Topic:"Cost Effectiveness" in M08888

Non-Energy Benefits: An Application for Approval of the use of Non-Energy Benefits within Cost-Effectiveness Testing FILED September 19, 2018

AI summary An application seeks approval to incorporate Non-Energy Benefits into cost-effectiveness testing within a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding. Filed on September 19, 2018, the document outlines the rationale for including non-energy benefits in regulatory evaluations, though specific entities or detailed arguments are not explicitly mentioned in the provided text.

Date Filed: September 19, 2018 Page i of 15 1 1. INTRODUCTION 2 3 The purpose of this Application is to request approval for the use of measure-level 4 Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) within the context of Cost-Effectiveness (CE) 5 testing asso...

AI summary This document outlines an application requesting approval for the use of measure-level Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) in Cost-Effectiveness (CE) testing for future DSM planning processes. It provides background on past discussions regarding the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test and the proposed shift to the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test, which was not approved by the UARB.

EfficiencyOne (Re), 2015 NSUARB 204 (CanLII) 1 2 The Parties agree to the following with respect to the cost a) 3 effectiveness testing of DSM within future applications to the 4 UARB for approval of DSM Supply Agreements (Applications): 5...

AI summary The parties agree on the use of the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test as the primary cost-effectiveness test for future Demand Side Management (DSM) Supply Agreements. Proposed measures not passing the PAC test must be justified, and low-income targeted programs are exempt from cost-effectiveness testing. A modified Total Resource Cost (TRC) test, including non-energy benefits, is also provided for informational purposes.

2. SUMMARY OF VEIC METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS As requested in EfficiencyOne's initial Scope of Work, VEIC's general approach in recommending NEB values at a measure-level was to look to other jurisdictions who had heavily invested in primary...

AI summary VEIC selected Massachusetts as the source jurisdiction for NEB values due to its comprehensive research, mapping measures to NS's 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan, and adjusting values based on factors. Maryland and Rhode Island also relied on Massachusetts research. EfficiencyOne's portfolio still uses these measures.

3. PROPOSED APPLICATION The work completed by VEIC fits into a broader strategy for the inclusion of NEBs, as described below. Should the inclusion of NEBs in future cost- effectiveness testing be approved, ongoing management and updates t...

AI summary VEIC's work on NEBs aligns with a strategy for their inclusion in future cost-effectiveness testing, requiring ongoing management. Section 3.3 outlines requests submitted to UARB for determination.

1.1 Background As part of the June 30, 2016 agreement signed on deferred issues related to the 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan, Intervenors in that proceeding agreed to: …work collaboratively with the DSM Advisory Group to pursue the nature an...

AI summary In 2016, EfficiencyOne and DSMAG agreed to improve TRC test accuracy by incorporating non-energy benefits (NEBs). A draft scope of work proposing adapted NEBs from another jurisdiction was circulated, facing mixed reactions. Feedback led to revisions, with VEIC conducting the study. Stakeholders including Synapse Energy Economics, NS Power, and advocates provided input on the draft report.

2. EFFICIENCYONE RESPONSE TO DSMAG MEMBER FEEDBACK EfficiencyOne thanks DSMAG members for their review of VEIC's draft Report. The breadth of comments received is appreciated by VEIC and EfficiencyOne, with the recognition that the group's...

AI summary EfficiencyOne acknowledges DSMAG members' feedback on VEIC's draft report, which improved the TRC test for future DSM Plan Applications. Responses are organized by submitting organizations, with similar comments addressed once. All material comments were addressed.

2.1 Comments from Synapse Energy Economics On pages one and two of its letter of comment (section 2), Synapse suggests several report modifications to aid in the clarity and presentation of the Report. Those suggestions were: An updated ve...

AI summary Synapse Energy Economics recommends updates to tables and sections in the report, including standardizing NEB categories, breaking down TRC values by end use, clarifying data sources in Table 10, and prioritizing research recommendations. VEIC responded by updating Table 1 but excluded exclusive low-income NEBs for market-rate programs.

EFFICIENCYONE RESPONSE TO DSMAG NEBs COMMENTS EfficiencyOne supports the application of low-income specific participant and utility NEBs and suggests their inclusion be subject to additional discussion at the DSMAG. EfficiencyOne suggests...

AI summary EfficiencyOne supports incorporating low-income specific non-energy benefits (NEBs) but recommends further DSMAG discussion. They reference the Three3/NMR study and note no jurisdictions (e.g., Massachusetts) have integrated such NEBs into market-rate programs. They agree with Synapse on HomeWarming program reporting and advocate for a long-term NEB strategy, including National Screening Practice Manual alignment.

Q1: Are all the non-energy benefits assessed by this study participantrelated? Are any non-energy benefits utility-related? A1: All benefits are participant related. Utility-related non-energy benefits are included in Massachusetts for low...

AI summary All non-energy benefits (NEBs) are participant-related, with utility-related NEBs only in Massachusetts for low-income programs. Methodology uses averaged heating/cooling degree days to assess thermal comfort. Duplicate rows in Appendix B stem from market segment differences in initial modeling. TRC formula in Nova Scotia is materially similar to Massachusetts, with NEBs treated as additional benefits.

2.2 Comments from the Industrial Group On page 1 of its letter of comment, the Industrial Group (the "IG") provides comments relating to the effects of quantifying NEBs on incentive levels, insofar as further customer benefits have been id...

AI summary The Industrial Group (IG) recommends explicitly quantifying Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) to set appropriate incentives. EfficiencyOne clarifies their method already accounts for NEBs in customer research but focuses on quantifying them for the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test. CLEAResult's recommendations also consider Program Administrator Cost (PAC) and customer simple payback, with the Custom program under Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS) incorporating NEBs since inception.

2.3 Comments from the Affordable Energy Coalition The Affordable Energy Coalition (the "AEC") provided comments which centrally express concern about the lack of application of low-income NEBs to the existing DSM Affordable Multifamily Hou...

AI summary The Affordable Energy Coalition (AEC) criticizes the exclusion of low-income Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) from the DSM Affordable Multifamily Housing Pilot and broader studies. EfficiencyOne supports including participant and utility NEBs in the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test but excludes societal NEBs. They explain the study's focus on 2016-2018 DSM plans and suggest future discussions with DSMAG on low-income NEBs.

only a transfer payment between the buyer and seller has been added, which nets to zero from a societal perspective. With the above in mind, there are a few complications that are worth noting here: - The original Massachusetts studies def...

AI summary The Consumer Advocate (Resource Insight) critiques the TRC test's inclusion of NEBs, noting methodological issues in Massachusetts studies and advocating for further DSMAG discussion. EfficiencyOne suggests refining TRC measurement boundaries, while the CA argues high NEBs imply BES should be business-funded, not ratepayer-funded.

provided for in the state's Energy Efficiency Guidelines: 3 "Non-electric benefits shall account for those benefits that are specific to Program Participants and shall be comprised of the following: - (i) Resource benefits, which account f...

AI summary The document outlines Non-Electric Benefits under Nova Scotia's Energy Efficiency Guidelines, including resource benefits (avoided costs of fuels) and non-resource benefits (maintenance, environmental, low-income). It references the Massachusetts TRC test categories like arrearages, bad debt write-offs, and utility-related benefits.

rators Final Report C&I Non-Energy Impacts Study; 9 and - Massachusetts Program Administrators Final Report Commercial and Industrial New Construction Non-Energy Impacts Study. 10 These studies are particularly comprehensive, and the under...

AI summary The text references studies on non-energy impacts, emphasizing methodologies addressing double-counting and interactive effects. It highlights the Massachusetts TRM's role in documenting energy efficiency savings and mentions the Department of Public Utilities' recognition of non-energy impacts in cost-effectiveness analyses.

Inclusion in 2013-2015 Statewide Plan The MA Energy Efficiency Advisory Council (the Council) coordinated the development and review of a Statewide Plan 12 (2011-2012; approved in November 2012) that then became the framework for the Progr...

AI summary The MA Energy Efficiency Advisory Council coordinated the 2011-2012 Statewide Plan, which became the framework for Program Administrators' three-year plans. The Plan included non-energy impacts in cost-effectiveness, but no feedback was received on their treatment during reviews.

Discussion and findings during regulatory review of Program Administrators' 2013-2015 Three-Year Plans 13 In the 2013- 2015 Order approving the Program Administrators' 2013-2015 Three-Year Plans, the Department stated that non-energy impac...

AI summary The Department of Public Utilities reviewed Program Administrators' 2013-2015 Three-Year Plans, focusing on non-energy impacts in cost-effectiveness analyses. The Attorney General argued for reevaluating the TRC test's reliance on non-energy benefits, questioning their reliability, uniformity, and whether they accrue to participants. The Department considered excluding three non-energy impacts (National Security, Refrigerator/Freezer Turn-In, Economic Development) due to societal vs. participant benefit distinctions.

(1) The Department should reexamine the TRC test's reliance on non-energy impacts in its costeffectiveness analysis

AI summary The Department of Public Utilities (D.P.U.) is urged to reassess the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test's inclusion of non-energy impacts in cost-effectiveness analyses. This recommendation stems from concerns that such reliance may not align with regulatory best practices or stakeholder expectations.

Position of the Attorney General - "The Attorney General acknowledges that non-energy impacts are integral to energy efficiency programs and notes that a significant percentage of total program benefits are attributed to non-energy impact...

AI summary The Attorney General emphasizes the importance of non-energy benefits in energy efficiency programs and urges the Department of Public Utilities to reevaluate the TRC test's reliance on these benefits for cost-effectiveness analysis. The AG requests an investigation into whether non-energy impacts listed in the TRM should be included in such analyses.

Position of Program Administrators - "The Program Administrators, noting the Department's prior directive to evaluate the assumptions underlying the non-energy impacts incorporated in the cost-effectiveness analyses, assert that that they...

AI summary Program Administrators assert their non-energy impact assumptions align with TRC test requirements and are supported by data and expert testimony. They oppose the Attorney General's proposed investigation, calling it costly and inappropriate, and note the third-party vendor's role in developing these impacts.

Department Analysis and Findings - In the 2013- 2015 Order, the DPU stated that NEIs are "a well-established component of the program costeffectiveness analyses conducted by the Program Administrators. With the exception of the non-energy...

AI summary The DPU accepted Program Administrators' proposed updates to non-energy impacts, except for point (4), and expects further study through the EM&V framework. Non-energy impacts remain a key component of program cost-effectiveness analyses.

Going forward from 2013 Finding that the benefits of the non-energy impacts are quantifiable and flow to Massachusetts ratepayers, subject to the few exceptions identified above, the Department approved the non-energy impacts as proposed i...

AI summary The Department of Public Utilities (D.P.U.) approved non-energy impacts (NEIs) in the 2013-2015 Program Administrators' Three-Year Plans, citing quantifiable benefits to Massachusetts ratepayers. Energy Efficiency Guidelines also require NEIs in cost-effectiveness tests. NEIs were not contested in subsequent 2016-2018 filings.

Attachment 3: DSMAG NEBs Presentation – June 27, 2018 Date Filed: September 19, 2018

AI summary Attachment 3 from a June 27, 2018 DSMAG NEBs presentation discusses Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) in regulatory proceedings, likely involving programs like Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS) and considerations of Total Resource Cost (TRC), Program Administrator Cost (PAC), and Integrated Resource Planning (IRP).

Summary of ENS's Position Cont. - ENS, as part of its regulatory submission regarding NEBs, will request approval to leverage the Mass. Low-Income NEI's Report2, excluding health-care system benefits (socialized in Canada), in future cost-...

AI summary ENS seeks approval to use the Mass. Low-Income NEI's Report2 (excluding Canadian healthcare benefits) in future cost-effectiveness testing for low-income programs, pending UARB acceptance. This approach will be applied during the next DSM Resource Plan evaluation.

Positive and Negative NEBs The Industrial Group expressed a desire to know whether Non-Energy Costs, in addition to benefits, were included within the Mass. data and VEIC's work

AI summary The Industrial Group questioned whether Non-Energy Costs, alongside benefits, were included in the Mass. data and VEIC's work, highlighting concerns about comprehensive evaluation of non-energy factors.

Mass Survey Methods - For the Residential and Multifamily study two methods were used to prevent double-counting: - 1. The pro-rating of each category to the total declared value of NEBs by the respondent (refer to slide 6) - 2. The perfor...

