E-1Application
22 passages
Table 4: Cost Difference of DSM and Fuel Cost Difference of DSM & Fuel Year (Difference $ per kWh) (Difference as a % of DSM cost) 2015 0.031 171% 2016 0.029 183% 2017 0.024 129% 2018 0.037 196% 2019 0.040 212% 2020 0.046 219% 2021 0.052 2...
AI summary Table 4 shows the cost difference between Demand Side Management (DSM) and fuel from 2015 to 2021, highlighting increasing differences in both dollar and percentage terms. The Settlement Plan offers significant avoided costs to ratepayers with a total investment of $173 million, aiming for 4,681 GWh of energy savings over time.
PAYBACK PERIODS ARE REASONABLE DSM is a long-term investment with lasting benefits and considerable lifetime savings, yet the Settlement Plan also contributes to short-term and immediate ratepayer benefits. In the short-term, the Settlemen...
AI summary The Settlement Plan for DSM is a long-term investment with immediate and cumulative benefits, achieving 412.7 GWh of energy savings by 2025 and full payback by 2027. The investment of $173 million is expected to be offset by $114 million in avoided utility costs, with full payback no later than 2029 for any single rate class. This approach is in the best interest of ratepayers by leveraging lower current investment costs and mitigating long-term inflation impacts.
ver $130 million in annual electricity costs (accounting for DSM cost recovery)[1](#page-98-1) and over 775 kilotonnes of greenhouse gas emissions annually through a variety of programs and services. E1's Settlement Plan is an investment o...
AI summary E1's Settlement Plan invests $173 million in energy efficiency and demand response, delivering $543 million in lifetime benefits. Over the past decade, DSM in Nova Scotia has provided benefits exceeding utility investment by more than 4 to 1. The plan addresses market evolution and increasing unit costs as low-cost opportunities diminish.
14 Table 3: Balanced Plan Aspects Addressed in the Settlement Plan Balanced Plan Aspects 2023-2025 Settlement Plan Short- and long-term energy and capacity avoidance • resource acquisition (measures with a diversity of short- and long-term...
AI summary Table 3 outlines aspects of the 2023-2025 Settlement Plan, including energy and capacity avoidance, program delivery costs, avoided investments, and non-electric benefits. It highlights strategies for managing costs, incentive setting, and incorporating customer perception into measure mix decisions.
15 Table 7: Program Administrator Cost Test Components Component Description Benefit or Cost Avoided Cost of Transmission & Distribution EE & DR – the avoided cost of transmission and distribution represents the costs avoided, due to DSM,...
AI summary The document outlines the components of the Program Administrator Cost Test, including avoided costs related to transmission, distribution, capacity, energy, and carbon, as well as program administration costs and incentives. These components are evaluated as benefits or costs for EE and DR programs within the NS Power system.
1 Table 53: Direct Installation Performance Indicators – Comparison of Settlement Plan and Alternate Scenario Scenario Year Investment ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Total...
AI summary Table 53 compares performance indicators for the Settlement Plan and Alternate Scenario in the Direct Installation Program. It includes metrics such as investment, energy savings, peak demand savings, and costs across different years and scenarios. The table highlights the differences between the two scenarios and provides a variance analysis.
Levelized Costs and Supply Curve As described previously, the supply curve helps determine the relative contributions from the different DR options vis-à-vis the costs for acquiring these resources. [Figure 3](#page-88-1) shows the supply...
AI summary The text discusses the supply curve for demand response (DR) options, including levelized costs and total resource cost (TRC) test costs. It also compares the Net Present Value (NPV), TRC benefit-cost ratios, and levelized costs between the Settlement Plan and Alternate Scenario, noting differences due to participation levels and excluded DR options.
2.1.5 Battery Adoption Projections Due to a lack of information on battery adoption projections in Nova Scotia, Guidehouse developed high-level battery adoption forecasts using assumptions drawn from Guidehouse Insights reports and industr...
AI summary Guidehouse developed high-level battery adoption forecasts for Nova Scotia, using assumptions from industry reports and expertise. The projections consider factors like upfront costs, bill savings, and payback periods, while also incorporating a noneconomic adoption adder for residential customers. The model uses a Bass-diffusion curve with a 10-year ramp rate to simulate adoption trends.
