Topic:"Energy And Regulatory Boards Act" in M12282

1 1. INTRODUCTION 2 The energy landscape in Nova Scotia is in a state of significant change. The ambitious emissions reductions 3 targets under both provincial and federal legislation are fueling a transition to integrating more renewable...

AI summary Nova Scotia's energy sector is undergoing transformation due to provincial and federal emissions targets, with the Energy Reform (2024) Act creating a new Energy Board to regulate sustainable development. The Total Resource Cost (TRC) test is central to evaluating EfficiencyOne's demand-side management (DSM) plans, aligning regulatory assessments with climate policy objectives.

1 6.2 CHANGES UNDER ENERGY REFORM ACT 2 The Energy Reform (2024) Act, SNS 2024, c 2, (“Energy Reform Act”) which was passed in early April 2024, 3 establishes two new statutes: 4 5 • The Energy and Regulatory Boards Act 6 • The More Access...

AI summary The Energy Reform (2024) Act introduces two new statutes, the Energy and Regulatory Boards Act and the More Access to Energy Act, and amends existing energy-related statutes such as the Electricity Act, Gas Distribution Act, and the Public Utilities Act. The Energy and Regulatory Boards Act expands the Energy Board's mandate to consider factors like competition, innovation, and sustainable development in regulatory decision-making.

rimary costs and the non-utility impacts (other fuel savings and GHG 13 emissions savings) become the primary benefits. Without their inclusion the testing cannot be conducted 14 appropriately. 15 16 6.4 LEGISLATIVE MANDATE TO CONSIDER HOS...

AI summary The text discusses the legislative mandate under the Energy and Regulatory Boards Act, which requires the Energy Board to consider sustainability-focused factors, including impacts on future generations, environmental stewardship, and social responsibility, in its regulatory decision-making.

(b) Confirmed. Please refer to EFG's Report[1](#page-23-0) 1 , Summary Table 1, page 12. 2 3 (c) Yes, with the above noted exception that the proposed Nova Scotia Jurisdictional Test 4 (NSJT) test will not address green jobs creation and s...

AI summary The document addresses the Nova Scotia Jurisdictional Test (NSJT) and its limitations in addressing green jobs creation and economic growth. EfficiencyOne (E1) argues that the Energy and Regulatory Boards Act supports considering sustainability and innovation objectives, which indirectly influence the benefit-cost analysis (BCA) test. The Energy Board is not explicitly mandated to assess job market or economic growth impacts.

nd c) proxy host customer non-energy benefits are estimated based on a set of proxy adders that were developed by EFG and reviewed with the Demand Side Management Advisory Group (DSMAG).[3](#page-4-1) Table 7 in the EFG Report[4](#page-4-2...

AI summary The document discusses how non-energy benefits for proxy host customers are estimated using proxy adders developed by EFG and reviewed by the DSMAG. It also references various Nova Scotia policies, regulations, and external guidance to support the inclusion of health impacts, avoided damages from greenhouse gas emissions, and host customer impacts in the BCA. Indirect benefits and costs are excluded from the BCA.

Is the E1 commentary a fair criticism of the TRC as previously applied in Nova Scotia? - Yes, from a principled perspective. In general, BCA should include all measurable and meaningful benefits - and costs at the proposed assessment scale...

AI summary The E1 commentary criticizes the TRC for excluding non-energy benefits, but the NSUARB previously limited jurisdiction to energy impacts per M08888. The new Energy and Regulatory Boards Act may permit non-energy considerations, though legal interpretation is pending. Technical challenges remain in revising TRC to meet updated requirements.

Q. Should the Nova Scotia Test include other fuels? A. Yes. There are several policies and energy goals that support the inclusion of other fuels, such as natural gas, fuel oil, propane, and gasoline and diesel for electric vehicles, in th...

AI summary The Nova Scotia Test should include other fuels like natural gas and propane to align with climate policies and electrification goals. The Climate Change Plan for Clean Growth and amended Public Utilities Act support this, emphasizing reduced heating oil use and strategic electrification. The Energy Reform Act and related legislation also expand regulatory considerations to include sustainable development and host customer impacts.