AI summary The document outlines methods to prevent double-counting in residential and multifamily studies, including pro-rating NEBs and project-level surveys. Commercial and industrial studies do not use this method as benefits are easily monetized.

Final VEIC Report and Next Steps - A Final Report has been prepared, taking into account the changes suggested by Synapse and agreed to by ENS and VEIC in their March 12 memorandum - ENS will be reaching out to individual DSMAG members ove...

AI summary A Final VEIC Report was prepared following Synapse's suggested changes and ENS/VEIC agreement. ENS will consult DSMAG members on NEB integration in regulatory applications and seek UARB approval to use VEIC's work for future cost-effectiveness testing.

Section 1.0 Executive Summary With over $845 million (CAD) of ratepayer funds budgeted for DSM programs in Canada in 2016, 1 the importance of accurately capturing both the costs and benefits of energy efficiency programs cannot be oversta...

AI summary This executive summary emphasizes the importance of accurately capturing both the costs and benefits of energy efficiency programs, particularly Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs), which include comfort, safety, and property value increases. The document highlights the need to incorporate these benefits into cost-benefit analyses and outlines how Massachusetts' research on NEBs was selected as the most comprehensive and rigorous for application in Nova Scotia's energy efficiency portfolio.

Standard practice in efficiency cost-effectiveness testing currently dictates that non-energy benefits are separated into three primary categories based on the beneficiary of the impact including utility, program participant, and society.3...

AI summary The document discusses the standard practice of categorizing non-energy benefits (NEBs) into utility, program participant, and societal categories. It examines how different jurisdictions apply NEBs, particularly in low-income and market-rate programs, and highlights adjustments made to NEB values for Nova Scotia based on regional differences. The analysis also includes findings from studies and reports on NEBs in other regions.

2.1 Why Consider Non-Energy Benefits? To understand the importance of incorporating non-energy benefits into cost-effectiveness testing, it is helpful to understand the cost-effectiveness test used in screening. Nova Scotia uses the Total...

AI summary Nova Scotia uses the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency investments. The TRC test compares the total present value of benefits to utilities and DSM program participants against the total present value of costs, requiring a benefit-to-cost ratio of at least one for a measure to be considered a good investment.

Table 2: Universal Principles from the National Standard Practice Manual 4 Efficiency as a Resource EE is one of many resources that can be deployed to meet customers' needs, and therefore should be compared with other energy resources (bo...

AI summary Table 2 from the National Standard Practice Manual outlines universal principles for evaluating energy efficiency as a resource. It emphasizes comparing energy efficiency with other resources, accounting for policy goals, quantifying hard-to-measure impacts, ensuring symmetry in cost-effectiveness analysis, conducting forward-looking assessments, and maintaining transparency in all practices.

2.2 Current Status of Cost-Effectiveness Screening and NEBs in the Region States and provinces in eastern North America address non-energy benefits in energy efficiency cost-effectiveness screening using a variety of mechanisms. Figure 1 i...

AI summary Eastern North American jurisdictions use varied mechanisms to incorporate non-energy benefits (NEBs) in energy efficiency cost-effectiveness screening. Figure 1 maps these approaches, referencing the National Standard Practice Manual (NSPM) as a key guideline. New York and Rhode Island recently transitioned from TRC-based tests.

easures. As a result of this research, the incorporation of NEBs into appropriate cost-effectiveness screening has been identified and accepted as a best practice in efficiency program administration. Energy efficiency cost-effectiveness s...

AI summary The document highlights the evolution of incorporating non-energy benefits (NEBs) into energy efficiency cost-effectiveness screening, referencing the California Standard Practice Manual and the 2006 U.S. EPA National Action Plan. It emphasizes the 2017 National Standard Practice Manual (NSPM) as a key resource, developed through collaboration, to update best practices in efficiency screening.

ere examined for parity across the two jurisdictions and then adjusted as necessary based on exchange rates, climate, labor rates, fuel costs, and housing prices, as described in further detail below. VEIC worked closely with EfficiencyOne...

AI summary The document outlines a methodology for adjusting Non-Energy Benefits (NEB) values across jurisdictions, considering factors like climate and labor rates. VEIC, EfficiencyOne, and Ramzi Kawar collaborated on a conservative approach for Efficiency Nova Scotia's NEB values, acknowledging potential undervaluation. The NEB Analysis Tool allows future refinements. Nova Scotia's Total Resource Cost (TRC) test excludes societal benefits, which are included in the tool for informational purposes only.

comparable property in Massachusetts than in Nova Scotia. As a result, NEBs attributed to increased property value were prorated to reflect the difference in property values between the jurisdictions. NEBs applied to Business, Not-For-Prof...

AI summary Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) are prorated between Massachusetts and Nova Scotia due to differing property values. NEBs for BNI programs include administrative and operational savings, while residential NEBs focus on comfort and durability. Healthcare cost savings are excluded from TRC tests in Canada, as they are socialized. Low-income program benefits are also excluded from market-rate measure screenings.

Section 6.0 Effects of NEBs on Total Resource Cost Test Results

AI summary This section examines how Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) influence the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test results, a key metric in evaluating energy efficiency programs. It likely explores the integration of NEBs into TRC calculations, their quantification, and implications for regulatory decisions.

6.1 Measure-level Effects The inclusion of NEBs in cost-effectiveness testing resulted in a correction to the cost/benefit ratio for approximately two-thirds of the measures in Nova Scotia's portfolio. The research assigned NEB values to m...

AI summary Incorporating Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) in cost-effectiveness testing altered the cost/benefit ratio for two-thirds of Nova Scotia's energy efficiency measures, while 82 measures remained unchanged. NEB values were assigned based on statistical significance, and details are documented in Appendix B and the NEB Analysis Tool spreadsheet (Appendix C).

Appendix B: Total Resource Benefit Cost Ratio with and without NEBs TRC Test Analysis Variable Speed Drive for Kitchen exhaust fans (Demand Controlled Ventilation) Other Commercial 1.76 1.76 0% TRC Test Analysis Measure Name Target Market...

AI summary This appendix presents the Total Resource Benefit Cost Ratio (TRC) with and without Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) for various energy efficiency measures across different market segments, including commercial, retail, and school settings. The analysis shows minimal changes in TRC values when NEBs are considered.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL Is E1 aware of any measures that could be added to the low income rental pilot if low income NEBs were valued but that would not otherwise be considered in the pilot? Explain what those potential measures are and the pros...

AI summary EfficiencyOne states it is not aware of additional measures for the low-income rental pilot if low-income NEBs are included, referencing their response to UARB IR-07. The discussion focuses on cost-effectiveness screening and NEB inclusion in the pilot program.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL $225 and a thermal comfort NEI of $75. The specific NEI values for this same respondent would be much different if the respondent reported their total NEI value to be $1000 or $100. In addition to scaling, respondent value...

AI summary The document explains how Non-Energy Impacts (NEI) are scaled and weighted based on respondent strata, affecting average values. Examples show different weighted averages for health and comfort NEIs depending on strata. A present value calculation for a three-year measure is provided, referencing EfficiencyOne's response to Multeese IR-16.

E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (Multeese) Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 29 included in the electronic version of this filing) for an illustration of this scenario. 1 Request IR-02: 2 3 Lines 3-5 on page 1 of 1...

AI summary The document outlines information requests related to the inclusion of Net Energy Benefits (NEBs) in the Cost-Effectiveness (CE) testing of Demand-Side Management (DSM) programs. It asks whether the Technology Readiness Criterion (TRC) and Program Acceptability Criterion (PAC) are currently used, how NEBs would affect these criteria, and the implications of modifying the TRC for future DSM Plans.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL - 1 There are efforts underway to overcome challenges with cost-effectiveness testing. The release of - 2 the National Standard Practice manual, which, among other things , provides a new cost- - 3 effectiveness test the R...

AI summary Efforts are underway to address challenges in cost-effectiveness testing, with the National Standard Practice manual introducing the Resource Value test as a primary screening tool. The manual, released in 2017, is cited as a key reference for assessing energy efficiency resources.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL - 1 measures that only have property value NEIs, such as appliances and low-flow - 2 showerheads, we recommend using in the BCR calculations the property value NEIs - 3 as proxies for the individual NEIs that have not yet...

AI summary The document discusses using property value NEIs as proxies in BCR calculations for efficiency measures. PAs and EEAC applied this in their 2019-2021 filing, while VEIC revised tables and appendices to reflect removal of property value NEBs. Revisions include Attachment 1 (Tables 10-19) and Attachment 2 (Appendix C).

14 Efficiency Nova Scotia Programs and Portfolio (Plan Year 2016) Program Plan Year 2016 Total Benefits w/o NEBs Total Benefits with NEBs TRC Ratio w/o NEBs TRC Ratio with NEBs BNI – Efficient Product Rebates $23,758,752 $29,834,913 2.01 2...

AI summary The document presents Efficiency Nova Scotia's 2016 programs, showing total benefits with and without non-energy benefits (NEBs) and TRC ratios for each program. The TRC ratios range from 1.0 to 3.66, indicating varying cost-effectiveness. The total portfolio benefits increase significantly when NEBs are included.

Lessons from the Field: Practical Applications for Incorporating Non-Energy Benefits into Cost-Effectiveness Screening Ingrid Malmgren, Vermont Energy Investment Corporation Lisa A. Skumatz, Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. (SERA)

AI summary The document discusses practical applications for integrating non-energy benefits into cost-effectiveness screening in regulatory proceedings. It highlights insights from field experiences, focusing on demand-side management and energy efficiency, with contributions from experts in the field.

ABSTRACT The literature on non-energy benefits (NEBs) has shifted in the past several years from the recognition of these benefits by regulators and program administrators to recommendations on how best to incorporate these benefits into c...

AI summary The paper discusses the evolution of non-energy benefits (NEBs) in energy efficiency programs, emphasizing their integration into cost-effectiveness screening. It highlights three NEB classifications (participant, utility, societal) and presents case studies showing practical applications across varying regulatory frameworks. The analysis underscores NEBs as a best practice for program evaluation.

Introduction For decades, researchers have recognized that a significant portion of the value of energy efficiency programs comes not only from the energy savings, but from the programs' other impacts, their non-energy benefits. Unfortunat...

AI summary The introduction highlights the undercounting of non-energy benefits (NEBs) in energy efficiency programs, emphasizing their significant value beyond energy savings. It discusses literature on NEB classification, quantification methods, and best practices for integrating NEBs into cost-effectiveness screening. Four case studies illustrate approaches to quantify NEBs and challenges encountered.

- Stage 1 Perspectives and Basic Measurement Approaches (1994-1998): Early phases of the literature organized NEB categories into "perspectives" based on beneficiary group, and established basic measurement approaches. The NEBs were catego...

AI summary The text outlines two stages (1994-1998 and 1998-2001) of Non-Energy Benefits (NEB) research. Stage 1 categorized NEBs by beneficiary groups (participants, utilities, society) and established measurement approaches. Stage 2 expanded methodologies, including engineering estimates, incremental valuation, and surveys, emphasizing NEBs' potential to be positive or negative and focusing on equipment upgrades.

The Case for NEBs, and National Review of NEBs in Cost-Effectiveness Testing Framework Many regulatory cost-effectiveness tests are used to compare the cost-effectiveness of programs and optimize program investment. These are essentially t...

AI summary The text discusses the integration of Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) into cost-effectiveness tests used in regulatory decision-making. It highlights the importance of NEBs in reducing bias and improving investment decisions, and outlines various approaches taken by states to incorporate NEBs, such as using adders, measuring easy-to-measure benefits, or attempting to measure all NEBs.

The New York Case Study Included in this paper, are four case studies of how non-energy benefits became incorporated into cost-effectiveness screening. If one looks at these cases chronologically, they appear to operate like a set of domin...

AI summary New York's case study details how NYSERDA incorporated non-energy benefits (NEBs) into program evaluations through scenarios, influencing other states. While NEBs are not formally used in cost-effectiveness screening by the Department of Public Service, a 2013 Public Service Commission order initiated TRC policy review. NYSERDA's research on NEBs, though not adopted in New York, informed policies in Colorado and Vermont.

The Colorado Case Study Two main factors led to Colorado's 2008 decision to adopt an NEB adder for electric and low-income electric programs: evidence from research and the engagement of interveners. Evidence in research contributed greatl...

AI summary Colorado's 2008 decision to adopt an NEB adder for electric and low-income programs was driven by research evidence and interverner support. The Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) incorporated an NEB adder into a modified Total Resource Cost Test (TRC). Proxy values (e.g., 10% for electric programs) were mandated for cost-effectiveness analyses, with special consideration for low-income programs using a Utility Cost Test (UCT) if TRC fell below 1.0.

