E-1Application
49 passages
is Province. The Settlement Plan sets Nova Scotia on a path toward realigning DSM spending at the appropriate level within three years while also considering new climate change goals in Nova Scotia. E1 developed its Settlement Plan over th...
AI summary E1's Settlement Plan aims to realign DSM spending within three years while addressing Nova Scotia's climate goals. Developed through stakeholder engagement, the plan includes diverse programming to reduce electricity bills, targeting low-income households and small businesses. It projects 412.7 GWh energy savings and 96.7 MW demand savings with a $173M investment, offering long-term savings for ratepayers.
Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity and annual avoided $CO_2e$ emissions were provided by NS Power, from the 2020 IRP using the Base level of DSM for Scenario 2.0C. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS...
AI summary The Settlement Plan, based on the 2020 IRP and updated with 2021 data, outlines energy and capacity savings, CO2e reductions, and cost-effectiveness ratios. It includes details on avoided costs, lifetime benefits, and a 10-year program life for Demand Response (DR) and Energy Efficiency (EE) initiatives.
4.2.1 C OST-EFFECTIVENESS TESTING FRAMEWORK In Nova Scotia, the cost-effectiveness screening test for DSM is the Total Resource Cost ("TRC") test at the program level. Cost-effectiveness testing is used to assess the relative value of DSM...
AI summary Nova Scotia uses the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test for Demand Side Management (DSM) programs, requiring a benefit-to-cost ratio of at least 1. The test compares program costs with avoided energy and supply-side costs, including capacity, transmission, and carbon. References include EfficiencyOne studies and an NSUARB order from 2011.
WHICH FACTORS HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE CONSERVATIVE COST- - EFFECTIVENESS TEST RESULTS? - The TRC test results for the Settlement Plan are very conservative and understate the cost-effectiveness - of the Settlement Plan. Factors which have...
AI summary The TRC test results for the Settlement Plan are deemed conservative due to understated avoided costs, lack of low-income program exceptions, and the inclusion of both fixed and variable costs at all levels, leading to an understatement of the plan's cost-effectiveness.
4.2.2 AVOIDED COSTS - E1 includes the avoided costs of energy, capacity, transmission, distribution, and carbon as benefits of - energy efficiency in the TRC test, and capacity, transmission and distribution as benefits of demand - respons...
AI summary E1 and NS Power discuss avoided costs from energy efficiency and demand response, using the 2020 IRP Reference Plan 2.0C. They argue that Scenario 3.1C better reflects legislated goals like retiring coal plants and achieving 80% renewable energy by 2030, as Scenario 2.0C underestimates benefits and negatively impacts cost-effectiveness tests.
4.2.3 LOW-INCOME PROGRAMMING In order to increase equity and accessibility to low-income customers and ensure all Nova Scotians have the opportunity to realize the benefits of energy efficiency, E1 has expanded investment in programs targe...
AI summary E1 has expanded investment in low-income energy efficiency programs to improve equity and accessibility. However, these programs are more costly due to minimal customer contributions. While it is common to exempt low-income programs from the TRC test, this province currently does not do so, and some low-income components fail the TRC test, negatively impacting the Settlement Plan's cost-effectiveness.
4.2.4 APPLICATION OF COSTS A variety of costs are incurred in the acquisition of efficiency resources. It is important that these costs are included at the proper analytical level when analyzing the economics of efficiency resources for sc...
AI summary The document discusses the application of costs in efficiency resource acquisition, emphasizing the importance of proper cost allocation at different analytical levels. E1's methodology includes both fixed and variable costs at the measure level, which may overstate costs and negatively affect cost-effectiveness analysis ratios.
WHY IS THE TRC TEST CONDUCTED AT THE PROGRAM LEVEL? The Board has established that the TRC test be applied at the program level, rather than the measure level, in accordance with industry best practices. Screening at the measure level is t...
AI summary The TRC test is applied at the program level rather than the measure level to allow for a more comprehensive and equitable delivery of demand-side management services. While individual measures may fail the TRC test, combining them into programs can result in overall cost-effectiveness. This approach also allows for consideration of future market developments and benefits for income-eligible customers.
e, entitled the Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act . This Bill set out targets and goals for climate change mitigation and adaptation and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions … [26] Moreover, the Federal Government i...
AI summary The document discusses the Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act, upcoming Clean Fuel Standards, and NS Power's collaboration on the Atlantic Loop. It highlights the importance of updated avoided costs in energy efficiency and demand response planning, citing the impact of outdated Reference Plans on E1's DSM Plan.
10.1 DEMAND RESPONSE IS A KEY UTILITY RESOURCE THAT BUILDS UPON EXISTING COLLABORATION Demand Response serves as a key resource for utilities in that it modifies and reduces system coincident peak demand by shifting the load demand from pe...
AI summary Demand Response (DR) is highlighted as a key utility resource that modifies and reduces peak demand. Collaborative efforts between E1 and NS Power have led to pilot programs, informed by the 2020 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). While DR is seen as critical for reducing winter peak demand and capital expenditures, current assessments suggest that the utility costs for DR programming outweigh the benefits, requiring quantifiable evidence for inclusion in cost-effectiveness testing.
1.2.1 OVERVIEW The Settlement Plan delivers demand side resources to Nova Scotia ratepayers in support of achieving NS Power's long-term electricity strategy as provided in the IRP. The Settlement Plan offers a portfolio of DSM services th...
AI summary The Settlement Plan provides demand side management (DSM) services to Nova Scotia ratepayers as part of NS Power's long-term electricity strategy. It focuses on cost-effectiveness, accessibility, and affordability, with a shift toward peak demand reduction and capacity-focused initiatives like demand response. The plan aims to lower energy costs, support the local economy, and improve grid flexibility.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES Transparency – E1 will provide stakeholders and customers with information and insight into the analyses supporting plan development and results and demonstrate how received comments were considered. Accessibility & Equi...
AI summary The document outlines guiding principles for E1, emphasizing transparency, accessibility, equity, and affordability. These principles are supported by tools such as the Integrated Resource Plan, Rate and Bill Impact Analysis, and cost effectiveness testing. Strategic themes, which inform the portfolio design and initiatives for the next plan cycle, are also highlighted.
ers achieve cost-effective energy solutions; - providing accessibility for a wider variety of market sectors and customer segments; and - increasing the level of system-peak demand reduction benefits. E1 considers affordability in the deve...
AI summary E1's Settlement Plan focuses on cost-effective energy solutions, affordability, and demand reduction. The plan includes EE, DR, and Enabling Strategies, with a payback period under five years. It is expected to offset 4,600 GWh of energy production and reduce peak demand by 97 MW, delivering lifetime benefits of $540 million.
2.4 COST-EFFECTIVENESS - Cost effectiveness testing is used to quantitatively assess and evaluate demand side resources through a - comparison of benefits and costs expressed as both the dollar value of the net benefit (or cost) and as a -...
AI summary The document discusses the use of cost-effectiveness testing to evaluate demand side management (DSM) resources, specifically the Total Resource Cost (TRC) and Program Administrator Cost (PAC) tests. Both tests incorporate avoided costs of carbon as per a 2011 directive, using NS Power's Weighted-Average Cost of Capital (WACC) as the discount rate.
8 2.4.1 TOTAL RESOURCE COST TEST - Best practice[16](#page-130-3) 9 recommends the use of one consistent cost-effectiveness test to screen both EE and DR. - The TRC was used as the primary test of E1's DSM investments, per the NSUARB decis...
AI summary The Total Resource Cost (TRC) test is recommended as a consistent cost-effectiveness screening tool for both Energy Efficiency (EE) and Demand Response (DR) programs. It was adopted by E1 for DSM investments based on a regulatory decision, though some components of the TRC calculation differ between EE and DR programs, as detailed in Table 6.
9 2.4.2 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR COST TEST 7 testing. The PAC test is described in the next section. The PAC test provides an assessment of the cost effectiveness of DSM programs from the perspective of the utility and ratepayer. This is cont...
AI summary This section discusses the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test, which evaluates the cost effectiveness of Demand Side Management (DSM) programs from the utility and ratepayer perspective. It contrasts the PAC test with the TRC test, which also considers the perspective of the program participant.
Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity and annual avoided CO₂e emissions were provided by NS Power, from the 2020 IRP using the Base level of DSM for Scenario 2.0C. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Po...
AI summary The document discusses annual avoided costs and CO₂e emissions from energy and capacity, as well as the cost-effectiveness ratios of demand response (DR) and energy efficiency (EE) programs. It highlights the investment required for DR and the calculation of benefit/cost ratios using net present values and utility WACC.
Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity and annual avoided CO 2 e emissions were provided by NS Power, from the 2020 IRP using the Base level of DSM for Scenario 2.0C. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS...
AI summary The document provides data on annual avoided costs and CO2e emissions from NS Power's 2020 IRP using the Base level of DSM for Scenario 2.0C. It outlines cost-effectiveness ratios and discusses the investment required for demand response (DR) and energy efficiency (EE) programs, including collaboration between NS Power and E1.
Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity and annual avoided CO 2 e emissions were provided by NS Power, from the 2020 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2021. Cos...
AI summary NS Power provided annual avoided costs of energy, capacity, and CO2e emissions from the 2020 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Cost-effectiveness ratios are calculated using 2023 present values. DR investment includes E1's required investment, with collaboration and additional investment from NS Power required for full benefits. TRC and PAC ratios are defined, with exclusions for carbon in some cases.
Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity and annual avoided CO 2 e emissions were provided by NS Power, from the 2020 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2021. Cos...
AI summary The text discusses avoided costs and emissions from energy and capacity measures, citing data from NS Power's 2020 IRP and 2021 transmission and distribution costs. It also addresses cost-effectiveness ratios and the investment required for demand response (DR) and energy efficiency (EE) programs.
capacity, transmission, distribution, and carbon over the life of the program measures, using utility WACC. For DR, lifetime benefits are expressed as the 5 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 - avoided costs, including capacity, transmission,...
AI summary The text discusses the calculation of TRC and PAC for demand response (DR) programs, focusing on the benefit-to-cost ratios over a 10-year period. It includes avoided costs such as capacity, transmission, and distribution, and mentions E1's planned participation by low-income customers within specific rebate programs.
1 3.3 SETTLEMENT PLAN – COST-EFFECTIVENESS - 2 The cost effectiveness results for the Settlement Plan are shown below as part o[f Table 14,](#page-142-1) which provides - 3 cost effectiveness results associated with the Settlement Plan, fo...
AI summary The Settlement Plan's cost-effectiveness is evaluated using the TRC and PAC tests. The TRC test is the primary decision-making screen for cost-effectiveness at the NSUARB program level, requiring each program to pass a screening test at the component level. E1 supports the PAC test as it focuses on utility costs and benefits, with results provided by sector and program in Table 14.
21 Table 14: 2023-2025 Settlement Plan Cost Effectiveness Results by Program 2023-2025 Settlement Plan Total Resource Cost (TRC) Testa Program Administrator Cost (PAC) Testb Residential Energy Efficiency (EE) Programs Efficient Product Reb...
AI summary Table 14 presents the cost-effectiveness results of the 2023-2025 Settlement Plan by program, including residential and business energy efficiency initiatives. Key observations highlight the performance of various programs under the Total Resource Cost (TRC) and Program Administrator Cost (PAC) tests.
10. CONCLUSION - The Settlement Plan is responsive to the climate emergency and helps advance recent environmental goals - preparing for the future. The Settlement Plan positions E1 to achieve levels of DSM in the future and is a - transit...
AI summary The Settlement Plan addresses the climate emergency, increases energy efficiency targets, expands accessibility and equity programs, and is cost-effective with significant lifetime benefits to ratepayers. It reflects stakeholder input and is in the best interest of ratepayers, supporting growth in energy efficiency and demand response.
Cost Effectiveness Screening: - A. For the 2023-2025 DSM Resource Plan, the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test with avoided costs of carbon included will be used for program screening in building the DSM portfolio. TRC results without carbon h...
AI summary The 2023-2025 DSM Resource Plan uses the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test with avoided costs of carbon for program screening. Cost effectiveness testing has been conducted for both energy efficiency and demand response components as part of the plan's development.
this approach for cost effectiveness testing, as identified by stakeholders, is that there is no clear way to estimate what portion of those emissions are incremental to the relevant no-DSM scenario.
AI summary The text discusses challenges in cost-effectiveness testing for demand-side management (DSM), specifically the difficulty in estimating incremental emissions related to the no-DSM scenario as identified by stakeholders.
In addition to these two key inputs for peak load reduction calculations, assumptions are made on itemized program costs necessary for estimating annual program budgets and for undertaking cost-effectiveness assessment of individual DR opt...
AI summary The text discusses assumptions made on itemized program costs for estimating annual program budgets and conducting cost-effectiveness assessments of DR options and the DR portfolio, based on benchmarking with similar programs and program administrators.
Treatment of Non-Energy Benefits and Costs for DR The cost-effectiveness assessment conducted as part of the DR portfolio did not include nonenergy impacts (NEIs) for DR and therefore did not quantify non-energy benefits or costs. The non-...
AI summary The cost-effectiveness assessment for the DR portfolio did not include non-energy impacts, such as environmental benefits, job creation, and health benefits, nor did it quantify non-energy costs like transaction costs and value of service lost from DR program participation.
3.1 DR Portfolio Assessment Results This section presents peak load reduction and cost estimates from the different DR options considered in the assessment and the cost-effectiveness findings for these options. The DR analysis conducted in...
AI summary This section presents peak load reduction and cost estimates from various demand response (DR) options analyzed for the period 2021-2030. It discusses supply curve results, benefit-cost ratios, and annual achievable peak load reduction estimates by customer class, with a one-year time shift to reflect when savings can be claimed.
4.2.1 Modelling Approach to Represent EE-DR Interactions This section discusses aspects of the DR portfolio that are integrated with the inputs and outputs of ProCESSTM modelling activities conducted for energy efficiency implementation pl...
