E-1Application
23 passages
Attachment 1: EfficiencyOne Response to Comments – December 18, 2017 Attachment 2: EfficiencyOne Special DSMAG Meeting Action Items – March 12, 2018 Attachment 3: DSMAG NEBs Presentation – June 27, 2018 Attachment 4: Final VEIC NEBs Report...
AI summary The text lists four attachments related to a regulatory proceeding involving EfficiencyOne and the Demand Side Management Advisory Group (DSMAG), including responses to comments, meeting action items, and a final report.
Date Filed: September 19, 2018 Page i of 15 1 1. INTRODUCTION 2 3 The purpose of this Application is to request approval for the use of measure-level 4 Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) within the context of Cost-Effectiveness (CE) 5 testing asso...
AI summary This document outlines an application requesting approval for the use of measure-level Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) in Cost-Effectiveness (CE) testing for future DSM planning processes. It provides background on past discussions regarding the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test and the proposed shift to the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test, which was not approved by the UARB.
EfficiencyOne (Re), 2015 NSUARB 204 (CanLII) 1 2 The Parties agree to the following with respect to the cost a) 3 effectiveness testing of DSM within future applications to the 4 UARB for approval of DSM Supply Agreements (Applications): 5...
AI summary The parties agree on the use of the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test as the primary cost-effectiveness test for future Demand Side Management (DSM) Supply Agreements. Proposed measures not passing the PAC test must be justified, and low-income targeted programs are exempt from cost-effectiveness testing. A modified Total Resource Cost (TRC) test, including non-energy benefits, is also provided for informational purposes.
For the BNI sector, NEBs were generally present in the Massachusetts data as a value per kWh of first-year energy savings. All BNI NEBs occur as annual values – no BNI NEBs occurred as one-time benefits. VEIC also recommended that, should...
AI summary The text discusses the presence and calculation of non-energy benefits (NEBs) in the BNI sector, referencing Massachusetts data and recommending the use of a specific research base for future low-income programs. VEIC conducted an analysis showing that two-thirds of measures in the 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan were assigned NEBs.
Date Filed: September 19, 2018 Page 9 of 15 1 values through VEIC's methodology. The remaining one-third of measures were 2 either valued at zero in the Massachusetts research base, or VEIC was unable to 3 obtain an appropriate proxy value...
AI summary The text discusses the valuation of demand-side management measures through VEIC's methodology, noting that one-third of measures were valued at zero or lacked proxy values. The inclusion of non-energy benefits (NEBs) increased the TRC test result by 24% across the 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan. VEIC also recommended areas for future research to improve NEBs application in Nova Scotia.
3.1 The Broader Strategy The area of study relating to Non-Energy Benefits has existed for several decades and is continuing to evolve. In addition, different jurisdictions go about the valuation process in different ways, using disparate...
AI summary The document discusses the valuation of Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) in Nova Scotia, emphasizing a middle-road approach endorsed by the Demand Side Management Advisory Group (DSMAG) and EfficiencyOne. It outlines ongoing efforts to enhance NEB research, including collaboration with Saint Mary's University and the use of a 2016 Massachusetts study for low-income programs. Future changes in data, measure portfolios, and methodologies may also impact NEB research.
EfficiencyOne
AI summary The document discusses the EfficiencyOne program, a regulatory proceeding in Nova Scotia. Key acronyms include DSMAG (Demand Side Management Advisory Group), TRC (Total Resource Cost), PAC (Program Administrator Cost), and IRP (Integrated Resource Planning). No specific arguments or entities are detailed in the provided text.
EfficiencyOne Response to DSMAG Comments on VEIC Report on Measure-Level Non-Energy Benefits December 18, 2017 Page 2 of 27
AI summary EfficiencyOne responds to DSMAG's comments on the VEIC report analyzing non-energy benefits of energy efficiency measures. The document addresses program-level cost considerations, including TRC, PAC, and IRP frameworks, while engaging with DSMAG's feedback on benefit quantification methodologies.
1.1 Background As part of the June 30, 2016 agreement signed on deferred issues related to the 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan, Intervenors in that proceeding agreed to: …work collaboratively with the DSM Advisory Group to pursue the nature an...
AI summary In 2016, EfficiencyOne and DSMAG agreed to improve TRC test accuracy by incorporating non-energy benefits (NEBs). A draft scope of work proposing adapted NEBs from another jurisdiction was circulated, facing mixed reactions. Feedback led to revisions, with VEIC conducting the study. Stakeholders including Synapse Energy Economics, NS Power, and advocates provided input on the draft report.
2. EFFICIENCYONE RESPONSE TO DSMAG MEMBER FEEDBACK EfficiencyOne thanks DSMAG members for their review of VEIC's draft Report. The breadth of comments received is appreciated by VEIC and EfficiencyOne, with the recognition that the group's...
AI summary EfficiencyOne acknowledges DSMAG members' feedback on VEIC's draft report, which improved the TRC test for future DSM Plan Applications. Responses are organized by submitting organizations, with similar comments addressed once. All material comments were addressed.
he sole ENS program that uses customer simple back as a metric to modify incentives, and has included known customer NEBs (e.g. changes in O&M costs) in that calculation since the program's inception. Also of note is that the TRC test has...
AI summary The Industrial Group (IG) highlights that ENS uses customer simple back metrics with Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) since inception. It criticizes the TRC test's insensitivity to incentive levels and advocates for more quantification of NEBs. The IG argues mercury disposal costs are societal and not suitable for TRC inclusion, while acknowledging the study's potential to reduce incentives through improved customer communication.
2.3 Comments from the Affordable Energy Coalition The Affordable Energy Coalition (the "AEC") provided comments which centrally express concern about the lack of application of low-income NEBs to the existing DSM Affordable Multifamily Hou...
AI summary The Affordable Energy Coalition (AEC) criticizes the exclusion of low-income Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) from the DSM Affordable Multifamily Housing Pilot and broader studies. EfficiencyOne supports including participant and utility NEBs in the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test but excludes societal NEBs. They explain the study's focus on 2016-2018 DSM plans and suggest future discussions with DSMAG on low-income NEBs.
2.4 Comments from the Small Business Advocate (Daymark) The Small Business Advocate, via Daymark Energy Advisors, (the "SBA") provided several recommendations relating to the study and Report. These recommendations will be addressed below...
AI summary The Small Business Advocate (SBA), through Daymark Energy Advisors, recommends improving direct energy savings over reliance on NEBs for marginally cost-effective programs. It criticizes the TRC test as flawed, referencing DSMAG discussions.
Q5: How does Efficiency One plan to account for the possible double counting of NEBs for residential measures? A5: Based on the answers above, no action is suggested by EfficiencyOne. On page four, the SBA suggests that VEIC's recommendati...
AI summary EfficiencyOne does not plan to take action regarding potential double counting of NEBs. The SBA criticizes VEIC's recommendation as misunderstood, while DSMAG will guide future research. The Industrial Group's response details the relationship between incentive setting and NEB identification.
only a transfer payment between the buyer and seller has been added, which nets to zero from a societal perspective. With the above in mind, there are a few complications that are worth noting here: - The original Massachusetts studies def...
AI summary The Consumer Advocate (Resource Insight) critiques the TRC test's inclusion of NEBs, noting methodological issues in Massachusetts studies and advocating for further DSMAG discussion. EfficiencyOne suggests refining TRC measurement boundaries, while the CA argues high NEBs imply BES should be business-funded, not ratepayer-funded.
Attachment 3: DSMAG NEBs Presentation – June 27, 2018 Date Filed: September 19, 2018
AI summary Attachment 3 from a June 27, 2018 DSMAG NEBs presentation discusses Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) in regulatory proceedings, likely involving programs like Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS) and considerations of Total Resource Cost (TRC), Program Administrator Cost (PAC), and Integrated Resource Planning (IRP).
Summary of ENS's Position Cont. - ENS, as part of its regulatory submission regarding NEBs, will request approval to leverage the Mass. Low-Income NEI's Report2, excluding health-care system benefits (socialized in Canada), in future cost-...
AI summary ENS seeks approval to use the Mass. Low-Income NEI's Report2 (excluding Canadian healthcare benefits) in future cost-effectiveness testing for low-income programs, pending UARB acceptance. This approach will be applied during the next DSM Resource Plan evaluation.
_ _ Participant Benefits - Business, Not-For-Profit and Institutional (BNI) Previously Included Recommended for Inclusion in ENS Market Rate Programs Included for Low Income Programs in MA Reduction in Administration Costs ✓ Reduction in M...
