E-1Application
15 passages
1 1. Values were adjusted for the relative value of the Canadian Dollar, as 2 compared to the US Dollar. Three-year average exchange rates were 3 used. 4 5 2. Water savings values were adjusted by using Halifax Water and 6 Wastewater rates...
AI summary The document outlines adjustments made to various values for a regulatory proceeding, including exchange rates, water savings, property valuation, and health benefits. These adjustments were made to align values between Nova Scotia and Massachusetts. Non-energy benefits (NEBs) were evaluated, and certain residential health benefits were excluded from the TRC test. The VEIC conducted analyses on labour rates, fuel costs, and Heating Degree Days, finding no significant differences.
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.
1 To allow the work performed to remain relevant to NS, both EfficiencyOne and 2 VEIC recommend that the values described in the VEIC Report (specifically 3 Appendix C) form a "living document". 4 5 Specifically, EfficiencyOne plans to und...
AI summary EfficiencyOne seeks the UARB's approval to use specific values from the VEIC Report for future CE testing and to implement annual NEB values on a per-first-year kWh basis for the BNI sector. They also request approval for an ongoing management and update strategy and to base future Low Income NEB estimates on a 2016 Massachusetts study.
Synapse Question 8: On p. 31, Custom Efficiency is attributed an annual NEB value of approximately $1.7 million. Is this a value for the entire program? This should be clarified in the table, as all of the other values are per measure. Yes...
AI summary The document discusses the NEB value attributed to the Custom Efficiency program, which is approximately $1.7 million annually for the entire program. This value differs from other values in the table, which are per measure, and clarification is requested.
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.
Table 3: Property Value Adjustment Median Single-Family House Price Multiplier Nova Scotia 23 $229,000 44% Massachusetts 24 $516,600 44 70 Other NEB categories were also identified as having values that varied based on location. To accurat...
AI summary Table 3 outlines property value adjustments with median house prices and multipliers for Nova Scotia and Massachusetts. The document discusses the removal of health impact values from Non-Energy Benefits (NEB) in Massachusetts due to differences in how societal benefits are accounted for in Canada, impacting the Residential NEB adaptation.
BY MEASURE Thermal Comfort Noise Reduction Health Impacts Property Value Equipment Maintenance Lighting Quality Home Durability Air Sealing $10.13 $4.88 $0.32 $135.83 $0.00 $0.00 $3.95 Appliance (refrigerators and freezers) $0.00 $0.00 $0....
AI summary The table presents the costs associated with various energy efficiency measures across multiple categories such as thermal comfort, noise reduction, health impacts, and property value. Each measure is listed with corresponding monetary values for each category, and the total costs are provided along with the percentage of the total cost for each category.
For Business, Not-For-Profit and Institutional (BNI) measures, NEB values were typically identified as water savings or reflected as a per kWh value to be multiplied by annual electric savings for the measure and applied each year. The Com...
AI summary The text discusses how Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) are calculated for Business, Not-For-Profit and Institutional (BNI) measures, highlighting water savings and per kWh values. It also explains how Commercial and Industrial (C&I) NEB values in the Massachusetts TRM are derived from administrative and operational cost reductions, informed by a 2012 TetraTech study that ensured no double counting of benefits.
Table 7: Formulas Used to Calculate Overall NEIs for Operations and Maintenance NEIs 30 NEI Category Cost/Revenue Center Formula Measures using formula Percent Operation and Maintenance Internal Labor (Hours per year due to Old Equipment -...
AI summary Table 7 outlines formulas for calculating Non-Energy Impacts (NEIs) related to Operations and Maintenance, focusing on internal labor costs. It includes various formulas involving hours per year, wage rates, and loaded factors, along with percentages indicating their contribution to overall NEIs.
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.
Table 11: Total Benefits and TRC Ratios with and without NEBs Efficiency Nova Scotia Programs and Portfolio (Plan Year 2016) Plan Year 2016 Program Total Benefits w/o NEBs Total Benefits with NEBs TRC Ratio w/o NEBs TRC Ratio with NEBs BNI...
