FEI-FEVI 2010 EEC Report filed March 31, 2011 - FortisBC

FORTISBC ENERGY INC. AND FORTISBC ENERGY (VANCOUVER ISLAND) INC.
2010 ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION ANNUAL REPORT
• Overall, including both EEC funds shown in the table above, and the Ministry of Energy
and Mines Low Income Partnership grant, the Companies have been successful in
investing $839,000 in 2010.
6.3 2011 Conservation for Affordable Housing Program Area Outlook
Considerably expanded investment in the Conservation for Affordable Housing program area is
expected in 2011. The most significant enhancement will be the launch of the partnership with
BC Hydro on the ECAP. This program will see investments from both EEC funds and from the
Ministry of Energy and Mines Low Income Partnership grant. The Companies will continue with
their commitment to build expertise in this program area through additional research specifically
in the co-operative housing sector and the mobile housing sector. The REnEW program and the
ESK program will also continue throughout 2011. Table 6-2 provides an estimate of 2011
investment in the Conservation for Affordable Housing program area.
Table 6-2: 2011 Conservation for Affordable Housing Investment Forecast
Program
Incentives & Non-Incentive
Expenditure ($000s)
FEI FEVI Total FEI FEVI Total FEI FEVI
REnEW $150 $35 $185 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Energy Savings Kit $186 $47 $233 31,271 7,903 39,174 2.2 2.3
Energy Conservation Assistance Program $1,694 $424 $2,118 53,242 13,089 66,331 0.6 0.6
Mobile Homes (Study) $8 $2 $10 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
CHF Co-ops (Study) $12 $3 $15 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Non-Program Specific Expenditures $7 $3 $10 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total $2,058 $513 $2,571 84,514
NPV Energy Savings (GJ) TRC
Note that wherever a TRC result is presented in the Conservation for Affordable Housing
program area, it includes a deemed benefit that includes a 30 percent “adder” in accordance
with clause 4.2.b of the Demand Side Measures Regulation, attached as Appendix C. It should
also be noted that there is a challenge in meeting a TRC score of 1.0 (even after applying the
low income adder) for programs that seek to achieve a deeper level of savings (i.e. ECAP
program) for the following reasons:
• Direct install low income programs will incur higher costs for administration and
implementation. The Companies will need to hire skilled contractors and ensure they are
trained in the sensitivities of working in low income households. They will also need to
ensure these contractors are very familiar with the utilities’ safety requirements and are
trained to assess potential problem situations such as mould; and
• It is difficult to reach and integrate low income customers in programs that involve some
effort on behalf of the customer to provide sufficient documentation of their household
income. To overcome these barriers additional investments are required to support the
customer through the application process.
To address these challenges, the Companies are working with government to explore
alternatives to evaluating low income programs that better recognize the higher costs required
SECTION 6: CONSERVATION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS Page 108
20,992
105,505
0.7
0.7