RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES OF LOW-INCOME ENERGY · PDF fileresponses to interrogatories of...

Toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited EB-2011-0011

Exhibit J Tab 7

Schedule 1 Filed: 2011 Apr 1

of 2

RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES OF LOW-INCOME ENERGY NETWORK INTERROGATORIES

INTERROGATORY A-1: 1

Reference(s): Community Outreach and Education Initiative 2

3

THESL CDM Application: Community Outreach & Education at Page 5 describes 4

Priority Neighbourhoods as “underserviced low income”. 5

6

Please provide: 7

a) the definition of a “Priority Neighbourhood” used by THESL; 8

b) clarification of what THESL means by “underserviced low income”; and 9

c) a description (location, socio-economic profile) of the 13 designated Priority 10

Neighbourhoods and how these 13 neighbourhoods were identified. 11

12

RESPONSE: 13

a) Priority Neighbourhoods are as defined by the City of Toronto (“City”). The City has 14

designated 13 Priority Areas through the Neighbourhood Action Plan. 15

16

b) “Underserviced low-income” are those living in priority neighbourhoods described 17

above. When planning events in schools, THESL works with the School Boards to 18

ensure schools in priority neighbourhoods are included. For the Toronto Police 19

partnership, the events historically have taken place in priority neighbourhoods, as 20

these neighbourhoods most often experience higher crime and violence than other 21

parts of the City. In 2010, the neighbourhoods targeted were Jane/Finch, 22

Scarborough Village, and Albion/Finch (Jamestown, Mount Olive). 23


Exhibit J Tab 7


of 2


c) Documents detailing these areas, in demographic, cartographic and descriptive form, 1

are available at: 2

http://www.toronto.ca/demographics/priorityareas.htm 3


Exhibit J Tab 7


Page 1 of 2


INTERROGATORY A-2: 1

Reference(s): Community Outreach and Education Initiative 2

3

Of the 1 million Torontonians expected to be targeted by the Community Outreach and 4

Education Initiative annually, please provide how many per year, both in total, and 5

broken down by each of the 4 channels – in store retail campaign, festive light exchange, 6

Toronto police partnership and school education and outreach – are expected to be: 7

a) residents in the 13 designated Priority Neighbourhoods; 8

b) low-income residents; and 9

c) low-income residents in the 13 Priority Neighbourhoods. 10

11

RESPONSE: 12

The segments targeted through THESL’s In Store Retail Campaign depend on retailers 13

selected through THESL’s Request for Expressions of Interest (RFEI) process. THESL 14

always strives for broad, city-wide distribution of participating locations. 15

16

The segments targeted through THESL’s School Education and Outreach depend on the 17

schools selected by the relevant school Boards; however, THESL will request that 18

priority neighbourhoods be included. In 2010, THESL directed the first round of 19

invitations to participate in its Great Exchange program to high priority schools. In the 20

end, 23% of the schools THESL partnered with were in Toronto’s priority 21

neighbourhoods. For THESL’s Fall 2010 Beat the Peak program, 20% of the schools 22

THESL partnered with were in priority neighborhoods. All of the public high schools 23

THESL partnered with were identified within what Toronto District School Board calls 24


Exhibit J Tab 7


Page 2 of 2


the Learning Opportunity Index (“LOI”). The LOI ranks each school based on measures 1

of external challenges affecting student success. 2

3

The segments targeted through Toronto Police Outreach depend on communities 4

identified by police as experiencing high crime/violence. The events historically have 5

taken place in priority neighbourhoods, as these neighbourhoods most often experience 6

higher crime and violence than other parts of the City. In 2010, the targeted 7

neighbourhoods were Jane/Finch, Scarborough Village and Albion/Finch (Jamestown, 8

Mount Olive). 9

10

The segments targeted through Festive Light Exchange evolve in partnership with 11