AI summary This section outlines the integration of demand response (DR) and energy efficiency (EE) programs in the ProCESSTM modelling approach. It discusses baseline peak adjustment, eligibility alignment, cost-sharing, and joint cost-effectiveness testing. Guidehouse subtracts projected EE savings from sales forecasts and uses smart thermostat adoption data to determine eligible customers for DR programs. Incremental costs are shared between EE and DR portfolios based on TRC benefits.
4.2.2 Integrated EE-DR Cost-Effectiveness The cost-effectiveness of EE technologies that can provide DR benefits can be assessed from a joint EE-DR perspective under an Integrated Demand Side Management (IDSM) framework. Examples of techno...
AI summary The cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency (EE) technologies that also provide demand response (DR) benefits can be evaluated using an integrated EE-DR approach under an IDSM framework. Technologies like smart thermostats and energy management systems are highlighted as examples. Two options are presented for assessing cost-effectiveness, with the first involving joint consideration of EE and DR costs and benefits in TRC calculations.
Table 24. Single Cost-Effectiveness Framework Used to Assess EE-DR Cost-Effectiveness Benefits Costs 1. Energy efficiency benefits from EE-DR measures 1. Full EE-DR measure costs (e.g., cost of a smart thermostat) plus EE program admin. an...
AI summary Table 24 outlines a single cost-effectiveness framework for assessing energy efficiency and demand response (EE-DR) measures. It includes energy efficiency benefits, full EE-DR measure costs, and administrative and O&M costs. It also considers additional DR benefits and increased program administrative costs for integrated EE-DR programs.
Table 25. Separate Cost-Effectiveness Assessment for EE-DR Measures with Split in Costs Benefits Costs 1. Energy efficiency benefits only from EE-DR measures in the EE potential/scenario cost-effectiveness assessment framework. 1. Develop...
AI summary Table 25 presents a cost-effectiveness assessment framework for EE-DR measures, highlighting two options for splitting costs between energy efficiency (EE) and demand response (DR) benefits. The first option involves discounting costs based on a fraction, while the second uses the ratio of net present value (NPV) of EE and DR benefits. Both approaches aim to ensure symmetry in benefits and costs for cost-effectiveness tests.
Table 26. Pros and Cons of EE-DR Cost-Effectiveness Options Approach for benefits and costs symmetry Pros Cons Option 1 Including both EE and DR benefits ensure alignment with the programmatic/policy goals toward IDSM (integrated EE-DR). I...
AI summary The document presents Table 26, which evaluates two approaches for assessing the cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency and demand response (EE-DR) measures. Option 1 advocates for integrating EE and DR benefits to align with programmatic goals, while Option 2 suggests using cost discounting for easier implementation. Guidehouse opted for Option 2, using a ratio of net present value (NPV) of benefits to split costs between EE and DR.
-and-goals-study](https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electrical-energy/demand-side-management/energy-efficiency/energy-efficiency-potential-and-goals-studies/2021-potential-and-goals-study) estimation techniques used to determin...
AI summary The text discusses differences in estimation techniques for cost and benefit inputs of energy efficiency (EE) and demand response (DR), which hinder an integrated cost-effectiveness approach. It references a California study showing that integrating EE-DR assessments can improve benefit-to-cost ratios and make some measures cost-effective that were not under EE-only analysis.
RBIA to inform their consideration of the proposed DSM Resource Plan investment levels; in particular, it augments cost effectiveness test results by estimating the effects of DSM on non-participants. - The analysis provides the reader wit...
AI summary The RBIA analysis evaluates the impact of DSM investment levels on ratepayers, distinguishing between participants, non-participants, and total customers. It highlights equity concerns as participants see lower bills while non-participants face higher bills. The analysis supports decision-making by providing insights into cost-effectiveness and rate impacts, with regulators ultimately guiding the balance between these factors.
updated avoided costs and incorporation of transfer tables and cost allocation summary tables in the NS Power Rate Model in the 2021 RBIA, and the integration of demand response in the 2023-2025 RBIA. The RBIA for the 2023-2025 DSM Plan es...
AI summary The 2023-2025 RBIA estimates that DSM programs will save customers $0.4 billion on electricity bills over the lifetime of the measures, after accounting for program costs and avoided utility costs. The analysis highlights net benefits of $368.8M and acknowledges that the RBIA does not capture all societal benefits, such as reduced emissions and energy poverty. The RBIA also examines the impact of DSM on different rate classes, including participants and non-participants.
Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity and annual avoided CO 2 e emissions were provided by NS Power, from the 2020 IRP using the Base level of DSM for Scenario 2.0C. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS...
AI summary The text provides annual avoided costs and CO2e emissions from NS Power's 2020 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and discusses cost-effectiveness ratios for demand response (DR) and energy efficiency (EE) programs. It outlines investment requirements for DR and explains how benefits and costs are calculated, including the use of TRC and PAC ratios.
Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity and annual avoided CO 2 e emissions were provided by NS Power, from the 2020 IRP using the Base level of DSM for Scenario 2.0C. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS...
AI summary The text discusses avoided costs and CO2e emissions from energy and capacity programs, including data from NS Power's 2020 Integrated Resource Plan. It outlines cost-effectiveness ratios, investment requirements for Demand Response (DR), and the calculation of Total Resource Cost (TRC) and Program Administrator Cost (PAC). Tables 3 to 5 provide program investment budgets for 2023 to 2025.
7 Q. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY? 8 A. The purpose of this testimony is to discuss standard practices in demand-9 side-management (DSM) cost-effectiveness testing in relation to EfficiencyOne's 10 2023-2025 Demand Side Management...
AI summary The testimony aims to discuss standard practices in demand-side-management (DSM) cost-effectiveness testing in relation to EfficiencyOne's 2023-2025 DSM Resource Plan, covering benefit and cost streams, discount rates, non-energy benefits, and screening granularity.
17 Q. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS SCREENING 18 FOR DEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS? 19 A. Cost-effectiveness testing typically is conducted to compare the lifetime 20 benefits to the lifetime costs of a measure, program, or p...
AI summary Cost-effectiveness screening for demand-side management (DSM) programs evaluates whether the lifetime benefits of a program meet or exceed its lifetime costs, ensuring that investments are economically justified.
EfficiencyOne 2023-2025 DSM Resource Plan Filing Appendix E – Evidence of Scott Robinson 1 discount rate. DSM cost-effectiveness screening has multiple uses throughout 2 DSM plan development and implementation. It is common to screen effic...
AI summary This text discusses the use of cost-effectiveness screening in demand-side management (DSM) plan development and implementation. It highlights the importance of evaluating efficiency measures and the different cost tests used to analyze investments from various stakeholder perspectives, such as the total resource cost (TRC) and program administrator cost (PAC) tests.
15 Q. WHICH COST-EFFECTIVENESS TESTS ARE MOST COMMONLY 16 USED TO ASSESS COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF DEMAND-SIDE 17 MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS? 18 A. The TRC test is the most used primary screening test in North America. 19 Twenty-eight US states use t...
AI summary The TRC test is the most commonly used cost-effectiveness test for demand-side management programs in North America. Other tests include the Societal Cost Test (SCT), the PAC test, and state-specific tests. In Canada, provinces like Ontario and British Columbia use modified versions of the TRC test, while Manitoba and New Brunswick use the PAC test with additional components.
9 Q. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE TOTAL RESOURCE COST TEST? 10 A. The Total Resource Cost (TRC) test measures the net present value benefits 11 and costs of a demand-side management (DSM) measure, program, sector or 12 portfolio from the per...
AI summary The Total Resource Cost (TRC) test evaluates the net present value benefits and costs of demand-side management (DSM) measures from the perspectives of both the program administrator and participants, aiming to balance cash flows and assess cost-effectiveness compared to supply-side alternatives.
19 Q. WHAT WERE THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS TESTING RESULTS FOR 20 EFFICIENCYONE'S 2023-2025 DSM SETTLEMENT PLAN? 21 A. Each program in EfficiencyOne's Settlement Plan achieved a TRC test ratio 22 greater that 1.0 in each of the three years, 20...
AI summary The cost-effectiveness testing for EfficiencyOne's 2023-2025 DSM Settlement Plan showed that all programs achieved a TRC test ratio greater than 1.0, except for the Residential Efficient Products program when excluding the compliance cost of carbon. The New Home Construction component was discontinued after 2023.
7 Table 1. EfficiencyOne Program Benefit Cost Test Results Avoided Cost Program Total Resource Cost Test Benefit-Cost Ratio Treatment 2023 2024 2025 Custom Incentives 1.69 1.71 1.72 Direct Installation 1.48 1.53 1.57 Efficient Product Reba...
AI summary Table 1 presents the benefit-cost test results for the EfficiencyOne Program across various treatments and years, showing benefit-cost ratios for different program types such as Custom Incentives, Direct Installation, and Efficient Product Rebates, both with and without carbon considerations.
HOW DO DISCOUNT RATES IMPACT THE TOTAL RESOURCE COST Q. TEST? & lt;sup>8 Environment and Climate Change Canada. 2020. A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy: Canada's Strengthened Climate Plan to Create Jobs and Support People, Commun...
AI summary Discount rates impact the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test by affecting the present value of future benefits and costs. Higher discount rates reduce the present value of benefits, which are long-term, while costs are typically incurred immediately. The Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) is used as the discount rate in the TRC test to compare demand-side management (DSM) investments with other financial opportunities.
4 Q. HOW IS TRC SCREENING COMMONLY USED FOR DSM PLANNING? - 5 A. Cost-effectiveness metrics using the cost tests described above often are 6 calculated at the measure, program, sector, and portfolio levels during DSM plan 7 design and deve...
AI summary TRC screening is used in DSM planning at the program or portfolio level to ensure cost-effective results, even if individual measures fail the TRC test. This approach allows for aggregation of costs and benefits, providing a more accurate assessment of overall net benefits and program performance.
12 IESO Cost Effectiveness Tests Guide for Energy Efficiency V4, January 2021. EfficiencyOne 2023-2025 DSM Resource Plan Filing Appendix E – Evidence of Scott Robinson 1 costs are allocated to the measures for informational purposes when c...
AI summary The text discusses the allocation of costs in the DSM Resource Plan, referencing best practices and the IESO Cost Effectiveness Tests Guide. It also includes a supply agreement between Nova Scotia Power Incorporated and EfficiencyOne for electricity efficiency and conservation activities, effective from January 1, 2023.
E-12E1(NSUARB) RIR-1 to RIR-41
33 passages
1 Table 1) includes both E1’s costs and an estimate of NS Power’s costs to be as accurate as 2 possible in cost-effectiveness testing. 3 4 (b) Yes, NS Power’s costs related to Demand Response have been estimated by Guidehouse 5 and E1 with...
AI summary E1 and NS Power collaborated on estimating Demand Response costs for cost-effectiveness testing. A 10-year program lifecycle was used to capture long-term impacts, with cumulative capacity metrics emphasized over incremental ones. The Residential Behaviour program's inclusion affected measure life calculations.
between E1 and NS Power (2023-2025 DSM Plan) E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB) Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 efforts. In certain instances, these are more effective drivers of participation than electr...
AI summary E1 explains that non-electric fuel costs and water savings are included in their DSM Plan calculations, but these are considered costs that reduce cost-effectiveness. They argue these factors are not directly used in selecting measures or designing programs.
14 Page 1 of 1 M10473 – EfficiencyOne (E1) Application for Approval of a Supply Agreement for Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Activities between E1 and NS Power (2023-2025 DSM Plan) E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Utility and Review Bo...
AI summary E1 responds to an information request from the NSUARB regarding the inclusion of non-electric fuel costs and water costs in TRC and PAC calculations, referencing their prior response to IR-09 and noting a prior Board decision that non-energy impacts are not considered in cost-effectiveness testing.
D.P.U. 21-120 through D.P.U. 21-129 Page 13 Climate Act requires the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs (“EEA”) to set a goal, every three years, for the necessary contributions of the Statewide Plan to meeting each greenhouse g...
AI summary The Climate Act requires the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs to set GHG emissions reduction goals for the Statewide Plan every three years. The Green Communities Act, as amended, mandates cost-effectiveness reviews at the sector level, with a focus on benefit-cost ratios and the inclusion of the social value of GHG emissions reductions in the evaluation process.
trators must first fund the Three-Year Plans from other revenue sources.18 The Department may also approve funding from gas and electric ratepayers through a fully reconciling funding 17 To assess cost-efficiency and, thereby, the prudence...
AI summary The Department requires Program Administrators to fund Three-Year Plans through various revenue sources, including a system benefits charge, capacity market revenues, and cap-and-trade programs. The Department also mandates cost-effectiveness reporting to assess the prudence of expenditures.
are appropriate to be made so close to the filing of a multi-billion dollar, ratepayer funded Three-Year Plan. Such actions erode the credibility of the foundational elements that these Three-Year Plans have been built on. With regard to t...
AI summary The Department of Energy and Environmental Regulation (DOER) criticizes the timing of actions related to a multi-billion dollar, ratepayer-funded Three-Year Plan, arguing it undermines credibility. The DOER emphasizes the importance of reliable avoided cost studies, referencing the AESC Study and prior orders, and indicates it will not reject filings solely due to procedural deficiencies in energy efficiency plans.
eriod should not be offered as good cause for any future extension requests. Further the Program Administrators shall not participate in any Council meetings from the date the Three-Year Plans are filed with the Department through filing o...
AI summary The text discusses the statutory obligations of Program Administrators under the Green Communities Act, requiring the acquisition of all cost-effective energy efficiency resources in their Three-Year Plans. It also references legal guidelines and the role of the EEA Secretary in setting GHG emissions reduction goals.
adia Brief at 14, citing Exh. DPU-Comm 5-15). Acadia acknowledges that some electrification measures are projected to be non-cost effective (i.e., with BCR under 1.00) but notes that all program offerings are cost-effective at the core ini...
