Topic:"Cost Effectiveness" in M12780

2 1.1 APPROVAL OF 2027–2031 DSM RESOURCE PLAN - 3 EfficiencyOne ("E1") requests approval by the Nova Scotia Energy Board (the "Energy Board" or "NSEB") - 4 of its Demand Side Management ("DSM") Resource Plan ("DSM Plan") for the term 2027...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) seeks approval from the Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) for its 2027–2031 Demand-Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan, aiming to reduce electricity costs for customers. The plan aligns with NSEB's 2025 decision on DSM's statutory purpose, emphasizing affordability, energy savings, and climate goals through programs and cost-benefit analysis.

79J further states that the Franchise holder must file the new five-year agreement for Energy Board approval in sufficient time to allow for the Energy Board to approve the agreement prior to January 1, 2027. E1 is therefore submitting an...

AI summary E1 seeks Energy Board approval for its 2027–2031 DSM Plan under the PUA. The Energy Board oversees the Franchise holder’s activities, requiring portfolio-level evaluation of cost-effective demand-side management. Measures may fail individually if the overall portfolio passes the cost-effectiveness test. References to prior decisions (M12249, M12282) are cited.

2.1.3 COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS As set out in the regulatory overview in Section 2.1 above, this Application must satisfy the requirements of the PUA and the considerations in s. 6(2) of the ERBA . E1 respectfully submits that...

AI summary E1 argues that its 2027–2031 DSM Plan complies with the PUA and ERBA by meeting statutory requirements, including cost-effectiveness and portfolio-level PAC test compliance. The Plan is deemed 'cost-effective' and 'reasonably available' per NSEB interpretations, with support from prior NSUARB decisions.

7 2.2.1 2023–2025 DSM PLAN DECISION 8 The following directives from the 2023–2025 DSM Plan Decision are relevant to this Application: - (a) To provide detailed plans and processes for each of its research initiatives prior to proceeding wi...

AI summary The 2023–2025 DSM Plan Decision outlines four directives for E1, including detailed planning, collaboration with NS Power, cost-effectiveness justification, and payback information. E1 is complying with these directives as part of its response to the NSEB's approval of the DSM Plan.

2.2.1.1 COMPLIANCE WITH 2023–2025 PLAN DECISION In response to the directive to provide detailed plans and processes for each of its research initiatives prior to proceeding with significant expenditures, documented and fully discussed wit...

AI summary E1 developed an Innovation Framework for 2027–2031, complying with NSUARB directives on avoided cost calculations. They incorporated updated IRP data from NS Power and addressed climate change goals through DSMAG. The NSUARB directed updates to avoided costs, with DSMAG tasked to resolve climate integration for future DSM plans.

2.2.2 2025 APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF NEW BCA TEST DECISION The following directives from the NSEB's 2025 Decision on E1's application for approval of a new BCA test are relevant to this Application: [13](#page-21-0) - (a) To use the Prog...

AI summary The NSEB outlines directives for E1's 2025 application to approve a new BCA test, requiring use of the PAC test with NS Power's WACC as the discount rate, strategic electrification programs to reduce GHG emissions and costs, inclusion of Eastward Energy in the DSM Advisory Group, and specific reporting requirements for DSM Plans.

2.2.2.1 COMPLIANCE WITH 2025 BCA DECISION - E1 has designed the 2027–2031 DSM Plan in accordance with the directives set out in the 2025 BCA Test - Decision. The specific compliance responses are summarized below. - First, E1 has used the...

AI summary E1 has designed the 2027–2031 DSM Plan in compliance with the 2025 BCA Test Decision, using the PAC test with NS Power's WACC, excluding initiatives failing to reduce both GHG and costs, and including future research on strategic electrification. E1 also provided required data to NSEB, noted NS Power's lack of long-run emissions data, and confirmed Eastward Energy's DSMAG participation.

Deferred Matters, Consensus Agreement, Appendix 1: Standardized Filing Framework, July 22, 2016. identified in NS Power's 2022 IRP Evergreen established an objective DSM target which is considered to provide the greatest benefits to Nova S...

AI summary The document discusses NS Power's 2022 IRP Evergreen setting DSM energy savings targets (683.1 GWh, 123.9 MW demand savings) for 2027–2031. E1 supports these targets as stakeholder-aligned and cost-effective, but adjusted scenarios to address DSMAG concerns about short-term affordability. E1's preferred plan prioritizes affordability while maintaining energy efficiency as a lower-cost option than supply-side alternatives.

3.3 DEMAND RESPONSE The demand response design in the 2027–2031 DSM Plan was informed by a combination of observed implementation experience, updated modelling assumptions, evaluation insights, DSMAG member feedback, and alignment with sys...

AI summary The 2027–2031 DSM Plan's demand response design prioritizes cost-effectiveness, achievability, and system value, informed by E1's refined assumptions, DSMAG feedback, and alignment with NS Power's IRP. Residential participation remains limited due to variable results, but Eco Shift's inclusion is justified for resilience and long-term maturation. Peer jurisdictions indicate improving cost-effectiveness over time.

6 7 Through direct discussions with the IESO Demand Side Management team, the program is expected to 8 reach cost-effectiveness under the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test within the next year, 9 approximately four years after its laun...

AI summary The program is expected to achieve cost-effectiveness under the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test within the next year, four years after its launch, due to factors like increased demand response capacity, higher customer participation, coordinated marketing, and adoption of bring-your-own thermostat models. Ontario's experience offers insights for smaller jurisdictions.

21 3.3.3 TECHNOLOGY & FIELD LEARNING Program deployment to date has provided valuable operational experience and insights into the technologies that deliver the strongest performance and program economics. This includes heat pump hot water...

AI summary Program deployment has enhanced operational experience with technologies like heat pump hot water controllers, behind-the-meter batteries, and smart thermostats. Improvements in workflows, dispatch strategies, and vendor relationships have reduced costs and improved demand response reliability during peak events.

3.3.4 SUMMARY - Eco Shift continues to demonstrate measurable progress as it moves through its development phase. - Preliminary results show increasing customer participation and improved device responsiveness across - multiple technologie...

AI summary Eco Shift demonstrates measurable progress with increased customer participation and device responsiveness, enhancing demand response capacity and cost-effectiveness under PAC. Operational refinements, scaling participation, and alignment with constrained system areas are expected to reduce costs and improve reliability. Eco Shift is projected to achieve cost-effectiveness within two to three seasons.

d reducing GHGs). M12282, NSEB Decision, E1 Application for approval of a New Benefit-Cost Analysis Test for Evaluating DSM Plans, December 10, 2025, page 65, para 163. E1 focused on building electrification measures to leverage existing p...

AI summary E1 evaluated strategic electrification measures (e.g., heat pumps) under the modified-PAC test, finding they increased electricity costs despite GHG reductions. NS Power's lack of long-run marginal emissions data limited analysis. The NSEB's 2025 BCA Decision requires DSM to reduce costs, which these measures failed to meet.

14 4.1 THE 2027–2031 DSM PLAN CONTINUES TO PRIORITIZE CUSTOMERS E1's DSM Plan continues to prioritize customers by ensuring that the investment in customer incentives remains not only the largest portion of the $63.75 million per year but...

AI summary E1's 2027–2031 DSM Plan prioritizes customers by increasing customer incentives from 66% to 71% of total investment compared to the 2026 DSM Extension, with annual funding of $63.75 million. This reflects a shift toward greater customer-focused spending within the overall DSM strategy.

4.5.1 HISTORICAL RBIA - 24 E1's 2026 Historical RBIA indicates that ratepayers are already positioned to accrue aggregate bill savings - in excess of $2.5 billion between 2011 and 2041 as a result of past DSM activities between 2011 and 20...

AI summary E1's 2026 Historical RBIA indicates that past Demand-Side Management (DSM) activities between 2011 and 2026 will result in over $2.5 billion in aggregate bill savings for ratepayers from 2011 to 2041. Figure 5 illustrates average rate and bill impacts by rate class.

3 5. THE BALANCED PLAN APPROACH - 4 The portfolio was developed in accordance with the "Balanced Plan Approach" outlined in the - 5 Standardized Filing Framework, which directs E1 to "produce DSM Resource Plans that balance multiple - 6 as...

AI summary E1 developed a portfolio under the 'Balanced Plan Approach' to balance DSM aspects, achieving 435.4 GWh energy savings, 85.0 MW demand savings, and other metrics by 2031. Principles include energy/capacity avoidance, cost efficiency, non-electric benefits, and equitable access. The plan emphasizes value for Nova Scotians through diversified programs and market engagement.

6 5.1 SHORT- AND LONG-TERM ENERGY AND CAPACITY AVOIDANCE 7 The Preferred Plan achieves a balance of both short- and long-term energy capacity avoidance. Dunsky 8 Energy Consulting described the balanced plan approach, and in particular sho...

AI summary The Preferred Plan balances short- and long-term energy and capacity avoidance. Short-term savings focus on immediate measures like appliances, while long-term strategies involve market transformation through education and standards. DSM investments provide immediate bill savings and long-term avoided infrastructure costs.

DSM industry, not solely for E1. - (d) The 2024 DSM Evaluation results for residential heat pumps, established through a billing analysis, reduced savings for this measure by approximately 50 percent. Importantly, while first-year unit cos...

AI summary E1 argues that the Preferred Plan's lifetime unit cost of $0.05/kWh reflects long-term value, emphasizing that deeper measures with longer lifespans reduce costs per unit of savings. The 2024 DSM Evaluation reduced residential heat pump savings by 50%. E1 advocates using lifetime unit cost as the primary metric for program delivery efficiency and commits to ongoing cost management strategies like benchmarking.

5.3 AVOIDED ENERGY AND CAPACITY INVESTMENTS - DSM provides value to ratepayers in part by avoiding investments associated with supply side resources. - In Nova Scotia, the following categories of avoided system costs are applied to DSM: -...

AI summary Demand-Side Management (DSM) in Nova Scotia avoids energy and capacity investments by reducing demand. The Preferred Plan emphasizes energy efficiency, demand response, and solar-PV initiatives. Categories of avoided costs include energy, capacity, transmission, and distribution. EfficiencyOne (E1) expanded demand response programs to address NS Power's growing demand.

9 5.4 NON-ELECTRIC AND NON-ENERGY BENEFITS - Non-electric and non-energy benefits—such as improved comfort, health and safety, housing quality, - productivity, and market awareness—are realized as ancillary outcomes of cost-effective DSM -...

AI summary The section discusses non-electric and non-energy benefits from DSM programs, highlighting their role in improving living conditions and operational reliability, particularly in residential, low-income, and business sectors. The Plan emphasizes affordability and cost-effectiveness, ensuring these benefits support, but do not override, long-term system value and ratepayer savings.

5.5 DIVERSITY OF PROGRAM DELIVERY - Diversity in program delivery is a key way to minimize risk and involves the diversification of measures, - markets and strategies. The Preferred Plan includes a full suite of programs and strategies tha...

AI summary Diversity in program delivery reduces risk by diversifying measures, markets, and strategies. The Preferred Plan includes a broad range of programs targeting residential and BNI sectors. E1's diversified portfolio aims to ensure equitable participation despite higher unit costs or lower benefit/cost ratios for some opportunities.

5.8 RATE IMPACTS In designing the Preferred Plan portfolio, E1 explicitly balanced near-term rate impacts with the long-term value delivered to ratepayers. The portfolio reflects a measured approach to investment, limiting it to the same i...

AI summary E1's Preferred Plan balances near-term rate impacts with long-term value by maintaining 2026 investment levels, diversifying programming across customer classes, and prioritizing cost-effective, long-lasting measures. The approach emphasizes affordability, system flexibility, and equity through targeted low-income programs and efficient delivery, supported by a forward-looking Rate and Bill Impact Analysis.

6.2 HIGHLIGHTS OF THE 2027–2031 PLAN - Key highlights/portfolio insights of the 2027–2031 Preferred Plan include: - portfolio cost-effectiveness result of 2.4 for the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test - demonstrating that the portfolio...

AI summary The 2027–2031 Preferred Plan highlights a portfolio cost-effectiveness result of 2.4, a $318.75 million investment in DSM resources, and expected lifetime benefits of $682.5 million for participating customers. The plan also includes new components like Mi'kmaw New Home Construction and residential solar-PV for Mi'kmaw communities.

6.3.1 2 PORTFOLIO SAVINGS & INVESTMENT - 3 Table 8 provides portfolio-level savings, inclusive of all proposed DSM resources for the 2027–2031 DSM - 4 Preferred Plan.

AI summary Table 8 outlines portfolio-level savings from all proposed DSM resources under the 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan. The data includes savings projections for demand-side management initiatives during this period.

9.2 SCENARIO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARDIZED FILING REQUIREMENTS. The Alternate Scenario represents a total investment in energy efficiency, demand response and solar PV of $308.4 million over the 2027–2031 DSM Plan. The design approac...

AI summary The Alternate Scenario invests $308.4 million in energy efficiency, demand response, and solar PV from 2027–2031. It maintains low-income and equity-focused investments while eliminating the Eco Shift program to address cost-effectiveness concerns and balance DSMAG perspectives.

10. CONCLUSION - Based on the supporting Evidence and Appendices, E1 respectfully requests approval from the Energy - Board for the Preferred Plan and related Purchase Agreement with NS Power. 27 M06733, NSUARB Order, E1 2016–2018 DSM Plan...

AI summary E1 requests approval for the Preferred Plan and related Purchase Agreement with NS Power, emphasizing its affordability and cost-effectiveness. The plan includes energy savings, demand reduction, and system benefits, with a total investment of $318.75 million over five years. E1 claims the application meets the mandatory approval test under the Public Utilities Act.

2.2.3 PROGRAM ADJUSTMENTS In 2025, E1 ended two program components - Green Heat and Appliance Retirement. Green Heat continued to experience a steady decline in participation and energy savings in 2025, consistent with trends observed in 2...

AI summary E1 ended two programs in 2025: Green Heat and Appliance Retirement. Green Heat's decline was due to the Canada Greener Homes Grant and reduced savings from DSM evaluations. Appliance Retirement closed due to rising costs, declining savings from newer units, and limited service providers. Deadlines were December 31, 2025 for Green Heat and January 8, 2025 for Appliance Retirement.

1 3. PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN APPROACH 2 E1 developed the 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan through a multi-phase process to establish a cost- 3 effective DSM portfolio. This process defined the DSM resources to be offered, the level of savi...

AI summary E1 developed the 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan through a multi-phase process involving stakeholder engagement, scenario modeling, and regulatory considerations. The plan incorporates updated avoided costs, aligns with climate targets, and reflects NSEB decisions on BCA and DSM extensions. Development was paused briefly due to PUA amendments and resumed after filing the 2026 DSM Extension.

3.2 PORTFOLIO DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS - E1 was guided by the following key considerations in developing the Preferred Plan: - cost-effectiveness; - determining appropriate energy and demand savings established using a percent...

AI summary E1's Preferred Plan prioritizes cost-effectiveness, achievable energy savings via a percent-of-load approach, support for Mi'kmaw communities post-2027, and balanced portfolio principles. Emphasis is on affordability, performance targets, and long-term ratepayer benefits through appropriate investment levels.

3.3 MODELLING - The "modelling process" refers to the use of DSM portfolio design tools to assess the comparative costs, - savings, and cost-effectiveness of various DSM resource scenarios to determine the Preferred portfolio - design for...

AI summary The modelling process evaluates DSM resource scenarios using ProCESS™ and DRSIM™ tools to assess cost-effectiveness, energy impacts, and expenditures for the 2027–2031 DSM Resource Plan. Guidehouse supports E1 in developing the preferred portfolio design through these analyses.

10 3.4 COST-EFFECTIVENESS - 11 In the Energy Board's Decision regarding E1's Application for approval of a New Benefit-Cost Analysis Test - for Evaluating Demand Side Management Plans (M12282), the Energy Board directed E1 to:[9](#page-107...

AI summary E1 must use the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test for evaluating its 2027–2031 Demand Side Management (DSM) Plan, with NS Power's WACC (6.65%) as the discount rate. The Energy Board directed this under the Public Utilities Act (PUA), requiring portfolio-level cost-effectiveness screening. E1 achieved a PAC result of 2.4 (above the 1.0 threshold) and provided justifications for measures failing cost-effectiveness tests.

Key observations of the Preferred Plan include: - annual investment for the Preferred Plan is maintained at the 2026 DSM Extension approved investment level of $63.75 million, with no annual inflationary increases to the investment, to sup...

AI summary The Preferred Plan maintains a fixed annual investment of $63.75 million with no inflationary increases, aiming to support affordability. Energy savings have declined due to market shifts and program closures. The plan supports Mi'kmaw communities and shows strong cost-effectiveness with a 114% ROI and a 30-year solar-PV measure life. However, some low-income programs have lower PAC scores.

1 Figure 1: 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan – Payback DSM investment includes EE, DR, Solar-PV and Enabling Strategies. Green bars are nominal investment. Blue bars are nominal avoided cost. Yellow line is a 2027 net present value (NPV) of th...

AI summary The 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan – Payback includes investments in Energy Efficiency (EE), Demand Response (DR), Solar-PV, and Enabling Strategies. Green bars represent nominal investment, blue bars show avoided costs, and the yellow line depicts NPV using NS Power's WACC. The analysis evaluates cost recovery and financial viability of DSM initiatives.

4.5 PROGRAM SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT - 15 Table 8, below, provides the five-year savings and investment details by program component for the - 16 2027–2031 Preferred Plan. 4 13 14 DATE FILED: March 31, 2026 2

AI summary The text references Table 8, which outlines five-year savings and investment details by program component for the 2027–2031 Preferred Plan. The document is part of a regulatory proceeding, with a filing date of March 31, 2026, and focuses on energy program planning and investment analysis.

1 4.6.2 UNIT COST - 2 Unit cost is a calculated output of E1's investment and savings over a defined time period. Factors that - 3 influence unit cost results typically include: - the level of participation in a program or program componen...

