E-1-1Application
28 passages
1 Nova Scotia's Energy Strategy and Electricity Plan 2 3 Energy efficiency is a key component of Nova Scotia's Energy Strategy. This Strategy 4 emphasizes the importance of energy efficiency in minimizing the costs of meeting future demand...
AI summary Nova Scotia's Energy Strategy emphasizes energy efficiency as a key method to reduce future electricity costs and stabilize prices. The Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Plan highlights cost savings for ratepayers and the benefit of delaying new infrastructure. Public support for energy reduction is high, with 87% of Nova Scotians prioritizing it in 2018. The 2009 Energy Strategy is referenced as a foundational document.
Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity were provided by NS Power, from the 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2018. Portfolio total cost-effectiveness test...
AI summary NS Power provided annual avoided costs of energy and capacity from the 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM, along with avoided costs of transmission and distribution from 2018. The document describes how cost-effectiveness tests are calculated using present value of benefits and costs, including net present value of avoided costs and benefit/cost ratios.
nergy and capacity 49 M06733, para. 143 50 M06733, Decision at para. 82. 51 M05522, NS Power 2014 IRP Update savings that result in the lowest revenue requirement for customers.[52](#page-52-1) 1 The 2020– 2022 2 Preferred DSM Plan seeks t...
AI summary The Preferred DSM Plan for 2020–2022 aligns with the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) by maximizing IRP benefits and ensuring cost-effectiveness. It is more affordable than the 2014 mid-DSM scenario and balances short-term and long-term affordability for ratepayers. The proposed plan increases DSM investment by approximately $3 million annually compared to the last nine years of approved levels.
1 1. INTRODUCTION 2 3 EfficiencyOne developed the 2020-2022 Preferred Demand Side Management (DSM) 4 Resource Plan (Preferred Plan) to acquire cost-effective energy efficiency and system 5 coincidence peak demand reduction resources that p...
AI summary EfficiencyOne's 2020-2022 DSM Resource Plan proposes a $129.1 million investment to reduce energy costs and emissions while building on Nova Scotia's successful energy efficiency programs. The plan emphasizes cost-effective resources, stakeholder collaboration, and historical achievements, including annual savings of $188 million and 800,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas reductions.
2. DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND DETAILS 2 4 5 6 7 1 The Preferred Plan was developed for the purpose of delivering cost-effective energy and system-peak demand savings to Nova Scotia electricity ratepayers for the three-year plan period. Effic...
AI summary The Preferred Plan aims to deliver cost-effective energy and system-peak demand savings for Nova Scotia ratepayers over three years. EfficiencyOne employed a multi-stage process to define performance targets, portfolio structure, and program design, as illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Development Process for the 2020-2022 DSM Resource Plan 10 11 The Preferred Plan was developed with an emphasis on producing achievable costeffective results that balance long-term requirements for energy and system-peak demand s...
AI summary The 2020-2022 DSM Resource Plan's Preferred Plan prioritizes achievable, cost-effective outcomes balancing long-term energy and system-peak demand savings through a balanced portfolio approach. Emphasis is placed on harmonizing energy efficiency, conservation, and demand-side management strategies within regulatory frameworks.
4 Cost-Effectiveness 5 6 To assess the cost-effectiveness of the 2020-2022 Preferred Plan, EfficiencyOne used 7 two industry standard screening tests: the TRC test and the Program Administrator Cost 8 (PAC) test. The TRC was used as the pr...
AI summary EfficiencyOne assessed the 2020-2022 Preferred Plan using the TRC and PAC tests. TRC was mandated by NSUARB to ensure a TRC of 1 or greater, while PAC provided supplementary cost-effectiveness analysis excluding voluntary contributions. Results are detailed in Table 1.
3 2020-2022 Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)a Program Administrator Cost Test (PAC)b Residential DSM Programs Efficient Product Rebates 1.1 2.2 Existing Residential 1.9 6.1 New Residential 1.5 4.6 Business, Not-for-profit and Institutional P...
AI summary The document presents cost-effectiveness test results for various demand-side management (DSM) programs between 2020 and 2022, including the Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) and Program Administrator Cost Test (PAC). These tests compare the lifetime benefits of the programs to the associated costs for EfficiencyOne and participants.
Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity were provided by NS Power, from the 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2018. Portfolio total cost-effectiveness test...
AI summary The document discusses annual avoided costs of energy and capacity from NS Power's 2014 IRP, and provides estimates of CO2 reductions from the 2020-2022 Preferred Plan. It references program investment budgets, cost-effectiveness tests, and the use of TRC and PAC ratios for evaluation.
11 Table 7: 2020-2022 Residential Efficient Product Rebates Performance Indicators Year Investment ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) a Program...
AI summary This table presents performance indicators for the Residential Efficient Product Rebates program from 2020 to 2022, including investment, energy savings, peak demand savings, and cost metrics like the Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) and Program Administrator Cost Test (PAC).
4.3.8 Program Alternatives 2324 25 26 27 28 EfficiencyOne considered the same key principles in both the development of the 2020-2022 Preferred DSM Resource Plan and alternate scenario. The significant difference between the Alternate scen...
AI summary EfficiencyOne compared its 2020-2022 Preferred DSM Resource Plan with an alternate scenario showing reduced participation due to lower energy savings and investment. Table 14 highlights differences for the New Residential program, with footnotes explaining metrics like TRC, PAC, and WACC. Key differences include reduced household upgrades and cost calculations.
5.3.8 Low-Income Performance Indicators 18 19 Low-income performance indicators for the Direct Installation program are provided in Table 23 below. 22 & lt;sup>a TRC is a benefit/cost ratio comparing lifetime benefits to the sum of Efficie...
AI summary The section outlines low-income performance indicators for Nova Scotia's Direct Installation program, referencing metrics like TRC (Total Resource Cost Test) and PAC (Program Administrator Cost Test). It defines cost calculations, including levelized and nominal costs of saved energy, using Nova Scotia Power's WACC.
Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity were provided by NS Power, from the 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2018. Total cost-effectiveness tests are calc...
AI summary The text discusses avoided costs of energy and capacity from NS Power's 2014 IRP, as well as avoided costs of transmission and distribution from 2018. It also outlines how total cost-effectiveness tests are calculated and defines TRC and PAC as benefit/cost ratios used in efficiency programs.
e current level of DSM. Figure 1: Average Rate and Bill Impacts (2020-2035) as a Result of DSM Activities in 2020-2022 (Preferred Plan) The results in [Figure 1](#page-185-0) show that over the 16 years of the study period, rates will be a...
AI summary The analysis evaluates DSM impacts (2020-2022) on electricity rates and bills over 16 years, projecting 0.8-1.7% higher rates with DSM compared to without. The Preferred Plan offsets 5.9 GWh, reduces bills by 11% for residential customers, and saves $475M for NS Power. Model improvements include annual avoided fuel costs and line loss factors, informed by DSMAG input and the 2014 IRP's inflation assumptions.
Escalation of avoided transmission and distribution costs In 2018 NS Power provided estimates of avoided transmission and distribution costs based on ACE Plan data for 2017. Since these are annual, not levelized values, EfficiencyOne appli...
AI summary In 2018, NS Power provided avoided transmission and distribution cost estimates based on 2017 ACE Plan data. EfficiencyOne applied these annual values to 2018 and assumed a 2.0% annual escalation rate for subsequent years.
10 Class allocation of avoided costs and lost revenues 11 The annual avoided costs and lost revenues at the portfolio level are then reallocated 12 back to rate classes based on class shares of the total revenue requirement. For classes 13...
AI summary The text explains how annual avoided costs and lost revenues are reallocated to rate classes based on their share of revenue. For classes without demand charges, impacts are calculated per kWh, while classes with demand charges split impacts into energy and demand rate components.
1 5. COMPARISON OF PREFERRED AND ALTERNATE PLANS 2 Full results by class for both the Preferred Plan and Alternate scenario for 2020-2022 3 are provided in Attachments 1 and 2. This section compares key outputs between the 4 two Plans. 5 6...
AI summary The document compares the Preferred Plan and Alternate scenario for 2020-2022, noting similar rate impacts (0.1% difference due to DSM costs) and minor variations in participant bill savings. The Preferred Plan allows more customers to participate, while program scaling differences in the Alternate scenario create minor savings discrepancies.
22 II. Introduction and Summary
AI summary The document's 'Introduction and Summary' section outlines key acronyms and terms related to Nova Scotia's energy regulation, including demand-side management, efficiency programs, and regulatory frameworks. It sets the stage for a proceeding involving utility planning, cost tests, and stakeholder engagement.
23 Q: Please summarize your perspective, testimony, and primary finding. 24 A: First, as for my overall perspective, I am interested in encouraging initiatives and technology 25 that create economic value, enhance energy justice, protect c...
AI summary The testifier supports energy efficiency initiatives that create economic value and reduce emissions, emphasizing the need for program administrators to quantify savings. They highlight declining lighting savings due to technology changes and advocate for portfolio diversification to maintain cost-effectiveness. EfficiencyOne's approach to addressing these challenges is endorsed as strategic for Nova Scotia's ratepayers.
18 Q: Please summarize your additional findings. A: The historical level of importance obtained from lighting savings, the projected decline in future claimed lighting savings, and the future projected higher unit costs anticipated by Effi...
AI summary EfficiencyOne's strategy to diversify its portfolio and maintain cost-effective energy efficiency investments aligns with industry trends. The approach addresses projected declines in lighting savings and rising unit costs while ensuring continued contributions to Nova Scotia's energy economy through proactive planning.
26 Q: Does your testimony include any specific recommendations? And if so, can you please 27 summarize them? 1 A: Yes. I recommend that the Board not be misled into thinking that because the unit cost of saved 2 energy increases, due to th...
AI summary The witness recommends against reducing efficiency investments despite higher unit costs, emphasizes ongoing engagement with EfficiencyOne, acknowledges past successes in lighting markets, and suggests maintaining distinctions between residential and commercial markets. They stress the importance of diversifying portfolios and stakeholder collaboration to meet policy goals.
