E-1Application
26 passages
EfficiencyOne (Re), 2015 NSUARB 204 (CanLII) 1 33 The settlement process associated with the 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan 34 Deferred Issues Settlement Agreement (the "June 30th " Agreement) ultimately 35 led to consensus on the path forwar...
AI summary The document outlines the settlement process related to the 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan, including a Deferred Issues Settlement Agreement. It discusses cost-effectiveness testing methodology for future DSM supply agreements, collaboration with the DSM Advisory Group, and considerations for low-income programs that may not pass a cost-effectiveness test.
M07543, E-3, Executed Consensus Agreement, Filed July 22, 2016, at s. 7. 1 Based on the December 2, 2016 DSMAG meeting discussions, EfficiencyOne 2 drafted a draft Scope of Work for consulting assistance in quantifying participant 3 NEBs b...
AI summary EfficiencyOne collaborated with the DSMAG to develop a Scope of Work for quantifying non-energy benefits (NEBs) from energy efficiency programs, adapting methods from other jurisdictions like Massachusetts. The process involved input from various stakeholders, including the Consumer Advocate, Small Business Advocate, and the Affordable Energy Coalition, who raised concerns about Low-Income considerations, property value-based NEBs, and double counting.
provided for in the state's Energy Efficiency Guidelines: 3 "Non-electric benefits shall account for those benefits that are specific to Program Participants and shall be comprised of the following: - (i) Resource benefits, which account f...
AI summary The document outlines Non-Electric Benefits under Nova Scotia's Energy Efficiency Guidelines, including resource benefits (avoided costs of fuels) and non-resource benefits (maintenance, environmental, low-income). It references the Massachusetts TRC test categories like arrearages, bad debt write-offs, and utility-related benefits.
Inclusion in 2013-2015 Statewide Plan The MA Energy Efficiency Advisory Council (the Council) coordinated the development and review of a Statewide Plan 12 (2011-2012; approved in November 2012) that then became the framework for the Progr...
AI summary The MA Energy Efficiency Advisory Council coordinated the 2011-2012 Statewide Plan, which became the framework for Program Administrators' three-year plans. The Plan included non-energy impacts in cost-effectiveness, but no feedback was received on their treatment during reviews.
Position of Environment Northeast (ENE) - "ENE argues that careful review and calibration of the treatment of non-energy impact assumptions is required to ensure that all benefits and costs of energy efficiency programs are accurately quan...
AI summary ENE emphasizes the need for accurate quantification of non-energy benefits and costs in energy efficiency programs. However, ENE contends that the current proceedings are not the appropriate forum for investigating these assumptions, as suggested by the Attorney General.
Low-Income Proportions - 2017 2017 Results First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) 1 Peak Demand Savings (MW) Expenditures ($ million) Residential Efficient Product Rebates 22.6 202.2 3.0 4.2 Instant Savings 19.5 179....
AI summary This table provides a breakdown of energy savings and expenditures for low-income and overall residential and business programs in 2017. It highlights the contribution of various initiatives, such as efficient product rebates, home energy assessments, and business energy programs, to energy savings and expenditures, with low-income proportions noted for each category.
Attachment 4: Final VEIC NEBs Report with Appendices – July 12, 2018 Date Filed: September 19, 2018
AI summary Attachment 4 presents the Final VEIC NEBs Report with Appendices dated July 12, 2018, submitted on September 19, 2018. It outlines non-energy benefits (NEBs) analysis for regulatory proceedings, involving entities like Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS) and the Utilities and Ratepayers Board (UARB).
Section 1.0 Executive Summary With over $845 million (CAD) of ratepayer funds budgeted for DSM programs in Canada in 2016, 1 the importance of accurately capturing both the costs and benefits of energy efficiency programs cannot be oversta...
AI summary This executive summary emphasizes the importance of accurately capturing both the costs and benefits of energy efficiency programs, particularly Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs), which include comfort, safety, and property value increases. The document highlights the need to incorporate these benefits into cost-benefit analyses and outlines how Massachusetts' research on NEBs was selected as the most comprehensive and rigorous for application in Nova Scotia's energy efficiency portfolio.