AI summary Acadia acknowledges that some electrification measures may not be cost-effective but argues they are necessary for market development. It disputes MEMA's claims about biofuels and oil-fired heating rebates, stating that biofuels are not energy efficiency measures and that rebates were discontinued due to cost and policy reasons.
heir strategic electrification efforts, the Program Administrators state that they will continue to focus on weatherization as a foundational measure that reduces energy use and prepares residential and commercial buildings for strategic e...
AI summary The Program Administrators emphasize weatherization as a foundational measure for reducing energy use and preparing buildings for strategic electrification, supported by intervenors. The Department supports cost-effective energy and GHG emission reductions while minimizing ratepayer costs. NECEC argues that strategic electrification does not necessarily require individual customer energy use reduction, but the Department aligns with Program Administrators that electrification must reduce energy consumption and peak demand to be included in efficiency investment plans.
ion or peak demand,” while measures that reduce emissions, such as low-carbon fuels or electricity, “except to the extent that they would lead to a reduction in energy consumption and/or demand, would not be a component of [the Program Adm...
AI summary The document discusses the Program Administrators' use of the terms 'electrification' and 'strategic electrification' and highlights that strategic electrification, as defined under the Green Communities Act, must focus on cost-effective energy efficiency that reduces GHG emissions and minimizes ratepayer costs.
2022 NSUARB IR-17, Attachment 3, Page 139 of 343 D.P.U. 21-120 through D.P.U. 21-129 Page 126 are within a renter’s control (CLF Brief at 25, citing Statewide Plan, Exh. 1, at 63-64). The Program Administrators are obligated to serve rente...
AI summary The document discusses the need to evaluate the impact of eliminating a lighting measure on renters and hard-to-reach customers, emphasizing the potential for inequitable outcomes. Program Administrators propose a study to assess remaining lighting savings opportunities and understand renter purchasing habits.
form a program design that will capture remaining lighting savings and, therefore, the Program Administrators shall conduct a study that assesses remaining lighting savings opportunities and strategies for renters, as well as moderate inco...
AI summary The text outlines a requirement for Program Administrators to conduct a study on remaining lighting savings opportunities and strategies for reaching specific customer groups, such as renters and low-income individuals. It also mentions the continuation of direct install lighting measures within the Existing Buildings program. Additionally, it discusses the exclusion of certain cost-effective heating equipment from the Statewide Plan.
Excluded from Statewide Plan i. Cost-Effective Heating Equipment The Program Administrators propose to eliminate certain cost-effective heating equipment, arguing that these measures no longer provide significant savings opportunities (Pro...
AI summary The Program Administrators propose eliminating certain cost-effective heating equipment, such as propane and gas-fired heating measures and oil furnaces, arguing that they no longer provide significant savings. However, this exclusion raises concerns about whether they are fulfilling their statutory obligation to pursue all cost-effective energy efficiency resources.
a); Tr. 1, at 89). Conversely, MEMA argues that heat pumps will not fully replace fossil-fueled heating systems in the next three years and, therefore, preserving existing rebates for 91 The Department notes that incentive levels do not ha...
AI summary The Department and MEMA discuss the effectiveness of energy efficiency programs, particularly regarding the use of heat pumps and high-efficiency oil boilers. MEMA argues that heat pumps may not fully replace fossil-fueled heating systems in the near future, while the Department emphasizes cost-effectiveness and the need to justify ratepayer funding based on achieved benefits.
artment concludes that each Program Administrator’s 2022-2024 Three-Year Plan is designed to minimize administrative costs and use competitive procurement processes to the fullest extent practicable, in compliance with G.L. c. 25, §§ 19(a)...
AI summary The Department concludes that each Program Administrator's 2022-2024 Three-Year Plan minimizes administrative costs and uses competitive procurement processes in compliance with General Laws. Program Administrators must provide evidence of cost containment and reasonable service costs if non-competitive procurement is used. The Department also finds that low-income demand-side management and education programs will account for at least 10% and 20% of energy efficiency program budgets, respectively, in compliance with General Laws.
nistrators to report cost effectiveness at the program and core initiative level. D.P.U. 20-150-A at 6; 2019-2021 Three-Year Plans Order, at 74; 2013-2015 Three-Year Plans Order, at 105. The Climate Act amended G.L. c. 25 to include a requ...
AI summary The Program Administrators propose a social value of GHG emissions reductions of $393 per short ton, based on a supplemental study, following the passage of the Climate Act, which requires including the social value of GHG emissions reductions in cost-effectiveness calculations.
t to reducing GHG emissions and signals the importance of emissions reduction efforts to future generations (Program Administrators Brief at 45-46, citing Statewide Plan, Exh. 1, App. Q, Study 3, at 8-20; Exhs. DPU-Comm 1-1(c), (d); DPU-Co...
AI summary The Program Administrators argue that updating the social value of GHG emissions reductions from $128 to $393 per short ton is necessary for accurate cost-effectiveness analyses and to meet GHG reduction targets. They claim using the outdated value could hinder cost-effective projects and require revisions to the Three-Year Plans.
ties for cost-effective projects (including custom projects) (Program Administrators Brief at 46-47, citing Exh. DPU-Comm 8-1; RR-DPU-3). The Program Administrators assert these types of projects are critical to achievement of overarching...
AI summary The Program Administrators argue that cost-effective projects, including custom ones, are essential to achieving the Three-Year Plan goals and equity commitments, particularly for small businesses. They claim compliance with cost-effectiveness screening requirements using the TRC test. The Attorney General supports the proposal, citing the Supplemental Study and the AESC Study's initial $128 per short ton value.
l $128 per short ton value, recognizing that this figure could be updated as more research was available and as study users monitored developments in this rapidly changing area (Attorney General Brief at 15-16). The Attorney General assert...
AI summary The Attorney General argues that using a $128 per short ton value for GHG emissions reductions is critical to maintaining the cost-effectiveness of the Three-Year Plans, and that disallowing it would reduce benefits by 29% and potentially lead to the loss of certain measures. DOER asserts that the Program Administrators properly incorporated updated avoided costs into their BCR models.
o stay up-to-date on the most recent scientific reports on climate change in order to determine whether midterm increases in the scope of their electrification efforts may be appropriate based on changing conditions (CLF Brief at 49). Date...
AI summary The document discusses the Northeast Clean Energy Council's (NECEC) support for the Program Administrators' use of a one percent discount rate and a $393 per short ton social value of GHG emissions reductions, arguing that these are critical for achieving cost-effective energy efficiency and GHG emissions reduction mandates.
benefits are greater than costs) is considered cost effective. G.L. c. 25, § 21(b)(3). If a sector fails the cost-effectiveness screening, its component programs shall either be modified so that the sector meets the test or is terminated....
AI summary The text discusses the cost-effectiveness screening process for energy programs, referencing statutory provisions and guidelines. It outlines how the Department evaluates programs using the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test, which includes both benefits and costs. The Climate Act has expanded the benefits considered in this screening to include the social value of GHG emission reductions.
ow. The Department also will consider whether adopting a different social value of GHG emissions reductions and discount rate would materially impact what measures, core initiatives, and programs would potentially be included or excluded f...
AI summary The Department is evaluating the impact of changes to the social value of GHG emissions reductions and discount rates on the Three-Year Plans. Program Administrators argue that updated information from the Supplemental Study was necessary, though the basis for the change is based on a literature review of non-peer-reviewed materials.
te would be closer to two percent (Exh. DPU-Comm 1-5(c), Att. B at 22). Date Filed: April 29, 2022 NSUARB IR-17, Attachment 3, Page 184 of 343 D.P.U. 21-120 through D.P.U. 21-129 Page 171 Next, the Department takes issue with the Program A...
AI summary The Department challenges the Program Administrators' proposed increase in the social value of GHG emissions reductions, arguing that the change would not affect program design or implementation, as the programs remain cost-effective regardless of the value used.
of any quantitative analysis, will not address climate change any more urgently than the original social value of GHG emissions reductions, and was not developed through the formal AESC Study group process. For these reasons, the Departmen...
AI summary The Department denies the Program Administrators' proposal to change the social value of GHG emissions reductions from $128 to $393 per short ton. It emphasizes that the $128 value, derived from the AESC Study, should be used in future three-year plan filings, and does not include updates to the BCR screening model after a specific deadline.
erefore, the Program Administrators contend that a value component may either reward the Program Administrators for initially over-estimating planned costs or unduly penalize them should initial cost estimates for large C&I electrification...
AI summary The Program Administrators argue that removing a value component would prevent over-estimation of costs and avoid penalties for insufficient initial cost estimates. They also support a total portfolio-level cap over individual caps to allow flexibility and avoid split incentives. They claim their models ensure proper monitoring and verification of cost-effectiveness without double counting.
ram Administrator must demonstrate that an increase in budget results in an increase in kWh or therm savings.139 Together, the Department finds that these steps are an important means to ensure that the Program Administrators deliver the f...
AI summary The text discusses the need for Program Administrators to demonstrate that increased budgets lead to increased energy savings, ensuring cost-efficiency and delivering benefits of the Three-Year Plans to ratepayers at the lowest possible cost. It also highlights the significance and materiality of the bill impacts associated with these plans.
AR Gas-2, at 137-145; EGMA-2, at 137-145; DPU-EGMA 1-1; DPU-NSTAR Gas 1-1). NSTAR Gas and EGMA propose to continue to perform cost-effectiveness screenings on an individual-company basis (Exhs. DPU-NSTAR Gas 1-1; DPU-EGMA 1-1). Finally, NS...
AI summary NSTAR Gas and EGMA propose to jointly implement energy efficiency programs with a common design, while applying company-specific cost-effectiveness screenings. They also plan to track spending on an individual-company basis to ensure compliance with statutory requirements for low-income programs.
Savings Goals Although NSTAR Gas and EGMA propose to adopt an aggregated savings goal, the companies plan to maintain separate total savings goals (Exhs. NSTAR Gas-2, at 139; EGMA-2, at 139).196 In order to monitor individual performance,...
AI summary NSTAR Gas and EGMA propose maintaining separate savings goals despite adopting an aggregated approach. They will submit individual and combined reports for monitoring performance. Both companies have demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of their energy efficiency programs, and will submit separate BCR models for their 2022-2024 Three-Year Plans.
022-2024 Three-Year Plans (Statewide Plan, Exh. 1, App. Q). The Department finds that Date Filed: April 29, 2022 NSUARB IR-17, Attachment 3, Page 339 of 343 D.P.U. 21-120 through D.P.U. 21-129 Page 326 each Program Administrator: (1) has a...
AI summary The Department of Energy and Resource Development approves the Three-Year Plans for energy efficiency programs, finding them cost-effective and aligned with the Green Communities Act. Program Administrators are approved to recover implementation costs through the Energy Efficiency Service (EES), with performance incentives tied to meeting specific goals.
ities between E1 and NS Power (2023-2025 DSM Plan) E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB) Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 [Evidence] 2 Request IR-23: 3 4 Page 43 of 65 of the Application: please explain how t...
AI summary E1 explains that the 2023-2025 DSM Plan includes avoided carbon costs, aligned with provincial and federal legislative initiatives. These costs are based on the Nova Scotia Cap and Trade market value, and are considered benefits to ratepayers in the benefit-cost analysis.
between E1 and NS Power (2023-2025 DSM Plan) E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB) Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 [Evidence] 2 Request IR-29: 3 4 On p. 59 of 65, E1 stated that “the current benefits as exam...
AI summary E1 explains that while DR programming in the 2023-2025 DSM Plan has higher utility costs than benefits, it provides overall value when considering customer costs, aligning with Nova Scotia’s Total Resource Cost (TRC) test as the primary evaluation method.
resource cost perspective (utility + customers), the total benefits do exceed the total costs, 27 which is more relevant given the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test is Nova Scotia’s primary Date Filed: April 29, 2022 E1 (NSUARB) IR-29 Page 1...
AI summary The document discusses the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test as a key metric in evaluating the benefits and costs of energy efficiency initiatives. It references a supply agreement between E1 and NS Power for a 2023-2025 Demand Side Management (DSM) Plan, and includes E1's responses to information requests from the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB).
1 Request IR-32: 2 3 Appendix A, page 34 of 149: please explain why the TRC calculation for Energy Efficiency 4 considers only the cost and benefits impact over the three-year DSM plan period, while for 5 Demand Reduction the cost and bene...
AI summary The TRC calculation for energy efficiency considers the net present value of benefits over the lifetime of measures, which range from 1 to 36 years. In contrast, Demand Response (DR) program benefits are levelized over a 10-year timeframe due to the shorter technical life of equipment and the need for periodic program redevelopment.
E-12-(i)NSUARB IR-17 Attachment 2_ACEEE’s Entire State Database - Excel
103 passages
is an eligible technology and loans range from $50,000 to $4 million and offer a 1% interest rate. Last Reviewed: July 2019 ","There are currently no additional supportive policies to encourage CHP. Last Reviewed: July 2019 ",0 out of 20,"...
AI summary Alabama has limited energy efficiency programs due to regulatory constraints and utility skepticism. The Alabama Public Service Commission (APSC) encourages Alabama Power but enforces a cost-effectiveness requirement that limits program offerings. Utilities like Alabama Power and TVA prioritize load management over energy efficiency, resulting in minimal investments in efficiency initiatives.
wer offerings than are seen in many other states. The most recent budgets for energy efficiency programs and electricity and natural gas savings can be found in the State Spending and Savings Tables. Last reviewed: April 2022 ","A handful...
AI summary Alabama's energy efficiency programs are limited, with TVA offering the largest through partner utilities. Alabama Power and cooperatives focus on load management rather than efficiency. APSC encourages energy efficiency but cost-effectiveness rules restrict offerings. No natural gas efficiency programs exist. Budgets and savings data are available in State Spending and Savings Tables.
ly no natural gas efficiency programs in Alabama. The most recent budgets for energy efficiency programs and electricity and natural gas savings can be found in the State Spending and Savings Tables. Last Updated: June 2017 ","In Docket 31...
