Mid-Term Review: Conservation Framework. 1 st Mid-term Review Public Webinar April 18, 2017

Transcription

1 Mid-Term Review: Conservation Framework 1 st Mid-term Review Public Webinar April 18, 2017

2 Today s Agenda Background and context for the Mid-term Review Mid-term Review Study Plan 1 st topic report: current state of customer and market engagement and satisfaction Key questions related to the review of customer and market engagement and satisfaction: Are there areas of customer engagement and satisfaction that are not sufficient covered in the draft plan? If so what issues related to customer engagement and satisfaction require further examination? Are there any current state analyses missing from this first topic report on customer and market engagement? Are the format and indicators included for tracking progress and success on the scorecard clear? Are all customers and market segments included through existing and future research? Next steps 2

3 Section 1: Mid-term Review Background & Context I. Mid-term Review Engagement II. Ontario s Conservation Goals and Framework III. Mid-term Review Objectives and Direction IV. Anticipated Outcomes of Mid-term Review 3

4 Mid-term Review Engagement In November 2016 initiated pre-engagement process by publishing draft Conservation Mid-Term Review engagement plan and invitation for Advisory Group members on IESO website Comprehensive, open engagement adhering to IESO principles to ensure all LDCs, customers, channel partners, other interested parties have meaningful opportunities to provide feedback for consideration by the IESO Multi-stakeholder advisory group formed as part of the engagement and includes the following members: Five LDCs (representing different size utilities, regions) Five customers (representing a mix of sectors, and distribution/transmission connected customers) One service provider One manufacturer IESO (Chair plus support staff) Observers Planned public engagements: April : Comments on customer and market engagement summary report June-Oct. 2017: Comments on relevant issues and insights from monthly topics-based summary reports (2-3 public engagements planned) Q1 2018: Comments on key topics from the draft final Mid-term Review Study report 4

5 Ontario s Conservation Goals Almost all electricity demand growth to 2032 to be met by energy efficiency & improved codes and standards Conservation First Framework & Industrial Accelerator Program 2013 Long Term Energy Plan 8.7 TWh in TWh in

6 Conservation Framework Conservation First Framework (CFF) 7 TWh of energy savings by end of 2020 delivered to distribution-connected customers by local distribution companies (LDCs) $2.2 billion over 6 years, administered by IESO $1.8 billion for LDC Delivery Costs $0.4 billion for Central Services Costs Evolving IESO-LDC relationships LDC conservation and demand management (CDM) six year plans support consideration of CDM in local/regional planning Industrial Accelerator Program (IAP) $500 million six year budget; targeting 1.7 TWh reduction, delivered by IESO to transmission-connected customers 6

7 Overview mid-term review will be informed by input from interested parties, analysis of lessons learned and an assessment of value realized through CFF and IAP Per Conservation First Framework (CFF) and Industrial Accelerator Program (IAP) directions, review must be completed by June 1, 2018 IESO initiated review Fall 2016 with plans to complete by Winter 2018 IESO will conduct a combined mid-term review of CFF and IAP given the interest and involvement of many parties in both programs Third party consultant hired for this initiative: Navigant Consulting Review will focus on conservation targets/budgets, lessons learned on LDC funding models, customer needs, conservation integration with regional planning and post-2020 approaches to energy efficiency Comprehensive engagement strategy to ensure all LDCs, customers, channel partners, consumer groups, associations, other interested parties have meaningful opportunities to provide feedback on framework success and challenges Review outcomes to include plan and solutions to address identified issues 7

8 Objectives of Mid-term Review Solicit input on opportunities and challenges of framework and identify solutions for period Fulfill requirements of Direction and Energy Conservation Agreements (ECA) between IESO and LDCs (see appendix A) Assess ability to achieve CFF and IAP targets (8.7 TWh) cost-effectively with existing budget, targets and programs Determine if adjustments to targets/budgets are needed; identify potential options for addressing needs and implement accordingly Inform approach to energy efficiency for and beyond Need plan for preparing market for transition and potential projects that could start post mid-term but would not be completed by 2020 Identify options/alternatives for cost-effective, reliable demand side management (DSM) solutions that address local/regional needs Options to reduce reliance on incentives, provide best value to ratepayers where incentives are required and support Ontario s climate change objectives 8

9 CFF Mid-Term review is required by Minister s Direction March 31, 2014 Direction for CFF: IESO, in consultation with the Ministry of Energy and Distributors, shall no later than June 1, 2018 have completed a formal mid-term review of: i. the 7 TWh target and the overall budget for achieving that target ii. allocation of budgets and Distributor CDM Targets iii. lessons learned on cost recovery and performance incentive mechanisms, and iv. CDM contribution to regional planning October 23, 2014 Direction for CFF: benefits calculated for the Total Resource Cost Test include a 15 per cent adder to account for the non-energy benefits value attributed to non-energy benefits shall be subject to review at the formal mid-term review March 26, 2014 Direction requires OEB to carry out mid-term review of gas DSM framework to align with mid-term review of CFF 9

10 CFF Mid-Term review is required by Energy Conservation Agreement (ECA) between IESO and LDCs Initiate a mid-term review no later than June 1, 2017 of: 7TWh target Allocation of budgets and individual LDC targets Lessons learned on cost recovery and performance based incentives CDM contribution to regional planning As part of the mid-term review, IESO will examine: Eligible expenses compared to CDM plan budgets Progress toward LDC targets based on verified and reported electricity savings from The Achievable Potential Study Where the CDM plan identifies a target gap, the LDC will resubmit the CDM plan to indicate how the target can be achieved See appendix C for Mid-Term Review Guidelines that accompany ECA 10

11 IAP Mid-Term review is required by Minister s Direction July 25, 2014 Direction for IAP: IESO, in consultation with the Ministry of Energy, shall no later than June 1, 2018, have completed a mid-term review of the IAP in regards to: i. The 1.7 TWh target and the overall budget for achieving the target; ii. Lessons learned with respect to financing mechanisms; and iii. IAP performance 11

