTUAL Fixed ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL

Custom Application - Large ACTUAL ACTUAL Fixed ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL

Appendix A - 2005 Input Assumptions

DISTRIBUTION CONTRACT MARKET

NEW BUILDING CONSTRUCTION

HOME RETROFIT

NEW HOME CONSTRUCTION

60

Appendix B – Input Assumptions (LRAM) Residential 2005 Updated DSM Plan Input Assumptions (changes from 2005 ADR are in bold)

M3 Savings

KWH Savings

Litre Savings

Incremental Cost

M3 Savings

KWH Savings

Litre Savings

Incremental Cost

NEW HOME CONSTRUCTION Furnace - High Efficiency - BC 2005 - Updated 218 - - 590 245 - - 780 19 30.0%

2005 - ADR 218 - - 700 245 - - 700 19 30.0%Thermostat - Programmable - BC 2005 - Updated 172 204 - 70 195 122 - 70 20 30.0%

2005 - ADR 140 - - 70 180 - - 70 20 30.0% Energy Star for New Homes 2005 - Updated 807 1000 - 3020 895 1000 - 3020 25 0.0%

2005 - ADR 800 - - 5000 800 - - 5000 15 0.0% Low E Windows with argon (R-3) 2005 - Updated 155 28 - 780 115 21 - 780 25 15.0%

2005 - ADR 159 - - 320 177 - - 320 25 15.0%

M3 Savings

KWH Savings

Litre Savings

Incremental Cost

M3 Savings

KWH Savings

Litre Savings

Incremental Cost

HOME RETROFIT ESK - Faucet Aerators - HD 2005 - Updated 14 - 7592 10 14 - 7592 10 8 5.0%

2005 - ADR 16 - 4200 17 - 4200 8 5.0% ESK - Pipe Insulation - 2 m - HD 2005 - Updated 17 - - 1 17 - - 1 20 10.0%

2005 - ADR 17 - - - 18 - - - 20 10.0% ESK - Showerhead - Low Flow - HD 2005 - Updated 91 - 30000 11 91 - 30000 11 11 10.0%

2005 - ADR 91 - 42000 - 96 - 42000 - 11 10.0% ESK - Faucet Aerators - HVAC 2005 - Updated 14 - 7592 10 14 - 7592 10 8 5.0%

2005 - ADR 16 - 4200 - 17 - 4200 - 8 5.0% ESK - Pipe Insulation - 2 m - HVAC 2005 - Updated 17 - - 1 17 - - 1 20 10.0%

2005 - ADR 17 - - - 18 - - - 20 10.0% ESK - Showerhead - Low Flow - HVAC 2005 - Updated 91 - 30000 11 91 - 30000 11 11 10.0%

2005 - ADR 91 - 42000 - 96 - 42000 - 11 10.0% Front Load Washer 2005 - Updated 55 31 28731 350 55 31 28731 350 13 8.0%

2005 - ADR 55 - - 400 55 - - 400 15 8.0%Energy Star Window 2005 - Updated 11 17 - 48 14 15 - 60 25 20.0%

2005 - ADR 11 - - 48 14 - - 48 25 20.0% Furnace - High Efficiency - HVAC 2005 - Updated 247 - - 590 343 - - 780 19 60.0%

2005 - ADR 247 - - 800 343 - - 800 19 60.0% Furnace - High Efficiency - Direct to Consumers 2005 - Updated 247 - - 590 343 - - 780 19 60.0%

2005 - ADR 247 - - 800 343 - - 800 19 60.0% Furnace - High Efficiency w Fan - Direct to Consume 2005 - Updated 344 550 - 1510 487 500 - 1685 19 60.0%

2005 - ADR 344 - - 1200 487 - - 1200 19 60.0% Power Comb Boiler - up to 299 Mbtu/h 2005 - Updated 606 - - 500 781 - - 500 25 51.0%

2005 - ADR 100 - - 500 100 - - 500 25 51.0% Condensing Boiler - up to 299 MBtu/h 2005 - Updated 850 - - 1300 1100 - - 1300 25 0.0%

2005 - ADR 1100 - - 1300 1100 - - 1300 25 0.0%Thermostat - Programmable - HVAC 2005 - Updated 186 163 - 80 258 126 - 80 20 75.0%

2005 - ADR 232 - - 80 290 - - 80 20 75.0%Thermostat - Programmable - Direct to Consumers 2005 - Updated 219 163 - 80 304 126 - 80 20 75.0%

2005 - ADR 232 - - 80 290 - - 80 20 75.0% Condensing Gas Water Heater 2005 - Updated 202 - - 1000 206 - - 1000 9 0.0%

2005 - ADR 219 - - 1000 230 - - 1000 15 0.0% Low E Window (R3) Avg. 2005 - Updated 7 1 - 35 9 1 - 35 25 30.0%

2005 - ADR 86 - - 90 98 - - 90 25 30.0%

Measure South Input Assumptions Per Unit of Measure

Equipment Life (Years)

North Year Free Riders

South North Equipment Life (Years)

Free Riders Year

Input Assumptions Per Unit of Measure

Measure

62

Commercial M3

Savings KWH

Savings Litre

Savings Incremental

Cost M3

Savings KWH

Savings Litre

Savings Incremental

Cost NEW BUILDING CONSTRUCTION Condensing Boiler -300 to 999 MBtu/h 2005 - Updated 5773 - - 19000 7534 - - 19000 25 5.0%

2005 - ADR 5350 - - 19000 5250 - - 19000 25 5.0% Condensing Boiler - 1000 to 1499 MBtu/h 2005 - Updated 8460 - - 29000 11040 - - 29000 25 5.0%



2005 - ADR 1328 - - 4200 1328 - - 4200 15 5.0% ERV - 1001 to 10000 cfm 2005 - Updated 9125 - - 14000 9125 - - 14000 15 5.0%

2005 - ADR 9125 - - 13886 9125 - - 14000 15 5.0% ERV - up to 1000 cfm 2005 - Updated 3250 - - 4500 4105 - - 4500 15 5.0%

2005 - ADR 3061 3500 3061 3500 15 5.0% Heat recovery ventilator HRV 2005 - Updated 2455 - - 1700 3229 - - 1700 15 0.0%

2005 - ADR 1092 - - 1700 1092 - - 1700 15 0.0% Infrared Heating - LI - 20 to 75 MBtu/hr 2005 - Updated 898 700 - 200 971 758 - 200 20 33.0%

2005 - ADR 750 - - 350 750 - - 350 20 17.5% Infrared Heating - LI - Over 150 MBtu/hr 2005 - Updated 3591 2100 - 80 3883 2270 - 80 20 33.0%


2005 - ADR 1500 - - 400 1500 - - 400 20 17.5% Infrared Procurement over 150 Mbtu/hr 2005 - Updated 1616 700 - 80 1616 700 - 80 20 34.5%

2005 - ADR 1616 - - 369 1616 - - 369 20 17.5% Power Comb Boiler -300 to 999 Mbtu/h 2005 - Updated 4110 - - 5500 5737 - - 5500 25 51.0%

2005 - ADR 2000 - - 5500 2000 - - 5500 25 51.0% Power Comb Boiler - 1000 to 1499 Mbtu/h 2005 - Updated 6636 - - 16000 9382 - - 16000 25 51.0%


2005 - ADR 400 - - 500 400 - - 500 25 51.0% Rooftop Unit 2005 - Updated 1275 - - 1250 1275 - - 1250 20 0.0%

2005 - ADR 1275 - - 1250 1275 - - 1250 15 0.0%

Input Assumptions Per Unit of Measure Equipment Life (Years)

Free Riders Year South North Measure

M3 Savings

KWH Savings

Litre Savings

Incremental Cost

M3 Savings

KWH Savings

Litre Savings

Incremental Cost

EXISTING BUILDINGS PROGRAM Condensing Boiler -300 to 999 MBtu/h 2005 - Updated 5773 - - 19000 7534 - - 19000 25 5.0%

2005 - ADR 5350 - - 19000 5250 - - 19000 25 5.0% Condensing Boiler - 1000 to 1499 MBtu/h 2005 - Updated 8460 - - 29000 11040 - - 29000 25 5.0%



2005 - ADR 1328 - - 4200 1328 - - 4200 15 5.0% ERV - 1001 to 10000 cfm 2005 - Updated 9125 - - 14000 9125 - - 14000 15 5.0%

2005 - ADR 9125 - - 14000 9125 - - 14000 15 5.0% ERV - up to 1000 cfm 2005 - Updated 3250 - - 4500 4105 - - 4500 15 5.0%

2005 - ADR 3061 3500 3061 3500 15 5.0% Heat recovery ventilator HRV 2005 - Updated 2455 - - 1700 3229 - - 1700 15 0.0%


2005 - ADR 750 - - 350 750 - - 350 20 17.5% Infrared Heating - LI - Over 150 MBtu/hr 2005 - Updated 3591 2100 - 80 3883 2270 - 80 20 33.0%


2005 - ADR 1500 - - 400 1500 - - 400 20 17.5% Infrared Procurement 2005 - Updated 2095 700 - 80 2694 700 - 80 20 34.5%

2005 - ADR 2095 - - 369 2694 - - 369 20 17.5% Power Comb Boiler -300 to 999 Mbtu/h 2005 - Updated 4110 - - 5500 5737 - - 5500 25 51.0%

2005 - ADR 2000 - - 5500 2000 - - 5500 25 51.0% Power Comb Boiler - 1000 to 1499 Mbtu/h 2005 - Updated 6636 - - 16000 9382 - - 16000 25 51.0%


2005 - ADR 400 - - 500 400 - - 500 25 51.0% Rooftop Unit 2005 - Updated 1275 - - 1250 1275 - - 1250 20 0.0%

2005 - ADR 1275 - - 1250 1275 - - 1250 15 0.0%High Efficiency Furnace 2005 - Updated 247 - - 590 343 - - 780 19 40.0%

2005 - ADR 635 - - 800 793 - - 800 19 40.0%Showerhead - Low Flow 2005 - Updated 91 - 30000 11 91 - 30000 11 10 0.0%

2005 - ADR 91 - 42000 11 96 - 42000 11 11 0.0%Faucet Aerators 2005 - Updated 14 - 7592 5 14 - 7592 5 10 0.0%

2005 - ADR 16 - 4200 - 17 - 4200 - 8 0.0% Pre-Rinse Low-Flow Spray Nozzle 2005 - Updated 2435 - 432840 100 2435 - 432840 100 5 0.0%

2005 - ADR 700 - - 100 700 - - 100 10 0.0% Water Heater Tank De-liming 2005 - Updated 1033 - - 150 1033 - - 150 3 0.0%

2005 - ADR 1033 - - 150 1033 - - 150 3 0.0%

Notes:(1) Marginal Cost File is Weather Sensitive Gas, Electricity and Water Base Gas Price as filed in EBRO 499 under Exhibit D1, Tab 5, Appendix B, under Appendix C - Section 1 (UnionSouth), and under Appendix D - Section 1 (Union North).(2) Marginal Cost File is Baseload Gas, Electricity and Water Base Gas Price as filed in EBRO 499 under Exhibit D1, Tab 5, Appendix B, under Appendix C - Section 1 (Union South),and under Appendix D - Section 1 (Union North).(3 Marginal Cost File is Industrial Gas, Electricity, Oil & Propane as filed in EBRO 499 under Exhibit D1, Tab 5, Appendix B, under Appendix C - Section 1 (Union South), and underAppendix D - Section 1 (Union North).

South North Equipment Life (Years)

Free Riders

Input Assumptions Per Unit of Measure

Year Measure

63

Appendix C - Program Screening Results

Test Benefits Costs Net Benefits B/C Ratio

New Home SCT ($0) 1,823,032$ 3,548,847$ (1,725,815)$ 0.51Construction SCT ($40) 1,889,875$ 3,548,847$ (1,658,972)$ 0.53

SCT ($60) 2,319,577$ 3,548,847$ (1,229,270)$ 0.65RIM 668,276$ 1,199,963$ (531,687)$ 0.56PCT 3,152,475$ 4,399,486$ (1,247,011)$ 0.72

Home Retrofit SCT ($0) 12,511,885$ 5,566,657$ 6,945,228$ 2.25SCT ($40) 16,047,871$ 5,566,657$ 10,481,214$ 2.88SCT ($60) 18,005,182$ 5,566,657$ 12,438,525$ 3.23RIM 2,999,119$ 6,140,999$ (3,141,880)$ 0.49PCT 51,024,828$ 14,113,603$ 36,911,225$ 3.62

New SCT ($0) 8,282,220$ 2,513,380$ 5,768,840$ 3.30Building SCT ($40) 11,938,246$ 2,513,380$ 9,422,887$ 4.75Construction SCT ($60) 13,992,240$ 2,513,380$ 11,476,881$ 5.57

RIM 3,213,942$ 5,001,898$ (1,787,956)$ 0.64PCT 17,788,585$ 3,737,438$ 14,051,147$ 4.76

Building SCT ($0) 44,216,218$ 8,261,790$ 35,954,428$ 5.35Retrofit SCT ($40) 62,094,325$ 8,261,790$ 53,251,802$ 7.52

SCT ($60) 73,160,126$ 8,261,790$ 64,317,603$ 8.86RIM 11,514,232$ 18,437,193$ (6,922,961)$ 0.62PCT 85,793,426$ 12,741,329$ 73,052,097$ 6.73

Industrial SCT ($0) 161,906$ 71,729$ 90,177$ 2.26General Service SCT ($40) 259,638$ 71,729$ 208,292$ 3.62

SCT ($60) 312,401$ 71,729$ 261,055$ 4.36RIM 65,855$ 109,499$ (43,644)$ 0.60PCT 433,404$ 117,840$ 315,564$ 3.68

Distribution Contract SCT ($0) 70,535,574$ 17,807,739$ 52,727,835$ 3.96SCT ($40) 107,232,654$ 17,807,739$ 89,368,341$ 6.02SCT ($60) 127,075,735$ 17,807,739$ 109,211,422$ 7.14RIM 25,263,850$ 41,603,763$ (16,339,913)$ 0.61PCT 168,256,366$ 29,080,689$ 139,175,677$ 5.79

COSTS SCT ($0) 2,654,792$ (2,654,792)$ 0.00SCT ($40) 2,654,792$ (2,654,792)$ 0.00SCT ($60) 2,654,792$ (2,654,792)$ 0.00RIM 2,654,792$ (2,654,792)$ 0.00PCT 2,654,792$ (2,654,792)$ 0.00

Total Programs SCT ($0) 137,530,836$ 40,424,934$ 97,105,902$ 3.40SCT ($40) 199,462,609$ 40,424,934$ 158,418,772$ 4.93SCT ($60) 234,865,261$ 40,424,934$ 193,821,424$ 5.81RIM 43,725,274$ 75,148,107$ (31,422,833)$ 0.58PCT 326,449,084$ 66,845,177$ 259,603,907$ 4.88

Note: TRC = SCT($0)

Appendix - D - 2005/20004 DSM Results

Residential 2005 Program TRCNew Home Construction Participants m3 Savings Participants m3 Savings Participants SavingsEducational MeasuresCo-Op Advertising 8 0 24 0 -16 0M3 Savings MeasuresBuild Comfort -$1,715,744 8,486 847,178 11,922 1,231,799 -3,436 -384,621R2000 -$15,243 49 45,000 59 53,800 -10 -8,800Pipe Insulation $5,172 222 3,397 0 0 222 3,397Total New Home Construction -$1,725,815 8,765 895,574 12,005 1,285,599 -3,240 -390,025

Home RetrofitEducational MeasuresBooklet - Engee Kids 352 0 541 0 -189 0Booklet - WEUG 4,729 0 11,057 0 -6,328 0M3 Savings MeasuresPower Comb. Boilers -$5,243 37 1,813 55 2,695 -18 -882Condensing Boiler - up to 299 $47,455 51 56,100 137 150,700 -86 -94,600Condensing Gas Water Heater -$16,289 23 5,191 167 37,277 -144 -32,086ENERGY STAR Windows -$86,113 4,506 34,696 1,776 13,675 2,730 21,021Low E Windows $126,217 2,385 144,686 2,191 132,553 194 12,133Front Load Washers -$88,541 299 15,129 0 0 299 15,129High Efficiency Furnaces -$1,695,132 12,714 1,367,441 17,907 2,870,479 -5,193 -1,503,038Programmable Thermostat $1,484,085 17,594 1,054,904 13,813 826,602 3,781 228,302Home Depot - Thermostat $25,859 275 17,009 517 31,190 -242 -14,181Energy Savings Kits $7,152,930 126,600 2,119,332 28,175 464,682 98,425 1,654,650Total Home Retrofit $6,945,228 169,565 4,816,301 76,336 4,529,853 93,229 286,448

Total Residential $5,219,413 178,330 5,711,875 88,341 5,815,452 89,989 -103,577

2005 2004 2005 vs. 2004 Actuals

65

Commercial 2005 Program TRCNew Building Construction Participants m3 Savings Participants m3 Savings Participants SavingsEducational MeasuresFeasibility Studies (+ DAP) 20 0 11 0 9 0M3 Savings MeasuresPower Combustion Boilers -$67,341 44 47,530 139 150,920 -95 -103,390Condensing Boilers -$29,120 22 53,938 33 158,793 -11 -104,855Condensing Gas Water Heater -$29,030 13 16,401 2 2,523 11 13,878Rooftop Unit $22,348 25 31,875 30 38,250 -5 -6,375ERV's $116,611 49 361,400 59 514,460 -10 -153,060HRV's $357 65 70,980 18 19,656 47 51,324Infrared Heating $405,468 157 247,502 159 221,513 -2 25,989Infrared Manufacturer Part. $4,142,224 1,923 2,563,741 1,832 2,549,869 91 13,872Custom Projects $1,207,323 50 1,085,477 135 6,768,376 -85 -5,682,899

Total New Building Construction $5,768,840 2,368 4,478,844 2,235 10,424,360 133 -5,945,516

Building RetrofitEducational MeasuresFeasibility Studies 55 0 32 0 23 0Audits - Boiler 48 0 40 0 8 0M3 Savings MeasuresWater Heater Tank De-Liming $13,715 56 57,848 55 56,815 1 1,033Condensing Gas Water Heater -$15,122 7 8,831 36 47,808 -29 -38,977Condensing Boiler -$203,796 56 252,715 69 293,888 -13 -41,173Power Combustion Boiler -$86,872 79 72,716 121 145,040 -42 -72,324Furnace - HE $63,781 240 96,370 405 164,164 -165 -67,794

2005 2004 2005 & 2004 Actuals

66

HRV $1,771 16 17,472 42 45,864 -26 -28,392ERV $112,108 50 347,026 72 838,419 -22 -491,393Rooftop Unit $6,680 7 8,925 35 44,625 -28 -35,700HWC - Faucet Aerators $744,470 20,047 322,725 1,283 20,528 18,764 302,197HWC - Shower Head $9,406,139 24,854 2,294,709 1,057 96,187 23,797 2,198,522Pre-Rinse Low flow Spray Nozzle $428,652 670 469,000 0 0 670 469,000Infrared Heating $726,478 297 444,882 402 678,301 -105 -233,419Infrared Manufacturer Part. $10,853,528 3,633 6,454,617 4,620 7,787,625 -987 -1,333,008Custom Projects $13,902,896 641 6,232,140 312 9,808,677 329 -3,576,537

Total Building Retrofit $35,954,428 50,756 17,079,976 8,581 20,027,941 42,175 -2,947,965

Total Commercial Program $41,723,268 53,124 21,558,820 10,816 30,452,301 42,308 -8,893,481

Industrial General Service 2005 Program TRCM3 Savings Measures Participants m3 Savings Participants m3 Savings Participants SavingsCustom Applications $90,177 5 121,806 0 0 5 121,806

Industrial 2005 Program TRCEducational Measures Participants m3 Savings Participants m3 Savings Participants SavingsAudits - Boiler 23 0 15 0 8 0Feasibility Studies 29 0 7 0 22 0M3 Savings MeasuresCustom Applications $52,727,835 194 44,414,565 121 29,947,311 73 14,467,254

Total Industrial $52,727,835 246 44,414,565 143 29,947,311 103 14,467,254

2004 2005 & 2004 Actuals

2005 2004 2005 & 2004 Actuals

2005

67

Participants m3/unit Net Savings (m3)* Participants m3/unit Net Savings

(m3)* Participants Net Savings (m3)*

Educational InitiativesCo-op Advertising 0% - 5 0 0 3 0 0 8 0

m3 Savings InitiativesR2000 0% - 29 1,000 29,000 20 800 16,000 49 45,000Pipe Insulation - Two metres 10% - 0 18 0 222 17 3,397 222 3,397

Build Comfort Initiative PackagesBasement Insulation (R-12) 0% - 592 45 26,640 2,705 114 308,370 3,297 335,010Furnace - High Efficiency 30% - 499 245 85,579 897 218 136,882 1,396 222,461Heat recovery ventilator HRV 0% - 499 0 0 897 0 0 1,396 0Low E Windows with argon (R-3) 15% - 238 177 35,807 763 159 103,119 1,001 138,927Thermostat - Programmable 30% - 499 180 62,874 897 140 87,906 1,396 150,780

Total New Home Construction 2,361 1,665 239,900 6,404 655,674 8,765 895,574

Education InitiativesBooklet-WEUG 0% - 2,398 0 0 2,331 0 0 4,729 0Booklet - Engees Kids 0% - 0 0 0 352 0 0 352 0

n3 Savings InitiativesHigh Efficiency Furnace 60% - 2,851 343 391,157 9,822 247 970,414 12,673 1,361,571High Efficiency with Fan 60% - 4 487 779 37 344 5,091 41 5,870Condensing Boiler - up to 299 MBtu/h 0% - 16 1,100 17,600 35 1,100 38,500 51 56,100Power Comb Boiler - up to 299 Mbtu/h 51% - 18 100 882 19 100 931 37 1,813Condensing Gas Water Heater 0% - 14 230 3,220 9 219 1,971 23 5,191Energy Star Window 30% - 0 14 0 4,506 11 34,696 4,506 34,696Low E Window (R3) Avg. 30% - 132 98 9,055 2,253 86 135,631 2,385 144,686Front Load Washer 8% - 22 55 1,113 277 55 14,016 299 15,129Programmable Thermostats 75% - 2,449 290 177,553 15,420 232 894,360 17,869 1,071,913

ESK InitiativesESK - HD-Booklet 0% - 626 0 0 3,321 0 0 3,947 0ESK - HD-Faucet Aerators 5% 48% 1,252 17 9,792 6,642 16 48,894 7,894 58,687ESK - HD-Pipe Insulation - 2 m 10% 60% 626 18 6,101 3,321 17 30,568 3,947 36,669ESK - HD-Showerhead - Low Flow 10% 68% 626 96 36,865 3,321 91 185,388 3,947 222,254

Channel Partner ESK'sESK - Booklet 0% - 6,938 0 0 14,435 0 0 21,373 0ESK - Faucet Aerators 5% 58% 13,876 17 129,976 28,870 16 254,518 42,746 384,494ESK - Pipe Insulation - 2 m 10% 66% 6,938 18 74,181 14,435 17 145,765 21,373 219,946ESK - Showerhead - Low Flow 10% 67% 6,938 96 402,826 14,435 91 794,456 21,373 1,197,282

Total Home Retrofit 45,724 1,261,101 123,841 3,555,199 169,565 4,816,301

Programs Free Rider

Adjustment Factor

North Union Gas Total

Appendix E - Detailed Program ResultsSouth

HOME RETROFIT


68



Research InitiativesFeasibility Studies 0% - 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0Feasibility Study - DAP 0% - 3 0 0 14 0 0 17 0

m3 Savings InitiativesCondensing Boiler - up to 299 MBtu/h 0% - 2 1,100 2,200 14 1,100 15,400 16 17,600Condensing Gas Water Heater 5% - 3 1,328 3,785 10 1,328 12,616 13 16,401Custom Appl - Rate Class Core Comml 10 30% - 13 39,784 362,039 0 0 0 13 362,039Custom Appl - Rate Class M2 / R01 30% - 2 48,084 67,318 35 26,780 656,121 37 723,438ERV - up to 1000 cfm 5% - 0 3,061 0 11 3,061 31,987 11 31,987Heat recovery ventilator HRV 0% - 7 1,092 7,644 58 1,092 63,336 65 70,980Infrared Heating - HI - 20 to 75 MBtu/hr 18% - 1 750 619 1 750 619 2 1,238Infrared Heating - LI 2 Stg - 20 to 75 MBtu/hr 18% - 0 750 0 2 750 1,238 2 1,238Infrared Procurement 20 to 75 Mbtu/hr 18% - 11 1,616 14,665 40 1,616 53,328 51 67,993Power Comb Boiler - up to 299 Mbtu/h 51% - 2 400 392 2 400 392 4 784Rooftop Unit 0% - 11 1,275 14,025 14 1,275 17,850 25 31,875R01 & M2 New Buildings 52 472,686 187 852,886 239 1,325,572