AI summary The document outlines participant benefits across business, not-for-profit, institutional, and residential programs, highlighting cost reductions, operational efficiencies, and non-energy benefits such as health, safety, and environmental impacts. It also notes differences in benefit inclusion across regions like Massachusetts.
2.1 Why Consider Non-Energy Benefits? To understand the importance of incorporating non-energy benefits into cost-effectiveness testing, it is helpful to understand the cost-effectiveness test used in screening. Nova Scotia uses the Total...
AI summary Nova Scotia uses the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency investments. The TRC test compares the total present value of benefits to utilities and DSM program participants against the total present value of costs, requiring a benefit-to-cost ratio of at least one for a measure to be considered a good investment.
3.2 Adjustments for Residential Measures Some residential measures and some of the Efficient Products were linked with a one-time NEB in the MA TRM. For lighting, this one-time value was attributed to lighting quality and lifetime. In othe...
AI summary Residential measures and efficient products are linked with a one-time non-energy benefit (NEB) in the MA TRM. For lighting, this benefit is attributed to quality and lifetime, while for property value increases, it is prorated to 44% to adjust for higher property values in Massachusetts compared to Nova Scotia. This adjustment is based on the ratio of median house prices in both regions.
labor costs component of the Massachusetts NEBs for Nova Scotia BNI measures without making additional adjustments.
AI summary The text references labor costs associated with Massachusetts Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) for Nova Scotia Business, Not-For-Profit and Institutional (BNI) measures, without additional adjustments.
Section 5.0 Recommended NEB Values for Individual Nova Scotia Measures VEIC Recomm nended NEBs Measure Name Target Market VEIC Recommended One-Time NEB VEIC Recommended Annual NEBs Source Additional Treatment В NI - Efficient Prod uct Reba...
AI summary Section 5.0 outlines recommended Non-Energy Benefits (NEB) values for various energy efficiency measures in Nova Scotia, focusing on commercial dishwasher and food holding cabinet technologies. The table provides one-time and annual NEB values, with adjustments for water savings.
This analysis results in the application of evidence-based non-energy benefits to individual measures in Efficiency Nova Scotia's portfolio and makes progress in correcting earlier omissions of benefits from the TRC test used in cost/benef...
AI summary The analysis identifies areas for improving the evaluation of non-energy benefits (NEBs) in Efficiency Nova Scotia's programs, including agricultural efficiency, solar domestic hot water, new construction, low-income participants, residential building envelope retrofits, and energy management systems. These findings suggest opportunities for further research and refinement in cost/benefit analysis.
E-6E1 (NSPI) RIR-1 to RIR-43
19 passages
Selected Publications and Presentations - Malmgren, Ingrid, and Cassie Powers. Volkswagen Settlement Beneficiary Mitigation Plan Toolki t. National Association for State Energy Officials, 2017. - Malmgren, Ingrid, David Roberts, and Justin...
AI summary The document lists publications and presentations by Ingrid Malmgren and colleagues on topics including electric vehicles, clean energy programs, and non-energy benefits. Key organizations involved are Sierra Club, NYSERDA, NASEO, and ACEEE. Themes focus on demand-side management, grid-interactive vehicles, and integrating non-energy benefits into policy.
Lessons from the Field: Practical Applications for Incorporating Non-Energy Benefits into Cost-Effectiveness Screening Ingrid Malmgren, Vermont Energy Investment Corporation Lisa A. Skumatz, Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. (SERA)
AI summary The document discusses practical applications for integrating non-energy benefits into cost-effectiveness screening in regulatory proceedings. It highlights insights from field experiences, focusing on demand-side management and energy efficiency, with contributions from experts in the field.
Table 1. Comparison of NEB treatment in regulatory environment, by state Regulatory / screening application Utilities / regions Program marketing Fairly widespread use in utilities / states across the country Test / program Iowa (10% ele...
AI summary This table compares the treatment of Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) in the regulatory environment across various states and regions. It outlines different screening tests, adders, and programs used to evaluate NEBs, such as those in Iowa, Colorado, Oregon, and New York, highlighting variations in criteria like low-income considerations and environmental impacts.
The Colorado Case Study Two main factors led to Colorado's 2008 decision to adopt an NEB adder for electric and low-income electric programs: evidence from research and the engagement of interveners. Evidence in research contributed greatl...
AI summary Colorado's 2008 decision to adopt an NEB adder for electric and low-income programs was driven by research evidence and interverner support. The Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) incorporated an NEB adder into a modified Total Resource Cost Test (TRC). Proxy values (e.g., 10% for electric programs) were mandated for cost-effectiveness analyses, with special consideration for low-income programs using a Utility Cost Test (UCT) if TRC fell below 1.0.
Beyond Energy Savings?
AI summary The document text is a chunk from a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding document titled 'Beyond Energy Savings?' containing only image placeholders. No substantive content or analysis is provided in the text, making it impossible to extract detailed arguments, topics, or cross-references.
Quantification - Computational - Participant Surveys - Statistical Analysis of Revealed Preferences - Existing Research-other jurisdictions - Percent Adder
AI summary The document outlines quantification methods including computational analysis, participant surveys, statistical analysis of revealed preferences, existing research from other jurisdictions, and the use of a percent adder. These approaches aim to evaluate demand-side management and energy efficiency programs.
17 A list of Canadian jurisdictions that account for NEBs can be found in the chart below: Province Primary CE Test Secondary CE Test NEB Adder Description Description source British TRC - 15% In accordance with the DSM 2018_07_11 BC Colum...
AI summary The text presents a table listing Canadian jurisdictions that account for non-energy benefits (NEBs) in their cost-effectiveness (CE) tests, including primary and secondary CE tests, NEB adders, and descriptions. It includes information from British Columbia, Manitoba, and Ontario, with details on how each province values NEBs and the sources of the descriptions.
NON-CONFIDENTIAL Request IR-05: Ref: Attachment 4. (a) Please confirm if average home energy use was adjusted for by VEIC in its report and, if not, why not? (b) What is the difference in the average home energy use in Massachusetts compar...
AI summary VEIC did not adjust average home energy use in its report as it was not tied to specific NEBs analyzed. Massachusetts vs. Nova Scotia comparisons were deemed irrelevant to VEIC's research. U.S. and Canadian per capita residential electricity use is comparable.
BRITISH COLUMBIA - Regulations pursuant to Utilities Commission Act[9](#page-50-1) , R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 473, s. 1 establish explicit - cost-effectiveness testing guidelines, which includes the application of the total resource cost - test[1...
AI summary British Columbia's Utilities Commission Act establishes explicit cost-effectiveness guidelines requiring the use of the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test. The Commission must assess demand-side measures using avoided electricity and natural gas costs, aligning with long-run marginal costs for clean/renewable energy. Regulations under the Act and the Demand-Side Measures Regulations (BC Reg 326/2008) are cited.
NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 d) Massachusetts researchers used a number of methods to develop NEB recommendations. 2 Those included literature reviews, creating algorithms derived from the literature, creating 3 algorithms based on Massachusetts Pro...
AI summary Massachusetts researchers developed NEB recommendations using literature reviews, algorithms from the literature, data from the Massachusetts Program Administrator, participant surveys, and TRM reports. Reference is made to EfficiencyOne's response to NSPI IR-02 b).
E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Power Incorporated Information Requests 1 Request IR-24: 2 3 Ref: Application, page 4, lines 26-30. 4 5 E1 states that: 6 7 "The membership of the DSMAG agreed that a NEBs quantification 8 methodology that balan...
AI summary E1 (Nova Scotia Power Incorporated) responds to a request for materials used by members of the DSMAG regarding the NEB quantification methodology. The majority preferred a measure-based approach, while a minority supported a multiplier-based approach. EfficiencyOne provided presentation and stakeholder response materials as attachments.
1 List of Terms, Definitions, Symbols, and Acronyms Terms, Symbols, Acronyms Definition / Description AT Atlantic Time (standard/daylight savings time as applicable) DSM Demand-Side Management DSMAG DSM Advisory Group EfficiencyOne The fra...
AI summary This section provides a list of terms, definitions, and acronyms used in the proceeding, including definitions for Demand-Side Management (DSM), the DSM Advisory Group (DSMAG), and other relevant terms such as Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) and Total Resource Cost (TRC).
EfficiencyOne provides electricity efficiency and conservation activities to residential, commercial and industrial clients within Nova Scotia through the provincial franchise, Efficiency Nova Scotia. Like many Demand-Side Management (DSM)...