12 Anticipated outcomes of Mid-term review Allocated LDC targets/budgets that are achievable Plan for addressing any LDC target gaps Plan/solutions to address outstanding needs identified by customers E.g. multi-site customers; low-income customers Plan for establishing a target exchange mechanism should one be needed Options presented/assessed for structure of target exchange: LDC only, open market, others Tools to ensure Conservation delivers system value when/where needed Programs to address peak demand/local planning needs Conservation programs to support Ontario s climate change objectives Government direction (if needed) to achieve the above Options for delivering energy efficiency beyond

13 Section 2: Mid-term Review Project Plan I. Deliverables and Key Activities II. Topic Based Reports III. Opportunities Analysis & Final Report IV. Market Research Plan 13

14 DISCLAIMER This report was prepared by Navigant Consulting Ltd. (Navigant) for the Independent Electricity System Operator. The work presented in this report represents Navigant s professional judgment based on the information available at the time this report was prepared. Navigant is not responsible for the reader s use of, or reliance upon, the report, nor any decisions based on the report. NAVIGANT MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED. Readers of the report are advised that they assume all liabilities incurred by them, or third parties, as a result of their reliance on the report, or the data, information, findings and opinions contained in the report. 14 / NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

15 SECTION 2: PROJECT PLAN I. DELIVERABLES AND KEY ACTIVITIES PROJECT PLAN DISCUSSION DRAFT The graphic below illustrates the deliverables and key activities that are planned to achieve the objectives of the Conservation First Midterm Framework Review. Topic-based reports Final study report Other deliverables Advisory group meeting Stakeholder feedback Project plan Scorecard Stakeholder plan Discuss draft report TBD Customer & market engagement Collaboration Definition of CDM Governance and operations Outreach to select groups (LDCs, working groups, IESO) Planning integration Non-energy benefits Scheduling sessions Climate change Budget, targets, cost effectiveness Draft to IESO 15 Draft to AG 9 Final Market Research Discuss public engagement / 2017 NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

16 DISCUSSION DRAFT MID-TERM REVIEW: TOPIC REPORTS Navigant was engaged by the IESO to complete the mid-term review for the Conservation First Framework and Industrial Accelerator Program. Issues were identified by the IESO and grouped into eight major topics that will guide the Framework Review through four key activities outlined below. This report is the topic-based report communicating the current state of Customer and Market Engagement and Satisfaction. Topic-Based Reports Market Research Opportunities Final Study Report Topics Customer and market engagement and satisfaction Report Date March 16 Definition of CDM April 20 Collaboration April 20 Governance & operations Planning integration May 18 June 15 Topic reports: Summarize the current state of each theme (e.g., existing operations, policies, progress, decisions, etc.) and are used as a basis for market research. Objectives: To confirm and enhance content of the topic reports To gather insights into future framework improvements, design, and delivery. Research, analysis, market research inform potential modifications. Cost-benefit and gap analysis to scope opportunities Consolidated list of shortterm (within 1 year), medium-term (before 2020), and long-term (post 2020) opportunities for prioritization with the IESO. Consolidation of findings, feedback, and identification of issues and opportunities. Methodologies and approach clearly discussed. Out of Scope: New mass market research framework in-depth analysis New program design LDC Mid-term incentive Evaluation Measurement &Verification protocols Codes and Standards Non-energy benefits July 13 Climate change July 13 Budgets, targets, cost effectiveness August 17 May to August September/October November to February 16 / NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

17 FINAL REPORT: IDENTIFYING ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES DISCUSSION DRAFT Findings for the topic-based reports will be consolidated and circulated to understand the current state of each topic. Market research and analysis will identify issues and opportunities associated with each topic. 01: Budgets, Targets, Cost- 01: Budgets, Targets, Cost-Effectiveness Effectiveness 01: Budgets, Targets, Cost-Effectiveness Navigant will investigate the benefits and costs of implementing each change and work collaboratively with the Advisory Group and IESO to prioritize the gaps (i.e., what is feasible to implement within the balance of the Framework) Creating a roadmap will take a deeper dive into the people, processes, partnerships, and tools required to implement the priority gaps and will provide a strategic roadmap for LDCs and IESO. Effort-Benefit Matrix Framework People, processes, tools, partnerships 17 / 2017 NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

18 SECTION 2: MARKET RESEARCH PLAN I. OVERVIEW RESEARCH BY GROUP AND TOPIC DISCUSSION DRAFT The graphic below maps the market research phases by topic and group. Additional detail will be provided on subsequent slides. It is important to highlight that the Advisory Group will also be providing input through the stakeholder engagement process. Group Industrial Accelerator Program customers Large customers Small business customers and associations Other associations Channel Participants Individual LDCs Gas utilities Applicant reps Consultants Contractors (non-res) Distribution Manufacturers Retail Contractors (res) HRAI Ontario Energy Board Conservation First Implementation Committee IESO-Planning and Conservation staff Customers Customer & Definition Market of CDM Engagement Collaboration Governance + Operations PHASE 1: ONE-ON-ONE INTERVIEWS/ FOCUS GROUPS PHASE 2: WORKSHOPS Planning Integration NEBs Climate Change Budgets, targets, CE 18 / NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

19 Section 3: Topic 1 Report Customer and Market Engagement and Satisfaction I. Policy Context II. Scorecard III. Methodology IV. Summary V. Current State VI. Next Steps 19

20 SECTION 3: Topic 1 Report Customer and Market Engagement and Satisfaction I. Topic Focus II. Scorecard III. Current State IV. Summary & Next Steps 20 / 2017 NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

