AI-generated summary
· Rir · 06/16/2026
H. Gil Peach & Associates filed responses to Consumer Advocate and Small Business Advocate Round 1 Information Requests in M12780, while EfficiencyOne submitted arguments to maintain Board-only confidentiality over executive compensation data in the Mercer Report.
AI summary
- In Exhibits E-18 and E-19, the H Gil Peach Associates Verification Team responded to 16 Consumer Advocate and 8 Small Business Advocate IRs regarding the 2025 Savings Verification Review (Exhibit E-17), consistently limiting responses to information contained in that report and declining to perform independent analysis beyond its defined scope of Program Evaluation and savings verification.
- The Verification Team confirmed that Demand Response Load Control programs (Eco Shift at 0.854 MW vs. 7.135 MW target; BNI DR at 5.941 MW vs. 10.726 MW target) are the only 2025 program components with 'negligible practical savings,' but declined to define a quantitative threshold for that designation or reconcile the recommendation with its prior position in Matter M12249 (CA IR-5).
- On evaluation methodology, the Verification Team stated that Normalized Metered Energy Consumption (NMEC) is referenced in Program Evaluation Recommendation SVR25-G-3 for transparency purposes only — not as a recommendation for immediate adoption — and did not identify specific programs for which NMEC methods would be appropriate (CA IR-6; SBA IR-3).
- SBA IR-7 elicited confirmation that a cybersecurity incident caused a mid-year pause to the Residential Behaviour program, limiting 2025 results to partial-year findings; the Verification Team stated it did not independently assess additional operational impacts beyond what Exhibit E-17 reports.
- In a separate letter (Document 102409), Efficiencyone argued that the Mercer Compensation Review (NSEB IR 17, Attachment 2) should remain Board-only confidential, distinguishing Matter M10431 on four grounds: no intervenor objection filed, executive compensation is not on the Issues List, statutory disclosure obligations under s. 64B of the Public Utilities Act Nova Scotia do not apply to DSM proceedings, and E1's compensation is only partially recovered from ratepayers; as an alternative, E1 offered a redacted intervenor-confidential version omitting specific salary figures.
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI from the filings it describes. We take care to make it accurate, but errors are possible - and it isn't advice. Only the filings themselves are the record: if you're relying on something here, confirm it against the source documents or the Nova Scotia Energy Board's own record. Full disclaimer →
What was filed
Documents filed on this day
- E-18 Peach (CA) RIR 1 to 16
- E-19 Peach (SBA) RIR 1 to 8
- 102409 Letter E1 re: Response to Board letter re confidentiality