AI summary EfficiencyOne, the administrator of Efficiency Nova Scotia, relies on the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test for approving Demand-Side Management (DSM) programs. The TRC test currently includes avoided capacity and energy costs, but stakeholders are debating how to better quantify non-energy benefits (NEBs) to improve the test. The DSM Advisory Group (DSMAG) is exploring methods to refine the TRC test for future regulatory approval.
4 Scope of Work EfficiencyOne would like to quantify the NEBs of its efficiency measures in a simplified manner. Through consultation with the DSMAG, the rationale for this preference is based on more expeditious and cost-efficient impleme...
AI summary EfficiencyOne seeks to quantify Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) of its efficiency measures using simplified methods, preferring adaptation of Massachusetts research. The approach requires measure-specific factors (percentages, per unit, or per kWh) and consideration of jurisdictional differences. Attachments provide resource plans and Massachusetts studies for reference.
4.3 Performance Requirements & Project Schedule: - Vendor must have at minimum one representative available throughout the project duration to serve as a point of contact for EfficiencyOne, with a maximum communication service standard of...
AI summary The vendor is required to have a representative available throughout the project to serve as a point of contact for EfficiencyOne, with a communication service standard of no more than two business days.
For each due date or closing date below, the deadline is 4:00 pm AT . These dates are subject to change at EfficiencyOne's sole discretion. RFP Activity / Milestone Date (2017) Request for quote date of issue May 1 Question period (open –...
AI summary The document outlines key dates and deadlines for a Request for Quotes (RFQ) process, with all deadlines set for 4:00 pm Atlantic Time. The timeline includes the issue date of the RFQ, the question period, the submission deadline for quotes, and the anticipated date for the decision notice.
Responses will be evaluated according to the following evaluation Criteria: Evaluation Criteria Weight Understanding of Scope of Work / Proposed Methodology 30% Proponent's History/Experience Delivering Similar Projects 10% Budget/Pricing/...
AI summary The evaluation criteria for responses to a request for quotes include understanding of the scope of work, proponent's experience, budget and value, innovation, and contributions to the energy efficiency industry and local economy.
b) Measures were considered "very similar" or the "same technology type" if they represented the same end use and customer application type as the measure offered by Nova Scotia programs and were thus likely to impart similar types of cust...
AI summary The text discusses criteria for evaluating measures in Nova Scotia's demand-side management (DSM) programs, including the consideration of similar technologies and the handling of measures with potential proxy identification. It also references responses to information requests from Nova Scotia Power Incorporated.
15 TRC Test Analysis Measure Name Target TRC TRC TRC Market Calculatio With % n NEBs Chang e BNI - Efficient Product Rebates Zero Energy Doors for Reach-In Coolers and Retail 1.48 1.48 0% Freezers Zero Energy Doors for Reach-In Coolers and...
AI summary The text presents a TRC Test Analysis for the BNI - Efficient Product Rebates program, specifically for Zero Energy Doors for Reach-In Coolers and Freezers across different markets. The analysis shows no change in TRC with the inclusion of Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs).
E-10-(i)Book of Authorities
100 passages
SECONDARY SOURCES - 9. Hansard, Sixty First General Assembly, First Session: October 27, 2009, pp. 1807-1816 - 10. Nova Scotia Utility & Review Board Order M08604, Re: EfficiencyOne Application for Approval of 2019 DSM Plan - 11. Public Se...
AI summary The document lists secondary sources relevant to a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding, including a 2009 Hansard excerpt, an NSUARB order approving EfficiencyOne's 2019 DSM plan, and a 2015 Maryland Public Service Commission order. These sources provide context for the proceeding's analysis.
IN THE MATTER OF THE EFFICIENCY NOVA SCOTIA CORPORATION ACT - and- IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION by EFFICIENCY NOVA SCOTIA CORPORATION for Approval of its Electricity Demand Side Management Plan for 2012 BEFORE: Peter W. Gurnham, a.c., C...
AI summary Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation sought approval for its 2012 Electricity Demand Side Management Plan. The NSUARB heard applications from multiple stakeholders, including Nova Scotia Power Inc., municipalities, and environmental groups. The board approved the application and directed future filings. Key participants included legal counsel, consultants, and regulatory bodies.
- [1] What initiatives should be taken to encourage electricity consumers in Nova Scotia to conserve and efficiently use electrical energy? How should such initiatives be paid for? Who should pay for them? How should the savings be measure...
AI summary The text discusses the importance of demand-side management (DSM) in Nova Scotia, emphasizing its role in reducing electricity consumption, delaying infrastructure costs, and supporting environmental goals. It highlights the need for careful planning and analysis to ensure DSM initiatives are effective and affordable for consumers.
[11 ] The relevant provisions of the ENSC Act are: - 2 The purpose of this Act is to - (a) establish an administrator to manage electricity demand-side management programs in the Province; - (b) establish a fund to be used to defray the co...
AI summary The ENSC Act establishes an administrator for electricity demand-side management programs, creates a fund for related costs, and mandates regulatory oversight. The Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation (ENSC) operates not-for-profit, focusing on demand-side management and energy efficiency. Definitions include 'public utility' (e.g., Nova Scotia Power) and 'Review Board' (NSUARB).
3.0 EVALUATION AND VERIFICATION OF 2010 DSM PLAN
AI summary This section outlines the evaluation and verification process of the 2010 Demand-Side Management (DSM) Plan by the Nova Scotia Utility & Review Board (NSUARB), involving entities such as Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI) and Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation (ENS). Key stakeholders include the Nova Scotia Department of Energy (NSDOE) and the Consumer Advocate (CA).
3.1 Evaluation Report and Savings Verification Study - [17] ENSC reported in its Application (Exhibit E-1, pp. 8-9) that in 2010 the DSM energy savings results had exceeded the target (84.79 GWh v. 81.13 GWh). The demand savings results we...
AI summary The 2010 DSM energy savings targets were exceeded by 5%, while demand savings were 98% of the target. The Efficient Products - Residential program exceeded its target by 153%, but other programs like the Low Income Households and Business Energy Rebates fell short. NMR's evaluation highlighted data quality and accessibility challenges, and the Board commissioned an SVS to review the savings data.
[25] The SVS contains two basic findings: Finding 1: All of the 2010 DSM programs were competently administered by the DSM Administrator. This finding is based on the NMR evaluations, our review of program documentation and tracking databa...
AI summary The SVS identifies two key findings regarding the 2010 DSM programs. First, they were competently administered, but improvements are suggested, particularly in internal control and addressing free-ridership. Second, the NMR evaluations were generally conducted within accepted frameworks, though some adjustments are recommended, including more electrical measurement and a socket study.
[26] The SVS recommended acceptance of: ... the NMR evaluation results for ... 2010, except for a ten percent (10%) cut for Efficient Products-Direct Install. .. [Exhibit E-3, p. 6] - [27] Additional recommendations were made in the SVS fo...
AI summary The SVS recommended accepting NMR's 2010 evaluation results except for a 10% reduction for Efficient Products-Direct Install. It also proposed method improvements, with Dr. Peach emphasizing methodology concerns over results and praising DSM program execution by Nova Scotia Power and the new administrator.
3.1.1 Findings [38] As pointed out by the CA in examination of both the ENSC panel and Dr. Peach, the evaluation and verification of the DSM program and results are of critical importance to ratepayers. It is the means by which ratepayers...
AI summary The Board emphasizes the importance of evaluating DSM programs to ensure ratepayer investments are prudent. It accepts the 2010 DSM Plan evaluation with a 10% reduction for the Efficient Products-Direct Install program. The Province endorses SVS recommendations, and ENSC must respond by July 31, 2011. An audit is deferred until the 2013 DSM Plan application.
4.0 PROPOSED 2012 DSM PLAN
AI summary The document outlines the proposed 2012 Demand-Side Management (DSM) plan, involving regulatory entities and stakeholders in Nova Scotia. Key organizations and legal references are listed, though specific plan details are not provided in the excerpt.
4.1 Proposed Plan [43] In its direct evidence, ENSC described the programs proposed for the 2012 DSM Plan: Programs for the proposed 2012 DSM Plan are separated into three categories: - Residential Programs, which include four components:...
AI summary ENSC outlined the 2012 DSM Plan, which includes residential, commercial/industrial, and enabling strategy components. The plan aims to meet energy saving targets set in previous IRPs, with new features such as programs for renters, low-income households, and innovative financing options.