21 I. TOPIC FOCUS AREAS, POLICY CONTEXT AND SCORECARD 21 / 2017 NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

22 CUSTOMER AND MARKET ENGAGEMENT AND SATISFACTION: FOCUS AREAS AND KEY QUESTIONS DISCUSSION DRAFT This report will analyze available information and begin to explore the issues and opportunities of the key questions and focus areas listed below pertaining to the Customer and Market Engagement and Satisfaction topic. Key Questions Are programs meeting the needs of the customer? Is the framework itself creating challenges for the customer or market actors who could support CDM/Demand Side Management (DSM)? Are there any customer or sector specific gaps in the framework? How can the customer experience be improved? How do customers view the Save on Energy brand? How can customers perception of the Save on Energy brand be improved? Focus Areas I. Conservation First Framework: A. Brand/program awareness and customer relationships B. Challenges of coordination across multiple utilities C. Customers with facilities across multiple territories D. Variation in program offering across the province E. Customer satisfaction with programs F. Channel participation in/support for programs G. Efficacy of current approach & barriers to entry II. Industrial Accelerator Program: A. Active and non-participants, efficacy of current approach B. CDM/DSM integration into business practices C. Awareness and understanding of programs D. Channel participation in/support for programs 22 / NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

23 DISCUSSION DRAFT TOPIC 1: CUSTOMER AND MARKET ENGAGEMENT POLICY CONTEXT Policy Context 2013 Long-Term Energy Plan & CFF/IAP Ministerial Directions Policy Summary for Customer and Market Engagement Topic: LTEP: Customer choice and streamlined oversight and administration Renewed efforts to deepen consumer awareness of conservation and electricity system Government will work to make new financing tools available to customers Program improvement and enhancement for low-income customers and aboriginal communities (IAP) Broader program choice and access to financing for transmission-connected customers Policy set out Directions: A core set of Province-wide Programs will be available to the following segments of distribution-connected customers: residential, low-income, small business, commercial (including multi-family buildings), agricultural, institutional and industrial Distributors encouraged to maximize administrative and delivery efficiencies by utilizing appropriate delivery models. Enhanced coordination for customers with multiple locations across several licensed service territories. Enhanced coordination for CDM activities to afford administrative cost and/or delivery efficiencies IESO responsible for Save on Energy brand and ensuring brand consistency in all service territories. IESO to make Save on Energy brand available to gas distributors. (IAP) Facilitate broad program choice by offering incentives for process and systems, retrofits, new construction and energy managers. IAP will also facilitate flexibility in financing projects. 23 / 2017 NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

24 CONSERVATION FIRST FRAMEWORK SCORECARD CUSTOMER AND MARKET ENGAGEMENT AND SATISFACTION DISCUSSION DRAFT The preliminary scorecard illustrated below will be used to evaluate Customer and Market Engagement and Satisfaction in the Conservation First Framework for both the current state and future state assessments. METRIC SUB-METRIC RESULT 1 TREND INDICATOR CRITERIA Brand Awareness 69% Brand Trustworthiness 89% 2016 % of brand awareness (brand and brand with description) Power What s Next Survey. Responses from general residential population % of brand awareness (brand and brand with description) Power What s Next Survey. Responses from general residential population. Customer Satisfaction Satisfaction with Retrofit program Satisfaction with Heating & Cooling program Satisfaction with Coupon program 91% 94% 93% % of program participants in 2016 that reported their participation met expectations or exceeded expectations as per Customer Satisfaction and Business Customer Experience surveys. Responses from program participants. TREND INDICATOR Minimal (less than 5 percentage points year over years) change in the metric relative to prior years Increase in the metric relative to prior years Decrease in the metric relative to prior years Metric is on track (against what will vary by metric, e.g., forecast, benchmark, expectations, etc.) Metric indicates there is an opportunity for improvement Metric is in progress (continue to monitor) 24 / NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED data Note: above metrics and preliminary and subject to change following market research phase of Mid-term Review Study

25 CONSERVATION FIRST FRAMEWORK SCORECARD CUSTOMER AND MARKET ENGAGEMENT AND SATISFACTION DISCUSSION DRAFT The preliminary scorecard illustrated below will be used to evaluate Customer and Market Engagement and Satisfaction in the Conservation First Framework for both the current state and future state assessments. METRIC SUB-METRIC RESULT 1 TREND INDICATOR CRITERIA Market Share Participation rate, Heating & Cooling program Participation rate, Coupon program 60% 35% % eligible customers that participated as per Longitudinal Mass Market Research Survey and Power What s Next surveys. Responses from general residential population. Program Penetrati on % of savings achieved in 2015 and 2016 vs achievable potential in 2015 and ,3 : Residential Business % of reported savings achieved in 2015 and 2016 vs CDM Plans 2,3 : Residential Business 70% 126% 68% 80% % persisting energy savings acquired in 2015 plus new energy savings acquired in 2016 as compared to energy savings as per the achievable potential study in 2015 and Metrics do not reflect progress to CDM Plan. % persisting energy savings acquired in 2015 plus new energy savings acquired in 2016 as compared to energy savings forecast by LDCs in their CDM Plans for the years 2015 and Note 2 : Includes 2015 verified results and 2016 unverified results. Note 3 : Approximately 67 percent of 2016 progress consists of persisting savings from framework projects completed in 2015 TREND INDICATOR Minimal (less than 5 percentage points year over years) change in the metric relative to prior years Increase in the metric relative to prior years Decrease in the metric relative to prior years Metric is on track (against what will vary by metric, e.g., forecast, benchmark, expectations, etc.) Metric indicates there is an opportunity for improvement Metric is in progress (continue to monitor) 25 / NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED data Note: above metrics and preliminary and subject to change following market research phase of Mid-term Review Study

26 INDUSTRIAL ACCELERATOR PROGRAM SCORECARD CUSTOMER AND MARKET ENGAGEMENT AND SATISFACTION DISCUSSION DRAFT The preliminary scorecard illustrated below will be used to evaluate Customer and Market Engagement and Satisfaction in the Industrial Accelerator Program for both the current state and future state assessments. METRIC SUB-METRIC RESULT 1 TREND INDICATOR CRITERIA Customer Satisfaction N/A N/A Brand Awareness N/A N/A Brand Trustworthiness N/A N/A Market Share Energy Managers # of participating customers Number of projects Customers with energy managers 85% 31 25% N/A Metrics not tracked for Industrial Accelerator Program; market research will inform the metric. Metrics not tracked for Industrial Accelerator Program; market research will inform the metric. Metrics not tracked for Industrial Accelerator Program; market research will inform the metric. % of eligible customers that have participated. Increase in # of projects from 2015 to % of eligible customers with IESO funded energy managers. TREND INDICATOR Minimal (less than 5 percentage points year over years) change in the metric relative to prior years Increase in the metric relative to prior years Decrease in the metric relative to prior years Metric is on track (against what will vary by metric, e.g., forecast, benchmark, expectations, etc.) Metric indicates there is an opportunity for improvement Metric is in progress (continue to monitor) 26 / NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED data Note: above metrics and preliminary and subject to change following market research phase of Mid-term Review Study

