Topic:"Cost To Customer" in M12780

1 4.2 DSM REMAINS AT A LOWER COST THAN THE FUEL OPTION 2 DSM, and particularly its energy efficiency programs, is demonstrably lower in price than the fuel option 3 it displaces, making it a logical and affordable first choice investment f...

AI summary Demand-Side Management (DSM), especially energy efficiency programs, is shown to be more cost-effective than fuel options, with DSM costing less than fuel by up to 4 cents per kWh. This makes DSM a preferable investment for ratepayers, as it reduces fuel costs and benefits all ratepayers through the fuel adjustment mechanism (FAM).

2 6.1 OVERVIEW - 3 The Preferred Plan represents a comprehensive suite of programs and service offerings which will deliver - 4 approximately 435.4 GWh of affordable, incremental net energy savings, 85.0 MW of cumulative system- - 5 peak d...

AI summary The Preferred Plan outlines a comprehensive suite of energy efficiency programs and service offerings that aim to deliver significant energy savings and demand reductions over the 2027–2031 period. It emphasizes affordability, long-term ratepayer benefits, and cost-effectiveness, with a focus on achieving energy efficiency at a lower lifetime unit cost compared to fuel costs.

Table 7: 2027–2031 Plan - Portfolio Level Insights Insights 2027–2031 Energy Efficiency Energy Savings as % of NS Power Load 0.8% Energy Savings (EE) Split (RES/BNI) 29/71 Demand Savings (EE) Split (RES/BNI) 44/56 Dedicated Low-Income & Eq...

AI summary Table 7 provides insights into the 2027–2031 plan, highlighting energy efficiency savings, demand response capacity, solar-PV generation, and associated costs and benefits. It includes metrics such as energy savings percentages, unit costs, and CO₂e savings across residential and BNI (Business and Non-Industrial) sectors.

2.2.6 UNIT COST RESULTS Unit cost data is a calculation output reflecting E1's investment and energy savings over a defined time period. Actual results for the 2023–2025 period show a portfolio-level unit cost of $0.37/kWh, slightly lower...

AI summary The 2023–2025 unit cost for E1's energy efficiency programs was slightly lower than the approved plan, but residential unit costs have risen due to the pause of the Residential Behaviour program and changes in program components. These trends are expected to continue into 2026 and influence the development of the 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan.

- 4 Attachment 2 to this IR response. Residential Instant Savings - Cost and Energy Savings Analysis Administrative / Overhead Cost Reduction (0.17) 2027-2031 Unit Cost $ 2.67 Change in Costs (0.99) 2027-2031 Average Cost 4.86 Energy Savin...

AI summary The document provides cost and energy savings analyses for residential and efficient product installation programs, including administrative costs, changes in costs, and energy savings projections from 2026 to 2031. It outlines unit costs, savings from various initiatives like heat pumps and building envelope improvements, and the impact of participation changes on overall savings.

1 Variable Unit Definition / Explanation Value M.Bill Impact $/month Difference between monthly bills in the DSM scenario -$371 compared to the No DSM scenario. M.BillDSM $/month Monthly bill in the DSM scenario (non-participant) $32,093 M...

AI summary The table compares the impact of a Demand Side Management (DSM) scenario versus a No DSM scenario on monthly bills, electricity usage, and rates. The DSM scenario results in a lower monthly bill by approximately $371 for non-participants, with a slightly lower electricity rate compared to the No DSM scenario.

- (d) The following IR response was provided by Elenchus. - Large Industrial customers have rate increases over the DSM plan period for Demand Response because the impact of reallocating demand-related costs to the Large Industrial class e...

AI summary Large Industrial customers face rate increases during the DSM plan period due to reallocating demand-related costs, as their peak demand reduction is lower than the overall system reduction. This leads to a higher allocation of energy-related costs to the Large Industrial class.

(a) The following IR response for part (a) (i) has been provided by NS Power. in Excel format with all formulae intact and unaltered. i) Avoided Energy Costs have decreased in the early years because the Base Case (with DSM) had higher car...

AI summary Avoided Energy Costs have decreased in early years due to higher carbon emissions in the Base Case (with DSM) compared to the No DSM Case, leading to increased total carbon costs. The No DSM Case builds more wind capacity in 2027 and 2029 to meet renewable targets. The Equivalent Escalating Series is recommended for normalizing costs over time.

earch activities and TRM process - Perform short-term program design or incentive-level cost effectiveness screening - Integrate the review protocol that has been provided in the Excel-based tool. The consolidated calculator will allow Eff...

AI summary CLEAResult developed tools and processes to help EfficiencyOne improve incentive setting for energy efficiency programs. An Excel-based tool was created to analyze incentive levels, and a financial simulation was conducted for the Instant Savings and Custom programs. Some incentives, such as for heavy-duty timers, may need review due to cost-to-customer thresholds.

