Topic:"Cost Considerations" in M12780

DSM is a long-term investment with lasting benefits and considerable lifetime savings, yet the Preferred Plan also contributes to short-term and immediate ratepayer benefits. In the short-term, the Preferred Plan will achieve 435.4 GWh of...

AI summary The Preferred Plan for DSM is highlighted as a long-term investment with immediate and lasting benefits. It will achieve significant energy savings and cost avoidance, with the investment being fully recouped by 2032. The payback analysis shows that the plan is in the best interests of ratepayers due to lower current investment costs and inflation mitigation.

2 6.1 OVERVIEW - 3 The Preferred Plan represents a comprehensive suite of programs and service offerings which will deliver - 4 approximately 435.4 GWh of affordable, incremental net energy savings, 85.0 MW of cumulative system- - 5 peak d...

AI summary The Preferred Plan outlines a comprehensive suite of energy efficiency programs and service offerings that aim to deliver significant energy savings and demand reductions over the 2027–2031 period. It emphasizes affordability, long-term ratepayer benefits, and cost-effectiveness, with a focus on achieving energy efficiency at a lower lifetime unit cost compared to fuel costs.

Table 7: 2027–2031 Plan - Portfolio Level Insights Insights 2027–2031 Energy Efficiency Energy Savings as % of NS Power Load 0.8% Energy Savings (EE) Split (RES/BNI) 29/71 Demand Savings (EE) Split (RES/BNI) 44/56 Dedicated Low-Income & Eq...

AI summary Table 7 provides insights into the 2027–2031 plan, highlighting energy efficiency savings, demand response capacity, solar-PV generation, and associated costs and benefits. It includes metrics such as energy savings percentages, unit costs, and CO₂e savings across residential and BNI (Business and Non-Industrial) sectors.

2.2.6 UNIT COST RESULTS Unit cost data is a calculation output reflecting E1's investment and energy savings over a defined time period. Actual results for the 2023–2025 period show a portfolio-level unit cost of $0.37/kWh, slightly lower...

AI summary The 2023–2025 unit cost for E1's energy efficiency programs was slightly lower than the approved plan, but residential unit costs have risen due to the pause of the Residential Behaviour program and changes in program components. These trends are expected to continue into 2026 and influence the development of the 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan.

ecting the mix of program components and the projected costs and savings associated - with these program components. By comparison, the portfolio unit cost for the 2026 DSM Extension was - $0.49/kWh. - The increase in portfolio unit cost o...

AI summary The document discusses the increase in portfolio unit cost for the 2027–2031 energy efficiency programs, driven by changes in product mix and savings. The shift from low-cost lighting measures to more complex upgrades and the reduction in savings from heat pumps are key factors.

3 [Table 47](#page-169-0) provides the program performance indicators. 5 Table 47: 2027–2031 Demand Response Performance Indicators Year Investment ($ million) Available Capacity (MW) Participation (devices) Participation (participants) Le...

AI summary Table 47 outlines the 2027–2031 Demand Response (DR) performance indicators, including investment, available capacity, participation numbers, and the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test. The table shows a steady increase in investment and available capacity over the years, with participation numbers remaining relatively stable. The PAC test is defined as a benefit/cost ratio comparing lifetime benefits to DR investment, with levelized costs calculated over a ten-year period.

17 Table 1: 2027–2031 Alternate Scenario Portfolio Level Insights Insights 2027–2031 Energy Efficiency Energy Savings as % of NS Power Load 0.8% Energy Savings (EE) Split (RES/BNI) 29/71 Demand Savings (EE) Split (RES/BNI) 44/56 Dedicated...

AI summary This table provides insights into the 2027–2031 alternate scenario portfolio, including energy efficiency savings, demand response capacity, solar-PV generation, and overall benefits of the alternative plan, such as energy savings, investment, and CO₂e reductions.

1 Table 6: 2029 Alternate Scenario Savings and Investment by Program Component 2029 Investment ($ million) Lifetime Benefits ($ million) First Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Available Deman...

AI summary Table 6 presents the 2029 Alternate Scenario Savings and Investment by Program Component, focusing on Affordable Multifamily Housing. The data includes investment, lifetime benefits, energy savings, and other metrics, highlighting the financial and energy impact of this program.

2.4 2025 Unit Cost - Unit cost data is a calculation output of E1's investment and savings over a defined time period. - Factors that influence unit cost results typically include: - the level of participation in a program or program compo...

AI summary The 2025 unit cost for E1's portfolio was $0.44/kWh, higher than the 2025 Plan's $0.38/kWh but consistent with the year-end forecast. Residential unit costs were $0.60/kWh, higher than both the 2025 Plan and forecast, due to an eight-month pause in the Residential Behaviour program, which had a low unit cost but represented a significant portion of energy savings.

Table 1: 2025 ASFH Corrected Tracked Savings Program Component Result Value Tracked by E1 Corrected Tracked Value Relative Difference Value Unit Value Unit Value ASFH Gross Electrical Energy Savings at the Generator 5.858 GWh 5.785 GWh -1....

AI summary The table presents corrected tracked savings for the 2025 Affordable Single-family Homes (ASFH) program, showing a decrease in both gross and net electrical energy and peak demand savings. The discrepancies between tracked and corrected savings are attributed to E1's outdated calculation methodology, with adjustments made by the Evaluator to correct ratios, line loss factors, and unclaimed savings.

10 Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board, Matter M06555, 2014 Cost of Service Study Progress Update, Exhibit N-2.09, Appendix I1.

AI summary The text references a 2014 Cost of Service Study Progress Update from the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board, specifically Exhibit N-2.09, Appendix I1, as part of Matter M06555.

Installation Rates Installation rates for GSHPs are estimated at 100% due to their relatively high cost.

AI summary Installation rates for Ground-Source Heat Pumps (GSHPs) are estimated at 100% due to their relatively high cost, which influences adoption and deployment strategies in the regulatory proceeding.

Industrial customers are allocated any portion of the Enabling Strategies budget for electrification research. If so, please provide the dollar amounts allocated to each class over the plan period. (d) If, during the 2027–2031 plan period,...

AI summary The response outlines how industrial customers are allocated portions of the Enabling Strategies budget for electrification research and discusses the process for introducing electrification measures if they become cost-effective under the modified-PAC test, including cost allocation and potential Board approval.

dentified. (b) Please provide the methodology and all assumptions underlying the lifetime unit cost calculation, including assumed savings lifetimes, discount rate, and realization rates by measure. (c) Please provide the comparable first-...