AI summary Alabama lacks natural gas efficiency programs and has no Energy Efficiency Resource Standards (EERS). The APSC mandates integrated resource plans (IRP) every three years, with the last submission in 2013. Alabama Power's low-income pilot is not sustained, and no cost-effectiveness exceptions exist for low-income programs. Rate recovery is permitted for cost-effective energy efficiency initiatives.
rgy efficiency programs in Alaska. There is no required reporting to any central entity. Last Updated: July 2017 ","Requirements for State and Utility Support of Low-Income Energy Efficiency Programs Federal funding for weatherization effo...
AI summary Alaska's low-income energy efficiency programs are funded through federal, state, and utility investments, administered by the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. No specific cost-effectiveness rules, decoupling policies, or data release requirements exist for utilities. Coordination with WAP services is unclear, and no policies reward energy efficiency success.
s 2020 fiscal year and ramp up to 2% beginning in FY 2018. Last reviewed: April 2022 "," Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: societal cost test Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: none The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy...
AI summary Arizona's energy efficiency programs use the Societal Cost Test (SCT) as the primary cost-effectiveness metric, evaluating non-energy benefits like health, safety, and environmental impacts. Regulatory orders (A.A.C. R14-2-2409 and R14-2-2415) mandate third-party evaluations, with procedures documented in state rules. The Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP) and National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP) provide additional context on Arizona's screening practices.
ng Practices (DSESP), a resource of the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP). Last updated: January 2019 ","Requirements for State and Utility Support of Low-Income Energy Efficiency Programs No specific required spending or saving...
AI summary Arizona's 2010 ACC Decision 71819 mandates investor-owned utilities achieve 22% annual electricity savings through cost-effective programs, with DSM resources allocated to low-income customers. The Arizona Department of Housing manages weatherization funds, while cost-effectiveness rules exclude health/safety measures from calculations. Coordination with WAP services remains unclear.
: April 2022 "," Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test, participant cost test, ratepayer impact measure test The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy...
AI summary Arkansas evaluates energy efficiency programs using the Total Resource Cost (TRC) as the primary cost-effectiveness test, alongside the Utility Cost Test (UCT), Participant Cost Test (PCT), and Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM). The Arkansas Public Service Commission (APSC) mandates independent evaluations and compliance with the Arkansas Technical Reference Manual (TRM). The state also aligns its practices with the National Standard Practice Manual (NSPM).
(REN), and?Community Choice Aggregator (CCA)?programs. Evaluation information is available on the?CPUC web site here, and historical evaluation reports dating to the 1990s are available on?CalMAC.? California has established formal rules a...
AI summary The text discusses California's energy efficiency evaluation processes, including formal rules from CPUC decisions, cost-effectiveness tests like TRC and UCT, and the inclusion of non-energy benefits such as avoided emissions compliance costs. It also outlines requirements for low-income energy efficiency programs under the Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan.
blishes a goal for the Commission's Energy Savings Assistance Program that, by 2020, 100% of eligible and willing customers will have received all cost-effective low-income energy efficiency measures. The Commission’s Energy Savings Assist...
AI summary The Commission's Energy Savings Assistance Program aims to provide cost-effective low-income energy efficiency measures to 100% of eligible and willing customers by 2020. It is funded by ratepayers and governed by Public Utility Code Section 2790, which requires utilities to balance cost-effectiveness with reducing hardships for low-income households.
stablishes program funding, energy savings targets, and household treatment/participation goals for each utility through a Decision. Cost-Effectiveness Rules for Low-Income Energy Efficiency Programs Currently California applies the Energy...
AI summary The text discusses the coordination of low-income energy efficiency programs in California, including the use of cost-effectiveness tests, funding from AB 32 cap-and-trade revenues, and collaboration between utilities and the California Department of Community Services & Development. It highlights the integration of programs and cost-sharing mechanisms to improve energy savings and reduce GHG emissions.
Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test Secondary tests used: participant cost test, ratepayer impact measure test, utility cost test, societal cost test The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency progra...
AI summary Colorado uses the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test as the primary cost-effectiveness test for ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs. Additional tests include participant cost, ratepayer impact measure, utility cost, and societal cost tests. Evaluations are conducted by utilities and administered under formal rules, with non-energy benefits considered in a 10% adder.
Requirements for State and Utility Support of Low-Income Energy Efficiency Programs No specific level of spending is required, although utilities and the state offer a variety of low-income programs. In 2007, the Colorado General Assembly...
AI summary The text outlines requirements for state and utility support of low-income energy efficiency programs in Colorado, referencing HB 1037 and the establishment of Energy Outreach Colorado. It also discusses cost-effectiveness rules for these programs, including adjustments to the TRC test to account for non-energy benefits.
P meet two strategies focused on energy efficiency in buildings: (1) ensure sustainable and equitable funding for efficiency, and (2) advance market transformation of the energy efficiency industry. For the 2019-2021 Plan, Connecticut’s ut...
AI summary The text discusses Connecticut's energy efficiency strategies, including projected savings from the 2019-2021 Plan and the cost-effectiveness tests used to evaluate programs. The primary test is the Utility Cost Test, with the Total Resource Cost Test used as a secondary measure. These methods help assess the value of energy efficiency programs in flattening electricity consumption.
2030. This goal was established by Public Act 11-80, Section 33, An Act Concerning the Establishment of the Department of Energy Environmental Protection and Planning for Connecticut’s Energy Future. Connecticut’s utilities are required to...
AI summary Connecticut's HES-Income Eligible program requires utilities to meet specific savings metrics and allocate budgets based on revenue from low-income customers. The program also provides financing for energy efficiency improvements and health/safety remediation. Cost-effectiveness rules for the program are based on the Total Resource Cost test, though exceptions are not explicitly outlined.
cost-effectiveness rules are in place for the HES-Income Eligible program. More information regarding B/C testing of efficiency programs in Connecticut can be found in Chapter 5 of the 2019-2021 Plan. Conn. Gen. Stat. §16-24a required DEEP...
AI summary The text discusses cost-effectiveness rules for the HES-Income Eligible program and references a 2013 review by the Bureau of Energy and Technology Policy (BETP) recommending against implementing a Low Income Discount Rate (LIDR) due to existing programs providing greater benefits. It also outlines the coordination between utilities and Community Action Agencies (CAAs) for the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) in Connecticut.
itching programs). For more information on Energy Efficiency Resource Standards, click here. Last reviewed: April 2022 "," Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: SCT Uses a deemed savings database: yes Evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy effic...
AI summary The Clean and Affordable Energy Act of 2008 mandates the evaluation of energy efficiency programs in the District of Columbia, using the Social Cost Test (SCT) as the primary cost-effectiveness test. The legislation also established the Energy Assistance Trust Fund (EATF) to support low-income energy efficiency programs, with a requirement that 20% of expenditures be directed to these programs.
SEU shall “improve the energy efficiency of low-income housing in the District of Columbia.” For the 2017-2021 program cycle the low-income spending requirement was adjusted to 20% of expenditures. Cost-Effectiveness Rules for Low-Income E...
AI summary The DCSEU is required to improve energy efficiency in low-income housing in the District of Columbia. For the 2017-2021 cycle, 20% of expenditures must be directed to low-income programs. While no specific cost-effectiveness rules apply, a 5% adder is used for non-energy benefits. The WAP is coordinated with DCSEU to increase weatherization efforts using additional funds from the IQEF.
mation within its annual FEECA report to the governor and legislature. For more information on energy efficiency as a resource, click here. Last reviewed: June 2020 ","Florida does not have an EERS. The Florida Energy Efficiency and Conser...
AI summary Florida's Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act (FEECA) sets energy and peak demand savings goals for utilities, which are reviewed every five years. The Public Service Commission adopted goals in 2014 and 2019, which are lower than those set in 2009 due to factors like more stringent building codes and lower natural gas prices. The evaluation of energy efficiency programs uses the ratepayer impact measure test and total resource cost test.
03(2)(f) and regulatory orders (Rule 25-17.0021). Evaluations are administered by each utility. Florida has established formal rules and procedures for evaluation, which are stated in Rule 25-17.0021. According to the Database of State Eff...
AI summary Florida has established formal rules and procedures for evaluating energy efficiency programs, including the use of the Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM), Total Resource Cost (TRC), and Participant Cost Test (PCT) for cost-effectiveness testing. Measures with a payback less than 2 years are excluded. This information is documented in the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP) and Rule 25-17.008.
s – seven residential, four commercial, and one low-income. Each customer class (other than for the low-income program) is responsible for the program and incentive costs of their respective program. Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) also w...
AI summary The text discusses energy efficiency programs in Georgia, including residential and commercial initiatives, budget allocations, and integrated resource plans (IRPs) filed by regulated utilities. It also notes the absence of an Energy Efficiency Resource Standard (EERS) and outlines cost-effectiveness tests used in the evaluation of these programs.
y cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test, participant cost test, societal cost test, ratepayer impact measure test Program evaluations are required. EM&V repor...
AI summary Georgia uses the Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) as its primary cost-effectiveness test for energy efficiency programs, with secondary tests including utility cost, participant cost, societal cost, and ratepayer impact measure tests. Program evaluations and EM&V reports are required periodically, and environmental externalities are factored into the TRC. Information is available in the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP).
ility for doing so falls on the EEPS Technical Working Group established in 2012. Current energy efficiency targets in Hawaii are set in HI PUC Order, Docket No. 2010-0037 and are subject to revision. Hawaii has no energy efficiency resour...
AI summary Hawaii uses the Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) as its primary cost-effectiveness test for energy efficiency programs, with evaluations administered by the Hawaii Public Utilities Commission. The state has no energy efficiency resource standard for natural gas due to its minimal role in the energy portfolio. Low-income energy efficiency programs receive guidance from the PUC, with a focus on affordability and accessibility.
ency Alliance, and the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. Idaho has not restructured its electric utility industry, and there is no legislation requiring funding for energy efficiency programs. In 2001, the PUC ordered Idaho Power t...
AI summary Idaho's investor-owned utilities administer energy efficiency programs regulated by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (PUC). Costs are recovered via tariff rider surcharges. Energy efficiency is included in Integrated Resource Plans, but there is no legislation mandating funding for these programs. The state uses the utility cost test, total resource cost test, and participant cost test for cost-effectiveness evaluations.
2019 "," Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test (Avista, PacifiCorp) Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test and participant cost test Each utility is required to conduct an impact and proces...
AI summary The document outlines the cost-effectiveness tests used by utilities, including the utility cost test (UCT) and total resource cost test (TRC), and mentions Order No. 33365, which directed Idaho Power Company to use these tests for program evaluation. It also references the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP) and recommendations from PUC staff regarding low-income energy efficiency programs.
he staff also provided recommendations and comments on changes utilities could make regarding cost-effective calculations and procedures, some of which included the calculation of non-energy benefits. In April 2013, the PUC largely adopted...
AI summary The PUC adopted recommendations on cost-effective calculations for low-income weatherization programs in 2013, encouraging the inclusion of non-energy benefits but not creating a specific cost-effectiveness test. Idaho Power offers self-directed energy efficiency funding for large customers, while other utilities like Avista and PacifiCorp do not.
measured as the change in cumulative savings that consider both newly acquired savings as well as lost savings due to previously administered measures reaching the end of their Expected Measure Life. Some of the provisions of the Act inclu...
AI summary This text discusses the evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in Illinois, including legislative mandates and regulatory orders. It outlines the shift of responsibilities from DCEO to utilities and changes to cost caps over time, as well as the cost-effectiveness tests used for evaluation.
ross (NTG) framework. See also 220 ILCS 5/8-103B for electric, effective June 1, 2017, and 220 ILCS 5/8-104 for natural gas utility evaluation. Evaluations are conducted for each of the utilities. According to the Database of State Efficie...
AI summary Illinois uses the Total Resource Cost (TRC) benefit-cost test as its primary cost-effectiveness screening method for energy efficiency programs, with the utility cost test (UCT) as a secondary test. The state's framework accounts for avoided costs of greenhouse gas emissions compliance and environmental impacts. The Illinois Statewide Technical Reference Manual for Energy Efficiency is updated annually and became effective January 1, 2018.
rcial and industrial. Energizing Indiana was administered by a single independent, third-party entity, which was contracted by all of the utilities. Utilities were able to oversee additional programs. In March 2014, the Indiana legislature...
AI summary In 2014, Indiana legislature ended the Energizing Indiana program, eliminating the state's Energy Efficiency Resource Standards (EERS). Governor Pence supported energy efficiency but encouraged new frameworks. SEA 412, signed in 2015, requires utilities to submit integrated resource plans and include EM&V procedures. The IURC is updating administrative rules for integrated resource planning and DSM cost recovery. The primary cost-effectiveness test is the total resource cost test, with secondary tests including the utility cost test and participant cost test.
er 2018 "," Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test, participant cost test, ratepayer impact measure test Regulatory orders lay out the process for eval...
AI summary The document outlines the cost-effectiveness tests used in Indiana for evaluating energy efficiency programs. The primary test is the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test, with secondary tests including the Utility Cost Test (UCT), Participant Cost Test (PCT), and Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM) test. These are governed by 170 IAC 4-8 Guidelines for Demand-Side Cost Recovery by Electric Utilities.
red for overall portfolio and program level screening. According to the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), Indiana relies on the TRC test as its primary cost-effectiveness test. Effective December 31, 2014, SEA 340 e...
AI summary Indiana's energy efficiency programs are governed by SEA 340, which ended the state-wide core program and shifted program oversight to utilities. EM&V is required for natural gas programs, with oversight by a Joint Oversight Board. The TRC test is used for cost-effectiveness screening, and further information is available in the DSESP.
Practices (DSESP), a resource of the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP). Last Reviewed: January 2020 ","Requirements for State and Utility Support of Low-Income Energy Efficiency Programs Before Senate Bill 340 terminated Energiz...