Figure 4.2 Cumulative Savings Targets and Results 2008-2012 Year IRP Target Result IRP Target Result (GWh) (GWh) (MW) (MW) 2008 16 21 a 2 5 a 2009 66 86ª 9 15 a 2010 149 171 b 26 31 b 2011 295 329° 57 62 c 2012 500 543 d 101 100 d a verifi...
AI summary Figure 4.2 presents cumulative savings targets and results from 2008 to 2012, showing that actual results exceeded targets in most years, with some years marked as verified results.
4.2 Level of Spending [51 ] In section 6.2 of its evidence, ENSC identified the guiding principles observed in preparing the 2012 DSM Plan. The first two state: Meet IRP Targets: ENSC's primary goal is to meet IRP targets as a whole, both...
AI summary ENSC outlines the guiding principles for the 2012 DSM Plan, emphasizing meeting IRP targets and minimizing program costs. Figures 4.1 and 4.2 from the evidence illustrate DSM targets and cumulative savings results from 2008 to 2012.
[57] Further, Mr. Whalen recommends: ... that ENSC adjust its plan to provide energy savings from its programs that are at least equal to the 2011 plan. Such an approach sustains the momentum of the 2011 plan and makes the achievement of t...
AI summary Mr. Whalen recommends ENSC adjust its energy savings plan to match the 2011 target, increasing 2012 spending to $53.4 million. This would yield incremental savings of 158.6 GWh and 29.4 MW, ensuring achievable 2013 targets without over-achievement. He argues maintaining the 2011 level avoids reducing effort and aligns with economic feasibility.
[65] In its Closing Submission of May 13, 2011, ENSC stated: With respect to the proposed budget for the 2012 DSM Plan of $43.7M - a modest increase over the 2011 DSM Plan budget of $41.9M - ENSC submits that there is insufficient evidence...
AI summary ENSC argues against increasing the 2012 DSM Plan budget from $43.7M to $53.4M or $58M, citing insufficient evidence and rationale for further increases, especially given that the 2012 plan already exceeds energy savings targets from the 2009 IRP Update. ENSC acknowledges concerns but maintains that the Board should evaluate whether increasing the budget is justified.
[70] In its Reply Submission, EAC supported increased levels of DSM savings: In the past, Nova Scotian stakeholders have agreed that DSM is the better ratepayer option to pursue, not only because it offered the least cost procurement optio...
AI summary EAC advocates for increased DSM savings, citing past stakeholder consensus on DSM's cost-effectiveness compared to supply options and its benefits in reducing fuel and capacity costs for NSPI. EAC recommends approving a higher DSM budget based on proposals by consultant Mel Whalen and others.
4.2.1 Findings - [71] The Board understands that the targets for energy and demand savings are considered to be aggressive when compared to other jurisdictions; however, these targets and associated investments were established early in th...
AI summary The Board acknowledges the aggressive DSM targets set in the IRP and notes that NSPI exceeded them. ENSC, as the new administrator, finds the targets challenging but achievable. The Board supports including savings from non-program funded initiatives and approves the 2012 DSM investment of $43.7 million.
4.3 Cost Allocation [76] Avon recommended the Board reduce the costs directly assigned to the large industrial class from $1.473 Million to $1.01 Million. In its Closing Submission Avon stated: The 2012 program costs that have been assigne...
AI summary Avon recommended reducing costs assigned to large industrial customers, citing a lack of evidence supporting their participation in efficiency programs. The Consumer Advocate argued that cost allocation for enabling strategies was inequitable, as residential ratepayers bore a disproportionate share of the costs despite limited access to DSM spending.
4.3.1 Findings [78] With respect to the submission of the CA, the current cost allocation was the subject matter of a Settlement Agreement in the 2010 DSM proceeding. That Settlement Agreement, approved by the Board, calls for a review of...
AI summary The NSUARB rejected ad hoc changes to cost allocation for the 2012 DSM Plan, citing a 2010 Settlement Agreement requiring a 2013 review. The Board deferred to the Administrator's allocations and noted a true-up mechanism to address Avon's concerns. The CA's submission emphasized adherence to the Settlement Agreement.
4.4 Bill Impacts [79] In his direct evidence on behalf of Board Counsel, Mr. Woolf discussed the need to establish key principles regarding how to quantify bill and rate impacts due to increasing DSM budgets in order that these rate and bi...
AI summary The document outlines principles for quantifying bill and rate impacts from increased DSM budgets, emphasizing analysis of program participant and non-participant effects, long-term impacts, and cost-benefit considerations. The Province recommends ENSC collaborate with NSPI and PWDG to refine DSM plan filings, which ENSC agrees to.
4.4.1 Findings [81] The Board is persuaded that there is a need to have better information on rate and bill impacts in future proceedings and directs ENSC to undertake the necessary consultation with a view to providing enhanced informatio...
AI summary The Board mandates ENSC to improve transparency on rate and bill impacts through consultation, aligning with Mr. Woolf's recommendations for the 2013 DSM Plan. This emphasizes the need for enhanced data in future regulatory proceedings.
5.1 Total Resource Cost ("TRC") [82] ENSC's application proposes to use the TRC test at the program level and not at the measure level starting in 2012: ENSC is proposing that the TRC test for the 2012 DSM Plan be applied at the program le...
AI summary ENSC proposes applying the TRC test at the program level for the 2012 DSM Plan, allowing consideration of strategic benefits beyond TRC. The CA and Province support this approach, while EAC highlights TRC's limitations in quantifying non-energy benefits. Programs in 2012 show TRC values above 1.0, indicating cost-effectiveness.
5.2 Free Ridership and Spillover - [89] The Board in its Decision on the 2011 DSM Plan considered free ridership and spillover and directed that: - [31] The Board has reviewed the recommendations of a number of the parties and agrees that...
AI summary The Board directed ENS to study free ridership and spillover in the 2011 DSM Plan. NMR evaluated these factors using net-to-gross ratios and survey results, with findings presented in Table 2-1 and detailed in individual program reports.
5.2.1 Findings [96] The Board has considered the evidence filed by the parties and agrees that a free ridership and spillover study, as ordered by the Board in its Decision on the 2011 DSM Plan, is required. In its Closing Submission, ENSC...
AI summary The NSUARB requires ENSC to complete a free ridership and spillover study by December 15, 2011, as mandated by the 2011 DSM Plan decision. ENSC agreed to conduct the study, which was ordered by the Board.
5.3 Pilot Programs [97] ENSC's Application included three pilot projects: Residential Fuel Substitution; Clean Nova Scotia Green School; and Nova Scotia Home Builders Association Eco Home. [98] The Dunsky report explained the development a...
AI summary ENSC's Application includes three pilot programs: Residential Fuel Substitution, Clean Nova Scotia Green School, and Eco Home. Each pilot outlines implementation strategies, eligibility criteria, and expected outcomes. The Green Schools Pilot aims to reduce energy use by 10% to 15% and requires support from school administrations. The Eco Home Pilot is in the build phase and offers up to $100,000 in incentives for energy-efficient construction.
5.3.1 Findings [101] The Board has considered the three pilot projects proposed by ENSC. There appears to be general support for these projects with which the Board agrees. [102] The Board expects ENSC to implement these projects in 2011 a...
AI summary The NSUARB supports ENSC's three pilot projects, expecting their 2011 implementation and future progress reports. The Board aligns with general stakeholder support for these initiatives.
5.4 Reporting of Energy and Demand Savings [103] The Application notes that the proposed target for the 2012 DSM Plan includes savings for ELI projects of 80 GWh in energy and 12 MW in demand. The proposed savings from the adoption of ener...
AI summary The Application proposes 2012 DSM Plan targets including 80 GWh energy and 12 MW demand savings from ELI projects, plus 10 GWh and 2.7 MW from energy codes. ENSC reports savings from ELI and code adoption, expanding beyond previous customer-funded DSM programs to align with the 2009 IRP Update.
5.1.1 Extra-Large Industrial Projects ELI customers completed efficiency projects in 2009 and 2010. The resulting energy and demand savings contribute to the IRP targets and are reported in this filing because they are incremental to custo...
AI summary ELI customers completed efficiency projects in 2009-2010, contributing 80 GWh and 12 MW in energy/demand savings to IRP targets. These conservative estimates, based on third-party investigations for ENSC, will be evaluated in 2011, with variances reported in the 2013 DSM Plan.
5.1.2 Adoption of Energy-Efficiency Codes and Standards In this filing, ENSC has reported energy savings attributed to the adoption of codes and standards from two sources: a new residential energy code and a new federal standard for gener...
