E-1Evidence - 2012 DSM Plan 2/28/2011
4 passages
Preliminary Program Cost Allocation Line # TABLE 1 Allocation of 25% of program costs associated with system benefits. COLUMN A B C D E F G H I J FORMULA Σ col A to H I x 75% Program costs incurred on participating rate classes. Program Co...
AI summary The document outlines the preliminary allocation of 25% of program costs associated with system benefits, with a formula indicating that program costs incurred on participating rate classes are considered, and the remaining 75% is allocated accordingly.
6 Example of Enhanced Billing An important new study from the American Council for an Energy Efficiency Economy (ACEEE), published in June 2010, summarizes the results of a rigorous meta-analysis of 57 studies from North America, Europe an...
AI summary This section discusses enhanced billing as a method for promoting energy efficiency, citing a study by the American Council for an Energy Efficiency Economy (ACEEE) that found energy savings ranging from 4% to 12%. Enhanced billing is associated with lower savings, while more frequent feedback and benchmarking yield higher savings. Costs for behavioral feedback initiatives, such as those used in Massachusetts, are relatively low.
APPROACH Our approach built upon measure data used for Navigant Consulting's 2010 Fuel Substitution Potential Study. In reviewing and updating Navigant's potential study, we brought a series of changes to the initial data. Specifically, we...
AI summary The approach described builds on Navigant Consulting's 2010 Fuel Substitution Potential Study, with updates to avoided costs, measure costs, and savings assumptions. It includes new measures and excludes those with TRC benefit-cost ratios below 0.8, except for a pilot project with a lower ratio.
19 Forecast Pilot Project Results Program Costs Incentive budget $570,000 Non-incentive budget $282,500 Total $852,500 Program Benefits 1st year GWh savings net 2.1 @generator kW savings net @ generator 961 Total Resource Cost Test Ratio 1...
AI summary The Forecast Pilot Project Results table outlines program costs and benefits, including incentive and non-incentive budgets, energy savings, and cost tests. The program is forecast to save 2.1 GWh annually and has a positive Total Resource Cost (TRC) ratio. The cost of conserved energy is compared to the Energuide for Existing Houses program in the 2011 DSM Plan.
E-7ENSC (Multeese) IR-1 to IR-31 3/29/2011
9 passages
► Life Cycle Costing A type of analysis that goes beyond the purchase price and also considers the costs of items such as shipping and packaging, disposal of packaging, energy use, maintenance, warranty, parts and repairs, consumable suppl...
AI summary Life cycle costing is an analysis method that considers not only the initial purchase price but also various other costs such as shipping, disposal, energy use, maintenance, warranty, parts, repairs, consumable supplies, training, and disposal over the entire life of an item.
► Expenses The actual costs incurred, supported by proof of payment, up to the amount judged by Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation to be reasonable, based upon experience of what such costs should be in the circumstances.
AI summary The text outlines the criteria for determining reasonable expenses, stating that actual costs are considered reasonable if supported by proof of payment and aligned with what such costs should be based on experience.
- 3 programs and the ENSC startup costs. 1 Request IR-4: 2 With respect to Figure 5.1 on page 14, 3 a) Please confirm that if the overachievements from 2008-09, contributions from the Extra 4 Large Industrials, and Codes and Standards are...
AI summary The document discusses questions regarding the 2012 DSM Plan and ENSC startup costs, including energy savings, investment amounts, and cost comparisons with the 2011 DSM Plan. It also requests explanations for lower energy savings and higher costs in 2012, as well as options to reduce costs.
NON-CONFIDENTIAL - The reader will note the linkage between increasing program unit costs and savings from codes and standards (the latter resulting in higher baselines and lower energy saving deltas, all else being equal). ENSC notes the...
AI summary The text discusses the 2012 DSM Plan and the challenges of balancing program unit costs with savings from codes and standards. It highlights the potential perverse incentives of assessing ENSC's performance solely on program unit costs. Enabling Strategies and low-income efforts are identified as high-cost components, with implications for future cost-effective savings.
