Topic:"Dcrr" in M03669

Request IR-30: Regarding Appendix C, the Dunsky report, given the Non-Energy Benefits discussed at pp. 15-16, please explain why the neither the report nor the ENSC filing propose to include Non- Energy Benefits in the TRC. Response IR-30:...

AI summary The response to Request IR-30 explains that Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) are challenging to quantify, leading ENSC to adopt Dunsky's recommendations. These include raising the TRC test level from individual measures to the annual DSM Plan and incorporating PAC results, rather than directly including NEBs in the TRC. ENSC acknowledges NEBs but prioritized pragmatic adjustments for the first plan.

- Given the large per unit savings from these fuel conversion measures, attaining the 2012 - Existing Houses Program goals will be very sensitive to fully meeting the implied - participation goals for these measures. The Existing Houses Pr...

AI summary The Existing Houses Program's 2012 fuel conversion goals are highly sensitive to participation rates, with uncertainty due to the pilot program's early stage. ESNC's use of an 80% net-to-gross ratio differs from Dunsky Consulting's proposal, potentially overstating savings. The Efficient Products Program relies minimally on lighting for savings, contrasting with industry norms.

ams implemented by ENSC are funded by a set of charges to NSPI customers. In many jurisdictions it is common for stakeholders to raise concerns about rate impacts of energy efficiency programs, and to

AI summary Energy efficiency programs implemented by ENSC are funded through charges on NSPI customers. Stakeholders in other jurisdictions often express concerns about the rate impacts of such programs, highlighting potential financial implications for customers.

ergy savings from actual DSM programs in future years. [ENSC Closing Submission, pp. 3-5] [66] ENSC acknowledged some of the concerns raised, and submitted that the proper question for the Board is: ... what evidence is on the record to su...

AI summary ENSC argues that the Board should evaluate evidence before approving increased DSM spending, citing concerns over rate impacts and over-achievement of IRP targets. The CA supports the 2012 budget, noting a 100% increase from 2010 and ENS's new operational status. Rate impacts from DSM spending are acknowledged but require careful analysis.

Request IR-13 - With respect to Appendix C, page 23, Issue C, please provide ENSC's views on the 2008 - ACEEE and 2009 EEDAL papers by David Nichols and Kenji Takahashi which indicate that - DSM costs per MWh in other jurisdictions have de...

AI summary Request IR-13 asks ENSC to comment on 2008 ACEEE and 2009 EEDAL studies by David Nichols and Kenji Takahashi, which suggest DSM costs per MWh decrease as energy efficiency program budgets increase in other jurisdictions. The papers are referenced as attachments.

Request IR-23 With respect to Appendix C, page 3, Paragraph 2, please elaborate on why it is recommended that the TRC be applied at the plan level rather than the program level.

AI summary The request seeks clarification on the rationale for recommending the application of Total Resource Cost (TRC) at the plan level rather than the program level in Appendix C, page 3, Paragraph 2.

Request IR-24 - With respect to Figure 1 on page 4 of Appendix C - a) Please provide the derivation of the "current goals" line. - b) Please explain "eligible demand", - c) How does eligible demand change if DSM savings from sources other...

AI summary The request seeks clarification on Figure 1 in Appendix C, focusing on the derivation of 'current goals,' the definition of 'eligible demand,' and the impact of including non-ENSC DSM savings on eligible demand calculations.

rmining in fact, what is the, you know, optimal level of investment in energy efficiency. And the targets themselves may not necessarily represent the optimal level of investment in energy efficiency. MR. FOREMAN: Right. So in your languag...

AI summary The discussion centers on balancing energy efficiency investment with rate impacts, noting uncertainties in optimal investment levels. Stakeholders debate whether DSM budgets should prioritize meeting IRP targets despite untested program components, while distinguishing between rate and bill impacts as critical for evaluating energy efficiency strategies.

and energy savings in the development of the 2012 DSM Plan, including expert opinion and evidence from leading sources and advice and input from stakeholders." NPB noted in its opening statement that: "...the collaborative process envision...

AI summary NPB argues that ENSC's 2012 DSM Plan meets aggressive savings targets from the 2009 IRP Update without requiring a budget increase, supported by all ratepayer classes. NPB rejects non-ratepayer consultants' suggestions for further budget increases, emphasizing stakeholder collaboration and minimized rate impacts.