21 Q: Do the rebalanced / post-lighting transition portfolios remain cost effective? 33 Proposal Evaluation & Proposal Management Application (PEPMA), 2019. "Public Events" and other listings. [https://www.pepma-ca.com/public/PublicEvents....
AI summary The answer confirms that rebalanced/post-lighting transition portfolios remain cost-effective despite higher per-unit costs, citing Efficiency Vermont's benefit-to-cost ratios of 3.94 to 1 (2018–2020) and 2.78 to 1 (2018–2037). Table 4 provides metrics on cost effectiveness and performance.
14 States or Canada? 1 A: Yes. I can comment and give two further examples of national studies for the United States. I 2 would expect that results would be consistent for Canada, although in this assignment I did not have 3 time to resear...
AI summary The testimony discusses energy efficiency studies in the U.S. and Canada, highlighting VEIC's 2018 commissioning of Synapse Energy Economics to assess historical and future cost-effectiveness of efficiency programs. Synapse projected 5.5% to 14.9% annual savings by 2030 under different scenarios, supported by EPRI's 2017 study showing 17.5% potential savings by 2035. The analysis emphasizes the strategic importance of scaling efficiency efforts.
1 VII. Recommendations - 2 Q: Please list any recommendations you have for the Board. - 3 A: In this proceeding, I am recommending that the Board commend EfficiencyOne for the proactive - 4 approach they are taking to recognizing the light...
AI summary The testifier recommends the Board commend EfficiencyOne for their proactive approach to lighting transitions and direct them to focus on cost-effective opportunities in C&I markets. They suggest applying successful lighting strategies to other markets and maintaining cost-effectiveness despite rising unit costs, emphasizing the value of efficiency for Nova Scotia's power system and economy.
- From Nova Scotia Power's perspective, yield 4.8 dollars for every dollar invested in DSM 2 over the lifetime of the installed measures. - From a total resource cost perspective, which includes participating customer costs, 4 yield 2.0 do...
AI summary Nova Scotia Power (NSP) highlights that DSM 2 investments yield $4.8 per dollar over the lifetime of measures, with total resource cost analysis showing $2.0 per dollar. Rate impacts vary by class (0.8%-1.7%), while participant bills reduce 1-11%, offsetting nonparticipant increases via high EfficiencyOne program participation. Benchmarking against North American peers assesses EfficiencyOne's savings and spending合理性.
Q: Then are the available non-EfficiencyOne plans directly comparable in all other ways to the
AI summary The question examines whether non-EfficiencyOne plans are directly comparable to EfficiencyOne in all aspects within a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding, focusing on program evaluation and regulatory decision-making.
to commercial programs and measures. PAs providing greater proportions of efficiency services to the residential sector will tend to have higher overall portfolio-level costs of saved energy. - Depth of Savings. Deeper and/or more comprehe...
AI summary The text discusses factors influencing the cost of saved energy in efficiency programs, including residential vs. commercial service focus, depth of savings, residential behavioral programs, and variations in savings evaluation methods across jurisdictions. Differences in assumptions and evaluation cycles may affect reported savings consistency.
IV. Rate and Bill Impacts - Q: What are the expected rate and bill impacts of EfficiencyOne's proposed 2020-2022 DSM - expenditures? - A: I will only summarize the high-level takeaways from the comprehensive and detailed Long- - Term Rate...
AI summary EfficiencyOne's 2020-2022 DSM plan results in minimal rate increases (0.8%-1.7%) but significant bill savings for participants (1%-11%) and overall savings of $475 million. Non-participants see slight bill increases (0.5%-1.1%). The analysis emphasizes bill impacts over rate changes for customers.
E-3E1 (NSPI) RIRs to IR-1 to IR-69
77 passages
1. Instant Savings 2. Custom 8 We change the way people use energy™ Date Filed: March 29, 2019 NS Power IR-15 Attachment 1 Page 25 of 206 The purpose of this simulation was to evaluate EfficiencyOne’s current incentive levels. To support t...
AI summary This text discusses a simulation conducted to evaluate EfficiencyOne's current incentive levels, comparing them to three thresholds: cost to customer, program budget, and cost effectiveness.
IR-15 Attachment 1 Page 33 of 206 RETURN ON INVESTMENT For efficiency programs, return on investment is based on two general considerations: cost effectiveness and budget impact.
AI summary The document discusses return on investment for efficiency programs, focusing on cost effectiveness and budget impact as the two main considerations.
Cost Effectiveness Cost effectiveness is usually determined using a benefit-cost analysis which explicitly or implicitly compares the cost of energy efficiency to other electricity or natural gas supply resources and may include other cons...
AI summary The text discusses cost effectiveness in energy efficiency programs, emphasizing the importance of benefit-cost analysis and the role of budget constraints. It highlights that while cost effectiveness is important, program budgets often limit expenditures, and incentives may be cost effective but not feasible within budgetary limits. Return on investment criteria also influence incentive levels.
NS Power IR-15 Attachment 1 Page 43 of 206 Data Analysis Phase General Principle Definition Examples Identified Best Practice Capture incentive rates used in benchmark jurisdictions (for new incentives) Develop target budget and cost e...
AI summary This section outlines best practices for the data analysis phase, including capturing incentive rates from benchmark jurisdictions and developing target budgets and cost-effectiveness thresholds.
The cost effectiveness of measures, The following cost effectiveness programs and portfolios should be PG&E performs streamlined cost effectiveness testing at testing best practices should be tested to determine whether a every stage of th...
AI summary The text discusses the importance of cost effectiveness testing for energy programs and portfolios, emphasizing that jurisdictions like PG&E and the Energy Trust of Oregon perform such testing at multiple levels to ensure proper market transformation and compliance with regulatory standards.
effective measures to be included perform cost effectiveness testing and at both the measure and portfolio level using the TRC and certain jurisdictions will perform it at the in portfolios should the measure the UCT. Yet, the Oregon Publi...
AI summary The text discusses the importance of cost effectiveness testing at both measure and portfolio levels using the TRC and PAC tests. It notes that some jurisdictions include non-cost effective measures if they meet specific criteria, which helps maintain market momentum, especially in markets with falling natural gas prices. The discussion also highlights the exclusion of administration and delivery costs in measure-level testing.
se of appropriate cost costs. program. effectiveness tests for screening For incentives that are increasing, NYSERDA conducts and threshold setting cost effectiveness analysis for the TRC and PAC, and as The use of the average or require...
AI summary The text discusses the use of appropriate cost considerations and effectiveness tests for screening incentives, particularly focusing on the cost effectiveness analysis conducted by NYSERDA for the TRC and PAC, and its presentation to the New York PUC.
background and context in terms of understanding the housing, commercial building and equipment stock in Nova Scotia, and the achievable savings potential through the current programs. COST EFFECTIVENESS AND AVOIDED COSTS At the portfolio...
AI summary The text discusses the cost effectiveness of energy efficiency programs in Nova Scotia, highlighting that the overall portfolio meets cost effectiveness thresholds. However, individual programs must meet a TRC of 1.0. Program administration costs are factored into TRC screening, and non-compliant measures may be included for strategic reasons such as market transformation.
(incentives are not directly included in the TRC). Other jurisdictions have applied different approaches for measure level testing, choosing to exclude administration costs as these can vary greatly depending on the maturity of the measure...
AI summary The document discusses Nova Scotia Power's use of the Energy Efficiency Resource Assessment Model (EERAM) for long-term planning and the methodology for calculating avoided costs, which differ from other jurisdictions. Conservation activities compete with the lowest cost of supply, and avoided capacity costs are set at $0/kW until 2019, impacting how efficiency programs can claim benefits.
nd using it to document the cost effectiveness incentive level threshold, cost effectiveness screening is not being explicitly recommended as a part of the financial impact analysis. JURISDICTIONAL BENCHMARKING Jurisdictional benchmarking...
AI summary The text discusses the approach to cost effectiveness screening for existing and new incentives, stating that it is not essential for existing incentives but recommended for new ones. It also emphasizes the importance of jurisdictional benchmarking for new incentives to understand other jurisdictions' programs and factors affecting incentive levels.
General Principle Current Activities Recommended Activities EfficiencyOne conducts cost effectiveness EfficiencyOne should continue understanding the macro-level budget impacts testing using the TRC test. The TRC is from incentive level...
AI summary EfficiencyOne conducts cost-effectiveness testing using the TRC test at both measure and program levels. The TRC is used to qualify measures and screen programs for implementation, while considering strategic considerations. The document recommends improving the granularity of data tracking to better manage program risks and adjust spending accordingly.
supply chain research? details of the research? 4) Financial Impact Analysis: 1) What is the current participation? 2) What are the incentive screening thresholds in terms of cost to customer, program budget and cost effectiveness? 3) What...
AI summary The document outlines a new incentive development process, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive analysis that includes participation, cost-effectiveness, and financial impact. It highlights the importance of following a structured approach to ensure accurate forecasting and evaluation of incentives.
difficult to achieve for this improvement. program, which prevents instant correction. For Instant Savings, EfficiencyOne gains an understanding of financial impacts through The current activities should be continued. the following activ...
AI summary The document discusses the Instant Savings program and the need for ongoing program evaluation, planning, and financial analysis. It highlights the importance of reviewing energy savings assumptions and net-to-gross ratios to ensure cost-effectiveness, with a regulatory requirement of a TRC of ≥1.0 at the program level.
2. Program Evaluation. introduction of new measures. 64 Date Filed: March 29, 2019 NS Power IR-15 Attachment 1 Page 81 of 206 Ongoing Program Management Due to ongoing program management, the costs of the products are always monitored. Thi...
AI summary The document discusses ongoing program management and evaluation, highlighting the monitoring of product costs and incentives, as well as the review and potential update of energy savings assumptions and net-to-gross ratios during program evaluation.
uired, they are updated. These inputs affect the cost effectiveness impact. Table 18: Business Energy Rebates Program Recommendations Other Considerations for Business Energy Rebates Program From reviewing program operations, the Business...
