E-4EfficienyOne Application
13 passages
in its letter pertaining to EfficiencyOne’s 2015 Audited 25 Financial Statements, dated August 5, 2016 (M07495). 26 27 In 2016, KPMG prepared an updated risk assessment and risk profile of the organization. 28 This risk assessment was inte...
AI summary The document references EfficiencyOne's 2015 audited financial statements and a 2016 risk assessment conducted by KPMG, which informed the internal audit plan for 2017–2019. Internal audits were carried out in 2017 covering third-party Delivery Agents, IT General Controls, and Cost Containment Processes.
recovered (including lost energy revenues) and b) all avoided costs do not need to be 25 recovered (including avoided energy costs). Together, these two assumptions model the 26 reallocation of ‘lost’ fixed costs from unbilled sales into a...
AI summary The text discusses assumptions related to the recovery of lost energy revenues and avoided costs, and explains an alternative approach to estimating DSM cost recovery in 2019 rates. EfficiencyOne opted for a simpler approach using actual 2019 rates, which may overestimate lost revenues.
1 The model does not forecast the timing of general rate applications, or the occurrence of 2 any future rate adjustments. In this way, the DSM effects are isolated from all other utility 3 effects impacting rates, and the rate effects pre...
AI summary The text discusses the modeling of demand-side management (DSM) effects on rates, focusing on program cost recovery, avoided costs, and lost revenue recovery. It explains how DSM expenditures are allocated to rate classes and converted into a $/kWh component, as well as the calculation of avoided costs and lost revenue from peak demand reductions.
Rate and Bill Impacts of DSM on the General Class
AI summary This document discusses the rate and bill impacts of Demand Side Management (DSM) on the General Class of customers. It explores how DSM programs influence electricity rates and customer bills, considering the broader implications for affordability and cost recovery.
he impact of lost revenues due to reduced sales. Purple bars show the impact of avoided utility costs. The blue line is the net rate effect (sum of positive and negative rate pressures), which are allocated equally to all customers in the...
AI summary The text discusses the impact of Demand Side Management (DSM) on revenue, utility costs, and general rates. It highlights the net rate effect, which is allocated equally to all customers, and shows the year-over-year changes in general rates with and without DSM, along with the average change in general bills compared to a no-DSM scenario.
2030 2031 2032 Participants Non-Participants Total Customers 22 Lost Revenue Program Costs Avoided Costs Net Rate Impact Average Net Rate Impact (2019-2032) Participant Average (2019-2032) Non-Participant Average (2019-2032) Total Customer...
AI summary The text presents a table with data on participants and non-participants in a program, including metrics such as lost revenue, program costs, avoided costs, and net rate impact from 2019 to 2032. It includes averages for participants, non-participants, and total customers.
articipant Average (2019-2032) Non-Participant Average (2019-2032) Total Customers Average (2019-2032) 23 24 This graph shows estimated rate impacts of DSM, relative to the no-DSM scenario. Blue bars show the impact of program cost recover...
AI summary This text discusses the estimated rate and bill impacts of Demand Side Management (DSM) programs, comparing participant, non-participant, and total customers averages from 2019 to 2032. It highlights the impact of program cost recovery, lost revenues, and avoided utility costs.
Participant Average (2019-2032) Non-Participant Average (2019-2032) Total Customers Average (2019-2032) 24 25 This graph shows estimated rate impacts of DSM, relative to the no-DSM scenario. Blue bars show the impact of program cost recove...
AI summary This text presents graphs showing the estimated rate and bill impacts of Demand Side Management (DSM) programs compared to a no-DSM scenario. Blue bars represent program cost recovery, red bars show lost revenues due to reduced sales, and purple bars indicate avoided utility costs. The net rate effect is shown as a blue line, and the dotted red line represents the average net rate impact over the study period.
24 Lost Revenue Program Costs Avoided Costs Net Rate Impact Average Net Rate Impact (2019-2032) This graph shows estimated bill impacts of DSM as percentage differences relative to the no-DSM scenario. 'Participants' represents a customer...
AI summary This text discusses the estimated bill impacts of Demand Side Management (DSM) programs, comparing scenarios with and without DSM. It outlines how program costs, lost revenue from reduced sales, and avoided utility costs affect the net rate impact on customers, including participants, non-participants, and total customers.
25 This graph shows estimated bill impacts of DSM as percentage differences relative to the no-DSM scenario. 'Participants' represents a customer with average energy use and This graph shows estimated rate impacts of DSM, relative to the n...
