.................................................................................................................................................... 1

............................................................................................................................... 1

......................................................................................................... 5

.................................................... 14

................................................................................................................... 22

.............................................................................................................. 23

.......................................................................................................................... 23

............................................................................................................................................... 29

.................. 2

......................................................................... 3

.................................................................... 4

.......................................................................... 6

.................................................................... 8

...............................................................10

.....................................................................14

......................................................................................15

................................................................................17

................................................................18

..................................................................22

..............................................................................................23

....................................................... 5

........... 6

......................15

®

7

11

12

ATTACHMENT 1

EVALUATOR AND VERIFIER RECOMMENDATION UPDATES

Table 1: Update on Implementation of 2015 Evaluation Recommendations

Table 2: Update on Implementation of 2015 Verification Recommendations

Recommendation Text Source Status Comments Expected Period of Completion

Further improve the tracking system. The Evaluator commends ENS for the significant improvements that have been made to the BER Mail-in and Instant Rebates tracking systems in the last two years. Nevertheless, some potential improvements were identified again this year. In BER Mail-in, it was found that the project’s total savings were sometimes not linked to the individual measure savings. The Evaluator also noticed, in a few cases, discrepancies between the calculation algorithms, the variable descriptions and the savings calculated for the same measure. For BER Instant Rebates, the most significant potential improvement would be to update the evaluation category field to match the categories used in the 2015 evaluation.

2015 BER-R2 In Progress ENS agrees with this recommendation and will implement it once BER is incorporated into the new Dynamic Data System in 2017. Q2 2017

Establish the reference building on the basis of a signed declaration of the participant for New Construction. Currently, the baseline is only mentioned in the NC-EM2 form (which summarizes the energy conservation measures (ECMs) and the savings), and sometimes in a feasibility study attached to the PDA. Considering that the free-ridership is assumed to be nil on the basis that the baseline accurately represents the building that would have been built by the participant in the absence of the program, the Evaluator recommends that the baseline be based on a signed declaration of the participant. This declaration could be presented in a standard form that describes the common technologies for the main building components (wall insulation, window type, lighting, heat-recovery ventilation, etc.) as multiple-choice questions. This form should be signed at the initial stage of the project and included in the PDA.

2015 Custom-R6 In Progress ENS agrees with this recommendation and has an initial draft of the declaration complete, with the expectation to complete a final version in Q4.

Q4 2016

Request more documentation from the service providers and establish an internal review procedure. The Evaluator found that the quarterly reports presented this year were richer in contents than those of 2014. Nevertheless, it was found that no quarterly reports were available to substantiate the savings claimed for the first two quarters of 2015. In fact, reports based on the Superior Energy Performance were produced, but the results of those reports did not align with the savings claimed as per the IPMVP. The annual reports needed for making a full impact evaluation of those savings were not received by ENS until the end of 2015, which meant that ENS had not validated the contents of those reports before the Evaluator did. Considering the major adjustment made to one project as a result of the zero savings claimed by the service provider for two full quarters, the Evaluator believes that complete quarterly reports should be requested regularly and that a more thorough internal review procedure should be put in place to validate the quality and accuracy of the service providers’ work throughout the year.

2015 EMIS-R2 In Progress

ENS agrees with this recommendation and continues to receive monthly report updates from service providers. The EMIS Program Manager reviews these reports with the service providers and notify the service provider to make adjustments as required. These reports will continue on a go-forward basis and ENS will continue to review and make any adjustments as required.

Complete

Consider requiring the service providers to track sub-hourly demand data. The energy management information system provides real-time data to the facility operators, thus identifying opportunities for demand-shedding, in addition to the demand savings resulting from overall lower energy consumption. The Evaluator thinks that the subhourly demand data needed to determine peak demand savings with accuracy is probably already available within the energy management information system. The service providers should be able to track this information relatively easily and could then make regression analyses to calculate demand savings in a manner similar to that used for establishing energy savings.

2015 EMIS-R3 In ProgressENS agrees with this recommendation and has received the proposal from the service provider to determine 2016 peak-demand savings. ENS is moving forward with quantifying the demand savings for 2016 which it will claim as part of its year-end savings reporting.

Q4 2016

Monitor the static variables more closely. The quarterly reports did not include a specific section to document the static variables and the Evaluator found little information about equipment modifications or replacements, which could affect the energy consumption of the process. A section should be created in the quarterly reports to record the static variables so that no change is overlooked.

2015 EMIS-R4 In ProgressENS agrees with this recommendation and now includes static variables where available in the quarterly reports. Where abnormalities are identified in savings reporting, an investigation is completed to determine whether a non-routine adjustment is required.

