Topic:"Capital Expenditures" in M09096

per year, an increase of 27 approximately $3 million from an average of approximately $40 million over the last 9 28 years of approved investment levels. This proposed investment level is materially 29 consistent with the average of approv...

AI summary The text discusses the need to increase DSM investment due to market evolution, moving away from lighting rebates to more complex upgrades. It references the 2020-2022 Preferred DSM Plan and a Consensus Agreement dated June 30, 2016, highlighting the shift from low-cost energy savings to deeper, more expensive measures.

9 Alternate Scenario Development 10 11 The development of the Alternate scenario follows the same key considerations used 12 in the Preferred Plan: - 13 energy savings (customer value); - 14 balanced portfolio approach (customer need); and...

AI summary The Alternate Scenario Development section outlines that the Alternate scenario aligns with the Preferred Plan's key considerations: energy savings (customer value), balanced portfolio approach (customer need), and investment level (customer affordability). These factors guide the scenario's development to ensure alignment with customer priorities and financial feasibility.

17 Alternate Scenario Energy Savings 18 19 The Alternate scenario will deliver approximately 125 GWh of incremental energy 20 savings for each year of the three-year plan period, for an average annual investment 21 of approximately $37 mil...

AI summary The Alternate Scenario Energy Savings plan aims to deliver 125 GWh of annual energy savings over three years with an average $37 million investment, as outlined in Table 12. This scenario is part of a regulatory proceeding evaluating energy efficiency initiatives.

Measure Existing equipment wattage Replacement equipment wattage Quantity of measure installed

AI summary The text presents a table structure for tracking energy efficiency measures, comparing existing and replacement equipment wattage and installation quantities. It focuses on quantifying equipment upgrades as part of demand-side management initiatives.

scenarios with both a $34M and EfficiencyOne’s response to investment levels (e.g. $34 $27M annual investment. NS Power IR-07 b). million, $27 million).

AI summary The text references scenarios with $34M and $27M annual investment levels, alongside EfficiencyOne’s response to NS Power’s IR-07 b document. It highlights differing investment approaches in a regulatory context.

N/A N/A Total 34.2 181.4 124.1 1819.6 33.5 2.1 5.3 Incremental Incremental Lifetime Energy Annual Net Program Investment Lifetime Benefits Annual Net Total Resource 2022 a Savings at Demand Savings b Administrator ($ million) ($ million) E...

AI summary The text presents a table with financial and energy metrics, including investment figures, lifetime benefits, annual energy savings, and cost tests (TRC and PAC). It appears to evaluate program performance and resource allocation, focusing on energy efficiency and cost recovery mechanisms.

8. Estimated Useful Life of the project Type of replacement If early replacement, indicate the remaining useful life of the equipment Observations that justify the type of replacement choice Main equipment considered in EUL calculation Tra...

AI summary The text presents a table related to the estimated useful life (EUL) of a project, including sections for type of replacement, observations justifying replacement choices, main equipment considered, and EUL calculations. The table appears to be part of a regulatory proceeding document.

in Nova Scotia, it has come at a price. Notwithstanding this progress, I question Mr. Reed's assertion that EfficiencyOne is a leading program administrator like those in his peer group. 54 EfficiencyOne has proposed a smaller DSM budget f...

AI summary The text questions whether EfficiencyOne is a peer to leading U.S. program administrators, noting its smaller DSM budget compared to peers. While supporting EfficiencyOne's budget judgment, it critiques the economic justification for the Preferred Plan and argues that comparing EfficiencyOne to top administrators is ideologically driven rather than representative of industry norms.

Q. What are the short-term costs required to achieve the DSM savings in the Preferred Plan? A. The targeted 7.4% increase in energy savings and 84% increase in capacity savings over the historical averages will necessitate a 23.1% increase...

AI summary The Preferred Plan requires a 23.1% increase in DSM investment in 2020 to achieve 7.4% higher energy savings and 84% higher capacity savings compared to historical averages. This contrasts with most other jurisdictions, which maintain flat or decreasing DSM spending. References include EfficiencyOne Evidence tables and Board decisions M06733 and M08604.

Figure 11: Forecasted Annual Investment (in 2018$) by Asset Class Note: Figure does not include escalation as it is used for asset planning. Forecast investments are subject to change arising from asset health and actual utilization. Chang...