AI summary The Business Energy Rebates Program is evaluated for cost effectiveness, with a focus on tracking retail pricing and ensuring that incentive levels do not exceed appropriate thresholds. The program is expected to have a high Program Administrator Cost (PAC), but it is anticipated to remain cost-effective if monitoring continues. The Home Energy Assessment program is also discussed, with CLEAResult providing recommendations.
Page 84 of 206 General Principle Current Activities Recommended Activities For the Home Energy Assessment program, EfficiencyOne gains an understanding of financial impacts through the The current activities should be following activitie...
AI summary The Home Energy Assessment program's financial impacts are understood through program evaluation, which involves reviewing and updating energy savings assumptions and net-to-gross ratios to ensure cost-effectiveness. Current activities are recommended to continue, and general principles should be implemented to support the program, including changes to incentive levels and introduction of new measures.
ed: March 29, 2019 NS Power IR-15 Attachment 1 Page 92 of 206 Cost Effectiveness Incentive Level Threshold EfficiencyOne has a PAC target of 1.9 for this program. For the calculation, it is assumed that program administration costs are 30...
AI summary The document discusses the Cost Effectiveness Incentive Level Threshold for EfficiencyOne, highlighting a Program Administrator Cost (PAC) target of 1.9. It outlines two approaches for calculating PAC: one that assumes 30% of total expenditure is program administration costs and another that determines program administration costs per measure. A simplified cost effectiveness calculator is recommended for use in incentive level setting and program design.
Kilowatt Counts”), an appliance retirement program (“The Great Refrigerator Round up”) and a business incentive program delivered through multiple partners (“ERIP”, “BOMA”, “MEER”). Cost Effectiveness Testing In their conservation (CDM) pl...
AI summary The text discusses cost effectiveness testing for conservation programs, including the Total Resource Cost (TRC) and Program Administrator Cost (PAC), with specific exceptions for low-income programs. It also outlines avoided costs for electricity, such as avoided capacity and energy costs, and includes a 15% adder for societal benefits. The IESO is highlighted as responsible for maintaining cost effectiveness across programs.
h must meet all required cost effectiveness requirements, as well as align with their provided budget and target. A summary table of each LDC’s savings targets and budgets is provided below:
AI summary The text emphasizes that the plan must meet cost effectiveness requirements and align with provided budgets and targets, with a summary table of each LDC’s savings targets and budgets provided.
ruction program Participants in the RunSmart and Strategic Energy Management programs Figure 22: Union Gas Targets & Performance Metrics 4 98 We change the way people use energy Date Filed: March 29, 2019 NS Power IR-15 Attachment 1 Page...
AI summary The text includes figures related to Union Gas targets and performance metrics, as well as a section on cost effectiveness testing. It references programs such as RunSmart and Strategic Energy Management, which are part of energy efficiency initiatives.
e energy Date Filed: March 29, 2019 NS Power IR-15 Attachment 1 Page 116 of 206 COST EFFECTIVENESS TESTING
AI summary The document discusses cost effectiveness testing, a process used to evaluate the financial viability and efficiency of energy programs and initiatives.
Technical Reference Manual The EC reviews and proposes updates to the OEB with regards to data within the TRM. This occurs yearly. This review and update includes input assumptions to reflect the findings of the annual DSM evaluation and a...
AI summary The document discusses the Technical Reference Manual (TRM) reviewed annually by the Energy Commission (EC) for updates, including input from annual DSM evaluations. It outlines cost-effectiveness requirements for gas utilities, noting different thresholds for low-income programs versus Resource Acquisition programs. Avoided supply costs and benefits under the TRC-plus test are also detailed, including non-energy benefits.
ost determined to motivate customers to implement. Typically, 50-75 percent of incremental costs have been incented. For “Replace on Burnout” measures, the incremental cost is calculated as the difference between the measure cost and that...
AI summary The text discusses the calculation of incremental costs for energy efficiency measures and the process of setting standard incentives by BC Hydro. It also outlines the use of Total Resource Cost (TRC) as a metric to evaluate program performance, emphasizing that programs must have a TRC of 1.0 or greater.
have a TRC of 1.0 or greater. There is an expectation of low-income programs. Internally, other cost effectiveness tests are used including utility cost and ratepayer impact measure. Calculating Cost effectiveness Cost effectiveness analys...
AI summary The text discusses the calculation of cost effectiveness for DSM investments using four metrics: benefit-cost ratio, net present value, gross levelized cost, and net levelized cost. It notes that cost effectiveness tests include utility cost and ratepayer impact measures, with an expectation of low-income programs.
Cost Effectiveness Testing As detailed in D.14-10-0468, the CPUC has interpreted its mandate to deliver cost-effective energy efficiency and conservation programs as meaning that all energy efficiency portfolios of delivery agents should b...
AI summary The text discusses cost-effectiveness testing in energy efficiency programs, emphasizing the use of the Total Resource Cost (TRC) and Program Administration Cost (PAC) tests. California's Standard Practice Manual and DEER database are referenced as benchmarks for evaluating energy efficiency portfolios.
lifornia uses its DEER database to perform measure level cost effectiveness testing. Additionally, Energy and Environment Economics (E3) has made a portfolio cost effectiveness testing model. Avoided Costs Within California, the avoided co...
AI summary California uses the DEER database and a model by Energy and Environment Economics (E3) for cost-effectiveness testing of demand-side resources. Avoided costs are calculated based on components like generation energy, capacity, and environmental factors over a 20-year period. The model includes both electricity and natural gas avoided costs and was last updated in 2011.
NS Power IR-15 Attachment 1 Page 136 of 206 2013-2015 Total Portfolio $/kWh 2013 2014 2015 Gross Savings (kWh) 828,999,924 845,181,086 769,529,791 Spending $ 317,221,372 $ 365,056,021 $ 385,199,846 $/kWh $ 0.38 $ 0.43 $ 0.50 Excludes C&S,E...
AI summary The text provides data on PG&E's energy efficiency programs from 2013 to 2015, including gross savings, spending, and cost-effectiveness ratios. It outlines the incentive-to-administrative spending ratios and highlights the requirement for California PAs to maintain a TRC and PAC greater than 1.
technologically and economically) while optimizing PG&E’s portfolio of incentivized products based on the technological and market maturity of a measure. It is important to highlight the regulatory approach for communicating incentive leve...
AI summary PG&E outlines its process for evaluating and setting incentive levels for energy efficiency programs, emphasizing the need for regulatory approval and cost-effectiveness analysis. The process involves structured reviews, stakeholder input, and the use of cost-effectiveness models, particularly the E3 model.
hange the way people use energy Date Filed: March 29, 2019 NS Power IR-15 Attachment 1 Page 147 of 206 COST EFFECTIVENESS TESTING & AVOIDED COSTS14 Cost Effectiveness - Electricity When evaluating cost effectiveness, the OPUC defined in Do...
AI summary The document discusses cost effectiveness testing for energy programs, referencing the OPUC's definition in Docket UM-551. It outlines two tests: the Utility System Test and the Societal Cost Test. Programs that pass these tests are eligible for Energy Trust Investment, and portfolio-level testing is conducted ex post to evaluate performance.
avoided costs include the forecast value of reduced carbon dioxide emissions. OPUC guidance provides that other environmental pollutant costs may be considered only when specified by the PUC. Exceptions to Cost Effectiveness for Measure in...
AI summary The text discusses exceptions to cost-effectiveness criteria for including measures in programs, allowing inclusion if they provide non-energy benefits, increase market acceptance, align with regional programs, or are required by law. OPUC guidance also specifies that environmental pollutant costs are considered only when specified by the PUC.
ch project intended to be offered to a limited number of customers 6. The measure is required by law or is consistent with Commission policy and/or direction Portfolio vs. Measure Level Cost Effectiveness As mentioned above, cost effective...
AI summary The text discusses the difference between measure-level and program-level cost-effectiveness calculations, emphasizing that measure-level testing excludes administration and delivery costs, while program-level testing includes them. The Energy Trust is required to achieve a benefit-cost ratio greater than 1 for both UCT and TRC tests.
We change the way people use energy Date Filed: March 29, 2019 NS Power IR-15 Attachment 1 Page 149 of 206 COST EFFECTIVENESS – NATURAL GAS The current market condition for natural gas prices (i.e., low price environment) has caused the En...
AI summary The Energy Trust of Oregon uses a Total Resource Cost (TRC) guideline to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of natural gas efficiency measures. Measures with a TRC of 1.0 or higher are prioritized, while those with lower TRC values may be exceptions or excluded unless justified. This approach helps maintain program infrastructure and momentum until gas prices rise.
Discontinued Residential Electric Program. Targets (85%) 2015 2015 remain the same Up to September Figure 46: Gas Savings Results9 COST EFFECTIVENESS TESTING Estimating Energy Savings The Commission approves a series of technical manuals t...
AI summary The document discusses the Discontinued Residential Electric Program with a target of 85%. It also covers cost effectiveness testing, including the use of TRC to evaluate energy savings and the inclusion of avoided supply costs in TRC calculations.
d stakeholder communication. For incentive changes, cost effectiveness is checked. Typically, incentive changes feature reductions, so cost effectiveness impact is usually positive. During the incentive setting process, a formal document i...
AI summary The text discusses the process of changing incentives in energy efficiency programs, emphasizing cost effectiveness checks, the involvement of the Public Service Commission, and the use of a measures list to document savings and costs. The process does not require formal submissions but follows regular program change procedures.
The Technical Advisory Group (TAG) contains members from Efficiency Vermont, PSB, Burlington Electric Department and other stakeholders to resolve any issues with the annual savings verification process and to track implementation of any r...
