Topic:"Cost Effectiveness" in M08604

Page i Efficiency Nova Scotia 2017 DSM ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT 1 5.1 Locational DSM Efforts ..................................................................................................................... 63 2 5.2 Historical Rate and B...

AI summary Efficiency Nova Scotia's 2017 DSM Annual Progress Report outlines locational DSM efforts, historical rate and bill impact analysis, cost-effectiveness testing, incentive methodology implementation, and updates on evaluation recommendations. The report covers key aspects of demand-side management programs and their financial implications.

logy and 18 assumptions used in the analysis. As noted in the Consensus Agreement, ENS will file 19 its 2018 RBIA by October 31, 2018. 39 20 21 5.3 Cost-Effe ctiveness Testing 22 23 In the 2016-2018 Quantum Agreement, the DSMAG agreed to w...

AI summary The document discusses the Consensus Agreement and the 2016-2018 Quantum Agreement, focusing on the development of a cost-effectiveness screening test for future DSM Resource Plans. ENS is working with the DSM Advisory Group to quantify non-energy benefits to improve the TRC test, with a study commissioned by ENS from Vermont Energy Investment Corporation.

cost-effectiveness of 1 0 1 energy efficient upgrades when evaluating different options for the facility. (Agree or Disagree) IF CI = 0 OR 1, Revised FR = FR Revised Free-ridership IF CI = 2, Revised FR = FR .75 - 2% - 38% - 10% IF CI = 3,...

AI summary The text discusses the cost-effectiveness of energy-efficient upgrades in facility evaluations and includes a formula for revising free-ridership rates based on customer impact (CI) levels. It also references Project No. 6138 and an executive summary from Efficiency Nova Scotia regarding the evaluation of 2017 DSM programs.

1 0 1 representative to take into account the cost-effectiveness of energy efficient upgrades when evaluating different options for the facility. (Agree or Disagree) IF CI = 0 OR 1, Revised FR = FR Revised Free-ridership IF CI = 2, Revised...

AI summary The text discusses the evaluation of 2017 DSM (Demand Side Management) programs by Efficiency Nova Scotia, including considerations of cost-effectiveness and adjustments to free-ridership (FR) based on customer impact (CI) levels.

found that the simulations worked better for some measures and program components than others. Below are descriptions of lessons learned that can be used to inform future financial simulation efforts:  The thresholds work best for measure...

AI summary The simulations for financial incentives showed varying effectiveness depending on the measure and program component. Prescriptive measures worked best with thresholds, while complex components like whole home programs required different modeling approaches. Custom incentives and caps were also discussed as important considerations for cost-effectiveness and over-spending prevention.

Page 18 of 23 EFFICIENCYONE 2019 DSM PLAN FILING EVIDENCE 1 Scotia, the lifetime unit cost of achieved energy savings has been below 3 cents per kWh. 2 EfficiencyOne is confident that the programs proposed for 2019 are cost-effective. Beca...

AI summary EfficiencyOne outlines the 2019 DSM Plan, stating that the lifetime unit cost of energy savings remains below 3 cents per kWh and that the proposed programs are cost-effective. The 2019 targets for energy and demand savings are similar to those in the 2016-2018 plan. Appendix B provides supporting analysis and data.

1 energy savings, targets for programs and program components such as Home 2 Energy Assessment, Green Heat, New Home Construction, and Custom have 3 been increased in relation to the actuals from recent years and/or the approved 4 2016-201...

AI summary The 2019 DSM Resource Plan increases energy savings targets for various programs and components, informed by past performance and market trends. ENS uses a full-modelling approach with Navigant’s ELRAM to assess cost-effectiveness and program budgets, continuing the methodology from the 2016-2018 DSM Plan.

1 Understanding the importance of producing a DSM Plan that is cost-effective, ENS has 2 demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of the 2019 DSM Plan in two key ways: 3 • Measure, program and portfolio consistency with the cost-effective appro...