AI summary The text discusses the estimated bill and rate impacts of Demand Side Management (DSM) programs, comparing scenarios with and without DSM. It highlights the effects of program cost recovery, lost revenues, and avoided utility costs on customer bills and rates, with visual representations of these impacts.
‘Lost’ fixed cost ‘Lost’ fixed cost adjustments assume that NS Power must recover through rates all lost revenues, including energy adjustments revenues, but also that NS Power need not recover any of the avoided costs, including avoided e...
AI summary The text discusses 'lost' fixed cost adjustments and how they impact rate effects, considering both lost revenues and avoided costs. It also details how ENS calculates eligible participants for DSM programs, using customer account data and rate class participation rates, with an exception for the Municipal Utility rate class due to multiple accounts per customer.
e Antigonish Electric Utility has three accounts. ENS does not track which Antigonish account is being served through particular programs or participants, so the rate and bill impacts include the number of customers rather than the number...
AI summary The document discusses the calculation of rates for the DSM scenario, including program cost recovery, lost revenue recovery, and avoided costs. It explains how these components are determined and allocated across rate classes, with special consideration for rate classes with and without demand charges.
cts. DATE FILED: April 6, 2018 Page 6 of 6 Appendix C - Attachment 3 2019 Plan Rate and Bill Impact Analysis Equations This page is intentionally left blank EFFICIENCYONE 2019 DSM PLAN FILING Appendix C - Attachment 3: Equations 1 2019 DSM...
AI summary The text provides equations used in the 2019 DSM Plan Rate and Bill Impact Analysis to calculate lost revenues and avoided costs, and their allocation to rate classes. The equations model the relationship between energy savings, demand savings, and cost avoidance across different rate classes.
E-7NSPI (SBA) RIRs to IR-1 to IR-5 - Redacted
21 passages
and 2017 Evaluation Reports (NSUARB M08604) NSPI Responses to SBA Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-1: 2 3 Regarding the energy and demand savings target for 2019, 4 5 (a) Does NSP agree with the overall targets of energy...
AI summary NSPI agrees with the 2019 DSM Plan's energy and demand savings targets (127.2 GWh and 20.2 MW) but notes that unmet targets could increase short-term costs for customers due to fixed cost recovery shifts. Long-term, reduced usage may lower overall costs if broadly adopted, though future demand savings would be needed to avoid peaking generators.
and 2017 Evaluation Reports (NSUARB M08604) NSPI Responses to SBA Information Requests PARTIALLY CONFIDENTIAL (Attachment Only) 1 Under this approach 25 percent of total expenditures are assumed to reflect System 2 Benefit Costs and are al...
AI summary NSPI explains its DSM cost allocation methodology, splitting expenditures into System Benefit Costs (25%) and Participating Class Benefits (75%). It reports under-recovery of $2.1M ($2.2M with interest) in 2016-2017 due to lower kWh sales, requiring adjustments in the next general rate application to recover costs and credit customers.
nding amounts from previous DSM plans4. 20 Please refer to Attachment 1 to see how NS Power applies the DSM cost allocation 21 methodology to track recovery of actual DSM costs. 3 In this instance, should the outstanding balance at the end...
AI summary The document outlines NS Power's methodology for allocating DSM costs, referencing a $6.8 million outstanding balance from the 2016-2018 DSM Plan. It notes that future DSM plan costs would be adjusted by netting this balance against approved amounts, citing Board Order M06733 which addressed a prior $8.5 million balance from 2014.
WACC 7.01% 6.96% 2016 2017 GWh Sales DSM Expenditures DSM Cost Recovery Variance GWh Sales DSM Expenditures DSM Cost Recovery Variance Year‐to‐date Variance Payments by customers to Nova Scotia Power Payments by NS Power to E1(2) Test Paym...
AI summary The text presents a table comparing 2016 and 2017 data on GWh sales, DSM expenditures, and DSM cost recovery, including variance metrics. It details payments between customers and Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI) and between NSPI and E1, highlighting financial flows related to demand-side management (DSM) initiatives.
Line # Table 1: 2015 PCR ‐ Allocation of 25% of 2015 program costs associated with system benefits 1 2 COLUMN A B C D E F G H 3 4 Program Cost Recovery by Benefits 5 6 System Benefits 25% $7,980,896 Combined Class and 7 Participant Benefit...