AI summary Figure 11 shows forecasted 2028 investments for Tufts Cove Unit #2, with NS Power planning to evaluate replacement options instead of sustaining capital investment, following Synapse's Generation Utilization & Optimization study recommendations. Forecasts exclude escalation and are subject to change due to asset health and currency fluctuations.

CONFIDENTIAL (Attachment Only) 1 Request IR-23: 2 3 E1's audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2018 (M09163) include a 4 note stating that it has an agreement with NS Power to extend financing to certain BNI 5 custom...

AI summary The document details E1's financing arrangement with NS Power for BNI customers in energy programs, including loan terms, rate base treatment, defaults, and credit processes. The response references confidential attachments and states principal amounts are included in rate base. Matter numbers M09163 and M09096 are cited.

Request IR-2 Please provide projected budgets and savings by sector (commercial/industrial, residential, and low- income) for the preferred plan and the alternate plan. How would the budgets and savings by sector change if the efficiency b...

AI summary Request IR-2 seeks projected budgets and savings by sector (commercial/industrial, residential, low-income) for the preferred and alternate plans, and how these would change with further reductions to the efficiency budget. The focus is on financial planning and sectoral impact analysis under different efficiency scenarios.

proposing your plan will it speak to demand reduction or will it speak to demand reduction/demand response to give you the flexibility to achieve some of these, these measures that may be agreed on? MacDonald: I don't think the reason in o...

AI summary The discussion centers on whether compliance filings should specify fund allocation for demand reduction versus demand response. MacDonald argues flexibility is needed to shift funds between initiatives, while Rubin seeks confirmation of E1's ability to reallocate funds to demand response programs. The Industrial Group recommends affirming E1's mandate to pursue cost-effective demand response within its budget.

3 HEATING SYSTEM COST COMPARISON This chapter describes the methodology used for the heating system cost comparison and the insights which can be drawn from the results. The objective of this part of the study is mainly to answer the follo...

AI summary This section outlines a study comparing capital and energy costs between VRF heat pump systems and natural gas heating systems, focusing on methodology and key insights from the analysis.

APPENDIX - Building Modeling Assumptions - Annual Consumption by End-Use - System Performance Metrics - Monthly Heating and Cooling Consumptions - Capital Cost Estimates

AI summary The appendix outlines technical sections including building modeling assumptions, annual energy consumption by end-use, system performance metrics, monthly heating/cooling consumption data, and capital cost estimates, reflecting key considerations in energy efficiency and system design analyses.

Capital Cost Estimate - Hybrid Natural Gas System Element Quantities Unit Rates Sub-totals HVAC Equipment Cast-iron gas boiler (1250 MBH) 2 $ 16 250.00 $ 32 500.00 CGC Heat Pump 88 $ 4 112.50 $ 361 900.00 Cooling Tower (125 tons) 1 $ 32 28...

AI summary The document presents a detailed capital cost estimate for a hybrid natural gas system, including HVAC equipment, piping, ductwork, and electrical connections, with a total cost of approximately $1,241,772.29.

Capital Cost Estimate - Standard Electric System Element Quantities Unit Rates Sub-totals HVAC Equipment Mini split heat pump 176 $ 2 090.00 $ 367 840.00 Electric baseboard 352 $ 110.00 $ 38 720.00 HVAC Other Wall Sleeves, grilles, drain k...

AI summary The document provides capital cost estimates for two HVAC systems: a standard electric system and a standard VRF system. The standard electric system includes mini split heat pumps, electric baseboards, and associated controls, with a total cost of $603,760. The VRF system includes condensers, evaporators, ductwork, and piping, with a total cost of $1,261,188.

2013 Results The analysis of 2013 results is based primarily on a review of the 2015 DSM Resource Plan Application submitted to the NSUARB. The following table outlines a summary of the results against the Plan as filed for 2013. We noted...

AI summary The 2013 results analysis focuses on the 2015 DSM Resource Plan Application to NSUARB, noting no change in investment levels post-mid-course adjustment. Key data is summarized in a table referencing the 2013-2015 DSM Plan revised on April 18, 2012.

Overview of 2015 DSM Resource Plan 2015 was the transition year from Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation to Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS) Franchise; therefore, the 2015 DSM Resource Plan was designed as a Continuation Plan that did not take...

AI summary The 2015 DSM Resource Plan served as a continuation plan during the transition from Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation to Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS) Franchise. It operated under a $35 million legislative cap, plus a $4 million 2013 surplus, totaling $39 million. The plan relied on historical data and market research, continuing 2013–2014 activities without modeling.