Warning message

This Web page has been archived on the Web. Information Archived on the Web.

ARCHIVED - Evaluation of Energy Efficiency for Industry, Housing and Buildings

Information Archived on the Web

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats. Please "contact us" to request a format other than those available.


Table of Contents


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides the findings of the evaluation of Natural Resources Canada’s (NRCan) Industry, Housing and Buildings sub-sub-activities, which comprise 15 programs from 2004-05 to 2008-09, covering $435.9 million of NRCan funding, five of which were ongoing at the time of the evaluation.

The energy efficiency programs encompassed within the Industry, Housing and Buildings sub-sub-activities are relevant and for the most part appear to be achieving their intended outcomes with respect to: (1) the adoption of energy management best practices, implementation of energy efficiency projects and retrofits; (2) energy savings and reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and criteria air contaminants (CAC): and (3) implementation of energy efficiency programs by other levels of government and industry that align with NRCan programs.

However, the impacts directly attributable to the financial incentive programs, in particular retrofits for industrial and commercial/institutional buildings, and the cost-effectiveness of these programs are affected by a situation where individuals and firms would have implemented the retrofits even without the financial incentive; or where individuals and firms implemented energy-efficient measures as a result of participating in the program but for which no financial incentive was received.1

There may be opportunities for the programs that focus on capacity building activities (e.g., training, provision of information and tools, labelling work), to improve their effectiveness and economy. Best practices were also identified with respect to financial incentive-based activities, which could be used to further improve the economy of NRCan’s industrial, residential, and commercial/institutional financial incentive programs.

This evaluation is complex because of the number of programs (15), which cover three sectors: industrial, residential, and commercial/institutional. Within each of these sectors, program delivery involved three different types of activities: financial incentive activities (e.g., funding for energy assessments, audits and retrofit projects), capacity building activities (e.g., training, labelling, provision of information, etc.) and collaborative activities (e.g., with industry, provincial / territorial governments and other stakeholders). A variety of data sources and lines of evidence were used in the conduct of this evaluation.

Background

Between 2004-05 and 2008-09, 15 programs were delivered by the Industrial Programs, Housing, and Buildings Divisions of NRCan’s Office of Energy Efficiency (OEE), Energy Sector. Although the programs each had unique outcomes, the general objective for all of them was to reduce GHG emissions and CACs in the industrial, residential, and commercial/institutional sectors. The programs used a blend of financial incentive, capacity building, and collaborative activities to encourage participation in the programs or to overcome barriers to participation.

The 15 programs included in the evaluation are illustrated below.

Industry, Housing and Buildings Programs, 2004-05 to 2008-09
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
Industry Emissions Benchmarking* ecoENERGY for Industry
Expansion of Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation*
Improved Tracking and Reporting of Energy Efficiency and Emission Trends*
Awareness Building*
Industrial Energy Audit Incentive Program*
ecoENERGY for Small and Medium Organizations**
Buildings Existing Buildings Initiative
Federal Buildings Initiative
Industrial Building Incentive Program
Commercial Building Incentive Program
ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses***
Housing R-2000 Standard, EnerGuide for New Houses and ENERGY STAR for New Homes
EnerGuide for Houses and Retrofit Incentives ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes

Notes: * These five initiatives were collectively referred to as “Industry Cross-cutting Measures”. ** ecoENERGY for Small and Medium Organizations is a single program with both industrial and commercial/institutional components. *** ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses is a single program with both buildings and housing components.

Evaluation Issues, Methodologies and Limitations

The evaluation assessed the overall relevance and performance of the 15 programs encompassed in the Industry, Housing and Buildings sub-sub-activities. In particular, the evaluation assessed the extent to which NRCan’s energy efficiency programming in the industrial, residential, and commercial/institutional sectors are:

  • aligned with government priorities and NRCan’s strategic outcomes, addressing an ongoing need, and are aligned with federal roles and responsibilities (relevance); and
  • achieving their expected outcomes (i.e., effectiveness) and demonstrating efficiency and economy (which together comprise performance).

The evaluation methodologies used to assess relevance and performance included:

  • document and literature reviews;
  • qualitative interviews with internal and external stakeholders (63);
  • surveys of homeowners (422 grant recipients; 100 participants who completed the initial energy assessment but did not follow through for a grant);
  • survey of homebuilders (369);
  • Impact Attribution Study for the industrial and commercial/institutional sectors (commissioned by the OEE);
  • Net-to-Gross Survey for the ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes Program (commissioned by the OEE); and
  • case studies (9).

Limitations to this study should be considered when reviewing the results, including:

  • Given the timing, available resources and number of programs encompassed in the evaluation: interviews focused on the current ecoENERGY programs, only a limited number of interviews were conducted per program; and interviews were not conducted with potential participants who withdrew from programs.
  • Cost-effectiveness in terms of cost per tonne of GHG emissions reduced was not assessed in this evaluation. An assessment of cost per tonne for the industrial and commercial/institutional programs is included in the Impact Attribution Study commissioned by the OEE.2

Findings

Relevance
Alignment with Government Priorities and NRCan Strategic Outcomes

The programs encompassed in this evaluation directly align with the federal government’s commitment to reduce energy-related GHG emissions and criteria air contaminants as outlined in various government documents such as the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act,3 Canada’s 2007 climate change plan Turning the Corner4 (the climate change plan in place during the timeframe covered by this evaluation) and speeches from the Throne and budgets tabled between 2004-05 and 2008-09.

Programs covered in this evaluation also directly align with NRCan’s second strategic outcome which states that “Canada is a world leader on environmental responsibility in the development and use of natural resources."5

Ongoing Need for the Programs

Evidence gathered for this evaluation suggests there is an ongoing need for federal government energy efficiency programming that focuses on the industrial, residential and commercial/institutional sectors. The need for this federal action is related to Canada’s GHG emissions reduction commitments (e.g., Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, Copenhagen Accord). It was estimated that in 2007 the industrial, residential and commercial/institutional sectors represented about 61% of Canada’s total GHG emissions (including electricity-related emissions).

Without federal government intervention, the industrial, residential and commercial/institutional sectors would not have the capacity to: (a) address the environmental and economic needs to the same extent; and (b) overcome barriers impeding implementation/adoption of energy efficiency measures by energy users (such as facility/building/housing owners and operators).

These barriers include: lack of information and training; resource constraints; and a lack of motivation (e.g., absence of limits on carbon and systemic factors that discourage energy users from undertaking energy efficiency measures because they will not reap the benefits). NRCan’s energy efficiency programs are aimed at addressing these barriers through capacity building activities (e.g., training, information, etc.), collaborative activities (to extend the reach of programming into other jurisdictions), and financial incentive activities (e.g., funding of energy assessments, audits, retrofit projects, benchmarking and technical studies).

Legitimate, Appropriate and Necessary Role

There is a legitimate, appropriate, and necessary role for the federal government in the delivery of programming related to improving energy efficiency in the industrial, residential, and commercial/institutional sectors. Pursuant to the Energy Efficiency Act (1992), the Department of Natural Resources Act (1994), and its mandate to enhance the responsible development and use of Canada’s natural resources, including energy, NRCan plays a leadership role and coordinates solutions to energy management problems across jurisdictions.

The Department creates national frameworks, standards, and tools that support, and in some cases, enable the efforts of complementary programs across the country. In addition, NRCan's training programs, tools (such as the EnerGuide Rating System and EE4 software), research efforts, and collaborative initiatives (such as the Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation and the ongoing work to update energy use stipulations in Canadian building codes) play an important role to help fill programming gaps in Canada. There is some question, however, among some internal and provincial interviewees about whether providing financial incentives directly to individuals and firms for energy efficiency investments is the most effective role for the federal government in energy efficiency programming in the industrial, residential, and commercial/institutional sectors.

Performance
Effectiveness

Based on the logic model6 for the Industry, Housing and Buildings sub-sub-activities, the overall intended outcomes for the programs encompassed in this evaluation were:

  • adoption of energy management best practices and implementation of energy efficiency projects and retrofits;
  • energy savings and reductions in GHG emissions and air pollution; and
  • implementation of energy efficiency programs by other levels of government and industry that align with NRCan programs.

In support of these outcomes, energy efficiency programming in all sectors over the evaluation period included a combination of financial incentive activities (e.g., grants or contributions for energy assessments, audits and retrofit projects), capacity building activities (e.g., training, labelling, provision of information, etc.) and collaborative activities (with industry, provincial/ territorial governments and other stakeholders). Results associated with the programs encompassed in this evaluation are presented according to these activities.

Industrial Sector

Some of the financial incentive-based industrial sector programs are achieving their identified targets. However, these targets do not take into consideration industrial firms that might have taken energy efficiency actions even without the incentive program. Therefore, the energy savings directly attributable to these programs may be less than the energy savings reported, particularly with respect to the implementation of retrofits.

In addition to energy savings and GHG reductions, the benchmarking and technical studies (e.g., process integration and computational fluid dynamics studies) are providing industrial firms with the information and tools necessary to make energy efficiency changes. More specifically:

  • Two of the three Industry Cross-cutting measures (audits and benchmarking studies) exceeded their adoption and implementation targets, while the third (technical studies) did not. All three Industry Cross-cutting Measures have exceeded their combined GHG emission reductions and energy savings targets.
  • The ecoENERGY for Industry Program exceeded its targets for the number of technical and benchmarking studies and, at the time of this evaluation, had met between 44-185% of the target range for energy savings and GHG reductions.
  • The ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations (Industry) Program did not meet its targets for the implementation of energy efficiency retrofits. At the time of this evaluation, this Program had also not met its energy savings and GHG emission reductions targets. It was estimated that 26% of the energy savings achieved are directly attributable to the ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations (Industry) Program.

Capacity building activities, such as Dollars to $ense and Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation (CIPEC) Leaders within the ecoENERGY for Industry Program (and the Industry Cross-cutting Measures before it), are encouraging the adoption of energy management best practices and implementation of energy efficiency measures. Therefore, these activities are contributing to the energy savings and GHG emission reductions achieved by the industrial sector energy efficiency programs. In particular:

  • The Industry Cross-cutting Measures (expansion of CIPEC and training) met or exceeded their targets for adoption and implementation as well as GHG emission reductions and energy savings.
  • For its CIPEC Leaders activity, the ecoENERGY for Industry Program exceeded its adoption and implementation targets. The Dollars to $ense training undertaken by the program had not quite met its target for the number of individuals trained (88% achievement). Nevertheless, both activities did contribute to the overall GHG emission reductions and energy savings targets for the ecoENERGY for Industry Program.

Collaborative activities, particularly through CIPEC, have created a strong link between the federal government and industry, thereby ensuring that NRCan’s energy efficiency programming in this sector aligns with the reality of the industrial firms. It also provides a forum for an open dialogue related to programming and/or best practices.

Residential Sector

The financial incentive activity-based programs are encouraging homeowners to adopt energy management best practices and implement energy efficiency measures. Consequently, these programs are resulting in measurable energy savings and GHG emission reductions. While these are impacted to some degree by homeowners implementing energy efficiency retrofits that may have been implemented even without the financial incentive, analysis shows that 84% of energy savings are directly attributable to the program. Homeowners are undertaking double the number of retrofits than they had originally planned and 60% of homeowners are motivated to undertake further measures outside of the program. This suggests that the retrofit programming is expanding or modifying the energy retrofit activities initially planned by homeowners. In particular:

  • The EnerGuide for Houses and Retrofit Incentives Initiatives exceeded their targets for the number of pre-retrofit evaluations (audits) conducted and the percentage of these that resulted in retrofits. As at March 31, 2009, these initiatives had achieved 92% of their GHG emission reductions and energy savings targets.
  • The ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes Program exceeded its target for the number of applications/grants. At the end of the first two years of this four year program (2007-08 and 2008-09), it had already achieved 64-80% of its targeted 2011 range for GHG emission reductions and energy savings (its fourth year target).

The capacity building activities undertaken by the energy efficiency programs in the residential sector have had varying levels of success in achieving their identified targets and intended outcomes. Specifically:

  • The R-2000 Standard, EnerGuide for New Houses, and ENERGY STAR for New Homes initiatives met or exceeded their identified targets for the number of houses labelled through one of these initiatives.
  • Training activities under the ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses (Residential) Initiative also exceeded its targets for number of professionals (e.g., builders and energy advisors) trained. While the program did not meet its target for the total number of houses labelled or certified under the EnerGuide Rating System, ENERGY STAR for New Homes or R-2000 Standard, it is on track to meet its energy savings targets.

Through its collaborative activities with provinces, territories, utilities and other organizations, the energy efficiency programs in the residential sector are effectively extending the reach of NRCan’s energy efficiency programs in the residential sector. These efforts are encouraging the incorporation of energy efficiency into building codes for new homes, and resulting in agreements with provinces, territories and other stakeholders for new and existing housing initiatives. For example:

  • Efforts by the ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses (Residential) Initiative have resulted in other jurisdictions undertaking projects to incorporate energy efficiency into their building codes. This initiative also has agreements with provinces, territories, and other organizations for the delivery of new and existing housing programs.
  • The ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes Program has signed 23 agreements with the provinces, territories, utilities, and other stakeholders to formalize links with complementary programs.

No long-term GHG emission reductions targets were set for the collaborative activities undertaken in the residential sector.

Commercial/Institutional Sector

NRCan’s financial incentive activity-based programs in the commercial/institutional sector are achieving GHG emission reductions and energy savings but the targets set for these programs did not take into consideration commercial/institutional firms that might have taken energy efficiency actions even without the incentive program. Therefore, the energy savings directly attributable to these programs may be less than the energy savings reported, particularly with respect to the implementation of retrofits. It was estimated that 46% of the energy savings achieved by the Existing Buildings Initiative and ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations (Commercial/Institutional) Program are directly attributable to these initiatives. Similarly, it was estimated that 62% of energy savings achieved through the Commercial Building Incentive Program are directly attributable to this program.

With respect to the achievement of identified targets for the adoption of energy management best practices and implementation of energy efficiency measures, as well as energy savings and GHG reductions, the following was reported:

  • The Existing Buildings Initiative did not specify adoption and implementation targets but did result in 521 audits and 650 retrofits. However, it did not achieve its targets for GHG emission reductions and energy savings.
  • The Industrial Building Incentive Program and Commercial Building Incentive Program did not achieve their targets for new construction (42% and 93%, respectively) and achieved only 37% of their combined GHG emission reductions and energy savings targets.
  • The ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations (Commercial/ Institutional) Program did not meet its targets for the number of retrofit projects during the period covered by this evaluation. In its first two years (2007-08 and 2008-09), this Program achieved 57% of its energy savings, and 56% of its GHG emission reductions targets, expected to be achieved by 2009.
  • From 2004-05 to 2008-09, the Federal Buildings Initiative had achieved 37-55% of its targeted range for participation (signed energy performance contracts). However, in all but the last year (2008-09), the initiative did achieve (or exceed) its energy savings and GHG emission reduction targets. In 2008-09, the initiative only achieved 22% of its energy savings target and 20% of its GHG emission reductions target.

For the most part, the capacity building activities (e.g., training and design validation), are increasing the capacity of commercial/institutional energy users to adopt energy management best practices and implement energy efficiency measures. In turn, this contributes to the outcome of energy savings and GHG emission reductions. Specifically:

  • Although the training activities within the Existing Buildings Initiative and Commercial Building Incentive Program did not identify adoption and implementation targets, 2,495 individuals were trained through these programs. No specific GHG emission reductions and energy savings targets were identified for the training activities, but it is suggested that they contributed to the overall goals of these programs.
  • The ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses (Commercial/Institutional) Initiative exceeded its targets for training, validated 181 designs (no target set), but did not issue any building labels during the period covered in this evaluation (but more than 300 buildings were reportedly eligible for labels). In its first two years (2007-08 and 2008-09), this initiative achieved 63-71% of its targeted 2011 range for energy savings and 80% of its GHG emission reductions.

The collaborative activities undertaken through the ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses (Commercial/Institutional) Initiative have been effective at encouraging other jurisdictions (provinces/territories) to incorporate energy efficiency into their building codes. Activities such as commissioning and recommissioning are addressing the needs of building owners and operators to assist them in operating their buildings in an energy-efficient way (i.e., whole-building approach).

Unintended Outcomes

Some of the programs encompassed in this evaluation have resulted in positive unintended outcomes. For instance, the extent to which NRCan programs and tools have been adopted by other jurisdictions may have been greater than intended since NRCan programs and tools have been adopted by other jurisdictions in all sectors. For example:

  • In the industrial sector, there are instances in which participants in Dollars to $ense workshops have begun offering their own internal workshops to colleagues across their organizations.
  • In the residential sector, NRCan’s new housing initiatives have triggered the development of energy-efficient housing programs in a number of provinces, such as programs offered through BuiltGreen (Alberta and British Columbia) and EnerQuality (Ontario).
  • In the commercial/institutional sector, the Commercial Building Incentive Program was adopted as a program in New Brunswick and provided programs such as the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Program with a solid foundation in Canada.

The extent to which NRCan’s energy efficiency programs have been observed to result in market shifts, particularly in the residential and commercial/institutional sectors, was also identified as a positive unintended outcome. For example:

  • In the residential sector, the ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes Program fostered observable job creation in the energy consultant sector.
  • There was also unanticipated growth in the energy service provider field as a result of NRCan’s energy efficiency programs in the commercial/institutional sector.

A possible unintended negative outcome is that in the commercial/institutional sector, the availability of retrofit incentives may have impacted the price for energy efficiency technologies and energy consultant services.

Economy (Cost-effectiveness)

In general, the assessment of program economy (i.e., cost-effectiveness) considers whether equal or better performance than that noted during the evaluation period would be possible using alternative program delivery or design. Keeping in mind the policy instruments available to NRCan within its legal authority and mandate, this evaluation identified best practices based on the literature that could be explored to improve the cost-effectiveness of NRCan’s current energy efficiency programming (i.e., the ecoENERGY programs) in the industrial, residential, and commercial/institutional sectors.

The circumstances under which financial incentive and capacity building activities have been found to be most cost-effective in each sector are discussed in the body of the report and specific suggestions to improve their cost-effectiveness are provided. For the financial incentive-based activities, for example:

  • industrial and commercial/institutional sector energy efficiency programs could be more substantively delivered in partnership with other jurisdictions;
  • industrial, residential, and commercial/institutional sector energy efficiency programs could encourage whole-building (whole-home), comprehensive retrofits; and
  • the ecoENERGY retrofit incentive program targets should take into consideration free-ridership, consider offering incentives for high-risk components such as audits (instead of, or in addition to, retrofits), and have incentives based on verified energy savings and/or demonstrations of effective commissioning and recommissioning practices.

Suggestions to improve the economy (i.e., cost-effectiveness) of capacity building-focused activities included:

  • training programs could include more concrete and detailed information related to cost-savings and payback, and provide technology demonstrations;
  • education programs targeting tenants and organizations’ senior management could be delivered; and
  • education programs could expand material addressing commissioning and recommissioning.
Efficiency and Strategic Management Practices

While the OEE has instituted a number of important strategic management practices to help ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of its programs, suggestions for potential improvements to the programs were provided by interviewees. These suggestions can be summarized as follows:

  • improve communication from NRCan to program partners and participants by using communication technologies and by assigning specific individuals to specific case files;
  • modify application processes for the ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations Program to make it less burdensome by assigning one officer per case file or by partnering with regional delivery agents, and making the energy audit benchmarking requirements more flexible for small scale-retrofits; and
  • for residential programs, ensure that tools and software are easy-to-use.
Management Responses and Action Plans
Recommendations Action Plan Responsible Official/Sector &Target Date
1. NRCan should pursue opportunities to collaborate and coordinate with other jurisdictions in the industrial and commercial/institutional sectors to ensure its energy efficiency programming in these sectors facilitates the adoption of energy management best practices and thereby reduce GHG emissions and other air pollutants.

Agreed.

Since the period covered by the evaluation, NRCan has been undertaking many collaborative activities to facilitate the adoption of energy efficiency, for example:

  • regular meetings with provincial/territorial colleagues (4 times per year) to coordinate programs such as home retrofit;
  • delivering training in collaboration with utilities, colleges, municipalities and others; and
  • updating model energy codes with provinces and territories.
ADM, Energy Sector Ongoing
2. NRCan should explore opportunities to feasibly expand (i.e., within current budget and authority) its capacity building activities and target audiences in the industrial, residential and commercial/institutional sectors, capitalizing on its expertise so energy users (including facility/building/housing owners and operators) know and understand how to make energy-efficient decisions.

Agreed.

Capacity building is being expanded, for example:

  • in the residential sector, NRCan has launched a collaborative process with provinces, territories and industry to develop the next generation of the EnerGuide Rating System (ERS), which provides home energy information and facilitates energy decisions;
  • in the buildings sector, NRCan is increasing the number of recommissioning workshops offered which will help building owners operate their facilities in an efficient manner; and providing training and modeling software to facilitate the adoption of the new National Energy Code for Buildings by architects and designers; and
  • in the industry sector, NRCan is developing a new workshop for Energy Management Information Systems which will help energy users collect the information needed to understand end-use and make appropriate decisions.
ADM, Energy Sector Next Generation ERS process completion: summer 2011 September 2011 September 2011
3. NRCan should conduct further research examining potential financial incentives and approaches for maximizing directly attributable impacts.

Agreed.

NRCan is currently assessing methods to enhance the adoption of energy efficiency in the low-rise housing stock and buildings, as well as the adoption of energy management systems in industry.

NRCan will conduct such research to inform program development.

ADM, Energy Sector September 2011

1.0 Introduction and Background

1.1 Introduction

This report provides the findings of the evaluation of NRCan’s Industry, Housing and Buildings sub-sub-activities, which comprise 15 programs, from 2004-05 to 2008-09 covering $435.9 million. This evaluation was undertaken as part of NRCan’s ongoing evaluation cycle and to provide input into the Clean Energy Thematic evaluation, being led by NRCan, under the Clean Air Agenda.

1.2 Overview of Energy Use and GHG Emission Trends in the Industrial, Residential and Commercial/Institutional Sectors

Canada is one of the highest energy users in the world. It consumes about 2.8% of the world’s energy7 and accounts for approximately 1.9% of the world’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions8, one of the most prevalent greenhouse gases (GHGs). As shown in Figure 1, it was estimated that, in 2007, the industrial, commercial/institutional (i.e., buildings), and residential sectors represented about 68% of the secondary energy9 consumption in Canada.10

Figure 1: Secondary Energy Use in Canada, by Sector (2007)

Figure 1: Secondary Energy Use in Canada, by Sector (2007) Source: OEE, NRCan, National Energy Use Database

Energy use is the principal source of GHG emissions and other air pollutants in Canada. 11 The primary sources of carbon dioxide generated from human activity are fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes such as cement production.12 According to Environment Canada, the combustion of fossil fuels (which includes oil, coal and gas) produces many pollutants that affect air quality, human health, and the environment. Given that fossil fuels accounted for 67% of Canada’s total energy consumption in 2007, these concerns link closely to energy consumption. 13

Total Canadian GHG emissions in 2007 were estimated to have been 746.7 megatonnes (Mt).14 As shown in Figure 2, the industrial, commercial/institutional, and residential sectors represented about 61% of Canada’s total GHG emissions, including electricity related emissions.15

Figure 2: GHG Emissions in Canada, by Sector (2007)

Figure 2: GHG Emissions in Canada, by Sector (2007) Source: OEE, NRCan, National Energy Use Database

Although energy use and GHG emissions showed a declining trend in all sectors between 2003 and 2006, the overall trend between 1990 and 2007 shows that secondary energy use and GHG emissions (including electricity related emissions) has increased in all sectors.16

Environment Canada attributes the decline in GHG emissions during this period in the residential and commercial/institutional sectors to warmer than average temperatures, increased energy efficiency of systems, equipment and appliances and an increase in their uptake due to programs like ENERGY STAR. Declines in the industrial sector were attributed to energy efficiencies and streamlined production.17

Industrial Sector

From 1990 to 2007, industrial energy use increased 28% (from 2,710 petajoules (PJ) to 3,472 PJ) and associated GHGs increased 24% (from 136 megatonnes (Mt) to 169 Mt).