27 27 / 2016 NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED II. BRAND AWARENESS & TRUSTWORTHINESS

28 % score DISCUSSION DRAFT SAVE ON ENERGY BRAND AWARENESS INCREASED OVER 2016 (GENERAL POPULATION) 100 % Top 2 Box (Average for Dec. 2016) 69% Recognize Brand Recognize Brand with Description AFTER # OF WEEKS PRE-LAUNCH w/o Aug 15 w/o Sept 26 w/o Oct 17 w/o Nov 7 w/o Nov 28 w/o Dec 19 Asked of 803 participants. Brand name only: Have you ever heard of Save on Energy? Brand w/description: Save on Energy (show logo) provides Ontarians with a wide variety of incentive programs and tips to help manage electricity use in the home, save money and help the environment. Having read this description, is this what you believed the program to be? 28 / NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Source: IESO and Ipsos, Power What s Next Campaign Effectiveness, 2016

29 SAVE ON ENERGY BRAND IMAGE REMAINS VERY POSITIVE AMONG ONTARIANS AWARE OF THE BRAND DISCUSSION DRAFT The highest attribute is: [Save on Energy] Is trustworthy at 89% The lowest attribute is: [Save on Energy] helps people and businesses in Ontario be more successful at 55% December 2016 Results: Asked of those aware of Save on Energy Save on Energy Total Agree Strongly Agree Is trustworthy 89% 33% Encourages people to make energy efficient choices for their homes 81% 30% Helps increase the energy efficiency of my home 70% 23% Encourages Ontarians to talk about energy efficiency 67% 22% Benefits my community 67% 22% Helps me save on my energy bills 65% 23% Makes me feel better 57% 18% Increases the comfort and value of my home 56% 16% Helps people and businesses in Ontario be more successful 55% 20% Asked of those aware of Save on Energy. Based on your understanding of Save on Energy, please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements: e.g., Is Trustworthy Encourages people to make energy efficient choices for their homes etc. 29 / NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Source: IESO and Ipsos, Power What s Next Campaign Effectiveness, 2016 *N/A = no data for 2015

30 DISCUSSION DRAFT LACK OF AWARENESS IS MAIN REASON LARGE CUSTOMERS DID NOT APPLY FOR AN INCENTIVE Customers are most likely to mention that they did not apply for an incentive for implementing electricity management actions because they simply were not aware of the incentive program (30%). *Note that these responses come directly from non-participating large customers Reasons for non-participation from business customers (2015)* 30% Not aware of programs 11% 11% 15% 27% Believe application difficult/cumbersome Do not believe program will lower cost/not cost effective Don't believe they will qualify Other includes several reasons for nonparticipation: lack of information or resources, already have energy saving measures in place, don t know Other *Q35. Why has your organization not applied for an incentive for the action taken to reduce the amount of electricity that you consume in the past year? Base: Large Customer who did not undertake any actions/none of the above mentioned Q26 (n=127) 30 / NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Source: IESO and Ipsos, Business ECAB Research Supply Chain Perspective, 2015

31 Source: IESO and Ipsos, Business ECAB Research Supply Chain Perspective, 2015 DISCUSSION DRAFT CONTRACTORS ARE AN INFORMATION SOURCE TO BUSINESS CUSTOMERS Nearly half (46%) of large customers learn about programs through channel participants highlighting the importance of channel actor participation and support for programs. Many organizations reported that the supply chain was their preferred way of obtaining information about energy efficiency. Customer source of information about benefits of managing electricity 23% 36% 46% 16% 20% Other includes sources such as associations, media, bills, internet, provincial government agency, word of mouth, don t know Contractor / Distributor Own Idea Conservation program Other LDC Q27a. Prior to undertaking the action to..., where did you get the idea or learn about the benefits of undertaking this action? Base: Large Customers (n=200) 31 / NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

32 32 / 2016 NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED III. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

33 Source: IESO and IPSOS, Retrofit Business Customer Survey Q (2017). DISCUSSION DRAFT 9 IN 10 CUSTOMERS SATISFIED WITH THE RETROFIT PROGRAM Although, participants reported that the program met their expectations on average 2% less in 2016 than in 2014 customer satisfaction remains high at 92% On average, Exceed your expectations responses were 5 % lower in 2016 than 2014 Q Q Q Q Q Q % 7% 12% 10% 12% 15% 9% 12% 14% 18% 15% Business Customer Survey: Retrofit program Participation Met Expectations 79% 83% 82% 85% 78% 78% 81% 82% 79% 77% 79% 10% 10% 7% 4% 10% 8% 10% 6% 7% 5% 7% Exceeded your expectations Met your expectations Did not meet expectations 100% Business Customer Survey: Met/Exceeded Expectations over time 90% 80% Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q9. Did your participation in the [insert program name from S1] meet your expectations, exceed your expectations or did not meet your expectations? Base: All Respondents: Q (n=233); Q (n=355); Q (n=215); Q (n=229); Q (n=167); Q (n=247); Q (n=284); Q (n=250); Q (n=200); q (n=153); q (n=195); 33 / NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