Toronto Association of Business Improvement (“TABIA”) areas and depend on TABIA 12

participation and locations within any given community. 13


Exhibit J Tab 7


Page 1 of 1


INTERROGATORY B-1: 1

Reference(s): In Store Engagement and Education Initiative 2

3

Please explain how this once-a-year campaign will be rolled out across Toronto over 4

consecutive weekends. 5

6

RESPONSE: 7

THESL has withdrawn the In-Store Engagement and Education program application for 8

consideration by the Board in this proceeding. Please refer to THESL’s letter filed April 9

1, 2011. 10


Exhibit J Tab 7


Page 1 of 1


INTERROGATORY B-2: 1

Reference(s): In Store Engagement and Education Initiative 2

3

Of the 50,000 residential customers targeted annually, please provide how many are 4

expected to be: 5

a) in the 13 designated Priority Neighbourhoods; 6

b) low-income; and 7

c) low-income and residing in one of the 13 designated Priority Neighbourhoods. 8

9

RESPONSE: 10

THESL has withdrawn the In-Store Engagement and Education program application for 11

consideration by the Board in this proceeding. Please refer to THESL’s letter filed April 12

1, 2011. 13


Exhibit J Tab 7


Page 1 of 2


INTERROGATORY C-1: 1

Reference(s): Flat Rate Water Heater Conversion & Demand Response 2

(FRWHDR) 3

4

Of the 5,516 single family residences that remain on the flat rate domestic hot water 5

heater service, please provide how many (number and % of total single family residences 6

on flat rate) of these residences are: 7

a) located in the 13 designated Priority Neighbourhoods; 8

b) low-income residences; and 9

c) in one of the 13 designated Priority Neighbourhoods and are low-income residences. 10

11

RESPONSE: 12

a) The FRWHs located in the priority neighbourhoods are shown below: 13

COT Priority Neighbourhood (PN) Number of FRWHs in Area

Pilot Project – 2005

Scarborough Village 0

2006

Eglinton East/Kennedy Park 2

Weston-Mt. Dennis 169

Lawrence Heights 18

Steeles-L'Amoreaux 0

2007

Jane-Finch 7

Westminster-Branson 4

Flemingdon Park - Victoria Village 136

Dorset Park 1


Exhibit J Tab 7


Page 2 of 2


COT Priority Neighbourhood (PN) Number of FRWHs in Area

2008

Jamestown 0

Malvern 2

Kingston-Galloway 0

Crescent Town 315

TOTAL FRWH in PN 654

TOTAL FRWH 5516

Percentage of FRWH in PN 11.9%

Note: year indicates when the neighbourhood was designated as a PN.

b) THESL does not track information on the income status of customers. 1

2

c) This information is unknown. 3


Exhibit J Tab 7


Page 1 of 2




(FRWHDR) 3

4

Of the 4,413 single family residences (80% of unmetered single family residences) 5

THESL expects to convert to metered service, please provide how many (number and % 6

of total single family residences on flat rate) of these residences are: 7

a) located in the 13 designated Priority Neighbourhoods; 8

b) low-income residences; and 9

c) in one of the 13 designated Priority Neighbourhoods and are low-income residences. 10

11

RESPONSE: 12

a) Assuming that the projected results are achieved uniformly throughout income 13

classes, the number of conversions in each area would be expected to be: 14

COT Priority Neighbourhood (PN) Estimated Number of FRWHs in Area

Pilot Project – 2005

Scarborough Village 0

2006

Eglinton East/Kennedy Park 2

Weston-Mt. Dennis 135

Lawrence Heights 14

Steeles-L'Amoreaux 0


Exhibit J Tab 7


Page 2 of 2


COT Priority Neighbourhood (PN) Estimated Number of FRWHs in Area

2007

Jane-Finch 6

Westminster-Branson 3

Flemingdon Park - Victoria Village 109

Dorset Park 1

2008

Jamestown 0

Malvern 2

Kingston-Galloway 0

Crescent Town 252

TOTAL FRWH in PN 523

TOTAL FRWH 4413

% FRWH in PN 11.9%

Note: Year indicates when the neighbourhood was designated as a PN.

b) THESL does not track information on the income status of customers. 1

2

c) This information is unknown. 3


Exhibit J Tab 7


Page 1 of 1




(FRWHDR) 3

4

For each of the 6 tank conversions shown in the table on Page 6 of THESL CDM 5

Application: FRWHDR, please indicate the total average cost of the conversion and the 6