2. ASSESSMENT OF RATE IMPACTS AND MR. WHALEN'S ANALYSIS In Mr. Woolf's pre-filed testimony and during the hearing, there was discussion about the impact of DSM spending on customer rates and how such impacts should be assessed in consideri...

AI summary The text discusses the tension between procuring cost-effective energy efficiency and its immediate impact on customer rates, referencing a 2006 Summit Blue study. It highlights that many jurisdictions compromise to balance significant yet limited rate impacts with meaningful DSM programs, contrasting budgets based on IRP or benefit-cost assessments that prioritize long-term resource plans over short-term rate effects.

C, Electricity DSM Review, p.21. 4 2009 IRP Update Report, Appendix D, Attachment 1, p.50, as cited in Evidence of ENSC, Exhibit E-1 at footnote 13, p.15. 5 Transcript, p.129. a closer look at savings that can be achieved from outside sour...

AI summary The discussion centers on including non-program savings in the DSM budget, supported by George Foote, Mel Whalen, and The Avon Group, with references to the 2012 DSM Plan and IRP. Concerns about transparency and verification of savings estimates are noted, with recommendations to confirm the appropriateness of non-program savings inclusion.

" Large Industrial Customers In its 2009 decision approving the 2010 DSM Plan and Rider, the Board accepted NPSl's proposal that there be two filings per year on DSM (2009 NSUARB 116). As in this case, the spring filing consists of the DSM...

AI summary The 2009 Board decision approved the DSM Plan's cost allocation methodology, dividing program costs into 25% system benefits and 75% class benefits. Avon Group raised concerns about the lack of expertise in cost allocation, while ENSC acknowledged the approach relied on judgment and 2010 participation data rather than scientific projections.

CONCLUSION On behalf of the Avon Group, we recommend: - (a) the budget as filed, be approved, subject to either a deduction for budgeted DSM expenditures assigned to the large industrial class (or a reallocation). It is recommended that 20...

AI summary The Avon Group recommends approving the budget with adjustments to DSM expenditures for large industrial customers, confirming non-program savings inclusion, directing ENSC to engage directly with industrial clients, confirming multi-sector cost allocation, scrutinizing shared services, and requiring rate impact information in future DSM filings.

Multi Sector Cost Allocation for Enabling Strategies In the 2010 hearing for the approval ofthe DSM Plan for 2011, an issue was raised with respect to the proper allocation ofmulti-sector costs. The Board at that time accepted the DSM admi...

AI summary The 2010 NSUARB decision accepted the DSM administrator's allocation of multi-sector costs based on customer count. NSDOE argues this methodology should be revisited in 2013 to prevent excessive administrative burdens on ENSC as a joint DSM delivery agent.

Consumer Advocate 1. Page 3 of the CA Closing Submission states as follows (emphasis added): "Allocating the cost of Enabling Strategies on the basis of electricity consumption by rate class, spending by rate class, or forecast energy savi...

AI summary The Consumer Advocate (CA) argues that allocating Enabling Strategies costs based on electricity consumption by rate class is equitable. NPB opposes this, citing the Board's Cost Allocation Approach Agreement and prior decisions, which assign costs based on DSM program participation, not consumption. NPB warns that consumption-based allocation would unfairly burden non-participating rate classes like ELI 2P-RTP.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: - 1) The Board approves the proposed 2012 investment of $43.7 million for ratepayer funded DSM programs; - 2) The Board approves the proposed targets including non-program contributions from ELI customers and co...

AI summary The Board approves a 2012 $43.7 million investment for ratepayer-funded DSM programs, sets targets including non-program contributions from ELI customers, and permits ENSC to apply the TRC test at the program level starting January 1, 2012.

ty revenue and demand. While some Intervenors and consultants may argue for higher spending levels, the 2012 DSM Plan as filed, exceeds the savings targets which were included in the 2009 IRP update. While the thrust of the questions by th...