6 Q. Why did Efficiency One (E1) submit this Application at this time? - 7 A. E1 submitted this Application in response to a directive in the 2022 Decision issued by the 8 NSUARB that directed E1 to develop an optimal cost-effectiveness te...

AI summary Efficiency One (E1) submitted an application to the NSEB to replace the total resource cost (TRC) test with a benefit-cost analysis (BCA) test for assessing future DSM plans, citing changes in Nova Scotia legislation and regulations since the NSUARB's 2022 directive.

2025 M12282 NOVA SCOTIA ENERGY BOARD IN THE MATTER OF: The Public Utilities Act IN THE MATTER OF: An Application by EfficiencyOne for approval of a New Benefit- Cost Analysis Test for Evaluating Demand Side Management Plans RESPONSES TO IN...

AI summary EfficiencyOne seeks approval for a new benefit-cost analysis test for demand side management (DSM) plans. Bowman Economic Consulting Inc. and The Industrial Group respond to East Coast Environmental Law's inquiry about Nova Scotia's regulatory framework, noting that DSM analysis at the societal level is uncommon in Canada. The response references clause 6(2)(d) of the Energy and Regulatory Boards Act, which mandates consideration of sustainable development.

Response IR-1: - (a) Synapse considered the factors that the Energy Board must take into account when evaluating whether a DSM application is in the best interest of customers. See response to IR-1(b). - (b) Synapse's understanding is that...

AI summary Synapse evaluated factors for the Energy Board's DSM application, citing the Energy Reform Act and Energy and Regulatory Boards Act as expanding regulatory considerations to include sustainable development, prosperity, and GHG emission reductions.

3.1 Consumer Advocate [28] The Consumer Advocate is a signatory to the Consensus Agreement. The Consumer Advocate argues that recent amendments to the Public Utilities Act altered the criteria the Board is to apply in evaluating E1's propo...

AI summary The Consumer Advocate argues that amendments to the Public Utilities Act require the NSUARB to evaluate demand-side management at the portfolio level, incorporating sustainability and environmental factors. They support E1's BCA test over the PAC test, citing its alignment with policy goals like sustainable development and greenhouse gas reduction. The 2% social discount rate is preferred for long-term impacts, and the 10% proxy value for beneficial electrification is maintained.

impacts E1's programming and planning, is the addition of strategic electrification as part of the definition of DSM." It said the Public Utilities Act focus remained on reducing electricity costs. [37] The addition of strategic electrific...

AI summary The Industrial Group argues that adding strategic electrification to DSM under the Public Utilities Act should not expand the NSUARB's jurisdiction to consider non-energy benefits. It emphasizes the Act's focus on reducing electricity costs and maintains the Board's existing discretion in evaluating DSM plans. The Group also clarifies that 'sustainable development' considerations under the Energy and Regulatory Boards Act do not grant the Board authority over societal benefits.

3.4 Nova Scotia Power [48] NS Power does not support E1's proposed BCA test and recommends the Board approve the current TRC with two modifications which would consider, in the context of strategic electrification, GHG emissions reductions...

AI summary Nova Scotia Power opposes E1's proposed BCA test, advocating for TRC modifications to include GHG emissions reductions (net tonnage) and electricity cost reductions. It emphasizes that the Public Utilities Act mandates strategic electrification to reduce emissions and costs, arguing that the Board's core mandate is ensuring just and reasonable rates, not broader social considerations.

4.1.5 Statutory Changes [86] In the present case, E1 notes there have been significant statutory changes since the NSUARB's decision in 2020. E1 argues that changes to the Public Utilities Act and s. 6(2) of the Energy and Regulatory Board...

AI summary E1 highlights statutory changes to the Public Utilities Act and Energy and Regulatory Boards Act since 2020, requiring the NSUARB to evaluate non-energy impacts of demand-side management. The new definition of 'demand-side management' includes strategic electrification, and affordability requirements were removed from legislation previously considered in the 2020 NSUARB decision.

mandate to consider nonutility impacts in the assessment of cost-effectiveness and says that incorporating sustainability-focused factors into regulatory decision-making is now the law in Nova Scotia: As explained above, the Energy and Reg...

