E-1Application
39 passages
3.1 SUMMARY - The Settlement Plan represents a comprehensive suite of programs and service offerings which will - deliver approximately 412.7 GWh of affordable, incremental net energy savings and 96.7 MW (78.8 MW - from energy efficiency a...
AI summary The Settlement Plan delivers 412.7 GWh of energy savings and 96.7 MW of demand reduction, aligning with the 2020 IRP's DSM spending levels. It proposes a $173M investment (vs. $188M in the IRP) over 2023-2025, with a lifetime unit cost of $0.035/kWh. Past DSM programs have already saved ratepayers $1.5B.
4.2 PROGRAM DELIVERY COSTS - In the development of its Settlement Plan, E1 has taken into consideration cost-efficiencies and a full - accounting of value to minimize the cost of delivering saved energy in the near-term and to maximize the...
AI summary E1 outlines cost-efficiency strategies in its Settlement Plan, including benchmarking, competitive procurement, independent reviews, and process improvement. It emphasizes ongoing cost management aligned with its 2020-2022 DSM Plan and references the 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan (M06733) for methodology validation.
4.2.4 APPLICATION OF COSTS A variety of costs are incurred in the acquisition of efficiency resources. It is important that these costs are included at the proper analytical level when analyzing the economics of efficiency resources for sc...
AI summary The document discusses the application of costs in efficiency resource acquisition, emphasizing the importance of proper cost allocation at different analytical levels. E1's methodology includes both fixed and variable costs at the measure level, which may overstate costs and negatively affect cost-effectiveness analysis ratios.
Table 4: Cost Difference of DSM and Fuel Cost Difference of DSM & Fuel Year (Difference $ per kWh) (Difference as a % of DSM cost) 2015 0.031 171% 2016 0.029 183% 2017 0.024 129% 2018 0.037 196% 2019 0.040 212% 2020 0.046 219% 2021 0.052 2...
AI summary Table 4 shows the cost difference between Demand Side Management (DSM) and fuel from 2015 to 2021, highlighting increasing differences in both dollar and percentage terms. The Settlement Plan offers significant avoided costs to ratepayers with a total investment of $173 million, aiming for 4,681 GWh of energy savings over time.
8.5 THE COMPARATIVE COST OF DSM TO OTHER FUELS AND RESOURCE SOURCES Energy efficiency continues to be the lowest cost option as compared to any alternate fuel source used for the production of electricity in Nova Scotia. [Table 8](#page-59...
AI summary Energy efficiency is identified as the lowest-cost option compared to other fuel sources for electricity production in Nova Scotia. Table 8 compares the cost of Demand Side Management (DSM) to NS Power's average fuel costs.
8.6 ENERGY EFFICIENCY IS THE LEAST RISK OPTION - 18 Energy efficiency is a low-risk energy investment as there is: - Certainty with respect to the level in investment; - No unexpected costs associated with an investment in energy efficienc...
AI summary Energy efficiency is presented as the least risky investment option due to its predictable costs, capped spending, and consistent program performance. Unlike other fuel sources, it avoids unexpected costs and volatility, ensuring ratepayer stability. E1's consistent administration of efficiency programs further supports this claim.
14 Table 3: Balanced Plan Aspects Addressed in the Settlement Plan Balanced Plan Aspects 2023-2025 Settlement Plan Short- and long-term energy and capacity avoidance • resource acquisition (measures with a diversity of short- and long-term...
AI summary Table 3 outlines aspects of the 2023-2025 Settlement Plan, including energy and capacity avoidance, program delivery costs, avoided investments, and non-electric benefits. It highlights strategies for managing costs, incentive setting, and incorporating customer perception into measure mix decisions.
7 Table 4: Key Global Assumptions in the 2023-2025 Settlement Plan Development Key Global Assumptions Model Participation Estimation & Development Approach • Development of DR participation: updated Potential Study assumptions; DR uses a t...
AI summary The text outlines key global assumptions in the 2023-2025 Settlement Plan Development, including participation estimation methods for demand response programs, low-income investment levels based on 2020 impact weightings, and the use of a 6.33% pre-tax WACC and 2% inflation rate for cost calculations.
14 Table 6: Benefit and Cost Components in the Total Resource Cost Test Calculations for EE and DR Component Description Benefit or Cost Avoided Cost of Transmission & Distribution EE & DR – the avoided cost of transmission and distributio...
AI summary Table 6 outlines the benefit and cost components in the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test calculations for Energy Efficiency (EE) and Demand Response (DR). It details how EE and DR programs avoid costs related to transmission, distribution, capacity, energy, and carbon emissions, while DR is assumed to have no energy impacts.
15 Table 7: Program Administrator Cost Test Components Component Description Benefit or Cost Avoided Cost of Transmission & Distribution EE & DR – the avoided cost of transmission and distribution represents the costs avoided, due to DSM,...
AI summary The document outlines the components of the Program Administrator Cost Test, including avoided costs related to transmission, distribution, capacity, energy, and carbon, as well as program administration costs and incentives. These components are evaluated as benefits or costs for EE and DR programs within the NS Power system.
Table 8: 2023-2025 Settlement Plan Investment and Savings Year Investment a Lifetime Benefits b First-Year Energy Savings Lifetime Energy Savings Average Dem Peak EE Demand Savings Capacity Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) c Prog Admini Cost...
AI summary Table 8 outlines the 2023-2025 Settlement Plan Investment and Savings, detailing annual investments, energy savings, and cost-effectiveness metrics. The data includes lifetime benefits, energy savings, demand reductions, and capacity figures across three years, providing a comprehensive overview of the plan's financial and operational impact.
2 Scenario Scenario Year Investment First-Year Energy Savings Lifetime Energy Savings Peak Demand Savings Total Re Cost Tes esource st (TRC) a Admin gram istrator st (PAC) b Participation Participation Participation Lifetime Unit Cost ($ m...
AI summary The table presents two scenarios (Settlement and Alternate) with investment, energy savings, and cost details for different years. It includes metrics such as energy savings, participation numbers, and unit costs. The variance between the scenarios is also outlined in percentage terms.
21 Table 45: Three-Year Summary of the Custom Program Component Annual Plan Investment Energy Savings Demand Savings Participation Market Barriers • Upfront costs & internal competition for capital: financial constraints resulting from int...
AI summary The document outlines market barriers to energy efficiency programs, including upfront costs, payback periods, time constraints, and lack of internal commitment. It also highlights key components of the Custom Program, such as Retrofit, NC, and BOpt, which aim to support energy efficiency through feasibility studies, implementation, and recommissioning processes.
22 Table 46: Three-Year Summary of the SEM & EMIS Program Component Annual Plan Investment ($M) Energy Savings (GWh) Demand Savings (MW) Participation (participants) Market Barriers • Upfront costs & internal competition for capital: finan...
