E-1EfficiencyOne Application - Revised Application see Exhibit E-43
13 passages
While Figure 4.1 illustrates the avoidance of capacity additions, it does not show the additional energy benefits provided by DSM. As part of the requested analysis, NS Power calculated the avoided costs of the Base-DSM and Low-DSM Scenari...
AI summary The document discusses the benefits of Demand Side Management (DSM) scenarios, highlighting that the Base-DSM Scenario provides significant savings in energy and capacity costs for ratepayers. It also explains that DSM provides more benefits through energy savings than through capacity avoidance, and that the Base-DSM Scenario offers greater per-MWh energy benefits compared to the Mid-DSM Scenario. ENS is using Base avoided costs in its proposed DSM Resource Plan due to the high level of savings achieved.
rm rate impacts, particularly with a legislated $100 million cap on amortization of DSM. ENS agrees the impacts would be inappropriate when considering the additional analysis undertaken by NS Power. While short-term rate impacts are impor...
AI summary The document discusses the importance of balancing short-term and long-term considerations in the development of a Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan, emphasizing the negative impacts of pausing or reducing DSM investments. It highlights the long-term benefits of maintaining consistent DSM investment levels to avoid increased fuel costs and start-up expenses.
lting in lower unit costs than found in prior approved DSM Plans. Navigant, 2015 Investing in Demand-side Resources: Considering Affordability, February 26, 2015, page 4 ENS has addressed short-term affordability considerations in multiple...
AI summary The document discusses ENS's approach to affordability in its DSM Plan, noting that the proposed Plan requires less investment than initially modeled, resulting in lower unit costs and addressing short-term affordability concerns. It also references the 2014 IRP and the impact of DSM-related rate increases on the Fuel Adjustment Mechanism.
2 As described above, ENS will be pleased to provide input into NS Power's proposed cost 3 allocation methodology once available. Mitigation Strategy Potential Impact and/or Uncertainty Restricting Program Enrollment • Participants in prog...
AI summary The text discusses ENS's willingness to provide input on NS Power's cost allocation methodology. It also outlines potential impacts of restricting program enrollment, noting that immediate restrictions would have limited effects on 2014 allocations due to the time required for participants to complete upgrades and obtain customer approvals.
Currency is expressed in 2016 dollars. Columns may not add correctly, due to rounding. Annual avoided costs, calculated using ENSC's DSM Potential Study at the Base Level, were provided by NS Power. They include the cost of energy and capa...
AI summary The text discusses annual avoided costs calculated using ENSC's DSM Potential Study, including energy and capacity costs. It also introduces TRC and PAC as benefit/cost ratios comparing lifetime benefits to program costs. Figures 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 provide investment and savings data for 2016, 2017, and 2018, respectively.
Annual avoided costs, calculated using ENSC's DSM Potential Study at the Base Level, were provided by NS Power. They include the cost of energy and capacity. & lt;sup>a Lifetime benefits are expressed as the net present value of the avoide...
AI summary The text discusses annual avoided costs calculated by NS Power using ENSC's DSM Potential Study, including energy and capacity costs. It also defines lifetime benefits as the net present value of these avoided costs and introduces TRC and PAC as benefit/cost ratios used to evaluate program measures.
Update on Implementation of 2013 Verification and Evaluation Recommendations B C E F G K 114 Investigate the organization's costs of HR hiring: These costs should be evaluated to identify ways to reduce them. 2013 TPE R4. Not Recommended f...
AI summary The document discusses ENSC's disagreement with a 2013 recommendation to investigate HR hiring costs, stating that recruitment expenditures are a small part of the HR budget and reducing them is not a prudent investment.
2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan Rate and Bill Impact Analysis
AI summary This document provides an analysis of the rate and bill impact associated with the 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan, which outlines energy efficiency initiatives and their financial implications.