AI summary ENS has demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of the 2019 DSM Plan by ensuring consistency with the 2016-2018 DSM Plan and comparing first-year unit costs. The 2019 plan follows a continuation approach due to legislative changes and aims to maintain a similar cost-effectiveness profile as the prior plan.

2019 Investment ($M) 4.00 2.00 0.00 Efficient Products Existing Houses New Residential Efficient Products Custom Incentives Direct Installation (RES) (BNI) Program 3 4 The similarity of program weighting, with respect to energy savings, de...

AI summary The 2019 DSM Plan is evaluated for its continued cost-effectiveness based on program weighting related to energy savings, demand savings, and investment. First-year unit costs are highlighted as a key performance metric for ENS to track program performance.

1 to its incentive structure, with rationale for changes provided in section 2.3, above. For 2 Direct Installation, this is largely due to program restructuring and resulting incentive 3 changes, as well as updates to, inter alia, runtime...

AI summary The document discusses the cost-effectiveness of the 2019 DSM Resource Plan, noting its similarity to the 2016-2018 plan and its expected performance based on past TRC test results. It also mentions the importance of Enabling Strategies in promoting energy efficiency and market transformation.

Attribution Unnamed: 0 Unnamed: 1 Unnamed: 2 Unnamed: 3 Unnamed: 4 Unnamed: 5 Unnamed: 6 Unnamed: 7 Unnamed: 8 Unnamed: 9 Unnamed: 10 Unnamed: 11 Unnamed: 12 Unnamed: 13 Unnamed: 14 Unnamed: 15 Unnamed: 16 Unnamed: 17 Unnamed: 18 Unnamed:...

AI summary The table presents cumulative cost per kWh saved, with a value of 24.414425 cents for the relevant period. This data point is critical for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency programs.

749 1620.838 1240% 1,490 Figure 5: Rank-Ordered Lifetime Net Energy Savings. 11 P a g e Verification Review of Program Year 2017 Evaluation Results This evaluation of net lifetime energy savings developed by Econoler is very useful in unde...

AI summary The document reviews Econoler's evaluation of the DSM program's 2017 results, emphasizing the importance of understanding measure lifetimes and persistence for accurate cost-effectiveness analysis and long-term planning. It highlights how net lifetime energy savings require rethinking valuation frameworks to account for long-term benefits versus upfront costs.

market transformation possibilities over time. The second part of evaluation of market transformation can be centered on analysis of programs planned from the start as market transformation programs. In the 2017 Evaluation, Econoler develo...

AI summary The text evaluates market transformation in energy efficiency programs, noting Econoler's 2017 analysis of selected measures by Efficiency Nova Scotia. It highlights limitations in analyzing forward-edge innovations like Passive House due to current cost tests, while acknowledging limited innovation efforts within new construction programs.

Separately, 4 participants from the passive house pilot were interviewed. Free-ridership and spillover were 31 P a g e Verification Review of Program Year 2017 Evaluation Results analyzed. The savings analysis was based on a regression app...

AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of the 2017 DSM program, highlighting issues with low incentives and complex requirements. Econoler recommends a process evaluation, benchmarking study, and new billing analysis to improve the program. The evaluation methods are deemed appropriate and thorough.

E1 (SBA) IR-03 Page 1 of 1 EfficiencyOne – 2019 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan M08604 (E-ENS-R-18) E1 Responses to Small Business Advocate NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-04: 2 3 Please explain the reason for not performing the c...

AI summary EfficiencyOne explains that cost-effectiveness testing was not performed for the 2019 DSM Resource Plan because it continued the 2016-2018 plan's program mix. They assert confidence in the cost-effectiveness of proposed programs due to similar unit costs and provided PAC/TRC test results upon request.

E1 (SBA) IR-04 Page 1 of 1 EfficiencyOne – 2019 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan M08604 (E-ENS-R-18) E1 Responses to Small Business Advocate NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-05: 2 3 Please provide analysis (reports, memos, presentat...