AI summary The table outlines market barriers to the SEM & EMIS Program Component, including upfront costs, payback periods, time constraints, and lack of internal commitment and technical expertise that hinder participation in energy efficiency initiatives.
1 Table 53: Direct Installation Performance Indicators – Comparison of Settlement Plan and Alternate Scenario Scenario Year Investment ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Total...
AI summary Table 53 compares performance indicators for the Settlement Plan and Alternate Scenario in the Direct Installation Program. It includes metrics such as investment, energy savings, peak demand savings, and costs across different years and scenarios. The table highlights the differences between the two scenarios and provides a variance analysis.
10 Table 54: Summary of Benefits – Demand Response Participant Industry Benefits Environmental Strategic DSM Benefits Benefits Portfolio Benefits • financial incentives for shifting or curtailing load • access to new controls and informati...
AI summary This table outlines the benefits of demand response (DR) programs, including financial incentives for load shifting, environmental benefits such as reduced reliance on carbon-intensive peaking plants, and strategic advantages like improved cross-utility coordination. However, the current DR pilots are primarily focused on load leveling, and modeling suggests that the costs of delivering these programs may outweigh the benefits.
1 Table 59: Demand Response Performance Indicators – Comparison of Settlement Plan and Alternate Scenario Scenario Year Investmenta ($ million) New DR Capacity (MW) Available DR Capacity (MW) Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)b Program Adminis...
AI summary Table 59 compares the performance indicators of the Settlement Plan and Alternate Scenario for Demand Response (DR) programs, highlighting differences in investment, new and available DR capacity, participation numbers, and cost metrics across 2023 to 2025.
Table 4 Avoided T&D Costs – System Wide Year Transmission ($/kW-yr.) Distribution ($/kW-yr.) Total ($/kW-yr.) 2021 23.20 20.20 43.40 2022 $23.66 $20.60 $44.27 2023 $24.14 $21.02 $45.15 2024 $24.62 $21.44 $46.06 2025 $25.11 $21.87 $46.98 20...
AI summary Table 4 presents avoided transmission and distribution costs from 2021 to 2041, showing increasing costs per kW-year for both transmission and distribution, with total costs rising annually over the period.
DATE FILED: 11 March 2022 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 13 Avoided T&D Costs – System Wide Year Transmission ($/kW-yr.) Distribution ($/kW-yr.) Total ($/kW-yr.) 2042 $35.17 $30.62...
AI summary The text presents a table showing avoided transmission and distribution costs from 2042 to 2063, with costs extrapolated using a 2% annual inflation rate. It also references a Demand Response DRSim Model, indicating a focus on demand-side management and cost projections.
Levelized Costs and Supply Curve As described previously, the supply curve helps determine the relative contributions from the different DR options vis-à-vis the costs for acquiring these resources. [Figure 3](#page-88-1) shows the supply...
AI summary The text discusses the supply curve for demand response (DR) options, including levelized costs and total resource cost (TRC) test costs. It also compares the Net Present Value (NPV), TRC benefit-cost ratios, and levelized costs between the Settlement Plan and Alternate Scenario, noting differences due to participation levels and excluded DR options.
2.1.5 Battery Adoption Projections Due to a lack of information on battery adoption projections in Nova Scotia, Guidehouse developed high-level battery adoption forecasts using assumptions drawn from Guidehouse Insights reports and industr...
AI summary Guidehouse developed high-level battery adoption forecasts for Nova Scotia, using assumptions from industry reports and expertise. The projections consider factors like upfront costs, bill savings, and payback periods, while also incorporating a noneconomic adoption adder for residential customers. The model uses a Bass-diffusion curve with a 10-year ramp rate to simulate adoption trends.
In addition to these two key inputs for peak load reduction calculations, assumptions are made on itemized program costs necessary for estimating annual program budgets and for undertaking cost-effectiveness assessment of individual DR opt...
AI summary The text discusses assumptions made on itemized program costs for estimating annual program budgets and conducting cost-effectiveness assessments of DR options and the DR portfolio, based on benchmarking with similar programs and program administrators.
3.1.1 Levelized Costs and Supply Curve As described previously, the supply curve helps determine the relative contributions from the different DR options vis-à-vis the costs for acquiring these resources. [Figure 14](#page-107-0) shows the...
AI summary The text discusses the supply curve and levelized costs for various Demand Response (DR) options in the Settlement Plan, highlighting BTM battery control as the least cost option and the contributions and costs of different DR strategies, including DLC, BNI Curtailment, and EV charging control. It also compares the Settlement Plan with the Alternate Scenario, noting differences in participation and cost allocation.
to the peak load reduction estimated for these classes. Figure 17. Customer Class Shares in Estimated 2025 DR Savings for Settlement Plan Figure 18. 2025 DR Savings by Customer Class and DR Option for Settlement Plan The Large Commercial a...
AI summary The text discusses the contribution of different customer classes to peak load reduction in 2025, highlighting the role of DLC and BNI curtailment in residential and large commercial segments. It also outlines the cost trends for DR options in the E1 2023-2025 DSM Plan, noting that DLC costs initially rise due to technology costs but decline over time as programs mature, while other DR options see increasing costs.
4.2.1 Modelling Approach to Represent EE-DR Interactions This section discusses aspects of the DR portfolio that are integrated with the inputs and outputs of ProCESSTM modelling activities conducted for energy efficiency implementation pl...
AI summary This section outlines the integration of demand response (DR) and energy efficiency (EE) programs in the ProCESSTM modelling approach. It discusses baseline peak adjustment, eligibility alignment, cost-sharing, and joint cost-effectiveness testing. Guidehouse subtracts projected EE savings from sales forecasts and uses smart thermostat adoption data to determine eligible customers for DR programs. Incremental costs are shared between EE and DR portfolios based on TRC benefits.
ions in annual avoided costs. The annual impacts depicted in [Figure 3](#page-169-0) should not be interpreted to be the actual rate changes that will occur in these years as experienced by customers. 1 Figure 3: Annual Rate Impacts (2023-...
AI summary The text discusses the annual rate impacts resulting from DSM activities between 2023 and 2025, noting that these figures should not be interpreted as actual customer rate changes. It explains that rate impacts differ by class due to varying shares of fuel and fixed infrastructure costs, and highlights modeling simplifications that may not reflect real-world scenarios.
3.1 Revenue Requirement The annual revenue requirements under the "With DSM" scenario are kept consistent with the test year information from the preceding rate cases. The non-FAM costs in the years following the 2014 test year from the 20...
AI summary The document outlines the annual revenue requirements for both 'With DSM' and 'No DSM' scenarios, noting that non-FAM costs remain constant until 2022 and then increase with inflation. FAM-related costs are adjusted for load changes and inflation. The 'No DSM' scenario adds incremental load effects to the 'With DSM' revenue requirements. Historic cost true-ups are excluded due to minimal impact and complexity.