AI summary The Technical Advisory Group (TAG) includes stakeholders like Efficiency Vermont and PSB to oversee savings verification and implementation of recommendations. The TRM outlines methods for calculating energy savings, using deemed and calculation-based approaches. An audit from 2015 showed cost-effectiveness metrics, with Efficiency Vermont using the SCT instead of TRC for measure and portfolio-level evaluations.
s must pass the SCT screening, but exceptions do occur for a variety of reasons. For example, low income programs have an additional 15 percent adder for benefits to reflect the societal value of efficiency in the low income market. Avoide...
AI summary The document discusses the Societal Cost Test (SCT) and its application, including exceptions for low-income programs. It also outlines avoided costs for Vermont, including categories such as avoided capacity and energy costs, transmission and distribution costs, and CO2 costs. Efficiency Vermont is described as an energy efficiency program serving most of Vermont.
Spending per kWh Ratios 2013 48% $0.36/kWh 2014 55% $0.46/kWh Cost Effectiveness Efficiency Vermont is not held to a direct cost effectiveness metric, but the plan must meet associated savings, spending and total resource benefit targets....
AI summary The text discusses the cost effectiveness of Efficiency Vermont's energy efficiency programs, highlighting spending per kWh ratios, savings targets, and a new product development process involving nine stages. The 2015-2017 period has a savings target of 321,800 MWh with a budget of $174 million. The cost effectiveness projections are expected to slightly decrease compared to historical performance.
We change the way people use energy Date Filed: March 29, 2019 NS Power IR-15 Attachment 1 Page 179 of 206 Cost effectiveness is performed using the societal test. There are different adders for different factors. Incentives are typically...
AI summary The text discusses cost effectiveness evaluation using the societal test, the influence of customer behavior on incentives, free-ridership assessment, and the regular evaluation of energy savings assumptions by Efficiency Vermont. Measures are reviewed periodically for their energy savings assumptions.
019 NS Power IR-15 Attachment 1 Page 187 of 206 Figure 58: Gross Gas Savings 12 171 We change the way people use energy Date Filed: March 29, 2019 NS Power IR-15 Attachment 1 Page 188 of 206 Figure 59: FY2015 Payments 12 COST EFFECTIVENESS...
AI summary The document discusses the use of TRC and PACT tests in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency programs, specifically referencing Efficiency Maine's annual reports. TRC is used for performance evaluation, requiring a net savings ratio greater than 1.0, while PACT is used for program planning and stakeholder engagement.
ents/suca/ cost effectiveness.pdf TRC is used at the measure level based on net savings for introduction of measures and performance reviews and must be greater than 1.0. Avoided Costs TRC: The benefits included are the avoided costs of en...
AI summary The document discusses the Total Resource Cost (TRC) methodology used in energy efficiency programs, emphasizing avoided costs and program-level costs. It highlights the use of TRC at both the measure and program levels, including benefits such as avoided energy costs and reductions in infrastructure needs, and outlines the components of avoided electricity and gas costs.
5. Energy Efficiency Surcharge (if required and approved by DPU) For electricity efficiency programs, 10 percent of the total budget should be dedicated to the low income sector. 100 http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=MA#tabs-4 101 http://web1....
AI summary The text discusses the allocation of 10% of the total budget for electricity efficiency programs to support the low-income sector and outlines the cost-effectiveness testing requirements for programs, including the use of the TRC test, minimizing administration costs, and using competitive procurement processes.
The requirements for the consolidated calculator/tool are as follows: High Level Specifications 1. Measure Library Section (from TRM process recommendation in report) This section should include the details of each measure in the portfolio...
AI summary The text outlines the requirements for a consolidated calculator/tool, including specifications for a measure library section. It details the need to capture information about efficient and base case technologies, including their descriptions, penetration estimates, prices, and cost effectiveness parameters such as the net-to-gross (NTG) ratio and incentive screening thresholds.
Incentive screening threshold in terms of the program budget and Incentive screening threshold in terms of cost effectiveness (From Cost Effectiveness Calculator) 2. Cost Effectiveness Calculator Section This section will take the inpu...
AI summary This section outlines the inputs and process for calculating the cost effectiveness forecast, which is used to determine the incentive screening threshold in terms of cost effectiveness. Inputs include avoided supply costs, program administration costs, measure energy savings, and other relevant factors.
We change the way people use energy Date Filed: March 29, 2019 NS Power IR-15 Attachment 1 Page 206 of 206 Outputs Total Gross Energy Savings; Total Gross Demand Reduction; Total Net Energy Savings; Total Net Demand Reduction; TR...
AI summary The text outlines key outputs and inputs for reviewing incentive protocols in energy efficiency programs. Outputs include energy savings, demand reduction, TRC and PAC metrics, and cost calculations. Inputs involve cost thresholds, program delivery channels, and financial considerations for setting review guidelines.
key 20 considerations) for the development of the plan and the intention to file one Alternate 21 Scenario. 22 23 e) Please refer to EfficiencyOne’s response to NS Power IR-05. Date Filed: March 29, 2019 E1 (NS Power) IR-16 Page 2 of 2 Eff...
AI summary EfficiencyOne confirms that the UARB uses the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test for cost-effectiveness assessments of the 2020-2022 DSM Plan and that there is no consensus to use the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test or any other methodology.
s the TRC test. If not, 16 is EfficiencyOne proposing to change the cost-effectiveness test from the TRC? 17 18 Response IR-17: 19 20 a) Confirmed. 21 22 b) Confirmed. Date Filed: March 29, 2019 E1 (NS Power) IR-17 Page 1 of 1 EfficiencyOn...
AI summary EfficiencyOne has confirmed that they are proposing to change the cost-effectiveness test from the TRC. They also provided references to corrected units and calculations for CO2 reduction estimates in their response to a request regarding the 2020-2022 DSM Plan.
intentionally left blank) WWW.DUNSKY.CA Date Filed: March 29, 2019 NS Power IR-44 Attachment 1 Page 5 of 46 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Total Resource Cost (TRC) test was first defined, along with a series of other “standard” tests, in 1983, in...
AI summary The Total Resource Cost (TRC) test, introduced in 1983, is widely used to evaluate demand-side management (DSM) programs. However, concerns have emerged regarding its accuracy and bias, as it may use inappropriate inputs and systematically undervalue DSM benefits compared to supply-side options.
1 Date Filed: March 29, 2019 NS Power IR-44 Attachment 1 Page 6 of 46 In the same vein, the National Efficiency Screening Project2 (NESP) recently developed best practice guidelines that similarly call for either wholesale changes to the T...
AI summary The document discusses the need for changes to Nova Scotia's cost-effectiveness framework for demand-side management (DSM), citing best practices from the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP) and the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership (NEEP). It suggests shifting from the Total Resource Cost (TRC) method to the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test due to its simplicity and lower cost.
and far less expensive – exercise than “fixing” the current TRC by, among other things, assessing non-energy benefits. It may also be less contentious (see below). • Accuracy: Even if the TRC were to be corrected, in part by efforts to acc...
AI summary The text discusses the challenges with the Total Resource Cost (TRC) approach, highlighting concerns about accuracy, relevance, and alignment with existing legislation. It suggests that the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test may be a more effective and less contentious alternative for evaluating demand-side management (DSM) programs.
Resource Value Framework and designed to address key test inputs, be developed to facilitate future understanding of critical test choices by all parties involved. WWW.DUNSKY.CA 3 Date Filed: March 29, 2019 NS Power IR-44 Attachment 1 Page...
AI summary The document discusses the history and development of standardized cost-effectiveness tests for Demand-Side Management (DSM), beginning with California's efforts in the 1980s. It highlights the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test and its limitations, as well as the emergence of Modified Total Resource Cost (MTRC) tests to account for non-energy benefits.
it is worth mentioning that in all cases, the tests were initially devised to provide guidance to inform reasonable judgment, rather than to be used individually as a hard “go/no-go”. To wit: “The tests set forth in this manual are not int...
AI summary The text discusses the evolution of cost-effectiveness tests for demand-side management (DSM) programs, noting that while originally designed as guidance, many regions have shifted toward using hard thresholds, particularly the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test, as the primary or sole indicator.
6 Date Filed: March 29, 2019 NS Power IR-44 Attachment 1 Page 11 of 46 Most significantly, many are considering and to varying degrees integrating the value of non-energy benefits (otherwise known as NEBs) that accrue to participants and,...
AI summary The text discusses the integration of non-energy benefits (NEBs) in cost-effectiveness analyses and the shift away from the traditional Total Resource Cost (TRC) test in demand-side management (DSM) programs. It also references regulatory drivers in Nova Scotia.
lsewhere inherent to the TRC itself, while others have more to do with the way in which the TRC is being applied. We examine each of these four questions below. Several jurisdictions have undertaken to review some of these issues, and as a...
AI summary The document discusses the Total Resource Cost (TRC) as a primary cost-effectiveness test, examining its accuracy and application. It highlights that while TRC originated from a Standard Practice Manual, its use is not standardized, and jurisdictions have made changes to its calculation or application. The TRC compares direct benefits to direct costs for demand-side management (DSM) programs.
a: = ! . While the simplified TRC ratio formula is straightforward, it is important to note that the detailed algorithm in the Standard Practice Manual – Figure 3 below – is not entirely clear in prescribing key inputs and assumptions. '(#...
AI summary The text discusses the Total Resource Cost (TRC) ratio formula, noting that while the simplified version is straightforward, the detailed algorithm in the Standard Practice Manual is unclear in defining key inputs and assumptions. It also provides the mathematical equation and variables involved in calculating the TRC.
ted savings from codes and standards). Finally, a related issue concerns the rate at which future savings should be discounted, irrespective of the choice of tests. iv. Life of Savings: The TRC clearly attempts to account for the stream of...