AI summary ENSC reports energy savings from new residential codes and federal lamp standards in 2012, excluding NSPI initiatives in the 2012 DSM Plan but planning to include them in 2013. ENSC proposes adopting T-8 lighting standards and a national commercial energy code, citing incremental load forecast impacts from the 2009 IRP Update.
[107] Mr. Foote, in his direct evidence, stated that: Any discussion of whether to include non-program standards and at what level should not distract the UARB and stakeholders from the main purpose of this process which is to ensure spend...
AI summary Mr. Foote argues that non-program savings should be considered to justify ENSC's spending and meet energy demand and environmental targets. EAC opposes non-program savings due to DSM planning uncertainties, while Mr. Whalen and Mr. Woolf support ENSC's estimates and inclusion of industrial savings in the 2012 Plan.
[111] NPB in its Closing Submission stated that: None of the various consultants who filed testimony in this proceeding were opposed to the inclusion of energy efficiency savings from codes and standards and ELI projects, and the Board's v...
AI summary NPB argues that consultants and Dr. Peach support including energy efficiency savings from codes, ELI projects, and verification. They request the Board confirm ENSC can include these savings beyond IRP forecasts in DSM plans.
[112] ENSC, in its Reply Submission, further added: Keeping in mind that such additional savings from the ELI sector and Codes & Standards are inherently conservative, ENSC contends that the proposed 2012 DSM Plan providing overall cumulat...
AI summary ENSC argues that the 2012 DSM Plan with 233 GWh savings and $43.7M investment is reasonable, balancing stakeholder interests and cost-effective programs. Avon supports the current budget and recommends confirming the inclusion of non-program savings.
5.4.1 Findings [114] The Board has considered the issue of including non-program savings in the overall cumulative savings planned for 2012. ENSC is proposing to include savings from work already undertaken by the ELI customers and expecte...
AI summary The NSUARB approved ENSC's proposed 2012 savings targets, which include non-program contributions from ELI customers and code/standard changes. ENSC confirmed conservative estimates and assured meeting targets without code savings, despite implementation delays.
5.5 Integrated Multi-Fuels Mandate [117] ENSC noted that the Province is in the process of changing its mandate and future responsibilities: With the expectation that ENSC will obtain a multi-fuels mandate in time for integration with 2012...
AI summary ENSC is transitioning to an integrated multi-fuels mandate to streamline programs, avoid cross-subsidization, and align with 2012 DSM initiatives. Concerns include overlapping DSM administrators, cost allocation for shared services, and preventing electricity ratepayer subsidization of non-electricity users. ENSC plans to submit its reorganization plan for Board approval in 2011.
[123] The Province, in its Closing Submission, noted that: NSDOE recommends that the Board direct ENSC to develop a clear methodology for tracking costs associated with electricity DSM program and energy efficiency programs related to the...
AI summary The Province, citing NSDOE recommendations, urges the Board to direct ENSC to create a methodology for tracking costs of electricity DSM and multi-fuel efficiency programs. It also requests a code of conduct to track time spent on these matters to prevent ratepayer subsidization of non-electricity fuel programs.
5.6 Multi Year Performance Based Model ("PBM") [127] ENSC seeks Board approval to engage stakeholders to assess the use of a Performance Based Model ("PBM") for future submissions to the Board. ENSC stated that: Under such a multi-year, pe...
AI summary ENSC requests approval to assess a Multi-Year Performance Based Model (PBM) for future submissions, shifting oversight from preapproving annual DSM plans to evaluating overall investments and savings targets. The current framework uses TRC tests for individual measures, whereas PBM emphasizes post-approval performance validation.
[128] The Dunsky report noted that: The move to a performance-based model would provide ENSC with increased flexibility to adjust and adapt its plans as needed, as situations arise and as feedback comes in. Furthermore, an oversight model...
AI summary The Dunsky report supports ENSC's shift to a performance-based model (PBM) for DSM programs, citing flexibility and reduced regulatory burden. The Province and EAC endorse PBM discussions, while Board Counsel questions the need for Board approval for stakeholder consultation. ENSC seeks Board approval to explore PBM implementation, emphasizing cost recovery and program flexibility.
6.0 ROLE OF PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT WORKING GROUP [136] On March 5, 2008, NSPI and most of the Intervenors in the 2009 DSM proceeding signed a Settlement Agreement ("SA") and filed that agreement with the Board as part of an amended DSM Plan....
AI summary The Program Development Working Group (PDWG) was established under a 2008 Settlement Agreement to assist with program design and implementation, including performance measures for the new administrator, ENSC. The Board approved its continuation until ENSC became fully functional in late 2010, ensuring continuity during the transition. The PDWG included NSPI, Board staff, Conserve Nova Scotia, and stakeholders, with the goal of developing transparent processes and reporting to the UARB.
6.1 Findings [140] The Board recognizes the valuable contributions made by the PDWG while NSPI served as the interim DSM Administrator and also during the transition process from NSPI to ENSC as the new DSM Administrator. The Board accepts...
AI summary The NSUARB acknowledges PDWG's contributions during NSPI's interim DSM administration and the transition to ENSC. The Board accepts ENSC's proposal to retain PDWG's role while engaging broader stakeholders for potential changes, requiring ENSC to file results in its 2013 DSM Plan.
7.0 PROGRAM MONITORING [141] During the hearing, several comments were made regarding the aggressive DSM targets facing ENSC and its ability to meet these significant challenges. In his opening statement, Mr. Crandlemire said: Nova Scotian...
AI summary The text discusses ENSC's challenges in meeting aggressive DSM targets, highlighting their efforts with a 45-person staff to achieve 234-million kWh savings. Mr. Crandlemire's statement emphasizes their commitment, referencing Exhibit E-20.
[142] In response to questions from EAC, Mr. Crandlemire stated: In terms of level of effort on DSM, the 2011 targets are approximately double the 2010 targets. I can assure you that Efficiency Nova Scotia has got its foot on the gas pedal...
AI summary Mr. Crandlemire emphasized that 2011 DSM (Demand-Side Management) targets are double the 2010 targets, and Efficiency Nova Scotia is fully committed to meeting them with increased efforts.
[143] Board Counsel questioned ENSC on whether the targets were achievable: MR. OUTHOUSE: I guess, Mr. Faulkner, going forward these numbers on the face of them give me some concern that you can achieve the targets that you have projected...
AI summary Board Counsel questioned ENSC about the achievability of projected targets, expressing concern over whether the costs align with expected savings. ENSC's representative affirmed confidence in meeting targets, citing past efforts and current strategies, though acknowledging the challenges involved.
Whalen: MR. FOREMAN: In fairness the evidence that Mr. Crandlemire gave yesterday also clearly indicated, with respect to that foot on the pedal analogy, that they do have - or from his perspective, from Efficiency's perspective, they have...
AI summary The Consumer Advocate (CA) raised concerns about Efficiency Nova Scotia's (ENS) 2012 budget increase and its operational readiness, noting a 100% budget jump from 2010 and ENS being a new entity. ENS claims full commitment to meeting 2011 challenges.
[146] A similar point was raised by NPB in its Closing Submission: The administration of DSM has recently been transferred to ENSC, and 2011 will be its first full year of operation. Matters with respect to its organization, such as a form...
AI summary NPB noted in its Closing Submission that DSM administration was transferred to ENSC, which will operate in 2011 for the first full year. Protocols for segregating electricity and non-electricity costs are still under development.
9.0 SUMMARY OF BOARD FINDINGS [153] The Board accepts the 2010 DSM Plan evaluation and verification, with the qualification made in the SVS for a 10% reduction for the Efficient Products-Direct Install program. [154] The Board understands...
AI summary The Board accepts the 2010 DSM Plan evaluation, approves the 2012 DSM investment, and sets conditions for ENSC, including data system improvements, quarterly progress reviews, and policy development. It also approves changes to the TRC test and requires studies on free ridership and spillover effects.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT - and - IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION for Approval of a Supply Agreement for electricity efficiency and conservation activities between EfficiencyOne and Nova Scotia Power Incorporated, the estab...
AI summary The document outlines an application by EfficiencyOne and Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI) for approval of a supply agreement for electricity efficiency and conservation activities, and the establishment of a 2016-2018 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan, before the Nova Scotia Utility & Review Board (NSUARB).
2.0 BACKGROUND - [6] The Board considers it useful to set out some of the background of DSM in Nova Scotia to provide some context for this Decision. - [7] For a number of years prior to 2010, NSPI included requests for approval of spendin...
