Topic:"Best Interests Of Customers" in M12780

2. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: ROUND 2 MODEL RESULTS E1 circulated its Round 1 model assumptions and results to the Demand-Side Management Advisory Group (DSMAG) on October 27, 2025. E1 received written comments from DSMAG members regarding t...

AI summary E1 updated its Round 2 model results for the DSM Plan, incorporating new avoided costs from NS Power and guidance from the NSEB. Strategic electrification was excluded due to its failure to reduce customer electricity costs. The Residential Behaviour program was removed, and the Residential DR program was modified based on feedback from the NSEB and DSMAG.

Standardized Filing Framework the proposed cost-effective demand-side management at the portfolio level that would be the aggregate amount of demand-side management programs." 28 In the Board's Decision dated December 10, 2025 in matter M1...

AI summary The Board directed E1 to use the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test as the primary method for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of its Demand Side Management (DSM) plan for 2027, using NS Power's WACC as the discount rate. E1 is also required to provide individual justifications for any measures failing cost-effectiveness tests in future applications.

4.3.2 COST-EFFECTIVENESS TESTING E1 will apply the NSEB-approved cost-effectiveness test. Pursuant to Section 79H (2) of the Public Utilities Act , the NSEB, in evaluating a franchise holder's application, "shall evaluate the proposed cost...

AI summary E1 is required to apply the NSEB-approved cost-effectiveness test for its DSM plan, using the PAC test and NS Power's WACC as the discount rate. The Board also directed the use of a modified PAC for assessing strategic electrification, which must reduce both GHG emissions and electricity costs. E1 will provide cost-effectiveness results at multiple levels, including individual measures that fail testing.

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.

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.

PAC test. (b) Please explain in detail how these benefits are excluded from consideration by the modified PAC test. Response IR-2: This IR response has been provided by The Brattle Group. (a-b) As explained in Section V.B.2 of the Brattle...

AI summary The response from The Brattle Group explains that the modified PAC test excludes benefits from reduced consumption of other fuels and avoided emissions, as it focuses only on electric system energy benefits. This exclusion may undermine the comprehensive benefits of strategic electrification programs, though the Board's decision to use the modified PAC test is based on statutory requirements.

M12780 - In the Matter of EfficiencyOne's (E1) 2027–2031 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan Application 1 Lane at Synapse, or conferred or consulted with Ms. Lane in any way? If 2 so, please describe the nature of those discussions...

AI summary The response addresses whether the respondent conferred with Courtney Lane from Synapse regarding the BCA test and DSM Plan. The respondent confirms discussions with Ms. Lane, but clarifies that they did not intend to offer legal opinions and that they did not propose changing the cost-effectiveness framework established in M12282.

EfficiencyOne's demand-side management responsibilities and the differing interpretations of applicable statutory language, the work of interpreting and opining on the changes introduced by the Energy Reform (2024) Act , SNS 2024, c 2, wil...

AI summary EfficiencyOne's application for a new benefit-cost analysis test for demand-side management plans is being considered by the Nova Scotia Energy Board. The Board must interpret amendments to the Public Utilities Act and apply its new sustainability mandate under the Energy and Regulatory Boards Act. East Coast Environmental Law is participating in the matter to observe how the Board implements its sustainability responsibilities.