_ _ 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.
Standard practice in efficiency cost-effectiveness testing currently dictates that non-energy benefits are separated into three primary categories based on the beneficiary of the impact including utility, program participant, and society.3...
AI summary The document discusses the standard practice of categorizing non-energy benefits (NEBs) into utility, program participant, and societal categories. It examines how different jurisdictions apply NEBs, particularly in low-income and market-rate programs, and highlights adjustments made to NEB values for Nova Scotia based on regional differences. The analysis also includes findings from studies and reports on NEBs in other regions.
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.
Table 2: Universal Principles from the National Standard Practice Manual 4 Efficiency as a Resource EE is one of many resources that can be deployed to meet customers' needs, and therefore should be compared with other energy resources (bo...
AI summary Table 2 from the National Standard Practice Manual outlines universal principles for evaluating energy efficiency as a resource. It emphasizes comparing energy efficiency with other resources, accounting for policy goals, quantifying hard-to-measure impacts, ensuring symmetry in cost-effectiveness analysis, conducting forward-looking assessments, and maintaining transparency in all practices.
easures. As a result of this research, the incorporation of NEBs into appropriate cost-effectiveness screening has been identified and accepted as a best practice in efficiency program administration. Energy efficiency cost-effectiveness s...
AI summary The document highlights the evolution of incorporating non-energy benefits (NEBs) into energy efficiency cost-effectiveness screening, referencing the California Standard Practice Manual and the 2006 U.S. EPA National Action Plan. It emphasizes the 2017 National Standard Practice Manual (NSPM) as a key resource, developed through collaboration, to update best practices in efficiency screening.
he Three-Year Efficiency Plans of the MA Program Administrators. This approval by state regulators provides an added level of review and rigor to the measure-level calculations of non-energy benefits. In Maryland 19 , in addition to includ...
AI summary The text discusses how state regulators in Maryland approved the Three-Year Efficiency Plans of MA Program Administrators, adding rigor to non-energy benefit calculations. It also mentions the use of a quantified value ($0.002/kWh) to account for air emissions benefits, including the cost of externalities from pollutants like NO x , SO 2 , and CO 2 .
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.
Other specific NEBs identified and valued in the analysis of residential measures include thermal comfort, noise reduction, and home durability. We made the assumption that noise reduction and home durability in Nova Scotia and Massachuset...
AI summary The analysis identifies non-energy benefits (NEBs) such as thermal comfort, noise reduction, and home durability from residential energy efficiency measures. A comparison of heating and cooling degree days between Nova Scotia and Massachusetts showed a 2.2% difference, with Nova Scotia requiring more heating, but no adjustment was made to thermal comfort values due to the small discrepancy.
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 6: Distribution of Annual NEIs by Category: Prescriptive Electric Measures (MA) 29 Non-Energy Benefits Included in this Analysis Business Not-For-Profit and Industrial Percent of Total Non-Energy Benefit Reduction in Administration C...
AI summary Table 6 shows the distribution of annual Non-Energy Impacts (NEIs) by category for Prescriptive Electric Measures in Nova Scotia. The table highlights that 73.5% of the benefits are attributed to reduced operations and maintenance costs. The analysis also notes that the formulas used to calculate these values rely on labor costs and fuel prices, with geographic variations considered between Massachusetts and Nova Scotia.
Section 5.0 Recommended NEB Values for Individual Nova Scotia Measures VEIC Recomm nended NEBs Half Size Commercial Hot Retail $0.00 $0.00 MA TRM p.287 VEIC Recomm nended NEBs Measure Name Target Market VEIC Recommended One-Time NEB VEIC R...
AI summary Section 5.0 presents recommended Non-Energy Benefits (NEB) values for various energy efficiency measures in Nova Scotia. The table outlines measures such as commercial refrigerators, ice makers, and ventilation systems, with corresponding NEB values and sources. Most measures have zero one-time and annual NEBs, while some, like solid door commercial refrigerators, have annual NEB values.