3.1.1 Levelized Costs and Supply Curve As described previously, the supply curve helps determine the relative contributions from the different DR options vis-à-vis the costs for acquiring these resources. [Figure 14](#page-107-0) shows the...
AI summary The text discusses the supply curve and levelized costs for various Demand Response (DR) options in the Settlement Plan, highlighting BTM battery control as the least cost option and the contributions and costs of different DR strategies, including DLC, BNI Curtailment, and EV charging control. It also compares the Settlement Plan with the Alternate Scenario, noting differences in participation and cost allocation.
____________________________________________________ Figure 19. Annual E1 Costs by DR Option for Settlement Plan [Figure 20](#page-113-0) shows the total annual costs of the portfolio for the Alternate Scenario. The 2023- 2025 Plan period...
AI summary The text discusses the annual costs of the E1 program under the Alternate Scenario, highlighting that the 2023-2025 Plan period costs are $5.65 million. It explains that the Alternate Scenario includes CPP costs due to common setup and administration expenses, even though Direct Install smart thermostat measures are not incentivized in this scenario.
ovide a scenario without demand response. The resulting class revenue requirements and unit costs of the 'COSS DSM Benchmark' and 'COSS DSM Simulated' tabs then reflect the impacts of demand response. The results of the four scenarios (No...
AI summary The text discusses how demand response impacts revenue requirements and unit costs within the NS Power Rate Model, using scenarios such as 'No DSM', 'DSM', 'energy efficiency', and 'demand response'. It also explains how incentive payments are treated as bill reductions and how revenue requirements are derived for different customer classes.
5.2 OVERALL BILL IMPACTS Generally speaking, ratepayers that participate in DSM programs directly benefit by reducing their electricity consumption and thereby lowering their electricity bills. Together, the level of reduced consumption (o...
AI summary The 2023-2025 DSM Settlement Plan RBIA shows that DSM programs reduce electricity bills for participants by -7.9 to -1.2 percent and benefit all ratepayers with $0.4 billion in savings. Non-participants also see slight savings, while the overall impact ranges from -4.0 to -1.0 percent. The savings are attributed to reduced consumption and revenue requirements.
Rates and Revenues There is little that can be inferred about the cost causation process from the rate structures used by the utility to generate customers' bills. The rates are bundled and therefore do not allow tracking of cost recovery...
AI summary The document discusses the limitations of NS Power's rate structures, noting that bundled rates make it difficult to track cost recovery by functional areas. It highlights that residential and small general classes recover demand-related costs through energy charges, while other rate classes use a combination of demand and energy charges. There is a lack of alignment between revenues and costs for certain rate classes.
3.2 Cost of Service Studies Cost of service Studies consist of an application of the following three sequential steps: - functionalization of revenue requirement to the four areas: generation, transmission, distribution and retail; - class...
AI summary Cost of service studies involve three steps: functionalizing revenue requirement, classifying costs, and apportioning costs among rate classes. Most costs are shared by all customers and allocated based on resource utilization, except for streetlight fixture costs, which are assigned to specific customers.
3.2.1 Functionalization of System Costs As indicated in the Revenue Requirement section above, NS Power has used the test year revenue requirements, already functionalized by the four areas, from the historic rate cases. In the "With DSM"...
AI summary The text discusses the functionalization of system costs, particularly in the context of the 'With DSM' and 'No DSM' scenarios. It explains how revenue requirements are adjusted for changes in load and inflation, with specific reference to the impact of the Maritime Link depreciation costs. The 'No DSM' case is derived from the 'With DSM' case by modifying revenue requirements based on load changes due to the absence of demand-side management.
3.2.3 Allocation of Costs to Rate Classes ___________________________________________________________ Annual cost requirements within each service of each functional area are apportioned to rate classes based on class share in the underlyi...
AI summary This section discusses the allocation of annual cost requirements to rate classes based on class share in the underlying usage, considering both the 'With DSM' and 'No DSM' scenarios.
Savings in energy and demand usage by rate class Savings in energy and demand usage arising from DSM programs for each class are tracked in the following class tabs: R-Savings, SG-Savings, G-Savings, LG-savings, SI-Savings, MI-Savings, LI-...
AI summary The document outlines how energy and demand usage savings from DSM programs are tracked by rate class, using data from 2011 to 2022. Savings are calculated at the generator's gate and adjusted for losses using data from the Cost of Service Study (COSS). This method is consistent with how EfficiencyOne (E1) has used it in its Rate Base Impact Assessment (RBIA) Reports.