AI summary The document outlines the discontinuation of the Income-Qualified Weatherization Program under Energizing Indiana after Senate Bill 340, and discusses current cost-effectiveness rules for low-income energy efficiency programs under Senate Bill 412 and Indiana Code. It also notes the opt-out policy for investor-owned utilities based on demand thresholds.
the electric utility's RIM test is less than one. The most recent budgets for energy efficiency programs and electricity and natural gas savings can be found in the State Spending and Savings Tables. Last reviewed: July 2019 ","Iowa's ener...
AI summary Iowa's energy utilities are required to administer energy efficiency programs, with investor-owned utilities recovering program costs through tariff riders. The Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) approves these plans, ensuring they are cost-effective using five tests, with the societal cost test being primary. Targets for the 2019-2023 planning period include incremental electricity savings of 0.89% annually and natural gas savings between 0.10% and 0.29% of retail sales.
"Summary: For the 2019-2023 planning period, targets vary by utility, with average incremental electricity savings of 0.89% per year and natural gas savings between 0.10% and 0.29% of retail sales. For the 2019-2023 planning period IPL set...
AI summary For the 2019-2023 planning period, Iowa's rate-regulated utilities set incremental energy savings goals, with varying targets for electricity and natural gas. The primary cost-effectiveness test used is the societal cost test, and secondary tests include the utility cost test, participant cost test, and others. Evaluations of energy efficiency programs are conducted by utilities under Iowa Administrative Code.
(2) (f)(476)). Evaluations are administered by the utilities. There are no specific legal requirements for these evaluations in Iowa. Evaluations are conducted statewide and for each of the utilities. Iowa uses the five classic benefit-cos...
AI summary Iowa uses the Societal Cost Test (SCT) as its primary cost-effectiveness test for energy efficiency programs, along with other benefit-cost tests. Low-income programs are exempt from passing cost-effectiveness tests. The current energy efficiency plans for several utilities cover the 2019-2023 plan cycle.
y benefits such as asset value, natural gas savings, and appliance water savings. Iowa also accounts for avoided environmental costs. Low-income programs do not need to pass a cost-effectiveness test. Further information on cost-effectiven...
AI summary Iowa's energy efficiency programs for low-income customers are exempt from cost-effectiveness tests. The Iowa Code and IAC regulations mandate inclusion of such programs in utility plans without requiring specific spending levels. Coordination with WAP services is also discussed. Resources like the DSESP and ACEEE provide further information on cost-effectiveness and health/environmental benefits.
hough budgets and services available through such programs are not as expansive and comprehensive as other states. The programs primarily offer financing or rebates for energy-efficiency improvements. The most recent budgets for energy eff...
AI summary Kansas does not have laws requiring energy efficiency programs, and its programs are limited in scope compared to other states. The state uses cost-effectiveness tests such as the total resource cost test, utility cost test, participant cost test, and ratepayer impact measure test to evaluate programs.
uly 2015 "," Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test, participant cost test, ratepayer impact measure test The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy eff...
AI summary The evaluation of energy efficiency programs in Kansas relies on regulatory orders and specific cost-effectiveness tests, including the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test as the primary method, with the Utility Cost Test (UCT), Participant Cost Test (PCT), and Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM) as secondary tests. These are outlined in various regulatory dockets and the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP).
ograms are not required by legislation, but they are available for all sectors other than industrial customers. These programs are administered by utilities and implemented by third-party contractors. The most recent budgets for energy eff...
AI summary Energy efficiency programs in Kentucky are administered by utilities and available to all sectors except industrial customers. Regulated utilities must file integrated resource plans every three years. The primary cost-effectiveness test is the total resource cost test, with secondary tests including utility cost test, participant cost test, and ratepayer impact measure test. Evaluations of ratepayer-funded programs are governed by regulatory orders, but there are no legal requirements for these evaluations.
iciency programs in Kentucky relies on regulatory orders (807 KAR 5:058). Evaluations are administered by the utilities, but there are no specific legal requirements for these evaluations in Kentucky. According to the Database of State Eff...
AI summary Kentucky's energy efficiency programs rely on regulatory orders (807 KAR 5:058), with evaluations administered by utilities but no specific legal requirements. The state uses the Total Resource Cost (TRC) model as the primary cost-effectiveness test, alongside the Utility Cost Test (UCT), Participant Cost Test (PCT), and Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM). These tests are required for program-level screening, with exceptions for low-income programs, pilots, and new technologies.
ustomers’ energy use through efficiency and load management. However, the statute does not specifically address low-income programs. Cost-Effectiveness Rules for Low-Income Energy Efficiency Programs Requirements for low-income programming...
AI summary The text discusses the regulation of low-income energy efficiency programs, referencing a 1997 proceeding and Case No. 1997-083 that established cost-effectiveness rules. It also describes Duke Energy's self-direct program, which is available only to certain industrial customers and does not involve cost-sharing or verification of savings.
ive Phase Two energy efficiency programs. The most recent budgets for energy efficiency programs and electricity and natural gas savings can be found in the State Spending and Savings Tables (below). For more information see the ACEEE May...
AI summary The text discusses energy efficiency programs in Louisiana, including Entergy New Orleans' Energy Smart program, and mentions the lack of Energy Efficiency Resource Standards (EERS) in place. It also outlines the cost-effectiveness tests used, such as the total resource cost test, utility cost test, and ratepayer impact measure test.
ber 2020 "," Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test, participant cost test, ratepayer impact measure test The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy eff...
AI summary Louisiana's energy efficiency programs are evaluated using the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test as the primary cost-effectiveness measure, with the Utility Cost Test (UCT), Participant Cost Test (PCT), and Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM) as secondary tests. The Louisiana Public Service Commission (LPSC) requires these evaluations but does not have specific legal requirements for low-income programs.
ow-income programs. Cost-Effectiveness Rules for Low-Income Energy Efficiency Programs No specific adjustments or exceptions to general cost-effectiveness rules are in place for low-income programs. In its original Quick Start portfolio fi...
AI summary The document discusses low-income energy efficiency programs in Louisiana, noting that no specific cost-effectiveness adjustments apply to them. Entergy submitted an income-qualified program that initially failed the TRC test but was later revised and approved. The Louisiana Public Service Commission authorized an LCFC mechanism for efficiency programs in its Quick Start rules, which was implemented by electric utilities starting in 2014. There is no state-level policy to decouple utility profits from sales.
d cumulative savings over the next decade. Last reviewed: April 2022 "," Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: none The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency prog...
AI summary Massachusetts evaluates energy efficiency programs using the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test, guided by legislative mandates like the Green Communities Act of 2008 and regulatory orders such as DPU 8-50-A. The state's approach includes assessing both energy and non-energy benefits, including health and economic impacts, and uses an electronic Technical Reference Manual for evaluation methods.
on further directed that these programs be implemented through the low-income weatherization and fuel assistance program network with the objective of standardizing implementation among all utilities. Low-income residents are served throug...
AI summary The text discusses the implementation of low-income energy efficiency programs in Massachusetts through the Mass Save® initiative, which targets income-eligible residents. It outlines eligibility criteria based on income levels and existing programs such as LIHEAP. The state uses the TRC test to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these programs, with additional benefits considered for low-income initiatives.
ita basis, the Maryland electric utilities and cooperatives as a whole met the 10% reduction goal for energy use, but did not meet the 15% demand reduction goal, with 11% and 8% achieved respectively. The PSC issued new EmPOWER targets wit...
AI summary Maryland's energy efficiency programs are evaluated using the total resource cost test and societal cost test. Legislative mandates and regulatory orders, including Order 87082, guide these evaluations. Utilities and the PSC collaborate, with EM&V contractors conducting annual assessments and the PSC verifying results.
(s) and verified by the PSC's independent evaluator. EM&V is done on an annual basis and results are filed with the Commission between March/April for evaluation and between May/June for verification. According to the Database of State Eff...
AI summary Maryland uses the Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) as its primary cost-effectiveness test for energy efficiency programs, excluding low-income programs. The EmPOWER Act of 2008 required utilities to address low-income communities, and the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development became the sole implementer of limited-income programs in compliance with Order No. 84569.
ment). Evaluations are mainly administered by the Vermont Public Service Department. There are no specific legal requirements for these evaluations in Vermont. Statewide evaluations are conducted. Vermont specifies the societal cost test (...
AI summary Vermont uses the societal cost test (SCT) as its primary decision-making tool for energy efficiency programs, considering various benefits such as health, environmental, and economic factors. The benefit-cost test is applied at the portfolio level. Evaluations are conducted by the Vermont Public Service Department, with no specific legal requirements for these evaluations.
in the year following the year in which they were achieved. Excess credits cannot be banked if a utility has opted to receive incentive payments for exceeding its savings targets in a particular year. Regulated investor-owned utilities are...
AI summary In Michigan, energy efficiency programs are evaluated using the Utility Cost Test (UCT) as the primary cost-effectiveness measure, with secondary tests including Total Resource Cost (TRC), Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM), and Participant Cost Test (PCT). The Michigan Energy Measures Database (MEMD) supports these evaluations, and formal rules are established under PA 342.
on cost-effectiveness screening practices for Michigan is available in the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), a resource of the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP). Last Updated: January 2019 ","Requirements...
AI summary This text discusses Michigan's low-income energy efficiency programs under SB 438, which mandates a 1% annual energy savings requirement for utilities but does not specify spending or savings levels for low-income programs. It also notes that cost-effectiveness rules in SB 438 exempt low-income programs from demonstration requirements.
inimum low-income spending requirement for public (i.e., investor-owned) is equal to 0.4% of gas IOUs’ three-year average residential GOR and 0.2% of electric IOUs’ three-year average residential GOR. Many CIP low-income programs (most of...
AI summary The text outlines minimum low-income spending requirements for public utilities, notes the historical leniency in cost-effectiveness standards for low-income programs, and highlights a study evaluating the effectiveness of these programs. It also mentions Clean Energy Economy, a group advocating for clean energy in Minnesota.
ching incentives under certain conditions. This will give the state and utilities an important pathway for accelerating adoption of high-efficiency electric heat pumps. Last reviewed: April 2022 "," Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used:...
AI summary Minnesota evaluates ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs using the societal cost test (SCT) as the primary test, alongside the utility cost test, participant cost test, and ratepayer impact measure test. Evaluations are mandated by MN Statutes 261B.241 and Rule 7690.0550 and are conducted by utilities with assistance from the Division of Energy Resources and the Minnesota Department of Commerce. The state also maintains a technical reference manual for standardized methodologies.
y for Minnesota to examine how it might consider development of a cost-effectiveness framework for efficiency that incorporates the key principles in the National Standard Practice Manual (NSPM). Further information on cost-effectiveness s...
AI summary The text discusses Minnesota's requirements for low-income energy efficiency programs, including statutory mandates for utility spending and cost-effectiveness frameworks. It references resources like the National Standard Practice Manual (NSPM) and the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP) for further information.
Resource Standards, click here. Last reviewed: July 2020 "," Cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost, utility cost test, participant cost test, ratepayer impact measure test Electric and gas utilities with more than 25,000 cus...
AI summary The document outlines the cost-effectiveness tests used for energy efficiency programs, including total resource cost, utility cost, participant cost, and ratepayer impact measure tests. Mississippi utilities with more than 25,000 customers were required to submit Quick Start Plans starting in 2014, and cost-effectiveness testing became mandatory after the phase was extended through 2020. Rule 29 provides guidance on cost inputs and evaluation periods for programs.
e Missouri PSC also completed a revision of its IRP rules in Case No. EX-2010-0254. MEEIA rules and IRP rules both requires demand-side and supply-side measures to be evaluated on an equivalent basis. 4 CSR 240-20.094(2) – Demand Side Prog...
AI summary The Missouri Public Service Commission (PSC) revised its Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) rules in Case No. EX-2010-0254. The rules require demand-side and supply-side measures to be evaluated on an equivalent basis. Demand-side programs with a total resource cost test ratio greater than one must meet specific criteria, including consistency with cost-effective savings and reliable evaluation plans. Programs with a ratio less than one, particularly those targeting low-income customers or education campaigns, are also subject to approval based on public interest and other requirements.
atewide TRM has not yet been approved by the Missouri Public Service Commission. Natural gas utilities use all five cost effectiveness tests as governed by 4 CSR 240-22.070(8) and 4CSR 240-20.093(8). Further information on cost-effectivene...
AI summary Missouri's cost-effectiveness rules for low-income energy efficiency programs include the use of the total resource cost (TRC) test and exemptions for certain programs. The state requires utilities to include funding for low-income weatherization in their rates, and coordination with WAP services is emphasized.
Bonneville Power Administration. Consequently, that part of the state is also included in the activities of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council and the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. The most recent budgets for energy effic...
AI summary The text discusses energy efficiency regulations and programs in Montana, referencing the repeal of a section of Montana Code Annotated and the requirement for utilities to file demand-side management reports. It also mentions the absence of an Energy Efficiency Resource Standard and the cost-effectiveness tests used for evaluating energy efficiency programs.
y the utilities. There are no specific legal requirements for these evaluations in Montana, and the rules for benefit-cost tests are not specified. Evaluations are conducted for each of the utilities. According to the Database of State Eff...
AI summary Montana uses the Total Resource Cost (TRC) model as its primary cost-effectiveness test for energy efficiency programs, with additional tests like the Utility Cost Test (UCT) and Societal Cost Test (SCT). A 10% environmental adder is applied to the SCT to account for non-energy benefits. Evaluations are conducted for each utility, though there are no specific legal requirements for these assessments.
Resource Standards, click here. Last Updated: July 2017 "," Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: ratepayer impact measure test Evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficienc...
