Topic:"Cost Considerations" in M09096

1 Table 7: BNI barriers to participation and mitigating strategies Program Program Component Brief Description of Program Component Target Market Segment Barriers Addressed in Preferred Plan and How Strategic Energy Management Technical an...

AI summary Table 7 outlines barriers to participation in the Building New Infrastructure (BNI) program and strategies to mitigate them, focusing on the Strategic Energy Management component. The table highlights barriers such as upfront costs, internal competition for capital, and lack of information, and outlines strategies like subsidized participation costs and support from EfficiencyOne staff to address these issues.

30 o Determine potential for costs reduction (e.g., test effectiveness of remote 1 strategies in order for Nova Scotians to meet energy and demand savings targets now 22 EfficiencyOne is vigilant about cost containment and control. It is k...

AI summary The text discusses the importance of cost containment in Demand Side Management (DSM) programs and highlights the need to consider near-term rate impacts in DSM planning. EfficiencyOne emphasizes its commitment to managing costs effectively while ensuring that customer funds are handled responsibly.

14 15 Figure 2: NS Power 2018 operating costs as a percentage of annual electric 16 revenues NS Power - 2018 Operating Costs as % of Annual Electric Revenues $ Million % of Total Annual Electric Revenues $ 1,412 Fuel 593 42.0% Operating, M...

AI summary The text presents a table showing NS Power's 2018 operating costs as a percentage of annual electric revenues, highlighting that fuel costs account for the largest share (42.0%), followed by depreciation and amortization (15.5%) and operating, maintenance, and general expenses (17.8%).

11 Table 7: 2020-2022 Residential Efficient Product Rebates Performance Indicators Year Investment ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) a Program...

AI summary This table presents performance indicators for the Residential Efficient Product Rebates program from 2020 to 2022, including investment, energy savings, peak demand savings, and cost metrics like the Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) and Program Administrator Cost Test (PAC).

Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity were provided by NS Power, from the 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2018. Total cost-effectiveness tests are calc...

AI summary The text discusses annual avoided costs of energy and capacity from the 2014 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and provides details on cost-effectiveness tests such as the Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) and Program Administrator Cost Test (PAC), along with definitions of cost metrics like levelized and nominal cost of saved energy.

Table 13: 2020-2022 New Residential Performance Indicators Year Investment ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) a Program Administrator Cost Test...

AI summary Table 13 presents performance indicators for new residential energy efficiency programs from 2020 to 2022, including investment, energy savings, participation, and cost metrics. It highlights trends in energy savings, investment, and cost efficiency over the three-year period.

Table 18: Efficient Product Rebates (BNI) Performance Indicators - Comparison of Preferred and Alternate Plans Scenario Year Investment ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Tota...

AI summary Table 18 compares the performance indicators of the Efficient Product Rebates (BNI) program under preferred and alternate plans from 2020 to 2022. It includes metrics such as investment, energy savings, peak demand savings, and cost indicators. The data shows the preferred plan outperforms the alternate plan in several areas, including energy savings and participation.

Table 19: 2020-2022 Custom Incentives Performance Indicators Year Investment ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) a Program Administrator Cost Tes...

AI summary Table 19 provides performance indicators for the BNI Custom Incentives Program from 2020 to 2022, showing investment, energy savings, peak demand savings, and cost metrics over the period.

Table 24: Direct Installation Performance Indicators - Comparison of Preferred and Alternate Plans Scenario Year Investment ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Total Resource C...

AI summary Table 24 compares the performance indicators of preferred and alternate plans for direct installation, including investment, energy savings, peak demand savings, and cost metrics. The preferred plan shows higher investment and energy savings compared to the alternate plan, with the alternate plan having lower costs but lower overall savings.

20 Avoided costs 21 This analysis uses annual avoided energy costs ($/MWh), levelized avoided capacity 22 costs ($/MW), and annual avoided transmission and distribution costs ($/MW). 23 Avoided costs are calculated at the portfolio level b...

AI summary This section discusses the calculation of avoided costs, including annual avoided energy costs, levelized avoided capacity costs, and annual avoided transmission and distribution costs, using portfolio-level data and specific rates for each year of the avoided costs period.

29 • Further exploring NS Power's proposed means of allocating lost revenues and 30 avoided costs to rate classes; 1 • Discussing which avoided cost estimates to use when avoided cost estimates 2 change (EfficiencyOne indicated its intende...

AI summary The text discusses NS Power's proposed allocation of lost revenues and avoided costs to rate classes, focusing on the use of avoided cost estimates and historical data in the Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) model. EfficiencyOne has provided its approach and expects to collaborate with stakeholders for the next RBIA filing.

1 7. CONCLUSION 2 This analysis captures the impacts of 2020-2022 DSM programs to customer rates 3 and bills throughout the full lifetime of the DSM impacts. Over the lifetime of 4 measures installed in 2020-2022, NS Power customers will s...

AI summary This conclusion discusses the long-term benefits of DSM programs from 2020-2022, including customer savings of over $475 million. It highlights the Total Resource Cost and Program Administrator Cost ratios, rate increases, and bill savings. The analysis also acknowledges the limitations of the evaluation and mentions future improvements to the model.

DATE FILED: 28 February 2019 Page 1 of 16 e# Rate and Bil I Impacts of DSM on the R esidenti al Class - PREFE RRED P LAN Impacts of DSM on the Residential Rate Class 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 202...

AI summary The document presents a table detailing the impacts of Demand Side Management (DSM) on the residential rate class from 2011 to 2035, including incremental and cumulative DSM savings, costs, participant numbers, and the levelized cost of saved energy. The data shows increasing savings and costs starting in 2020, with a peak in 2022, followed by stabilization.

This graph shows annual program participation for the class, as a percentage of total customers in the class. Each customer is counted once for each year that they participate in any program. # Rate a nd Bill Ir npacts o f DSM or the Sm al...

AI summary This table and graph analyze the impact of demand-side management (DSM) programs on the small industrial rate class in Nova Scotia. It shows participation rates, incremental and cumulative savings, costs, and the levelized cost of saved energy from 2011 to 2035.

Rate a nd Bill I mpacts o f DSM on the Lar ge Indust rial Clas s - PREF ERRED F PLAN Impacts of DSM on the Large Industrial Rate Class 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031...

AI summary The table presents the impacts of demand-side management (DSM) on the large industrial rate class from 2011 to 2035, including incremental and cumulative DSM savings, DSM costs, number of participants, and levelized cost of saved energy. DSM savings begin in 2020 and plateau by 2023, with costs and participant numbers remaining stable after 2020.

& lt;sup>a Lifetime benefits are expressed as the net present value of the avoided costs, including energy, capacity, transmission and distribution, over the life of the program measures, using the utility WACC. & lt;sup>b TRC is a benefit...

AI summary The text explains the calculation of lifetime benefits for energy efficiency programs, using net present value of avoided costs and benefit/cost ratios such as TRC and PAC. It also mentions EfficiencyOne's planned participation by low-income customers across various residential programs.

spent per first-year MWh saved) increases. For Efficiency Vermont, Figure 18 shows the impact of the shift away from lighting on overall portfolio yields over the next 20-year period ( RA in the figure refers incentive costs of implementin...

AI summary The text discusses how the average cost per MWh saved in energy efficiency programs increases as low-cost lighting initiatives are phased out, using examples from Efficiency Vermont and EfficiencyOne. The cost of achieving energy savings rises over time as more complex and sophisticated measures are implemented.

1 Table 2. EfficiencyOne first-year unit costs of lighting and non-lighting measures, for 2016 to 2018. 2016-2018 Results Sector First Year Energy Savings (GWh) First Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lighting Removed Fully Allocated Spend (SM) Fu...