AI summary The 2012 DSM Plan exceeds 2009 IRP savings targets, with ENSC proposing a $43.7M budget. NPB argues against increasing it, stating it already meets aggressive targets and is among North America's highest on a revenue percentage basis. Avon Group supports the budget, while EAC's consultant agreed non-program savings should be included in the DSM budget calculation.

sup> The load shape class determinants from the 2012 FAM load forecasts have been applied by NSPI in its update to revenue requirement (section 11.1) filed in its reply evidence on September 13, 2011. - 2011 2 • The major difference betwee...

AI summary The document discusses NSPI's update to its revenue requirement, incorporating load shape class determinants from 2012 FAM forecasts and the shutdown of New Page Port Hawkesbury. It details DSM program costs approved by the UARB, allocation methods, and the use of DCRR and DCRR BA components to address discrepancies in DSM program cost recovery.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF INDEPENDENT DSM ADMINISTRATOR It shall be the responsibility of the independent Demand Side Management Administrator (Administrator) to apply to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (UARB) to seek approval of all de...

AI summary The independent DSM Administrator must seek UARB approval for DSM programs and their costs, and apply annually for DSM Cost Recovery Rider amounts. NSPI is required to monthly fund approved program costs based on UARB approvals.

DEMAND SIDE MANAGEMENT COST RECOVERY: The monthly amount computed under each of the rate schedules to which this DSM Cost Recovery Rider (DCRR) is applicable shall be increased or decreased by the DCRR at a class-specific rate per kilowatt...

AI summary The DSM Cost Recovery Rider (DCRR) adjusts monthly rates using the formula DCRR = PCR + BA, applying a class-specific rate per kilowatt hour of consumption. This mechanism directly ties cost recovery to consumption patterns across applicable rate schedules.

PCR = PROGRAM COST RECOVERY The PCR includes all estimated costs for each upcoming twelve month period for demand side management and energy efficiency programs that have been requested by the Administrator and approved by the Board ("appr...

AI summary The Program Cost Recovery (PCR) mechanism outlines cost recovery for approved demand-side management (DSM) and energy efficiency programs. It includes planning, implementation, and evaluation costs, with a specific cost allocation methodology for 2010–2012. The UARB may modify this approach post-2012. The Administrator is responsible for providing data to Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI) for implementing the DSM Cost Recovery Rider.

BA = BALANCE ADJUSTMENT The BA will be calculated for each rate class separately on a calendar year basis and is used to reconcile the difference between the amount of revenues actually billed through the PCR and the revenues which should...

AI summary The Balance Adjustment (BA) reconciles PCR billed revenues with actual program costs annually per rate class. Changes to the DCRR take effect with bills after their effective date, ensuring alignment between charges and program expenses.

DEMAND SIDE MANAGEMENT COST RECOVERY RIDER

AI summary The document outlines the Demand Side Management Cost Recovery Rider (DCRR), a regulatory mechanism for recovering costs associated with demand-side management programs. It involves Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS), Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI), and the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (UARB). The text provides no further details beyond the heading.

Proposed Allocation of DSM Program Costs: System benefits will be allocated to all customer classes, except for the Mersey System Rate (i.e., Basic Block), in accordance with the COSS methodology reflecting allocation of generation rate ba...

AI summary System benefits from DSM programs will be allocated to all customer classes except Mersey System Rate (Basic Block) using COSS methodology. Remaining costs will be distributed proportionally among participating classes based on investments in each class.

Method: - Step 1 Allocate the system benefits to all customer classes, except to the Mersey System Rate (i.e., Basic Block), allocating s x DT, in accordance with the COSS methodology per the most recent rate case decision, where "DT" repr...

AI summary The method outlines a five-step process for allocating DSM program costs between customer classes, including assigning 25% as system benefits and 75% directly to classes. It references the COSS methodology and adjusts allocations based on Bowater Mersey's participation and demand levels. The approach aims to calculate annual cost recovery surcharges and adjust forecasts using actual participation data.

Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board Mailing address PO Box 1692, Unit "M" Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 353 [email protected] Web www.nsuarb.ca Office 3rd floor 1601 lowerWater Street Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3P6 902 424-4448 t 902424-3919...

AI summary Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI) seeks approval for a proposed Efficiency Nova Scotia Demand Side Management (DSM) Cost Recovery Rider (DCRR) and Balance Adjustment (DCRR BA) for 2012. The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board requests comments from stakeholders by October 20, 2011, on the proposed charges by rate class.