NON-CONFIDENTIAL the higher incidence of split incentives and other factors that require higher transaction costs to attract participants into the program the longer-than-average lives of the measures (lifetime savings), a benefit that is...
AI summary The text discusses the higher costs of residential energy efficiency programs compared to commercial and industrial programs, citing split incentives and longer measure lifetimes as factors. It suggests ENSC could reduce first-year costs by shifting funds but would compromise its accessibility principle. Revised figures show increased energy savings targets for residential and non-residential programs.
1. TRC compares the sum of ENSC's and participants' investments against the direct benefits to Nova Scotia (such as avoided costs). 2. PAC compares ENSC's (i.e. NSPI ratepayers') costs against the direct benefits to Nova Scotia (avoided co...
AI summary The text discusses two different approaches to evaluating energy efficiency programs. TRC evaluates the combined investments of ENSC and participants against avoided costs, while PAC evaluates ENSC's costs against avoided costs of electrical capacity and energy.
hmsenergy>. & lt;sup>60 Golove, supra note 34 at 22-24. high; this includes consideration of interest rate and discount rate reflecting payback period and investment risk). $^{61}$ The lack of capital barrier is the most significant invest...
AI summary The text discusses the significant investment barriers faced by low-income renters in Nova Scotia due to a lack of capital, making it difficult for them to invest in energy-efficient technologies despite potential long-term savings. It highlights that subsidy, incentive, and rebate programs that do not fully cover costs are insufficient, and suggests solutions such as full funding or deferred payment options.
Telephone conversation with Colleen, OPA, November 8, 2010. 1 Request IR-14: 6 currently considering or has implemented with respect to ensuring that in the event 7 of a multi-fuels mandate, costs associated with each fuel will be segregat...
AI summary The conversation discusses ENSC's approach to segregating and allocating costs for multi-fuels programs and its plans for submitting strategies to the UARB for approval. ENSC is developing a fund-accounting system and engaging a consultant to establish a cost allocation framework.
- income clients. 1 Request IR-18: 2 3 With respect to Appendix A, page 6, line 20 4 a) Please comment on the appropriateness of including "small commercial, industrial 5 and institutional customers" in a Residential program. 6 7 b) Please...
AI summary The document contains requests and responses related to energy efficiency programs, including the inclusion of commercial and institutional customers in a residential program, tracking expenditures and savings by rate class, and the unique opportunity for low-income customers in the Efficient Products program. It also discusses the Home Energy Report as a stand-alone program and the evaluation of its energy savings.
E-13Evidence of Tim Woolf, Synapse Energy Economics Inc., Board Consultant 4/8/2011
5 passages
ams implemented by ENSC are funded by a set of charges to NSPI customers. In many jurisdictions it is common for stakeholders to raise concerns about rate impacts of energy efficiency programs, and to
AI summary Energy efficiency programs implemented by ENSC are funded through charges on NSPI customers. Stakeholders in other jurisdictions often express concerns about the rate impacts of such programs, highlighting potential financial implications for customers.
recommend that budgets be limited in order to mitigate against rate impacts that are perceived to be too high. I believe that this is an appropriate time for the Board to clarify that the Nova Scotia DSM budgets should not be limited for t...
AI summary The text discusses concerns about high energy efficiency budgets and their potential rate impacts, arguing against limiting DSM budgets without proper analysis. It emphasizes the need for the Board to establish principles for quantifying rate impacts to ensure decisions are based on evidence rather than abstract concerns.
sed on abstract arguments and perceived, undocumented concerns. Second, there are many different ways to quantify and present rate impacts. With many energy efficiency programs there may be a trade-off between short-term increases in rates...
AI summary The text critiques the Dunsky report's alternative ramp-up schedule for relying on abstract arguments and undocumented concerns. It highlights challenges in quantifying rate impacts and notes trade-offs between short-term rate increases and long-term customer bill reductions through energy efficiency programs.
Q. You mentioned above that the overall benefits of efficiency programs should be a factor in assessing rate impacts. What do you mean by this? A. It is important to recognize that while energy efficiency can increase rates it also results...