3.2.2 Classification of System Costs Costs within each area are classified into appropriate services. Generation and transmission costs are classified into energy and demand. Distribution costs are classified between demand and customer. R...
AI summary System costs are classified into energy and demand categories, with generation costs depending on unit function. Transmission costs are classified based on load factors, while distribution and retail costs remain largely static except for inflation. NS Power uses a linear equation to estimate generation cost classification for the RBIA.
FAM-related Costs The FAM-related costs are allocated to rate classes using the following two-step process: • Annual class energy usage is multiplied by the benchmark unit cost $/MWh DATE FILED: 11 March 2022 Page 7 of 16 _________________...
AI summary The FAM-related costs are allocated to rate classes using a two-step process, with benchmark unit costs derived from previous rate cases. This method does not differentiate between energy and demand-related costs, but this may be addressed in future RBIA applications due to the increasing share of demand-related costs, now at 15 percent.
3.2.4 Generic COSS Results The actual results from the above cost allocation process under the "With DSM" and "No DSM" scenarios are presented in the "COSS Outputs" tab within NS Power's rate model, where the long-term trends in annual rel...
AI summary This section discusses the long-term trends in annual relative unit cost of service differentials between 'With DSM' and 'No DSM' scenarios, highlighting how DSM program cost recovery affects unit costs during the historic budget period and how the out year period sees lower differentials due to expiring DSM measures. It also explains how different rate classes are affected based on their fuel cost and fixed infrastructure cost responsibilities.
"COSS Data Inputs" tab This tab includes all annual test year class usage and embedded costs from the COSS and BCF COSS filed in GRA and BCF proceedings as well as a forecast of annual usage by class per the most recent ten-year Load Forec...
AI summary The 'COSS Data Inputs' tab contains annual test year class usage and embedded costs from the COSS and BCF COSS, as well as a forecast of annual usage by class from the most recent ten-year Load Forecast Report. It also includes annual DSM Expenditures on rate classes, which are used to determine class unit costs and revenues.
Cost of Service Studies Apportionment of costs to rate classes is done separately for the "With DSM" and "No DSM" cases" in the tabs bearing the same names.
AI summary The document discusses the apportionment of costs to rate classes under two scenarios: 'With DSM' and 'No DSM', as outlined in separate tabs within the Cost of Service Studies.
Comments The applied process is a simplification of a more elaborate cost allocation process from the COSS where some FAM costs, such as fuel costs, are allocated to rate classes based on their shares in monthly energy requirements; some o...
AI summary The document discusses the allocation of FAM costs to rate classes based on energy and demand factors, using a simplified process derived from the COSS. It also outlines how non-FAM costs are treated as fixed between rate cases, with an option to apply annual inflation adjustments. Class shares in these costs change annually based on system load factor changes.
Comments The applied process is a simplification of a more elaborate cost allocation process where some FAM costs, such as fuel costs, are allocated to rate classes based on their shares in monthly energy requirements; some other FAM costs...
AI summary The text discusses a simplified cost allocation process for FAM and non-FAM costs across rate classes, using factors like monthly and annual energy requirements and system peaks. It outlines how annual non-FAM costs are calculated and prorated across different functional areas and rate classes, with adjustments for inflation from 2023 to 2035.
Comments The applied process is a simplification of a more elaborate cost allocation process in the COSS where energy- and demand- related non-FAM costs, are determined through application of rate base usage allocators developed separately...
AI summary The document discusses the simplification of a cost allocation process used in the Cost of Service Study (COSS), where energy- and demand-related non-FAM costs are determined using rate base usage allocators. The most recent rate setting procedure's class unit costs are carried forward for subsequent year simulations.
"COSS Outputs" tab The "COSS Outputs" tab provides two sets of bar graphs of percentage change in class rates due to DSM over the period 2011–2035 calculated as either arithmetic or load-weighted rate changes. The graphs within each set ar...
AI summary The 'COSS Outputs' tab presents bar graphs showing percentage changes in class rates due to demand-side management (DSM) from 2011 to 2035, calculated using arithmetic or load-weighted methods. It also includes a control panel to test the impact of inflation rates and avoided cost scenarios on unit costs and revenues.
DATE FILED: 11 March 2022 Page 1 of 8 1 Figure 1: 2023-2025 Alternate Scenario – Portfolio-level Insights Carbon Emissions Avoided First-Year CO2e Savings (kt) 299 Lifetime CO2e Savings (kt) 1,658 Portfolio Summary (2023-2025) First-Year E...
AI summary The document presents a 2023-2025 alternate scenario with insights on energy and demand savings, carbon emissions avoided, and investment breakdowns. It highlights the distribution of energy efficiency and demand response investments between residential and business sectors, along with cost and benefit analyses.
Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity and annual avoided CO 2 e emissions were provided by NS Power, from the 2020 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2021. - a...
AI summary The text discusses avoided costs and emissions from energy and capacity programs, referencing data from NS Power's 2020 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and 2021 transmission and distribution costs. It outlines investment requirements for demand response (DR) and energy efficiency (EE) programs, including the role of NS Power and E1, and provides definitions for TRC and dPAC metrics.
1 Table 5: 2025 Alternate Scenario Investment and Savings, by Program Component 2025 Investment a ($ million) Lifetime Benefits b ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak EE Demand Savings (MW) Availab...
AI summary Table 5 outlines the 2025 Alternate Scenario Investment and Savings for various energy efficiency and demand response programs in Nova Scotia. It provides data on investment amounts, lifetime benefits, energy savings, and other metrics for residential, business, and institutional programs.
E-12E1(NSUARB) RIR-1 to RIR-41
32 passages
151.4 124.6 95.5 109.4 127.0 120.7 142.6 149.5 Variance 16.7 3.8 (5.8) 15.1 (2.6) (23.7) (12.1) (0.1) 4 5 The two primary drivers of unit cost changes between proposed and actuals are as follows: 6 • the level of participation in a program...
AI summary The text discusses variance analysis in a DSM Plan, noting that unit cost changes are driven by customer participation levels and product mix. A KPMG study (M09750) found no upward bias in E1’s resource cost estimates for 2015 and 2016–2018. E1’s 2023–2025 DSM Plan application (M10473) is referenced, highlighting alignment between estimated and actual costs.
1 surveyed jurisdictions, and that E1’s resource cost development of DSM Plans has 2 demonstrably improved with the organization’s maturity. E1 also agreed to enhancements 3 to documentation and enhancements to current reporting as part of...
AI summary The text discusses E1's improved DSM Plan resource cost development and its agreement to enhance documentation. KPMG's report highlights 2015's 18% underspend due to HST cost mitigation and lower program participation, alongside 14% overachieved energy savings, affecting unit cost outcomes.
oduct Rebates in the Business, Non- 23 Profit & Institutional (BNI) sector. These factors influenced the outcome of the unit cost 24 result in 2015 as compared to the approved Plan. 2 Ibid, page 32-33 Date Filed: April 29, 2022 E1 (NSUARB)...
AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) submitted an application for approval of a supply agreement with NS Power under the 2023-2025 DSM Plan, noting factors influencing unit cost results in 2015 compared to the approved plan, including Business, Non-Profit & Institutional (BNI) sector rebate impacts.
1 than anticipated participation within the BNI Business Energy Rebates (BER) program and 2 its measure mix (e.g. high demand for LED lighting with a lower unit cost). 3 4 2019 5 The 2019 DSM Resource Plan was a one-year continuation plan....
AI summary E1's 2019 DSM Resource Plan aligned with spending but fell short on energy savings and exceeded unit cost targets. Higher-than-expected participation in programs like Residential EPR and New Residential, along with shifts in measure mix (e.g., non-lighting measures), drove increased unit costs. Instant Savings program challenges included higher uptake of year-round products and appliance replacements.
ities between E1 and NS Power (2023-2025 DSM Plan) E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB) Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 • The combination of a higher investment and a shortfall in energy savings, contribute...
AI summary E1 attributes increased unit costs in its 2023-2025 DSM Plan to higher investment, energy savings shortfalls, and the reintroduction of the Affordable Single-family Home program. Diversification efforts, including non-lighting measures, also contributed to cost changes since 2016. 2023 unit costs will peak due to winding down the New Home Construction program.
between E1 and NS Power (2023-2025 DSM Plan) E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB) Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 [Evidence] 2 Request IR-09: 3 4 Referencing p. 14 of 65, 5 6 (a) Please explain the “focused...
AI summary E1 explains that the 2023-2025 DSM Plan includes non-electric benefits (e.g., reduced water use, biomass costs) in TRC/PAC calculations to avoid modeling biases. It aligns with DSM by highlighting non-energy benefits through marketing, despite the NSUARB's prior jurisdictional limitations on non-energy impacts (M08888).
90 days Issue represents a control weakness, which could – Requires short-term management action The proposed mitigation timeline for these risks have or is having significant adverse effect on the – Requires general management attention r...
AI summary The issue identified is a control weakness that could significantly impact the achievement of objectives. It requires short-term management action and general management attention. The mitigation timeline for these risks is expected to take 3-6 months, with action required by EfficiencyOne Management.
Table IV.C.2.2 (Rev.)). The electric Program Administrators have proposed an increase of approximately $8.4 million (or 8.6 percent) in planned PP&A costs over the Three-Year Plans term (Statewide Plan, Exh. 1, App. C.1 - Electric, Table I...
AI summary The document discusses proposed increases in Program Planning and Administration (PP&A) costs for both electric and gas Program Administrators over the Three-Year Plans term. Electric Program Administrators propose an 8.6% increase, while gas Program Administrators propose a 40% increase. NSTAR Electric is the only electric Program Administrator proposing a decrease in PP&A costs, though it still represents a significant increase from 2019 to 2022.
s term) the gas Program Administrators have proposed a $4.5 million (or a 48.8 percent) increase in PP&A costs (c.f., Statewide Plan, Exh. 1, App. C.2 – Gas (Rev.), Table IV.C.2.2, cells E75 and J75). NSTAR Gas is the only gas Program Admi...
AI summary The gas Program Administrators have proposed a significant increase in PP&A costs, with NSTAR Gas being the only one proposing a decrease, though still showing a 52% increase compared to prior years. There are data inconsistencies in the PP&A budget tables, and the Program Administrators did not explain the increase in planned PP&A costs.
, at 103-104; NG-Gas-2, at 110-111; NSTAR Gas-2, at 105-106; Compact-2, at 102-103;FGE (electric)-2, at 100-101; NG-Electric-2, at 108-109; NSTAR-Electric-2, at 100-101).105 Finally, the Program Administrators state that they will seek to...
AI summary The Department of Public Utilities acknowledges the Program Administrators' efforts to minimize administrative costs through collaboration and joint vendor services. It emphasizes the need to include Key Performance Indicators in the Three-Year Plans and continue streamlining reporting and data request processes as recommended in the PP&A Study Report.
six Key Performance Indicators currently reported for the 2019-2021 Three-Year Plans Date Filed: April 29, 2022 NSUARB IR-17, Attachment 3, Page 165 of 343 D.P.U. 21-120 through D.P.U. 21-129 Page 152 term and the equity-related Key Perfor...
AI summary The document discusses the requirement for Program Administrators to minimize administrative costs in their Three-Year Plans and Term Reports, referencing General Laws and the need for approval of the Council Data Request Process before recovering such costs.
t, the Program Administrators must demonstrate the specific actions they undertook during the 2022-2024 Three-Year Plan term to minimize administrative costs; a demonstration that the 106 See Exhs. BGC-2, at 106; EGMA-2, at 107; FGE (gas)-...
AI summary The document discusses the requirement for Program Administrators to demonstrate actions taken to minimize administrative costs during the 2022-2024 Three-Year Plan term. It also emphasizes the use of competitive procurement processes to ensure cost containment and reasonableness of service costs, citing past orders and cases.
Program Administrators Brief at 59, citing Statewide Plan, Exh. 1, App. C (Rev.), Table V.D.1). The Department will not make any substantive findings on the reasonableness of the Program Administrators’ decision not to competitively procur...
AI summary The Department of Public Utilities finds that Program Administrators' 2022-2024 Three-Year Plans meet statutory requirements for competitive procurement and low-income program budgets, but will not make substantive findings on the reasonableness of the Program Administrators’ decision not to competitively procure services at this time.
m 1-1(b); DPU-Comm 1-3; DPU-Comm 1-5; DPU-Comm 1-6(a); DPU-Comm 8-1; DPU-Comm 11-3). The Program Administrators admit that the literature review is not peer-reviewed research and did not contain any quantitative analysis (Tr. 2, at 282-283...
AI summary The Program Administrators' literature review on discount rates lacks peer-reviewed research and quantitative analysis, leading the Department to find insufficient support for reducing the discount rate from two to one percent. The literature review includes public comments from the IWG, but there is little consensus supporting a one percent discount rate. The Program Administrators are required to provide evidence and explanation for the avoided cost value.
be distinct value components. In this regard, the Department finds that DOER has failed to show the benefits of its proposed structure over one that applies a value component to the net benefits of the total portfolio. In consideration of...
AI summary The Department criticizes DOER for not demonstrating the benefits of its proposed structure over an alternative that applies a value component to the net benefits of the total portfolio. It emphasizes the importance of maintaining a value component to control administrative costs, especially given significant proposed increases in PP&A costs for both electric and gas Program Administrators.
rovide total benefits of approximately $9.0 billion over the lifetime of the efficiency measures installed (Exh. DPU-Comm 8-1). Significantly, many of these benefits are derived from GHG emissions reductions. In particular, the energy effi...