Lessons Learned Three lessons arise from the Colorado cases. First, research is a valuable tool for quantifying NEBs, and it supports conceptual understanding of their contribution to energy efficiency programs. Second, committed intervene...

AI summary Three lessons from Colorado cases highlight the value of research in quantifying NEBs, the role of committed interveners in driving policy change, and the ongoing nature of cost-effectiveness screening for energy efficiency programs, which evolves with new research and jurisdictional practices.

The Vermont Case Study Three elements contributed to the incorporation of cost-effectiveness screening in Vermont: the quantity and nature of available research regarding NEBs, a growing number of other jurisdictions incorporating NEBs int...

AI summary Vermont integrated Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) into cost-effectiveness screening due to research, stakeholder collaboration, and jurisdictional trends. Since 2000, Vermont operated a statewide efficiency program. The 1990 Docket 5270 established the Societal Cost-effectiveness Test with 5% and 10% adders for environmental and risk benefits. In 2009, a consensus emerged on NEB value, leading to Riley Allen's recommendation for a 5% NEB adder and research partnerships.

The District of Columbia Case Study Although the population of the District of Columbia is roughly the size of the population of Vermont, there are many differences between the energy efficiency utility operated in Vermont and the DC Susta...

AI summary The District of Columbia's energy efficiency utility (DCSEU), established in 2011 under the Clean and Affordable Energy Act of 2008, differs from Vermont's model by integrating social equity goals and using the Societal Benefit Test for cost-effectiveness. Funding comes from system benefits charges and RGGI credits, with NEBs and risk adders included in evaluations.

References Allen, R. 2009. Vermont Public Service Board Memorandum, October 30. page 16. http://psb.vermont.gov/sites/psb/files/projects/EEU/screening/VEICCommentsReAllenMemo200 9-12-04.pdf - Clean and Affordable Energy Act, Council of the...

AI summary The references include legal documents, studies, and legislation related to energy efficiency, non-energy benefits, and regulatory decisions. Key entities involve Vermont and Colorado regulatory bodies, ACEEE, and Brookings Institution. Topics focus on cost-effectiveness screening, TRC, and NEBs. Cross-references include Colorado PUC decisions and Vermont PSB memoranda.

Value of Distributed Solar Electric Generation by Location Category Value (¢/kWh) Pittsburgh, PA Harrisburg, PA Scranton, PA Philadelphia, PA Jamesburg, NY Newark, NJ Atlantic City, NJ ME NY MA CT Fuel cost savings 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.8 4.2 3.9...

AI summary The table quantifies the value of distributed solar generation across U.S. locations, showing benefits like fuel cost savings, environmental value, and economic development. Total values range from 22.6 to 33.7 cents/kWh, with Maine and Massachusetts having higher totals. Data sources include academic studies and regulatory bodies.

1. Valuation of HPF Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) in Non Low-Income Programs Non-energy benefits are generally defined as any real or perceived, financial or intangible benefit accrued by a project and not reflected in energy savings 2 . In t...

AI summary The document discusses the valuation of non-energy benefits (NEBs) in Nova Scotia's non-low-income programs. It references a 5% NEB adder recommendation by Mr. Allen, the need for more research, and mentions that jurisdictions may require considering NEBs in cost-effectiveness analyses. Studies, including Vermont's research, highlight significant non-energy economic value.

2. Valuation of HPF Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) in Low-Income Programs Fluctuations in Heating and Process Fuel markets disproportionately affect low income households. As a result, an increasing number of state programs are incorporating N...

AI summary The document discusses the valuation of non-energy benefits (NEBs) in low-income energy efficiency programs, emphasizing their disproportionate impact on low-income households. It references historical research (SERA, NCLC) showing NEB adders can justify 17–300% adjustments. VEIC advocates for a two-tier NEB adder, with a 15% minimum increment for low-income programs, citing energy affordability and societal benefits like reduced homelessness and utility non-payments.

3. Discount Rate The National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency 14 establishes a standard methodology for the determination of an appropriate discount rate for an energy efficiency program. The Plan provides a brief review of discount rate...

AI summary The document discusses methodologies for determining discount rates in energy efficiency programs, emphasizing the use of social discount rates (e.g., California's 3% real rate) and VEIC's recommendation to use a 12-month average of 30-year Treasury yields. It highlights administrative efficiency and the need for universal discount rate application across screening tools, citing Massachusetts and Efficiency Vermont practices.

5. Cost-effectiveness Screening Rationale and Practices at the Portfolio, Program, Project and Measure level. The EEU scope of services calls for the portfolio administrator to maximize the amount of costeffective electric and heating and...

AI summary The EEU scope emphasizes maximizing cost-effective energy efficiency savings using ratepayer funds. The Vermont Public Service Board outlines three cost-effectiveness tests (Societal, TRC, and Utility) for evaluating energy-efficiency investments. The Societal test is highlighted as the primary indicator for EEU, with VEIC tasked to maximize net benefits. References include the VEIC Order of Appointment and Docket 5270.

COMPONENTS OF BENEFITS AND COSTS UNDER VERMONT'S THREE COST-EFFECTIVENESS TESTS EEU economic performance is also currently judged according to two additional costeffectiveness tests. - 1. Total Resource Benefits (TRB) are the projected mar...

AI summary The document outlines Vermont's cost-effectiveness tests for energy efficiency programs, focusing on Total Resource Benefits (TRB) and Electric Resource Benefits (ERB). TRB measures overall savings, while ERB focuses on electricity savings. Efficiency Vermont uses these tests for planning, budgeting, and reporting, with TRB as the primary economic indicator and ERB as the key performance requirement.

TABLE 2: COST-EFFECTIVENESS TEST APPLICABILITY IN VERMONT SCOPE TEST Portfolio Program Project Measure Societal ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Total Resource ✔ ✔ (✔) Electric System ✔ ✔ (✔) Cost-effectiveness at the program and portfolio level is assessed over t...

AI summary Table 2 outlines the applicability of cost-effectiveness tests in Vermont, noting that societal, total resource, and electric system tests apply at the portfolio, program, and project levels. It emphasizes that cost-effectiveness assessments are evaluated over time, with multi-year outcomes taking precedence over individual years, even if initial years show negative net benefits.

Project and measure cost-effectiveness is generally determined at the customer level during the course of implementing residential and business custom projects. This assessment helps Efficiency Vermont identify and promote with custom fina...

AI summary Efficiency Vermont evaluates the cost-effectiveness of residential and business custom projects at the customer level using the Societal cost-effectiveness test. This approach helps identify and promote measures that maximize net societal benefits. Annual reports summarize the results of these analyses, and standardized assumptions from the Technical Reference Manual are used for prescriptive and semi-prescriptive programs.

r of each performance period. For prescriptive and semi-prescriptive programs, measure cost-effectiveness is determined using standardized assumptions as documented in the Technical Reference Manual. - (a) Individual measure cost-effective...

AI summary The document discusses the use of standardized assumptions from the Technical Reference Manual for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of prescriptive and semi-prescriptive programs. It outlines the Societal cost-effectiveness test and other related tests used to determine program offerings. VEIC provides comments on heating and process fuel cost-effectiveness screening.

17 A list of Canadian jurisdictions that account for NEBs can be found in the chart below: Province Primary CE Test Secondary CE Test NEB Adder Description Description source British TRC - 15% In accordance with the DSM 2018_07_11 BC Colum...

AI summary The text presents a table listing Canadian jurisdictions that account for non-energy benefits (NEBs) in their cost-effectiveness (CE) tests, including primary and secondary CE tests, NEB adders, and descriptions. It includes information from British Columbia, Manitoba, and Ontario, with details on how each province values NEBs and the sources of the descriptions.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-07: 2 3 Ref: Attachment 4, page 4 of 64, paragraph 1. 4 5 Please provide a list of all Canadian jurisdictions that have "statutes and regulations 6 requiring that electricity efficiency is the least cost energ...

AI summary The response to Request IR-07 explains that while no Canadian jurisdictions explicitly require electricity efficiency to be the least cost energy procurement option, many require efficiency programs to be cost-effective, considering factors like affordability. In the U.S., 85% of ratepayer-funded efficiency programs are subject to cost-effectiveness testing.

BRITISH COLUMBIA - Regulations pursuant to Utilities Commission Act[9](#page-50-1) , R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 473, s. 1 establish explicit - cost-effectiveness testing guidelines, which includes the application of the total resource cost - test[1...

AI summary British Columbia's Utilities Commission Act establishes explicit cost-effectiveness guidelines requiring the use of the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test. The Commission must assess demand-side measures using avoided electricity and natural gas costs, aligning with long-run marginal costs for clean/renewable energy. Regulations under the Act and the Demand-Side Measures Regulations (BC Reg 326/2008) are cited.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL - (1.4) In considering a demand-side measure that, in the commission's opinion, will increase the - use of a regulated item with respect to which there is either - (a) a specified standard that has not yet commenced, or -...

AI summary The text outlines regulatory criteria for demand-side measures, allowing the commission to adjust benefits based on avoided capacity and energy costs. It establishes thresholds (40% for gas rates, 10% for electricity rates) for expenditures in expenditure portfolios to determine cost-effectiveness of measures.

E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Power Incorporated Information Requests 1 Request IR-18: 2 3 Ref: Attachment 4, page 8 of 64. 4 5 VEIC states: 6 7 8 9 10 11 "A jurisdiction's primary cost-effectiveness test should account for its energy and ot...

AI summary VEIC outlines that a jurisdiction's cost-effectiveness test should consider energy and policy goals, which may be defined in legislation, commission orders, or guidelines. Nova Scotia Power requests the enabling legislation for cost-effectiveness testing in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Maryland, and VEIC provides references to relevant laws in each jurisdiction.

EfficiencyOne provides electricity efficiency and conservation activities to residential, commercial and industrial clients within Nova Scotia through the provincial franchise, Efficiency Nova Scotia. Like many Demand-Side Management (DSM)...

AI summary EfficiencyOne, the administrator of Efficiency Nova Scotia, relies on the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test for approving Demand-Side Management (DSM) programs. The TRC test currently includes avoided capacity and energy costs, but stakeholders are debating how to better quantify non-energy benefits (NEBs) to improve the test. The DSM Advisory Group (DSMAG) is exploring methods to refine the TRC test for future regulatory approval.

3 Outcomes/End Results Required Completion of an analysis that provides a full suite of non-energy benefits to be quantified for Efficiency Nova Scotia's portfolio of measures. These non-energy benefits are to be provided through adoption...

AI summary The analysis requires quantifying non-energy benefits for Efficiency Nova Scotia's measures using studies from jurisdictions like Massachusetts, which have explicitly quantified such benefits. Massachusetts is highlighted as a jurisdiction with prior explicit quantification efforts.

orative relationship will have both the successful Proponent and the Research Team reporting to EfficiencyOne, as opposed to one party entering into a subcontracting relationship with the other party. This scope of work and the associated...

AI summary EfficiencyOne outlines a scope of work to refine NEB quantification in Nova Scotia's TRC test, excluding avoided customer costs and other resource benefits. NEB values will be used for cost-effectiveness testing and broader business applications, pending NSUARB approval. Future work may involve primary research and updating NEB values based on external research.

4.5 Deliverables Project deliverables must include: - 1. An initial scoping document (can be in tabular format) identifying the relative difficulty of adapting NEBs from other jurisdictions. This document will be reviewed by EfficiencyOne,...

AI summary Deliverables include an initial scoping document, a draft report with methodology and findings, a final report, and a presentation. Focus areas are adapting Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) and Total Resource Cost (TRC) test results, involving EfficiencyOne, the Research Team, and the Proponent. The draft report must include justification for NEB modifications and interim values for non-adaptable measures.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL Request IR-06: 2 1 - 3 In general, would more measures and programs pass the cost effectiveness test based on the - 4 PAC or on the TRC with NEBs included? Please elaborate. 5 6 Response IR-06: 7 - 8 In general, more measu...

AI summary The response indicates that more measures pass the cost-effectiveness test under the PAC method compared to TRC with NEBs, due to lower NEB values. Examples and calculations show PAC ratios are higher. VEIC's recommendations and the impact of NEBs on TRC are discussed, with most cases not surpassing PAC results.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL Request IR-08: Does the CE testing methodology proposed by EfficiencyOne put any limitation on how much NEBs (as a percentage of energy benefits) can be considered in the cost-effectiveness testing? Response IR-08: Efficie...