Condensing Boiler - 300 to 999 MBtu/h 5% - 0 0 0 5 5,350 25,413 5 25,413Condensing Boiler - 1000 to 1499 MBtu/h 5% - 0 0 0 1 11,500 10,925 1 10,925ERV - 1001 to 5000 cfm 5% - 3 9,125 26,006 29 9,125 251,394 32 277,400ERV - 5001 to 10000 cfm 5% - 0 9,125 0 6 9,125 52,013 6 52,013Infrared Heating - LI - Over 150 MBtu/hr 18% - 1 3,000 2,475 44 3,000 108,900 45 111,375Infrared Heating - HI - 76 to 150 MBtu/hr 18% - 0 1,500 0 10 1,500 12,375 10 12,375Infrared Heating - LI - 76 to 150 MBtu/hr 18% - 14 1,500 17,325 71 1,500 87,863 85 105,188Infrared Heating - LI 2 Stg - 76 to 150 Mbtu/hr 18% - 0 1,500 0 13 1,500 16,088 13 16,088Infrared Procurement 76 to 150 Mbtu/hr 18% - 172 1,616 229,310 1,150 1,616 1,533,180 1,322 1,762,490Infrared Procurement over 150 Mbtu/hr 18% - 11 1,616 14,665 539 1,616 718,595 550 733,260Power Comb Boiler - 300 to 999 Mbtu/h 51% - 5 2,000 4,900 24 2,000 23,520 29 28,420Power Comb Boiler - 1000 to 1499 Mbtu/h 51% - 0 3,400 0 11 3,400 18,326 11 18,326R10 & M2 New Buildings 206 294,682 1,903 2,858,590 2,109 3,153,271

Total New Building Construction 264 767,368 2,104 3,711,476 2,368 4,478,844

Programs Free Rider

North Union Gas TotalAdjustment Factor


South

69



BUILDING RETROFIT

Research InitiativesAudits - Boiler 0% - 0 0 0 48 0 0 48 0Feasibility Studies 0% - 23 0 0 32 0 0 55 0

m3 Savings InitiativesCondensing Boiler - up to 299 MBtu/h 0% - 3 1,100 3,300 18 1,100 19,800 21 23,100Condensing Gas Water Heater 5% - 7 1,328 8,831 0 1,328 0 7 8,831Custom Appl - Rate Class Core Comml 10 30% - 70 14,312 701,280 0 0 0 70 701,280Custom Appl - Rate Class M2 / R01 30% - 29 26,839 544,826 529 12,940 4,791,697 558 5,336,523ERV - up to 1000 cfm 5% - 0 3,061 0 15 3,061 43,619 15 43,619Furnace - High Efficiency 40% - 52 793 24,742 188 635 71,628 240 96,370Heat recovery ventilator HRV 0% - 6 1,092 6,552 10 1,092 10,920 16 17,472HWC:MFP-Faucet Aerators 0% - 0 17 0 11,881 16 190,096 11,881 190,096HWC:MFP-Shower Head - Low Flow 0% - 134 96 12,864 10,104 91 919,464 10,238 932,328HWC:SHP-Faucet Aerators 0% - 1,973 17 33,541 6,193 16 99,088 8,166 132,629HWC:SHP-Shower Head - Low Flow 0% - 6,465 96 620,640 8,151 91 741,741 14,616 1,362,381Infrared Heating - LI - 20 to 75 MBtu/hr 18% - 0 750 0 11 750 6,806 11 6,806Infrared Heating - HI - 20 to 75 MBtu/hr 18% - 2 750 1,238 0 750 0 2 1,238Infrared Procurement 20 to 75 Mbtu/hr 18% - 22 2,694 48,896 133 2,095 229,874 155 278,770Power Comb Boiler - up to 299 Mbtu/h 51% - 2 400 392 18 400 3,528 20 3,920Pre-Rinse Low-Flow Spray Nozzle 0% - 172 700 120,400 498 700 348,600 670 469,000Rooftop Unit 0% - 4 1,275 5,100 3 1,275 3,825 7 8,925Water Heater Tank De-liming 0% - 5 1,033 5,165 51 1,033 52,683 56 57,848R01 & M2 Existing Retrofits 8,969 2,137,767 37,883 7,533,369 46,797 9,671,136

Condensing Boiler - 300 to 999 MBtu/h 5% - 9 5,250 44,888 17 5,350 86,403 26 131,290Condensing Boiler - 1000 to 1499 MBtu/h 5% - 2 11,500 21,850 7 11,500 76,475 9 98,325Custom Appl - Cont Rate Class 30% - 0 0 0 1 33,808 23,666 1 23,666Custom Appl - Rate Class LCI Comml 10 30% - 12 20,318 170,671 0 0 0 12 170,671ERV - 1001 to 5000 cfm 5% - 7 9,125 60,681 19 9,125 164,706 26 225,388ERV - 5001 to 10000 cfm 5% - 4 9,125 34,675 5 9,125 43,344 9 78,019Infrared Heating - LI - Over 150 MBtu/hr 18% - 3 3,000 7,425 66 3,000 163,350 69 170,775Infrared Heating - HI - 76 to 150 MBtu/hr 18% - 2 1,500 2,475 3 1,500 3,713 5 6,188Infrared Heating - LI - 76 to 150 MBtu/hr 18% - 22 1,500 27,225 188 1,500 232,650 210 259,875Infrared Procurement 76 to 150 Mbtu/hr 18% - 294 2,694 653,430 2,339 2,095 4,042,669 2,633 4,696,099Infrared Procurement over 150 Mbtu/hr 18% - 39 2,694 86,679 806 2,095 1,393,070 845 1,479,750Power Comb Boiler - 300 to 999 Mbtu/h 51% - 25 2,000 24,500 18 2,000 17,640 43 42,140Power Comb Boiler - 1000 to 1499 Mbtu/h 51% - 2 3,400 3,332 14 3,400 23,324 16 26,656R10 & M2 Building Retrofit 421 1,137,831 3,483 6,271,009 3,959 7,408,840

Total Building Retrofit 9,390 3,275,598 41,366 13,804,378 50,756 17,079,976

Free Rider

South Union Gas TotalPrograms Adjustment

Factor

North

70



INDUSTRIAL GENERAL SERVICE

Custom Appl - Rate Class M2 / R01 30% - 0 0 0 5 34,802 121,806 5 121,806

Total Industrial General Service 0 0 5 121,806 5 121,806


m3 Savings InitiativesCustom Appl - Cont Rate Class 30% - 0 0 0 24 2,885 1,677,998 24 1,677,998Custom Appl - Rate Class LCI Comml 10 30% - 7 100,311 491,523 2 4,395 6,153 9 497,676Custom Appl - Cont Rate Class 30% - 27 952,561 18,003,402 134 258,374 24,235,488 161 42,238,890

Distribution Contract Market 44 18,494,925 202 25,919,639 246 44,414,565

2005 DSM PROGRAM TOTAL 57,783 24,038,892 174,732 47,768,173 231,705 71,807,065

Programs Free Rider

Adjustment Factor

North South Union Gas Total


71

Appendix F –Website Example Energy Ideas Home Website One of the unique features of the residential energy efficiency webpage was the development of an advanced, interactive energy efficiency tool. This tool is dedicated to increasing residential customer awareness of potential energy savings opportunities. For purposes of the evaluation report, an example of the tool is shown. This example demonstrates the information provided through the website based on a customer utilizing the “Bathroom” scenario. The online version of this web tool can be viewed at: http://www.uniongas.com/home/ngforhome/energysavings/saveMoneyEnergy/saveMoneyEnergyIndex.asp

Through this website, residential customers are able to navigate their way through the various rooms in the virtual home which educate them on the diverse range of energy efficiency options available to them. The rooms covered through website are:

attic, bedroom, bathroom, outside, kitchen, laundry room, home office, living room, basement

In the “Bathroom” scenario, the customer selects the appropriate icon, and is transposed into the virtual bathroom. Second, a selection can be made as to what particular energy issue is o interest to the customer.

72

In this example, the customer has selected the “Showerhead.” Once selected, detailed information is given on how to achieve efficiency from this equipment. As well, links are provided that allow the customer to obtain additional information on related measures, as well as a link to the WEG. The customer can review the related material in the guide, as well as obtain details on how they can obtain the full version of the WEG.

The new website provides residential customers with an easy to use one-stop-shop to answers on numerous energy efficiency questions and provides with them a vast amount of information related to additional measures they can incorporate in order to save energy.

73

Appendix G – Residential Initiative Audit Results 1) ESK – Home Depot Audit Results

Final Report Following

An Audit in 2006 of the Union Gas ESK—Home Depot Initiative (2005)

Objectives of this ESK—Home Depot Audit The primary objective for this ESK—Home Depot Audit research project was as follows:

1. To validate customers’ awareness of the products received in the kit and determine the products that were actually installed and remain installed.

The secondary objectives for this ESK—Home Depot Audit research project were as follows:

2. To gauge customers’ satisfaction with the products installed, particularly

with respect to energy costs and home comfort

3. To gauge customers’ understanding regarding the benefits of the energy-efficient products received

4. To determine customers’ reasons for installing or not installing products

5. To collect customers’ opinions regarding the types of incentives Union Gas could consider offering to program participants

Executive Summary

Primary Objective: Awareness & Installation of Products Received Information regarding receipt of the kit (100%) and the address of the

recipient (95%) were verified as extremely accurate. Information related to the individual products received was verified as extremely accurate for the showerhead, kitchen faucet aerator and pipe wrap. Verification was accurate for the bathroom faucet aerator. Regarding installation of individual products, three of the four products requiring installation were verified as installed by approximately two-thirds or more of respondents: Showerhead, kitchen faucet aerator and pipe wrap.

74

Objective #2: End-User Satisfaction with Installed Products

Approximately 82% of respondents indicated they are very or extremely satisfied with their new products, and 89% and 79% of respondents, respectively, indicated the products will help save money on heating costs and make their home more comfortable.

Objective #3: End-User Understanding re Benefits of Energy-Efficient Products

Some 93% of total respondents believe high-efficiency heating equipment can play a significant role in saving money on heating costs; and some 90% believe high-efficiency heating equipment can play a significant role in making their home more comfortable. Yet in both cases, less than a majority indicated they believe high-efficiency heating equipment can play a very significant role.

Objective #4: Factors Affecting End-Users’ Decision to Install

Several factors are important in end-users’ decisionmaking to install the products. The main reasons are generally to conserve energy and save money on the heating bill. The main reasons cited by respondents as to why they did not install an item in the kit is that they did not need it/already had it or they had not gotten around to it. In the case of the kitchen faucet aerator, almost one-third of respondents cited that the item did not fit.

Objective #5: Opinions re Other Incentives Union Gas Could Offer

When respondents were asked to identify—one only, on an aided basis—the free incentive Union Gas could offer that would be most useful to them, almost one-third of total respondents selected “rebates after purchasing any high-efficiency natural gas product”. Other incentives presented to respondents also garnered relatively strong support.

ESK-Home Depot—2006 Audit:

Products Installed

Column A

Respondents: # Verified—

Installed

Column B

Respondents: % Verified—

Installed (Base=191)

Column C

Respondents: # Verified—Still

Installed

Column D

Respondents: % Verified—Still

Installed (Base=# in Col A)

Low-flow Showerhead

136

71%

131

96%

Kitchen Faucet Aerator 129 68% 120 93% Bathroom Faucet Aerator 92 48% 68 74%

Pipe Wrap 123 64% 116 94%

75

2) ESK – HVAC Partnership Audit Results

Final Report Following An Audit in 2006 of the Union Gas ESK—Residential Initiative (2005)

Objectives of this ESK—Residential Audit The primary objective for this ESK—Residential Audit research project was as follows:

6. To validate consumers’ awareness of the products received from participating channel partners and determine the products that were actually installed and remain installed.

The secondary objectives for this ESK—Residential Audit research project were as follows:

7. To gauge residential end-users’ satisfaction with the products installed,

particularly with respect to energy costs and home comfort

8. To gauge residential end-users’ understanding regarding the benefits of the energy- efficient products received

9. To determine the influence of channel partners (“the Account”) in residential end-users’ decision to install the products

10. To gauge the performance of channel partners (the “Account”) in the

delivery of the products and of ESK information. Methodology for the ESK—Residential Audit:

Telephone Surveying of End-Users

76

End-User Response Groups

By Region & Reason for Site Visit ESK-Residential—2006 Audit

Area Code519 613 705/807 905/416

Total

ESK: Total Completions=191

155

6

9

21

191

Executive Summary

Primary Objective: Awareness & Installation of Products Received Information in the Union Gas database regarding receipt of the kit (100%),

the site of the visit (90%) and the contractor from whom the kit was received (90%) were verified as extremely accurate. Information related to the individual products received was verified as extremely accurate for the showerhead, kitchen faucet aerator and pipe wrap. Verification was very accurate for the bathroom faucet aerator. Regarding installation of individual products, approximately two-thirds of respondents indicated they had installed three of the four products: Kitchen faucet aerator, showerhead and pipe wrap.

Objective #2: End-User Satisfaction with Installed Products Approximately 84% of respondents indicated they are very or

extremely satisfied with their new products, and 92% and 80% of respondents, respectively, indicated the products will help save money on heating costs and make the home more comfortable.

Objective #3: End-User Understanding re Benefits of Energy-Efficient Products

Some 92% believe high-efficiency heating equipment can play a significant role in saving money on heating costs; and almost 100% believe high-efficiency heating equipment can play a significant role in making their home more comfortable. Yet only about 52% and 45%, respectively, believe high-efficiency heating equipment can play a very significant role.

77

Objective #4: Factors Affecting End-Users’ Decision to Install

Several factors are important in end-users’ decisionmaking to install the products. The main reasons are generally to conserve energy and save money on the heating bill. It appears more likely that someone in the household will install the products, rather than the contractor. The reasons cited by respondents as the main reasons why they did not install an item in the kit is that they did not need it/already had it or they had not gotten around to it. In the case of the kitchen faucet aerator, a significant percentage cited “item did not fit”.

Objective #5: Performance of the Contractor

While it appears more likely that someone in the household—rather than the contractor—will install the products, the contractor nonetheless plays an important role in the ESK Initiative. In addition to installing some of the items in the kit (2%-5% of individual product installations), the contractor is an important source for advice on ways to save money and for explaining energy efficiency to end-users.

ESK-Residential—2006 Audit:

Products Installed

Column A


Installed

Column B


Installed (Base=191)

Column C

Respondents: # Verified—Still

Installed

Column D

Respondents: % Verified—Still

Installed (Base=# in Col A)

Low-flow Showerhead

134

70%

128

96%

Kitchen Faucet Aerator 135 71% 126 93% Bathroom Faucet Aerator 94 49% 94 100%

Pipe Wrap 127 66% 127 100%

78

3) Build Comfort Program Audit Results

Final Report Following An Audit in 2006 of the Union Gas

Build Comfort Program (2005) Objectives of this Audit of the Build Comfort Program The primary objective for this Build Comfort Audit research project was as follows:

11. To validate consumers’ awareness of products installed and verify that information provided by participating channel partners to Union Gas is accurate and reflects the actual products that were installed in the residential locations

The secondary objectives for this Build Comfort Audit research project were as follows:

12. To gauge residential end-users’ satisfaction with their investment in

energy-efficient products, particularly with respect to energy costs and home comfort

13. To gauge residential end-users’ understanding regarding the benefits of the energy-efficient products installed and their knowledge level regarding energy efficiency, in general

14. To determine residential end-users’ awareness of the Build Comfort Program, general awareness of energy efficiency options offered by builders and the information sources they may have encountered prior to making their purchase decision

15. To identify factors affecting end-users’ decision to choose energy-efficient options and determine the influence of the builders/sales representatives (“the Account”) on their decision to install.

Methodology for the BC Audit:

Telephone Surveying of End-Users

79

End-User Response Groups By Package Purchased & Region

Build Comfort—2006 Audit

Area Code 519 613 705/807 905/416

Total BC: Total Completions=190

Residential locations=190

158

17

10

5

190

Basement Package 151 14 5 2 172

Windows Package 27 4 4 4 39

Mechanical Systems Package* *Includes 3 items: High-efficiency Furnace Heat Recovery Ventilator Programmable Thermostat

34 9 10 4 57

Total # Packages Purchased by Respondents

268

Executive Summary

Primary Objective: Validate Accuracy of Tracking Sheet Information Information regarding the builder from whom the equipment was

purchased (97%) was verified as extremely accurate. Information related to the package purchased was verified as extremely accurate for the Basement Package (92%) and the Mechanical Systems Package (96%) and very accurate for the Window Package (77%). The installation of natural gas water heaters was verified as extremely accurate (92%).

Objective #2: End-User Satisfaction with the Products/Packages Approximately 79% of respondents indicated they are very or extremely

satisfied with their new products with respect to saving money on heating costs; and 89% are very or extremely satisfied with their new products with respect to making their home more comfortable. Some 87% considers their home to be energy-efficient. Respondents already are realizing or expect eventually to realize a wide variety of benefits, as a result of their decision to include energy-efficient heating equipment. The most frequently mentioned benefits that participants are currently realizing include: conserving energy, good inside air quality, less heat leaking from the basement and saving money on their heating bill.

80

Objective #3: End-User Understanding Re Efficiency Almost all respondents indicated energy efficiency is very or somewhat

important to them personally. Some 96% believe energy-efficient heating equipment can play a significant role in saving money on heating costs, and some 95% believe energy-efficient heating equipment can play a significant role in making a home more comfortable. Yet only 77% claim they are very or extremely knowledgeable about energy efficiency.

Objective #4: Awareness of BC Program & Information Sources Prior to Purchase

Respondents generally were unaware, at the time of purchase, of energy upgrade options/packages offered by builders to buyers of newly built homes. Only 41% was aware of options/packages other than the one(s) they actually purchased. Respondents were largely unaware of the name of the Build Comfort Program, as only 13% of respondents indicated they are aware that the energy efficiency options in their new home are part of a program called Build Comfort. Amongst aware respondents, the most frequently mentioned sources of program information were the real estate agent/builder’s representative and builders’ brochures. It should be mentioned that 21% of aware respondents, compared with only 6% in 2005, indicated seeing BC information on the Union Gas website.

Objective #5: Factors Affecting End-Users’ Decisionmaking

Several factors are important in end-users’ decisionmaking to purchase energy-efficient products. The main reason is to save money on the heating bill. Other factors mentioned as important by at least three-quarters of respondents include: To conserve energy; to make my home more comfortable; to ensure good indoor air quality; and because it was better to include it during construction rather than later. Approximately 26% of total respondents indicated the builder’s sales representative had played a role in helping them make the decision to include energy-efficient products in their new home.

Build Comfort—2006 Audit:

Verified Installed by

Package

Column A


Installed

Column B


Column C


Installed

Basement Package

158

172

92%

Window Package

30

39

77%

Mechanical Systems Package* *Includes 3 items: High Efficiency Furnace Heat Recovery Ventilator Programmable Thermostat

55

57

96%

81

Natural Gas Water Heaters *Installation of this item required for all packages

174

190

92%

4) HVAC Partnership Audit Results

Final Report Following An Audit in 2006 of the Union Gas

HVAC Program (2005) Objectives of this HVAC Program Audit The primary objective for this HVAC Audit research project was as follows:

16. To validate consumers’ awareness of products purchased and verify that information provided by participating channel partners to Union Gas is accurate and reflects the actual equipment that was installed in the residential location.

The secondary objectives for this HVAC Audit research project were as follows:

17. To gauge residential end-users’ satisfaction with their investment in higher-efficiency products, particularly with respect to comfort and energy costs

18. To gauge residential end-users’ understanding regarding the benefits of the energy- efficient products purchased and their knowledge level regarding energy efficiency, in general

19. To identify factors affecting their decision to choose higher-efficiency options and determine the role of HVAC dealers/salespersons (“the Account”) in residential end-users’ purchase decisionmaking

20. To contribute to the understanding of consumer behaviour and usage

patterns re Programmable Thermostats.

Methodology for the HVAC Audit: Telephone Surveying of End-Users

HVAC Program Audit 2006 End-User Response Groups

By Region & Products Purchased

82

Area Code 519 613 705 807 905/416

Total

HVAC: Total Completions=190 Residential locations=190

95

12

17

5

61

190

HE Furnace 82 11 17 5 50 165 HE Boiler 1 1 0 0 2 4 Programmable Thermostat 33 2 0 0 17 52 Total # Products Purchased by Respondents

221

Executive Summary & Recommendations

Primary Objective: Validate Accuracy of Tracking Sheet Information Information regarding the dealer from whom the equipment was

purchased (98%) was verified as extremely accurate. Information related to the product purchased (99%) also was verified as extremely accurate. An increase in verification percentage over the percentage in 2005 was recorded for furnaces and boilers; while the verification percentage for programmable thermostats was equivalent to the result in 2005.

Objective #2: End-User Satisfaction with Products Almost 93% of respondents indicated they are extremely or very satisfied

with their new products, including more than two-thirds—68%—who indicated they are extremely satisfied with the products.

With respect to making their home more comfortable, about 88% indicated they were extremely or very satisfied with their new products. However, with respect to saving money on heating costs, only about 62% were very or extremely satisfied.

Objective #3: End-User Understanding re Energy-Efficiency

All respondents indicated energy efficiency is very or somewhat important to them personally, and some 79% indicated they are very or extremely knowledgeable about energy-efficiency in the home.

Approximately 97% of respondents were aware that the products they purchased are higher efficiency.

Objective #4: Factors Affecting End-Users’ Decisionmaking

83

Several factors are important in end-users’ decisionmaking to purchase higher-efficiency products. The two most important reasons—cited by 97% and 96% of respondents, respectively—are to save money on the heating bill and to conserve/use energy wisely. Other factors mentioned by a majority of respondents include: to make my home more comfortable, to have good indoor air quality, to reduce emissions from my house and because of the contractor’s recommendation.

Although “because of the contractor’s recommendation” was identified as an important factor by 50% of respondents, it was identified as the main reason by only 2%.

Approximately 78% of total respondents identified a role that the contractor had played in their decisionmaking: Giving influential advice (41%); giving brochures (25%) and/or selling them on purchasing the products (12%).

“Special incentives offered by the sales representative” was identified as an important factor by 34% of total respondents, but no respondent identified it as the main reason.

Objective #5: Usage of Programmable Thermostats

A significant 85% of respondents who had purchased a Programmable Thermostat indicated it had been programmed for operation, either by them (48%) or by the contractor (37%).

Three factors were cited by at least three-quarters of respondents as important reasons for purchasing a Programmable Thermostat: To conserve energy, to save money on their heating bill and to make their home more comfortable. Other notable factors include: because of the contractor’s recommendation and the contractor offered special incentives.

HVAC—2006 Audit:

Products Purchased

Column A

Respondents: # Verified—Purchased

Column B


Column C

Respondents: % Verified—Purchased

(compare 2005)

Boilers

4

4

100% (70%)

Furnaces

165

165

100% (99%)

Programmable Thermostats

50

52

96%

(97%)

84

Residential Evaluation – Survey Instrument The survey instrument used in the collection of the data relating to the ESK – Home Depot initiative is shown below. All survey instruments related to the 2006 residential program audits are available for review upon request. As well, the methodology used to implement this survey is outlined below.

