Topic:"Bca" in M12780

As a result of these findings, E1 was unable to include Strategic Electrification as a resource in its 2027– 2031 DSM Plan. E1's exclusion of strategic electrification from the 2027–2031 DSM Plan as a resource is mandated by the statutory...

AI summary E1 excluded strategic electrification from its 2027–2031 DSM Plan due to statutory requirements under the PUA, which mandate both GHG emission reductions and electricity cost savings. The NSEB’s 2025 BCA Decision reinforced this conjunctive requirement. E1 plans future research to explore cost-effective inclusion of strategic electrification in DSM Plans.

1 Figure 2: 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan Average Annual Expenditures

AI summary The document presents Figure 2, which outlines the average annual expenditures for the 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan. It is part of a regulatory proceeding in Nova Scotia, focusing on demand-side management strategies and their financial implications. The figure is referenced in the context of energy policy and utility regulation, though specific data or analysis within the text is not provided.

4 9. ALTERNATE SCENARIO

AI summary The document introduces an 'Alternate Scenario' section within a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding, though no specific content or analysis is provided in the given text. Key acronyms and entities related to energy regulation and utility management are referenced.

s near-term affordability with long-term value by constraining investment to 2026 levels, during a period of significant cost-of-living challenges for Nova Scotians; 6 transmission, and distribution; - 1 (c) provides equitable access to DS...

AI summary The Preferred Plan ensures near-term affordability and long-term value by limiting investments to 2026 levels, promoting equitable DSM benefits across customer classes, achieving energy savings below supply-side costs, and aligning with NS Power's IRP. It complies with ERBA and NSEB directives, supporting competition, innovation, and GHG emission reductions through energy efficiency and strategic electrification.

5

AI summary This document is from a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding, listing acronyms and entities relevant to energy regulation, including organizations like NS Power, programs such as DSM, and regulatory frameworks like the PUA and ERBA. It outlines key terms for energy efficiency, demand response, and utility cost recovery mechanisms.

1 2. INTRODUCTION 2 The forward-looking RBIA is an analysis of the rate and bill impacts associated with the proposed DSM - 3 investment only. It compares the impacts of the proposed DSM investment to a scenario where there is - 4 no DSM i...

AI summary The document discusses the forward-looking and historical Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) for Demand Side Management (DSM) investments in Nova Scotia. It highlights E1's proposal to eliminate historical RBIA filings except during DSM Plan Application years, and the NSUARB's acceptance of this approach. The analysis informs DSM investment levels and considers non-participant impacts.

Regulatory Affairs E1 filed the following reports (matter numbers are in brackets) with the NSUARB (January 1 to March 31, 2025) and the NSEB (April 1 to December 31, 2025): - 2024 DSM Evaluation Reports and 2024 Annual Progress Report (M1...

AI summary E1 submitted multiple reports and responses to information requests to the NSUARB and NSEB, covering DSM evaluations, financial compliance, and BCA applications. Engagement with the DSMAG included stakeholder feedback, technical sessions, and plan development. Regulatory activities included public hearings, evaluation implementation, and DSM Plan development for 2027-2031.

ATTACHMENT 2: EVALUATOR AND VERIFIER RECOMMENDATION UPDATES Table 1: Update on Implementation of 2022-2023 Evaluation Recommendations Table 2: Update on Implementation of 2024 Evaluation Recommendations Table 3: Update on Implementation of...

AI summary Attachment 2 provides updates on the implementation of evaluation and verification recommendations from 2021-2023 and 2024, organized into four tables. It outlines progress on addressing prior recommendations and new ones for 2024, though specific details are not included in the provided text.

Table 1 Update on Implementation of 2022-2023 Evaluation Recommendations Year Evaluation/ Verification Recommendation Text Source Status Comments Expected Period of Completion 2021 Verifier General: Several jurisdictions, for example Minne...

AI summary This table discusses the implementation of 2022-2023 evaluation recommendations, focusing on the review and development of a cost-effectiveness test for Nova Scotia's Demand-Side Management (DSM) Plan. Efficiency Nova Scotia engaged an external consultant to support this work, and the Nova Scotia Energy Board provided directions on the benefit-cost analysis test in December 2025.