AI summary The Small Business Advocate (SBA) requests analysis supporting EfficiencyOne's claim that its 2019 DSM programs are cost-effective. EfficiencyOne refers to prior context and Synapse's cost-effectiveness testing results for evidence.

tion 79J(3) of the Public Utilities Act for Approval of the 2016-2018 Supply Agreement for Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Activities [2017 Locational DSM Report], [14 Aug 2017] at p. 37. DATE FILED: March 29, 2018 Page 63 of 68 Da...

AI summary The document discusses Efficiency Nova Scotia's (ENS) collaboration with NS Power on locational DSM efforts and updates on the Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) as part of the Consensus Agreement. ENS is committed to refining the methodology and assumptions used in the RBIA with stakeholder input.

and 18 assumptions used in the analysis. As noted in the Consensus Agreement, ENS will file 19 its 2018 RBIA by October 31, 2018. 39 20 21 5.3 Cost-Effe ctiveness Testing 22 23 In the 2016-2018 Quantum Agreement, the DSMAG agreed to work t...

AI summary The text discusses the 2016-2018 Quantum Agreement and the DSMAG's efforts to achieve consensus on cost-effectiveness screening test methodology for future DSM Resource Plans. It also references a Settlement Agreement from July 22, 2016, where stakeholders agreed to work with the DSM Advisory Group to improve the TRC test by quantifying participant non-energy benefits.

s also believed that participation in both EMIS and SEM would increase participant internal energy management capabilities and commitment, thereby helping achieve deeper and more sustainable savings. Consider extending the SEM cycle to eng...

AI summary The text suggests extending the SEM cycle to increase participant engagement and achieve deeper energy savings. ENS notes that it lacks sufficient information to analyze the cost-effectiveness of this change and plans to consider it in a future year.

ate Filed: May 30, 2018 SBA IR-17 Attachment 1, Page 92 of 92 Table 4 Attachment 1, Page 20 of 20 Update on Implementation of 2016 Verification Recommendations Expected Recommendation Text Source Status Comments Period of Completion We sup...

AI summary The document discusses the deferred implementation of a recommendation to extend engagement with SEM participants, citing a lack of information for a full cost-effectiveness analysis. ENS plans to consider this in a future year.

E1 (Synapse) IR-04 Page 3 of 3 EfficiencyOne – 2019 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan M08604 (E-ENS-R-18) E1 Responses to Synapse Energy Economics NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-05: 2 3 Page 18, rows 3 through 5 of the Evidence sta...

AI summary The 2019 DSM Resource Plan response directs to Table 1 for cost-effectiveness test results and participation estimates, omitting lifetime benefits, TRC, and PAC data due to their inclusion in the 2016-2018 Plan. The 2019 plan assumes similar results to prior years despite measure mix shifts and higher costs.

8) E1 Responses to Synapse Energy Economics NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Table 1: 2019 DSM Resource Plan Cost-Effectiveness Test Results and Participation 2 Estimates

AI summary The text references Table 1, which presents 2019 DSM Resource Plan cost-effectiveness test results and participation estimates. The table likely evaluates the financial viability and customer participation rates of demand-side management initiatives under Nova Scotia's regulatory framework.

ental (annual) emissions impacts estimated using the actual 2016 CO2e emissions intensity of 653 tonnes/GWh, measured at the generator. g Includes participation by low income households. 3 4 b) Please refer to part a) of this response. 5 6...

AI summary The text discusses cost-effectiveness testing results for the 2019 DSM Resource Plan, noting similarities between updated program costs and lifetime benefits relative to the 2016-2018 plan. Changes in program measure mixes and annual avoided costs from the 2014 IRP are cited as key factors influencing cost trends.

2033 193 113 2034 192 130 2035 196 143 2036 192 150 2037 196 155 2038 197 163 2039 173 169 5 6 The two largest factors influencing changes in lifetime benefits of the 2019 DSM Resource 7 Plan relative to the 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan are...