AI summary E1 responds to requests for methodology details on unit cost calculations for the DSM Plan, noting program support cost allocations, timing constraints affecting 2026 updates, and references to Attachment 1 for cost comparisons between 2026 and 2027–2031 plans. It also mentions administration cost allocations and the incorporation of 2025 evaluation adjustments in the 2027–2031 plan.

- 4 Attachment 2 to this IR response. Residential Instant Savings - Cost and Energy Savings Analysis Administrative / Overhead Cost Reduction (0.17) 2027-2031 Unit Cost $ 2.67 Change in Costs (0.99) 2027-2031 Average Cost 4.86 Energy Savin...

AI summary The document provides cost and energy savings analyses for residential and efficient product installation programs, including administrative costs, changes in costs, and energy savings projections from 2026 to 2031. It outlines unit costs, savings from various initiatives like heat pumps and building envelope improvements, and the impact of participation changes on overall savings.

To: Gina Thompson, Kate McDonald EfficiencyOne From: Michael Goldman, Matt Nelson, Jodi Hanover, Apex Analytics LLC Subject: Review of EfficiencyOne First-Year Costs and Unit Cost Reasonableness Date: May 22, 2026 EfficiencyOne's (E1) firs...

AI summary EfficiencyOne's first-year energy efficiency program costs for the 2027–2031 DSM Plan are deemed reasonable and prudent by Apex Analytics, based on a jurisdictional comparison with six similar regions. The analysis considers factors like program maturity and savings attribution, reinforcing the conclusion that E1's costs align with industry norms and cost-effectiveness criteria.

Residential Programs Within the residential sector, unit costs increase between 2025 and the 2027–2031 period, with variation by program type. Residential Instant Savings shows an increase in unit cost in 2026 relative to 2025, followed by...

AI summary The residential programs section discusses changes in unit costs across various initiatives from 2025 to 2031. Unit costs for programs like Residential Instant Savings and Home Energy Assessments increase initially before fluctuating. Efficient Product Installation and Affordable Housing programs also show rising costs due to factors like reduced participation, measure mix changes, and increased incentives.

Conclusions When evaluated in the context of other jurisdictions, E1's submitted first-year energy efficiency costs for the 2027-2031 Plan are reasonable, prudent, and consistent with industry norms. It should be expected that there will b...

AI summary E1's 2027-2031 DSM Plan first-year energy efficiency costs are deemed reasonable and prudent, consistent with industry norms. The increase in \/kWh costs is attributed to factors like the phase-out of low-cost measures and increased investment in equity and electrification programs. These trends are consistent with regulatory findings in other jurisdictions.

avings for each affected customer class. (b) Please explain the allocation methodology used to allocate each category of expenditure to each customer class (and/or program/measure). Response IR-12:

AI summary The response IR-12 is requested to explain the allocation methodology for expenditures to customer classes and programs. The request focuses on how costs are distributed across different categories and customer segments.

Date Filed: May 28, 2026 IG IR-12, Attachment 1, Page 1 of 1 DSM Statement of Operations ($ millions) Incentives $ 44.53 $ 4.13 $ 1.72 $ 8.31 $ 7.04 $ 4.67 $ - $ 0.89 $ 1.60 $ 7.04 $ 0.75 $ 0.55 $ 2.85 $ 0.03 $ 0.57 $ - $ - $ 4.37 Evaluati...

AI summary The document presents a detailed breakdown of the DSM Statement of Operations, highlighting various financial categories such as incentives, program support, and administrative costs. It includes figures related to evaluation, verification, amortization, and other operational expenses.

Response IR-13: (a) Enabling Strategies costs for the Development and Research and Other Enabling Strategies categories were allocated to the rate classes according to the percentage of total program costs each rate class represents. Indus...

AI summary Enabling Strategies costs are allocated to rate classes based on the percentage of total program costs each class represents. Industrial rate classes are excluded from Education and Outreach costs, while Market Transformation costs are fully allocated to the Residential rate class.

Request IR-16: Reference: Exhibit E-1, Application, Appendix A, Section 4.7, pages 40–42/112; Exhibit E- 1, Appendix B, Attachment 2. Preamble: E1 states that the rate-class allocation of expenditures was developed using three years of his...

AI summary The request seeks detailed information on the rate-class allocation methodology used by E1, including its full methodology, historical data, reconciliation with the 2027–2031 Preferred Plan, and confirmation of programs requiring bespoke assumptions. It also asks for confirmation on mid-course adjustments affecting spending allocations.

- (d) The following IR response was provided by Elenchus. - Large Industrial customers have rate increases over the DSM plan period for Demand Response because the impact of reallocating demand-related costs to the Large Industrial class e...

AI summary Large Industrial customers face rate increases during the DSM plan period due to reallocating demand-related costs, as their peak demand reduction is lower than the overall system reduction. This leads to a higher allocation of energy-related costs to the Large Industrial class.

1 Request IR-01: Avoided Costs 2 3 Reference: Appendix B – Attachment 5: Assumptions, Section 5. Avoided Costs. 4 5 (a) Does the DSM model's avoided capacity in $/kW include both bulk and local capacity 6 values? 7 8 (b) Did E1 evaluate th...

AI summary The proceeding discusses the DSM model's avoided capacity values, whether E1 evaluated specific cost tests, the assumption of embedded carbon pricing in avoided costs, and whether customer and grid resilience were considered in avoided costs quantification. E1 clarifies that only system-wide (bulk) capacity costs are used, not localized ones, and refers to prior responses for further details.

ive for 5 batteries, a $300/kW-yr performance incentive, and the Delivery Costs EcoShift tab 6 includes annual battery DRMS/OEM device costs of approximately $163.44/device-year 7 from 2027–2031. 8 9 (c) Round 1 modelling conducted cost ef...

AI summary The text discusses cost effectiveness testing for battery control in demand side management programs, referencing the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test, Total Resource Cost (TRC) test, and the NS Cost test. It also notes that residential battery systems were not modeled as program costs since they are considered existing customer-owned assets.

Following its jurisdictional comparison analysis, Apex then considered the unique circumstances for Nova Scotia based on its historical electricity demand, climate goals, and needs as a province. Apex examined Nova Scotia's priorities and...

AI summary Apex analyzed Nova Scotia's energy efficiency programs, considering historical demand, climate goals, and E1's capacity. Despite increased costs due to inflation and reduced savings from some measures, energy efficiency remains cost-effective. Reducing program goals could disrupt the market, leading to higher costs and reduced service. Apex supports maintaining current savings targets.

13 Table 1: Demand Response Non-Incentive Cost Considerations Cost Category E1 Cost Considerations Program Administration Annual costs associated with program management, including E1 staffing, overhead, and evaluation activities. Updated...