% of the total cost covered by the proposed incentive. 7

8

RESPONSE: 9

The table below shows the typical cost in relation to incentives. The cost used is for a 10

typical installation, which could be higher depending on site conditions. 11

Gallons

Element

Size

Bottom

Watts

Element

Size Top

Watts

kWh

Per 30

Days

kWh Annual

Consumption

Metered

Incentive

$

Typical Cost of

Conversion*

$

Percentage

of Cost

Covered by

Incentive

40 800 800 285 3,468 $138.70 $250.00 55.5%

40 1000 1000 341 4,149 $165.95 $250.00 66.4%

40 1000 3000 363 4,417 $176.66 $250.00 70.7%

40 3000 1000 454 5,524 $220.95 $250.00 88.4%

40 3000 3000 544 6,619 $264.75 $250.00 105.9%

60 1000 3000 407 4,952 $198.07 $250.00 79.2%

Average Total Costs $250.00 77.7%

*Based on the cost of installing a breaker or fuse block in existing electrical distribution panel


Exhibit J Tab 7


Page 1 of 2




(FRWHDR) 3

4

If the FRWHDR program were to cover 100% of the conversion costs to metered service, 5

please provide: 6

a) the resulting TRC and PAC; 7

b) a description of input assumptions; 8

c) incremental costs and benefits; and 9

d) the calculations. 10

11

RESPONSE: 12

a) Please refer to the table below for the resulting TRC and PAC. This table reflects 13

covering 100% of the typical conversion cost. Some sites will require more extensive 14

electrical upgrades, which are not reflected in the typical conversion cost. 15

b) Assumptions: 16

Conversion Cost = $250 17

Incentives set to cover 100% of conversion cost 18

Name of Test Benefits Costs Net Benefits RatioTRC 4,187,405$ 2,242,177$ 1,945,228$ 1.9PAC 4,229,134$ 2,670,277$ 1,558,858$ 1.6


Exhibit J Tab 7


Page 2 of 2


c) Refer to the following table: 1

d) New Incentive Level = $250 x 0.80 x 5516 = $1,103,300 2

Old Incentive Level = $839,503 3

Incremental Change = $263,697 4

Year 1 Year 2 TotalNumber of Conversions 1,471 2,942 4,413 Incremental Cost 87,899$ 175,798$ 263,697$ Incremental MW Savings ‐ ‐ ‐ Incremental MWh Savings ‐ ‐ ‐


Exhibit J Tab 7


Page 1 of 6




(FRWHDR) 3

4

For the following scenario: 5

a) If up to 2 free low-flow showerheads (depending on number of showers in residence), 6

and up to 3 aerators (a kitchen and two bathroom faucet aerators (depending on 7

number of bathrooms) are installed for free at the time that the switch on the hot 8

water heater is being installed for customers who switch to metered service and sign 9

up for peaksaver under the FRWHDR, please provide: 10

(i) the resulting TRC and PAC; 11

(ii) a description of input assumptions; 12

(iii) incremental costs and benefits; and 13

(iv) the calculations. 14

b) If up to 2 free low-flow showerheads (depending on number of showers in residence), 15

and up to 3 aerators (a kitchen and two bathroom faucet aerators (depending on 16

number of bathrooms) are provided to the customer for free but are not installed at the 17

time that the switch on the hot water heater is being installed for customers who 18

switch to metered service and sign up for peaksaver under the FRWHDR, please 19

provide: 20






Exhibit J Tab 7


Page 2 of 6


c) If the program covers the full cost of the meter conversion and provides up to 2 free 1

low-flow showerheads (depending on number of showers in residence), and up to 3 2

aerators (a kitchen and two bathroom faucet aerators depending on number of 3

bathrooms) and installs these devices for free at the time that the switch on the hot 4

water heater is being installed for customers who switch to metered service and sign 5

up for peaksaver under the FRWHDR, please provide: 6





11

RESPONSE: 12

The results for the three scenarios and the original application are summarized below. 13