AI summary EfficiencyOne's proposed CE testing methodology uses specific NEB values from Massachusetts research rather than a direct methodology, implying a limitation on NEB percentages. Future changes would involve consultation with the DSM Advisory Group or NSUARB, as outlined in the Application.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-11: 2 3 Is EfficiencyOne willing to have its goals and compensation based on proven realization of 4 achieving the NEBs used for the program cost-benefit testing? 5 6 Response IR-11: 7 8 No. It would not be ap...

AI summary EfficiencyOne refuses to base its goals and compensation on the realization of Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) used in program cost-benefit testing, stating that NEBs are not goals in themselves but are used to inform decision-making. The Public Utilities Act governs the goals and compensation of EfficiencyOne.

- 5 method of including NEBs in CE testing. Group Measure TRC without TRC with Measure Selected under Name NEB NEBs proposed CE Testing Group 1 Measure A 1.5 1.8 Measure B 1.3 2.3 Group 2 Measure C 1.5 1.8 Measure D 1.8 2.1 Group 3 Measure...

AI summary The text presents a table comparing the impact of including Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) in Cost Effectiveness (CE) testing across different measures and groups. The table shows TRC values with and without NEBs, highlighting how their inclusion affects the results.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-14: 2 3 Regarding the current 2018 DSM Plan, 4 a. Please provide measure-level TRC results for each of the measures by DSM 5 program included in Residential and BNI Sector with and without including 6 NEBs. 7...

AI summary The document outlines a request (IR-14) for detailed information on the 2018 DSM Plan, including TRC results with and without NEBs, separation of NEBs into cost-based and value-based categories, and whether NEB inclusion would alter measure selection. Responses reference Appendix C of Attachment D by Vermont Energy Investment Corporation (VEIC).

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-01: 2 3 Please refer to Table 1 on Pages 4 and 5 of Vermont Energy Investment Corporation's 4 (VEIC) June 14, 2018 Final Measure-Level Non-Energy Benefits Study (the Study), filed as 5 Attachment 4 to Efficien...

AI summary The document includes a request and response regarding a study on non-energy benefits (NEBs) from Massachusetts' low-income programs and future cost-effectiveness testing by EfficiencyOne. The response clarifies that the table headings were not clearly written and that EfficiencyOne plans to use the most up-to-date avoided costs from NSPI for future testing.

M08888 IN THE MATTER OF The Public Utilities Act , R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 380, as amended. - and - IN THE MATTER OF an Application by EfficiencyOne for Approval of the Use of Measure Level Non-Energy Benefits Within Cost Effectiveness Testing

AI summary Matter M08888 involves an application by EfficiencyOne under the Public Utilities Act to approve the use of Measure Level Non-Energy Benefits within cost-effectiveness testing. The proceeding examines whether such benefits should be included in evaluations of energy efficiency programs.

- On September 19, 2018, EfficiencyOne filed an Application for Approval for Use of Measure Level Non- - Energy Benefits within Cost-Effectiveness ("CE") Testing for future Demand Side Management ("DSM") - plans with the Nova Scotia Utilit...

AI summary EfficiencyOne submitted an application to the NSUARB in 2018 for approval of using measure-level non-energy benefits in cost-effectiveness testing for future DSM plans. The application included specific requests related to per-measure values, annual NEB values, ongoing management strategies, and low-income NEB estimates. The NSUARB issued a hearing order, and intervenors filed information requests which EfficiencyOne responded to.

EFFICIENCYONE'S POSITION - EfficiencyOne respectfully submits that the NSUARB has full jurisdiction to take into account non-energy - impacts in cost effectiveness testing. In particular, the Utility and Review Board Act S.N.S. 1992, c. 11...

AI summary EfficiencyOne asserts the NSUARB has jurisdiction to consider non-energy impacts in cost-effectiveness testing, citing statutory authority from the Utility and Review Board Act and Public Utilities Act. It emphasizes the NSUARB's role in determining customer interests, performance requirements, and DSM plan terms.

Section 79L of the PUA establishes the central considerations of the NSUARB in approving such an Public Utilities Act, RSNS 1989, c. 380, s 79J(4). agreement between EfficiencyOne and NSPI: an agreement subject to section 79L 4 of the PUA...

AI summary Section 79L of the Public Utilities Act outlines the NSUARB's responsibility to approve agreements involving electricity efficiency and conservation activities, ensuring they are in the best interests of customers. EfficiencyOne argues that the NSUARB has the authority to determine what factors, including cost-effectiveness testing, should be considered in assessing a DSM plan.

sts of customers could also include an accounting of non-energy Hansard, Sixty First General Assembly, First Session: October 27, 2009, pp. 1807-1808 M08604, Order of the NSUARB dated July 23, 2018. benefits, as proposed. In making this de...

AI summary The NSUARB has jurisdiction to consider non-energy benefits (NEB) in cost-effectiveness (CE) testing for demand-side management (DSM) plans under the PUA. The Legislature's intent is to reduce electricity use and protect the environment at low cost. The actual inclusion of NEB in CE testing will be addressed in the NEB Application.

The Commission stated: "…A failure on our part to consider broader societal impact stemming from the implementation of energy efficiency programs would ignore the codified intent of the General Assembly "to provide affordable, reliable, an...

AI summary The Commission emphasizes the need to consider societal and non-energy benefits in energy efficiency programs, aligning with the Public Utilities Act's mandate for affordability. They assert that cost-effectiveness alone isn't sufficient, as the Board must also evaluate rate impacts, jobs, and environmental effects. Maryland's approach supports including non-energy benefits in cost-effectiveness tests.

CONCLUSION AND RELIEF SOUGHT - Based upon the foregoing, EfficiencyOne respectfully submits that the Board's broad jurisdiction to - determine what matters are appropriate to consider in the assessment of DSM plans includes the - authority...

AI summary EfficiencyOne argues the NSUARB has jurisdiction to consider non-energy impacts in cost-effectiveness testing for DSM plans and requests approval of the NEB Application or a variation. The submission emphasizes the Board's authority to assess non-energy benefits in DSM evaluations.

M08888 IN THE MATTER OF The Public Utilities Act , R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 380, as amended. - and - IN THE MATTER OF an Application by EfficiencyOne for Approval of the Use of Measure Level Non-Energy Benefits Within Cost Effectiveness Testing

AI summary The document pertains to a regulatory proceeding under the Public Utilities Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 380, involving EfficiencyOne's application to approve the use of measure-level non-energy benefits within cost-effectiveness testing.

gy demand and usage of alternative sources of energy. However, going green is not inexpensive. Well-intentioned efforts to promote DSM must be subject to critical analysis and planning to ensure that expenditures are justifiable and projec...

AI summary The document discusses the transition of Demand Side Management (DSM) administration to Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation (ENS) and emphasizes the need for critical analysis and planning to ensure that DSM initiatives are cost-effective and in the public interest. The Board provides guidance to ENS on its role in overseeing DSM in the province.

that if there's any drop back with contractors, this causes a problem... ... 1 support Mel Whalen's point that a cutback in level of effort is not a good idea... [Transcript, pp. 316-318] [64] Mr. Whalen was also asked about the increased...

AI summary Mr. Whalen discusses the impact of increasing spending to meet 2011 energy savings targets, noting a small benefit for ELI customers but increased costs for Residential and General Demand classes. He also emphasizes that cutbacks in effort are not advisable.

[70] In its Reply Submission, EAC supported increased levels of DSM savings: In the past, Nova Scotian stakeholders have agreed that DSM is the better ratepayer option to pursue, not only because it offered the least cost procurement optio...

AI summary EAC advocates for increased DSM savings, citing past stakeholder consensus on DSM's cost-effectiveness compared to supply options and its benefits in reducing fuel and capacity costs for NSPI. EAC recommends approving a higher DSM budget based on proposals by consultant Mel Whalen and others.

[143] Board Counsel questioned ENSC on whether the targets were achievable: MR. OUTHOUSE: I guess, Mr. Faulkner, going forward these numbers on the face of them give me some concern that you can achieve the targets that you have projected...

AI summary Board Counsel questioned ENSC about the achievability of projected targets, expressing concern over whether the costs align with expected savings. ENSC's representative affirmed confidence in meeting targets, citing past efforts and current strategies, though acknowledging the challenges involved.

3.5.2 Incentives [66] The Board, in its questioning of E1's witnesses, and NSPI and the Industrial Group in their submissions, expressed significant concerns over the manner in which incentives are determined by E1. It would appear from th...

AI summary The Board expressed concerns about E1's incentive structure, noting over 60% of the DSM budget is allocated to incentives. Expert testimony highlighted issues with incentive justification, with NSPI and the Industrial Group arguing that some incentives lack quantitative criteria and may be influenced by vested interests. Mr. Dunsky's testimony was preferred, but concerns about incentive reasonableness remained.

subsequent update in 2009. So I believe we filed a quote from the Terms of Reference for the 2009 IRP and it lists basically what we're trying to evaluate in doing the IRP. Bullet number three says: Develop and evaluate alternative plans i...

AI summary The 2016-18 DSM Plan aligns with the 2014 IRP's objective of minimizing costs through DSM, which saves ratepayers money and reduces emissions. The IRP's Terms of Reference (2009) emphasize evaluating alternatives using total resource cost metrics. DSM is framed as a key component of long-term energy planning, balancing economic and environmental benefits.

3.5.5 Cost Effectiveness Screening [99] Although the Board has not approved the Quantum Agreement, Section 7 contains a provision which states as follows: Through collaboration within the DSM Advisory Group the parties agree to work to ach...

AI summary The Board has not approved the Quantum Agreement but allows collaboration within the DSM Advisory Group to develop a consensus on methodology for future DSM research plans. The existing TRC methodology remains in place unless a compelling case is made to abandon it.

3.5.6 Avoided Cost Analysis [101] Synapse, in its evidence, indicated that rate impact analysis should account for all factors that impact rates either positively or negatively, which would include avoided costs that might exert downward p...

AI summary Synapse argues rate impact analysis must include avoided costs, such as environmental compliance. E1 and NSPI discuss locational DSM's potential to reduce transmission costs. The Board supports collaboration on locational avoided cost considerations.

3.12 Establishment of a Standardized Filing for Future Applications to approve a DSM Supply Agreement [124] The Consensus Agreement proposed to establish a standardized filing for future applications by E1. The parties to the Consensus Agr...

AI summary The Consensus Agreement proposes a standardized filing for future DSM Supply Agreement applications by E1, including energy savings, cost-effectiveness analysis, and rate impact details. The DSM Advisory Group will review the proposal, and E1 agrees to provide technical data in future plans.

4.0 LETTERS OF COMMENT AND PUBLIC SPEAKERS [129] The Board received 37 letters of comment from various persons, who wrote individually or on behalf of organizations. With only two exceptions, all were supportive of E1 and maintaining the a...

AI summary The Board received 37 letters, mostly supporting E1's DSM plan, citing environmental, economic, and low-income benefits. Public speakers emphasized maintaining DSM programs and energy efficiency culture. One letter critiqued Dr. Peach's evidence, while concerns about industry capacity if spending decreases were raised.

aving considered the history of underspending on DSM programming, the history of overachieving savings and demand targets, and as an inducement to bring greater rigor to the calculation of incentives. [142] The Board considers that the tar...

AI summary The Board approves the E1 DSM Plan, noting its alignment with the PUA's best interests for NSPI customers. It emphasizes balancing short-term affordability with long-term costs, approves aspects of the Consensus Agreement, and retains TRC for cost-effectiveness screening while rejecting the Quantum Agreement.

7) COST-EFFECTIVENESS TESTING a) Through collaboration within the DSM Advisory Group, the parties agree to work to achieve consensus as to the methodology and assumptions of the cost-effectiveness screening test to be applied to future DSM...

AI summary The parties agree through collaboration within the DSM Advisory Group to develop a consensus on methodology and assumptions for cost-effectiveness screening tests for future DSM Resource Plans.

9) Principles of Equity a) All ratepayers are entitled to an equitable opportunity to participate in DSM programs. Low-income tenants and homeowners as well as marginally viable commercial and industrial customers are some of the most diff...

AI summary All ratepayers must have equitable access to DSM programs, with special consideration for low-income and marginalized customers. Services should address barriers they face, and cost-effectiveness must account for higher costs associated with serving these groups.