AI summary The table outlines non-incentive cost considerations for demand response programs, including program administration, delivery, marketing, and technology enablement. It highlights updated assumptions and cost-sharing opportunities, informed by current contracts and future cost changes.

E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL Cost Category E1 Cost Considerations Program Development One-time program start-up costs. Applied only to the 2023–2025 DSM Plan and are not included in...

AI summary This document provides E1's responses to Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) information requests, focusing on cost considerations for the 2023–2025 DSM Plan, including one-time program start-up costs and detailed input assumptions for cost categories.

9 DSM Salary costs are projected to increase between 3.6% - 4.2% over the 2027–2031 10 Plan period related to anticipated performance increases and inflation.

AI summary DSM salary costs are expected to rise by 3.6% to 4.2% from 2027 to 2031 due to anticipated performance increases and inflation.

In thousands of dollars 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 DSM Benefit Costs $ 1,759 $ 1,747 $ 1,815 $ 1,880 $ 1,955 $ 2,038 11

AI summary The table presents the projected DSM Benefit Costs from 2026 to 2031, showing a steady increase in costs over the years.

PRICE SETTING Price setting is the process of coming up with the cost of a good or service for a consumer. With price setting, there are two influences: - 1. The value a consumer is willing to pay (participant perceived value) - 2. The pro...

AI summary Price setting involves balancing consumer perceived value and production/distribution costs plus return on investment. Perceived value is difficult to quantify and varies by individual, while return on investment can be calculated. Strategies like consumer surveys, competitive research, and historical data are used to estimate perceived value curves, which often follow a sigmoid relationship based on price elasticity of demand.

Table 2: Incremental Equipment Cost Scenarios Scenario General Description New Purchase/Installation A customer may decide to make a new purchase for a technology or service. There is not a current technology or service in use. For example...

AI summary This table outlines the 'New Purchase/Installation' scenario, where a customer purchases a new technology or service without existing infrastructure. It defines the standard technology as the most popular or commonly used option, or non-existent in some cases. Incremental Equipment Costs are calculated as the difference between the efficient option and the base case.

Participant Cost Test In evaluating a participant's purchase decision from a financial perspective, the PC test is a useful analysis to deploy. It assesses all of the direct financial considerations that a participant faces in making a pur...

AI summary The Participant Cost (PC) test evaluates whether the financial benefits of a technology or service outweigh the financial costs from the participant's perspective. Benefits include incentives, tax credits, and utility bill savings, while costs include purchase, installation, and maintenance expenses, excluding utility bill savings to avoid double-counting.

Measure Project Cost ($) Simple Project Payback Current Cost to Customer Cost to Customer Threshold Custom Project Retrofit Track $96,424 4 years 25% 50% 2 years Table 33: Cost to Customer Incentive Level Threshold for Average Project in C...

AI summary Table 33 outlines the cost to customer incentive level threshold for an average project in a custom retrofit, showing a project cost of $96,424, a simple project payback of 4 years, and a current cost to customer of 25% with a threshold of 50%.

Figure 23: Union Gas Targets & Performance Metric[s](#page-37-0) 4 Resource Acquisition Scorecard Large Volume Large Volume Large Volume - Revised Large Volume Overhead - Revised Evaluation - Revised Evaluation - Revised Large Volume Total...

AI summary The document presents a detailed budget and performance metrics table for Union Gas, including various program costs, overheads, and inflation adjustments. It outlines different categories of expenses such as market transformation, administrative costs, and program-level overheads, along with their respective financial figures and sections referenced.

- 4. Net Levelized cost ($/kWh)1 = PV (costs all benefits except for electric energy benefits) / PV (energy savings) Benefits Costs Avoided electric energy costs Avoided electric capacity costs Avoided non-electric fuel costs Customer non-...

AI summary The document outlines the net levelized cost calculation for energy programs, highlighting benefits such as avoided electric energy and capacity costs, and non-electric fuel savings, while considering various costs including utility program costs, overhead, and customer expenses.

Please see Table below which details what factors are taken into account when examining each avoided cost component in California: Component Basis of Annual Forecast Basis of Hourly Shape Generation Energy Forward market prices and the $/k...

AI summary The table outlines factors considered in examining avoided cost components in California, including generation energy, capacity, ancillary services, T&D capacity, environment, and avoided RPS, with details on their annual forecast and hourly shape bases.

2013-2015 Total Portfolio $/kWh 2013 2014 2015 Gross Savings (kWh) 828,999,924 845,181,086 769,529,791 Spending $ 317,221,372 $ 365,056,021 $ 385,199,846 $/kWh $ 0.38 $ 0.43 $ 0.50 Excludes C&S,EM&V and On-Bill Financing expenses reported...

AI summary The table presents the 2013-2015 Total Portfolio \/kWh data, showing gross savings, spending, and \/kWh costs. It also includes PG&E's incentive-to-administrative spending ratios for the same period. The data is budgeted, not actual, and excludes certain expenses.

2013 2014 2015 2016 Incentive Costs $85,792,815 $87,475,385 $81,650,474 $90,618,627 Administration $68,482,871 $71,734,454 $72,025,504 $77,017,143 Incentive-to Administration Ratio 56:44 55:45 53:47 65:35 2015-2019 STRATEGIC PLAN 13

AI summary The table presents incentive costs and administration costs for the years 2013 to 2016, along with the ratio of incentive-to-administration costs. The 2015-2019 Strategic Plan is referenced as a key document in the context.

Costs The OPUC has defined that the following elements be considered when determining the costs from the societal perspective 15 (i.e., Total Resource Cost): - 1. Total cost of efficiency measures and actions 16 , including costs to the En...

AI summary The OPUC outlines the elements to consider when determining societal costs, including total efficiency measure costs, Energy Trust administrative and program management costs. It clarifies that utility system tests include only Energy Trust incentives and associated administrative costs, while excluding tax credits and certain program costs paid by federal or state agencies.

Benefits (Avoided Costs) In the societal test, the Energy Trust will include the following benefits: - 1. The value of the electrical and/or gas energy saved based on the avoided cost forecasts of the utilities whose customers are served b...

AI summary The Energy Trust includes benefits such as avoided energy costs, non-energy benefits, line losses, and natural gas capacity benefits in its societal test. These are based on forecasts from utilities and PUC approvals, with specific considerations for environmental and efficiency-related factors.

Avoided Supply Costs in TRC Calculation The benefits calculated in the TRC are the avoided supply costs. The avoided supply costs include the reduction in costs of electric energy, natural gas, generation and transmission, and distribution...