AI summary Table 2 presents EfficiencyOne's first-year unit costs for lighting and non-lighting measures from 2016 to 2018, showing energy savings and associated costs for different sectors including residential and BNI, with Enabling Strategies highlighted as a category.

tates' DSM - Program Administrators (PAs) on their residential new construction, demand response, lighting, - appliances, consumer electronics, electric and gas HVAC and DHW, and behavioural programs. - 1 Mostly recently, my engagement on...

AI summary The testimony supports EfficiencyOne's proposed 2020-2022 DSM Plan, arguing it is affordable, reduces long-term power generation costs, and provides significant customer bill savings. The three-year investment of $129.1 million is projected to generate $494 million in avoided costs and $477 million in customer savings.

Preferred Plan is affordable? Direct Testimony of Glenn Reed / February 27, 2019 Page 15 On Behalf of EfficiencyOne DATE FILED: February 28, 2019 Pp18-19, ibid. - 1 A: Yes. EfficiencyOne is proposing to achieve its Plan savings at or below...

AI summary EfficiencyOne asserts that its Preferred Plan is affordable, achieving savings at or below peer Program Administrators, with minimal rate impacts of 0.8% to 1.7% and total bill savings of $477 million from 2020 to 2035.

Calculator - ARET - General v6 Incentive Cost-Measure GJ Savings at Meter

AI summary The text presents a table titled 'Calculator - ARET - General v6' which includes a column labeled 'Incentive Cost-Measure' and another labeled 'GJ Savings at Meter'. The table appears to be related to asset retirement obligations and energy savings calculations.

Key Considerations that informed the Preferred Plan - EfficiencyOne was guided by three key considerations in developing the Preferred Plan: - Maximizing Energy Savings (customer value); - Ensuring a Balanced Portfolio (customer need); and...

AI summary EfficiencyOne's Preferred Plan focuses on maximizing energy savings, ensuring a balanced portfolio, and maintaining customer affordability. It aims to increase annual energy savings from 1.2% to 1.3% of generation, resulting in approximately 141 GWh per year. The plan incurs an average annual cost of $43 million for 2020 to 2022.

5.8 - - DSM TOTAL 129.1 421.7 120.0 4 Columns may not add correctly, due to rounding. Date Filed: March 29, 2019 E1 (NS Power) IR-02 Page 2 of 3 EfficiencyOne – EfficiencyOne Application for approval of a Supply Agreement for Electricity E...

AI summary E1 (EfficiencyOne) responds to Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NS Power) regarding the approval of a supply agreement for electricity efficiency and conservation activities (DSM 2020-2022). E1 asserts all program funding comes from customer sources, not non-customer funds, and provides details on program spending, energy savings, and demand reductions.

Consider more ambitious In determining the appropriate level Please refer to the Evidence Preferred Plan with energy of energy savings for the Preferred - Section 4.1 – The 2014 savings at the 2014 Integrated Plan EfficiencyOne did rely on...

AI summary EfficiencyOne's Preferred Plan relies on the 2014 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) but exceeds the $0.24/kWh unit cost threshold. The plan's investment level was guided by maximizing energy savings, ensuring a balanced portfolio, and determining appropriate investment levels, as outlined in referenced Evidence sections.

Generator (GWh) (MW) 2020 33.4 171.0 123.2 1774.5 32.8 2.0 5.1 2021 34.2 181.4 124.1 1819.6 33.5 2.1 5.3 2022 34.4 188.0 123.2 1817.1 33.3 2.1 5.5 Total 102.0 540.3 370.5 5411.2 99.5 2.1 5.3 aLifetime benefits are expressed as the net pres...

AI summary The text defines TRC (Total Resource Cost Test) and PAC (Program Cost Test) as benefit/cost ratios comparing lifetime benefits to combined or individual costs. It references avoided costs (energy, capacity, transmission/distribution) and utility WACC for net present value calculations, emphasizing cost-benefit analysis frameworks for program evaluation.

N/A N/A Total 26.8 136.2 94.5 1408.5 21.7 2.1 5.1 Incremental Incremental Lifetime Energy Annual Net Program Investment ($ Lifetime Benefits Annual Net Total Resource Year Savings at Demand Savings Administrator million) ($ million)a Energ...

AI summary The text presents a table with columns including Total, Investment, Lifetime Benefits, Annual Net Energy Savings, and Program Administrator, suggesting it is related to energy program metrics and cost evaluations.

A N/A Total 33.1 166.9 118.0 1702.9 32.7 2.0 5.0 Incremental Incremental Lifetime Energy Annual Net Program Investment Lifetime Benefits Annual Net Total Resource 2021 a Savings at Demand Savings b Administrator ($ million) ($ million) Ene...

AI summary The document presents a table with financial and energy-related metrics, including investment, benefits, energy savings, and cost tests. It includes columns such as 'Incremental Investment,' 'Lifetime Benefits,' 'Annual Net Energy Savings,' and 'Total Resource Cost Test (TRC).'

35.7 2.1 5.4 aLifetime benefits are expressed as the net present value of the avoided costs, including energy, capacity, transmission and distribution, over the life of the program measures, using utility WACC. bTRC is a benefit/cost ratio...

AI summary The document discusses the EfficiencyOne application for a supply agreement with Nova Scotia Power Inc. for electricity efficiency and conservation activities from 2020 to 2022. It references the Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) and Program Cost Test (PAC) as benefit/cost ratios used in the evaluation of the program.

(2.5) (2.5) Underspend / Interest Earned HST recovery (5.0) (5.0) (5.0) Net Ratepayer 34.4 35.8 36.4 Contribution 3 4 The required investment, net of cumulative underspend and HST recovery, amounts to an 5 annual average of $35.53M over th...

AI summary The document discusses the affordability of EfficiencyOne's 2020-2022 Preferred DSM Plan, noting that the required investment is $35.53M annually over three years, representing a 1.4% increase from the 5-year average and a 10.1% decrease from the 9-year average. EfficiencyOne affirms the plan is affordable based on historical investment levels and expert testimony, though no specific affordability surveys were conducted with Nova Scotians.

11.0 4.1 13.9 BNI Total 48.0 15.4 64.2 5 6 c) Please refer to part b). Date Filed: March 29, 2019 E1 (NS Power) IR-14 Page 2 of 2 EfficiencyOne – EfficiencyOne Application for approval of a Supply Agreement for Electricity Efficiency and C...

AI summary EfficiencyOne responds to questions about its cost management strategies, confirming the implementation of benchmarking since 2011 and competitive procurement since 2010, as part of its application for a supply agreement with Nova Scotia Power Inc.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 • Independent Reviews – The evaluation of energy savings and the audit of financial 2 statements have been conducted since 2010. The internal audit function was 3 introduced in 2013. 4 • Process Improvement – The introdu...

AI summary EfficiencyOne has implemented several cost management strategies, including independent reviews and process improvement initiatives like LEAN. It also uses benchmarking and market research to ensure its costs align with industry standards, referencing CLEAResult and other market research reports.

ified in market and the stage for setting incentive rates. potential means to address them. Through the supply chain and customer PG&E will set a maximum incentive rate which is roughly research, the thresholds of incremental 75-100% of in...

AI summary The text outlines the process of determining incentive rates through research on customer willingness to pay and incremental costs. It highlights the role of program administrators in capturing costs and setting rates based on data analysis.

se of appropriate cost costs. program. effectiveness tests for screening For incentives that are increasing, NYSERDA conducts and threshold setting cost effectiveness analysis for the TRC and PAC, and as  The use of the average or require...