AI summary The response emphasizes that energy efficiency programs, while potentially increasing rates, also provide significant benefits such as reduced electricity costs. It suggests that the Board should consider these benefits when evaluating rate impacts and recommends using the Program Administrator Cost test to assess cost reductions. A comparison between scenarios with different efficiency budgets is recommended to determine the optimal balance between rate impacts and benefits.
Q. Are you recommending that ENSC conduct analyses of the rate and bill impacts of its energy efficiency programs at this time? A. No, not necessarily. My point is that if concerns about rate impacts are used to slow the ramp-up rate of en...
AI summary The respondent indicates that while ENSC is not currently recommending analyses of the rate and bill impacts of its energy efficiency programs, such analyses are important if concerns about rate impacts are used to slow program implementation. Proper quantification is necessary to assess trade-offs between higher rates and energy efficiency benefits.
07314Board Decision 6/30/2011
4 passages
ergy savings from actual DSM programs in future years. [ENSC Closing Submission, pp. 3-5] [66] ENSC acknowledged some of the concerns raised, and submitted that the proper question for the Board is: ... what evidence is on the record to su...
AI summary ENSC argues that the Board should evaluate evidence before approving increased DSM spending, citing concerns over rate impacts and over-achievement of IRP targets. The CA supports the 2012 budget, noting a 100% increase from 2010 and ENS's new operational status. Rate impacts from DSM spending are acknowledged but require careful analysis.
4.3 Cost Allocation [76] Avon recommended the Board reduce the costs directly assigned to the large industrial class from $1.473 Million to $1.01 Million. In its Closing Submission Avon stated: The 2012 program costs that have been assigne...
AI summary Avon recommended reducing costs assigned to large industrial customers, citing a lack of evidence supporting their participation in energy efficiency programs. The CA argued that cost allocation for enabling strategies should be revised, as current methods are inequitable and fail to reflect the cross-class impact of benefits, with residential ratepayers disproportionately bearing the cost.
4.3.1 Findings [78] With respect to the submission of the CA, the current cost allocation was the subject matter of a Settlement Agreement in the 2010 DSM proceeding. That Settlement Agreement, approved by the Board, calls for a review of...
AI summary The Board found that the current cost allocation, as established in a 2010 Settlement Agreement, should remain unchanged for the 2012 DSM Plan. A full review of cost allocation is scheduled for 2013, and the Board does not support ad hoc changes. The Administrator's cost allocations are accepted, with a true-up mechanism in place to address any concerns.
5.5 Integrated Multi-Fuels Mandate [117] ENSC noted that the Province is in the process of changing its mandate and future responsibilities: With the expectation that ENSC will obtain a multi-fuels mandate in time for integration with 2012...
AI summary The document discusses ENSC's transition to an integrated multi-fuels mandate, aiming to streamline processes and reduce costs while avoiding cross-subsidization. Concerns are raised about shared services, cost allocation, and the need for a robust method to separate costs per fuel. ENSC plans to submit its reorganization plan for the Board's approval in the fall of 2011.
IR-1 to IR-13 issued by Tim Woolf, Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. (Board Counsel Consultant)06609 3/17/2011
5 passages
The Sustainability and Costs ofIncreasing Efficiency Impacts: Evidence from Experience to Date Kenji Takahashi and David Nichols, Synapse Energy Economics, Inc.
AI summary The document, authored by Kenji Takahashi and David Nichols of Synapse Energy Economics, Inc., examines the sustainability and financial implications of increasing energy efficiency, drawing on evidence from past experiences. It focuses on balancing cost considerations with long-term benefits of efficiency initiatives.
ABSTRACT As interest in increasing the scale of electric energy efficiency programs grows, one question is whether such programs can achieve and sustain high levels of impact. Another question is how the unit cost of saved energy (eSE) for...