Methodology for the ESK—Home Depot Audit:

Telephone Surveying of End-Users Random selection techniques were used to create a sampling population encompassing approximately 3,900 Union Gas Tracking Sheet records regarding customers entering 10 Home Depot stores. Controls were applied and monitored to ensure appropriate representation of segments within the customer base. Segmentation criteria included: store outlet and reason for site visit. We used a slightly revised version of the survey instrument—approximately 7 minutes in length—used in the previous year’s ESK-Home Depot Audit. This instrument was administered to end-users—all of whom were qualified as kit recipients—within a survey population comprised of customers who received Energy Savings Kits during a visit to selected Home Depot stores. A total of 191 survey completions was achieved, attaining the target number (190) set for the audit. The total number of participating Home Depot store outlets tracked in the completions was 9 (90% of the total). The number of completions results in a high level of confidence in the findings: 99% ± 10%. Readers are encouraged to consult the survey instrument for exact wording of questions and response options. The questionnaire can be found in the Appendix.

BESLIN COMMUNICATION GROUP INC. UNION GAS SURVEY:

ESK INITIATIVE—HOME DEPOT AUDIT 2005 (Final Version for Survey for Feb/06)

85

Respondent:_________________________ Channel Partner:___________________

Interviewer: _____ Date: _______ Result: C—R—D Code—Area Code 519—613—705—905—807

Hello. May I speak to _______________________. My name is _______________. I'm calling on behalf of Union Gas. In September, you picked up an Energy Savings Kit from your local Home Depot store. We are not selling anything. Instead, we are contacting you to request your participation in an energy-efficiency follow-up survey. The purpose is to get your perspective on energy-efficient products and to determine your satisfaction with the products you received in the kit. This is a very brief survey that will take only about 7 minutes to complete. [If person appears unaware or unsure, prompt with the following information:

Your received an Energy Savings Kit at a local Home Depot store… a package that contained several useful products and 2 booklets that provided tips on how to make your home more energy efficient and save money on heating costs.]

I assure you your responses will be kept completely anonymous and confidential. May I proceed with the questions? 1... Yes.....go to Section 1. 2... No......continue. +No, This is optional, but I hope we can still count on your participation. Can we identify a convenient time for me to contact you over the next few days? 3... No...Thanks & terminate. Yes. Indicate recall time here:

NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: READ OUT ALL RESPONSE CHOICES AND ALLOW SUFFICIENT TIME FOR PARTICIPANTS TO RESPOND. REREAD RESPONSES IF NECESSARY OR IF REQUESTED. SEIZE OPPORTUNITIES TO PROBE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ONLY WHERE NOTED OR ESSENTIAL FOR CLARITY. BE UNDERSTANDING IF RESPONDENT BRINGS UP NATURAL GAS PRICE/COST. ENCOURAGE THEM TO FOCUS ON SURVEY.

86

SECTION 1. CUSTOMER/PARTNER VERIFICATION

Q1. Before proceeding with the survey, I would like to determine the role you played during your visit to the Home Depot store. Which of the following responses best describes your role?

I was present for the visit and personally received the Energy Savings Kit… 1

I was not present for the visit but am aware we received the Kit… 2

I was present but someone else from my household received the Kit… 3 Terminate*

I was not present for the visit and did not receive the Kit… 4 Terminate*

*To terminate, say: Many of the questions in the survey would be best answered by a person who was actively involved in the visit and received the Kit. Would it be possible to speak with the individual in your household who was involved in this way? Now?____________ A more convenient time? ________

These first few questions will allow me to verify the accuracy of the information in our records. Q2. Our records indicate that you are located at the following address: [as per Excel file—ESK-HD customers] ______________? Right… 1

Wrong… 2 Q3. (a) Which of the following responses would best describe the purpose of your visit to the Home Depot store on the day you received the Energy Savings Kit?

1. Went to the store ESPECIALLY to get the Energy Savings Kit 2. Went to the store for other reasons AND to pick up an Energy Savings Kit 3. Went to the store for other reasons and WHILE THERE HAPPENED to pick up a

Kit 4. Don’t know/Don’t remember

87

Q3. (b) How did you hear about the Energy Savings Kits being distributed at Home Depot stores?

1. Word of mouth, through a friend or neighbour 2. In the newspaper 3. Flyers 4. On the radio 5. Another way I haven’t mentioned 6. Didn’t hear about it until I was in the store

Q4. In the Energy Savings Kit, there were several household items. As I read the list, please verify the ones you recall receiving in your package. Yes/Recall… 1 No/Do not recall… 2 Not sure/Don’t know… 3 [Note to interviewer: Record a response for each item listed below.]

(a) Low-flow Showerhead _____ [Describe only if necessary as follows: A white plastic nozzle for the shower]

(b) Kitchen faucet aerator _____ [Describe only if necessary as follows: A large chrome & white plastic swivel piece that attaches to the tap in the kitchen sink]

(c) Bathroom faucet aerator _____ [Describe only if necessary as follows: A small round chrome piece that fits into the end of the lavatory tap]

(d) Pipe wraps _____ [Describe only if necessary as follows: 2 grey foam tubes each about 1 meter long]

(e) Wise Energy Use Guide booklet ______ [Describe only if necessary as follows: A 32-page booklet with rubber ducky, house and coins on the front cover]

(f) [DO NOT ASK IN 06] Pamphlet on “How not to pour money down the drain” ______ [Describe only if necessary: A small leaflet with stacks of coins on a grey cover]

SECTION 2. ATTITUDES & MOTIVATIONS

I'd now like to ask you a few questions about energy conservation and your views on higher efficiency products. Q5. (a) [DO NOT ASK IN 06] How important would you say energy efficiency is to you? Is it.... Very important..........………… 1 Somewhat important....……… 2 Somewhat unimportant............………… 3

88

Not important....……….. 4 +Do not read out, Not sure/Don’t know..... 5 (b) [DO NOT ASK IN 06] Using a scale of 1 to 10–where 10 is extremely knowledgeable and 1 is not knowledgeable at all–how knowledgeable would you say you are about energy efficiency in the home? 1... 2... 3... 4... 5... 6... 7... 8... 9... 10 Q6. How significant a role do you believe higher efficiency products can play in saving you money on your home heating costs? Is it... Very significant......... 1 Somewhat significant... 2 Somewhat insignificant........... 3 Very insignificant...... 4 +Do not read out,Not sure/Don’t know..... 5 Q7. How significant a role do you believe higher efficiency products can play in making your home more comfortable? Is it... Very significant......... 1 Somewhat significant... 2

Somewhat insignificant........... 3 Very insignificant...... 4 +Do not read out,Not sure/Don’t know..... 5 Q8. Is the furnace in your home a high-efficiency model? [Note to interviewer: Prompt if you suspect confusion: A high efficiency furnace—usually no more than 10 years old—is vented directly through the wall, like a clothes dryer, instead of up the chimney. A high efficiency furnace also has a plastic vent from the furnace to the wall, rather than a metal pipe.] Yes......................... 1 No.......................... 2 Not sure/Don’t know... 3 Q9. Does your home have a natural gas water heater?

Yes…………………… 1 No……………………. 2 Not sure/Don’t know… 3

SECTION 3: PRODUCT INSTALLATION

For the next few questions, I will ask you to think back to when you installed the items included in the Energy Savings Kit. Q10. Some of the items in the Energy Savings Kit required installation. I will read the list of items to you. For each one, please tell me whether this item from the Energy Savings Kit has been installed in your home.

89

Yes… 1 No… 2 Not sure/Don’t know… 3 [Note to interviewer: Record 1 response for each item listed below. Probe No—Not Installed responses… Ask Why not? ]

Installed? If respondent answers No, probe & record response:

(a) Showerhead _____ Why not? _______________________

(b) Kitchen faucet aerator_____ Why not? _______________________

(c) Bathroom faucet aerator_____ Why not? _______________________

(d) Pipe wraps _____ Why not? _______________________

[Note to interviewer: If respondent answers No to all—a to d all not installed—skip to Q#15.] Q11. (a/b) For the items you installed, please tell me who did the installation and whether it is still installed. Select one of these possible responses: I installed it myself… 1 Someone else in my household installed it… 2 A relative/friend/neighbour installed it… 3 An outside paid contractor installed it… 4 Not sure/Don’t remember… 5 [Note to interviewer: Record 2 additional responses for installed items only.]

Installed? A. Who installed it? B. Is it still installed?

[Yes…1 No…2] (a) Showerhead _____ _____ _____ (b) Kitchen faucet aerator_____ _____ _____ (c) Bathroom faucet aerator_____ _____ _____ (d) Pipe wraps _____ _____ _____

Q12. From the following list of reasons, which one would you identify as the main reason you decided to install some or all of the items in the kit?

90

[Note to interviewer: Identify one response only.] a. To conserve energy/use energy wisely b. To save money on my heating bill c. Recommended by relatives/friends/neighbours to do this d. To make my home more comfortable e. The items were free. f. Other [Specify]: __________________

SECTION 4: ATTITUDINAL--CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

These next questions relate to your satisfaction with the Kit and the products you installed. Q13. In general, how satisfied would you say you are with the Energy Savings Kit you received? On a 1 to 10 scale, 10 will indicate you are extremely satisfied with the products, while 1 will indicate you are not satisfied at all. Which number would you select? 1... 2... 3... 4... 5... 6... 7... 8... 9... 10 Q14. (a) Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statement: The products I installed from the Energy Savings Kit will help to save money on my home energy costs. Do you… Strongly agree......... 1 Agree.……… 2

Disagree........... 3 Strongly disagree...... 4 +Do not read out: Not sure/Don’t know..... 5 (b) What about this next statement: The products I installed from the Energy Savings Kit will help to make my home more comfortable? Would you say that you… Strongly agree......... 1 Agree.……… 2

Disagree........... 3 Strongly disagree...... 4 +Do not read out: Not sure/Don’t know..... 5

SECTION 5: PROGRAM SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

Q15. [REPLACEMENT QUESTION FOR 06] Union Gas is considering offering Home Depot customers other types of free incentives to encourage energy efficiency in homes.

91

Please let me know which one of the following would be most useful to you [NB—Read all / Accept one response only]: Caulking products......... 1 Weather stripping products… 2

Rebates after purchasing a programmable thermostat........... 3 Rebates after purchasing any high-efficiency natural gas product, such as a

furnace.... 4 None of the above / No response..... 5

SECTION 5: TERMINATION

Q16. That concludes my questions. Do you have any additional comments to share with me? Record respondent's comments here: ON BEHALF OF UNION GAS, THANKS VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

92

Appendix H – Commercial Custom Project Audit Results

93

Es t imated Sav ing s A s s e s sment Union Gas

4

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Background

Building Innovation Inc. was retained to provide an independent assessment of the savings estimates reported in the Union Gas Commercial and Industrial Markets Project Application Forms for 5 randomly selected projects.

2.2 Definitions

Project Application

The Union Gas Commercial and Industrial Markets Project Application Form that is required for all incentive applications.

Provided Savings

The pre-implementation estimate of expected gas savings that appears on the Project Application Form.

Model Savings

BII’s post-implementation estimate of expected gas savings, assuming installed equipment has been properly commissioned, and is operating as intended.

Baseline

Annual gas use estimate representing expected average gas use over several years for the entire gas meter. The baseline may be based on pre-or post-implementation gas use.

Base Case

Stated or assumed conditions regarding the “less efficient option” to which the Model Savings are based on. In cases where a retrofit was completed solely for energy efficiency benefits, this represents the installation prior to the project. In cases where aging equipment is being replaced, this represents a reasonable, lower cost option that would have been installed had the higher efficiency option not proceeded.

2.3 Objectives

The objective of the assessments were to:

• Determine if the Provided Savings are reasonable based on available information at the time the estimate was made.

• Compare the Provided Savings to the Model Savings. • Verify if the identified work from the Project Application was implemented.

94

ddengler


5

2.4 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions

This report is subject to the following limitations and conditions:

• Site visits were limited to verifying retrofitted equipment with respect to energy savings potential. Code compliance reviews and design reviews were not completed.

• BII may have relied on unverified verbal or written information provided by others in the preparation of these savings estimates.

• BII may have made assumptions in the absence of recorded data that may significantly affect savings estimates.

• Savings reflect gas use reduction only. The impact on electric use reduction was not considered.

95

ddengler


6

3.0 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Project Selection

A total of 5 projects were randomly selected from a complete list of all projects completed in 2005.

3.2 Baseline Development

A representative annual gas volume (Baseline) was developed from actual utility bill data and actual weather data from a nearby Environment Canada weather station. Actual data was chosen from a specific period to develop a Baseline that matches the Base Case operation as close as possible. The specific period can be pre- or post-retrofit of the implemented work, depending on the nature of the Base Case and the known changes in the facility. ASHRAE Guideline 14 was followed to calculate the Baseline.

In cases where the Base Case represents the pre-implementation performance of the building, and where the gas used by affected equipment or systems represent a large portion of the metered gas, a Variance was calculated between the Baseline and recent actual gas use. Differences due to weather and billing periods were removed to determine the final Variance. Variance results were then compared to the Model Savings in order to rationalize how representative the Baseline is for the Base Case.

3.3 Site Visit

Each site was audited to verify that the projects had been implemented as described in the Project Application. The system(s) in question were visually inspected to gain an understanding of the condition, maintenance history, and control of the building systems and equipment. The site was photo-documented, and available on-site information was collected in order to improve Model Savings estimates.

3.4 Model Savings

Building system models were developed based on certain assumptions to reflect pre- and post-retrofit operation of the implemented work. Results of the building system models were compared to the Baseline in order to finalize estimated Model Savings. ASHRAE Degree-Day and Bin methods were used to develop the building system models.

.1 Savings Estimation Tools Building Innovation Inc. has developed proprietary tools to cost effectively estimate savings estimates. The tools are written in Microsoft Excel using custom VBA functions to provide complex or iterative calculations and to access database information (e.g., weather, utility rates, fluid properties, etc.).

96

ddengler


7

i.Storm Weather:

This application allows automatic importing, and data correction for over 100 weather stations across Canada. The weather tables are corrected to fill in missing data from nearby stations using regression techniques. Excel functions include variable based Degree Day routines, Bin reporting, complex schedule handling, unit conversion, and psychrometric conversion.

i.Rate Utility Rates:

This application defines and stores over 400 utility rates. Excel functions allow exact calculation of utility rates from use information to allow billing verification.

i.Site Utility Analysis:

This application reports on utility bills. Monthly, daily, hourly, or time of use utility information is modeled against climate, occupancy, or production values to provide a representative utility model. The software mathematically solves for the best balance temperatures in different scenarios.

i.Measure System Models:

Excel based templates that model savings for various systems in a building, and their interrelationships. Each system can use a variety of techniques to solve: Schedule Method, ASHRAE Degree-Day Method, or ASHRAE Bin Method. For more information on these methods, consult the ASHRAE Handbook F31.

97

ddengler

Appendix I – Updated Input Assumption Methodology The tables below demonstrate the adjustments Summit Blue recommended through the 2005 Evaluation Audit process to the updates originally included in Appendix I of the draftEvaluation Report. The adjustments recommended by Summit Blue are agreeable to Union and have been used in the calculation of the LRAM statement included as Appendix K.

2006 DSM Plan Input Assumptions(Click on measure to see savings assumptions)

New Home Construction Basement Insulation (R-12) Energy Star for New Homes Furnace - High Efficiency Furnace - High Efficiency w Fan Low E Windows with argon (R-3) R2000 Thermostat - Programmable Grey Water Heat RecoveryTankless Water HeaterHRVHigh Efficiency Integrated Appliances

Home Retrofit Condensing Boiler - up to 299 MBtu/h Condensing Gas Water Heater ESK-HD-Faucet Aerators ESK-HD-Pipe Insulation - 2 m ESK-HD-Showerhead - Low Flow ESK- Faucet Aerators ESK- Pipe Insulation - 2 m ESK- Showerhead - Low Flow Energy Star Window Front Load Washer Furnace - High Efficiency Furnace - High Efficiency w Fan Low E Window (R3) Avg. Power Comb Boiler - up to 299 Mbtu/h Thermostat - Programmable - Direct to Consumers Thermostat - Programmable Grey Water Heat RecoveryTankless Water Heater

New Building ConstructionCondensing Boiler -300 to 999 MBtu/h Condensing Boiler - 1000 to 1499 MBtu/h Condensing Boiler - up to 299 MBtu/h Condensing Gas Water Heater Custom Appl - Rate Class M2 / R01 ERV - 1001 to 10000 cfm ERV - up to 1000 cfm Heat recovery ventilator HRV Infrared Heating - LI - 20 to 75 MBtu/hr Infrared Heating - LI - Over 150 MBtu/hr Infrared Heating - LI - 76 to 150 MBtu/hr Infrared Procurement over 150 Mbtu/hr Power Comb Boiler -300 to 999 Mbtu/h Power Comb Boiler - 1000 to 1499 Mbtu/h

99

Power Comb Boiler - up to 299 Mbtu/h Rooftop Unit Thermostat - Programmable Tankless Water HeaterRangehood_5hpRangehood_10hpRangehood_15hp

Existing Buildings Program Condensing Boiler -300 to 999 MBtu/hCondensing Boiler - 1000 to 1499 MBtu/h Condensing Boiler - up to 299 MBtu/h Condensing Gas Water Heater Custom Appl ERV - 1001 to 10000 cfm ERV - up to 1000 cfm Furnace - High Efficiency Low Flow Shower Head Low Flow Aerators Heat recovery ventilator HRV Infrared Heating - LI - 20 to 75 MBtu/hr Infrared Heating - LI - Over 150 MBtu/hr Infrared Heating - LI - 76 to 150 MBtu/hr Infrared Procurement Power Comb Boiler -300 to 999 Mbtu/h Power Comb Boiler - 1000 to 1499 Mbtu/h Power Comb Boiler - up to 299 Mbtu/h Pre-Rinse Low-Flow Spray Nozzle Rooftop Unit Water Heater Tank De-liming Thermostat - Programmable Tankless Water HeaterRangehood_5hpRangehood_10hpRangehood_15hp

100

1/2

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: New Home Construction 2) Measure Name: Basement Insulation 3) Existing Savings

South Savings North Savings M3 kWh Litres M3 kWh Litres

Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

114 - - 45 - - 25 700 4) Revised Savings a) Heated Basement


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

253 49 n/a 286 54 n/a b) Unheated Basement


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

136 27 n/a 149 28 n/a 5) Derivation The savings estimates were derived from HOT2XP simulation results. The default inputs, which correspond to building code, were primarily used. Both North and South cases assumed 3 occupants with a gas WH, high-efficiency furnace, and heated basement. The base-case insulation used for both North and South was R8 – part height on the inside and below grade – 1” semi rigid on the outside. The improved case, for both North and South, was R12 – full height on the inside and below grade – 1” semi rigid on the outside The total annual energy consumption for each case can be found in the MS Excel spreadsheet “Basement Insulation.xls”. a) Gas Savings Based on the HOT2XP results, the table below was generated for both gas and electric savings for heated/non-heated basement and with/without AC scenarios. The amount of savings are relatively unaffected by the presence of AC so the “with AC” values will be used.

with AC without AC

Basement Gas (m3)

Electrical (kWh)

Gas (m3)

Electrical (kWh)

Heated 252.8 49 252.8 45.1 South Non-

Heated 135.5 26.6 135.5 22.8 Heated 286.3 53.9 286.3 51.1

North Non-Heated 149.1 27.9 149.1 25.2

101

DSYahod

Rectangle

2/2

b) Electricity Savings (see Gas Savings) c) Water Savings n/a d) Equipment Life e) Incremental Cost

102

DSYahod

Rectangle

1/3

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: New Home Construction 2) Measure Name: Energy Star for New Homes 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

800 - n/a 800 - n/a 15 5000 4) Revised Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

807 1000 - 895 1000 - 3020 5) Derivation a) Gas Savings The gas savings presented in the tables above were derived from HOT2XPTM simulations. The parameters used for the simulations are listed in the table below. London and North Bay were chosen to represent Union South and North regions respectively. The current new home construction characteristics are based on minimum building code standards.

103

DSYahod

Rectangle

2/3

Simulation Main Selectors Building Envelope Foundation Mechanicals Garage

North Bay (Current New Construction)

Code

Interior (part height, R8), Exterior (part-

height, 1” semi rigid)

3 Occupants, Mid Efficiency Furnace

(AFUE 80%), Conventional Hot Water Heater (EF

0.59), exhaust fans, AC (SEER 10)

North Bay (ESO

Construction)

2004, 1 storey, single-

detached, 1600 ft2

(36’ x 40’)

Ceiling (R51), wall insulation (R19+7.5), exposed floors (R31) windows (vinyl frame,

double low-e argon), doors (steel with insulated core), Air tightness (Energy Tight

1.5 ACH)

Interior (full height R19), Exterior (part-height, 1”

semi rigid

3 Occupants, Condensing Furnace

(AFUE 90%), Conventional Hot Water Heater (EF 0.59), HRV, AC

(SEER 13)

One-car, main-floor,

Location #5

London – 2 storey

(Current New Construction)

Code

Interior (part height, R8), Exterior (part-

height, 1” semi rigid)

3 Occupants, Mid Efficiency Furnace

(AFUE 80%), Conventional Hot Water Heater (EF

0.59), exhaust fans only, AC (SEER 10)

London - Bungalow

(ESO Construction)

2004, 2 storey, single-

detached, 1800 ft2 (30’

x 30’)

Ceiling (R40), wall insulation (R19+5),

exposed floors (R31) windows (vinyl frame,

double low-e argon), doors (steel with insulated core), Air tightness (Energy Tight

1.5 ACH)

Interior (full height R13), Exterior (part-height, 1”

semi rigid

3 Occupants, Condensing Furnace

(AFUE 90%), Conventional Hot Water Heater (EF 0.59), HRV, AC

(SEER 13)

One-car, main-floor,

Location #5

Location Gas Savings

(m3) London (2-storey) 807

North Bay 895 b) Electricity Savings The simulation for current new construction for London assumes no mechanical ventilation (other than exhaust fans) while the simulation for ESO construction assumes mechanical ventilation with an HRV. The addition of mechanical ventilation significantly increases the electrical consumption due to increased fan operation and results in negative electrical savings. The simulations for current new and ESO construction for North Bay both assumed mechanical ventilation with an HRV. There were some electrical savings attributed to space heating but they were offset by increased consumption attributed to space cooling. It is presumed that the increased tightness of the building results in a higher cooling load (internal and solar gains are trapped in house).

104

DSYahod

Rectangle

3/3

To be qualified as an Energy Star Home a minimum of 1000 kWh/yr of electricity must be saved (see below).

c) Water Savings There is no direct requirement for water savings in the Energy Star Homes program, however, the selection of some Energy Star appliances (e.g. clothes washer, dishwasher) will result in the added benefit of water savings. Selection of these appliances is not a strict requirement, therefore no water savings will be presumed. d) Equipment Life e) Incremental Cost The incremental cost of $3020 was provided to Union Gas by Lenard Hart, EnerQuality corporation.

105

DSYahod

Rectangle

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: New Home Construction 2) Measure Name: Single Stage High Efficiency Furnace 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

218 n/a n/a 245 n/a n/a 19 4) Revised Savings a) Single Stage High Efficiency Furnace with Standard Efficiency Blower


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

218 n/a n/a 245 n/a n/a 19 5) Derivation Based on Hot 2000 V 9.1. Assessment based on 1,800 ft2 single story house located in London or North Bay, built in 2003h 3 occupants1. Heated basement, basement partially insulated. a) Gas Savings b) Electricity Savings i) Automatic blower operation Reference furnace – 80% AFUE single stage, fan assisted, conventional blower motor Improved furnace – 90% AFUE, single stage, standard efficiency blower motor c) Water Savings n/a

1 Average household size from Stats Canada “Dwelling Characteristics and Household Equipment, Canada and Provinces, 2000” Av house size - 1,500 ft2, average year built – 1965, average occupants – 2.7 rounded for model to 3 persons.

106

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: New Home Construction 2) Measure Name: High Efficiency Furnace with High Efficiency Fan 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

292 n/a n/a 335 n/a n/a 19 4) Revised Savings Two Stage Furnace with High Efficiency Fan


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

292 566 n/a 335 614 n/a 19 5) Derivation Based on Hot 2000 V 9.1. Assessment based on 1,800 ft2 single story house located in London, built in 2003 with 3 occupants1. heated basement, a) Gas Savings Details of Gas Savings reported in internal report, “Furnace Savings Update - 2004”, John Overall, Market Knowledge, January 2003 - High Efficiency Furnace w Fan refers to 2-stage, modulating high-efficiency furnace with variable speed, high efficiency motor b) Electricity Savings Assumptions: Hot2000 estimate for standard UG conditions, auto thermostat. Assume standard fan 400 W for heating, 450 for cooling. High efficiency fan, 95 W for heating 110 W for cooling.