AI summary The 2019 DSM Resource Plan's lifetime benefits increased due to rising avoided capacity costs ($418/kW in 2019) and steady energy cost growth over 25 years. These trends offset program-level unit cost changes, improving PAC and TRC cost-effectiveness tests.

numerator of the PAC and TRC 2 cost-effectiveness tests. These increases largely compensate for any changes to program- 3 level unit cost experienced in the 2019 DSM Resource Plan. Date Filed: May 30, 2018 E1 (Synapse) IR-05 Page 4 of 4 Ef...

AI summary The text references adjustments to the numerator of the Program Average Cost (PAC) and Total Resource Cost (TRC) in the 2019 DSM Resource Plan, noting that increases in these metrics largely compensate for changes in program-level unit costs. The document is part of a regulatory proceeding involving EfficiencyOne and Synapse Energy Economics.

ram component, program, sector, and portfolio-level impacts and 26 required investment for a given DSM Resource Plan. 27 28 Additional material inputs include avoided cost data, discount rate, existing building 29 stock information, and el...

AI summary The document discusses inputs required for the DSM Resource Plan, including avoided cost data, discount rates, building stock information, and electricity system data, to calculate cost-effectiveness. It references a 2019 DSM Plan proceeding involving EfficiencyOne and Synapse Energy Economics.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-08: 2 3 Page 19, rows 9 through 11 state, “EfficiencyOne is not proposing to abandon full modelling 4 and standard cost-effectiveness screening tests in future DSM Resource Plans. The 2020- 5 2022 DSM Resource...

AI summary EfficiencyOne clarifies it will not directly use high-level updated cost data from the Navigant study for the 2020-2022 DSM Resource Plan but will instead commission a DSM consultant for detailed modeling. It also notes the 2020-2022 DSM plan will include standard cost-effectiveness screening tests.

operated under Enabling Strategies, as 28 opposed to within a program component; as such, their budgets are shown under the 29 Development and Research line item in Table 1, below. Date Filed: May 30, 2018 E1 (Synapse) IR-10 Page 1 of 9 Ef...

AI summary EfficiencyOne's 2019 DSM Resource Plan followed a continuation approach, and cost-effectiveness tests and lifetime benefits for program components were not completed. References are made to prior responses for detailed results.

E1 (Synapse) IR-10 Page 3 of 9 EfficiencyOne – 2019 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan M08604 (E-ENS-R-18) E1 Responses to Synapse Energy Economics NON-CONFIDENTIAL 41 b) Please refer to Tables 2 and 3, below, for the 2016 and 2017...

AI summary EfficiencyOne provides responses to Synapse Energy Economics regarding the 2019 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan, noting that cost-effectiveness tests and Lifetime Benefits are not calculated after a program year has concluded and are therefore not included in the tables provided.

EfficiencyOne cannot provide actual values 28 for Cost-Effectiveness Tests and Lifetime Benefits. Instead, the known actual values 29 of Program Administrator costs, energy savings and system peak demand savings allow 30 EfficiencyOne to c...

AI summary EfficiencyOne is unable to provide actual values for Cost-Effectiveness Tests and Lifetime Benefits. Instead, they use known Program Administrator costs, energy savings, and system peak demand savings to calculate the data presented in Tables 1 through 18 of the 2019 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 c) Please refer to Tables 19-27, below. Please note that cost-effectiveness data and 2 Lifetime Benefits have not been provided, since the 2018 mid-course adjustment did 3 not rely on a modelled bottom-up approach. 4 5 F...

AI summary The text refers to tables containing data on residential efficient product rebates from 2018, noting that cost-effectiveness data and lifetime benefits were not provided due to the 2018 mid-course adjustment not using a modelled bottom-up approach. Additional data is referenced in EfficiencyOne’s responses to specific matters and IRs.

t, Inc., where I supported 23 investigations of electric, gas, steam, and water resource issues, primarily in the 24 context of reviews by state utility regulatory commissions. 25 I hold a Master’s in Public Administration from the Univers...