Residential Sector

Energy use in the residential sector increased 13% (from 1,282.3 PJ to 1,447.2 PJ) and associated GHG emissions increased by 11% (from 67.1 Mt to 74.3 Mt) between 1990 and 2007. During that period the population increased by 19% and the number of households increased by 31%.18

Commercial/Institutional Sector

From 1990 to 2007, energy use and GHG emissions increased more in the commercial/ institutional sector than those in the residential and industrial sectors. Energy use in the commercial/institutional sector increased 32% percent (from 867 PJ to 1,142 PJ) and associated GHG emissions increased 36% over that period.

1.3 Overview of the Industry, Housing and Buildings Sub-sub-Activities

Between 2004-05 and 2008-09, 15 programs were delivered by the Industrial Programs, Housing, and Buildings Divisions of NRCan’s OEE (OEE). Figure 3 depicts the evolution of these programs over this time period. The four ecoENERGY programs are scheduled to end in March 2011.

Figure 3: Evolution of Programs Encompassed in the Industry, Housing and Buildings Sub-sub-Activities
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
Industry Emissions Benchmarking* ecoENERGY for Industry
Expansion of Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation*
Improved Tracking and Reporting of Energy Efficiency and Emission Trends*
Awareness Building*
Industrial Energy Audit Incentive Program*
ecoENERGY for Small and Medium Organizations**
Buildings Existing Buildings Initiative
Federal Buildings Initiative
Industrial Building Incentive Program
Commercial Building Incentive Program
ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses***
Housing R-2000 Standard, EnerGuide for New Houses and ENERGY STAR for New Homes
EnerGuide for Houses and Retrofit Incentives ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes

Notes: * These five initiatives were collectively referred to as “Industry Cross-cutting Measures”. ** ecoENERGY for Small and Medium Organizations is a single program with both industrial and commercial/institutional components. *** ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses is a single program with both buildings and housing components.

The expected long term outcomes of the Industry, Housing and Buildings sub-sub-activities are to reduce energy consumption and emissions of GHGs and criteria air contaminants (CACs), in the industrial, residential, and commercial/institutional (i.e., building) sectors.19

1.4 Objectives and Rationale of Programs Encompassed in the Industry, Housing and Buildings Sub-sub-Activities

1.4.1 Clean Air Agenda – Clean Energy Theme Programming

In 2006, the Government of Canada made a commitment to pursue a Clean Air Agenda to reduce emissions of smog-causing air pollutants and GHGs. In support of this, NRCan implemented a series of ecoENERGY programs as part of the ecoENERGY Efficiency Initiative related to the Clean Energy Theme of the Clean Air Agenda. ecoENERGY initiatives covered by this evaluation include the ongoing ecoENERGY for Industry, ecoENERGY Retrofit and ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses programs.

ecoENERGY for Industry (industrial sector)

ecoENERGY for Industry20 is a four-year (2007-08 to 2010-11) $18.0 million program under the Clean Air Agenda delivered by the Industrial Programs Division, 20% ($3.8 million) of which is for contribution agreements with eligible recipients (e.g., industry and research associations, academic institutions, other levels of government, utilities, non-governmental organizations) to support various studies and the development of energy management tools. Expenditures during the evaluation period were $7.6 million.

The ecoENERGY for Industry Program subsumed and continues to deliver many of the measures previously delivered under the Industry Cross-cutting Measures, such as benchmarking, data tracking, training, awareness, and the Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation (CIPEC) networking activities.

The objective of this program is to improve industrial energy intensity and reduce energy-related industrial GHG emissions and CACs by supporting activities that help industry develop the capacity to identify and implement energy saving projects and practices. By saving energy, industry will increase its competitiveness and reduce energy-related GHG and CAC emissions.

ecoENERGY for Industry is delivered through the CIPEC platform, a voluntary industry-government partnership created in 1975 to champion industrial energy efficiency across Canada. As presented in its 2009 Annual Report, CIPEC’s mission is, “to promote effective voluntary actions that reduce industrial energy use per unit of production, thereby improving economic performance while participating in meeting Canada’s climate change objectives.” 21

CIPEC has been involved in the development and delivery of tools and services to encourage industries to implement cost-effective energy efficiency improvements. The products have been developed and delivered through the combined efforts of NRCan’s Industrial Programs Division and trade associations from the manufacturing, mining, energy production, and construction sectors.

CIPEC consists of 50 participating associations, representing more than 5,000 companies and 98% of Canadian industry.22 CIPEC’s overall direction is provided by an Executive Board23, and is carried out through activities of a Task Force Council and 26 sector task forces representing the trade associations.24

ecoENERGY Retrofit (Residential, Industrial, and Commercial/Institutional Sectors)

ecoENERGY Retrofit is comprised of three programs:

  • ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes;
  • ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations; and
  • Existing Buildings Initiative.
ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes (residential sector)

ecoENERGY Retrofit - Homes Program25 is a four-year (2007-08 to 2010-11) $160.0 million26 program under the Clean Air Agenda, delivered by the Housing Division. Expenditures during the evaluation period were $107.6 million. Over 90% of this funding is allocated to grants to eligible recipients (e.g., owners of low-rise residential properties). The grant payment is based solely on the eligible retrofits performed to a maximum of $5,000 per dwelling.27

The objective of the ecoENERGY Retrofit - Homes Program is to encourage the existing low-rise housing sector in Canada to become more energy-efficient, reduce emissions produced through energy use, and contribute to clean air, water, energy, and a healthy environment for Canadians. The program provides property owners with the information needed to make informed home energy retrofit decisions, and rewards energy and water saving measures with a grant.

ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations (industrial and commercial/institutional sectors)

ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations (SMO)28 is a four-year (2007-08 to 2010-11) $40.0 million Program under the Clean Air Agenda, delivered by the Industrial Programs Division (on the industrial side) and the Buildings Division (on the commercial/institutional side). Expenditures during the evaluation period were $9.8 million. The program uses contribution agreements to cost-share energy retrofit projects, such as upgrades to building envelopes or equipment, based on the estimated savings of the organization’s energy use. Operating funds are used to market and promote the program and raise awareness of energy saving opportunities and how these opportunities contribute to increased competitiveness and a cleaner environment.

The objective of this program is to accelerate the implementation of energy retrofit projects in the industrial, commercial and institutional sectors, to improve their energy efficiency and reduce energy-related GHG emissions and CACs through the use of financial incentives. This Program also assisted with transitioning the March 2008 closure of the Existing Buildings Initiative, a financial incentive program aimed at supporting energy efficiency retrofits in large buildings.

Existing Buildings Initiative (Commercial/Institutional Sector)

The Existing Buildings Initiative (EBI) began in 1998 and ended in March of 2008.29 During the evaluation period, the program had expenditures of $84.3 million. The objective of the Program was to encourage public institutions and commercial businesses to reduce energy consumption and GHGs by undertaking energy efficiency retrofits. This Program promoted energy efficiency retrofits with the intention of encouraging permanent market adoption of energy efficiency practices. Activities of the Program included providing financial incentives, partnerships, information, training and advice to stakeholders.

ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses (Residential and Commercial / Institutional Sectors)

ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses30 is a four-year (2007-08 to 2010-11) $61.0 million initiative under the Clean Air Agenda, delivered by the Housing and Buildings Divisions. Expenditures during the evaluation period were $25.2 million. The intended beneficiaries of the initiative include all stakeholders involved in the design, construction, retrofit and operation of residential and commercial/institutional buildings.

This initiative aims to encourage the construction of energy-efficient new homes and buildings as well as to encourage retrofits to improve the energy efficiency of the existing stock. The program targets: commercial buildings, such as office and retail buildings; low-rise and high-rise residential dwellings; and institutional buildings, such as schools, universities, hospitals, and other public sector buildings.

1.4.2 Other Energy Efficiency Programming (outside of the Clean Air Agenda)

In addition to the four Clean Air Agenda (e.g., ecoENERGY) programs, over the timeframe encompassed by this evaluation, NRCan also delivered the:

  • Industry Cross-cutting Measures (2004-05 to 2006-07)31, which included: Industrial Energy Audit Incentive Program; Expansion of Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation (CIPEC); Awareness Building; Emissions Benchmarking; and Improved Tracking and Reporting of Energy Efficiency and Emission Trends;
  • EnerGuide for Houses and Retrofit Incentives (2004-05 to 2006-07);
  • R-2000 Standard, EnerGuide for New Houses and ENERGY STAR for New Homes (2004-05 to 2006-07);
  • Commercial Building Incentive Program (2004-05 to 2006-07);
  • Industrial Building Incentive Program (2004-05 to 2006-07); and
  • Federal Buildings Initiative (2004-05 to 2008-09).
Industrial Sector
Industry Cross-cutting Measures

The Industry Cross-cutting Measures included a $15.9 million suite of initiatives delivered from 2004-05 to 2006-07 with the overall objective of encouraging the sector to achieve a 1% average annual energy intensity improvement and, by doing so, reduce GHG emissions by 5.8 Mt per year in 2010. 32 These measures were designed and implemented to help remove some of the barriers to improving energy efficiency among industry.

Industrial Energy Audit Incentive Program

The Industrial Energy Audit Incentive Program was a six-year initiative to help defray the cost of hiring professional energy auditors to conduct on-site audits at industrial facilities. During the evaluation period, the initiative had expenditures of $4.0 million. Financial support was available exclusively to industrial companies in Canada that were registered as Industrial Energy Innovators, a process which involved written commitment from a senior company official to implement a program of energy-saving measures, which gave them access to support from several of the other initiatives within the Industry Cross-cutting Measures to help realize those commitments. The program covered up to 50% of the cost of an energy audit, to a maximum of $5,000, to help industrial companies identify ways to increase energy efficiency, improve production processes, and cut costs.

Expansion of the Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation

Under the Industry Cross-cutting Measures, the expansion of the Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation (CIPEC) was designed to expand CIPEC’s membership and task force representation to include other industrial sectors such as the upstream oil and gas, forestry, construction and electrical generation sectors, as well as to broaden the reach of existing task forces. During the evaluation period, the initiative had expenditures of $1.5 million.

Awareness Building

The Awareness Building Initiative focused on developing and delivering new tools for small and medium sized industry to increase awareness and understanding of energy efficiency and GHG reduction opportunities. During the evaluation period, the initiative had expenditures of $2.2 million. Tools included targeted communications such as the Heads-up CIPEC newsletter, the CIPEC website, and evaluating and updating the Dollars to $ense training workshops. Activities included a needs assessment and plan to determine the awareness level of energy/emissions improvements and the best ways to reach small and medium enterprises to increase awareness of opportunities.

Emissions Benchmarking

The Emissions Benchmarking Initiative provided support for cost-shared sector and company-specific benchmarking studies on business activities as a whole, with special emphasis on energy efficiency and GHG emissions performance. During the evaluation period, the initiative had expenditures of $5.1 million. Sector reports were made available to all associations and companies registered as “Industrial Energy Innovators”. Confidential reports were provided to participating individual companies to allow them to benchmark their productivity and energy efficiency performance against other companies in their sector.

Improved Tracking and Reporting of Energy Efficiency and Emission Trends

The objective of the Improved Tracking and Reporting of Energy Efficiency Trends Initiative was to enhance and extend the industrial portion of the National Energy Use Database (NEUD) in part by improving the alignment, scope and timing of commissioned survey instruments administered by Statistics Canada that provide input data. During the evaluation period, the initiative had expenditures of $3.2 million.

Residential Sector
EnerGuide for Houses and Retrofit Incentive (Existing Housing)

EnerGuide for Houses and the Retrofit Incentive were delivered from 2004-05 to 2006-07, with expenditures of $109.1 million during the evaluation period. The purpose of these existing housing initiatives was to identify opportunities for energy savings and to incent the implementation of energy saving measures.

The EnerGuide for Houses Initiative provided participating homeowners with an impartial assessment of the energy use of their homes and the information needed to make informed decisions about energy-efficient improvements. Its objective was to improve the energy efficiency of audited and labelled houses by an average of 20%. Until 2003, this existing housing initiative provided grants for the initial energy assessment of the home and a second assessment following the homeowner’s completion of work to improve energy efficiency. In 2003, an additional grant relating to the retrofit work began to be paid based on the improvement in energy efficiency. The EnerGuide for Houses Program was cancelled in May 2006.

R-2000 Standard, EnerGuide for New Houses and ENERGY STAR for New Homes

The R-2000 Standard and EnerGuide for New Houses were new housing initiatives delivered from 2004-05 to 2006-07. ENERGY STAR for New Homes was developed and piloted in 2005-06. During the evaluation period, total expenditures for these initiatives were $20.0 million.

The R-2000 Standard is a new housing initiative that has been ongoing since 1982 with the objective of encouraging the building of energy-efficient houses that are environmentally- friendly and healthy to live in, at a standard of energy efficiency performance that exceeds that of conventionally built houses. Its major processes were:

  • training for industry;
  • participant certification and licensing;
  • premium performance home certification/labelling;
  • quality control; and
  • marketing and consumer awareness.

EnerGuide for New Houses33 was launched in 2002, with the objectives of reducing the emissions of carbon dioxide of Canada’s housing stock by expanding the energy evaluation industry and improving the energy efficiency of Canadian housing. Its main components included:

  • training for industry;
  • benchmarking of energy efficiency progress;
  • energy ratings;
  • premium performance labelling; and
  • consumer awareness.

ENERGY STAR for New Homes was developed and launched in Ontario in 2005. This initiative promotes energy efficiency guidelines enabling new homes to be 25% more energy-efficient than those built to minimum provincial building codes, resulting in reduced energy costs for homeowners. This initiative is currently expanding to other regions across the country.

Commercial/Institutional Sector
Commercial Building Incentive Program

The Commercial Building Incentive Program was in place from April 1998 until March 2007.34 During the evaluation period, the initiative had expenditures of $45.2 million. The objective of the rogram was to improve the energy efficiency of new commercial and institutional buildings by changing design practices so that energy-efficient design elements were routinely integrated into new building designs.

Industrial Building Incentive Program

The Industrial Building Incentive Program was in place from 2002 to 2007. During the evaluation period, the initiative had expenditures of $1.4 million. This program provided up to $80,000 to companies that designed a building that was at least 25% more energy-efficient than Canada’s Model National Energy Code for Buildings (10% from process improvements and 15% from building envelope improvements). Approximately six to ten projects were funded in each year of the program.

Federal Buildings Initiative

The Federal Buildings Initiative has been ongoing since November 1991.35 During the evaluation period, the initiative had expenditures of $1.5 million. The rogram provides a range of services and products to enable federal departments, agencies, and crown corporations to implement retrofit projects through third party energy performance contracts. These financing arrangements provide access to private-sector expertise and capital to implement energy efficiency retrofit projects that can be paid back with the annual savings generated by the projects. 36 It is a voluntary program in that there is no obligation for custodial departments to participate or to achieve a certain energy efficiency standard.

1.5 Governance Structure

The Director General, OEE is accountable for the Energy Efficiency and Alternative Transportation Fuels Program Sub-Activity. The OEE is part of the Energy Sector. Table 1 provides an illustration of how the Industry, Housing and Buildings sub-sub-activities fit within NRCan’s 2009-10 Program Activity Architecture (PAA).

Table 1: 2009-10 PAA - NRCan Strategic Outcome 2
Strategic Objective 2 Environmental Responsibility: Canada is a world leader on environmental responsibility in the development and use of natural resources
Program Activity 2.1 Clean Energy
Sub-activity 2.1.5 Energy Efficiency and Alternative Transportation Fuels
Sub-sub-activity 2.1.5.1 Housing and Buildings
Sub-sub-activity 2.1.5.3 Industry

The OEE manages the Industry, Housing and Buildings sub-sub-activities. The Directors of the Industrial Programs, Housing, and Buildings Divisions are accountable for overall program delivery, operations, outcomes, results, and resource commitments for activities under their respective sectors. The OEE’s Demand Policy and Analysis Division is responsible for planning, analysis, risk assessment, and performance measurement, and provides support to the Directors of the Industrial Programs, Housing, and Buildings Divisions.

1.6 Resources

Total resources for the Industry, Housing and Buildings sub-sub-activities are provided in Table 2.37

Table 2: Industry, Housing and Buildings Sub-sub-Activities Expenditures, 2004-05 to 2008-09 ($millions) (Grants and Contributions: Gs&Cs)
Program 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 Total
Industrial Sector
Total ($) 5.4 6.3 4.2 5.6 9.7 31.2
Gs&Cs ($) 1.5 1.9 1.1 1.9 3.0 9.4
Gs&Cs (%) 27 29 27 34 31 30
Residential Sector
Total ($) 29.5 35.5 65.0 20.1 102.6 252.7
Gs&Cs ($) 13.1 14.0 48.5 13.2 92.8 181.6
Gs&Cs (%) 44 39 74 66 90 72
Commercial/Institutional Sector
Total ($) 37.4 41.9 39.6 19.3 13.8 152.0
Gs&Cs ($) 26.0 28.3 28.6 9.9 2.4 95.2
Gs&Cs (%) 69 67 72 51.2 17 63
Sub-sub-activities Total
Total ($) 72.3 83.7 108.8 45.0 126.1 435.9
Gs&Cs ($) 40.6 44.2 78.2 25.0 98.2 286.2
Gs&Cs (%) 56 53 72 56 78 66

Source: Natural Resources Canada, Office of the Sector Financial Advisor, Energy Sector. August 2010.

Figure 4 provides a breakdown of expenditures by sector (industrial, residential, and commercial/institutional).

Figure 4: Total Expenditures by Sector, 2004-05 to 2008-09 ($ millions)

Figure 4: Total Expenditures by Sector, 2004-05 to 2008-09 ($ millions)

Source: Natural Resources Canada, Office of the Sector Financial Advisor, Energy Sector.

Figure 5 illustrates the breakdown of expenditures by type.

Figure 5: Total Expenditures by Expenditure Type, 2004-05 to 2008-09 ($ millions)

Figure 5: Total Expenditures by Expenditure Type, 2004-05 to 2008-09 ($ millions)

Source: Natural Resources Canada, Office of the Sector Financial Advisor, Energy Sector.

2.0 Evaluation Approach and Methodologies

2.1 Evaluation Scope and Objectives

This evaluation covered NRCan’s direct spending on energy efficiency programs within the Industry, Housing and Buildings sub-sub-activities over the period of 2004-05 to 2008-09. It assessed issues related to:

  • relevance, which focuses on alignment with government priorities and NRCan strategic outcomes, addresses ongoing need and alignment with federal roles and responsibilities; and
  • performance, which focuses on the achievement of expected outcomes (i.e., effectiveness), as well as the demonstration of efficiency and economy.

2.2 Evaluation Methodologies

This evaluation used the following methodologies to assess the relevance and performance of the programs encompassed in the Industry, Housing and Buildings sub-sub-activities:

  • document and literature review;
  • qualitative interviews;
  • survey of homeowners (grant recipients and non-recipients) that participated in the ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes Program;
  • survey of homebuilders;
  • Impact Attribution Study commissioned by the Industry and Buildings Divisions;
  • Net to Gross Survey for the ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes Program (commissioned by the OEE); and
  • case studies38.
Document and Literature Reviews

The evaluation reviewed program documentation, Government of Canada priority and policy statements, academic and third-party research concerning energy efficiency and environmental programs and priorities, and evaluations and assessments of comparable energy efficiency programming.

Qualitative Interviews

The evaluation included 63 qualitative interviews (telephone and in-person) with:

  • internal (NRCan) program managers and staff (n=17);
  • participants in the current ecoENERGY programs (n=30); and
  • other external program stakeholders, including provincial and industry representatives, (n=16).

Interviewees were asked to comment on the need for the programs, appropriate role for the federal government, success of the programs, and overall impressions of the programs.

Survey of Homeowners

Two telephone surveys were administered to homeowners across Canada by an independent contractor from December 2009 to March 2010: one to a sample of homeowners who received grants through the ecoENERGY Retrofit - Homes programs (422 respondents); and the other to homeowners who entered the program by having the initial energy assessment conducted but did not apply for grants (100 respondents).

Homeowners were asked to respond to questions concerning their motivations for participating in the program, reasons for applying or not applying for grants, the extent to which retrofits were implemented, and satisfaction with the program.

The sample of grant recipients over-represented individuals in older homes and under represented individuals living in newer homes. As a result, the data were weighted based on population proportions for the purposes of determining sample statistics. The sample of recipients was representative of the population in all other parameters considered: province/territory, house size, energy ratings, and energy type. The non-recipient sample did not require weighting as it was reflective of the population.

Discrete choice models were used to measure the influence of various program, demographic, and other factors on the choices of participants to implement various retrofits.39

Survey of Homebuilders

A questionnaire for homebuilders licensed or certified through EnerGuide, ENERGY STAR, and/or R-2000 was administered to a sample (369 respondents) of licensed or certified homebuilders across Canada by an independent contractor from December 2009 to March 2010. The sample of homebuilders was representative of the population for the two parameters considered: province/territory and program participation.

Homebuilders were asked to respond to questions concerning their motivations for participating in the initiatives, the impact of the participation on their building practices, the number of energy-efficient homes they build, and satisfaction with the initiatives.

In addition, the survey data was analyzed to describe present and past activities of homebuilders to determine whether or not the proportion of energy-efficient homes built by builders had increased as a result of their participation in one or more of the initiatives.

Impact Attribution Study

In 2009 and 2010, the Industry and Buildings Divisions of NRCan’s OEE jointly commissioned an assessment of the impact of programs in existence from 2004-05 to 2008-09. These programs included:

  • Industrial Energy Audit Incentive Program;
  • Commercial Building Incentive Program;
  • Existing Buildings Initiative;
  • ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations; and
  • educational and awareness activities such as Dollars to $ense (under ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses and ecoENERGY for Industry), and CIPEC.

An independent contractor conducted the assessment and reported to an NRCan committee composed of representatives from the Industrial Programs Division, the Buildings Division and the Demand and Policy Analysis Division of the OEE, as well as representatives from the Strategic Evaluation Division of the Science and Policy Integration (SPI) Sector.

The objectives of this study were to:40

  • establish an evaluation and reporting methodology that can be used in this and in future evaluations and impact studies;
  • assess energy savings and GHG reductions solely attributable to NRCan – OEE’s industrial, commercial and institutional programs from 2004-05 to 2008-09; and
  • rank the relative efficiency of the various program instruments.

Net-to-Gross Survey for the ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes Program

In 2009 and 2010, the OEE commissioned an assessment of the ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes Program’s net impact in terms of energy savings attributable to the program. The objectives of this study were to:

  • “review and analyze the results databases from the national survey implementations;
  • refine and apply the methodology for calculating free-ridership and spillover41 to generate regional and national percentages for free-ridership and spillover based on program participant responses to the surveys; and
  • analyze the results of the energy advisor surveys in order to ensure that the free-ridership, spillover and net-to-gross ratios calculated appear accurate.”42

Case Studies

Nine case studies were conducted to inform analyses of programming duplication and levels of collaboration between the selected programs and NRCan’s energy efficiency programs. Eight case studies were conducted on Canadian programs offered by provinces, utility companies, or the private sector related to energy efficiency in the industrial, residential and commercial/institutional sectors. An additional case study was conducted on a participant in a building benchmarking and labelling pilot project funded by NRCan.

2.3 Evaluation Limitations

Limitations to this study should be considered when reviewing the results. Given the timing, available resources, and number of programs encompassed in the Industry, Housing and Buildings sub-sub-activities:

  • interviews were only conducted with participants in the ongoing ecoENERGY programs;
  • only a limited number of interviews were conducted per program so not all components could be covered; and
  • interviews were not conducted with potential participants who withdrew from programs.