AI summary The TRC calculation considers avoided supply costs, which include reductions in electric energy, natural gas, generation, transmission, and distribution capacity costs, valued at marginal cost during periods of load reduction.

Inputs - Avoided Supply Costs (energy and capacity); - Local Avoided Supply Costs (energy and capacity); - Fixed Program Administration Costs; - Year of Implementation; - Measure Participation; - Variable Costs; - Annual Operating Costs (F...

AI summary The text lists various cost and efficiency-related factors and metrics used in energy programs, including avoided supply costs, program administration costs, energy savings, and financial parameters such as discount and inflation rates.

E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL Request IR-21: Evidence – Exhibit E-1, pp.1-71 (pdf pp. 8-78) - Pdf pg. 55 states that when E1 created its Preferred Plan, it took cost-efficiencies into...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) responded to a request regarding cost-efficiencies in its 2027–2031 Preferred Plan. E1 reduced FTE staffing, spending on Enabling Strategies, and focused on cost-effective program delivery through measures such as streamlining workflows, enhancing digital delivery, and consolidating contracts. E1 did not pursue cost-efficiencies that would limit investment in IT and cybersecurity.

3.1.5 INCREMENTAL COST - Value: $382,537.50 (in $2025) - Unit: per GWh saved - Source: Refer to CUS_IND_001 - Details: The incremental cost for this measure is assumed to be consistent with CUS_IND_001.

AI summary The incremental cost for the measure is valued at $382,537.50 per GWh saved, based on the assumptions from CUS_IND_001, which is referenced as the source.

E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-45: 2 3 Appendix A - Preferred Plan pp. 1-112 (Attach. 1-5) 4 5 Exhibit E-1, Appendix A, page 108 of 112 (pdf pg. 196): 6 7 E1 discusses fur...

AI summary Nova Scotia Power (E1) responds to information requests from the Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) regarding mid-course adjustments to demand-side management plans and cost assumptions in the General Rate Application. E1 references prior responses and states it is not aware of required updates to avoided costs.

E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 • Adjustments to true-up differences between NS Power collections and the amount 2 that was intended to be collected by rate class through the Program...

AI summary E1 responds to Nova Scotia Energy Board information requests regarding adjustments to true-up differences in collections and surplus from the implementation of the DSM Plan. The response notes that DSM-related costs are apportioned to rate classes based on the '25/75 rule', with 75% allocated to rate classes and 25% to the system.

ole as Program Administrator. As such, these federal grant amounts were not captured in E1's program delivery costs and were therefore appropriately excluded from the cost side of the PAC calculation. E1 submits that it is not appropriate...

AI summary E1 argues that federal government grants provided directly to customers should not be included in the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) calculation, as they are not incurred by E1 or NS Power ratepayers. Including such grants would misrepresent the true cost of the DSM program and distort cost-effectiveness assessments used by the NSEB.

Request IR-01: Refer to M12780, Exhibit E-1, Efficiency One (E1)'s application for approval of its 2027–2031 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan, dated March 31, 2026, (the "DSM Plan") Section 1.1 Approval of the 2027-2031 DSM Resou...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) argues that affordability of its DSM Plan should consider lifetime unit costs ($0.05/kWh) rather than first-year costs ($0.66/kWh), emphasizing deeper measures like building upgrades. The Plan maintains a $63.75M annual budget (71% to customer incentives) without inflationary increases, prioritizing near-term affordability and long-term value. References to NSEB IR-03 and IG IR-10 are made for further analysis.

(g) Please refer to part (f) of this IR response. 1 Request IR-06: 2 3 Refer to Exhibit E-1, the DSM Plan, Section 5.2 Program Delivery Costs, page 49 of 71, lines 9- 4 13, which states: 5 6 To manage overall investment levels in the Prefe...

AI summary The document discusses EfficiencyOne's (E1) adjustments to the DSM Plan, including reductions in full-time equivalent staffing and cost management efforts to maintain program effectiveness. It also addresses how E1 has accounted for inflationary impacts on expenses without including annual inflationary increases, referencing previous responses and attachments for detailed information.

ts program planning and evaluation activities. If warranted, findings will inform future program design and any recommended amendments to the Plan. DATE FILED: May 28, 2026 E1 (SNS) IR-06 Page 2 of 2 Request IR-07: Small Business Energy So...

AI summary The request focuses on the Small Business Energy Solutions (SBES) program under the 2027-2031 DSM Plan, asking for participation forecasts, cost details for heat pump measures, consideration of federal incentives, alternative delivery models, and the reasons behind rising unit costs over time.

DATE FILED: May 28, 2026 E1 (SNS) IR-12 Page 5 of 5 1 Request IR-13: IRP Benchmark, Preferred Plan, and Affordability Trade-off 26 (b) In the development of the 2027–2031 Preferred Plan and the various rounds of modelling, 27 EfficiencyOne...

AI summary The document references a request (IR-13) related to the 2027–2031 Preferred Plan and Affordability Trade-off. EfficiencyOne (E1) is noted for reducing discretionary costs during the development of the plan and modelling rounds.

Table 9: Scenario 1DR-Base – Round 1 Modelling Results TRC & PAC NS Cost Test Available Total Program Scenario 1DR-Base Investment1 Lifetime Lifetime Capacity2 Resource Cost Administrator NS Cost Test (2027-2031) ($ million) Benefits Benef...

AI summary Table 9 presents the results of the Scenario 1DR-Base – Round 1 Modelling, detailing various demand response and energy efficiency programs, their investments, benefits, and costs. The table includes data for residential demand response, smart thermostats, water heaters, battery control, EV charging control, and BNI programs, with total investments and cost test figures provided.

Table 12: Scenario 1Solar-PV-Base - Round 1 Modelling Results Scenario 1Solar-PV - Base (2027-2031) Investment ($ million) Lifetime TRC & PAC Benefits ($ million) NS Cost Test Lifetime Benefits ($ million) Estimated Generation (GWh) Lifeti...

AI summary Table 12 presents the results of the Solar-PV-Base scenario modeling for the years 2027-2031. It includes investment costs, benefits, generation estimates, and cost tests for residential and business programs. The data highlights the financial and operational impacts of solar photovoltaic initiatives.

Q2 2025 compared to Q2 2024 Q2 2025 net income decreased by $12 million compared to Q2 2024. The decrease is due to higher OM&G expenses, and higher depreciation and amortization due to increased PP&E in service. OM&G expenses increased du...

