Topic:"Dcrr" in M07151

1 3.0 NS POWER'S POSITION 2 3 The current 25/75 per cent split between system cost and participant cost was agreed to 4 by stakeholders to the 2009 Settlement Agreement. It appropriately recognizes that rate 5 class benefits from DSM progr...

AI summary NS Power argues the 25/75 cost split between system and participant costs for DSM programs aligns with cost-of-service principles, as participating classes benefit most. They propose maintaining this split but suggest exceptions for Enabling Strategies when benefits exceed $100,000 or are tied to historical averages, reducing tracking requirements.

Table 1 (PCR) (2016) Unnamed: 0 Unnamed: 1 Unnamed: 2 Unnamed: 3 Unnamed: 4 Unnamed: 5 Unnamed: 6 Unnamed: 7 Unnamed: 8 Unnamed: 9 Unnamed: 10 1 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN 2 NaN COLUMN A B C D E F 3 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN 4 N...

AI summary This table presents data related to the 2016 PCR (probably a regulatory proceeding), including DCRR values, revenue figures, and rate smoothing adjustments for various rate classes in Nova Scotia. The data includes changes in DCRR from 2013 to 2014 and the impact on power bills.

2015 DCRR Annual Amount Amortization by Rate Class (2016 ‐ 2024) Rate Class 2015 DCRR Amount Accumulated Interest 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Residential 22,647,491 9,161,413 ‐3,976,113 ‐3,976,113 ‐3,976,113 ‐3,976,113 ‐3...

AI summary The document presents the 2015 DCRR Annual Amount Amortization by Rate Class from 2016 to 2024, showing negative amortization values across all rate classes, indicating a reduction in the annual amortization amounts over time.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-1: 2 3 The Board letter of December 3, 2015 requested additional detail on "2014 DCRR amounts 4 currently in rates" (item d). NSP's submission response (page 4 of 8) was "This item is 5 addressed above in comm...

AI summary The document discusses a request for clarification regarding the 2014 DCRR amounts currently in rates and references a response that directs to Multeese IR-6. It is part of a proceeding related to DSM cost allocation and recovery.

2015 DCRR Annual Amount Amortization by Rate Class (2016 ‐ 2024) Rate Class 2015 DCRR Amount Accumulated Interest 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Residential 22,647,491 3,272,694 ‐3,240,023 ‐3,240,023 ‐3,240,023 ‐3,240,023 ‐3...

AI summary The document presents the annual amortization of the 2015 DCRR (Demand Cost Recovery Rider) across various rate classes from 2016 to 2024, showing negative values for each year, indicating amortization deductions. The data includes accumulated interest and total amortization amounts for each category.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-3: 2 3 Also on page 3 of the Dec 18th Submission, please explain how the changes in the cost 4 recovery model have "hampered" NSPI's ability to rebalance through the 2016 to 2018 5 DSM plan, and confirm that t...

AI summary The document discusses a regulatory proceeding where NSPI is asked to explain how changes in the cost recovery model affected their ability to rebalance through the 2016-2018 DSM plan. NSPI responds that the elimination of the 2014 DSM cost recovery rider (DCRR) without replacement has hampered rebalancing, which refers to both the timing and amount of the 2014 Rate Smoothing Adjustment (RSA).

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-4: 2 3 NSPI also identifies its decision to not seek a general rate increase for 2016 as a 4 contributing factor that "hampers" its ability to rebalance through the 2016 to 2018 DSM 5 plan. Please describe, an...

AI summary NSPI claims not seeking a 2016 general rate increase hampers its ability to rebalance through the 2016-2018 DSM plan. The response cites a changed cost recovery model and notes an alternative approach using a GRA with per-class DSM cost forecasting for the 2016 test year.

2013 and 2014 Balance Adjustments As referenced above, the 2013 amount has been applied to DSM funding in 2015. NS Power suggests that the 2014 imbalance amounts should be dealt with in a similar manner. However, the costs were collected t...