Cost-effectiveness in terms of cost per tonne of GHG emissions reduced was not assessed in this evaluation. An assessment of cost per tonne for the industrial and commercial/institutional programs is included in the Impact Attribution Study commissioned by the OEE.43

3.0 Evaluation Findings

3.1 Relevance

Summary
Alignment with Government Priorities and NRCan Strategic Outcomes

The programs encompassed in this evaluation directly align with the federal government’s commitment to reduce energy-related GHG emissions and criteria air contaminants as outlined in various government documents such as the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act,44 Canada’s2007 climate change plan Turning the Corner45(the climate change plan in place during the timeframe covered by this evaluation) and speeches from the Throne and budgets tabled between 2004-05 and 2008-09.

Programs covered in this evaluation also directly align with NRCan’s second strategic outcome which states that “Canada is a world leader on environmental responsibility in the development and use of natural resources."46

Ongoing Need for the Programs

Evidence gathered for this evaluation suggests there is an ongoing need for federal government energy efficiency programming that focuses on capacity building, collaborative and financial incentive activities in the industrial, residential and commercial/institutional sectors. The need for this federal action is related to Canada’s GHG emissions reduction commitments (e.g., Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, Copenhagen Accord) considered in the context of rising GHG emissions in Canada. It was estimated that, in 2007, the industrial, residential and commercial/institutional sectors represented about 61% of Canada’s total GHG emissions (including electricity related emissions).

Without federal government intervention, the industrial, residential and commercial/institutional sectors would not have the capacity to: (a) address the environmental and economic needs to the same extent; and (b) overcome barriers impeding implementation/adoption of energy efficiency measures by energy users (such as facility/building/housing owners and operators).

These barriers include the lack of information and training, resource constraints, and a lack of motivation (e.g., absence of limits on carbon and systemic factors that discourage energy users from undertaking energy efficiency measures because they will not reap the benefits). NRCan’s energy efficiency programs are aimed at addressing these barriers through capacity building activities (e.g., training, information, etc.), collaborative activities (to extend the reach of programming into other jurisdictions), and financial incentive activities (e.g., funding of energy assessments, audits, retrofit projects, benchmarking and technical studies).

Legitimate, Appropriate and Necessary Role

There is a legitimate, appropriate, and necessary role for the federal government in the delivery of programming related to improving energy efficiency in the industrial, residential, and commercial/institutional sectors. Pursuant the Energy Efficiency Act (1992), the Department of Natural Resources Act (1994), and its mandate to enhance the responsible development and use of Canada’s natural resources, including energy, NRCan plays a leadership role and coordinates solutions to energy management problems across jurisdictions.

The Department creates national frameworks, standards, and tools that support, and in some cases, enable the efforts of complementary programs across the country. In addition, NRCan's training programs, tools (such as the EnerGuide Rating System and EE4 software), research efforts, and collaborative initiatives (such as the Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation and the ongoing work to update energy use stipulations in Canadian building codes) play an important role to help fill programming gaps in Canada. There is some question, however, among some internal and provincial interviewees about whether providing financial incentives directly to individuals and firms for energy efficiency investments is the most effective role for the federal government in energy efficiency programming in the industrial, residential, and commercial/institutional sectors.

3.1.1Alignment with Government Priorities and NRCan Strategic Outcomes

Evaluation Question 1: Are the programs consistent with government priorities and NRCan Strategic Outcomes?

The programs encompassed in this evaluation directly align to the federal government’s commitment to reduce energy-related GHG emissions and criteria air contaminants and to NRCan’s strategic outcome related to environmental responsibility.

Alignment with Government of Canada Priorities

The Government of Canada's commitment to reducing GHG emissions is framed by its ratification of the Kyoto Protocol in 2002 and the assent of the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act in 2007. The Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act requires the Government of Canada to have a climate change plan "to ensure that Canada takes effective and timely action to meet its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol and help address the problem of global climate change." 47

The federal government's 2007 climate change plan, Turning the Corner, outlines its approach for, "reducing Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent from 2006 levels by 2020 and by 60 to 70 per cent by 2050".48 This climate change plan includes the ecoENERGY initiatives.49 In January 2010, as part of the United Nations Copenhagen Accord, the federal government modified its GHG emission reduction commitments to a 17% reduction in GHG emissions relative to 2005 levels by 2020.50

Supporting all of the initiatives included in Turning the Corner is the Government of Canada’s Clean AirAgenda. This policy framework includes eight themes, one of which is Clean Energy. The four current ecoENERGY programs encompassed in this evaluation are components of the Clean Energy theme,51 directly linking them to Government of Canada policies and priorities.

Canada’s commitment to reducing GHG emissions has been further articulated in several Government of Canada statements, including speeches from the Throne and budgets tabled between 2004-05 and 2008-09. The 2004 Speech from the Throne highlighted the promotion of energy efficiency as an effective tool for reducing impacts on the environment.52 The 2007 Budget specifically highlighted the Government of Canada's targeting of energy efficiency as a major category of government spending.53

In its 2008 Speech from the Throne, the Government of Canada committed to, "tackling climate change and preserving Canada's environment."54 The 2008 Budget emphasized the Government of Canada's support of the ecoACTION suite of programs.55

All of the internal (NRCan) interviewees described the link between energy efficiency and GHG emission reductions noting that as energy use becomes more efficient, less energy is consumed, and less GHGs are emitted. The energy efficiency programs for industry, buildings, and housing contribute directly to the Government of Canada priority related to a reduction in GHG emissions.

Alignment with NRCan Strategic Outcomes

Between 2004-05 and 2008-09, NRCan identified a strategic outcome related to environmental responsibility which was published for the first time in its 2008-09 Report on Plans and Priorities: “Canada is a world leader on environmental responsibility in the development and use of natural resources."56

The Department's Clean Energy Program Activity stemming from this strategic outcome focuses on "increased energy efficiency, increased production of low-emission energy, and reduced environmental impacts associated with energy production and use."57 Programming that focuses on reducing the consumption of energy-generated by carbon rich fossil fuels, through improved energy efficiency, contributes to a strategic objective of using natural resources in an environmentally responsible way.

3.1.2 Ongoing Need for the Programs

Evaluation Question 2: Is there an ongoing need for the programs?

Evidence gathered for this evaluation suggests that there is an ongoing need for federal government energy efficiency programming that focuses on capacity building, collaborative and financial incentive activities in the industrial, residential and commercial/institutional sectors. The need for this federal action is related to Canada’s GHG emissions reduction commitments (e.g., Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, Copenhagen Accord) considered in the context of rising GHG emissions in Canada. It was estimated that, in 2007, the industrial, residential and commercial/institutional sectors represented about 61% of Canada’s total GHG emissions (including electricity related emissions).

Without federal government intervention, the industrial, residential and commercial/institutional sectors would not have the capacity to: (a) address the environmental and economic needs identified in this evaluation; and (b) overcome barriers impeding implementation/adoption of energy efficiency measures by energy users (such as facility/building/housing owners and operators).

These barriers include: lack of information and training; resource constraints; and a lack of motivation (e.g., absence of limits on carbon and systemic factors that discourage energy users from undertaking energy efficiency measures because they will not reap the benefits). NRCan’s energy efficiency programs are aimed at addressing these barriers through capacity building activities (e.g., training, information, etc.), collaborative activities (to extend the reach of programming into other jurisdictions), and financial incentive activities (e.g., funding of energy assessments, audits, retrofit projects, benchmarking and technical studies).

Environmental Need

The Government of Canada, through the Kyoto Accord and Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, has a legal obligation to reduce GHG emissions in Canada.58 However, according to Environment Canada’s 2007 GHG Inventory, Canada emitted 747 megatonnes (Mt) of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2 eq) in 2007, which was 33.8% above Canada’s Kyoto target of 558.4 Mt during this period.59 The general trend is that annual GHG emissions in Canada are increasing.60

Economic Need

Many interviewees pointed to an economic need underlining the suite of energy efficiency programs that is particularly pronounced in the capacity building activities undertaken in the industrial and commercial/institutional sectors. Firms are striving to remain competitive while facing rising energy prices, lower prices for manufactured goods due to increased global competition and fluctuating exchange rates. Energy efficiency measures provide firms with a means for reducing their operating costs, thereby reducing their overall costs and increasing their profit margins.

All of the participants in the commercial/institutional and industrial incentive programs interviewed (11) as part of this evaluation emphasized the importance of reducing costs in order to remain competitive.

Barriers for Energy Efficiency

The literature identifies three primary barriers that prevent the adoption and implementation of energy-efficient practices and investments that necessitate public intervention. These are:

  • limited capacity on the part of energy users for making meaningful energy consumption reductions because of insufficient information and training;
  • a lack of financial resources in the industrial, residential, commercial and institutional sectors; and
  • a lack of motivation, such as the absence of limits on carbon and systemic factors that may discourage energy users from making energy-efficient changes, such as when tenants would realize the cost savings of energy efficiency upgrades on their utility bills, building owners are unlikely to make such improvements.61
Lack of Information and Training

Energy users often lack the information and tools required to assess their energy use and the potential for energy saving changes62 because information related to energy efficiency and technology is often unavailable. Where this information is available, it is sometimes either too basic, or too technical to be practical.63 More specifically, evidence gathered for this evaluation indicates that energy users often lack information related to:

  • energy saving opportunities and whether or not savings will be realized;
  • the reliability of energy-efficient products and technologies;
  • the impact of building operations and renovations on energy use; and
  • energy use in buildings and facilities in general.

The survey of 369 homebuilders conducted for this evaluation identified the need for training as 66% of the builders surveyed identified that they learned new energy saving construction techniques or modifications as a result of participating in NRCan training.64

Similarly, of the 442 grant recipients (homeowners) surveyed for their participation in the ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes Program, 70% indicated that by participating in NRCan’s program, they have now increased their understanding of energy efficiency and GHG emissions and 60% reported that their experience with the program encouraged them to apply further energy savings measures to their homes (outside of the program).

Individuals and organizations are often unaware of the benefits that can be derived from making energy-efficient changes. The literature suggests that energy consumers display a significant "status quo bias". That is, individuals and firms stick to their habits because they are unaware of the benefits that can be derived from making changes.65 This suggests that there is a need for the industrial, residential, and commercial/institutional sectors to have access to information, tools, tested products and technologies in order to reduce their energy consumption.

In 2006, outreach sessions with 470 stakeholders (including the private sector, academia, non-government organizations, and the public sector) were conducted by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy as part of a study to determine potential policy and program options that could be implemented in Canada in order to significantly reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions. The stakeholders participating in these sessions indicated that for adequate energy efficiency changes to be implemented, there would need to be increased effort placed on training and capacity building within the skilled trades sector, indicating a gap in this area.66

Thus, this evidence suggests that interventions are required to fill the information gaps that preclude energy-efficient action in the industrial, residential, and commercial/institutional sectors.

Lack of Financial Resources

Internal and external sources consulted for this evaluation also identified a lack of financial resources as a factor limiting the application of energy-efficient measures in the industrial, residential and commercial/institutional sectors. In many cases, resource constraints prevent energy users from being able to think beyond the initial lump sum costs of energy efficiency investments.67 For example, 58% of the 442 homeowners surveyed, who had received ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes grants, indicated they did not implement all of the measures recommended to them through the program because the cost of implementation was too high.

In the same vein, a 2008 NRCan management review of the Commercial Buildings Incentive Program (CBIP) and the Existing Buildings Initiative (EBI) concluded that there is a continuing need for government financial support to promote energy efficiency in both new and existing commercial and institutional buildings.68 A 2003 needs assessment of 1,000 Canadian firms in the manufacturing and mining sectors found that 48% of those who say energy efficiency is important to their firm, also say that the lack of investment capital is a barrier to implementing new energy efficiency measures. Thus, cost is a prohibitive factor even when a commitment to energy efficiency is in place.69

The majority of ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations (Industry and Commercial/Institutional) participant interviewees indicated that, in many cases, funding was necessary to reduce the payback period of an implemented retrofit to an acceptable level and they would not have undertaken those retrofits without NRCan money. However, some participants from this same group said that they did get funding for second retrofits which they would have done anyway without NRCan funding, indicating potential free-ridership. Nevertheless, in all but one of these cases, the ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations participant interviewees noted that NRCan funding enabled them to implement those retrofits sooner, more quickly, or more extensively than would have been possible without the funding.

Lack of Motivation

Results of the literature review suggest that GHG emissions continue to rise at rates exceeding those targeted by the Kyoto Protocol or Canada's 2007 climate change plan (Turning the Corner) because the market does not capture the potential cost to society of emitting GHGs.70 That is, if individuals and firms do not pay for the negative environmental consequences associated with excess GHG emissions at the time of the transaction (i.e., energy consumption), the costs associated with these emissions may not be considered when making energy-related decisions.71

Another factor impeding the uptake of energy-efficient practices is the existence of systemic factors that discourage energy users from making energy-efficient changes, which can be an unintended negative consequence of an incentive. The primary example of this is the principal-agent phenomenon where building owners are unlikely to make energy-efficient upgrades when it is the tenants who will realize the cost savings on their utility bills.72 Similarly, when firms rent commercial space, for example, they are less likely to implement permanent energy-efficient upgrades than their counterparts who own their workspace.73 This suggests that interventions may be required to ensure both building tenants and owners are aware of energy savings measures that can be taken and the associated benefits (financial, environmental, etc.) of making energy-efficient changes.

3.1.3 Legitimate, Appropriate and Necessary Role

Evaluation Question 3: Is there a legitimate, appropriate and necessary role for the federal government in the programs?

Given the supporting legislation and mandate, NRCan plays a key role in energy efficiency programming. In particular, NRCan provides a national framework, common standards and tools that fill gaps and ensure access to energy efficiency tools, training and other support across the country. Evidence from the evaluation suggests that NRCan also plays a leadership and coordination role in promoting energy efficiency across the country, in particular through collaboration activities as well as the provision of tools, information, training, and technical expertise. With respect to financial incentives, there is some question among internal and external interviewees about the precise role the federal government should play, primarily in relation to retrofit incentives.

Legitimate Role

The federal government, and particularly NRCan, has a legitimate role in energy efficiency programming because:

  • the 1992 Energy Efficiency Act provides the Minister of Natural Resources with the authority to conduct research and demonstrations; provide information, grants and contributions; develop partnerships; and carry out other activities and programs for the purpose of promoting energy efficiency;74 and
  • the 1994 Department of Natural Resources Act states that the minister shall, among other things:
    • "participate in the development and application of codes and standards for…the management and use of natural resources [which includes energy by definition in the Act];
    • promote cooperation with the governments of the provinces and with non-governmental organizations in Canada; and
    • gather, compile, analyse, coordinate and disseminate information respecting scientific, technological, economic, industrial, managerial, marketing and related activities and developments affecting Canada’s natural resources."75

In support of this legislation, NRCan has a mandate to enhance the responsible development and use of Canada’s natural resources, including energy76. The OEE within the Energy Sector, NRCan, works to ensure that Canadians benefit economically, environmentally and socially from the secure and sustainable production and use of Canada's energy resources. Programming to improve energy efficiency in industrial facilities, homes, and other buildings supports this effort. 77

Appropriate Role

Most (75%) of the internal (NRCan) and external stakeholder interviewees who were asked questions related to NRCan’s role concurred that the appropriate role of the federal government with respect to energy efficiency is to:

  • be a leader and identify solutions and coordinate solutions across jurisdictions; and
  • to create national frameworks, standards, and tools that can be used by other jurisdictions and organizations across the country.

Interviewees further identified that NRCan’s programming is currently fulfilling this role. For example:

  • CIPEC provides a forum wherein the federal government can work with industries to find solutions to energy management problems and develop standardized tools for supporting these solutions.
  • The ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses initiative promotes the adoption of energy efficiency standards in building and housing codes through collaboration with provinces and territories.
  • The intergovernmental NRCan co-chaired Demand-Side Management Working Group and its sub-committees focus on developing and proliferating standard tools for energy benchmarking and recommissioning.
  • The Housing Division developed and maintains the EnerGuide Rating System which has been adopted by provinces, territories, and other organizations across Canada as a central feature of their energy efficiency programs.

Provinces have constitutional authority over the “development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources … in the province.”78 Provinces and territories develop energy use policies in their jurisdictions and have the authority to regulate energy efficiency codes, and standards for building designs, building components, and equipment.79

Similarly, municipalities and local governments can influence energy efficiency and energy consumption through land use planning policy – for example, designating green development areas – and enforcing building codes for the provinces. Some municipalities have their own building codes.80

Nevertheless, Canada’s Council of Energy Ministers believes that, although the federal government does not have the authority to establish and enforce energy use standards within provinces and territories, it plays an appropriate coordinating and leadership role in promoting energy efficiency for provinces and territories across the country. 81

Although evidence from this evaluation indicates that financial support is appreciated, and often enabling, some internal and external interviewees questioned whether it is an appropriate role for the federal government to provide financial incentives directly to individuals and firms. A few of the external stakeholder interviewees believed that NRCan’s role in financial incentive programs should be limited to technical advice, tool development and provision, and coordination among provinces. It was suggested by these interviewees that incentive administration should be left to provincial and territorial authorities, especially where there are matching or complementary federal and provincial rebates. These interviewees generally felt that provincial and territorial administration of the grants would be more efficient in terms of the time required for grant issuance.

Evidence gathered for this evaluation confirms that the appropriate role for the federal government in the relevant programming areas is one of leadership, coordination, and standardization, particularly with respect to collaboration and the provision of information, tools, training, and technical expertise. These roles are reflected in many of NRCan's ecoENERGY programs in the industrial, residential, and commercial/institutional sectors.

Necessary Role

A majority of provinces and territories, and several utility companies in Canada offer suites of financial incentive programs aimed at encouraging energy efficiency investments in the residential sectors. Almost all of the provincial, territorial, and utility residential programs are formally linked to NRCan's ecoENERGY programs for existing and new housing. For example, during the evaluation period, the Housing Division had:

  • memoranda of agreement with nine provinces (including utilities and other stakeholders) and two territories for existing housing programs; and
  • contribution agreements with 24 organizations, including provinces and territories, offering new housing programs.

Agreements such as these enable partners to develop and deliver local energy efficiency programming by permitting them to use the federal government's ecoENERGY and EnerGuide program features, access NRCan’s technical expertise related to energy efficiency, and access the Housing Division's extensive database.

While many provincial and municipal governments, utilities, and non-governmental organizations have their own initiatives and policies designed to promote energy efficiency in the industrial, residential, and commercial/institutional sectors, evidence from the evaluation suggests that NRCan's energy efficiency programs provide the foundation for (or are at least complementary to) most of these other initiatives. Specifically, NRCan products and programs ensure that all regions in Canada have access to energy efficiency tools, training, and other support.

NRCan's leadership and coordination role ensures that all regions of the country have access to the same tools, information, and programming. As provincial and territorial interviewees observed, the existence of NRCan's EnerGuide Rating System tool, data, and research has enabled program development and implementation in their regions. In particular, a couple of interviewees from the residential sector indicated that access to NRCan's leadership and tools is necessary, and that without NRCan and its national perspective, a 'hodgepodge' of various inconsistent initiatives would arise across the country thereby undermining Canadians' equal access to high quality initiatives.

In contrast to the residential sector, the financial incentive programming offered by other organizations for industrial, commercial/institutional sectors is often not directly linked to NRCan's interventions. Nevertheless, for qualifying proponents, programs in other jurisdictions can be accessed in tandem with NRCan's incentive programs (ecoENERGY for Industry, ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations).

For example, a supermarket in Québec could receive an incentive from the Agence de l'efficacité énergétique for the retrofit of its refrigeration and lighting systems at the same time that it receives funding from NRCan through the ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations Program. Similarly, a pulp and paper mill in British Columbia could receive financial assistance to carry out a technical assessment study, such as a process integration study, from both BC Hydro and the ecoENERGY for Industry Program. It should be noted that financial incentives offered by NRCan’s energy efficiency programs in the industrial and commercial/institutional sectors are adjusted according to the amount of financial support received from other utility and provincial programs. In other words, while stacking can occur, a recipient will never have 100% of costs funded by external parties, including NRCan.

However, a few of the internal (NRCan) interviews from the industrial, commercial and institutional sectors explained that the existence of federal commercial, institutional and industrial programs ensures that firms across the country have access to the support needed to make energy efficiency investments. Case studies and a review of available programs in Canada confirm that there is little access to alternative financial incentive programs for small and medium facilities and buildings in certain regions in Canada, particularly in northern Canada and the Atlantic region (with the exception of the Efficiency New Brunswick incentive program for small and medium commercial organizations).

NRCan offers other activities that fill important programming gaps for the industrial and commercial/institutional sectors, especially with respect to training. All of the training participants and other industrial interviewees identified the Dollars to $ense suite of workshops as the only initiative of its type in Canada that is accessible across the country and appropriate for diverse industries and organizations. In fact, other organizations either offer Dollars to $ense internally as their training-of-choice or offer their own programs that are built around the Dollars to $ense curricula. For example, Enbridge and the Vancouver School Board offer customized Dollars to $ense workshops and BC Hydro has developed its own training suite using Dollars to $ense as a foundation.

Specific to the commercial and institutional sectors, industry representatives explained that there are no standard approaches or tools widely available across Canada for simulating and verifying new energy-efficient building designs other than the EE4 simulation tools offered by NRCan. Similarly, no standard approach for conducting commissioning or recommissioning studies is available in Canada. Consequently, since April 2008, NRCan has chaired a committee made up of federal, provincial, territorial, and utility representatives working under the umbrella of the Demand-Side Management Working Group with a purpose of investigating "collaborative… options to support the ongoing development and encouragement of building commissioning and recommissioning initiatives."82

On the industrial sector side, CIPEC has been identified as unique in the world by internal (NRCan) and external industry interviewees as well as CIPEC member interviewees and the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). 83 Interviewees from NRCan and industry explained that CIPEC ensures that industrial firms from all sectors and regions in Canada have equal access to energy management solutions and other programming.

3.2 Performance

Summary

Based on the logic model84 for the Industry, Housing and Buildings sub-sub-activities, the overall intended outcomes for the program encompassed in this evaluation are:

  • adoption of energy management best practices and implementation of energy efficiency projects and retrofits;
  • energy savings and reductions in GHG emissions and criteria air contaminants; and,
  • implementation of energy efficiency programs in other jurisdictions that align with NRCan programs.

The programs covered by this evaluation are making progress towards the intended outcomes. However, targets set for some of the financial incentive-based programs, particularly in the industrial and commercial/institutional sector, did not explicitly consider firms that might have taken energy efficiency actions even without the incentive program. Therefore, in the industrial and commercial/institutional retrofit programs, in particular, the energy savings directly attributable to these programs may be less than the energy savings reported.

There may be opportunities for the programs that focus on capacity building activities (e.g., training, provision of information and tools, labelling work), to improve their effectiveness and economy. Best practices were also identified with respect to financial incentive-based activities, which could be used to further improve the economy of NRCan’s industrial, residential, and commercial/institutional financial incentive programs.

Given the complexity of this evaluation in terms of the number of programs (15), covering three sectors (industrial, residential, and commercial/institutional), and three key types of activities (financial incentives, capacity building, and collaborative) within each of these sectors, a condensed form of the findings for performance is presented in the executive summary.

The remainder of this section addresses four questions – i.e., effectiveness, unintended outcomes, economy (cost-effectiveness), and efficiency and strategic management practices – by providing the detailed performance information for each activity type (financial incentive, capacity building, and collaborative) within each sector.

3.2.1 Effectiveness

Evaluation Question 4: To what extent have intended outcomes been achieved as a result of the programs?

The extent to which the programs within the Industry, Housing and Buildings sub-sub-activities have achieved, or are making progress towards achieving, the intended outcomes related to the following is summarized below: (1) the adoption of energy management best practices and implementation of energy efficiency projects and retrofits; (2) energy savings and reductions in GHGs and air pollution; and (3) implementation of energy efficiency programs in other jurisdictions that align with NRCan programs.