6.2 Program- and Portfolio-level Effects As part of this analysis, VEIC explored the impact of the introduction of measure-level NEBs on Efficiency Nova Scotia's individual programs as well as for the entire portfolio. Complete results fro...
AI summary VEIC analyzed the impact of including non-energy benefits (NEBs) in Efficiency Nova Scotia's programs and overall portfolio, finding that NEB inclusion increased total benefits and the TRC ratio. This analysis is detailed in Appendix C and illustrated in several tables showing changes over the 2016-2018 plan years.
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.
installed - Demographic and housing characteristics Owners and managers of low-income rental housing were also interviewed. Twenty-one survey participants reported on 27 low-income rental facilities. Based on the outcome of the literature...
AI summary The document discusses research on quantifying Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) and Non-Energy Impacts (NEIs), noting that some benefits should not be quantified due to double-counting risks or intangibility. It references a 2012 TetraTech study commissioned by Massachusetts Program Administrators to improve NEI estimates for commercial/industrial programs, aiming for statistically reliable data.
Table 20: Summary of Average Annual NEI Estimates 37 Electric n Average Annual NEI/kWh 90% CI Low 90% CI High Stat Sig Measures NEI per Measure J Prescriptive HVAC 27 $7,687 $0.0966 $0.0544 $0.1389 Yes Lighting 163 $1,636 $0.0274 $0.0176 $...
AI summary Table 20 summarizes average annual Non-Energy Impacts (NEI) estimates for various energy efficiency measures, including HVAC, lighting, motors, refrigeration, and gas measures. The data includes statistical significance and confidence intervals for each category, distinguishing between prescriptive and custom measures.
uation of the U.S. Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/09/f26/weatherization-works-II-ARRA-period-eval.pdf U.S. The original Weatherization study...
AI summary This text discusses the Weatherization Assistance Program in the U.S. and its health benefits, noting that Nova Scotia did not apply these benefits to its NEBs due to differences in healthcare systems and program focus. Rhode Island updated its NEI values based on this study for low-income programs starting in 2017.
& lt;sup>40 Energy Efficiency Program Plan for 2017, Settlement of the Parties Docket 4654, October 17, 2016 page 23. http://www.ripuc.org/eventsactions/docket/4654-NGrid-EEPP-2017(10-17-16).pdf
AI summary This document references a 2017 Energy Efficiency Program Plan, settled in Docket 4654 on October 17, 2016, and provides a link to the full text of the settlement.
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 BNI - Efficient Prod - Change Under Counter Commercial Dishwasher (Low Temp) Retail...
AI summary Appendix B presents the Total Resource Benefit Cost Ratio (TRC) with and without Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) for various energy-efficient commercial appliances. The TRC increases significantly for several measures when NEBs are included, indicating the value of non-energy benefits in cost-benefit analysis.
E-6E1 (NSPI) RIR-1 to RIR-43
19 passages
E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Power Incorporated Information Requests 1 Request IR-02: 2 3 Ref: Application, page 4 of 15, lines 18, 19. 4 5 Please provide the results of all research undertaken by E1 to "identify and distill the 6 approach...
AI summary E1 responded to Nova Scotia Power Incorporated's request by providing a list of North American jurisdictions that do and do not consider non-energy benefits in their primary cost effectiveness testing, as part of research on quantifying non-energy benefits for the TRC test.
ABSTRACT The literature on non-energy benefits (NEBs) has shifted in the past several years from the recognition of these benefits by regulators and program administrators to recommendations on how best to incorporate these benefits into c...
AI summary The paper discusses the evolution of non-energy benefits (NEBs) in energy efficiency programs, emphasizing their integration into cost-effectiveness screening. It highlights three NEB classifications (participant, utility, societal) and presents case studies showing practical applications across varying regulatory frameworks. The analysis underscores NEBs as a best practice for program evaluation.
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.
Lessons Learned Research is critically important in quantifying and validating the value of NEBs in energy efficiency programs. NYSERDA invested considerably in NEB research on all of its programs, and developed tailored, local models to e...
