Topic:"Bca" in M10473

- Q. Please describe your conclusions. - A. Our conclusions are as follows: - First year energy efficiency savings associated with the Settlement Plan are modestly less than projected for the Round 3 Modeling Preferred Plan but more than t...

AI summary The Settlement Plan's energy efficiency savings are modestly lower than the Round 3 Modeling Preferred Plan but higher than previous DSM plans. The budget for the Settlement Plan is higher than the previous DSM plan but lower than the Round 3 plan. DSM is cost-competitive and cost-effective, but the Demand Response program is only marginally cost-effective. The inclusion of non-energy impacts in the BCA is questioned, and there are concerns about the effectiveness of the Behavioural DR program and lack of specific initiatives for low-income populations.

Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board, Decision in M08888, April 15, 2020. 1 On the other hand, the Demand Response program is only marginally cost 19 impacts based on the work of Massachusetts and other American 20 jurisdictions, as oppose...

AI summary The text discusses the marginal cost impact of the Demand Response program, referencing studies from Massachusetts and other jurisdictions. It also addresses the impact of excluding non-electric fuel and reduced water costs on the Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA), stating that the impact would not be material and the portfolio would still be cost-effective.

EfficiencyOne - DSM Plan 2023-2025 The Board understands that E1 has been developing its application for the upcoming 2023-2025 DSM Plan filing, which included active engagement with participants in the DSM Advisory Group. The Board also u...

AI summary The Board acknowledges EfficiencyOne's (E1) engagement with the DSM Advisory Group for the 2023-2025 DSM Plan and references Section 79J and 79L of the Public Utilities Act. It warns against repeating the delays of the 2016 DSM proceeding (M06733) and expects NS Power to file alternative plans if no joint agreement is reached. The Board anticipates E1's filing by February 28, 2022, and will set a hearing timeline.

Request IR-6: - Referencing Table 1 and footnotes on p. 11 of 65, E1 stated that DR only includes E1's required investments but it recognizes that NS Power investments will also be required. - a) Since the TRC test is meant to include all...

AI summary E1 questions the accuracy of TRC values in Table 1, the inclusion of NS Power's DR costs, the methodology for Available DR Capacity, incremental costs for 2024/2025, and the decline in Measure Life from 2023 to 2024 initiatives. It also seeks clarification on whether NS Power's DR costs have been identified and how TRC ratios account for incremental capacity increases.