Comments The applied process is a simplification of a more elaborate cost allocation process where some FAM costs, such as fuel costs, are allocated to rate classes based on their shares in monthly energy requirements; some other FAM costs...
AI summary The text discusses a simplified cost allocation process for FAM and non-FAM costs across rate classes, using factors like monthly and annual energy requirements and system peaks. It outlines how annual non-FAM costs are calculated and prorated across different functional areas and rate classes, with adjustments for inflation from 2023 to 2035.
Comments The applied process is a simplification of a more elaborate cost allocation process in the COSS where energy- and demand- related non-FAM costs, are determined through application of rate base usage allocators developed separately...
AI summary The document discusses the simplification of a cost allocation process used in the Cost of Service Study (COSS), where energy- and demand-related non-FAM costs are determined using rate base usage allocators. The most recent rate setting procedure's class unit costs are carried forward for subsequent year simulations.
DATE FILED: 11 March 2022 Page 1 of 8 1 Figure 1: 2023-2025 Alternate Scenario – Portfolio-level Insights Carbon Emissions Avoided First-Year CO2e Savings (kt) 299 Lifetime CO2e Savings (kt) 1,658 Portfolio Summary (2023-2025) First-Year E...
AI summary The document presents a 2023-2025 alternate scenario with insights on energy and demand savings, carbon emissions avoided, and investment breakdowns. It highlights the distribution of energy efficiency and demand response investments between residential and business sectors, along with cost and benefit analyses.
Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity and annual avoided CO 2 e emissions were provided by NS Power, from the 2020 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2021. a I...
AI summary The text discusses avoided costs and emissions from energy and capacity programs, with data provided by NS Power from the 2020 Integrated Resource Plan. It highlights investment requirements for Demand Response (DR) and Energy Efficiency (EE) programs, including the role of NS Power and E1. Metrics like TRC and PAC are used to evaluate program benefits and costs over time.
1 Table 5: 2025 Alternate Scenario Investment and Savings, by Program Component 2025 Investment a ($ million) Lifetime Benefits b ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak EE Demand Savings (MW) Availab...
AI summary Table 5 outlines the 2025 Alternate Scenario Investment and Savings for various energy efficiency and demand response programs in Nova Scotia. It provides data on investment amounts, lifetime benefits, energy savings, and other metrics for residential, business, and institutional programs.
E-12E1(NSUARB) RIR-1 to RIR-41
12 passages
between E1 and NS Power (2023-2025 DSM Plan) E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB) Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 [Evidence] 2 Request IR-06: 3 4 Referencing Table 1 and footnotes on p. 11 of 65, E1 stated...
AI summary The NSUARB requested clarifications from E1 regarding the 2023-2025 DSM Plan, including TRC value accuracy, NS Power's DR costs, DR capacity calculations, incremental cost inclusion, and Measure Life decline. E1 clarified that its investment column only reflects its required investments, not NS Power's, and deferred detailed cost-effectiveness screening to subsequent sections.
hree-year energy efficiency plan with the Department of Public Utilities (“Department”) for calendar years 2022 through 2024 (“Three-Year Plans”).1 The Program Administrators filed their Three-Year Plans pursuant to An Act Relative to Gree...
AI summary Program Administrators have submitted Three-Year Energy Efficiency Plans for 2022–2024 to the Department of Public Utilities, seeking approval for proposed programs, budgets, cost-recovery mechanisms, and performance incentives. These plans are filed under various docket numbers and are based on multiple legislative acts, including the Green Communities Act and the Energy Act of 2012.
Program Administrators Brief at 59, citing Statewide Plan, Exh. 1, App. C (Rev.), Table V.D.1). The Department will not make any substantive findings on the reasonableness of the Program Administrators’ decision not to competitively procur...
AI summary The Department of Public Utilities finds that Program Administrators' 2022-2024 Three-Year Plans meet statutory requirements for competitive procurement and low-income program budgets, but will not make substantive findings on the reasonableness of the Program Administrators’ decision not to competitively procure services at this time.
be distinct value components. In this regard, the Department finds that DOER has failed to show the benefits of its proposed structure over one that applies a value component to the net benefits of the total portfolio. In consideration of...