AI summary The document highlights the significant benefits of energy efficiency programs, including $9 billion in total benefits over the lifetime of installed measures and annual CO2e emissions reductions of over 845,000 metric tons by 2030. The Department acknowledges the bill impacts but finds them reasonable, while implementing measures to mitigate these impacts on ratepayers.
ool by ten percent. Further, the Department has directed all Program Administrators to minimize administrative costs and will not allow recovery of certain costs until the Department has reviewed and approved the adequacy of a Council data...
AI summary The Department has directed Program Administrators to minimize administrative costs, ensure low-income customers receive weatherization before electrification, and restrict budget increases without approval. These measures aim to ensure reasonable bill impacts and increased energy savings.
140. Certain costs that are indirect or shared between the Compact’s municipal aggregation and energy efficiency functions must be allocated between the two functions based on 174 The Compact also may apply for funding from the Massachuset...
AI summary The document discusses the allocation of shared costs between the Compact’s municipal aggregation and energy efficiency functions, referencing the 2019-2021 Three-Year Plans Order. It outlines the need for transparency and the inclusion of allocation methods and variance explanations in Annual and Term Reports.
identified in the 2019-2021 Three-Year Plans. D.P.U. 19-136, at 5. The Department approved 2021 and 2022 EES using the same factors. Cape Light Compact JPE, D.P.U. 20-122, at 4-5 (2020); Cape Light Compact JPE, D.P.U. 21-119, at 7 (2021)....
AI summary The text discusses the approval and allocation of shared costs by the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) in relation to the Compact's energy efficiency budget, particularly focusing on the allocation of legal and consumer advocacy costs. The DPU has expressed concerns about the proposed allocation of 70% of these costs to the energy efficiency budget.
ng the policies and procedures for the Compact’s operations, should be permitted to determine how costs are shared between its municipal aggregation and energy efficiency functions (Exh. Compact-2, at 145). In this regard, the Compact stat...
AI summary The Compact proposes a method for allocating shared costs between its municipal aggregation and energy efficiency functions. It suggests a fixed percentage allocation based on staff salaries for most costs, with 95% allocated to energy efficiency and 5% to municipal aggregation. Legal costs are to be allocated based on the subject matter or tied to staff salaries for employee-related matters.
horization of funds.” Further, the cite in question in no way addresses the Department’s authority to oversee the EES as alleged by the Compact. Instead, it addresses issues raised by Date Filed: April 29, 2022 NSUARB IR-17, Attachment 3,...
AI summary The document discusses the Department of Public Utilities' authority to oversee the Energy Efficiency Service (EES) and the Compact's compliance with regulatory oversight. It references legal precedents and highlights the need for appropriate cost allocation methods in accordance with established ratemaking principles.
method. The Department’s precedent regarding costs shared between or among related entities often involves the same costs at issue in the Compact’s filings: apportioning rent and insurance when operating out of a single facility, employees...
AI summary The text discusses the Department's precedent for allocating shared costs among related entities, citing examples such as rent, insurance, and overhead. It references past cases and rulings from the Department of Public Utilities (D.P.U.) and highlights the importance of cost-effective and nondiscriminatory allocation methods, as seen in cases involving Aquarion Water Company and Oxford Water Company.
e three-year plan context previously in approving the allocation of certain shared costs between NSTAR Electric and Western Massachusetts Electric Company (“WMECo.”) 2016-2018 Three-Year Plans Order, at 125 n.59. In that instance, the Depa...
AI summary The document discusses the allocation of shared costs between NSTAR Electric and Western Massachusetts Electric Company based on methods like direct allocation and planned energy efficiency budgets. The Compact proposes allocating shared costs based on staff time spent on energy efficiency versus municipal aggregation activities in 2021.
n energy efficiency versus municipal aggregation activities in 2021. This proposed method results in an allocation of 95 percent of these shared costs to the energy efficiency budget and five percent to the municipal aggregation operationa...
AI summary The Department is evaluating the reasonableness of the Compact’s proposed allocation method for shared costs between energy efficiency and municipal aggregation programs. The method allocates 95% of costs to energy efficiency and 5% to municipal aggregation based on employee hours. The Department must ensure this does not improperly subsidize the aggregation program through the energy efficiency budget.
fying the cost driver of the shared costs. Here, for those shared costs directly related to the number of employees and their hours worked (e.g., salary, payroll services) the Department finds that it is reasonable to allocate those shared...
AI summary The text discusses the allocation of shared costs between energy efficiency and municipal aggregation, highlighting the use of employee time as a cost driver for some expenses but questioning its appropriateness for others. It references past proposals and the potential impact of different allocation methods on budget percentages.
n the Compact must procure a new contract for its municipal aggregation electricity supply.187 Accordingly, the Department finds that it is necessary, for allocation purposes, to measure the Compact’s employee time spent on energy efficien...
AI summary The Department requires the Compact to measure employee time spent on energy efficiency versus municipal aggregation over a six-year period (2016–2021) for cost allocation purposes. The Compact must calculate a revised shared cost allocation factor and provide detailed documentation to support its filing.
, where applicable, resulting allocation factor for the 2022-2024 Three-Year Plan term. As we noted above, the Department is currently investigating the Compact’s proposed allocations in several dockets and we expect our findings there wil...
AI summary The Department is investigating the Compact’s proposed allocations in several dockets and expects findings to inform future shared cost allocation methods. The Compact is required to submit a detailed cost allocation proposal in its next Three-Year Plan filing, and must maintain thorough documentation. The Department may require an outside review of the Compact’s allocation policy before the next three-year plan term. The Compact must demonstrate that all expenditures were reasonable and prudently incurred, with direct energy efficiency benefits to customers.
NSUARB IR-17, Attachment 3, Page 318 of 343 D.P.U. 21-120 through D.P.U. 21-129 Page 305 b. Program Budget EGMA and NSTAR Gas requests approval of an aggregated program budget (Exhs. NSTAR Gas-2, at 141; EGMA-2, at 141). NSTAR Gas and EGMA...
AI summary EGMA and NSTAR Gas request approval for an aggregated program budget for their 2022-2024 Three-Year Plan. They propose to track energy efficiency costs separately in each company’s accounting system and allocate common resource costs based on planned net benefits, energy efficiency budgets, and customer numbers in each service territory. They also plan to track spending for low-income gas energy efficiency programs and use an aggregated budget for mid-term modification triggers.
of performance incentive thresholds will allow greater flexibility in pursuing cost-effective efficiency, specifically for strategic electrification (Program Administrators Brief at 82). NSTAR Gas and EGMA also argue that treatment as a co...
AI summary NSTAR Gas and EGMA propose a combined energy efficiency program to reduce implementation costs and improve cost-effectiveness, citing successful integration of previous Three-Year Plans. They argue that a unified approach will streamline planning, reduce costs, and provide a consistent customer experience across service territories.