AI summary The Energy Reform Act and related legislation mandate the Energy Board to incorporate sustainability factors into regulatory decisions, including environmental impacts, energy efficiency, and green job creation. This shifts the focus from purely cost-effectiveness to broader sustainability goals, aligning with definitions of 'sustainable development' and 'sustainable prosperity'.

t override or alter the clear and specific language used. These considerations may guide the interpretation where ambiguity exists, but do not expand or redefine the statutory mandate of the utility." This submission overlooks the Board's...

AI summary The text discusses the Board's statutory mandate under the Energy and Regulatory Boards Act and Public Utilities Act , emphasizing that sustainable prosperity and development are not secondary objectives. E1 argues there is no statutory conflict between these acts, as the Public Utilities Act focuses on demand-side management evaluation, while other acts guide sustainability considerations.

osts. As noted already, strategic electrification may only be undertaken if, in addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it reduces electricity costs. This is explicitly stated in s. 79A(b)(iv). [130] While the NSUARB's 2020 decision...

AI summary The NSUARB discusses jurisdiction over demand-side management (DSM), emphasizing cost reduction under the Public Utilities Act (PUA). It references s. 79A(b)(iv) and s. 79I(1), noting the Legislature's focus on electricity cost reduction. The Board aligns with the Industrial Group and NS Power, affirming that cost reduction remains central despite broader considerations like sustainable development. A prior matter (M12171) is cited regarding economical energy supply obligations.

4.4.1 Findings [166] There is no ambiguity in s. 79H(2): the Board must evaluate the proposed cost-effective demand-side management at the portfolio level. As noted previously in this decision, the Board agrees with E1 that there is a diff...

AI summary The NSUARB mandates evaluation of cost-effective demand-side management (DSM) at the portfolio level, not individual measures. E1 must justify DSM measures failing primary cost-effectiveness tests and may use revised BCA tests with NS Power's WACC comparisons. The Board allows alternative tests if the overall portfolio passes, citing s. 6(2) of the Energy and Regulatory Boards Act.

5.0 SUMMARY OF BOARD FINDINGS [217] The Board finds it does not have the authority to approve E1's proposed BCA because the Public Utilities Act restricts the Board's ability to consider non-energy and societal benefits in assessing the co...

AI summary The Board cannot approve E1's proposed BCA due to Public Utilities Act restrictions on non-energy benefits. E1 must use PAC test and NS Power's WACC for DSM plan assessments. Strategic electrification must meet GHG and cost reduction criteria. Eastward is added to DSMAG. Portfolio-level evaluation allows overall cost-effective DSM plans despite individual measure failures.

Issued at Halifax, Nova Scotia on this 31st day of July, 2025. 1 Request IR-1 2 3 Refer to Exhibit E-14, "Pre-filed Testimony of Patrick Bowman", dated July 28, 2025 (revised), 4 at page 13, line 16: 5 6 "DSM analyzed at the societal level...

AI summary The document references a pre-filed testimony stating that analyzing Demand-side Management (DSM) at the societal level for regulator approvals is uncommon in Canada. It raises a question about whether other Canadian energy regulators have legislated responsibilities similar to those in Nova Scotia's Energy and Regulatory Boards Act, specifically regarding sustainable development and prosperity.

3.1 OVERVIEW OF RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS E1 is the franchise holder, granted the exclusive right to supply Nova Scotia Power Incorporated (NS Power) with reasonably available, cost-effective DSM pursuant to section 79A and following o...

AI summary This section outlines the statutory provisions relevant to demand-side management (DSM) in Nova Scotia, including the 2022 amendment to the Public Utilities Act and the 2024 Energy Reform Act . These amendments expanded E1's mandate and the Nova Scotia Energy Board's responsibilities to include sustainable development, climate goals, and the transition to an independent energy system operator.

Energy Reform (2024) Act , SNS 2024, April 2024, Part I: Energy and Regulatory Boards Act (Schedule A), Part II: More Access to Energy Act (Schedule B). 1 3 In this Act, […] 2 3 9 "sustainable development" has the same meaning as in the En...

AI summary The Energy Reform (2024) Act introduces new obligations for the Energy Board, requiring it to consider factors such as competition, innovation, sustainability, and reliability when approving rates and other matters. It aligns with the Environment Act and the Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act.