AI summary The analysis examines the scalability of electric energy efficiency programs, focusing on sustaining high savings and the unit cost of saved energy (eSE). Data show some utilities maintain high savings over years, while eSE may decrease with scale due to innovation and economies of scale. The study highlights factors influencing eSE fluctuations as programs expand.
up>& lt;sup>1 The costs of the utility or other program administrator including the costs for marketing, administration, program rebates, and measurement and verification of energy savings. In fact, the data for actual energy efficiency pr...
AI summary The text discusses the cost structure of utility efficiency programs, noting that actual energy efficiency programs often have lower overall costs per kWh saved compared to Conservation Supply Curves (CSCs). Fixed costs are spread across more measures, and ambitious programs achieve lower costs. This contrasts with wholesale power markets, where prices are determined by the most expensive power plants.
d information how M&V has been conducted in Northeast states see Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, Inc. 2006. The Needfor and Approaches to Developing Common Protocols to Measure, VerifY and Moreover, the quality of savings estimat...
AI summary The analysis compares lifetime CSE per MWh with annual energy savings percentages, using assumptions for missing lifetime savings data and adjusting for transmission losses. A 4% discount rate, as used by CEC (2005), is applied to estimate levelized CSE. Variability in savings estimation quality is noted but not explored as a factor in observed trends.
The Costs of Increasing Electricity Savings through Utility Efficiency Programs: Evidence from US Experience Kenji Takahashi and David A. Nichols Synapse Energy Economics, Inc.
AI summary This paper examines the costs associated with increasing electricity savings through utility efficiency programs, drawing on evidence from U.S. experiences. It is authored by Kenji Takahashi and David A. Nichols of Synapse Energy Economics, Inc., and is relevant to Nova Scotia's regulatory proceedings on energy efficiency.
IR-1 to IR-31 issued by Mel Whalen, Multeese Consulting Inc. (Board Counsel Consultant)06607 3/17/2011
2 passages
Request IR-1: With respect to page 1, lines 25 - 26, please provide a copy of ENSC's "comprehensive policy framework". Request IR-2 With respect to page 8, lines 3-4, please provide the adjustments made to Appendix B of the Board's August...
AI summary The document outlines four regulatory requests related to ENSC's policy framework, adjustments to past decisions, data comparisons in figures, and cost analysis of DSM plans. It seeks clarification on energy savings, investment costs, and rationale for 2012 planning differences compared to 2011.
us on implementation strategies, or is it of the assessment, please provide the model that ENSC has in mind. 5 intended that the model itself will be part of the assessment? If the model is not part b) Please elaborate on the nature of the...
AI summary The text contains regulatory requests addressing DSM program cost methodologies, program structure changes, cost allocation, and TRC application levels. Key issues include avoided cost consistency, historic savings derivation, industrial project inclusion, third-party qualifications, and program classification rationale.
06935NPB Final Submission 5/13/2011
3 passages
Introduction On February 28, 2011, Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation ("ENSC") filed its 2012 DSM Evidence and Plan with the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (the "Board"). Please accept the following written submission on behalf of Ne...
AI summary ENSC submitted its 2012 DSM Plan with a $43.7M budget and 233.6 GWh savings target. NPB argues the Board should reject proposals to increase DSM spending, citing short-term rate impacts and issues with Mr. Whalen's responses to Undertakings 2 and 3, while acknowledging ENSC's balanced approach to DSM targets.
revenues basis. As Mr. Whalen notes in his testimony, ENSC's proposed plan for 2012 will result in cumulative energy savings of 541 GWh, which is above the IRP target of 500 GWh for 2012. 5 ENSC's plan meets its savings targets in part by...
AI summary ENSC's 2012 DSM budget proposal aims to meet energy savings targets through conservative estimates and excludes certain projects. The plan projects 541 GWh savings, exceeding the IRP target, but uses lower estimates for code/standard savings and ELI customer projects. ENSC maintains the budget remains unchanged even if federal lamp standards are delayed.
the regions energy needs, but at a somewhat higher price for each kilowatt hour. 26 Ex. E-17, page 1, 3 rd paragraph. _ & lt;sup>25 Ibid, page 2, lines 22-26. In putting forward recommendations to further increase the level of DSM spending...
