EVALUATION

Recommendations

Info

AN INDEPENDENT <strong>EVALUATION</strong> OF THE LCNF Has the potential to deliver net financial benefits to future and/or existing customers Generates knowledge that can be shared amongst all DNOs Involvement of other partners and external funding - - 4 Assessment: Evidence that the project is highly likely to deliver financial benefits to the majority of customers, but that these benefits are comparatively short term (e.g. associated with asset replacement deferment). Evidence: The project will have financial benefits for customers in terms of reduced energy use from energy efficiency measures and behaviour change. Potential to benefit large number of customers, but unclear as to whether these benefits would be short or longer-term (project will look to distinguish this). Appears that, at the least, short term benefits would be achieved for the majority of customers. References: • SAVE full submission pro-forma. Assessment: Project incomplete not marked. Evidence: Section 6.3 of the June 2015 progress report details dissemination activities carried out to date. This includes presentation of the project at a number of events. References: • SAVE progress report; June 2015. Assessment: The project involved some external partners covering some of the main technical /commercial / stakeholder aspects as applicable. Evidence: Project partners listed as: Future Solent (provider of local contacts and data); University of Southampton (data analysis and model preparation); DNV KEMA (international learning, project methodology, trials managers and learning); Wireless Maingate (international learning and technology providers). Project supporters are: University of Winchester (engagement media); Neighbourhood Economics (community coaching). There are also three project supporters cited: Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH), Hampshire Chamber of Commerce and SmartGridGB. External funding of £694k listed in the full submission pro-forma. This is 6.7% of the total project cost cited in the document. References: SAVE full submission pro-forma. PÖYRY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING October 2016 713_Poyry_Report_Evaluation_of_the_LCNF_FINAL_Oct_2016_v700.docx 226
AN INDEPENDENT <strong>EVALUATION</strong> OF THE LCNF Relevance and timing - Effective project methodology, and effectiveness of implementation - Assessment: Project incomplete not marked. Evidence: The full submission pro-forma states that the project will incorporate findings from other project but seeks to go further in turning this learning into a tool that will drive BAU behaviour. To make ‘energy efficiency led by consumer engagement’ a BAU approach for DNOs, the network investment tool must be statistically valid for all network areas. References: SAVE full submission pro-forma. Assessment: Project incomplete not marked. - However, the latest progress report shows that the project is on track to achieve its successful delivery reward criteria (SDRC). Evidence: While the project is incomplete, the June 2015 progress report shows that the project is on track to achieve its successful delivery reward criteria (SDRC) – with seven having already been met and the remaining two on target. Section 8 of the budget shows expenditure to date, but does not forecast expected expenditure to project conclusion, so it is not possible to estimate whether the variance will be
Page 1 and 2:
AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE LC
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180: AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE LC
Page 229: AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE LC
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Page 367 and 368:
Page 369 and 370:
Page 371 and 372:
Page 373 and 374:
Page 375 and 376:
Page 377 and 378:
show all

EVALUATION

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?