(b) the franchise holder granted a franchise pursuant to Section 79C of the Public Utilities Act; […] Thereby, these Acts together provide the Energy Board with the authority and direction to consider sustainable development and sustainabl...

AI summary The document outlines the legal framework empowering the Nova Scotia Energy Board to integrate climate and sustainability considerations into its decisions on demand-side management (DSM). This authority is rooted in statutory provisions such as the Energy and Regulatory Boards Act and the More Access to Energy Act, ensuring regulatory decisions align with provincial climate action objectives.

n and necessity for the enactment; (b) the circumstances existing at the time it was passed; (c) the mischief to be remedied; (d) the object to be attained; DATE FILED: October 14, 2025 Page 24 of 42 A portion of which is cited in Dow Chem...

AI summary The text discusses statutory interpretation principles, emphasizing context in analyzing laws like the Public Utilities Act . It references Supreme Court of Canada cases (Dow Chemical, Bell ExpressVu) and the Interpretation Act (RSNS 1989, c 235), highlighting the need to consider legislative history, mischief, and consequences of interpretations.

6.5.1 E1'S PROPOSED BCA Fourth, E1 submits that its Proposed BCA allows the Board to give appropriate consideration to the extent to which a cost-effectiveness test can support the goals (including sustainability goals) set out by the Legi...

AI summary E1 argues its proposed BCA aligns with legislative goals, unlike the IG's tests. The Energy Reform Act (2024) mandates cost-effectiveness considerations in Board decisions. Section 6(2) of the Energy and Regulatory Boards Act requires the Board to evaluate cost-effectiveness when approving rates or other matters.

-7-5"> … Through the development process for the 2027-2031 DSM Plan, E1 is exploring how to demonstrate reductions in electricity costs resulting from strategic electrification.[21](#page-7-4) On questioning by counsel for Eastward Energy,...

AI summary E1 faces criticism for failing to demonstrate electricity cost reductions in its 2027-2031 DSM Plan, despite anticipating a 2026 filing. The CA argues E1 prioritizes BCA justification over cost-effectiveness, ignoring its PUA mandate. ERBA's provisions are cited to support E1's rate approval claims, but concerns persist about misalignment with legislative priorities.

Negative implications of Broad interpretation When interpreting the PUA, this Board should recall Sullivan's third question: what are the consequences of adopting a proposed interpretation? Approving a broad ranging costeffectiveness test...

AI summary The document warns that a broad interpretation of the PUA's cost-effectiveness testing could undermine existing practices, expand E1's mandate beyond legislative intent, and misapply the social cost of carbon (SC-GHG) as a ratepayer tool. It emphasizes that SC-GHG, derived from federal guidelines, is intended for legislative cost-benefit analyses, not utility rate-making.

Inconsistency across DERs The Industrial Group takes no issue with the use of the National Standard Practice Manual (" NSPM ") for Distributed Energy Resources (" DERs" ) as a guiding framework in formulating an appropriate cost-effectiven...

AI summary The Industrial Group supports using the NSPM for DERs but highlights inconsistent application of its principles. Concerns include E1's proposed 2% discount rate, which is deemed too low and not aligned with standard practices. The need for non-green energy investments to meet net-zero goals is acknowledged, but the BCA's consistency across NSPI and IESO remains unexplored. The Industrial Group disputes the discount rate's justification and cites legislative gaps.

AVERAGE VERSUS MARGINAL EMISSIONS RATES On cross-examination Dr. Hill confirmed that the emissions rates that EFG used for the illustrative examples in the Application "were based on information from Nova Scotia Power and represented avera...

AI summary The document discusses the use of average versus marginal emissions rates in regulatory proceedings. EFG used average rates for illustrative examples, while E1 argued for marginal rates. Eastward emphasized that future generation sources (coal, fuel oil) justify marginal rates, contrasting with hybrid heating's high efficiency. Hybrid heating's impact on peak demand and electrification's upward pressure on peaks are noted.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABLE PROSPERITY CONSIDERATIONS Considerable weight has been given by E1 and EFG in this process to the recent addition of sustainable development and sustainable prosperity as a factor which the Board is...