25 Page 1 of 1 M10473 – EfficiencyOne (E1) Application for Approval of a Supply Agreement for Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Activities between E1 and NS Power (2023-2025 DSM Plan) E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Utility and Review Bo...
AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) responds to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB) regarding the basis of DSM costs, stating that they are based on actual spending and providing a table for $/kWh cost calculations. E1 also addresses a concern about the comparison of DSM costs to fuel costs, noting that the analysis uses average fuel costs and does not account for amortized portions.
26 Page 1 of 2 M10473 – EfficiencyOne (E1) Application for Approval of a Supply Agreement for Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Activities between E1 and NS Power (2023-2025 DSM Plan) E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Utility and Review Bo...
AI summary The document presents data on the lifetime unit cost per year for energy efficiency measures from 2015 to 2021, highlighting annual investments, energy savings, and cost per kWh. It emphasizes the importance of lifetime energy savings in evaluating the effectiveness of demand-side management (DSM) initiatives and mentions third-party verification processes.
1 Request IR-30: 2 3 Regarding Performance Targets, E1 currently only has two targets to satisfy. Those are 4 cumulative (3-year) annual energy savings and cumulative (3-year) annual peak demand 5 savings. The proposed 2023-2025 DSM Plan r...
AI summary E1 is requesting approval for a significant increase in spending for its DSM Plan, but faces concerns about additional performance targets. E1 argues that the increase is due to expanded low-income and small business programs and that historical data supports the effectiveness of energy efficiency investments.
E-14E1(Synapse) RIR-1 to RIR-37
8 passages
E1 Responses to Synapse Energy Economics (Synapse) Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL Request IR-05: Please refer to p. 17-18, where E1 states that "E1's methodology for cost allocation undervalues the cost-effectiveness of the Settleme...
AI summary E1 explains that it allocates costs at the measure level in its DSM Resource Plans despite program-level screening, citing historical practice. This approach deviates from best practices as administrative costs at the measure level may not reflect actual costs, but E1 justifies it due to Nova Scotia's program-level screening framework.
A priority for nearly four in ten Nova Scotians, investing in energy efficiency upgrades is considered more important than other energy conservation efforts. Approximately one-third of Nova Scotians (35%) and four in ten organizations (40%...
AI summary Energy efficiency upgrades are a top priority for 40% of Nova Scotians and 40% of organizations, surpassing other conservation efforts. Cost is the primary barrier to renovations, though both residents and organizations prioritize funding/programs (78% and 75%) over behavior encouragement (64% and 62%).
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 from the 2016 DSM Resource Plan outlines investment and savings for various demand-side management programs in Nova Scotia. It details program investments, lifetime benefits, energy and demand savings, and cost-benefit ratios for residential and non-residential initiatives.
7 Settlement Plan and Alternate Scenario Scenario Year Investment First-Year Energy nvestment Savings Peak Demand Savings Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) a Program Administrator Cost Test (PAC) b Participation Participation Participation Li...
AI summary The Settlement Plan and Alternate Scenario table compares investment, energy savings, demand savings, and costs for both scenarios over three years. The Settlement Plan shows higher investment and savings compared to the Alternate Scenario, with variations expressed as percentages. The table includes metrics such as Total Resource Cost (TRC), Program Administrator Cost (PAC), and participation numbers.
- [Appendix A, Attachment 5] - Request IR-25: - Refer to page 4 and 5 in Attachment 5 where Guidehouse stated "These costs represent Total - Resource Cost (TRC) test costs and therefore do not include customer incentives in the levelized -...
AI summary The response to Request IR-25 explains that Guidehouse calculated Total Resource Cost (TRC) test costs for Demand Response (DR) options, excluding customer incentives. It refers to specific tables in E1's 2023-2025 DSM Plan for detailed cost breakdowns and distinctions between TRC and Program Administrator Cost (PAC) tests.
Table 1: Summary of costs and benefits used in cost-effectiveness testing. TRC PAC Program Development Cost Cost Cost Program Administrative Cost Cost Cost Program Delivery Cost Cost Cost Marketing & Recruitment Cost Cost Cost TRC PAC Tech...
AI summary The document discusses the summary of costs and benefits used in cost-effectiveness testing, including program development, administrative, delivery, and marketing costs, as well as benefits such as avoided generation and transmission capacity costs. It also includes responses to information requests regarding the exclusion of certain customer classes from demand response modeling.
(a) The EV Charging Control enrollment assumptions were sourced from the "Nova Scotia Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Potential Study for 2021-2045". (b) Please refer to the "Unit Impact by Enduse" tab in Attachment 1 of EfficiencyOn...
AI summary The text discusses the assumptions and cost structures related to EV Charging Control enrollment in Nova Scotia's energy efficiency and demand response programs. It references studies, vendor bids, and administrative costs, including a fixed delivery cost and ongoing incentives for participants.
- 4 costs. 1 [Appendix A, Attachment 5] 2 Request IR-36: 3 4 Refer to Attachment 5, Section 3.2.7 Behavioural DR and Table 20. 5 6 (a) Please provide analyses or studies that support the proposed program enrollment 7 assumptions. 8 9 (b) P...
AI summary The document outlines information requests (IR-36) related to the costs and assumptions of a Behavioral Demand Response (BDR) program. It asks for supporting analyses, unit impact documentation, and cost development details. The response references a study and specific tabs in EfficiencyOne's response to Synapse IR-24 for detailed information.
E-30E1 Compliance Filing 2023-2025 with Appendix A-D FINAL
23 passages
14 Table 3: Balanced Plan Aspects Addressed in the Settlement Plan Balanced Plan Aspects 2023-2025 Settlement Plan Short- and long-term energy and capacity avoidance • resource acquisition (measures with a diversity of short- and long-term...
AI summary Table 3 outlines aspects of the 2023-2025 Settlement Plan, including energy and capacity avoidance, program delivery costs, avoided investments, and non-electric and non-energy benefits. It emphasizes strategies for managing costs, incentive setting, and incorporating customer perceptions into program design.
7 Table 4: Key Global Assumptions in the 2023-2025 Settlement Plan Development Key Global Assumptions Model Incremental Costs • Incremental costs are intended to represent the difference in cost between baseline and efficient energy effici...
AI summary The text outlines key global assumptions related to incremental costs and administrative cost methodologies in the 2023-2025 Settlement Plan. Incremental costs are adapted from previous E1 work products and inflated annually at 2%. A new fixed/variable methodology for administrative costs was introduced following a KPMG study.
2.4 COST-EFFECTIVENESS - Cost effectiveness testing is used to quantitatively assess and evaluate demand side resources through a - comparison of benefits and costs expressed as both the dollar value of the net benefit (or cost) and as a -...
AI summary The document discusses the use of cost-effectiveness testing, specifically the Total Resource Cost (TRC) and Program Administrator Cost (PAC) tests, in evaluating the Settlement Plan. These tests assess the cost-effectiveness of demand-side management (DSM) resources, incorporating avoided costs of carbon as per a 2019 directive from the NSUARB (M08604). The tests use NS Power's Weighted-Average Cost of Capital (WACC) as the discount rate.