Assumptions used in ENS's 2016-2018 Rate and Bill Impact Analysis Stakeholder Stakeholder Comment ENSC's Response Inclusion in the model over the timeframe of the analysis. NS Power understands ENSC's stated rationale for this but notes th...
AI summary NS Power and ENSC discuss the use of levelized avoided costs in ENS's 2016-2018 Rate and Bill Impact Analysis. NS Power believes this approach oversimplifies benefits, while ENSC defends its use for transparency and confidentiality reasons. Both parties express willingness to collaborate on improving the analysis.
These assumptions are for rate and bill impact analysis purposes only and do not impact ENS's calculation of energy savings. Category Item Assumption Rate Impact Assumption Calculation of rate impacts Rate impacts are calculated using hist...
AI summary The assumptions provided are for rate and bill impact analysis and do not affect ENS's energy savings calculations. Rate impacts are calculated using historical and forecasted data, including the avoided cost of capacity but excluding the avoided cost of energy, which is considered a variable cost not impacting rates.
Appendix D, Attachment 3 Line# Rate and Bill Impacts of DSM on the Small General Class 1 Impacts of DSM on the Small General Rate Class 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Units 2 Incremental DSM Savi...
AI summary This table outlines the rate and bill impacts of Demand Side Management (DSM) on the Small General Class from 2016 to 2030. It includes incremental and cumulative DSM savings, costs, and average savings per participant, highlighting a decline in savings and costs after 2018.
Appendix D, Attachment 3 1 2 Impacts of DSM on the Large General Rate Class 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Units 3 Incremental DSM Savings 7.5 7.3 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0...
AI summary The table details the impacts of Demand Side Management (DSM) on the Large General Rate Class from 2016 to 2030. It shows incremental and cumulative DSM savings, costs, and savings per participant over time, highlighting a decline in savings after 2018 and a decrease in cost per kWh saved.
Figure 9: Resource Value Framework - NS Qualitative Assessment Program Name: Electric DSM Date: December 2014 1. Key Assumptions, Parameters and S ummary of Resu its Analysis Level ✓ Program Alialysis Level □ Portfolio Measure Life n/a Dis...
AI summary Figure 9 presents a qualitative assessment of the Resource Value Framework for the Electric DSM program in Nova Scotia as of December 2014. It outlines key assumptions, monetized program administrator costs and benefits, participant costs and benefits, public costs and benefits, and non-monetized public benefits.
E-7E1 (NSPI) RIR-1 to RIR-47
5 passages
g lifetime benefits to ENS’s costs. d RIM is a benefit/cost ratio comparing lifetime benefits to ENS’s costs and NSPI lost revenues. 2 3 Figure 2 - 2016 DSM Resource Plan Investment and Savings Incremental Incremental Annual Net Annual Net...
AI summary The text discusses metrics used in evaluating the 2016 DSM Resource Plan, including RIM, TRC, and PAC. These metrics compare lifetime benefits to ENS’s costs and NSPI’s lost revenues, focusing on energy and demand savings.
Other Enabling Strategies 0.7 Total 40.3 139.8 136.5 21.0 2.0 3.8 0.5 Currency is expressed in 2016 dollars. Columns may not add correctly, due to rounding. Annual avoided costs, calculated using ENSC’s DSM Potential Study at the Base Leve...
AI summary The text presents data on avoided costs, lifetime benefits, and cost-benefit ratios (TRC, PAC, RIM) for demand-side management (DSM) programs. It references the 2015 DSM Resource Plan Settlement Agreement and the 2016-2018 EECA Supply Agreement (M06733), highlighting low-income participation and energy efficiency metrics.
at Generator at Generator Cost Test (PAC)c (RIM)d (GWh) (MW) Residential DSM Programs Efficient Product Rebates 2.7 7.9 12.2 1.1 1.8 2.9 0.4 Existing Residential 14.8 61.8 43.6 8.0 1.9 4.2 0.5 Low Income Participation e 2.6 7.7 1.0 New Res...