34 Source: Ipsos and IESO, Residential Customer CSAT Survey Q3 2016, Heating & Cooling Incentive (2016) DISCUSSION DRAFT HEATING & COOLING PROGRAM SATISFACTION HAS IMPROVED OVER PERIOD Participants reported that the program met their expectations on average 4% more in 2016 than in 2015 and 2014 On average, Exceed your expectations responses were 2% higher in 2016 than 2014 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Heating & Cooling program Did Participation Meet Expectations? Exceed your expectations Met your expectations Did not meet expectations 23% 17% 20% 22% 18% 23% 17% 17% 17% 22% 16% 71% 77% 73% 70% 75% 70% 75% 74% 75% 62% 75% MET/ EXCEEDED 7% 94% 7% 94% 7% 93% 8% 92% 6% 94% 7% 93% 7% 92% 9% 91% 7% 92% 17% 84% 9% 91% 100% 90% 80% 70% Met/Exceeded Expectations Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q4. Did your participation in the Heating Incentive Program meet your expectations, exceed your expectations or did not meet your expectations? Base: All Respondents; Q (n=222); Q (n=106); Q (n=337); Q (n=312); Q (n=327); Q (n=356); Q (n=298); Q (n=304); Q (n=271); Q (n=309); Q3 2016=6 (n=368); 34 / NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

35 DISCUSSION DRAFT COUPON PROGRAM SATISFACTION WAS HIGHER IN 2016 THAN 2014 Scores for meeting expectations are 2% higher in 2016 than in 2014, on average Scores for Exceed your expectations responses were 1 % higher in 2016 than 2014, on average Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Exceed your expectations Met your expectations Did not meet expectations MET/ 79% 78% 79% 78% 81% 78% 81% 78% 80% 77% 77% 9% 8% 6% 9% 7% 8% 8% 8% 7% 10% 10% 13% 14% 15% 12% 12% 13% 10% 13% 13% 14% 12% Coupon program - Did Participation Meet Expectations? EXCEEDED 92% 92% 94% 91% 93% 92% 91% 91% 93% 91% 89% 95% Met/Exceeded Expectations 90% 85% Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q4. Did your participation in the Save on Energy Coupon Program meet your expectations, exceed your expectations or did not meet your expectations? Base: Save on Energy Coupon Program; Q (n=682); Q (n=259); Q (n=874); Q (n=975); Q (n=938); Q (n=981); Q (n=891); Q (n=1029); Q (n=838); Q (n=1020); Q (1069); 35 / NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Source: Ipsos and IESO, Residential Customer CSAT Survey Q3 2016, Coupon program (2016)

36 36 / 2016 NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED IV. PROGRAM PENETRATION

37 Persisting Energy Savings (TWh) Source: Achievable Potential Study. IESO and Nexant, IESO data (verified results 2015, preliminary results 2016), CDM Plans Persisting Energy Savings (TWh) DISCUSSION DRAFT OPPORTUNITY EXISTS TO DEEPEN PROGRAM PENETRATION IN RESIDENTIAL SECTOR Mapping progress 1 towards the Achievable Potential Study annual milestones indicates that opportunity remains in the residential sector, but the business sector could be limited in the short-term. Mapping progress 1 towards CDM Plans indicates that the business sector is on-track and there is opportunity for additional achievement in the residential sector. Approximately 67 percent of business sector 2016 progress consists of persisting savings achieved in 2015 from framework projects Residential Sector Reflects persisting savings from 2015 and new savings in % of Achievable Potential by year 68% of CDM Plan Business Sector Reflects persisting savings from 2015 and new savings in % of Achievable Potential by year 80% of CDM Plan Note 1: 2015 savings are verified and 2016 and 2017 savings results are unverified, to be updated with 2016 verified savings results in summer / NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

38 DISCUSSION DRAFT HIGH PROPORTION OF ELIGIBLE INDUSTRIAL ACCELERATOR PROGRAM CUSTOMERS HAVE PARTICIPATED 50 out of the 59 eligible Industrial Accelerator Program customers have participated in Industrial Accelerator Program Five eligible customers participated more than once Chart to the right illustrates participation (projects) by grouped area of business Industrial Accelerator Participation by Grouped Sector Pulp & paper, wood, logging 20% Research, healthcare, universities 7% Cement, lime, and gypsum 5% Chemicals 7% Food 2% Petroleum and pipelines 5% Metals 40% Other 12% Metals, mining 2% 38 / NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Source: IESO

39 DISCUSSION DRAFT THE NUMBER OF FUNDED ENERGY MANAGERS VARIES ACROSS REGIONS Funded energy managers are highly concentrated in the central region The majority of funded energy managers are part of Conservation First Framework programs (83%), the remainder are part of the Industrial Accelerator Program Funded Energy Managers in Ontario 7% 3% 17% 73% LDC Funded Industrial Accelerator Program Multi-Site Customer Sector 39 / NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Source: IESO, Executive Dashboard on Provincial Energy Managers, Dec 2016

40 # Retrofit Applications Submitted by multisite customers DISCUSSION DRAFT APPLICATIONS FROM MULTI-SITE CUSTOMERS HAVE INCREASED Multi-site customers are served through a head-office model providing a single point of contact Note: government direction (June 10, 2016) requested the IESO centrally design, fund, and deliver a province-wide pay-forperformance program for multi-distributor customers (impact to be explored through next phase market research) 200 Number of Retrofit applications submitted by multi-site customers / NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Source: IESO, icon

41 Source: Research into Action and IESO, 2015 Consumer Program Evaluation Volume 1: Report, (EM&V) 2016 DISCUSSION DRAFT CONTRACTORS HAVE HIGH PARTICIPATION & SUPPORT FOR HEATING & COOLING PROGRAM In 2015 the vast majority of qualifying Heating & Cooling equipment sales were incentivized (80-90%) Although participating contractors reported high satisfaction with the Heating & Cooling program, most elements showed slightly lower satisfaction levels Program training satisfaction decreased by 12% and satisfaction with program registration decreased by 16% % of Heating & Cooling equipment sales that received an incentive (2015) 27% 29% 8% 13% Not Qualified Not Incentivized Incentivized 65% 58% Program Training Program Support Program Registration Process Online incentive Process Furnace AC Contractor satisfaction with Heating & Cooling program elements (% Very Satisfied) 56% 68% 64% 75% 70% 76% 71% Selection of Equipment 74% 75% Contractor Participation Agreement 82% 82% 82% Participating contractors (n=68). Average portion of incentivized sales out of total HVAC sales, by equipment type. Satisfaction with specific elements of the HVAC Incentives Imitative by year. 41 / NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