AI summary E1 and EFG emphasized the Board's mandate under the Energy and Regulatory Boards Act to consider sustainable development and prosperity, defined via existing legislation like the Environment Act and Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act . These concepts require balancing economic growth, environmental stewardship, and social responsibility, with the Board's interpretation of 'appropriate consideration' remaining discretionary.

NOVA SCOTIA ENERGY BOARD IN THE MATTER OF: The Public Utilities Act, RSNS 1989, c 380, as amended – and – IN THE MATTER OF: An Application by EfficiencyOne for Approval of a New Benefit Cost Analysis Test for Evaluating Demand-side Managem...

AI summary East Coast Environmental Law submits a closing statement supporting EfficiencyOne's proposed new Benefit-Cost Analysis test for evaluating DSM plans, emphasizing the inclusion of avoided social costs of carbon and the Board's responsibility under the Energy and Regulatory Boards Act to consider non-energy impacts in cost-effectiveness testing.

The Board's responsibility to consider sustainable development and sustainable prosperity under the Energy and Regulatory Boards Act is set out in clause 6(2)(d), which states: In approving or fixing rates, tolls, charges, tariffs, capital...

AI summary The document outlines the Energy and Regulatory Boards Act's requirement for the Board to consider sustainable development and prosperity when approving rates and other matters. It also notes that these terms are not defined in the Act, requiring interpretation. The Act was established by the Energy Reform (2024) Act, which also created the More Access to Energy Act and amended other statutes.

The Energy and Regulatory Boards Act Bill 404 also created the Energy and Regulatory Boards Act which was proclaimed on April 5, 2025. Section 6(2) states: In approving or fixing rates, tolls, charges, tariffs, capital applications and all...

AI summary Bill 404 established the Energy and Regulatory Boards Act (ERBA), requiring the Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) to consider factors like competition, sustainability, and alignment with other legislation when approving energy-related matters. E1 argues that recent amendments (including MAEA and ERBA) expanded the Board's considerations, particularly for demand-side management (DSM), but failed to provide statutory analysis or contextualize proposed benefits.

6 a. The Legislative Context for this Application 8 This Application occurs in the context of recent legislative amendments, which have impacted 9 energy regulation in Nova Scotia. 11 Specifically, the Energy Reform Act (2024) , c 2, Bill...

AI summary The legislative context includes the Energy Reform Act (2024) and related statutes, establishing the Energy Board and emphasizing sustainable development, competition, and energy efficiency. Amendments to the PUA require evaluating demand-side management at the portfolio level, including strategic electrification.

to meet their own needs."[38](#page-9-2) 42 [ 37 ](#page-9-1) Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 at para 44. [ 38 ](#page-9-3) Environment Act , SNS 1994-95, c 1, s 3, (z) (aw). 39 41 43 2 The Environ...

AI summary The document references the Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act , which sets greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets, including 53% below 2005 levels by 2030 and net zero by 2050. It also notes that the Energy and Regulatory Boards Act requires the Board to consider these goals when making decisions.

13 Reply Submissions of the Consumer Advocate 14 15 Please accept these as the reply submissions on behalf of the Consumer Advocate regarding the 16 Application filed by EfficiencyOne ("E1") for approval of a New Benefit-Cost Analysis ("BC...

AI summary The Consumer Advocate's reply submissions challenge EfficiencyOne's proposed BCA test for Demand Side Management Plans, emphasizing legislative integration between the Energy and Regulatory Boards Act, More Access to Energy Act, and Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act. The Industrial Group disputes EfficiencyOne's interpretation of these statutes.

Response to NSPI The Industrial Group is supportive of the analytical approach to legislative interpretation of the Public Utilities Act (" PUA ") outlined by NSPI. The new policy goals contained in the Energy and Regulatory Boards Act and...

AI summary The Industrial Group supports NSPI's legislative interpretation of the Public Utilities Act (PUA) and agrees that new policy goals from the Energy and Regulatory Boards Act and More Access to Energy Act should not override demand-side management (DSM) program requirements. Both parties align on the need to prioritize cost-effective programs over sustainability goals.