AI summary The document presents a table detailing metrics for various demand-side management (DSM) programs, including cost tests, resource investment metrics, and energy output figures. It categorizes programs into residential, business, nonprofit, and institutional segments, with data on participation, costs, and performance indicators.
19 20 Since NSPI has not filed its proposed cost allocation methodology, the existing UARB- 21 approved cost allocation methodology has been used; if the methodology changes, the Date Filed: March 27, 2015 E1 (NSPI) IR-11 Page 3 of 7 2016-...
AI summary The document references the use of an existing UARB-approved cost allocation methodology by NSPI due to the absence of a newly proposed methodology. It also mentions the 2016-2018 Supply Agreement for EECA and E1's responses to NSPI information requests.
ate Filed: March 27, 2015 E1 (NSPI) IR-40 Page 2 of 2 2016-2018 Supply Agreement for EECA M06733 (E-ENS-R-15) E1 Responses to NSPI Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-41: 2 3 Please provide the wage rate increases (actual an...
AI summary The document provides wage rate increases for E1 and ENS from 2011 to 2015, with increases determined annually based on market considerations. Future wage rate increases for 2016 through 2018 will follow EfficiencyOne’s Compensation Statement of Practice and Procedure.
E-8Evidence of Nova Scotia Power Inc.
7 passages
24 Please refer to Appendix A, Attachment B, Review of NS Energy Savings Portfolio , April 8, 2015, page 15. • In the E1 DSM Plan, E1 is now requesting $0.29 to $0.31/kWh, although they were able to achieve an actual delivered cost of $0.2...
AI summary E1 is requesting a higher DSM Plan cost of $0.29 to $0.31/kWh, despite achieving $0.26/kWh in 2014. The increase is attributed to high unit costs from low-income homeowner programs and full HST costs, which are expected to be reduced in 2016 through ITCs.
10 11 12 13 14 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 In its initial evidence for the 2013-2015 DSM Plan Evidence, E1 proposed an increase in installed DSM costs. 25 Actual results to-date show that E1 actually achieved significantly lower costs than proposed. T...
AI summary The document discusses the performance of E1's 2013-2015 DSM Plan, noting that actual costs were significantly lower than initially proposed. It compares E1's costs to Manitoba Hydro's programs and highlights that E1's 2015 DSM programs are among the highest-cost in Canada, while the Canadian average is around $0.25/kWh. NS Power argues that a robust program can align with this average.
BC, MB, and NB. Alberta is not included as it does not provide DSM. & lt;sup>29 Please refer to Appendix A, Attachment B, Review of NS Energy Savings Portfolio, April 8, 2015, page 6. those of other DSM providers30 1 and that there may als...
AI summary The text discusses Nova Scotia's Demand Side Management (DSM) investment levels compared to other Canadian provinces, noting that Nova Scotia has the highest investment. It references a report showing that the 2015 DSM plan proposes 1.1% savings of electricity sales and highlights the cost and payback period for DSM programs.
7 NS Power acknowledges that there could be enhancements to this approach that would 8 benefit from further modeling and input from E1, especially if program costs can be 9 achieved at similar levels to 2014 actuals, as opposed to the high...
AI summary NS Power suggests that a $22 million DSM plan over the Contract Period would be more affordable than E1's plan and deliver significant long-term benefits. It recommends E1 design such a plan with savings of approximately 100 GWh per year and present it for consideration. NS Power also references David Pickles' testimony for alternate assumptions and modeling.
1 Reasonableness of the Proposed Costs 2 - 3 Q. WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE COSTS OF CERTAIN PROGRAMS - 4 MAY BE EXCESSIVE? - 5 A. Given the limited information provided with respect to each program 6 discussed above, it is difficult to ma...
AI summary The witness questions the reasonableness of EfficiencyOne's proposed program costs, suggesting they may be higher than those of other DSM providers. Benchmarks from 2013 and adjusted for inflation are referenced to compare costs between 2013 and 2016-2018.