AI summary The text discusses the use of appropriate cost considerations and effectiveness tests for screening incentives, particularly focusing on the cost effectiveness analysis conducted by NYSERDA for the TRC and PAC, and its presentation to the New York PUC.

tence. These numbers should be calculated and updated every time the avoided costs are 60 Date Filed: March 29, 2019 NS Power IR-15 Attachment 1 Page 77 of 206 updated, consistent with the recommendations in the General Principles section.

AI summary The text discusses the need to calculate and update avoided costs consistently with the recommendations in the General Principles section. It emphasizes the importance of regular updates to ensure accuracy and alignment with established guidelines.

ed: March 29, 2019 NS Power IR-15 Attachment 1 Page 92 of 206 Cost Effectiveness Incentive Level Threshold EfficiencyOne has a PAC target of 1.9 for this program. For the calculation, it is assumed that program administration costs are 30...

AI summary The document discusses the Cost Effectiveness Incentive Level Threshold for EfficiencyOne, highlighting a Program Administrator Cost (PAC) target of 1.9. It outlines two approaches for calculating PAC: one that assumes 30% of total expenditure is program administration costs and another that determines program administration costs per measure. A simplified cost effectiveness calculator is recommended for use in incentive level setting and program design.

MACE High 54,057.3 Dth Cost) High Cost) (Base) $9.79/Dth $0.529 (Gas 118,016 Dth Base) (Base) (MACE) $10.00/Dth $1.18 (Gas Average MACE) (MACE) Average Massachusetts/ $0.165- 2016-2018 646.33 $299.20 80% $0.46/kWh 2.94% National Grid $0.18...

AI summary The document includes a table with energy cost data and savings targets from 2016-2018, including details on gas and electricity prices, savings percentages, and average costs. It also references an appendix about Ontario electricity and is part of a larger regulatory proceeding.

Kilowatt Counts”), an appliance retirement program (“The Great Refrigerator Round up”) and a business incentive program delivered through multiple partners (“ERIP”, “BOMA”, “MEER”). Cost Effectiveness Testing In their conservation (CDM) pl...

AI summary The text discusses cost effectiveness testing for conservation programs, including the Total Resource Cost (TRC) and Program Administrator Cost (PAC), with specific exceptions for low-income programs. It also outlines avoided costs for electricity, such as avoided capacity and energy costs, and includes a 15% adder for societal benefits. The IESO is highlighted as responsible for maintaining cost effectiveness across programs.

used to qualify measures for introduction within the Energy Trust’s program portfolio while portfolio level cost effectiveness testing is reported ex post to report on portfolio performance. Costs The OPUC has defined that the following el...

AI summary The OPUC outlines how the Energy Trust's program portfolio should account for costs from a societal perspective, including efficiency measures, administrative costs, and program management costs. It also specifies that certain costs, such as tax credits and local program administration costs funded by federal or state agencies, are excluded from the total resource cost calculation.

s) costs should be minimized to the fullest practicable extent 3. Program administrators will use competitive procurement processes to the fullest practicable extent Avoided Costs Periodically, the avoided costs are updated. The last updat...

AI summary The text discusses the minimization of costs through competitive procurement processes and the periodic updating of avoided costs, last updated in 2015 based on a Synapse Energy Economics report. It outlines major categories of benefit for electricity, including avoided capacity and energy costs, transmission and distribution costs, and various DRIPE categories. It also provides an overview of National Grid's service area and customer classes.

Expenditure ($) Residential 805,157 $290,842,401 $222,323,354 Low Income 58,040 $85,604,742 $68,824,752 Commercial & Industrial 919,015 $300,079,268 $247,234,173 National Grid 2013-2015 Incentive to Total Program Spending and Spending per...

AI summary The text presents expenditure data for residential, low-income, and commercial & industrial sectors, along with incentive ratios and cost effectiveness for National Grid's programs from 2013-2015. It also outlines future energy savings targets and budgets for 2016-2018, including National Grid's specific goals and the overall target as a percentage of retail electricity sales.

 Incentive screening threshold in terms of the program budget and  Incentive screening threshold in terms of cost effectiveness (From Cost Effectiveness Calculator) 2. Cost Effectiveness Calculator Section This section will take the inpu...

AI summary This section outlines the inputs and process for calculating the cost effectiveness forecast, which is used to determine the incentive screening threshold in terms of cost effectiveness. Inputs include avoided supply costs, program administration costs, measure energy savings, and other relevant factors.

. It would result in an increase of $72,161 in annualized average administrative costs to industry. Assumptions underlying administrative burden estimates Familiarization with the Amendment Familiarization with new information obligations...

AI summary The text discusses the administrative costs associated with a new amendment, estimating an increase of $72,161 annually. It outlines the one-time task of familiarizing stakeholders with the amendment and energy efficiency reporting forms, impacting approximately 710 companies under specific HS codes.

NS Power IR-28 Attachment 2 Page 21 of 44 3/15/2019 Canada Gazette, Part 1, Volume 152, Number 42: Regulations Amending the Energy Efficiency Regulations, 2016 (Amendment 15) According to the International Energy Agency, policies and progr...

AI summary The document discusses the cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency policies in reducing GHG emissions and highlights the benefits of stricter MEPS regulations. It argues that despite higher initial costs, compliance with these standards will lead to long-term energy savings and monetary benefits for consumers.

the Amendment is estimated to be $1.15 billion and $335 million, respectively. On an annualized average basis, this equates to benefits and costs of $116 million and $34 million, respectively. The quantified benefits have been calculated a...

AI summary The Amendment is estimated to have benefits of $1.15 billion and costs of $335 million over its service life, with annualized benefits and costs of $116 million and $34 million, respectively. Benefits include energy savings and GHG emission reductions, while costs include technology, administrative, and regulatory implementation expenses. The Amendment is considered an 'IN' under the 'One-for-One' Rule and impacts seven small Canadian manufacturers, most of whom already comply with the requirements.

importers would be affected by this incremental activity, which would occur 2 082 times per year. It is assumed that clerical staff with a wage rate of approximately $30 would undertake this task. To estimate the time required per event, N...

AI summary The text discusses the administrative burden introduced by an amendment requiring the submission of energy performance reports for imported products. It estimates the time and cost associated with this task based on data from the U.S. Department of Energy and assumes a wage rate for clerical staff involved in the process.

g product is imported or shipped across provinces. The added burden applies to products that have reporting elements that differ from reporting requirements already in place in other jurisdictions. The data used to calculate incremental ad...

AI summary The text discusses the administrative burden on manufacturers of residential portable air conditioners due to new reporting requirements. The burden arises from differences in reporting requirements between jurisdictions, with data collection relying on various sources. Around 30 manufacturers are affected, and the time and cost of compliance are estimated. Stakeholders generally support alignment with U.S. regulations, except for portable air conditioners.

., 2018. Experience Curves of Residential Gas­fired Furnaces in Canada. 24 Costs for technology and installation. 25 Benefits from energy savings and GHG emission reductions. 26 The administrative burden reported in Table 3 was estimated a...

AI summary The text discusses the costs and benefits of residential gas-fired furnaces in Canada, including energy savings, GHG emission reductions, and administrative burdens. It mentions the use of discount rates for cost-benefit analysis and references standards and stakeholders involved in the regulatory process.

rization 24 to produce the demand savings attributable to the demand reduction portion of Custom. 25 That analysis is provided in Attachment 1 to this IR response. 26 27 Date Filed: March 29, 2019 E1 (NS Power) IR-40 Page 3 of 4 Efficiency...

