Topic:"Cost To Customer" in M10473

8.4 DSM AS THE LEAST COST OPTION Energy efficiency is affordable on the basis that it is the lowest cost fuel source available to NS Power and should for this reason be the first choice for ratepayers. However, a mere comparison of the cos...

AI summary Energy efficiency is presented as the lowest cost fuel source for NS Power and should be the first choice for ratepayers. Increased investment in DSM reduces collateral costs, which are otherwise passed on to ratepayers when investing in other fuel sources.

1 Table 8: Comparison of the Cost of DSM to NS Power's Average Fuel Costs V DSM Cost NS Pow ver Avg. Cost Difference Between DSM & Fuel Year ($ per kWh) Change Change (%) ($ per kWh) Change Change (%) ($ per kWh) Fuel as % of DSM 2015 0.01...

AI summary Table 8 compares the cost of Demand Side Management (DSM) to Nova Scotia Power's average fuel costs from 2015 to 2021. It shows the cost per kWh for DSM and NS Power, changes in costs, and the difference between DSM and fuel costs, with fuel costs as a percentage of DSM costs.

4 The cost of DSM per kWh has been consistently lower than the average cost of fuel for the last seven years. On average, during this time period, the cost of fuel to NS Power has been 187% more than the cost of DSM. 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14...

AI summary The cost of Demand Side Management (DSM) per kWh has been significantly lower than the average cost of fuel over the past seven years. Investing in energy efficiency now, especially during the 2023-2025 period, is in the best interest of ratepayers to mitigate rising energy efficiency costs and offset past underinvestment.

9.1 DSM ACCESSIBILITY AND PARTICIPATION BARRIERS - The 2020-2022 DSM Plan identified numerous ways in which certain markets and communities in Nova Scotia are impeded from accessing and participating in DSM programs, from both a Residentia...

AI summary The 2020-2022 DSM Plan identified barriers to DSM program participation in Nova Scotia, including affordability, lack of information, and resource constraints. These barriers affect both residential and BNI sectors, with specific challenges such as up-front costs, internal competition for capital, and payback periods.

CUSTOM INCENTIVES Strategic Energy Management (SEM) & Energy Management Information Systems (EMIS) Technical and financial support for the implementation of energy management policies and processes. Customized incentives for energy managem...

AI summary The document discusses the Strategic Energy Management (SEM) and Energy Management Information Systems (EMIS) programs, which offer technical and financial support for energy management policies. These programs target larger energy users and provide customized incentives. However, challenges such as upfront costs and internal competition for capital may hinder participation, though financial incentives are available to address these issues.

21 Table 45: Three-Year Summary of the Custom Program Component Annual Plan Investment Energy Savings Demand Savings Participation Market Barriers • Upfront costs & internal competition for capital: financial constraints resulting from int...

AI summary The document outlines market barriers to energy efficiency programs, including upfront costs, payback periods, time constraints, and lack of internal commitment. It also highlights key components of the Custom Program, such as Retrofit, NC, and BOpt, which aim to support energy efficiency through feasibility studies, implementation, and recommissioning processes.

Cost of Service Studies COSS provides the most insight into class cost causation as based on changes in its energy and demand usage. It shows in a transparent way how rate class usage of demand and energy services within each functional ar...

AI summary Cost of Service Studies (COSS) provide insights into how different rate classes contribute to overall service costs. NS Power's Load Forecast Report and E1's annual forecasts help track changes in usage due to DSM programs. A simplified COSS analysis can be used to adjust pricing without needing detailed future investment data.

3.2.4 Generic COSS Results The actual results from the above cost allocation process under the "With DSM" and "No DSM" scenarios are presented in the "COSS Outputs" tab within NS Power's rate model, where the long-term trends in annual rel...

AI summary This section discusses the long-term trends in annual relative unit cost of service differentials between 'With DSM' and 'No DSM' scenarios, highlighting how DSM program cost recovery affects unit costs during the historic budget period and how the out year period sees lower differentials due to expiring DSM measures. It also explains how different rate classes are affected based on their fuel cost and fixed infrastructure cost responsibilities.

"E1 Data Inputs" tab This tab includes information provided to NS Power by E1 on DSM Program measures and avoided unit costs, all of which are used in determination of class unit costs and revenues.

AI summary The 'E1 Data Inputs' tab contains data provided by E1 to NS Power regarding DSM Program measures and avoided unit costs, which are used to determine class unit costs and revenues.

"Total-Savings" tab The "Total-Savings" tab provides a sum of annual class savings in energy and demand usage at the generator's gate and customer's meter. In addition, class demand savings at the high side of the bulk power substation are...

AI summary The 'Total-Savings' tab outlines how energy and demand savings are calculated at different points in the power system. These savings are used to determine avoided fuel costs and infrastructure costs. FAM-related costs are calculated using unit avoided fuel costs, while non-FAM costs use avoided infrastructure costs per MW of demand savings.

Table 1: Comparison of the DSM Cost to NS Power's Avg. Cost of Fuel Year DSM Cost Nova Scotia Power Aver Difference Between DSM & Fuel $ per kWh Change Change (%) $ per kWh Change Change (%) $ per kWh Fuel as % of DSM 2015 0.018 0.049 0.03...