42 DISCUSSION DRAFT RETAILERS HAVE HIGH PARTICIPATION & SUPPORT FOR COUPON PROGRAM 98% of interviewed retailers participated in some form conservation training Retailer satisfaction with the program increased from 2014 Retailers satisfaction rating with Coupon program administrators (5 point scale) Training participation by retailers 57% % 28% 9% 2% % of Stores that Received Retail Specialist Led Online Internal Corporate Led Internal Store Led Did not participate in training Retailer storefront satisfaction with retail specialist and IESO Staff (store managers, relationship with retail specialist n=25, relationship with IESO n=9) Participating retailers often carried out more than one type of training. Training types and rated effectiveness. Store managers, n=47 42 / NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ource: Research into Action and IESO, 2015 Consumer Program Evaluation Volume 1: Report, (EM&V) 2016

43 43 / 2016 NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED V. MARKET SHARE

44 DISCUSSION DRAFT CONSERVATION FIRST FRAMEWORK PROGRAMS COVER ALL SEGMENTS TO VARYING DEGREES Core, centrally-delivered program offerings in Ontario have remained relatively consistent over time with some changes to program rules, eligibility and delivery Local, regional, and pilot programs were added in a meaningful way beginning in 2015 and supplement the program offering to customers Many local programs target similar technologies and approaches Segment Province-wide programs Local/regional programs/target technology Residential Coupons Heating & Cooling incentive Home Assistance Program (HAP) New home construction Whole home (pilot, not yet in market) Small commercial Larger commercial 12 programs Adaptive thermostats Clothesline giveaway Social benchmarking/home energy reports Pool pumps Audit and direct install Small business lighting 11 programs Refrigeration (small commercial) Retrofit program Audit funding Energy managers Existing building commissioning High performance new construction New home construction Energy performance program Process and systems Roof-top units (small commercial) Turn-key retrofit for large closed-loop hydronic Heating & Cooling systems High efficiency agricultural pumping program Building operator incentives 44 / NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Note: peaksaverplus and Demand Response appear on the Save on Energy website, but are not part of Conservation First Framework

45 Source: IESO data, LDC CDM Plans DISCUSSION DRAFT CDM PLANS: KWH ARE WEIGHTED TOWARDS BUSINESS CUSTOMERS According to LDC CDM plans, approximately 76% of forecast savings will come from programs targeted to business customers (not including small business lighting) CDM Plan sector breakdown is similar to Achievable Potential Study breakdown To be re-analyzed following the adoption of new province-wide programs (i.e. business refrigeration) and resubmission of all CDM plans following the December 2016 Direction re: province-wide program coverage Unassigned 1% CDM Plan Breakdown by Sector (energy savings persisting to 2020) Small Business Residential, 5% Low Income 1% Residential 17% Achievable Potential Study Breakdown by Sector (energy savings persisting to 2020) Residential 18% Business 76% Business 82% 45 / NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

46 Source: IESO and Ipsos, Business ECAB Research Supply Chain Perspective, 2015 DISCUSSION DRAFT COMPANIES ARE INCREASINGLY PAYING ATTENTION TO MANAGING THEIR ELECTRICITY 82% of large companies in 2015 reported to have paid attention to managing their electricity annually or more, which is up 5% from 2014 Would you say your [company] generally actively manages the amount of electricity used? 2015 % Top 2 Box 15% % 2014 % Top 2 Box 17% % Managed very closely, that is monthly or more often Some attention paid to it, for example annually 48% 82% 34% 77% 25% 52% Attention paid only sporadically when an issue arises or costs are unexpectedly high Not managed actively at all 2. Would you say your [If C&I Building Owners and Managers sample read: organization If Supply Chain/Influencers and Equipment Suppliers & Installers Read: clients?] generally actively manage the amount of electricity used or is it not something that is actively managed? Would you say (Read list). Base: Large Supply Chain (n=101) 46 / NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

47 Source: IESO Nielsen, Culture of Conservation - Conservation Metric (CCM) Tracking (2017) DISCUSSION DRAFT GENERAL POPULATION: UNDERSTANDING OF CONSERVING ENERGY IS INCREASING Understanding of conserving energy is high, 90% (strongly and somewhat agree) over period 12% increase in the strongly agree category over period I understand what I am supposed to do to not waste energy/conserve energy/use energy wisely in the home Strongly agree (7) Somewhat agree (6,5) Neutral (4) Somewhat disagree (3,2) Strongly disagree (1) Q % 41% 6% 3% Q % 44% 5% 3% Q % 45% 4% 2% Q % 43% 7% 3% Q % 50% 5% 2% Q % 42% 5% 2% Q % 47% 6% 3% Q % 54% 7% 3% % Agree (T3B) 90% 90% 92% 89% 92% 92% 88% 90% 60% 50% 40% 30% Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q / NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED % Strongly Agree Q9A. I am going to read you some things people say about energy. Please use a scale from 1 to 7, with 1 meaning you strongly disagree and 7 meaning you strongly agree with the statement. Base: All respondents: Q4/11, n=625; Q4/12, n=627; Q4/13, n=629; Q4/14, n=641; Q4/15, n=632; Q4/16, n=631. NOTE: Don t know responses not shown

48 DISCUSSION DRAFT HEATING & COOLING PROGRAMS HAVE 60% PARTICIPATION RATE Approximately 60% of Ontarians report having participated in Heating & Cooling program in 2016 Based on those who indicated that they had replaced a furnace or air conditioner Participation is evenly distributed throughout the year April (12%), May (18%) have highest participation rates Three quarters of participants are likely to participate in future Save on Energy programs Heating & Cooling program participation rate % 60% 60% Likelihood to participate in Save on Energy programs in the future Heating & Cooling program participants 50% 40% 48% 28% 23% 1% 30% 20% 10% 0% % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Much more likely A little more likely It does not have any influence on your interest in future programs A little less likely D3. Earlier you indicated that you have replaced your existing [IF S16 = Replaced existing central air conditioner SHOW central air conditioner and/or IF S16 = Replaced existing furnace SHOW furnace ]. Base: All Answering. (n=244). Did you or your contractor apply for the Save on Energy HEATING & COOLING INCENTIVE rebate? D4. Considering your experience, how likely would you be to recommend the Save On Energy Heating and Cooling Incentive Program to a friend or colleague using a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is not at all likely and 10 is extremely likely? Base: All Answering. (n=148) 48 / NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Source: IESO and Ipsos, Longitudinal Mass Market Research Survey (LMMRS) (Q1 Report), 2017

