AI-generated summary
· Closing_evidence · 09/04/2025
EfficiencyOne filed reply evidence defending its 2026 DSM Extension Application against intervenor challenges to cost-effectiveness testing, demand response program design, and evaluation methodology for residential behaviour, demand response, and compressed air programs.
AI summary
- Efficiencyone largely concurred with Synapse Energy Economics findings but contested the recommendation to impose a sub-portfolio PAC threshold of 1.0 on demand response, arguing current legislation requires cost-effectiveness testing at the portfolio level and that prematurely imposing a program-level threshold could force discontinuation of a still-maturing program (E-17, pp. 7–9).
- E1 accepted Synapse's recommendation that the Nova Scotia Energy Board direct Nova Scotia Power to respond to outstanding questions on August 2024 avoided cost updates, and requested the Board set a specific deadline to allow those inputs to inform the upcoming 2027–2031 Demand Side Management Plan filing (E-17, p. 4).
- E1 concurred with Green Energy Economics that savings from the Efficiency Insights (Residential Behaviour) Program should not be excluded, and rejected the Peach Report's recommendation to reclassify the program as a marketing initiative rather than an energy savings program (E-17, p. 12; Appendix A, pp. 10–12).
- Econoler, as E1's independent evaluation consultant, disputed the Peach Report's methodology critique across three program areas—Residential Behaviour, Demand Response, and Compressed Air—arguing that its randomized controlled trial and regression-based approach fully complies with industry-standard protocols (SEE Action and the Uniform Methods Project), and that the Verifier's "large sample size" and "practical significance" objections are inapplicable to these program types (Appendix A, throughout).
- On Low Income Programs, E1 confirmed that low-income and equity components (Affordable Multi-Family Housing, Affordable Single-Family Homes, and the Mi'kmaw Home Energy Efficiency Project) represent 17% of program funding and are intentionally exempt from sub-portfolio cost-effectiveness thresholds, while supporting Green Energy's recommendation to conduct participant surveys to refine low-income savings attribution methodology (E-17, pp. 4, 14).
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-17 Reply Evidence- E1 including Appendix A -Econoler Reply Evidence
- 99227 Letter from E1 enclosing Reply Evidence