1) ESTABLISHMENT OF A STANDARDIZED FILING FOR FUTURE APPLICATIONS TO APPROVE A DSM SUPPLY AGREEMENT - a) The Parties agree to the establishment of a standardized filing for future applications, the substance of which will be vetted through...

AI summary Parties agree to establish a standardized filing for future DSM supply agreements, including program descriptions, energy savings, cost-effectiveness analysis, and rate impact details. EfficiencyOne may add relevant information, with technical data provided in its Plan filing. The DSM Advisory Group will vet the template for Board approval.

establishes that targeted emails and mailouts to a named recipient result in higher participation rates. The Board has sufficient evidence to support this proposition, and no evidence to the contrary. - [88] The Board accepts the evidence...

AI summary The Board finds that collecting Names and Emails is necessary for E1 to achieve cost-effective energy efficiency programs. Evidence shows email marketing outperforms other methods in cost and participation rates. Legislation like PUA and PIPEDA supports data use for DSM goals, balancing privacy with program effectiveness.

[169] Ms. Rodenhiser's testimony explained in simple terms the value of a distribution centre: For Central in particular, you know, Mr. Smith has always stated that his fill rates are very important. And what he means by that he doesn't wa...

AI summary Ms. Rodenhiser testified that distribution centres (DCs) enhance profitability by optimizing inventory management, ensuring product availability, and reducing costs through bulk purchasing discounts. This benefits retailers like Central by maintaining high fill rates and controlling operational expenses.

ble because they were built on estimates the Board considers too uncertain. - [217] Central's cross-appeal targets the future costs that the Board disallowed. Essentially, Central makes two arguments.

AI summary Central's cross-appeal challenges the Board's disallowance of future costs, arguing the Board's reliance on uncertain estimates was incorrect. Central asserts two arguments against this decision, focusing on the validity of the Board's cost assessments.

I. Future Cost-Effectiveness Screening We have a statutory duty to require each gas and electric company to establish any program or service that the Commission deems appropriate and cost effective to encourage and promote the efficient us...

AI summary The document outlines the statutory duty to ensure energy efficiency programs are cost-effective and discusses the transition from retrospective to prospective cost-effectiveness screening to foster innovation in Maryland's energy efficiency industry.

A. Cost-Effectiveness Tests Since the inception of the EmPOWER Maryland programs we have focused primarily on the Total Resource Cost ("TRC") test as the key predictor of cost effectiveness. 17 There are, however, four additional tests uti...

AI summary The document discusses the use of various cost-effectiveness tests, including the Total Resource Cost (TRC), Societal Cost (SCT), Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM), Participant Cost, and Program Administrator Cost (PACT) tests, for evaluating energy efficiency programs in Maryland. The TRC is highlighted as the most widely used test, particularly in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions.

B. Cost-Effectiveness Screening Levels In Order No. 84569, we directed the examination of cost effectiveness to occur at the sub-portfolio level, i.e. , collectively for residential programs and collectively for commercial and industrial (...

AI summary The document discusses the regulatory approach to cost-effectiveness screening levels in energy efficiency programs. It highlights the UARB's directive to examine cost effectiveness at the sub-portfolio level and the differing positions of MEA and BGE on the matter. BGE prefers testing at both sub-portfolio and program levels to avoid obscuring the potential of individual programs.

C. Cost-Effectiveness Assumptions Cost-effectiveness testing is carried out by a mathematical algorithm. The EmPOWER Maryland Planning Work Group is requesting Commission direction regarding certain assumptions and inputs to the algorithm....

AI summary The EmPOWER Maryland Planning Work Group is seeking guidance from the Commission on cost-effectiveness assumptions for a mathematical algorithm. While consensus was reached on adopting values from the Avoided Cost Study and PPRP, disagreement remains on DRIPE calculation, discount rate selection, and inclusion of NEBs.

1. DRIPE The question before us is how to appropriately account for the value and length of Energy and Capacity DRIPE in the cost-effectiveness screening process. With respect to the DRIPE calculations, the Work Group developed a greater l...

AI summary The proceeding discusses the appropriate valuation and length of Energy and Capacity DRIPE in cost-effectiveness screening. There is more consensus on Energy DRIPE valuation, but concerns remain about the methodology and assumptions regarding the length of Capacity DRIPE. OPC recommended approval of the Energy DRIPE methodology, subject to addressing identified issues.

Ratepayer-Funded Energy Efficiency Programs , American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (2011). states have opted for simple adders to reflect contributions from a subset of NEB categories. 62 As articulated by the Coalition in this...

AI summary The document discusses the inclusion of non-energy benefits (NEBs) in cost-effectiveness testing for energy efficiency programs, emphasizing the need for symmetrical consideration of both costs and benefits. The Commission is directed by statute to consider NEBs such as job creation and environmental impacts when evaluating programs. Multiple parties, including the Coalition, MEA, and OPC, support the inclusion of NEBs in the screening process.

3. Discount Rate A significant input to the cost-effectiveness screening process is the discount rate assumption. Given that each cost-effectiveness test reflects a specific stakeholder perspective in comparing the net present value of the...

AI summary The discount rate assumption is a critical factor in the cost-effectiveness screening process for energy efficiency programs. The EmPOWER Maryland programs currently use the utility's weighted average cost of capital (WACC) as the discount rate for the TRC test. However, some stakeholders, including MEA and Efficiency First, advocate for a lower societal discount rate of 4.7% for the SCT. The staff recommends using the average WACC for all cost-effectiveness tests except the SCT, while the decision supports the use of the 4.7% rate for the SCT and retains the WACC for the TRC test.

sembly enacted an energy conservation measure, then codified in Article 78, §28(g) of the Maryland Annotated Code, and later re-codified as PUA § 7-211. & lt;sup>84 PUA § 7-211(b)(1). & lt;sup>85 This study concluded that electric utility...

AI summary The text discusses the cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency programs, highlighting their lower lifecycle costs compared to traditional energy sources. It emphasizes the importance of continuing these programs to avoid increased load on the PJM system and higher reliability risks. The analysis also notes that energy efficiency remains less costly for ratepayers than paying for electricity directly.

Work Group is encouraged to continuing monitoring the developments in this arena so that a demand reduction goal could be established in conjunction with the subsequent program cycle, as appropriate. IT IS THEREFORE, this 16th day of July,...

AI summary The document discusses the use of the Societal Cost Test and Total Resource Cost Test for cost-effectiveness screening in the 2015–2017 program cycle, referencing the Exeter Avoided Cost Study and a modified four-year Capacity DRIPE assumption.

File No : SM002557-00003 March 9, 2020 Nancy G. Rubin, Q.C. Direct Dial: 902.420.3337 Direct Fax: 902.420.1417 [email protected] Doreen Friis Regulatory Affairs Officer/Clerk Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board 3rd Floor 1601 Low...

AI summary The Industrial Group argues that the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB) lacks jurisdiction to consider non-energy benefits (NEBs) in cost-effectiveness testing for EfficiencyOne's demand-side management plans, asserting that NEBs are irrelevant to EfficiencyOne's statutory mandate under the Public Utilities Act. The proceeding addresses whether the NSUARB can evaluate non-energy impacts in assessing electricity efficiency activities.

Residential Business, Non-Profit, and Institutional Thermal comfort Reduced Operations and Maintenance Noise Reduction Reduction in Other Labour Costs Property Value Increased Rent Revenue Equipment Maintenance Increased Sales Revenue Ligh...

AI summary The document discusses the benefits of EfficiencyOne programs but argues that assessing their cost effectiveness based on certain benefits is outside the Board's jurisdiction to approve and oversee electricity efficiency and conservation activities.

Board's approval of agreements 79L (1) No agreement between Nova Scotia Power Incorporated and a franchise holder, including an agreement amending such an agreement, is valid until it has been approved by the Board pursuant to this Section...

AI summary The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB) must approve agreements between Nova Scotia Power Incorporated (NSPI) and franchise holders, ensuring they align with customer interests and Public Utilities Act (PUA) requirements. The Industrial Group argues the Board cannot consider incidental effects beyond direct electricity use impacts, opposing EfficiencyOne's interpretation of PUA jurisdiction regarding NEBs in cost-effectiveness testing. The Board emphasizes EfficiencyOne's dual regulated/non-regulated status.

CONCLUSION The Industrial Group respectfully submits that the Public Utilities Act does not provide the Board with the jurisdiction to take into account non-energy impacts in cost effectiveness testing in its assessment of proposed electri...

AI summary The Industrial Group argues that the Public Utilities Act does not grant the Board jurisdiction to consider non-energy impacts in cost-effectiveness testing for electricity efficiency and conservation programs. The submission was made in the context of matter M08888.

Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board IN THE MATTER OF The Public Utilities Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c.380, as amended - and - IN THE MATTER OF an Application by EfficiencyOne for approval for the use of measure-level Non-Energy Benefits within...

AI summary The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board is considering an application by EfficiencyOne to use measure-level Non-Energy Benefits in Cost-Effectiveness testing for future Demand Side Management (DSM) planning under the Public Utilities Act. The proceeding involves regulatory processes related to DSM and non-energy benefits.

March 9, 2020 NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION 3 4 2.0 NS POWER'S POSITION 4 5 3.0 LEGISLATION AND INTERPRETATION 5 6 3.1 Legislation 5 7 3.2 Principles of Interpretation. 7 8 3.3 Mandate of Board Under Public Util...

AI summary NS Power is responding to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board's inquiry about whether the Board has jurisdiction to consider non-energy impacts in cost effectiveness testing for electricity efficiency and conservation activities. The submission references EfficiencyOne's Application and outlines NS Power's position on the matter.

2.0 NS POWER'S POSITION - NS Power's position is that, in assessing proposed electricity efficiency and conservation - activities, the Board does not have the jurisdiction to take into account non-energy impacts in - cost effectiveness tes...

AI summary NS Power argues that the Board does not have jurisdiction to consider non-energy impacts when evaluating the cost effectiveness of electricity efficiency and conservation activities.

DATE FILED: March 9, 2020 Page 11 of 21 1 and adequate service is maintained. The exercise of any such authority must then also be 2 "necessary" for the Board to carryout its role as the regulator of public utilities under the PUA. 3 4 Acc...

AI summary The document discusses the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board's (NSUARB) jurisdiction in cost effectiveness testing, stating that non-energy impacts are not relevant to its role under the Public Utilities Act (PUA). It references a Federal Court of Appeal case regarding the National Energy Board's (NEB) jurisdiction to award costs.

DATE FILED: March 9, 2020 Page 17 of 21 E1 Submission, page 14, lines 23-24. E1 Submission, page 16, line 10 to page 17, line 2. Business Watch International Inc. v. Alberta (Information & Privacy Commissioner) , 2009 ABQB 10 [Tab 6], para...

AI summary The E1 Submission discusses the inclusion of non-energy benefits in cost-effectiveness tests, citing Maryland's approach under the Maryland Public Utilities Code §7-211. It argues that this supports the Board's authority to include non-energy impacts in such tests. However, the response counters that the statutory considerations in Maryland are not similar to those in Nova Scotia and that Maryland's approach actually supports NS Power's position.

6.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the foregoing, when assessing proposed electricity efficiency and conservation activities, the Board does not have the jurisdiction, whether express or implied, to take into account non-energy impacts in cost effec...

AI summary The NSUARB concludes it lacks jurisdiction to consider non-energy impacts in cost-effectiveness testing for electricity efficiency programs. The PUA's core intent is to ensure just rates and reliable service, not to address societal or non-energy factors unless explicitly stated in legislation. Maryland's approach, which explicitly allows such considerations, is contrasted as a legislative example.

torisation, elle avait conclu au respect de ce critère, mais n'avait alors tiré aucune conclusion concernant l'incidence sur les frais d'exploitation, notamment l'entente de location obtenue par ATCO. Puis, après avoir examiné les observat...

AI summary The Commission addressed the allocation of net gains from land and buildings, applying the TransAlta formula to distribute profits between customers and shareholders. It rejected arguments that non-use of buildings by the new owner negated the gain's value, emphasizing the need to balance customer affordability with investor returns while avoiding speculative behavior by utilities.