AI summary Table 1 compares the cost of Demand Side Management (DSM) to Nova Scotia Power's average cost of fuel over several years, highlighting the difference between the two and the percentage of fuel cost relative to DSM cost. The data shows fluctuations in both costs and their respective changes over time.

Request IR-14: Reference: EfficiencyOne 2023-2025 DSM Resource Plan Filing, Evidence, 4.2.4 Application of Costs, Page 39(Page 48/584 of PDF), Line 10 "[I]n contrast to leading American jurisdictions, in 2020 less than 2% of ratepayers' mo...

AI summary In 2020, NS Power spent 1.8% of total customer collections on DSM, specifically funds paid to EfficiencyOne under their 2020-2022 Supply Agreement. This figure does not include DSM costs for measures not funded by E1. The data is sourced from NS Power's 2020 Consolidated Financial Statements.

tween 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-05: 3 4 Referencing p. 10 of 65, E1 stated that the DSM initiatives in...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) responds to Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB) requests regarding the 2023-2025 DSM Plan, providing tables showing approved vs. actual first-year unit costs ($/kWh) from 2015 to 2025, along with variance explanations. Actual costs consistently differ from approved targets, with notable increases in recent years.

1 2016 3 2 For the 2016 year, E1 had an underspend of approximately 7% of approved investment and 3 overachieved its energy savings by 3% as compared to the approved Plan. This resulted in 4 a lower unit cost result for 2016 as compared to...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) reported mixed performance in its energy efficiency programs from 2016–2018. In 2016, E1 exceeded energy savings targets while underspending on investment, driven by higher-than-expected participation in low-cost measures like LED lighting. In 2017, underspending and lower savings were linked to reduced uptake in lighting measures. In 2018, E1 again underspent but slightly overachieved energy savings.

1 than anticipated participation within the BNI Business Energy Rebates (BER) program and 2 its measure mix (e.g. high demand for LED lighting with a lower unit cost). 3 4 2019 5 The 2019 DSM Resource Plan was a one-year continuation plan....

AI summary E1's 2019 DSM Resource Plan aligned with spending but fell short on energy savings and exceeded unit cost targets. Higher-than-expected participation in programs like Residential EPR and New Residential, along with shifts in measure mix (e.g., non-lighting measures), drove increased unit costs. Instant Savings program challenges included higher uptake of year-round products and appliance replacements.

19 with the higher tier 23 incentives, this resulted in a higher unit cost for NHC (the energy savings potential is less in 24 smaller homes, resulting in a higher unit cost for these homes). 25 26 The year-over-year increase in unit cost...

AI summary E1 notes that diversifying its portfolio (e.g., non-lighting measures) in 2019 increased unit costs due to lower energy savings potential in smaller homes. This aligns with higher tier incentives, resulting in higher unit costs for NHC. The text contextualizes cost trends within E1’s 2023-2025 DSM Plan application.

ities between E1 and NS Power (2023-2025 DSM Plan) E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB) Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 [Evidence] 2 Request IR-16: 3 4 On p. 34 of 65, E1 compares NS Power’s 2021 fuel cost...

AI summary E1 provided a response to a request from the NSUARB regarding discrepancies in the cost differences between NS Power’s 2021 fuel costs and the DSM lifetime unit cost, explaining that the difference was based on the most recent publicly available data from NS Power for the 2023-2025 DSM Plan.

bution (Program Administrators Brief at 60). Accordingly, the Program Administrators assert that the Department should find the bill impacts are reasonable and consistent with Department precedent (Program Administrators Brief at 61). 2. A...

AI summary The Program Administrators argue that energy efficiency bill impacts are reasonable and consistent with Department precedent. The Attorney General emphasizes the need to balance energy efficiency costs with emission reduction goals and avoided supply costs. DOER supports the Program Administrators, noting that funding sources like the SBC and FCM help minimize customer bill impacts and that programs provide significant benefits.

Program Administrators have adequately considered the availability of other private or public funds. G.L. c. 25, § 19(a)(3)(ii). 4. Cost of Electricity to Consumers In approving an energy efficiency funding mechanism for the electric Progr...

AI summary The document discusses the consideration of past energy efficiency programs in lowering electricity costs to consumers, noting that both participants and non-participants have benefited from reduced wholesale prices and avoided infrastructure investments. However, it also highlights the challenge of demonstrating future savings if energy efficiency goals are not met.

and/or add air conditioning will increase. In addition, these customers may experience increased costs to heat their homes with electricity relative to a fossil fuel heat source because the cost of electricity as a heating fuel is currentl...

AI summary The text discusses potential increases in customer costs due to electrification projects, such as oil heat to heat pump conversions, and highlights the impact of strategic electrification programs on overall electric savings. It also notes the challenge of increased energy efficiency budgets without prior funding sources to offset program costs to ratepayers.

29, 2022 NSUARB IR-17, Attachment 3, Page 235 of 343 D.P.U. 21-120 through D.P.U. 21-129 Page 222 2019-2021 Three-Year Plans Order, at 105-106. For the 2022-2024 Three-Year Plans term, the Legislature has reallocated RGGI revenues such tha...