49 DISCUSSION DRAFT PARTICIPATION IN COUPON PROGRAM HAS REMAINED CONSISTENT WITH 1 IN 3 ONTARIANS PARTICIPATING Approximately 35% of Ontarians report having participated in Save on Energy Coupon events during % of Ontarians have heard of the Coupon program by name or description 59% of those aware participated in the Coupon program in 2016 Three quarters of participants are likely to participate in future Save on Energy programs Coupon program participation rate % Likelihood to participate in Save on Energy programs in the future Coupon participants % Participated = % aware * 59% 59% 43% 33% 22% 1% 35% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Eligible Aware Paticipated Much more likely A little more likely It does not have any influence on your interest in future programs A little less likely C2. Please indicate which of the following products you have purchased since January 1st, 2016 using a Save on Energy coupon. A few examples of the coupons can be found below. Base: All Answering. (n=1,022); C10. How does your experience participating in this program influence your interest in participating in future Save On Energy programs? Would you say you are Base: All Answering. (n=606); 49 / NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Source: IESO and Ipsos, Longitudinal Mass Market Research Survey (LMMRS) (Q1 Report), 2017

50 50 / 2016 NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED VI: NEXT STEPS

51 DISCUSSION DRAFT NEXT STEPS: FOCUS AREAS FOR MARKET RESEARCH PHASE OF MID-TERM REVIEW Based on the preliminary assessment of the current state of customer and market engagement and satisfaction, the following areas will be considered in the market research phase: Determine how collaboration is impacting customer satisfaction. Investigate customers satisfaction with the choice and availability of programs (by sector). Seek to understand Industrial Accelerator Program non-participant barriers and/or reasons for non participation as well as Industrial Accelerator Program satisfaction among participants. In addition to Industrial Accelerator Program, seek further input on satisfaction, barriers and opportunities with customers (small and large), including those with businesses in multiple territories (i.e. those that interact with multiple LDCs or both electric and gas utilities). Determine the implications on participation and satisfaction with delivery agents when program offering is geographically inconsistent. Interaction of other topics and customer and market engagement and satisfaction. 51 / NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

52 Section 4: Key Questions and Next Steps for Engagement Participants 52

53 Key questions for engagement participants Are there areas of customer engagement and satisfaction that are not sufficient covered in the draft plan? If so what issues related to customer engagement and satisfaction require further examination? Are there any current state analyses missing from this first topic report on customer and market engagement? Are the format and indicators included for tracking progress and success on the scorecard clear? Are all customers and market segments included through existing and future research? 53

54 Next steps Please send written comments to by May 2, 2017 IESO will post responses to questions in June 2017 Next Mid-term Review webinar to be held in summer of 2017 on the Definition of CDM topic report Access full versions of study plan/1 st topic report on the Midterm Advisory Group website and remain engaged via: 54

55 Section 4: Appendices 55

56 APPENDIX 1 GLOSSARY 56 / 2017 NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

57 APPENDIX A: DISCUSSION DRAFT GLOSSARY APS BRI CCM Term Description Achievable Potential Study - Carried out by IESO and Nexant. Comprises, in-part, of an energy efficiency study that assess long- and short-term energy savings potential in Ontario. The Business Refrigeration Incentive Program provides for facility assessments to identify potential electricity savings opportunities and installation of commercial refrigeration upgrades aimed at reducing electricity consumption. Participants in the BRI Program are non-residential electricity customers that have an average annual peak demand of less than 250 kilowatts (kw). Culture of Conservation Metric - Metric that measures, tracks and reports on progress in achieving a Culture of Conservation in Ontario against a base year benchmark. Channel Partners Third parties who interact with the customer in the delivery of conservation programs. Some examples by program: Coupons = retailers, Heating & Cooling = furnace vendors/installers, retrofit = the supply chain (i.e. contractors/vendors). Coupon program CSAT DSM ECA ECAB EE HAP HVAC Heating & Cooling Save on Energy coupons are available for discounts on a range of energy-efficient products from participating retailers. Residential Customer CSAT Survey Q3 2016, Coupons and Heating & Cooling Incentive. The goal of these studies is to collect feedback from conservation initiative participants in order to measure their satisfaction with the process and engagement with each particular IESO initiative. This research will be utilized by IESO to measure and track satisfaction with IESO initiatives and programs on an ongoing basis throughout Demand Side Management: the term for conservation initiatives carried out in other jurisdictions/sectors (e.g. natural gas demand side management). Energy Conservation Agreement: Sets out the contractual relationship between the IESO and LDCs under the Conservation First Framework. Energy Conservation Attitudes & Behaviour - see sources in section 3.II. for full description. Energy efficiency. Home Assistance Program - Qualified Ontario homeowners, tenants and social and/or assisted housing providers receive assessments and installation of energy-saving measures. Heating, ventilation and air conditioning. Heating & Cooling incentives that are offered for the upgrade to high-efficiency A/C systems and furnaces. Eligible participants include program homeowners and businesses that use residential-like systems. 57 / NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED KWh, MWh, GWh, TWh kilowatt-hour, megawatt-hour, gigawatt-hour & terawatt-hour. Units of energy of differing orders of magnitude.