AI summary The Department criticizes DOER for not demonstrating the benefits of its proposed structure over an alternative that applies a value component to the net benefits of the total portfolio. It emphasizes the importance of maintaining a value component to control administrative costs, especially given significant proposed increases in PP&A costs for both electric and gas Program Administrators.
any and its directors, may recommend an allocation of costs; the Department determines whether the proposed costs allocation is appropriately recoverable in rates.184 American Hoechest
AI summary The text discusses the process by which the Department of Energy and Resources determines whether proposed cost allocations are appropriately recoverable in rates, with the possibility for directors to recommend an allocation.
method. The Department’s precedent regarding costs shared between or among related entities often involves the same costs at issue in the Compact’s filings: apportioning rent and insurance when operating out of a single facility, employees...
AI summary The text discusses the Department's precedent for allocating shared costs among related entities, citing examples such as rent, insurance, and overhead. It references past cases and rulings from the Department of Public Utilities (D.P.U.) and highlights the importance of cost-effective and nondiscriminatory allocation methods, as seen in cases involving Aquarion Water Company and Oxford Water Company.
fying the cost driver of the shared costs. Here, for those shared costs directly related to the number of employees and their hours worked (e.g., salary, payroll services) the Department finds that it is reasonable to allocate those shared...
AI summary The text discusses the allocation of shared costs between energy efficiency and municipal aggregation, highlighting the use of employee time as a cost driver for some expenses but questioning its appropriateness for others. It references past proposals and the potential impact of different allocation methods on budget percentages.
xhibits to support its filing (e.g., spreadsheet showing calculation with all formulas intact, table showing full-time equivalent hours broken down by employee, and total for each year). c. Shared Legal Consumer Advocacy Costs The Compact...
AI summary The Compact proposes allocating shared legal and consumer advocacy costs between its energy efficiency and municipal aggregation functions based on legal service subject matter or fixed percentage breakdowns tied to staff salaries. The Department finds the proposal reasonable but emphasizes its role in reviewing the final allocation and prudence of expenditures.
ableness of the proposed allocations as well as the prudence of the expenditure of the actual costs. In order for any shared consumer advocacy costs to be allocated to the energy efficiency budget and ultimately recovered through the EES,...
AI summary The text discusses the allocation of shared consumer advocacy costs to the energy efficiency budget and their recovery through the EES. It emphasizes the need for a clear and direct energy efficiency-related benefit to Massachusetts ratepayers and the Department, and cautions against subsidizing non-energy efficiency functions.
municipal aggregation operating budget. D.P.U. 19-136, Compact Brief at 12 (January 13, 2021). In its 2022 EES filing, the Compact proposes an allocation of shared legal/consumer advocacy costs of 13 percent to the energy efficiency budget...
AI summary The Department of Energy and Resources is considering the Compact's proposal to allocate shared legal and consumer advocacy costs between the energy efficiency budget and the municipal aggregation budget. The proposal allocates 13% to energy efficiency and 88% to municipal aggregation, which aligns with previous directives. However, the final allocation will be reviewed by the Department in future proceedings.
, where applicable, resulting allocation factor for the 2022-2024 Three-Year Plan term. As we noted above, the Department is currently investigating the Compact’s proposed allocations in several dockets and we expect our findings there wil...
AI summary The Department is investigating the Compact’s proposed allocations in several dockets and expects findings to inform future shared cost allocation methods. The Compact is required to submit a detailed cost allocation proposal in its next Three-Year Plan filing, and must maintain thorough documentation. The Department may require an outside review of the Compact’s allocation policy before the next three-year plan term. The Compact must demonstrate that all expenditures were reasonable and prudently incurred, with direct energy efficiency benefits to customers.
of performance incentive thresholds will allow greater flexibility in pursuing cost-effective efficiency, specifically for strategic electrification (Program Administrators Brief at 82). NSTAR Gas and EGMA also argue that treatment as a co...
AI summary NSTAR Gas and EGMA propose a combined energy efficiency program to reduce implementation costs and improve cost-effectiveness, citing successful integration of previous Three-Year Plans. They argue that a unified approach will streamline planning, reduce costs, and provide a consistent customer experience across service territories.
E-12-(i)NSUARB IR-17 Attachment 2_ACEEE’s Entire State Database - Excel
12 passages
ned utilities to implement “Quick Start” energy efficiency programs. The rule also laid out criteria for program cost-benefit tests, cost recovery, and evaluation, monitoring, and verification (EM&V). The PSC issued revised energy efficien...