14 Table 6: Benefit and Cost Components in the Total Resource Cost Test Calculations for EE and DR Component Description Benefit or Cost Avoided Cost of Transmission & Distribution EE & DR – the avoided cost of transmission and distributio...
AI summary The table outlines the benefit and cost components in the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test calculations for Energy Efficiency (EE) and Demand Response (DR) programs. It highlights benefits such as avoided costs of transmission, distribution, capacity, and carbon, while noting that DR does not contribute to avoided energy or carbon costs. Program administration and incremental costs are also detailed for both EE and DR.
9 2.4.2 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR COST TEST 10 The PAC test provides an assessment of the cost effectiveness of DSM programs from the perspective of 11 the utility and ratepayer. This is contrasted with the TRC test, which provides a view of c...
AI summary The PAC test evaluates the cost effectiveness of DSM programs from the utility and ratepayer perspective, contrasting with the TRC test which includes the program participant's perspective. Table 7 outlines the costs and benefits considered in the PAC.
15 Table 7: Program Administrator Cost Test Components Component Description Benefit or Cost Avoided Cost of Transmission & Distribution EE & DR – the avoided cost of transmission and distribution represents the costs avoided, due to DSM,...
AI summary The document outlines the components of the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test, including avoided costs of transmission, distribution, capacity, energy, and carbon, as well as program administration and incentive costs. It explains that incentives are considered costs in the PAC, while in the TRC they are transfers. Benefits like avoided costs are calculated on a present value basis over the full lifetime of impacts.
- b Excluding Enabling Strategies investment - 3 ° Calculated by taking the net present value of costs and MWs for each DR pathway over the 2022-2031 timeframe; includes all E1 and NS Power costs - d EE and DR net benefits are calculated b...
AI summary The text discusses the calculation of net present value for demand response (DR) pathways and energy efficiency (EE) programs over the 2022-2031 timeframe, including the use of Program Administrator Cost (PAC) and the inclusion of specific DR-related costs such as those from Critical Peak Pricing (CPP) smart thermostats.
2 Scenario Scenario Year First-Year Energy Investment Savings 0, Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) a gram rator Cost (PAC) b Participation Participation Participation Lifetime Unit ($ million) (GWh) (GWh) Savings (MW) incl. Carbon excl. Carbo...
AI summary The document presents a table comparing energy investment savings, participation, and costs under different scenarios (Settlement and Alternate) for the years 2023 to 2025. It includes metrics such as first-year energy investment savings, total resource cost test, participation numbers, and variances between scenarios. The data is expressed in nominal dollars and includes percentages of variance from the settlement scenario.
Table 40: 2023-2025 BNI Efficient Product Rebates Performance Indicators Year Investment 0, 0 Energy Savings O Cost Tost (TPC)a Cost Test (TRC) a Administrator Cost Test (PAC) b Participation (products) c Lifetime Unit Cost ($ million) (GW...
AI summary Table 40 outlines the performance indicators for the BNI Efficient Product Rebates from 2023 to 2025, including investment, energy savings, cost tests, and participation metrics, providing a detailed overview of the program's expected outcomes and financial implications.
10 Table 54: Summary of Benefits – Demand Response Participant Industry Benefits Environmental Strategic DSM Benefits Benefits Portfolio Benefits • financial incentives for shifting or curtailing load • access to new controls and informati...
AI summary Table 54 outlines the benefits of demand response (DR) programs, highlighting financial, environmental, and strategic advantages. The primary use case for current DR pilots is load leveling, which helps reduce peak demand. However, the modeling results suggest that the costs of delivering these programs currently outweigh their benefits, as quantified by avoided cost calculations.
Levelized Costs and Supply Curve As described previously, the supply curve helps determine the relati[ve contrib](#page-14-1)utions from the different DR options vis-à-vis the costs for acquiring these resources. Figure 3 shows the supply...
AI summary The text discusses the supply curve for demand response (DR) options, showing levelized costs and contributions in the Preferred Plan and Alternate Scenario. The Alternate Scenario has lower benefit-cost ratios and higher costs due to lower participation and the absence of EV Charging Control and Behavioural DR.
costs described above (transaction costs and value of lost service) since the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test in Nova Scotia currently does not include non-energy benefits in the benefit calculations. The findings from the peak load reducti...
AI summary The text discusses how non-energy benefits and costs are treated in the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test in Nova Scotia, noting that the current approach does not account for non-energy benefits. It also outlines a method for estimating the maximum value of transaction costs and lost service based on incentives paid and bill reductions.
ver $130 million in annual electricity costs (accounting for DSM cost recovery)[1](#page-76-1) and over 775 kilotonnes of greenhouse gas emissions annually through a variety of programs and services. E1's Settlement Plan is an investment o...
AI summary The document discusses the benefits of demand side management (DSM) in Nova Scotia, highlighting over 775 kilotonnes of annual greenhouse gas emissions reductions and over $130 million in annual electricity cost savings. The $173 million Settlement Plan is outlined as a long-term investment in energy efficiency and demand response, with a 5-year payback period and significant long-term benefits to customers.
8 2.1.3 CUSTOMER INSIGHTS 9 As part of the development of its Settlement Plan, E1 commissioned Narrative Research to undertake a 10 quantitative research study to assess perceptions on a variety of topics related to energy efficiency and c...
AI summary Nova Scotia Power conducted a survey to understand customer perceptions on energy efficiency and conservation. Results showed high brand awareness for Efficiency Nova Scotia but low engagement with Energy Solutions Advisors. Cost was a major barrier to participation, and customers recognized the importance of DSM initiatives for climate action and behavior change.
1 Table 4: Key Global Assumptions in the 2023-2025 Settlement Plan Development Key Global Assumptions Model Low-Income Investment Levels • Incidental EE low-income impact weightings from 2020 (i.e. energy savings, demand savings, investmen...
AI summary The text outlines key global assumptions used in the 2023-2025 Settlement Plan Development, including the application of 2020 low-income impact weightings and the use of NS Power's 2021 pre-tax WACC of 6.33% and an annual inflation rate of 2% in calculating avoided utility costs.
7 Table 6: Benefit and Cost Components in the Total Resource Cost Test Calculations for EE and DR Component Description Benefit or Cost Avoided Cost of Transmission & Distribution EE & DR – the avoided cost of transmission and distribution...
AI summary The table outlines the benefit and cost components in the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test calculations for Energy Efficiency (EE) and Demand Response (DR). It includes avoided costs related to transmission, distribution, capacity, energy, and carbon, as well as customer utility impacts.
1 Figure 10: TRC Benefit and Cost Components for Energy Efficiency and for Demand Response 3 For energy efficiency, administrative costs are included within the total resource cost test at different levels 4 within the ProCESS™ model – an...