AI summary EfficiencyOne considers affordability at the DSM Plan investment level, using cost-effective programs and providing Total Resource Cost screening tests for demand reduction measures. The analysis assumes 25% of Custom Retrofit investment is repurposed for demand-related projects and 50% first-year demand unit cost for demand-focused projects.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 TRC – Refers to the Total Resource Cost [Test]. 2 3 VFD – Refers to a Variable Frequency Drive. 4 5 Please note that standard SI unit abbreviations have not been defined here. 6 7 d) These values were calculated within N...

AI summary The text discusses the calculation of energy and demand savings using Navigant’s ProCESS model, administrative cost allocation methods, and the basis for incremental cost information and incentives for various energy efficiency measures. It also notes that some cost estimates are preliminary and will be refined with operational data.

Table 11: 2016-2018 DSM Plan Results - Portfolio Level Year Investment ($ million) Lifetime Benefits ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Weighted- Average Measure Life (years) Peak Demand Savings (MW)...

AI summary Table 11 presents the results of the 2016-2018 DSM Plan, showing investment amounts, energy savings, and cost metrics for both approved and reported outcomes. The data includes metrics such as lifetime benefits, energy savings, and program cost tests, with notes on rounding, unaudited figures, and pending verification for 2018 results.

1 Table 16: 2016- 2018 Unit Cost Firs st-Year Unit C ($/kWh) Cost 2016-2018 (Approved) 2016-2018 (MCA) 2016-2018 (Results) Efficient Product Rebates 0.26 0.23 0.17 Instant Savings Appliance Retirement Existing Residential 0.25 0.26 0.27 ti...

AI summary Table 16 presents unit costs for various energy efficiency programs from 2016 to 2018, showing differences between approved, MCA, and results figures. EfficiencyOne will comment on variances of 10% or more. Unit costs are calculated using energy and demand savings at the generator, accounting for free-ridership and spillover effects, with 2018 energy savings evaluated but not verified.

5.4 Benefits of New Construction Many SPs indicated that New Construction provides their firm with benefits such as the ability to assist participants in designing a more energy efficient building. Additionally, one SP mentioned that the s...

AI summary New Construction programs provide benefits such as assisting in designing energy-efficient buildings, improving market awareness of efficiency, and helping participants forecast operating costs, showcase carbon reduction efforts, offset capital expenditures, and gain more information about building energy efficiency.

4.1.1 Summary of Adjustments to Gross Savings – Audit Path The on-site visits revealed common and significant errors in tracked values recorded by SBEAs. The issues with tracked savings in the sampled audit path projects were not specific...

AI summary On-site visits identified significant errors in tracked savings values recorded by SBEAs. Discrepancies were found between tracked and revised values for HVAC and lighting measures, leading to a one-time adjustment applied to audit path gross savings without extrapolation.

spending levels must balance the long-term cost savings against the short-term cost impacts to customers.

AI summary The text emphasizes the need to balance long-term cost savings with short-term cost impacts on customers when considering spending levels.

Additionally, the 2014 IRP's forecast of the cost of avoided energy is significantly higher than what has occurred and what is forecast to occur. The 2014 IRP included a forecast levelized cost of avoided energy of $107/MWh, but the actual...

AI summary The 2014 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) overestimated the cost of avoided energy compared to actual and forecast marginal costs. NS Power argues that E1's proposed DSM plan is not cost-effective and would increase customer fuel costs. E1 counters that moderately-priced DSM is becoming scarcer, and NS Power must achieve further cost reductions to avoid rate increases.

M05522, Nova Scotia Power2014 Integrated Resource Plan, NSPI letter to the UARB, December 10, 2014. 1 OM&G budget in the range of $250 million per year, an additional $9 million per year 2 would need to be absorbed to fund E1's additional...

AI summary Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI) argues that Efficiency One (E1)’s proposed increase in the Demand Side Management (DSM) budget is not reasonable, as it would require absorbing additional costs without justification. NSPI also highlights that E1's proposed increases are not in the best interests of customers, given Nova Scotia’s economic conditions and existing efficiency initiatives.

EfficiencyOne 2017 Progress and Evaluation Report, page 17, line 13. 1 6.0 DSM NEGOTIATION 26 NS Power later encouraged E1 to develop additional DSM plans with current and 27 reduced levels of investment in order to provide a full slate of...

AI summary NS Power encouraged E1 to develop additional DSM plans with varying investment levels, ranging from $27 to $34 million. E1 produced scenarios but did not include them in its Application or vet them through its iterative process. The information presented lacks a meaningful scenario analysis of different DSM spending levels.

Q. What would the first-year energy savings beyond those in the 2019 DSM Plan be? 21 38 EfficiencyOne application, Appendix A, page 45 of 95, lines 4-6. $ ^{35} $ The cost of incremental investment in the peak demand reduction in the Alter...

AI summary The first-year energy savings beyond the 2019 DSM Plan in the Preferred Plan is 13.0 GWh, with a unitized cost of $0.46/kWh. This represents a 77% increase in unitized cost compared to 2019, which is deemed unreasonable given the only 10.2% increase in energy savings and concerns about affordability and fairness.

Q. Are the claimed benefits also based on avoided energy cost assumptions? A. Yes. The claimed customer benefits depend on the assumptions that EfficiencyOne has made. As I understand, EfficiencyOne has used high levelized fuel costs from...

AI summary The answer confirms that EfficiencyOne's claimed benefits are based on assumed avoided energy costs, which are significantly higher than actual fuel costs experienced by NS Power's customers. This discrepancy may lead to an overestimation of DSM benefits and affect the cost-effectiveness of measures considered.

4 Q. What does this mean in terms of customer benefits and avoided cost? 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A. EfficiencyOne says that it considers the determination of affordability to be a balancing of short- and long...

AI summary EfficiencyOne argues that its Preferred Plan provides significant long-term savings for Nova Scotians, but the response cautions that short-term affordability concerns and intergenerational equity issues should be considered. The response suggests that the most expensive energy efficiency measures may need to be postponed to balance immediate customer impacts with long-term benefits.

Q. Can you describe the average long-term rate increases associated with EfficiencyOne's proposed DSM activities? A. Yes. From 2020 to 2035, the average annual impact will be 0.8% for residential customers, 1.1% for small general customers...

AI summary EfficiencyOne's proposed DSM activities from 2020 to 2035 are expected to result in average annual rate increases ranging from 0.8% to 1.7% across different customer classes. However, concerns are raised about the uncertainty of benefits from peak demand reduction programs and whether these justify the costs, particularly given the lack of results from previous DSM pilots and uncertain capacity avoidance capabilities.

04 EfficiencyOne Application, Appendix D, Figure 3. This appendix does not have page numbers. https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/100-million-plus-us-homes-lack-smart-devices#gs.2fgrhc - scenario, the peak demand reductions are 33...

AI summary EfficiencyOne proposed peak demand reductions of 33.4 MW in 2020, 34.5 MW in 2021, and 34.9 MW in 2022 under the 2020-2022 DSM Preferred Plan and Alternate scenario. The 2019 DSM Plan had a peak demand reduction of 20.2 MW with a budget of $34 million. The proposed plans have higher budgets and lower dollar-per-watt costs for demand reduction.

Request IR-07: Does the comparison of unit costs in Table 5 of E1's Application include the effects of inflation? If not, please provide an inflation-adjusted comparison of unit costs. Response IR-07: Please see Tables 1 and 2 below for th...

AI summary The document requests an inflation-adjusted comparison of unit costs from Table 5 of E1's Application. The response refers to Tables 1 and 2 for the adjusted comparison.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-07: 2 3 Please list all the benefits included in the TRC for the efficiency programs. Were fossil fuel, 4 water, and Operation/Maintenance benefits included? 5 6 Response IR-07: 7 8 Benefits included in the To...