M08888 IN THE MATTER OF The Public Utilities Act , R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 380, as amended. - and - IN THE MATTER OF an Application by EfficiencyOne for Approval of the Use of Measure Level Non-Energy Benefits Within Cost Effectiveness Testing

AI summary The document outlines a regulatory proceeding under the Public Utilities Act, involving EfficiencyOne's application to incorporate non-energy benefits into cost-effectiveness testing for utility measures.

vingly by the NSUARB prior to the relevant amendments to the PUA and do not reflect the role of the NSUARB respecting DSM regulation. 1 NS Power Submissions, filed March 9, 2020, p. 8-9 The mandate of the NSUARB in relation to EfficiencyOn...

AI summary The NSUARB's role in assessing energy efficiency and conservation activities is focused on customer interests, affordability, and other relevant factors. The 2015 decision referencing the Industrial Group's counsel is not applicable to the current jurisdictional issue. EfficiencyOne seeks to include net energy benefits (NEBs) in cost-effectiveness testing, not to authorize the NSUARB to approve DSM plans based on NEBs alone.

Explicit and Implicit Powers of the NSUARB NS Power relies on ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. V. EUB (2006), 2006 SCC 4 to argue that the NSUARB's right to consider NEBs must be expressly granted or must be implied to be necessary for the fulf...

AI summary NS Power argues the NSUARB lacks explicit PUA authority to consider non-energy benefits (NEBs) in cost-effectiveness testing, citing a 2006 SCC case. However, the NSUARB asserts explicit jurisdiction under section 79L(9) of the PUA to assess matters in the best interests of customers, including affordability and other factors, despite no explicit mention of NEBs.

Other Jurisdictions EfficiencyOne agrees with NS Power that there are important differences between the enabling legislation of Maryland and Nova Scotia. The provision cited by NS Power, §7-211(i)(1), requires that the Commission, in asses...

AI summary EfficiencyOne and NS Power debate differences between Maryland and Nova Scotia legislation regarding non-energy benefits (NEBs) in demand-side management (DSM). NS Power argues Maryland's §7-211(i)(1) explicitly requires considering job and environmental impacts, while EfficiencyOne notes Maryland law allows broader NEB considerations beyond these factors. Nova Scotia's PUA grants the NSUARB more flexible authority to account for NEBs.

Relevance of NEBs to EfficiencyOne's Statutory Mandate The Industrial Group submissions rely on a narrow characterization of the potential impact of including NEBs in cost-effectiveness testing, which is not supported by the materials prov...

AI summary The Industrial Group argues that NEBs should not be included in cost-effectiveness testing as they do not address electricity use, but the text counters that NEBs could reduce consumption and support EfficiencyOne's mandate. The NSUARB is urged to determine NEBs' relevance to EfficiencyOne's statutory role.

CONCLUSION Respectfully, the submissions provided by those interested parties in opposition to the position taken by EfficiencyOne attempt to conflate the jurisdictional question presently before the NSUARB with the ultimate question of th...

AI summary EfficiencyOne argues the NSUARB can consider non-energy benefits (NEBs) in cost-effectiveness testing for DSM plans under the PUA, emphasizing jurisdictional authority is distinct from NEB application merits. Opponents conflate these issues, but EfficiencyOne asserts NEB inclusion does not dictate DSM plan approval. The PUA grants broad discretion to NSUARB to weigh 'other matters' in assessments.

IN THE MATTER OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT - and - IN THE MATTER OF an application by EFFICIENCYONE for approval for the use of measure-level Non-Energy Benefits within the context of Cost-Effectiveness testing associated with future Demand...

AI summary This regulatory proceeding under the Public Utilities Act involves EFFICIENCYONE's application to use measure-level Non-Energy Benefits in Cost-Effectiveness testing for future Demand Side Management (DSM) planning. The proceeding is before a panel including Peter W. Gurnham, Roberta J. Clarke, and Steven M. Murphy.

NOTICE OF HEARING EFFICIENCYONE (E1) has made application to the Board for approval for the use of measure-level Non-Energy Benefits within the context of Cost-Effectiveness testing associated with future Demand Side Management (DSM) plann...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) seeks approval from the Board to use measure-level Non-Energy Benefits in Cost-Effectiveness testing for future Demand Side Management (DSM) planning. The hearing is scheduled for January 8-11, 2019, in Halifax, NS.

IN THE MATTER OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT - and - IN THE MATTER OF an application by EFFICIENCYONE for approval for the use of measurelevel Non-Energy Benefits within the context of Cost-Effectiveness testing associated with future Demand...

AI summary The document outlines an application by EfficiencyOne for approval to incorporate measure-level Non-Energy Benefits into Cost-Effectiveness testing for future Demand Side Management (DSM) planning under the Public Utilities Act. The proceeding is before a panel including Peter W. Gurnham, Roberta J. Clarke, and Steven M. Murphy.

ORDER WHEREAS by Application dated September 19, 2018, EfficiencyOne applied to the Board for approval for the use of measure-level Non-Energy Benefits within the context of Cost-Effectiveness testing associated with future DSM planning re...

AI summary EfficiencyOne requested deferral of its application to use Non-Energy Benefits in Cost-Effectiveness testing for further consultation. The Board adjourned the hearing and established a timetable for developing an issues list, stakeholder sessions, and filing updates by December 31, 2019.

IN THE MATTER OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT - and - IN THE MATTER OF an application by EFFICIENCYONE for approval for the use of measure-level Non-Energy Benefits within the context of Cost-Effectiveness testing associated with future Demand...

AI summary EfficiencyOne applied to include non-energy benefits in cost-effectiveness testing for Demand Side Management (DSM) planning. The Board ruled it lacks jurisdiction to consider non-energy impacts in such testing. Intervenors included consumer, business, and environmental groups, with Nova Scotia Power opposing the application.

2.3.1 EfficiencyOne - [12] EfficiencyOne argued that the Board has jurisdiction to decide what is in the best interests of customers and the appropriate factors to consider in that assessment, including how cost-effectiveness is determined...

AI summary EfficiencyOne argues that the NSUARB has broad jurisdiction under the Public Utilities Act to assess customer best interests, including non-energy benefits, and that cost-effectiveness of DSM programs falls within the Board's authority. It cites legislative intent and references Maryland's precedent, while NSP notes differences in Maryland's DSM legislation.

2.3.2 Industrial Group [16] The Industrial Group reviewed the provisions cited above concerning the Board's jurisdiction to regulate the activities of EfficiencyOne and said that nowhere can it be inferred that the Board is authorized to t...

AI summary The Industrial Group challenges EfficiencyOne's interpretation of the NSUARB's jurisdiction under Sections 79L(8) and 79A(b)(i)-(vi) of the PUA, arguing that the Board may only evaluate electricity efficiency activities based on their direct impact on energy use, not non-energy benefits. They assert that statutory language must be read narrowly, limiting the Board's consideration to energy-related objectives defined in Section 79A.

us statutes (explicit powers); and, the common law, by application of the doctrine of jurisdiction by necessary implication (implicit powers). This is discussed further at paragraph 51 of ATCO Gas: ...[tjhis rule allows for the application...

AI summary The document examines whether the NSUARB has explicit or implicit jurisdiction under the PUA to consider non-energy benefits in cost-effectiveness testing. NS Power argues there is no such authority, citing the ATCO Gas case, while the Board's powers are limited to rate-setting and ensuring supply reliability.

2.3.4 Findings - [24] The starting point in this analysis is to clearly understand the Board's role in regulating EfficiencyOne and what electricity efficiency and conservation activities mean. Sections 79H and 791(1) state as follows: - 7...

AI summary The NSUARB's role in regulating EfficiencyOne is outlined, requiring cost-effective electricity efficiency and conservation activities under PUA sections 79H and 79I(1). NSP must implement such activities post-Implementation Date to reduce customer costs.

the Public Utilities Act. - [43] EfficiencyOne stated that the use of the term "cost-effective" in Sections 79H and 791(1) of the Public Utilities Act means that the Legislature intended the cost- effectiveness of such activities to be a m...

AI summary EfficiencyOne argues that the Public Utilities Act's 'cost-effective' language grants the NSUARB jurisdiction over non-energy benefits in DSM programs. The Board counters that non-energy benefits fall outside its core mandate, while NSP cites a Federal Court of Appeal decision limiting the National Energy Board's authority. The Board currently uses the Total Resource Cost Test for DSM evaluations.

3.0 CONCLUSION [48] The Board was asked the following question by the parties to this proceeding: In assessing proposed electricity efficiency and conservation activities, does the NSUARB have the jurisdiction to take into account non-ener...

AI summary The NSUARB was asked if it can consider non-energy impacts in cost-effectiveness testing for electricity efficiency programs. The Board ruled 'no,' stating it lacks jurisdiction over such impacts. An order will follow.

IN THE MATTER OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT - and - IN THE MATTER OF an application by EFFICIENCYONE for approval for the use of measurelevel Non-Energy Benefits within the context of Cost-Effectiveness testing associated with future Demand...

AI summary The document pertains to a regulatory proceeding under the Public Utilities Act, involving EfficiencyOne's application to use measure-level Non-Energy Benefits in Cost-Effectiveness testing for future Demand Side Management (DSM) planning. The proceeding is before a panel including Peter W. Gurnham, Q.C., Chair, oberta J. Clarke, Q.C., and Stephen T. McGrath, LL.B.

ORDER WHEREAS by Application dated September 19, 2018, EfficiencyOne applied to the Board for approval for the use of measure-level Non-Energy Benefits within the context of Cost-Effectiveness testing associated with future DSM planning re...

AI summary EfficiencyOne sought approval to include non-energy benefits in cost-effectiveness testing for DSM planning. The Board adjourned proceedings multiple times, with EfficiencyOne requesting deferrals and jurisdiction clarification. After submissions from multiple parties, the Board ruled it lacks jurisdiction to consider non-energy benefits in cost-effectiveness testing.

James R. Gogan Direct Dial: (902) 563-5920 E-Mail: [email protected] File No. 41736-71 September 19, 2018 Nova Scotia Utility & Review Board PO Box 1692, Unit "M" Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3S3 Attention: Doreen Friis, Regulatory Affair...

AI summary EfficiencyOne seeks approval to use measure-level Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) in cost-effectiveness (CE) testing for future Demand Side Management (DSM) planning. This follows Board Matter M06733, where a Consensus Agreement required collaborative work with the DSM Advisory Group to quantify NEBs for improving CE tests. The agreement acknowledged that low-income-focused measures may fail CE tests.

isory Group's progress on this work. - c) The Parties acknowledge that specific measures and/or programs exclusively targeted toward low-income Nova Scotians may not pass a cost-effectiveness test. In its December 22, 2016, update to the B...

AI summary EfficiencyOne submitted recommendations on non-energy benefits (NEB) to the Board, noting that low-income measures may fail cost-effectiveness tests. The Board acknowledged EfficiencyOne's work on NEB methodology, pending future applications. EfficiencyOne requested to file only an electronic copy of a large attachment. The Breton Law Group is listed as counsel.

IN THE MATTER OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT - and - IN THE MATTER OF an application by EFFICIENCYONE for approval for the use of measure-level Non-Energy Benefits within the context of Cost-Effectiveness testing associated with future Demand...

AI summary The document outlines a regulatory proceeding under the Public Utilities Act regarding EfficiencyOne's application to use measure-level Non-Energy Benefits in Cost-Effectiveness testing for future Demand Side Management (DSM) planning processes. The proceeding is before a panel including Peter W. Gurnham, Roberta J. Clarke, and Steven M. Murphy.

HEARING ORDER WHEREAS by Application dated September 19, 2018, EfficiencyOne (E1) applied to the Board for approval for the use of measure-level Non-Energy Benefits within the context of Cost-Effectiveness testing associated with future DS...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) applied for approval to use measure-level Non-Energy Benefits in Cost-Effectiveness testing for future Demand Side Management (DSM) planning. The Board ordered a public hearing with a detailed timetable, including deadlines for interventions, evidence submissions, and a hearing from January 8-11, 2019. The Board Regulatory Rules, including Rule 7(3), apply to the proceeding.

NOTICE OF HEARING EFFICIENCYONE (E1) has made application to the Board for approval for the use of measure-level Non-Energy Benefits within the context of Cost-Effectiveness testing associated with future Demand Side Management (DSM) plann...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) seeks Board approval to use measure-level Non-Energy Benefits in Cost-Effectiveness testing for future Demand Side Management (DSM) planning. A public hearing is scheduled from January 8–11, 2019, at the Board’s Halifax offices.