AI summary The table outlines the 2015 Program Cost Recovery (PCR) allocation, distributing 25% of program costs ($7,980,896) to system benefits and 75% ($23,942,688) to combined class and participant benefits. System benefit DSM costs are fully attributed to generation, with demand-related (35.81%) and energy-related (64.19%) classifications.
0% Total 100.00% 15 Retail 0% 16 17 Demand‐Related Costs Energy‐Related Costs Total MWh Energy Total Amount 18 Rate Class 3 CP kW Demands3 Relative Share ($) Requirement4 Relative Share ($) Relative Share ($) 5 19 Residential 3,570,218 60....
AI summary The document presents a cost breakdown by rate class, detailing demand-related and energy-related costs with relative shares and total amounts. Residential and General Demand classes dominate both cost categories, with Residential accounting for 60.1% of demand-related costs and 48.6% of energy-related costs.
35 Source: EfficiencyOne 2017 DSM Annual Progress Report filed in March 31, 2017 36 2 Source: Source:“2015 FAM AA True Up Calculations as used in Appendix B‐ Part 2 FAM BA COS ( Partially confidential ), as provided in NSPI Responses to NS...
AI summary The text references EfficiencyOne's 2017 DSM Annual Progress Report and a 2015 FAM AA True Up Calculation document tied to NSPI's responses to NSUARB information requests. It includes a table allocating 75% of 2015 DSM expenditures by residential rate classes, with sources tied to SBA matter M07703.
Program Costs Directly Assigned Direct to Participating Efficient Energy Saving Efficient Product Custom Installation ( Education and Development Other Enabling All Program Costs rate classes (75% 5 Program Product (RES) Existing Houses Ne...
AI summary The table details program costs allocated across residential, small general, general demand, and large general rate classes, including categories like efficient product rebates, custom incentives, and outreach. Total program costs amount to $16.5 million, with 75% directed to participating rate classes.
$3,919,655 $7,644,936 $1,201,839 $1,034,081 $5,836,768 $4,845,846 $3,880,371 $1,513,968 $863,632 $1,182,488 $31,923,584 $23,942,688 19 22 Total Spending per Audited F $3,947,105 $7,696,734 $1,210,031 $1,042,674 $5,864,086 $4,832,346 $3,891...
AI summary The text presents financial data related to Demand Side Management (DSM) spending, including interest earned on DSM funds and amortization on capital assets. The data is part of a 2019 DSM Application submission to the SBA, with portions redacted as confidential information.
Line # Table 3: 2015 PCR ‐2015 DSM program participation by rate class (Relative Shares) 1 2 COLUMN A B C D D E F G H I 3 Energy Other Efficient Product Existing Savings Efficient Custom Direct Education and Development Enabling 4 Program...
AI summary Table 3 presents 2015 participation rates in the Program Cost Recovery (PCR) and Demand Side Management (DSM) programs across residential, commercial, and industrial rate classes, showing relative shares of program engagement by customer segment.
Table 4: 2015 PCR ‐ Allocation of 2015 program costs among rate classes Line # 1 2 COLUMN A B C D E F 3 4 5 Table 1 Table 2 6 FORMULA Column H Column K A+C Participating Class Benefit Costs System Benefit Costs (25% of the (75% of the tota...
AI summary Table 4 details the 2015 Program Cost Recovery (PCR) allocation of costs across rate classes, showing residential customers bore 52.7% of system benefit costs and 52.0% of total 2017 PCR costs, while general demand classes accounted for 24.1% and 26.6% respectively.
13 Large General $302,307 3.8% $682,394 2.9% $984,701 3.1% 14 Small Industrial $187,983 2.4% $756,629 3.2% $944,613 3.0% 15 Medium Industrial $346,060 4.3% $816,186 3.4% $1,162,246 3.6% 16 Large Industrial $501,734 6.3% $1,295,756 5.4% $1,...
AI summary The table presents cost allocations by customer class for a 2019 DSM application, showing total costs, percentages, and totals across categories like Large General, Industrial classes, and Municipal. It includes a note about rounding discrepancies and references SBA IR-2 Attachment 1.
Table 2 Table 1 Table 2 5 FORMULA Column K Column H Column L C+E G-I 6 Participating Class System Benefit Costs (25% benefit Costs (75% of of the total expenditure the total expenditure Total Expenditure by allocated to classes using direc...
AI summary The tables present financial data on system benefit cost allocations across rate classes, including total expenditures, relative shares, and collections. They detail distributions between participating classes using COS methodology and direct assignments, with 2015 collections and interest figures listed.