AI summary The text critiques Mr. Whalen's analysis of DSM spending increases, noting he omitted detailed rate impact assessments for 2012. His 'back-of-the-envelope' calculations were deemed inadequate, with subsequent undertakings revealing flaws in his analysis. The lack of cross-examination on these responses is highlighted as a concern.
06952Avon Group Closing Submission 5/13/2011
2 passages
r programs (subject to audit) were approximately $528,000 in 2010 compared to the forecasted expenditures of $800,000 plus ENSC start-up and transition costs of $41,000 which had not been budgeted. The 2012 program costs that have been ass...
AI summary The text details program cost allocations for large industrial customers in Nova Scotia, highlighting discrepancies between 2010 actual costs ($528,000) and 2012 forecasts ($800,000). It outlines three program categories (Prescriptive Rebate, Custom, Enabling Strategies) and explains ENSC's method for estimating new construction costs (20% of total, ~$295,000) based on 2010 data. ENSC faced scrutiny over cost assignment justifications.
CONCLUSION On behalf of the Avon Group, we recommend: - (a) the budget as filed, be approved, subject to either a deduction for budgeted DSM expenditures assigned to the large industrial class (or a reallocation). It is recommended that 20...
AI summary The Avon Group recommends approving the budget with adjustments to DSM expenditures for large industrial customers, confirming non-program savings inclusion, directing ENSC to engage directly with industrial clients, confirming multi-sector cost allocation, scrutinizing shared services, and requiring rate impact information in future DSM filings.
07314Board Decision 6/30/2011
5 passages
that if there's any drop back with contractors, this causes a problem... ... 1 support Mel Whalen's point that a cutback in level of effort is not a good idea... [Transcript, pp. 316-318] [64] Mr. Whalen was also asked about the increased...
AI summary Mr. Whalen discusses the financial implications of increasing energy efficiency spending to meet the 2011 savings target, noting a small benefit to ELI customers but increased costs for Residential and General Demand classes. He provided initial and refined calculations, highlighting the trade-offs of higher spending levels.
rvenor consultants that further increases to ENSC's budget are required at this time. [NPB Closing Submission, pp. 1,2,6] [70] In its Reply Submission, EAC supported increased levels of DSM savings: In the past, Nova Scotian stakeholders h...
AI summary ENSC requests increased budget funding, while EAC supports higher DSM savings, citing DSM's cost-effectiveness and system benefits. EAC recommends approving the increased DSM budget based on consultant proposals, emphasizing energy efficiency's role in reducing electricity system costs.
4.3 Cost Allocation [76] Avon recommended the Board reduce the costs directly assigned to the large industrial class from $1.473 Million to $1.01 Million. In its Closing Submission Avon stated: The 2012 program costs that have been assigne...
AI summary Avon recommended reducing costs assigned to large industrial customers from $1.473 million to $1.01 million, citing a lack of evidence for program participation. The Consumer Advocate argued that allocating enabling strategy costs by customer class is inequitable, as residential ratepayers bear most of the costs despite limited access to DSM spending.
4.3.1 Findings [78] With respect to the submission of the CA, the current cost allocation was the subject matter of a Settlement Agreement in the 2010 DSM proceeding. That Settlement Agreement, approved by the Board, calls for a review of...
AI summary The Board acknowledges the CA's submission regarding cost allocation but notes that the current allocation was settled in the 2010 DSM proceeding and should be reviewed in 2013. It also supports the Administrator's allocation decisions and acknowledges a true-up mechanism to address any concerns.
5.5 Integrated Multi-Fuels Mandate [117] ENSC noted that the Province is in the process of changing its mandate and future responsibilities: With the expectation that ENSC will obtain a multi-fuels mandate in time for integration with 2012...
AI summary ENSC is transitioning to an integrated multi-fuels mandate, aiming to streamline processes and reduce costs. Concerns were raised about cross-subsidization and the need for clear cost allocation. The CA urged ENSC to develop a plan to prevent electricity ratepayers from subsidizing non-electricity users. Avon recommended a public report on shared service cost allocations.
