Topic:"Bca" in M03669

Q. What about spending on development and research, fuel substitution, and renewable - heating? - In response to IR-6 from the Consumer Advocate, ENSC indicated that opportunities exist in - both the residential and non-residential sectors...

AI summary ENSC acknowledges opportunities for development and research in residential and non-residential sectors regarding fuel substitution and renewable heating. However, no quantification of potential savings or expenditure allocation by rate class was provided, raising concerns about transparency and cost-effectiveness.

FREE RIDERSHIP AND SPILL OVER - Q. Please summarize your conclusions and recommendations with regard to the proposed - treatment of free ridership and spill over. - A. ENSC has not proposed an amendment to free ridership and spill over eva...

AI summary ENSC did not propose changes to free ridership/spill over evaluation methods for 2012, planning to revisit in 2011. It advocates a case-by-case approach and program design to address free ridership. The recommendation emphasizes requiring ENSC to estimate free ridership/spill over for 2012 programs to refine future methodologies.

- A. Yes, that might happen, but the benefits, and additional costs, of exceeding the 2012 IRP - DSM targets would seem to outweigh what might be a non-trivial risk in not meeting these - targets. Additionally, the IRP targets should be vi...

AI summary The discussion emphasizes that exceeding 2012 IRP DSM targets offers benefits and should be viewed as a floor, not a ceiling. Cumulative savings are prioritized over annual targets, and reducing DSM budgets based on unexpected ELI savings is criticized as reinforcing planning uncertainties.

[65] In its Closing Submission of May 13, 2011, ENSC stated: With respect to the proposed budget for the 2012 DSM Plan of $43.7M - a modest increase over the 2011 DSM Plan budget of $41.9M - ENSC submits that there is insufficient evidence...

AI summary ENSC argues against increasing the 2012 DSM Plan budget to $53.4M or $58M, stating the existing plan already exceeds 2009 IRP energy savings targets. It contends there is insufficient evidence to justify higher expenditures, citing concerns about front-loading savings, viewing IRP targets as a 'floor', and potential regressive impacts on contractors and future program scaling.

- 7. While the application of energy savings from outside DSM program activities (either from cumulative savings, codes and standards or stakeholder"s own efficiency volitions) does assists in moving the DSM ball forward, the last-minute i...

AI summary The 2012 DSM Plan's inclusion of 80GW/h of unforeseen savings risks setting a low standard for future DSM programs. EAC highlights ambiguities in evaluating non-program savings, urging clarity to protect ratepayers and ensure effective energy efficiency. EAC recommends revising the plan to address evaluation gaps and sustain DSM goals amid rising NSPI rates.

mination by counsel for NPB, the overall budget of the DSM Plan is an important measure of the level of effort, and the proposed 2012 Plan's budget is, in fact, higher than the 2011 plan. 23 The cost at which energy savings can be achieved...

AI summary NPB argues against increasing ENSC's 2012 DSM budget, stating it is already higher than 2011 and that energy savings costs fluctuate annually. NPB supports ENSC's position that IRP budgets are non-prescriptive and that ENSC's 2012 plan meets savings targets through stakeholder input and expert analysis.

ENSC The EAC respectfully objects to ENSC's suggestion that 'there is a high level of agreement with respect to the elements of the 2012 DSM Plan' for which ENSC is seeking approval. While the EAC does support the marginal increase in the...

AI summary The EAC objects to ENSC's claim of broad agreement on the 2012 DSM Plan, emphasizing its exclusion from key proceedings and concerns over ENSC's reliance on past ELI savings. It supports increased DSM funding but stresses the need for equitable savings frameworks and proper evaluation of ENSC's program approaches.