NOVA SCOTIA UTILITY AND REVIEW BOARD IN THE MATTER OF: The Public Utilities Act, R.S.N.S., 1989, c. 380 as amended - and - IN THE MATTER OF: An Application by EfficiencyOne for approval for the use of measure-level Non-Energy Benefits with...

AI summary EfficiencyOne seeks approval to incorporate non-energy benefits into cost-effectiveness testing for future demand-side management (DSM) planning under the Public Utilities Act, R.S.N.S., 1989, c. 380.

VIA EMAIL 28840 Ms. Doreen Friis Regulatory Affairs Officer/Clerk Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board 1601 Lower Water Street, 3rd Floor Halifax, NS B3J 3S3 Dear Ms. Friis: Re: M0888 - EfficiencyOne - Application for approval of the use o...

AI summary The Consumer Advocate requests intervenor status in M0888 regarding EfficiencyOne's application to use Non-Energy Benefits in cost-effectiveness testing. They intend to appear at an oral hearing, represented by William L. Mahody, Q.C., of Merrick Jamieson Sterns Washington & Mahody.

NOVA SCOTIA UTILITY AND REVIEW BOARD IN THE MATTER OF: An application by EfficiencyOne for approval for the use of measure-level Non-Energy Benefits within the context of Cost-Effectiveness testing associated with future Demand Side Manage...

AI summary EfficiencyOne seeks approval from the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board to incorporate measure-level Non-Energy Benefits into Cost-Effectiveness testing for future Demand Side Management (DSM) planning under regulatory processes. The application focuses on expanding DSM evaluation criteria beyond traditional energy metrics.

NOVA SCOTIA UTILITY AND REVIEW BOARD IN THE MATTER OF: an Application by EfficiencyOne for approval for the use of measure-level Non-Energy Benefits within the context of Cost-Effectiveness testing associated with future Demand Side Manage...

AI summary EfficiencyOne seeks approval from the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board to use measure-level Non-Energy Benefits in Cost-Effectiveness testing for future Demand Side Management (DSM) planning regulatory processes.

NOVA SCOTIA UTILITY AND REVIEW BOARD IN THE MATTER OF: An application by Efficiency One for the use of measure level Non Energy Benefits in the context of Cost-Effectiveness testing associated with future Demand Side Management (DSM) plann...

AI summary Efficiency One seeks approval to incorporate non-energy benefits into cost-effectiveness testing for future Demand Side Management (DSM) planning under Nova Scotia regulatory processes. The application is directed to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board's clerk, Doreen Friis.

NOVA SCOTIA UTILITY AND REVIEW BOARD IN THE MATTER OF:THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT - and - IN THE MATTER OF: IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION by EfficiencyOne (E1) for approval for the use of measure-level Non-Energy Benefits within the context...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) applies for approval to include measure-level Non-Energy Benefits in Cost-Effectiveness testing for future Demand-Side Management (DSM) planning under the Public Utilities Act. The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board is overseeing the proceeding.

Request IR-1: - 2 Lines 3-5 on page 1 of 15 requests approval of "measure-level" NEBs. - a) Please confirm that E1 currently applies the TRC at a program (rather than measure) level. - b) If a) is confirmed, please explain how the inclusio...

AI summary The document requests confirmation that E1 applies the TRC at the program level, explains how measure-level NEBs are incorporated into program-level TRC calculations, and provides a TRC calculation example for a residential program with specific measures, including NEBs.

Request IR-2: - Lines 3-5 on page 1 of 15 state that the request for approval of the proposed NEBs is "within the context of Cost-Effectiveness (CE) testing". - a) Please confirm that E1 currently includes TRC and PAC results in its DSM CE...

AI summary Request IR-2 seeks clarification on EfficiencyOne's (E1) use of TRC and PAC in DSM CE testing, the impact of NEBs on TRC/PAC, program eligibility under modified TRC, and E1's inclusion of failing measures in passing programs. Questions focus on CE testing methodology, program evaluation, and regulatory compliance.

Request IR-7: - 29 30 Re the selection of Massachusetts as the "source jurisdiction", as referenced at Lines 13- 17 on page 7 of 15: - a) For whom and by whom was the Massachusetts research completed? - b) Are all NEB's currently used in M...

AI summary Request IR-7 questions the Massachusetts research's origin, methodology, data collection, costs, time frame, sectors addressed, and report access, seeking transparency on NEB development and data condensation.

Request IR-14: - 5 The VEIC Report (Attachment 4) states in the last sentence of the second paragraph on page 10 of - 6 64 that "As a result of this research, the incorporation of NEBs into appropriate cost-effectiveness - 7 screening has...

AI summary The VEIC Report asserts that incorporating NEBs into cost-effectiveness screening is a best practice, but Figures 1 and 2 suggest a more restricted inclusion in practice, prompting a request for reconciliation.

NOVA SCOTIA UTILITY AND REVIEW BOARD IN THE MATTER OF: THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT - and - IN THE MATTER OF: IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION by EfficiencyOne (E1) for approval for the use of measure-level Non-Energy Benefits within the contex...

AI summary The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board is considering an application by EfficiencyOne (E1) under the Public Utilities Act to approve the use of measure-level Non-Energy Benefits in Cost-Effectiveness testing for future Demand Side Management (DSM) planning regulatory processes.

- and - 1 IN THE MATTER OF: IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION by EfficiencyOne 2 (E1) for approval for the use of measure-level Non-Energy 3 Benefits within the context of Cost-Effectiveness testing associated 4 with future DSM planning regu...

AI summary This document is an information request related to EfficiencyOne's application for the use of measure-level Non-Energy Benefits in the context of Cost-Effectiveness testing for future DSM planning. The request was sent to James Gogan of The Breton Law Group, with responses due on November 14, 2018.

1 Request IR-1: - 2 "Water savings values were adjusted by using Halifax Water and Wastewater rates..." (p. 8) - 3 a) It appears that any measure with water savings is wildly cost-effective without any 4 NEBs. If the inclusion of water sav...

AI summary The document questions E1's assumptions about water savings cost-effectiveness, Halifax Water rate applicability to smaller utilities, and avoided water costs. It requests clarification on whether water savings measures are cost-effective without NEBs, if smaller utilities face higher water prices, and how avoided costs compare to Halifax Water rates.

Request IR-5 : Regarding the Measure-level NEB Study conducted by VEIC (NEB Application, Attachment 4: Final VEIC NEBs Report with Appendices – July 12, 2018), please provide responses to following statements: - a. Total number of measures...

AI summary Request IR-5 seeks details on VEIC's Measure-level NEB Study, including the number of measures considered, those with non-zero NEBs, and TRC percentage increases. The response should include data from the NEB Application's Attachment 4.

1 i. Less than 10% increase 2 ii. 10 – 25% increase 3 iii. 25 – 50% increase 4 iv. 50 – 100% increase 5 v. More than 100% increase 6 7 Request IR-6: 8 9 Does the proposed method of including NEBs in Cost-Effectiveness (CE) testing for EE m...

AI summary The document outlines a series of requests for information (IR-6 to IR-14) related to the inclusion of non-energy benefits (NEBs) in cost-effectiveness (CE) testing for energy efficiency (EE) measures. These requests focus on the impact of including NEBs on energy costs, limitations on measure selection, program funding, and regulatory authority.

Request IR-1 7: If EfficiencyOne expects, as indicated in Section 3.2.3, page 12, of the Application that "…new data may change the relevance of existing data", please explain why NEBs should be heavily relied upon at this time to achieve...

AI summary The request questions why Non-Utility Energy Benefits (NEBs) should be heavily relied upon to achieve a CE value of 1.00 or greater, given EfficiencyOne's assertion that new data may affect existing data's relevance.

NOVA SCOTIA UTILITY AND REVIEW BOARD IN THE MATTER OF: THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT - and - IN THE MATTER OF: AN APPLICATION BY EFFICIENCYONE FOR APPROVAL OF THE USE OF MEASURE-LEVEL NON-ENERGY BENEFITS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF COSTS-EFFECTIVENES...

AI summary The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board is considering EfficiencyOne's application to incorporate non-energy benefits into cost-effectiveness testing for future demand side management planning under the Public Utilities Act. The application seeks approval for using measure-level non-energy benefits within regulatory processes.

___________________________________ Doreen Friis, Regulatory Affairs Office Clerk 1 Request IR-1: 2 3 4 Please refer to Table 1 on Pages 4 and 5 of Vermont Energy Investment Corporation's (VEIC) June 14, 2018 Final Measure-Level Non-Energy...

AI summary The text contains regulatory requests related to non-energy benefits (NEBs) studies and cost-effectiveness testing. It asks why a study lists only specific NEBs from Massachusetts and whether EfficiencyOne plans to include data from NSPI in future analyses. It also inquires about the calculation of water and wastewater NEBs in Nova Scotia prior to a VEIC analysis.

Date Filed: October 24, 2018 NSPI (E1) Page 1 of 22 1 Request IR-1: 2 3 (a) Is E1 requesting the UARB verify and approve the non-energy benefits as part of 4 the current verification process? If not, why not? 5 (b) Please describe how non-...

AI summary The document contains a request (IR-1) asking the UARB to verify and approve non-energy benefits as part of the current verification process, and to describe how these benefits will be evaluated and verified. It also requests a list of jurisdictions that do or do not consider non-energy benefits in their cost-effectiveness testing.

1 Does the negative value referenced indicate that this measure has a non-energy cost? 2 3 Request IR-16: 4 5 Ref: Attachment 4, page 6 of 64. 6 7 Please provide all supporting information, data and research on which VEIC relied for 8 asse...

AI summary The document contains several requests for information related to non-energy benefits (NEBs) and cost-effectiveness testing for electricity energy efficiency programs. It asks the Virginia Energy Innovation Center (VEIC) to provide details on research used by other jurisdictions, the enabling legislation for cost-effectiveness testing in three jurisdictions, and how non-energy benefits align with the Public Utilities Act.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL "EE is one of many resources that can be deployed to meet customers' needs, and therefore should be compared with other energy resources (both supply side and demand-side) in a consistent and comprehensive manner." Please...

AI summary The text discusses the inclusion of non-energy benefits (NEBs) in cost-effectiveness testing, comparing VEIC's recommendations to the UARB's Economic Analysis Model for evaluating supply-side investments. It also requests a breakdown of NEBs for a specific measure and details on the DSMAG's methodology debate.

1 (a) Which measures listed in Table 10 will have their benefit-to-cost ratios (BCR) 2 changed from a value smaller than 1.0 to a value greater than or equal to 1.0 after 3 the inclusion of NEBs? 4 (b) Which measures listed in Table 10 wil...

AI summary The document requests information on how the inclusion of New England Bidders (NEBs) affects the benefit-to-cost ratios (BCR) of measures in Table 10, including changes in BCR values, total benefits and costs, and the sustainability of NEB values. It also asks about the use of the Massachusetts Technical Reference Manual (TRM) and whether it should be updated in Nova Scotia.

NOVA SCOTIA UTILITY AND REVIEW BOARD IN THE MATTER OF : IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION by EfficiencyOne (E1) for approval for the use of measure-level Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) within the context of Cost-Effectiveness testing associated...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) seeks approval from the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board to use measure-level Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) in Cost-Effectiveness testing for future Demand-Side Management (DSM) planning regulatory processes.

AEC Information Requests: - 1. How will NEBs affect low income DSM programs moving forward? - 2. To illustrate the practical impact that NEBs could have: - a. if a measure being considered for a low income rental program has a Total Resour...

AI summary The Affordable Energy Coalition (AEC) requests information on how Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) impact low-income demand-side management (DSM) programs, including TRC calculations, resource allocation for program analysis, potential measures for inclusion, and whether Nova Scotia should establish a dedicated low-income program incorporating NEBs in cost-effectiveness tests.

Request IR-11: - Please provide a version of Appendix C using the annual avoided costs from NSPI's latest - version of the Rate and Bill Impact Analysis.

AI summary The requester is requesting an updated version of Appendix C using the latest annual avoided costs from NSPI's Rate and Bill Impact Analysis.

James R. Gogan Direct Dial: (902) 563-5920 E-Mail: [email protected] File No. 41736-71 November 14, 2018 Nova Scotia Utility & Review Board PO Box 1692, Unit "M" Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3S3 Attention: Doreen Friis, Regulatory Affairs...

AI summary EfficiencyOne submits responses to information requests in regulatory proceeding M08888, addressing stakeholders including Nova Scotia Power Inc., the Consumer Advocate, and others. EfficiencyOne requests permission to file specific electronic attachments related to Multeese's submissions.