08028NSPI proposed ENS DSM Cost Recovery Rider and DSM Cost Recovery Rider Balance Adjustment Charges by rate class effective from January 1 through December 31, 2012 9/30/2011
3 passages
(5) All residential rate classes will use the same unit fixed cost estimate. COLUMN A B C D E F G H I K L · 0 π 4 COLUMN ∢ ш ပ ۵ ш LL. g I - 7 ¥ ٦ Σ 20 FORMULA Table 2 Column K Table 1 Column H Table 2 Column L ы + П - J x (1 + WACC) 2 K/L...
AI summary The text discusses the use of a uniform unit fixed cost estimate for all residential rate classes. It includes a table with columns detailing formulas, expenditures, and financial calculations, such as total expenditure by rate class, system benefit costs, and participation costs.
There are 3 kinds of cost benefits resulting from DSM: - 1. System Avoided future infrastructure and related costs, reduced fuel costs, and contribution to achieving environmental and emissions restrictions. All customers receive these ben...
AI summary The text outlines three types of cost benefits from Demand Side Management (DSM): system, class, and participation. It emphasizes that DSM costs should be recovered based on the level of benefit received by customer classes, with those receiving the most benefits bearing the greatest responsibility for cost contribution, even if they do not directly participate in programs.
Method: - Step 1 Allocate the system benefits to all customer classes, except to the Mersey System Rate (i.e., Basic Block), allocating s x DT, in accordance with the COSS methodology per the most recent rate case decision, where "DT" repr...
AI summary The method outlines a five-step process for allocating DSM program costs between customer classes, including assigning 25% as system benefits and 75% directly to classes. It references the COSS methodology and adjusts allocations based on Bowater Mersey's participation and demand levels. The approach aims to calculate annual cost recovery surcharges and adjust forecasts using actual participation data.
08030Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation - Cost Allocation Methodology Report - Prepared by Elenchus Research Associates Inc. - September 2011 9/30/2011
13 passages
Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation Cost Allocation Methodology Report
AI summary The document is a methodology report outlining how Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation allocates costs. However, no substantive content or analysis is provided in the text beyond the title.
Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation ("ENSC"), which was created by legislation that was proclaimed January 22, 2010, is subject to regulation by the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board ("NSUARB" or "Board"). It filed its first Electricity...
AI summary Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation (ENSC) is regulated by the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB). ENSC filed its first Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Plan, the 2012 DSM Plan, and the NSUARB issued a decision and order in 2011. With ENSC's expanded mandate, the Board directed ENSC to develop a cost allocation model and policy to track time and costs for electric and other fuel mandates.
2 ENSC'S NEW SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS ENSC is in the process of implementing a new system of accounts. In this system of accounts each transaction will be coded in four ways: - 1. Account code: Each entry is assigned an account code. The account...
AI summary ENSC is implementing a new accounting system with four coding methods: account code, fund, department, and program. The system categorizes transactions into general, capital, EDSM, and PNS funds, 12 departments, and 26 programs, including subcategories like Solar (Provincial-Residential).
3 COST ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY ENSC's cost allocation model relies on standard fully allocated costing concepts that are generally accepted by Canadian regulators for rate-setting purposes. In particular, ENSC's fully allocated costing meth...
AI summary ENSC's cost allocation model uses fully allocated costing concepts, dividing costs between taxpayer- and ratepayer-funded programs. It employs two tiers of customer classes, with direct allocation methods for specific accounts like the Small Business Energy Solutions (SBES) program. The Board's 2011 Order guides the first-tier allocation methodology.
4 CONCLUSION The methodology used to allocate ENSC's total "costs for electric and other fuel mandates" is consistent with the standard approach to the fully allocated costing models that are used for rate setting purposes by regulated ele...
AI summary The document outlines ENSC's cost-allocation methodology for electric and other fuel mandates, aligning with Canadian utility standards. Direct and joint program costs are allocated case-by-case, with administrative costs tied to staff resources. Costs are recovered via NSUARB-approved rate riders for electricity programs and government payments for other fuel programs.