AI summary The response to Request IR-07 outlines the benefits included in the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test for efficiency programs. It includes avoided costs of energy, capacity, and transmission/distribution, as well as water-savings-related benefits and fossil-fuel impacts. Operations and maintenance benefits were not included in the TRC test.

Small Business Advocate Issue ENS Position/Proposal IG Comments 2017_1.g. Escalation rate for energy and demand charges Continue using 2.7% per year Agree. DSMAG_1 Comments on NS Power October 2018 presentation Comments invited N/A DSMAG_2...

AI summary The Small Business Advocate discusses various issues related to energy and demand charges, DSM program modeling, rate impact models, and avoided costs for the DSM Plan. ENS and the IG provide positions and comments on the proposed approaches and data usage.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-09: 2 3 Please provide a copy of the Cost Allocation Model relied upon to allocate the HST amounts. 4 5 Response IR-09: 6 7 Please refer to EfficiencyOne's response to SBA IR-09 part b). Date Filed: May 13, 20...

AI summary The document includes a request and response related to providing a copy of the Cost Allocation Model used to allocate HST amounts, with a reference to EfficiencyOne's response to a related inquiry.

ective, within 10% of the 2019 DSM plan but at a significant additional cost (9% to 25%). E1's proposed preferred plan would provide an incremental 14 Gwh to the 2019 plan December 21, 2018 D. Friis but at a cost of $43 million compared to...

AI summary NS Power criticizes E1's proposed DSM plans for being too similar to the 2019 plan and not providing meaningful alternate scenarios. NS Power requests E1 to model a plan with lower unit savings costs and a minimum 25% lower energy savings level for the 2020 to 2022 period.

Date Filed: May 13, 2019 E1 (NSUARB-Pronko) IR-10 Page 2 of 3 1 d) Since 2010, the total amount of financing written off and expensed by EfficiencyOne was 2 $296,344. The principal amounts financed for these customers were $471,714. 3 4 e)...

AI summary EfficiencyOne has written off and expensed financing totaling $296,344 since 2010, with $471,714 in principal amounts financed. EfficiencyOne covers financing costs and administrative expenses related to customer loans, invoiced monthly by NS Power. NS Power is responsible for credit checks.

E1 Responses to Small Business Advocate (SBA) 1 Request IR-06: 2 3 Refer to EfficiencyOne 2020-2022 DSM Resource Plan Filing, Appendix A Attachment 1: 4 5 a. Provide list of measures along with their key characteristics such as estimated e...

AI summary The document responds to a request from the Small Business Advocate regarding the inclusion of energy efficiency measures with a TRC (Total Resource Cost) less than 1 in the 2020-2022 DSM (Demand Side Management) Resource Plan. It explains that such measures contribute to reducing the overall TRC of the portfolio and provide strategic advantages by enabling a broader range of efficiency measures.

Appendix E. EERAM Economic Tests Measure, program, end‐use, building type, and overall portfolio level costs and benefits are calculated in EERAM. Some of these costs and benefits are calculated as net and others as gross. Net values take...

AI summary This section of Appendix E discusses the Economic Evaluation of Resource and Measures (EERAM) framework, which calculates costs and benefits of energy efficiency programs at various levels. It outlines four financial tests (TRC, PAC, RIM, PCT) used to evaluate program impacts, including how benefits and costs are defined and calculated, with a focus on net-to-gross adjustments and discount rates.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL The only non-energy impacts modelled by EfficiencyOne relate to water impacts. EfficiencyOne used Halifax Water combined water and wastewater discharge rates as a proxy for avoided costs (rates effective April 1, 2016).[3]...

AI summary EfficiencyOne's non-energy impact model includes water-related costs, using Halifax Water rates adjusted for inflation. It also corrected an underestimate of capacity-related avoided costs in the BNI sector, noting the impact is minimal. Transmission and distribution avoided costs were updated for residential and BNI sectors.

Date Filed: May 13, 2019 E1 (SBA) IR-13 Page 3 of 3 Sector Avoided Cost Savings Types 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Residential Water Savings (m3) $0.00419 $0.00427 $0.00436 $0.00445 $0.00454 $0.00463 $0.00472...

AI summary The table presents avoided cost savings across various sectors and years, including water, gas, and energy savings for residential and BNI sectors, along with associated costs for capacity, transmission, and distribution.

1 PAC costs include incentives and administrative costs per the definition in E1 (NSPI) RIR-30, Attachment 1 2022 Residential/Charitable (2,3,4) 10,916 12,610 227,299 $ 2,589,787 Small General (10) 37 137 2,478 $ 38,542 General Demand (11)...

AI summary The text presents a table with details on Program Administration and Compliance (PAC) costs, including incentives and administrative costs, across various rate classes in 2022. It includes data on peak demand savings, energy savings, and associated costs for residential, commercial, and industrial categories.

16 Table 1: Definitions of Field Names Field Name Definition Per Unit Direct Installation Cost ($) Cost to deliver direct install measures, e.g. residential efficient products measures. Per Unit DSM Administrator Cost (Incentive + Administ...

AI summary This table defines various financial and performance metrics used in the analysis of demand-side management (DSM) programs. It includes definitions for costs, benefits, and ratios such as net-to-gross ratio and total resource cost (TRC) test results, which are essential for evaluating the economic impact of energy efficiency initiatives.

1 Request IR-05: 2 3 Please refer to EfficiencyOne's evidence, page 35, lines 4 to 25. 4 5 a. Please provide reports, documents, or analyses related to the four cost management 6 strategies. 7 8 b. Does EfficiencyOne have a policy on procu...

AI summary The document contains a request and response related to EfficiencyOne's cost management strategies and procurement policies. The response directs to prior evidence and responses, indicating prior discussion on these topics.

Request IR-14: Please refer to Appendix A. For each of the programs included in the 2020-2022 Plan, please provide the annual costs broken out in detail, using the cost tracking categories used by EfficiencyOne or the following cost catego...

AI summary The response to Request IR-14 provides detailed annual costs for programs in the 2020-2022 Plan, broken down into categories such as general administration, customer incentives, marketing, training, and evaluation. The costs are based on historical percentages and may change with implementation.

1 Table 1: 2020-2022 Preferred DSM Resource Plan Cost Categories Used by EfficiencyOne Residential Efficient Products Existing 2020 Preferred DSM Resource Plan ($ Millions) New Efficient Product Custom Direct Enabling Cost Categories Used...

AI summary This table outlines the cost categories for the 2020-2022 Preferred DSM Resource Plan by EfficiencyOne, detailing expenses across residential efficient products, existing and new residential programs, and various support initiatives.

1 Table 2: 2020-2022 Alternate DSM Resource Scenario 2020 Alternate DSM Resource Scenario ($ Millions) Products Existing New Product Custom Direct Enabling Rebates Residential Residential Rebates Incentives Installation Strategies Total In...

AI summary Table 2 outlines the 2020-2022 Alternate DSM Resource Scenario, detailing various costs associated with demand-side management programs, including incentives, program support, marketing, and salaries. The table provides a breakdown of expenses categorized by different program components and years.

1 Request IR-28: 2 3 Refer to Footnote 2 on Page 3 of 37 of Appendix B, which states that the analysis "assumes 4 an average consumer discount rate of 3 percent." What is the discount rate based on? 5 6 Response IR-28: 7 8 This discount ra...

AI summary The response to Request IR-28 explains that the 3% discount rate used in the analysis is based on the average consumer mortgage interest rate, used to estimate the net present value of customer bill savings from the Plan.