4,970 819,731 14 Small Industrial $1,008,839 3.2% $187,983 2.4% $756,629 3.2% $944,613 3.0% $158,253 786,359 15 Medium Industrial $1,088,248 3.4% $346,060 4.3% $816,186 3.4% $1,162,246 3.6% $194,714 967,532 16 Large Industrial $1,727,675 5...
AI summary The text contains financial tables detailing sector-specific costs and percentages, including a WACC calculation (7.01%) and references to a redacted 2019 DSM application. The data appears to relate to cost recovery and capital expenditures, with implications for demand-side management programs.
Line # Table 1: 2016 PCR ‐ Allocation of 25% of 2016 program expenses associated with system benefits 1 2 COLUMN A B C D E F G H 3 4 Program Cost Recovery by Benefits 5 6 System Benefits 25% $7,669,491 Combined Class and 7 Participant Bene...
AI summary The table details the 2016 PCR allocation, with 25% ($7.67M) allocated to system benefits and 75% ($23.01M) to combined class and participant benefits, totaling $30.68M. System benefit DSM costs are fully attributed to generation, while demand-related and energy-related classifications account for 35.81% and 64.19%, respectively.
Line # Table 2: 2016 PCR ‐ Allocation of 75% of actual 2016 DSM Program expenditures associated with benefits realized by participating classes 1 2 COLUMN A B C D E F G H I J K 3 FORMULA ∑ col A to I J 75% 4 Program Costs Directly Assigned...
AI summary The text presents Table 2, which allocates 75% of actual 2016 DSM Program expenditures across various rate classes, detailing program costs associated with different initiatives such as efficient products, installation incentives, and outreach efforts.
REDACTED 2019 DSM Application SBA IR-2 Attachment 1 Page 9 of 16 Line # Table 3: 2016 PCR ‐ 2016 DSM program participation by rate class (Relative Shares) 1 2 COLUMN A B C D E F G H I 3
AI summary The text presents a table titled '2016 PCR ‐ 2016 DSM program participation by rate class (Relative Shares)' from a 2019 DSM Application attached to a document. It appears to provide data on participation in the Program Cost Recovery (PCR) and Demand Side Management (DSM) programs by rate class.
Table 4: 2016 PCR ‐ allocation of 2016 program costs among rate classes Line # 1 2 COLUMN A B C D E F 3 4 5 Table 1 Table 2 6 FORMULA Column H Column K A+C Participating Class Benefit Costs System Benefit Costs (25% of the (75% of the tota...
AI summary Table 4 presents the allocation of 2016 Program Cost Recovery (PCR) costs among different rate classes, showing the distribution of system benefit costs and participating class benefit costs based on a 25% and 75% split respectively.
Line # Table 1: 2017 PCR ‐ Allocation of 25% of 2017 program expenses associated with system benefits 1 2 COLUMN A B C D E F G H 3 4 Program Cost Recovery by Benefits 5 6 System Benefits 25% $7,534,119 Combined Class and 7 Participant Bene...
AI summary The document presents a table showing the allocation of 25% of 2017 Program Cost Recovery (PCR) expenses associated with system benefits, with 25% allocated to system benefits and 75% to combined class and participant benefits, totaling $30,136,478. It also breaks down the functionalization of system benefit DSM costs into generation (100%) and demand-related (36.20%) and energy-related (63.80%).
Line # Table 2: 2017 PCR ‐ Allocation of 75% of actual 2017 DSM Program expenditures associated with benefits realized by participating classes 1 2 COLUMN A B C D E F G H I J K 3 FORMULA ∑ col A to I J 75% 4 Program Costs Directly Assigned...
AI summary This table outlines the 2017 Program Cost Recovery (PCR) allocation, showing how 75% of actual 2017 Demand Side Management (DSM) program expenditures were distributed across various rate classes and program categories.
Table 4: 2017 PCR ‐ allocation of 2017 program costs among rate classes Line # 1 2 COLUMN A B C D E F 3 4 5 Table 1 Table 2 6 FORMULA Column H Column K A+C Participating Class Benefit Costs System Benefit Costs (25% of the (75% of the tota...
AI summary Table 4 presents the allocation of 2017 Program Cost Recovery (PCR) among different rate classes, showing the distribution of costs based on system benefit costs and participating class benefit costs. The table highlights the financial burden on each rate class, with residential customers bearing the largest share.