AI summary Alice Napoleon describes her professional experience in energy efficiency program analysis, including work with demand-side resource policy in Colorado, Maryland, and South Carolina, and development of a cost-effectiveness calculator for U.S. Department of Energy programs.

Q. On whose behalf are you providing evidence in this case? 2 A. I am providing evidence on behalf of Counsel to the Nova Scotia Utility and 3 Review Board (“Board”). 4 Q. What is the purpose of this evidence? 5 A. The purpose of this evid...

AI summary The witness provides evidence on behalf of the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board, assessing EfficiencyOne's 2019 DSM Resource Plan. The plan is deemed cost-effective with benefit/cost ratios of 2.3 and 3.9, and emissions caps are expected to increase avoided energy costs, allowing room for additional DSM resources in future plans.

as potential studies, has not been aligned well with resource 13 decision making. 14 15 Q. What are your recommendations? 16 A. I make the following recommendations for E1: 17 1. E1 should increase focus on capacity savings by implementing...

AI summary The testimony outlines six recommendations for E1, emphasizing demand reduction pilots, portfolio diversification, TRM transparency, market transformation metrics, research alignment with IRP/DSM planning, and recognizing DSM's cost-effectiveness in future resource plans.

5 Cost effectiveness 6 Q. Has E1 provided cost effectiveness results for the proposed 2019 programs? 7 A. Yes, in response to information requests. E1's cost effectiveness results, in terms 8 of the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test an...

AI summary E1 provided cost effectiveness results for 2019 programs using the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) and Total Resource Cost (TRC) tests. Results show varying effectiveness across residential, business, and enabling strategies programs, with residential programs scoring 4.3 (PAC) and 2.2 (TRC), and BNI programs at 4.7 (PAC) and 2.8 (TRC).

3.9 2.3 Source: Response IR-05, Table 1: 2019 DSM Resource Plan Cost-Effectiveness Test Results and Participation Estimates 11 E1(Synapse) IR-5, p. 2. Doc. No. 263331 Evidence of Alice Napoleon Page 13 1 Q. How do you interpret the cost ef...

AI summary The 2019 DSM Resource Plan demonstrates a $3.90 system benefit per dollar invested in DSM programs, indicating strong cost-effectiveness. The plan shifts from lighting-focused savings (58% in 2018) to a diversified portfolio (49% lighting in 2019). This suggests potential for increased DSM investment while maintaining cost-effectiveness.

rgy Economics demonstrated that an increased level of energy 20 efficiency programs will save CO2 emissions from the system while reducing the 21 system wide cost for consumers. 22 22 Q. What are major implications of including the value o...

AI summary Synapse Energy Economics' analysis highlights that incorporating avoided CO2 costs into E1’s DSM program can enhance cost-effectiveness and reduce emissions. E1 is advised to refine its CO2 savings methodology, use marginal power plant emission rates, and develop long-term avoided CO2 cost projections to align with future emission targets.

omulgated in the Equivalency 12 Agreement. I recommend E1 start considering how to develop avoided CO2 costs 13 now and develop the values in time for the next three-year plan. 14 Third, E1 should modify future DSM programs by taking into...

AI summary The text recommends E1 (EfficiencyOne) incorporate avoided CO2 costs into future DSM programs, improve cost-effectiveness with rising carbon prices, and enhance R&D for carbon targets. It also highlights transparency gaps in E1’s 2019 DSM Plan, including insufficient detail on strategic direction and inadequate disclosure of eTRM and lighting market transformation methodology.

e 2020-2021 DSM plan is 1 EfficiencyOne 2019 DSM Plan Filing- Evidence, Page 5 of 23, Line 16 -17. 2 EfficiencyOne- 2019 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan M08604 (E-ENS-R-18) El Responses to Small Business Advocate, El(SBA) IR-19....