AI summary The text discusses the calculation of energy savings in the context of demand-side management (DSM), focusing on the Total Resource Cost (TRC) approach. It highlights variations in how regions account for the lifespan of energy-saving equipment, such as using a dual baseline approach for discretionary DSM programs. It also addresses the need to adjust for differences in capital and operations and maintenance (O&M) savings across different equipment lifespans.
t 1 Page 16 of 46 leading to potentially significant inaccuracies for certain measures. Similarly, O&M profiles may also involve substantial cost differences.12 vi. Other Fuels: In many cases, DSM initiatives may have either a direct or in...
AI summary The text discusses inconsistencies in how test inputs are applied across different regions, leading to significant variations in results. It highlights how DSM initiatives can impact other resources like natural gas and heating oil, and raises concerns about the appropriateness of methodologies used to calculate TRC and other tests.
nd algorithms used to calculate the TRC, and to the accuracy which one should reasonably expect of any TRC analysis.13 As noted previously, this concern applies equally to other tests. It is worth noting that some regions have deliberately...
AI summary The text discusses the Total Resource Cost (TRC) analysis and its methodology, highlighting concerns about accuracy, deliberate versus accidental methodological choices, and the impact of these choices on results. It also provides an example involving Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs) in a hotel context and notes potential errors in TRC calculations due to limitations in planning models.
benefits. The benefits not commonly accounted for can be broadly defined as “non-energy benefits (NEBs)” that accrue to three groups: participants, the utility, and society at large. There are three common themes to this discussion: first,...
AI summary The text discusses non-energy benefits (NEBs) that accrue to participants, the utility, and society, emphasizing that these benefits are often substantial but difficult to quantify and are frequently overlooked in cost-effectiveness tests.
ideration to power planning risk issues in North America – have chosen to attribute a risk benefit to DSM for purposes of cost-effectiveness analysis.19,20 Societal NEBs While we have discussed participant and utility NEBs, DSM is also kno...
AI summary The text discusses the inclusion of non-energy benefits (NEBs) in cost-effectiveness analysis for demand-side management (DSM), emphasizing societal benefits such as environmental and macroeconomic impacts. It references the conventional Total Resource Cost (TRC) framework and highlights concerns about its bias against energy efficiency resources.
iveness improvements associated with Commercial and Industrial (C&I) sector savings. A recent study (Acadia Center, 2014) found that aggressive energy efficiency efforts in Nova Scotia would 19 In Vermont, the Vermont Public Service Board...
AI summary The text discusses energy efficiency improvements in the Commercial and Industrial (C&I) sector, referencing studies from Vermont and the northwest U.S. that highlight the cost reductions and risk mitigation benefits of demand-side management (DSM). It also mentions Nova Scotia's legislated CO2e cap and its impact on carbon emissions and cost-effectiveness analysis for DSM options.
ociety at large. By failing to account for these benefits, while fully accounting for participant costs, the TRC inadvertently introduces a significant bias against DSM. ISSUE #3: RATEPAYER VALUE: DOES THE TRC BEST REFLECT A RATEPAYER PERS...
AI summary The text discusses how the Total Resource Cost (TRC) method may introduce bias against Demand-Side Management (DSM) by not fully accounting for societal benefits and only considering participant costs. It also raises a question about whether the TRC accurately reflects a ratepayer perspective.
One way to understand this is to imagine how program administrator budgets would be set if the primary concern were indeed “total cost”. In such a case, budgets would be established as the full amount of the “total cost” side of the TRC eq...
AI summary The text discusses the Total Resource Cost (TRC) approach to Demand-Side Management (DSM) programs, suggesting that if program administrator budgets were set based on total costs, it would lead to direct installation of all TRC-positive measures without considering consumer incentives or market transformation.
contributions to the program administrator budget). This approach – direct installation of all TRC-positive measures – could well achieve the most possible savings that are deemed cost effective from the TRC perspective, at the least total...
AI summary The text discusses the Total Resource Cost (TRC) approach in energy efficiency programs, noting that while it aims to minimize total costs, it may not effectively reflect program efficiency or how efficiently program funds are used to achieve energy savings. It also highlights concerns that focusing too much on TRC may lead to suboptimal decisions for ratepayers.
the TRC. contradictory in that all programs were required to pass the original TRC – remained in place for another five years. This framework was finally modified in December 2011. WWW.DUNSKY.CA 23 Date Filed: March 29, 2019 NS Power IR-44...
AI summary The Total Resource Cost (TRC) framework faced criticism for errors, bias, and conflicts with energy policies, leading to modifications in 2011. Many regions, including top DSM leaders, have since moved to adjust or replace the TRC with alternatives like Modified Total Resource Cost (MTRC), Program Administrator Cost (PAC), or Societal Cost Test (SCT).
Portfolio New policy (adopted October 23, 2014). Legend: Significant inclusion Partial inclusion References: BC (Muncaster, 2011); CA (Application of Southern California Edison Company for Approval of its 2009-2011 Energy Efficiency Progra...
AI summary This text discusses the adoption of a new policy in October 2014 and references various energy efficiency programs and frameworks. It mentions the Resource Value Framework (RVF), developed by the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP), which assesses cost-effectiveness screening practices and provides guidance on selecting appropriate approaches.
o assess a state or province’s cost-effectiveness screening against sound principles and best practices, and to provide guidance in the selection of an appropriate cost-effectiveness approach. The RVF shares many of the concerns outlined p...
AI summary This text outlines guiding principles for cost-effectiveness screening in energy efficiency programs, emphasizing the public interest, energy policy goals, symmetry in cost and benefit analysis, inclusion of hard-to-quantify benefits, and transparency in methodology documentation.
to develop cost-effectiveness screening guidelines for the region. These guidelines do not prescribe any one cost-effectiveness test, but focus instead on five key principles: (1) Aligning screening practices with state energy policies (2)...
AI summary The document outlines cost-effectiveness screening guidelines developed by the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP) and adopted by the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP) EM&V Forum. These guidelines focus on five key principles, including aligning with energy policies, accounting for non-energy benefits, and using a standard template for transparency.
28 Date Filed: March 29, 2019 NS Power IR-44 Attachment 1 Page 33 of 46 These implications strongly suggest that, going forward, Nova Scotia should consider two pathways to ensuring its cost-effectiveness framework is internally consistent...
AI summary The text discusses two pathways to improve Nova Scotia's cost-effectiveness framework: fixing the Test Rate Case (TRC) by addressing its shortcomings, including valuing non-energy benefits, or focusing on the narrower ratepayer value perspective through the Program Assessment Criteria (PAC). The exclusion of participant non-energy benefits (NEBs) is highlighted as a major issue in the TRC.
ts can lead to radically different valuations of the same or similar participant NEBs. Because of this, the regions that have begun to account for NEBs have done so in different ways. • Specific NEB valuations: conduct market research to q...
AI summary The text discusses different methods for valuing non-energy benefits (NEBs) in program cost-effectiveness assessments, including specific, inferred, and approximate approaches, highlighting variations in how regions account for these benefits.
e against the inaccuracy of different approach to avoided costs and by seeking to no value. integrate non-energy benefits in the TRC equation. Under the new approach, participant NEBs can now be included in the TRC benefits, through one of...
AI summary The document discusses the integration of non-energy benefits (NEBs) into the Test Rate Case (TRC) equation, proposing three methods: direct quantification, a 15% adder for non-low income programs, and a 30% adder for low-income programs. It also references proxy adjustments used in Vermont and the U.S. northwest for cost-effectiveness calculations.
thms: in the case of Vermont, the cost of DSM measures is reduced by 10%, whereas in the northwest U.S. (e.g. in Oregon), the DSM’s benefits (avoided costs) are subject to a 10% adder. We also note that Nova Scotia Power may benefit from t...
AI summary The text discusses variations in the cost and benefits of DSM measures across different regions, noting a 10% reduction in cost in Vermont and a 10% adder on benefits in Oregon. It also mentions that Nova Scotia Power may benefit from reduced collection costs due to lower consumer bills and highlights the inclusion of environmental externalities in DSM cost-effectiveness screening, particularly greenhouse gas emissions.
31 Date Filed: March 29, 2019 NS Power IR-44 Attachment 1 Page 36 of 46 OPTION B. MOVE FOCUS TO PAC TEST The other primary option for Nova Scotia is to focus instead on the narrower but more straightforward PAC test. Using the PAC test pro...
AI summary This section discusses Option B, which involves shifting focus to the Program Assessment Criteria (PAC) test for evaluating demand-side management (DSM) programs. It argues that the PAC test provides a clear measure of program performance, facilitates comparison with supply-side options, and is more symmetrical in treating benefits and costs. Connecticut is cited as an example of a state that focuses on PAC-level results for determining DSM cost-effectiveness.
32 Date Filed: March 29, 2019 NS Power IR-44 Attachment 1 Page 37 of 46 PRIMARY RECOMMENDATION Our review of the issues and options for Nova Scotia concludes with the need to change the current cost-effectiveness framework, to ensure inter...
AI summary The document recommends changing Nova Scotia's cost-effectiveness framework to ensure consistency and best practices. It argues that the current Test Rate Case (TRC) is too complex and potentially inaccurate, and suggests using the Program Assessment Criteria (PAC) test as a simpler and more effective alternative.
33 Date Filed: March 29, 2019 NS Power IR-44 Attachment 1 Page 38 of 46 NOTES ON APPLICATION Beyond the choice of tests, the way in which they are applied is also important. Indeed, screening tests can be applied in a number of ways: as in...
AI summary The document discusses the application of screening tests for demand-side management (DSM) programs, emphasizing flexibility at the portfolio level rather than the program level. It highlights that applying cost-effectiveness screening at the program level may not be the most effective approach for the Program Administrator, Efficiency Nova Scotia.
trator nor by the market it is attempting to influence – while providing no added value or protection to customers – in order to satisfy a “program”-level cost-effectiveness threshold. On the other hand, applying a cost-effectiveness thres...
AI summary The text discusses the application of cost-effectiveness thresholds at different levels (program vs. portfolio) and highlights equity concerns with portfolio-level thresholds. It argues for sector-level cost-effectiveness tests to ensure fair treatment and recommends a transparent reporting template for critical inputs to the PAC test.