Industrial Sector

While some of the financial incentive activity-based programs are achieving their identified targets, the energy savings directly attributable to these programs may be less than these targets because, as evidence suggests, industrial firms may have taken energy efficiency actions even without the incentive, particularly with respect to the implementation of retrofits. On the other hand, benchmarking and technical studies (e.g., process integration and computational fluid dynamics studies) are providing industrial firms with the information and tools necessary to make energy efficiency changes.

Capacity building activities, such as Dollars to $ense and CIPEC Leaders within the ecoENERGY for Industry Program (and the Industry Cross-cutting Measures before it), are encouraging the adoption of energy management best practices and implementation of energy efficiency measures. Therefore, these activities are contributing to the energy savings and GHG emission reductions achieved by the industrial sector energy efficiency programs.

Collaborative activities, particularly through CIPEC, have created a strong link between the federal government and industry, thereby ensuring that NRCan’s energy efficiency programming in this sector aligns with the reality of the industrial firms. It also provides a forum for an open dialogue related to programming and/or potential regulations.

Residential Sector

The financial incentive activity-based programs are encouraging homeowners to adopt energy management best practices and implement energy efficiency measures. Consequently, these programs are resulting in measurable energy savings and GHG emission reductions. While homeowners are implementing energy efficiency retrofits that may have been done even without the financial incentives, homeowners are undertaking double the number of retrofits they had originally planned and 60% of them are motivated to undertake further measures outside of the program. This suggests that the retrofit programming is expanding or modifying the energy retrofit activities of homeowners.

The energy savings and GHG emissions reductions are attributed to the new houses component (e.g., R-2000 Standard, EnerGuide for New Houses, and ENERGY STAR for New Homes) because of the capacity building activities (e.g., training and outreach) undertaken through NRCan energy efficiency programming in the residential sector. These capacity building activities are contributing to the increased energy efficiency of houses across Canada.

Through its collaborative activities with provinces, territories, utilities and other organizations, the energy efficiency programs in the residential sector are effectively extending the reach of NRCan’s energy efficiency programs in the residential sector. In particular, these efforts are encouraging the incorporation of energy efficiency into building codes for new homes, and resulting in agreements with provinces, territories and other stakeholders for new and existing housing initiatives.

Commercial/institutional

NRCan’s financial incentive activity-based programs in the commercial/institutional sector are achieving GHG emissions reduction and energy savings but not to the extent anticipated when targets for the programs were set. The energy savings directly attributable to these programs may be less than these targets because as evidence suggests, commercial/institutional firms may have taken energy efficiency actions even without the incentive, particularly with respect to the implementation of retrofits.

For the most part, the capacity building activities (e.g., training and design validation) are increasing the capacity of commercial/institutional energy users to adopt energy management best practices and implement energy efficiency measures. In turn, this contributes to the outcome of energy savings and GHG emission reductions.

The collaborative activities have been effective at encouraging other jurisdictions (e.g., provinces) to incorporate energy efficiency into their building codes. Collaboration related to activities such as commissioning and recommissioning are addressing the needs of building owners and operators to assist them in operating their buildings in an energy-efficient way (e.g., whole-building approach).

The evaluation assessed the extent to which the programs encompassed within the Industry, Housing and Buildings sub-sub-activities achieved the following expected results:

  • result 1: adoption of energy management best practices and implementation of energy efficiency projects and retrofits;
  • result 2: energy savings and reductions in GHG emissions and criteria air contaminants (CACs); and
  • result 3: implementation of energy efficiency programs in other jurisdictions that align with NRCan programs.

As part of this assessment these programs have been divided into three activity categories across each of the sectors (industrial, residential, commercial and institutional). The three activity areas are:

  • financial incentive activities, including grants or contributions to fund energy assessments, audits and energy retrofit projects;
  • capacity building activities, which primarily include training, provision of information and tools, and labelling work; and
  • collaborative activities,85 which include consultations with stakeholders as well as housing and building code development.

The financial incentive and capacity building activities primarily contribute to results 1 and 2 and the collaborative activities primarily contribute to result 3.

3.2.1.1 Industrial Sector

Energy efficiency programming targeted towards the industrial sector was delivered using a mix of financial incentive, capacity building, and collaborative activities:

  • financial incentive activities were used in the delivery of the Industrial Energy Audit Incentive Program, Industry Cross-cutting Measures (CIPEC and Emissions Benchmarking), and are currently used in the delivery of the ongoing ecoENERGY for Industry and ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations (Industry) Programs;
  • capacity building activities were delivered as part of the Industry Cross-cutting Measures (CIPEC and Awareness Building), and are currently delivered through the ecoENERGY for Industry Program;
  • collaborative activities were undertaken in the delivery of CIPEC and are currently undertaken in the delivery of the ongoing ecoENERGY for Industry Program.
Financial Incentive Activities

Table 3 outlines the types of financial incentive activities undertaken by the industrial sector initiatives, along with the associated targets during the evaluation period and reported results as at March 31, 2009.

Table 3: Financial Incentive Activities – Targets, Results Achieved, GHG Reductions and Energy Savings (Industrial Sector)
Programs and Activities Adoption and implementation GHG and Energy Savings
Target during evaluation period* Achieved during evaluation period (% of target achieved)* Target* Achieved during evaluation period (% of target achieved)*
Industry Cross-cutting Measures (2004-05 to 2006-07)
Audits 300 audits initiated 473 audits completed (158%) Achieve a 1% average annual energy efficiency improvement for industries** and 0.5 Mt GHG emissions reduction by 2010 *** In 2006-07:0.36 Mt GHG emissions reduction for all measures (225% of 2006-07 target of 0.16 Mt) ****
Technical studies 33 22 (67%) n/a
Benchmarking studies 6 8 (133%) Achieve a 1% average annual energy efficiency improvement for industries** and 1.2 Mt GHG emissions reduction by 2010 from beginning of initiative in 2001***
ecoENERGY for Industry (2007-08 to 2008-09)
Technical studies 14 16 (114%) 4 to 17 PJ energy savings and 0.4 to 1.7 Mt GHG emissions reduction by 2011***** 7.6 PJ energy saved (45-190%) and 0.74 Mt GHG emissions reduction (44-185%)*****
Benchmarking studies 4 to 6 9 (150-225%)
ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations (Industry) (2007-08 to 2008-09)
SMO – Industry 294 86 195 (66%) 0.86 PJ energy savings and 0.077 Mt GHG emissions reduction by 2009 0.67 PJ energy saved (78%) and 0.053 Mt GHG emissions reduction (69%)

* Source: OEE. Better Energy Efficiency Reporting System (BEERS), unless otherwise indicated. ** Collective target for all measures (i.e., financial, capacity building and collaborative) from beginning of initiative in 2001. Source: Results-based Management and Accountability Framework – Industry Cross-Cutting Measures. Oct 18, 2001. *** Target from beginning of initiative in 2001. Source: Results-based Management and Accountability Framework – Industry Cross-Cutting Measures. Oct 18, 2001. **** Collective result for all measures (i.e., financial, capacity building and collaborative). Updated performance data from DPAD for Climate Change Interim Strategy (2006-07). No information available in the BEER beyond 2003. ***** Collective for all ecoENERGY for Industry activities (i.e., financial, capacity building and collaborative).

As illustrated in Table 3, two of the three Industry Cross-cutting measures (audits and benchmarking studies) exceeded their adoption and implementation targets, while the third (technical studies) underachieved. All three of the Industry Cross-cutting Measures exceeded their GHG emission reductions and energy savings targets. Similarly, the ecoENERGY for Industry Program exceeded its targets for technical and benchmarking studies and had made significant progress towards achieving (and potentially exceeding) its GHG emissions reduction and energy savings targets.

As at March 31, 2009, the ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations (Industry) Program did not meet its targets for the number of retrofit projects. During the evaluation period, this program had achieved 78% of its energy savings targets and 69% of its GHG emissions reduction, both of which were expected to be achieved by March 31, 2009.

Evidence of Effectiveness

Evidence from the evaluation suggests that the audits conducted under the Industry Cross-cutting Measures (through the Industrial Energy Audit Incentive Program) have encouraged industrial organizations to implement energy-efficient retrofits that would not have occurred without the intervention. In particular, case studies published on CIPEC’s website indicate energy savings have been realized by several organizations that implemented changes based on incented audits.

For example, one of the ten case studies reviewed as part of this evaluation reported a 25% energy use reduction from compressed air systems as a result of retrofits recommended by the audit.87 A 2005 survey of industrial firms showed that participants in the Industrial Audit Incentive Program implemented 48% of the recommended retrofit measures, and planned to implement another 10% within 12 months. 88 This assessment identified that “financial aspects such as a high level of investment and long payback, [were] the two most important factors for the non-implementation of any measure”. 89

Technical studies, such as process integration90 and computational fluid dynamics91, assess the energy use and associated energy waste in industrial systems. Organizations receive partial funding from the OEE to assist with conducting these studies. Although not as many of these studies were funded under the Industry Cross-cutting Measures as originally targeted (22 instead of 33), the ecoENERGY for Industry Program exceeded its target by funding 16 out of a planned 14.

Program participant interviewees associated with the two technical studies considered by this evaluation (one process integration study and one computational fluid dynamics study), stated that these studies enabled major retrofit projects that would not have been identified otherwise. Specific to the computational fluid dynamics study, NRCan’s CanmetENERGY engineers have estimated that the incentive recipient will reduce its fuel consumption by 25% as a result of changes stemming from the energy assessment.

At the time of this evaluation, no results were available for the process integration study referred to above as the organization is in the early implementation phase of its retrofit projects. Nevertheless, the project manager from this organization noted that the retrofits being undertaken would be applied to other facilities operated by the company.

Similarly, benchmarking study interviewees (two industry association representatives) felt that benchmarking studies increased member firms’ understanding of energy use, efficiency, and waste. CIPEC interviewees further suggested that these benchmarking studies provide strong motivating evidence for industrial firms that energy efficiency changes can make a difference. These interviewees also noted that access to these benchmarking studies provides firms with the information needed to make changes.

A 2006 assessment of the effectiveness of NRCan’s industrial benchmarking and best practices programming concluded that this programming was influencing behavior amongst participants (i.e., those who participated directly in a benchmarking study) and recipients (i.e., those who read the resulting rolled-up sector benchmarking reports and energy guides). Specifically, this assessment found that among participants:

  • 29% indicated that the programming resulted in the monitoring of energy efficiency in new ways; and
  • 20% indicated that operational changes were made based on what was learned through the benchmarking process.92

In contrast, it found that among recipients:

  • 52% indicated that the program resulted in changes being made to their company’s energy efficiency monitoring practices; and
  • 45% indicated that operational changes were made based on what was learned through the reading of the resulting reports and guides.93

As identified in Table 3 (above) the ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations (Industry) Program has achieved only 66% of the number of projects targeted, indicating that estimated energy impacts calculated for the retrofits under this program may not be realized. Nevertheless, all three of the program participants interviewed stated that retrofits implemented by their organizations have saved energy. In one case, a 30% reduction in the typical energy used for its main operations was observed.

The ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations Program helps industrial firms implement energy efficiency measures sooner than otherwise planned. For example, two of the three retrofit funding interviewees stated that they would have completed some of the retrofits without the incentives but that the incentives enabled them to implement their plans sooner. For the third participant, the government-led process simply helped him/her to act sooner.

Another benefit of participating in the ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations (Industry) Program is having an audit/energy saving estimates and project proposal verified by the federal government. Interviewees revealed that having this federal government “stamp” enables facility managers and others to more easily market their ideas for energy efficiency changes to management within their industries, which may increase the likelihood of implementing retrofits and perhaps implementing them sooner than planned.

Evidence from interviews and the 2010 Impact Attribution Study suggests that energy savings and GHG emissions reduction directly attributable to NRCan’s industrial energy efficiency programming may be less than the targets suggest. This is because some industrial firms to whom financial incentives were provided may have implemented the incented actions even in the absence of the financial incentive. However, there is also some evidence that measures in addition to those incented through the programs may have been taken as a result of participating in the programs.

In 2005, a process and impact evaluation of the Industrial Energy Audit Incentive Program, found that 30% of the participating companies would have done an audit even without NRCan funding. However, 42% of this group acknowledged that the audit would not have been similar in scope to the funded audit.94 This same study concluded that the Industrial Energy Audit Incentive Program yielded GHG reductions of 0.1 megatonnes per year.95

The 2010 Impact Attribution Study also estimated the free-ridership, spillover and net-to-gross energy savings for ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations (Industry) Program. These estimates suggest that 74% of this program’s energy efficiency measures would have been implemented without the financial incentive and that no additional measures to those incented by the program were taken.96 Thus, 26% of the savings achieved are attributable to the ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations (Industry) Program.97 When these free-ridership and spillover rates were compared to free-ridership rates for comparable programs, it becomes evident that the free-ridership rates are higher, while the spillover rates are lower than these other programs.98

The 2010 Impact Attribution Study also identified the annual net energy savings and annual GHG reduction estimates, as illustrated in Table 4.

Table 4: Total Annual Net Energy Savings (GJ) and Total Annual GHG Reductions Estimates (kt CO2e) for ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations (Industry) by Fiscal Year (2004-05 to 2008-09)
Fiscal Year Total Annual Net Energy Savings (GJ) Total Annual GHG Reduction Estimates (kt CO2e)
2004-05 n/a n/a
2005-06 n/a n/a
2006-07 n/a n/a
2007-08 4,000 <1
2008-09 46,000 4

Source: Marbek and Navigant. (August 2010). Impact Attribution of Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Energy Efficiency Programs, p. 35.

Retrofit incentive recipients are not required to collect and present post-retrofit energy use data, so it is not possible to gauge actual energy use reductions.99 Internal (NRCan) interviewees explained that the reported savings are estimates based on the project information included in the application, which are adjudicated and adjusted by a team of NRCan engineers in order to increase technical rigour regarding estimates.

Estimated impacts, including energy savings and GHG reductions, were also considered for the technical studies (e.g., process integration, and computational fluid dynamic studies) funded through Industry Cross-cutting Measures and the ecoENERGY for Industry Program even though they do not always have specific energy use reduction targets (as in the case of ecoENERGY for Industry). Based on project implementation and energy savings data derived from 31 sample sites, the ecoENERGY for Industry Program claims a standard energy saving per technical study (i.e., 91 terajoules).100

CIPEC case studies related specifically to process integration studies have shown that significant energy and cost savings can be achieved from these studies. For example, the 2006 CIPEC Annual Report highlighted the case of a brewery company that undertook a process integration study and reduced its natural gas costs by 33% as a result.101

A 2007 impact study pertaining to process integration studies found that of the 16 firms interviewed that had received funding for and completed process integration studies between 2001 and 2005, nine had implemented at least some of the recommended retrofits and two reported that implementation was “in-progress”.102 The percentage of the total potential energy savings, as identified by the process integration studies reported to have been achieved by the implemented retrofits at the time of the study, ranged from 8% to 80%.103 The study reported that all 16 companies stated that NRCan funding was critical to obtaining company approval for the study, and 15 of the 16 companies admitted that the study would not have gone ahead without NRCan funding.

Thus, while some of the financial incentive activity-based programs in the industrial sector are achieving their identified targets, the energy savings directly attributable to these programs may be less than these targets because, as evidence suggests, industrial firms may have taken energy efficiency actions even without the incentive, particularly with respect to the implementation of retrofits. On the other hand, benchmarking and technical studies (e.g., process integration and computational fluid dynamics studies) are providing industrial firms with the information and tools necessary to make energy efficiency changes.

Capacity Building Activities

Table 5 outlines the types of capacity building activities undertaken by the industrial sector initiatives, along with the associated targets during the evaluation period and reported results as at March 31, 2009.

Table 5: Capacity Building Activities – Targets, Results Achieved, GHG Reductions and Energy Savings (Industrial Sector)
Programs and Activities Adoption and implementation GHG and Energy Savings
Target during evaluation period* Achieved during evaluation period* (% of target achieved) Target* Achieved during evaluation period (% of target achieved)*
Industry Cross-cutting Measures (2004-05 to 2006-07)
Expansion of CIPEC (Industry Energy Innovators) 300 firms recruited 565 firms recruited (188%) Achieve a 1% average annual energy efficiency improvement for industries*** and 3.0 Mt GHG emissions reduction by 2010**** In 2006-07: 0.36 Mt GHG emissions reduction for all Measures (225% of 2006-07 target of 0.16 Mt)*****
Training: Dollars to $ense Workshops 1,479 individuals trained (no target for 2006-07) 3,196 individuals trained** (n/a) Achieve a 1% average annual energy efficiency improvement for industries*** and 1.1 Mt GHG emissions reduction by 2010****
ecoENERGY for Industry (2007-08 to 2008-09)
CIPEC Leaders 150 firms recruited 347 firms recruited (231%) 4 to 17 PJ energy savings and 0.4 to 1.7 Mt GHG emissions reduction by 2011****** 7.6 PJ energy saved (45-190%) and 0.74 Mt GHG emissions reduction (44-185%)******
Dollars to $ense 2,325 individuals trained 2,050 individuals trained** (88%)

* Source: OEE. Better Energy Efficiency Reporting System (BEERS) unless otherwise indicated ** Updated program data. IPD. *** Collective target for all measures (i.e., financial, capacity building and collaborative) from beginning of initiative in 2001. Source: Results-based Management and Accountability Framework – Industry Cross-Cutting Measures. Oct 18, 2001. **** Source: Results-based management and accountability framework –Industry Cross-Cutting Measures. Oct 18, 2001 ***** Collective result for all measures (i.e., financial, capacity building and collaborative). Updated performance data from DPAD for Climate Change Interim Strategy (2006-07). No information available in BEERS beyond 2003. ****** Collective for all ecoENERGY for industry activities (i.e., financial, capacity building and collaborative).

As illustrated in Table 5, the capacity building activities targeting the industrial sector are meeting or exceeding their targets related to the adoption of energy management best practices and implementation of energy efficiency projects and retrofits, as at March 31, 2009. The only exception to this is the Dollars to $ense workshops delivered through the ecoENERGY for Industry Program, which has achieved 87% of its target for individuals trained. Likewise, these programs have met or exceeded their GHG and energy savings targets, as at March 31, 2009.

Evidence of Effectiveness

The previous CIPEC Program and the current ecoENERGY for Industry Program have contributed to reductions in energy use by industrial firms. CIPEC’s 2009 Annual Report notes that the various program components of CIPEC (including the CIPEC leaders activity) reduced energy use by 4 petajoules and GHG emissions by 385 kilotonnes in that year.104

With respect to training, most of the Dollars to $ense interviewees noted that although the workshops may not always influence people to undertake capital projects, the information provided does encourage people to find better ways to manage energy use.

Evidence from the 2010 Impact Attribution Study also reveals that the CIPEC Leaders and training activities have influenced the behaviour of participants. Table 6 shows that participating in workshops and/or being a CIPEC Leader increases the likelihood of implementing energy-efficient measures. For example, a CIPEC Leader who attends workshops is 8% more likely to implement process heat measures than someone who is neither a leader nor attended workshops.

Table 6: Program Attribution Rates for Industrial Measures
Measure Workshop Only Energy Leader Only Both
Process Heat (Indirect) 4.4% 6.6% 8.0%
Cooling & Refrigeration 12.2% 14.4% 32.4%
Motor Driven Systems 28.2% 4.8% 32.3%
Process Specific -3.6% (assumed to be 0) 24.1% 16.7%

Note: These numbers likely underestimate the impact of NRCan’s industrial sector energy efficiency programs because a comparison was not made to a ‘neutral’ control group. Source: Marbek and Navigant. (August 2010). Impact Attribution of Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Energy Efficiency Programs, p. 59.

As well, CIPEC reported that between 1997 and 2007, the Dollars to $ense workshops resulted in annual energy savings of 9 petajoules and GHG emissions reduction of 0.9 megatonnes.105

The 2010 Impact Attribution Study also estimated the total annual net energy savings and annual GHG reductions attributable to these capacity building activities (workshops and CIPEC Leaders) as outlined in Table 7.

Table 7: Total Annual Net Energy Savings and Total Annual GHG Reduction Estimates for Industrial Behavioural Programs
Fiscal Year Total Annual Net Energy Savings (GJ) Total Annual GHG Reduction Estimates (kt CO2e)
2004-05 n/a n/a
2005-06 n/a n/a
2006-07 10,000 1
2007-08 30,000 3
2008-09 114,000 11

Source: Marbek and Navigant. (August 2010). Impact Attribution of Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Energy-Efficiency Programs, p. 64.

Thus, NRCan’s capacity building activities in the industrial sector have an impact with respect to the adoption and implementation of energy management practices and, therefore, the associated energy savings and GHG reductions.

Collaborative Activities

CIPEC provides a forum through which the federal government can effectively liaise with industrial representatives.106 CIPEC is particularly important for NRCan industrial energy efficiency programming because it provides strong links between the target population (e.g., industrial firms in Canada) and NRCan program managers. From 2004-05 to 2008-09, 912 firms were recruited to CIPEC.

Internal (NRCan) interviewees and CIPEC representatives agreed that CIPEC enables NRCan’s Industrial Programs Division to design programs that are well-aligned with the realities faced by industries, and to deliver these programs more broadly across all industrial sectors. For example, it was reported that when requested by organizations, the Industrial Programs Division offers customized Dollars to $ense workshops.

Representatives from two organizations requesting tailored Dollars to $ense workshops interviewed as part of this evaluation concurred that collaboration with NRCan enabled them to deliver effective and targeted workshops in their regions. Other external interviewees provided anecdotal evidence similar to this noting that the collaboration efforts between NRCan and industry with respect to Dollars to $ense, specifically, have encouraged participation in the activity and have increased awareness of energy efficiency by industrial firms.

In addition, CIPEC is an important forum to address energy efficiency and potential regulations. Interviewees from both NRCan and CIPEC noted that CIPEC provides an appropriate means for getting large industries onboard when it comes to energy efficiency in anticipation of proposed regulations because of the networking opportunities and access to tools important for identifying energy efficiency opportunities.

3.2.1.2 Residential Sector

Energy efficiency programming targeted towards the residential sector was delivered using a mix of financial incentive, capacity building, and collaborative activities:

  • financial incentive activities were used in the delivery of the EnerGuide for Houses and Retrofit Incentives initiatives and are currently used in the delivery of the ongoing ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes Program;
  • capacity building activities were delivered as part of the R-2000 Standard, EnerGuide for New Houses, and ENERGY STAR for New Homes initiatives, and are currently delivered through the ongoing ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses (Residential) Initiative; and
  • collaborative activities are currently undertaken in the delivery of the ongoing ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses (Residential) Initiative and the ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes Program.
Financial Incentive Activities

Table 8 outlines the types of financial incentive activities undertaken by the existing housing initiatives, along with the associated targets during the evaluation period and reported results as at March 31, 2009.

Table 8: Financial Incentive Activities – Targets, Results Achieved, GHG Reductions and Energy Savings (Residential Sector)
Programs and Activities Adoption and implementation GHG and Energy Savings
Target during evaluation period* Achieved during evaluation period** (% of target achieved) Target* Achieved during evaluation period (% of target achieved)
EnerGuide for Houses and Retrofit Incentives (2004-05 to 2006-07)
Pre-retrofit evaluations (audits) 144,500 171,958 (119%) 0.75 Mt GHG emissions reduction by 2012 0.69 Mt GHG emissions reduction (92%)**
Retrofits To see 30% of audits yield retrofits 113,182 (65% of audits)
ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes (2007-08 to 2008-09)
Retrofit – Homes applications/grants 70,000 applications 94,819 grants (135%) 0.4 to 0.5 Mt GHG emissions reduction by 2011 0.32 Mt GHG emissions reduction (64-80%)*

* Source: OEE. Better Energy Efficiency Reporting System (BEERS) ** Take from internal program database.