AI summary Q2 2025 net income decreased by $12 million compared to Q2 2024 due to higher OM&G expenses and depreciation and amortization. The request IR-21 asks for detailed data on lighting measures in the Instant Savings and Efficiency Product Installation program components, including number of measures, investment, energy savings, costs, and benefits, categorized by measure type and plan year.

f energy savings as a percentage of load at 0.8 percent and the recommendation of the energy savings split between residential and business programs. (b) Please refer to part (a) of this IR response. Request IR-23: Page 48 of the Evidence...

AI summary The text discusses EfficiencyOne's (E1) cost management strategies, including competitive procurement practices and multi-year procurement arrangements used in its 2027-2031 DSM Plan to achieve best value and reduce transaction costs. It also requests detailed information on contracts up for competitive procurement and existing and new multi-year procurement arrangements.

tion where BNI DR can provide value and where customers with curtailable load are within those areas. i) Please refer to part (d) of this IR response. ii) Please refer to part (d) of this IR response. Request IR-62: Please refer to Table 4...

AI summary The response explains that the lower PAC for 2028 is due to significantly lower avoided costs in 2028 compared to other years, particularly the avoided cost of generation capacity being less than half of the 2027 value. Avoided cost of capacity is the main factor influencing PAC results for demand response programs.

12 Process Timeframe filing of the Annual Progress Report and Evaluation Report. Additional meetings scheduled throughout the year as required. 1 Request IR-90: 2 3 Please refer to Appendix A - Attachment 4, Sheet 21 (Annual Cost Category)...

AI summary The document outlines a request for detailed information on demand response enrollments, program costs, and energy savings across various years and customer segments. It also asks for a description of cost categories and a breakdown of costs related to a cybersecurity incident.

15 Q. WHY WOULD AN ANNUALLY APPLIED RATE-CLASS COLLAR BE 16 UNWORKABLE? 17 A. Rate-class spending can vary more than 15% from year to year. In the 2016–2024 data E1 18 filed as Attachment 1 to CA IR-15, single-year variances against plan i...

AI summary An annually applied rate-class collar would be unworkable due to significant year-to-year spending variations and the risk of creating a growing gap between savings and economically optimal levels. This could lead to frequent MCA filings and undermine the purpose of five-year planning cycles.

Benchmark First-Year Cost ($/kWh Net at Meter, CAD) U.S. fleet average (42 utilities, weighted) $0.35 U.S. range — lowest (Salt River Project) $0.12 U.S. range — highest (Union Electric / Ameren MO) $0.92 U.S. median $0.36 [ 58 ](#page-31-...

AI summary The text presents a benchmark table comparing first-year costs of demand-side management (DSM) programs across U.S. utilities, with a focus on the ACEEE report and its relevance to E1's 2027-2031 Plan Application. The comparison includes conversion from USD to CAD and references to line loss factors and other supporting evidence.

short, behind-the-meter Solar-PV raises distinct policy, rate design, cost allocation, and equity issues that will be further discussed below and therefore should not be embedded in the DSM portfolio. Accordingly, our high-level assessment...

AI summary The document critiques E1's DSM Plan for not sufficiently addressing affordability and cost discipline, recommending modifications such as removing behind-the-meter solar-PV from the DSM portfolio and increasing focus on cost-effective DR and SE. It emphasizes the need for stronger cost controls and alignment with system planning.

In November 2025, The Brattle Group published a report on findings from a decade of beneficial electrification in the US.[40](#page-27-0) This report evaluated beneficial electrification across four pillars: cost savings, product quality a...

AI summary The Brattle Group's report highlights the benefits of electrification, including cost savings and grid resilience, based on a decade of data from the US. It notes significant savings from heat pumps and battery electric vehicles, emphasizing that overall energy costs can decrease even if electricity usage increases.

1. Affordability of the Plan - Maintain discipline around total DSM spending, but do not treat a flat annual budget as sufficient evidence that the Plan is affordable or prudent. - Reallocate funding away from increasingly expensive EE mea...

AI summary The document emphasizes maintaining control over DSM spending and reallocated funding to address system needs like winter peak demand and resource adequacy. It calls for stronger benchmarking of E1's EE unit costs and a transition of DSM from rebate programs to a resource planning tool by 2027–2031.

- NSEB should direct E1 to pursue an amount of electrification in its Proposed Plan that does not increase electricity costs at the portfolio level. This could take the form of the strategic electrification resources that E1 included in it...

AI summary The NSEB provides guidance to E1 on electrification strategies, demand response program improvements, and budget adjustments. It emphasizes cost control, performance evaluation, and the need for mid-cycle adjustments if program budgets change significantly.

$ / kW Capacity 2026 2027 % Change Benefits per kW 363 507 39% Costs per kW 1,283 563 -56% BCR 2026 2027 PAC 0.28 0.90 Source: Synapse Analysis of: 2026 Extension filing, Appendix A, Attachment 4, pg. 4, 19c; E1, 2027-2031 Plan, Appendix A...

AI summary The table compares benefits and costs per kW for capacity in 2026 and 2027, showing a significant increase in benefits and a decrease in costs, resulting in a higher BCR and PAC in 2027. The data is sourced from Synapse Analysis and filings by E1.

Q. In which budget categories does E1 plan to realize cost savings per kW of capacity? A. E1 plans to cut residential thermostat and water heater demand response budgets per kW of capacity across all budget categories. As shown in [Table 1...

AI summary E1 plans to reduce residential thermostat and water heater demand response budgets per kW of capacity across all budget categories, with the majority of cost savings coming from reductions in technology enablement costs.

Q. What is E1's approach to managing program delivery costs? A. On the overall DSM plan, E1 states that it has "heard some concerns from stakeholders that program delivery costs have increased unreasonably since the last plan. However, E1...

AI summary E1 explains that program delivery costs have increased due to factors like reduced government funding and market changes, but claims it has taken steps to manage and contain costs. Customer incentives make up 71% of the Preferred Plan's costs, and E1 plans to use benchmarking, competitive procurement, and third-party audits to improve cost-effectiveness.

1 2 Q. Does E1 address the high program delivery costs for the residential demand response program specifically? 3 A. No. E1 does not address the high delivery costs of the residential demand 4 response program specifically. According to t...

AI summary E1 does not specifically address the high delivery costs of the residential demand response program. The response notes that while E1 reviewed DR incentives and program delivery costs, it did not evaluate delivery costs for demand response programs. E1's spending on incentives is much lower compared to similar programs in other regions, with a significant portion allocated to program delivery. Recommendations include conducting a process evaluation and reviewing the competitive procurement process for delivery services.

for different types of gas utility infrastructure within the utility's service territory. The granular MCOS values will allow the utility to quantify the benefit of deferring or avoiding gas infrastructure projects through energy efficienc...