34 Date Filed: March 29, 2019 NS Power IR-44 Attachment 1 Page 39 of 46 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS There are several options available to Nova Scotia to improve the value provided by cost-effectiveness screening of DSM initiatives. Some...
AI summary The document discusses options for improving the cost-effectiveness screening of DSM initiatives in Nova Scotia. It highlights concerns with the current TRC framework and suggests alternatives like the PAC, which is seen as a more balanced and familiar approach for evaluating program efficiency and value to ratepayers.
Efficiency Scorecard for 2006. Washington: ACEEE. Energy Trust of Oregon. (2011). Cost Effectiveness Policy and General Methodology for Energy Trust of Oregon. Evan, M. (2004). The Cost-Effectiveness of Commercial Buildings Commissioning:...
AI summary The text includes references to various energy efficiency studies, policies, and methodologies, including works from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), the Energy Trust of Oregon, and Efficiency Vermont. These documents discuss cost-effectiveness analysis, non-energy benefits, and evaluation methods for energy efficiency programs.
E-9NSPI Evidence
21 passages
1.0 INTRODUCTION Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NS Power, the Company) has a long history of supporting demand side management (DSM), having introduced the first energy efficiency programs in Nova Scotia. NS Power believes that efficiency program...
AI summary NS Power supports demand side management (DSM) programs but opposes a 23% budget increase for E1's 2020-2022 DSM Supply Agreement, citing economic realities and existing non-customer funded initiatives. The company emphasizes the need for cost-effective DSM aligned with Nova Scotia's environmental and energy goals.
4.0 DSM SPENDING LEVELS E1's proposed spending increase, when compared to other jurisdictions in the United States and Canada, is outside industry norms. In fact, many states with mature DSM programming similar to what exists in Nova Scoti...
AI summary E1's proposed increase in Demand Side Management (DSM) spending is criticized as being inconsistent with industry norms, as many jurisdictions are decreasing their DSM spending. E1 justifies the increase by shifting focus to more expensive measures, but NS Power argues for a more conservative approach, citing potential cost savings from future efficiency measure trends.
Q. Have you appeared previously before the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board? A. Yes. I have testified before the Utility and Review Board (Board) on behalf of the Consumer Advocate and Small Business Advocate evaluating non-transmissio...
AI summary The witness previously testified in 2013 before the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board on behalf of the Consumer Advocate and Small Business Advocate, evaluating non-transmission alternatives to the Maritime Link Project, including economic analysis, commercial terms between NS Power and Nalcor, and topics like transmission tariffs and benefit/cost distribution.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 2 Q. Based on your review of the E1 application and the evidence before you, what are 3 your primary findings and observations? 4 A. My primary findings and observations are as follows: 5 First, the history of DSM in No...
AI summary The summary of evidence highlights concerns regarding EfficiencyOne's 2020-2022 DSM Preferred Plan, noting that its targets are overly aggressive and not affordable. The plan's budget increase is inconsistent with other provinces, and the accuracy of peak demand reduction estimates is questionable. A lower-budget DSM scenario is suggested as a more reasonable alternative.
Q. Why is critical consideration of the Mid DSM Case important in the context of these proceedings? A. It is important because EfficiencyOne continues to use the Mid DSM Case as a benchmark for assessing the reasonableness of the targets p...
AI summary EfficiencyOne uses the 2014 IRP Mid DSM Case as a benchmark for 2020-2022 DSM Plan targets, citing it as the best available data. However, the reliance on a 5-year-old study is criticized for not reflecting current energy savings realities in Nova Scotia.
Q. What characteristics make the Preferred and the Alternate Plans different fromeach other? As EfficiencyOne explained, the development of the Alternate Scenario follows the same key considerations used in the Preferred Plan: energy savin...
AI summary The Preferred and Alternate Plans share similar considerations (energy savings, balanced portfolio, investment level) but differ in cost and participation. The Alternate Scenario reduces energy savings and investment levels to offer a lower-cost option, as explained by EfficiencyOne.
6 Q. What conclusions did Mr. Reed reach from his benchmarking analysis? - 7 A. Mr. Reed stated that his "analysis ... supports the contention that EfficiencyOne's - proposed budget in its Preferred 2020-2022 DSM Plan is affordable, will l...
AI summary Mr. Reed concluded that EfficiencyOne's proposed DSM Plan is affordable, reduces long-term power generation costs, provides significant bill savings, and has minimal long-term rate impact.
ferred Plan to the top ten program administrators is more ideological than representative of broad industry patterns of relevance in calibrating how best to gauge the optimum DSM spend in Nova Scotia. Mr. Reed's approach to peer group defi...
AI summary The critique argues that Mr. Reed's selection of leading U.S. program administrators as peers for EfficiencyOne is ideologically biased and not representative of broader industry patterns. It claims that comparing Nova Scotia's DSM performance to states with milder climates (e.g., New England, California) unfairly downplays Nova Scotia's achievements, while states like Minnesota and Oregon would provide more appropriate benchmarks due to similar climatic and socioeconomic factors.
Q. Could Mr. Reed have taken reasonable steps to increase the sample size of DSM plans available to benchmark EfficiencyOne's Preferred Plan against? A. Yes. He could have expanded his benchmarking group to include additional program admin...
AI summary Mr. Reed could have expanded the benchmarking group to include more program administrators and used historical data to assess DSM spending trends. There is no evidence he considered a year-over-year spending metric for benchmarking EfficiencyOne's plan.
Q. Would additional EE measures beyond those in the Approved 2019 DSM Plan be more expensive than existing measures? A. Yes. Since the beginning of its DSM efforts, Nova Scotia has prioritized measures that result in high energy savings an...
AI summary Additional EE measures beyond the 2019 DSM Plan would be more expensive due to prior implementation of low-cost measures. EfficiencyOne's discontinuation of LED incentives in 2019 and the nearing of diminishing returns on energy savings justify higher costs for incremental EE efforts in 2020-2022.
Q. Do you believe higher-priced EE measures beyond those in the 2019 DSM Plan are needed in Nova Scotia? EfficiencyOne's Evidence, page 20 of 62, lines 3-4. A. No. Higher-priced EE measures would likely reduce air emissions, including less...
AI summary EfficiencyOne opposes higher-priced EE measures beyond the 2019 DSM Plan, arguing that while they reduce emissions, the increased electricity rates for customers outweigh environmental benefits. The cost per kWh saved would be significantly higher, with short-term financial burdens on consumers.
5 Q. Should Nova Scotia pursue implementation of high-cost measures to achieve higher 6 levels of energy savings? 2 A. No. Nova Scotia has achieved satisfactory levels of energy savings and should forego implementation of high cost measure...
AI summary Nova Scotia should not implement high-cost energy-saving measures due to affordability concerns, existing satisfactory savings, and NS Power's capacity constraints. The province can use its energy surplus until 2022 to meet demand and delay costly measures until they are more cost-effective, avoiding trade-offs seen in other regions.
Q. Are Nova Scotians well-equipped to tolerate these increased short-term costs? - A. In my opinion, the answer is no. As mentioned previously, the six states in Mr. Reed's benchmarking analysis are among the most prosperous in the U.S. In...
AI summary Nova Scotians may struggle with increased short-term costs due to lower income compared to U.S. states and Canadian provinces. DSM measures targeting peak demand reduction could raise electricity rates but may be justified if benefits are bankable. Rate increases from 2020-2022 are projected across customer segments, with residential rates rising 3.25% and large industrial rates up to 7.78%.
Q. Do you agree with EfficiencyOne's explanation? A. No, I disagree. EfficiencyOne appears to believe that cost-effectiveness and affordability are synonymous. In my view, EfficiencyOne has incorrectly interpreted the high Total Resource C...
AI summary The respondent disagrees with EfficiencyOne's conflation of cost-effectiveness and affordability. The Total Resource Cost (TRC) test measures cost-effectiveness, not affordability, which considers upfront costs relative to income. The Board's definition of affordability balances short-term and long-term factors, and the respondent argues demand reduction measures' high upfront costs fail this standard.
Q. Why do you think the proposed demand reduction measures are not affordable? A. EfficiencyOne proposes to invest $3.3 million per year in the peak demand reduction program and assumes these measures will reduce peak demand by 20.7 MW ove...
AI summary EfficiencyOne's proposed demand reduction measures are questioned for their affordability due to reliance on uncertain 2019 pilot results, simplified projections, and assumptions about participation and TOU tariff adoption. The effectiveness depends heavily on TOU rate parameters, which may not provide sufficient incentive for behavior change.
per watt demand reduction cost is $1.69/W for the Board approved 2019 DSM Plan, $1.07/W for the 2020-2022 Preferred Plan and $1.08/W for the 2020-2022 Alternate scenario. Relative to baseline 2019, EfficiencyOne Evidence, from page 31 of 6...
AI summary EfficiencyOne's proposed peak demand reductions under the 2019 DSM Plan and 2020-2022 scenarios have per watt costs of $1.69/W, $1.07/W, and $1.08/W respectively, as part of Nova Scotia's regulatory proceedings.
Figure 22. Annual Investment and Peak Demand Reduction Differences between the Preferred Plan and the $27 million E1-Navigant A Scenario Figure 23. Annual Investment and Energy Savings Differences between the Preferred Plan and the $34 mil...
AI summary The document compares the Preferred Plan with two E1-Navigant A scenarios ($27 million and $34 million) in terms of annual investment, peak demand reduction, and energy savings. It highlights differences in investment and savings outcomes between the scenarios.
Q. Mr. Levitan, what are your key findings and observations? - A. I have eight key findings and observations. - First, EfficiencyOne's Preferred Plan does not meet the Board's definition of affordability as the certain and significant near...
AI summary Mr. Levitan outlines eight key findings: EfficiencyOne's Preferred Plan lacks affordability, the Alternate scenario is suboptimal, lifetime energy savings are uncertain, less costly DSM plans are feasible, organic efficiency measures exist, jurisdictional analysis is flawed, ProCESS modeling is subjective, and inflated fuel costs skew cost-effectiveness. These critiques focus on DSM plan evaluation, cost-benefit analysis, and modeling methodologies.