Other Considerations for the Home Energy Assessment Program The Home Energy Assessment program recently introduced an updated incentive structure, which featured an increased incentive for the initial audit, and premiums associated with bu...

AI summary The Home Energy Assessment Program introduced updated incentives, including higher initial audit incentives and bundled incentives to encourage larger projects. Early data shows increased savings and lower unit costs, though it is difficult to isolate the effect of bundling from other changes. Bundling is seen as an effective strategy for customer acquisition, and the program's delivery through service organizations allows for localized incentive adjustments.

Cost to Customer Incentive Level Threshold As discussed in the Financial Impact Analysis section of the General Principles recommendations, a program that features residential customers making small purchases at retailers should use retail...

AI summary The document discusses setting a 50% upper limit for the cost to customer incentive level for residential programs using retail prices. It references EfficiencyOne's 2014 price sensitivity research and recommends updating the data with more recent program management information.

Measure Project Cost ($) Simple Project Payback Current Cost to Customer Cost to Customer Threshold Custom Project Retrofit Track $96,424 4 years 25% 50% 2 years Table 33: Cost to Customer Incentive Level Threshold for Average Project in C...

AI summary Table 33 outlines the cost to customer incentive level threshold for an average project in a custom retrofit, showing a project cost of $96,424, a simple project payback of 4 years, and a current cost to customer of 25% with a threshold of 50%.

Costs in TRC Calculation The costs calculated in the TRC are costs paid by the program administrators and participants plus the increase in supply costs for any period when load is increased.

AI summary The Total Resource Cost (TRC) includes costs paid by program administrators and participants, as well as any increase in supply costs due to increased load during a given period.

7 3.5.5 INCREMENTAL COST 8 Value: $255,025.00 (in $2025) 9 Unit: per GWh saved 10 Source: Refer to CUS_IND_001 11 Details: The incremental cost for this measure is assumed to be consistent with CUS_IND_001. 12

AI summary The incremental cost for the measure is valued at $255,025.00 per GWh saved, based on data from CUS_IND_001. This figure represents the cost associated with implementing energy efficiency measures.

Interest Rate Risk: NSPI utilizes a combination of fixed and floating rate debt financing for operations and capital expenditures, resulting in an exposure to interest rate risk. The allowed range of ROE will generally follow the direction...

AI summary NSPI uses a mix of fixed and floating rate debt, exposing it to interest rate risk. The allowed return on equity (ROE) range is influenced by interest rates, with a lag due to the regulatory process. 75% of NSPI's debt is fixed rate with an average term of 17 years. Inflation may increase operating costs, capital investment, and fuel costs relative to customer rates.

14 testimony, peak capacity needs are projected to grow, and current forecasts require more [ 49 ](#page-26-1) See Exhibit TML-2 for the source and annual breakout. The IRP scenario has the effects of strategic electrification removed. 1 i...

AI summary Testimony highlights concerns that reduced DSM investment will lead to higher energy costs for customers, as alternative capacity sources are more expensive. It also notes that energy-efficiency acquisition costs have risen significantly, from $0.49/kWh in 2026 to $0.66/kWh projected for 2027–2031, a 35% increase.

Benchmark First-Year Cost ($/kWh Net at Meter, CAD) U.S. fleet average (42 utilities, weighted) $0.35 U.S. range — lowest (Salt River Project) $0.12 U.S. range — highest (Union Electric / Ameren MO) $0.92 U.S. median $0.36 [ 58 ](#page-31-...

AI summary The text presents a benchmark table comparing first-year costs of demand-side management (DSM) programs across U.S. utilities, with a focus on the ACEEE report and its relevance to E1's 2027-2031 Plan Application. The comparison includes conversion from USD to CAD and references to line loss factors and other supporting evidence.

t sound. Second, a six-2 jurisdiction scan is a narrow evidentiary base on which to rest the proposition that 3 incentive levels across the entire 2027–2031 portfolio are set no higher than necessary. 4 The distinction matters because ince...

AI summary The text argues that EfficiencyOne (E1) needs to improve its incentive methodology to better align with the Board's standards, as current incentive levels may not be set to the minimum necessary. Unit costs have increased significantly, and E1 lacks sufficient research on higher-cost measures like heat pumps and building envelope upgrades.

Q. Please summarize E1's demand response offerings as part of the 2027-2031 DSM Plan. A. In the 2027-2031 period, E1 plans to offer several pathways, each focused on a type of demand response measure. These pathways include water-heating a...