107

Hot 2000 results by Motor type & Location

Space Heating Fan (kWh)

Space Cooling Fan (kWh)

Total Heating/ cooling (kWh)

Winter savings (kWh)

Summer Savings (kWh)

Savings from Base (kWh)

Auto fan, normal efficiency

London 550. 224 774 North Bay 593 214 807 Auto fan, High efficiency Fan

London, 133 75 208 417 149 566 North Bay 143 50 193 450 164 614

c) Water Savings n/a d) Equipment Life e) Incremental Cost

108

1/2

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: New Home Construction 2) Measure Name: Low E Windows with argon (R-3) 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost



Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

155 28 n/a 115 21 n/a 25 780 5) Derivation The energy savings attributed to low-e windows with argon are the same as those derived for the Energy Star windows prescriptive measure. a) Gas Savings The gas savings presented in the tables above were derived from HOT2XPTM simulations assuming 16 standard-size windows (4’ x 3’) in the home. To facilitate the simulations in HOT2XP™ a number of assumptions had to be made regarding the typical construction of homes in each region of interest. For the most part the default inputs to HOT2XP™ were chosen to represent the configurations of a typical home. The inputs that were changed from the default values are discussed below.

City/Region London and North Bay were chosen to represent Union South and North regions respectively.

Base Case Window and Frames The base case windows were assumed to be double-glazed (12 mm gap) with no inert-gas fill or low-e coating. This type of window would be designated as an R-2 window.

Upgraded Windows and Frames • Low-emissivity (low-e) glass • Argon fill

Union South Union North

Electrical Savings

Natural Gas

Savings

Electrical Savings

Natural Gas

Savings (kWh /

window / year)

(m3 / window /

yr)

(kWh / window /

year)

(m3 / window /

yr) 28 154 21 115

109

DSYahod

Rectangle

2/2

b) Electricity Savings Electrical savings attributable to space heating are derived from the same HOT2XPTM simulations used for gas savings. c) Water Savings n/a d) Equipment Life e) Incremental Cost The incremental cost is based on values reported in “Potential Savings for Energy Star Windows, Doors, and Skylights” – prepared by Enermodal Engineering for NRCan. Incremental costs for double-glazed low e windows with argon are reported as $43.75/m2. The analysis is based on 16 – 4’ x 3’ windows, therefore the total incremental cost is: 16 x (12 sq ft) x (.30482 m2/ft2) x (43.75 $/m2) = $780

110

DSYahod

Rectangle

1/2

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: New Home Construction 2) Measure Name: Thermostat - Programmable 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

140 - - 180 - - 20 4) Revised Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

172 204 n/a 195 122 n/a 20 5) Derivation a) Gas Savings The Canadian Centre for Housing Technology has produced a report that describes the effects of thermostat settings on seasonal energy consumption.1 The findings described in this report are based on testing done at the CCHT side-by-side testing facility. Three winter setback scenarios were tested:

• 18 °C Night Setback • 18 °C Night and Day Setback • 16 °C Night and Day Setback

The energy savings for each scenario were determined as a percentage of space heating energy consumption

Scenario Gas Savings Electrical Savings 18 °C Night Setback 6.5% 0.8

18 °C Night and Day Setback 10% 1.9 16 °C Night and Day Setback 13% 2.3

One summer setforward scenario was tested:

• 25 °C Day Setforward The energy savings for this scenario was determined as a percentage of space cooling energy consumption:

Scenario Gas Savings Electrical Savings 25 °C Day Setforward 0% 11%

The gas and electricity consumptions for space heating and space cooling were determined using the HOT2XP simulation program. The default inputs, which correspond to building code, were primarily used. For the North and South the

1 Manning, M.M.; Swinton, M.C.; Szadkowski, F.; Gusdorf, J.; Ruest, K., “The Effects of Thermostat Setting on Seasonal Energy Consumption at the CCHT Research Facility”, IRC-RR 191, February 14, 2005.

111

DSYahod

Rectangle

2/2

foundation insulation was improved from the default to R8 – part height on the inside and below grade – 1” semi rigid on the outside. Both North and South cases assumed 3 occupants with a gas WH, high-efficiency furnace, and heated basement. The m3 and kWh savings were calculated using the percentage savings for each scenario. Space Heating Savings Only Space Heating & Cooling Savings Gas Electricity Gas Electricity m3 kWh m3 kWh

South 112 2 112 201 1 North 126 3 126 118 South 172 6 172 204 2 North 195 7 195 122 South 223 7 223 205 3 North 253 8 253 123

The winter nighttime setback savings are in good agreement with the well established rule-of-thumb, based on research by Nelson and MacArthur2, for energy savings related to setting back thermostats, which states:

“a daily eight-hour nighttime setback can bring about close to a 1% reduction in natural gas consumption for each degree Fahrenheit offset (or about a 1.8% reduction for each degree Celsius offset)”3.

The savings used for this prescriptive measure on based on the second winter setback scenario, 18 °C Night and Day Setback. b) Electricity Savings (see Gas Savings) c) Water Savings n/a d) Equipment Life e) Incremental Cost

2 Nelson, Lorne W. and J. Ward MacArthur (1978) “Energy Savings through Thermostat Setbacks”, ASHRAE Transactions, Volume 83, AL-78-1 (1): 319-333. 3 Plourde, André (March 2003) “Programmable Thermostats as Means of Generating Energy Savings: Some Pros and Cons”, CBEEDAC 2003–RP-01.

112

DSYahod

Rectangle

1/2

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: New Home Construction 2) Measure Name: Grey Water Heat Recovery 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

4) Revised Savings Higher Usage (2 x 10 minute showers/day)


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

120 120 30 $500 Typical Usage (1.4 x 8 minute showers/day)


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

68 68 30 $500 5) Savings Derivation a) Gas Savings

1. From 2003 ASHRAE Applications Handbook, Section 49.8, Table 2, representative shower temperature = 43 C.

2. Assume heat exchanger has a 50% effectiveness 3. Assume balanced flow, i.e., grey water flowrate equals the cold water flowrate 4. Standard new showerhead flow rate 7.6 L/min (2.0 USgpm) 1,2 5. Assume 1.4 - 8 minute showers per day for 2.7 person household (typical

usage)3,4 6. Assume 2 - 10 minute showers per day for 2.7 person household (higher usage) 7. Assume temperature drop of 3.5 C between showerhead and top of heat

exchanger5 8. Recovery efficiency of 78%. (Recovery efficiency is used instead of Energy

Factor because this calculation addresses only heating water and standby loss is not relevant)

Daily Water Usage Higher Usage 7.6 L/min * 10 min/shower * 2 showers/day = 152 L/day Typical Usage 7.6 L/min * 8 min/shower * 1.4 showers/day = 86.9 L/day Gas Savings 1 Compare with Environment Canada web site assumptions of 17.1 L/min for standard shower head http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/images/manage/effic/e_shower.htm 2 City of Toronto standard shower head flow rate of 14.8 L/min (http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/watereff/water_saving_kits/indoor_kit.htm) 3 Environment Canada assumes 10 showers/week per showerhead. The Region of Waterloo assumes 7 showers per week per person, which is probably high since on average, some people will take baths & some people will either shower at another location or skip a day. 4 Average household size from Stats Canada “Dwelling Characteristics and Household Equipment, Canada and Provinces, 2000” for Ontario = 2.7 persons 5 Preliminary Analysis of Performance of GFXTM Drainwater Heat Recovery System at Canadian Centre for Housing Technology

113

DSYahod

Rectangle

2/2

0.5 *152 L/day * 4.2 kJ/L*°C *(39.5°C - 10°C)/(1000 kJ/MJ * 0.78) = 12 MJ/day ->365 days/year*12 MJ/day / 37.2 MJ/m3 = 120 m3 0.5 *86.9 L/day * 4.2 kJ/L*°C *(39.5°C - 10°C)/(1000 kJ/MJ * 0.78) = 7 MJ/day ->365 days/year*7 MJ/day / 37.2 MJ/m3 = 68.4 m3 b) Electricity Savings n/a c) Water Savings n/a d) Equipment Life Long Life – simple copper pipe (30 plus years) according to ”Pros and Cons of the GFX Drainwater Heat Recovery system” e) Incremental Cost On-line pricing available at http://www.gfxtechnology.com/ $ 358.00USD = $413 CDN (for GS-60 model – same model analyzed in NRCan report) (foreign currency cost calculator www.tdcanadatrust.ca) Assume $500 installed cost

114

DSYahod

Rectangle

Measure name Page 1

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: New Home Construction 2) Measure Name: Tankless Water Heaters 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 4) Revised Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

206 207 20 years $950 5) Derivation a) Gas Savings Assumptions:

Typical family of 31 uses ¾ of nominal water use of typical family of 4. Average water temperatures: Kingston 10.6 °C, Thunder Bay 8.7 °C, London (“Elgin Area”) 9.8 °C 2 Using the DOE WHAM water heater model and the following water heater characteristics, the annual consumption was calculated for inlet water temperatures of 8 °C and 11 °C Water Heater Characteristics Factor 50 USG

Storage Tankless

Water draw for 3 person household, L/D 164 164 Energy Factor 0.58 0.82 Storage volume L (US Gal) 189 (50) n/a Input (Btu/h) 40,000 180,000 Recovery efficiency, % 78 84 Outlet Temperature C 57 57 Room Temperature C 20 20 Water Heater Gas Consumption (M3) 8 °C Inlet

Temperature 11 °C Inlet Temperature

Conventional 612 584 Tankless 405 378 Savings 207 206 b) Electricity Savings 1 Average household size from Stats Canada “Dwelling Characteristics and Household Equipment, Canada and Provinces, 2000” Av house size - 1,500 ft2, average year built – 1965, average occupants – 2.7 rounded to 3 persons 2 Kingston data from www.utilitieskingston.com, Thunder Bay data from www.thunderbay.ca/docs/water/1292.pdf, London data from www.watersupply.london.ca/

115

DSYahod

Rectangle

Measure name Page 2

c) Water Savings d) Equipment Life Redman/Williams quotes Rinnai estimates of up to 20 years. e) Incremental Cost Assume unit is a Rinnai 2532 FFU, with an equipment cost of $1,000 and an installed cost of $1,800.3 from Redman/Williams Compare to a PV 50 from Union Energy at $8504 Incremental cost is therefore $1,800 - $850 = $950.

3 From “Technical and Economic Analysis Of Residential Tankless Water Heaters”, March 2004, J. Overall 4 From “Competitive Analysis – Revised.xls”, Diane Murray, 2005

116

DSYahod

Rectangle

1/2

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: New Home Construction 2) Measure Name: Heat Recovery Ventilator - HRV 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

4) Revised Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

260 -40 - 350 -25 - 15 700 5) Derivation Based on HOT2XP simulations. Assessment based on 1,500 / 1800 ft2 two storey homes located in London and North Bay, respectively, built in 2005, 3 occupants. Heated basement, basement partially insulated. Homes were assumed to have high efficiency furnace (90% AFUE) and be “ENERGY TIGHT”. The base case home is using mechanical ventilation without heat recovery. Note: If the home is not energy tight, there is no need for mechanical ventilation and thus an HRV would be a poor investment from an energy savings perspective. a) Gas Savings

Location Gas Savings (m3)

London (2-storey) 260 North Bay 350

b) Electricity Savings

Location Electrical Savings (kWh)

London (2-storey) -40 North Bay -25

c) Water Savings n/a d) Equipment Life

117

DSYahod

Rectangle

2/2

e) Incremental Cost $700 - source: www.homedepot.ca Installation costs - ?

118

DSYahod

Rectangle

Measure name Page 1

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: New Home Construction 2) Measure Name: High Efficiency Integrated Appliances 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 4) Revised Savings a) Reference Case - Mid Furnace plus PV 50 Water Heater


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

279 306 18 $850 b) Reference Case – High Efficiency Furnace plus PV 50 Water Heater


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

61 65 18 $850 5) Derivation a) Gas Savings Reference furnace – 80% AFUE single stage, fan assisted, conventional blower motor Based on Hot 2000 V 9.1. Assessment based on 1,500/1800 ft2 single story house located in London or North Bay, built in 2003h 3 occupants1. Heated basement, basement partially insulated. Union North (North Bay) Configuration Assumptions Space Heating Load Only

Dwelling Size (ft)

Building Envelope Foundation Mechanical

80% AFUE Furnace (M3)

90% AFUE Appliance (M3) Savings

30' by 30' Code

Inside, part height R8 Outside, below grade 1" semi-rigid

ID 80% or 90% AFUE integrated appliance Heated basement PV gas WH for ref case 3 occupants 2,112 1,867 245

Union South (London)

30' by 30' Code

Inside, part height R8 Outside, below grade 1" semi-rigid

ID 80% or 90% AFUE integrated appliance Heated basement PV gas WH for ref case 3 occupants 1,882 1,664 218

Reference water heater: EF = 0.58 Average water temperatures: Kingston 10.6 °C, Thunder Bay 8.7 °C, London (“Elgin Area”) 9.8 °C 2


119

DSYahod

Rectangle

Measure name Page 2

Using the DOE WHAM water heater model and the following water heater characteristics, the annual consumption was calculated for inlet water temperatures of 8 °C and 11 °C Assume EF of integrated appliance meets P10 minimum of 0.65 Water Heating Characteristics Factor Conventional Integrated

Appliance Water draw for 2.7 person household, L/D 164 164 Energy Factor 0.59 0.65 Outlet Temperature C 57 57 Room Temperature C 20 20 Water Heater Gas Consumption (M3) 8 °C Inlet Temperature 11 °C Inlet Temperature Conventional 612 584 Integrated Appliance 547 523 Savings 65 61 Total Savings Union South: 218+61 = 279 M3 Union North: 245+61 = 306 M3 b) Electricity Savings c) Water Savings d) Equipment Life No data, estimated to be similar to tankless water heaters e) Incremental Cost An incremental cost of $850 is necessary to pass the TRC test with the savings indicated above for the mid efficiency reference furnace case.

2 Kingston data from www.utilitieskingston.com, Thunder Bay data from www.thunderbay.ca/docs/water/1292.pdf, London data from www.watersupply.london.ca/

120

DSYahod

Rectangle

1/1

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: Home Retrofit 2) Measure Name: Condensing Boiler up to 299 Mbtu/h 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

1,100 1,100 25 1,300 4) Revised Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

850 1,100 5) Derivation a) Gas Savings

• Assume average house size of 1,500 ft2, built in 1965 with modest insulation and air tightness upgrades.

• Hot2XP calculates that for a London location, such a house would save 850 m3 for upgrading to a 90% efficient condensing boiler from a standing pilot, chimney vented boiler (no stack damper). (Estimated boiler size 50,000 Btu/h with 10% over-sizing factor).

• Hot2XP calculates that the same house in North Bay would save 1,100 M3. (Estimated boiler size 60,000 Btu/h with 10% over-sizing factor).

b) Electricity Savings c) Water Savings d) Equipment Life Appliance Magazine has no data on life expectancy for residential boilers e) Incremental Cost

121

DSYahod

Rectangle

1/1

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: Home Retrofit 2) Measure Name: Condensing Water Heater 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

219 230 15 4) Revised Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

202 206 9 5) Derivation a) Gas Savings Average water temperatures: Kingston 10.6 °C, Thunder Bay 8.7 °C, London (“Elgin Area”) 9.8 °C 1 Using the DOE WHAM water heater model and the following water heater characteristics, the annual consumption was calculated for inlet water temperatures of 8 °C and 11 °C Water Heater Characteristics Factor Conventional Condensing Water draw for 2.7 person household, L/D 164 164 Energy Factor 0.59 0.86 Storage volume L (US Gal) 151 (40) 128 (34) Input (Btu/h) 35,000 100,000 Recovery efficiency, % 78 94 Outlet Temperature C 57 57 Room Temperature C 20 20 Water Heater Gas Consumption (M3) 8 °C Inlet Temperature 11 °C Inlet Temperature Conventional 571 599 Condensing 369 393 Savings 202 206 b) Electricity Savings c) Water Savings d) Equipment Life Assume the same as conventional. From Appliance Magazine, September 2004; 9 years. 1 Kingston data from www.utilitieskingston.com, Thunder Bay data from www.thunderbay.ca/docs/water/1292.pdf, London data from www.watersupply.london.ca/

122

DSYahod

Rectangle

1/1

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: Home Retrofit 2) Measure Name: Faucet Aerators 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost



Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

17 7,592 17 7,592

5) Derivation a) Gas Savings

1. Water savings from (c) below = 7,592 L/y 2. From 2003 ASHRAE Applications Handbook, Section 49.8, Table 2,

representative shower temperature = 40 C. 3. Assume hot water supply temperature = 54 C & average annual supply

temperature = 10 C. Then by mixing rule, hot flow = 2.14 times cold flow or 68% of the total flow = .68* 7,592 = 5,163 L/y or 5,163 Kg/y. However for kitchen faucets, assume that mixed water flow occurs only 50% of the time. Therefore hot water flow is 0.5*5,163 = 2,582 Kg/y

4. Assume 40 gal tank @ EF = .59. & UG South HHV = 37.68 GJ/1000 M3 5. Savings = (54C-10C)*(1 Kcal/KgC)*(2,582 Kg) = 113,600 Kcal*(4.184*10-6

GJ/Kcal)/(37.68 GJ/1000 M3) = 13 M3/y @ 100% efficiency or 17 M3 @ recovery efficiency of 78%. (Recovery efficiency is used instead of Energy Factor because this calculation addresses only heating water and standby loss is not relevant)

b) Electricity Savings n/a c) Water Savings

1. “Standard” faucet flow rate 16 L/m (3.5 USGPM)1,2 2. “Low flow” faucet 5.6 L/m(1.5 USGPM) 3. Assume faucet runs 2 min/day*365 D/y = 730 m/y 4. Savings = (16 L/m – 5.6 L/m)*730 m/y = 7592 L/y

d) Equipment Life no data e) Incremental Cost no data * Average inlet water temperature will vary with the water source and time of year. Sample data from Kingston (West water Plant) av 11 C, Thunder Bay av. 9 C, and Elgin Area Primary Water Supply (part of London and district) 10 C, suggests that average yearly water temperature is difficult to differentiate based on location.

1 “Wise Water Use” brochure, City of Hamilton, www.city.hamilton.on.ca quotes 16 L/m standard flow rate 2 “Household Guide to Water Efficiency”, CMHC, 2000

123

DSYahod

Rectangle

1/2

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: Home Retrofit 2) Measure Name: ESK Pipe Insulation 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost



Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

17 17 5) Derivation a) Gas Savings

• City of Berkeley Energy & Sustainable Development estimates up to 14 therms/year or 1400 ft3 (40 M3) gas/year

• Amalgamated Laboratories (http://www.envirotech.com/tests.html) reported that 35 ft of ¾ “ copper pipe lost 3.14 kW/day more with un-insulated pipe than when insulated. This corresponds to 10,700 Btu/day for 35 feet or 1,000 Btu/M/d.

• Thus 2 M of insulation might save 1,000 Btu/M/d* 2M*365*(1M3/35,300 Btu) = 21 M3. (this is for a forced circulation system, natural convection would use less) Assuming 80% of the loss of a forced circulation system would give 21*.8 = 17 M3/y

b) Electricity Savings c) Water Savings d) Equipment Life e) Incremental Cost

124

DSYahod

Rectangle

2/2

3. Pipe Insulation. In our proposed rule, the Department did not consider insulation on water heater inlet and outlet pipes. In recent visits to the five water heater manufacturers, we discovered that four manufacturers ship the tanks with pipe insulation for their high efficiency water heaters. The DOE water heater test procedure allows water heaters to be tested with pipe insulation if the manufacturer ships the tank with pipe insulation. To determine the impact of pipe insulation on our analysis, we modeled water heaters with and without pipe insulation in WATSIM. These results showed that pipe insulation in combination with heat traps improves the energy factor by 0.005 EF. We performed tests at NIST with and without pipe insulation on three different models of electric water heaters equipped with heat traps, and the average increase in the energy factor with pipe insulation was 0.007. Since both the WATSIM computer model and NIST testing indicate the effects of pipe insulation combined with heat traps is small, we have not included the effects of pipe insulation in our analysis. Furthermore, since pipe insulation must be applied during water heater installation, we are not sure how often it is used. Information from a small survey of installers indicated that about 50 percent do not install the pipe insulation

125

DSYahod

Rectangle

1/2

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: Home Retrofit 2) Measure Name: ESK – HD Shower Head 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

91 42,000 96 42,000 11 4) Revised Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

141 30,000 141 30,000 5) Savings Derivation a) Gas Savings

1. Water savings from (c) below = 30,000 L/y 2. From 2003 ASHRAE Applications Handbook, Section 49.8, Table 2,

representative shower temperature = 43 C. 3. Assume hot water supply temperature = 54 C & average annual supply

temperature = 10 C*. Then by mixing rule, hot flow = 3 times cold flow = 22,500 L/y or 22,500 Kg/y.

4. Assume 40 gal tank @ EF = .59. & UG South HHV = 37.68 GJ/1000 M3 5. Savings = (54C-10C)*(1 Kcal/KgC)*(22,500 Kg) = 1.621 106 Kcal*(4.184*10-6

GJ/Kcal)/(37.68 GJ/1000 M3) = 110 M3/y @ 100% efficiency or 141 M3 @ recovery efficiency of 78%. (Recovery efficiency is used instead of Energy Factor because this calculation addresses only heating water and standby loss is not relevant)

b) Electricity Savings c) Water Savings (see notes next page)

1. “Standard” showerhead flow rate 14.8 l/m (4.0 USgpm) 1,2 2. “Low Flow” shower head 7.6 L/m (2.0 USgpm) 3. Assume 10 - 8 minute showers per week for 2.7 person household 3,45 4. Standard showerhead will use :

(14.8 l/m)*(8 m/shower)*(10 showers/week)*(52 weeks/year)= 61,568 litres/year 6

5. Low flow shower head will use: (7.6 L/m)*(8 m/shower)*(10 showers/week)*(52 weeks/year)= 31,616 litres/year

6. Savings = 61,569-31,616 = 29,952 Litres/year, assume 30,000 L/y

1 Compare with Environment Canada web site assumptions of 17.1 L/min for standard shower head http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/images/manage/effic/e_shower.htm 2 City of Toronto standard shower head flow rate of 14.8 L/min (http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/watereff/water_saving_kits/indoor_kit.htm) 3 Region of Waterloo reports average shower length of 8 minutes/shower http://www.region.waterloo.on.ca/web/region.nsf/c56e308f49bfeb7885256abc0071ec9a/5dec0619081e5e7e85256c75005e3cc4!OpenDocument#Check%20your%20toilet%20tank%20water%20leve 4 Environment Canada assumes 10 showers/week per showerhead. The Region of Waterloo assumes 7 showers per week per person, which is probably high since on average, some people will take baths & some people will either shower at another location or skip a day. 5 Average household size from Stats Canada “Dwelling Characteristics and Household Equipment, Canada and Provinces, 2000” for Ontario = 2.7 persons 6 City of Toronto estimates standard shower head consumption is about 27,000 L/person/y.

126

DSYahod

Rectangle

2/2

d) Equipment Life no data e) Incremental Cost no data Note: The City of Toronto estimates a 5 L/min difference between standard and low flow shower heads, but assumes the standard shower flow is 14.8 L/min and the “efficient” shower head is 9.8 L/min. (http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/watereff/water_saving_kits/indoor_kit.htm) The Region of Waterloo notes that the average shower length is 8 minutes, and can save 40 litres of water. Using these two numbers, it can be seen that the region is also assuming a saving of 5 Litres per shower. This implies that they are using similar assumptions to those of Toronto, and since Toronto is using 9.8 L/min as the low flow shower head rate, we can assume that our 7.6 L/min shower head will save 14.8-7.6 = 7.2 L/min. The “typical family of four” is estimated to use 64.3 USgal/day (from EF test method & Ontario Hydro research). This equates to 88,832 L of hot water per year. Assuming proportional consumption, a family of 2.7 would use about 60,000 L/year. Thus even a claim of 30,000 L/y savings is implying a saving of 50% on hot water consumption from the shower alone! * Average inlet water temperature will vary with the water source and time of year. Sample data from Kingston (West water Plant) av 11 C, Thunder Bay av. 9 C, and Elgin Area Primary Water Supply (part of London and district) 10 C, suggests that average yearly water temperature is difficult to differentiate based on location.