Initial Estimate of T&D Avoided Costs ACE Plans[1](#page-70-0) and associated Board decisions for the past eight years were utilized to determine which Transmission and Distribution (T&D) capital investments were related to load growth, as...

AI summary The document outlines the methodology used to estimate T&D avoided costs, focusing on load growth-related investments from 2008 to 2015. It references ACE Plans and Board decisions, and provides initial estimates of T&D costs per MW for transmission and distribution.

1 Allocating costs with granularity down to the measure and end-use levels raise complications because there is no one-to-one mapping of end uses and measures to programs and markets. For example, efficient lighting measures will show up i...

AI summary Allocating costs with granularity to specific measures and end uses is complicated due to the lack of a one-to-one mapping between end uses, measures, and programs. Efficient lighting measures, for example, appear in multiple programs and markets, and non-measure costs vary. Historical reporting at the major program and market levels is available but does not include measure and end-use level costs of saved energy.

2020-2022 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan (NSUARB M09096) NSPI Responses to Consumer Advocate Information Requests 1 Request IR-29: 2 3 With regard to the statement that "the additional EE spend may have hit or be close to 4 hit...

AI summary The document discusses responses from Richard Levitan of Levitan & Associates, Inc., to a request regarding the concept of 'diminishing returns' in energy efficiency (EE) spending within the 2020-2022 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan. Levitan defines 'diminishing returns' as a point where the benefits gained are less than the investment, citing higher unitized costs in the Preferred Plan compared to previous years.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-47: 2 3 In the same sentence, Mr. Levitan says that "demand reduction cost per watt may be 4 lower" for a DSM program focused on peak demand reduction, and that "peak demand 5 reducing technologies are more ex...

AI summary The text discusses a response from Richard Levitan regarding the cost comparison between peak demand reducing technologies and passive energy efficiency (EE). Levitan asserts that while peak demand technologies are more expensive, they provide greater benefits. The context involves a DSM plan and cost considerations in energy efficiency programs.

Table 1. Summary Avoided Energy and Capacity Costs – 2018‐2042 ntia l Re ere Req uire (W nts ven ue me hol le) esa Bas is iable Var Cos t Com ents pon Fuel, VO M, R E, In hang terc e, Start up/S hutd own 201 8 201 9 202 0 202 1 202 2 202 3...

AI summary Table 1 summarizes avoided energy and capacity costs from 2018 to 2042, highlighting the costs associated with fuel, variable operations, and other factors. The table shows a general increase in costs over the years, with fluctuations in some periods.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-5: 2 3 On page 7, NS Power stated that its focus is on keeping its costs as low as possible while 4 improving service to customers, and that E1 should be held to the same standard in 5 implementing its mandate...

AI summary NS Power states that E1 has underspent its budget by about $3 million annually since 2015. However, NS Power does not have evidence to determine whether this underspending indicates effective management of E1's mandate. NS Power notes that E1 has historically met or exceeded its energy and capacity targets with less than its budgeted spend.

Regulated Statements of Income Operating revenues $ 1,439 millions of Canadian dollars December 31 2018 For the Twelve months ended Operating expenses Management Control Notes Fuel for generation and purchased power and FAM Expense 588 Min...

AI summary The document outlines the regulated statements of income for Nova Scotia Power, detailing operating revenues and expenses, including fuel costs, depreciation, and demand side management expenses. It also references the 2020-2022 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan and NSPI's responses to NSUARB information requests.

Document: 268936 Date Filed: April 29, 2019 Synapse (E1) Page 1 of 11 1 2 Request IR-1: programs. costs of Please describe how EfficiencyOne proposes to recover the its proposed 2 ii. Lifetime benefits ($ million) 3 iii. First-year energy...

AI summary The document outlines requests for information regarding the costs and benefits of EfficiencyOne's proposed programs, including lifetime benefits, energy savings, and cost tests. It also asks for a breakdown of investment, energy savings, and changes to programs since the 2019 Plan.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 a. To what extent-in both percentage and absolute values-does the incorporation of customer-related costs distort the allocation of benefits an...

AI summary The text outlines several requests for information related to NS Power's evidence, including customer-related costs, avoided marginal costs, levelized fuel costs, and the impact of DSM on thermal generation capacity factors. These requests seek detailed data, workbooks, and explanations to clarify the assumptions and calculations involved.

36 1 2 3 b. basis for Mr. Levitan's assumption that 127.2 GWh of What is the the first same cost of saved energy of EfficiencyOne's 2020-2022 DSM Plan has the the 2019 portfolio? entire 29 30 31 slide 16 and 19 ofAppendix Refer to B to NS...

AI summary The text discusses the basis for Mr. Levitan's assumption regarding the saved energy from EfficiencyOne's 2020-2022 DSM Plan and the comparison of avoided transmission and distribution costs and fixed costs in NS Power's evidence with EfficiencyOne's model.

1 (b) Please produce all studies, calculations, or other documents and 2 evidence relied upon by E1 rely upon to quantify that risk? 3 (c) Is this submission regarding risk any different from the submission 4 regarding risk to industry cap...

AI summary The text outlines several information requests related to risk quantification, DSM Plan submissions, weighting of aspects in the DSM Resource Plan, and cost allocation. It distinguishes between demand reduction and demand response activities in the context of the Preferred Plan.

32 activity? If no, why not? 1 2 3 (b) Does E1 consider NSPI's Time-of-Day rate to be a demand response activity? If not, does it consider that rate to be a demand reduction activity? 26 27 28 [A]mongst electrically heated households in No...

AI summary The text includes questions and requests related to demand response and demand reduction activities, system peak periods, and the allocation of HST credits. It also references a cost allocation model and considerations for ratepayer interests.

30 1 Request IR-11: 2 Reference: Appendix A, page 94. 3 4 5 Dependent on approved cost allocation methodology, EfficiencyOne will undertake reasonable efforts to avoid program changes that will result in substantial changes to any customer...

AI summary The text outlines several requests for information related to cost allocation methodology, definitions of 'substantial changes' to customer rate classes, and the basis for cost allocation using 2017 data. It also asks for calculations and regulatory decisions supporting budget figures, as well as a redline version of a supply agreement.

1 2019 M09096 2 3 NOVA SCOTIA UTILITY AND REVIEW BOARD 4 IN THE MATTER OF: The Public Utilities Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c.380 as amended 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 IN THE MATTER OF: An Application by EfficiencyOne (E1) to the Nova Scotia Utility and Revi...

AI summary The document outlines an information request from The Industrial Group to Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI) regarding the annual increase in non-fuel rates for Large Industrial Interruptible and Medium Industrial classes from 2012 to 2019. The request is part of a proceeding related to the approval of a demand side management (DSM) resource plan between EfficiencyOne and NS Power.

4138-0008-7068 v1 1 2 3 (b) Please provide a table listing the non-fuel cost components for each year since 2012. Identify separately the balance of all deferred regulatory accounts. 4 (c) Please provide the most current forecast of non-fu...

AI summary The document contains requests and references related to non-fuel cost components, demand response programs, and the distinction between 'demand reduction' and 'demand response' measures. NSPI is asked to clarify its views on these topics and whether it agrees with E1's approach.

Efficiency One FILE: E-ENS-R-19 FILE: E-ENS-R-19 DATE: UND# DESCRIPTION REQUESTED OF BY DATE DUE June 10 2019 U-1 To provide an explanation of all adjustments, and the adjustments and TRC, by program and customer class, made to accommodate...