AI summary The text discusses administrative costs in energy efficiency programs, highlighting how they are included in the total resource cost (TRC) test within the ProCESS™ model. These costs are modeled at the program level and cascaded down to component and measure levels based on TRC net benefits for cost-effectiveness testing.
-2025 Investment a Lifetime Benefits b First-Year Energy Savings Lifetime Energy Savings Peak EE Demand Savings Available DR Capacity Test ( Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) c \nincl. excl. Program Administrator Cost Test (PAC) d \nexcl.
AI summary The text presents a table outlining the 2023-2025 Settlement Plan, focusing on investment and savings by program component. It includes metrics such as lifetime benefits, energy savings, demand savings, and various cost tests like the Total Resource Cost (TRC) and Program Administrator Cost (PAC) tests.
Table 11: 2024 Settlement Plan Investment and Savings, by Program Component 2024 Investment a ($ million) Lifetime Benefits b ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak EE Demand Savings (MW) Available D...
AI summary Table 11 outlines the 2024 Settlement Plan investment and savings by program component, including details on energy efficiency programs, their associated investments, lifetime benefits, energy savings, and costs. The table includes various initiatives such as efficient product rebates, appliance retirement, and home energy assessments.
Existing Residential, Efficient Product Rebates (BNI), and Direct Installation. 2025 Investment a ($ million) Lifetime Benefits b ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings Lifetime Energy Savings Peak EE Demand Savings Available DR Capacity (M...
AI summary The document presents a table summarizing various residential energy efficiency programs, including investment amounts, lifetime benefits, energy savings, and cost metrics. It highlights programs such as Efficient Product Rebates, Appliance Retirement, and Home Energy Assessment, along with their associated financial and energy performance indicators.
19 Table 35: 2023-2025 New Residential Performance Indicators Year Investment ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings Lifetime Energy Savings Peak Demand Savings Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) a \nincl. excl. Program Administrator Cost Test...
AI summary Table 35 outlines the 2023-2025 New Residential Performance Indicators, including investment, energy savings, peak demand savings, and cost metrics. The table shows data for 2023, with 2024 and 2025 left blank, and includes metrics like Total Resource Cost (TRC) and Program Administrator Cost (PAC) tests.
Scenario Table 42: Efficient Product Rebates (BNI) Performance Indicators – Comparison of Settlement Plan and Alternate Scenario Year Investment First-Year Energy Savings Lifetime Energy Savings Peak Demand Savings Total Resource Cost Test...
AI summary The table compares the performance indicators of the Efficient Product Rebates (BNI) program under the Settlement Plan and Alternate scenarios, showing differences in investment, energy savings, peak demand savings, and costs over the years 2023 to 2025.
1 Table 53: Direct Installation Performance Indicators – Comparison of Settlement Plan and Alternate Scenario Scenario Ye Year Investment First-Year Lifetime Energy Energy Savings Savings Demand Savings esource st (TRC) a Program Administr...
AI summary Table 53 compares the Settlement Plan and Alternate Scenario for Direct Installation Performance Indicators, including investment, energy savings, demand savings, and program costs from 2023 to 2025. The Alternate Scenario shows slightly higher investments and savings compared to the Settlement Plan.
E-312023-2025 EOne NSPI Supply Agreement Fully Executed
8 passages
7 Table 4: Key Global Assumptions in the 2023-2025 Settlement Plan Development Key Global Assumptions Model Participation Estimation & Development Approach • Development of DR participation: updated Potential Study assumptions; DR uses a t...
AI summary The document outlines key global assumptions in the 2023-2025 Settlement Plan Development, including methods for estimating DR participation, low-income investment levels, and market rates such as WACC and inflation rates.
14 Component Description Benefit or Cost Avoided Cost of Transmission & Distribution EE & DR – the avoided cost of transmission and distribution represents the costs avoided, due to DSM, on transmission and distribution infrastructure with...
AI summary The text discusses the avoided costs associated with energy efficiency (EE) and demand response (DR) programs, including avoided costs of transmission, distribution, capacity, and carbon. It also outlines program administration costs and incentives, noting that incentives are treated as a transfer in the TRC test but as a cost in the PAC. Benefits and costs are evaluated on a net present value basis.
- b Excluding Enabling Strategies investment - 3 c Calculated by taking the net present value of costs and MWs for each DR pathway over the 2022-2031 timeframe; includes all 4 E1 and NS Power costs - d EE and DR net benefits are calculated...
AI summary The text discusses the calculation of net present value for demand response (DR) pathways and energy efficiency (EE) programs over the 2022-2031 timeframe, including costs from the Energy Efficiency Program (E1) and NS Power. It highlights that DR net benefits are calculated based on Program Administrator Cost (PAC) for the first three years, while EE considers lifetime benefits.
Table 8: 2023-2025 Settlement Plan Investment and Savings Year Investment a ($ million) Lifetime Benefits b First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Weighted Average Measure Life (years) Peak EE Demand Savings Availabl...
AI summary Table 8 outlines the 2023-2025 Settlement Plan Investment and Savings, detailing annual investments, energy savings, and cost metrics for energy efficiency and demand response programs. It includes data on energy savings, peak demand reductions, and resource costs over the three-year period.
$ million) First-Year Energy Savings Lifetime Energy Savings Peak EE Demand Savings Available DR Capacity (MW) ource Cost (TRC) c Prog Administr Test ( ator Cost
AI summary The text presents a table summarizing investment and savings under the 2023-2025 Settlement Plan, categorized by program components. It includes metrics such as first-year and lifetime energy savings, peak demand savings, available demand response capacity, and costs associated with programs.
ic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteris...
AI summary The text presents a table outlining the 2023 Settlement Plan Investment and Savings by Program Component, including metrics such as investment, lifetime benefits, energy savings, and cost ratios. It provides a structured overview of various program components and their associated financial and energy performance indicators.
Table 13: Rate Class Expenditures by Year Rate Class Settlement Plan Expenditures ($ million) by Rate Class 2023 2024 2025 2023-2025 Residential/Charitable (2,3,4) 28.2 31.7 34.5 94.3 Small General (10) 2.7 2.8 3.0 8.5 General Demand (11)...
AI summary Table 13 presents rate class expenditures by year from 2023 to 2025, showing increasing spending across residential, commercial, and industrial categories. Total expenditures are expected to reach $173 million by 2025, with energy efficiency (EE), demand response (DR), and enabling strategies investments included in the figures.
13 Table 42: Efficient Product Rebates (BNI) Performance Indicators – Comparison of Settlement Plan and Alternate Scenario Year Investment ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings Lifetime Energy Savings Peak Demand Savings Total Resource Cos...
AI summary The table compares the performance indicators of the Efficient Product Rebates (BNI) program under the Settlement Plan and Alternate scenarios, showing differences in investment, energy savings, peak demand savings, and cost metrics across years 2023 to 2025.