Topic:"Dcrr" in M08059

enously by Synapse—fixed O&M, sustaining capital costs, new build costs, incremental demand‐side management (DSM) costs, New Brunswick transmission costs, and Nova Scotia Maritime Link fixed payments. Fixed O&M is calculated by multiplying...

AI summary The text outlines cost components for energy planning, including fixed O&M, sustaining capital, new build, DSM, and transmission costs. It details calculation methods for each, such as annualizing capital costs and using nameplate capacity. Modeling scenarios in Plexos are discussed, focusing on capacity expansion, dispatch, and unit commitment under various sensitivities.

of these load scenarios will be accounted for outside of PLEXOS and will be based on a to-be- determined utility cost per MWh saved (energy) and utility cost per kW of firm peak reduction. We have not estimated these costs at this point in...

AI summary The document outlines that load scenarios outside PLEXOS will use utility costs per MWh saved and per kW of firm peak reduction. These costs have not yet been estimated but will be determined with stakeholder feedback as part of the project.

update its runs that used the incremental DSM assumption with the new information to be provided by E1. At one point, Synapse suggested this might be done by sensitivity analysis. In its comments circulated on April 9, 2018, E1 provided it...

AI summary The document discusses updating DSM cost assumptions in Synapse's modeling using E1's High Case data, which reflects a $0.60/kWh energy unit cost. NS Power agrees to incorporate E1's updated costs for accurate program evaluation, rejecting sensitivity analysis due to untested new information. The High Case is deemed most relevant for assessing 2% incremental energy efficiency.

2 relative-to-reference-case cost savings (i.e., in percentage terms) for the three lowest-cost scenarios shown – scenarios 8, 14 and 17.6 PHP notes its concern with our late-in-coming reporting of a post-processing error that altered the...

AI summary The text discusses cost savings from three low-cost scenarios (8, 14, 17) and addresses a post-processing error in NPV cost reporting. PHP criticizes the delayed error disclosure, while EfficiencyOne emphasizes continued DSM cost-effectiveness despite higher per-unit costs due to carbon cap constraints. The analysis concludes that a second thermal unit retirement before 2030 is indicated under low-cost scenarios, with anticipation of NS Power’s 2019 IRP process.

mmary Avoided Energy and Capacity Costs – 2018‐2042 Avoided Energy and Avoided Capacity Computation - Reference Scenario vs. Medium DSM Scenario Differential Revenue Requirements (Wholesale) Basis Variable Cost Fuel, VOM, RE, Interchange,...

AI summary The document compares energy and capacity costs under a reference scenario versus a medium Demand Side Management (DSM) scenario from 2018 to 2042. It quantifies avoided energy costs by subtracting Scenario 2 (MedDSM) costs from Scenario 1 (Ref) costs, showing cumulative savings increasing over time, with the largest differential in 2042 at $136,741,000.

0 2,084.0 2,083.0 2,086.0 2,096.2 2,106.5 2,116.8 2,127.2 2,137.6 2,148.1 2,158.6 2,169.2 2,179.8 2,190.4 2,201.1 2,211.9 2,222.7 2,233.7 2,244.8 Sc 2 Peak Load, MW 1,980.2 1,993.4 2,014.5 2,016.9 2,022.5 2,024.9 2,014.3 2,003.0 1,986.8 1,...

AI summary The text presents numerical data comparing peak load scenarios (Sc 1 vs. Sc 2), showing increasing peak savings deltas and fluctuating avoided capacity costs. The data highlights variations in cost per kilowatt saved, suggesting analysis of demand-side management program effectiveness and capacity planning economics.