Table 1: 2023–2025 Other Enabling Strategies costs (Plan and Actual) 2023 2024 2025 Other Enabling Strategies ($ million) Plan Actual Variance (Actual to Plan) Plan Actual Variance (Actual to Plan) Plan Actual Variance (Actual to Plan) DSM...

AI summary The table shows that actual expenditures for Other Enabling Strategies in 2024 and 2025 exceeded the planned amounts, primarily due to costs related to the development and regulatory processes of the 2026–2030 DSM Plan, the 2026 DSM Extension, and E1's BCA Test application. The 2027–2031 DSM Plan's development also continued in 2025.

19 Table 1: Metrics in 2023-2025 DSM Plan Application Column in 2023-2025 DSM Plan Application Attachment 4 Explanation Gross Per Unit One-Time Incremental Measure Cost ($) Following the Nova Scotia Energy Board's Decision on the Benefit-C...

AI summary The document discusses changes in the cost-effectiveness test for demand-side management (DSM) programs, specifically the removal of the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test after the Nova Scotia Energy Board's decision on the Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) test. The new Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test does not include incremental costs, leading to the exclusion of the 'Gross Per Unit One-Time Incremental Measure Cost' column in the 2027–2031 DSM Plan Application.

luations identify and recommend improvements to increase the program's efficiency or effectiveness. Market evaluation studies Round 1 Model Input Assumptions and Results assess the overall supply chain and market and how the program has af...

AI summary The document discusses E1's reporting practices and the role of the NSEB in ensuring accountability. It mentions the submission of various reports, including evaluations and financial statements, and the involvement of the DSMAG in reviewing these reports. The NSEB has emphasized the importance of E1's reporting practices in Plan implementation, as highlighted in a recent BCA hearing.

Table 17: Update on Board Directives Relating to the 2027-2031 Plan Board Directives E1 Update • E1 is directed to continue to provide the information it was previously directed by the NSUARB to provide to assess DSM plans, including justi...

AI summary The Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) has directed E1 to continue providing information on its DSM plans, including justification for measures that fail the primary cost-effectiveness test. E1 may use the revised BCA test from the Consensus Agreement to support specific programs and measures in its 2027-2031 DSM Plan Application.

Figure 1: Glossary of Terms Term Definition Nova Scotia Energy Board Approved Cost effectiveness testing In the Board's Order on a new Benefit-Cost-Analysis Test (BCA) Test for Evaluating Demand-Side Management (DSM) Plans, the Board direc...

AI summary The Nova Scotia Energy Board directed E1 to use the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of its Demand Side Management (DSM) Plan starting in 2027. The Board also mandated the use of NS Power's Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) as the discount rate. Strategic electrification must reduce both greenhouse gas emissions and electricity costs for customers.

cation – Base (c) EE – Base & DR – High & Solar PV - Base & Strategic Electrification – Base (d) EE – High & DR – High & Solar PV - Base & Strategic Electrification – Base Response IR-04: (a) Please refer to EfficiencyOne's (E1) response t...

AI summary The response to IR-04 refers to EfficiencyOne's prior submissions for details on resource scenarios and cost effectiveness. The response to IR-05 directs to EfficiencyOne's explanation of a modified PAC in the context of a benefit-cost analysis test for DSM Plans in Matter 12282.

he DSM Plan reflects a near-term implementation decision. The Plan explicitly uses the IRP as a benchmark and includes modelling of an IRP-aligned scenario, confirming those savings are achievable and cost-effective. However, the Preferred...

AI summary The DSM Plan prioritizes short-term affordability over long-term system optimization, acknowledging deferral risks but finding a balance. It identifies a 39 MW peak demand gap and a 15 MW demand response shortfall by 2031, which may require future DSM programming, demand response expansion, and alternative supply-side resources.

al of modifications to the approved DSM Plan. [2026-IRP-Draft-Terms-of-Reference.pdf](https://ieso-ns.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/2026-IRP-Draft-Terms-of-Reference.pdf) Request IR-12: Page 17 of the Evidence states, "Fourth, with respect...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) is requested to provide a BCA ratio for the 2027–2031 DSM Plan using the NS Test with the WACC from the PAC BCA and a societal discount rate of 2%. E1 acknowledges the request and notes that they have used modelling software to perform multiple cost-effectiveness tests, including the NS Test, TRC, RIM, PAC, and others.