127

DSYahod

Rectangle

1/3

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: Home Retrofit 2) Measure Name: Energy Star Windows 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

11 - n/a 14 - n/a 25 4) Revised Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

12 16.5 n/a 14 15.3 n/a 25 South – $48 North - $60

* incremental costs as reported in “Potential Savings for Energy Star Windows, Doors and Skylights”, Enermodal Engineering Ltd., NRCan, February 2005

5) Derivation The savings presented are based on choosing “Energy Star” window a) Gas Savings The gas savings presented in the tables above were derived from HOT2XPTM simulations. To facilitate the simulations in HOT2XP™ a number of assumptions had to be made regarding the typical construction of homes in each region of interest. For the most part the default inputs to HOT2XP™ were chosen to represent the configurations of a typical home. The inputs that were changed from the default values are discussed below.


Year Built Statistics Canada data (Table 5-7 “Dwelling Characteristics and Household Equipment, Canada and Provinces, 2000”) indicates that the average vintage of Ontario dwellings is 1965. This vintage was used as the “year built” input to HOT2XP™.

House Orientations The energy performance of windows is sensitive to orientation of the front of the house, primarily due to solar considerations. HOT2XP™ assumes most of the window area will be located at the front and back of the house, making the orientation of the house significant in the calculation. For this reason, the simulations were run for both South and East house orientations and the results were averaged.

Base Case Window and Frames The base case windows were assumed to be double-glazed (12 mm gap) with no inert-gas fill or low-e coating. This type of window would be designated as an R-2 window. This choice of base technology is in agreement with previous base technology [Standard Windows (R-2)], used in past DSM Measures. The frames selected for these windows were “wood”, which is the default selection in HOT2XP™. The air-tightness was

128

DSYahod

Rectangle

2/3

assumed to be “Average” which corresponds to a rating of 4.55 ACH (air changes per hour) @ 50 Pa.

Upgraded Windows and Frames The input parameters for the upgraded window case were chosen to represent the Energy Star® rated window. The key features of these windows are described at http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/energystar/english/consumers/features.cfm. These key features are:

• Double or triple glazing with a sealed insulating glass unit • Low-emissivity (low-e) glass • Inert gas, such as argon or krypton, in the sealed unit • Low conductivity or “warm edge” spacer bars • Insulated frames and sashes • Superior airtightness

With respect to the inputs to HOT2XP™, the important features are low-e coating, double-pane with an argon fill. The frames selected for these windows were “vinyl”. The Energy Star® rated windows may have a less conductive frame which would make this selection a conservative one. For example, the frame described on the Centennial Windows website is described as foam-filled vinyl, which presumably would be less conductive than a standard vinyl frame. The change in air-tightness of the home caused by the window upgraded needed to be estimated. The ASHRAE Fundamentals (25.17) suggests that windows and doors account for, on average, 15% of the air leakage from a home. Using the base case of 4.55 ACH @ 50 Pa, means 0.6825 ACH @ 50 Pa of this can be attributed to the windows and doors. The next lowest air leakage rate in HOT2XP™ is 4 ACH @ 50 Pa, and is labeled as “improved”. The simulation runs capture the improved air tightness by using the “improved” air leakage rate. The savings estimated from simulation runs in HOT2XP™ were based on the 16 windows in a 1500 ft2 single storey home. Each window in the simulation has dimensions of 1220 mm x 910mm (4 ft x 3 ft). Additional details of gas savings are reported in an internal report,

“Rational Behind Natural Gas (and Electrical) Savings Attributed to Upgrading Base-Technology Windows (R-2) to Energy Star”, Darryl Yahoda, Market Knowledge, August 20, 2004

b) Electricity Savings Electrical savings attributable to space heating are derived from the same HOT2XPTM simulations used for gas savings.

Union South Union North

Electrical Savings

Natural Gas

Savings

Electrical Savings

Natural Gas

Savings (kWh /

window / year)

(m3 / window /

yr)

(kWh / window /

year)

(m3 / window /

yr) 1.70 12 2.25 14

129

DSYahod

Rectangle

3/3

When space cooling is added as part of the simulation runs the electricity savings decreases – presumably because of increase trapping of solar gains with the upgraded windows.

Natural Gas Electricity Natural Gas ElectricityAnnual Usage Annual Usage Annual Usage Annual Usage

(m3) (kWh) (m3) (kWh)Base 2908 9734 3816 9503Upgraded 2739 9730 3592 9483Savings (/yr) 169 5 224 20Savings (/m2 of window/yr) 9.53 0.26 12.62 1.13Savings (/ft2 of window/yr) 0.89 0.02 1.17 0.11*Savings (/window/yr) 10.58 0.29 14.01 1.26*based on 16 windows/house with each window: 1220 mm x 910 mm (4ft x 3ft)

UG South UG North

Additional electricity consumption for space cooling is contrary to savings presented in an Enermodal study,

“Potential Savings for Energy Star Windows, Doors and Skylights”, Enermodal Engineering Ltd., NRCan

These savings are derived from HOT2000TM simulations.

- reported gas savings similar to those in internal report - Energy Star windows rated by zones (A, B, C, D), - Space Cooling savings for Union South (zone B) and Union North (zone C) were

reported as space cooling: 54 MJ/m2 and 50 MJ/m2 respectively - Standard window is 1.1 m2 so space cooling electrical savings are calculated as

follows: (54 MJ/m2) x (1.1 m2/window) / (3.6 MJ/kWh) = 16.5 kWh/window (50 MJ/m2) x (1.1 m2/window) / (3.6 MJ/kWh) = 15.3 kWh/window

Elec. Savings [space cooling] (kWh/window)

South 16.5 North 15.3

c) Water Savings n/a d) Equipment Life e) Incremental Cost From Enermodal Report, $43.75/m3 (South) x (1.1 m2/window) = $48/window $54.89/m3 (South) x (1.1 m2/window) = $60/window

130

DSYahod

Rectangle

1/2

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: Home Retrofit 2) Measure Name: Front Load Washer 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

55 55 13 350 4) Revised Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

55 31 28731 55 31 28731 13 350 5) Derivation a) Gas Savings Assumptions:

• 2.7 people per household • 3 loads/person/week • 8.1 loads/week (3* 2.7) • 421 Loads/year (8.1*52)

From Boston Washer Study, ORNL, September, 2001 • Dryer gas savings, 0.054 M3/load • Water heater gas savings, 0.076 M3/load • Total gas savings/load = .054 + .076 = 0.13 M3/load

Total gas savings = 0.13 M3/load*421 Loads/year = 55 M3/y From NGTC study “top vs Front Load Washers”, November, 2004

• Average water heater savings for warm (38 C) wash 2549 Btu/load & 4676 Btu/load for hot (60C) wash

• Total water heater savings = (2549 Btu/load)/(1000 Btu/ft3)/(35.3 ft3/m3) = .072 M3/load

From DOE/Energy Star, “Life Cycle Cost Estimate for Energy Star Qualified Residential Clothes Washer”12 $12 savings/$0.910/therm = 13.2 therms = 37 m3 -> 0.88 m3/ load b) Electricity Savings From DOE/Energy Star, “Life Cycle Cost Estimate for Energy Star Qualified Residential Clothes Washer” Conventional = 57 kWh ES = 26 kWh Savings = 31 kWh c) Water Savings

1http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/bulk_purchasing/bpsavings_calc/CalculatorConsumerClothesWasher.xls

131

DSYahod

Rectangle

2/2

From DOE/Energy Star, “Life Cycle Cost Estimate for Energy Star Qualified Residential Clothes Washer” Conventional = 15551 gal/year ES = 7961 gal/year Savings = 7590 gal/year = 28731 L/year d) Equipment Life e) Incremental Cost “Front-loading washers are the current rage among experts and consumers alike, even though they can cost $300 or $400 more...” Average: $350 Source: http://www.moneysense.ca/spending/shopping_sense/article.jsp?content=20050505_174644_6612

132

DSYahod

Rectangle

Number of units 1Electric Rate ($/kWh) $0.086Water Rate ($/1000 gallons) $4.158Gas Rate ($/therms) $0.910Number of Loads per Week 8Type of Water Heating

Initial Cost per Unit (estimated retail price) $750 $450Electricity Consumption (kWh/year) 26 57Water Consumption (gal/year) 7,961 15,551

Annual Operating Costs*

Electricity costs $2 $5 $3Water costs $33 $65 $32Gas costs $17 $28 $12Total $52 $98 $46

Life Cycle Costs*

Operating costs (electricity, water, and gas) $455 $921 $466Electricity costs $20 $43 $23Water costs $290 $566 $276Gas costs $146 $312 $166

Purchase price for 1 unit(s) $750 $450 -$300Total $1,205 $1,371 $166

Simple payback of initial additional cost (years) † 6.5

Initial cost difference $300Life cycle savings $466Net life cycle savings (life cycle savings - additional cost) $166Simple payback of additional cost (years) 6.5Life cycle electricity saved (kWh) 338Life cycle air pollution reduction (lbs of CO 2) 406Air pollution reduction equivalence (number of cars removed from the road for a year) 0.0Air pollution reduction equivalence (acres of forest) 0.1Savings as a percent of retail price 22%

Life Cycle Cost Estimate for1 ENERGY STAR Qualified Residential Clothes Washer(s)

This energy savings calculator was developed by the U.S. EPA and U.S. DOE and is provided for estimating purposes only. Actual energy savings may vary based on use and other factors.

Enter your own values in the gray boxes or use our default values.

ENERGY STAR Qualified Unit

Conventional Unit

Annual and Life Cycle Costs and Savings for 1 Clothes Washer(s)

† A simple payback period of zero years means that the payback is immediate.

Summary of Benefits for 1 Clothes Washer(s)

1 ENERGY STAR Qualified Unit(s)

1 Conventional Unit(s)

Savings with ENERGY STAR

* Annual costs exclude the initial purchase price. All costs, except initial cost, are discounted over the products' lifetime using a real discount rate of 4%. See

Gas Water Heating

133

Category Data SourcePower & Water

ENERGY STAR Qualified UnitInitial Cost Per Unit $750 DOE 2004Lifetime 12 years DOE 2004Water Consumption per Load 18.9 gallons/load DOE 2004Unit Water Consumption 7,400 gallons DOE 2004Electric Water Heating

Electricity Consumption per Load 0.648 kWh/load DOE 2004Unit Electricity Consumption 254 kWh DOE 2004

Gas Water HeatingElectricity Consumption per Load 0.065 kWh/load DOE 2004Unit Electricity Consumption 25 kWh CalculatedGas Consumption per Load 0.046 Therm/load DOE 2004Unit Gas Consumption 18 Therms DOE 2004

Conventional Unit (New Unit)Initial Cost Per Unit $450 DOE 2004Lifetime 12 years DOE 2004Water Consumption per load 36.9 gallons/load DOE 2004Annual Unit Water Consumption 14,456 gallons/year DOE 2004Electric Water Heating

Electricity Consumption per Load 1.57 kWh/load DOE 2004Unit Electricity Consumption 615 kWh DOE 2004

Gas Water HeatingElectricity Consumption per Load 0.157 kWh/load DOE 2004Unit Electricity Consumption 61 kWh CalculatedGas Consumption per Load 0.087 Therm/load DOE 2004Unit Gas Consumption 34 Therms DOE 2004

UsageResidential Clothes WashersAverage number of loads per year 392 loads/year DOE 2004Number of operating weeks per year 52 week/year DOE 2004Number of loads per week (Residential) 8 loads/week DOE 2004

Discount RateCommercial and Residential Discount Rate (real) 4% A real discount rate of 4 percent is assumed, which is roughly equivalent to the nominal

discount rate of 7 percent (4 percent real discount rate + 3 percent inflation rate).

Energy and Water Prices2004 Residential Electricity Price $0.085 $/kWh EPA 20042004 Water Rate per 1000 Gallons $4.158 $/1000 gal DOE 20042004 Residential Gas Price $0.96 $/therm EIA 2004

Carbon Dioxide Emissions FactorsElectricity Carbon Emission Factors 1.43 lbs CO2/kWh EPA 2003

CO2 EquivalentsAnnual CO2 sequestration per forested acre 7,333 lbs CO2/year EPA 2003Annual CO2 emissions for "average" passenger car 11,560 lbs CO2/year EPA 2003

Last updated: 11/22/04

Assumptions for Clothes Washers

Value

For more information, please contact Bill McNary, D&R International, Contractor to the U.S. DOE, (301) 588-9387, [email protected]

134

1/1

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: Home Retrofit 2) Measure Name: Single Stage High Efficiency Furnace 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

247 n/a n/a 343 n/a n/a 19 4) Revised Savings a) Single Stage High Efficiency Furnace with Standard Efficiency Blower


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

247 n/a n/a 343 n/a n/a 19 b) Single Stage High Efficiency Furnace with High Efficiency Blower


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

247 139 n/a 343 n/a 19 5) Derivation Based on Hot 2000 V 9.1. Assessment based on 1,500 ft2 single story house located in London or North Bay, built in 1965 with 3 occupants1. Unheated basement, attic insulation upgraded to R16, air tightness upgraded to “average” a) Gas Savings i) Automatic blower operation Reference furnace – 80% AFUE single stage, fan assisted, conventional blower motor Heating mode blower consumption: 352 kWh/y Cooling season blower consumption: 167 kWh/y Improved furnace – 94% AFUE, single stage, high efficiency blower motor Heating mode blower consumption: 217 kWh/y Cooling season blower consumption: 167 *217/352 kWh/y = 103 kWh/y* * Hot 2000 V 9.1 calculates high efficiency blower power for heating but not for cooling. It is assumed that the cooling savings are proportionate to heating savings. b) Electricity Savings c) Water Savings n/a 1 Average household size from Stats Canada “Dwelling Characteristics and Household Equipment, Canada and Provinces, 2000” Av house size - 1,500 ft2, average year built – 1965, average occupants – 2.7 rounded for model to 3 persons.

135

DSYahod

Rectangle

1/2

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: New Home Construction 2) Measure Name: High Efficiency Furnace with High Efficiency Fan 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

344 n/a n/a 487 n/a n/a 19 4) Revised Savings a) Two Stage Furnace with Standard Efficiency Blower


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

344 n/a n/a 487 n/a n/a 19 b) Two Stage Furnace with High Efficiency Fan


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

344 550 n/a 487 500 n/a 19 5) Derivation Based on Hot 2000 V 9.1. Assessment based on 1,500 ft2 single story house located in London, built in 1965 with 3 occupants1. Unheated basement, attic insulation upgraded to R16, air tightness upgraded to “average” a) Gas Savings Details of Gas Savings reported in internal report, “Furnace Savings Update - 2004”, John Overall, Market Knowledge, January 2003 - gas savings derived from HOT2XPTM simulations assumes 1,500 ft2 bungalow built in 1965 - High Efficiency Furnace w Fan refers to 2-stage, modulating high-efficiency furnace with variable speed, high efficiency motor b) Electricity Savings Assumptions: PSC power consumption: 405 W Variable Speed motor consumption: 95W Heating season operating hours/year (assuming 50% oversizing): London = 1440 h, North Bay = 1567 h Cooling season operating hours/year (0% oversizing) London = 337, North Bay = 136 h London savings for auto control fan = (405-95)*(1440+337)/1000 = 550 kWh/y North Bay savings for auto control fan = (405-95)*(1567+136)/1000 = 500 kWh/y 1 Average household size from Stats Canada “Dwelling Characteristics and Household Equipment, Canada and Provinces, 2000” Av house size - 1,500 ft2, average year built – 1965, average occupants – 2.7 rounded for model to 3 persons.

136

DSYahod

Rectangle

2/2

(c/w) Hot2000 estimate of 128 kWh/y for standard UG south conditions

Hot 2000 results by Motor type & Location

Space Heating (kWh)

Space Cooling (kWh)

Total (kWh)

Savings from Base

Auto fan, normal efficiency London auto 352. 167 1272 519 1506 1563 3069 Two speed fan, normal efficiency

London 332 198 1503 530 Two Speed fan, high efficiency 212 179 1362 391 128 948 1450 2398 671


137

DSYahod

Rectangle

1/2

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: Home Retrofit 2) Measure Name: Low-e Window 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost



Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

7 1 n/a 9 1 n/a 25 $38 5) Derivation a) Gas Savings The gas savings presented in the tables above were derived from HOT2XPTM simulations. To facilitate the simulations in HOT2XP™ a number of assumptions had to be made regarding the typical construction of homes in each region of interest. For the most part the default inputs to HOT2XP™ were chosen to represent the configurations of a typical home. The inputs that were changed from the default values are discussed below.


Year Built Statistics Canada data (Table 5-7 “Dwelling Characteristics and Household Equipment, Canada and Provinces, 2000”) indicates that the average vintage of Ontario dwellings is 1965. This vintage was used as the “year built” input to HOT2XP™.

Base Case Window and Frames The base case windows were assumed to be double-glazed (12 mm gap) with no inert-gas fill or low-e coating. This type of window would be designated as an R-2 window. This choice of base technology is in agreement with previous base technology [Standard Windows (R-2)], used in past DSM Measures. The frames selected for these windows were “wood”, which is the default selection in HOT2XP™. The air-tightness was assumed to be “Average” which corresponds to a rating of 4.55 ACH (air changes per hour) @ 50 Pa. Low-e Window and Frames The low-e windows was represented by double pane, low-e (no argon fill). The frames selected for these windows were “vinyl”. The change in air-tightness of the home caused by the window upgraded needed to be estimated. The ASHRAE Fundamentals (25.17) suggests that windows and doors account for, on average, 15% of the air leakage from a home. Using the base case of 4.55 ACH @ 50 Pa, means 0.6825 ACH @ 50 Pa of this can be attributed to the windows and doors. The next lowest air leakage rate in HOT2XP™ is 4 ACH @ 50 Pa, and is labeled as “improved”. The simulation runs capture the improved air tightness by using the “improved” air leakage rate. The savings

138

DSYahod

Rectangle

2/2

estimated from simulation runs in HOT2XP™ were based on the 16 windows in a 1500 ft2 single storey home. Each window in the simulation has dimensions of 1220 mm x 910mm (4 ft x 3 ft). b) Electricity Savings Electrical savings attributable to space heating are derived from the same HOT2XPTM simulations used for gas savings.

with AC without AC

Region Gas (m3) Electrical (kWh) Gas (m3)

Electrical (kWh)

South 105.7 26.2 105.7 17 North 145.2 25.1 141.2 22.7

The savings presented in the above table are for the entire home with 16 windows. The savings are divided by 16 to determine the savings on a per window basis.

with AC without AC

Region Gas (m3) Electrical (kWh) Gas (m3)

Electrical (kWh)

South 7 2 7 1 North 9 2 9 1


From Report, “Potential Savings for Energy Star Windows, Doors and Skylights”, Enermodal Engineering Ltd., NRCan

$35/m2 (South) x (1.1 m2/window) = $38/window

139

DSYahod

Rectangle

1/1

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: Home Retrofit 2) Measure Name: Power Comb Boiler - up to 299 Mbtu/h 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost



Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

606 781 5) Derivation a) Gas Savings

• Assume average house size of 1,500 ft2, built in 1965 with modest insulation and air tightness upgrades.

• Hot2XP calculates that for a London location, such a house would save 606 m3 for upgrading to a 80% efficient induced draft fan boiler from a standing pilot, chimney vented boiler (no stack damper). (Estimated boiler size 50,000 Btu/h with 10% over-sizing factor).

• Hot2XP calculates that the same house in North Bay would save 781 M3. (Estimated boiler size 60,000 Btu/h with 10% over-sizing factor).

Energy Savings Region Gas (m3) Electrical (kWh) South 606 - North 781 -

b) Electricity Savings c) Water Savings d) Equipment Life Appliance Magazine has no data on life expectancy for residential boilers e) Incremental Cost

140

DSYahod

Rectangle

1/2

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: Home Retrofit 2) Measure Name: Thermostat - Programmable 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

232 - - 290 - - 20 80 4) Revised Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

219 163 n/a 304 126 n/a 5) Derivation a) Gas Savings The Canadian Centre for Housing Technology has produced a report that describes the effects of thermostat settings on seasonal energy consumption.1 The findings described in this report are based on testing done at the CCHT side-by-side testing facility. Three winter setback scenarios were tested:





One summer setforward scenario was tested:



The gas and electricity consumptions for space heating and space cooling were determined using the HOT2XP simulation program. The default inputs for a home of 1965 vintage, which correspond to building code, were primarily used. For the North and


141

DSYahod

Rectangle

2/2

South the foundation insulation was improved from the default to R8 – part height on the inside. The attic insulation was improved to R16 and the infiltration improved to “average” for both North and South cases. Both North and South cases assumed 3 occupants with a gas WH, mid-efficiency furnace, and non-heated basement. The m3 and kWh savings were calculated using the percentage savings for each scenario. Space Heating Savings Only Space Heating & Cooling Savings Gas Electricity Gas Electricity m3 kWh m3 kWh

South 143 3 143 160 1 North 198 4 198 120 South 219 7 219 163 2 North 304 9 304 126 South 285 8 285 165 3 North 396 11 396 128

The winter nighttime setback savings are in good agreement with the well established rule-of-thumb, based on research by Nelson and MacArthur2, for energy savings related to setting back thermostats, which states:

“a daily eight-hour nighttime setback can bring about close to a 1% reduction in natural gas consumption for each degree Fahrenheit offset (or about a 1.8% reduction for each degree Celsius offset)”3.

The savings used for this prescriptive measure on based on the second winter setback scenario, 18 °C Night and Day Setback, combined with the summer setforward scenario, 25 °C Day Setforward. b) Electricity Savings (see Gas Savings) c) Water Savings n/a d) Equipment Life e) Incremental Cost

2 Nelson, Lorne W. and J. Ward MacArthur (1978) “Energy Savings through Thermostat Setbacks”, ASHRAE Transactions, Volume 83, AL-78-1 (1): 319-333. 3 Plourde, André (March 2003) “Programmable Thermostats as Means of Generating Energy Savings: Some Pros and Cons”, CBEEDAC 2003–RP-01.

142

DSYahod

Rectangle

1/2

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: Home Retrofit 2) Measure Name: Grey Water Heat Recovery 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

4) Revised Savings Higher Usage (2 – 10 minute showers/day)


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

120 120 30 $500 Typical Usage (1.4 – 8 minute showers/day)


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

68 68 30 $500 5) Savings Derivation a) Gas Savings

1. Assume customer would install low flow showerhead before they would install heat recovery.

2. From 2003 ASHRAE Applications Handbook, Section 49.8, Table 2, representative shower temperature = 43 C.

3. Assume heat exchanger has a 50% effectiveness 4. Assume balanced flow, i.e., grey water flowrate equals the cold water flowrate 5. It is assumed that a customer would install a lower flow showerhead before they

would install a heat recovery system. Standard new showerhead flow rate 7.6 L/min (2.0 USgpm) 1,2

6. Assume 1.4 - 8 minute showers per day for 2.7 person household (typical usage)3,4

7. Assume 2 - 10 minute showers per day for 2.7 person household (higher usage) 8. Assume temperature drop of 3.5 C between showerhead and top of heat

exchanger5 9. Recovery efficiency of 78%. (Recovery efficiency is used instead of Energy

Factor because this calculation addresses only heating water and standby loss is not relevant)

Daily Water Usage Higher Usage 7.6 L/min * 10 min/shower * 2 showers/day = 152 L/day Typical Usage 1 Compare with Environment Canada web site assumptions of 17.1 L/min for standard shower head http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/images/manage/effic/e_shower.htm 2 City of Toronto standard shower head flow rate of 14.8 L/min (http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/watereff/water_saving_kits/indoor_kit.htm) 3 Environment Canada assumes 10 showers/week per showerhead. The Region of Waterloo assumes 7 showers per week per person, which is probably high since on average, some people will take baths & some people will either shower at another location or skip a day. 4 Average household size from Stats Canada “Dwelling Characteristics and Household Equipment, Canada and Provinces, 2000” for Ontario = 2.7 persons 5 Preliminary Analysis of Performance of GFXTM Drainwater Heat Recovery System at Canadian Centre for Housing Technology

143

DSYahod

Rectangle

2/2

7.6 L/min * 8 min/shower * 1.4 showers/day = 86.9 L/day Gas Savings 0.5 *152 L/day * 4.2 kJ/L*°C *(39.5°C - 10°C)/(1000 kJ/MJ * 0.78) = 12 MJ/day ->365 days/year*12 MJ/day / 37.2 MJ/m3 = 120 m3 0.5 *86.9 L/day * 4.2 kJ/L*°C *(39.5°C - 10°C)/(1000 kJ/MJ * 0.78) = 7 MJ/day ->365 days/year*7 MJ/day / 37.2 MJ/m3 = 68.4 m3 b) Electricity Savings n/a c) Water Savings n/a d) Equipment Life Long Life – simple copper pipe (30 plus years) according to ”Pros and Cons of the GFX Drainwater Heat Recovery system” e) Incremental Cost On-line pricing available at http://www.gfxtechnology.com/ $ 358.00USD = $413 CDN (for GS-60 model – same model analyzed in NRCan report) (foreign currency cost calculator www.tdcanadatrust.ca) Assume installed cost is $500.