AI summary Unit cost for E1's energy efficiency programs is calculated based on factors like participation levels, measure mix, and cost changes. The projected 2027–2031 unit cost is $0.66/kWh, higher than the 2026 DSM Extension's $0.49/kWh.

16 6.4.1 OVERVIEW, OBJECTIVES, OPPORTUNITY 17 [Table 31](#page-149-2) provides a description of the BNI Efficient Product Rebates program for 2027–2031. 8 PAC is a benefit/cost ratio comparing lifetime benefits to DSM investment.

AI summary The text describes the BNI Efficient Product Rebates program for 2027–2031 and defines PAC as a benefit/cost ratio comparing lifetime benefits to DSM investment. The program aims to promote energy efficiency through rebates, while PAC evaluates the economic viability of DSM initiatives.

13 7. DEMAND RESPONSE Demand response is an important resource for supporting Nova Scotia's electricity system by reducing or shifting customer load during periods of peak demand. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission defines demand res...

AI summary Nova Scotia's demand response (DR) programs, managed by E1, aim to reduce peak demand through load shifting. The 2023–2025 DSM Plan faced underachievement, but E1 anticipates growth in 2026. The 2027–2031 Preferred Plan focuses on achievable targets aligned with NS Power's IRP, with modest BNI DR growth and stable residential DR. Cost-effectiveness (PAC ≥ 1.0) and regulatory feedback influenced planning.

18 Scenario Year Investment ($ million) Available Capacity (MW) Participation (devices) Participation (participants) Levelized Cost ($/kW-year) Program Administrator Cost Test (PAC) 2027 5.3 21.1 22,940 169 - 2.0 2028 5.5 23.2 22,483 173 -...

AI summary The table presents investment and participation data for a demand-side management (DSM) program across multiple years, including preferred and alternate scenarios, and calculates the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) as a benefit/cost ratio. The data includes investment amounts, available capacity, participation numbers, and levelized costs for both preferred and alternate scenarios.

14. CONCLUSION The 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan delivers cost-effective DSM resources in accordance with the requirements of the PUA , which directs that DSM be undertaken in the best interests of NS Power customers. With a portfolio level...

AI summary The 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan meets cost-effectiveness thresholds under the PUA, delivering $682.5M in ratepayer benefits with a 2.4 PAC result. It prioritizes affordability, avoids growth, and integrates solar-PV for Mi'kmaw communities while maintaining investment levels from the 2026 DSM Extension. The plan balances short-term affordability with long-term system benefits.

1.1.1 Innovation Goals E1's Innovation team uses established Innovation Goals to define the long-term outcomes of all projects from concept, planning to close. Innovation Goals ensure that long-term outcomes align with the DSM mandate. Acr...

AI summary E1's Innovation team uses Innovation Goals to align long-term outcomes with the DSM mandate, focusing on improving cost-effectiveness, advancing new DSM measures and programs, leveraging system insights, and utilizing other funding sources.

5 Table 3: Evaluation metrics by Innovation Goal Innovation Goal Evaluation Metric(s) 1. Improve cost‑effectiveness of existing measures and programs. Evaluation will be conducted relative to a defined baseline, with the primary reference...

AI summary The text outlines evaluation metrics for five innovation goals related to improving the cost-effectiveness of existing demand-side management (DSM) measures and programs, advancing readiness for new DSM measures and programs, leveraging system planning insights, and utilizing non-DSM funding sources for emerging DSM activities. References to Table 4 and Table 5 are made for evaluating market and program readiness.

re closely at the worst-case scenario (a non- participant in each rate class) to see how much higher their bills are due to DSM. This information is critical in addressing issues of DSM affordability. Over the years the RBIA has evolved ba...

AI summary The document discusses updates to the Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) for Nova Scotia's Demand Side Management (DSM) programs, including revised avoided costs and participation expiry rules. It highlights bill reductions for participants (up to 37%) and rate impacts for non-participants (-0.1% to +0.8%), emphasizing the importance of customer participation to mitigate rate increases. The analysis projects $0.4 billion in savings by 2027–2031.

1 2. INTRODUCTION 2 The forward-looking RBIA is an analysis of the rate and bill impacts associated with the proposed DSM - 3 investment only. It compares the impacts of the proposed DSM investment to a scenario where there is - 4 no DSM i...

AI summary The document discusses the forward-looking and historical Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) for Demand Side Management (DSM) investments in Nova Scotia. It highlights E1's proposal to eliminate historical RBIA filings except during DSM Plan Application years, and the NSUARB's acceptance of this approach. The analysis informs DSM investment levels and considers non-participant impacts.

3.4 COMPARISON OF 2027-2031 PREFERRED PLAN AND ALTERNATE

AI summary The section compares the preferred plan and alternate for 2027-2031, though no specific details are provided in the text. Key regulatory and energy-related terms are referenced, including demand-side management, energy efficiency, and utility regulations.

usinesses that deliver efficiency services instead of investment in foreign fuel supplies, increased - productivity in businesses, and increased occupant comfort in homes and businesses, among others. PAC net lifetime benefits of the DSM P...

AI summary DSM investments yield long-term net benefits for Nova Scotian ratepayers via cost-effectiveness testing (PAC). However, the PAC test does not account for potential subsidization of participants by non-participants. RBIA analysis subdivides rate classes into participant and non-participant groups, showing that DSM program participation reduces bills for participants despite rate increases, with higher participation limiting customers facing only rate hikes.

7.1 PARTICIPATION COUNTS BY CLASS - Participation estimates used in the RBIA model are different than participation estimates used in - development of DSM plans, since the RBIA tracks participating accounts , rather than the number - of pr...

AI summary The RBIA model uses account-based participation estimates, differing from DSM plans which track products. RBIA de-duplicates across programs and years, calculating annual and active participants to determine bill savings per participant.

elected in the in the 'E1 Data Inputs' tab, the avoided costs associated with all of the planned-DSM resources are added to NS Power's revenue requirement and will populate in the Savings(Added)' tab. Alternate scenarios, including a "No-D...

AI summary The document outlines NS Power's rate model scenarios, detailing how DSM resources affect revenue requirements. It describes the 'COSS DSM Simulated' tab's methodology for calculating alternate scenarios, including avoided costs and cost allocations. The approach allows analysis of varying DSM savings levels (75%, 100%, 125%) and contrasts with a less flexible model excluding all DSM savings.

Revenue Requirement Ordinarily, the base cost rate setting process used in rate case applications requires a great amount of detailed cost inputs to determine revenue requirement. Annual rate base data needs to be collected on a variety of...

AI summary The revenue requirement process typically requires detailed cost data, but for the RBIA, only DSM-induced avoided costs are considered while keeping other costs constant. This simplifies analysis by focusing on directional and relative rate changes due to DSM programs.

3.0. Applied Approach The relative changes in rates due to DSM are determined by conducting two separate rate setting analyses under the "With DSM" and "No DSM" scenarios. The rate setting process under each scenario is broken out by two s...

AI summary The applied approach involves analyzing rate changes due to DSM by evaluating two scenarios ('With DSM' and 'No DSM') and separating cost determination into FAM-related and non-FAM-related subprocesses. This method allows for a detailed comparison of rate impacts with and without DSM, facilitating informed regulatory decisions on cost allocation.

"COSS Outputs" tab The "COSS Outputs" tab provides two sets of bar graphs of percentage change in class rates due to DSM over the period 2011–2035 calculated as either arithmetic or load-weighted rate changes. The graphs within each set ar...

AI summary The 'COSS Outputs' tab presents bar graphs analyzing percentage changes in class rates due to DSM (Demand Side Management) from 2011–2035, using arithmetic or load-weighted rate changes. It breaks down effects on unit base cost revenues, including 'No DSM' scenarios and DSM cost inclusions. A control panel tests inflation and avoided cost scenarios on class unit costs and revenues.

1.1 ALTERNATE SCENARIO – PORTFOLIO SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT 16 Table 2, below, provides portfolio-level savings and investment by year and in aggregate, inclusive of all 17 proposed DSM resources for the 2027–2031 Alternate Scenario. 18 19 2...

AI summary The document presents an alternate scenario analyzing portfolio-level savings and investments from 2027–2031, incorporating all proposed DSM resources. Table 2 summarizes these figures, reflecting the regulatory proceeding's focus on energy efficiency and investment planning under Nova Scotia's utility framework.

9 10 Table 3: 2027–2031 Alternate Scenario Savings and Investment by Program Component 2027-2031 Investment ($ million) Lifetime Benefits ($ million) First Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Av...

AI summary The table provides a detailed overview of energy efficiency (EE) and demand response (DR) programs for the 2027–2031 period, including investment, lifetime benefits, energy savings, and program administrator cost test (PAC) data. It highlights the contribution of various programs, such as residential and business EE initiatives, enabling strategies, and solar-PV programs, to overall energy savings and investment.

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

AI summary The text presents a table titled '2029 Alternate Scenario Savings and Investment by Program Component' with columns related to investment, benefits, energy savings, and other metrics. However, no data is provided under the 'Residential EE Programs' row, leaving the content incomplete.

ngs (reported by program and rate class); - iii. Annual lifetime energy savings (reported by program and rate class); - iv. Cumulative lifetime energy savings (reported by program and rate class); Annual incremental system-peak demand savi...

AI summary The document outlines performance reporting requirements for energy efficiency, demand response, solar PV, and low-income programs. Metrics include energy savings, demand reductions, solar generation, and cost test results. Emphasis is placed on reporting for equity, census data, and program-specific outcomes like Affordable Homes and Mi'kmaw initiatives.

23 3.1 Glossary of Terms - 24 Definitions in Table 1, below, are standardized and apply throughout this document. Requirements - reflecting the Board's decision on the Benefit-Cost Analysis test are drawn from M12282[.5](#page-418-0) 25

AI summary The glossary section standardizes definitions, with requirements based on the Board's decision in M12282 regarding the Benefit-Cost Analysis test. Definitions in Table 1 apply throughout the document.

4.2.4 Avoided Costs - NSIESO will work with the DSM franchise holder to develop avoided cost calculations for demand- - side management resources[.6](#page-412-1)

AI summary NSIESO will collaborate with the DSM franchise holder to develop avoided cost calculations for demand-side management resources. The process involves evaluating the financial benefits of DSM initiatives to inform regulatory decisions.

4.3.2 Cost-Effectiveness Testing - 5 E1 will apply the Board-approved cost-effectiveness test at the portfolio level under the Public - Utilities Act . - 7 As directed under M12282, the PAC test is the primary screening test, using NS Powe...

AI summary E1 will apply the Board-approved cost-effectiveness test at the portfolio level under the Public Utilities Act, using the PAC test with NS Power's WACC as the discount rate. Strategic electrification must reduce GHG emissions and electricity costs. E1 will provide results at multiple levels and justify failed measures individually.

18 5. CONSOLIDATED ENDNOTES AND SOURCES - 1. M06733 E1 2016–2018 DSM Resource Plan, NSUARB Order, October 7, 2015. The Order approved the 2016–2018 DSM Plan and the Consensus Agreement. (Parties agreed to establish the Standardized Filing...

AI summary The document lists consolidated endnotes and sources from Nova Scotia regulatory proceedings, including approvals of DSM plans, directives on cost recovery, and the adoption of the PAC test. Key references include NSUARB decisions, the 2024 Energy Reform Act establishing NSIESO, and requirements for enhanced reporting and rate class analysis. Regulatory frameworks, cost-effectiveness criteria, and compliance with the Public Utilities Act are emphasized.

riving unit costs for the Existing Residential program, and the Residential sector as a whole, higher. Other program components within Existing Residential had the following unit cost results in 2025: • Affordable Multifamily Housing's uni...

AI summary The 2025 unit costs for the Existing Residential program and Residential sector were impacted by lower energy savings in Affordable Multifamily Housing, driven by adjustments to full load hours for mini-split heat pumps. These adjustments stemmed from a 2024 DSM evaluation billing analysis, leading to proportional spending reductions despite lower energy savings.

Regulatory Affairs E1 filed the following reports (matter numbers are in brackets) with the NSUARB (January 1 to March 31, 2025) and the NSEB (April 1 to December 31, 2025): - 2024 DSM Evaluation Reports and 2024 Annual Progress Report (M1...

AI summary E1 submitted multiple reports and responses to information requests to the NSUARB and NSEB, covering DSM evaluations, financial compliance, and BCA applications. Engagement with the DSMAG included stakeholder feedback, technical sessions, and plan development. Regulatory activities included public hearings, evaluation implementation, and DSM Plan development for 2027-2031.

16 2025 Rate Class Results by Program - 17 [Tables 2-6 p](#page-55-0)rovide a breakdown of 2025 net incremental energy and net peak demand savings, - 18 expenditures, and participation achieved by rate class within the energy efficiency pr...

AI summary Tables 2-6 provide 2025 data on net incremental energy and peak demand savings, expenditures, and participation by rate class across energy efficiency programs. The analysis focuses on program outcomes and financial metrics.

Table 1 Update on Implementation of 2022-2023 Evaluation Recommendations Year Evaluation/ Verification Recommendation Text Source Status Comments Expected Period of Completion 2021 Verifier General: Several jurisdictions, for example Minne...

AI summary This table discusses the implementation of 2022-2023 evaluation recommendations, focusing on the review and development of a cost-effectiveness test for Nova Scotia's Demand-Side Management (DSM) Plan. Efficiency Nova Scotia engaged an external consultant to support this work, and the Nova Scotia Energy Board provided directions on the benefit-cost analysis test in December 2025.

1 Attachment 3: 2023, 2024, and 2025 Program Administrator Cost Test Results 3 Table 1 provides actual Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test results for 2023, 2024, and 2025, 4 compared to the Plan as Approved PAC test for each year.

AI summary Attachment 3 presents actual Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test results for 2023-2025, comparing them to the Plan as Approved PAC test for each year. The document focuses on cost analysis and regulatory compliance for energy programs in Nova Scotia.

rging patterns do not line up with expectations in terms of timing and frequency. This leads to many EVs not being plugged in during DR events both in Nova Scotia and in another Canadian jurisdiction. › Incentive levels and structures vary...

AI summary Residential DR programs face challenges with incentive structures and participation rates. Incentive levels vary across jurisdictions, and broad participation incentives in 2024/25 may have reduced event participation. A revised approach for 2025/26 will tie incentives to 50%+ event participation, aligning with practices in other North American regions.

NTGR Calculations Free-ridership algorithm Low Free-i Partici • High Free-ric Participa Medium Free-ri Participa previous participation in an Efficiency Nova Scotia program and what was learned by participating in 2) No EMPTY - 1) Agree 1...

AI summary The text presents a table related to free-ridership algorithms and participation in Efficiency Nova Scotia programs, with questions about previous participation, cost-effectiveness of energy-efficient lighting, and promotional materials. The table includes responses such as 'Agree' and 'Don't know/Refused'.

DEFINITIONS Accuracy Reflects the proximity of measurements to the true value. Line loss factor The multiplier to convert savings at the customer meter to savings at the utility generator. It accounts for the electrical losses of the trans...

AI summary The text defines key terms related to energy efficiency programs, including accuracy, line loss factor, margin of error, market effects, net savings, net-to-gross ratio, and non-sampling error. These definitions provide clarity on how program impacts are measured and evaluated.

Cost-effectiveness The first program administrator runs various cost-effectiveness tests on their program. This program administrator shared that it is a challenge to achieve cost-effectiveness thresholds in the first year of their program...

AI summary The first program administrator conducts cost-effectiveness tests but faces challenges in meeting thresholds during the program's first year, attributing this to enrollment incentives that may distort initial cost-benefit calculations.

opt out of events, the number of enrolled devices did not always correspond to the number of devices that participated in each event. As a result, participation rates varied significantly by pathway: - › DHW controllers participated at an...

AI summary Residential DR participation varied by device type (22.5% for DHW controllers, 63.2% for batteries, 2.9% for EVs) due to connectivity, opt-outs, and device availability. Recommendations include boosting engagement, expanding device enrollment, and exploring bidirectional EV charging. Incentive structures and cost-effectiveness challenges were also noted.

Prevent Overcompensation It should prevent overcompensation for reductions that would have occurred without the DR event.

AI summary The text emphasizes preventing overcompensation in demand response (DR) programs by ensuring that incentives are not provided for energy reductions that would have occurred naturally without the DR event, thereby maintaining program integrity and cost-effectiveness.

3 Effective Useful Life This section outlines the EUL values used to calculate lifetime energy savings. This section also presents EUL values for demand reduction measures; these values are not used to calculate lifetime energy savings sin...

AI summary This section explains the use of Effective Useful Life (EUL) values for calculating lifetime energy savings and cost-effectiveness ratios. It clarifies that EUL values for demand reduction measures differ from those for demand response measures, which focus on the persistence of demand reduction rather than energy savings.

DATE FILED: May 28, 2026 E1 (CA) IR-04 Page 3 of 3 1 Request IR-05: 2 3 Reference: Evidence, page 38. 4 5 "E1 has heard from several members of the DSMAG over the past several DSM Plans that 6 consideration of short-term affordability via...

AI summary The document contains two information requests related to affordability and cost-effectiveness of demand-side management programs. Request IR-05 asks about DSMAG members' views on short-term versus long-term affordability, while IR-06 inquires about evidence provided by IESO regarding the cost-effectiveness of E1's demand response program. Responses refer to prior filings and clarify that IESO did not provide specific evidence for E1's program.

its own residential demand response programs, including the multi-year pathway through which those programs progressed toward cost-effectiveness. These discussions highlighted a number of parallels relevant to E1's Residential Eco Shift pr...

AI summary The document discusses E1's residential demand response (DR) program, the Eco Shift program, and its progression toward cost-effectiveness. It highlights lessons learned from Ontario's IESO and outlines factors influencing the program's improvement, including participant scale, recruitment strategies, and program optimization.

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

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

Challenges with Cross-Utility Comparisons Per-unit cost metrics are frequently used as high-level indicators of economic efficiency in EE programs. However, such comparisons are rarely "apples to apples." Portfolio costs and savings outcom...

AI summary Cross-utility comparisons of energy efficiency (EE) programs using per-unit cost metrics are problematic due to jurisdiction-specific factors like program maturity, climate, regulatory requirements, and portfolio composition. These variables distort $/kWh comparisons, making direct comparisons invalid without accounting for contextual differences.

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

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

documented in Appendix A – Attachment 3 – 2027-2031 Energy Efficiency & Solar- 1 PV Technical Tables, E1 performed PAC and simple payback reviews for all 2 measures. In many cases, E1 reduced incentives compared to current levels to 3 impr...

AI summary E1 conducted payback and cost-effectiveness reviews for PV measures, reducing incentives where projected paybacks were less than three years. Reference is made to E1's response to IG IR-12 part (a).

Key Takeaways • Variability . None of the PAs with whom Apex spoke set incentives in exactly the same way. Within a single PA, there was variability in terms of how incentives were 6 [https://www.xcelenergy.com/staticfiles/xe](https://www....

AI summary The document highlights variability in incentive-setting practices among PAs, with a focus on budget considerations, lack of formalized processes, and the importance of cost-effectiveness and technology maturity. Incentives are generally not updated frequently but are re-evaluated during progress review periods.

erse impacts. Special care should be given to ensure that the proposed incentive level does not exceed budgetary limits or that cost-effectiveness thresholds are violated. Step 4: Final sign off. Once all steps have been completed, the PM,...

AI summary The exception process outlines steps to ensure that proposed incentive levels adhere to budgetary limits and cost-effectiveness thresholds, with final sign-off by the PM, SDM, and ISS. Documentation is retained for regulatory purposes.

Reference: "The Preferred Plan represents a comprehensive suite of programs and service offerings which will deliver approximately 435.4 GWh of affordable, incremental net energy savings, 85.0 MW of cumulative system peak demand savings, 2...

AI summary The Preferred Plan by EfficiencyOne (E1) aims to deliver energy savings through DSM programs. E1 did not evaluate scenarios where new batteries are eligible DSM measures, citing increased costs and reduced cost-effectiveness. The plan's energy savings represent 0.8% of NS Power's load.

1 Request IR-03: Eco Shift Program Cost Effectiveness 2 3 Reference: 4 5 "While the Residential Demand Response (Eco Shift) program component does not 6 yet meet the standard cost-effectiveness threshold, there have been noted 7 improvemen...

AI summary The document discusses the cost-effectiveness of the Eco Shift program and related residential demand response initiatives. It notes that the program has not met cost-effectiveness thresholds but highlights its contribution to grid resilience. Questions are raised about evaluation methods, program design, and the inclusion of new technologies like batteries.

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

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

E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL Impact of 2027-2031 DSM Plan on Residential Customers Bills 13 2022 Evergreen IRP in the 2026 DSM Extension and subsequently for the 2027–2031 DSM 14 Pla...

AI summary E1 responds to Nova Scotia Energy Board information requests regarding the impact of the 2027–2031 DSM Plan on residential customer bills. The response discusses the use of avoided costs from NS Power's 2022 Evergreen IRP, the accuracy of emissions impacts, and the process for updating calculations when IESO-NS provides an updated IRP. It also addresses cost-effectiveness testing and the justification for measures that fail such testing.

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

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

Technology Research Technology research is essential when identifying participant perceived value as well as completing other analysis associated with incentive setting. The three forecasts that need to be developed are: - Market price; -...

AI summary Technology research is crucial for determining participant perceived value and setting incentives. Key factors include market price, technology penetration, and performance. Analysis of pricing, costs, and technology evolution informs the Technical Reference Manual (TRM), which is essential for cost-effectiveness and financial analysis from multiple perspectives.

RETURN ON INVESTMENT The determination of the return on investment is an evaluation of factors from the program administrator's and broader society's perspective. For efficiency programs, return on investment is based on two general consid...

AI summary The return on investment for efficiency programs is evaluated based on cost effectiveness and budget impact, considering both the program administrator's and broader societal perspectives.

Cost Effectiveness Cost effectiveness is usually determined using a benefit-cost analysis which explicitly or implicitly compares the cost of energy efficiency to other electricity or natural gas supply resources and may include other cons...

AI summary Cost effectiveness in energy efficiency programs is typically assessed through benefit-cost analysis, comparing energy efficiency costs to other supply resources. The Total Resource Cost (TRC) and Program Administrator Cost (PAC) tests are commonly used. Unit costs based on lifetime energy savings below a target value also indicate cost effectiveness.

Table 4: Cost Effectiveness Tests and Relationship to Incentive Setting from a Return on Investment Perspective Cost Effectiveness Test General Description and Features Implication for Incentive Setting The TRC is an evaluation of the tota...

AI summary The table outlines the Total Resource Cost (TRC) as a cost-effectiveness test, which evaluates the total benefits and costs of energy efficiency programs. It explains that TRC considers both energy and non-energy benefits, and that program administration costs are separate from participant costs, which exclude incentives. The TRC should align with guidance from Nova Scotia's DSM Advisory Group.

PAC Benefits (Cost Effectiveness) Threshold The PAC is the cost effectiveness test that reflects a program administrator's financial expenditure for a measure, program or portfolio. It is calculated by dividing the PAC benefits, which are...

AI summary The Program Administration Cost (PAC) is a cost-effectiveness test used to evaluate the financial impact of energy efficiency measures, programs, or portfolios. It compares the benefits (avoided supply and distribution costs) with the costs (program overhead, delivery, and incentives). A PAC threshold of 1.0 is commonly used, but higher thresholds like 2.0 can be set to ensure incentives and overhead costs do not exceed 50% of the benefits.

Incentive Setting Best Practices Methodology Research and Engagement Customer Technology Supply Chain Consolidation of Findings Incentive Thresholds Other Considerations Data Analysis Participation Forecasts Cost-Effectiveness Testing Mode...

AI summary The document outlines a methodology for setting incentive rates in energy efficiency programs, focusing on best practices, data analysis, cost-effectiveness testing, and implementation strategies. It emphasizes the need for ongoing monitoring, financial impact analysis, and periodic refinement of incentive structures.

Table 7: Research Engagement Phase Research and Engagement Phase  Capture incentive rates used in benchmark jurisdictions (for new incentives)  Develop target budget and cost effectiveness thresholds

AI summary The Research and Engagement Phase includes tasks such as capturing incentive rates from benchmark jurisdictions and developing target budgets and cost effectiveness thresholds.

COST EFFECTIVENESS AND AVOIDED COSTS At the portfolio level, cost effectiveness is guaranteed since the combination of savings targets and budget is lower than the cost effectiveness threshold (provided that the persistence of the energy s...

AI summary The document discusses the cost effectiveness of energy efficiency programs, focusing on the Total Resource Cost (TRC) threshold of 1.0 set by ENS for each program. It highlights the inclusion of program administration costs in TRC screening and notes that other jurisdictions sometimes exclude these costs due to their variability. The approach is based on the 2015-2040 DSM Potential Study by Navigant Consulting.

5. What is the acceptable incentive threshold in terms of cost effectiveness? With respect to cost effectiveness, there may be an acceptable incentive level threshold that is based on measure, program or portfolio cost effectiveness target...

AI summary The acceptable incentive threshold for cost effectiveness should be determined based on measure, program, or portfolio targets for the Potential Annual Cost (PAC). An upper limit could be based on forecasted PAC benefits minus program administration costs, similar to a lifetime energy savings approach. However, cost effectiveness should not dictate incentive amounts, and understanding customer cost remains the priority. A consolidated calculator is recommended to determine individual incentive thresholds.

For the Instant Savings Program, CLEAResult has the following recommendations: General Principle Current Activities Recommended Activities Understand Financial Impacts For Instant Savings, EfficiencyOne gains an understanding of financial...

AI summary CLEAResult recommends continuing current activities for the Instant Savings Program, including program evaluation, planning, and financial analysis. They also suggest implementing general principles to support the program, particularly regarding incentive level changes and the introduction of new measures.

updated, consistent with the recommendations in the General Principles section. Understand Supply Chain and Service Provider Considerations For the Custom Program, EfficiencyOne gains an understanding of the supply chain and service provid...

AI summary The document discusses how EfficiencyOne gains understanding of supply chain and service provider considerations through program management and evaluation. It also outlines how financial impacts are assessed through project screening, program management, and evaluation. CLEAResult recommends continuing current activities and implementing general principles, including expanding cost-effectiveness screening.

For the Business Energy Rebates program, CLEAResult has the following recommendations: General Principle Current Activities Recommended Activities During the program evaluation process, the energy savings assumptions and net-to gross ratio...

AI summary CLEAResult recommends updating energy savings assumptions and net-to-gross ratios during the program evaluation process for the Business Energy Rebates program, as these inputs significantly affect the cost-effectiveness impact.

Cost Effectiveness Incentive Level Threshold EfficiencyOne has a PAC target of 1.9 for this program. For the calculation, it is assumed that program administration costs are 30 percent of total expenditure, which leaves the incentive costs...

AI summary EfficiencyOne has a PAC target of 1.9 for its program. The calculation assumes program administration costs are 30% of total expenditure, with 70% allocated to incentives. CLEAResult recommends developing a more accurate cost effectiveness calculator for incentive level setting and program design.

Measure PAC of Current Incentive Level (including Program Administration Costs) Is PAC of Current Incentive Greater than Cost Effectiveness Incentive Level Threshold (including Program Administration Costs) ENERGY STAR® LED A Lamp 506.49 Y...

AI summary The table lists various energy efficiency measures along with their Program Administration Costs (PAC) and indicates whether these costs exceed the cost effectiveness incentive level threshold for each measure.

Comparison of Current Incentive Level to Incentive Level Thresholds Measure Cost to Customer Program Budget Cost Effectiveness Incentive Level Incentive Level Incentive Level Threshold Exceeded? Threshold Exceeded? Threshold Exceeded? Cust...

AI summary This section compares the current incentive level to the incentive level thresholds for the Custom Project Retrofit Track across three measures: Cost to Customer, Program Budget, and Cost Effectiveness. The table indicates that none of the thresholds have been exceeded.

Cost Effectiveness Testing In their conservation (CDM) plans, LDCs need to show portfolio cost effectiveness (TRC and PAC) if they are offering provincewide programs. If LDCs are offering local programs (only for their territory), those pr...

AI summary LDCs must demonstrate portfolio cost effectiveness (TRC and PAC) for provincewide programs, while local programs require program-level cost effectiveness. The low-income sector program can have a TRC of 0.7. The IESO is responsible for ensuring cost effectiveness across provincewide programs and the entire portfolio.

Avoided Costs For electricity, the major categories of benefit are: - Avoided Capacity Costs - Avoided Energy Costs - Transmission and Distribution Costs - 15% Adder for additional societal benefits - o Environmental benefits - o Employmen...

AI summary The text outlines the major categories of benefit for electricity, including avoided capacity costs, avoided energy costs, transmission and distribution costs, and a 15% adder for additional societal benefits such as environmental, employment, and other societal benefits.

Cost Effectiveness Requirements The gas utilities' overall DSM goals are to achieve all the cost-effective DSM available in its market. The OEB determined that cost effectiveness should be based on the Total Resource Cost-plus (TRC-plus) t...

AI summary The gas utilities are required to achieve all cost-effective Demand Side Management (DSM) in their market. The OEB uses the Total Resource Cost-plus (TRC-plus) test for screening programs, with lower requirements for low-income programs and no cost-effectiveness test for market transformation programs and pilots.

COST EFFECTIVENESS REQUIREMENTS Total Resource Cost (TRC) is used by BC Hydro and the BCUC at the program level to evaluate performance. Programs must have a TRC of 1.0 or greater. There is an expectation of low-income programs. Internally...

AI summary The document discusses the use of Total Resource Cost (TRC) by BC Hydro and the BCUC to evaluate program performance, requiring a TRC of 1.0 or greater. It also mentions internal cost effectiveness tests such as utility cost and ratepayer impact measure, with a specific focus on low-income programs.

Calculating Cost Effectiveness Cost effectiveness analysis is performed by looking at the stream of benefits and costs resulting from the DSM investment. Four metrics are calculated for each test: - 1. Benefit-cost ratio = PV (benefits) /...

AI summary The text outlines the calculation of cost effectiveness in Demand Side Management (DSM) investments using four metrics: benefit-cost ratio, net present value, and gross levelized cost. These metrics evaluate the financial impact of DSM initiatives by comparing the present value of benefits and costs.

Cost Effectiveness Testing As detailed in D.14-10-046 8 , the CPUC has interpreted its mandate to deliver cost-effective energy efficiency and conservation programs as meaning that all energy efficiency portfolios of delivery agents should...

AI summary The text discusses the cost effectiveness testing framework used by the CPUC, emphasizing the use of TRC and PAC tests to evaluate energy efficiency programs. It highlights the role of the Standard Practice Manual and the use of the DEER database and E3 model for testing.

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

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

All California PAs must deliver energy efficiency portfolios which have a TRC and PAC greater than 1. Below is PG&E's historical cost effectiveness for its 2013 and 2014 program portfolio. PG&E 2013-2015 Incentive-to-Administrative Spendin...

AI summary The text discusses California PAs' requirement to deliver energy efficiency portfolios with TRC and PAC greater than 1. It presents PG&E's historical cost effectiveness for its 2013 and 2014 program portfolio, showing TRC and PAC values for those years.

Cost Effectiveness - Electricity When evaluating cost effectiveness, the OPUC defined in Docket UM-551 that the following cost effectiveness tests are to be used: - Utility System Test - Societal Cost Test (similar to TRC) Programs and mea...

AI summary The OPUC defined cost effectiveness tests in Docket UM-551, including the Utility System Test and Societal Cost Test, to evaluate electricity programs. Measures that meet or are likely to meet a benefit cost ratio of 1.0 or greater are eligible for Energy Trust Investment.

Exceptions to Cost Effectiveness for Measure inclusion into programs 18 For measures which do not pass both the utility and societal (total resource cost) tests, the OPUC does allow measures to be included in programs assuming the measure...

AI summary The OPUC allows certain measures to be included in programs even if they fail cost-effectiveness tests, provided they meet specific conditions such as producing non-energy benefits, increasing market acceptance, or being required by law.

Portfolio vs. Measure Level Cost Effectiveness As mentioned above, cost effectiveness is calculated at both the measure and program levels. It is important to note that there are fundamental differences in what costs are included when test...

AI summary The text explains the difference between measure-level and program-level cost-effectiveness calculations. At the measure level, administration and delivery costs are excluded, while at the program level, they are included to ensure that the total benefits of the savings exceed the total program costs. Programs must achieve a benefit-cost ratio greater than 1 for both UCT and TRC tests.

Below are the cost effectiveness results which were calculated for each program as part of the Energy Trust's 2014 Annual Report. 19 Program Utility Cost Test Benefit Cost Ratio Societal (Total Resource Cost) Test Benefit Cost Ratio New Ho...

AI summary The document presents cost effectiveness results for various energy efficiency programs from the Energy Trust's 2014 Annual Report, including benefit-cost ratios for both utility and societal tests across different program categories.

COST EFFECTIVENESS – NATURAL GAS The current market condition for natural gas prices (i.e., low price environment) has caused the Energy Trust and PUCs to reexamine gas measures over the last few years. The Energy Trust has been able to ca...

AI summary The Energy Trust and PUCs are reevaluating natural gas measures due to low gas prices. Order 94-950 provides relief based on Commission policy, allowing the Energy Trust to apply specific cost effectiveness guidelines for its gas energy efficiency portfolio.

Detailed Measure Development - •Identify technical guidelines and data, identify any data gaps and create research plan for gaps - •Stakeholder outreach - •Facilitation of crossprogram coordination - •Cost Effectiveness testing - •Draft Me...

AI summary The process for developing detailed measures involves identifying technical guidelines and data gaps, conducting stakeholder outreach, facilitating cross-program coordination, performing cost-effectiveness testing, and drafting a Measure Approval Document. Measures with sufficient data and stakeholder support may be promoted to approval, while those with insufficient data can be piloted.

Previous Results (Savings, Expenditure, Cost Effectiveness) Year Electricity Savings Expenditure Cost Effectiveness 2013 Not Available Not Available Not Available 2014 Not Available Not Available Not Available 2015 Not Available Not Availa...

AI summary The document outlines previous results and future targets related to electricity savings, expenditure, and cost effectiveness. However, data for the years 2013 to 2018 is not available. It also mentions an incentive level setting methodology, though details are not provided.

Avoided Costs 2 Any updates to the avoided costs for Vermont are led by the PSB. Periodically, the avoided costs are updated. The last update occurred in 2015, based on a report by Synapse Energy Economics, which investigated the avoided e...

AI summary The document discusses the process of updating avoided costs in Vermont, led by the PSB, with the last update in 2015 based on a Synapse Energy Economics report. Avoided costs are calculated for the entire New England region and include categories like avoided capacity costs, avoided energy costs, and transmission and distribution costs.

Vermont 2013-2015 Cost Effectiveness Results SCT 2.66 PAC 3.05 Based on analysis of the 2015-2017 program targets and budgets, it is assumed that the cost effectiveness projections will be slightly decreased, compared to historical perform...

AI summary The analysis of the 2015-2017 program targets and budgets suggests that cost effectiveness projections will be slightly lower than historical performance, based on the 2013-2015 results from Vermont.

Avoided Costs TRC: The benefits included are the avoided costs of energy. Efficiency Maine participated in the AESC Study Group, which partnered with Tabors Caramanis Rudkevich for a study on marginal energy supply costs that are avoided d...

AI summary The text discusses avoided costs related to energy efficiency programs, including benefits such as reduced resource requirements, infrastructure costs, and wholesale market prices. Efficiency Maine uses avoided costs from the AESC Study for cost-effectiveness testing, and the study is updated every three years.

Cost Effectiveness Testing As per the 2016-2018 plan, there are three key elements to cost effectiveness: - 1. Each program is supposed to be screened for cost effectiveness. For Massachusetts, the TRC test is used for screening. There is...

AI summary The 2016-2018 plan outlines three key elements for cost effectiveness in programs: screening using the TRC test, minimizing program administration costs, and using competitive procurement processes.

National Grid 2013-2015 Savings and Expenditure Sector Savings (MWh) Total Expenditure ($) Incentive Expenditure ($) Residential 805,157 $290,842,401 $222,323,354 Low Income 58,040 $85,604,742 $68,824,752 Commercial & Industrial 919,015 $3...

AI summary The tables present National Grid's energy savings and expenditures from 2013 to 2015 across residential, low-income, and commercial & industrial sectors. The data includes total expenditure, incentive expenditure, and ratios of incentive to total program spending and spending per kWh.

National Grid's cost effectiveness results for 2013-2015 are as follows: National Grid 2013-2015 Cost Effectiveness Results Expected TRC 3.69102 Actual TRC Not Available FUTURE TARGETS

AI summary The document outlines National Grid's cost effectiveness results for 2013-2015, showing the expected Total Resource Cost (TRC) as 3.69102, while the actual TRC is not available. It also mentions future targets, though no details are provided.

1. Measure Library Section (from TRM process recommendation in report) This section should include the details of each measure in the portfolio, or measures being considered. - Efficient Technology Name; - Efficient Technology Description;...

AI summary This section outlines the structure for documenting measures in the measure library, including details such as technology names, descriptions, wattage, penetration estimates, pricing, and cost-effectiveness parameters. It emphasizes the need for clear identification of program-dependent parameters and the inclusion of cost and energy savings data.

2. Cost Effectiveness Calculator Section This section will take the inputs from the Measure Library section, combine them with the other inputs listed below, and output a cost effectiveness forecast. This will be used to determine the ince...

AI summary This section describes the process of using inputs from the Measure Library and other specified inputs to generate a cost effectiveness forecast, which will be used to determine the incentive screening threshold based on cost effectiveness.

Inputs - Incentive screening threshold in terms of Customer Cost (From Measure Library); - Incentive screening threshold in terms of the program budget (From Measure Library); - Incentive screening threshold in terms of cost effectiveness;...

AI summary The text outlines various criteria and factors related to incentive screening, including customer cost, program budget, cost effectiveness, sector, program delivery channel, financial motivation, and financial impact, as derived from the Measure Library and Cost Effectiveness Calculator.

mation strategy to understand and address the challenges posed by outdated systems and manual processes. This can include an audit of workflows to identify repetitive, low-impact tasks which will benefit from automation in addition to proc...

AI summary The text outlines digital transformation strategies, including workflow audits, a technology modernization roadmap, embedding change management practices, and leadership development to support organizational change and digital modernization.

- staffing, E1 will achieve annual cost savings of approximately $0.9 million per year. 1 Request IR-22: 2 3 Evidence – Exhibit E-1, pp.1-71 (pdf pp. 8-78) 4 5 Please provide the annual cost savings that the Preferred Plan will achieve thr...

AI summary The document outlines EfficiencyOne's (E1) response to information requests from the Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB), including cost savings from staffing and the inclusion of solar-PV in the 2027–2031 DSM Plan to support residential Mi'kmaw communities.

3 4 (b) E1 is unable to determine the additional or reduced investment required for lifetime 5 benefits to exceed costs (i.e., for the program to pass the PAC test). 6 7 Investment and lifetime benefits are highly correlated, so as investm...

AI summary E1 is unable to determine the investment level required for the program's lifetime benefits to exceed costs, as the relationship between investment and benefits is highly correlated. Economies of scale may improve cost-effectiveness, but the program may not achieve cost-effectiveness at any scale.

1 feedback and E1's affordability focused design approach reflecting current economic 2 circumstances facing NS Power ratepayers. 4 ii) E1 prioritized short term affordability for the Preferred Plan by maintaining the 5 annual investment o...

AI summary The document discusses E1's approach to designing the 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan with a focus on short-term affordability and maintaining an annual investment of $63.75 million. It emphasizes deliverability and cost effectiveness, highlighting a cost effectiveness result of 2.4 for the proposed plan.

E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 • For the programs that fail the PAC test in Appendix A of Exhibit E-1 1 organizations. E1 also works collaboratively with NS Power on the 2 delivery o...

AI summary E1 responds to Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) information requests regarding demand-side management (DSM) programs, including how they are designed, cost-effectiveness assessments using the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test, and collaboration with NS Power and the Demand Side Management Advisory Group.

1 Request IR-49: 2 3 Appendix A - Preferred Plan pp. 1-112 (Attach. 1-5) 4 5 Reference Appendix A, Attachment 3 (Exhibit E-1-(ii)): 6 7 E1 provides justification for measures that do not pass the program administrator cost (PAC) 8 test. 9...

AI summary The Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) has requested detailed justifications from E1 regarding its heat pump maintenance costs, investment degradation, and the cost-benefit analysis of specific measures in its demand-side management plan. E1 is being asked to explain why certain measures may not meet the program administrator cost (PAC) criteria and how they contribute to maintaining delivery costs and contractor engagement.

E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 percent of participating homes. The program still passes the PAC test with a ratio of 1.0 2 over the duration of the Preferred Plan. 3 4 Less cost-effe...

AI summary E1 explains that including less cost-effective measures in the DSM Plan helps diversify offerings and increase overall home savings through bundling. Removing these could reduce product variety and risk Service Providers disengaging from the program.

3.4.1.2 DR Load flexibility The DR load flexibility pilot will launch in Q1 of 2025 and will focus on leveraging existing DR technologies/participants in new use cases beyond system peak curtailment. The new use cases may include cold load...

AI summary The DR load flexibility pilot will launch in Q1 2025, aiming to expand DR use cases beyond system peak curtailment, such as cold load pickup and renewable following, to improve program cost-effectiveness. The pilot seeks to increase DR value for ratepayers and enhance grid stability, with evaluation planned after the first DR season.

E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 2. Has the measure's performance been sufficiently validated in field to demonstrate 2 reliable DSM savings? 3 4 Alternatively, where an innovation pro...

AI summary Nova Scotia Power (E1) outlines criteria for validating the performance of Demand Side Management (DSM) programs, emphasizing the need for cost-effectiveness, market awareness, and pilot delivery to ensure reliable DSM savings. Specific thresholds are not applied during the pilot phase, as each project is evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

- 1 program component was used to support the audit costs, marketing, program - 2 administration and other eligible measures but did not directly fund the solar-PV incentive. Request IR-02: Reference: 2025 DSM Annual Progress Report, Attac...

AI summary The response to Request IR-02 clarifies that provincial and federal funds were not included as a cost in the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) calculations for solar PV projects with DSM savings during 2023–2025. The Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) approved this approach, which considers only utility-incurred costs and excludes third-party government incentives.

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

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

in Round 1 and Round 2 modelling phases. (b) E1 did not undertake formal consultations with other jurisdictions specifically offering electrification programs as part of the initial program design. (c) SE measures were assessed across Roun...

AI summary E1 did not consult other jurisdictions on electrification programs during initial design. Strategic electrification (SE) measures were assessed in two modelling rounds using the Rate Impact Measure and modified-PAC tests, both finding SE non-cost-effective. The Innovation Framework outlines future research on electric heating technologies. SE was excluded from the final DSM Plan.

es 76–77, E1 is maintaining Residential DR at DATE FILED: May 28, 2026 E1 (SNS) IR-03 Page 1 of 2 The basis is described in Section 3.3 of the 2027–2031 DSM Plan Evidence. 2026 DSM Extension levels with no new enrollments, limiting increme...

AI summary E1 is maintaining Residential Demand Response (DR) at 2026 DSM Extension levels without new enrollments, aiming to optimize performance and reduce costs by improving existing device base efficiency and participation rates. Cost-effectiveness challenges persist despite leveraging lower-cost delivery pathways like the Efficient Product Installation and Instant Savings programs.

supporting analysis. (d) Confirm whether federal incentives were considered in unit cost and cost-effectiveness scenarios, including the 30% refundable Clean Technology Investment Tax Credit, 100% first-year accelerated depreciation for el...

AI summary The text requests confirmation on whether federal incentives (e.g., Clean Technology Investment Tax Credit, EV incentives) were considered in cost scenarios, portfolio assessments, and rate impacts of strategic electrification vs. efficiency. It also asks about EV-related measures in the 2027-2031 DSM Plan. The response refers to EfficiencyOne's prior submission (E1) for details.

07. E1 is continually considering these types of process improvements and expects further delivery changes could occur during the 2027–2031 Plan as industry and economic conditions continue to evolve. (e) E1's proposed 2027–2031 DSM Plan d...

AI summary E1's 2027–2031 DSM Plan uses a balanced approach to prioritize energy efficiency measures, emphasizing portfolio-level cost-effectiveness over sole reliance on Program Administrator Cost (PAC) ratios. While PAC serves as a primary screening test, the plan incorporates factors like delivery costs, long-term savings, and rate impacts, ensuring higher PAC-ratio measures are not automatically prioritized. Safeguards require justification for high-cost measures and maintain aggregate cost-effectiveness.

Table 2: Key Initiatives in Round 1 Program Program Component Initiative Description New Residential Advanced New Homes New program component to help Mi'kmaw communities build high performing homes Solar-PV Residential New DSM resource – t...

AI summary Table 2 outlines key initiatives in Round 1, including new program components for Mi'kmaw communities, non-profits, and new categories like Enabling Strategies. Section 2.3 discusses cost-effectiveness testing as a key consideration in the proceeding.

Table 1: STANDARDIZED FILING FRAMEWORK ITEM DESCRIPTION - UARBNova Scotia Energy Board-Approved Cost-Effectiveness Testing including Program Administrator Cost (PAC) results; and - Cumulative energy and demand savings and investment (appro...

AI summary The document outlines a standardized filing framework that includes cost-effectiveness testing approved by the Nova Scotia Energy Board, specifically highlighting Program Administrator Cost (PAC) results and cumulative energy and demand savings since 2008-2012.

4.3.2 COST-EFFECTIVENESS TESTING EfficiencyOne will apply the UARB-approved cost-effectiveness test. E1 will apply the NSEB-approved cost-effectiveness test. Pursuant to Section 79H (2) of the Public Utilities Act, the NSEB, in evaluating...

AI summary EfficiencyOne will apply the UARB-approved cost-effectiveness test and also provide NSEB-approved results at the measure and program levels for informational purposes, as per Board direction.

Table 1: STANDARDIZED FILING FRAMEWORK ITEM DESCRIPTION 3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE UPCOMING PERIOD'S DSM RESOURCE PLAN 3.1 Development of the Upcoming Period's DSM Program Targets and Investment A summary of: - the parties involved in developin...

AI summary The text outlines the development of the upcoming period's Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan, including the parties involved, recent Integrated Resource Plan results, affordability, cost-efficiency opportunities, and key assumptions.

4.3.2 COST-EFFECTIVENESS TESTING E1 will apply the NSEB-approved cost-effectiveness test. Pursuant to Section 79H (2) of the Public Utilities Act , the NSEB, in evaluating a franchise holder's application, "shall evaluate the proposed cost...

AI summary E1 will apply the NSEB-approved cost-effectiveness test for demand-side management programs, as required by Section 79H (2) of the Public Utilities Act. The test is applied at the portfolio, measure, and program levels, with justification provided for measures that fall below the 1.0 threshold.

Energy Efficiency Energy Efficiency (EE) continues to be a crucial resource for Nova Scotia's electricity system as demonstrated in integrated resource planning by reducing system load and peak, improving grid reliability and lowering elec...

AI summary Energy efficiency (EE) is a critical resource for Nova Scotia's electricity system, reducing load and peak demand, improving grid reliability, and lowering costs. Nova Scotia Power's 2022 IRP identified Base EE as the optimal level, resulting in significant energy savings and cost-effectiveness. E1 has modeled scenarios based on stakeholder input and third-party recommendations, including energy savings targets and sectoral allocations.

Demand Response Demand Response (DR) was introduced as an E1 program in the 2023-2025 DSM Plan and is a critical resource to support Nova Scotia's electricity system. E1 has heard and is responding to concerns from stakeholders regarding b...

AI summary Demand Response (DR) was introduced in the 2023-2025 DSM Plan and is a critical resource for Nova Scotia's electricity system. E1 addressed concerns about achievability and cost effectiveness in Round 2 DR modelling, leading to realistic performance targets for the 2027-2031 DSM Plan. The available capacity remains within optimal levels identified in Nova Scotia Power's 2022 IRP, and a cost-effectiveness target of 1.0 was applied for both Base and High scenarios.

3.2 COST-EFFECTIVENESS TESTING E1 has provided Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test results for Round 2 modelling for all four of the DSM resources considered. Attachment 2 provides detail on the impact quantification used for Round 2 (Re...

AI summary E1 has submitted Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test results for Round 2 modelling of four DSM resources. Attachment 2 details the impact quantification used for Round 2, referenced in the 'CET Assumptions' tab.

3.3 MODELLING E1 shared its key model assumptions, cost effectiveness test (CET) assumptions, and low-income and equity assumptions in the Round 1 model results package circulated October 27, 2025. There have been no changes to E1's approa...

AI summary E1 updated its cost effectiveness test (CET) assumptions in Round 2 to align with the Board's decision in M12282, which required using the PAC test and NS Power's WACC as the discount rate. E1's key assumptions remain unchanged since Round 1, but ongoing refinement of model inputs is occurring, with finalization prior to the 2027-2031 DSM Plan Application.

Table 17: Update on Board Directives Relating to the 2027-2031 Plan Board Directives E1 Update • E1 is directed to use the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test as its primary test for screening the cost-effectiveness of its proposed DSM P...

AI summary The Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) has directed E1 to use the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test as the primary method for assessing the cost-effectiveness of its proposed DSM Plan for the 2027-2031 term, using NS Power's Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) as the discount rate. E1 has already provided PAC results for Round 2 of the DSM Plan, incorporating new avoided costs from NS Power.

Round 2 Model Input Assumptions and Results Board Directives E1 Update primary screening cost-effectiveness test when inconsistent with the PAC test the Board has directed E1 to apply): a. If E1 uses a social discount rate, it must also pr...

AI summary The document outlines the Board's directives for the Round 2 model input assumptions and results, including the use of social discount rates and WACC, and the inclusion of emissions impacts in the analysis. E1 has calculated emissions impacts but is awaiting long-run marginal emissions rates from NS Power, which are not currently available.

12 E1 submitted its first DSM Plan in 2012 as DSM Administrator. ITEM DESCRIPTION - the affordability of the proposed DSM Resource Plan; and - cost-efficiency opportunities; and - key global assumptions. 3. ALTERNATE SCENARIOS TO THE PROPO...

AI summary E1 submitted its first DSM Plan in 2012 as DSM Administrator. The document discusses alternate scenarios to the proposed DSM Plan, including cost-efficiency opportunities and key global assumptions. EfficiencyOne is required to provide alternate scenarios of DSM budgets, with NSPI providing rate impact analysis. The proposed DSM Resource Plan includes cost-effectiveness testing metrics.

Appendix 1 ITEM DESCRIPTION Incremental net Energy Savings (First-year); - Incremental net Demand Savings (First-year); - Incremental net Energy Savings (Lifetime); - Demand Response Available Capacity; - Incremental net savings from other...

AI summary The document outlines the metrics and analysis required for the DSM Plan, including energy and demand savings, cost-effectiveness testing using the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test, and the use of NS Power's Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) as a discount rate. The Board also directed the use of a modified PAC to assess strategic electrification, which must reduce both GHG emissions and electricity costs.

Appendix 1 ITEM DESCRIPTION - Forward-Looking RBIA: This will consist of a detailed description of the forward-looking rate and bill impact analysis of the proposed DSM Resource pPlan.18 This will include a detailed breakdown between the r...

AI summary This document outlines the requirements for submitting a forward-looking and historical Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) for the proposed DSM Resource Plan, including payback period considerations and justifications for measure inclusion. It also mentions additional items such as cost allocation and HST updates.

Table 2: PROGRAM DESCRIPTION TEMPLATE ITEM DESCRIPTION 4.3 Program Performance Indicators For the upcoming Plan, E1 will provide a table of program-level performance indicators by individual Plan year and in total for the Plan period (e.g....

AI summary The document outlines program performance indicators for the upcoming Plan, including energy and demand savings, cost-effectiveness analysis, and low-income and equity performance metrics. E1 is required to provide detailed tables summarizing these indicators by plan year and overall for the Plan period.

4.2.3.1 AVOIDED COSTS Nova Scotia Power will provide estimates of annual avoided costs of fuel on a per-MWh basis, and annual avoided costs of generation, transmission, and distribution on a per-kW basis to EfficiencyOne for use in the cos...

AI summary Nova Scotia Power will provide annual avoided cost estimates to EfficiencyOne for use in DSM planning processes. The NSIESO will develop avoided cost calculations for demand-side management resources as part of its IRP exercises, in accordance with the More Access to Energy Act.

Standardized Filing Framework the proposed cost-effective demand-side management at the portfolio level that would be the aggregate amount of demand-side management programs." 28 In the Board's Decision dated December 10, 2025 in matter M1...

AI summary The Board directed E1 to use the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test as the primary method for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of its Demand Side Management (DSM) plan for 2027, using NS Power's WACC as the discount rate. E1 is also required to provide individual justifications for any measures failing cost-effectiveness tests in future applications.

Performance Indicators may include: - i. Annual incremental energy savings (reported by program and rate class); - ii. Cumulative annual energy savings (reported by program and rate class); - iii. Annual lifetime energy savings (reported b...

AI summary The text outlines a list of performance indicators that may be included in regulatory proceedings, focusing on energy savings, demand response, customer satisfaction, and cost-effectiveness testing. These metrics are reported by program and rate class, and include both annual and cumulative data, as well as considerations for low-income communities and equity impacts.

Figure 1: Glossary of Terms Term Definition measure. Net refers to savings that includes effects such as free-ridership and spillover. Incremental net energy savings (Lifetime) The energy savings that occur over the lifetime of an energy e...

AI summary The text defines key terms related to energy efficiency and demand response, including incremental net energy savings, lifetime benefits, and the Nova Scotia Energy Board's approved cost-effectiveness testing. It outlines how benefits are calculated using the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) and refers to a Board order directing E1 to conduct a Benefit-Cost-Analysis Test (BCA) for evaluating DSM plans.

16 M12282, Nova Scotia Energy Board Order, December 10, 2025. In the Board's Decision on the Benefit-Cost-Analysis Test (BCA), E1 was directed to use the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test for screening the cost effectiveness of its pro...

AI summary The Nova Scotia Energy Board Order M12282 from December 10, 2025, directed E1 to use the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test for evaluating the cost effectiveness of its proposed DSM Plan and to apply NS Power's Weighted Average Cost of Capital.

4.3.2 COST-EFFECTIVENESS TESTING E1 will apply the NSEB-approved cost-effectiveness test. Pursuant to Section 79H (2) of the Public Utilities Act , the NSEB, in evaluating a franchise holder's application, "shall evaluate the proposed cost...

AI summary E1 is required to apply the NSEB-approved cost-effectiveness test for its DSM plan, using the PAC test and NS Power's WACC as the discount rate. The Board also directed the use of a modified PAC for assessing strategic electrification, which must reduce both GHG emissions and electricity costs. E1 will provide cost-effectiveness results at multiple levels, including individual measures that fail testing.

3.1 Glossary of Terms Term Definition Incremental net energy First full year of energy savings attributable to efficiency measures installed in that savings (First-year) year; net of free-ridership and spillover. Incremental net energy Ene...

AI summary The glossary defines key terms related to energy efficiency and resource planning, including incremental net energy savings, integrated resource plans, and cost-effectiveness screens. It outlines the roles of entities such as the Nova Scotia Energy Board and the Nova Scotia Independent Energy System Operator.

4.3.2 Cost-Effectiveness Testing E1 will apply the Board-approved cost-effectiveness test at the portfolio level under the Public Utilities Act . As directed under M12282, the PAC test is the primary screening test, using NS Power's Weight...

AI summary E1 will apply the Board-approved cost-effectiveness test at the portfolio level under the Public Utilities Act, using the PAC test with NS Power's WACC as the discount rate. Strategic electrification is evaluated using a modified PAC, and E1 must provide justification for each measure failing cost-effectiveness testing in Plan applications.

5. CONSOLIDATED ENDNOTES AND SOURCES - 1. M06733 – E1 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan. NSUARB Order (October 7, 2015) approving the Plan, the Consensus Agreement establishing the Standardized Filing Framework; Performance Targets, Indicators,...

AI summary This section lists consolidated endnotes and sources from a regulatory proceeding, including matters related to Demand Side Management (DSM) plans, standardized filing frameworks, and the establishment of the Nova Scotia Independent Energy System Operator (NSIESO) under the Energy Reform (2024) Act.

al of modifications to the approved DSM Plan. [2026-IRP-Draft-Terms-of-Reference.pdf](https://ieso-ns.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/2026-IRP-Draft-Terms-of-Reference.pdf) Request IR-12: Page 17 of the Evidence states, "Fourth, with respect...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) is requested to provide a BCA ratio for the 2027–2031 DSM Plan using the NS Test with the WACC from the PAC BCA and a societal discount rate of 2%. E1 acknowledges the request and notes that they have used modelling software to perform multiple cost-effectiveness tests, including the NS Test, TRC, RIM, PAC, and others.

odelling software capable of performing multiple cost-effectiveness tests, including the proposed NS Test as well as the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test, the Rate Impact Measure (RIM), the PAC and the modified-PAC. This functionality was us...

AI summary The document discusses the use of various cost-effectiveness tests for the 2027–2031 DSM Plan, including the PAC test, which was confirmed as the primary method by the Nova Scotia Energy Board's Decision (M12282). E1 provided multiple test results, but full results under the proposed NS Test and TRC were not produced due to the use of the PAC test.

eligible behind-the-meter battery systems, which remain low-penetration and high-cost so there are less devices bearing the cost of the battery pathway. EfficiencyOne's (E1) EV and battery incentive structures are shown in the 2025 DSM Eva...

AI summary The text discusses challenges with EfficiencyOne's (E1) EV and battery pathways in the Eco Shift program, including low enrollment, high costs, and compatibility issues. E1 plans to remove these pathways pending approval, citing cost-effectiveness and operational complexity. Peer jurisdictions and lessons learned are requested regarding residential demand response and grid management strategies.

Improves comparability and clarity of results For the 2023–2025 DSM Plan and 2026 DSM Extension, Guidehouse applied a 10-year cost effectiveness framework to reflect the full expected duration of DR programs and capture all associated cost...

AI summary Guidehouse applied a 10-year cost effectiveness framework for the 2023–2025 DSM Plan and 2026 DSM Extension, but this approach introduced challenges such as reliance on long-term assumptions and post-modeling adjustments. Levelizing upfront costs over ten years improves comparability and clarity of benefit-cost ratios for DR programs within the PAC test.

Request IR-35: Please refer to Tables 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13: DSM Preferred Plan Savings and Investment by Program Component for 2027, 2028, 2029, 2030, and 2031 respectively starting on page 29 of Appendix A – Preferred Plan. (a) The Resid...

AI summary The response to IR-35 explains that E1's 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan focuses on affordability and cost-effectiveness. The Residential Instant Savings program has high cost-effectiveness and broad accessibility, while the Home Energy Assessment program is seeing increased investment to boost participation after the Canada Greener Homes Grant ended.

coverage that Apex Analytics suggested is typical in other jurisdictions during the development of the Preferred Plan. (e) E1 considered different incentive levels and how those changes would likely impact participant uptake, free-ridershi...

AI summary E1 has adjusted incentive levels for the Affordable Multifamily Housing program due to the end of provincial funding in May 2025. The response outlines that E1 considered various incentive levels and their impacts on participation, free-ridership, and cost effectiveness, and has proposed incentives that align with Apex Analytics' recommendations.

s a range of prescriptive and performance-based incentives. The estimated average incentive payments per project type are listed in Appendix A – Attachment 3 – 2027–2031 Energy Efficiency and Solar-PV - Technical Tables of E1's 2027–2031 D...

AI summary The document discusses proposed incentive levels for the 2027–2031 DSM Plan, noting that they are higher than previous levels but significantly lower than those when provincial top-up funding was available. E1 argues that the proposed incentives are reasonable and sustainable, aiming to increase customer participation and energy savings. However, the end of provincial top-up funding has led to a significant drop in customer pre-approval applications.

period, positioning the Residential Demand Response program for renewed enrollment beyond 2031. This phased approach reflects a prudent and cost-conscious management strategy that preserves the value 2 program can demonstrably satisfy appl...

AI summary The text discusses a phased approach for the Residential Demand Response program, positioning it for renewed enrollment beyond 2031. This strategy is described as prudent and cost-conscious, ensuring the program can meet cost-effectiveness tests.

collect and assess information regarding the coincidence of the load reduction with the utility peak period. This information is not required to evaluate the total available demand response capacity, which is EfficiencyOne's (E1) performan...

AI summary The document discusses how EfficiencyOne (E1) evaluates demand response capacity provided to NS Power, emphasizing that it does not require load reductions to coincide with the utility peak period. The avoided capacity cost is based on NS Power's planning value and reflects the broader value of DSM programs in avoiding generation investments.

: "Primary cost-effectiveness screen at the portfolio level, discount using NS Power's WACC. Strategic electrification is assessed using a modified PAC that includes the incremental utility revenues…" (d) E1 did include portfolio-level GHG...

AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of DSM Plans, including the inclusion of GHG savings and levelized cost of saved energy as performance indicators. E1 did not include GHG emissions reductions as a primary metric, but plans to update the Standardized Filing Framework based on the Board's recommendations.

1. Resource Acquisition Framework In the Resource Acquisition framework, Demand-Side Management (energy efficiency and demand response) and Distributed Energy Resources (storage, distributed generation, electrification, etc.) are evaluated...

AI summary The Resource Acquisition Framework evaluates Demand-Side Management (DSM) and Distributed Energy Resources (DER) based on cost-effectiveness and their ability to deliver energy savings, capacity reductions, and load-shape value. Efficiency Nova Scotia programs are treated as resource acquisition programs, with Econoler's approach being referenced. The framework emphasizes cost-effectiveness screening and acknowledges evolving evaluation methods.

d="page-3-3"> Response - Consistent with the Prefatory Statement, the Verification Team's review is limited to Exhibit E- - 17, and the report does not provide the level of detail requested. (a)-(b) The report does not specify which evalua...

AI summary The response highlights the limitations of the Verification Team's review, noting that it is confined to Exhibit E-17 and does not provide detailed evaluations, error identification, or sampling details. The report discusses the 'value multiplier' as a measure of the average lifetime of energy savings and questions whether a high multiplier necessarily indicates program value or ratepayer benefit.

Why or why not? Please confirm multiplier interpretation. 158 CA IR-2(a) 159 Response 160 The report defines the multiplier as a ratio of lifetime to annual savings and does not characterize 161 it as a weighted measure life. No reinterpre...

AI summary The text discusses the interpretation of a multiplier in a report, clarifying that it is defined as a ratio of lifetime to annual savings and not a weighted measure. It also raises questions about the relationship to cost-effectiveness and references a 2025 Savings Verification Review, highlighting the evaluation cadence for programs.

5 If a heat pump now produces roughly half the evaluated savings it was previously 6 credited with, the cost of acquiring each kWh through that measure has effectively 7 doubled, and the appropriate response is for E1 to examine how to del...

AI summary The document argues that if heat pumps now produce only half the previously credited energy savings, the cost per kWh has doubled. It calls on E1 to explore ways to improve cost-effectiveness, such as reducing incentives, adjusting program design, and ensuring installations displace more fossil fuel heating, rather than accepting the increased cost as fixed.

4 Q. WHAT EFFECT WILL THIS CARVE-OUT RECOMMENDATION HAVE ON 5 COST-EFFECTIVENESS? 6 A. Pre-weatherization budgets can allow E1 to go deeper on some projects and reduce 7 deferrals for projects that they may not have been able to do before,...

AI summary The carve-out recommendation may improve cost-effectiveness by allowing E1 to go deeper on some projects and reduce deferrals for projects that could not be done before. However, the exact positive effects are difficult to project. A table estimates the impact of shifting 10% of dedicated low-income retrofit funding to pre-weatherization.

10 Q. WHY ARE THESE TWO MEASURES SO IMPORTANT? 11 A. As discussed earlier, these measures are one of the main areas to explore for both future 12 expansion of energy savings and as a source of net benefits. They are extremely cost-13 effec...

AI summary These measures are crucial for expanding energy savings and generating net benefits due to their high cost-effectiveness, with PAC BCRs ranging from 3.12 to 13.29. Without them, customers may purchase less efficient equipment, leading to missed opportunities for long-term bill reductions.

1 Q. HOW DO THE TWO COMPONENTS COMPARE ON COST-EFFECTIVENESS? 2 A. They differ markedly. The BNI Smart Synergy component is cost-effective: E1 confirms that "E1's Smart Synergy program demonstrates cost-effectiveness." 86 3 The Residential...

AI summary The BNI Smart Synergy component is deemed cost-effective, while the Residential 4 Eco Shift component does not meet the current cost-effectiveness threshold. E1 acknowledges this but expects Eco Shift to become cost-effective with increased participation and operational experience.

9 Q. DO YOU SUPPORT THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEMAND RESPONSE 10 (ECO SHIFT) COMPONENT? 11 A. I support continuing Eco Shift at an exploratory level, but I do not support expanding it. 12 E1 has appropriately scaled back the Eco Shift progr...

AI summary The response supports maintaining the existing Eco Shift program at an exploratory level but opposes expanding it. It notes that E1 has scaled back the program, maintaining the current device base and not adding new enrollments. The 2025 evaluation showed poor performance, delivering only 0.854 MW of available capacity against a 7.135 MW target, despite a significant increase in participation. Further investment is deemed imprudent until the program demonstrates cost-effectiveness.

15 Q. DO YOU SUPPORT THE PROPOSED BNI DEMAND RESPONSE (SMART 16 SYNERGY) COMPONENT? 17 A. Yes. Smart Synergy is cost-effective, delivers dispatchable winter peak capacity that the 18 IRP identifies as an increasingly valuable system resour...

AI summary The respondent supports the proposed BNI Demand Response (Smart Synergy) component, citing its cost-effectiveness, ability to provide dispatchable winter peak capacity, and benefits to ratepayers by deferring more expensive firm supply capacity.

Economic and Policy Analysis Attorney General's Office of Ratepayer Advocacy- Massachusetts (October 2023 – Present) - Provides economic, technical, and policy related consulting services to the AG's office related to MA's 2025 to 2027 Ene...

AI summary The Attorney General's Office of Ratepayer Advocacy in Massachusetts is consulting on energy efficiency and decarbonization initiatives, including the 2025-2027 Energy Efficiency Plans, Clean Heat Standard, and reviewing Eversource's geothermal project and natural gas utility Climate Compliance Plan filings.

Economic, Policy, and Technical Analysis Office of People's Counsel - Maryland (June 2025 – Present) - Lead consulting team that assisted OPC in Matter No. 9749 and provided economic and technical analysis of Baltimore Gas and Electric's a...

AI summary The Office of People's Counsel - Maryland led an economic and technical analysis of Thermal Energy Networks System (TENS) pilot projects by Baltimore Gas and Electric and Washington Gas and Light, covering site selection, engineering, rate design, cost-effectiveness, and policy alignment in Matter No. 9749.

Technical Assistance for Energy Efficiency Programs Focus on Energy - Wisconsin (June 2011 – August 2013) - Developed and customized cost-effectiveness calculators for Wisconsin's Focus on Energy portfolio of energy efficiency programs; -...

AI summary The Technical Assistance for Energy Efficiency Programs section details work done by Focus on Energy in Wisconsin from 2011 to 2013, including the development of cost-effectiveness calculators, training on energy efficiency program analysis, and quality assurance on 14 programs spending over $160 million.

Testimony and Proceeding Participation Forum On Behalf Of Docket/Matter Date Issues Addressed Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General D.P.U. 25-40 through 25- 44/45 - Climate Compliance Pla...

AI summary The text outlines various regulatory proceedings involving utility companies and regulatory bodies, with a focus on topics such as energy efficiency, tariff design, and cost-effectiveness of programs. Key entities involved include the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General and the Consumer Advocate of Nova Scotia.

High Level Assessment of E1's Preferred Plan At a high level, E1's proposed 2027–2031 DSM Plan is framed around affordability, near-term ratepayer protection, and continuity of DSM programming. That framing is appropriate. Nova Scotia cust...

AI summary E1's 2027–2031 DSM Plan focuses on affordability, ratepayer protection, and continuity of DSM programming. It maintains a consistent investment level of $63.75 million annually, totaling $318.75 million over five years, with a PAC ratio of 2.4 and estimated lifetime benefits of $682.5 million. However, the plan is urged to undergo stronger scrutiny regarding the allocation of DSM funds and alignment with system needs.

A. E1's Treatment of Demand Response E1's Preferred Plan includes both residential DR with an annual budget of ~$2 million and BNI DR with an annual budget ranging from $3.1 million in 2027 to $4.4 million in 2031 with total Demand Respons...

AI summary E1's Preferred Plan includes both residential and BNI Demand Response (DR) programs with significant investment over five years. Residential DR participation is expected to decline, while BNI DR is projected to grow. E1 faces challenges with residential DR cost-effectiveness and implementation, though participation has recovered from initial issues.

While individual programs in the portfolio do not need to have a PAC test greater than one, there must be justification for the inclusion of programs that are not individually cost effective. E1 justifies the inclusion of residential DR no...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) justifies pausing the rollout of its residential demand response (DR) program due to current cost-ineffectiveness but emphasizes its importance for the future electricity system. The analysis highlights that E1's residential DR program has higher costs compared to other utilities' DR programs, which may indicate opportunities for cost reduction. E1's approach is criticized as internally inconsistent, as it assumes inaction will improve cost-effectiveness, while the Ontario IESO recommends continued investment.

market conditions.[33](#page-24-0) Therefore, to the extent that program design puts SE at a disadvantage, E1 must re-design these programs to emulate those that are proven to provide system benefits. These points are important because E1...

AI summary The document argues that strategic electrification (SE) should be re-evaluated as a resource under the DSM plan, emphasizing the need for targeted programs that align with system planning and statutory criteria. It criticizes E1 for excluding SE based on modified-PAC results and suggests a phase-in pathway for effective SE measures.

2. It is highly unlikely that E1 will be able to develop a robust strategic electrification portfolio that will be cost-effective under the modified PAC. The cost-effectiveness results of E1's proposed SE programs reveals a second issue: t...

AI summary The text argues that E1 is unlikely to develop a cost-effective strategic electrification portfolio under the modified PAC test. The modified PAC test, which incorporates incremental revenues from electrification programs, is equivalent to a Rate Impact Measure test and may not effectively evaluate the cost-effectiveness of SE initiatives.

C. Recommended Path Forward in Strategic Electrification As we discuss in detail above, the modified PAC test creates a structural barrier for SE because it largely credits only increased utility revenue while excluding many non-electric e...

AI summary The document recommends a phased approach for Strategic Electrification (SE) to address the limitations of the modified PAC test, which currently undercredits non-electric energy savings and broader customer benefits. E1 is advised to refine program design, improve data analysis, and prioritize measures that reduce peak impacts and emissions, including transportation electrification and managed EV charging.

- Q. Please describe your conclusions and recommendations regarding the Proposed Plan. - A. My conclusions are as follows: - E1's proposed energy and capacity savings from energy efficiency fall far short of the 2022 Evergreen Integrated R...

AI summary The reviewer concludes that E1's proposed DSM Plan underperforms compared to the 2022 IRP assumptions, lacks strategic electrification due to a Board decision, and has issues with cost-effectiveness and program design. The plan is recommended for improvement in several areas.

Cost-Effectiveness - Q. Please summarize the cost-effectiveness of the 2027-2031 DSM Plan as compared to the 2023-2026 DSM Plan. - A. - A. [Table 2](#page-17-0) below provides this comparison. The Program Administrator Cost (PAC) BCR of th...

AI summary The 2027-2031 DSM Plan is more cost-effective than the 2023-2026 plan, with the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) BCR of the portfolio at or above 2.0. Energy efficiency is the most cost-effective resource, while demand response is expected to improve significantly, and solar-PV is marginally cost-effective.

Q. How did E1 assess cost-effectiveness in the 2027-2031 DSM Plan? A. E1 assessed cost-effectiveness at the portfolio level using the PAC test as the primary cost-effectiveness test, with NS Power's weighted average cost of capital of 6.65...

AI summary E1 assessed cost-effectiveness in the 2027-2031 DSM Plan using the PAC test at the portfolio level and the modified PAC test at the resource level for strategic electrification, with a discount rate of 6.65 percent.

Q. Why might electrification produce a low cost-effectiveness result? A. Strategic electrification increases electricity sales. Whether this increases electricity costs per unit of electricity for the utility system as a whole depends in p...

AI summary Electrification may lead to low cost-effectiveness if it increases electricity demand during peak times, raising system costs. E1 included strategic electrification in its DSM Plan but did not propose incentives for it, instead investing in research and market readiness for future electrification programs.

Q. Do you have any concerns about E1's interpretation of the NSEB Decision? A. Given that DSM Plan cost-effectiveness is evaluated at the portfolio level as required by statute,[31](#page-23-0) and not at the resource level, measuring cost...

AI summary The response indicates that evaluating DSM Plan cost-effectiveness at the resource level is inconsistent with statutory requirements, which mandate portfolio-level evaluation. Electrification can be included in the resource portfolio as long as the portfolio PAC test score remains above 1.0.

Q. What do you conclude? A. I conclude that it would be reasonable for E1 to pursue an amount of electrification in its 2027-2031 Plan that does not increase electricity costs at the portfolio level [. Table 3](#page-25-0) below provides t...

AI summary E1 concludes that pursuing electrification in its 2027-2031 Plan without increasing electricity costs at the portfolio level is reasonable. The PAC and Modified-PAC tests confirm this, with a benefit-cost ratio of 2.4 for the DSM Plan. E1 acknowledges that DSM, including strategic electrification, should be evaluated at the portfolio level, as confirmed by the Energy Board.

1 Round 2 modeling without causing electricity costs to increase at the portfolio 2 level as the modified PAC remains substantially higher than 1.0. This is because 3 the Round 2 investments in strategic electrification are small relative...

AI summary The text discusses the cost-effectiveness of the 2027-2031 Demand Side Management (DSM) Plan, including Strategic Electrification (SE) in Round 2 modeling. The analysis shows that the proposed investment in strategic electrification of $12.2 million between 2027 and 2031 does not significantly impact the overall portfolio cost-effectiveness.

Q. Please describe E1's projections of cost-effectiveness over the Plan period. A. Over the course of the plan period, the Residential PAC BCR ranges between 0.5 and 0.9, while the BNI BCR is substantially higher and always above one, rang...

AI summary E1's projections show that the Residential PAC BCR ranges between 0.5 and 0.9, while the BNI BCR ranges between 1.6 and 2.9 over the plan period, indicating varying levels of cost-effectiveness for different programs.

PAC benefit-cost ratios and avoided costs - Q. Please explain your concerns about the cost-effectiveness of the residential demand response programs based on the PAC test. - A. In the 2026 Extension of E1's DSM program, my colleague Jennif...

AI summary The respondent is concerned about the cost-effectiveness of E1's residential demand response program based on the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test. E1's projections are inconsistent, with conflicting claims about when the program will achieve cost-effectiveness. The projected PAC benefit-cost ratio (BCR) for the 2027 program is expected to improve slightly compared to the 2026 extension.

Q. How does E1 plan to achieve this growth in the PAC BCR between 2026 and 2027? A. E1 states that its "expectation regarding the continued improvement in Residential Eco Shift cost-effectiveness is informed by: observed year-over-year imp...

AI summary E1 plans to improve the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) benefit-cost ratio (BCR) between 2026 and 2027 by reducing costs and increasing benefits per kW of capacity, citing improvements in program participation, lessons from Ontario, and optimization efforts.

Q. Does E1 plan to make operational changes to the residential demand response program in response to the PAC BCR being below one? A. Yes. E1 states that it "does not intend to enroll new Residential Demand Response customers during the 20...

AI summary E1 plans not to enroll new residential demand response customers during 2027–2031 due to low cost-effectiveness metrics. Recommendations include reducing costs per kW of capacity and modifying program design to increase benefits per kW, such as adjusting pre-heating durations and targeting constrained circuits.

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

AI summary E1's residential demand response delivery costs are significantly higher compared to similar programs in Rhode Island Energy and National Grid (Massachusetts), where non-incentive spending accounted for 27-29% of budgets, versus 77% and 63% for E1. This raises concerns about cost-effectiveness and reasonableness of the proposed budget.

- Q. E1 proposes to phase out its EV and battery demand response programs. What is E1's rationale? - A. E1 plans to phase out the EV and battery pathways before the start of the 2027 - demand response season. E1 states that it excluded the...

AI summary E1 plans to phase out EV and battery demand response programs due to low cost-effectiveness, low enrollment, and operational challenges. While these programs show high curtailment potential, their modeled benefit-cost ratios remain very low, making them difficult to justify in the 2027-2031 DSM Plan.

2.1 Business Programs Are Carrying Most First-Year Savings The overall savings and cost-effectiveness of the proposed 2027–2031 DSM Plan are heavily weighted toward the business sector. Business, non-profit and institutional (BNI) programs...

AI summary The proposed 2027–2031 DSM Plan is expected to deliver the majority of first-year electricity savings through business, non-profit, and institutional programs, which have a significantly lower unit cost compared to residential programs.

- measures. This involved comparing cost information provided by utilities for a portfolio of programs against the sum total of benefits that the programs would offer to society to study their cost effectiveness. - Electric Vehicle Demand...

AI summary The text outlines various consulting activities involving cost-effectiveness analysis of energy programs, electric vehicle demand estimation, time-varying rate design pilots, forecasting methodology reviews, and rate design for large load customers. These efforts support integrated resource planning and utility operations.

16 Response IR-01: 17 18 (a) The reference is to Section 4.2.3, "Integrated Resource Plan," of E1's Proposed Updated 19 Standardized Filing Framework, filed as Appendix F to the Application (Appendix F, p. 7). That 20 section provides: 21...

AI summary The response discusses the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and its role in shaping the Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan, emphasizing that the IRP provides directional input rather than prescriptive guidance. The response also raises concerns about the balance between short-term affordability and long-term energy savings. A separate request addresses pre-weatherization barriers and their impact on energy savings and cost-effectiveness.

22 Response IR-02: 23 24 By way of preliminary note, we understand the quotation "forgoing […] energy savings" to be a 25 reference to page 36, line 13 of the Evidence, not page 34 as stated above. 26 27 (a) No, not as the question is fram...

AI summary The response discusses the impact of a pre-weatherization barrier remediation on energy savings, arguing that it enables broader energy efficiency measures and does not significantly affect cost-effectiveness. It references a study showing that addressing barriers like leaky roofs can unlock significant savings and improve program outcomes.

Request IR-3: Reference: Brattle Evidence, Section IV: Representation of Demand Response in E1's Preferred Plan, page 14, footnote 25: "In October 2022, IESO received a ministerial directive that increased the CDM budget by $342 million, f...

AI summary The response confirms that Peak Perks was launched under an Ontario Ministerial Directive with a budget expansion, and highlights differences between Ontario's regulatory context and Nova Scotia's statutory framework, where E1 operates under the Public Utilities Act and must meet the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test. It also references E1's Eco Shift program and its expected cost-effectiveness under the PAC test.

1 Request IR-5: 2 3 Reference: Brattle Evidence, Section IV: Representation of Demand Response in E1's 4 Preferred Plan, page 12: 5 6 "Costs for residential thermostat programs are $577/kW-year by 2031 while 7 8 BNI curtailment programs on...

AI summary The response to Request IR-5 discusses the lack of readily available source data for peer utility programs and explains that program scale is not the only factor in achieving cost-effectiveness under the PAC test. Alternative strategies, such as monitoring participant performance and optimizing delivery models, are suggested to improve cost-effectiveness.

Request IR-6: Reference: Brattle Evidence, Section IV: Representation of Demand Response in E1's Preferred Plan, page 12: "E1's logic for limiting residential DR in the Preferred Plan is internally inconsistent in that E1 states residentia...

AI summary The response to Request IR-6 discusses Brattle's recommendation to scale residential demand response (DR) in E1's Preferred Plan, emphasizing the importance of winter peak reduction and the need for E1 to refine its portfolio based on the 2026 DSM Potential Study. It also references Ontario's Peak Perks program as a model.

Request IR-7: Reference: Brattle Evidence, Section V: Representation of Strategic Electrification in E1's Preferred Plan, page 20-21: "…the Board must also require E1 to consider transportation electrification measures into any proposed se...

AI summary The response to IR-7 discusses the inclusion of managed EV charging as Strategic Electrification (SE) under the modified Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test, which requires SE measures to reduce both GHG emissions and electricity costs. It highlights that managed EV charging can lead to cost savings by shifting load away from peak hours, potentially reducing distribution, transmission, and generation costs.

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

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

PAC test. (b) Please explain in detail how these benefits are excluded from consideration by the modified PAC test. Response IR-2: This IR response has been provided by The Brattle Group. (a-b) As explained in Section V.B.2 of the Brattle...

AI summary The response from The Brattle Group explains that the modified PAC test excludes benefits from reduced consumption of other fuels and avoided emissions, as it focuses only on electric system energy benefits. This exclusion may undermine the comprehensive benefits of strategic electrification programs, though the Board's decision to use the modified PAC test is based on statutory requirements.

as water-heater control, EV charging, batteries, and locational DR. The goal should be to convert enrolled customers into dependable, accredited winter capacity before committing to broader expansion. Request IR-8: On page 19 of 39, the Re...

AI summary The response to Request IR-8 by The Brattle Group explains that E1's residential DR program is limited, expensive, and passive. It suggests that residential DR can become a significant resource if developed in a disciplined and affordable manner, focusing on controllable loads like smart thermostats, without immediate affordability challenges.

1 domestic hot water control, improving customer acquisition and device-partner delivery 2 models, and measuring verified event performance, opt-outs, attrition, device health, and 3 cost per dependable kW. This approach would allow E1 to...

AI summary The response to IR-9 discusses the challenges of implementing Strategic Electrification within E1's DSM program due to the modified PAC test. It highlights that such programs may struggle to meet cost-effectiveness requirements unless they significantly increase utility revenues to offset program costs. The response also suggests that the modified PAC test may not account for non-electric system impacts of Strategic Electrification.

(b) An alteration to the modified PAC test used to assess strategic electrification could include the benefits related to reduction in other fuels and a monetization of overall emissions benefits. However, depending on the inclusion of one...

AI summary The text discusses the limitations of the Public Acceptability Criterion (PAC) test in assessing strategic electrification, noting that including non-electricity-related benefits may shift the test toward Total Resource Cost (TRC) or Societal Cost Test (SCT). The Board's decision in M12282 indicates it cannot use a proposed BCA test that includes non-utility impacts for screening DSM plans. The Brattle Group responds that a phased strategic electrification pathway may be achievable, though data quality and modified PAC constraints present challenges.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 to clear for cost-effectiveness, therefore E1 may not be able to identify cost-effective 2 programs despite undertaking the actions discussed here. 3 4 (b) Brattle has not conducted a redesign of E1's DSM portfolio and t...

AI summary The text indicates that E1 may not be able to identify cost-effective programs despite taking certain actions, and Brattle has not conducted a redesign of E1's DSM portfolio, thus unable to provide a definitive pathway for program design at this time.

s should translate enrolled DR capacity into dependable capacity based on measured event performance, availability, persistence, and expected performance during relevant winter system peak conditions. Cost-effectiveness metrics should incl...

AI summary The text discusses the need to measure and report demand response (DR) capacity as dependable system resources, citing examples from other jurisdictions like Ontario IESO, PJM, ISO New England, Con Edison, and Hydro-Québec. It emphasizes cost-effectiveness metrics and the importance of transparency in DR programs.

1 Request IR-12: 2 3 Preamble: IESO-NS has recently published an updated ELCC Study, from E3: 4 https://ieso-ns.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/2026-Nova-Scotia-ELCC 5 Study-Report.pdf 6 7 (a) Please confirm whether Brattle assumed a static...

AI summary Request IR-12 asks whether Brattle's analysis of demand response (DR) programming considered the 2026 ELCC Study, which shows a decline in marginal ELCC for residential DR as capacity increases. Brattle confirmed it did not review the study and that its analysis did not account for declining DR ELCC as battery energy storage system (BESS) penetration rises.

Request IR-14: Reference: E-22, page 20. E1 should be required to develop a more targeted building electrification program focused on measures with the best chance of meeting Nova Scotia's statutory criteria of reducing costs by incorporat...

AI summary The request asks whether Brattle has identified specific strategic electrification (SE) program designs that meet Nova Scotia's cost-effectiveness criteria and how a phase-in pathway differs from E1's current approach. It also inquires about Brattle's experience with SE programs in other jurisdictions and the timeline for implementing new programs.

Board direct EfficiencyOne to file an annual first-year unitcost target, supported by measure-level assumptions and sensitivity analysis, that moves SBES materially toward its historical performance. The reduction could be pursued through...

AI summary The Board directs EfficiencyOne to set an annual first-year unit cost target for the SBES program, supported by assumptions and analysis. The program's focus on lighting and heat pumps requires incentives calibrated to cost, savings, and barriers, with cost-sharing strategies to reduce unit costs while maintaining participation.

es not have access to hourly modeling capabilities, is SNS aware of the time/cost for obtaining such capabilities? SNS has not obtained a quotation and cannot speak to EfficiencyOne's internal costs. (c) Are the recommendations in this sec...

AI summary The document discusses the 2027-2031 DSM Plan, emphasizing the inclusion of strategic electrification even if it fails stand-alone cost-effectiveness tests, as long as it passes at the portfolio level. It references the 2025 BCA Decision and provides supporting evidence from E1.

Response IR-1: A. The Program Administrator Cost (PAC) benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of the portfolio is at or above 2.0 over for each year of the DSM Plan. This means that the avoided cost of electricity is twice the cost of the DSM. E1 could...

AI summary The Program Administrator Cost (PAC) benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of the DSM Plan is at or above 2.0. E1 is being conservative in its spending on DSM, leaving cost-effective opportunities out of the plan, which may lead to higher electricity rates. DSM helps reduce energy consumption and peak demand, lowering reliance on peaker power plants and fuel costs.

Request IR-4: At page 22, lines 17 to 19 of the Report, Synapse observes that E1 did not provide a clear basis for its conclusion that Strategic Electrification did not meet the requirements of the modified PAC test. A. What information ha...

AI summary The text raises questions regarding E1's modeling of Strategic Electrification's compliance with the modified PAC test, Synapse's assessment of cost-effectiveness at the resource versus portfolio level, and how the Board's decision in M12282 may affect E1's promotion of Strategic Electrification.

Response IR-4: A. In Request IR-02, Synapse asked for E1's Round 1 and Round 2 modeling…including …all associated attachments in Excel including but not limited to supporting data and calculations (intact and unprotected)". E1's response i...

AI summary E1's response to Synapse's request was incomplete, as it did not provide a full model or detailed calculations. E1's interpretation of the modified-PAC test led to the exclusion of Strategic Electrification from the DSM Plan, but this interpretation may not align with the Board's historical practices. The decision in M12282 is not explicit on how to apply the Board's guidance to DSM planning, and E1's approach may not be consistent with established practices.

M12780 - In the Matter of EfficiencyOne's (E1) 2027–2031 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan Application 1 Request IR-5: At page 25 of the Report, Synapse states that the previously modeled investment in Strategic Electrification of...

AI summary The document discusses the cost effectiveness of the DSM Plan, noting that the previously modeled investment in Strategic Electrification of $12.2 million would not significantly impact the plan's overall cost effectiveness at the portfolio level.

Response IR-5: A. Table 3. Cost-Effectiveness of 2027-2031 DSM Plan Plus SE (Round 2) on Page 26 of my evidence shows a modified-PAC of 2.6 without Strategic Electrification and 2.3 with it. I do not consider a 0.3 reduction from a modifie...

AI summary The response discusses the cost-effectiveness of the 2027-2031 DSM Plan with and without Strategic Electrification, noting a minor reduction in modified-PAC from 2.6 to 2.3. It argues that including Strategic Electrification reduces energy cost savings and suggests targeting constrained areas for electrification to address capacity challenges.

M12780 - In the Matter of EfficiencyOne's (E1) 2027–2031 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan Application 1 Request IR-01: 2 Reference: Napoleon Evidence, page 24–26, Table 3: Cost-Effectiveness of 2027–2031 DSM Plan 3 Plus SE (Round...

AI summary The document discusses a request related to the cost-effectiveness of the Round 2 strategic electrification (SE) resource in EfficiencyOne's 2027–2031 DSM Plan. It references a previous decision (M12282) and seeks clarification on how Synapse's recommendation aligns with the Board's direction regarding the inclusion of the SE DSM Advisory Group package.

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

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

Request IR-02: 1 Reference: Napoleon Evidence, page 27–29 (Low and Moderate Income [LMI] Oil-Heat 2 Electrification Alternative) 3 4 (a) Please provide the NB Power 2024/25–2026/27 DSM filing materials cited at footnote 41 5 and identify t...

AI summary The response to Request IR-02 provides details on NB Power's cost-effectiveness methodology for its LMI electrification component, including the All Fuels and Program Administrator Cost (PAC) tests. It also acknowledges that NB Power's statutory framework for demand-side management (DSM) differs from s. 79A(b)(iv) of the Public Utilities Act (PUA).

ciency upgrades, thus making current programs more effective. DSM programs can be designed to target services to a cohort of customers that would benefit from similar program delivery and investments. Lastly, and more generally, the three-...

AI summary The DSM Plan lacks sufficient documentation and appears similar to previous plans. The speaker emphasizes the need for more detailed information on costs, savings, and cost-effectiveness of individual measures and program types to ensure the plan's effectiveness and efficiency.

Summary Recommendations I recommend that the Board: - approve the energy-efficiency-related budgets and savings proposed by NB Power for the 2024/25 and 2025/26 program years. - o Direct NB Power to provide updates when the Energy Efficien...

AI summary The Board is recommended to approve NB Power's energy-efficiency and electrification budgets, request revisions to the DSM plan, and conduct reviews on renewable energy and demand response programs. The Province is also urged to align electricity savings requirements with updated targets and include additional program types in future planning.

Sources: - NBP02.61 2024_25 to 2026_27 DSM Initiatives Update Table 4: 2024/25 EE-DR Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Program Administrator Cost Test – All Fuels, page 10. - NBP02.61 2024_25 to 2026_27 DSM Initiatives Update Table 5: 2024/25 E...

AI summary The analysis discusses the cost-effectiveness of NB Power's DSM programs, highlighting that the Total Home Energy Savings Program is not cost-effective from the participant perspective. NB Power does not screen measures for cost-effectiveness and has not updated its avoided transmission and distribution capacity costs to align with the 2023 Integrated Resource Plan.

Cost of Saved Energy [Table 8](#page-35-0) below provides a comparison of the cost efficiency of NB Power's proposed 2024/25 DSM Plan to leading, cold-climate jurisdictions in the United States and Canada. I examine the first year and leve...

AI summary The document compares the cost efficiency of NB Power's proposed 2024/25 DSM Plan with other jurisdictions, noting higher costs for NB Power's programs, especially when including LMI efforts. The analysis highlights challenges in direct comparisons due to differences in data and program emphasis.

General NB Power's DSM portfolio includes energy efficiency, demand response, electrification, and renewable energy measures. It addresses a variety of market segments and customer types. NB Power can be commended for its LMI funding level...

AI summary NB Power's DSM portfolio includes energy efficiency, demand response, electrification, and renewable energy measures, with commendable LMI funding. However, its proposed savings levels are below many jurisdictions, and there are gaps in program offerings. The DSM Plan lacks detailed documentation and cost-effectiveness data, and PACT and PCT calculations are incomplete.

Support for demand response Demand response programs may be important for NB Power given that the region is winter peaking and electrification will exacerbate these winter peaks. However, NB Power's demand response programs are not well in...

AI summary Demand response programs are crucial for NB Power due to winter peaking and electrification, but they are not well integrated with energy efficiency offerings and lack residential programs. Incentives for commercial and industrial customers may be too high. NB Power collaborated with Dunsky Energy Consulting to assess DER opportunities, with recommendations suggesting residential DERs may not be cost-effective, though some opportunities like water heating and EVs were identified.

Support for renewable energy NB Power incentivizes solar, wind, and biomass and it states that solar is popular with its customers. 29 NB Power provides the same $120/GJ incentive for wind, solar, and biomass (NBEUB IR-136a on page 29 NPB...

AI summary NB Power provides equal incentives for solar, wind, and biomass despite differing costs, and cannot currently break down the cost-effectiveness of renewable energy versus energy efficiency. A review is suggested to assess the reasonableness and cost-effectiveness of these investments.

Cost-effectiveness I recommend that NB Power's incentives in the Peak Rebate, Energy Efficient Products, and Industrial EE programs be examined in further detail and potentially lowered to reduce the cost of these programs and curb any unn...

AI summary The text recommends examining and potentially lowering NB Power's incentives in several programs to reduce costs and prevent windfalls for participants. It supports NB Power's efforts to improve the cost-effectiveness of its Total Energy Savings Program and highlights the need to include non-energy benefits in the PACT and PCT, citing the NSPM as supporting this inclusion.

Request IR-4: 2 Reference: E-23, Pages 23–26. 9 electricity costs. Does Synapse agree that using the portfolio-level PAC to 10 absorb a failed modified-PAC result would render the modified PAC test 11 effectively meaningless as a screening...

AI summary The response to Request IR-4 discusses the use of the Portfolio Adjustment Criteria (PAC) in assessing the cost-effectiveness of Solar Energy (SE) within a portfolio. The responder argues that the portfolio-level PAC test is necessary to evaluate overall cost effectiveness, even if individual resources like SE may not be cost-effective on their own.

a) In this section you state that neither the Board nor the statute is specific about a number of things related to the assessment of "electricity costs", such as the level of assessment, the time period for the assessment, and whether the...

AI summary The response recommends assessing DSM measures, programs, resources, and portfolios using historical practices, including benefit-cost analysis and rate and bill impact analysis. It suggests evaluating costs at the measure, program, resource, and portfolio levels, with a focus on the life of the measures and considering strategic electrification (SE) in the analysis. The assessment should also include all fuels and be customer-level, forward-looking.

Response IR-2: a) When available, other funding sources should be used to provide financial support for strategic electrification of customers that are not primarily heating with electric space heating. In the absence of support from other...

AI summary The response discusses the use of electric ratepayer funds for strategic electrification, emphasizing the preference for other funding sources. It also addresses affordability in terms of individual homeowners' ability to afford energy use and questions the cost-effectiveness of E1's initiative to fill a funding gap after federal support ends.

EM&V / Market Research Survey design, jurisdictional scans, market barrier analysis, costeffectiveness, program evaluation, and translation of findings into strategy.

AI summary The text outlines activities related to EM&V and market research, including survey design, jurisdictional scans, market barrier analysis, cost-effectiveness studies, program evaluation, and translating findings into strategy.

E1 Rebuttal Evidence E1 is supportive in principle of the objective underlying Ms. Napoleon's recommendation and recognizes that low-income households converting from oil heating face real affordability and reliability challenges. E1 notes...

AI summary E1 supports the principle of Ms. Napoleon's recommendation regarding low-income households converting from oil heating but notes that extending long-term incentives for heat pump conversions may not be cost-free. Strategic Electrification modeling did not achieve cost effectiveness results of 1.0 or higher, and the recommended program would likely be even less cost-effective.

1 costs which would result in lower cost effectiveness results, placing additional pressure on portfolio cost 2 effectiveness and on the affordability objective that frames the Plan. 3 2.1.3 RETAIN HOME ENERGY ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENT FOR

AI summary The text highlights concerns about costs resulting in lower cost effectiveness and added pressure on portfolio costs, affecting affordability goals outlined in the Plan.

E1 Rebuttal Evidence E1 agrees with the value of home energy assessments and with encouraging weatherization at the time of electrification where an assessment identifies that opportunity, consistent with E1's response to the Consumer Advo...

AI summary E1 supports home energy assessments but warns that requiring them before electrification could increase program costs and impact cost-effectiveness. E1 agrees with the Consumer Advocate's position on pre-weatherization but cautions against universal pre-electrification assessment requirements.

E1 Rebuttal Evidence E1 agrees that providing support for low income and equity customers through strategic electrification programs is important, however, fully funded programs present challenges to meeting cost effectiveness thresholds a...

AI summary E1 acknowledges the importance of supporting low-income and equity customers through electrification programs but argues that fully funded programs may not meet cost-effectiveness thresholds or reduce electricity costs as required by legislation. E1 also notes that the 2024 report referenced by Ms. Napoleon focuses on government-funded programs rather than ratepayer-funded DSM.

2.2 DEMAND RESPONSE Ms. Napoleon's evidence addresses the demand response program, including comments on (1) the cost- effectiveness of the residential demand response program component, (2) the costs of that program component, (3) calcula...

AI summary Ms. Napoleon's evidence discusses the demand response program, focusing on its cost-effectiveness, costs, peak load reductions, and BNI program offerings. E1's responses to these points are detailed in subsequent subsections.

2.2.1 COST-EFFECTIVENESS - First, Ms. Napoleon expresses concerns about the cost-effectiveness of the residential demand response programs based on the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test. At page 33, lines 8 – 12 she states: - Q. Do you...

AI summary Ms. Napoleon raises concerns about the cost-effectiveness of E1's residential demand response programs, citing Program Administrator Cost (PAC) Benefit-Cost Ratios (BCRs) below 1, indicating the programs may not be economically viable.

Synapse In particular, Ms. Napoleon flags concerns that E1's statements on the projected cost-effectiveness of the residential demand response component are inconsistent and that the conclusion that the program will become cost-effective i...

AI summary Ms. Napoleon raises concerns about inconsistencies in E1's statements regarding the projected cost-effectiveness of the residential demand response program. She points out that E1's claims about when the program will become cost-effective are contradictory and not supported by the evidence provided in response to Synapse IR-62(b).

E1 Rebuttal Evidence With respect to Ms. Napoleon's comment that "E1's statements about the projected cost-effectiveness of the residential demand response component over the course of the plan period are not internally consistent",[2](#pa...

AI summary E1 clarifies that its cost-effectiveness claims for the residential demand response program refer to the Ontario IESO's Peak Perks program, not its own. E1 emphasizes improving cost-effectiveness through optimized program delivery and participant performance before scaling, disagreeing with recommendations to enroll new participants immediately.

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

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

E1 Rebuttal Evidence E1 respectfully disagrees that the dedicated low-income and equity savings target should be fixed at 14.9 percent of the Residential Savings target, being Mr. Love's proposed 3.76 GWh, because approximately 14.9 percen...

AI summary E1 argues against fixing the low-income and equity savings target at 14.9% of the residential savings, citing the lack of achievable data and the potential for increased costs. They highlight that the current plan already exceeds this target and emphasize the importance of realistic, cost-effective planning aligned with affordability goals.

E1 Rebuttal Evidence E1 notes at the outset that Brattle does not dispute that the Preferred Plan grows total Demand Response capacity by approximately 80 percent over the plan term, from 16.3 MW in 2026 to 29.3 MW in 2031. The Preferred P...

AI summary E1 argues that the Preferred Plan's focus on BNI Demand Response is prudent due to its strong cost-effectiveness (PAC of 2.4) compared to residential Demand Response (PAC of 0.7). E1 asserts that Brattle's concern about risk is not quantified and that the BNI program's small participant base allows for better management and reliability.

NS Power At PDF Page 17, Brattle states: Finally, E1's logic for limiting residential DR in the Preferred Plan is internally inconsistent in that E1 states residential DR is important but then pauses expansion until cost- effectiveness imp...

AI summary Brattle criticizes E1's logic for limiting residential demand response (DR) in the Preferred Plan, arguing that it is internally inconsistent. E1 claims residential DR is important but delays expansion until cost-effectiveness improves, which Brattle suggests assumes inaction will lead to better outcomes. Discussions with Ontario IESO highlight the importance of ongoing investment in DR programs, such as the Peak Perks program, rather than pausing until cost-effectiveness is achieved.

NS Power At PDF page 24, Brattle states: For instance, it is very important to model the impact of SE measures on an hourly basis, as the "strategic" or beneficial aspect of SE programs are about not adding incremental load during the peak...

AI summary Brattle emphasizes the importance of modeling the impact of energy efficiency (SE) measures on an hourly basis to avoid adding incremental load during peak hours. They recommend that E1 develop a phased SE pathway with stronger cost-effectiveness, improved data for benefit-cost analysis, and programs that avoid peak impacts and shift load to lower-cost hours.

E1 Rebuttal Evidence E1 shares Brattle's interest in flexibility, load control, and targeted deployment, and will continue to incorporate these features into its SE research and pilot work. However, the premise that redesigning SE programs...

AI summary E1 acknowledges the importance of flexibility and load control in SE programs but argues that redesigning them for flexibility does not ensure cost-effectiveness under the modified PAC test. The current test only credits incremental utility revenue and treats avoided costs as negatives, making it difficult for SE programs to pass the cost-effectiveness criteria.

NS Power At PDF page 25 - 26 Brattle states: Exhibit E-1, 2027–2031 DSM Resource Plan Application, Evidence, page 35, lines 8-9. Crucially, the Board must also require E1 to consider transportation electrification measures into any propose...

AI summary The text discusses the importance of incorporating managed EV charging programs into strategic electrification plans, citing Newfoundland Power's 2021–2025 plan as evidence. It highlights that managed EV charging can mitigate distribution system constraints, defer investment, and improve cost-effectiveness compared to unmanaged charging.

At PDF page 32, they also state: Crucially, E1's phase-in work should include transportation electrification, particularly managed EV charging. Passive or active charging management can mitigate distribution constraints, defer system inves...

AI summary The text emphasizes the importance of integrating transportation electrification, specifically managed EV charging, into E1's phase-in work. It highlights that such management can help mitigate distribution constraints, defer system investment, and enhance the cost-effectiveness of broader electrification efforts.

E1 Rebuttal Evidence E1 did not include Strategic Electrification in the 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan because no programs or measures were identified during plan development that satisfy the legislated definition of Strategic Electrificati...

AI summary E1 did not include Strategic Electrification in the 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan due to the lack of programs meeting the legislated definition and passing the modified PAC test. E1 acknowledges the potential of managed EV charging but highlights challenges related to customer participation, cost, and system benefits, suggesting further evaluation through the Innovation framework.

d that reality has shaped our approach to this plan. Let me be clear, however: this is in no way a walkback from the essential, long-term role of demand side management in Nova Scotia's energy future. DSM plays a critical role in helping N...

AI summary EfficiencyOne emphasizes the critical role of demand side management (DSM) in Nova Scotia's energy future, aligning with the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). The proposed plan aims for 435.4 GWh savings, 64% of the IRP target, prioritizing near-term affordability. The plan also highlights cost-effectiveness and customer-focused funding, with 71% of expenditures going directly to customers.

1 2026 M12780 2 NOVA SCOTIA ENERGY BOARD 3 IN THE MATTER OF: The Public Utilities Act 4 IN THE MATTER OF: An Application by EfficiencyOne for approval of the 2027-2031 5 Demand-Side Management (DSM) Purchase Agreement 6 between EfficiencyO...

AI summary EfficiencyOne has applied for approval of its 2027-2031 Demand-Side Management (DSM) Purchase Agreement and Resource Plan, proposing a total budget of $318.75 million. The Industrial Group supports the plan, emphasizing cost-effectiveness, proper governance, and equitable allocation. They highlight the use of the Program Administrator Cost test, as directed by the Board in Matter M12282, to ensure cost-effective DSM programming.

- 1 The concern has been moderated, in part, by the Board's approval in NSPI's General Rate - 2 Application, Matter M12451, 2026 NSEB 8, to align the DSM Plan adjustment recovery period - 3 with the accrual period, thereby smoothing out cu...

AI summary The document discusses adjustments to the DSM Plan, including alignment of the adjustment recovery period with the accrual period, and proposed changes to the MCA process. It also highlights concerns regarding the clarity of mid-term check-ins and several issues requiring further examination, such as cost-effectiveness testing, program eligibility, and alignment with the Integrated Resource Plan.

- My name is Thomas Kayter, counsel for the Department of Energy. - The Department intervenes in this proceeding to support approval, substantially as filed and - subject to the Board's usual oversight, of EfficiencyOne's application for a...

AI summary The Department of Energy supports EfficiencyOne's application for approval of the 2027–2031 Demand-Side Management Purchase Agreement and Resource Plan, emphasizing its affordability, cost-effectiveness, and public interest. The plan aims to reduce electricity demand, lower bills, and support the transition to cleaner energy with a total investment of $318.75 million and projected $680 million in bill savings.

sts, targets, and agreement terms. - Nor should the Board view DSM as a discretionary add-on to the electricity system. It is a - resource. Properly designed and evaluated, DSM competes with and complements supply-side - resources by reduc...

AI summary The Department emphasizes that demand-side management (DSM) should be treated as a core resource, not a discretionary add-on. It argues that multi-year DSM planning provides stability while allowing for Board oversight and accountability. The Department supports the approval of EfficiencyOne's application, stating it aligns with public interest goals such as affordability, reliability, and emissions reduction.

OPENING STATEMENT for the ECOLOGY ACTION CENTRE The Ecology Action Centre's vision is of a "vibrant world of respect, belonging and ecological resilience." We are proud to have been a driving force in Efficiency Nova Scotia's origin story,...

AI summary The Ecology Action Centre supports the 5-year DSM plan but raises concerns about its methodology, arguing that comparing DSM strategies should focus on cost-effectiveness relative to supply and fuel costs. They question the need for new fossil-fuel peaker plants and suggest that aggressive investment in efficiency and demand response could avoid these costs.

E1 Responses to Ecology Action Centre (EAC) Undertaking NON-CONFIDENTIAL Undertaking U-5: To provide assessments done regarding the impact of strategic electrification on low-income customers in Nova Scotia. Response U-5: EfficiencyOne (E1...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) responded to Ecology Action Centre (EAC) undertakings regarding strategic electrification and quality assurance processes. E1 did not conduct a specific assessment on low-income impacts for the 2027–2031 DSM Plan and outlined its QA process for Guidehouse's modeling, including input reviews and validation checks.

ed the output sheet. - g. Model checks for the Round 1 model changes Note that after Round 1 modelling, these checks will not be necessary assuming there are no further structural modelling changes. - i. Cost Effectiveness : Copy the 2027...

AI summary The text outlines model quality control (QC) checks for the Round 1 model changes, focusing on cost effectiveness, GJ conversion factors, and payback calculations. These checks ensure that input streams, cost calculations, and energy savings are accurately reflected in the model.

Undertaking U-8: To provide energy efficiency measure PAC scores to include program administration costs assigned to the individual measure level in Appendix A Attachment 3 and if any of the measures do not meet the PAC test, to provide ju...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) has provided Program Administrator Cost (PAC) scores for energy efficiency measures in the 2027–2031 DSM Plan, with program administration costs assigned at the measure level. Eleven measures in the Preferred Plan do not pass the PAC test, and E1 has provided justification for their inclusion.

Appendix B - Rate and Bill Impact Analysis of the 2027-2031 DSM Resource Plan and 2026 Historical - Attachment 1: RBIA Summary Results 2027-2031 DSM Resource Plan and 2026 Historical - Attachment 2: Results by Rate Class (2027-2031 Preferr...

AI summary Appendix B outlines attachments analyzing the rate and bill impact of Nova Scotia Power's 2027-2031 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan and 2026 historical data. It includes summaries, rate-class results, assumptions, pricing methodology, and rate models for preferred and alternate scenarios, supporting regulatory review by the Nova Scotia Energy Board.

1. INTERVENOR Solar Nova Scotia is a non-profit industry association representing solar energy and distributed energy stakeholders across Nova Scotia. The organization works to support the responsible growth of distributed energy resources...

AI summary Solar Nova Scotia, a non-profit industry association, represents solar energy and distributed energy stakeholders in Nova Scotia. It advocates for the responsible growth and integration of distributed energy resources into the electricity system, emphasizing benefits for ratepayers and the broader economy.

NOTICE OF INTERVENTION OF: NRStor Incorporated Take notice that NRStor Incorporated hereby requests to intervene in the above proceeding. NRStor Incorporated develops cost-effective, reliable energy storage projects including behindthe-met...

AI summary NRStor Incorporated requests intervention in a regulatory proceeding, highlighting its expertise in energy storage projects that enhance grid resiliency, reduce costs, and provide clean power. It offers market insights on residential batteries to inform the application's analysis and recommendations.

16 Request IR-6: 17 18 Reference: Evidence, p. 31 19 20 "Through direct discussions with the IESO Demand Side Management team, the program 21 is expected to reach cost-effectiveness under the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test 22 within...

AI summary The IESO Demand Side Management team expects E1's demand response program to reach cost-effectiveness under the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test within the next year, citing factors like increased capacity, customer participation, coordinated marketing, and thermostat adoption. The question asks for the evidence supporting this expectation.

43 Reference: Evidence, page 18 and page 58 45 "E1 has also altered its approach to the application of the 'balanced plan' principles in DSM 46 plan design, in particular by moving away from its previous approach of applying a 5 7 11 19 20...

AI summary E1's DSM plan updates include adjusting investment splits and increasing low-income support to 11% of residential savings. Questions focus on the basis for this percentage, benchmarking methodologies, and interruptible customer participation in Smart Synergy. The plan also addresses equity definitions and potential double compensation for demand reductions.

Group 3 – Other Questions Request IR-7 Reference: Exhibit E-1: Table 59 of Section 9.4.4 (page 185 of 419) identifies the heat pump water heater pilot as a market transformation area of focus. (a) Please define "market transformation" as u...

AI summary The document requests definitions and evidence for E1's market transformation strategy on heat pump water heaters, cost-effectiveness data, evaluation methods, and opinions on hybrid heating incentives. Key focus areas include distinguishing market transformation from DSM, baseline assessments, and justification for incentive policies.

Request IR-4: - With regards to Section 2.2.1.1 "Compliance with the 2023-2025 DSM Plan Decision": - a. Reference Exhibit E-1, page 14 of 71 (pdf pg. 21), E1 notes that for the 2027-2031 DSM Plan, avoided costs for capacity have generally...

AI summary The text addresses compliance with the 2023-2025 DSM Plan Decision, discussing trends in avoided costs for capacity and energy, the use of updated avoided costs from NS Power, and the cost-effectiveness of measures in the Preferred Plan. It also raises questions about the accuracy of emissions impacts, mechanisms for updating calculations, and evaluation processes.

- pg. 170) do not match the 2027-2031 PAC costs noted in tab "19c. BC Ratios by Year Avg" of Exhibit N-1(iii) Appendix A, Attachment 4. - d. Pdf pg. 35 states: "E1's Preferred Plan does include the Residential program component. Although i...

AI summary The text highlights discrepancies between PAC costs and BC ratios, questions the cost-effectiveness of the Residential Demand Response program, and requests data on PAC scores and participant numbers. It notes improvements in the program but emphasizes the need for justification for non-cost-effective measures and clarification on participant data definitions.

Request IR-13: - Regarding Section 3.4 "Solar-PV": - a. Pdf pg. 40 and 41 discusses solar-PV installations exclusively for residents of Mi'kmaw communities and that the program will add 200 installations for the DSM 2027-2031 years. Please...

AI summary The document requests clarification on the Solar-PV program's cost and cost-effectiveness, specifically for Mi'kmaw communities and potential future expansions to other customer segments. It references a cost estimate of approximately $2.9 million and seeks an explanation for the potential change in cost-effectiveness if the program is expanded.

Request IR-49: - Reference Appendix A, Attachment 3 (Exhibit E-1-(ii)): - E1 provides justification for measures that do not pass the program administrator cost (PAC) test. - a. If ongoing support is required to maintain heat pumps, please...

AI summary Request IR-49 seeks clarification on E1's cost-benefit assessments for heat pump measures, investment degradation without maintenance, PAC results for the 'IR-Griddle-Electric' measure, and justification for high-cost measures like Solar Security Fixtures. It questions the necessity of measures that cost 5-10 times benefits and requests detailed explanations.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION REQUESTS To: EfficiencyOne c/o James R. Gogan McInnes Cooper By email: [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]) From: Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. Board Counsel Consultant Respons...

AI summary Synapse Energy Economics requests EfficiencyOne to provide technical tables, modeling data, and BCA workbooks related to their 2027–2031 DSM Plan. Documents must include Excel files with intact calculations, sources, and assumptions, with responses due by May 28, 2026.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-1: 2 3 Reference: Appendix A, Table 49, "Program History," page 85. 4 5 Please provide a table which, for each year from 2020 to 2026, includes: 6 7 (a) total DSM investment for solar PV projects/measures, by...

AI summary The document contains several requests related to demand-side management (DSM) programs, specifically focusing on solar PV projects, cost-effectiveness analysis, and strategic electrification (SE) measures. It asks for data on investments, funding sources, avoided costs, and approval requirements for expanding solar PV to new customer segments.

27 IR-3: EcoShift and Residential Demand Response - 28 Reference: 2027-2031 DSM Plan; Residential Demand Response / EcoShift. - 29 The Plan appears to maintain Residential DR at 2026 Extension levels with no new enrollments - 30 during the...

AI summary The 2027-2031 DSM Plan maintains residential demand response (DR) at 2026 levels without new enrollments. Questions focus on cost-effectiveness barriers, assumptions for future viability, and whether EfficiencyOne has considered DSM product measures like smart thermostats to reduce EcoShift customer acquisition costs. NRCan is referenced as a regulatory actor.

27 IR-5: HomeWarming and Low-Income Single-Family Support - 28 Reference: 2027-2031 DSM Plan; HomeWarming; Affordable Single-Family Homes. - 29 For each year from 2020 to 2031, please provide the following information for - 30 HomeWarming/...

AI summary The document requests data from 2020 to 2031 on HomeWarming and Affordable Single-Family Homes programs, including participant numbers, energy savings, funding sources, and cost-effectiveness analyses. EfficiencyOne is tasked with providing data where prior information is unavailable in comparable formats.

IR-1 – Avoided Costs

AI summary The document section 'IR-1 – Avoided Costs' addresses the calculation and implications of avoided costs in regulatory proceedings, involving Nova Scotia Power (NSP) and Demand-Side Management (DSM) programs.

Reference: Appendix B – Attachment 5: Assumptions, Section 5. Avoided Costs.

AI summary The section outlines assumptions related to avoided costs, which are critical in evaluating the economic impacts of energy programs and regulatory decisions.

Questions / Requests: - a) Does the DSM model's avoided capacity in $/kW include both bulk and local capacity values? - b) Did E1 evaluate the Total Resource Cost and Societal Cost Test in addition to the Program Administration Cost Test?...

AI summary The proceeding questions E1 about the DSM model's avoided capacity inclusion of bulk and local values, evaluation of cost tests, carbon pricing assumptions, and consideration of customer/grid resilience in avoided cost calculations.

Reference: "While the Residential Demand Response (Eco Shift) program component does not yet meet the standard cost-effectiveness threshold, there have been noted improvements." (Page 28) "Beyond cost-effectiveness metrics, Eco Shift contr...

AI summary The Eco Shift program, a residential demand response initiative, has not met cost-effectiveness thresholds but shows improvements. It enhances electricity system resilience during cold weather by enabling demand-side flexibility and complementing rate design.

Questions / Requests: - a) In addition to the Program Administration Cost Test, did E1 evaluate the Total Resource Cost and Societal Cost Test for the EcoShift program? - b) Could E1 confirm whether greenhouse gas emission reductions and c...

AI summary The proceeding questions whether E1 evaluated specific cost tests (Total Resource Cost and Societal Cost) for the EcoShift program and if greenhouse gas emission reductions and grid resilience were quantified as avoided costs.

Questions / Requests: - a) Could E1 provide a rationale as to why new measures including batteries are not eligible in the Residential Demand Response Program under the Preferred Plan? - b) Could E1 share the sizes and respective durations...

AI summary The document contains seven questions directed at E1 regarding the eligibility, cost-benefit modeling, and capacity benefits of residential batteries in NSP's Residential Demand Response Program. It also inquires about greenhouse gas reductions, grid resilience, outage-prone areas, and the time periods considered in the model.

INFORMATION REQUEST 9 Did E1 consider if strategic electrification measures could be included as a component of a cost-effective portfolio?

AI summary The information request asks if E1 evaluated strategic electrification measures as part of a cost-effective portfolio, seeking clarification on their consideration of such measures in their planning.

44 a. Please confirm that the "value multiplier" is, in substance, the savings-weighted average 45 measure life for a program, consistent with the report's statement that it "represents the 46 average lifetime of energy savings" (p. 20). 4...

AI summary The text asks for confirmation on the definition of the 'value multiplier' as a savings-weighted average measure of program lifetime and whether a high multiplier can coexist with low annual savings or poor cost-effectiveness, potentially misleading as an indicator of program value.

Request IR-4: Refer to Exhibit E-17, the Peach Report, page 11, 'Integrating Evaluation Frameworks' which discusses integrating a different evaluation framework into E1's DSM program with the Deep Retrofit and Load Research programs that a...

AI summary The document raises questions about integrating evaluation frameworks into E1's DSM program, cost implications of alternative approaches, prioritization of deep energy savings, AI model use, and budget comparisons. It seeks clarification on cost impacts, evaluation methodologies, and resource allocation decisions.

- charging to inform the level of customer incentives, including energy and capacity cost savings, and reviewed the design of their pilot study - For Pepco, assessed the benefits and costs of the company's Climate Solutions Plan. The Plan...

AI summary The text discusses various electrification initiatives undertaken by utilities such as Pepco, Baltimore Gas & Electric, and Con Edison, including demand-side management, building and transportation electrification, and the development of benefit-cost analysis frameworks and marginal cost of service studies for Non-Pipeline Alternatives (NPA) programs.

DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES - For NV Energy, reviewed the Company's non-wires alternative portfolio optimization model and streamlined the optimization model. Brattle team led by Dr. Sergici worked with the Company to implement a cost-ben...

AI summary The text discusses various projects involving distributed energy resources (DERs), including the optimization of non-wires alternatives, benefit-cost analysis models, and evaluations of DER incentives. These projects were conducted for utilities and regulatory bodies in different regions, with a focus on improving economic efficiency and aligning models with regulatory guidance.

ctric transmission rates, assisted a renewable energy company in analyzing historical power flows and loads on a transmission owner's network in order to ascertain the degree of integration between systems of varying voltages for the purpo...

AI summary The text outlines Sai P. Shetty's consulting experience in electric transmission rates, time-varying rate design, and beneficial electrification measures. It highlights his work with utilities on cost recovery, rate design, and benefit-cost analyses for electrification initiatives.

Refer to M12780, Exhibit E-23, Evidence of Alice Napoleon, Synapse Energy Economics, Inc., ("Synapse Evidence") Page 23 of 47, Lines 22-25 and Page 24 of 47, Lines 1-2. a) In this section you state that neither the Board nor the statute is...

AI summary The text references Synapse Energy Economics' evidence and requests clarification on the assessment of electricity costs, including the level of assessment, time period, and perspective. It also asks about concerns regarding financial support for non-electrically heated homes, the meaning of 'affordability' in the context of reducing oil reliance, and the cost-effectiveness of filling a funding gap in the DSM Plan.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL (b) Please provide the most recent published Peak Perks PAC test result and confirm whether Peak Perks has, as of the date of the Brattle Evidence, achieved cost-effectiveness under the PAC test (Brattle Evidence page 13:...

AI summary The text requests confirmation of the most recent Peak Perks PAC test result and whether the program has achieved cost-effectiveness under the PAC test. It also asks for clarification on the nature of Peak Perks as a summer cooling-based DR program and the breakdown of its capacity sources between winter heating and summer cooling thermostats.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-01: 2 Reference: Napoleon Evidence, page 24–26, Table 3: Cost-Effectiveness of 2027–2031 DSM Plan 3 Plus SE (Round 2) 4 5 (a) Please confirm that Table 3 shows the Round 2 strategic electrification (SE) resour...

AI summary The text requests confirmation and explanation regarding the cost-effectiveness of the 2027–2031 DSM Plan, specifically the modified-Program Administrator Cost (PAC) for strategic electrification (SE) and how it aligns with the M12282 Decision. It also asks about the implications of Synapse's recommendation for portfolio-level cost-effectiveness.

12 Request IR-9: 13 14 On page 25 of 39, the Report states that it is very unlikely that a Strategic Electrification program 15 could pass the modified PAC test that has been adopted by the Board. In table 2, page 26 of 39, 16 the Report s...

AI summary The text raises questions about the implications of the modified PAC test on the implementation of Strategic Electrification within the DSM program, whether the test can be adjusted to allow inclusion of the program, and what non-electric system impacts may be overlooked by the test.

30 Request IR-4: 31 32 At page 22, lines 17 to 19 of the Report, Synapse observes that E1 did not provide a clear basis for 33 its conclusion that Strategic Electrification did not meet the requirements of the modified PAC 34 test. 35 36 A...

AI summary The document includes questions raised in a regulatory proceeding regarding E1's analysis of Strategic Electrification. It questions the basis for E1's conclusion, Synapse's interpretation of cost-effectiveness assessment, and how a prior Board decision (M12282) may influence the promotion of Strategic Electrification.

1 Request IR-8: 2 Reference : E-21, Section VII – Unit Costs. 9 ensure greater cost-effectiveness. Preamble: At pages 26-35 of the evidence, Mr. Love analyzes E1's rising unit acquisition costs, noting that the Preferred Plan projects a fi...

AI summary The document discusses Mr. Love's analysis of E1's rising unit acquisition costs in energy efficiency programs, noting a 35% increase from the 2026 Plan to the Preferred Plan. Factors cited include the end of federal funding, the LED lighting transition, inflation, and revised heat-pump evaluations. Questions are raised regarding predictability, cost-containment measures, benchmarking, and comparative unit costs in other jurisdictions.

23 Request IR-8: 24 Reference : E-22, page 16. A modified Plan should therefore require E1 to develop DR as a dispatchable system resource with clear performance, accreditation, and cost-effectiveness metrics. That should include a careful...

AI summary The text recommends that a modified Plan should require E1 to develop a demand response (DR) system as a dispatchable resource, with clear performance, accreditation, and cost-effectiveness metrics. It suggests assessing delivery models from other jurisdictions, including incentive levels and customer acquisition strategies.

1 (a) Please elaborate on the performance obligations, accreditation and cost 2 effectiveness metrics Brattle is recommending be included within the DR 3 programming model. Is this based on experience, data, or judgement? 4 (b) Please iden...

AI summary The text discusses requests for clarification regarding Brattle's recommended DR potential study, including its focus on cost-effectiveness, allocation of study costs among customer classes, and completion timelines. It also asks for examples of comparable metrics from other jurisdictions.

Request IR-14: Reference: E-22, page 20. E1 should be required to develop a more targeted building electrification program focused on measures with the best chance of meeting Nova Scotia's statutory criteria of reducing costs by incorporat...

AI summary The text discusses the need for E1 to develop a more targeted building electrification program with specific criteria, including cost reduction, displacement of fossil fuels, and integration with weatherization. It also raises questions about the feasibility of solar energy (SE) programs and the phase-in pathway for electrification, including cost-effectiveness and implementation timelines.

______________ DATE UND# DESCRIPTION REQUESTED OF by DUE DATE August 5, 2026 U-6 To provide its documented checklist used to verify the results produced by Guidehouse's proprietary modeling as part of EOne's quality assurance on the inputs...

AI summary The document outlines a series of requests made to EfficiencyOne and Green Energy Economics as part of a regulatory proceeding. These requests pertain to verifying modeling checklists, confirming net-to-gross ratios, providing PAC scores, and reconciling evidence. The due dates for these requests are primarily August 21, 2026, with one request due on August 28, 2026.