AI summary NSP proposes applying 2014 imbalance amounts to DSM funding like 2013, but costs were collected via DCRR under the ENSC budget. Variance analysis between recovery and expenditure should be allocated to 2016 DSM programs per the Board's decision, with details in Appendix B.

Cost Allocation The IG and the CA appear to support the traditional approach to cost allocation. This approach is most simply described as collection of DSM costs based on the DSM budget with a 25% allocation to system benefits and a 75% s...

AI summary The IG and CA support the 'Traditional Approach' to DSM cost allocation, which splits costs 25% to system benefits and 75% to class participation, with a true-up mechanism. This mimics the defunct DSM Cost Recovery Rider (DCRR) via embedded rates. The approach is detailed in NS Power's submission (M07151).

True‐up period The CA, SBA and the IG each expressed support for a true‐up between budget and actual DSM costs. As noted above, NS Power proposes that DSM revenues be trued up against actuals in accordance with how the previous true‐up mec...

AI summary The CA, SBA, and IG support truing up DSM costs annually. NS Power proposes using the DCRR mechanism to align recoveries with actual costs annually, tracking variances for future rate settings. SBA advocates annual true-ups, but NS Power cannot adjust general rates outside GRA processes if DSM is classified as non-fuel, though annual tracking will still occur.

2016 DSM NS Power has requested the Board acknowledge that the 1/8 share of the 2015 DSM costs and all of the 2016 DSM costs are appropriately recovered as operating expenses in 2016. Intervenors have taken issue with the cost recovery pro...

AI summary NS Power seeks approval to recover 2015 and 2016 DSM costs as operating expenses. Intervenors oppose the proposal for years beyond 2016, but the Industrial Group supports the 2016 request.

Post 2016 DSM Cost Recovery The CA and the IG have opposed NS Power's proposal to defer its decision on the accounting treatment of post 2016 DSM cost recovery until June 30, 2016. The CA has done so on the basis that current rates contain...

AI summary Nova Scotia Power Inc (NSPI) sought to defer a decision on post-2016 DSM cost recovery until June 30, 2016, but the Consumer Advocate (CA) and Industrial Group (IG) opposed this, arguing current rates already fund DSM costs and NSPI failed to justify the deferral. NSPI countered that existing rates do not explicitly cover DSM expenses and requested additional time for the Utility and Ratepayer Board (UARB) to rule on the matter.

Conclusion NS Power notes that many of the cost allocation issues before the Board in this matter pertain to how DSM costs are divided amongst and collected from the various rate classes. The Company recommends as follows: - The Board conf...

AI summary NS Power outlines DSM cost allocation recommendations, requesting confirmation of 2015/2016 cost recovery, a timeline for 2017-2018 submissions, and adoption of the 'Traditional Approach' methodology. True-ups will be annually adjusted via GRA, with enabling strategies aligned to prior proposals. The Company acknowledges intervenor contributions.

NSPI's Filing Dated December 18, 2015 In its December 18, 2015 letter, NSPI stated: - 1) One-eighth of the 2015 program cost will be expensed in its 2016 operating costs. - 2) The 2016 DSM program costs will be absorbed in existing rates a...

AI summary NSPI outlined its approach to DSM program costs, proposing deferral of 2017-2019 cost recovery decisions, three options for addressing the 2014 RSA, and methods for true-up adjustments. It emphasized aligning DSM funding with the 2013/2014 BA and supporting a DSM contract-period-based true-up methodology over annual rebalancing.

NSPI's Reply Submission dated Feb 23, 2016 In response to participant submissions, NSPI noted the following: - a) Program costs should be allocated in alignment with E1 's budgets, then compared against actual DSM expenditures on an annual...

AI summary NSPI proposes aligning DSM program costs with E1 budgets and adjusting via GRA. RSA should be resolved through rate changes, not DSM reallocations. Enabling Strategies methodology prioritizes direct cost allocation. NSPI requests treating 2016 DSM costs as operating expenses and deferring 2017-2018 DSM cost decisions until GRA filing or June 30, 2016.