AI summary This document outlines four requests related to financial and programmatic details, including explanations of adjustments, tables of program allocations, budget status for a demand reduction pilot, and interest and administrative costs for a financing reference. The requests are directed to various individuals.

up>7 Exhibit E-3, E1 (NSPI) IR-40(a). to assist in the rate design. So there's lots of great stuff that we can do to work together and provide the most value from demand savings initiatives. When questioned as to whether the $5.4 million c...

AI summary The discussion revolves around the potential use of a $5.4 million fund for demand response initiatives, with Mr. MacDonald confirming that budget shifts between programs would require reporting to the Board if they exceed a 25% variation. The conversation highlights flexibility in program design and funding.

Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity were provided by NS Power, from the 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2018. & lt;sup>a Lifetime benefits are expres...

AI summary NS Power provided annual avoided costs of energy and capacity from the 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided in 2018. Lifetime benefits are calculated as the net present value of avoided costs over the program's life using utility WACC. TRC and PAC are benefit/cost ratios used to evaluate program efficiency, with PAC focusing on EfficiencyOne's costs and TRC on combined costs.

Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity were provided by NS Power, from the 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2018. & lt;sup>a Lifetime benefits are expres...

AI summary The document discusses annual avoided costs of energy and capacity provided by NS Power, referencing the 2014 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and 2018 transmission and distribution costs. It explains how lifetime benefits are calculated using net present value and introduces TRC and PAC as benefit/cost ratios. It also notes the focus on low-income customer participation in EfficiencyOne programs.

Table 3: 2020 DSM Resource Plan Investment and Savings 2020 Investment ($ million) Lifetime Benefits ($ million) a First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) b Prog...

AI summary Table 3 provides an overview of the 2020 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan, detailing investments, savings, and costs for residential and business programs. It highlights the financial and energy benefits of various DSM initiatives, including energy savings, peak demand reductions, and cost metrics like TRC and PAC.

Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity were provided by NS Power, from the 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2018. & lt;sup>a Lifetime benefits are expres...

AI summary The text discusses annual avoided costs of energy and capacity from the 2014 IRP, provided by NS Power, and explains metrics like TRC and PAC, which compare lifetime benefits to program costs. It also references EfficiencyOne's planned participation by low-income customers.

Table 4: 2021 DSM Resource Plan Investment and Savings 2021 Investment ($ million) Lifetime Benefits ($ million) a First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) b Prog...

AI summary Table 4 presents the 2021 investment and savings data for Demand Side Management (DSM) programs in Nova Scotia, detailing residential and business programs, including energy savings, cost tests, and total resource costs.

Table 5: 2022 DSM Resource Plan Investment and Savings 2022 Investment ($ million) Lifetime Benefits ($ million) a First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) b Prog...

AI summary Table 5 outlines the 2022 DSM Resource Plan investment and savings, including residential and business programs, with details on investment amounts, energy savings, and cost tests. It provides a breakdown of various DSM initiatives and their associated benefits.

Table 9: 2020-2022 Existing Residential Performance Indicators Year Investment ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) a Program Administrator Cost T...

AI summary Table 9 provides performance indicators for residential energy efficiency programs from 2020 to 2022, including investment, energy savings, participation, and cost metrics. The data show consistent improvements in energy savings and participation rates over the three years.

Table 15: 2020-2022 Custom Incentives Performance Indicators Year Investment ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) a Program Administrator Cost Tes...

AI summary Table 15 presents performance indicators for custom incentives from 2020 to 2022, including investment amounts, energy savings, peak demand reductions, and cost metrics. The data show consistent growth in investment and energy savings over the three years, with total investment reaching $21.2 million and cumulative energy savings of 1,233.2 GWh.

Table 17: 2020-2022 Direct Installation Performance Indicators Year Investment ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) a Program Administrator Cost T...

AI summary Table 17 presents performance indicators for direct installation programs from 2020 to 2022, including investment amounts, energy savings, peak demand savings, and cost metrics. The data shows consistent improvements in energy savings and participation over the years, with stable TRC and PAC values.

20 21 1 2 12 13 14 15 18 19 & lt;sup>d The levelized cost of saved energy represents the cost of lifetime energy savings, with savings discounted using Nova Scotia Power's weighted average cost of capital (WACC).

AI summary The text discusses the levelized cost of saved energy, which represents the cost of lifetime energy savings discounted using Nova Scotia Power's weighted average cost of capital (WACC).

Table 2: 2020-2022 DSM Resource Plan Investment and Savings Year Investment ($ million) Lifetime Benefits ($ million) a First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Weighted- Average Measure Life (years) Peak Demand Saving...

AI summary Table 2 outlines the investment and savings from the 2020-2022 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan, including annual investments, lifetime benefits, energy savings, and cost tests. The data shows increasing investments and savings over the three years, with a focus on energy efficiency and demand management.

Table 2: 2020-2022 Preferred DSM Resource Plan Investment and Savings Year Investment ($ million) Lifetime Benefits ($ million) a First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Weighted- Average Measure Life (years) Peak Dem...

AI summary Table 2 presents the investment and savings data for the 2020-2022 Preferred DSM Resource Plan, including metrics such as investment amounts, energy savings, and cost tests. The data highlights the financial and energy efficiency outcomes of the demand-side management initiatives during this period.

Table 3: 2020 DSM Resource Plan Investment and Savings 2020 Investment ($ million) Lifetime Benefits ($ million) a First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) b Prog...

AI summary Table 3 presents the 2020 investment and savings data for Demand Side Management (DSM) programs in Nova Scotia, including details on energy savings, peak demand savings, and cost tests. The table highlights the financial and energy benefits of various residential and business programs.

Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity were provided by NS Power, from the 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2018. \ Lifetime benefits are expressed as th...

AI summary The text discusses annual avoided costs of energy and capacity from NS Power's 2014 IRP, including transmission and distribution costs from 2018. It also introduces metrics like b-TRC and PAC, which compare lifetime benefits to costs, and highlights EfficiencyOne's planned participation by low-income customers in various programs.

Table 4: 2021 DSM Resource Plan Investment and Savings 2021 Investment ($ million) Lifetime Benefits ($ million) a First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) b Prog...

AI summary Table 4 outlines the 2021 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan Investment and Savings, detailing investments, benefits, energy savings, and cost tests for various residential and business programs. It includes data on energy savings, peak demand reduction, and cost evaluations like the Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) and Program Administrator Cost Test (PAC).

Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity were provided by NS Power, from the 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2018. a Lifetime benefits are expressed as th...

AI summary The document discusses annual avoided costs of energy and capacity from NS Power's 2014 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and provides details on how lifetime benefits are calculated using net present value and the Total Resource Cost (TRC) and Program Administrator Cost (PAC) ratios. It also references EfficiencyOne's planned participation by low-income customers.

Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity were provided by NS Power, from the 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2018. \ Lifetime benefits are expressed as th...

AI summary The text discusses annual avoided costs of energy and capacity from the 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM, as well as avoided costs of transmission and distribution from 2018. It also explains the calculation of lifetime benefits using net present value and introduces TRC and PAC as benefit/cost ratios for evaluating program effectiveness.

Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity were provided by NS Power, from the 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2018. & lt;sup>a Lifetime benefits are expres...

AI summary The document provides annual avoided costs of energy and capacity from NS Power's 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM, as well as avoided costs of transmission and distribution from 2018. It also explains metrics such as TRC, PAC, and how lifetime benefits are calculated using utility WACC.

Table 7: 2020-2022 Residential Efficient Product Rebates Performance Indicators Year Investment ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) a Program Adm...

AI summary Table 7 presents performance indicators for residential efficient product rebates from 2020 to 2022, including investment, energy savings, peak demand savings, and cost metrics such as the Total Resource Cost Test and Program Administrator Cost Test. The data shows trends in participation and cost efficiency over the three-year period.

