Topic:"Affordability" in M08888

Table 9: Fuel Cost Comparison 33 Fuel Fuel Cost Per Lit Difference ruei Massachusetts Nova Scotia Difference 8/16/2017-8/22/2017 8/25/2017 Gasoline $ 0.78 $ 1.07 37% Diesel $ 0.85 $ 0.98 16% 3.4 Low Income Considerations

AI summary Table 9 compares fuel costs in Massachusetts and Nova Scotia, highlighting a 37% difference in gasoline prices and a 16% difference in diesel prices. Section 3.4 discusses low-income considerations, which may relate to affordability and energy costs for vulnerable populations.

2. Valuation of HPF Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) in Low-Income Programs Fluctuations in Heating and Process Fuel markets disproportionately affect low income households. As a result, an increasing number of state programs are incorporating N...

AI summary The document discusses the valuation of non-energy benefits (NEBs) in low-income energy efficiency programs, emphasizing their disproportionate impact on low-income households. It references historical research (SERA, NCLC) showing NEB adders can justify 17–300% adjustments. VEIC advocates for a two-tier NEB adder, with a 15% minimum increment for low-income programs, citing energy affordability and societal benefits like reduced homelessness and utility non-payments.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL - The Public Utilities Act makes numerous references to the requirement that delivery of - electricity efficiency and conservation activities be cost effective for Nova Scotia Power - ratepayers. These provisions also obli...

AI summary The document outlines provincial legislation requiring cost-effective electricity efficiency and conservation activities. Nova Scotia's Public Utilities Act mandates such measures for ratepayers, while Prince Edward Island's Electric Power Act and Ontario's Ontario Energy Board Act emphasize similar cost-effectiveness and consumer protection. Manitoba's Efficiency Manitoba Act focuses on reducing energy consumption.

The Commission stated: "…A failure on our part to consider broader societal impact stemming from the implementation of energy efficiency programs would ignore the codified intent of the General Assembly "to provide affordable, reliable, an...

AI summary The Commission emphasizes the need to consider societal and non-energy benefits in energy efficiency programs, aligning with the Public Utilities Act's mandate for affordability. They assert that cost-effectiveness alone isn't sufficient, as the Board must also evaluate rate impacts, jobs, and environmental effects. Maryland's approach supports including non-energy benefits in cost-effectiveness tests.

- [1] What initiatives should be taken to encourage electricity consumers in Nova Scotia to conserve and efficiently use electrical energy? How should such initiatives be paid for? Who should pay for them? How should the savings be measure...

AI summary The text discusses the importance of demand-side management (DSM) in Nova Scotia, emphasizing its role in reducing electricity consumption, delaying infrastructure costs, and supporting environmental goals. It highlights the need for careful planning and analysis to ensure DSM initiatives are effective and affordable for consumers.

han $53 million, is not the driving factor for an increase in rates while not causing negative impacts on EfficiencyOne's ability to achieve Mid-DSM levels, as per the IRP, in the future as required. - In an effort to ensure that more cust...

AI summary The Plan proposes a higher investment level and a balanced approach to DSM program participation across residential and BNI sectors, aiming for greater participation than NS Power's alternative scenario. It ensures affordability and avoids new capacity additions until 2032.

3.5.3 Affordability [76] Having determined the parameters of a preferred plan, the Board is specifically directed by the 2014 amendments to the PUA to address the issue of affordability. The most relevant sections are Section 79L(8) and (9...

AI summary The NSUARB must address affordability under the 2014 PUA amendments, specifically Sections 79L(8) and (9), which require evaluating electricity efficiency programs' affordability for NSPI customers. Traditionally, the Board used the lowest long-term cost principle, but affordability is now a critical factor. The Board must assess whether the amendments alter DSM expenditure evaluations and if the proposed plan meets affordability criteria.

3.5.3.1 Findings [88] The Board notes that the DSM amount of $33,210,000, as set by the Board for 2016, is below DSM spending in each of the last four years. It is also an amount significantly below that recommended in the IRP, and the Boa...

AI summary The Board acknowledges that the DSM amount of $33.2 million for 2016 is below recent spending levels but considers it affordable under the PUA. The Board also notes that NSPI should be able to offset any potential revenue shortfall without a rate increase.

aving considered the history of underspending on DSM programming, the history of overachieving savings and demand targets, and as an inducement to bring greater rigor to the calculation of incentives. [142] The Board considers that the tar...