Agenda - UARB Directive - Proposed revisions to RBIA methodology - Updated avoided costs - Data Requirements from NS Power - Avoided costs of Fuel, Generation Transmission and Distribution - Energy and demand cost escalation rate - Recomme...
AI summary The agenda outlines key items including the UARB Directive, proposed RBIA methodology revisions, updated avoided costs, and data requirements from NS Power. Topics focus on fuel, generation, transmission, distribution costs, and energy demand escalation rates.
Under NS Power's approach: - 1) Non-participants show slightly more diversified bill effects not visible due to scale of the graph. - 2) Participants show higher bill savings due to reflection of changing number of participating customers...
AI summary NS Power's approach highlights that DSM participants achieve higher bill savings through targeted programs, while non-participants show less visible diversification. Customer classes face initial rate increases despite long-term bill reductions. Graph scale limitations obscure full bill effect visibility.
Approach to Updated Avoided Costs - NS Power proposes to use annual avoided fuel costs rather than levelized avoided fuel costs, using the annual values from the last two IRPs. For avoided capacity, NS Power has proposes to use the 2014 IR...
AI summary NS Power proposes using annual avoided fuel costs from recent IRPs and 2014 avoided capacity costs. A new IRP, directed by UARB, will update long-term planning for DSM (2023-2026). Current system data (lower marginal costs, renewables, self-generation) challenges reliance on 2014 IRP values.
E-17E1 (SBA) RIR-1 to RIR-49
14 passages
NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-04: 2 3 Please provide mathematical formula of total resource cost test used in the cost-effectiveness 4 testing of 2020-2022 DSM Resource Plan. 5 6 Response IR-04: 7 8 The following response has been provided...
AI summary The 2020-2022 DSM Resource Plan uses the 2001 Standard California Cost Test Method for total resource cost calculations. The formula includes avoided costs benefits divided by the sum of customer costs, utility admin costs, and negative avoided costs benefits, with specific considerations for energy and gas consumption changes.
b) Please refer to the table below. Incentive Cost ($M) Total Cost ($M) Incentive as percent of total cost 2020 2021 2022 2020 2021 2022 2020 2021 2022 Efficient Product Rebates 6.1 6.2 6.5 7.3 7.5 7.8 83% 83% 84% Residential Efficient Pro...
AI summary The table compares incentive and total costs for two efficiency programs (Efficient Product Rebates and Residential Efficient Products Rebates) across 2020-2022, showing incentive costs as 83-84% and 62-66% of total costs respectively. Key factors differentiate these programs regarding incentive cost percentages.
Conservative TRC estimates EfficiencyOne's approach to characterizing measures in Instant Savings was conservative for replace-on-burnout measures; EfficiencyOne used total retail cost instead of incremental costs since these were the most...
AI summary EfficiencyOne's method for Instant Savings measures used total retail cost instead of incremental costs, deeming the former more robust. This approach conservatively estimates TRC by not reducing customer costs with baseline technology expenses.
1.1.2 Characterize the Energy Efficiency Measures Navigant developed representative DSM measures to be used as inputs to the ENSC DSM potential analysis. Navigant first reviewed the measure level details used as inputs to the approved 2013...
AI summary Navigant characterized energy efficiency measures for ENSC's DSM potential analysis, revising assumptions and incorporating feedback. They defined parameters like baseline energy consumption, incremental savings, costs, and measure densities, considering building class differences and code changes.
Measure Costs Measure costs were based on the incremental equipment cost between the baseline and technologies for replacement on burnout and new applications. Retrofit measure costs included the full material cost of the energy‐efficient...
AI summary Measure costs for energy-efficient technologies include incremental equipment and retrofit expenses, sourced from ENSC data and market research. EERAM allows technology costs to evolve over time, aligned with US DOE findings on cost reduction rates and learning curves, with technologies mapped to specific maturity stages.
1.1.3 Conduct Benefit‐Cost Analysis of Energy Efficiency Measures The energy efficiency measures were evaluated with respect to each of the four main standard cost tests, with the total resource benefit‐cost tests used to determine cost‐ef...
AI summary Energy efficiency measures are evaluated using four cost tests: participant, program administrator cost (PAC), ratepayer impact measure (RIM), and total resource cost (TRC). Each test assesses cost-effectiveness based on avoided costs, program expenses, and revenue impacts. The analysis references a 2011 U.S. Department of Energy document on appliance price forecasting.
1.1.4 Estimate Energy Efficiency Potentials Navigant developed estimates of energy efficiency measure potentials in terms of Technical, Economic, and "Achievable" Potential. Note that the Energy Efficiency Achievable Potentials presented i...
AI summary Navigant estimated energy efficiency potentials using Technical, Economic, and Achievable categories, with Achievable Potential focusing on Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation's DSM programs. Economic Potential used the TRC test, while the EERAM tool allowed the PAC test. The dual baseline approach calculated savings and costs based on remaining useful life of replaced equipment, distinguishing enhanced and regular savings periods.
1.3 Energy Efficiency Economic Potential Results Appendix B presents the total Economic Potential results of the analysis, 2015 through 2040, across all sectors; Residential, Commercial and Industrial. The total (Gross at Generator) energy...
AI summary The analysis estimates total energy efficiency economic potential savings from 2015 to 2040 at 6,354 GWh (46% of forecast sales) and 1,334 MW (52% of peak winter demand). High economic potential is attributed to including nearly economically feasible measures in DSM portfolios and setting an economic screen of 0.75 to ensure cost-effectiveness.
2.3 Calculating Energy Efficiency Potential The model partitions its evaluation of each measure into technical, economic and achievable potential. Each assessment includes building stock estimates, technology densities, and measure impacts...
AI summary The EERAM model evaluates energy efficiency potential through three metrics: technical, economic, and achievable. Technical potential calculates maximum savings without cost or market considerations, economic potential applies cost-effectiveness via the TRC test, and achievable potential considers program administrator parameters. Replacement-on-burnout measures are limited by measure life, while other measures use full baseline populations.
2.5 Financial Tests Calculated EERAM also calculates several financial tests2, including: - Total Resource Cost (TRC): This test includes all quantifiable costs and benefits of an energy efficiency measure that may accrue to participants o...
AI summary EERAM calculates financial tests (TRC, PAC, RIM, PCT, Simple Customer Payback, Levelized Measure Cost/kWh) to assess energy efficiency measures' cost-effectiveness from various perspectives, including total resource cost, program administrator costs, ratepayer impact, and participant costs. Outputs guide program administrators in setting energy efficiency goals and estimating cost-effective savings.
2.6 Approach to Multi‐Life Benefits The EERAM model is built to recognize that the impacts of most DSM measures extend beyond the initial estimate of measure life. Taking this reality into account can affect benefit/cost ratios, such as th...
AI summary The EERAM model accounts for multi-life benefits of DSM measures by considering long-term impacts on TRC, PCT, PAC, and RIM. It uses two variables: measure re-engagement (continued efficiency benefits) and re-participation (re-engagers rejoining DSM programs). Re-engagement affects baseline population availability for future participation.
2.9 Transitioning to Market Transformation EERAM recognizes that a program administrator‐sponsored DSM program measure reaches a point where it can be considered part of a transformed market. This market transformation point is estimated w...
AI summary EERAM's model identifies a Market Transformation Point (MTP) where DSM programs shift from direct incentives to market-wide impact. Post-MTP, administrative and incentive costs are removed, but avoided costs are still claimed. Market penetration increases, and benefit/cost tests assume no further costs after transformation.
asure costs also are adjusted. Early Replacement : refers to an energy efficiency measure normally regarded as ROB is installed before the effective life of the measure it is replacing is reached. Economic Potential: the subset of the tech...
AI summary The glossary defines key energy efficiency terms, including 'Early Replacement,' 'Economic Potential,' 'Effective Useful Life (EUL),' 'Emerging Technology,' 'End-use,' and 'Energy Efficiency.' It emphasizes distinctions between technical and economic potential, programmatic costs, and the importance of demand response. Terms highlight cost-effectiveness, implementation challenges, and technical metrics for energy efficiency programs.
NON-CONFIDENTIAL the portfolio-level weighted-average measure life (which is 14 years for each year of both the Preferred and Alternate Plans). First-year energy and demand savings resulting from each year of DSM program delivery are assum...
AI summary The document details a DSM program model using a 14-year weighted-average measure life to calculate annual energy and demand savings, multiplied by avoided cost rates. It explains how avoided costs evolve over time, with persistent savings from prior years. The model assumes measure types are irrelevant, focusing only on costs, savings, and participation rates, which influence rate impacts differently.
78612Compliance Filing
27 passages
Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity were provided by NS Power, from the 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2018. Portfolio total cost-effectiveness test...
AI summary The text discusses annual avoided costs of energy and capacity from NS Power, referencing the 2014 IRP and 2018 data. It outlines how cost-effectiveness tests are calculated using present value of benefits and costs, and mentions TRC as a benefit/cost ratio. Tables 3, 4, and 5 provide program investment budgets and targets for 2020, 2021, and 2022.
3. ISSUES
AI summary The document outlines regulatory issues related to Demand Side Management (DSM), Total Resource Cost Test (TRC), Program Administrator Cost Test (PAC), and Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) under the jurisdiction of the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB). Key arguments and entities involved are not detailed in the provided text.
2. DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND DETAILS
AI summary The section outlines the development approach and details, referencing key acronyms and programs related to Nova Scotia's regulatory proceedings, including demand-side management, cost tests, and efficiency initiatives.
Cost-Effectiveness To assess the cost-effectiveness of the 2020-2022 DSM Resource Plan, EfficiencyOne used two industry standard screening tests: the TRC test and the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test. The TRC was used as the primary t...