AI summary The study evaluates how marginal cost of service (MCOS) values change in a declining gas demand environment and how they can be used to quantify the benefits of deferring or avoiding gas infrastructure projects through energy efficiency, clean demand response, electrification, or other non-pipeline alternatives (NPA) investments.

36 Request IR-05: 37 38 Reference: E-21, Page 17, lines 4-9. 39 I respectfully recommend that the Board treat the IRP-identified Base level as the minimum planning target until an updated potential study is available, consistent with energ...

AI summary The text presents a request to the Board regarding the Energy Efficiency Program (E1) and the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP)-aligned scenario. It questions the feasibility and implementation of increasing the DSM savings target from 435.4 GWh to 683 GWh for 2027–2031, including cost, capacity, and program deployment considerations.

35 Request IR-08: 36 37 Reference: E-21, Section VII – Unit Costs. 38 Preamble: At pages 26–35 of the evidence, Mr. Love analyzes E1's rising unit acquisition costs, noting that the Preferred Plan projects a first-year EE unit cost of $0.6...

AI summary The text discusses Mr. Love's analysis of E1's rising unit acquisition costs, noting a significant increase from the 2026 Plan and identifying factors such as the end of federal funding and inflation. Questions are raised regarding the predictability of these increases, the use of Canadian benchmarks, and the implications of continuing current program designs.

e are the same categories of 8 cost-containment recommended for E1 in Evidence, and they are the reason the recommendation 9 is to redesign programming, not at spending more on the current design. 10 11 (f) As discussed in section g), the...

AI summary The text discusses the need to redesign the Energy Efficiency Program (E1) to reduce unit costs through recalibration of incentives and program models, while emphasizing that energy efficiency remains the least-cost resource. It highlights that cost-effective energy efficiency passes the PAC test and yields higher net benefits at the IRP level.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Also, as mentioned in the response to CA IR-4, E1 can maintain short-term 2 affordability by reallocating funds within the existing DSM portfolio budget – 3 away from higher cost energy efficiency measures to DR resource...

AI summary E1 can maintain short-term affordability by reallocating funds within the existing DSM portfolio budget, shifting from higher-cost energy efficiency measures to DR resources that contribute to winter peak reduction, capacity deferral, and resource adequacy. This approach is expected to create a cost-effective portfolio.

y help defer marginal transmission and generation capacity costs as well. Such cost savings may flow through to customers in the form of lower electric rates in the near to long-term, depending on the program life. Relatedly, if EV chargin...

AI summary The text discusses the potential for cost savings from EV charging load shifting and references the Newfoundland CDM Plan 2021-2025. It outlines a cost-effectiveness evaluation approach similar to the modified PAC test, though not explicitly named. Brattle notes the need for Nova Scotia-specific program characteristics.

Request IR-5: Reference: E-22, Page 6. Preamble: Brattle states that a 2026 ACEEE report reveals that in 2024 the average lifetime cost of energy efficiency was $0.032/kWh with a median of $0.029/kWh, whereas E1's Preferred Plan has a firs...

AI summary The document requests clarification on Brattle's comparison of E1's energy efficiency costs to the ACEEE dataset, specifically regarding definitions and data sources. Brattle explains that E1's lifetime unit cost is calculated as the ratio of total EE investment to energy savings, while ACEEE's median is based on surveyed utilities.

-Québec provides a particularly relevant winter-peaking example, because its winter DR events are called during the December - March period and publicly reported based on event timing and system need. Brattle does not recommend that E1 ado...

AI summary Québec's winter DR events are highlighted as a relevant example for Nova Scotia. Brattle advises E1 to develop metrics tailored to local needs, emphasizing winter peak reduction and customer affordability, while suggesting specific DR program metrics for evaluation by NS Power, IESO Nova Scotia, and the Board.

r Nova Scotia's estimate of the incremental cost of adding Energy Manager-type capacity for the small business segment as recommended, and the proposed rate class allocation of those additional costs. Solar Nova Scotia has not prepared a b...

AI summary Solar Nova Scotia discusses the incremental cost of adding Energy Manager-type capacity for small businesses and proposes funding it within the existing SBES budget. They suggest using reduced per-project incentives and maintaining the current rate-class allocation methodology. They also address the unit-cost target for SBES and the methodology for establishing it.

new floor area actually electrified, load coincidence, backup-fuel availability, controls, customer adoption, event duration, rebound, emissions and permitting requirements, and operating constraints. Solar Nova Scotia has not developed a...

AI summary Solar Nova Scotia has not developed a reliable incremental-cost estimate due to missing data on enablement, administration, and performance-payment assumptions. They propose a two-part incentive model for demand-response readiness and recommend using the same allocation methodology as the BNI Demand Response Program.

Manager positions and the project-level savings data for Energy Managersupported projects. SNS notes that EfficiencyOne declined to disclose this information in response to E1 (SNS) IR-09(c) and (d). SNS can, however, offer the following o...

AI summary SNS discusses the cost and effectiveness of Energy Manager positions supported by the DSM program, noting that EfficiencyOne did not disclose project-level savings data. SNS argues that the cost of these positions is modest compared to program budgets and that a single Energy Manager can support many businesses. SNS also highlights that EfficiencyOne's sector-based support for agriculture and fisheries demonstrates the model's scalability and effectiveness.

M12780 - In the Matter of EfficiencyOne's (E1) 2027–2031 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan Application 1 Request IR-7: 2 3 With reference to Residential Demand Response programs, Synapse notes in the Report that 4 program delivery...

AI summary The document discusses a request (IR-7) regarding the high proportion of program delivery costs (63%) in E1's Residential Demand Response program and asks for an explanation from EfficiencyOne.

- (b) A cost-effectiveness test (CET) score of 0.7 for Strategic Electrification shows that the resource by itself does not reduce electricity costs. However, I expect that the Round 2 portfolio as a whole (including EE, DR, PV, and SE) wo...

AI summary The text discusses the cost-effectiveness of Strategic Electrification (SE) as part of a broader portfolio of demand-side management (DSM) resources. While SE alone has a CET score of 0.7 and does not reduce electricity costs, the Round 2 portfolio as a whole, including EE, DR, PV, and SE, is expected to reduce costs. The Board is asked to consider assessing resources at the portfolio level, and E1 is encouraged to provide justification for including non-cost-effective components.

4.3. Spending and Funding Sources NB Power's energy efficiency and electrification efforts benefit from the use of federal and provincial funding. NB Power is responsible for the implementation, marketing and outreach, technical and custom...

AI summary NB Power's energy efficiency and electrification initiatives are supported by federal and provincial funding. The proposed DSM-related spending over three years totals $236 million, with significant declines in spending from 2024/25 to 2025/26. Spending is allocated across energy efficiency, demand response, and LMI electrification, with inconsistencies noted in the latter's funding over time.