AI summary Nebraska uses the Utility Cost Test (UCT) as its primary cost-effectiveness test and the Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM) as a secondary test for energy efficiency programs. Ratepayer-funded programs are evaluated at the portfolio level, and no specific adjustments are made for low-income programs. Utilities collaborate with local agencies and the Nebraska Energy Assistance Network (NEAN) to coordinate low-income energy assistance.
s goals in Docket Nos. 17-07011 and 17-08023. In 2013, the legislature voted to phase out this energy efficiency allowance in order to effectively increase the requirement for new renewable energy. In June 2017, SB 150 was signed into law...
AI summary Nevada's energy efficiency programs are governed by statute and regulatory orders, requiring measurable and verifiable evaluations (M&V) for program recovery. The legislature phased out an energy efficiency allowance in 2013, and SB 150 in 2017 directed the PUCN to set annual energy savings goals and performance-based incentives for NV Energy.
Commission. The Commission has taken this language to mean that M&V is mandated for energy efficiency programs. Evaluations are mainly administered by the utilities and are conducted for each program. Nevada considers all of the five class...
AI summary Nevada uses multiple cost-effectiveness tests for energy efficiency programs, including the Total Resource Cost (TRC) and Societal Cost Test (SCT). Non-energy benefits such as environmental compliance, economic development, and health are included in the NTRC test with specific multipliers for different program types. Further information is available in the DSESP and ACEEE resources.
nd general terms for the implementation of an EERS in New Hampshire. A Settlement Agreement, including the establishment of an EERS, was approved by the Commission in Order No. 25,932 in August 2016. For more information on Energy Efficien...
AI summary New Hampshire implemented an Energy Efficiency Resource Standard (EERS) through a Settlement Agreement approved by the Commission in Order No. 25,932 in August 2016. The evaluation of energy efficiency programs is guided by legislative mandates and regulatory orders, with the total resource cost being the primary cost-effectiveness test. The EERS expansion has increased EM&V activities, including hiring independent experts and developing technical manuals.
Approaches to Account for Health and Environmental Benefits of Energy Efficiency. Last Updated: January 2019 ","Requirements for State and Utility Support of Low-Income Energy Efficiency Programs Per Settlement Agreement, the Home Energy A...
AI summary The document outlines requirements for state and utility support of low-income energy efficiency programs, including budget allocations and cost-effectiveness rules. It mentions the Home Energy Assistance Program's budget allocation and the use of the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test framework. Additional considerations include adders for low-income programs and ongoing evaluations of non-energy impacts.
s, within five years of implementation of their energy efficiency and peak demand reduction programs, and until such time as all cost-effective energy efficiency is achieved in each utility territory. The Board of Public Utilities has adop...
AI summary The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (NJBPU) has set energy efficiency and peak demand reduction targets for utilities, based on the 2019 market potential study. The program includes triennial reviews, cost recovery mechanisms, and performance incentives. Evaluation is conducted annually by a third party, Rutgers University CEEEP, to ensure independence.
d party contract with Rutgers University Center of Energy, Economic and Environmental Policy (CEEEP) in order to keep the evaluation independent from the direct oversight of the NJBPU and the Program. According to the Database of State Eff...
AI summary New Jersey uses the Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) as its primary cost-effectiveness test for energy efficiency programs, though non-energy benefits are not consistently valued. The state's low-income energy efficiency program, New Jersey Comfort Partners, is funded by a systems benefit charge and has expanded income eligibility limits to 250% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. Annual goals for customer service and energy savings are set in program filings.
Annual goals for energy savings and the number of customers served are established in the program filings, during FY2018 the program served 3,894 households and saved 4,394,902 kWh and 248,973 Therms. Cost-Effectiveness Rules for Low-Incom...
AI summary The document outlines the annual goals for energy savings and customer service in low-income energy efficiency programs, noting that the Comfort Partners Program does not require cost-effectiveness tests. It also mentions the 2020 approval of a NJ cost test with a 10% adder for low-income benefits and coordination with WAP services.
ceived by the public utility for program costs must be specifically directed to energy efficiency programs for low-income customers. Cost-Effectiveness Rules for Low-Income Energy Efficiency Programs The utility cost test (UCT) is conducte...
AI summary The document outlines the Utility Cost Test (UCT) used in New Mexico for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of low-income energy efficiency programs. HB 267 mandates that the commission quantify or assign a reasonable value to economic benefits such as reductions in working capital and improved customer service. The New Mexico Administrative Code later codified that 20% of calculated energy savings should be assumed as the reasonable value of these benefits.
3% for gas in 2025. Last Updated: August 2020 "," Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: societal cost test Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test, ratepayer impact measure Both utilities and the New York State Ener...
AI summary The text outlines the cost-effectiveness tests used in New York for evaluating energy efficiency programs, including the societal cost test and utility cost test. It mentions the use of a technical reference manual and guidance from NYSERDA and the Public Service Commission for program evaluations. The societal cost test includes environmental and non-energy benefits.
roviding additional demand-side management resources. PSC-authorized orders in December 2018 and January 2020 established annual utility-specific LMI program budgets and savings targets through 2025. In December 2018, the PSC ordered the d...
AI summary The PSC has established LMI program budgets and savings targets through 2025, requiring a minimum of 20% of additional energy efficiency investments to go to low-income markets. Cost-effectiveness rules for these programs consider specific low-income benefits, and the LMI portion of the portfolio may be assessed separately from the overall BCA.
the full quarter allowable over the next ten years. Industrial customers may opt-out of utility energy efficiency programs and not bear the costs of new programs if they implement their own programs. Each electric power supplier must file...
AI summary North Carolina requires electric power suppliers to file REPS compliance plans as part of their Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) filings, including a 15-year forecast of demand-side resources. Industrial customers may opt-out of utility energy efficiency programs. Cost-effectiveness tests include total resource cost, utility cost, participant cost, and ratepayer impact measure tests. Evaluations of energy efficiency programs are conducted by utilities under regulatory orders.
8-69). Evaluations are mainly administered by the utilities. There are no specific legal requirements for these evaluations in North Carolina. Evaluations for each of the utilities are conducted. North Carolina uses four of the five classi...
AI summary North Carolina uses four classic benefit-cost tests (TRC, UCT, PCT, RIM) for evaluating energy efficiency programs, with TRC as the primary test. The state does not have specific legal requirements or cost-effectiveness adjustments for low-income energy efficiency programs, and these programs are generally not required to meet cost-effectiveness thresholds.
nt their savings collectively. Given the bill prohibits PUCO from approving a cost recovery mechanism after the 17.5% target is reached, programs are scheduled to be discontinued at the close of 2020. Before it's dismantling under HB 6, Oh...
AI summary The text discusses Ohio’s Energy Efficiency Resource Standards (EERS) under Senate Bill 221, which included an Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard (EEPS) and required utilities to achieve cumulative energy savings targets. The law was scheduled to be discontinued at the end of 2020 due to a prohibition on cost recovery mechanisms after reaching the 17.5% target. The primary and secondary cost-effectiveness tests used were the total resource cost test and the utility cost test.
.75% annually through 2018. Last Updated: May 2020 "," Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency prog...
AI summary Ohio evaluates ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs using the Total Resource Cost (TRC) and Utility/Program Administrator (UCT) tests. The TRC is the primary test and considers non-energy benefits like productivity, water savings, and environmental impacts. Low-income programs are subject to a different evaluation standard.
ation on cost-effectiveness screening practices for Ohio is available in the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), a resource of the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP). Last Updated: May 2019 ","Requirements f...
AI summary Ohio's Universal Service Fund and Electric Partnership Program (EPP) support low-income energy efficiency initiatives, with $15 million allocated annually for the EPP. Cost-effectiveness is evaluated using the Total Resource Cost (TRC) and Utility Cost Test (UCT). The Ohio Development Services Agency coordinates these programs with federal weatherization efforts.
t revenues and earn an incentive for implementing successful energy efficiency programs. Last reviewed: July 2020 ","There is currently no policy in place that treats energy efficiency as a resource. Last reviewed: July 2020 ","There is cu...
AI summary The evaluation of energy efficiency programs in Oklahoma uses multiple cost-effectiveness tests, including the total resource cost test, utility cost test, participant cost test, societal cost test, and ratepayer impact measure. These tests are mandated by regulatory orders and Commission rules, and apply to all levels of program evaluation.
d individual measure level screening. The rules for benefit-cost tests are stated in Title 165 CC Chapter 35 Electric Utility Rules. Gas utilities are subject to the same rules (See OAC k165:45-23-7). According to the Database of State Eff...
AI summary Oklahoma uses the Total Resource Cost (TRC) as its primary cost-effectiveness test for energy efficiency programs, with a lower threshold for low-income programs. Electric utilities are required to propose and implement demand portfolios, including programs for low-income customers, every three years under OAC 165:35-41-4. Non-resource benefits may be included in the TRC but are not commonly used in practice.
e of utility programs. Utilities must achieve at least 80% of goals to gain an incentive; the incentive is adjusted based on performance to goal. Incentives are capped at 15% of total program costs. Oklahoma Natural Gas and CenterPoint Okl...
AI summary Oklahoma's utility programs require achieving at least 80% of goals to qualify for incentives, which are capped at 15% of total program costs. Previously, Oklahoma Natural Gas and CenterPoint Oklahoma were allowed a shared benefit incentive plan based on the Total Resource Cost (TRC) Test. The Electric Usage Data Protection Act allows utilities to provide third-party access to customer energy use data under contract. Oklahoma lacks policies to encourage efficient transportation systems and has no policies for transportation and land use integration, VMT targets, or Complete Streets initiatives.
1. Natural gas: ~0.5% of sales annually for 2020–2021. SB 1157 (2016) directs electric utilities to plan for and pursue all cost-effective energy efficiency. ETO's 2021 Action Plan can be found here. Annual goals for Energy Trust reflect a...
AI summary The text discusses Oregon's energy efficiency programs, including the use of cost-effectiveness tests such as the total resource cost test and utility cost test. It references regulatory orders and the role of the Energy Trust of Oregon in administering evaluations of ratepayer-funded programs. Annual goals are set based on the Energy Trust's Strategic Plan and incorporated into Integrated Resource Plans (IRP).
. Evaluations are mainly administered by the Energy Trust of Oregon. Oregon has formal requirements for evaluation articulated in Docket UM 551, Order 94-590. Statewide evaluations are conducted. Oregon uses two of the five classic benefit...
AI summary Oregon evaluates energy efficiency programs using the Total Resource Cost (TRC) and Utility Cost Test (UCT) as primary benefit-cost tests. Exceptions to cost-effectiveness requirements are allowed under specific conditions, such as for low-income programs, pilots, or when non-energy benefits are significant.
will be cost-effective during the period?the program is offered;? f. Are included in a pilot or research project; or? g. Are required by law or are consistent with Commission policy or direction? Further information on cost-effectiveness s...
AI summary The text discusses requirements for low-income energy efficiency programs in Oregon, including legislation requiring utilities to allocate funds for public purposes, cost-effectiveness rules, and the coordination of programs with WAP services. It references specific orders and legislation related to these programs.
A has 13 rural electric cooperatives and several smaller municipalities that are not regulated by the Commission. The rural electric cooperatives do offer some electric efficiency programs/incentives. In 2016, the Commission approved a rat...
AI summary The text discusses energy efficiency programs in Pennsylvania, including the approval of natural gas EE&C programs by the PUC, the implementation of Phase III of Act 129, and the use of the total resource cost test as a primary cost-effectiveness test. It also mentions the absence of natural gas EERS in the state.
stribution companies have submitted voluntary Energy Efficiency & Conservation (EE&C) plans. Last reviewed: June 2020 "," Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficienc...
AI summary Pennsylvania uses the total resource cost test (TRC) as its primary method for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency programs. The TRC includes non-energy benefits like water and fossil fuel savings but excludes other non-electric benefits such as health, economic development, and energy security. Evaluations are conducted by the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission using a Technical Reference Manual.
on cost-effectiveness screening practices for Pennsylvania is available in the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), a resource of the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP). Last Updated: August 2019 ","Requireme...
AI summary The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) established requirements for low-income energy efficiency programs, including cumulative energy savings targets and coordination with the Low-Income Usage Reduction Program (LIURP). These programs are mandated under the Electric and Gas Choice Competition Act and are part of the Universal Service Programs for customers at or below 150% of the Federal Income Poverty Guidelines.
ow 150% of the Federal Income Poverty Guidelines. Details are available in each years’ Universal Service Report on the PUC website. Cost-Effectiveness Rules for Low-Income Energy Efficiency Programs In Order M-2015-2468992, the PUC specifi...
AI summary The Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission (PUC) uses the total resource cost (TRC) test as its primary cost-effectiveness test for low-income energy efficiency programs. There is no separate TRC test for low-income programs, and no performance incentives are in place for successful programs. Coordination between weatherization and energy efficiency programs is managed through a 2016 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that has not been publicly posted.
urement mandate, National Grid is required to participate in strategic long-term planning and invest in all energy efficiency that is cost-effective and cheaper than supply on behalf of its customers. The act also established requirements...
AI summary Rhode Island's EERS policy mandates strategic long-term planning and energy efficiency procurement by utilities like National Grid. Utilities must submit 3-year and annual plans with spending and savings goals, reviewed annually by the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission. Energy efficiency cost-effectiveness is evaluated using state-specific tests, with deemed savings and technical reference materials provided by utilities.
Standards. National Grid also provides a Technical Reference Manual and has offered the PUC access to an online Technical Reference Library, both of which show savings and costs on a measure level. According to the Database of State Effici...
AI summary Rhode Island uses a state-specific cost-effectiveness test for energy efficiency programs, which includes considerations of health, environmental, and economic benefits. National Grid provides resources like a Technical Reference Manual and an online library to support cost-effectiveness analysis. Information on these practices is available through the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP) and other resources.
arency and accountability, Public Service Commission empowerment concerning approving utility's integrated resource plans (IRPs), and encouraging competition, especially from “small power producers.” The state Energy Office launched the So...