AI summary The document discusses the implementation of energy efficiency programs, including 'Quick Start' initiatives and Demand Side Management (DSM) portfolios, mandated by regulatory bodies such as the Public Service Commission. These programs aim to achieve cost-effective energy savings and include criteria for cost recovery and evaluation. The most recent budgets and savings data are available in State Spending and Savings Tables.
a future performance incentive award based on verified energy savings. Lost revenues are recovered through a rider or tracker mechanism until the full amount, including carrying charges, is recovered. The rule implementing SB 376 provides...
AI summary The rule implementing SB 376 allows for more timely cost recovery of DSM program costs by enabling adjustments between rate cases. It also permits performance incentives based on net shared benefits from approved DSM programs, with recovery of lost revenues through verified energy savings.
the target will represent compliance. A penalty will be assessed if performance of the target is between 50% and 90%, and a utility will be deemed non-compliant if achieving 50% or less of its target. The New Jersey Board of Public Utiliti...
AI summary The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (BPU) has established compliance targets for energy efficiency programs, with penalties for underperformance. Utilities are required to recover costs through surcharges, and no caps on customer rates are in place. Third-party access to energy use data is available via EDI upon request, with no formal requirements for data provision.
pursuant to low-income programs; however, low-income programs are generally not required to meet cost-effectiveness thresholds. Coordination of Ratepayer-Funded Low-Income Programs with WAP Services There is limited coordination between ut...
AI summary The text discusses the eligibility for opt-out in North Carolina's energy programs, the coordination of low-income programs with weatherization services, and the cost recovery mechanisms approved for Duke Energy and Dominion. These mechanisms include shared savings models and performance incentives.
y 7, 2015 in Docket No. E-22, Sub 464) that provides for program cost recovery, up to 36 months of net lost revenues, and a program performance incentive (8% for DSM programs and 13% for EE programs). In the natural gas sector, Piedmont Na...
AI summary The text discusses revenue decoupling mechanisms in the natural gas sector in North Carolina, including provisions for program cost recovery and performance incentives. It also addresses the lack of provisions requiring utilities to release customer data to third parties without consent and the Commission's request for more information on data dissemination.
, and the EPP. In doing so, the HWAP network integrates federal weatherization funds with utility resources through a single coordinated funding model, managing programs for all seven major utilities. Last updated: April 2017 ","Self-direc...
AI summary The document discusses energy efficiency and cost recovery mechanisms in Ohio, including the integration of federal weatherization funds with utility resources through the HWAP network, self-direct options for large customers under SB 221, and the termination of cost recovery for EERS compliance once a savings benchmark is met under HB 6.
ed significant success in a short time. Since its creation in 2002, the organization has rapidly developed and implemented a comprehensive menu of programs and services for customer energy efficiency. Oregon's public purpose charge (3% of...
AI summary The Energy Trust of Oregon (ETO) has achieved significant success in implementing energy efficiency programs since its creation in 2002. Oregon's public purpose charge funds ETO's programs, as well as low-income initiatives. Self-direct options allow large customers to achieve energy savings with financial incentives and penalties based on performance.
including low-income citizens, are met.” No minimum requirements for low-income energy efficiency spending or savings are specified. Cost-Effectiveness Rules for Low-Income Energy Efficiency Programs Dominion Energy of South Carolina, Duke...
AI summary The text discusses low-income energy efficiency programs in South Carolina, including cost-recovery mechanisms for utilities and coordination with WAP services. It also highlights programs like Project SHARE and Help My House, which provide assistance to low-income households, and mentions opt-out provisions for large commercial customers.
intah Basin Association of Governments, and Southeastern Utah Association of Local Governments, all of which qualify as approved non-profit or governmental organizations (HCD implementation agencies). Last reviewed: July 2020 ","Rocky Moun...
AI summary Rocky Mountain Power offers a self-direct program with rate credits up to 80% of eligible project costs, while Dominion does not. No decoupling mechanism is in place for electric utilities in Utah. The Utah Public Service Commission approved a demand side management cost adjustment in 2003, and Senate Bill 115 was passed in 2016.
.gov/~2016/bills/static/SB0115.html). The bill requires the PSC to authorize a large-scale electric utility that is allowed to charge a customer for demand side management under Subsection (2)(a) to: (i) if requested by the large-scale ele...