2 Source for other administrator data: ESource; Efficiency Maine 1 As suggested by Tables 3 and 4, there exist different program 2 types which are cheaper than the programs proposed by EfficiencyOne, 3 and there are also programs of the sa...
AI summary The text discusses the need for additional information to justify the costs of EfficiencyOne's programs, noting that other administrators offer similar programs at lower costs. It references benchmarks from eight other organizations and provides a review of program costs in Attachment B.
MeasureLevel Results for Baseline E1 and Optimized Case D Scenarios Pro m T gra ype Sub ͲPro gra m Me asu re Mo del Bui ldin g T ype End Use Cat ego ry Sto ck T tme nt rea Dem and (kW ) Ene rgy (M Wh ) Tot l. Cos al I mp t ($ ) 5 B usin En...
AI summary This table presents the MeasureLevel results for baseline E1 and optimized Case D scenarios, showing energy demand, energy consumption, and total cost impact for various business energy rebate programs, including comparisons between baseline and optimized cases.
E-11NSPI (CA) RIRs to IR-1 to IR-41 - Redacted
6 passages
NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-4: 2 3 Reference: 2016-2018 DSM Plan NS Power Evidence Appendix B 4 5 How do the lifetime energy and demand savings and costs of NSPI DSM plan and E1's plan 6 compare with the projected marginal fuel cost of g...
AI summary The response compares the lifetime energy and demand savings and costs of NSPI's DSM plan and E1's plan with the projected marginal fuel cost of generating electricity in Nova Scotia. It notes that the Low DSM case has lower lifetime costs than E1's plan and both are below the projected marginal cost range of $50–$70 per MWh.
2016-2018 DSM Plan (NSUARB M06733) NSPI Responses to Consumer Advocate Information Requests 1 Request IR-6: 2 3 Reference: 2016-2018 DSM Plan NS Power Evidence Appendix B 4 5 Has NSPI an estimate of the net present value of energy savings...
AI summary NSPI is responding to information requests regarding its 2016-2018 DSM Plan. It estimates the net present value of energy savings at approximately $1.5 billion over 25 years. Spending is primarily focused on the BNI sector, and residential lighting with a TRC of 3.8 was not included in the plan.
CONFIDENTIAL (Attachments Only) 1 2 (h) The planning period cost of the plan that includes an FGD is lower in both the Base DSM 3 and Synapse Mid-DSM cases than the cost without an FGD (please refer to part (g) 4 above). NS Power has evalu...
AI summary The document discusses the cost implications of including an FGD in the Base DSM and Synapse Mid-DSM cases, noting lower planning period costs compared to scenarios without an FGD. It references the Board's directive from November 5, 2014, on evaluating plans based on net present value over the planning period, and mentions the selection of the Preferred Resource Plan based on the lowest cost NPV over a 25-year horizon.
ELECTRONIC 2016-2018 DSM Plan CA IR-30 Attachment 6 Page 1 of 2 Derivation of Figure 3.7 Partial Revenue Requirements: Fuel and Purchased Power, Thermal and Hydro O&M, Capital for new resources in the plan, DSM program administrator costs,...
AI summary The text discusses the derivation of partial revenue requirements for the 2016-2018 DSM Plan, including costs related to fuel, purchased power, thermal and hydro operations and maintenance, capital for new resources, DSM program administration, and sustaining capital.
NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-35: 2 3 Identify the categories of NSPI costs which NSPI expects to increase over the period 2015 4 through 2019 and by how much NSPI expects each to increase. Provide all evidence, 5 studies or analysis relev...
AI summary The response to Request IR-35 discusses NSPI's expectation of cost increases from 2015 to 2019, emphasizing the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) framework. It highlights that demand-side management (DSM) spending is the primary driver of increased customer costs, with the 'No DSM' profile having the lowest NPV compared to other scenarios.
NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-36: 2 3 Identify the categories of NSPI costs which NSPI expects to decrease over the period 2015 4 through 2019 and by how much NSPI expects each to decrease. Provide all evidence, 5 studies or analysis relev...
AI summary The document outlines a request (IR-36) for NSPI to identify categories of costs expected to decrease between 2015 and 2019, along with supporting evidence. The response directs the requester to refer to another document, CA IR-35.
E-16NSPI (NSUARB) RIRs to IR-1 to IR-15
4 passages
- 17 classes. 1 Request IR-2: 2 3 Under current legislation, the 2015 DSM program costs cannot be expensed during 2015 4 but must be recovered by NSPI over an 8-year period beginning in 2016. 5 6 (a) Please estimate the additional cost to...
AI summary The document discusses the cost recovery approach for the 2015 DSM program, which requires an 8-year recovery period starting in 2016, and the lack of a recommended approach for the 2016-18 DSM Plan. It also addresses whether NSPI has analyzed the cost of DSM programs compared to fuel and other costs, referencing a 'ceteris paribus' analysis in the IRP final report.
NS Power, DSM Evidence, April 10, 2015, page 31, line 12 to page 32, line 12. 1 Request IR-4: 2 3 NSPI is proposing a significantly reduced level of DSM energy savings during the 2016 to 4 2018 period. 5 6 (a) Please prepare a table estima...
AI summary NSPI is proposing a reduced level of DSM energy savings from 2016 to 2018 and has provided alternative DSM scenarios for comparison. The response includes reference to tables estimating the cost of additional generation and potential revenue from higher energy sales, as well as explanations of the calculation methodology.
13 1 (c) Attachment 1 uses the avoided energy costs on a $/MWh, to determine the energy 2 savings over the lifetime of the 2016 to 2018 DSM programs. The annual incremental 3 energy savings for each plan are assumed to have an average meas...
AI summary The text discusses the calculation of net costs or savings for the Scenario D DSM plan and the E1 DSM plan, using avoided energy costs and assumptions about the lifespan and distribution of energy savings over time.
Ε G В F C Low DSM Plan Scenario D DSM Plan Scenario D DSM Plan Net Cost (-) or Avoided Cost Incremental Annual Cumulative Energy Savings Scenario D Net Savings (+) Energy Savings Energy Savings \ (B \ D) (E + F)of Energy DSM Investment $/M...
AI summary The document presents two scenarios (Scenario D and E1 DSM Plan) for the Demand Side Management (DSM) Plan, detailing annual net savings or costs, energy savings, and DSM investments from 2015 to 2031. The data highlights the financial implications and energy savings associated with each plan over time.
62379Closing Submission - Nova Scotia Power Inc.
7 passages
24 In the face of these challenges to affordability, NS Power has, amongst other things, 25 significantly reduced its workforce and its capital expenditure program. These efforts 26 have been very challenging for NS Power and for those Nov...
AI summary NS Power has reduced its workforce and capital expenditures to address affordability challenges, but these efforts have been difficult for employees and affected Nova Scotians. The government has legislated affordability as a factor in approving DSM expenditures. The COMFIT program is expected to increase renewable generation but at a higher cost to ratepayers.
& lt;sup>24 2016-2018 Demand Side Management Resource Plan (M06733), Transcript, June 19, 2015, pages 780-781. 1 Although NS Power is confident E1 can deliver a program in the range of $22 million 2 that would produce the required demand a...
AI summary NS Power is confident that E1 can deliver a demand side management program worth $22 million, which would produce required demand and energy savings to avoid additional capacity requirements until 2032. However, the savings needed for the next 10 years are less than the average annual demand reduction required until 2032. E1 acknowledges that non-participants in the DSM Plan will see increased bills over the three-year contract period.
29 2016-2018 Demand Side Management Resource Plan (M06733), Transcript, June 18, page 653, lines 9-17. The evidence presented was clear that E1 is capable of producing more energy savings for less cost. NS Power's analysis demonstrates the...