2. Another challenge is the exclusion of other energy benefits from the scope of the test due to legislative requirement. The National Standard Practices Manual (NSPM) explains that electrification may add costs to the electric grid and ca...

AI summary The exclusion of non-electric system benefits from the BCA test creates challenges in evaluating strategic electrification. The NSPM highlights that electrification may add costs to the electric grid unless non-electric benefits like fuel savings are included. While the Board's modified PAC aligns with statutory requirements, it does not fully capture the broader benefits of electrification.

3. Cost-Effectiveness Frameworks in Other Jurisdictions Looking south of the Canadian border, there is also comparative support for using broader tests to evaluate emissions-related and fuel-switching benefits, especially among US States w...

AI summary The section discusses cost-effectiveness frameworks used in other jurisdictions, particularly in the US, focusing on broader tests for emissions-related and fuel-switching benefits. It references the 2025 ACEEE State Energy Efficiency Scorecard and highlights the use of frameworks such as SCT and JST BCA, while noting the limited use of RIM and UCT as primary tests.

- Q. Please describe your conclusions and recommendations regarding the Proposed Plan. - A. My conclusions are as follows: - E1's proposed energy and capacity savings from energy efficiency fall far short of the 2022 Evergreen Integrated R...

AI summary The reviewer concludes that E1's proposed DSM Plan underperforms compared to the 2022 IRP assumptions, lacks strategic electrification due to a Board decision, and has issues with cost-effectiveness and program design. The plan is recommended for improvement in several areas.

[6](#page-7-4) 15 2 "While the Board leaves it open to E1 to propose another approach for addressing strategic electrification, in the absence of an acceptable approach, E1 is directed to follow the recommendation of the Industrial Group's...

AI summary The document outlines E1's response to regulatory directives, including the implementation of a new benefit-cost analysis test for evaluating DSM plans and the discontinuation of certain incentives. Strategic electrification is emphasized as a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and electricity costs. E1 also proposes energy efficiency savings and solar-PV generation in its 2027-2031 DSM Plan.

- A. E1 cites the Board Decision in Matter No. 12282 (regarding E1's May 16, 2025, E1 Application for approval of a New Benefit-Cost Analysis Test for Evaluating DSM Plans) as its reason for not including electrification in the proposed 20...

AI summary E1 cites a Board Decision in Matter No. 12282 to justify excluding electrification from the proposed 2027-2031 DSM Plan. The Board directed the use of the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test for evaluating cost-effectiveness, requiring strategic electrification programs to demonstrate reductions in both GHG emissions and electricity costs.

1 appears that E1 either assessed the BCA of strategic electrification by itself, or E1 2 looked at the change in the portfolio-level BCA (including energy efficiency, 3 demand response, PV) when strategic electrification is added.28 4 How...

AI summary The text discusses E1's assessment of the benefit-cost analysis (BCA) of strategic electrification and how it was interpreted in light of the NSEB's Decision in Matter M12282. The Board required E1 to use the PAC test and consider increased revenues from strategic electrification, which must reduce both GHG emissions and electricity costs for customers. The Public Utilities Act defines strategic electrification and outlines its requirements.

Q. Do you have any concerns about E1's interpretation of the NSEB Decision? A. Given that DSM Plan cost-effectiveness is evaluated at the portfolio level as required by statute,[31](#page-23-0) and not at the resource level, measuring cost...

AI summary The response indicates that evaluating DSM Plan cost-effectiveness at the resource level is inconsistent with statutory requirements, which mandate portfolio-level evaluation. Electrification can be included in the resource portfolio as long as the portfolio PAC test score remains above 1.0.

(b) An alteration to the modified PAC test used to assess strategic electrification could include the benefits related to reduction in other fuels and a monetization of overall emissions benefits. However, depending on the inclusion of one...

AI summary The text discusses the limitations of the Public Acceptability Criterion (PAC) test in assessing strategic electrification, noting that including non-electricity-related benefits may shift the test toward Total Resource Cost (TRC) or Societal Cost Test (SCT). The Board's decision in M12282 indicates it cannot use a proposed BCA test that includes non-utility impacts for screening DSM plans. The Brattle Group responds that a phased strategic electrification pathway may be achievable, though data quality and modified PAC constraints present challenges.