AI summary The bill authorizes the PSC to allow a large-scale electric utility to capitalize and amortize demand side management costs over 10 years, apply a carrying charge, and recover these costs in customer rates. Schedule 193 and Schedule 194 are balancing account mechanisms used to fund energy efficiency and STEP programs outside of general rate case proceedings.
programs. Municipal and retail electric cooperative utilities can collect the dollars and participate in the Focus on Energy program or can elect to operate their own Commitment to Community programs. Program cost recovery is handled via i...
AI summary The document outlines how program cost recovery is managed through rate cases and escrow accounts, with the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin overseeing the programs. Investor-owned utilities established SEERA to administer energy efficiency programs under Act 141. Focus on Energy offers residential and non-residential energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.
l screening. The rules for benefit-cost tests are not specified. Coordination of Ratepayer-Funded Low-Income Programs with WAP Services Level of coordination is unclear from publicly available data. Last updated: April 2017 ","Rocky Mounta...
AI summary The text discusses various energy efficiency and utility programs, including a self-direct option for customers, a decoupling pilot program, and load management tracking adjustments. It also notes the lack of policies to reward successful energy efficiency programs and promote efficient transportation systems in Wyoming.
E-30E1 Compliance Filing 2023-2025 with Appendix A-D FINAL
12 passages
ver $130 million in annual electricity costs (accounting for DSM cost recovery)[1](#page-25-1) and over 775 kilotonnes of greenhouse gas emissions annually through a variety of programs and services. E1's Settlement Plan is an investment o...
AI summary The document discusses EfficiencyOne's (E1) Settlement Plan, a $173 million investment in energy efficiency (EE) and demand response (DR) that aims to save customers money and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It highlights the long-term benefits of demand side management (DSM), including a 4:1 return on investment and a payback period of less than five years. The plan also addresses the evolving energy efficiency market in Nova Scotia.
ers achieve cost-effective energy solutions; - providing accessibility for a wider variety of market sectors and customer segments; and - increasing the level of system-peak demand reduction benefits. E1 considers affordability in the deve...
AI summary E1's Settlement Plan focuses on achieving cost-effective energy solutions, increasing accessibility, and maximizing system-peak demand reduction. The plan offers a payback period of under five years, with minor rate impacts and significant bill reductions for customers. It includes energy efficiency and demand response investments, providing long-term benefits and flexible grid capacity.
14 Table 3: Balanced Plan Aspects Addressed in the Settlement Plan Balanced Plan Aspects 2023-2025 Settlement Plan Short- and long-term energy and capacity avoidance • resource acquisition (measures with a diversity of short- and long-term...
AI summary Table 3 outlines aspects of the 2023-2025 Settlement Plan, including energy and capacity avoidance, program delivery costs, avoided investments, and non-electric and non-energy benefits. It emphasizes strategies for managing costs, incentive setting, and incorporating customer perceptions into program design.
15 Table 7: Program Administrator Cost Test Components Component Description Benefit or Cost Avoided Cost of Transmission & Distribution EE & DR – the avoided cost of transmission and distribution represents the costs avoided, due to DSM,...
AI summary The document outlines the components of the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test, including avoided costs of transmission, distribution, capacity, energy, and carbon, as well as program administration and incentive costs. It explains that incentives are considered costs in the PAC, while in the TRC they are transfers. Benefits like avoided costs are calculated on a present value basis over the full lifetime of impacts.
Appendix A Attachment 1: Rate Class Payback Graphs
AI summary Appendix A includes Attachment 1, which presents Rate Class Payback Graphs. The graphs are visual representations used to analyze the financial implications of different rate classes, likely in the context of utility regulation and cost recovery.
1 Figure 4: Small Industrial Rate Class – Settlement Plan Payback 3 Figure 5: Medium Industrial Rate Class – Settlement Plan Payback Figure 6: Large Industrial Rate Class – Settlement Plan Payback Figure 7: Large General Rate Class – Settl...
AI summary The document presents several figures illustrating settlement plan payback for different industrial and general rate classes, including small, medium, and large industrial rate classes, as well as a large general rate class. These figures likely relate to cost recovery or financial planning within a regulatory proceeding.
Levelized Costs and Supply Curve As described previously, the supply curve helps determine the relati[ve contrib](#page-14-1)utions from the different DR options vis-à-vis the costs for acquiring these resources. Figure 3 shows the supply...
