Topic:"Cost Considerations" in M07151

12 4.3 Cost allocation of 2016-2018 13 14 Please refer to Appendix A for allocation of DSM Program costs from years 2016 to 15 2018 among rate classes using the current costing methodology. The calculations were 16 based on a DSM cost allo...

AI summary The document refers to Appendix A for the allocation of DSM Program costs from 2016 to 2018 among rate classes using a costing methodology provided by E1 following their Compliance Filing in September 2015.

DATE FILED: October 30, 2015 Page 11 of 12 1 4.5 Rate Smoothing Adjustment Program Cost stem Benefits mbined Class and rticipant Benefits tal\nunctionalization o - $8,505,000 $25,515,000 $34,020,000 Classification of System Ber Costs nefit...

AI summary The document discusses the Rate Smoothing Adjustment, providing figures related to program costs and benefits, including combined class and participant benefits totaling $34,020,000. It also references classification and system benefit costs.

Table 1 (PCR) (2016) Unnamed: 0 Unnamed: 1 Unnamed: 2 Unnamed: 3 Unnamed: 4 Unnamed: 5 Unnamed: 6 Unnamed: 7 Unnamed: 8 Unnamed: 9 Unnamed: 10 Line # NaN Table 8: 2013 BA - Preliminary 2013 Balance Adjustment of costs among rate classes Na...

AI summary The table provides a breakdown of cost allocations among different rate classes in 2013, including system benefit costs, participating class benefit costs, total allocated costs, receipts, and the 2013 balance adjustment. It details the financial distribution across residential, small general, general demand, large general, and small industrial rate classes.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-1: 2 3 Please provide a rationale for using historical averages as part of the formula for allocating 4 Enabling Strategies expenditures among rate classes as proposed in the 2016-2018 DSM 5 Plan NS Power Cost...

AI summary The document discusses the rationale for using historical averages to allocate Enabling Strategies expenditures among rate classes as proposed in the 2016-2018 DSM Plan. The company argues this method simplifies tracking and proposes conditions for exceptions when costs exceed $100,000 or are clearly tied to specific rate classes.

REDACTED DSM Cost Allocation and Recovery CA IR-4 Attachment 1 Page 1 of 12 COLUMN Α В С D E F G Н Program Cost Recovery by Bo enefits System Benefits Combined Class and 25% $8,302,500 Participant Benefits 75% $24,907,500 Total 1 100% $33,...

AI summary The document outlines the allocation and recovery of DSM (Demand Side Management) program costs, with 25% allocated to system benefits and 75% to participant benefits. It details how costs are distributed across generation, transmission, and energy-related factors, along with the financial breakdown by rate class.

9 Enabling Strategies allocation expenditures as per Recommendation Rate Class NS Power by Elenchus Variance Residential $260,141 $274,233 $14,092 Small General $41,185 $26,826 $14,359 General Demand $136,800 $130,720 $6,080 Large General...

AI summary The table presents a comparison of Enabling Strategies allocation expenditures by rate class, showing variances between NS Power's proposed amounts and Elenchus's recommendations. The total expenditure remains unchanged, but there are notable variances across different rate classes.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-2: 2 3 (a) Please outline any differences in what was proposed by NSPI in its October 4 30, 2015, Cost Allocation Proposal, its November 30, 2015, letter to the Board 5 and its December 18, 2015, letter to the...

AI summary The document outlines NSPI's submissions regarding DSM cost allocation and cost recovery, noting differences between the October 30, 2015, November 30, 2015, and December 18, 2015, filings. It also references a UARB directive for additional details and states that NS Power's positions on cost recovery and cost allocation remain consistent across the filings.

DSM Cost Allocation and Recovery (NSUARB M07151) NSPI Responses to Industrial Group Information Requests 1 2  NS Power recommends maintaining the 25% - 75% breakdown of DSM costs 3 between system benefits and customer benefits for the cos...

AI summary NSPI recommends maintaining the 25% - 75% breakdown of DSM costs between system benefits and customer benefits for cost allocation purposes among rate classes. The company prefers consensus on cost allocation and has presented options to rebalance variances between actual and recovered DSM expenditures. NS Power is not directly impacted by cost allocation or recovery methodologies and requests deferral of a determination for DSM costs in other years of the contract period.

CONFIDENTIAL (Attachment Only) 1 Request IR-4: 2 3 Reference: NSPI October 30, 2015 Cost Allocation Proposal (Exhibit N-1) 4 5 Please provide the source data and any calculations for the 2016, 2017 and 2018 3 CP 6 demand and energy figures...