Please note that over the past five years THESL, Enbridge Gas and the City of Toronto 14

have been involved in a number of campaigns to distribute water savings devices. The 15

number of residences that have deployed aerators and low flow showerheads is unknown, 16

but may be significant. 17

Scenario TRC Program Benefit Program Cost Net Benefit

Original 1.8 $4,187,405 $2,370,207 $1,817,198

Scenario 1 2.7 $6,205,842 $2,323,396 $3,882,446

Scenario 2 1.9 $4,187,405 $2,242,177 $1,945,228

Scenario 3 2.7 $6,205,842 $2,323,396 $3,882,446


Exhibit J Tab 7


Page 3 of 6


Scenario PAC Program Benefit Program Cost Net Benefit

Original 1.7 $4,229,134 $2,431,191 $1,797,943

Scenario 1 2.5 $6,244,771 $2,547,218 $3,697,553

Scenario 2 1.7 $4,229,134 $2,547,218 $1,681,916

Scenario 3 2.2 $6,244,771 $2,786,304 $3,458,468

a) Scenario 1 2

i. Please refer to the table below for the TRC and PAC results. 3

ii. OPA’s Prescriptive Measures and Assumptions List (Release 1 – 2010) was 4

used for input assumptions for both low-flow showerheads and aerators. In 5

addition, THESL has also used the following assumptions for the above cost 6

effectiveness tests: 7

• free ridership: 30% 8

• --aerator cost: $5/unit 9

• --showerhead cost: $7/unit 10

• --Average (3) aerator savings: 176.3 kWh / residence 11

• --Average (2) showerhead savings: 377 kWh / residence 12

13

*Savings 14

Aerator Savings = 176.3 kWh per house 15



Exhibit J Tab 7


Page 4 of 6


Showerhead Savings = 377 kWh per house 1

Total Savings = 553.3 kWh per house 2

3

iii. Refer to the following table for incremental cost and benefits 4

iv. Calculations – see (ii) 5

6

b) Scenario 2 7


ii. Other than the input assumptions provided in the application, it is assumed 9

that there will be no savings related to the free showerheads and aerators 10

provided, as they are not installed. 11

12

Additional assumptions are provided as follows: 13

• aerator cost: $5/unit 14

• showerhead cost: $7/unit 15

Year 1 Year 2 TotalNumber of Conversions 1,471 2,942 4,413 Incremental Cost 42,657$ 85,314$ 127,971$ Incremental MW Savings 0.1 0.2 0.3Incremental MWh Savings 1,321 2,642 3,963



Exhibit J Tab 7


Page 5 of 6


• Average (3) aerator savings: 176.3 kWh / residence 1

• Average (2) showerhead savings: 377 kWh / residence 2

3


5


7

c) Scenario 3 8


ii. OPA’s Prescriptive Measures and Assumptions List was used for input 10

assumptions for both low-flow showerheads and aerators. In addition, 11

THESL has also used the following assumptions for the above cost 12

effectiveness tests: 13

• free ridership: 30% 14

• financial incentive for full conversion: $250/unit 15

• aerator cost: $5/unit 16

• showerhead cost: $7/unit 17

Year 1 Year 2 TotalNumber of Conversions 1,471 2,942 4,413 Incremental Cost 42,657$ 85,314$ 127,971$ Incremental MW Savings ‐ ‐ ‐ Incremental MWh Savings ‐ ‐ ‐



Exhibit J Tab 7


Page 6 of 6


• Average (3) aerator savings: 176.3 kWh / residence 1

• Average (2) showerhead savings: 377 kWh / residence 2

3



Year 1 Year 2 TotalNumber of Conversions 1,471 2,942 4,413 Incremental Cost 130,556$ 261,112$ 391,669$ Incremental MW Savings 0.1 0.2 0.3Incremental MWh Savings 1,321 2,642 3,963

RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES OF LOW-INCOME ENERGY · PDF fileresponses to interrogatories of...

Documents

Transcript of RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES OF LOW-INCOME ENERGY · PDF fileresponses to interrogatories of...