144

DSYahod

Rectangle

Measure name Page 1

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: Home Retrofit 2) Measure Name: Tankless Water Heaters 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 4) Revised Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

206 207 20 years $950 5) Derivation a) Gas Savings Assumptions:

Typical family of 31 uses ¾ of nominal water use of typical family of 4. Average water temperatures: Kingston 10.6 °C, Thunder Bay 8.7 °C, London (“Elgin Area”) 9.8 °C 2 Using the DOE WHAM water heater model and the following water heater characteristics, the annual consumption was calculated for inlet water temperatures of 8 °C and 11 °C Water Heater Characteristics Factor 50 USG

Storage Tankless

Water draw for 3 person household, L/D 164 164 Energy Factor 0.58 0.82 Storage volume L (US Gal) 189 (50) n/a Input (Btu/h) 40,000 180,000 Recovery efficiency, % 78 84 Outlet Temperature C 57 57 Room Temperature C 20 20 Water Heater Gas Consumption (M3) 8 °C Inlet

Temperature 11 °C Inlet Temperature

Conventional 612 584 Tankless 405 378 Savings 207 206 b) Electricity Savings 1 Average household size from Stats Canada “Dwelling Characteristics and Household Equipment, Canada and Provinces, 2000” Av house size - 1,500 ft2, average year built – 1965, average occupants – 2.7 rounded to 3 persons 2 Kingston data from www.utilitieskingston.com, Thunder Bay data from www.thunderbay.ca/docs/water/1292.pdf, London data from www.watersupply.london.ca/

145

DSYahod

Rectangle

Measure name Page 2

c) Water Savings d) Equipment Life Redman/Williams quotes Rinnai estimates of up to 20 years. e) Incremental Cost Assume unit is a Rinnai 2532 FFU, with an equipment cost of $1,000 and an installed cost of $1,800.3 from Redman/Williams Compare to a PV 50 from Union Energy at $8504 Incremental cost is therefore $1,800 - $850 = $950.

3 From “Technical and Economic Analysis Of Residential Tankless Water Heaters”, March 2004, J. Overall 4 From “Competitive Analysis – Revised.xls”, Diane Murray, 2005

146

DSYahod

Rectangle

Measure name Page 1

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: New Building Construction 2) Measure Name: Condensing Boiler – 300 to 999 MBtu/h 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

5,350 5,250 25 4) Revised Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

7,973 11,659 5) Derivation a) Gas Savings Use boiler tool, Dec/04 version 2.1. The building heat demand is sized to fit the “existing” boiler output and the tool then uses this load to calculate consumption by the replacement boiler. Assumed atmospheric boiler at 65% seasonal efficiency and a condensing boiler at 92% seasonal efficiency The major cause for the difference between the old and new estimates appears to be that the “existing” estimates assumed that the reference boiler which has a thermal efficiency of about 78% had a seasonal efficiency of the same value. Since the reference boiler vents using a draft hood and a chimney, the two numbers cannot be the same due to dilution losses during the boiler “on” period, and “off” period losses where heated boiler room air is vented via the chimney. The “existing” savings also did not take into account the difference in length of the heating season for Union North and Union South. The Union Gas Boiler Tool estimates a significant difference in consumption. b) Electricity Savings c) Water Savings d) Equipment Life e) Incremental Cost

147

DSYahod

Rectangle

Measure name Page 1

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: New Building Construction 2) Measure Name: Condensing Boiler – 1000 to 1499 MBtu/h 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost



Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

11,500 17,400 5) Derivation a) Gas Savings Use boiler tool, Dec/04 version 2.1. The building heat demand is sized to fit the “existing” boiler output and the tool then uses this load to calculate consumption by the replacement boiler. Assumed atmospheric boiler at 65% seasonal efficiency and a condensing boiler at 92% seasonal efficiency. The major cause for the difference between the old and new estimates appears to be that the “existing” estimates assumed that the reference boiler which has a thermal efficiency of about 78% had a seasonal efficiency of the same value. Since the reference boiler vents using a draft hood and a chimney, the two numbers cannot be the same due to dilution losses during the boiler “on” period, and “off” period losses where heated boiler room air is vented via the chimney. The “existing” savings also did not take into account the difference in length of the heating season for Union North and Union South. The Union Gas Boiler Tool estimates a significant difference in consumption. b) Electricity Savings c) Water Savings d) Equipment Life e) Incremental Cost

148

DSYahod

Rectangle

Measure name Page 1

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: New Building Construction 2) Measure Name: Power Boiler – up to 299 MBtu/h 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost



Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

1,294 1,934 5) Derivation a) Gas Savings Use boiler tool, Dec/04 version 2.1. The building heat demand is sized to fit the “existing” boiler output and the tool then uses this load to calculate consumption by the replacement boiler. Assumed atmospheric boiler at 65% seasonal efficiency and a power boiler at 82% seasonal efficiency The major cause for the difference between the old and new estimates appears to be that the “existing” estimates assumed that the reference boiler which has a thermal efficiency of about 78% had a seasonal efficiency of the same value. Since the reference boiler vents using a draft hood and a chimney, the two numbers cannot be the same due to dilution losses during the boiler “on” period, and “off” period losses where heated boiler room air is vented via the chimney. The “existing” savings also did not take into account the difference in length of the heating season for Union North and Union South. The Union Gas Boiler Tool estimates a significant difference in consumption. b) Electricity Savings c) Water Savings d) Equipment Life no data e) Incremental Cost

149

DSYahod

Rectangle

Measure name Page 1

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: New Building Construction 2) Measure Name: Condensing Water Heater 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost



Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

1,750 1,750 5) Derivation a) Gas Savings Existing assumption is for a full service restaurant with an annual gas usage of 8,000 M3/year Assume the reference tank is a 140 US gal. At the draw conditions of 950 gallons a day, the efficiency is about 75%. A condensing water heater with 50 US gallons storage will have an energy factor of about 0.95 at the given conditions As the UG water heater comparison tool on the next pages shows, the reference heater uses 289,876 ft3/y (8,211 M3/y) compared to the condensing water heater at 228,068 ft3/y (6,461 M3/y) for a savings of 1,750 M3/y

150

DSYahod

Rectangle

Measure name Page 2

b) Electricity Savings c) Water Savings d) Equipment Life e) Incremental Cost

151

DSYahod

Rectangle

1/2

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: New Building Construction 2) Measure Name: ERV – 1001 to 10000 cfm 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost



Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

35750 - n/a 45157 - n/a 5) Derivation a) Gas Savings The gas savings are determined from the estimated sensible and latent energy savings attributable to ERV use at a prescribed air flow rate, location hours below the balance point, average outdoor temperature and humidity ratio during those hours, and ERV sensible and latent effectiveness. The revised savings numbers listed here are based on a ventilation rate of 5500 CFM (the average of 1001 & 10000), Balance Point Temp = 18 C, with exhaust air at an assumed temperature of 22 C and humidity ratio of 0.005 lbmv/lbma. The ERV has a sensible and latent effectiveness of 0.6 and the heating season is assumed to stretch from September to May. The calculation of these savings is summarized by the Equation (1). ( ) ( ) ( )( )

ηρ

×

−+−=

HHVhwwEffTTEffctQ

mSavings wavinlavinspBP60)( 3 (1)

where, tBP = time the outdoor temperature is below the balance point, hours cP = Specific Heat of Air EffS = Sensible Effectiveness, expressed as a fraction Effl = Sensible Effectiveness, expressed as a fraction Tin = Stale indoor air temperature, F Tav = Average outdoor temperature, F Q = Ventilator flow rate, ft3/M ρ = air density, Lb/ft3 60 = minutes/hour HHV = Gas higher heating value, = 35,931Btu/M3 for UG South and 35,534 Btu/M3 for UG North η = Boiler efficiency expressed as a fraction – assumed to be 0.8 win = Stale indoor air humidity ratio (lbmv/lbma) wav = Average outdoor air humidity ratio (lbmv/lbma) hw = Enthalpy of water vapour (Btu/lbm) The savings equation can be rearranged as follows, ( ) ( ) ( )( )

QHHV

hwwEffTTEffctmSavings wavinlavinspBP

⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛×

−+−=

ηρ60

)( 3 (2)

152

DSYahod

Rectangle

2/2

For the assumed conditions, the values in the bracket of Equation (2) evaluate to 6.50 and 8.21 for Union South and North respectively, allowing for the savings to be evaluated as a function of volumetric flow rate (CFM). Union South -> Energy Savings (m3) = 6.50 x CFM Union North -> Energy Savings (m3) = 8.21 x CFM Sample Calculation for 5500 CFM Union South -> 6.50*(5500) = 35750 m3 Union North -> 8.21*(5500) = 45155 m3 Additional details can be found in an internal report,

1) “DSM Program Energy Savings Calculations For Heat Recovery and Energy Recovery Ventilators”, John Overall, Market Knowledge, February 26, 2004

2) “Detailed HRV_ERV Analysis” – MS Excel Worksheet b) Electricity Savings A proper base case needs to be established to determine whether there will be positive or negative electricity savings. c) Water Savings n/a d) Equipment Life e) Incremental Cost

153

DSYahod

Rectangle

1/2

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: New Building Construction 2) Measure Name: ERV – up to 1000 cfm 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost



Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

3250 - n/a 4105 - n/a 5) Derivation a) Gas Savings The gas savings are determined from the estimated sensible and latent energy savings attributable to ERV use at a prescribed air flow rate, location hours below the balance point, average outdoor temperature and humidity ratio during those hours, and ERV sensible and latent effectiveness. The revised savings numbers listed here are based on a ventilation rate of 500 CFM, Balance Point Temp = 18 C, with exhaust air at an assumed temperature of 22 C and humidity ratio of 0.005 lbmv/lbma. The ERV has a sensible and latent effectiveness of 0.6 and the heating season is assumed to stretch from September to May. The calculation of these savings is summarized by the Equation (1). ( ) ( ) ( )( )

+×

−+−=

ηρ

HHVhwwEffTTEffctQ

mSavings wavinlavinspBP60)( 3 (1)

where, tBP = time the outdoor temperature is below the balance point, hours cP = Specific Heat of Air EffS = Sensible Effectiveness, expressed as a fraction Effl = Sensible Effectiveness, expressed as a fraction Tin = Stale indoor air temperature, F Tav = Average outdoor temperature, F Q = Ventilator flow rate, ft3/M ρ = air density, Lb/ft3 60 = minutes/hour HHV = Gas higher heating value, = 35,931Btu/M3 for UG South and 35,534 Btu/M3 for UG North η = Boiler efficiency expressed as a fraction – assumed to be 0.8 win = Stale indoor air humidity ratio (lbmv/lbma) wav = Average outdoor air humidity ratio (lbmv/lbma) hw = Enthalpy of water vapour (Btu/lbm) The savings equation can be rearranged as follows, ( ) ( ) ( )( )

QHHV

hwwEffTTEffctmSavings wavinlavinspBP

⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛×

−+−=

ηρ60

)( 3 (2)

154

DSYahod

Rectangle

2/2

For the assumed conditions, the values in the bracket of Equation (2) evaluate to 6.50 and 8.21 for Union South and North respectively, allowing for the savings to be evaluated as a function of volumetric flow rate (CFM). Union South -> Energy Savings (m3) = 6.50 x CFM Union North -> Energy Savings (m3) = 8.21 x CFM Sample Calculation for 5500 CFM Union South -> 6.50*(500) = 3250 m3 Union North -> 8.21*(500) = 4105 m3 Additional details can be found in an internal report,


2) “Detailed HRV_ERV Analysis” – MS Excel Worksheet b) Electricity Savings A proper base case needs to be established to determine whether there will be positive or negative electricity savings. c) Water Savings n/a d) Equipment Life e) Incremental Cost

155

DSYahod

Rectangle

1/2

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: New Building Construction 2) Measure Name: Heat Recovery Ventilator HRV 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost



Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

2455 n/a n/a 3229 n/a n/a 5) Derivation a) Gas Savings The gas savings are determined from the estimated sensible energy savings attributable to HRV use at a prescribed air flow rate, location hours below the balance point, average outdoor temperature during those hours, and HRV sensible effectiveness. The revised savings numbers listed here are based on a ventilation rate of 500 CFM, Balance Point Temp = 18 C, with exhaust air at an assumed temperature of 22 C. The HRV has a sensible effectiveness of 0.6 and the heating season is assumed to stretch from September to May. The calculation of these savings is summarized by the Equation (1). ( )( )( )

ηρ

×

−=

HHVQTTEffct

mSavings avinspBP 60)( 3 (1)

Where, tBP = time the outdoor temperature is below the balance point, hours cP = Specific Heat of Air EffS = Sensible Effectiveness, expressed as a fraction Tin = Stale indoor air temperature, F Tav = Average outdoor temperature, F Q = Ventilator flow rate, ft3/M ρ = air density, Lb/ft3 60 = minutes/hour HHV = Gas higher heating value, = 35,931Btu/M3 for UG South and 35,534 Btu/M3 for UG North η = Boiler efficiency expressed as a fraction – assumed to be 0.8 Additional details can be found in an internal report,


2) “Detailed HRV_ERV Analysis” – MS Excel Worksheet b) Electricity Savings A proper base case needs to be established to determine whether there will be positive or negative electricity savings.

156

DSYahod

Rectangle

2/2


157

DSYahod

Rectangle

1/2

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: New Building Construction 2) Measure Name: Infrared Heating – LI – 20 to 75 MBtu/hr 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost



Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

898 700 n/a 971 758 n/a 5) Derivation a) Gas Savings The gas savings reported for the infrared heater are based on a consumption comparison with a unit heater servicing the load. The savings are based on the operation of a 75,000 Btu/h heater. Details on the gas savings calculations are reported in an external report submitted by Agviro Inc.

1) “Assessment of Average Infrared Heater Savings”, Agviro Inc., December 2004 Summary of Analysis • Heat loss calculations are based on “Bin method” with a balance point

temperature of 18°C • Bin data for Sudbury (Union North) and London (Union South) was used.

Each bin corresponds to temperatures in 5F temperature range and contains the number of hours during the year that the temperature was in this range.

• A conventional heater with an input of 75,000 Btu/h was examined for each region. It was assumed that the heater had a combustion efficiency of 80% and thus an output of 60,000 Btu/h.

• The design heat loss corresponds to heat output requirements for the lowest temperature bin in the design range.

• The design heat loss for the conventional heater system was assumed to be exactly equal to the heater output (i.e. no over-sizing factor).

• The design heat loss for the infrared heater system was equal to the conventional system heat loss scaled down by 0.85 (based on references found in the literature search).

• Each successive bin was assigned a heat loss rate scaled down from the design heat loss rate. The total heat loss for the year in each BIN range was determined by the number of BIN hours x the BIN heat loss rate.

• m3 of gas used per bin are determined from total heat loss for the year (divided by the combustion efficiency of 80%) divided by the LHV of natural gas (35 310 Btu/m3).

b) Electricity Savings

158

DSYahod

Rectangle

2/2

Blower motor specifications were taken from Reznor Model B unit heater line for 75,000 Btu/hr input heater.

1/3 hp x 746 W/hp = 249 W = 0.249 kW From the Agviro Study (referenced above), a unit heater servicing a comparable load to the infrared heater would have a running time of 2,817 hrs/year (South) and 3,046 hrs/year (North). The operating hours were determined using the annual heat loss for each temperature bin divided by the heater output (input x combustion efficiency). The potential electricity savings are determined by the power consumption of the fan motors multiplied by the expected hours of operation of the unit heater. South 2817 hrs/yr x 0.249 kW = 700 kWh / yr North 3046 hrs/yr x 0.249 kW = 758 kWh / yr c) Water Savings n/a d) Equipment Life e) Incremental Cost

159

DSYahod

Rectangle

1/2

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: New Building Construction 2) Measure Name: Infrared Heating – LI – over 150 MBtu/hr 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost



Equipment Life

Incremental Cost


1) “Assessment of Average Infrared Heater Savings”, Agviro Inc., December 2004 Summary of Analysis a. Heat loss calculations are based on “Bin method” with a balance point

temperature of 18°C b. Bin data for Sudbury (Union North) and London (Union South) was used.


c. A conventional heater with an input of 300,000 Btu/h was examined for each region. It was assumed that the heater had a combustion efficiency of 80% and thus an output of 240,000 Btu/h.

d. The design heat loss corresponds to heat output requirements for the lowest temperature bin in the design range.

e. The design heat loss for the conventional heater system was assumed to be exactly equal to the heater output (i.e. no over-sizing factor).

f. The design heat loss for the infrared heater system was equal to the conventional system heat loss scaled down by 0.85 (based on references found in the literature search).

g. Each successive bin was assigned a heat loss rate scaled down from the design heat loss rate. The total heat loss for the year in each BIN range was determined by the number of BIN hours x the BIN heat loss rate.

h. m3 of gas used per bin are determined from total heat loss for the year (divided by the combustion efficiency of 80%) divided by the LHV of natural gas (35 310 Btu/m3).

160

DSYahod

Rectangle

2/2

b) Electricity Savings Blower motor specifications were taken from Reznor Model B unit heater line for 300,000 Btu/hr input heater.

1 hp x 746 W/hp = 746 W = 0.746 kW From the Agviro Study (referenced above), a unit heater servicing a comparable load to the infrared heater would have a running time of 2,817 hrs/year (South) and 3,046 hrs/year (North). The operating hours were determined using the annual heat loss for each temperature bin divided by the heater output (input x combustion efficiency). The potential electricity savings are determined by the power consumption of the fan motors multiplied by the expected hours of operation of the unit heater. South 2817 hrs/yr x 0.746 kW = 2100 kWh / yr North 3046 hrs/yr x 0.746 kW = 2270 kWh / yr c) Water Savings n/a d) Equipment Life e) Incremental Cost

161

DSYahod

Rectangle

1/2

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: New Building Construction 2) Measure Name: Infrared Heating – LI – 76 to 150 MBtu/hr 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost



Equipment Life

Incremental Cost


1) “Assessment of Average Infrared Heater Savings”, Agviro Inc., December 2004 Summary of Analysis a. Heat loss calculations are based on “Bin method” with a balance point

temperature of 18°C b. Bin data for Sudbury (Union North) and London (Union South) was used.


c. A conventional heater with an input of 150,000 Btu/h was examined for each region. It was assumed that the heater had a combustion efficiency of 80% and thus an output of 120,000 Btu/h.

d. The design heat loss corresponds to heat output requirements for the lowest temperature bin in the design range.

e. The design heat loss for the conventional heater system was assumed to be exactly equal to the heater output (i.e. no over-sizing factor).

f. The design heat loss for the infrared heater system was equal to the conventional system heat loss scaled down by 0.85 (based on references found in the literature search).

g. Each successive bin was assigned a heat loss rate scaled down from the design heat loss rate. The total heat loss for the year in each BIN range was determined by the number of BIN hours x the BIN heat loss rate.

h. m3 of gas used per bin are determined from total heat loss for the year (divided by the combustion efficiency of 80%) divided by the LHV of natural gas (35 310 Btu/m3).

162

DSYahod

Rectangle

2/2

b) Electricity Savings Blower motor specifications were taken from Reznor Model B unit heater line for 125,000 Btu/hr input heater (there is no data available for 150,000 Btu/hr model).

1/3 hp x 746 W/hp = 249 W = 0.249 kW From the Agviro Study (referenced above), a unit heater servicing a comparable load to the infrared heater would have a running time of 2,817 hrs/year (South) and 3,046 hrs/year (North). The operating hours were determined using the annual heat loss for each temperature bin divided by the heater output (input x combustion efficiency). The potential electricity savings are determined by the power consumption of the fan motors multiplied by the expected hours of operation of the unit heater. South 2817 hrs/yr x 0.249 kW = 700 kWh / yr North 3046 hrs/yr x 0.249 kW = 758 kWh / yr c) Water Savings n/a d) Equipment Life e) Incremental Cost

163

DSYahod

Rectangle

Measure name Page 1

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: New Building Construction 2) Measure Name: Power Boiler – 300 to 600 MBtu/h 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost



Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

5,138 7171 5) Derivation a) Gas Savings Use boiler tool, Dec/04 version 2.1. The building heat demand is sized to fit the “existing” boiler output and the tool then uses this load to calculate consumption by the replacement boiler. Assumed atmospheric boiler at 65% seasonal efficiency and a power boiler at 82% seasonal efficiency. The major cause for the difference between the old and new estimates appears to be that the “existing” estimates assumed that the reference boiler which has a thermal efficiency of about 78% had a seasonal efficiency of the same value. Since the reference boiler vents using a draft hood and a chimney, the two numbers cannot be the same due to dilution losses during the boiler “on” period, and “off” period losses where heated boiler room air is vented via the chimney. The “existing” savings also did not take into account the difference in length of the heating season for Union North and Union South. The Union Gas Boiler Tool estimates a significant difference in consumption. b) Electricity Savings c) Water Savings d) Equipment Life no data e) Incremental Cost

164

DSYahod

Rectangle

Measure name Page 1

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: New Building Construction 2) Measure Name: Power Boiler – 1000 to 1499 MBtu/h 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost



Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

8,295 11,728 5) Derivation a) Gas Savings Use boiler tool, Dec/04 version 2.1. The building heat demand is sized to fit the “existing” boiler output and the tool then uses this load to calculate consumption by the replacement boiler. Assumed atmospheric boiler at 65% seasonal efficiency and a power boiler at 82% seasonal efficiency. The major cause for the difference between the old and new estimates appears to be that the “existing” estimates assumed that the reference boiler which has a thermal efficiency of about 78% had a seasonal efficiency of the same value. Since the reference boiler vents using a draft hood and a chimney, the two numbers cannot be the same due to dilution losses during the boiler “on” period, and “off” period losses where heated boiler room air is vented via the chimney. The “existing” savings also did not take into account the difference in length of the heating season for Union North and Union South. The Union Gas Boiler Tool estimates a significant difference in consumption. b) Electricity Savings c) Water Savings d) Equipment Life e) Incremental Cost

165

DSYahod

Rectangle

Measure name Page 1

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: New Building Construction 2) Measure Name: Power Boiler – up to 299 MBtu/h 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost



Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

1,294 1,934 5) Derivation a) Gas Savings Use boiler tool, Dec/04 version 2.1. The building heat demand is sized to fit the “existing” boiler output and the tool then uses this load to calculate consumption by the replacement boiler. Assumed atmospheric boiler at 65% seasonal efficiency and a power boiler at 82% seasonal efficiency The major cause for the difference between the old and new estimates appears to be that the “existing” estimates assumed that the reference boiler which has a thermal efficiency of about 78% had a seasonal efficiency of the same value. Since the reference boiler vents using a draft hood and a chimney, the two numbers cannot be the same due to dilution losses during the boiler “on” period, and “off” period losses where heated boiler room air is vented via the chimney. The “existing” savings also did not take into account the difference in length of the heating season for Union North and Union South. The Union Gas Boiler Tool estimates a significant difference in consumption. b) Electricity Savings c) Water Savings d) Equipment Life no data e) Incremental Cost

166

DSYahod

Rectangle

1/2

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: New Building Construction 2) Measure Name: Thermostat - Programmable 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

4) Revised Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

519 921 519 456 20 5) Derivation The gas savings are based on Union Gas information derived for average space heating gas consumption for office buildings. The programmable thermostat energy savings are estimated using the same savings methodology used for residential. a) Gas Savings The Canadian Centre for Housing Technology has produced a report that describes the effects of thermostat settings on seasonal energy consumption.1 The findings described in this report are based on testing done at the CCHT side-by-side testing facility. Three winter setback scenarios were tested:





An 18 °C night setback is assumed to be most applicable for an office building. One summer setforward scenario was tested:




167

DSYahod

Rectangle

2/2

It will be assumed that a nightime / weekend “setforward” strategy is suitable for office buildings and that this will result in comparable savings to the day setforward strategy.