AI summary The SBA critiques the 2020-2021 DSM plan's budget-setting approach, arguing that targets should precede budget allocation to ensure cost support. It also emphasizes the need for cost-effectiveness testing for DSM programs, noting that continuing 2016-2018 measures without updated cost analysis risks ineffectiveness.

and customer costs for measures are not expected to change significantly from 2018, its cost-effectiveness can be demonstrated by maintaining similar unit costs to the 2016-2018 Plan.''4 However it appears that E 1 only performed the cost-...

AI summary The 2019 DSM Plan's cost-effectiveness is questioned due to limited testing on proposed programs, with the SBA arguing this approach fails to ensure the least-cost savings option. Lighting measures dominate the savings target, contributing over 80% of Direct Installation program savings. EfficiencyOne's testing scope is criticized for not evaluating a broader range of programs.

growth and will enable 26 EfficiencyOne to take full advantage of the opportunity to limit the growth. 27 28 1 Evidence of Alice Napoleon filed June 13, 2018, Page 17, Lines 7 – 9. Page 2 Date Filed: June 20, 2018 M08604: EfficiencyOne App...

AI summary EfficiencyOne argues that demand reduction is economically viable due to rising avoided costs of capacity, citing increased annual avoided costs from the 2014 IRP model. A 3% budget allocation for demand response pilots is justified as a short-term investment for long-term savings, with anticipated stronger future savings from improved program design.

was modelled to occur over a timeframe during which the 9 emissions intensity is expected to decline significantly (2019 to 2032, based on the weighted average 10 measure life for the portfolio). 11 The 2019 intensity used by EfficiencyOne...

AI summary EfficiencyOne's 2019 DSM Plan uses 2019 emissions intensity data, aligning with Greenhouse Gas Regulations and assuming NS Power won't exceed caps. Synapse recommends refining GHG estimates by accounting for DSM savings timing and incorporating cap-and-trade compliance benefits into cost-effectiveness analysis, which EfficiencyOne agrees to implement in the 2020–2022 DSM Plan.

y Reply evidence and submissions by E1 or NS Power were to be filed by June 20, 2018. Please accept this correspondence as NS Power’s reply submission. June 20, 2018 D. Friis Reply Submission NS Power supports the proposed 2019 DSM Plan as...

AI summary NS Power supports the 2019 DSM Plan under EPIA's $34.05M cap, with Synapse endorsing its cost-effectiveness. Intervenors' comments focus on program specifics and transparency, while NS Power suggests a new study for future DSM levels.

in the next contract period. The scope of this proceeding is for the approval of the 2019 DSM Plan. A new potential study is required to assess the availability of cost-effective DSM going forward. The CA provided comments on the spending...

AI summary The proceeding seeks approval of the 2019 DSM Plan, with the CA highlighting opportunity costs of the demand reduction pilot. E1 and NS Power assert the pilot will yield real savings and inform future DSM strategies. Synapse recommends prioritizing capacity savings through demand reduction pilots, subject to stakeholder review.

Request IR-6: 16 17 18 19 24 33 34 35 36 37 38 - Page 18, rows 16 through 20 of the Evidence state, "With the exception of the 2015 continuation year, EfficiencyOne's and ENSC's past DSM Plans have been based on a data-modelled approach th...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) used a data-modelled approach for past DSM Plans but skipped it for 2019 to avoid increased costs, citing unchanged inputs. The request asks for details on the approach difference and investment shifts in 2019.

5 Request IR-5: 6 Please provide analysis (reports, memos, presentations, excel work papers) performed by 7 EfficiencyOne to support the following statement made in the Filing (EfficiencyOne 2019 DSM 8 Plan Filing – Evidence, Page 19 of 23...

AI summary Request IR-5 asks EfficiencyOne to provide evidence supporting their claim that the 2019 DSM Plan programs are cost-effective, referencing a specific page and line in their filing (Page 19 of 23, Line 2).