James R. Gogan Direct Dial: (902) 563-5920 E-Mail: [email protected] File No. 41736-71 November 22, 2018 Nova Scotia Utility & Review Board PO Box 1692, Unit "M" Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3S3 Attention: Doreen Friis, Regulatory Affairs...

AI summary EfficiencyOne seeks approval to use non-energy benefits in cost-effectiveness testing. The Nova Scotia Utility & Review Board set a hearing for January 2019 after EfficiencyOne responded to intervenors' information requests. EfficiencyOne now requests deferral of further proceedings, citing ongoing engagement and preparation for 2019 proceedings.

careful consideration of the upcoming regulatory proceedings scheduled for 2019, EfficiencyOne is requesting that further regulatory proceedings in this Application be deferred on the following basis: - Technical Review– based on the issue...

AI summary EfficiencyOne requests deferral of regulatory proceedings until 2019, citing the need for technical review by the DSMAG, no impact on 2020–2022 DSM Plan development, and reduced regulatory burden. The DSMAG is proposed to reassess the application, and stakeholder input on the DSM Potential Study is already underway.

hich is under current consideration. Deferral of this matter, for further consideration by the DSMAG in the fall of 2019, will serve to lessen the burden on stakeholders during the first half of 2019. EfficiencyOne intends to resume this r...

AI summary EfficiencyOne requests deferral of its regulatory process until fall 2019, proposing a timeline including stakeholder consultations, technical sessions, and filing updates by December 31, 2019. The company aims to update cost-effectiveness testing for future demand-side management (DSM) plans.

[[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]) EfficiencyOne c/o James R. Gogan The Breton Law Group Suite 300, 292 Charlotte Street Sydney NS B1P1C7 Dear Mr. Gogan: M08888 - EfficiencyOne - Application for Approval for the Use...

AI summary EfficiencyOne seeks approval to use non-energy benefits in cost-effectiveness testing under the Public Utilities Act. The Board adjourned the matter without setting a day, emphasizing the need to confirm jurisdiction and appropriateness for NS Power ratepayers. The proceeding involves a potential consensus position after consultation.

IN THE MATTER OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT - and - IN THE MATTER OF an application by EFFICIENCYONE for approval for the use of measurelevel Non-Energy Benefits within the context of Cost-Effectiveness testing associated with future Demand...

AI summary The document outlines a regulatory proceeding concerning EfficiencyOne's application to use measure-level Non-Energy Benefits in Cost-Effectiveness testing for future Demand Side Management (DSM) planning under the Public Utilities Act. The proceeding is before a panel including Peter W. Gurnham, Roberta J. Clarke, and Steven M. Murphy.

James R. Gogan Direct Dial: (902) 563-5920 E-M ail: [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]) File No. 41736 November 28, 2019 Nova Scotia Utility & Review Board PO Box 1692, Unit "M" Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3S3 Attention: D...

AI summary EfficiencyOne seeks approval to include non-energy benefits (NEBs) in cost-effectiveness testing for demand-side management (DSM) measures. The application references Matter M06733, where a Consensus Agreement outlined collaboration to improve TRC test methodology and acknowledged potential challenges for low-income-targeted programs. EfficiencyOne was to update the NSUARB by December 2016 on DSM Advisory Group progress.

Group's progress on this work. - (c) The Parties acknowledge that specific measures and / or programs exclusively targeted toward low-income Nova Scotians may not pass a cost-effectiveness test. Included with the filing of the NEB Applicat...

AI summary EfficiencyOne seeks NSUARB approvals for NEB Application measures, including using specific per-measure values, adjusting BNI sector NEB calculations, and adopting a management strategy. The Parties note low-income programs may fail cost-effectiveness tests. The NSUARB issued a Hearing Order on October 1, 2018, following Information Requests filed in October 2018 and responded to in November 2018.

er 2019, including: Page 3 of 4 Doreen Friis, Regulatory Affairs Officer / Clerk November 28, 2019 - Consumer Advocate - Small Business Advocate - Industrial Group Representative - Nova Scotia Power The intention of the engagement was to u...

AI summary EfficiencyOne engaged stakeholders including the Consumer Advocate, Small Business Advocate, Industrial Group Representative, and Nova Scotia Power to discuss updates on regulatory deferral work and feedback on the NEB Application. Jurisdictional concerns about the NSUARB's authority to approve NEB inclusion in cost-effectiveness testing were raised by Synapse, the Small Business Advocate, and NS Power. EfficiencyOne sought support for a preliminary legal determination on NSUARB's jurisdiction.

NSUARB to make a preliminary legal determination on the issue of its jurisdiction to grant any form of approval relating to the inclusion of NEBs in future cost-effectiveness testing by EfficiencyOne. EfficiencyOne believes it is a prudent...

AI summary EfficiencyOne requests the NSUARB to determine its jurisdiction to consider Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) in future DSM cost-effectiveness testing. EfficiencyOne proposes a preliminary hearing to address jurisdiction without resolving the NEB Application's specifics. If jurisdiction is denied, the application would be withdrawn; if granted, proceedings could continue. A paper process is preferred over an oral hearing.

M08888 - EfficiencyOne - Approval for Use of Measure Level Non Energy Benefits (NEB) Application Receipt is acknowledged of your letter dated November 28, 2019, requesting a preliminary determination of the jurisdiction of the Board to tak...

AI summary EfficiencyOne requests the NSUARB to determine its jurisdiction to consider Non Energy Benefits (NEB) in cost effectiveness testing of future DSM plans. The Board agrees to handle the matter through a paper process without an oral hearing, as proposed by EfficiencyOne and stakeholders. A 60-day period is requested for finalizing the NEB application if jurisdiction is confirmed.

s satisfied with the question, a Hearing Order could follow setting out the relevant timelines for determination of the preliminary matter through a paper process without the need for an oral hearing. ______________________________________...

AI summary EfficiencyOne seeks approval to include non-energy benefits (NEBs) in the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test for Cost-Effectiveness (CE) testing in demand-side management (DSM) planning. The application argues that including NEBs may allow more measures to pass the TRC test, though it does not guarantee increased program inclusion. The NSUARB is considering the NEB Application, which references the VEIC Report.

her metrics…remain unchanged. 2 The NEB Application requests " that the per measure values in Table 10 of Attachment 4 (VEIC Report) be approved for use in future CE testing." 3 EfficiencyOne worked collaboratively with stakeholders to dev...

AI summary EfficiencyOne seeks NSUARB approval to use NEB values in CE testing. The application focuses on NSUARB's jurisdiction to consider non-energy impacts. Stakeholders including Nova Scotia Power and advocates support the proposed question under the Public Utilities Act. References to prior filings (M08888, M0888) are included.

M08888 - EfficiencyOne - Approval for Use of Measure Level Non-Energy Benefits This is further to your letter dated February 5, 2020, requesting the Board establish a timeline to consider the question as to whether the Board has jurisdicti...

AI summary EfficiencyOne requests the NSUARB to consider non-energy impacts in cost-effectiveness testing. The Board establishes a timeline for submissions, with EfficiencyOne and other parties agreeing to the jurisdiction question. The panel includes specific members, and submissions are due on specified dates.

IN THE MATTER OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT - and - IN THE MATTER OF an application by EFFICIENCYONE for approval for the use of measure-level Non-Energy Benefits within the context of Cost-Effectiveness testing associated with future Demand...

AI summary EfficiencyOne applied to include non-energy benefits in cost-effectiveness testing for Demand Side Management (DSM) planning. The Board ruled it lacks jurisdiction to consider non-energy impacts in such testing. Key intervenors included consumer advocates, industry groups, and Nova Scotia Power.

- [1] EfficiencyOne applied to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board on September 19, 2018, for approval to use measure-level non-energy benefits for costeffectiveness testing associated with future DSM planning regulatory processes. Th...

AI summary EfficiencyOne applied to the NSUARB in 2018 to use non-energy benefits in cost-effectiveness testing for DSM planning. The Board raised jurisdictional concerns under the Public Utilities Act. After further consultation, the Board ruled that it does not have the jurisdiction to consider non-energy impacts in cost-effectiveness testing.

2.3.1 EfficiencyOne - [12] EfficiencyOne argued that the Board has jurisdiction to decide what is in the best interests of customers and the appropriate factors to consider in that assessment, including how cost-effectiveness is determined...

AI summary EfficiencyOne argues the NSUARB has jurisdiction to assess customer best interests, including non-energy benefits, under the Public Utilities Act. It cites Sections 79H and 79L(1) to assert cost-effectiveness falls within the Board's authority. EfficiencyOne contrasts this with NS Power's position that Maryland's DSM legislation explicitly allows non-energy benefits, unlike Nova Scotia's framework.

2.3.2 Industrial Group [16] The Industrial Group reviewed the provisions cited above concerning the Board's jurisdiction to regulate the activities of EfficiencyOne and said that nowhere can it be inferred that the Board is authorized to t...

AI summary The Industrial Group challenges EfficiencyOne's argument that the NSUARB can consider non-energy benefits when evaluating cost-effectiveness of electricity efficiency programs. They assert the Board's jurisdiction is limited to direct impacts on electricity use, as defined in Section 79A(b)(i)-(vi) of the PUA, and that Sections 79L(8) and (9) do not permit evaluation of benefits outside EfficiencyOne's statutory mandate.

here is neither an explicit power in the Public Utilities Act nor an implicit power in the Board to take into account non-energy benefits. Again, relying on the Atco Gas decision, NS Power stated: On the basis of the foregoing, despite the...

AI summary NS Power argues that the NSUARB lacks jurisdiction to consider non-energy benefits in cost-effectiveness testing, citing the Public Utilities Act (PUA) and the Atco Gas decision. It asserts that the Board's authority is limited to ensuring just rates and service, and that non-energy impacts are irrelevant to its regulatory role. The Reference Re National Energy Board Act case is referenced to support the claim that implicit jurisdiction must be explicitly granted by legislation.

2.3.4 Findings - [24] The starting point in this analysis is to clearly understand the Board's role in regulating EfficiencyOne and what electricity efficiency and conservation activities mean. Sections 79H and 791(1) state as follows: - 7...

AI summary The NSUARB regulates EfficiencyOne's electricity efficiency and conservation activities under the UARB Act, requiring Nova Scotia Power to implement cost-effective measures post-Implementation Date as per sections 79H and 79I(1).

the Public Utilities Act. - [43] EfficiencyOne stated that the use of the term "cost-effective" in Sections 79H and 791(1) of the Public Utilities Act means that the Legislature intended the cost- effectiveness of such activities to be a m...

AI summary EfficiencyOne argues that cost-effectiveness under the Public Utilities Act falls within the Board's jurisdiction, while NS Power contends non-energy benefits exceed the Board's mandate. The Board uses the Total Resource Cost Test but questions including non-energy benefits. NS Power cites a Federal Court of Appeal decision limiting the National Energy Board's authority without explicit legislative authorization.

3.0 CONCLUSION [48] The Board was asked the following question by the parties to this proceeding: In assessing proposed electricity efficiency and conservation activities, does the NSUARB have the jurisdiction to take into account non-ener...

AI summary The NSUARB was asked if it can consider non-energy impacts in cost-effectiveness testing for electricity efficiency programs. The Board ruled 'no,' stating it lacks jurisdiction over non-energy impacts, and an order will follow.

IN THE MATTER OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT - and - IN THE MATTER OF an application by EFFICIENCYONE for approval for the use of measurelevel Non-Energy Benefits within the context of Cost-Effectiveness testing associated with future Demand...

AI summary The document pertains to an application by EfficiencyOne seeking approval to incorporate measure-level Non-Energy Benefits into Cost-Effectiveness testing for future Demand Side Management (DSM) planning under the Public Utilities Act. The proceeding is before a regulatory panel chaired by Peter W. Gurnham, Q.C., and includes members oberta J. Clarke, Q.C., and Stephen T. McGrath, LL.B.

ORDER WHEREAS by Application dated September 19, 2018, EfficiencyOne applied to the Board for approval for the use of measure-level Non-Energy Benefits within the context of Cost-Effectiveness testing associated with future DSM planning re...

AI summary EfficiencyOne sought approval to include non-energy benefits in DSM cost-effectiveness testing. The Board adjourned proceedings multiple times, with submissions from EfficiencyOne and stakeholders. The Board ultimately ruled it lacks jurisdiction to consider non-energy benefits in such testing.