AI summary The text discusses the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of energy savings programs, particularly the Demand Side Management (DSM) plan. E1 is shown to be capable of producing more energy savings at a lower cost than previously modeled. NS Power's proposed DSM first year unit cost of $0.22/kWh is compared to averages in other Canadian jurisdictions. The text highlights the potential for cost reductions in energy efficiency programs.
average (per customer) DSM spending in such jurisdictions. 33 It is clear that the average Canadian contributes far less than what E1 is recommending Nova Scotians contribute. 25 26 27 28 Of note is that E1's response was to argue they can...
AI summary The text discusses E1's argument that eliminating a low-cost program and replacing it with higher-cost items has increased DSM spending, but there is no evidence that E1 attempted to replace it with another low-cost plan or reduce costs elsewhere. It also notes that E1 could achieve significant energy savings at a lower cost if it maintained its 2014 cost per kWh level.
asures (LED lights). It is also worthy to note that even if E1 maintained its 2014 level of cost per kWh of savings, it could produce 100 GWh of energy savings for approximately $25 to $26 million. • Achieving 100 GWh for $22 million is es...
AI summary The text discusses the cost-effectiveness of E1's Demand Side Management (DSM) Plan, noting that E1 could achieve 100 GWh of savings for around $25 to $26 million. It highlights that E1's proposed incentive budget is significantly lower than its original budget and that concerns were raised about the lack of evidence supporting the proposed incentive levels.
& lt;sup>69 2016-2018 Demand Side Management Resource Plan (M06733), Transcript, June 18, 2015, page 470, lines 4-8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The Board's decisions regarding the 2016-2018 program will most likely set—or at least strongly influenc...
AI summary The 2016-2018 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan is discussed, with E1 arguing that cutting back on DSM programs would lead to higher costs and loss of momentum. E1 claims that DSM is more economical than fuel costs, citing a 50% return on investment. NS Power disagrees, stating E1's arguments are misleading.
1 12.0 CONCLUSION 2 3 E1 has failed to discharge the burden placed on it under the Act. E1 has not provided the 4 evidence necessary to justify the DSM programs and level of expenditure put forward in 5 the E1 DSM Plan as being affordable...
AI summary E1 has not met its burden of proof to justify the DSM programs and expenditure levels in its plan as affordable or in customers' best interests. The proposed energy savings and costs are not necessary for regulatory compliance or system demand, and many incentives are deemed unreasonable. NS Power recommends a reduced DSM plan to support affordability and avoid additional capacity needs until 2032.
62460Reply Submission - NSPI
3 passages
5 CA Closing Submission, July 8, 2015, page 4. 6 CA Closing Submission, July 8, 2015, page 4. 1 2 In the absence of E1 providing any alternate DSM scenarios with its Application, NS Power used E1's ELRAM model to produce alternate scenario...
AI summary NS Power used E1's ELRAM model to produce alternate DSM scenarios, including Scenario D, which meets energy savings targets at a lower cost. NS Power argues that E1's proposed DSM Plan is only a high-level proposal and not a detailed implementation plan. The CA incorrectly references Scenario C and criticizes NS Power for eliminating residential programs, which NS Power denies.
Exhibit E-13, NS Power (E1) IR 12(g)(iv). 42 2016-2018 Demand Side Management Resource Plan (M06733), Transcript, June 16, 2015, page 339, lines 7-22. 43 Ibid, page 485, lines 20-22. Note: The transcript incorrectly attributes this testimo...
AI summary The document discusses the cost-effectiveness of Demand Side Management (DSM) programs, highlighting that DSM investment at a cost of 3 cents per kWh is affordable compared to generation costs of 12 cents per kWh. NS Power disputes this, arguing that the 12 cents/kWh figure includes all utility revenue requirements, and that first-year DSM costs are significantly higher at 29 to 31 cents per kWh.