As illustrated in Table 8, the financial incentive activities targeting the residential sector have exceeded their targets related to the adoption of energy management best practices and implementation of energy efficiency projects and retrofits, as at March 31, 2009. Both programs have also made significant progress towards achieving their identified targets for energy savings and reductions in GHG emissions (as shown in Table 8).

Evidence of Effectiveness

In the case of the EnerGuide for Houses and Retrofit Incentives Initiatives, when grants for retrofit work based on realized energy efficiency improvements were introduced in 2003, participation in the EnerGuide for Houses component of the initiative increased dramatically, as illustrated in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Participation of EnerGuide for Houses Program

Exhibit 3.8 - Participation in the EnerGuide for Existing Houses program resulted in emission reductions

Source: Office of the Auditor General. (2006). Chapter 3: Reducing Greenhouse Gases Emitted During Energy Production and Consumption. 2006 Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to the House of Commons, p. 16.

Similarly, evidence suggests that the subsequent financial incentive program, the ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes Program, has also been effective in achieving the intended results. The surveys of 422 homeowners who received grants through the ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes Program revealed that the number of retrofits implemented was greater than originally planned by the homeowners, suggesting that energy advisor recommendations, combined with grants, resulted in more energy-efficient retrofits than may have otherwise been the case.

Although the pre-planning of retrofits was a significant factor for participants deciding to enter the program, both the survey of homeowners and a net-to-gross survey assessing free-ridership, spillover and net impact related to the ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes Program suggest that participating in the program modified or expanded the retrofit projects actually implemented. For instance, while 78% of grant recipients indicated that they had planned to do an average of 1.6 retrofits, the energy advisor recommended an average of 5.8 retrofits and participants implemented an average of 3.7 retrofits. In other words, on average, the program appears to have doubled the number of retrofits from what was originally planned.

Likewise, the net-to-gross survey found that “a significant percentage of these participants did more than originally planned after receiving the results of their first ecoENERGY home evaluation,”107 as illustrated in Figure 7:

Figure 7: Actions Taken by Participants with Plans in Place Prior to Program Awareness

Figure 7:  Actions Taken by Participants with Plans in Place Prior to Program Awareness

Source: Bronson Consulting Group. (August 2010). Final Report: Analysis of Net to Gross Survey Results for the ecoENERGY Retrofit for Homes Program, p. 37.

The recommendations by energy advisors may have also directed homeowners to retrofits they had not considered. For example, of the grant recipients surveyed, only 5% indicated that they were considering implementing air sealing or caulking retrofits before the energy assessment, yet after the recommendation, 42% implemented this retrofit.

The survey of homeowners conducted as part of this evaluation revealed that forecasted energy use reductions are not always being realized. An analysis of survey data showed that 27-29% of program participants do not see the estimated changes in energy use predicted in the original audits, which is likely attributable to the standardized operating conditions used for audit purposes versus occupancy and lifestyle factors that vary between homeowners.108 As explained by internal (NRCan) interviewees, the estimated energy savings presented in the audit report homeowners receive are based on average demographic factors, such as occupancy. Therefore, homes with characteristics that diverge from the average may see lower or higher energy savings than predicted.

In addition, the survey of homeowners asked homeowners if they had planned to implement a retrofit prior to entering into the program and whether or not they would have undertaken the retrofit even without the program. The limitation with this basic enquiry was that it did not explicitly ask if the retrofit would have been implemented to the same levels of efficiency. Nevertheless, the results of the discrete choice analyses109 conducted revealed that 25-29% of the surveyed homeowners that received a grant would have undertaken the retrofit even without the financial incentive, though potentially not to the same level of energy efficiency.

These results are consistent with a more rigorous net-to-gross survey conducted, which explicitly asked participants if they would have implemented the retrofit to the same levels of efficiency. This net-to-gross survey estimated that 23% of all participants would have undertaken the retrofit even without the financial incentive.110

The free-ridership rate of approximately one quarter, identified by these studies, for the ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes Program is slightly lower than free-ridership rates in comparable programs:

  • an evaluation of a parallel program in Oregon found full free-ridership rates ranging from 33-45%;111 and
  • an evaluation of parallel programs in New York claims a rate of 26-28%.112

The survey of 422 homeowners who received grants also took into consideration retrofits completed by grant recipients for which no financial incentive was received. Survey data from this sample of homeowners indicates that homeowners implemented unplanned retrofits because of the energy audit as follows:

  • participants who did not receive NRCan grants implemented unplanned retrofits at a level equivalent to 22-25% of the total retrofits completed by grant recipients;113 and
  • for all program participants (grant recipients and non-grant recipients), approximately 3.4-5.5% of retrofits were implemented in other properties without receiving a financial incentive through the program, as a result of participating in the program.114

The net-to-gross survey also considered spillover estimating that nationally, 12% of participants and 15% of partial participants “undertook some form of spillover and this activity is attributed in whole or part to the ecoENERGY program”.115

This evidence suggests that the overall energy savings and GHG reductions directly attributable to the program may be impacted. The net-to-gross116 survey estimated that the net program savings is equivalent to 84% of gross program savings,117 suggesting that 84% of the energy savings are directly attributable to the ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes Program.

Thus, the financial incentive activity-based programs are encouraging homeowners to adopt energy management best practices and implement energy efficiency measures. As a result, these programs are resulting in measurable energy savings and GHG emission reductions.

Capacity Building Activities

Table 9 outlines the types of capacity building activities targeting the residential sector, along with the associated targets during the evaluation period and reported results as at March 31, 2009.

Table 9: Capacity Building Activities – Targets, Results Achieved, GHG Reductions and Energy Savings (Residential Sector)

Table 9: Capacity Building Activities – Targets, Results Achieved, GHG Reductions and Energy Savings (Residential Sector)
Programs and Activities Adoption and implementation GHG and Energy Savings
Target during evaluation period* Achieved during evaluation period* (% of target achieved) Target* Achieved during evaluation period (% of target achieved)
R-2000 Standard, EnerGuide for New Houses, and ENERGY STAR for New Homes (2004-05 to 2006-07)
Labelling (EnerGuide for New Houses / ENERGY STAR) 8,700 houses labelled or certified (1500 through R-2000) by 2012 6,826 houses labelled ERS and ESNH, 1,522 certified through R-2000 (95% overall, 101% for R-2000) To increase the average EnerGuide rating of new houses across Canada to EnerGuide 80 by 2010 0.77 PJ energy and 0.04 Mt GHG emissions reduction
Labelling (R-2000)
ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses (Residential) (2007-08 to 2008-09)
Labelling (EnerGuide for New Houses / ENERGY STAR) 24,000 houses labelled or certified 14,551 houses labelled EnerGuide Rating System and ENERGY STAR for New Homes and 1,040 certified through R-2000 (64%) 9.7 to 10.8 PJ energy savings and 0.8 Mt GHG emissions reduction by 2011 5.81 PJ energy savings (53-59%) and 0.373 Mt GHG emissions reduction (46%)*
Labelling (R-2000)
Training Train 5,000 professionals (builders and energy advisors) 7,400 professionals trained (148%)***

*Sources: OEE. Better Energy Efficiency Reporting System (BEERS) ** Source: Updated program data. *** Consists of 6,521 professionals and builders trained (new housing) and 879 energy advisors training (existing housing)

As identified in Table 9, the capacity building activities related to the R-2000 Standard, EnerGuide for New Houses, and ENERGY STAR for New Homes initiatives met or exceeded their identified targets, as did the training activities under the ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses (Residential) Initiative. However, targets for the labelling activities under the ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses (Residential) Initiative were not achieved.

In spite of the shortfall in the number of houses labelled and certified in 2007-08 and 2008-09, the new housing activities were making progress towards achieving energy savings and reductions in GHG emissions and air pollution.

Evidence of Effectiveness

In conjunction with provinces and other organizations, the residential sector capacity building activities include training builders and working with service organizations to certify energy advisors. These builders and energy advisors then work together to design, construct, and verify new energy-efficient houses as per the minimum requirements of the EnerGuide Rating System, ENERGY STAR for New Homes, or R-2000 Standard.

The survey of 369 homebuilders conducted as part of this evaluation found that 67% of these builders have learned new construction techniques as a result of being enrolled in one or more of the new houses initiatives (EnerGuide for New Houses, ENERGY STAR for New Homes, or R-2000 Standard). New construction techniques are one of many aspects covered in NRCan training. Others include quality assurance and house testing, program protocols and requirements, and more.

More specifically, 70% of the homebuilders surveyed reported that their participation in the initiatives (EnerGuide for New Houses, ENERGY STAR for New Homes, or R-2000 Standard) had resulted in them building homes that are measurably more energy-efficient. All of the energy advisor interviewees certified through the ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses (Residential) Initiative believed that builders have a general sense about what changes can increase the energy efficiency of a home. However, the energy advisors believed that builders rely on the advice of NRCan certified energy advisors to help them identify specific tools and techniques to implement those changes within certain cost parameters, and to meet efficiency goals.

In terms of the proportion of homes built and labelled through EnerGuide for New Houses, ENERGY STAR for New Homes, or the R-2000 Standard prior to, and after being officially licensed or certified, the sample of homebuilders surveyed as part of this evaluation indicated that after being licensed or certified in one or more of the programs:

  • the average proportion of homes identified as being built to the requirements of the EnerGuide for New Houses Initiative per builder increased from about 6.5% to 35% of homes built;
  • the average proportion of homes identified as being built to the ENERGY STAR for New Homes requirements per builder increased from about 1% to about 25.5% of homes built; and
  • the average proportion of homes identified as being built to the R-2000 Standard per builder was 14.5%, recognizing that only certified R-2000 builders can build and have homes labelled to the R-2000 Standard (the proportion of R-2000 certified builders had remained fairly constant over the evaluation period).

In the survey of 369 homebuilders, 54% of builders reported that they currently build homes outside of any energy-efficiency initiatives, but that they reportedly still meet the requirements of either the EnerGuide for New Houses, ENERGY STAR for New Homes, or R-2000 Standard initiatives. Homebuilders indicated that they do not always seek certification or recognition for homes reportedly built to standard outside of the program for a variety of reasons, including:

  • clients want the energy efficiency but do not care about the certification;
  • the certification process is too burdensome or too costly; and/or
  • the homes may not meet all of the required technical specifications even though they meet the energy requirements.

The energy savings and GHG reductions are attributed to the new houses component of the program because of the training and outreach activities undertaken by the Housing Division. These capacity building activities are contributing to the increased energy efficiency of houses (in particular, new houses) across Canada.

Collaborative Activities

Table 10 identifies the types of collaborative activities undertaken by the ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses (Residential) Initiative and ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes Program, along with the associated targets during the evaluation period and reported results as at March 31, 2009.

Table 10: Collaborative Activities – Targets and Results Achieved (Residential Sector)
Programs and activities Target during evaluation period* Achieved during evaluation period*
ecoENERGY for Buildings and Housing (Residential) (2007-08 to 2008-09)
Building code work 6 jurisdictions with active building code projects annually 2007-08: new housing: 5 provinces announced changes to building code by 2012 to achieve ERS 802008-09: new housing: 7 (i.e. 6 provinces announced changes to building code by 2010; Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes agreed to incorporate energy efficiency as an objective in the National Building Code by 2012
Agreements with provinces, territories, and other organizations for new and existing housing programs Maintain 20 partnerships annually 2007-08: 21 new housing partnerships and 9 existing housing initiatives2008-09: 26 new housing agreements, 11 existing housing agreements (9 provincial; 2 territorial)
ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes (2007-08 to 2008-09)
Signed collaborative agreements with provinces, territories, utilities and other stakeholders 14 agreements with provinces and territories 23 signed agreements

*Source: OEE. Better Energy Efficiency Reporting System (BEERS)

As identified in Table 10, the collaborative activities in the residential sector mostly met (or came close to achieving) their identified targets during the evaluation period, which contributes to the implementation of energy efficiency programs that align with NRCan programs. No long-term GHG emissions reduction targets were set for the collaborative activities.

Evidence of Effectiveness

Through the ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses (Residential) Initiative, NRCan works with provincial and territorial governments to facilitate the adoption of energy efficiency requirements into building codes for houses in those jurisdictions. To that end, NRCan has recently established an intergovernmental committee to examine issues and update the EnerGuide Rating System.

Progress is being made towards having provincial and territorial governments include energy efficiency in their building codes for houses. For example, at the time of this evaluation, British Columbia stipulated EnerGuide Rating System 77 in its code, while Nova Scotia, Vancouver (different than provincial code) and Yellowknife stipulated EnerGuide Rating System 80. Ontario (EnerGuide Rating System 80 by 2010), Québec (EnerGuide Rating System 78 by 2011),118 New Brunswick, and Manitoba were working towards incorporating standards into their codes.

A provincial representative explained that the code development work in his province would have been impossible without support from NRCan and its EnerGuide Rating System, and another stated that the EnerGuide Rating System is being included in codes because it is the most productive. However, many interviewees cautioned that using EnerGuide as a basis for regulating the energy efficiency of homes presents challenges because that system was never designed as a regulatory tool. NRCan is currently working on an exercise to improve the viability of using the EnerGuide Rating System in codes.

In addition to the building code work, the OEE’s new houses programming enters into agreements with organizations across Canada to more effectively deliver its new housing initiatives. The number of new homes being labelled through the ENERGY STAR for Homes and EnerGuide Rating System has increased as:

  • increasing numbers of organizations deliver training or verification services;
  • provinces or territories offer incentive programs for energy-efficient new housing; and
  • complementary building standard programs use NRCan tools.119

Internal and external stakeholder interviewees further posited that the proliferation of housing starts in energy efficiency initiatives is likely due to the fact that support for this type of work has expanded in Canada, due in part to NRCan’s collaborative efforts with external stakeholders.

Furthermore, the ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes program is delivered in tandem with provincial and territorial partner programs in all jurisdictions (with the exception of Nunavut), with these links being formalized by official memoranda with NRCan. Provincial and territorial interviewees observed that participation in the NRCan program, in their jurisdictions, increased once their jurisdictions began offering parallel incentive programs. For example:

  • the annual number of participants in the program in Newfoundland and Labrador tripled once that province introduced its complementary program; 120 and
  • the annual number of participants in the program in British Columbia increased five-fold once the initiatives began.121

Provincial interviewees also suggested that the ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes Program would see very little participation in some regions without the local partner programs because the NRCan program does not fully address the needs of homeowners living in some of Canada’s more atypical environments (e.g., Canada’s North, Maritimes). This evidence suggests that the collaborative activities are effectively extending the reach of NRCan’s energy efficiency programs in the residential sector.

3.2.1.3 Commercial/institutional Sector

Energy efficiency programming targeted towards the commercial/institutional sector was delivered using a mix of financial incentive, capacity building, and collaborative activities:

  • financial incentive activities were used in the delivery of the Existing Buildings Initiative, Industrial Building Incentive and Commercial Building Incentive programs, and are currently used in the delivery of the ongoing Federal Buildings Initiative and ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations (Commercial/Institutional) Program;
  • capacity building activities were delivered as part of the Existing Buildings Initiative and Commercial Building Incentive Program and are currently delivered through the ongoing ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses (Commercial/Institutional) Initiative; and
  • collaborative activities are currently undertaken in the delivery of the ongoing ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses (Commercial/Institutional) Initiative.
Financial Incentive Activities

Table 11 outlines the types of financial incentive activities undertaken by the commercial/institutional initiatives, along with the associated targets during the evaluation period and reported results as at March 31, 2009.

Table 11: Financial Incentive Activities – Targets, Results Achieved, GHG Reductions and Energy Savings (Commercial/Institutional Sector)
Programs and Activities Adoption and implementation GHG and Energy Savings
Target during evaluation period* Achieved during evaluation period* (% of target achieved) Target* Achieved during evaluation period* (% of target achieved)
Existing Building Initiative (2004-05 to 2007-08)
Audits No target 521** (n/a) Average improvement in energy intensity of 20% in retrofitted buildingsNot all years in evaluation period have energy and GHG targets.2004-05 GHG reduction target: 0.24Mt 2007-08 energy saving target: 2-2.2 PJ 2007-08 GHG reduction target: 0.2 Mt Average improvement in energy intensity of 20% in retrofitted buildings (100%) 8.8 PJ energy saved and 0.71 Mt GHG emissions reduction for all years in evaluation period** 122 2004-05 GHG reduction 0.17Mt (70%)** 2007-08 energy savings: 0.92 PJ (41-46%)** 2007-08 GHG reduction: 0.06 Mt (30%)**
Retrofits No target 650** (n/a)
Industrial Building Incentive Program/Commercial Building Incentive Program (2004-05 to 2006-07)
New construction – industrial 24 projects 10** (42%) 0.4 Mt GHG reduction by 2012 0.15 Mt GHG emissions reduction ** (37%)
New construction – commercial 645 projects 600** (93%)
Federal Buildings Initiative (2004-05 to 2008-09)
Signed energy performance contracts 20 to 29 11** (37-55%) 2004-05 to 2006-07: average energy intensity improvement of 20% in facilities; 15-20% reduction in GHG emissions2007-08: 207,000 GJ and 12 kilotonnes (Kt) GHGs by 20082008-09: 50,000 GJ and 5 Kt GHGs. 2004-05: average energy intensity 20% (100%); average GHG reduction 18% (100%) 2005-06: average energy intensity 18% (90%) average GHG reduction 15-20% (100%) 2006-07: data not available 2007-08: 347,400 GJ (167%) and 19 Kt by 2008 (158%) 2008-09: 11,000 GJ (22%) and 1 Kt GHGs (20%)
ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations (Commercial/Institutional) (2007-08 to 2008-09)
Retrofits – SMO – commercial/institutional 294*** 180 (61%) 0.468 PJ energy and 0.043 Mt GHG emissions reduction by 2009 0.267 PJ energy saved (57%) and 0.024 Mt GHG emissions reduction (56%)

* Source OEE. Better Energy Efficiency Reporting System (BEERS) unless otherwise indicated. ** Source: Updated program data. Industrial Programs Division. *** Assumes a 2007-08 target of 130 retrofits for SMO was split equally between the industrial and buildings components.

As illustrated in Table 11, where targets were identified for the adoption of energy management best practices and implementation of energy efficiency projects and retrofits in the commercial/industrial sector, as at March 31, 2009, none of the programs met these targets.

With the exception of the Federal Buildings Initiative – which met its identified targets only for energy savings and reductions in GHG emissions and air pollution in 2004-05 and 2005-06 and exceeded targets in 2007-08 – the other interventions had not achieved their identified targets for energy savings and reductions in GHG emissions and air pollution.

Evidence of Effectiveness

The ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organization (Commercial/Institutional) Program participant interviewees commented that the energy efficiency potential may be undermined because of poor retrofit construction, commissioning and/or building operation practices. Internal and external interviewees further postulated that poor operations may be less prevalent in buildings that are designed, built, and monitored by the same firm, but noted that there was a lack of knowledge in this area. For example, a case study of buildings designed, built, and monitored by the same firm showed energy use at 47.5% below the Model National Energy Code for Buildings level (target for the program is 25% below code).

A 2005 study of the Commercial Building Incentive Program also showed that, while on average the predicted energy savings of the program were realized, the dispersion was high. Instead of all buildings realizing similar savings, many buildings consumed much more energy than forecasted and many consumed much less.123 This study concluded that the high level of variance can be attributed to a disconnect between builders, owners, and operators. If an energy-efficient building is operated inefficiently, the anticipated savings articulated in the design simulation will not be realized.

In addition, the ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations (Commercial/Institutional) Program participant interviewees identified the burdensome application process as a possible barrier impacting the effectiveness of this program, which only met 61% of its adoption and implementation targets in the commercial/institutional sector. In some cases, the level of energy savings that would result from the retrofit did not merit the upfront effort for the firm.

The application process for the ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations Program was designed to discourage firms that would implement retrofits even without a financial incentive. However, the concerns related to a lengthy application process noted by program interviewees are supported by the findings of a recent audit covering the first two years (2007-08 and 2008-09) of this program.124 For example:

  • the application procedure was more intensive and lengthy than originally anticipated, which often yielded disagreement between the program timeline and the timelines of the firm; as a result, participants were deterred from applying for more complex, unplanned retrofits; and
  • the internal process for accepting and approving project proposals discourages participation.125

Given the shortfalls related to the achievement of targets in the commercial/institutional sector, in particular for the ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations Program, internal (NRCan) interviewees offered that the inability to promote this Program prior to its launch and when its predecessor (the Existing Buildings Initiative) was ending, may have impacted the ability of the program to achieve its results. It was felt that this factor reduced the ability of the program to “sell” the concept of energy efficiency and the opportunities available to make energy-efficient improvements. The extent to which the inability to advertise impacted the performance of the ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations Program during its first two years is unknown.

Another program that addresses energy efficiency in the commercial/institutional sector delivered by NRCan is the Federal Buildings Initiative, which specifically targets the federal government. As part of this initiative, NRCan offers funding to have specialists conduct opportunity assessments which identify the potential for efficiency improvements to a building or group of buildings and the costs and savings involved, and to provide advice on the development of requests for proposals. The program also offers contracting support materials.

To track progress towards its objective of helping facilitate energy efficiency retrofit projects in buildings owned or managed by the Government of Canada, the program tracks the number of energy performance contracts signed between energy service companies and departments. From 2004-05 to 2008-09, achievement of the participation target (i.e., signed energy performance contracts) was well below expectations; however the program did achieve (or exceed) its energy savings and GHG emission reduction targets in every year except 2008-09 (as shown in Table 11). In 2008-09, the initiative only achieved 22% of its energy savings target and 20% of its GHG emission reductions target.

Evidence from this evaluation suggests that energy savings and GHG emissions reduction directly attributable to NRCan’s financial commercial/institutional energy efficiency programming may be less than the targets suggest. This is because some organizations to whom financial incentives were provided may have implemented the incented actions even in the absence of the financial incentive. However, there is also limited evidence that measures, in addition to those incented through the programs, may have been taken as a result of participating in the programs.

The 2010 Impact Attribution Study estimated the free-ridership, spillover and net-to-gross energy savings for existing building initiatives (i.e., Existing Buildings Initiative, ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations (Commercial/Institutional)) and new construction initiatives (i.e., Commercial Building Incentive Program), as shown in Table 12.

Table 12: Estimated Free-ridership, Spillover and Net-to-Gross Factors for the Commercial/Institutional Sector
Program Full Free-ridership (%) Spillover (%) Net-to-Gross Ratio (%)
Existing Buildings Initiative, ecoENERGY Retrofit – SMO (Commercial/institutional) 62 8 46
Commercial Building Incentive Program 60 22 62

Source: Marbek and Navigant. (August 2010). Impact Attribution of Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Energy Efficiency Programs, p. 29.

These estimates suggest that:

  • In 62% of cases, energy-efficient measures would have been implemented through the existing building initiatives even without the financial incentive. Nevertheless, the net-to-gross ratio indicates that 46% of the savings achieved are attributable to existing building initiatives.
  • In 60% of cases, energy-efficient measures would have been implemented through the new building initiative even without the financial incentive. Nevertheless, the net-to-gross ratio indicates that 62% of the savings achieved are attributable to new building initiatives.

Similarly, a 2008 management review of the Commercial Building Incentive Program concluded that the program markedly improved the industry’s capacity to design energy-efficient buildings. This review also found that the financial support and provision of technical tools were key drivers. However, this review concluded that 13-60% of participants were free-riders (either full or partial).126

When free-ridership and spillover rates for NRCan’s commercial/institutional sector programs identified in the 2010 Impact Attribution Study are compared to free-ridership rates for comparable programs, it becomes evident that the free-ridership rates are higher, while the spillover rates are consistent with these other programs.127

The 2010 Impact Attribution Study also identified the annual net energy savings and annual GHG reduction estimates directly attributable to the commercial/institutional financial incentive-based programs, as identified in Tables 13 and 14.