/span> M12282, E1 Closing Submissions, page 19, line 20 – page 20, line 1. Ibid, page 11, lines 1 – 7. M12282, Hearing Transcript, 22 September 2025, page 83 lines 1 – 9. relevant policy goals into consideration when making discreet DSM de...

AI summary The text argues that recent legislative amendments, including the repeal of the Utility and Review Board Act and replacement by the Energy and Regulatory Boards Act , do not impact DSM regulation in Nova Scotia, as the Energy Board already had relevant powers. This contradicts the principle that legislation is assumed to have meaningful intent, with the Industrial Group (IG) describing the amendments as merely 'admirable' environmental goals without concrete regulatory authority.

nergy Reform (2024) Act, SNS 2024, April 2024, Part I: Energy and Regulatory Boards Act (Schedule A), s 6(2). Ibid , Part II: More Access to Energy Act (Schedule B), s 2. NS Power contends that the DSM provisions within the PUA supersede t...

AI summary NS Power argues that DSM provisions in the PUA override other energy legislation, while E1 claims statutory harmony exists. E1 asserts the Proposed BCA aligns with modern statutory interpretation, integrating sustainability goals and portfolio-level cost-effective DSM evaluations as outlined in section 2.1.

greenhouse gas emissions has been added, as well as the introduction of the required "appropriate consideration" requirements of Energy And Regulatory Boards Act and the More Access To Energy Act . The Board's consideration of the Proposed...

AI summary The Board must apply legislative amendments, including 'appropriate consideration' requirements from the Energy And Regulatory Boards Act and More Access To Energy Act , when evaluating the Proposed BCA. These amendments reflect clear legislative intent, not mere policy objectives, and any methodology failing to comply, such as NS Power's TRC test, must be rejected.

oes not dictate the proper interpretation of legislation and there remains fundamental disagreement on the impact of the relevant legislative changes since the Board's decision in M08888 on E1's BCAT. First, the PUA remains the governing s...

AI summary The document argues that the PUA governs DSM in Nova Scotia, prioritizing cost-effectiveness over sustainability. It disputes E1's claim that the ERA requires balancing factors, emphasizing the ERBA's directive to 'give consideration' to sustainability without overriding cost-effectiveness. References to Board decision M08888 and ERBA section 6(2) are cited.

herefore, directed E1 to work with the Demand-side Management Advisory Group (DSMAG) before the 2026- 2028 DSM Plan application to assess and develop an optimal DSM cost-effective testing methodology. [13] After the NSUARB's decision in M1...

AI summary Legislative changes in Nova Scotia, including amendments to the Public Utilities Act and the Energy Reform Act (2024), have expanded the NSUARB's mandate to include climate goals and sustainable development. These changes affect demand-side management (DSM) evaluation methods, shifting analysis to the portfolio level and incorporating strategic electrification.

scope to consider all environmental and societal impacts within a benefit cost test is incongruous with the mandate for franchise holders and would expand E1's role, and possibly even NSPI's testing. Similarly, the [Energy and Regulatory B...

AI summary The Industrial Group argues that expanding E1's mandate to include environmental and societal impacts in benefit-cost tests contradicts the PUA's focus on cost reduction and energy efficiency. They also oppose using a global social cost of carbon, claiming it would skew planning processes and exceed the Board's intended authority under the Energy and Regulatory Boards Act.

3.4 Nova Scotia Power [48] NS Power does not support E1's proposed BCA test and recommends the Board approve the current TRC with two modifications which would consider, in the context of strategic electrification, GHG emissions reductions...

AI summary NS Power opposes E1's proposed BCA test, advocating for TRC modifications that include GHG emissions reductions (net tonnage basis) and electricity cost reductions, alongside other fuel impacts. It emphasizes that subsection 79A(b)(iv) of the PUA mandates GHG reductions for strategic electrification but argues this does not override the core objective of reducing electricity costs. NS Power asserts the Board's mandate to ensure 'just and reasonable rates' remains central.

4.1.5 Statutory Changes [86] In the present case, E1 notes there have been significant statutory changes since the NSUARB's decision in 2020. E1 argues that changes to the Public Utilities Act and s. 6(2) of the Energy and Regulatory Board...