4.4.14.3.1 Overview The New Residential program, marketed as New Home Construction, provides customers who are building a new home access to technical expertise and financial incentives for the installation of energy efficiency upgrades du...

AI summary The New Residential program provides financial incentives and technical support for energy efficiency upgrades during new home construction. Metrics include benefit/cost ratios (TRC and PAC), rebate counts, and the levelized cost of saved energy, which is calculated using Nova Scotia Power's WACC.

Table 11: 2020-2022 New Residential Performance Indicators Year Investment ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) a Program Administrator Cost Test...

AI summary Table 11 presents performance indicators for new residential programs from 2020 to 2022, showing investment, energy savings, participation, and cost metrics. The data highlights increasing investments and energy savings over the years, with a focus on cost efficiency and program effectiveness.

Table 13: 2020-2022 New Residential Performance Indicators Year Investment ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) a Program Administrator Cost Test...

AI summary Table 13 presents performance indicators for new residential energy efficiency programs from 2020 to 2022, showing investments, energy savings, and cost metrics. The data includes metrics such as total resource cost, program administrator cost, and levelized cost of saved energy across the years.

Table 13: 2020-2022 BNI Efficient Product Rebates Performance Indicators Year Investment ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) a Program Administra...

AI summary Table 13 presents performance indicators for the BNI Efficient Product Rebates program from 2020 to 2022, including investments, energy savings, cost metrics, and participation levels. The data highlights consistent energy savings and cost efficiency over the three-year period.

Table 16: 2020-2022 BNI Efficient Product Rebates Performance Indicators Year Investment ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) a Program Administra...

AI summary Table 16 presents performance indicators for the BNI Efficient Product Rebates program from 2020 to 2022, showing investments, energy savings, and cost metrics. The data highlights consistent energy savings and participation levels over the years, with slight increases in investment and energy savings.

Scenario Year Investment ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) a Program Administrator Cost Test (PAC) b Participation (projects) c Participation (...

AI summary The table presents investment, energy savings, and cost data for different energy efficiency scenarios over three years. It includes metrics such as investment amounts, energy savings, peak demand savings, and cost tests. The data is compared across preferred, alternate, and variance scenarios, with percentages indicating variances from the preferred scenario.

Table 22: 2020-2022 Direct Installation Performance Indicators Year Investment ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) a Program Administrator Cost T...

AI summary Table 22 provides performance indicators for direct installation programs from 2020 to 2022, including investment, energy savings, peak demand savings, and cost metrics such as TRC and PAC. The data shows consistent growth in energy savings and participation over the three years.

tall cost, it is more expensive to operate than a central gas fired boiler system. Since the landlord is often responsible for providing heat, building owners tend to prefer the lower operating costs. Cooling is increasing in importance Tr...

AI summary The document discusses HVAC system preferences in Nova Scotia's residential market, noting that central gas systems are cheaper to operate than VRF systems. Cooling is gaining importance in higher-end markets, with developers prioritizing capital costs over long-term expenses. Ductless mini-split heat pumps are common in lower-tier markets, while high-end developments favor VRF or CGC Bulldog systems to preserve balcony space and reduce noise.

Table 7: 2020-2022 Residential Efficient Product Rebates Performance Indicators Venr Investment (S million) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) 2 Program Adm...

AI summary Table 7 presents performance indicators for the Residential Efficient Product Rebates program from 2020 to 2022, including investments, energy savings, peak demand savings, and cost metrics. The data highlights trends in participation, energy efficiency, and cost-effectiveness over the three-year period.

Table 11: 2020-2022 New Residential Performance Indicators Vear Investment (S million) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) Program Administrator Cost Test (P...

AI summary Table 11 presents performance indicators for new residential energy efficiency programs from 2020 to 2022, including investment, energy savings, participation, and cost metrics. The data shows increasing investment, energy savings, and participation over the three years.

Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity were provided by NS Power, from the 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2018. Total cost-effectiveness tests are calc...

AI summary The document outlines annual avoided costs of energy and capacity from 2014 and 2018, as well as cost-effectiveness tests using present value calculations. It defines TRC and PAC as benefit/cost ratios and mentions the Custom program component and EMIS/SEM participation numbers. The levelized and nominal costs of saved energy are also discussed.

Table 17: 2020-2022 Direct Installation Performance Indicators Year Investment (S million) First-Year Euergy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Penk Demand Savings (MW) Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) n Program Administrator Cost T...

AI summary Table 17 presents performance indicators for direct installation programs from 2020 to 2022, including investment, energy savings, demand savings, and cost metrics. The data highlights trends in energy efficiency and cost-effectiveness over the three-year period.

hese years are contained within a single Plan (the 2016-2018 Plan) and are thus the outcome of a single planning process. In 2016-2018 the NSUARB directed April 21, 2020 EfficiencyOne to reduce its planned costs by 14%, 15% and 18%, respec...

AI summary The document outlines a variance analysis conducted to identify factors that led to a historic overestimation of costs in 2015 and 2016-2018. The analysis focused on EfficiencyOne's planned costs and actual outcomes, revealing that overestimations were influenced by assumptions about future program components, participation rates, and market conditions.

We noted that increased costs in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2021 and 2022 were related to the cost to develop and defend three-year DSM Resource Plans. In 2019, there was also $1 million allocated for demandfocused activities. The 2020-2022 DSM Res...

AI summary The text discusses increased costs in various years due to the development and defense of three-year DSM Resource Plans, with a specific mention of a $1 million allocation in 2019 for demand-focused activities and additional increases in the 2020-2022 DSM Resource Plan linked to new initiatives and research.

Table 13: 2016-2018 Incentive Cost Variance Analysis Actual to Plan by Program Component Three Year Plan Total ($ million) 2016 2017 2018 Variance Variance - Actual to Plan (underspend) Residential DSM Programs Appliance Retirement 0.63 0....

AI summary Table 13 presents a variance analysis of incentive costs from 2016 to 2018 for various residential and business programs, showing underspending across multiple components such as appliance retirement, instant savings, and custom incentives, with total underspend amounting to $7.38 million over three years.

Custom Incentives With a total underspend of $8.08 million, the Custom Incentives program is the largest contributor to the overall underspending during 2016-2018. The program customer participation rate was lower than planned. Annual Prog...

AI summary The Custom Incentives program had a total underspend of $8.08 million from 2016 to 2018, primarily due to low customer participation rates caused by project delays and fewer project leads than expected. EfficiencyOne noted that the program's activities are client-driven and varied, leading to significant underspending beyond mid-course adjustment estimates.

Factors of overestimation – Inherent in the regulatory environment as defined by external factors The length of time between the development and implementation of the DSM Resource Plans . DSM Resource Plans and modelling inputs are develop...

AI summary The regulatory environment for Demand Side Management (DSM) plans in Nova Scotia involves a long development-to-implementation timeline, leading to potential overestimations due to changing external factors. EfficiencyOne adjusts plans mid-course based on evaluations, but current reporting may not fully address variances between planned and actual outcomes.

Table 18: 2016-2018 Plan, Mid-Course Adjustment and Actual Expenditures, Variance Analysis Mid Course Adjustment Plan Expenditures ($ million) Mid-Course Adjustment Expenditures ($ million) Plan to Mid-Course Adjustment Variance (decrease)...

AI summary Table 18 provides a variance analysis comparing planned, mid-course adjustment, and actual expenditures from 2016 to 2018. The data shows discrepancies between planned and actual spending, with significant underspending in each year, particularly in 2017 and 2018.