58 APPENDIX A: DISCUSSION DRAFT GLOSSARY LDC(s) LMMRS Term Local Program Achievable Potential Milestones: Business Sector Participation rate Pilot Program Power What s Next? Campaign Research Program Description Local Distribution Company. Provides electricity and conservation programs to distribution-connected customers. The Longitudinal Mass Market Research Survey (LMMRS) is a multi-faceted survey that has run since 2011 and acts as an input into annual Evaluation Measurement and Verification results of IESO funded Save on Energy programs. The study helps the IESO gain an understanding of consumers awareness, participation and opinions of the Save on Energy campaign overall and the initiatives within the residential program. The study objectives include measurement of: the awareness of energy conservation initiatives and Save on Energy, program specific awareness and participation, and customer satisfaction, evaluation of program elements, and likelihood to participate in the future. Also called the triple A survey. Programs serving local needs in individual LDC territories. An estimate of energy conversation potential for the business customer sector expected on milestone years from the 20 year (starting 2012) Achievable Potential Study published by the Ontario Power Authority. A measure of eligible participation in a conservation program. Specifics for this vary based on the program. A program pilot that may achieve energy or demand savings under the LDC Innovation Fund and is funded extraneous to an LDC's CDM Plan Budget. These follow an LDC-led program design and market testing of small-scale pilot programs, which refine program delivery at less risk to the ratepayer. The Save on Energy Power What s Next campaign launched on June 13, Surveys are being done to measure brand awareness, brand attributes and effectiveness of the campaign. This report includes results from the December wave of research. A Conservation & Demand Management offering focusing on a particular opportunity or customer end-use (i.e. Retrofit, Heating & Cooling) from the Conservation First Framework. Regional Program Programs serving regional needs in multiple LDC territories. Achievable Potential Milestones: Residential Sector Retrofit program An estimate of energy conversation potential for the residential customer sector expected on milestone years from the 20 year (starting 2012) Achievable Potential Study published by the Ontario Power Authority. Incentive program to reduce project and operational costs for business to upgrade to more efficient systems (lighting, HVAC, chiller, building envelope etc.). 58 / NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Save on Energy: The brand that represents energy conservation programs for homes and businesses. Programs are delivered through LDCs or directly through IESO and funded by the IESO. Save on Energy

59 APPENDIX 2 STUDY THEMES MAPPED TO KEY ISSUES TO BE EXAMINED 59 / 2017 NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

60 SECTION 2: UNDERSTANDING OF DELIVERABLES II. OVERALL APPROACH TO DELIVERABLES MAPPING ISSUES TO THEMES (CFF) DISCUSSION DRAFT Navigant has mapped each of the key issues identified in the RFP for the CFF and IAP to the seven themes discussed in an earlier slide. The inputs are designed to address all issues identified within the RFP. Framework Element Key Issues - CFF Theme Framework Element Key Issues - CFF Theme Budget and Target Allocation Provincial adjustments LDC adjustments Mechanism to support re-allocation Options to enable target exchange Funding mechanism review P4P obstacles Budgets, targets, cost effectiveness Collaboration amongst LDCs, gas utilities and other opportunities Challenges of coordination between multiple utilities Brand awareness and customer relationships Impact of differences in programs and budgets Attribution and cost sharing Collaboration opportunities with government funded initiatives Customer & market engagement Collaboration Cost effective resource acquisition Avoided cost updates Cost-effectiveness by sector Cross fuel collaboration and costs Cross fuel cost effectiveness inputs Non-energy benefits review and recommendations Collaboration Non-energy benefits Governance /LDC Collaboration Integrating with regional planning LDC collaboration Framework governance structures (roles and responsibilities) Local deferral opportunities through targeted EE Impact of energy only targets Governance and operations Planning integration 60 / 2017 NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

61 SECTION 2: UNDERSTANDING OF DELIVERABLES II. OVERALL APPROACH TO DELIVERABLES MAPPING ISSUES TO THEMES (CFF) DISCUSSION DRAFT Framework Element Key Issues - CFF Theme Framework Element Key Issues - CFF Theme Aligning with CCAP, GHG target to complement energy targets Customers with facilities in multiple territories Climate - Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) and other policy Effect of CCAP on CFF budgets, targets, programs Impact of Cap & Trade on CFF programs EE/DSM (right use, right time, right cost) Climate change objectives Customer & market satisfaction and engagement Central services Variation in program offering across the province Customer satisfaction with programs Budget/target allocation across segments Review central services/ieso processes and opportunities for improvement New tools to support program development Customer & market engagement Budgets, targets, cost effectiveness Governance and operations Integrated planning Planning integration Potential support for CDM plan re-development 61 / 2017 NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

62 SECTION 2: UNDERSTANDING OF DELIVERABLES II. OVERALL APPROACH TO DELIVERABLES MAPPING ISSUES TO THEMES (IAP) DISCUSSION DRAFT Framework Element Key Issues - IAP Theme Framework Element Key Issues - IAP Theme Budget and Target Allocation Provincial adjustments Budgets, targets, cost effectiveness Aligning with CCAP, GHG target to complement energy targets Cost effective resource acquisition Account manager model Cross fuel collaboration and costs Collaboration Climate - Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) and other policy Impact on environmental attributes EE/DSM (right use, right time, right cost) Climate change objectives Integrating with regional planning Avoiding costs of local infrastructure improvements Planning integration Integrated planning Planning integration Customer & market satisfaction and engagement Active and non-participants, efficacy of current approach CDM/DSM integration into business practices Customer & market engagement Non-Energy Benefits Economic development Environmental attributes Non-energy benefits 62 / 2017 NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

63 APPENDIX 3 STUDY TOPICS MAPPED TO POLICY OBJECTIVES 63 / 2017 NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

64 SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. POLICY CONTEXT CDM AND THE LONG-TERM ENERGY PLAN DISCUSSION DRAFT Broader policy specified in the Long Term Energy Plan (2013): Conservation is forecast to increase from 5 percent of energy production in 2013 to 16 percent of energy production in LTEP forecasts reaching this through the use of programs and improved codes and standards. Select quotes from the LTEP 2013 pertaining to CDM: The Ministry of Energy will work with its agencies to ensure they put conservation first in their planning, approval and procurement processes. Customers will be given more program choice along with streamlined oversight and administration. Industrial and transmissionconnected customers will continue to have access to the OPA s conservation programs, which will be expanded to facilitate broader program choice and financing flexibility. There will be renewed efforts to deepen consumer awareness of conservation, and more broadly, of the electricity system. Conservation programs for low-income residential customers will be improved. 64 / 2017 NAVIGANT CONSULTING LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED