N-1NSPI Cost Allocation Proposal - 2016-2018 DSM Plan
12 passages
October 30, 2015 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 3 1.0 INTR RODUCTION 3 4 2.0 BAC KGROUND 5 5 3.0 NS P POWER'S POSITION 6 6 4.0 COS T ALLOCATION PROPOSAL 8 7 4.1 DSM net contract price 2016-2018 8 8 4.2 Balance Adjustments 2010 & 2014 9 9 4.3 Cost a...
AI summary This document outlines Nova Scotia Power Inc.'s position on the cost allocation methodology for Demand Side Management (DSM) as agreed upon in the Consensus Agreement dated June 16, 2015. The proposal includes DSM cost allocation for 2015, 2016-2018, and the 2014 rate-smoothing adjustment, with input from the DSM Advisory Group.
DATE FILED: October 30, 2015 Page 3 of 12 1 2016-2018 DSM Plan Consensus Agreement (Schedule B), M06733, Approved October 7, 2015, page 6. on the precise terms of this proposal2 1 , the Company did not receive objections from any 2 members...
AI summary NS Power filed a document related to the 2016-2018 DSM Plan Consensus Agreement, noting that no objections were raised about the general cost allocation framework. It also stated that DSM cost recovery is separate from cost allocation and will be addressed in a subsequent filing.
2 For example, the DSM Advisory Group has not reached a consensus on the cost allocation of enabling strategies. 1 2.0 BACKGROUND 2 3 Prior to the recent amendments to the Public Utilities Act (Act), the cost of DSM was 4 recovered through...
AI summary The text discusses the transition of DSM cost recovery from a rider to a new methodology approved by the Board in 2010, which allocates 25% system cost and 75% participant cost. It also notes that the DSM Advisory Group has not reached a consensus on cost allocation for enabling strategies.
1 3.0 NS POWER'S POSITION 2 3 The current 25/75 per cent split between system cost and participant cost was agreed to 4 by stakeholders to the 2009 Settlement Agreement. It appropriately recognizes that rate 5 class benefits from DSM progr...
AI summary NS Power argues the 25/75 cost split between system and participant costs for DSM programs aligns with cost-of-service principles, as participating classes benefit most. They propose maintaining this split but suggest exceptions for Enabling Strategies when benefits exceed $100,000 or are tied to historical averages, reducing tracking requirements.
1 4.0 COST ALLOCATION PROPOSAL 2 3 NS Power proposes the following DSM cost allocation treatment. 4
AI summary Nova Scotia Power (NSP) proposes a Demand Side Management (DSM) cost allocation treatment as part of the regulatory proceeding. The proposal relates to how DSM program costs will be allocated, likely under the DSM Cost Recovery Rate Rider (DCRR) framework governed by the Public Utilities Act.
5 4.1 DSM net contract price 2016-2018 6 In its Decision6 7 to approve the 2016-18 DSM Plan, the Board stated as follows: 8 9 The Board approves a DSM Plan for 2016-2018 in the aggregate amount 10 of $102,150,000. Approved spending is $33,...
AI summary The Board approved a DSM Plan for 2016-2018 with a total spending of $102,150,000, allocating $33,210,000 in 2016, $34,020,000 in 2017, and $34,920,000 in 2018. The net contract price for this period is capped at $93,631,970, as outlined in Schedule B of the Supply Agreement approved in October 2015.
17 2016 20178 20189 Total UARB Approved $33,210,000 $34,020,000 $34,920,000 $102,150,000 Balance Adjustment10 ($8,518,030) Nil Nil ($8,518,030) Net Contract Price to be Paid by NS Power11 $24,691,970 $34,020,000 $34,920,000 $93,631,970 18
AI summary The table shows the UARB Approved amounts for various years, including the adjustment and net contract price to be paid by NS Power. The figures indicate a steady increase in approved amounts over the years, with an adjustment in 2016 that reduces the total net contract price.
DATE FILED: October 30, 2015 Page 8 of 12 6 2016-2018 DSM Plan, UARB Decision 2015 NSUARB 204, M06733, August 12, 2015, page 1. 7 2016-2018 DSM Plan, UARB Order 2015 NSUARB 204, M06733, October 7, 2015. 8 The 2017 payments owing by NS Powe...
AI summary The text discusses the financial adjustments related to the 2016-2018 DSM Plan, referencing UARB decisions and orders, and outlines how payments to E1 by NS Power will be adjusted based on under-spending and surplus funds from previous years.
1 4.2 Balance Adjustments 2010 & 2014 2 3 Efficiency Nova Scotia's financial statement for the year ending December 31, 2014 shows the following balance adjustments12 4 : 5 6 7 8 The 2010 Balance Adjustment of $75,636 and 2014 Balance Adju...
AI summary Efficiency Nova Scotia's 2014 financial statement includes balance adjustments of $75,636 (2010) and $8,442,394 (2014), which are applied to the 2016 cost allocation by reducing the 2016 contract price payment by $8,518,030.
12 4.3 Cost allocation of 2016-2018 13 14 Please refer to Appendix A for allocation of DSM Program costs from years 2016 to 15 2018 among rate classes using the current costing methodology. The calculations were 16 based on a DSM cost allo...
AI summary The document refers to Appendix A for the allocation of DSM Program costs from 2016 to 2018 among rate classes using a costing methodology provided by E1 following their Compliance Filing in September 2015.
12 Efficiency Nova Scotia Financial Statement for the year ending December 31, 2014, issued March 27, 2015, page 14. 1 the approved DSM spending of $102, 500 for 2016-2018). The model was subsequently 2 updated by NS Power with its own usa...
AI summary NS Power proposes a true-up mechanism to reconcile DSM expenditures with actual customer load and programming, ensuring accurate cost recovery. The process involves annual adjustments based on forecast and actual data, with details to be filed in November 2015.
DATE FILED: October 30, 2015 Page 11 of 12 1 4.5 Rate Smoothing Adjustment 2 3 NS Power proposes that the inter-class DSM loans incurred in 2014 be repaid over a 4 three year period. The Company will propose an appropriate approach for rec...
AI summary NS Power proposes repaying inter-class DSM loans from 2014 over three years and plans to submit a cost recovery filing on November 30, 2015. The proposal aligns with the Consensus Agreement and input from the DSM Advisory Group, requesting the Board's approval for the DSM cost allocation.
N-4NSPI (Consumer Advocate) Responses to IR-1 to IR-14 - Redacted
7 passages
DSM Cost Allocation and Recovery (NSUARB M07151) NSPI Responses to Consumer Advocate Information Requests
AI summary The document outlines NSPI's responses to information requests from the Consumer Advocate regarding DSM cost allocation and recovery under the proceeding NSUARB M07151.
NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-2: 2 3 Did NS Power review the Memorandum (attached) to Julie-Ann Vincent, Efficiency Nova 4 Scotia from Andrew Frank of Elenchus dated May 7, 2014 on the subject of Enabling 5 Strategies Allocation prior to p...
AI summary NS Power reviewed a memorandum from Elenchus dated May 7, 2014, regarding the allocation of Enabling Strategies expenditures. The memorandum recommended using program benefits rather than historical averages for cost allocation. NS Power noted that 71% of expenditures were not directly linked to individual rate classes, suggesting a need to revisit the original allocation methodology.
NON-CONFIDENTIAL - 1 Given there is significant uncertainty around apportionment of the actual costs between rate - 2 classes, the Company has proposed a simplified methodology based on historical averages. If - 3 the customer classes can...
AI summary The company proposes a simplified cost allocation methodology based on historical averages due to uncertainty in apportioning costs between rate classes. It seeks consensus with E1 and its consultant for alternative methods, with NS Power aligning recovery to any consensus approach. The proceeding references matter number NSUARB M07151.
REDACTED DSM Cost Allocation and Recovery CA IR-4 Attachment 1 Page 1 of 12 COLUMN Α В С D E F G Н Program Cost Recovery by Bo enefits System Benefits Combined Class and 25% $8,302,500 Participant Benefits 75% $24,907,500 Total 1 100% $33,...
AI summary The document outlines the allocation and recovery of DSM (Demand Side Management) program costs, with 25% allocated to system benefits and 75% to participant benefits. It details how costs are distributed across generation, transmission, and energy-related factors, along with the financial breakdown by rate class.
Date Filed: February 1, 2016 NSPI (CA) IR-8 Page 1 of 1 DSM Cost Allocation and Recovery (NSUARB M07151) NSPI Responses to Consumer Advocate Information Requests
AI summary The document outlines NSPI's responses to information requests from the Consumer Advocate regarding DSM cost allocation and recovery under the NSUARB proceeding M07151, dated February 1, 2016.
DSM Cost Allocation and Recovery (NSUARB M07151) NSPI Responses to Consumer Advocate Information Requests
AI summary This document outlines NSPI's responses to information requests from the Consumer Advocate regarding the allocation and recovery of Demand Side Management (DSM) costs under the NSUARB proceeding M07151.
DSM Cost Allocation and Recovery (NSUARB M07151) NSPI Responses to Consumer Advocate Information Requests
AI summary This document outlines NSPI's responses to information requests from the Consumer Advocate regarding DSM cost allocation and recovery under the NSUARB proceeding M07151.
N-6NSPI (Industrial Group) Responses to IR-1 to IR-15 - Redacted
10 passages
NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-2: 2 3 (a) Please outline any differences in what was proposed by NSPI in its October 4 30, 2015, Cost Allocation Proposal, its November 30, 2015, letter to the Board 5 and its December 18, 2015, letter to the...
AI summary The document outlines NSPI's submissions regarding DSM cost allocation and cost recovery, noting differences between the October 30, 2015, November 30, 2015, and December 18, 2015, filings. It also references a UARB directive for additional details and states that NS Power's positions on cost recovery and cost allocation remain consistent across the filings.
DSM Cost Allocation and Recovery (NSUARB M07151) NSPI Responses to Industrial Group Information Requests 1 2 NS Power recommends maintaining the 25% - 75% breakdown of DSM costs 3 between system benefits and customer benefits for the cos...
AI summary NSPI recommends maintaining the 25% - 75% breakdown of DSM costs between system benefits and customer benefits for cost allocation purposes among rate classes. The company prefers consensus on cost allocation and has presented options to rebalance variances between actual and recovered DSM expenditures. NS Power is not directly impacted by cost allocation or recovery methodologies and requests deferral of a determination for DSM costs in other years of the contract period.
CONFIDENTIAL (Attachment Only) 1 Request IR-4: 2 3 Reference: NSPI October 30, 2015 Cost Allocation Proposal (Exhibit N-1) 4 5 Please provide the source data and any calculations for the 2016, 2017 and 2018 3 CP 6 demand and energy figures...
AI summary The document requests source data and calculations for 2016, 2017, and 2018 demand and energy figures related to the 3 CP (likely a cost or capacity category) as referenced in Appendix A of the NSPI October 30, 2015 Cost Allocation Proposal. The response directs the requester to Partially Confidential Attachment 1 for the requested data.
REDACTED DSM Cost Allocation and Recovery IG IR-4 Attachment 1 Page 5 of 15 REDACTED (CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION REMOVED) Losses as %Sales Residential non ToD Residential ToD Residential Total Small General General Demand Large General Small...
AI summary The document presents a table showing losses as a percentage of sales across various customer categories and months in 2017, highlighting fluctuations in loss percentages throughout the year. This data may be relevant to discussions on cost allocation and recovery in the context of demand-side management (DSM).
MONTHLY SYSTEM COINCIDENT PEAKS: REQUIREMENTS, SALES, AND LOSSES BY RATE CLASS IN MWh PER HOUR 2018 Jan 2018 Feb 2018 Mar 2018 Apr 2018 May 2018 Jun 2018 Jul 2018 Aug 2018 Sep 2018 Oct 2018 Nov 2018 Dec Annual Peak 3CP Large Industrial Wit...
AI summary The document presents monthly system coincident peaks by rate class in MWh per hour for 2018, and includes responses by NSPI to information requests regarding DSM cost allocation and recovery, referencing the 2014 COSS and 2016 budget variances.
Original Amount $22,647,491 Annual Payback ‐$3,976,113 Annual Interest 7.78% Total Interest $9,161,413 108 Dec‐23 $329,208 $0 $2,134 ($331,343) $0 ($0) $9,159,279 $2,134 $9,161,413 Original Amount $1,305,241 Annual Payback ‐$229,155 Annual...
AI summary The text presents a financial table detailing an original amount of $22,647,491 with an annual payback of -$3,976,113. It outlines interest rates, payments, and principal amounts over time, including monthly payments and total interest accrued.
Original Amount $1,305,241 Annual Payback ‐$229,155 Annual Interest 7.78% Total Interest $527,999 98 Feb‐23 $202,112 $0 $1,310 ($19,096) $0 $184,326 $520,052 $1,310 $521,363 99 Mar‐23 $184,326 $0 $1,195 ($19,096) $0 $166,425 $521,363 $1,19...
AI summary The text presents a financial table detailing annual interest, payback, and total interest over a period, with the original amount of $1,305,241 and an annual payback of -$229,155. It also includes a larger table with original amounts, interest rates, and payment schedules over several years.
Original Amount $2,521,616 Annual Payback ‐$442,708 Annual Interest 7.78% Total Interest $1,020,050 Years 8 Payments Per Year 12 Total Payback $3,541,666 Start Year 2015 Monthly Payment ‐$36,892 $2,630,448.69 Period Date Opening Principal...
AI summary The text presents a financial table outlining a loan with an original amount of $2,521,616, an annual interest rate of 7.78%, and a total payback of $3,541,666 over 8 years. The table details monthly payments, interest, and principal adjustments from January 2017 to September 2017.
Amortization Schedule: Medium Industrial Original Amount $1,054,158 Annual Payback ‐$185,074 12 Dec‐15 $1,004,725 $87,847 $7,084 $0 $0 $1,099,655 $38,414 $7,084 $45,497 13 Jan‐16 $1,099,655 $0 $7,129 ($15,423) $0 $1,091,362 $45,497 $7,129...
AI summary The text presents an amortization schedule for a medium industrial entity, detailing the original amount, annual payback, and various financial figures over a period from December 2015 to March 2017. The schedule outlines the gradual reduction of the original amount through periodic payments and adjustments.
Amortization Schedule: Municipal Original Amount $407,863 Annual Payback ‐$71,607 40 Apr‐18 $331,117 $0 $2,147 ‐$5,967 $0 $327,297 $84,369 $2,147 $86,516 41 May‐18 $327,297 $0 $2,122 ‐$5,967 $0 $323,451 $86,516 $2,122 $88,638 42 Jun‐18 $32...
AI summary The document presents an amortization schedule for municipal funds, showing the original amount, annual payback, and various financial figures over time from April 2018 to August 2019.
N-8NSPI (Multeese) Responses to IR-1 to IR-15 - Redacted
9 passages
NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-1: 2 3 With respect to the cost allocation methodology proposed on October 30, please discuss 4 how this will relate to NSPI's cost of service methodology used to assign other costs to 5 classes. For example,...
AI summary The response discusses how NSPI views the DSM cost allocation methodology as part of the overall cost of service framework, with DSM costs being subject to R/C ratio adjustments and recovered through prospective base cost rates, similar to base cost of fuel under the FAM.
DSM Cost Allocation and Recovery (NSUARB M07151) NSPI Responses to Multeese Information Requests 1 Request IR-2: 2 3 On page 2 of the December 18 submission, NSPI notes that "it views the DSM quantum of 4 $102.2 million as a flow through e...
AI summary NSPI explains its approach to expensing and recovering DSM costs, noting that the 2016 DSM amounts will be expensed and that a determination for years beyond 2016 will be made by June 30, 2016 or with the filing of a General Rate Application. It confirms that all 2015 and 2016 DSM costs will be recovered from customers by the end of 2016.
NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-6: 2 3 Re the statement under the heading "DCRR Amounts currently in rates" on page 4 of the 4 December 18 submission, please elaborate on how this is addressed in the comments re: 5 2016-2018 Program Costs. 6...
AI summary NS Power explains that its non-fuel rates do not currently include DSM funds. While previous GRA revenue was not explicitly allocated for DSM programming, NS Power considered 2016 DSM costs in its expense forecasting and will make similar decisions for future GRA applications under the Electricity Plan Implementation (2015) Act.
CONFIDENTIAL (Attachment Only) 1 Request IR-14: 2 3 In Appendix A, referencing the column labelled "2015 DSM Plan Amortized over 8 years", 4 5 (a) Please confirm that these costs are based on the full amount of approved 6 expenditures capp...
AI summary Request IR-14 seeks clarification on NSPI's 2015 DSM Plan amortization, calculation of 2016 costs, carrying cost adjustments, and variance significance between allocation methods. NSPI confirms costs are capped at $35M and refers to attachments for detailed calculations and variances. The proceeding involves DSM cost allocation and recovery under NSUARB M07151.
2015 DCRR Annual Amount Amortization by Rate Class (2016 ‐ 2024) Rate Class 2015 DCRR Amount Accumulated Interest 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Original Amount $22,647,491 Annual Payback ‐$3,240,023 Annual Interest 3.00% To...
AI summary The document outlines the annual amortization schedule for the 2015 DCRR (Demand Cost Recovery Rider) from 2016 to 2024, showing the accumulated interest, total payback, and monthly payments over an 8-year period with an annual interest rate of 3.00%.
Original Amount $22,647,491 Annual Payback ‐$3,240,023 Annual Interest 3.00% Total Interest $3,272,694 46 Oct‐18 $15,720,081 $0 $39,300 ($270,002) $0 $15,489,379 $1,982,654 $39,300 $2,021,954 47 Nov‐18 $15,489,379 $0 $38,723 ($270,002) $0...
AI summary The table presents financial data related to an annual interest calculation with a rate of 3.00%, showing the original amount of $22,647,491 and an annual payback of -$3,240,023. It includes monthly entries from October 2018 to October 2019 with interest, payback amounts, and cumulative totals.
Original Amount $4,480,926 Annual Payback ‐$641,056 Annual Interest 3.00% Total Interest $647,520 Annual Interest 3.00% Total Interest $647,520 Years 8 Payments Per Year 12 Total Payback $5,128,446 Start Year 2015 Monthly Payment ‐$53,421...
AI summary The text presents a financial table detailing an annual interest rate of 3.00% over 8 years with monthly payments of -53,421, starting in 2015. The total interest is 647,520, and the total payback is 5,128,446. The table shows the breakdown of payments, interest, and principal over several periods starting from January 2021.
Original Amount $2,521,616 Annual Payback ‐$360,751 Annual Interest 3.00% Total Interest $364,388 98 Feb‐23 $325,781 $0 $814 ($30,063) $0 $296,533 $359,481 $814 $360,296 99 Mar‐23 $296,533 $0 $741 ($30,063) $0 $267,212 $360,296 $741 $361,0...
AI summary The text presents financial data related to a payment schedule with an original amount of $2,521,616 and an annual payback of -$360,751. It includes a table showing monthly interest, payments, and cumulative balances over time, as well as additional details on an original amount of $784,682, annual interest, and total payback over eight years.
Amortization Schedule: Municipal Original Amount $407,863 Annual Payback ‐$58,350 13 Jan‐16 $414,552 $0 $1,036 ($4,863) $0 $410,726 $6,689 $1,036 $7,725 14 Feb‐16 $410,726 $0 $1,027 ($4,863) $0 $406,890 $7,725 $1,027 $8,752 15 Mar‐16 $406,...
AI summary The document presents an amortization schedule for a municipal project, detailing original amounts, annual payback, and changes over time from January 2016 to May 2017. The schedule includes figures such as original amounts, annual payback, and adjustments.
65462Board Decision Letter - DSM Cost Allocation and Recovery
3 passages
NSPI's Filing Dated December 18, 2015 In its December 18, 2015 letter, NSPI stated: - 1) One-eighth of the 2015 program cost will be expensed in its 2016 operating costs. - 2) The 2016 DSM program costs will be absorbed in existing rates a...
AI summary NSPI outlined cost management strategies for DSM programs, proposing to expense 2015 and 2016 program costs in operating expenses, deferring 2017-2019 cost recovery decisions, and suggesting three options for addressing the 2014 RSA. It also proposed methodologies for true-ups and allocation of DSM funds, including alignment with COS or E1 program budgets.
Participant Submissions Submissions were received from the Consumer Advocate ("CA"), the Small Business Advocate ("SBA"), the Industrial Group, and E1. 1 Document: 245123 1 None of the parties disagreed with NSPI's proposal to absorb the 2...
AI summary The Consumer Advocate (CA) and Small Business Advocate (SBA) oppose NSPI's proposal to recover 2017-2019 DSM costs via additional rates, arguing existing rates suffice. The Industrial Group insists NSPI must file rate changes by April 30, 2016, and opposes extending the DSM cost recovery deadline. E1 supports NSPI's Cost of Service approach for DSM cost allocation.
Board Decision The Board understands that 2013 and 2014 Balance Adjustments have been rolled into the 2015 and 2016 DSM programs, respectively, and accepts that approach. Regarding treatment of the 2015 DSM program costs, which are being a...
AI summary The Board approves NSPI's proposal to recover 2015 DSM program costs over 8 years, with one-eighth recovered as 2016 operating costs and the rest via financing. It rejects deferring 2017-2019 DSM cost decisions. NSPI failed to file required details by November 30, 2015, despite prior directives. The Board's Order M06733 mandated this filing.
64256Submission from NSPI re DSM Cost Recovery
5 passages
2014 Rate Smoothing Adjustment In its 2014 DSM Cost Recovery Rider Application, Efficiency One's (E1) predecessor, Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation (ENSC), realized that the Small General and Large General classes would experience revenu...
AI summary In 2014, Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation (ENSC) applied for a DSM Cost Recovery Rider, leading to revenue increases for certain classes. The UARB approved a rate smoothing adjustment allowing over-recovered classes to loan funds to under-recovered ones, reducing the DCR Rider impact. Under-recovered classes agreed to repay with interest (2015–2017). The 2015 Settlement Agreement deferred repayment details to the 2016–2018 DSM plan. NS Power proposed options to resolve inter-class imbalances, including reallocation, true-up during rate applications, or fuel cost filings.
True Up Proposals Although true ups do not have a direct impact on NS Power, the Company supports the manner in which true ups were managed when DSM was recovered through a rate rider. Essentially, a customer class rate rider amount was ba...
AI summary NSP supports managing true ups through rate riders, proposing contract periods instead of annual rebalancing to allow cost-effective DSM programs. However, 2015-2016 lacks specific class rate riders, creating no baseline for budget allocation. Three alternatives—cost of service allocation, actual DSM alignment, and no allocation—are presented. NSP opposes true up mechanisms hindering E1's energy savings goals.
Cost of Service Allocation This option would allocate DSM funds among customer classes in the same manner that NS Power allocates earnings above its approved range of return – allocate based on NS Power's cost of service. Any true ups woul...
AI summary This approach allocates DSM funds based on NS Power's cost of service, mirroring how earnings above approved returns are distributed. It uses a 75% class cost / 25% system cost split, justified by prior customer agreement and NS Power's 2015 recommendation. True ups would compare this allocation to actual expenditures.
No Allocation There is also merit in considering whether any initial budget should be set or imbalance calculated during this period. Until the next general rate application, DSM will not have a specific allocation in rates and, as such, D...
AI summary The document discusses the allocation of Demand Side Management (DSM) costs in the absence of a specific rate allocation, proposing that DSM expenses be absorbed into existing rates. NS Power requests the Board to acknowledge the recovery of 2015 and 2016 DSM costs as operating expenses and to address cost recovery for 2017-2019. The document also outlines the need for stakeholder input on cost allocation.
c. Tim Wood DSM Intervenors 2016 DSM Costs apportioned to rate classes using DSM cost allocation methodology 2016 DSM Costs apportioned to rate classes using class relative shares in rate base from 2014 COSS Variance between two approaches...
AI summary The table presents the apportionment of 2016 DSM costs to various rate classes using two different methodologies — the DSM cost allocation methodology and class relative shares in rate base from 2014 COSS — and highlights the variance between the two approaches. The data includes revenue figures, cost allocations, and percentages for each rate class.
64370Multeese Consulting-BCC (NSPI) IR-1 to IR-15
6 passages
NOVA SCOTIA UTILITY AND REVIEW BOARD IN THE MATTER OF: THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT - and - IN THE MATTER OF: AN APPLICATION by Nova Scotia Power Incorporated ("NSPI") for Approval of the DSM Cost Allocation and Recovery
AI summary The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board is considering an application by Nova Scotia Power Incorporated (NSPI) under the Public Utilities Act for approval of Demand Side Management (DSM) cost allocation and recovery. The proceeding involves regulatory review of NSPI's proposed methodology for recovering DSM program costs from ratepayers.
Request IR-1: - 2 With respect to the cost allocation methodology proposed on October 30, please discuss how - 3 this will relate to NSPI's cost of service methodology used to assign other costs to classes. For - 4 example, does NSPI see t...
AI summary Request IR-1 asks NSPI to clarify whether its proposed DSM cost allocation methodology operates within its overall cost of service framework or as a separate method. It seeks confirmation on whether DSM costs would be integrated into total class costs for R/C ratio calculations or treated independently.
Request IR-3: - 18 On page 3 of the December 18 submission, it is stated with respect to 2015 DSM costs that the - 19 Company will expense the 2016 amortization amount in its 2016 operating costs. Also on page - 20 3, it is stated with res...
AI summary The request seeks confirmation that NSPI's 2016 amortization and DSM program costs will be fully recovered from customers by year-end, based on their submission stating 2016 costs will be expensed and absorbed into existing rates.
Request IR-8: - 2 Regarding True-Ups, NSPI proposes truing up at the end of the contract period and states that - 3 "At the end of such period, imbalances could either be worked into the next DSM contract period - 4 or rebalanced separatel...
AI summary NSPI proposes handling DSM contract imbalances via true-ups at contract end, either carrying imbalances into the next contract period or rebalancing during rate applications. Questions seek clarification on implementation, rebalancing processes, and whether customer rates would be adjusted.
Request IR-10: - 17 Regarding the first alternative (cost of service) on page 5 of the December 18 submission, - a) Please confirm that this option would identify the difference between budget and actual expenditures and distribute that di...
AI summary Request IR-10 seeks clarification on the 'cost of service' alternative in a December 18 submission. It asks whether the approach in footnote 4 would distribute budget-actual expenditure differences across classes and how this would impact customer rates.
Request IR-13: - 9 Regarding the True-Up Proposals, NSPI presented three alternatives for consideration but stated - 10 it does not have a strong preference to which methodology is utilized if it does not materially - 11 impact ETs ability...
AI summary NSPI presented three True-Up Proposal alternatives, stating no strong preference unless impacting cost-effectiveness of energy savings goals. It previously recommended cost-of-service allocation in a 2015 letter, but the current request questions if this remains the recommendation.
64371Industrial Group (NSPI) IR-1 to IR-15
6 passages
Request IR-1: Please define "Cost Allocation", "Cost Accounting" and "Cost Recovery" as it applies to DSM.
AI summary The text requests definitions of 'Cost Allocation', 'Cost Accounting', and 'Cost Recovery' in the context of Demand Side Management (DSM).
Request IR-2: (a) Please outline any differences in what was proposed by NSPI in its October 30, 2015, Cost Allocation Proposal, its November 30, 2015, letter to the Board and its December 18, 2015, letter to the Board. (b) If there are di...
AI summary The document requests clarification on differences in NSPI's cost allocation proposals from October 2015 to December 2015, including rationales for changes. It references NSPI's support for a 25/75 system/participant cost split for DSM programs and a 2016-specific cost-of-service allocation approach. Discrepancies between these methods are highlighted, along with requests for data on demand and energy figures.
service (p.3). 1 2 3 4 5 (a) Appendix A to the December 18, 2015 letter shows an alternative allocation based on "class relative shares in rate base from 2014 COSS". Is this intended to be the same as allocation "based on cost of service"?...
AI summary The text presents a series of questions and requests related to the allocation of costs based on the 2014 COSS study, the derivation of amortization amounts for the 2015 DSM plan, and the deferral of DSM amounts beyond 2016. These questions aim to clarify the methodology and assumptions used in cost allocation and recovery.
Request IR-9: - Appendix A shows the "Inter-class DSM loan" being repaid over 2016-2018 as part of the - apportionment using DSM cost allocation methodology. Please explain this treatment, in light of - the three options discussed.
AI summary Appendix A details the repayment of an 'Inter-class DSM loan' from 2016-2018 under DSM cost allocation methodology. The request seeks clarification on this treatment relative to three previously discussed options.
Request IR-12: - (a) In the first paragraph, NSPI speaks to the "relevant period on a go - forward basis" as the three year contract period for true-up. When does - "going forward" begin? - (b) What starting point does NSPI propose against...
AI summary Request IR-12 seeks clarification on NSPI's proposal for a three-year contract period for true-up, including the start date of the 'going forward' period, the baseline for true-up measurement, and the pros and cons of alternative true-up methods.
Request IR-13: - …[W]ould allocate DSM funds among customer classes in the same manner as NS Power allocates earnings above its approved rate of return – allocate based on NS power's cost of service. Any true ups would be based on this all...
AI summary The text discusses allocating DSM funds using NS Power's cost-of-service model, mirroring how earnings above approved rates are distributed. It references a 75% class cost/25% system cost allocation, citing customer representatives' prior agreement as a 'reasonable proxy.' Questions probe the methodology's application, definition of terms, and whether a 25/75-based allocator would be constructed.
64374Small Business Advocate (NSPI) IR-1 to IR-11
3 passages
1 2016 NSUARB-NSPI-P-M07151 / E-R-15 2 3 NOVA SCOTIA UTILITY AND REVIEW BOARD 4 IN THE MATTER OF: The Public Utilities Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c.380 as amended 5 -and - 6 IN THE MATTER OF: Nova Scotia Power DSM Cost Recovery Proposal dated Dec...
AI summary The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board is handling a proceeding under the Public Utilities Act regarding Nova Scotia Power's DSM Cost Recovery Proposal dated December 18, 2015. Responses are due by January 25, 2016, with contact details provided for Nova Scotia Power Inc. and E.A. Nelson Blackburn, Q.C. of Blackburn Law.
Date Filed: January 11, 2016 l Request IR-4: 2 NSPI also identifies its decision to not seek a general rate increase for 2016 as a contributing factor that 3 "hampers" its ability to rebalance through the 2016 to 2018 DSM plan. Please desc...
AI summary The document contains several requests for information related to NSPI's decision not to seek a general rate increase in 2016, its impact on rebalancing through the 2016 to 2018 DSM plan, and the implications of various cost recovery models and allocation mechanisms.
7 Request IR-11: - 8 What are the alternative cost recovery mechanisms the Company is considering for DSM costs in 2017 - 9 thrcugh 2019? Date Filed: January 11, 2016
AI summary The document requests information on alternative cost recovery mechanisms for DSM (Demand Side Management) costs from 2017 to 2019. Filed on January 11, 2016, the inquiry seeks clarification on the Company's (likely NSPI) proposed approaches to recovering these costs during the specified period.
64376Consumer Advocate (NSPI) IR-1 to IR-14
6 passages
Request IR-1: Please provide a rationale for using historical averages as part of the formula for allocating Enabling Strategies expenditures among rate classes as proposed in the 2016-2018 DSM Plan NS Power Cost Allocation Proposal dated...
AI summary The document requests a rationale for using historical averages in allocating Enabling Strategies expenditures among rate classes, as proposed in the 2016-2018 DSM Plan by NS Power in their 2015 Cost Allocation Proposal.
Request IR-2: Did NS Power review the Memorandum (attached) to Julie-Ann Vincent, Efficiency Nova Scotia from Andrew Frank of Elenchus dated May 7, 2014 on the subject of Enabling Strategies Allocation prior to proposing how to allocate en...
AI summary The request asks whether NS Power reviewed a 2014 memorandum from Elenchus to Efficiency Nova Scotia, which proposed allocating Enabling Strategies expenditures based on Program Benefits rather than the 2012 method using historical averages. The memorandum argues that the 2014 approach is more appropriate.
7 Request IR-7: 8 9 The attached spreadsheet of showing coding to rate classes of Enabling Strategies expenditures was 10 provided to G. Foote upon request by Matthew Davidson of Efficiency (e-mail also attached). This 11 spreadsheet shows...
AI summary A spreadsheet shows Enabling Strategies expenditures coded to all rate classes, not just BNI, leading to residential ratepayers being charged 50 cents for a program not addressing residential DSM. The document questions whether NSPI reviewed historical averages before submitting its cost-allocation proposal.
47 1 2 Request IR-12: 3 4 5 Would NSPI be seeking interest on post-2016 DSM expenditures, if it does not make a General Rate Application on June 30, 2016? 6 7 Request IR-13: 8 9 10 The December 15, 2018 submission proposes two methods for...
AI summary The text outlines several requests for clarification regarding NSPI's approach to interest on post-2016 DSM expenditures and the methods for true-ups, including 'Cost of Service Allocation' and 'Traditional DSM Allocation.'
Memorandum To: Julie-Ann Vincent, Efficiency Nova Scotia From: Andrew Frank Date: May 7, 2014 Re: Enabling Strategies Allocation This memo is prepared in response to your requests to review our advice provided in February 2012 on the alloc...
AI summary This memo from Andrew Frank to Efficiency Nova Scotia reviews prior advice on Enabling Strategies cost allocation and updates recommendations based on a year of experience. It addresses invoice allocations to rate classes and revises cost allocation methods for Enabling Strategies.
2 REVIEW OF ENABLING STRATEGIES COST ALLOCATION In response to your request to review the Enabling Strategies allocation methodology, we have reviewed the recommendation provided by Elenchus in February 2012. Email: [email protected]; dir...
AI summary The document reviews Elenchus' 2012 recommendation for allocating Enabling Strategies costs using a System/Participant Benefit approach, with 75% allocated based on customer classes benefiting from the strategy. Elenchus reaffirms this methodology's validity, emphasizing its continued appropriateness for Nova Scotia's cost allocation framework.
64869Submission - Small Business Advocate
5 passages
VlAEMAIL February 16, 2016 Ms. Doreen Friis Regulatory Affairs Officer/Clerk Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board 1601 Lower Water Street, 3rd Floor Halifax, NS B3J 3S3 Dear Ms. Friis: Re: Nova Scotia Power Inc. - DSM Cost Allocation and R...
AI summary Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSP) submitted DSM cost recovery proposals to the Utility and Review Board, following legislative changes from 'Our Electricity Future' plan. The Board requested additional details on cost allocation, leading to the Nova Scotia Small Business Advocate (SBA) commenting on NSP's methodology, advocating for a revised 75% class cost/25% system cost allocation beyond 2016 and clarifying impacts of proposed methods.
SBA Observations Why should NSP allocate costs based on El's DSM budget allocation? NSP's Dec 18th Filing discusses two cost allocation methodologies: Cost of Service and Actual DSM Alignment 3 • NSP illustrates the results of allocation m...
AI summary The SBA argues that NSP should allocate costs based on El's DSM budget rather than the Cost of Service methodology, as the latter could lead to over/under recoveries exceeding $1 million for certain rate classes. The SBA acknowledges the assumption that El's budget better reflects actual expenditures but contends that the Cost of Service approach introduces discrepancies and undermines rate stability.
3.0 NS POWER'S POSITION The current 25/75 per cent split between system cost and participant cost was agreed to by stakeholders to the 2009 Settlement Agreement. It appropriately recognizes that rate class benefits from DSM programs are hi...
AI summary NS Power advocates maintaining the 25/75 cost split between system and participant costs for DSM programs, citing the 2009 Settlement Agreement and cost-of-service principles. They propose adjusting Enabling Strategies allocation, fully assigning costs to rate classes when benefits are clear and costs exceed $100,000. The current methodology assigns 75% of DSM costs to participating classes.
DSM Cost Allocation and Recovery (NSUARB M07151) NSPI Responses to Small Business Advocate Information Requests
AI summary Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSP) provided responses to the Nova Scotia Small Business Advocate (SBA) regarding Demand Side Management (DSM) cost allocation and recovery mechanisms under NSUARB matter M07151. The responses address SBA information requests on DSM program cost allocation methodologies and recovery processes.
NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-7: 2 3 Please confirm whether each of the alternatives NSPI presents for consideration on pp. 5-6, 4 as well as the reference on page 7 to "additional variations that could be considered", 5 presume that the t...
AI summary NSP responds to IR-7 by clarifying that its proposed alternatives (Cost of Service Allocation, Actual DSM alignment, No Allocation) do not presume the 75%/25% cost allocation for true-up under the 'No Allocation' method. The Company confirms the allocation applies only to the first two alternatives.
64870Submission - Industrial Group
7 passages
2015 AND 2016 DSM AMOUNTS NSPI has indicated that it will be able to absorb the 1/8 share of the 2015 DSM spending and the 2016 DSM budget in its general rates and so, asks for approval to expense these in its 2016 operating costs. 2015 DS...
AI summary NSPI proposes to expense 2015 and 2016 DSM amounts in its 2016 operating costs, having already deferred and amortized the 2015 spending over eight years. EfficiencyOne has suggested a potential agreement to reduce financing costs, which could save over $9 million over eight years. The Industrial Group supports reducing the carrying costs of the deferred DSM expense and recommends discussions between NSPI and E1 to achieve this.
COST ALLOCATION AND TRUE UP The issues of allocation and true-up are related.
AI summary The document notes that cost allocation and true-up are related issues within the regulatory proceeding. No further details or arguments are provided in the excerpt.
Allocation In its October 30, 2015 filing, NSPI supported continuation of the current direct/system method of allocating the costs: 11 December 18, 2015, letter, page 2, and Footnote 2 referencing Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Re...
AI summary NSPI supports continuation of the direct/system method of allocating costs in its October 30, 2015 filing, referencing the Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Restructuring (2014) Act, section 79-1(a), and internal documents.
3.0 NS POWER'S POSITION The current 25/75 per cent split between system cost and participant cost was agreed to by stakeholders to the 2009 Settlement Agreement. It appropriately recognizes that rate class benefits from DSM programs are hi...
AI summary NS Power defends the 25/75 split of DSM costs between system and participant classes, aligning with cost-of-service principles and the 2009 Settlement Agreement. It argues that participating classes should bear 75% of DSM costs due to direct benefits, while non-participating classes cover external benefits. DSM allocation is integrated into the COS framework, with true-ups handled via GRA filings.
True-Up As regards the true-up, NSPI outlines three possible approaches: - 1) Traditional method (also called "actual DSM alignment"); - 2) Cost of Service; and - 3) No Allocation. NSPI stated that it supports the manner in which true-ups...
AI summary NSPI proposes three true-up approaches: traditional method, cost of service, and no allocation. It advocates aligning true-ups with three-year contract periods (e.g., 2016-2018) instead of annual rebalancing. The Industrial Group agrees, citing alignment with E1's targets. The traditional method allocates DSM variances across classes, while the cost-of-service approach distributes costs based on rate base proportions. NSPI notes potential fairness concerns with allocating DSM budgets to commercial/industrial classes.
ENABLING STRATEGIES As outlined in its October 30, 2015, letter, NSPI proposes to maintain the current cost allocation methodology but proposes a change to the methodology for Enabling Strategies that would limit the need for tracking by r...
AI summary NSPI proposes maintaining the current cost allocation methodology for Enabling Strategies but suggests limiting tracking by rate class. Exceptions include full allocation to rate classes for strategies exceeding $100,000 in cost or those attributable to historical averages pre-2014.
CONCLUSION To summarize, the Industrial Group recommends: - 1. the Board acknowledge NSPI may properly expense the first year of 2015 DSM costs and all of 2016 DSM costs as operating expenses in 2016; - 2. the Board direct NSPI and E1 to u...
AI summary The Industrial Group recommends that the Board acknowledge NSPI's 2015-2016 DSM cost expensing, direct cost reduction discussions, adjust deferred cost amortization, align DSM cost inclusion with GRA timelines, use BCF for RSA true-ups, retain the current DSM allocation methodology, and accept NSPI's Enabling Strategies proposal. These recommendations address rate design, deferred costs, and DSM implementation.
64872Submission - EfficiencyOne
8 passages
James R. Gogan Direct Dial: (902) 563-5920 E-Mail: [email protected] File No. 41736-30 February 16, 2016 Nova Scotia Utility & Review Board PO Box 1692, Unit "M" Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3S3 Attention: Doreen Friis, Regulatory Affairs...
AI summary EfficiencyOne submits comments on Nova Scotia Power Inc.'s (NS Power) cost allocation and recovery proposal, having reviewed NS Power's materials and responses to intervenors. The submission outlines EfficiencyOne's position on the matter.
Allocation of 2015-2018 Program Costs EfficiencyOne supports the Cost of Service Allocation approach provided by NS Power for the allocation of 2015 to 2018 DSM costs. As indicated below, this approach, in EfficiencyOne's view, would: (a)...
AI summary EfficiencyOne supports NS Power's Cost of Service Allocation approach for 2015-2018 DSM costs, citing alignment with legislation, societal benefits, short-term cost recovery, and rate stability. NS Power, under the Public Utilities Act, provides DSM activities to reduce energy demand. The methodology reflects broader recognition of DSM's non-participant benefits and aligns with the 'beneficiary pays' principle.
True Up Mechanisms Going Forward EfficiencyOne supports NS Power's proposal to true up after each three-year contract rather than on an annual basis. EfficiencyOne submits that it would be premature to calculate true ups on an annual basis...
AI summary EfficiencyOne supports NSP's proposal to conduct true-ups every three years instead of annually, arguing that short-term variances may be offset over the contract period. They acknowledge limited control over rate class investments but emphasize that three-year mitigation efforts reduce customer disruption. NSP is noted to lack a rate mechanism for true-up recovery for several years.
Allocation of Enabling Strategies As a result of an Elenchus recommendation made in 2012, EfficiencyOne directly allocates the participant benefit portion of Enabling Strategies investments.[8](#page-2-0) In its October 30th filing to the...
AI summary The document discusses the allocation of Enabling Strategies investments, with NS Power proposing a 75/25 split for DSM programs. Elenchus recommends allocating based on rate class share of all program investment, citing risks of double-counting. EfficiencyOne supports Elenchus's 2014 methodology, noting that NS Power's approach may exacerbate allocation issues. A reexamination of Elenchus's 2012 recommendation is referenced, along with cross-references to regulatory filings.
Rate Smoothing Adjustment Repayment and Application of the 2013 and 2014 Balance Adjustments With respect to the repayment of the Rate Smoothing Adjustment (RSA) and the application of the 2013 and 2014 Balance Adjustments by rate class, N...
AI summary NS Power proposes modifying DSM program access to recover RSA and balance adjustments, but EfficiencyOne opposes this, arguing it risks failure and harms program effectiveness. EfficiencyOne prefers financial recovery through GRA or Base Cost of Fuel hearings, citing the Consensus Agreement and concerns over program costs, savings targets, and customer satisfaction.
Conclusion In summary, EfficiencyOne offers the following recommendations: - adopt the Cost of Service Allocation approach, provided by NS Power, for the allocation of DSM costs; - adopt NS Power's proposal to true up after each three-year...
AI summary EfficiencyOne recommends adopting NS Power's Cost of Service Allocation approach, triennial true-ups, Elenchus' 2014 methodology for Enabling Strategies, and recovering RSA amounts via GRA or Base Cost of Fuel. The text references a regulatory proceeding involving DSM cost allocation and recovery mechanisms.
Memorandum To: Julie-Ann Vincent, Efficiency Nova Scotia From: Andrew Frank Date: May 7, 2014 Re: Enabling Strategies Allocation This memo is prepared in response to your requests to review our advice provided in February 2012 on the alloc...
AI summary The memo from Andrew Frank to Julie-Ann Vincent discusses reviewing cost allocations for Enabling Strategies and invoice allocations to rate classes, with updates based on a year of experience.
2 REVIEW OF ENABLING STRATEGIES COST ALLOCATION In response to your request to review the Enabling Strategies allocation methodology, we have reviewed the recommendation provided by Elenchus in February 2012. Email: [email protected]; dir...