Table 13: Total Annual Net Energy Savings (GJ) for Commercial/Institutional Financial Incentives Programs by Fiscal Year (2004-05 to 2008-09)
Fiscal Year Existing Buildings New Construction
Existing Buildings Initiative* ecoENERGY Retrofit – SMO (Commercial/Institutional) Commercial Building Incentive Program
2004-05 53,000 n/a 6,000
2005-06 491,000 n/a 45,000
2006-07 1,052,000 n/a 172,000
2007-08 1,290,000 <1,000 446,000
2008-09 1,333,000 10,000 542,000

* This includes Existing Buildings Initiative Energy Retrofit Assistance (ERA 3) and Energy Retrofit Assistance (ERA 4). Source: Marbek and Navigant. (August 2010). Impact Attribution of Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Energy Efficiency Programs, p. 35.

Table 14: Total Annual GHG Reduction Estimates (kt CO2e) for Commercial/Institutional Financial Incentives Programs by Fiscal Year (2004-05 to 2008-09)
Fiscal Year Existing Buildings New Construction
Existing Buildings Initiative* ecoENERGY Retrofit – SMO (Commercial/Institutional) Commercial Building Incentive Program
2004-05 3 n/a 1
2005-06 32 n/a 4
2006-07 71 n/a 15
2007-08 88 <1 37
2008-09 91 1 43

* This includes Existing Buildings Initiative Energy Retrofit Assistance (ERA 3) and Energy Retrofit Assistance (ERA 4). Source: Marbek and Navigant. (August 2010). Impact Attribution of Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Energy Efficiency Programs, p. 35.

Anecdotal evidence is also indicative of potential free-ridership impacting the energy savings attributable to NRCan’s commercial/institutional initiatives. Although only four ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations (Commercial/Institutional) Program participants were interviewed as part of this evaluation, the majority revealed that their organizations had been planning to implement most or all of the retrofits anyway. These organizations participated in the program as a means of keeping costs down, which enabled them to allocate existing money to other priorities and/or to implement the retrofits sooner than it would have otherwise been possible.

This evidence reveals that NRCan’s financial incentive activity-based programs in the commercial/institutional sector are achieving GHG emission reductions and energy savings but not to the extent anticipated when targets for the programs were set.

Capacity Building Activities

Table 15 outlines the types of capacity building activities targeted at the commercial/institutional sector, along with the associated targets during the evaluation period and reported results as at March 31, 2009.

Table 15: Capacity Building Activities – Targets, Results Achieved, GHG Reductions and Energy Savings (Commercial/Institutional Sector)
Programs and Activities Adoption and implementation GHG and Energy Savings
Target during evaluation period* Achieved during evaluation period* (% of target achieved) Target* Achieved during evaluation period* (% of target achieved)
Existing Building Initiative/Commercial Building Incentive Program (2004-05 to 2006-07)
Training No target 2,495 individuals trained** (n/a) No specific target or results for this activity. Contributed to the overall goals of Existing Building Initiative and Commercial Building Incentive Program.
ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses (Commercial/institutional) (2007-08 to 2008-09)
Training 1250 2394 individuals trained** (191%) 7 to 8 PJ energy savings and 0.5 Mt of GHG emission reductions by 2011*** 5.0 PJ energy savings (63-71%) and 0.4 Mt GHG reduction (80%)
Design Validation No target 181 designs validated (n/a)
Building Labelling 250 labels 0 labels issued (0%)

*Source OEE. Better Energy Efficiency Reporting System (BEERS) unless otherwise indicated. ** Source: Updated program data, Industrial Programs Division. *** No specific targets for activities. Contribute to overall buildings component targets.

As illustrated in Table 15, targets set for the adoption of energy management best practices and retrofit project implementation were either exceeded or not met in the study time period. That is, the training activities far exceeded their targets, while the building labelling activity had not yet made progress towards issuing labels (this happened subsequent to the evaluation period). No targets were set in the Results-based Management and Accountability Framework for the design validation activity, but the ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses (Commercial/Institutional) Initiative did validate 181 designs in its first two years (2007-08 and 2008-09).

Evidence of Effectiveness

Further to the training activities meeting their targets (where targets were identified) in terms of the number of individuals trained, there is also evidence that these training activities influenced the behaviour of participants. In particular, the 2010 Impact Attribution Study found that workshop participants were:

  • 12.9% more likely to implement HVAC retrofits;
  • 12.3% more likely to implement water heater retrofits;
  • 6.9% more likely to implement lighting retrofits; and
  • 2% more likely to implement a building envelope measure. 128

Dollars to $ense institutional participant interviewees also attributed the implementation of changes to their participation in the workshops. These changes included offering internal workshops at their organization, developing energy awareness activities based on lessons learned from the workshops, and implementing retrofits (e.g., recalibration of energy data collection system, lighting retrofits).

In addition to the Dollars to $ense workshops, NRCan offered training on the EE4 software, a building design validation software that simulates the energy performance of new building designs. Although no studies have been done to measure the impact of the EE4 training specifically, one interviewee did independently mention that the training has successfully created a cadre of building professionals able to effectively consider energy efficiency in their designs. This interviewee suggested that having this population of professionals on the ground enabled Canada’s adoption of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), an internationally recognized green building certification system developed by the United States Green Building Council.129

As indicated in Table 15, during the period covered by this evaluation the building labelling activity had not made progress towards achieving its targets with respect to issuing labels. However, at the time of this evaluation there were, in fact, more than 300 buildings eligible for labels.130 Unfortunately, the internal (NRCan) technical process experienced longer than anticipated delays because of poor data submission by program participants, which prevented the issuing of any labels during the evaluation period. The program is now carrying out this work.

Moreover, in 2007-08 and 2008-09, the ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses (Commercial/Institutional) Initiative piloted six building labelling projects (rather than the targeted four). A case study (conducted as part of this evaluation) of one of these pilot projects delivered by the City of Vancouver, with NRCan’s contribution, identified that the project:

  • issued labels for 67 buildings (contributing to the more than 300 labels mentioned above); and
  • highlighted opportunities for improvement for the benchmarking and labelling process that can be applied to more permanent NRCan programming.

Although no energy savings or GHG emissions reduction targets were identified in the Results-based Management and Accountability Framework related to the design validation activities of the ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses (Commercial/Institutional) Initiative, internal (NRCan) interviewees explained that the Department claims energy savings and GHG emissions reductions from design validation activities because, without a federal validation program for energy-efficient new construction, many new projects would not include energy efficiency in their designs. A couple of external interviewees added that building owners also want to be recognized by the federal government for their efforts, indicating that they would not make these efforts if recognition was not available because meeting their corporate sustainability requirements and managing their reputation is their prime motivator.

The 2010 Impact Attribution Study provided an estimate of the annual energy savings and GHG reductions for NRCan’s energy efficiency behavioural programs, which includes training (i.e., workshops), as identified in Table 16.

Table 16: Total Annual Net Energy Savings and Total Annual GHG Reduction Estimates for Commercial/Institutional Behavioural Programs*
Fiscal Year Total Annual Net Energy Savings (GJ) Total Annual GHG Reduction Estimates (kt CO2e)
2004-05 n/a n/a
2005-06 n/a n/a
2006-07 44,000 4
2007-08 126,000 10
2008-09 181,000 15

* This information includes workshops and energy innovators. Source: Marbek and Navigant. (August 2010). Impact Attribution of Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Energy Efficiency Programs, p. 61.

As the evidence suggests, therefore, the commercial/institutional targeted capacity building activities are building capacity and resulting in associated energy savings.

Collaborative Activities

Through the ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses (Commercial/Institutional) Initiative, the OEE’s Buildings Division collaborates formally with provincial, territorial, and other stakeholders to develop best practices and to encourage the adoption of energy efficiency into building codes. For example, this division chairs several collaborative sub-committees under the umbrella of the Demand Side Management Working Group,131 including a sub-committee related to commissioning and recommissioning, and another focused on energy benchmarking and labelling.132

These sub-committees enable provinces, utilities, sector representatives and the federal government to develop effective common approaches and programming aimed at elevating energy management practices in Canada.133 External interviewees from the recommissioning sub-committee stated that the work being accomplished in this area is promising and impressive, and suggested that building operations should be a focus of future efforts.

In addition, the ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses (Commercial/Institutional) Initiative includes collaboration focused on getting energy efficiency included in provincial and territorial building codes. Through a Memorandum of Understanding with the National Research Council, NRCan is contributing up to $5 million over four years to support the technical development of the updated Model National Energy Codes, which is expected to be published in 2011.134

Also, in 2006, NRCan initiated the Building Energy Code Collaborative,135 a provincial-territorial-federal committee established in response to a request from the Council of Energy Ministers to update the Model National Energy Codes.136 This collaborative initiative promotes the adoption of an updated Model National Energy Code for Buildings by provinces and territories with their own building codes.137 As of 2008-09, this collaboration had encouraged the development of building code update projects in eight jurisdictions, achieving 133% of the identified target.138

Two of these eight jurisdictions, Ontario and British Columbia, have included energy efficiency stipulations in their most recent building codes. The energy savings resulting from these changes have been attributed to the ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses Initiative based on the assumption that the updates would not have been achieved without NRCan’s continued support of the Model National Energy Code for Buildings update process. The ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses Initiative claims 76% of the energy savings attributed to code changes based on a 40% compliance rate, which is derived from data from New Hampshire where few compliance mechanisms exist (as in Canada), and from Washington State that show that non-compliant users will still reduce their energy use even if not to expected levels.

This evidence suggests that collaborative activities undertaken in the commercial/institutional sector have been effective at encouraging other jurisdictions (i.e., provinces) to incorporate energy efficiency into their building codes. Collaboration related to activities such as commissioning and recommissioning have been working toward addressing the needs of building owners and operators to assist them in operating their buildings in an energy-efficient way (i.e., whole-building approach).

3.2.2 Unintended Outcomes

Evaluation Question 5: Have there been any unintended (positive or negative) outcomes? Were any actions take as a result of these?

The programs encompassed in this evaluation have yielded positive unintended outcomes, particularly when it comes to the extent to which NRCan programs and tools: (1) have been adopted by other jurisdictions; and (2) have been observed to cause market shifts in the relevant sectors.

Industrial Sector

Program participant interviewees (Dollars to $ense and benchmarking) asserted that the various CIPEC tools have provided industrial representatives with the tools and information needed to implement their own internal programs or activities. For example, two Dollars to $ense participant interviewees identified that they now give their own internal workshops to colleagues across their organizations. Similarly, a recent benchmarking study provided firms with the information that they needed to mount their own internal programming aimed at improving energy efficiency.

Residential Sector

Internal (NRCan) interviewees explained that it was never intended for the EnerGuide Rating System to be used as a compliance tool point for housing codes in Canada. This is a positive development as it has helped provinces increase the stringency of new home performance, and is leading to inclusion of energy efficiency in the National Building Code. A couple of internal and external (sector representative) interviewees also explained that the penetration of the NRCan suite of new housing initiatives has directly triggered the development of further energy-efficient housing programs in Canada, such as programs offered through BuiltGreen (Alberta and British Columbia) and EnerQuality (Ontario).

It was identified by internal and external interviewees that the ecoENERGY Retrofit - Homes Program (and the EnerGuide for Houses Program before it) had an economic impact in that it fostered observable job creation in the energy consultant sector. Provincial and industry representatives (external stakeholders) did caution that NRCan needs to support the sector more permanently if it wants to have the appropriate infrastructure in place to support regulations or further interventions in the future.

Commercial/Institutional Sector

As explained by some internal and external interviewees, NRCan’s commercial/institutional energy efficiency initiatives, specifically the Commercial Building Incentive Program, has encouraged program adoption at a more macro-level:

  • the Commercial Building Incentive Program was adopted as a program by New Brunswick; and
  • the existence of the Commercial Building Incentive Program provided programs, like LEED, with a solid foundation in Canada in terms of trained builders, software, and validation services, which enabled LEED to be introduced effectively in Canada.

Anecdotal evidence from a few internal and external interviewees also suggests that the financial incentive programs offered in the commercial/institutional sector between 2004-05 and 2008-09 may have triggered two market-level impacts:

  • the availability of retrofit incentives may have impacted the price for energy-efficient technologies and energy consultant services (e.g., if an efficient boiler manufacturer is aware of the incentive program, price of goods might be increased due to the anticipation of buyers receiving financial incentives); and
  • unanticipated growth in the energy service provider field as a result of NRCan’s energy efficiency programs.

3.2.3 Economy (Cost-effectiveness)

Evaluation Question 6: Are the programs the most cost-effective means of achieving the intended objectives?

The cost-effectiveness analysis in this evaluation focused on the identification of best practices and alternative design and delivery approaches that could be considered to improve the cost-effectiveness of the ecoENERGY programs. Keeping in mind the policy instruments available to NRCan within its legal authority and mandate, this evaluation identified best practices that could be explored to improve the cost-effectiveness of NRCan’s current energy efficiency programming in the industrial, residential, and commercial/institutional sectors.

In some cases NRCan’s energy efficiency programs in the industrial, residential and commercial/institutional sectors may include some of the identified best practices. Where design and delivery of such activities in the current suite of ecoENERGY programs differ from the identified best practices, specific suggestions have been made to improve their cost-effectiveness.

In general, assessment of program cost-effectiveness considers whether equal or better performance than that noted to date would be possible using alternative program delivery or design. Cost-effectiveness in terms of cost per tonne of GHG emissions reduced was not assessed in this evaluation. An assessment of cost per tonne for the industrial and commercial/institutional programs is included in the Impact Attribution Study commissioned by the OEE.139 The assessment of cost-effectiveness in this evaluation focused on alternative program delivery or design, using:

  • the results of surveys and interviews;
  • literature, for identification of best practices; and
  • document review of evaluations of similar programs in comparable jurisdictions.

Cost-effectiveness was only assessed for the current suite of ecoENERGY programs.

This evaluation identified features included in programs that tend to be considered cost-effective based on the design and delivery of the programs, as well as the mix of instruments used in delivering the program (e.g., whether a program uses financial incentive activities or capacity building activities).

Researchers suggest that cost-effective strategies to improve energy efficiency for the industrial, residential and commercial/institutional sectors are those that include pricing mechanisms for carbon and minimum energy consumption standards supported by voluntary programs such as incentive programs and education programs that help energy users prepare for and acclimate to new standards.140 Through the ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses Initiative, the OEE’s Buildings and Housing Divisions are working with other levels of government to develop and implement energy efficiency standards into jurisdictions' building and housing codes. Additionally, the programs included in this evaluation aim to encourage energy users to consume energy more efficiently. This behaviour shift would support broader systemic changes. Although the research on voluntary policies and programs is mixed, some research has shown that actions such as incentive programs and training can yield meaningful results and represent cost-effective options under certain circumstances.

Financial Incentive Activities

Findings drawn from the literature, evaluations of comparable programs, other studies, and interviews suggest that financial incentive-based programs are most cost-effective when they:

  • are delivered in partnership with regional partners to ensure that regional issues are incorporated into program administration in diverse areas;
  • encourage target-setting and support whole-building, comprehensive retrofits to maximize energy efficiency gains;
  • enable participation by providing incentives for high-risk components such as initial audits and new technologies;
  • limit free-ridership by aligning incentive levels with participants’ average willingness-to-pay;
  • limit free-ridership by making incentives for audits and retrofits contingent upon levels of implementation; and
  • provide grants that are contingent upon verified energy savings and, for non-residential sectors in particular, a demonstration of effective commissioning and recommissioning practices.

Given this, NRCan’s financial incentive-based ecoENERGY programs (Industry, Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations, Retrofit – Homes) may not be as cost-effective as they could be, in that:

  • Programs other than the ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes program are not substantively delivered in partnership with other jurisdictions. Interviewees associated with the ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes program reported that because it is designed to be delivered in partnership with other jurisdictions, this has increased the penetration of the program.
  • None of the industrial, residential and commercial/institutional sector financial incentive programs explicitly encourage target setting and whole-building (whole-home), comprehensive retrofits. That is, retrofits are suggested but the order in which they should be done and the impact this order has on the effectiveness of the retrofits is not considered.
  • Most incentive programs offer funds exclusively for retrofits, although the ecoENERGY for Industry Program offers incentives for initial energy assessments and technical studies (i.e., high-risk components).
  • Free-ridership was not adequately considered when the ecoENERGY financial incentive programs were identifying targets attributable to the programs.
  • Incentive amounts for all programs are based predominantly on the retrofits implemented rather than being contingent upon verified energy savings or demonstrations of effective commissioning and recommissioning practices.
Capacity Building Activities

Similarly, findings drawn from the literature, evaluations of comparable programs, other studies, and interviews suggest that capacity building-focused programs are most cost-effective when they:

  • provide training to participants with accurate demonstrations of potential cost savings and payback, including technology demonstrations, that can inform business planning;
  • provide training and/or education activities directed at all relevant stakeholders, including tenants and organizations’ senior management; and
  • have training curricula that includes installation, commissioning, and recommissioning.

Based on the above cost-effective features, NRCan’s capacity building-focused ecoENERGY programs (Buildings and Houses, Industry) may not be as cost-effective as they could be, in that:

  • While the training programs (e.g., Dollars to $ense) do offer some information related to potential cost-savings and payback, some interviewees indicated that it would be helpful for more concrete and detailed information as well as technology demonstrations to be provided.
  • There are currently no specific education programs for tenants and organizations’ senior management.
  • Although the Building Division has now developed some materials, previous training / education material did not address commissioning and recommissioning.
Industrial Sector
Financial Incentive Activities

The results of the literature review and interviews conducted for this evaluation identified a number of aspects of the ecoENERGY for Industry Program that may warrant revisiting. Some suggestions were made that could improve the program’s cost-effectiveness.

The literature review found that the most effective financial incentive programs for capital investment are those designed to be flexible and customized to meet the unique needs of the participant firms, suggesting that a one-size fits all approach is not the best.141,142

All of the individuals interviewed, who were involved in the special studies under the ecoENERGY for Industry Program, agreed that these special studies are a cost-effective means for demonstrating and encouraging energy saving opportunities in industrial facilities. These interviewees explained that:

  • benchmarking studies enable information to be disseminated to an entire sector;
  • process integration work is well supported in the engineering community so it is accessible to firms and many resources are available to guide the process;
  • process integration work is the least cost option for facilities where prior energy data collection has been inconsistent or non-existent; and
  • for certain types of systems, computational fluid dynamic simulations are the only cost-effective way to identify and measure energy losses because the systems in question involve extremely hostile environments (e.g., the inside of a smelter furnace), making actual data collection too costly and dangerous.

The benchmarking, process integration and computational fluid dynamics studies – partially funded through the ecoENERGY for Industry Program, address the specific needs of industrial sectors and individual facilities. Additionally, the funding recipients stated that once funding was made available to support and reduce risk from the initial phase, their firms were in a strong position to move forward with energy-saving capital investments. This supports what was identified in the literature – namely the importance of flexibility and reducing risk – and suggests that the ecoENERGY for Industry Program appears to use a fairly cost-effective approach with respect to its financial incentives.

Capacity Building Activities

In general, all of the Dollars to $ense participants consulted for this evaluation agreed that the workshops provided participants with new ideas and approaches for measuring, costing, and saving energy in their facilities.

Literature suggests that flexibility and customization must be central features of programs aimed at industrial audiences, and that programs will only see traction where the messaging is clearly aligned with the day-to-day experiences of the participants.143 This was supported by interviewees from two utilities that offer Dollars to $ense workshops in partnership with NRCan. They noted that the workshops are cost-effective because they can be customized to accommodate the needs of specific audiences, thereby maximizing the applicability of the workshop material.

Interviews and literature review data gathered for this evaluation identified potential suggestions for improving the cost-effectiveness of the Dollars to $ense workshops for industry:

  • Presenting and demonstrating specific technological options at the workshops: these demonstrations, according to interviewees, would increase the likelihood of participants implementing measures.
  • The monitoring and verification practices stipulated by the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol for energy use are needed by large industries. The Dollars to $ense material and lessons are too general and these industries are forced to default to the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol.
  • Including case studies of actual projects as a way to illustrate potential cost savings to participants in the workshops.
  • Clear payback period information is an important impetus for industries considering energy efficiency investments, and firms were more willing to pay for energy investments when they had received clear information about the payback and cost savings they would accrue.144, 145 Interviewees confirmed that it is difficult to ‘sell’ energy efficiency investments to senior management without detailed data describing investment returns and overall savings.

Internal (NRCan) interviewees explained that the OEE has taken steps to make the Dollars to $ense workshops cost-effective, including:

  • Working with other organizations to deliver standard and customized workshops so that these groups can take advantage of pre-existing curricula and resources. Partnerships such as these also help to reduce duplication.
  • Having participants pay to attend workshops: NRCan recovers approximately 60% of the costs associated with providing the workshops. A monetary value is also tied to participation in the workshops, thus signalling the value of energy efficiency to potential participants (i.e., free workshops often imply a limited value).

Many of the above actions already undertaken align well with cost-effective practices suggested in the literature, particularly in terms of working with other organizations. The program may want to consider the benefits of including some of the other practices mentioned above, such as providing a detailed monitoring and verification course with the practices stipulated by the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol for energy use, and using demonstration projects and cases studies.

Residential Sector

Financial Incentive Activities

Evidence from this evaluation suggests that the cost-effectiveness of the ecoENERGY Retrofit - Homes Program may be influenced by:

  • whether or not the grant levels are appropriate and are encouraging new energy savings;
  • regional partnerships; and
  • whether or not the program promotes single-system or whole-house comprehensive retrofits.
Appropriateness of Grants for Encouraging New Energy Savings

As grant levels increase for different types of retrofits, the cost-per-output increases, so, in order to ensure a cost-effective approach, it is important to ensure that grant levels are not higher than they need to be to trigger the desired outputs.

Free-ridership, especially in cases where grants may be too high given the benefits accrued from the incented changes, diminishes the cost-effectiveness of incentive programs although it does improve achievement of objectives (and hence presents a paradox for program designers). One primary option for encouraging the uptake of unplanned retrofits was inferred from interviews and the literature, which referred to offering incentives for audits in conjunction with, or instead of, incentives for retrofits. Achievement of objectives is positively impacted by spillover, in this case homeowners who completed retrofits that were eligible for grants but did not apply for grants and homeowners, who implemented retrofits not eligible for grants, but as a result of their participation in the program.

Although the ecoENERGY Retrofit - Homes Program does not offer incentives for audits, many provincial and territorial partners do. The homeowners survey conducted as part of this evaluation showed that 30% of the respondents would not have participated in the retrofit program had audits not been partially funded by some other organization. Furthermore, homeowners who had initial audits but did not apply for grants still implemented a significant number of retrofits that were motivated by findings of the audit. In other words, after having an audit, many homeowners who did not apply for grants implemented various changes as a result of the audit. This suggests that funding for audits attract a meaningful number of participants and that the audits themselves (in the absence of further grants) may encourage many homeowners to implement energy saving retrofits. However, under the previous EnerGuide for Houses Program, which did incent audits, a smaller percentage of homeowners followed through with retrofits and applied for a grant, suggesting that cost-sharing audits may be less economical.

Evidence from the literature examined the role played by grants in similar programs. A study examining residential retrofit programs in the United States concluded that it is important to provide appropriate incentives for both retrofits and audits. Grants for audits were described as removing the initial risk and thereby encouraging homeowners to participate, while grants for retrofits were seen as having the potential to encourage homeowners to undertake retrofits they would not do otherwise.146 The literature also suggests that programs in which one agency oversees the entire process are in a better position to ensure cost-effectiveness, as is the case with NRCan’s ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes Program. In these types of programs, the study concluded it is possible to assess the links between initial audits, retrofits undertaken, and final energy savings, and to determine which retrofits qualify for grants.147

This evidence highlights the importance of giving full consideration to the financial incentive (in this case grants) required to encourage new energy savings in a cost-effective way, particularly in terms of the grant level and component incented (audit and/or retrofit).