AI summary The document outlines the transition of DSM programming in Nova Scotia from NSPI to ENSC under the ENSC Act, requiring Board oversight. ENSC administered DSM programs post-2010, with regular Board approvals for spending and cost allocations. The 2014 EECR Act amended DSM frameworks by repealing the ENSC Act and modifying the PUA, redefining efficiency and conservation activities.
3.1 Evaluation Report of 2014 DSM Programs (Econoler) [28] As in the previous year, E1 engaged the services of Econoler Inc. ("Econoler") to conduct independent evaluations of the 2014 DSM programs. The Econoler team collaborated with two...
AI summary Econoler evaluated 2014 DSM programs, collaborating with Corporate Research and Equilibrium Engineering. The evaluation followed a rolling schedule from the 2012 Settlement Agreement, validating ENSC's tracked savings and ensuring consistency with prior evaluations.
3.2 Verification Report of 2014 DSM Programs (Peach) [38] As in previous years, the Board engaged the services of H. Gil Peach & Associates to conduct an independent verification of the 2014 evaluated DSM savings results. Dr. Peach filed h...
AI summary The Board engaged H. Gil Peach & Associates to verify 2014 DSM program savings, resulting in 20 recommendations. Seven programs exceeded energy savings targets, seven underperformed, and three had no targets. The report reviewed evaluation methods, data tracking, and conducted site visits to assess installation quality and compliance.
Q. Are you satisfied with the status of the 2013 verification and evaluation recommendations? A. Yes. In general, from year to year Econoler has been responsive to all recommendations in the Savings Verification study, either making small...
AI summary The respondent confirms satisfaction with the 2013 verification recommendations, noting Econoler and E1's responsiveness. The Board accepts this but directs E1 to update on 2014 recommendations and removes Home Energy Report savings from 2014 totals due to concerns. The Home Energy Report is excluded from the 2016-2018 DSM portfolio.
3.5 Proposed 2016-18 DSM Resource Plan
AI summary Section 3.5 outlines the proposed 2016-18 Demand-Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan, focusing on energy efficiency initiatives and cost estimates for implementation.
3.5.1 Program Development [56] E1's 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan, as modified by the Quantum Agreement, recommends DSM investments for the three year period of: - (1) $36.9 million in 2016, - (2) $37.8 million in 2017, - (3) $38.8 million i...
AI summary E1's 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan, modified by the Quantum Agreement, recommends total DSM investments of $113.5 million over three years. E1 argues that its plan is 38% less than the Mid-DSM level of the IRP and is consistent with past expenditures, ensuring affordability and cost-effectiveness for Nova Scotians.
3.5.2 Incentives [66] The Board, in its questioning of E1's witnesses, and NSPI and the Industrial Group in their submissions, expressed significant concerns over the manner in which incentives are determined by E1. It would appear from th...
AI summary The Board expressed concerns about E1's incentive structure, noting over 60% of the DSM budget is allocated to incentives. Expert testimony highlighted issues with incentive justification, with NSPI and the Industrial Group arguing that some incentives lack quantitative criteria and may be influenced by vested interests. Mr. Dunsky's testimony was preferred, but concerns about incentive reasonableness remained.
[69] Mr. Dunsky countered that argument as follows: Thank you. Just to explain a little bit more. So we do some of this work from time to time. We've done it for Efficiency Nova Scotia and others where we'll go out and, first of all, do pr...
AI summary Mr. Dunsky argues that market barriers, such as organizational silos in large chains, necessitate high incentives for energy efficiency programs. He cites examples like commercial kitchen equipment where payback periods are obscured by purchasing vs. operations divisions. E1 asserts incentive levels depend on factors like jurisdiction comparisons and historical market data.
3.5.2.1 Findings [71] The CA summarized his view of the purpose of a DSM program: The basic purpose is to reduce the level of energy required by Nova Scotia in the future, both short and long term. DSM programs are an integral component in...
AI summary The CA emphasizes the importance of DSM programs in reducing future energy needs and controlling costs. The Board criticizes the NSPI Plan for underfunding residential programs and not aligning with the IRP, while favoring the E1 Plan for better alignment with the PUA and historical spending levels, despite concerns about past under-spending and overachievement of targets.
3.5.3 Affordability [76] Having determined the parameters of a preferred plan, the Board is specifically directed by the 2014 amendments to the PUA to address the issue of affordability. The most relevant sections are Section 79L(8) and (9...
AI summary The NSUARB must address affordability under the 2014 PUA amendments, specifically Sections 79L(8) and (9), which require evaluating electricity efficiency programs' affordability for NSPI customers. Traditionally, the Board used the lowest long-term cost principle, but affordability is now a critical factor. The Board must assess whether the amendments alter DSM expenditure evaluations and if the proposed plan meets affordability criteria.
3.5.3.1 Findings [88] The Board notes that the DSM amount of $33,210,000, as set by the Board for 2016, is below DSM spending in each of the last four years. It is also an amount significantly below that recommended in the IRP, and the Boa...
AI summary The Board acknowledges that the DSM amount of $33.2 million for 2016 is below recent spending levels but considers it affordable under the PUA. The Board also notes that NSPI should be able to offset any potential revenue shortfall without a rate increase.
3.5.4 Relationship of the Proposed 2016-18 DSM Plan to the 2014 Integrated Resource Plan [94] During a 10-month period in 2014, NSPI developed a new IRP in collaboration with Board Staff and consultants, and in consultation with interested...
AI summary The 2016-18 DSM Plan is discussed in relation to the 2014 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), which aimed to balance supply and demand-side resources at the lowest long-term cost to ratepayers. The 'mid-DSM' scenario from the 2014 IRP projected higher energy savings and costs compared to the 2012-2014 DSM Plans, emphasizing the importance of DSM in achieving cost savings for ratepayers.
3.5.5 Cost Effectiveness Screening [99] Although the Board has not approved the Quantum Agreement, Section 7 contains a provision which states as follows: Through collaboration within the DSM Advisory Group the parties agree to work to ach...
AI summary The Board has not approved the Quantum Agreement but allows collaboration within the DSM Advisory Group to develop a consensus on methodology for future DSM research plans. The existing TRC methodology remains in place unless a compelling case is made to abandon it.
3.5.6 Avoided Cost Analysis [101] Synapse, in its evidence, indicated that rate impact analysis should account for all factors that impact rates either positively or negatively, which would include avoided costs that might exert downward p...
AI summary Synapse argues rate impact analysis must include avoided costs, such as environmental compliance. E1 and NSPI discuss locational DSM's potential to reduce transmission costs. The Board supports collaboration on locational avoided cost considerations.
3.6 Performance Targets, Indicators, and Thresholds [108] E1 proposed that the performance targets be cumulative annual energy and peak demand savings at the end of the three year period at the portfolio level and the performance indicator...
AI summary E1 proposed cumulative energy and peak demand savings targets over three years, with annual reporting of incremental and lifetime savings. A 90% threshold was set, with targets confirmed in the Quantum Agreement. The Board's reduction of DSM expenditures may impact these targets.
3.7.1 Findings [114] The Board is satisfied that the provisions of the Consensus Agreement adequately address the ability of E1 to make mid-course adjustments and allow sufficient flexibility at the program level. Limiting the 25% adjustme...
AI summary The Board approves the Consensus Agreement's provisions allowing E1 to make 25% mid-course adjustments at the program level, not sectors, to minimize customer class impacts. The Industrial Group's signatory status is noted, and the Board deems sector-level adjustments unnecessary due to E1's approach.
3.9.1 Findings [119] The Board understands that E1 is pursuing the input tax credits for past HST which it paid while delivering DSM services. The matter is currently before the Courts and the Board will await the decision before issuing d...
AI summary The Board acknowledges E1's pursuit of input tax credits for past HST paid during DSM service delivery. The matter is under court review, and the Board will await the court's decision before providing further directions. E1 must report to the Board once the court resolves the matter.
3.12 Establishment of a Standardized Filing for Future Applications to approve a DSM Supply Agreement [124] The Consensus Agreement proposed to establish a standardized filing for future applications by E1. The parties to the Consensus Agr...
AI summary The Consensus Agreement proposes a standardized filing for future DSM Supply Agreement applications by E1, including energy savings, cost-effectiveness analysis, and rate impact details. The DSM Advisory Group will review the proposal, and E1 agrees to provide technical data in future plans.