AI summary The document discusses the reallocation of RGGI revenues and the impact on energy efficiency programs, noting that funding to offset costs to ratepayers has decreased despite increased energy efficiency budgets needed to meet GHG reduction goals. Energy efficiency costs now make up a significant portion of residential gas and electric distribution rates.

6 Q. HAS SPENDING ON LOW-INCOME ACTIVITY ALSO LAGGED IN THE PAST 7 THREE YEARS? 8 A. Yes, As the following figure shows, spending has lagged in a similar fashion to savings for 9 the low-income sector. 10 Figure 3. Plan vs. Achieved Spendi...

AI summary Spending on low-income energy efficiency activities has lagged similarly to savings over the past three years, resulting in a modest increase in the cost per kWh for first-year savings, from $0.34 to $0.39.

21 Q. HOW WILL THE INCREASED DSM SPENDING FROM THE SETTLEMENT 22 PLAN AFFECT AFFORDABILITY? 23 A. The Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) provided by EfficiencyOne shows that short 24 term rate impacts for residential customers are on the...

AI summary The RBIA from EfficiencyOne indicates short-term residential rate increases of 3.5%-4.5% (2023-2025) from increased DSM spending, but long-term benefits offset this. Energy efficiency measures last ~11 years, reducing future rate impacts. Long-term (2039) average annual rate impact is 0.78%, below the 2020-2022 plan's 0.80%. Customer savings average -1% (negative bill impacts), with broader customer reach from the Settlement Plan.

1 Equivalently, the payback period is short enough. 3 This is shown in the response to SBA IR-19 Attachment 1, row 41. Customer-Installed DSM Payback Analysis A - Measure unit cost $721.53 B - Annual energy saving 2,816 kWh C - NS Power ra...

AI summary The payback period for customer-installed DSM measures is 23 months without incentives. E1 proposes a subsidy of $312.50 per installation, which is 43% of the cost, despite the short payback period. E1 estimates that this would cost $572,000 in 2023 and $1.8 million over three years.

4 A. BNI programs are slated to receive investment of $68.2 million dollars through the three 5 years of the Plan. E1's analysis on rate impact over the 2023-2039 period as featured in 6 Figure 9 of the Plan filing is listed below. This sh...

AI summary The document discusses the impact of the BNI program investment on small business electricity rates over the next 17 years, highlighting potential rate increases of 0.4% to 1% and near-term increases of 3.5% to 4.5% over four years. It emphasizes the importance of participation in programs to achieve bill reductions, with non-participants facing higher bill increases.

Table 31: 2023-2025 Existing Residential Performance Indicators Y Year Investment First-Year Energy Savings 0, 0 Javings Total Re Cost Tes esource st (TRC) a Admini gram istrator st (PAC) b Participation (products) c Participation (homes)...

AI summary Table 31 presents 2023-2025 residential performance indicators, including investment, energy savings, participation numbers, and costs. It highlights metrics such as energy savings in gigawatt-hours, participation in programs, and lifetime unit costs per kilowatt-hour.

ver $130 million in annual electricity costs (accounting for DSM cost recovery)[1](#page-47-1) 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 highlights the benefits of demand side management (DSM) in Nova Scotia, noting that past DSM programs have provided ratepayers with benefits exceeding utility investments by over 4 to 1. The Settlement Plan, a $173 million investment, is expected to deliver $545 million in lifetime benefits, with a payback period of less than five years. The plan addresses the maturation of the electricity efficiency market and the need to shift focus to more complex energy efficiency opportunities.

Table 8: 2023-2025 Settlement Plan Investment and Savings Year Investment a ($ million) Lifetime Benefits b First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Weighted Average Measure Life (years) Peak EE Demand Savings Availabl...

AI summary Table 8 outlines the 2023-2025 Settlement Plan Investment and Savings, detailing annual investments, energy savings, and cost metrics for energy efficiency and demand response programs. It includes data on energy savings, peak demand reductions, and resource costs over the three-year period.

Table 40: 2023-2025 BNI Efficient Product Rebates Performance Indicators Year Investment 0, Lifetime Energy Savings O Cost Test (PAC) Participation (products) c Lifetime Unit ($ million) (GWh) (GWh) (MW) incl. excl. incl. excl. (p. caacts)...

AI summary Table 40 outlines performance indicators for the BNI Efficient Product Rebates from 2023 to 2025, including investment amounts, energy savings, participation metrics, and cost tests. The table provides data on investment, energy savings, participation, and cost per kilowatt-hour over the three-year period.

13 Table 42: Efficient Product Rebates (BNI) Performance Indicators – Comparison of Settlement Plan and Alternate Scenario Year Investment ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings Lifetime Energy Savings Peak Demand Savings Total Resource Cos...

AI summary The table compares the performance indicators of the Efficient Product Rebates (BNI) program under the Settlement Plan and Alternate scenarios, showing differences in investment, energy savings, peak demand savings, and cost metrics across years 2023 to 2025.