& lt;sup>61 NSPI ACE 2015, Decision, 2015-NSUARB-92 (M06514), pages 22-23, paras 87-89. 1 NS Power has no objection to providing information to assist the Board and stakeholders 2 in future DSM applications in the same manner as informatio...
AI summary NS Power opposes the adoption of Mr. Whalen's response to U-9, arguing that the level of detail requested would unnecessarily complicate the DSM application process. NS Power also requests the Board to approve a Non-Financial Settlement Agreement and reject the 2016-2018 DSM Plan filed by E1, proposing instead a revised plan with specific energy savings and investment targets.
63105Compliance Filing
3 passages
Annual avoided costs, calculated using ENSC's DSM Potential Study at the Base Level, were provided by NS Power. They include the cost of energy and capacity. a Lifetime benefits are expressed as the net present value of the avoided costs,...
AI summary The text discusses annual avoided costs calculated using ENSC's DSM Potential Study, including energy and capacity costs. It also introduces TRC and PAC as benefit/cost ratios and references ENS's planned participation by low-income customers under the 2015 DSM Resource Settlement Agreement.
Figure 4. 2018 DSM Resource Plan Investment and Savings 2018 Investment ($ million) Lifetime Benefits ($ million) a Incremental Annual Net Energy Savings at Generator (GWh) Incremental Annual Net Demand Savings at Generator (MW) Total Reso...
AI summary Figure 4 presents the 2018 DSM Resource Plan Investment and Savings, detailing the investment amounts, lifetime benefits, and energy and demand savings for various residential and non-residential DSM programs, along with their associated costs and savings metrics.
Annual avoided costs, calculated using ENSC's DSM Potential Study at the Base Level, were provided by NS Power. They include the cost of energy and capacity. 19 c PAC is a benefit/cost ratio comparing lifetime benefits to ENS's costs. d Re...
AI summary The text discusses annual avoided costs calculated using ENSC's DSM Potential Study, including energy and capacity costs. It also references the PAC and TRC benefit/cost ratios, developed by EfficiencyOne and Navigant's ELRAM model, in relation to program-level investments and savings.
631072016-2018 DSM Supply Agreement - Schedule E - Final with Track Changes
3 passages
Currency Investment is expressed in 2016nominal dollars. Columns may not add correctly, due to rounding. Annual avoided costs, calculated using ENSC's DSM Potential Study at the Base Level, were provided by NS Power. They include the cost...
AI summary The text discusses annual avoided costs from NS Power's DSM Potential Study, expressed in 2016 nominal dollars. It highlights lifetime benefits as the net present value of avoided energy and capacity costs, and introduces TRC and PAC as benefit/cost ratios comparing these benefits to total and ENS-specific costs, respectively.
3 4 Figure 1.2 - 2016 DSM Resource Plan Investment and Savings 2016 Investment ($ million) Lifetime Benefits ($ million)a Incremental Annual Net Energy Savings at Generator (GWh) Incremental Annual Net Demand Savings at Generator (MW) Tota...
AI summary The document presents a comparison of investment and savings data from the 2016 DSM Resource Plan, detailing various residential and business programs, their investments, benefits, and cost tests. It includes metrics such as lifetime benefits, energy and demand savings, and cost tests like TRC and PAC.
1 Figure 1.4 - 2018 DSM Resource Plan Savings and Investment 2018 Investment ($ million) Lifetime Benefits ($ million)a Incremental Annual Net Energy Savings at Generator (GWh) Incremental Annual Net Demand Savings at Generator (MW) Total...
AI summary The document presents data on the 2018 DSM Resource Plan Savings and Investment, including details on investment amounts, lifetime benefits, energy and demand savings, and cost tests for various residential and business programs. The data is split into two currency tables, with differences in figures likely due to rounding and currency conversion.