4.0 LETTERS OF COMMENT AND PUBLIC SPEAKERS [129] The Board received 37 letters of comment from various persons, who wrote individually or on behalf of organizations. With only two exceptions, all were supportive of E1 and maintaining the a...
AI summary The Board received 37 letters, mostly supporting E1's DSM plan, citing environmental, economic, and low-income benefits. Public speakers emphasized maintaining DSM programs and energy efficiency culture. One letter critiqued Dr. Peach's evidence, while concerns about industry capacity if spending decreases were raised.
5.0 SUMMARY OF BOARD FINDINGS [138] E1 applied to the Board for approval of its 2016-2018 DSM Plan, pursuant to s. 79J(3) of the PUA , as it was unable to reach agreement with NSPI on the terms of the Supply Agreement. E1 sought approval f...
AI summary E1 applied for approval of its 2016-2018 DSM Plan with a budget of $121.5 million, but the Board approved a reduced amount of $102.15 million after considering past underspending and overachievement of savings targets. The Quantum Agreement was not approved, and instead, the Board set a lower spending cap with no inflation increases.
2) DSM INVESTMENT LEVEL - a) The parties support a reduction in investment level for DSM activities over the 2016-2018 contract period from the proposed $121.5 million to $113.5 million as follows: - i) $36.9 million in 2016 - ii) $37.8 mi...
AI summary The parties agree to reduce the investment level for Demand-Side Management (DSM) activities during the 2016-2018 contract period from the proposed $121.5 million to $113.5 million, with specific allocations for each year.
3) EFFICIENCY ONE PERFORMANCE TARGETS a) EfficiencyOne's cumulative energy and demand savings targets shall be 405.9 GWh and 62.5 MW respectively, as set out in EfficiencyOne's 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan filing.
AI summary EfficiencyOne's 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan sets cumulative energy and demand savings targets of 405.9 GWh and 62.5 MW, respectively. These targets are central to the proceeding's discussion of performance metrics for energy efficiency programs.
4) 2016-2018 PROGRAMS a) The DSM programs in 2016-2018 will be as proposed in EfficiencyOne's 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan filing.
AI summary The 2016-2018 Demand-Side Management (DSM) programs are proposed to follow EfficiencyOne's 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan filing.
7) COST-EFFECTIVENESS TESTING a) Through collaboration within the DSM Advisory Group, the parties agree to work to achieve consensus as to the methodology and assumptions of the cost-effectiveness screening test to be applied to future DSM...
AI summary The parties agree through collaboration within the DSM Advisory Group to develop a consensus on methodology and assumptions for cost-effectiveness screening tests for future DSM Resource Plans.
1) ESTABLISHMENT OF A STANDARDIZED FILING FOR FUTURE APPLICATIONS TO APPROVE A DSM SUPPLY AGREEMENT - a) The Parties agree to the establishment of a standardized filing for future applications, the substance of which will be vetted through...
AI summary Parties agree to establish a standardized filing for future DSM supply agreements, including program descriptions, energy savings, cost-effectiveness analysis, and rate impact details. EfficiencyOne may add relevant information, with technical data provided in its Plan filing. The DSM Advisory Group will vet the template for Board approval.
3) PERFORMANCE TARGETS, INDICATORS AND THRESHOLDS - a) The parties agree to the following Performance Targets and Performance Indicators: - i) Performance Targets are set over the three-year contract period, rather than annually. - ii) Eff...
AI summary Parties agree to three-year performance targets for EfficiencyOne, requiring 90% achievement on two key metrics (cumulative energy and peak demand savings). Non-compliance triggers regulatory review. Indicators include energy savings, customer satisfaction, and rate impact analysis. Reporting by program and rate class is mandated.
4) COST ALLOCATION - a) The Parties agree to collaboratively work to develop new DSM cost allocation and DSM cost recovery models to be submitted by October 31, 2015 for approval or Decision by the Board, or within a reasonable period of t...
AI summary Parties agree to collaboratively develop DSM cost allocation and recovery models by October 31, 2015, for Board approval. Key items include 2015/2016-2018 DSM cost allocation, a 2014 rate-smoothing adjustment, and mid-course adjustments. Nova Scotia Power retains discretion to apply to the UARB regarding DSM cost accounting treatment.
6) RATE AND BILL IMPACT ANALYSIS - a) As with prior filings of its rate and bill impact analysis, EfficiencyOne agrees to develop, in consultation with the DSM Advisory Group, assumptions to its rate and bill impact analysis. This will inc...
AI summary EfficiencyOne agrees to collaborate with the DSM Advisory Group to develop rate and bill impact analyses, including fixed cost contributions, and will file historical analyses annually by October 31.
7) RESOLUTION PROCESS Year Report/ Process Filing Timeframe Inclusions 2015 2015 Q2 Report July/Aug Quarterly and YTD Highlights: o Comparison of targets, mid-course adjustments, and results (by program) YTD investment by rate class (compa...
AI summary The document outlines the resolution process for a regulatory proceeding, including quarterly reports and meetings with the Demand-Side Management Advisory Group (DSMAG). Reports provide updates on program performance, investment, and sector highlights, with meetings occurring at least three times per year following the filing of quarterly reports.
II BACKGROUND - [8] On June 12, 2017, E1 filed the Application seeking a Board Order compelling NSPI to provide the Customer Usage Data and the Names and Emails. - [9] The Board determined the Application should proceed by a paper hearing,...
AI summary E1 filed an application in 2017 seeking customer data from NSPI, leading to a paper hearing. The Board set a timeline, with interventions from CA, SBA, IG, and NSDOE. NSPI submitted evidence, and E1 rebutted. The text outlines legislative changes transferring DSM responsibilities from NSPI to ENSC and later to E1 under the PUA and ENSCA.
a) Evidence and Submissions - [25] E1 has established comprehensive energy efficiency campaigns which are not specifically targeted to individual customers. It says that as DSM markets mature, the opportunity to enhance readily available D...
AI summary E1 argues that non-targeted energy efficiency campaigns yield lower uptake and that mature DSM markets require tailored initiatives. Proposed strategies include customer segmentation, targeted marketing, and geotargeting to address specific consumption patterns and infrastructure needs, supported by evidence of reduced program success without direct customer engagement.
- (d) the object to be attained; - (e) the former law, including other enactments upon the same or similar subjects; - (f) the consequences of a particular interpretation; and - (g) the history of legislation on the subject. - [54] The mod...
AI summary The text discusses statutory interpretation principles, focusing on the purpose and scope of section 79 of the Public Utilities Act (PUA). It references a 2008 NSUARB proceeding where NSPI submitted a DSM plan, highlighting stakeholder concerns about NSPI's conflict of interest in administering DSM programs due to potential revenue reductions. The Board clarified its lack of jurisdiction to establish a DSM administration agency.
- (c) is required by law to be disclosed, but only to the extent so required. - (5) Information provided pursuant to this Section is subject to the same conditions on the transfer or disclosure to which it was subject when held by the fran...
AI summary The text outlines information disclosure requirements for franchise holders, emphasizing legal obligations, confidentiality conditions, and privilege preservation. It defines 'electricity efficiency and conservation activities' under Section 79A(b) and links these provisions to the 2014 PUA amendments, aiming to establish a cost-effective DSM service delivery model with measurable performance.
ii) Are the Names and Emails information respecting customer electricity and load? [70] Mindful of the more general principles of statutory interpretation discussed above, the Board will now address the specific interpretation issues relat...
AI summary The Board determines that Names and Emails are 'information respecting electricity usage and load' under the PUA, as they are necessary for E1 to deliver cost-effective DSM services. NSPI and SBA argue the data is unrelated to usage/load, but the Board emphasizes contextual interpretation tied to DSM's goal of altering end-user consumption patterns.
bmissions, the CA also commented on an aspect of NSPI's position: One comment from NSP caught the attention of the Consumer Advocate. It occurs at line 17, page 27 of NSP's submission where NSP says: The legislation does not require NS Pow...
AI summary The proceeding examines whether NSPI must share customer names/emails with E1 for effective DSM programs. NSP argues legislation doesn't mandate data sharing, while the CA and SBA emphasize privacy concerns, opposing data release without consent. SBA asserts names are irrelevant to electricity usage, highlighting potential privacy breaches.
Meaning of commercial electronic message - (2) For the purposes of this Act, a commercial electronic message is an electronic message that, having regard to the content of the message, the hyperlinks in the message to content on a website...