AI summary Elenchus reaffirms its 2012 recommendation that Enabling Strategies costs should be allocated using the System/Participant Benefit approach, aligning with Nova Scotia's approved methodology. This method allocates 75% of costs based on customer class benefits, with proportional allocation as a fallback. Elenchus finds no evidence to challenge this approach's validity.
64925Reply Submission - NSPI
8 passages
February 23, 2016 Doreen Friis Regulatory Affairs Officer/Clerk Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board 1601 Lower Water Street, 3rd Floor P.O. Box 1692, Unit "M" Halifax, NS B3J 3S3 Re: Nova Scotia Power Inc (NSPI) DSM Cost Recovery – M07151...
AI summary Nova Scotia Power Inc (NSPI) submitted a reply addressing the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board's request for details on DSM cost recovery methods. The submission highlights divergences and alignments with intervenors, emphasizing opposition to a true-up mechanism that could hinder EfficiencyOne's energy savings goals.
Intervenor Alignment NS Power has identified the following areas where alignment in the Intervenor positions may be possible: - Customer representatives prefer that cost allocation for the 2015 through 2018 period reflect the traditional D...
AI summary NS Power and intervenors align on DSM cost allocation methods for 2015-2018, rate smoothing adjustments, true ups, and enabling strategies. Disagreement remains on post-2016 DSM cost recovery. NS Power classifies 2016 DSM as an operating expense.
Cost Allocation The IG and the CA appear to support the traditional approach to cost allocation. This approach is most simply described as collection of DSM costs based on the DSM budget with a 25% allocation to system benefits and a 75% s...
AI summary The IG and CA support the 'Traditional Approach' to DSM cost allocation, which splits costs 25% to system benefits and 75% to class participation, with a true-up mechanism. This mimics the defunct DSM Cost Recovery Rider (DCRR) via embedded rates. The approach is detailed in NS Power's submission (M07151).
2016 – 2018 Cost Allocation In accordance with the Consensus Agreement dated June 16, 2015 and approved by the Board in its decision dated August 12, 2015, the parties agreed to refer the issue of cost allocation methodology to the Demand...
AI summary The 2016–2018 cost allocation methodology for DSM in Nova Scotia was referred to the DSM Advisory Group, which failed to reach consensus. NS Power proposed a Traditional Approach, aligning DSM budgets with E1's figures and ensuring customers pay only for achieved energy savings. The Board's 2015 decision and Consensus Agreement guided the process, with NS Power emphasizing alignment with rate class representatives and avoiding impacts on E1's cost-effectiveness.
True‐up period The CA, SBA and the IG each expressed support for a true‐up between budget and actual DSM costs. As noted above, NS Power proposes that DSM revenues be trued up against actuals in accordance with how the previous true‐up mec...
AI summary The CA, SBA, and IG support truing up DSM costs annually. NS Power proposes using the DCRR mechanism to align recoveries with actual costs annually, tracking variances for future rate settings. SBA advocates annual true-ups, but NS Power cannot adjust general rates outside GRA processes if DSM is classified as non-fuel, though annual tracking will still occur.
2016 DSM NS Power has requested the Board acknowledge that the 1/8 share of the 2015 DSM costs and all of the 2016 DSM costs are appropriately recovered as operating expenses in 2016. Intervenors have taken issue with the cost recovery pro...
AI summary NS Power seeks approval to recover 2015 and 2016 DSM costs as operating expenses. Intervenors oppose the proposal for years beyond 2016, but the Industrial Group supports the 2016 request.
Post 2016 DSM Cost Recovery The CA and the IG have opposed NS Power's proposal to defer its decision on the accounting treatment of post 2016 DSM cost recovery until June 30, 2016. The CA has done so on the basis that current rates contain...
AI summary Nova Scotia Power Inc (NSPI) sought to defer a decision on post-2016 DSM cost recovery until June 30, 2016, but the Consumer Advocate (CA) and Industrial Group (IG) opposed this, arguing current rates already fund DSM costs and NSPI failed to justify the deferral. NSPI countered that existing rates do not explicitly cover DSM expenses and requested additional time for the Utility and Ratepayer Board (UARB) to rule on the matter.
Conclusion NS Power notes that many of the cost allocation issues before the Board in this matter pertain to how DSM costs are divided amongst and collected from the various rate classes. The Company recommends as follows: - The Board conf...
AI summary NS Power outlines DSM cost allocation recommendations, requesting confirmation of 2015/2016 cost recovery, a timeline for 2017-2018 submissions, and adoption of the 'Traditional Approach' methodology. True-ups will be annually adjusted via GRA, with enabling strategies aligned to prior proposals. The Company acknowledges intervenor contributions.
65462Board Decision Letter - DSM Cost Allocation and Recovery
3 passages
NSPI's Filing Dated December 18, 2015 In its December 18, 2015 letter, NSPI stated: - 1) One-eighth of the 2015 program cost will be expensed in its 2016 operating costs. - 2) The 2016 DSM program costs will be absorbed in existing rates a...
AI summary NSPI outlined its approach to DSM program costs, proposing deferral of 2017-2019 cost recovery decisions, three options for addressing the 2014 RSA, and methods for true-up adjustments. It emphasized aligning DSM funding with the 2013/2014 BA and supporting a DSM contract-period-based true-up methodology over annual rebalancing.
Participant Submissions Submissions were received from the Consumer Advocate ("CA"), the Small Business Advocate ("SBA"), the Industrial Group, and E1. 1 Document: 245123 1 None of the parties disagreed with NSPI's proposal to absorb the 2...
AI summary Participants including the Consumer Advocate (CA), Small Business Advocate (SBA), Industrial Group, and E1 submitted views on NSP's proposal to absorb DSM costs. CA opposed additional rate revenue for 2017-2019, SBA supported a 25/75 allocation split, the Industrial Group emphasized rate filing deadlines, and E1 endorsed NSP's Cost of Service approach for DSM cost allocation.
Board Decision The Board understands that 2013 and 2014 Balance Adjustments have been rolled into the 2015 and 2016 DSM programs, respectively, and accepts that approach. Regarding treatment of the 2015 DSM program costs, which are being a...
AI summary The Board approved NSP's proposal to recover 2015 DSM program costs over eight years, with one-eighth recovered in 2016 and the rest via financing. It denied deferring 2017-2019 DSM cost decisions and cited non-compliance with filing deadlines. NSP's incomplete submission on 2017-2019 costs was noted, with a reference to Board Order M06733.