Normalized Use per customer 2003 Segment J F M A M J J A S O N D Total Office Total 1693 2274 1782 1235 750 367 246 208 240 325 798 1143 Assume baseload is average of June - Sept consumption Baseload 265 Space heating 1427 2009 1517 970 485 101 59 533 878 7979 Gas Savings 6.5% 519

The electrical consumption will be assumed to be proportional to the gas consumption in the same ratio as residential. Using HOT2XP results for 15% glass allocation, a mid-efficiency furnace, and a 10 SEER air-conditioner, the ratio of electrical consumption to gas consumption (kWh/m3) is Space Cooling / Space Heating Ratio Union South 1.05 kWh/m3 Union North 0.52 kWh/m3

Estimated Space Cooling Electricity Consumption Union South 8370 kWh Union North 4144 kWh

Space Heating Savings Only Space Heating & Cooling Savings Gas Electricity Gas Electricity m3 kWh m3 kWh

South 519 519 921 1 North 519 519 456

b) Electricity Savings (see Gas Savings) c) Water Savings n/a d) Equipment Life e) Incremental Cost

168

DSYahod

Rectangle

Tankless Water Heater Page 1

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: New Building Construction 2) Measure Name: Tankless Water Heater 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

4) Revised Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

825 n/a n/a 825 n/a n/a 5) Derivation a) Gas Savings Assumption is for a full service restaurant with an annual gas usage of 8,000 M3/year. Assume the reference tank is a 140 US gal. At the draw conditions of 950 gallons a day, the efficiency is about 75%. A tankless water heater with 235,000 Btu/hr input will have an energy factor of about 0.83. Assume the inlet water temperature is 50 F (10 C). As the UG water heater comparison tool on the next pages shows, the reference heater uses 318247 ft3/y (9012 M3/y) compared to the tankless water heater at 289117 ft3/y (8,187 M3/y) for a savings of 825 M3/y.

169

DSYahod

Rectangle

Tankless Water Heater Page 2

b) Electricity Savings c) Water Savings d) Equipment Life e) Incremental Cost Takagi TM-1 $2200 USD (www.tanklesswaterheaters.com)

170

DSYahod

Rectangle

1/4

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: New Building Construction 2) Measure Name: Rangehood_5hp 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

4) Revised Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

6573 14506 8403 13604 5000 5) Derivation In commercial kitchen applications, exhaust and make-up air fans are generally operated with an “off/on” switch – they either run at full-speed or not at all.1 Generally the fans are turned on at the beginning of the day and kept on until closing. Demand ventilation, which uses temperature and/or smoke sensing to adjust ventilation rates, represents and opportunity for energy savings. ASHRAE – HVAC Applications (1999) – 30.12 provides the following information on “Reduced Exhaust and Replacement (Makeup) Airflow Rates”:

The tempering of outdoor air can account for a large part of a service facility’s heating and cooling costs. By reducing the exhaust flow rates (and the corresponding replacement air quality) when no product is being cooked, the cost of energy can be significantly reduced. Field evaluations by one large restaurant chain suggest that cooking appliances may be at zero load for 75% or more of an average business day (Spata and Turgeon 1995). During these periods, when no smoke or grease-laden vapors are being produced, NFPA Standard 96 allows reduction of exhaust quantitiesl The only restriction on the reduced exhaust quantity is that it be “… sufficient to capture and remove flue gases and residual vapors…”

There are four areas where implementing demand ventilation can result in energy savings: ELECTRICAL SAVINGS 1) Reduced power requirements for exhaust fan motor 2) Reduced power requirements for make-up air unit fan motor 3) Reduced air-conditioning requirements for make-up air GAS SAVINGS 1) Reduced heating requirements for make-up air 1 Bohlig, Charles; Fisher, Donald; “Demand Ventilation in Commercial Kitchens – An Emerging Technology Case Study”, Food Service Technology Centre, November 2004.

171

DSYahod

Rectangle

2/4

The savings are achieved by lowering the exhaust and make-up air rates to match the actual ventilation needs rather than running the systems at 100%. The estimated duty cycle of the demand ventilation exhaust fan was provided by MELINK (a manufacturer of demand ventilation control systems). The assumed duty cycle is:

% Rated % Run RPM Time

-------- -------- 100 5 90 20 80 25 70 25 60 15 50 10 40 0 30 0 20 0 10 0

Based on this duty cycle and assumed base case exhaust rate of 5,000 CFM, the average exhaust rate for the demand ventilation system would be 3725 CFM (based on weighted average). It is also assumed that the make-up air flow rate requirements are equal to exhaust air rate rates. The kitchen operating hours are assumed to be 16 hrs/day, 7 days/week, 52 weeks/year. Calculation results are tabulated in “Rangehoods.xls”. a) Gas Savings Using the Outdoor Air Load Calculator2 (screenshot below with input assumptions), the heating loads for both make-up air (5000 CFM & 3725 CFM) situations were computed. The weather conditions for the Union South and North regions were represented by the cities of London and North Bay respectively. The heating system efficiency is assumed to be 80%.

2 “Outdoor Air Load Calculator”, developed by PG&E’s Food Service Technology Centre and can be accessed via www.fishnick.com

172

DSYahod

Rectangle

3/4

Base Case

Heating Load

Demand Ventilation

Heating Load

Heating Savings (based on 80%

eff) kBtu kBtu m3 Union South 727,927 542,305 6573 Union North 930,642 693,329 8403

b) Electricity Savings 1) Reduced Air-Conditioning – the air-conditioning savings conservatively are based on the assumption that there is no dehumidification on the make-up air. The Outdoor Air Load Calculator was used to determine the cooling loads for both make-up air (5000 CFM & 3725 CFM) situations in same manner as the heating loads were calculated. The cooling system is assumed to have a COP of 3.

Base Case

Cooling Load

Demand Ventilation

Cooling Load

Cooling Savings (based on COP

= 3) kBtu kBtu kWh Union South 17,907 13,341 1338 Union North 5,837 4,348 436

2) Fan motor savings – The combined motor hp for the fans is assumed to be 5 hp. Using the fan duty cycle and “Fan Law #2”, the power requirements for the reduced air flow requirements can be determined.

173

DSYahod

Rectangle

4/4

Fan Law #2 W2 = W1/(Q1/Q2)3

% Rated % RunRPM Time Air Flow Fan Power Fan Energy-------- -------- CFM kW kWh100 5 10000 3.73 1086.17690 20 9000 2.71917 3167.2892280 25 8000 1.90976 2780.6105670 25 7000 1.27939 1862.7918460 15 6000 0.80568 703.84204850 10 5000 0.46625 271.54440 0 4000 0.23872 030 0 3000 0.10071 020 0 2000 0.02984 010 0 1000 0.00373 0

9872Total

The fan motor is assumed to be 90% efficient (as per MELINK savings sheet). The total fan energy requirements for the demand ventilation case are 10969 kWh (9872/.9). For the base case, the total fan motor energy requirements are 5hp x 0.746 kW/hp x 16 hrs/day x 7 days/week x 52 weeks/year / 0.9 = 24137 kWh

Base Case Control SavingskWh kWh kWh

24137 10969 13168

Exhaust Fan Motor Electrical Savings

These savings are related to operating hours only, so the value will be the same for Union North and South. Total Electrical Savings

Cooling Savings

Fan Motor Savings

Total Savings

kWh kWh kWh Union South 1338 13168 14506 Union North 436 13168 13604

c) Water Savings n/a d) Equipment Life e) Incremental Cost MELINK provided a cost of $5000 in their savings estimate spreadsheet.

174

DSYahod

Rectangle

1/5



Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

4) Revised Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost



here are four areas where implementing demand ventilation can result in energy savings: ELECTRICAL SAVINGS 1) Reduced power requirements for exhaust fan motor 2) Reduced power requirements for make-up air unit fan motor 3) Reduced air-conditioning requirements for make-up air GAS SAVINGS 1 Bohlig, Charles; Fisher, Donald; “Demand Ventilation in Commercial Kitchens – An Emerging Technology Case Study”, Food Service Technology Centre, November 2004.

175

DSYahod

Rectangle

2/5

1) Reduced heating requirements for make-up air The savings are achieved by lowering the exhaust and make-up air rates to match the actual ventilation needs rather than running the systems at 100%. The estimated duty cycle of the demand ventilation exhaust fan was provided by MELINK (a manufacturer of demand ventilation control systems). The assumed duty cycle is:

% Rated % Run RPM Time -------- --------

100 590 1080 2070 2060 3050 1540 030 020 010 0

Based on this duty cycle and assumed base case exhaust rate of 10,000 CFM, the average exhaust rate for the demand ventilation system would be 6950 CFM (based on weighted average). It is also assumed that the make-up air flow rate requirements are equal to exhaust air rate rates. The kitchen operating hours are assumed to be 16 hrs/day, 7 days/week, 52 weeks/year. Calculation results are tabulated in “Rangehoods.xls”. a) Gas Savings Using the Outdoor Air Load Calculator2 (screenshot below with input assumptions), the heating loads for both make-up air (10,000 CFM & 6950 CFM) situations were computed. The weather conditions for the Union South and North regions were represented by the cities of London and North Bay respectively. The heating system efficiency is assumed to be 80%.


176

DSYahod

Rectangle

3/5

Base Case

Heating Load

Demand Ventilation

Heating Load


eff) kBtu kBtu m3 Union South 1,455,853 1,011,818 15724 Union North 1,861,285 1,293,593 20102

These gas savings are comparable to gas savings reported (~15000m3) in a demand ventilation case study at a Swiss Chalet in Alliston, Ontario (Report was prepared for Enbridge).3 b) Electricity Savings 1) Reduced Air-Conditioning – the air-conditioning savings conservatively are based on the assumption that there is no dehumidification on the make-up air. The Outdoor Air Load Calculator was used to determine the cooling loads for both make-up air (10,000 CFM & 6950 CFM) situations in a similar manner as the heating loads were calculated. The cooling system is assumed to have a COP of 3.

Base Case

Cooling Load

Demand Ventilation

Cooling Load


= 3) kBtu kBtu kWh

3 “Evaluation of a Kitchen Ventilation Demand Control System Installed in a Swiss Chalet, Alliston, Ontario”, Fisher-Nickel Inc. - Food Service Technology Center, December 2004.

177

DSYahod

Rectangle

4/5

Union South 35,815 24,891 3200 Union North 11,674 8,113 1043

2) Fan motor savings – The combined motor hp for the fans is assumed to be 10 hp – based on information provided by MELINK (1000CFM/1hp). Using the fan duty cycle and “Fan Law #2”, the power requirements for the reduced air flow requirements can be determined. Base

Fan Law #2 W2 = W1/(Q1/Q2)3

% Rated % RunRPM Time Air Flow Fan Power Fan Energy-------- -------- CFM kW kWh

100 5 10000 7.46 217290 10 9000 5.44 316780 20 8000 3.82 444970 20 7000 2.56 298060 30 6000 1.61 281550 15 5000 0.93 81540 0 4000 0.48 030 0 3000 0.20 020 0 2000 0.06 010 0 1000 0.01 0

16399Total The fan motor is assumed to be 90% efficient (as per MELINK savings sheet). The total fan energy requirements for the demand ventilation case are 18221 kWh (16399/.9). For the base case, the total fan motor energy requirements are 10hp x 0.746 kW/hp x 16 hrs/day x 7 days/week x 52 weeks/year / 0.9 = 48274 kWh

Fan Motor Electrical Savings Base Case Control Savings

kWh kWh kWh 48274 18221 30053


Cooling Savings

Fan Motor Savings

Total Savings


178

DSYahod

Rectangle

5/5

c) Water Savings n/a d) Equipment Life e) Incremental Cost MELINK provided a cost of $10000 in their savings estimate spreadsheet.

179

DSYahod

Rectangle

1/5



Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

4) Revised Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost



here are four areas where implementing demand ventilation can result in energy savings: ELECTRICAL SAVINGS 1) Reduced power requirements for exhaust fan motor 2) Reduced power requirements for make-up air unit fan motor 3) Reduced air-conditioning requirements for make-up air GAS SAVINGS 1) Reduced heating requirements for make-up air 1 Bohlig, Charles; Fisher, Donald; “Demand Ventilation in Commercial Kitchens – An Emerging Technology Case Study”, Food Service Technology Centre, November 2004.

180

DSYahod

Rectangle

2/5

The savings are achieved by lowering the exhaust and make-up air rates to match the actual ventilation needs rather than running the systems at 100%. The estimated duty cycle of the demand ventilation exhaust fan was provided by MELINK (a manufacturer of demand ventilation control systems). The assumed duty cycle is:

% Rated % Run RPM Time -------- -------- 100 5 90 5 80 20 70 20 60 30 50 10 40 10 30 0 20 0 10 0

Based on this duty cycle and assumed base case exhaust rate of 15,000 CFM, the average exhaust rate for the demand ventilation system would be 9975 CFM (based on weighted average). It is also assumed that the make-up air flow rate requirements are equal to exhaust air rate rates. The kitchen operating hours are assumed to be 16 hrs/day, 7 days/week, 52 weeks/year. Calculation results are tabulated in “Rangehoods.xls”. a) Gas Savings Using the Outdoor Air Load Calculator2 (screenshot below with input assumptions), the heating loads for both make-up air (15,000 CFM & 9975 CFM) situations were computed. The weather conditions for the Union South and North regions were represented by the cities of London and North Bay respectively. The heating system efficiency is assumed to be 80%.


181

DSYahod

Rectangle

3/5

Base Case

Heating Load

Demand Ventilation

Heating Load


eff) kBtu kBtu m3 Union South 2,183,780 1,452,213 25905 Union North 2,791,928 1,856,632 33120

b) Electricity Savings 1) Reduced Air-Conditioning – the air-conditioning savings conservatively are based on the assumption that there is no dehumidification on the make-up air. The Outdoor Air Load Calculator was used to determine the cooling loads for both make-up air (15,000 CFM & 9975 CFM) situations in a similar manner as the heating loads were calculated. The cooling system is assumed to have a COP of 3.

Base Case

Cooling Load

Demand Ventilation

Cooling Load


= 3) kBtu kBtu kWh Union South 53,722 35,725 5272 Union North 17,510 11,644 1718

182

DSYahod

Rectangle

4/5

2) Fan motor savings – The combined motor hp for the fans is assumed to be 15 hp – based on information provided by MELINK (1000CFM/1hp). Using the fan duty cycle and “Fan Law #2”, the power requirements for the reduced air flow requirements can be determined. Base

Fan Law #2 W2 = W1/(Q1/Q2)3

% Rated % Run

RPM Time Air Flow Fan Power Fan

Energy -------- -------- CFM kW kWh 100 5 15000 11.19 3259 90 5 13500 8.16 2375 80 20 12000 5.73 6673 70 20 10500 3.84 4471 60 30 9000 2.42 4223 50 10 7500 1.40 815 40 10 6000 0.72 417 30 0 4500 0.30 0 20 0 3000 0.09 0 10 0 1500 0.01 0

Total 22233

The fan motor is assumed to be 90% efficient (as per MELINK savings sheet). The total fan energy requirements for the demand ventilation case are 24703 kWh (22233/.9). For the base case, the total fan motor energy requirements are 15hp x 0.746 kW/hp x 16 hrs/day x 7 days/week x 52 weeks/year / 0.9 = 72412 kWh

Fan Motor Electrical Savings Base Case Control Savings

kWh kWh kWh 72412 24703 47708


Cooling Savings

Fan Motor Savings

Total Savings


c) Water Savings

183

DSYahod

Rectangle

5/5

n/a d) Equipment Life e) Incremental Cost MELINK provided a cost of $15000 in their savings estimate spreadsheet.

184

DSYahod

Rectangle

Measure name Page 1

DSM Measure Input Assumption 1) Program Area: Existing Building Program 2) Measure Name: Pre-Rinse Low Flow Spray Valve 3) Existing Savings


Equipment Life

Incremental Cost



Equipment Life

Incremental Cost

2435 432840 2435 432840 5 100 5) Derivation Pre-rinse spray valves are handheld devices that use a spray of water to remove food waste from dishes prior to cleaning in a commercial dishwasher. Pre-rinse spray valves consist of a spray nozzle, a squeeze lever that controls the water flow, and a dish guard bumper. Models may include a spray handle clip, allowing the user to lock the lever in full spray position for continual use. (Source: www.energystar.gov) a) Gas Savings Gas savings are based on the reduction in hot water usage acheived by switching from a typical 3 gpm (www.fishnick.com) pre-rinse spray nozzle to a lower flow 1.6 gpm spray (maximum flow to be considered low-flow) nozzle. The main assumption is that “cleaning performance” of the lower flow nozzle is equal to that of the higher flow nozzle. This assumption is supported by Food Service Technology Centre testing that has found that properly designed low flow nozzles maintain or improve the “cleaning performance” of the higher flow nozzles (www.eere.energy.gov). The pre-rinse water temperature is assumed to be at 120 F and 60psi, the optimal operating conditions as identified on www.energystar.gov. The average usage is assumed to be 3.75 hours/day, 363 days/year. The gas and water savings were calculated using the spreadsheet, “Pre-Rinse Spray Nozzle Savings Assumptions”. The gas savings are calculated using the following formula

( )( )

ngWH

CHHW

HHVTTDUQ

GasSavings××

−×××=

η1000363602.4

m3/year

where QHW = hot water flow rate (L/min) DU = daily pre-rinse spray nozzle usage (hr/day) TH = hot water temperature - from hot water heater (°C) TC = cold water temperature – supply to hot water heater (°C) ηWH = water heating efficiency HHVng = high heating value of natural gas (MJ/m3)

( ) HFFRFRQ lfsHW ×−= 7854.3 L/min

185

DSYahod

Rectangle

Measure name Page 2

FRs = standard nozzle flow rate (gpm) FRlf = low flow nozzle flow rate (gpm) HF = fraction of hot water needed to meet pre-rinse supply temperature Variables

DU TH TC ηWH HHVng FRs FRlf HF 3.75 120 50 0.78 37.2 3 1.6 1

hrs/day F F MJ/m3 gpm gpm b) Electricity Savings n/a c) Water Savings

( ) DUFRFRgsWaterSavin lfs ×××−= 363607854.3 L / year d) Equipment Life The equipment life is assumed to be 5 years. www.eere.energy.gove/femp/pdfs/prerinsenozzle.pdf www.cee1.org/com/com-kit/codes.pdf e) Incremental Cost The incremental cost is assumed to be $100 - the cost of the spray valve + installation. This is in-line with the incremental cost of $60 CDN based reported in “Region of Waterloo - Pre-Rinse Spray Valve Pilot Study – Final Report”, Veritec Consulting Inc., January 2005. This value corresponds to straight replacement. For reference, the incremental cost over a standard flow spray valve is approximately $5.

186

DSYahod

Rectangle

Participants m3/unitNet Savings

(m3)*Participants m3/unit

Net Savings (m3)*

ParticipantsNet Savings

(m3)*

Educational InitiativesCo-op Advertising 0% - 5 0 0 3 0 0 8 0

m3 Savings InitiativesR2000 10% - 29 1,000 26,100 20 800 14,400 49 40,500Pipe Insulation - Two metres 10% - 0 18 0 222 17 3,397 222 3,397

Build Comfort Initiative PackagesBasement Insulation (R-12) 10% - 592 45 23,976 2,705 114 277,533 3,297 301,509Furnace - High Efficiency 60% - 499 245 48,902 897 218 78,218 1,396 127,120Heat recovery ventilator HRV 0% - 499 0 0 897 0 0 1,396 0Low E Windows with argon (R-3) 49% - 238 115 13,959 763 155 60,315 1,001 74,274Thermostat - Programmable 30% - 499 195 68,114 897 172 107,999 1,396 176,112

Total New Home Construction 2,361 181,050 6,404 541,862 8,765 722,912

Education InitiativesBooklet-WEUG 0% - 2,398 0 0 2,331 0 0 4,729 0Booklet - Engees Kids 0% - 0 0 0 352 0 0 352 0

n3 Savings InitiativesHigh Efficiency Furnace 60% - 2,851 343 391,157 9,822 247 970,414 12,673 1,361,571High Efficiency with Fan 60% - 4 487 779 37 344 5,091 41 5,870Condensing Boiler - up to 299 MBtu/h 10% - 16 1,100 15,840 35 850 26,775 51 42,615Power Comb Boiler - up to 299 Mbtu/h 51% - 18 781 6,888 19 606 5,642 37 12,530Condensing Gas Water Heater 10% - 14 206 2,596 9 202 1,636 23 4,232Energy Star Window 80% - 0 14 0 4,506 11 9,913 4,506 9,913Low E Window (R3) Avg. 80% - 132 9 238 2,253 7 3,154 2,385 3,392Front Load Washer 8% - 22 55 1,113 277 55 14,016 299 15,129Programmable Thermostats 75% - 2,449 258 157,961 15,420 186 717,030 17,869 874,991

ESK InitiativesESK - HD-Booklet 0% - 626 0 0 3,321 0 0 3,947 0ESK - HD-Faucet Aerators 10% 48% 1,252 14 7,640 6,642 14 40,531 7,894 48,171ESK - HD-Pipe Insulation - 2 m 10% 60% 626 17 5,762 3,321 17 30,568 3,947 36,330ESK - HD-Showerhead - Low Flow 10% 68% 626 91 34,945 3,321 91 185,388 3,947 220,334

Channel Partner ESK'sESK - Booklet 0% - 6,938 0 0 14,435 0 0 21,373 0ESK - Faucet Aerators 10% 58% 13,876 14 101,406 28,870 14 210,982 42,746 312,388ESK - Pipe Insulation - 2 m 10% 66% 6,938 17 70,060 14,435 17 145,765 21,373 215,825ESK - Showerhead - Low Flow 10% 67% 6,938 91 381,845 14,435 91 794,456 21,373 1,176,302

Total Home Retrofit 45,724 1,178,230 123,841 3,161,361 169,565 4,339,591

Appendix J - Detailed Program Results (LRAM)

Programs Free Rider

Adjustment Factor

North & East West & Central Union Gas Total


HOME RETROFIT

187



Net Savings (m3)*


(m3)*

Research InitiativesFeasibility Studies 0% - 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0Feasibility Study - DAP 0% - 3 0 0 14 0 0 17 0

m3 Savings InitiativesCondensing Boiler - up to 299 MBtu/h 15% - 2 1,934 3,288 14 1,294 15,399 16 18,686Condensing Gas Water Heater 15% - 3 1,328 3,386 10 1,328 11,288 13 14,674Custom Appl - Rate Class Core Comml 10 30% - 13 39,784 362,039 0 0 0 13 362,039Custom Appl - Rate Class M2 / R01 30% - 2 48,084 67,318 35 26,780 656,121 37 723,439ERV - up to 1000 cfm 15% - 0 3,061 0 11 3,250 30,388 11 30,388Heat recovery ventilator HRV 15% - 7 3,229 19,213 58 2,455 121,032 65 140,244Infrared Heating - HI - 20 to 75 MBtu/hr 33% - 1 971 651 1 898 602 2 1,252Infrared Heating - LI 2 Stg - 20 to 75 MBtu/hr 33% - 0 971 0 2 898 1,203 2 1,203Infrared Procurement 20 to 75 Mbtu/hr* - - 2 2,694 4,149 5 2,095 9,679 7 13,828Power Comb Boiler - up to 299 Mbtu/h 51% - 2 1,934 1,895 2 1,294 1,268 4 3,163Rooftop Unit 15% - 11 1,275 11,921 14 1,275 15,173 25 27,094R01 & M2 New Buildings 43 473,859 152 862,151 195 1,336,011