AI summary E1 highlights statutory changes to the Public Utilities Act and Energy and Regulatory Boards Act since 2020, requiring the NSUARB to evaluate non-energy impacts of demand-side management. The Act's definition of 'demand-side management' now includes strategic electrification, while affordability considerations were removed from evaluation criteria.

mandate to consider nonutility impacts in the assessment of cost-effectiveness and says that incorporating sustainability-focused factors into regulatory decision-making is now the law in Nova Scotia: As explained above, the Energy and Reg...

AI summary The Energy Reform Act and related legislation mandate the Energy Board to consider sustainability factors, including environmental stewardship and social responsibility, in regulatory decisions. This includes assessing the environmental impacts of demand-side management programs, promoting energy efficiency, and fostering green jobs.

nges in Nova Scotia results in the Board doing nothing more than it has always done by taking relevant policy goals into consideration when making discreet demand-side management decisions. It states: …This approach effectively suggests th...

AI summary The text critiques the perceived lack of impact from legislative amendments, such as replacing the Utility and Review Board Act with the Energy and Regulatory Boards Act, on demand-side management regulation. It argues that these changes are seen as superfluous, not granting new powers but merely reflecting environmental goals. The Consumer Advocate challenges the Industrial Group's stance that legislative objectives cannot override statutory language.

osts. As noted already, strategic electrification may only be undertaken if, in addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it reduces electricity costs. This is explicitly stated in s. 79A(b)(iv). [130] While the NSUARB's 2020 decision...

AI summary The NSUARB examines legislative requirements for demand-side management, emphasizing cost reduction and alignment with sections 79A(b)(iv), 79I(1), and 79H(2) of the PUA. The Board agrees with the Industrial Group and NS Power that cost reduction remains central, rejecting broader interpretations of sustainable development overriding specific cost mandates. References to Matter M12171 highlight tensions between general and specific legislative provisions.

[160] Eastward made similar comments in its submissions: In this regard the IG has noted that the approach proposed by Mr. Bowman to costeffectiveness testing for E1 for strategic electrification – running the PAC test with the additional...

AI summary Eastward argues that modifying the PAC test to include NSPI's revenue aligns with Posterity Group's recommendations, emphasizing cost-effective hybrid heating programs. E1 counters that this approach assesses rate impacts, not cost-effectiveness, and criticizes E1's BCA focus on GHG reductions over electricity cost savings.

4.3.1 Findings [162] The Board accepts the Industrial Group's suggestion that traditional cost effectiveness tests may be modified to suit specific jurisdictional requirements. The means of assessing strategic electrification in Nova Scoti...

AI summary The Board accepts modifying traditional cost-effectiveness tests for strategic electrification in Nova Scotia. It endorses Mr. Bowman's PAC test approach for E1 but notes E1's incomplete work on demonstrating cost reductions. The Board requires E1 to meet both GHG reduction and cost-effectiveness criteria, allowing future alternative proposals in its 2027-2031 DSM Plan.

4.4.1 Findings [166] There is no ambiguity in s. 79H(2): the Board must evaluate the proposed cost-effective demand-side management at the portfolio level. As noted previously in this decision, the Board agrees with E1 that there is a diff...

AI summary The NSUARB mandates evaluating cost-effective demand-side management (DSM) at the portfolio level, not individual measures. The Board allows alternative cost-effectiveness tests, including BCA, and requires E1 to justify measures failing primary tests. NS Power's WACC must be compared if a social discount rate is used in BCA. The Energy and Regulatory Boards Act (ERBA) permits justification based on factors under s. 6(2).

5.0 SUMMARY OF BOARD FINDINGS [217] The Board finds it does not have the authority to approve E1's proposed BCA because the Public Utilities Act restricts the Board's ability to consider non-energy and societal benefits in assessing the co...

AI summary The Board rejects E1's proposed BCA due to the Public Utilities Act's restrictions on non-energy benefits. E1 must use PAC test and NS Power's WACC for DSM plan assessments. Strategic electrification requires GHG reduction and cost savings. Eastward is added to DSMAG. Portfolio-level cost-effectiveness evaluations are mandated.