AI summary The Board approves the E1 DSM Plan, noting its alignment with the PUA's best interests for NSPI customers. It emphasizes balancing short-term affordability with long-term costs, approves aspects of the Consensus Agreement, and retains TRC for cost-effectiveness screening while rejecting the Quantum Agreement.

Board's approval of agreements - 79L (1) No agreement between Nova Scotia Power Incorporated and a franchise holder, including an agreement amending such an agreement, is valid until it has been approved by the Board pursuant to this Secti...

AI summary The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (Board) mandates approval of agreements between Nova Scotia Power Incorporated (NSPI) and franchise holders. The process requires both parties to submit information, with franchise holders primarily responsible for justifying electricity efficiency activities. The Board must ensure affordability and alignment with customer interests, referencing Section 79J and the Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Restructuring (2014) Act.

h greater quantities of coal. That would help the rate base and stabilize that base so that - consumers don't have this revolving door at the URB by Nova Scotia Power looking for rate - increases. - So like my colleague, the member for Dar...

AI summary The text discusses proposals to increase coal usage to stabilize the rate base and reduce rate increases, with concerns about unresolved questions affecting consumer clarity. A member emphasizes the need for answers to protect ratepayers, while referencing Nova Scotia Power's role in the process.

However, where the two pieces of legislation differ is with regard to the enumerated considerations of the respective regulators when determining whether the programs or activities put forward by the utilities fulfill the statutory require...

AI summary The text discusses differences between Nova Scotia and Maryland legislation regarding the considerations required when approving electricity efficiency programs. It highlights that Nova Scotia legislation focuses on affordability and customer interests, while Maryland explicitly requires consideration of non-energy impacts like job and environmental effects. This distinction supports NS Power's argument that non-energy impacts must be explicitly mandated in legislation.

la loi et la common law. Cependant, elle a eu tort de ne pas conclure en outre que la Commission n'avait pas le pouvoir d'attribuer aux clients quelque partie du produit de la vente des biens. [21-34] L'analyse de l'AEUBA, de la Public Uti...

AI summary The Alberta Court of Appeal analyzed the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board Act (AEUBA), Public Utilities Board Act (PUBA), and Gas Utilities Act (GUA), concluding that the Commission lacks authority to determine how proceeds from asset sales are distributed. The court emphasized that legislative provisions must be interpreted contextually to balance consumer protection and property rights, rejecting absolute discretion for the Commission.

ompany might be moved to speculate in nondepreciable property or result in the company being motivated to identify and sell existing properties where appreciation has already occurred. [paras. 112-13] The Board went on to conclude that the...

AI summary The Board concluded that sharing the net gain from the sale of land and buildings using the TransAlta Formula was equitable. From the gross proceeds of $6,550,000, ATCO received $465,000 for costs, shareholders received $2,014,690, and customers received $4,070,310, with specific allocations to different customer groups.

rate base" (GUA, s. 37(1)). This Court, in Northwestern Utilities Ltd. v. City of Edmonton , [1979] 1 S.C.R. 684 (" Northwestern 1979 "), at p. 691, adopted the following description of the process: The PUB approves or fixes utility rates...

AI summary The text discusses the regulatory framework for utility rate-setting under the Gas Utilities Act (GUA), emphasizing the PUB's role in determining rate bases to ensure fair returns for utilities while protecting consumers. It references legal precedents like Northwestern Utilities Ltd. v. City of Edmonton and highlights the balance between investor interests and consumer affordability.

t establish that collecting the individual's information serves a law enforcement purpose. [para 82] In Cash Converters Canada Inc. v. Oshawa (City), 2007 ONCA 502 the Ontario Court of Appeal said: Section 28(2) also allows personal inform...

AI summary The text argues that EPS collects personal information not for law enforcement purposes but for consumer protection, citing the Ontario Court of Appeal's analysis in Cash Converters Canada Inc. v. Oshawa (City) (2007 ONCA 502). It emphasizes that EPS transmits data to police without law enforcement necessity, conflicting with the FOIP Act's definition of law enforcement.

[para 93] Section 28(2) of that Act states: - (2) No person shall collect personal information on behalf of an institution unless the collection is expressly authorized by statute, used for the purposes of law enforcement or necessary to t...

AI summary The document analyzes the legality of a bylaw under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act (FOIP Act). Courts ruled the bylaw conflicts with FOIP by mandating unnecessary personal information collection for consumer protection, not law enforcement. The bylaw was declared invalid, though policy directives may still conflict with FOIP.

ve the explicit power to take into account affordability "along with any other matters considered appropriate by the NSUARB" in assessing whether DSM activities are in the best interests of customers. NS Power attempts to rely on a stateme...