Condensing Boiler - 300 to 999 MBtu/h 15% - 0 5,250 0 5 5,773 24,535 5 24,535Condensing Boiler - 1000 to 1499 MBtu/h 15% - 0 11,500 0 1 8,460 7,191 1 7,191ERV - 1001 to 5000 cfm 15% - 3 9,125 23,269 29 9,125 224,931 32 248,200ERV - 5001 to 10000 cfm 15% - 0 9,125 0 6 9,125 46,538 6 46,538Infrared Heating - LI - Over 150 MBtu/hr 33% - 1 3,883 2,602 44 3,591 105,863 45 108,464Infrared Heating - HI - 76 to 150 MBtu/hr 33% - 0 1,942 0 10 1,786 11,966 10 11,966Infrared Heating - LI - 76 to 150 MBtu/hr 33% - 14 1,942 18,216 71 1,786 84,960 85 103,176Infrared Heating - LI 2 Stg - 76 to 150 Mbtu/hr 33% - 0 1,942 0 13 1,786 15,556 13 15,556Infrared Procurement 76 to 150 Mbtu/hr* - - 22 2,694 58,083 145 2,095 303,272 167 361,355Infrared Procurement over 150 Mbtu/hr* - - 2 2,694 4,149 68 2,095 141,957 70 146,106Power Comb Boiler - 300 to 999 Mbtu/h 51% - 5 5,737 14,056 24 4,110 48,334 29 62,389Power Comb Boiler - 1000 to 1499 Mbtu/h 51% - 0 3,400 0 11 6,636 35,768 11 35,768R10 & M2 New Buildings 47 120,374 427 1,050,871 474 1,171,245

Total New Building Construction 96 594,233 592 1,913,022 688 2,507,255



Net Savings (m3)*


(m3)*BUILDING RETROFIT


m3 Savings InitiativesCondensing Boiler - up to 299 MBtu/h 15% - 3 1,934 4,932 18 1,294 19,798 21 24,730Condensing Gas Water Heater 15% - 7 1,328 7,902 0 1,328 0 7 7,902Custom Appl - Rate Class Core Comml 10 30% - 70 14,312 701,280 0 0 0 70 701,280Custom Appl - Rate Class M2 / R01 30% - 29 26,839 544,826 529 12,940 4,791,697 558 5,336,523ERV - up to 1000 cfm 15% - 0 4,105 0 15 3,250 41,438 15 41,438Furnace - High Efficiency 40% - 52 343 10,702 188 247 27,862 240 38,563Heat recovery ventilator HRV 15% - 6 3,229 16,468 10 2,455 20,868 16 37,335

Programs Free Rider

Adjustment Factor



Programs Free Rider

Adjustment Factor


188

HWC:MFP-Faucet Aerators 0% - 0 14 0 11,881 14 166,334 11,881 166,334HWC:MFP-Shower Head - Low Flow 0% - 134 91 12,194 10,104 91 919,464 10,238 931,658HWC:SHP-Faucet Aerators 0% - 1,973 14 27,622 6,193 14 86,702 8,166 114,324HWC:SHP-Shower Head - Low Flow 0% - 6,465 91 588,315 8,151 91 741,741 14,616 1,330,056Infrared Heating - LI - 20 to 75 MBtu/hr 33% - 0 971 0 11 898 6,618 11 6,618Infrared Heating - HI - 20 to 75 MBtu/hr 33% - 2 971 1,301 0 898 0 2 1,301Infrared Procurement 20 to 75 Mbtu/hr* - - 3 2,694 8,298 17 2,095 35,489 20 43,787Power Comb Boiler - up to 299 Mbtu/h 51% - 2 1,934 1,895 18 1,294 11,413 20 13,308Pre-Rinse Low-Flow Spray Nozzle 0% - 172 2,435 418,820 498 2,435 1,212,630 670 1,631,450Rooftop Unit 15% - 4 1,275 4,335 3 1,275 3,251 7 7,586Water Heater Tank De-liming 15% - 5 1,033 4,390 51 1,033 44,781 56 49,171R01 & M2 Existing Retrofits 8,950 2,353,279 37,767 8,130,085 46,797 10,483,364

Condensing Boiler - 300 to 999 MBtu/h 15% - 9 7,534 57,635 17 5,773 83,420 26 141,055Condensing Boiler - 1000 to 1499 MBtu/h 15% - 2 11,040 18,768 7 8,460 50,337 9 69,105Custom Appl - Cont Rate Class 30% - 0 0 0 1 33,808 23,666 1 23,666Custom Appl - Rate Class LCI Comml 10 30% - 12 20,318 170,671 0 0 0 12 170,671ERV - 1001 to 5000 cfm 15% - 7 9,125 54,294 19 9,125 147,369 26 201,663ERV - 5001 to 10000 cfm 15% - 4 9,125 31,025 5 9,125 38,781 9 69,806Infrared Heating - LI - Over 150 MBtu/hr 33% - 3 3,883 7,805 66 3,591 158,794 69 166,599Infrared Heating - HI - 76 to 150 MBtu/hr 33% - 2 1,942 2,602 3 1,786 3,590 5 6,192Infrared Heating - LI - 76 to 150 MBtu/hr 33% - 22 1,942 28,625 188 1,786 224,965 210 253,590Infrared Procurement 76 to 150 Mbtu/hr* - - 37 2,694 99,570 294 2,095 616,223 331 715,793Infrared Procurement over 150 Mbtu/hr* - - 5 2,694 12,446 102 2,095 212,936 106 225,382Power Comb Boiler - 300 to 999 Mbtu/h 51% - 25 5,737 70,278 18 4,110 36,250 43 106,528Power Comb Boiler - 1000 to 1499 Mbtu/h 51% - 2 9,382 9,194 14 6,636 45,523 16 54,717R10 & M2 Building Retrofit 130 562,915 734 1,641,853 3,959 2,204,768

Total Building Retrofit 9,080 2,916,194 38,501 9,771,938 50,756 12,688,132



Net Savings (m3)*


(m3)*INDUSTRIAL GENERAL SERVICE

Custom Appl - Rate Class M2 / R01 30% - 0 0 0 5 34,802 121,806 5 121,806

Total Industrial General Service 0 0 5 121,806 5 121,806


m3 Savings InitiativesCustom Appl - Cont Rate Class 30% - 0 0 0 24 2,885 1,677,998 24 1,677,998Custom Appl - Rate Class LCI Comml 10 30% - 7 100,311 491,523 2 4,395 6,153 9 497,676Custom Appl - Cont Rate Class 30% - 27 952,561 18,003,402 134 258,374 24,235,488 161 42,238,890

Distribution Contract Market 44 18,494,925 202 25,919,639 246 44,414,565

2005 DSM PROGRAM TOTAL 57,783 23,364,633 174,732 41,429,629 230,025 64,794,261

*The updated calculation methodology for the Infrared Procurement Initiative savings is demonstrated and explained in the Summit Blue Audit Report


Programs Free Rider

Adjustment Factor


189

Appendix K - 2005 LRAM Statement

UNION GAS LIMITEDLost Revenue Adjustment Mechanism

2005 Post Audit Adjusted LRAM

Annualized Impact

Net Volume Delivery RevenueSavings Rate Impact

Particulars 103 m3 $/103 m3 ($)(a) (b) (c) = (a) x (b)

SouthM2 Residential 3,703 67.316 $249,286M2 Commercial 11,661 51.167 $596,673

M2 Industrial 1,262 39.246 $49,514Industrial

M4 12,896 8.692 $112,091M7 4,681 3.115 $14,581T1 7,227 1.011 $7,306

41,430 $1,029,451

NorthResidential 01 1,359 111.186 $151,133Commercial 01 1,340 104.976 $140,667Commercial 10 2,170 64.82 $140,688

Industrial 10 621 59.311 $36,821IndustrialRate 20 10,887 2.647 $28,819

Rate 100 6,987 1.983 $13,85523,365 $511,983

Total 64,794 $1,541,434

Year One Impact (1) 32,397 $770,717

Based on 2005 Rates

(1) The year one impact net volume savings are based on the Board's ruling in RP-2001-0029 Decision with Reasons at paragraph 2.170 that 50% savings should be reflected in the first year in which the DSM Measure is undertaken.

190

Appendix L – Measure TRC Results

191

Program Measure

(a) South Net Benefits/

participant

(b) North Net Benefits/

participant

(c) South

Participants

(d) North

Participants

(e) Total

Participants

(f) M3 Savings

(g) Gross South

TRC (a) x (c)

(h) Gross North

TRC (b) x (d)

(i) Program

Implementation Costs

(j) Net Program

TRC (g)+(h)-(i)

New Home Construction Basement Insulation (R-12) -$471 -$589 2,705 592 3,297 335,010 -$1,273,228 -$348,417Furnace - High Efficiency -$223 -$119 897 499 1,396 222,461 -$199,640 -$59,412Low E Windows with argon (R-3) $0 $101 763 238 1,001 138,927 -$116 $23,953R2000 -$765 $164 20 29 49 45,000 -$15,295 $4,762Thermostat - Programmable $128 $231 897 499 1,396 150,780 $114,458 $115,324Pipe Insulation - Two Meters $25 $28 222 0 222 3,397 $5,527 $0Co-op Advertising $0 $0 3 5 8 0 $0 $0

Total New Home Construction 5,507 1,862 7,369 895,574 -$1,368,293 -$263,791 $93,731 -$1,725,815

Home Retrofit Condensing Boiler - up to 299 MBtu/h $913 $1,425 35 16 51 56,100 $31,941 $22,793Bill Insert - Furnace - High Efficiency -$147 -$23 2 0 2 198 -$294 $0Condensing Gas Water Heater -$699 -$666 9 14 23 5,191 -$6,288 -$9,328ESK- HD- Two Faucet Aerators $34 $36 6,642 1,252 7,894 58,687 $113,002 $22,285ESK- HD-Pipe Insulation - 2 m $15 $17 3,321 626 3,947 36,669 $49,742 $10,464ESK- HD-Showerhead - Low Flow $237 $244 3,321 626 3,947 222,254 $787,328 $152,817ESK- Two Faucet Aerators $41 $43 28,870 13,876 42,746 384,494 $588,233 $295,788ESK- Pipe Insulation - 2 m $16 $18 14,435 6,938 21,373 219,946 $237,197 $127,231ESK- Showerhead - Low Flow $234 $241 14,435 6,938 21,373 1,197,282 $3,373,988 $1,669,821Energy Star Window -$18 -$9 4,506 0 4,506 34,696 -$81,612 $0Front Load Washer -$291 -$273 277 22 299 15,129 -$80,579 -$5,999Furnace - High Efficiency -$147 -$23 9,820 2,851 12,671 1,361,373 -$1,442,066 -$66,287Furnace - High Efficiency w Fan -$239 -$59 37 4 41 5,870 -$8,838 -$235Low E Window (R3) Avg. $58 $107 2,253 132 2,385 144,686 $130,876 $14,112Power Comb Boiler - up to 299 Mbtu/h -$146 -$124 19 18 37 1,813 -$2,782 -$2,225Thermostat - Programmable - Direct to Consumers $85 $141 202 73 275 17,009 $17,073 $10,306Thermostat - Programmable $85 $141 15,218 2,376 17,594 1,054,904 $1,286,207 $335,431Engee Kids Booklet $0 $0 352 0 352 0 $0 $0Wise Energy Guide $0 $0 2,331 2,398 4,729 0 $0 $0ESK - Wise Energy Guides $0 $0 17,756 7,564 25,320 0 $0 $0

Total Home Retrofit 123,841 45,724 169,565 4,816,301 $4,993,128 $2,576,974 $624,874 $6,945,228

New Building Construction Condensing Boiler - 300 to 999 MBtu/h -$7,827 -$5,697 5 0 5 25,413 -$39,134 $0Condensing Boiler - 1000 to 1499 MBtu/h -$5,575 -$490 1 0 1 10,925 -$5,575 $0Condensing Boiler - up to 299 MBtu/h $913 $1,425 14 2 16 17,600 $12,776 $2,849Condensing Gas Water Heater -$2,254 -$2,159 10 3 13 16,401 -$22,540 -$6,478ERV - 1001 to 10000 cfm $17 $3,031 35 3 38 329,413 $84,202 $20,493ERV - up to 1000 cfm $1,106 $2,153 11 0 11 31,987 $12,165 $0Heat recovery ventilator HRV -$36 $357 58 7 65 70,980 -$2,094 $2,500Infrared Heating - HI - 76 - 150 MBtu/hr $2,024 $2,545 10 0 10 12,375 $20,240 $0Infrared Heating - LI - 20 to 75 MBtu/hr $686 $947 0 0 0 0 $0 $0Infrared Heating - HI -20-75 MBtu/hr $868 $1,128 1 1 2 1,238 $868 $1,128Infrared Heating - LI - 2 stg - 20-75 MBtu/hr $826 $1,087 2 0 2 1,238 $1,653 $0Infrared Heating - LI - Over 150 MBtu/hr $4,213 $5,255 44 1 45 111,375 $185,353 $5,255Infrared Heating - LI - 76 to 150 MBtu/hr $1,900 $2,421 71 14 85 105,188 $134,902 $33,895Infrared Heating - LI - 2 stg - 76 to 150 MBtu/hr $1,719 $2,240 13 0 13 16,088 $22,347 $0Infrared Procurement $2,098 $2,659 1,729 194 1,923 2,563,744 $3,628,069 $515,925

192

Power Comb Boiler - 300 to 999 Mbtu/h -$724 -$268 24 5 29 28,420 -$17,371 -$1,338Power Comb Boiler - 1000 to 1499 Mbtu/h -$4,489 -$3,714 11 0 11 18,326 -$49,378 $0Power Comb Boiler - up to 299 Mbtu/h $149 $240 2 2 4 784 $298 $481Rooftop Unit $693 $1,152 14 11 25 31,875 $9,698 $12,672Custom Appl - Rate Class Core Comml 10 - - 0 13 13 362,039 $0 $621,331Custom Appl - Rate Class M2 / R01 - - 35 2 37 723,438 $488,188 $98,553Feasibility Studies $0 $0 0 3 3 - - -Design Assistance Program $0 $0 14 3 17 - - -

Total New Building Construction 2,104 264 2,368 4,478,844 $4,464,667 $1,307,265 $3,092 $5,768,840

Building Retrofit Condensing Boiler - 300 to 999 MBtu/h -$7,827 -$5,697 17 9 26 131,290 -$133,055 -$51,270Condensing Boiler - 1000 to 1499 MBtu/h -$5,575 -$490 7 2 9 98,325 -$39,024 -$981Condensing Boiler - up to 299 MBtu/h $913 $1,425 18 3 21 23,100 $16,427 $4,274Condensing Gas Water Heater -$2,254 -$2,159 0 7 7 8,831 $0 -$15,116ERV - 1001 to 10000 cfm -$91 $3,031 24 11 35 303,406 $51,007 $44,741ERV - up to 1000 cfm $1,106 $2,153 15 0 15 43,619 $16,588 $0Furnace - High Efficiency $188 $549 188 52 240 96,370 $35,290 $28,554Low Flow Shower Head $375 $387 18,255 6,599 24,854 2,294,709 $6,854,190 $2,553,455Low Flow Aerators $37 $39 18,074 1,973 20,047 322,725 $668,352 $76,329Heat recovery ventilator HRV -$36 $357 10 6 16 17,472 -$361 $2,143Infrared Heating - HI -20-75 MBtu/hr $868 $1,128 0 2 2 1,238 $0 $2,256Infrared Heating - LI - 20 to 75 MBtu/hr $826 $1,087 11 0 11 6,806 $9,089 $0Infrared Heating - LI - 76 to 150 MBtu/hr $1,900 $2,421 188 22 210 259,875 $357,206 $53,264Infrared Heating - LI - Over 150 MBtu/hr $4,213 $5,255 66 3 69 170,775 $278,030 $15,764Infrared Heating - HI - 76 - 150 MBtu/hr $2,024 $2,545 3 2 5 6,188 $6,072 $5,090Infrared Procurement $2,810 $4,637 3,278 355 3,633 6,454,619 $9,211,801 $1,645,965Power Comb Boiler - 300 to 999 Mbtu/h -$724 -$268 18 25 43 42,140 -$13,028 -$6,692Power Comb Boiler - 1000 to 1499 Mbtu/h -$4,489 -$3,714 14 2 16 26,656 -$62,845 -$7,427Power Comb Boiler - up to 299 Mbtu/h $149 $240 18 2 20 3,920 $2,686 $481Pre-Rinse Low-Flow Spray Nozzle $630 $670 498 172 670 469,000 $313,703 $115,258Rooftop Unit $693 $1,152 3 4 7 8,925 $2,078 $4,608Water Heater Tank De-liming $244 $266 51 5 56 57,848 $12,425 $1,328Custom Appl - Rate Class Core Comml 10 - - 0 70 70 701,280 - $2,496,523Custom Appl - Rate Class M2 / R01 - - 529 29 558 5,336,523 $8,263,739 $1,553,101Custom Appl - Rate Class LCI Comml 10 - - 0 12 12 170,671 $0 $1,577,152Custom Appl - Cont Rate class - - 1 0 1 23,666 $16,472Feasibility Studies $0 $0 32 23 55 0 $0 $0Boiler Audits $0 $0 48 0 48 0 $0 $0

Total Building Retrofit 41,366 9,390 50,756 17,079,976 $25,866,843 $10,098,798 $11,213 $35,954,428

Industrial General Service Custom - - 5 0 5 121,806 $90,177 -Total Industrial General Service 5 0 5 121,806 $90,177 - - $90,177

Distribution Contract Custom Small - - 833 7 840 2,175,674 $2,053,215 $616,540Custom Large - - 134 27 161 42,238,890 $25,066,106 $25,098,426Boiler Audits $0 $0 19 4 23 0 $0 $0Feasibility Studies $0 $0 23 6 29 0 $0 $0

Total Distribution Contract 1,009 44 1,053 44,414,564 $27,119,321 $25,714,966 $106,452 $52,727,835

Total DSM Program 173,832 57,284 231,116 71,807,064 $61,165,843 $39,434,213 $839,362 $99,760,694

193

Glossary Adjustment Factor An adjustment factor is the percentage of participants who install a measure and keep it installed. Adjustment factors are established through the interviewing of a random sample (statistically significant) of program participants conducted by a third party in order to validate measure installation. The adjustment factor is applied to an initiative’s gross savings results Avoided Costs Avoided costs are a measurement of the reduction in the delivered costs of supplying natural gas to customers as a consequence of a program which reduces gas use by customers. There are typically three components of avoided costs:

• Avoided capacity costs: fixed charges related to ensuring a maximum level of capacity to deliver gas.

• Avoided energy (of variable) costs: costs which vary directly in proportion to changes in m3 of gas consumed.

• Avoided customer charges: costs which vary in direct relationship to the number of customers and usually only occur in load building programs.

Base Case A base case reflects a projection of the future without the effects of the utility’s DSM program. “Base cases” are required for each and every DSM scenario, even those which are just a single technology or a single participant. The difference between the base case and the energy efficient case represents the saving attributable to the energy efficient measure. Building Envelope The building envelope refers to the exterior surfaces (such as walls, windows, roof and floor) of a building that separate the conditioned space from the outdoors. Channel Partner A Channel Partner is a company that in the course of its business can influence consumers to choose gas over competing fuels. Examples include appliance retailers, HVAC contractors, engineers, and architects. Cost Effectiveness Cost effectiveness refers to an analysis performed to determine whether the benefits of a project are greater than the costs. It is based on the net present value of savings over the equipment life of the measures. Direct Costs Direct costs are the utility program costs, including implementation and incentives that are directly related to an individual program.

194

Engineering Estimates Engineering estimates refer to natural gas savings calculation estimates based on fundamental engineering principles and modeling assumptions. Free Riders Free riders are participants who would have installed the energy efficient measure without the influence of Union’s DSM program. Free rider rates are estimated based on research, market penetration studies or through negotiations in prior evaluation processes. The free rider rates are applied to the gross program savings results to derive actual savings. Incentive An incentive is a transfer payment from the utility (usually) to participants aimed at encouraging participation in a DSM program. Incremental Cost The incremental cost is the difference in price between the efficient technology or measure and the base case technology. In some early retirements and retrofits, the full cost of the efficient technology is the incremental cost. Indirect Costs Indirect costs are utility costs that relate to more than one specific program. They include research/evaluation, market support and overhead. Lost Revenue Adjustment Mechanism (LRAM) The LRAM is the Ontario Energy Board approved methodology which allows the utility to recover the lost distribution revenues associated with DSM activity. These lost revenues are calculated for each rate class impacted by DSM energy efficiency programs. Market Support Market support is utility costs associated with the Market Analysis and Channel support functions. Monitoring & Evaluation Costs Monitoring and evaluation costs are the expenditures associated with the collection and analysis of data used to assess program operation and effectiveness. Net Present Value (NPV) Net present value calculations rely on an discount rate to state, with a single number, what the value of a number of years of benefits are. The NPV then is the sum of the discounted yearly benefits arising from an investment over the life-time of that investment. Ontario Energy Board (OEB) A regulatory agency of the Ontario Government that is an independent, quasi-judicial

195

tribunal created by the Ontario Energy Board Act. The Board has regulatory oversight of both natural gas and electricity matters in the province. Participants The units used by a utility to measure participation in its DSM programs; such units of measurement include customers, projects and measures or technologies installed. Not all participants result in energy savings. Participants (when natural gas savings are claimed) include gas saving measures or equipment (i.e. Boilers), packages of measure (i.e. ESK’s), custom applications and services such as water heater tank de-liming. These participants are tracked through the Demand Side Management Tracking System (DSMT). Participants (when no natural gas savings are claimed) include Feasibility and DAP study participants, energy audit participants, those who receive educational material such as the Wise Energy Guide as well as those who attend Training Sessions. These participants are tracked through the DSMT. Program A program is the utility’s specifically designed approach to providing one or more demand-side options to customers. Program Evaluation Program evaluation refers to activities related to the collection, analysis, and reporting of data for purposes of measuring program impacts from past, existing or potential program impacts. Rate Impact Measure (RIM) Test The RIM test provides a measure of the difference between the change in total revenues paid to a utility and the change in total costs to a utility resulting from the DSM program. If the change in revenues is larger or smaller than the change in total costs (revenue requirements), then rate levels may change because of the program. This test in effect evaluates a DSM program from the point of view of ratepayers. Rebate A rebate is money given to customers, contractors, homebuilders, or other trade allies who make equipment choices to help defray the incremental cost of DSM measures. Research Costs Research costs are the utility’s costs associated with the research and evaluation of DSM programs. They are not included in direct costs because they may affect more than one program. Societal Cost Test (SCT) The Societal Cost Test provides a measure of the benefits and costs that accrue to society as a result of the installation of a DSM measure. The Societal Cost Test has a provision

196

whereby externality benefits, when quantified, can be included in the result. Three $/tonne of CO2 values ($0, $40, $60) were incorporated in the screening with the $40 value being the hurdle test for the SCT. That is, 1 tonne of CO2 reduction has a benefit to society valued at $40. The three values were derived as part of the Consultative process. The SCT at $0/tonne CO2 is also known as the Total Resource Cost Test (TRC). Total Program Costs The total program costs include all direct costs associated with a DSM program, including implementation and incentives. Total Resource Cost Test See Societal Cost Test (SCT) Trade Allies Trade allies include organizations (e.g. architect and engineering firms, building contractors, appliance manufacturers and dealers, and banks) that affect the energy-related decisions of customers who might participate in DSM programs. Utility Costs Utility costs are all expenses (administrative, equipment, incentives marketing, monitoring and evaluation, and other) incurred by the utility in a given year for operation of a DSM program regardless of whether the costs are capitalized or expensed. Utility Cost Test (UCT) The Utility Cost Test provides a measure of the change in total costs to the utility that is caused by a DSM program. This test evaluates a DSM program from the point of view of a utility’s total costs.

197

2005 evaluation report final...effectiveness screening process, or total resource cost (trc) test,...

Documents