AI summary The text discusses the absence of an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act (EERS) in place as of June 2020 and outlines the South Carolina Energy Efficiency Roadmap initiative launched in 2019. The initiative includes working groups focused on energy efficiency, equity, utility programs, and education, with a final report expected by October 2020. Cost-effectiveness tests used include the utility cost test, ratepayer impact measure test, and total resource cost test.
ce. Last Updated: June 2020 "," Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: ratepayer impact measure test, total resource cost test The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficie...
AI summary South Carolina evaluates energy efficiency programs using the utility cost test as the primary cost-effectiveness measure, with the ratepayer impact measure test and total resource cost test as secondary measures. Evaluations are conducted by the South Carolina Public Service Commission and the Office of Regulatory Staff, with no specific legal requirements for these evaluations. Non-energy benefits are not considered in cost-effectiveness screening.
l utilities perform integrated resource planning (IRP), which considers energy efficiency as a potential resource to meet demands. For more information on energy efficiency as a resource, click here. Last Updated: July 2018 ","There is cur...
AI summary The text discusses how South Dakota evaluates energy efficiency programs using cost-effectiveness tests, including the Total Resource Cost (TRC) as the primary test and several secondary tests. It also notes the absence of an Energy Efficiency Resource Standard (EERS) and the voluntary participation of utilities in the state's Renewable, Recycled, and Conserved Energy Objective.
in order to meet its objective of reducing the rate of carbon emissions, it needed to reduce load growth by at least one-quarter over five years through energy efficiency and demand-side initiatives. In its 2011 integrated resource plan, T...
AI summary The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) aimed to reduce carbon emissions by cutting load growth by a quarter over five years through energy efficiency and demand-side initiatives. In its 2011 integrated resource plan, TVA set energy savings goals, including reductions in peak demand and energy savings by 2020. However, the binding nature of these goals is unclear. The primary cost-effectiveness test used is the total resource cost test, with secondary tests including the utility cost test and the ratepayer impact measure test. Evaluations are administered by TVA without specific legal requirements.
test, ratepayer impact measure test Evaluations in Tennessee are mainly administered by the Tennessee Valley Authority. There are no specific legal requirements for these evaluations in Tennessee. According to the Database of State Efficie...
AI summary In Tennessee, evaluations for energy efficiency programs are primarily administered by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), which uses the Total Resource Cost (TRC) model as its primary cost-effectiveness test and the Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM) and Utility Cost Test (UCT) as secondary tests. TVA conducts ongoing evaluations every three to four years and has engaged third-party contractors for data collection and process improvements. Flexibility exists for low-income programs, pilots, and new technologies.
in Texas relies on both legislative mandates (Senate Bill 1125) and regulatory orders. The Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) hires an independent third-party contractor to perform evaluations. In 2011, the Texas Legislature enacted...
AI summary Texas uses legislative mandates like SB 1125 and regulatory frameworks such as P.U.C. SUBST. R. 25.181 to guide energy efficiency programs. The state employs the utility cost test (UCT) as its primary cost-effectiveness test and uses a savings-to-investment ratio for low-income programs. The Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP) provides further details on cost-effectiveness screening.
"In 2008, Utah adopted a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) of 20% by 2025, subject to cost-effectiveness, that allows energy savings from DSM measures to qualify towards the standard without any cap. Last reviewed: July 2019 "," Primary c...
AI summary In 2008, Utah adopted a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) of 20% by 2025, allowing energy savings from demand-side management (DSM) measures to count toward the standard without a cap. The primary cost-effectiveness test used is the utility cost test, with secondary tests including total resource cost, participant cost test, and ratepayer impact measure. Evaluations are administered by utilities and governed by various regulatory orders.
ding of 50% of the cost of approved measures is leveraged by HCD with the federal funding they receive, allowing more homes to be served each year. Services are at no cost to the program participants. Dominion annually provides $500,000 of...
AI summary The text discusses low-income energy efficiency programs in Utah, including funding sources, eligibility criteria, and cost-effectiveness rules. It highlights Dominion's contribution of $500,000 annually, the use of specific tests for program approval, and coordination with the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP).
ciency Maine. Requirements for these evaluations in Maine are articulated in Code of Maine Rules 65-407, Ch. 380 transferred to Code of Maine Rules 95-648, Ch. 380. Statewide evaluations are conducted According to the Database of State Eff...
AI summary Maine uses the Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) as its primary cost-effectiveness test for energy efficiency programs, including avoided fossil fuel and water processing costs. At least 10% of available program funds must be allocated to low-income initiatives, as mandated by LD-1559. This includes both electricity and natural gas conservation programs, with specific provisions for RGGI funds.
energy efficiency targets every three years. Utilities will also have to prove they are hitting those targets before they are permitted to build new fossil fuel plants. Last Updated: April 2020 "," Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used:...
AI summary Virginia's energy efficiency programs are evaluated using four primary cost-effectiveness tests, including the Total Resource Cost, Utility/Programs Administrator, Participant, and Ratepayer Impact Measure tests. These evaluations are mandated by legislation and administered by the Virginia State Corporation Commission. Programs must demonstrate measurable energy savings for low-income and elderly customers to be considered in the public interest.
ion on cost-effectiveness screening practices for Virginia is available in the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP), a resource of the National Efficiency Screening Project (NESP). Last Updated: August 2019 ","Requireme...
AI summary Virginia's legislation and regulations require utilities to support low-income energy efficiency programs, with specific mandates from Senate Bill 1349 and the Grid Modernization and Security Act. The Virginia Clean Economy Act (2020) introduced new opt-out procedures for large industrial customers based on energy savings. Cost-effectiveness screening practices are documented in the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP).
luded in each utility's biennial conservation report. Independent third-party evaluators are?selected by the utilities in consultation with their conservation advisory groups and Commission staff.? For natural gas, the Commission initiated...
AI summary The Commission initiated a rulemaking procedure in 2012 to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of natural gas conservation portfolios, considering low gas prices and avoided costs. The policy statement prefers the Total Resource Cost (TRC) as the primary test but allows the Utility/Programs Administrator (UCT) test for significant non-energy benefits. Further information on cost-effectiveness practices is available in the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP).
to submit a plan to reach 60% of the current energy assistance need by 2030, and 90% of the current energy assistance need by 2050. Cost-Effectiveness Rules for Low-Income Energy Efficiency Programs Washington specifies the total resource...
AI summary Washington State requires utilities to submit plans to meet increasing energy assistance needs by 2030 and 2050. The state uses the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test as the primary cost-effectiveness criterion for low-income energy efficiency programs, with a minimum TRC ratio of 0.67. Non-energy benefits are included in the TRC test, and utilities are encouraged to fund low-income conservation measures, as outlined in the Weatherization Manual. The commission revised rules in Docket UE-131723 to allow, rather than require, utilities to pursue cost-effective low-income conservation programs.
ual (TRM) to summarize the consensus calculations of the electric and natural gas energy savings achieved from installing energy efficiency measures that are supported by Focus on Energy programs. According to the Database of State Efficie...
AI summary The text discusses the use of a modified Total Resource Cost (TRC) test in Wisconsin for decision-making in energy efficiency programs, incorporating environmental benefits from reduced emissions. It also mentions the implementation of a Societal Test alongside existing tests like TRC, UCT, and RIM starting in 2019. Resources like the Database of State Efficiency Screening Practices (DSESP) and ACEEE’s Overview are referenced for further information.
ate Approaches to Account for Health and Environmental Benefits of Energy Efficiency. Last reviewed: July 2019 ","Requirements for State and Utility Support of Low-Income Energy Efficiency Programs Focus is required by statute and administ...
AI summary This text discusses requirements for state and utility support of low-income energy efficiency programs, emphasizing the need to ensure participation opportunities for all customers, including low-income ones. It outlines cost-effectiveness rules, such as the use of modified total resource cost (TRC) tests and other methods to evaluate the benefits of energy efficiency programs, including emissions avoided.
ide-management programs for Rocky Mountain Power (RMP) that began January 1st, 2009 (see Docket No. 20000-264-EA-06). These programs represent the state’s first significant energy efficiency activity. RMP’s 2011 Integrated Resource Plan (I...
AI summary The document discusses energy efficiency programs for Rocky Mountain Power (RMP) and other utilities in Wyoming, including their Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and the lack of an Energy Efficiency Resource Standard (EERS). The primary and secondary cost-effectiveness tests used for evaluating these programs are outlined, along with the regulatory oversight by the Wyoming Public Service Commission.
energy efficiency programs in Wyoming is not required. Evaluations rely on regulatory orders specified in dockets for each utility and are mainly administered by the Wyoming Public Service Commission. According to the Database of State Eff...
AI summary Wyoming does not require energy efficiency programs and relies on the Total Resource Cost (TRC) model as its primary test for decision-making. Secondary tests include the Utility Cost Test (UCT), Participant Cost Test (PCT), Societal Cost Test (SCT), and Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM). Benefit-cost tests are required for portfolio-level screening, but their rules are not specified. No specific spending or savings requirements are identified for low-income energy efficiency programs.
E-30E1 Compliance Filing 2023-2025 with Appendix A-D FINAL
38 passages
Table 2 below presents investment budgets and targets for the 2023-2025 portfolio as related to the 4 spending levels contained in the Settlement Plan and has been updated to reflect the removal of non- 5 energy impacts in cost effectivene...
AI summary The text discusses investment budgets and targets for the 2023-2025 portfolio, updated to reflect the removal of non-energy impacts in cost effectiveness testing results as directed by the NSUARB.
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 Currency is expressed in nominal dollars. Currency in the total row is a straight sum of 3 years of nominal values. Columns may not add correctly, due to rounding. Annual avoided costs of energy...
AI summary The document discusses avoided costs and benefits of energy efficiency (EE) and demand response (DR) programs, using data from NS Power's 2020 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and 2021 updates. It outlines investment budgets and targets for 2023-2025, reflecting changes in cost-effectiveness testing as directed by the NSUARB.
4.4 DEVELOPMENT OF AN OPTIMAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS TESTING METHODOLOGY The Board directed E1 to work with the DSM Advisory Group to assess and develop an optimal DSM cost- effectiveness testing methodology. The Settlement Plan applied the TR...
AI summary The Board directed E1 to work with the DSM Advisory Group to develop an optimal DSM cost-effectiveness testing methodology. E1 proposed a broad review of testing methodologies in response to stakeholder concerns and recent legislative changes. The Board found this approach reasonable.
4.5 JUSTIFICATION FOR MEASURES THAT FAIL COST EFFECTIVENESS TESTING The Board directed E1 to provide specific justification, on an individual bases, for each measure that fails cost-effectiveness testing in future resource plan application...
AI summary The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB) directed EfficiencyOne (E1) to provide individual justification for measures that fail cost-effectiveness testing in future resource plans. The Board agreed that cost-effectiveness testing should occur at the program level rather than the measure level, and that measures failing the TRC test should be justified based on strategic or long-term benefits.
1.2.1 OVERVIEW The Settlement Plan delivers demand side resources to Nova Scotia ratepayers in support of achieving NS Power's long-term electricity strategy as provided in the IRP. The Settlement Plan offers a portfolio of DSM services th...
AI summary The Settlement Plan provides demand-side management (DSM) resources to Nova Scotia ratepayers, aligning with NS Power's long-term electricity strategy. It includes energy efficiency and demand response initiatives, aiming to improve affordability, accessibility, and equity. The plan emphasizes cost-effectiveness and the long-term benefits of DSM, supported by analyses like the Rate and Bill Impact Analysis and cost-effectiveness testing.
2.3.3.1 PHASE 1 – MODEL CONFIGURATION - The model configuration process involves the initial configuration of the modelling tools associated with the Settlement Plan development: - 1. the DRSim™ model, which models DR activities within the...
AI summary Phase 1 of the model configuration process involves setting up the DRSim™ and ProCESS™ models for the Settlement Plan. Activities include adjusting model parameters, cost effectiveness testing methods, and inputting initial assumptions such as avoided costs and electricity retail rates.
2.4 COST-EFFECTIVENESS - Cost effectiveness testing is used to quantitatively assess and evaluate demand side resources through a - comparison of benefits and costs expressed as both the dollar value of the net benefit (or cost) and as a -...
AI summary The document discusses the use of cost-effectiveness testing, specifically the Total Resource Cost (TRC) and Program Administrator Cost (PAC) tests, in evaluating the Settlement Plan. These tests assess the cost-effectiveness of demand-side management (DSM) resources, incorporating avoided costs of carbon as per a 2019 directive from the NSUARB (M08604). The tests use NS Power's Weighted-Average Cost of Capital (WACC) as the discount rate.
22 23 24 25 Currency is expressed in nominal dollars. Currency in the total row is a straight sum of 3 years of nominal values. Columns may not add correctly, due to rounding. Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity and annual avoided...
AI summary The document discusses the calculation of avoided costs and benefits for demand response (DR) and energy efficiency (EE) programs, using data provided by NS Power. It outlines the methodology for calculating cost-effectiveness ratios, including the Total Resource Cost (TRC) and Program Administrator Cost (PAC), and notes that collaboration between NS Power and E1 is required for DR benefits to be realized.
Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity and annual avoided CO₂e emissions were provided by NS Power, from the 2020 IRP using the Base level of DSM for Scenario 2.0C. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Po...
AI summary The text discusses avoided costs and CO₂e emissions from NS Power's 2020 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and 2021 transmission and distribution costs. It details cost-effectiveness ratios using present values and outlines investment requirements for demand response (DR) and energy efficiency (EE) programs, including definitions of TRC and PAC.
10 Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity and annual avoided CO2e emissions were provided by NS Power, from the 2020 IRP 11 using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2021....
AI summary The text discusses avoided costs and emissions from energy efficiency and demand response programs, referencing data from NS Power's 2020 IRP and 2021 transmission and distribution costs. It also mentions cost-effectiveness ratios and the need for collaboration between NS Power and DR programs for benefits realization.
3.3 SETTLEMENT PLAN – COST-EFFECTIVENESS - The cost effectiveness results for the Settlement Plan are shown below as part o[f Table 14,](#page-68-0) which provides - cost effectiveness results associated with the Settlement Plan, for both...
AI summary The Settlement Plan's cost-effectiveness is evaluated using the TRC and PAC tests. The TRC test is used for program-level decision-making at the NSUARB, while the PAC test focuses on utility-specific costs and benefits. The PAC test excludes carbon for informational purposes and considers the full program life for DR programs.
17 Table 14: 2023-2025 Settlement Plan Cost Effectiveness Results by Program 2023-2025 Settlement Plan Total Resource Cost (TRC) Testa Program Administrator Cost (PAC) Testb Residential Energy Efficiency (EE) Programs Efficient Product Reb...
AI summary The 2023-2025 Settlement Plan outlines cost-effectiveness results for various energy efficiency programs. The table shows the Total Resource Cost (TRC) Test and Program Administrator Cost (PAC) Test for different residential and BNI programs, highlighting varying levels of cost effectiveness across different categories.
Table 40: 2023-2025 BNI Efficient Product Rebates Performance Indicators Year Investment 0, 0 Energy Savings O Cost Tost (TPC)a Cost Test (TRC) a Administrator Cost Test (PAC) b Participation (products) c Lifetime Unit Cost ($ million) (GW...
AI summary Table 40 outlines the performance indicators for the BNI Efficient Product Rebates from 2023 to 2025, including investment, energy savings, cost tests, and participation metrics, providing a detailed overview of the program's expected outcomes and financial implications.
4 Table 47: 2023-2025 Custom Incentives Performance Indicators Year Investment ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Cost Tes esource st (TRC) a Admini Cost Tes gram strator st (...
AI summary Table 47 outlines performance indicators for the BNI Custom Incentive Program from 2023 to 2025, detailing investment amounts, energy savings, peak demand reductions, and cost-effectiveness ratios. The table shows consistent investment and energy savings over the three-year period, with slight increases each year.
9.6 DEMAND SIDE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP - The DSMAG is a forum to provide strategic or directional advice and stakeholder perspectives on current - or emerging DSM issues including development of future DSM applications and plans. Throug...
AI summary The Demand Side Management Advisory Group (DSMAG) serves as a forum for providing strategic advice and stakeholder perspectives on DSM issues. E1 will facilitate DSMAG meetings during the 2023-2025 Plan period, focusing on topics such as cost-effectiveness testing and avoided costs in the context of the 2023-2025 Resource Plan regulatory proceeding.
10. CONCLUSION - The Settlement Plan is responsive to the climate emergency and helps advance recent environmental goals - preparing for the future. The Settlement Plan positions E1 to achieve levels of DSM in the future and is a - transit...
AI summary The Settlement Plan addresses the climate emergency, increases energy efficiency targets, expands accessibility and equity initiatives, and delivers significant cost savings to ratepayers. It aims to achieve 1.2% DSM savings, supports underserved communities, and provides financial benefits exceeding the investment. The plan is achievable, stakeholder-informed, and in the best interest of ratepayers.
Cost Effectiveness Screening: - A. For the 2023-2025 DSM Resource Plan, the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test with avoided costs of carbon included will be used for program screening in building the DSM portfolio. TRC results without carbon h...
AI summary The 2023-2025 DSM Resource Plan uses the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test with avoided costs of carbon for program screening. Cost effectiveness testing has been conducted for both energy efficiency and demand response components as part of the DSM Plan development.
In addition to these two key inputs for peak load reduction calculations, assumptions are made on itemized program costs necessary for estimating annual program budgets and for undertaking cost-effectiveness assessment of individual DR opt...
AI summary The text discusses assumptions made for peak load reduction calculations and program cost estimation, primarily based on benchmarking with similar programs. Table 11 summarizes key input variables for these estimations and cost-effectiveness assessments.
Treatment of Non-Energy Benefits and Costs for DR The cost-effectiveness assessment conducted as part of the DR portfolio did not include nonenergy impacts (NEIs) for DR and therefore did not quantify non-energy benefits or costs. The non-...
AI summary The document discusses the exclusion of non-energy impacts (NEIs) in the cost-effectiveness assessment of the DR portfolio. It outlines categories of non-energy benefits and costs, referencing California's protocols, including social, utility, and participant benefits, and transaction costs and service loss.
3.1.1 Levelized Costs and Supply Curve As described previously, the supply curve helps determine the relati[ve contribu](#page-33-0)tions from the different DR options vis-à-vis the costs for acquiring these resources. Figure 14 shows the...
AI summary The supply curve in Figure 14 illustrates the levelized costs and assumed achieved MW for various DR options in 2031. These costs represent TRC costs and exclude customer incentives, helping determine the relative contributions of different DR options.
4.2.1 Modelling Approach to Represent EE-DR Interactions This section discusses aspects of the DR portfolio that are integrated with the inputs and outputs of ProCESSTM modelling activities conducted for energy efficiency implementation pl...
AI summary This section outlines the integration of demand response (DR) and energy efficiency (EE) programs in the ProCESSTM modelling approach. It discusses methods for adjusting baseline peak forecasts, aligning eligibility, and sharing costs between EE and DR portfolios, including the use of smart thermostats and EMCS systems to constrain eligible customers for DR programs.
4.2.2 Integrated EE-DR Cost-Effectiveness The cost-effectiveness of EE technologies that can provide DR benefits can be assessed from a joint EE-DR perspective under an Integrated Demand Side Management (IDSM) framework. Examples of techno...
AI summary The document discusses the cost-effectiveness of integrated Energy Efficiency (EE) and Demand Response (DR) measures under an Integrated Demand Side Management (IDSM) framework. It outlines two approaches for assessing these measures, with Option 1 involving full EE-DR cost and benefit calculations in TRC assessments.
Table 24. Single Cost-Effectiveness Framework Used to Assess EE-DR Cost-Effectiveness Benefits Costs 1. Energy efficiency benefits from EE-DR measures 1. Full EE-DR measure costs (e.g., cost of a smart thermostat) plus EE program admin. an...
AI summary This text introduces a single cost-effectiveness framework for assessing Energy Efficiency-Demand Response (EE-DR) measures. It outlines benefits and costs, including energy efficiency benefits, DR benefits, and administrative and operational costs. The framework also discusses splitting EE-DR measure costs for separate cost-effectiveness assessments under EE and DR.
Table 25. Separate Cost-Effectiveness Assessment for EE-DR Measures with Split in Costs Benefits Costs 1. Energy efficiency benefits only from EE-DR measures in the EE potential/scenario cost-effectiveness assessment framework. 1. Develop...
AI summary Table 25 presents a cost-effectiveness assessment framework for Energy Efficiency-Demand Response (EE-DR) measures, focusing on splitting costs between energy efficiency and demand response benefits. The table outlines two approaches for incorporating symmetry in benefits and costs for cost-effectiveness tests.
Table 26. Pros and Cons of EE-DR Cost-Effectiveness Options Approach for benefits and costs symmetry Pros Cons Option 1 Including both EE and DR benefits ensure alignment with the programmatic/policy goals toward IDSM (integrated EE-DR). I...
AI summary The text discusses two options for assessing the cost-effectiveness of integrated energy efficiency (EE) and demand response (DR) measures. Option 1 involves aligning EE and DR benefits to support integrated program goals, while Option 2 uses cost discounting for easier implementation. Guidehouse, in collaboration with E1, opted for Option 2, using the NPV ratio of EE and DR benefits to split measure costs.
A few jurisdictions, such as California, Massachusetts, and Michigan in the U.S. have been interested in the joint EE-DR cost-effectiveness framework. California has been leading EE-DR integration considerations and recently incorporated j...
AI summary The text discusses the challenges of integrating energy efficiency (EE) and demand response (DR) cost-effectiveness frameworks, highlighting California's efforts to incorporate joint EE-DR testing in its statewide EE potential study. Despite theoretical considerations, the lack of standardized protocols and policy guidelines remains a barrier to developing an integrated framework.
studies/2021-potential-and-goals-study) estimation techniques used to determine the cost and benefit inputs for EE and DR differ. These factors hinder an integrated EE-DR cost-effectiveness approach. [Table 27](#page-63-0) summarizes the b...
AI summary The document highlights differences in estimation techniques for EE and DR cost and benefit inputs, which hinder an integrated cost-effectiveness approach. It references a California study showing that integrated EE-DR assessments led to higher B/C ratios and identified some measures that were not cost-effective under EE alone but became cost-effective when combined with DR.
1.2.1 OVERVIEW The Settlement Plan delivers demand side resources to Nova Scotia ratepayers in support of achieving NS Power's long-term electricity strategy as provided in the IRP. The Settlement Plan offers a portfolio of DSM services th...
AI summary The Settlement Plan provides demand side management (DSM) resources to Nova Scotia ratepayers, supporting NS Power's long-term electricity strategy. It emphasizes cost-effectiveness, accessibility, and affordability, with a focus on both energy efficiency and demand response initiatives. The plan includes measures such as electric thermal storage units and building optimization incentives, and aims to lower energy costs, support the local economy, and improve grid capacity.
2.4 COST-EFFECTIVENESS Cost effectiveness testing is used to quantitatively assess and evaluate demand side resources through a comparison of benefits and costs expressed as both the dollar value of the net benefit (or cost) and as a ratio...
AI summary The document discusses cost-effectiveness testing for demand-side management (DSM) resources, highlighting the use of the Total Resource Cost (TRC) and Program Administrator Cost (PAC) tests. Nova Scotia Power (E1) incorporated avoided carbon costs into these tests following a 2019 directive from the NSUARB. The tests use the Weighted-Average Cost of Capital (WACC) as a discount rate and were applied to both energy efficiency (EE) and demand response (DR) portfolios.
1 2.4.1 TOTAL RESOURCE COST TEST 6 - Best practice[16](#page-109-2) 2 recommends the use of one consistent cost-effectiveness test to screen both EE and DR. - The TRC was used as the primary test of E1's DSM investments, per the NSUARB dec...
AI summary The Total Resource Cost (TRC) test is recommended as a consistent cost-effectiveness measure for evaluating both energy efficiency (EE) and demand response (DR) programs. Nova Scotia Power (E1) has applied the TRC test at the program level for its DSM investments, as per the NSUARB decision. However, some components of the TRC calculation differ between EE and DR, as outlined in Table 6.
1 Figure 10: TRC Benefit and Cost Components for Energy Efficiency and for Demand Response 3 For energy efficiency, administrative costs are included within the total resource cost test at different levels 4 within the ProCESS™ model – an...
AI summary The text discusses administrative costs in energy efficiency programs, highlighting how they are included in the total resource cost (TRC) test within the ProCESS™ model. These costs are modeled at the program level and cascaded down to component and measure levels based on TRC net benefits for cost-effectiveness testing.
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Currency is expressed in nominal dollars. Currency in the total row is a straight sum of 3 years of nominal values. Columns may not add correctly, due to rounding. Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity and annual...
AI summary The text discusses avoided costs and benefits from energy efficiency (EE) and demand response (DR) programs, using data from NS Power's 2020 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and 2021 transmission and distribution cost data. It outlines cost-effectiveness ratios, including TRC and PAC, and notes that DR benefits require collaboration and investment from NS Power.
Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity and annual avoided CO₂e emissions were provided by NS Power, from the 2020 IRP using the Base level of DSM for Scenario 2.0C. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Po...
AI summary The text discusses annual avoided costs and CO₂e emissions from energy and capacity programs, using data from NS Power's 2020 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and 2021 transmission and distribution costs. It outlines cost-effectiveness ratios, including TRC and PAC, and highlights the need for NS Power collaboration in demand response (DR) programs.
Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity and annual avoided $CO_2e$ emissions were provided by NS Power, from the 2020 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2021. Co...
AI summary The text discusses avoided costs and emissions from energy efficiency (EE) and demand response (DR) programs, using data from NS Power's 2020 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). It outlines cost-effectiveness ratios, including the Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) and Program Administrator Cost Test (PAC), and highlights the need for collaboration between NS Power and E1 for DR benefits. Emissions estimates are based on Nova Scotia Greenhouse Gas Emissions Regulations.
Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity and annual avoided $CO_2e$ emissions were provided by NS Power, from the 2020 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2021. Co...
AI summary The document discusses avoided costs and emissions from energy and capacity, as well as cost-effectiveness ratios calculated using 2024 present values. It also mentions investment requirements for demand response (DR) and energy efficiency (EE) programs, including the need for collaboration and system integration.
3.3 SETTLEMENT PLAN – COST-EFFECTIVENESS The cost effectiveness results for the Settlement Plan are shown below as part o[f Table 14,](#page-121-0) which provides cost effectiveness results associated with the Settlement Plan, for both the...
AI summary The Settlement Plan's cost effectiveness is evaluated using the TRC and PAC tests. The TRC test is used for cost effectiveness screening at the program level in Nova Scotia, while the PAC test provides a utility-specific perspective on cost-effectiveness. The plan includes various NSUARB programs such as Efficient Product Rebates and Demand Response.
Table 20: 2023-2025 Residential Efficient Product Rebates Performance Indicators Year Investment First-Year Energy Savings Lifetime Energy Savings Peak Demand Savings cost Test (TRC) Administrator Cost Test (PAC) b Participation (products)...
AI summary Table 20 presents performance indicators for residential efficient product rebates from 2023 to 2025, including investment amounts, energy savings, peak demand reductions, and cost metrics. The data highlights trends in energy efficiency and cost-effectiveness over the three-year period.
9.6 DEMAND SIDE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP - The DSMAG is a forum to provide strategic or directional advice and stakeholder perspectives on current - or emerging DSM issues including development of future DSM applications and plans. Throug...
AI summary The Demand Side Management Advisory Group (DSMAG) serves as a forum for providing strategic advice and stakeholder perspectives on DSM issues. E1 will continue to facilitate DSMAG meetings during the 2023-2025 Plan period, focusing on topics such as cost-effectiveness testing methodology and updates to avoided costs for the upcoming DSM Resource Plan.