Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Evaluating the market transformation impacts of a DSM program in the Province of Quebec

  • Special Issue - Vine
  • Published:
Energy Efficiency Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In 2006, Hydro-Québec introduced a large DSM program on the market to promote the adoption of compact fluorescent lamps in Québec households. After 3 years of program implementation, there was significant indication on the part of market actors that the promotional campaign component was quite effective in transforming the Québec market. Hydro-Québec therefore decided to modify its approach to program evaluation to include the quantification of market effects. Econoler led a team including American partners, Opinion Dynamics Inc. and Megdal & Associates to conduct an evaluation of program impacts on market transformation. An evaluation strategy was designed where different research tools would be integrated to determine market evolution over the two previous years. Each research method was used to determine an estimate of program impacts, then triangulated with other approaches to determine the most appropriate impact evaluation method regarding the Hydro-Québec program. Research efforts included a non-participant survey, interviews at manufacturer headquarters across Canada, interviews with banner distributor representatives across Canada, the collection of sales and market share data from manufacturers and retailers as well as secondary research to identify other players that could influence the market. The evaluation revealed that savings of 168 GWh could be attributed to direct and indirect impacts of the program for the 2006–2007 period.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Hoefgen, L. (2010). How different markets and programs call for different approaches to estimate net impacts. NMR Group inc. International Energy Program Evaluation Conference, June 9–10, Paris, France.

  • Kema (2005) CFL metering study final report: prepared for PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE, February 25, 2005.

  • Nexus Market Research, RLW Analytics (2005). Impact evaluation of the Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont 2003 Residential Lighting Programs Final Report, October 1, 2004.

  • Rosemberg, M., & Hoefgen, L. (2009). Market effects and market transformation: their role in energy efficiency program design and evaluation. California: California Institute for Energy and Environment.

    Google Scholar 

  • RLW Analytics (2003). Northeast Utilities and United Illuminating Company Lighting Catalog/Smart Living™ Program Impact Evaluation Final Report, April 2003.

  • Statistics Canada (2006). Household and the environment.

  • The Cadmus group inc, Kema, Itron inc, Nexus Market Research, A. Goett Consulting (2010). Compacts fluorescent lamp market effects final report.

  • Vine, E., Prahl, R., Meyers, S., Turiel, I., et al. (2010). An approach for evaluating the market effects of energy efficiency programs. Energy Efficiency, 3, 257–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xenergy (2001). Northeast utilities impact evaluation of the spectrum smart living catalog and retail lighting programs.

  • Xenergy (2003). NSTAR residential high use program operating hours realization rate study, January 27, 2003.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pierre Baillargeon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Baillargeon, P., Schmitt, B., Michaud, N. et al. Evaluating the market transformation impacts of a DSM program in the Province of Quebec. Energy Efficiency 5, 97–107 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-011-9118-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-011-9118-6

Keywords

Navigation