Complete

Update on Implementation of 2015 Evaluation Recommendations Attachment 1, Table 1, Page 1 of 2

Attachment 1, Evaluation Recommendations Update

Efficiency Nova Scotia – 2016 Q3 Report

Date Filed: November 30, 2016

Recommendation Text Source Status Comments Expected Period of Completion

Offer additional training on HOT2000 to CEAs. The Evaluator noticed that some CEAs tend to submit HOT2000 files with omissions and inconsistencies. NHC brings particular challenges, notably with the to-code simulation that also has to be modelled. During the interviews, two of the three CEAs mentioned that modelling different kinds of projects was complicated and that additional training on HOT2000 would help them gain a better understanding of how the software can be used in unique situations. The Evaluator thus recommends that additional training be offered to CEAs. This action would help the CEAs be more aware of potential errors that could occur in HOT2000 files and would improve the quality of the simulations.

2015 NHC-R3 In ProgressENS agrees with this recommendation and, as such, hosted a HOT2000 course in Q3. All CEAs in Nova Scotia were invited, and approximately 20 attended the course. Complete

Monitor potential installation issues related to smart power controllers. Smart power controllers provide significant unitary savings, but like many new technologies, difficulties may arise as they enter the market. During one of the three on-site visits conducted with the DAs, the smart power controller could not be installed due to incompatibility with the “smart” television set. The evaluation results also revealed an installation rate of 78 percent for the smart power controllers due to product removal by the participants. This problem was also observed during the 2014 evaluation. The Evaluator therefore recommends close follow-up with the DAs regarding this technology to ensure persistent savings by, among other things, investigating the causes for product removal and possible solutions to address this problem, as well as verifying the compatibility with “smart” television sets.

2015 RDI-R1 In Progress

ENS agrees with this recommendation.

Regarding compatibility issues with smart television sets, ENS reached out to Embertec and recieved a response that all smart TVs are compatible with thier smart power controllers. ENS will continue to follow-up with Embertec to determine if Embertec has any data regarding issues with smart television sets. In an effort to explore this issue, ENS installed an Embertech smart power controller on a smart TV; ENS did not encounter any issues with this installation.

Regarding the issue of product removal by participants, ENS is now aware of a newer smart power controller (Emberstrip 8AV + Bluetooth) that can monitor retention rates. This would allow ENS to track whether the product has been installed and/or uninstalled. This option comes at a higher cost and has not been included in 2016 Service Delivery contracts. ENS will determine whether this should be included in 2017 by the end of Q4 2016.

Q4 2016

Provide SBEAs with a standard operating procedure and with standardized data collection forms. While the Audit Workbook gives detailed information on how to calculate savings and treat the information collected, it does not provide sufficient support and guidance on the data to be collected during the audit. The development of a standard operating procedure and data collection forms would be an effective tool for SBEAs to improve consistency throughout the program and to ensure that all aspects related to energy consumption are considered and captured during on-site audits.

2015 SBES-R1 In Progress The standardized data collection form has not yet been finalized. SBES will potentially adopt a similar checklist document that Washington State University currently uses.

Q4 2016

Update on Implementation of 2015 Evaluation Recommendations Attachment 1, Table 1, Page 2 of 2

Attachment 1, Evaluation Recommendations Update

Efficiency Nova Scotia – 2016 Q3 Report

Date Filed: November 30, 2016

Recommendation Text Source Status Comments Expected Period of Completion

SV-12: Perform a market transformation study to determine impacts of Green Heat on customer purchases of higher quality, lower ambient temperature, MSHP products. These results should be incorporated into future program impact evaluations. This could be included as a mini-study or a subsection in the next Green Heat evaluation.

SV-12 In Progress

ENS agrees with this recommendation and is working with the Evaluation consultant to address the market transformation paradigm. Conversations have begun with the Evaluator and Savings Verification Consultant. ENS will investigate including this in 2017 Evaluation activities, pending the outcome of these discussions.

2017

SV-17: For the New Home Construction Program, ENS should consider a continuing pilot program targeting the early-adopter in the new construction housing market for the implementation of “zero net energy” or “zero net energy-ready” or “energy plus” design.

SV-17 In Progress ENS agrees with this recommendation and launched a Passive House Pilot on September 26, 2016. Complete

SV-19: For future EMIS evaluations, perform peak demand regression analysis of each participant to determine demand and coincident peak load reductions. SV-19 In Progress

ENS agrees with this recommendation and is working with the service provider to determine the 2016 peak-demand savings for EMIS.

Q4 2016

SV-20: Maintain and enhance the EMIS savings by adopting SEM program elements with the EMIS technology. For the EMIS program, multi-year evaluated savings increases for this technology can be expected based on continual improvements in facility savings due to increased information and control. Some studies show a continual increase in annual savings for several years. A follow up analysis of second and third-year facility savings, in absence of other program activities, should be performed on these projects and attributed to program savings through the ‘milestone’ achievements tab for the project. Follow up analysis should also address the level of ongoing support and commitment to SEM at the plant and company level.

SV-20 In Progress ENS will contact the Verfier to gain a better understanding of this recommendation and to determine how to move forward. Q1 2017

Update on Implementation of 2015 Verifier Recommendations Attachment 1, Table 2, Page 1 of 1

Attachment 1, Verification Recommendations Update

Efficiency Nova Scotia – 2016 Q3 Report

Date Filed: November 30, 2016