AI summary The document requests source data and calculations for 2016, 2017, and 2018 demand and energy figures related to the 3 CP (likely a cost or capacity category) as referenced in Appendix A of the NSPI October 30, 2015 Cost Allocation Proposal. The response directs the requester to Partially Confidential Attachment 1 for the requested data.

MONTHLY SYSTEM COINCIDENT PEAKS: REQUIREMENTS, SALES, AND LOSSES BY RATE CLASS IN MWh PER HOUR 2018 Jan 2018 Feb 2018 Mar 2018 Apr 2018 May 2018 Jun 2018 Jul 2018 Aug 2018 Sep 2018 Oct 2018 Nov 2018 Dec Annual Peak 3CP Large Industrial Wit...

AI summary The document presents monthly system coincident peaks by rate class in MWh per hour for 2018, and includes responses by NSPI to information requests regarding DSM cost allocation and recovery, referencing the 2014 COSS and 2016 budget variances.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-1: 2 3 With respect to the cost allocation methodology proposed on October 30, please discuss 4 how this will relate to NSPI's cost of service methodology used to assign other costs to 5 classes. For example,...

AI summary The response discusses how NSPI views the DSM cost allocation methodology as part of the overall cost of service framework, with DSM costs being subject to R/C ratio adjustments and recovered through prospective base cost rates, similar to base cost of fuel under the FAM.

Original Amount $2,521,616 Annual Payback ‐$360,751 Annual Interest 3.00% Total Interest $364,388 52 Apr‐19 $666,878 $0 $1,667 ($12,568) $0 $655,978 $102,857 $1,667 $104,524 53 May‐19 $655,978 $0 $1,640 ($12,568) $0 $645,050 $104,524 $1,64...

AI summary The text presents a table with financial data related to an annual interest calculation, showing monthly figures from April 2019 to June 2020. It includes amounts, interest rates, and cumulative totals, indicating a financial analysis or accounting process.

Nova Scotia Power Inc. DSM Cost Allocation and Recovery (M07151/E-R-15) The DSM Consensus Agreement signed by parties to Matter M06733, and approved by the Board in its Decision dated August 12, 2015, included the following: The Parties ag...

AI summary Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI) is required to file detailed cost allocation and recovery models for its DSM programs, including 2015 and 2016-2018 periods, as well as related adjustments. The Board is concerned about NSPI's non-compliance with previous orders and has directed it to submit complete details by specific deadlines. NSPI also requested an extension for filing its proposals for the 2017-2019 period.

c. Tim Wood DSM Intervenors 2016 DSM Costs apportioned to rate classes using DSM cost allocation methodology 2016 DSM Costs apportioned to rate classes using class relative shares in rate base from 2014 COSS Variance between two approaches...

AI summary The table presents the apportionment of 2016 DSM costs to various rate classes using two different methodologies — the DSM cost allocation methodology and class relative shares in rate base from 2014 COSS — and highlights the variance between the two approaches. The data includes revenue figures, cost allocations, and percentages for each rate class.

Request IR-14: - 19 In Appendix A, referencing the column labelled "2015 DSM Plan Amortized over 8 years", - a) Please confirm that these costs are based on the full amount of approved expenditures capped at $35 million, unadjusted for act...

AI summary Request IR-14 asks NSPI to clarify the calculation and assumptions behind the 2015 DSM Plan amortization, including how the 2016 portion was calculated, the impact of a 3% carrying cost, and whether the variances between traditional and cost of service allocation methods are considered insignificant.

43 Request IR-11: 44 45 Please explain in more detail how a cost of service allocation would permit true-up of DSM 46 expenditures, including the variance between 2014 DSM collection and allocation by customer class.

AI summary The request asks for a detailed explanation of how a cost of service allocation would allow for the true-up of DSM expenditures, particularly focusing on the variance between 2014 DSM collection and allocation by customer class.

ificant if El's Small Business Study shows that the average life of small businesses is shorter than that assumed by E 1. 12 Dec 18th Filing, page 6. 13 Der. 18th Filing, page 4. The SBA recommends reconsideration of the 75% class cost / 2...

AI summary The SBA recommends reconsidering the 75% class cost / 25% system costs allocation of the DSM budget, suggesting a direct assignment of 100% of DSM program costs by rate class for greater equity. This is based on concerns about participation rates and the potential impact of the E1 Small Business Study on program design.

bling Strategy can be attributed to a particular rate class(es) based on historical average(s), up to 2014, such cost will be allocated to that rate class(es) without ongoing tracking.[23](#page-8-0) "Enabling strategies" include certain m...

AI summary The document discusses the allocation of Enabling Strategies costs to rate classes, referencing historical averages and a proposed simplified method by NSPI. It mentions the Bright Business Conference and its allocation to all rate classes, with a claim that this is inappropriate for the residential class, though the assertion lacks support.