AI summary Table 11 presents the total benefits and TRC ratios for Efficiency Nova Scotia programs and portfolio for Plan Years 2016 to 2018, showing increased benefits and TRC ratios with the inclusion of Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs). Programs such as BNI Efficient Product Rebates, Custom Incentives, and Residential Efficient Product Rebates demonstrate significant improvements in benefits and TRC ratios over time.
Table 14: 2016-2018 Aggregate TRC Impact for BNI Efficient Products Rebates Program BNI - Efficient Product Rebates -2016-2018 End Use Aggregate TRC W/o NEBs Aggregate TRC W NEBs % Change NEBs COM-Lighting 1.90 2.48 31% 77% COM-Motors 3.51...
AI summary The tables present aggregate TRC (Total Resource Cost) impacts for various BNI (Business, Not-For-Profit and Institutional) and residential energy efficiency programs from 2016 to 2018, highlighting the influence of non-energy benefits (NEBs) on cost calculations. The data shows varying percentages of change and contributions of NEBs across different end uses and program types.
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.
Appendix B: Total Resource Benefit Cost Ratio with and without NEBs TRC Test Analysis Measure Name Target Market TRC Calculation TRC With NEBs TRC % Change Whole Building 20% Over Baseline New Construction - BNI 1.75 1.86 6% Whole Building...
AI summary Appendix B presents the Total Resource Benefit Cost Ratio (TRC) for various energy efficiency measures, comparing calculations with and without Net Energy Benefits (NEBs). The analysis shows significant variations in TRC percentages, with some measures experiencing large increases, such as the Room A/C Retirement, which saw a 459% increase in TRC with NEBs.
E-10-(i)Book of Authorities
14 passages
[54] By comparison, in its Application, ENSC proposes 2012 program costs of $43.7 million, with Figure 4.2 showing cumulative savings of 543 GWh and 100 MW, which translates into incremental savings of 233.6 GWh and 44 MW. These results in...
AI summary ENSC's 2012 program costs are proposed at $43.7 million, with cumulative savings of 543 GWh and 100 MW. However, excluding over-achievements from previous years, savings would be significantly lower. Board Counsel Consultant Mr. Whalen expressed concerns that the 2012 plan would deliver lower savings than the 2011 plan and would yield fewer kWh savings per dollar invested.
Table>2-1:2010 Energy &Demand Net;.,to-Gross Ratios Program Net-to-Gross Ratio Efficient Products -RetaiL eFLs 133% EfficientProducts ~Retail 'ixtures, Controls & Appliances 44% Efficient Products -Retail: Appliance R.etirement&Replacement...
AI summary The table presents net-to-gross ratios for various energy efficiency programs in Nova Scotia, indicating the effectiveness of each program in achieving energy savings relative to the total investment. The ratios range from 44% to 133%, with some programs showing higher returns than others.
[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.
are the subject of this proceeding. - [18] The EECR Act contemplated that NSPI and E1 would reach and enter into an agreement for the provision of DSM activities. The evidence in this matter reveals that the two parties, despite a period o...
AI summary The EECR Act intended for NSPI and E1 to agree on DSM activities, but negotiations failed, leading to a Board intervention. E1 submitted a DSM Plan with a target of 405.9 GWh energy savings, while NSPI proposed a lower spending target. A consensus document called the 'Quantum Agreement' was presented, outlining spending of $113.5 million with the same savings targets, and included provisions for equity and a charitable contribution for low-income programs.
he CA, SBA, AEC and EAC are all parties to the Quantum Agreement and, therefore, support the DSM level of spending proposed in the Agreement. The CA and SBA represent the majority of NSPI's customers. [61] The CA noted that since 2011, thr...
AI summary The CA, SBA, AEC, and EAC support the DSM spending level in the Quantum Agreement. The CA highlights that ratepayers have been paying around $40 million annually for DSM programs, indicating affordability. The Industrial Group requests a $80 million three-year spending plan for DSM energy savings of 100 GWh per year and raises concerns about the level and role of incentives in achieving energy efficiency targets.