Regional Partnerships

Regional partnerships are cited as another factor impacting the cost-effectiveness of a home retrofit incentive program. This is because partnerships enable programs to better meet the needs of homeowners in specific locations. According to NRCan interviewees, its ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes Program is delivered in partnership with programs offered by provinces and territories, in part, to ensure some level of regional specificity. However, interviewees from NRCan, provinces and territories commented that more work should be done to accommodate the diverse regional needs (e.g., climate, main heating sources, etc.). These interviewees explained that the program is unable to be entirely flexible because it is designed to be a national program. Thus, there may be an opportunity to improve the cost-effectiveness of the ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes Program by expanding regional partnerships and identifying mechanisms to better respond to the needs of the various regions across Canada.

Nature of Retrofits

Interviewees noted that comprehensive retrofit plans addressing the whole house, rather than a single-system retrofit, are more cost-effective because they maximize the overall energy efficiency of a house. Anecdotal evidence from a couple of external stakeholder interviewees suggest that energy assessment reports are sometimes too generic and would be more useful if they were comprehensive documents that not only outline what can be done in a home, but in what order.

For example, a review of another home retrofit incentive program determined that the programs with the greatest impact were those in which contractors with experience working with all housing systems were on hand to provide homeowners with advice about their entire home. 148 The goal of the ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes Program is to encourage homeowners to implement a suite of changes and homeowner reports do provide the homeowner with customized information on whole-house energy performance and energy-saving tips beyond the list of recommendations. Nevertheless, energy advisors interviewed stated that many homeowners are not encouraged to implement, nor made aware of, all potential additional energy saving opportunities by including them directly in the report. These interviewees posited that this is because equipment dealers use the program to advertise their more expensive high-efficiency options, and because equipment installers and other contractors can be energy advisors.

As a result, although the goal of the audit-retrofit process is to encourage homeowners to implement a variety of important changes through one process, the program, in some cases, does not cause homeowners to go beyond a limited selection of retrofits unless they look at the additional information references made in the report. This suggests that there may be an opportunity to increase the amount of information in the report to increase outputs.

Capacity Building Activities
Training

The residential component of the ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses Initiative provides training to R-2000 homebuilders and to energy advisors who work with NRCan’s new and existing housing initiatives. While NRCan designs the curricula and courses, service organizations, the Canadian Home Builders’ Association, or other public organizations provide the training with technical and financial support from NRCan. Furthermore, energy advisors are certified by NRCan.

An NRCan interviewee described local organization delivery as a more cost-effective approach (than centralized delivery) because local organizations are in a better position to consider regional circumstances when delivering the training. A counter-argument to the cost-effectiveness of local delivery was also presented by interviewees who noted two circumstances that could negatively impact delivery:

  • in cases where a company is trying to train more energy advisors quickly (e.g., to meet demand due to a new retrofit program), the quality of training may diminish so that more individuals can be trained more quickly; and
  • in circumstances where a new advisor is being trained and assessed by a competing service organization, there is no motivation for that organization to ensure that the advisor is being trained and assessed effectively and efficiently.

Several interviewees reported that training and access to follow-up from training could be improved. Energy advisors interviewed as part of this evaluation provided suggestions for improving the cost-effectiveness of the training for energy advisors:

  • more hands-on training such as mentorships or apprenticeships;
  • more extensive follow-up and skills maintenance could be incorporated into the program so as to strengthen and maintain on the job skills;
  • further training on using the HOT2000 software and how to work with builders; and
  • additional training in building science.
New Housing

The new housing component of the ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses Initiative provides the infrastructure for the EnerGuide Rating System (for new houses), ENERGY STAR for New Homes, and R-2000 Standard. To increase the reach and cost-effectiveness of the program, NRCan works primarily through a network of regional service organizations to deliver these initiatives. Although NRCan does not provide resources directly for all of the energy-efficient homes built in Canada, its tools and infrastructure have enabled many of these houses to be built and recognized.

Furthermore, interview and literature information reveals a need to conduct verification of installations, given inconsistencies in installation quality. For example, one energy advisor commented that although builders may know correct installation procedures, subcontractors and other trades people may not have this information and may be unmotivated to be thorough in order to accomplish more tasks in less time to maximize their profits. An evaluation of an ENERGY STAR for New Homes Program in the United States found that builders and energy assessors do not generally verify installation because the process is too costly.149

The ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses Initiative offers a variety of training activities that encourage the uptake and implementation of energy efficiency behaviours and practices and are seen to be cost-effective. However, if the scope of training activities were expanded to include more concrete real-world examples, best installation practices, more building science principles, and information for senior management and tenants, the impacts could be even more pronounced.

Commercial/Institutional Sector
Capacity Building Activities
Training

Training can be a component of GHG emissions reduction strategies insofar as it provides sectors with the information and tools necessary to implement energy-efficient changes. The OEE’s Buildings Division offers Dollars to $ense workshops to the commercial/institutional sector, primarily to municipal and provincial government organizations.

Public sector participants echoed the positions of the industrial participants by saying that the flexibility and accessibility of the programs make them attractive and effective and that the workshops offer important advice. However, they suggested that the cost-effectiveness could be improved if real-world case studies were presented because this would demonstrate that energy and cost savings could be realized outside of the classroom, making participants more likely to implement changes learned through the workshops.

Moreover, internal and external interviewees agreed that, although workshops may achieve educational goals, energy efficiency measures may not be adopted/implemented because senior management and decision-makers may not recognize the value in the energy efficiency investments being proposed by those who participated in the workshops.

Design Validation

External stakeholder interviewees indicated that because of corporate policies or to become LEED certified, building owners must have their building plans validated for energy performance.

The OEE’s Buildings Division validates building plans modelled by the EE4 energy performance simulation software, and provides this third-party industry-recognized service free of charge. According to NRCan management, based on internal NRCan monitoring data, about 75% of eligible LEED new construction certified buildings in Canada were validated by NRCan. NRCan managers also report that some provincial, municipal and utility incentive programs use NRCan’s design validation service.

External interviewees reported that the NRCan validation process can take too long so building owners sometimes use non-NRCan validation services. These interviewees suggested that the EE4 software needs to be updated150 to ensure that Canadian building owners have access to the most effective tools.

Industrial and Commercial/Institutional Sectors

Financial Incentive Activities

Activities of the ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations Program151 focus primarily around financial incentives. Evidence from the evaluation suggests that a couple of key factors impact the cost-effectiveness of retrofit incentive programs for the industrial, commercial/institutional sectors, including:

  • whether or not the incentives cause firms to implement measures, take action and/or change behaviour;
  • take-up of the program and, in particular, resolving barriers to participation (including time and financial barriers); and
  • the extent to which estimated energy use reductions are realized as a result of these incented changes.

Data gathered through interviews as part of this evaluation indicates that many of the participants who received funding through this program would have implemented some of the retrofits had the program not existed.

This evaluation found several areas in which current program design may require fine-tuning to improve participation and/or return on investment. These include: application procedures; timing of application submissions; initial investment requirements; energy auditor advice content; nature of retrofits (complex or simple); and human behaviour.

Application Procedure

The application procedure for the ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations Program, in its current form, was described by interviewees as discouraging participation beyond specific, pre-planned retrofits, which was supported by the findings of a recent audit covering the first two years (2007-08 and 2008-09) of the program.152 While the audit found that the program had, “established comprehensive processes to receive, review, approve and pay for activities under the agreement”, it also suggested:

“… long complex processes are being followed for the review and approval of funding proposals. A detailed review is undertaken by the program managers and staff regardless of the dollar value of the proposed project. This is inconsistent with the spirit of a government-wide effort to reduce the “web of rules”.153

The audit rated the risk of this finding as “minor”, but specified that there was an operational risk and proposed the use of a risk-based approach to the assessment process for applications. Specifically, the audit stated that “…inefficient assessment processes may lead to significant delays in programming and ineffective use of program resources” and the identified strategic risk was that “…potential negative publicity regarding the Program’s business practices, whether true or not, may cause a decline in the customer base, costly litigation, or a decline in reputation.”154 Such an operational risk, in terms of inefficient administrative processes, could potentially impact the effectiveness of the program.

Timing of Application

Retrofit applications can have key timing considerations in the case of small and medium organizations. Some literature suggests that misalignments between program timelines and project timelines are particularly pronounced and detrimental for industrial sectors, where projects can only be undertaken with careful consideration of production cycles.155 NRCan interviewees noted that greenhouses, for example, can only accommodate renovations in the off-season and one program participant indicated that retrofit work can be completed only when production is halted or slowed. Therefore, when application and approval processes are slow and unpredictable, participants may lose out on their window of opportunity for implementing retrofits other than those originally planned and ready-to-go.

Initial Investment

Financial considerations also formed a barrier to program participation for some small and medium organizations. Three participants cited projects they wanted to investigate and potentially implement but for which they would need financial support. These participants reported that they did not have the upfront funds to pay for additional audits/estimate work, thus making these projects ineligible for the ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations Program.

Energy Auditor Advice

Another portion of the program for which delivery could be improved relates to explanations provided by the energy auditors. A few external interviewees commented that the energy auditors could do a better job of explaining the potential cost savings associated with energy retrofits to clients, suggesting that if true savings were better understood, the costs of the audits might be better accommodated.

As a potential solution to this, some interviewees suggested that the incentive program include the installation of Energy Monitoring Information Systems to show potential participants what they could save and ensure the ability of the firm to verify these estimated savings post-retrofit. An evaluation of several commercial retrofit incentive programs in the United States, for example, revealed that implementation rates for retrofit opportunities identified in audits were higher in cases where funding was offered for the initial audit contingent on the number of retrofits implemented.156 Similarly, an incentive program in Vermont saw high participation and low free-ridership where initial free walk-throughs were offered to potential participants in advance of complete energy audits to give participants a sense of what they could get out of an audit.157

Nature of Retrofits

The nature of retrofits themselves is another potential program delivery consideration. Literature review indicated that greater impacts can be obtained by using incentive programs to encourage comprehensive retrofits rather than single-system/equipment retrofits, which could suggest the need for an audit protocol. Because buildings are complex, comprehensive retrofits that consider the entire building are more cost-effective than targeted changes, which may or may not be effective given the status of the building’s other systems.158

For example, if a heating system is changed while inadequate insulation is present, the effectiveness of that heating retrofit is partially negated. Although the ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations Program encourages holistic changes and bundling of several energy efficiency measures, it is not a requirement. Applicants choose which among the most energy saving retrofits to implement. These typically include improvements to lighting, building envelope, motors, controls, heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems, both alone or in various combinations.159

A comparison of the costs and benefits of several single-system retrofit programs and complex comprehensive retrofit approaches for the commercial sector determined that, on average, the cost per square-foot is lower for comprehensive retrofits (although initial upfront costs might be higher) because comprehensive approaches address additional combined inefficiencies (e.g., retrofits of insulation and heating systems).160 Cost barriers could be addressed by ensuring that audits prioritize the recommended changes and explain the order in which they should be implemented to maximize energy savings.

One ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations Program participant highlighted this barrier, reporting that the most important change that could be made to his facility was to address a building envelope problem. However, because the energy audit team selected by the participant could not adequately model the potential savings from the repairs, this retrofit did not qualify for an incentive and his company did not have the necessary funds to make the changes independently. Although this participant did access the program for other retrofit incentives, he recognized that his firm will not see optimal energy savings from these retrofits because of the existing inefficient building envelope.

Human Behaviour

Internal and external interviewees identified a strong, but often misunderstood or unknown link between building operations and energy waste. The ‘human factor’ can be key in terms of determining whether or not potential efficiencies in a building or facility are achieved.161

For example, the Energy Trust of Oregon evaluated its industrial incentive programs in 2005 and determined that in cases where less than anticipated energy savings were seen, one major influence was poor operations and improper maintenance of equipment.162 Although the Energy Trust of Oregon’s impact assessment did not address operational practices, it did find that the actual energy savings of firms were often less than estimated. In order to increase the cost-effectiveness of commercial and industrial incentive programs, it might be recommended that incentives be contingent on proof of proper operations and commissioning.163

3.2.4 Efficiency and Strategic Management Practices

Evaluation Question 7: How could the efficiency and strategic management practices of the programs be improved?

While the OEE has instituted a number of important strategic management practices to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of its programs, evidence from the evaluation generally indicates that: application and approval processes could be less burdensome; communication with NRCan could be improved; and programs could better respond to the needs of different stakeholders.

The ecoENERGY programs all have performance measurement frameworks and program data are captured systematically. Additionally, the programs undertake various internal and third-party studies for program planning and monitoring purposes. For example, the OEE has undertaken attribution studies of its industrial, residential and commercial/institutional programs, as well as needs assessments, and quality assurance studies.

Suggestions for improvement to the programs were drawn primarily from interviews with NRCan program managers and staff, program participants, and other stakeholders. These suggestions can be summarized as follows:

  • improve communication from NRCan to program partners and participants by using communication technologies and by assigning specific individuals to specific case files;
  • modify application processes for the ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations Program to make it less burdensome by assigning one officer per case file or by partnering with regional delivery agents, and making the energy audit/benchmarking requirements more flexible for small-scale retrofits; and
  • for residential programs, ensure that tools and software are up-to-date and easy-to-use.
Industrial Sector

Interviewees stated that the efficiency of the industrial sector programs could be improved if communication between NRCan and partners was streamlined in several ways, including:

  • participation at CIPEC events would increase if teleconferencing was used more frequently for meetings;
  • participation in workshops would increase if the more theoretical components of the curricula were put online; and
  • when potential partnerships for studies or other programs are being developed, there should be a single contact at NRCan.

Internal (NRCan) interviewees and a couple of the ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations Program participant interviewees argued that this program could be made more efficient if the application procedure was less burdensome, which was confirmed by a recent internal NRCan audit of this program (both industrial and commercial/institutional) that concluded that the extensive approval process poses a risk to the efficiency of the program.164

A couple of ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations Program participant interviewees explained that the process is confusing, too resource-intensive and contravenes the goal of the program, which is to get firms to implement retrofits within a fixed timeframe.

Residential Sector

Residential sector interviewees cited ways in which communications to homeowners and between NRCan and its partners could be improved in an effort to make NRCan's activities more efficient. These include:

  • reports provided to homeowners should be more tailored to the houses in question and should include charts and other visual tools that more effectively explain the energy savings from retrofits to homeowners;
  • assigned NRCan staff should be available to respond to energy advisors inquiries in specific regions in order to expedite necessary changes and issue resolution; and
  • NRCan officials should communicate program changes to provinces in a more timely way so that provincial programs can be adjusted or modified in time to accommodate these changes.

It was also noted that the process of signing agreements between NRCan and other levels of government is too long and burdensome. All provincial and territorial interviewees agreed that this impedes their ability to plan and get programs up and running. Several of these interviewees, however, recognized that it is difficult to implement a speedy process when more than one level of government is involved due to administrative and procedural delays on both ends.

Lastly, energy advisors consulted as part of this evaluation had some specific concerns about the user-friendliness and need to update certain software, including HOT2000, that undermine the efficiency of the energy auditing process:

  • glitches with the HOT2000 software were identified related to default house temperature settings, rebate amounts for first-time high efficiency furnaces, and default information related to exposed floor insulation; these glitches result in energy advisors having to correct reports provided to homeowners, which reflects poorly on the program;
  • HOT2000 for new housing applications needs to continue to be constantly updated because it cannot easily model all renewable energy features, high efficiency homes, and homes that use energy from diverse sources; and
  • the NRCan energy advisor scheduler software is not user-friendly and should be streamlined to be more efficient.
Commercial/Institutional Sector

With respect to the commercial/institutional energy efficiency programs, a couple of provincial interviewees claimed that it can be difficult to get answers to inquiries within reasonable timeframes and one of these interviewees felt that this could be improved if partners had only one consistent contact at NRCan.

ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations participants and internal (NRCan) interviewees mentioned that internal administrative delays may undermine the efficiency of the this program, and offered potential solutions:

  • some administrative burden could be alleviated if project files were assigned to individual officers, rather than to multiple officers at different stages;
  • reduce the burden associated with the application process so that planning also becomes easier;
  • the energy audit requirement should be more flexible (intensive for complex retrofits and less rigorous for standard changes);
  • establish service standards for processing applications and institute the resources necessary to meet these standards; and
  • the efficiency of the program could be improved if the application process was vetted through local organizations that award incentives on behalf of NRCan as these local organizations would be capable of meeting with applicants on-site to ensure that the process goes smoothly.

4.0 Conclusions

The energy efficiency programs encompassed within the Industry, Housing and Buildings sub-sub-activities are relevant and, for the most part, appear to be achieving their intended results with respect to: (1) the adoption of energy management best practices, implementation of energy efficiency projects and retrofits; (2) energy savings and reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and criteria air contaminants: and (3) implementation of energy efficiency programs by other levels of government and industry that align with NRCan programs.

However, the impacts directly attributable to the financial incentive programs, in particular retrofits for industrial and commercial/institutional buildings, and the cost-effectiveness of these programs are affected by a situation where individuals and firms would have implemented the retrofits even without the financial incentive, or where individuals and firms implemented energy-efficient measures as a result of participating in the program but for which no financial incentive was received.165

There may be opportunities for the programs that focus on capacity building activities (e.g., training, provision of information and tools, labelling work) to improve their effectiveness and economy. Best practices were also identified with respect to financial incentive-based activities, which could be used to further improve the economy of NRCan’s industrial, residential, and commercial/institutional financial incentive programs.

Annex 1: Industry, Housing and Buildings Sub-sub-Activities Logic Model

Annex 1:  <em>Industry, Housing and Buildings </em>Sub-sub-Activities Logic Model
[ Click for larger image ]

Annex 2: Resource Information for All Programs by Sector

The following tables provide resources for all programs by sector.

Table 1: Industrial Sector Programs, Expenditures, 2004-05 to 2008-09 ($ millions)Grants and Contributions (Gs&Cs)
Program 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 Total
Industry Cross-cutting Measures
Total ($) 5.4 6.3 4.2 15.9
Gs&Cs ($) 1.5 1.9 1.1 4.5
Gs&Cs (%) 27 29 27 28
ecoENERGY for Industry
Total ($) 3.4 4.2 7.6
Gs&Cs ($) 0.4 0.9 1.3
Gs&Cs (%) 12 20 17
ecoENERGY Retrofit Small and Medium Organizations (SMO – Industry portion only)
Total ($) 2.2 3.1 5.3
Gs&Cs ($) 1.5 2.1 3.6
Gs&Cs (%) 68 67 67
A-base Resources – Industry*
Total ($) 2.4 2.4
Gs&Cs ($) 0.0 0.0
Gs&Cs % 0 0
TOTAL: Industrial Sector
Total ($) 5.4 6.3 4.2 5.6 9.7 31.2
Gs&Cs ($) 1.5 1.9 1.1 1.9 3.0 9.4
Gs&Cs (%) 27 29 27 34 31 30

*A base was not tracked prior to 2008-09

Table 2: Residential Sector Programs, Expenditures, 2004-05 to 2008-09 ($ millions)
Program 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Total
EnerGuide for Houses (includes new houses)
Total ($) 29.5 35.5 65.0 130.0
Gs&Cs ($) 13.1 14.0 48.5 75.6
Gs&Cs (%) 44 39 74 58
ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes
Total ($) 14.7 92.9 107.6
Gs&Cs ($) 12.0 89.7 101.7
Gs&Cs (%) 81 96 94
ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses (Housing portion only)
Total ($) 5.4 7.1 12.5
Gs&Cs ($) 1.2 1.9 3.1
Gs&Cs (%) 22 26 24
A-base funding – Housing*
Total ($) 2.6 2.6
Gs&Cs ($) 1.2 1.2
Gs&Cs (%) 45 n/a
TOTAL: Residential Sector
Total ($) 29.5 35.5 65.0 20.1 102.6 252.7
Gs&Cs ($) 13.1 14.0 48.5 13.2 92.8 181.6
Gs&Cs (%) 44 39 74 66 90 72

*A-base was not tracked prior to 2008-09

Table 3: Commercial/Institutional Sector Programs, Expenditures, 2004-05 to 2008-09 ($ millions)
Program 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Total
Existing Buildings Initiative (EBI)
Total ($) 23.8 23.7 23.3 13.5 84.3
Gs&Cs ($) 17.3 17.8 17.7 9.5 62.3
Gs&Cs (%) 72 74 75 70 73
Commercial Building Incentive Program (CBIP)
Total ($) 12.5 17.2 15.5 45.2
Gs&Cs ($) 8.3 10.2 10.8 29.3
Gs&Cs (%) 66 59 69 64
Industrial Building Incentive Program (IBIP)
Total ($) 0.6 0.5 0.3 1.4
Gs&Cs ($) 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.8
Gs&Cs (%) 66 61 51 61
Federal Buildings Program (FBI)
Total ($) 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.5
Gs&Cs ($) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Gs&Cs (%) 0 0 0 0
ecoENERGY Retrofit Small and Medium Organizations (SMO – Buildings Portion only)
Total ($) 0.8 3.7 4.5
Gs&Cs ($) 0.1 1.8 1.9
Gs&Cs (%) 9 47 41
ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses (Buildings portion only – includes new and existing)
Total ($) 5.0 7.7 12.7
Gs&Cs ($) 0.3 0.6 0.9
Gs&Cs (%) 5 7 6
A-base funding – Buildings*
Total ($) 2.4 2.4
Gs&Cs ($) 0.1 0.1
Gs&Cs (%) 4 n/a
TOTAL: Commercial/Institutional Sector
Total ($) 37.4 41.9 39.6 19.3 13.8 152.0
Gs&Cs ($) 26.0 28.3 28.6 9.9 2.4 95.2
Gs&Cs (%) 69 67 72 51.2 17 63

*A-base was not tracked prior to 2008-09

Annex 3: List of Case Studies

  1. Built Green Canada: Core Built Green Program, and Multi-storey and Residential Tower Program.
  2. Manitoba Green Building Policy/Program.
  3. EnerQuality: Building Canada, Local Energy Efficiency Pilot / Technology Adoption Pilot, and ENERGY STAR for New Homes (delivered by Enerquality in Ontario for the Ontario Power Authority).
  4. Buildings Agreement for Labelling/Benchmarking Pilot Project.
  5. Dalhousie CIPEC: Dalhousie Eco-Efficiency Centre Core Activities, and Eco-Efficiency Business Assistance Program.
  6. Conserve Nova Scotia: EnerGuide Programs, other Residential Programs, Programs for Businesses.
  7. Agence de l'efficacité énergétique: Residential, Buildings, and Industry Programs.
  8. BC Hydro: Power Smart Residential; Power Smart Commercial, and Power Smart Industrial.
  9. Efficiency New Brunswick: Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Programs.

Annex 4: Comparison of Free-ridership and Spillover to Similar Programs in the Industrial, Commercial/Institutional Sectors

Table 1: Free-ridership and Spillover for Commercial and Institutional and Industrial Retrofit Energy Efficiency Programs
Utility / Agency Program Sector Free-ridership (%) Spillover (%)
PG & E Advanced Performance Options Commercial 46 21
Retrofit Efficiency Option Commercial & Industrial, Agriculture, Multi-Family 46 21
SCE Non-Residential Financial Incentives Small Commercial, Agriculture, Industrial 30 10
Xcel (CO) Custom Efficiency Commercial & Industrial 40 14
National Grid Energy Initiative Large Commercial & Industrial 10 11
NSTAR Business Solutions Commercial & Institutional 28 10
ComED C&I Custom Commercial & Industrial 38 n/a
Ameren Commercial Custom Commercial 23 0
Union Gas Customer C&I Commercial & Industrial 33-59 n/a
NYSERDA Various Programs Non-Residential 10-67 19-168

Source: Marbek and Navigant. (August 2010). Impact Attribution of Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Energy Efficiency Programs, p. 31.