AI summary The NSUARB's explicit power under the PUA to consider affordability in assessing DSM activities is contrasted with NS Power's reliance on ATCO Gas, which the court rejected as allowing unfettered discretion. The NSUARB clarifies its jurisdiction is limited to considering factors in DSM plans, not imposing arbitrary conditions. Key references include Efficiency Nova Scotia and NS Power submissions.

Standard of Review In response to NS Power's argument regarding standard of review, EfficiencyOne submits that the suggested interpretation is not only reasonable, but is the only possible correct interpretation of the NSUARB's powers unde...

AI summary EfficiencyOne argues that the NSUARB has broad discretion under PUA sections 79L(8) and (9) to consider factors beyond affordability when evaluating DSM activities. They assert the legislation explicitly authorizes the NSUARB to weigh various considerations in approving efficiency programs, rejecting NS Power's narrower interpretation.

Board's approval of agreements - 79L (8) The Board shall approve an agreement pursuant to this Section if, in addition to any other matters considered appropriate by the Board, it is satisfied that the agreement, including the proposed ele...

AI summary The Board must approve agreements under Section 79L if they align with customers' best interests and meet Section 79J requirements, considering affordability and other factors. Section 79H mandates determining electricity efficiency and conservation activities.

[25] Section 79A(b) states: 79A In this Section and Sections 79B to 79V, - (b) "electricity efficiency and conservation activities" means activities, programs or plans relating to - (i) the efficient use of electricity, - (ii) the conserva...

AI summary Section 79A(b) defines 'electricity efficiency and conservation activities' to include demand management, cost-effective system use, and energy reduction. The Board must assess such activities for customer benefit and affordability. EfficiencyOne and NS Power reference Section 116(1) of the Public Utilities Act, granting the Board broad regulatory powers.

- 1. What is the meaning of the legislative text? - 2. What did the Legislature intend? - 3. What are the consequences of adopting a proposed interpretation? - [32] The Board must also have regard to the Interpretation Act, R.S.N.S. 1989,...

AI summary The NSUARB must interpret the PUA in accordance with the Interpretation Act, considering legislative intent, remedial purposes, and public interest. Key responsibilities include ensuring safe service, reasonable rates, and long-term cost efficiency. EfficiencyOne argues that 'best interests of customers' allows broad consideration of diverse customer interests without restrictive language.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL "EE is one of many resources that can be deployed to meet customers' needs, and therefore should be compared with other energy resources (both supply side and demand-side) in a consistent and comprehensive manner." Please...

AI summary The text discusses the inclusion of non-energy benefits (NEBs) in cost-effectiveness testing, comparing VEIC's recommendations to the UARB's Economic Analysis Model for evaluating supply-side investments. It also requests a breakdown of NEBs for a specific measure and details on the DSMAG's methodology debate.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 13 14 15 16 17 "NEBs relating to property valuation were adjusted for the relative difference in property values between NS and Massachusetts. This adjustment was based on the difference in median single-family house pri...

AI summary The text discusses adjustments to property valuation equivalents (NEBs) between Nova Scotia and Massachusetts based on median single-family house prices. Questions are raised about data sources, rationale for using single-family homes, whether energy cost savings are considered, and the statistical methods used to infer property value changes.

[25] Section 79A(b) states: 79A In this Section and Sections 79B to 79V, - (b) "electricity efficiency and conservation activities" means activities, programs or plans relating to - (i) the efficient use of electricity, - (ii) the conserva...

AI summary Section 79A(b) defines 'electricity efficiency and conservation activities' to include demand reduction, cost-effective management, and energy delivery optimization. The NSUARB must assess such activities for customer benefit and affordability. EfficiencyOne and NS Power reference Section 116(1) of the Public Utilities Act regarding the Board's authority.

- 1. What is the meaning of the legislative text? - 2. What did the Legislature intend? - 3. What are the consequences of adopting a proposed interpretation? - [32] The Board must also have regard to the Interpretation Act, R.S.N.S. 1989,...

AI summary The NSUARB considers legislative intent, consequences of interpretations, and the Interpretation Act (R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 235) in regulating utilities. Key responsibilities include ensuring safe service, fair rates, and long-term cost efficiency. EfficiencyOne argues that 'best interests of customers' allows broad consideration of diverse interests without restrictive language.