AI summary The text discusses the supply curve for demand response (DR) options, showing levelized costs and contributions in the Preferred Plan and Alternate Scenario. The Alternate Scenario has lower benefit-cost ratios and higher costs due to lower participation and the absence of EV Charging Control and Behavioural DR.
ver $130 million in annual electricity costs (accounting for DSM cost recovery)[1](#page-76-1) and over 775 kilotonnes of greenhouse gas emissions annually through a variety of programs and services. E1's Settlement Plan is an investment o...
AI summary The document discusses the benefits of demand side management (DSM) in Nova Scotia, highlighting over 775 kilotonnes of annual greenhouse gas emissions reductions and over $130 million in annual electricity cost savings. The $173 million Settlement Plan is outlined as a long-term investment in energy efficiency and demand response, with a 5-year payback period and significant long-term benefits to customers.
4 Table 3: Balanced Plan Aspects Addressed in the Settlement Plan Balanced Plan Aspects 2023-2025 Settlement Plan Rate impacts • RBIA performed on DSM model results, as part of Plan development • cumulative value of avoided costs will exce...
AI summary The 2023-2025 Settlement Plan includes a rate impact analysis based on DSM model results, with the cumulative value of avoided costs expected to exceed initial investments by 2027.
7 Table 6: Benefit and Cost Components in the Total Resource Cost Test Calculations for EE and DR Component Description Benefit or Cost Avoided Cost of Transmission & Distribution EE & DR – the avoided cost of transmission and distribution...
AI summary The table outlines the benefit and cost components in the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test calculations for Energy Efficiency (EE) and Demand Response (DR). It includes avoided costs related to transmission, distribution, capacity, energy, and carbon, as well as customer utility impacts.
-2025 Investment a Lifetime Benefits b First-Year Energy Savings Lifetime Energy Savings Peak EE Demand Savings Available DR Capacity Test ( Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) c \nincl. excl. Program Administrator Cost Test (PAC) d \nexcl.
AI summary The text presents a table titled '2023-2025 Settlement Plan Investment and Savings, by Program Component,' which outlines investment, benefits, energy savings, and other metrics for various program components. The table includes terms such as 'Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)' and 'Program Administrator Cost Test (PAC).'
Appendix AB Attachment 1: Rate Class Payback Graphs
AI summary This section of the document includes Attachment 1, which features Rate Class Payback Graphs. These graphs likely illustrate the financial payback periods for different rate classes, providing insights into cost recovery and investment returns.
E-312023-2025 EOne NSPI Supply Agreement Fully Executed
4 passages
4. PRICE & PAYMENT - 4.1 NSPI agrees to pay EfficiencyOne for EECA as set out in Schedule "B" Compensation (the " Contract Price "). - 4.2 The Contract Price shall constitute full compensation for the EECA, and no additional compensation s...
AI summary NSPI agrees to pay EfficiencyOne for EECA services under Schedule B, with monthly payments, HST application, and tax withholding provisions. The Contract Price covers all costs, and payments are in Canadian dollars.
1. INTRODUCTION EfficiencyOne's (E1) 2023-2025 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan (Settlement Plan) represents a meaningful and ambitious level of energy efficiency and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions at a time when the cl...
AI summary EfficiencyOne's 2023-2025 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan aims to deliver cost-effective energy efficiency, peak demand reduction, and demand response capacity. The plan aligns with government goals for net zero emissions by 2050 and leverages E1's 12 years of experience in delivering successful DSM programs in Nova Scotia, resulting in significant cost savings and GHG emission reductions.
ers achieve cost-effective energy solutions; - providing accessibility for a wider variety of market sectors and customer segments; and - increasing the level of system-peak demand reduction benefits. E1 considers affordability in the deve...
AI summary The Settlement Plan focuses on achieving cost-effective energy solutions, increasing accessibility for various market sectors, and reducing system-peak demand. It includes energy efficiency (EE), demand response (DR), and Enabling Strategies, with a payback period under five years. The plan is expected to offset 4,600 GWh of energy production and reduce annual system-peak demand by 97 MW, providing lifetime benefits of $542 million.
ic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteris...
AI summary The text presents a table outlining the 2023 Settlement Plan Investment and Savings by Program Component, including metrics such as investment, lifetime benefits, energy savings, and cost ratios. It provides a structured overview of various program components and their associated financial and energy performance indicators.