Table 2: Free-ridership and Spillover for New Construction Energy-Efficiency Programs
Utility / Agency Program Sector Free-ridership (%) Spillover (%)
Xcel (CO) Energy Design Assistance Commercial & Industrial 34 11
National Grid Design 2000plus (all measures) Large Commercial & Industrial 31 19
NSTAR Construction Solutions Commercial & Industrial 17 0.3

Source: Marbek and Navigant. (August 2010). Impact Attribution of Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Energy Efficiency Programs, p. 32.


1 The economic literature refers to these situations as free-ridership and spillover, respectively.

2 Marbek and Navigant. (August 2010). Impact Attribution of Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Energy-Efficiency Programs

3 Department of Justice. (2007). Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, 2007, c.30.

4 Government of Canada. (2007). Turning the Corner. http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=4891B242-1

5 Natural Resources Canada. (2008). Report on Plans and Priorities 2008-09. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/2008-2009/inst/rsn/rsntb-eng.asp.

6 See Annex 1.

7 Canadian Centre for Energy Information (June 2010). Flow, Canadian Perspectives on Energy. http://www.centreflow.ca/?s=energy+consumption&x=18&y=15.

8 United Nations. (2010). United Nations Millennium Development Goals Indicators. http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail.aspx?srid=749.

9 Secondary energy is an energy form which has been transformed from another one. For example, electricity is a secondary energy source transformed from primary sources such as coal, oil, natural gas, and wind.

10 Natural Resources Canada. (2009). OEE National Energy Use Database. http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/tableshandbook2/ aaa_ca_2_e_4.cfm?attr=0.

11 Sector Sustainability Tables, Energy Efficiency Working Group. (November 2008). Energy Efficiency Working Group (EEWG) Final Report. http://www.sst.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=en&n=77342570-1.

12 Government of Canada. Canada’s Submission to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, May 2008, p. 19. http://www.climatechange.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=9E905AC2-1.

13 US Energy Information Administration. (2005). Independent Statistics and Analysis. http://www.eia.gov/cabs/Canada/Background.html.

14 Natural Resources Canada. (2010). Energy Efficiency Trends in Canada, 1990 to 2007. http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/statistics/trends09/chapter1.cfm?attr=0.

15 Natural Resources Canada. (2009). OEE National Energy Use Database. http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/tableshandbook2/aaa_ca_2_e_4.cfm?attr=0.

16 Natural Resources Canada. (2009). OEE National Energy Use Database. http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/tableshandbook2/aaa_ca_2_e_4.cfm?attr=0.

17 Environment Canada. (2008). 1990-2006 Canada's Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Understanding the Trends.

18 Natural Resources Canada. (2010). Energy Efficiency Trends in Canada, 1990 to 2007. http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/statistics/trends09/chapter1.cfm?attr=0.

19 See Annex 1 for the overarching logic model for the Industry, Housing and Buildings sub-sub-activities.

20 Information in this section is taken from the Results-based Management and Accountability Framework: ecoENERGY for Industry, March 1, 2007.

21 Natural Resources Canada. (2009). Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation. Annual Report 2009. Energizing the Bottom Line with Energy Efficiency, p. 3. http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/infosource/Pub/cipec/annualreport-2009/about-cipec.cfm?attr=24.

22 Natural Resources Canada. (2006). Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation. Annual Report 2006. Delivering Results. p. 2. http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/infosource/pub/cipec/annualreport-2006/doc/annualreport-2006.pdf.

23 The Executive Board consists of private sector leaders who are champions of industrial energy efficiency and who provide advice on industrial energy efficiency programs and related issues.

24 Natural Resources Canada. (2009). CIPEC. Annual Report 2009. Energizing the Bottom Line with Energy Efficiency. http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/infosource/Pub/cipec/annualreport-2009/about-cipec.cfm?attr=24.

25 Information in this section is taken from the Results-based Management and Accountability Framework: ecoENERGY Retrofit – Homes, March 1, 2007.

26 Budget 2009 announced an additional $300 million over two years to the ecoENERGY Retrofit Program to support an estimated 200,000 additional home retrofits (Department of Finance. (2009). Canada’s Economic Action Plan Budget, January 27, 2009, p. 124. http://www.budget.gc.ca/2009/pdf/budget-planbugetaire-eng.pdf. This funding was not examined in this evaluation.

27 Eligible retrofits and grant amounts related to specific retrofits can be found on the NRCan OEE website: http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/residential/personal/retrofit/4171

28 Information in this section is taken from the Results-based Management and Accountability Framework ecoENERGY Retrofit – Small and Medium Organizations, March 1, 2007.

29 In order to meet demand for the program from participants who had previously been unable to receive incentives because of administrative delays, the program was extended for a year into 2007-08 (as part of the Clean Air Agenda).

30 Information in this section is taken from the Results-based Management and Accountability Framework – ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses, March 1, 2007.

31 This was originally a five-year initiative which was extended by one year and thus spanned the period 2001-02 to 2006-07. This evaluation only examined activities from 2004-05 to 2006-07.

32 Information in this section is taken from the Results-based management and accountability framework –Industry Cross-Cutting Measures. Oct 18, 2001, p. 18. Target is from the beginning of the initiative in 2001.

33 EnerGuide for New Houses is now called the EnerGuide Rating System (for new homes).

34 This evaluation only examined this program from 2004-05 to 2006-07.

35 This evaluation only examined this program from 2004-05 to 2008-09.

36 NRCan’s Federal Buildings Initiative website, accessed July 5, 2010; http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/communities-government/buildings/federal/10696.

37 A breakdown of expenditures by program is included in Annex 2.

38 A list of case studies is included in Annex 3.

39 Discrete choice models are regression models used to assess the impact of various factors on decisions where only two options (usually yes/no) are valid.

40 Marbek and Navigant. (August 2010). Impact Attribution of Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Energy-Efficiency Programs, p. 1.

41 In the context of financial incentives for retrofits, free-ridership refers to the situation where individuals (and firms in the case of programs addressing buildings and industries) would have implemented the retrofits even without the financial incentive, whereas spillover refers to the situation where individuals (and firms) implemented energy-efficient measures as a result of participating in the program but for which no financial incentive was received

42 Bronson Consulting Group (August 2010). Final Report: Analysis of Net to Gross Survey Results for the ecoENERGY Retrofit for Homes Program, p. 4.

43 For cost per tonne estimates, see: Marbek and Navigant. (August 2010). Impact Attribution of Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Energy-Efficiency Programs.

44 Department of Justice. (2007). Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, 2007, c.30.

45 Government of Canada. (2007). Turning the Corner. http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=4891B242-1

46 Natural Resources Canada. (2008). Report on Plans and Priorities 2008-09. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/2008-2009/inst/rsn/rsntb-eng.asp.

47 Department of Justice. (2007). Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, 2007, c.30. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/2007_30/page-1.html?rp16=2007.

48Government of Canada. (2007). Turning the Corner. http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=4891B242-1.

49 Government of Canada. (2007). Turning the Corner. http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=4891B242-1.

50 Government of Canada. 2010. Canada's Action on Climate Change, http://www.climatechange.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=9E905AC2-1.

51 Initial program documents, 2007.

52 Government of Canada. (2004). Speech from the Throne. http://pco-bcp.gc.ca/index.asp?lang=eng&page=information&sub=publications&doc=sft-ddt/2004_2-eng.htm.

53 Government of Canada. (2007). Budget 2007. http://www.budget.gc.ca/2007/index-eng.html.

54 Government of Canada. (2008). Speech from the Throne. http://www.sft-ddt.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=1378.

55 Government of Canada. (2008). Budget 2008. http://www.budget.gc.ca/2008/home-accueil-eng.html.

56 Natural Resources Canada. (2008). Report on Plans and Priorities 2008-09. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/2008-2009/inst/rsn/rsntb-eng.asp.

57 Natural Resources Canada. (2008). Report on Plans and Priorities 2008-09. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/2008-2009/inst/rsn/rsntb-eng.asp.

58 Department of Justice. (2007). Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, 2007, c.30. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/2007_30/page-1.html?rp16=2007 .

59 Environment Canada.(2010). Canada's 2007 GHG Inventory: A Summary of Trend, http://ncrweb.ncr.ec.gc.ca/ges-ghg/default.asp?lang=En&n=61B9E974-1.

60 Environment Canada.(2010). Canada's 2007 GHG Inventory: A Summary of Trend, http://ncrweb.ncr.ec.gc.ca/ges-ghg/default.asp?lang=En&n=61B9E974-1.

61 Tietenberg, T. (2009). Reflections – Energy Efficiency Policy: Pipe Dream or Pipeline to the Future? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Volume 3, Issue 2, Summer 2009, p. 307.

62 Tietenberg,T. (2009). Reflections – Energy Efficiency Policy: Pipe Dream or Pipeline to the Future? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Volume 3, Issue 2, Summer 2009, p. 306.

63 National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and Sustainable Development Technology Canada. (2009). Geared for Change: Energy Efficiency in Canada's Commercial Buildings Sector, pp. 24-25.

64 New construction techniques are one of many aspects covered in NRCan training. Others include, quality assurance and house testing, program protocols and requirements, and more.

65 Tietenberg,T. (2009). Reflections – Energy Efficiency Policy: Pipe Dream or Pipeline to the Future? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, volume 3, issue 2, summer 2009, p. 307.

66 National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. (2006). Advice on a Long-term Strategy on Energy and Climate Change. http://www.nrtee-trnee.com/eng/publications/wedge-advisory-note/ecc-wedge-advisory-note.pdf

67 National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and Sustainable Development Technology Canada. (2009). Geared for Change: Energy Efficiency in Canada's Commercial Buildings Sector, p. 24.

68 Government Consulting Services. (2008). Management Review of the Commercial Building Incentive Program. Final Version; and Management Review of the Existing Buildings Initiative. Final Version.

69 COMPAS. 2003. Phase 3. Survey Findings: Energy Efficiency Programs for SMEs.

70 Tietenberg,T. (2009). Reflections – Energy Efficiency Policy: Pipe Dream or Pipeline to the Future? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Volume 3, Issue 2, Summer 2009, p. 305; and Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd. And M.K. Jaccard and Associates, Inc. (2006). Demand Side Management Potential in Canada: Energy Efficiency Study, Summary Report, p. 5.

71 Tietenberg,T. (2009). Reflections – Energy Efficiency Policy: Pipe Dream or Pipeline to the Future? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Volume 3, Issue 2, Summer 2009, p. 305.

72 Tietenberg,T. (2009). Reflections – Energy Efficiency Policy: Pipe Dream or Pipeline to the Future? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Volume 3, Issue 2, Summer 2009, p 307.

73 Schleich, J. (2009). Barriers to Energy Efficiency: A Comparison Across the German Commercial Services Sector. Ecological Economics 68, 2009, 2150–2159, p. 215.

74 Department of Justice. (2010). Energy Efficiency Act, 1992. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-6.4/page-3.html.

75 Department of Justice. (2010). Department of Natural Resources Act, 1994. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/N-20.8/page-2.html?rp2=HOME&rp3=SI&rp1=natural%20resources%20canada%20act&rp4=all&rp6=22 &rp7=1&rp16=2009&rp9=cs&rp10=L&rp11=all&rp12=50&rp19=2.

76 NRCan website http://www.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/com/deptmini/index-eng.php.

77 Natural Resources Canada. (2008). Departmental Performance Report 2007-2008. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2007-2008/inst/rsn/rsn-eng.pdf.

78Department of Justice. (2010). The Constitution Act, 1867. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/index.html.

79Council of Energy Ministers. (2007). Moving Forward on Energy Efficiency in Canada, a Foundation for Action. http://www.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/com/resoress/publications/cemcme/cemcme-eng.pdf.

80 National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and Sustainable Development Technology Canada. (2009). Geared for Change: Energy Efficiency in Canada's Commercial Buildings Sector.

81 Council of Energy Ministers. (2007). Moving Forward on Energy Efficiency in Canada, a Foundation for Action. http://www.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/com/resoress/publications/cemcme/cemcme-eng.pdf.

82 Demand-Side Management Working Group Sub-Committee on Building Commissioning and Recommissioning. (2008). Terms of Reference.

83 American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). (2009). ACEEE Awards "Champions of Energy Efficiency in Industry. http://www.aceee.org/press/2009/07/aceee-awards-champions-energy-efficiency-industry.

84 See Annex 1.

85 The OEE relies on collaborative activities to increase the scope of penetration of its programs nationally, and encourage the adoption of energy-efficient standards by other levels of government and stakeholders.

86; Assumes 2007-08 target of 130 retrofits for SMO was split equally between the industrial and buildings components.

87 Kruger Lasalle Case Study, http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/industrial/cipec/kruger-case-study.cfm.

88 ADEC-Zariffa Consortium. (2005). Industrial Energy Audit Incentive Program, Process and Impact Evaluation Report , p. 52.

89Ibid.

90 "Process integration studies are powerful analytical tools that go beyond conventional energy audits to systematically optimize interactions between systems in industrial facilities that consume significant amounts of energy". From NRCan’s OEE website: http://oee.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/industrial/financial-assistance/assessment/index.cfm?attr=0.

91 "Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) studies go beyond conventional physical studies to analyze fluid flow and heat transfer in processes. Through computer modeling, CFD studies can be used to optimize system design and operation parameters for the efficient use of energy." From NRCan’s OEE website: http://oee.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/industrial/financial-assistance/assessment/index.cfm?attr=0.

92 Macleod Institute. (Feb 2006). Industrial Benchmarking and Best Practices Program Assessment. Final Report, p. 24.

93 Ibid.

94 ADEC-Zariffa Consortium. (2005). Industrial Energy Audit Incentive Program, Process and Impact Evaluation Report, pp. 44-45.

95 ADEC-Zariffa Consortium. (2005). Industrial Energy Audit Incentive Program, Process and Impact Evaluation Report, p. 63.

96 Marbek and Navigant. (August 2010). Impact Attribution of Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Energy Efficiency Programs, p. 29.

97 Ibid.

98 Comparisons to similar programs were taken from the Marbek and Navigant study. (August 2010). Impact Attribution of Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Energy-Efficiency Programs. Annex 4.

99 Bronson Consulting Group. (2009). Recipient Audit Framework Project, Final Report.

100 OEE. Natural Resources Canada. (2008). NRCan – ecoENERGY Programs Methodology for Emissions Reductions Estimates. General Method for Estimating Emissions Reductions.

101 Natural Resources Canada. (2006). Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation. Annual Report 2006. Delivering Results. http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/infosource/pub/cipec/annualreport-2006/doc/annualreport-2006.pdf.

102 J. Gilroy Management Consulting Inc. (July 3, 2007). Process Integration Pilot Initiative: Impact Study, p. 5.

103 J. Gilroy Management Consulting Inc. (July 3, 2007). Process Integration Pilot Initiative: Impact Study, p. 5.

104 Natural Resources Canada. (2009). Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation. Annual Report 2009. Energizing the Bottom Line with Energy Efficiency, p. 5. http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/infosource/Pub/cipec/annualreport-2009/about-cipec.cfm.

105 Natural Resources Canada. (2007). Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation. Annual Report 2007. Seven Ideas that Can Change Your World, p.8. http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/infosource/pub/cipec/annualreport-2007/doc/annualreport-2007.pdf.

106 Delivery of Industrial Programs Division programming is also done through CIPEC.

107; Bronson Consulting Group. (August 2010). Final Report: Analysis of Net-to-Gross Survey Results for the ecoENERGY Retrofit for Homes Program, p. 36.

108 Level of confidence, 95%.

109 These models measured the impact of pre-planning, different grants, the usefulness of information, satisfaction with energy advisors, satisfaction with program procedures, house size, occupancy, fuel source, and energy prices on homeowners’ choices to implement specific retrofits.

110 Bronson Consulting Group. (August 2010). Final Report: Analysis of Net to Gross Survey Results for the ecoENERGY Retrofit for Homes Program, p 33.

111 Itron Inc. (2006). 2003-2004 Home Energy Savings Program Residential Impact Evaluation, Energy Trust of Oregon, pp. 3(14)-3(22).

112 NYSERDA (2009). New York Energy Smart Program Evaluation and Status Report (2008), p. 4(24).

113 Level of confidence: 95%.

114 Level of confidence: 95%.

115 Bronson Consulting Group. (August 2010). Final Report: Analysis of Net to Gross Survey Results for the ecoENERGY Retrofit for Homes Program, pp. 43 & 45.

116 The net-to-gross calculation factors in both the free-ridership and spillover rates to identify the savings attributable to the program.

117 Bronson Consulting Group. (August 2010). Final Report: Analysis of Net-to-Gross Survey Results for the ecoENERGY Retrofit for Homes Program, p. 47.

118 The EnerGuide Rating System provides an indication of the energy efficiency of a home based on a scale of 0 to 100, with 100 being the most energy-efficient. http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/residential/personal/new-homes/upgrade-packages/e...).

119 Data from internal housing program database.

120 Data from internal housing program database.

121 Data from internal housing program database.

122 A 2008 management review of the program found that uptake was lower than anticipated due to financial cuts during the later years of the program. Source: Government Consulting Services. (2008). Management Review of the Existing Buildings Initiative. Final Version. p.11.

123EnerLife. (2005). Evaluation of CBIP. p. 7.

124This internal audit included the commercial/institutional and industrial components of the ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations Program.

125 NRCan Audit Division. (2009). Audit of ecoENERGY Retrofit, Small And Medium Organizations, Project Au1012, Final Report. NRCan Audit Division web site, accessed Aug 4, 2010: /audit/reports/2009/1046.

126 Government Consulting Services. (2008). Management Review of the Commercial building Incentive Program. Final Version, p. 9.

127 Comparisons to similar programs were taken from the 2010 Impact Attribution Study and can be found in Annex 4.

128 Marbek and Navigant. (July, 2010). Impact Attribution of Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Energy-Efficiency Programs, p. 58.

129 NRCan CanmetENERGY’s web site, http://canmetenergy-canmetenergie.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/eng/buildings_communities/buildings/recommissioning/publications/201039/ buildings_introduction/leed.html.

130 ecoENERGY for Buildings and Houses Program Data.

131 The Demand Side Management Working Group is now called the Built Environment Working Group.

132 Commissioning is the process of ensuring that energy-using equipment is installed and calibrated correctly, while recommissioning refers to the process of verifying that calibration remains correct on an ongoing basis.

133 Demand Side Management Working Group – Recommissioning Terms of Reference.

134 NRCan. (2009). Improving Energy Performance in Canada – Report to Parliament Under the Energy Efficiency Act For the Fiscal Year 2008-2009. http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/statistics/parliament08-09/chapter6.cfm?attr=0.

135 The Building Energy Code Collaborative is comprised of representatives from provincial/territorial code and energy ministries, departments and agencies; NRCan; and the Canadian Codes Centre.

136 Building Energy Codes Collaborative Terms of Reference V.1.1 , 2006-10-12.

137 Building Energy Code Collaborative, Terms of Reference V.1.1 , 2006-10-12.

138 OEE. Better Energy Efficiency Reporting System (BEERS); and an internal 2009 update on the status of the MNECB.

139 For cost per tonne estimates, see Marbek and Navigant. (August 2010). Impact Attribution of Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Energy Efficiency Programs.

140 See: The Pembina Institute & The David Suzuki Foundation, Climate Leadership, Economic Prosperity: Final Report on an Economic Study of Greenhouse Gas Targets and Policies for Canada, 2009; National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and Sustainable Development Technology Canada. (2009). Geared for Change: Energy Efficiency in Canada's Commercial Buildings Sector; Nic Rivers and Mark Jaccard, Canada's Efforts Towards GHG Emission Reduction: A Case Study on the Limits of Voluntary Action and Subsidies, 2005; Stratos Inc., Economic Instruments for Environmental Protection and Conservation: Lessons for Canada, 2003; Carolyn Fisher and Richard Newell, Environmental and Technology Policies for Climate Mitigation, 2007; and CanREA, Energy Efficiency and Conservation: The Cornerstone of a Sustainable Energy Future, 2006.

141 Chittum, A.; R.N. Elliott, and N. Kaufman. (2009). Trends in Industrial Energy Efficiency Programs: Today’s Leaders and Directions for the Future. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). p.26.

142OECD Environment Directorate. (2003). Instrument Mixes Used for Environmental Policy, p. 53.

143 Chittum, A.; R.N. Elliott, and N. Kaufman. (2009). Trends in Industrial Energy Efficiency Programs: Today’s Leaders and Directions for the Future. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), p. 26.

144 Chittum, A.; R.N. Elliott, and N. Kaufman. (2009). Trends in Industrial Energy Efficiency Programs: Today’s Leaders and Directions for the Future. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), p. 26.

145 Kirsch, F.W. and M. A. Medina. (2000). Cost of Industrial Energy-Efficiency Measures: Its Effect on the Implementation. J. of Energy and Development, Vol.24, No.1, p. 108.

146 Thorne, J. (2003). Residential Retrofits: Directions in Market Transformation, ACEEE, 2003, pp. 10-11.

147 Thorne, J. (2003). Residential Retrofits: Directions in Market Transformation, ACEEE, 2003, pp. 10-11.

148 Thorne, J. (2003). Residential Retrofits: Directions in Market Transformation, ACEEE, 2003, pp. 10-11.

149 Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. (2005). ECONorthwest, ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest Program, First Market Progress Evaluation Report , p. 63.

150 NRCan began work on a new modeling tool “CanQuest” during fiscal year 2007-08. The tool is under beta testing and will be available co-incident with the publication of the National Energy Code for Buildings, 2011.

151 Cost-effectiveness of design/delivery and mix of instruments was assessed at the program level, and ecoENERGY Retrofit for Small and Medium Organizations is targeted at both the industrial and commercial/institutional sectors.

152 NRCan Audit Division. (2009). Audit of ecoENERGY Retrofit, Small And Medium Organizations, Project Au1012, Final Report, 2009. /audit/reports/2009/1046.

153 NRCan Audit Branch. (2009). Audit of ecoENERGY Retrofit, Small And Medium Organizations, Project Au1012, Final Report, p.2. NRCan Audit Division website, accessed Aug 4, 2010, /audit/reports/2009/1046.

154 NRCan Audit Division. (2009). Audit of ecoENERGY Retrofit, Small and Medium Organizations, Project Au1012, Final Report, p.6. NRCan Audit Division website, accessed Aug 4, 2010, /audit/reports/2009/1046.

155 Elliott, R.N. and A.M. Shipley, and V. McKinney. (2007). Trends in Industrial Investment Decision Making, American Council for an Energy-efficient Economy (ACEEE), p. 12.

156 Thorne, J. and E. Mendelsohn. (2005). Comprehensive Commercial Retrofit Programs: A Review of Activity and Opportunities, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), p. 9.

157 Thorne, J. and E. Mendelsohn. (2005). Comprehensive Commercial Retrofit Programs: A Review of Activity and Opportunities, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), p. 8.

158 Sachs, H.M.; E. Mendelsohn and K. Ackerly. (2006). Comprehensive Retrofits for Commercial Office Buildings, The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (AHSRAE) Journal, 2006 (48), p. 74.

159 NRCan, OEE website. (2010). ecoENERGY Retrofit Incentive for Buildings Application Guide. .

160 Thorne, J. and E. Mendelsohn. (2005). Comprehensive Commercial Retrofit Programs: A Review of Activity and Opportunities, American Council for an Energy-efficient Economy (ACEEE), p. 7.

161Chittum, A.; R.N. Elliott, and N. Kaufman. (2009). Trends in Industrial Energy Efficiency Programs: Today’s Leaders and Directions for the Future. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), p. 16.

162 Energy Trust of Oregon. (2005). Impact Evaluation of Oregon Industrial Transition Projects, p. 44.

163 Thorne, J. and E. Mendelsohn. (2005). Comprehensive Commercial Retrofit Programs: A Review of Activity and Opportunities, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), p. 10.

164 NRCan Audit Division. (2009). Audit of ecoENERGY Retrofit, Small and Medium Organizations, Project Au1012, Final Report, 2009. /audit/reports/2009/1046.

165 The economic literature refers to these situations as free-ridership and spillover, respectively.