INTRODUCTION The NSUARB has requested an accounting procedures document to accompany the Cost Allocation Methodology (CAM) Report filed by Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation (ENSC) on September 30, 2011, that will provide greater procedura...
AI summary The NSUARB requested an accounting procedures document to accompany ENSC's 2011 Cost Allocation Methodology (CAM) Report, aiming to clarify program cost allocation within ENSC's accounting system. The Appendix outlines procedural guidance, including examples and references to schedules defining funds, departments, and programs.
ENSC COST ALLOCATION PROCESS 1. Invoice is received by ENSC All invoices are forwarded to the Accounts Payable Department for review and coding (this is done to ensure that costs are objectively and consistently allocated). - 2. Invoice co...
AI summary The ENSC cost allocation process involves receiving invoices, reviewing them in the Accounts Payable Department, and coding costs to specific programs or the General Fund based on documentation. Unclear allocations require vendor communication or internal determination with the program manager, ensuring consistency and future analysis via the CAM model.
CONCLUSION The cost allocation and procedural direction outlined above creates an accounting methodology and procedure designed to satisfy the regulatory requirement to ensure that costs are properly and fairly allocated between programs p...
AI summary The conclusion outlines a cost allocation methodology to ensure fair distribution of costs between ratepayer-funded and taxpayer-funded programs, utilizing objective measures and the CAM for reporting to the NSUARB.
EXAMPLE # 1 – DIRECT BILLING An invoice is received by the Accounts Payable Clerk from Vendor "A" in which the subject line reads: "ENS‐0062‐R Retail Product Markdown Program Phase II August 16 – 31, 2011". The subject line specifically id...
AI summary An invoice from Vendor 'A' for ENSC's Efficient Products Retail Markdown Program is allocated to Fund 30 (EDSM), Department 10 (Direct Costs), and Program 1008 (EP Retail Markdown) by the Accounts Payable Clerk.
Line item – Eco Energy Evaluations The Eco Energy Evaluations are supported by schedules indicating for each Evaluation Number whether the work was performed at a home designated electric (ratepayer‐funded) or non‐electric (taxpayer‐ funde...
AI summary The Eco Energy Evaluations document outlines two methods for allocating costs between electric (ratepayer-funded) and non-electric (taxpayer-funded) evaluations. Costs are calculated either directly (by multiplying counts by per-evaluation costs) or proportionally (based on evaluation ratios) and then allocated to specific funds, departments, and programs.
Line item ‐ Travel Travel is supported by a schedule breaking out the cost of travel per day, referencing the completed evaluation numbers. These costs cannot be directly allocated due to lack of information provided by the vendor indicati...
AI summary Travel costs are allocated proportionally between funds due to insufficient vendor data on kilometre breakdowns. The $240 travel expense (75% to EDSM, 25% to General Fund) is deemed nominal compared to the total $12,690 Eco Evaluation cost. Final allocation uses the CAM model, with 98% to EDSM and 2% to General Fund as indirect costs.
EXAMPLE # 3 – IDENTIFIED AND INDIRECT An invoice is received by the Accounts Payable Clerk from Vendor "C" in which the subject line reads: "ENS‐0039 BER Brochures". The subject line specifically identifies an ENSC program – Business Energ...
AI summary An invoice for ENSC's Business Energy Rebates (BER) brochures requires allocation between New Construction (EDSM) and Retrofit (EDSM) subcategories. The Accounts Payable Clerk consults the Program Manager, who determines a 20%/80% allocation based on internal financial analysis. The CAM (Cost Allocation Model) is used to allocate costs to General Fund and programs for internal reporting and separation from corporate costs.
Note: The above application of cost allocation is also applied to invoices for which the program identified is sub‐categorized between the ratepayer and taxpayer. The amounts are still recorded to the General Fund for further scrutiny duri...
AI summary The text describes how cost allocation is applied to invoices categorized between ratepayer and taxpayer, and to groups of programs (residential or commercial). Amounts are recorded to the General Fund for scrutiny under the Cost Allocation Model (CAM).