63292Supply Agreement EfficiencyOne and NSPI Form of Agreement Final Executed in Counterparts
3 passages
2 NS Power. They include the cost of energy and capacity. a Lifetime benefits are expressed as the net present value of the avoided costs, including energy and capacity, over the life of the program measures. b TRC is a benefit/cost ratio...
AI summary The text discusses program-level investment and savings for 2016, including cost calculations related to energy and capacity, as well as benefit/cost ratios such as TRC and PAC. It references figures that provide financial details of the programs.
1 Figure 1.3 - 2017 DSM Resource Plan Investment and Savings 2017 Investment ($ million) Lifetime Benefits ($ million)a Incremental Annual Net Energy Savings at Generator (GWh) Incremental Annual Net Demand Savings at Generator (MW) Total...
AI summary Figure 1.3 outlines the 2017 DSM Resource Plan investment and savings, including details on residential and non-residential programs, their respective investments, benefits, energy and demand savings, and cost tests such as TRC and PAC.
Figure 1.4 - 2018 DSM Resource Plan Savings and Investment 2018 Investment ($ million) Lifetime Benefits ($ million) a Incremental Annual Net Energy Savings at Generator (GWh) Incremental Annual Net Demand Savings at Generator (MW) Total R...
AI summary Figure 1.4 from the 2018 DSM Resource Plan outlines investments and benefits for various energy efficiency programs, including residential and business initiatives. It highlights the financial and energy savings associated with these programs, along with metrics like the Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) and Program Administrator Cost Test (PAC).
63307Board Order
5 passages
1 The term "Balance Adjustment" refers to the 2014 surplus of DSM funds in the amount of $8,518,030 that is to be returned by EfficiencyOne in accordance with the UARB-approved cost-allocation methodology. The return of the Balance Adjustm...
AI summary The document discusses the 'Balance Adjustment' of $8,518,030, which is a surplus from the 2014 DSM funds to be returned by EfficiencyOne. This adjustment reduces the 2016 portion of the Contract Price paid by NSPI to EfficiencyOne, limiting the 2016 payment to $24,691,970 and the total payment over the Term to $93,631,970.
a Lifetime benefits are expressed as the net present value ofthe avoided costs, including energy and capacity, over the life ofthe program measures. , b TRC is a benefit/cost ratio comparing lifetime benefits to the sum ofENS's and partici...
AI summary The text discusses the calculation of lifetime benefits, TRC, and PAC ratios, which compare the net present value of avoided costs to investment and participation costs. It also references figures that show program-level investment and savings for the years 2016, 2017, and 2018.
4 Figure 1.2 - 2016 DSM Resource Plan Investment and Savings 2016 Investment ($ million) Lifetime Benefits ($ million)" Incremental Annual Net Energy Savings at Generator (GWh) Incremental Annual Net Demand Savings at Generator (MW) Total...
AI summary Figure 1.2 outlines the 2016 DSM Resource Plan investment and savings, including program investments, lifetime benefits, and energy and demand savings. The data shows various residential and business programs, their associated investments, and their impact on energy efficiency and cost savings.
a Lifetime benefits are expressed as the net present value of the avoided costs, including energy and capacity, over the life ofthe program measures. b TRC is a benefit/cost ratio comparing lifetime benefits to the sum ofENS's and particip...
AI summary The text discusses metrics used to evaluate the benefits of energy efficiency programs, including net present value of avoided costs, benefit/cost ratios (TRC and PAC), and references a 2015 DSM Resource Settlement Agreement regarding low-income customer participation.
Figure 1.4 - 2018 DSM Resource Plan Savings and Investment 2018 Investment ($ million) Lifetime Benefits ($ million)" Incremental Annual Net Energy Savings at Generator (GWh) Incremental Annual Net Demand Savings at Generator (MW) Total Re...
AI summary Figure 1.4 presents the 2018 DSM Resource Plan Savings and Investment, detailing investment amounts, lifetime benefits, energy and demand savings, and cost tests for various programs. The data includes residential and non-residential programs and their respective financial and efficiency metrics.