AI summary EfficiencyOne assessed the 2020-2022 DSM Resource Plan using TRC and PAC tests. TRC was mandated by NSUARB decision [4] requiring a TRC of 1 or greater. PAC test results were shared as informational, excluding voluntary contributions. Results by sector are in Table 1. NSUARB Order M03669 from 2011 is cited regarding DSM Plan approval.
1 Table 1: 2020-2022 DSM Resource Plan Cost Effectiveness Results by Program 2020-2022 Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)a Program Administrator Cost Test (PAC)b Residential DSM Programs Efficient Product Rebates 1.1 2.2 Existing Residential 1...
AI summary Table 1 presents the cost-effectiveness results of various Demand Side Management (DSM) programs from 2020 to 2022, comparing Total Resource Cost (TRC) and Program Administrator Cost (PAC) ratios across residential, business, and enabling strategies programs.
Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity were provided by NS Power, from the 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2018. Portfolio total cost-effectiveness test...
AI summary The text discusses annual avoided costs of energy and capacity from NS Power's 2014 IRP and provides data on CO 2 reductions from the 2020-2022 DSM Resource Plan. It also outlines cost-effectiveness tests and program investment budgets for 2020-2022, referencing TRC and PAC as benefit/cost ratios.
Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity were provided by NS Power, from the 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2018. As with prior DSM Plans, this DSM Resou...
AI summary NS Power provided annual avoided costs from the 2014 IRP and 2018 transmission and distribution costs. The DSM Resource Plan is for planning and testing, not implementation. EfficiencyOne will adapt activities to meet performance targets. Benefits are calculated using net present value and benefit/cost ratios.
Table 13: 2020-2022 BNI Efficient Product Rebates Performance Indicators Year Investment ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) a Program Administra...
AI summary Table 13 presents performance indicators for BNI Efficient Product Rebates from 2020 to 2022, including investment amounts, energy savings, cost-effectiveness ratios, and participation numbers. The data highlights trends in energy savings and cost efficiency over the three-year period.
5.1.8 Low-Income Performance Indicators 26 27 28 Low-income performance indicators for the BNI Efficient Product Rebate program are provided in Table 14 below. & lt;sup>a TRC is a benefit/cost ratio comparing lifetime benefits to the sum o...
AI summary The section outlines low-income performance indicators for the BNI Efficient Product Rebate program, including metrics like TRC, PAC, and levelized cost of saved energy. Table 14 details these indicators, with footnotes explaining calculations involving EfficiencyOne and Nova Scotia Power's WACC.
5.2.2 Enhancements in 2020-2022
AI summary Section 5.2.2 outlines regulatory enhancements in Nova Scotia from 2020-2022, focusing on demand-side management, cost allocation methodologies, and efficiency programs. Key entities include the NSUARB, ENS, and DSMAG, with acronyms related to utility regulation and energy efficiency initiatives.
5.3.6 Implementation Strategy
AI summary The section outlines the implementation strategy for demand-side management and resource cost tests, involving entities such as the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board and Efficiency Nova Scotia. Key topics include strategic energy management and cost allocation methodologies.
2. DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND DETAILS 2 4 5 6 7 1 The Preferred Plan was developed for the purpose of delivering cost effective energy and system peak demand savings to Nova Scotia electricity ratepayers for the three-year plan period. Effic...
AI summary The Preferred Plan, developed by EfficiencyOne, aims to deliver cost-effective energy and peak demand savings for Nova Scotia ratepayers over three years. The plan was created using a multi-stage process to set performance targets, design a cost-effective portfolio, and structure programs to achieve these goals.
Figure 1: Development Process for the 2020-2022 DSM Resource Plan 10 11 The Preferred Plan was developed with an emphasis on producing achievable costeffective results that balance long term requirements for energy and system peak demand s...
AI summary The 2020-2022 DSM Resource Plan emphasizes cost-effective outcomes balancing long-term energy needs and system peak demand savings through a balanced portfolio approach. The Preferred Plan prioritizes achievable results in energy and demand management strategies.
Cost-Effectiveness To assess the cost-effectiveness of the 2020-2022 Preferred PlanDSM Resource Plan, EfficiencyOne used two industry standard screening tests: the TRC test and the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test. The TRC was used as...
AI summary EfficiencyOne assessed the 2020-2022 DSM Resource Plan using TRC and PAC tests. TRC was mandated by NSUARB decision [5] requiring a TRC of 1 or greater. PAC test results, excluding voluntary contributions, were presented as supplementary cost-effectiveness analysis. Table 1 details sector-specific cost outcomes.
1 Table 1: 2020-2022 Preferred DSM Resource Plan Cost Effectiveness Results by 2 Program 2020-2022 Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)a Program Administrator Cost Test (PAC)b Residential DSM Programs Efficient Product Rebates 1.1 2.2 Existing R...
AI summary Table 1 presents the cost-effectiveness results of the 2020-2022 Preferred DSM Resource Plan by program, showing Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) and Program Administrator Cost Test (PAC) values for various residential and business programs. These metrics compare lifetime benefits to costs for EfficiencyOne and participants.
1 Table 1: 2020-2022 DSM Resource Plan Cost Effectiveness Results by Program 2020-2022 Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)a Program Administrator Cost Test (PAC)b Residential DSM Programs Efficient Product Rebates 1.1 2.2 Existing Residential 1...
AI summary Table 1 presents the cost-effectiveness results of the 2020-2022 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan by program, showing the Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) and Program Administrator Cost Test (PAC) for various residential and business programs. The data highlights the benefit-to-cost ratios for each initiative.
8 11 12 13 15 Currency is expressed in nominal dollars. Columns may not add correctly, due to rounding. Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity were provided by NS Power, from the 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of...
AI summary The text discusses annual avoided costs of energy and capacity from the 2014 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and 2018 transmission and distribution costs provided by NS Power. It also outlines how portfolio total cost-effectiveness tests are calculated using present value of benefits and costs.
Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity were provided by NS Power, from the 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2018. Portfolio total cost effectiveness test...
AI summary The document discusses annual avoided costs of energy and capacity from NS Power's 2014 IRP, as well as the calculation of portfolio total cost effectiveness tests using present value of benefits and costs. It also outlines the TRC and PAC metrics, which evaluate the benefit-to-cost ratios of DSM programs and their impact on CO2 reductions.
Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity were provided by NS Power, from the 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2018. a Lifetime benefits are expressed as th...
AI summary The document discusses annual avoided costs of energy and capacity from NS Power's 2014 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and provides details on how lifetime benefits are calculated using net present value and the Total Resource Cost (TRC) and Program Administrator Cost (PAC) ratios. It also references EfficiencyOne's planned participation by low-income customers.
Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity were provided by NS Power, from the 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2018. Total cost-effectiveness tests are calc...
AI summary The text provides details on avoided costs of energy and capacity from 2014 and transmission and distribution costs from 2018. It also explains cost-effectiveness tests, including TRC and PAC, and defines terms like levelized cost of saved energy and nominal cost of saved energy.
4.3.14.2.1 Overview The Existing Residential program provides residential customers with access to technical and financial assistance to identify, assess and implement energy efficiency and system-peak demand reduction upgrades. The Existi...
AI summary The Existing Residential program offers energy efficiency and demand reduction upgrades for residential customers, with components targeting low-income renters and non-profits. Cost-effectiveness tests (TRC and PAC) evaluate program benefits versus costs, with WACC factoring into energy savings calculations.
Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity were provided by NS Power, from the 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2018. Total cost-effectiveness tests are calc...
AI summary The text discusses annual avoided costs of energy and capacity from NS Power's 2014 IRP and 2018 transmission and distribution costs. It also outlines cost-effectiveness tests, including TRC and PAC ratios, and explains metrics like levelized and nominal costs of saved energy.
Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity were provided by NS Power, from the 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2018. Total cost-effectiveness tests are calc...
AI summary The document discusses annual avoided costs of energy and capacity from the 2014 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and the avoided costs of transmission and distribution from 2018. It also explains how total cost-effectiveness tests are calculated using present value of benefits and costs, along with definitions of TRC, PAC, and WACC.
Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity were provided by NS Power, from the 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2018. Total cost-effectiveness tests are calc...
AI summary The text discusses annual avoided costs of energy and capacity from the 2014 IRP, as well as avoided costs of transmission and distribution from 2018. It outlines methods for calculating cost-effectiveness tests and defines key terms like TRC and PAC, which are benefit/cost ratios used in evaluating energy efficiency programs.
5.2.1 Overview The Custom Incentives program provides financial incentives and technical assistance to help non-profit, institutional, commercial and industrial customers reduce their electrical energy consumption and system-peak demand. S...
AI summary The Custom Incentives program offers tailored financial and technical support to non-profit, institutional, commercial, and industrial customers to reduce energy consumption and peak demand. It includes three components: Custom, Energy Management Information Systems (EMIS), and Strategic Energy Management (SEM). Cost-effectiveness is evaluated via Total Resource Cost (TRC) and Program Administrator Cost (PAC) tests, using metrics like weighted average cost of capital (WACC).
Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity were provided by NS Power, from the 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2018. Total cost-effectiveness tests are calc...
AI summary The document provides information on annual avoided costs of energy and capacity from the 2014 IRP, along with details on cost-effectiveness tests and definitions of TRC and PAC. It includes data on the number of projects supported through the Custom program component and participation in EMIS and SEM. The document also contains dates and page numbers.
5.3.1 Overview The Direct Installation program (marketed as Small Business Energy Solutions 'SBES') provides small business customers access to technical assistance and financial incentives for the installation of energy efficient and syst...
AI summary The Direct Installation program (SBES) offers small businesses technical assistance and financial incentives for energy efficiency upgrades via self-directed or facilitated pathways. Self-directed allows customer-chosen contractors, while facilitated includes audits by Small Business Energy Auditors. Financial support covers prescriptive products and customized incentives. Key metrics include PAC (benefit/cost ratio) and WACC (discount rate for energy savings calculations).