Program Year Expenditures ($ million) Energy Savings (GWh) Demand Savings (MW) Plan Actual Plan Actual Plan Actual 2008 3.2 2.45 16.1 21.4 2.1 4.7 2009 9.7 9.4 50.3 64.4 6.8 10.3 2010 22.9 23.0 82.7 82.5 16.9 15.9 2011 41.9 35.8 158.5 141....
AI summary The table presents expenditures, energy savings, and demand savings for a program from 2008 to 2015. It shows fluctuations in both expenditures and savings over the years, with notable variations between planned and actual figures. The data includes footnotes indicating adjustments for 2008 and 2009.
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.
7) RESOLUTION PROCESS Year Report/ Process Filing Timeframe Inclusions 2015 Annual Progress Report End of March Summary of 2015 context, activities and milestones achieved Double of the status of Performance Targets and Indicators Energy s...
AI summary The document outlines the resolution process for various reports and evaluations, including annual progress reports, evaluation reports, and financial statements, detailing their filing timelines and required inclusions such as summaries of activities, energy savings, and corrective action plans.
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.
ts at 7. & lt;sup>38 Id. at 19. & lt;sup>39 Id & lt;sup>40 See, e.g. Order No. 86785 (Dec. 23, 2014) at 5; Order No. 86995 (May 21, 2015) at 13. innovation may not always satisfy cost-effectiveness standards on a program-by-program basis....
AI summary The document discusses the continuation of cost-effectiveness screening at the sub-portfolio level, distinguishing between prospective and retrospective evaluations. It emphasizes the need for separate treatment of limited-income programs during screening, while retaining the discretion to modify or discontinue individual programs if they fail to demonstrate success.
C. Cost-Effectiveness Assumptions Cost-effectiveness testing is carried out by a mathematical algorithm. The EmPOWER Maryland Planning Work Group is requesting Commission direction regarding certain assumptions and inputs to the algorithm....
AI summary The EmPOWER Maryland Planning Work Group is seeking guidance from the Commission on cost-effectiveness assumptions for a mathematical algorithm. While consensus was reached on adopting values from the Avoided Cost Study and PPRP, disagreement remains on DRIPE calculation, discount rate selection, and inclusion of NEBs.
II. Post-2015 Goal Allocation Methodologies In 2008, faced with dramatic rate increases due to the removal of price caps established at the time of deregulation, as well as PJM projections of rolling blackouts in the State by 2011 due to g...
AI summary This section discusses the EmPOWER Maryland Energy Efficiency Act of 2008, enacted in response to rising electricity rates and reliability concerns. It outlines the legislative background and the Commission's statutory duty to promote energy efficiency as a least-cost resource, supported by studies like the 2014 ACEEE report.
we accept the recommendation by OPC and the Coalition to establish a trajectory so that the Utilities ultimately achieve annual incremental gross & lt;sup>92 Coalition Comments at 18. & lt;sup>93 While we decline to establish separate resi...
AI summary The proceeding discusses establishing an energy savings trajectory for utilities, with an annual incremental gross energy savings goal of 2% of weather-normalized gross retail sales baseline. The trajectory includes a modest ramp-up rate of 0.20% per year starting from the 2016 plans. Utilities are required to file a table depicting forecasted electric savings for the 2015–2017 program cycle.
Table 3: 2018 – 2020 Program Cycle Electric Goals Annual Incremental Gross Savings as a Percentage of 2016 Weather-Normalized Gross Retail Sales 2018 2019 2020 2018 - 2020 Goal Utility A 1.90% 2.00% 2.00% 1.97% Utility B 1.65% 1.85% 2.00%...
AI summary Table 3 presents the 2018–2020 program cycle electric goals as annual incremental gross savings as a percentage of 2016 weather-normalized gross retail sales for three utilities. The goals range from 1.65% to 2.00% across the years.