Sources: - U.S.: Specian, M., W. Berg, S. Subramanian, and K. Campbell. 2023. 2023 Utility Energy Efficiency Scorecard. Washington, DC: ACEEE. aceee.org/research-report/U2304. - Canada (not NB Power): Gaede, J., Nippard, A., Haley, B., Lin...

AI summary The text references multiple energy efficiency scorecards and a calculation of the cost of saved electricity and energy based on data from a general rate application and an integrated resource plan. The calculation includes a discount rate and considers demand response efforts.

- 2 (ii) Addition of SE for low-income customers who heat with oil 3 to E1's Preferred Plan: I did not recommend or estimate 4 annual investment levels for this option. - 5 (b) I have not independently calculated the quantified impact on e...

AI summary The text discusses the lack of independent calculations regarding the impact of E1's proposed spending levels on electricity costs and the RBIA for different investment levels. It also mentions reliance on E1's BCA calculations and NS Power's avoided cost inputs.

Request IR-5: - (a) Did Synapse conduct a RBIA for the Round 2 SE results? If so, please provide the disaggregated rate class impacts. If not, please explain why not. - (b) Please confirm whether the Round 2 SE modelling used hourly load-s...

AI summary The document contains two questions related to Synapse's analysis of Round 2 SE results. The first asks whether a RBIA was conducted and requests disaggregated rate class impacts. The second inquires about the use of hourly load-shape data or annual averages in Round 2 SE modelling and its effect on the modified PAC calculation.

2.2.2 RESIDENTIAL DEMAND RESPONSE DELIVERY COSTS Second, Ms. Napoleon makes recommendations regarding residential demand response costs. At page 6, lines 7 – 13, Ms. Napoleon recommends: Regarding residential demand response, E1 should see...

AI summary Ms. Napoleon recommends that E1 reduce residential demand response costs per kW by enrolling new participants in low-cost pathways, conduct a process evaluation of the program's delivery, and review its competitive procurement process for residential demand response services.

Q. How do E1's Residential program delivery costs compare to other jurisdictions? A. E1's proposed residential demand response delivery costs as a share of total budgets appear substantially higher than similar programs in other jurisdicti...

AI summary E1's proposed residential demand response delivery costs are significantly higher compared to similar programs in Rhode Island Energy and National Grid (Massachusetts), raising concerns about cost-effectiveness and the reasonableness of the proposed budget.

E1 Rebuttal Evidence E1 acknowledges that the delivery-cost share of its residential demand response budget is higher than that of the Rhode Island Energy and National Grid (Massachusetts) programs cited by Ms. Napoleon, but submits that t...

AI summary E1 argues that comparing its residential demand response budget to programs in Rhode Island and Massachusetts is not valid due to differences in program maturity, market conditions, and delivery models. E1 highlights that its program is at an earlier stage and that cost categorization differs between programs, making a direct comparison inappropriate.

At PDF page 17, Brattle states: First, current PAC test results assumes that program costs are appropriate, but residential DR program costs are much higher compared to DR programs from other utilities, shown in Figure 3. These high costs...

AI summary Brattle highlights that E1's residential demand response (DR) programs have significantly higher costs compared to other utilities and E1's own BNI programs. The high costs are attributed to the use of smaller customer-side devices, which increase delivery costs. Brattle suggests that E1 could reduce costs by learning from other utilities and improving program administration.

E1 Rebuttal Evidence With respect to Brattle's observation that residential Demand Response program costs are high relative to other utilities and to E1's own BNI programs, E1 notes that Brattle acknowledges the structural reason for the d...

AI summary E1 responds to Brattle's observation that residential Demand Response (DR) program costs are higher compared to other utilities and E1's BNI programs. E1 explains that the higher costs are due to the program's delivery through many small customer-side devices and its early development stage. E1 acknowledges the need to improve costs but argues that current costs are not imprudent and that efforts are underway to enhance cost-effectiveness before scaling.

Q. Has Apex observed rising costs in other mature jurisdictions? A. Yes. As shown in E1's response to IG IR-10, Attachment 2, Massachusetts, which has long standing programs with robust budgets, removed its behavioral and lighting programs...

AI summary Apex has observed rising costs in mature jurisdictions, citing examples from Massachusetts and Efficiency Maine. Program administration and marketing costs have increased significantly over time, reflecting market realities rather than inefficiencies. These trends are influenced by program maturity, equity priorities, and global economics.

Q. What other market and program forces help explain E1's rising unit costs? A. Measurement & Verification updates and net savings adjustments have a significant impact on claimable savings. As programs mature, evaluations often reduce net...

AI summary E1's rising unit costs are influenced by factors such as measurement and verification updates, net savings adjustments, market transformation, and increased program delivery costs. As programs mature, savings claims decrease, and more complex and expensive opportunities arise, leading to higher spending on customer incentives and program delivery.

Undertaking U-10: - To provide an update to the PAC scores to include program administration costs related to - Smart Thermostats in response to Solar Nova Scotia IR-1, Table 1 of Exhibit E-15. Response U-10: Table 1 of this Undertaking pr...

AI summary This response to Undertaking U-10 discusses an update to the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) scores by removing smart thermostat-related administrative costs. The calculation was manually performed by EfficiencyOne using data from the Preferred DSM Plan but excluding smart thermostats.

4 The impact on non-participant bills for the "High DR" scenario was very close to the "Preferred 5 Plan" DR scenario that was ultimately presented by E1 but not exactly the same. E1 did not provide 6 a corresponding cost estimate for the...

AI summary The document compares different demand response (DR) and solar PV scenarios, noting minimal cost differences between the 'High DR' and 'Preferred Plan' DR scenarios. It also highlights a significant cost difference between the 'IRP DR' scenario and the preferred plan, with a total cost difference of $195.1 million. Supporting tables and workpapers are referenced.

- viii. On pdf pg. 56, E1 states: "To manage overall investment levels in the Preferred Plan, E1 has reduced full-time equivalent (FTE) staffing in the 2027–2031 Preferred Plan to 106.7 as compared to 114.3 in the 2026 DSM Extension." Figu...

AI summary The text requests explanations and documents related to staffing and cost reductions in the DSM plan, benchmarking studies, and expenditures in the 'Program Support' category. It also references a spreadsheet model used to illustrate the benefits of a short payback period for DSM programs.

Request IR-20: Regarding Section 6 "Preferred Plan Details" of the Application: - a. Pdf pg. 62 states: "The Preferred Plan's energy efficiency resource has a first-year unit cost of $0.66/kWh and a weighted average measure life of 12.3 ye...