AI summary E1 plans to offer demand response programs under the 2027-2031 DSM Plan, including water-heating and thermostat demand response for residential participants, curtailment demand response for BNI participants, and a new 'Loadshift to Back Up Generators' offering. Residential participation is expected to decline, while BNI participation and overall budgets will increase.

rrier by marketing a beneficial rate structure to customers. - Assisted with rate design proposal. Brattle has been retained by Nova Scotia power to assist with a comprehensive evaluation of innovative rate designs and development of Compa...

AI summary Brattle has been involved in multiple rate design studies and evaluations, including assisting Nova Scotia Power with innovative rate design proposals and reviewing studies for the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission. They have also prepared educational materials for Rate Advisory Committee meetings and provided testimony on rate design issues.

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

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

Response IR-2: Yes, page 40 of E1's evidence states, "DSM, and particularly its energy efficiency programs, is demonstrably lower in price than the fuel option it displaces, making it a logical and affordable first choice investment for ra...

AI summary E1 argues that DSM programs are more cost-effective than fuel options, citing a lower cost per kWh and long-term benefits for ratepayers. The cost of fuel has fluctuated, but DSM has consistently been cheaper, supporting its use as an affordable and logical first choice investment.

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

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

Request IR-20: Regarding Section 6 "Preferred Plan Details" of the Application: - a. Pdf pg. 62 states: "The Preferred Plan's energy efficiency resource has a first-year unit cost of $0.66/kWh and a weighted average measure life of 12.3 ye...

AI summary The document requests clarification and supporting evidence for the energy efficiency resource costs and calculations in the Preferred Plan, specifically referencing the first-year unit cost, weighted average measure life, and lifetime unit cost compared to NS Power's average fuel cost. It also requests references or spreadsheet calculations for the data in Tables 7, 8, and 9.

- 28 (a) Please provide a table explaining the increase in first-year unit cost from 29 $0.49/kWh (2026) to $0.66/kWh (2027–2031), broken down by the 30 following drivers: 1 (i) Change in measure mix (e.g., shift away from lighting); 25 No...

AI summary The text discusses the increase in first-year unit costs from $0.49/kWh in 2026 to $0.66/kWh in 2027–2031, driven by a shift in measure mix and increased customer incentives. Customer incentives now account for 71% of total costs in the Preferred Plan, up from 66% in the 2026 DSM Plan.

INNOVATIVE RATE DESIGN AND IMPACT EVALUATION STUDIES - Develop a technical brief in collaboration with DOE and Lawrence National Berkeley Lab on "Electricity Rate Designs for Large Loads: Evolving Practices and Opportunities". - For a larg...

AI summary The text discusses the development of a technical brief on innovative electricity rate designs for large loads, in collaboration with DOE and Lawrence National Berkeley Lab. It also mentions Dr. Sergici's evaluation of a large southeastern utility's tariff offerings for large customers, based on marginal pricing principles.

Issued at Halifax, Nova Scotia, this 6th day of July, 2026. 1 Request IR-01: 2 Reference: Brattle Evidence, Section III: Affordability of E1's Preferred Plan, page 6: 3 4 "While E1 and its consultant (Apex Analytics) did conduct a Jurisdic...

AI summary The document contains information requests related to the affordability and cost performance of E1's preferred plan, including critiques of peer group analysis and budgeting differences between Ontario and Nova Scotia. It also asks for quantification of cost differentials and clarification on regulatory frameworks.

1 Request IR-1: 2 3 On Page 7 of 39 of its Report, the Brattle Group states that the Proposed Plan remains heavily 4 weighed towards traditional energy efficiency with 90% of the total investment directed towards 5 energy efficiency compar...

AI summary The document outlines several requests for information (IR-1 to IR-6) directed at E1, concerning the allocation of program investments between energy efficiency and demand response, the exclusion of benefits in the modified PAC test, the cost of energy savings in Nova Scotia compared to other jurisdictions, and the impact of excluding residential customers from demand response growth.

15 Request IR-2: 16 17 Does E1 acknowledge the apparent contradiction between its focus on short-term affordability and 18 the affect the spending levels in its Proposed Plan will have on electricity costs for ratepayers? 19 20

AI summary The document raises a question about whether E1 recognizes the contradiction between its focus on short-term affordability and the long-term impact of spending levels in its Proposed Plan on electricity costs for ratepayers.

8 Request IR-7: - 9 Preamble : At pages 24-25 of Mr. Love's evidence (Tables 2 and 3), he presents the 10 change in non-participant bills for the IRP-aligned scenario compared to E1's Preferred 11 Plan. For the plan years 2027-2031, he sho...

AI summary The request seeks clarification on the incremental cost of the IRP-aligned scenario compared to E1's Preferred Plan for Large and Medium Industrial classes from 2027 to 2031, including the absolute dollar value and methodology. It also asks whether the analysis uses the Preferred Plan or a no-DSM counterfactual as the baseline.