AI summary The document defines a commercial electronic message (CEM) under legislation, emphasizing its purpose to encourage commercial activities. E1's DSM service marketing via email is deemed CEMs under CASL, requiring recipient consent. CASL violations carry penalties and potential private rights of action for affected parties.
b) Analysis and Findings - [116] E1 submits the Customer Usage Data falls squarely within the ambit of s. 79K(1) of the PUA , in that it will provide it with customer electricity usage and load information for specific locations, on an ong...
AI summary E1 argues Customer Usage Data falls under PUA s. 79K(1) for DSM activities. NSPI agrees some data may fall under this section. The CA supports E1 but questions data necessity. SBA opposes releasing phone numbers due to privacy. The Board concludes most data is acceptable except phone numbers, which raise PIPEDA concerns.
IX SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION [136] E1 applied to the Board for an Order requiring NSPI to disclose Names and Emails, and Customer Usage Data, pursuant to s. 79K(1) of the PUA . [137] The Board has determined that the Names and Emails, and the...
AI summary E1 requested the Board to order NSPI to disclose customer data (names, emails, usage) under the PUA. The Board ruled this information is necessary for E1 to develop cost-effective DSM programs, citing its relevance to customer electricity usage and load analysis.
(The table of contents is not part of the statute) Section Domestic rate or charge in certain cases 73 Approval for issue of certain securities 74 75 Location of office and books 76 Use of equipment by another utility 77 Consent for erecti...
AI summary The text outlines various sections and regulations related to public utilities, including domestic rate regulations, franchise agreements, board supervision, and procedures for complaints and hearings. It includes sections on electricity efficiency, demand-side management, and the process for handling disputes and regulatory actions.
POWERS AND DUTIES OF PUBLIC UTILITIES
AI summary The document outlines the powers and duties of public utilities in Nova Scotia, referencing regulatory bodies like the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB) and legislation such as the Public Utilities Act (PUA). It highlights the role of entities like Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS) and Nova Scotia Power Incorporated (NSPI) in energy management and compliance.
ELECTRICITY EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION
AI summary The document pertains to regulatory proceedings concerning electricity efficiency and conservation in Nova Scotia, involving entities like Efficiency Nova Scotia, Nova Scotia Power, and regulatory bodies such as the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board. Key topics include demand-side management, integrated resource planning, and legislative frameworks like the Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Restructuring Act.
Electricity Demand-side Management Fund addressed 79T Notwithstanding Sections 28 to 30 of the Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation Act , any surplus or deficit relating to the Electricity Demand-side Management Fund established pursuant to...
AI summary The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (Board) has authority under the Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation Act (ENSC Act) to manage surpluses or deficits in the Electricity Demand-side Management Fund, overriding sections 28-30 of the Act. This provision was enacted in 2014, c. 5, s. 15.
- Let's not forget in all this that as much as this was a recommendation, as much as this makes sense to - go, that consumers will be paying for this on their electrical bill, starting January 1st . So electric bills - will rise on January...
AI summary The speaker highlights that electricity rates will increase starting January 1st due to the DSM charge, emphasizing that consumers, industrials, and businesses will bear the cost. They express concern about the government not adequately addressing the rate hikes and question the integration of Conserve Nova Scotia into Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT - and - IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION by EFFICIENCYONE for Approval of a Supply Agreement for Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Activities between EfficiencyOne and Nova Scotia Power Inc. a...
AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) seeks approval for a supply agreement with Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI) and its 2019 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan. The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (UARB) conducted a paper hearing, with intervenors including the Consumer Advocate, SBA, and Ecology Action Centre. Submissions and evidence were filed in June 2018.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: - 1. The Board approves a DSM Plan for 2019 in the amount of $34,050,000 with performance targets of 127.2 GWh in incremental annual net energy savings and 20.2 MW in incremental net annual peak demand savings. -...
AI summary The Board approves a 2019 DSM Plan with specific energy and demand savings targets, accepts a progress report, and directs updates to avoided costs and the RBIA. E1 is required to conduct a new DSM Potential Study and improve methodologies for GHG estimates and transparency in its processes. The Board also requests alternate DSM budget scenarios and compliance with filing frameworks.
Nova Scotia <§ An Emera Company Supply Agreement for Electricity Efficiency Conservation Activities and Between Scotia Power Incorporated Nova and EfficiencyOne - January Effective Date 2019 1, EFFICIENCYONE 2019 DSM FILING 1 Table of Cont...
AI summary The document is a 2019 DSM (Demand-Side Management) filing by EfficiencyOne, outlining a supply agreement with Scotia Power Incorporated under the Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Activities. The agreement includes terms related to interpretation, performance requirements, confidentiality, and dispute resolution.
EFFICIENCYONE 2019 DSM FILING 2019 Snpply Agreement 1 27. SURVIVAL 18 2 of List Schedules 3 4 Schedule "A": Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Activities 5 Schedule "B": Compensation 6 Schedule "C"; Performance Requirements 7 Schedule...
AI summary The text outlines the structure of a supply agreement related to EfficiencyOne's 2019 Demand-Side Management (DSM) filing, including schedules that detail electricity efficiency and conservation activities, compensation, performance requirements, and confidentiality agreements.
Supply Agreement 1 2 3 (i) references shall refer to calendar days unless Business Day to days (i) is specified, (ii) weeks months shall refer to calendar weeks months, and and to respectively, and (iii) years shall refer calendar years; 2...
AI summary The text outlines the terms of a supply agreement between EfficiencyOne and NSPI, specifying the duration of the agreement, which is one year from the Effective Date, and that it will automatically terminate on December 31, 2019, unless terminated earlier in accordance with the terms of the agreement and the Act.
Supply Agreement 1 2 (b) provide sufficient resources to enable EfficiencyOne to perform its obligations on time and in accordance with this Agreement; 13 4. PRICE E & PAYMENT
AI summary The text outlines a supply agreement that includes provisions for EfficiencyOne to perform its obligations on time and in accordance with the agreement. It also mentions a section on price and payment.
22 16. INSURANCE - 23 24 25 16.1 EfficiencyOne shall obtain, maintain and pay for, during the entire Term of this Agreement, the following minimum insurance coverage as follows, such insurance as it relates to this Agreement shall be in a...
AI summary EfficiencyOne is required to maintain specific insurance coverage during the term of the agreement, including general liability, environmental impairment, and automobile liability insurance, with specified limits and requirements. NSPI must be named as an additional insured, and the insurance must be in a form acceptable to NSPI.
- Executed and delivered this 6th day of April, 2018. Power Nova Scotia Incorporated By: Name: Title: Title: Chief Executive Officer 1 CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT SCHEDULE "A" to 2 3 UNDERTAKING 4 5 6 7 8 9 I AND , HAVE READ AGREE CONDITIONS...
AI summary This document contains a confidentiality agreement executed on April 6, 2018, and references multiple regulatory cases related to energy efficiency, conservation, and demand response programs under the Empower Maryland Energy Efficiency Act of 2008, including case numbers from 9153 to 9362.
& lt;sup>48 OPC Comments at 6, Chernick-14. & lt;sup>49 Staff Comments at 22. & lt;sup>50 Staff Comments at 22-23. & lt;sup>51 Id . same methodology be adopted here. 52 OPC took issue with the specific methodology used by Exeter to calcula...
AI summary The document discusses the debate over the methodology used to calculate Capacity DRIPE, with OPC criticizing Exeter's approach and suggesting an alternative from Synapse/Resource Insight. PE argues that DRIPE values are too uncertain for inclusion in cost-effectiveness analyses, while the Staff and others support the use of Exeter's methodology. The proceeding highlights concerns about the impact of DRIPE estimates on program evaluations and funding decisions.
B. Post-2015 Demand Reduction Goals Since 2009, the Utilities have collectively achieved 1,743 MW of demand reduction through implementation of EmPOWER Maryland programs, serving to mitigate capacity market prices and to offset critical wi...
AI summary The document discusses the challenges in setting post-2015 demand reduction goals, citing factors such as litigation, market saturation, and evolving customer engagement. It notes that while demand reduction has been successful, current conditions make it difficult to establish new targets immediately, though progress will be monitored.
Table 1: Forecasted Gross Savings from the Approved 2015 – 2017 Program Cycle Plans As a Percentage of 2013 Weather-Normalized Gross Retail Sales 2015 2016 2017 Utility A 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% Utility B 1.20% 1.25% 1.10% Utility B 1.30% 1.35%...
AI summary Following the Commission's Order, Utilities A and B must update their 2017 plans to include a 0.20% ramp-up rate, while Utility C's plan already reflects this rate and requires no changes.