AI summary The document requests clarification and supporting evidence for the energy efficiency resource costs and calculations in the Preferred Plan, specifically referencing the first-year unit cost, weighted average measure life, and lifetime unit cost compared to NS Power's average fuel cost. It also requests references or spreadsheet calculations for the data in Tables 7, 8, and 9.

- 2 Reference: Exhibit E-1, Application, page 36/71; and Exhibit E-1, Appendix B, Section 9, 27 2027–2031, representing approximately 64% of the 683.1 GWh savings target in NSPI's 20 to each class over the plan period. 21 (d) If, during th...

AI summary The text outlines a request (IR-6) regarding the process for introducing electrification measures under the modified-PAC test and the allocation of associated costs across rate classes during the 2027–2031 plan period. It also asks whether customers would be consulted and if Board approval would be required for cost allocation.

Request IR-7: - Reference: Exhibit E-1, Application, page 40/71, lines 19–21. - Over the same time period in which the investment of $318.75 million is made, the Preferred Plan will achieve $682.5 million in avoided utility costs. - 5 Is t...

AI summary The document questions whether the stated 'avoided utility costs' of $682.5 million in the Preferred Plan are equivalent to 'lifetime customer benefits' mentioned elsewhere, and if so, whether carbon costs are included and the assumptions used.

- 29 (a) Please provide: 1 (i) The complete rate-class allocation methodology, step by 9 (i) Notice period for interruptions; 10 (ii) Maximum number and length of interruptions allowable; 11 (iii) Dollar value of credit (including any capa...

AI summary The document requests detailed information on the rate-class allocation methodology for interruptions and the projected costs of the Smart Synergy program for 2027–2031, specifically for Medium and Large Industrial rate classes. It also raises concerns about the exclusion of Large Industrial Interruptible customers from the program and the justification for cost allocation.

26 IR-7: Small Business Energy Solutions (SBES) 27 Reference: 2027-2031 DSM Plan; SBES; 2027-2031 Technical Tables. - 29 a) For each year from 2027 to 2031, provide the forecast number of unique participating small 30 business customers or...

AI summary The document requests detailed information on the Small Business Energy Solutions (SBES) program, including participation forecasts, heat pump measures, federal incentive considerations, alternative delivery models, and cost trends from 2020 to 2031.

l to assess the prudence of an electric utility's power procurement strategy in comparison to several other alternative options. As a result of this model, she assessed whether it is prudent to recover the congestion and loss costs associa...

AI summary The text outlines work related to assessing the prudence of power procurement strategies, marginal cost studies, and integrated resource planning for electric utilities. It discusses evaluating congestion and loss costs, incremental costs of serving demand, and designing future scenarios based on external factors such as fuel prices and environmental regulations.

SENIOR ENERGY ASSOCIATE Chicago +1.872.302.6115 [email protected] Mr. Shetty has worked with electric utilities on issues related to regulatory retail ratemaking, rate design, load forecasting, utility program screening and transmissi...

AI summary Sai Shetty is a Senior Energy Associate with experience in regulatory retail ratemaking, rate design, load forecasting, and utility program screening. He has worked on modernizing electric rate design and conducting embedded and marginal cost of service studies. His work also includes performance-based regulation, benefit-cost analysis for DERs and DSM, and analysis of the Value of Lost Load and Net Energy Metering.

er's self-generation profiles against utility-owned generation and understanding marginal costs incurred by the utility to serve an additional customer. - Rate Modernization for Interstate Power and Light (IPL). For IPL in Iowa, Mr. Shetty...

AI summary The text outlines Sai P. Shetty's consulting experience with various utilities, including work on rate modernization for IPL and innovative rate pilots for EPE. It highlights activities such as embedded cost of service studies, marginal cost of service studies, and the design of new rate structures.

EXPERT EVIDENCE AND REGULATORY FILINGS - Before the New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board, "Review of NB Power Cost Allocation Methods for Production Plant", report filed on behalf of New Brunswick Power, Matter EL-002-2026, May 2026 (w...

AI summary The text lists various regulatory filings and expert evidence reports submitted by utility companies and organizations across different jurisdictions, including New Brunswick, Texas, New Mexico, Maryland, and Quebec. These reports cover topics such as cost allocation methods, time-varying rate pilots, and performance incentive mechanisms.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL (b) GEEG notes that carving out 10% of the budget for dedicated low-income retrofit program funding to mitigate or eliminate pre-weatherization barriers through performing asbestos abatement or addressing a leaky roof "mea...

AI summary GEEG raises concerns about increasing ratepayer costs for services with limited energy savings, specifically regarding a 10% budget carve-out for low-income retrofit programs. The proposal is questioned for its potential to increase unit costs and reduce benefits.

1 Request IR-2: 2 Reference: E-24, Pages 6. Despite the central role of this delivery model, the Energy Manager capacity funded through DSM is very limited. EfficiencyOne confirmed that, as of the end of the first quarter of 2026, only fou...

AI summary The text discusses the limited Energy Manager capacity funded through DSM, noting only four partially funded positions as of Q1 2026. It suggests improving support for small businesses through advisory services and cost-sharing, and requests details on cost allocation, unit-cost targets, and qualification criteria for private-sector Energy Manager providers.

1 Request IR-2: 2 Reference: E-22, Page 3. 3 Preamble: Brattle states that the Preferred Plan allocates approximately $286.8 million - 4 (90% of total investment) to the EE portfolio, $29.1 million (9%) to DR, and $2.8 million (1%) - 5 to...

AI summary The document requests clarification on Brattle's recommended allocation of DSM funding across energy efficiency (EE), demand response (DR), and solar PV (SE) within the proposed five-year budget. It also asks about reallocating funds from EE to DR/SE, the expected impact on energy savings, and the total budget level Brattle supports, along with the expected PAC ratio for the expanded DR portfolio.

NOVA SCOTIA ENERGY BOARD UNDERTAKING LIST MATTER NAME: EfficiencyOne - 2027-2031 Demand Side Management (DSM) Plan Application MATTER #: M12780 DATE: UND# DESCRIPTION REQUESTED OF BY DATE DUE August 4, 2026 U-1 To provide data to show the...

AI summary The document outlines several undertakings related to EfficiencyOne's 2027-2031 Demand Side Management (DSM) Plan Application. These undertakings include providing data on participation barriers for low-income and equity programs, incentive amounts for non-profit organizations, cost estimates for a specific landlord program, and a revised rate and bill impact analysis. The undertakings are requested by various stakeholders including the Consumer Advocate and the Affordable Energy Coalition.