AI summary Research is vital for quantifying non-energy benefits (NEBs) of energy efficiency programs. NYSERDA invested in NEB research, creating local models to estimate job and economic impacts. While this research improved programs, it requires programmatic and political support to maximize benefits.
that should be associated with NEBs. This call to action laid the foundation for the three elements that contributed to the acceptance of a larger NEB adder for Vermont's costeffectiveness screening. In response to this recommendation, sta...
AI summary The Vermont case study highlights the expansion of NEB (Non-Energy Benefits) consideration in cost-effectiveness screening, driven by stakeholder collaboration and research. Key research, such as the Vermont Weatherization Assistance Program, quantified significant non-energy benefits, supporting the inclusion of an NEB adder in the screening process.
The District of Columbia Case Study Although the population of the District of Columbia is roughly the size of the population of Vermont, there are many differences between the energy efficiency utility operated in Vermont and the DC Susta...
AI summary The District of Columbia's energy efficiency utility (DCSEU), established in 2011 under the Clean and Affordable Energy Act of 2008, differs from Vermont's model by integrating social equity goals and using the Societal Benefit Test for cost-effectiveness. Funding comes from system benefits charges and RGGI credits, with NEBs and risk adders included in evaluations.
Benchmark Share of at-risk compensation Reduce per capita energy consumption 30% Increase number of green collar jobs 25% Improve energy efficiency of low-income housing 20% The six DCSEU benchmarks indicate very specific performance crite...
AI summary The text discusses six DCSEU benchmarks aimed at promoting social equity through energy efficiency and job creation. It highlights the challenge of balancing competing priorities, such as cost-effectiveness versus job creation. The Council of the District of Columbia is praised for including revisitable targets in the Act to align goals for sustainable energy and job creation.
As far as cost-effectiveness screening is concerned, DC incorporates a 10% NEB adder, but takes NEBs to the next level by incorporating job creation at the forefront of its goals and as one if the efficiency program's primary measures of s...
AI summary The document discusses DC's approach to cost-effectiveness screening, which includes a 10% NEB adder and prioritizes job creation as a primary measure of success for efficiency programs.
Lessons and Conclusions Twenty years on, it appears to be time to reconsider benefit-cost tests that better represent actual benefits and costs, and support more optimal program investment. It is clear that there has been incremental progr...
AI summary The document emphasizes the need to update benefit-cost tests to include Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) for accurate energy efficiency program evaluations. It highlights how states like New York, Colorado, and Vermont have influenced each other's policies and stresses the importance of value-based decision-making to address biases in cost-effectiveness tests.
References Allen, R. 2009. Vermont Public Service Board Memorandum, October 30. page 16. http://psb.vermont.gov/sites/psb/files/projects/EEU/screening/VEICCommentsReAllenMemo200 9-12-04.pdf - Clean and Affordable Energy Act, Council of the...
AI summary The references include legal documents, studies, and legislation related to energy efficiency, non-energy benefits, and regulatory decisions. Key entities involve Vermont and Colorado regulatory bodies, ACEEE, and Brookings Institution. Topics focus on cost-effectiveness screening, TRC, and NEBs. Cross-references include Colorado PUC decisions and Vermont PSB memoranda.
1. Valuation of HPF Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) in Non Low-Income Programs Non-energy benefits are generally defined as any real or perceived, financial or intangible benefit accrued by a project and not reflected in energy savings 2 . In t...
AI summary The document discusses the valuation of non-energy benefits (NEBs) in Nova Scotia's non-low-income programs. It references a 5% NEB adder recommendation by Mr. Allen, the need for more research, and mentions that jurisdictions may require considering NEBs in cost-effectiveness analyses. Studies, including Vermont's research, highlight significant non-energy economic value.
3. Discount Rate The National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency 14 establishes a standard methodology for the determination of an appropriate discount rate for an energy efficiency program. The Plan provides a brief review of discount rate...
AI summary The document discusses methodologies for determining discount rates in energy efficiency programs, emphasizing the use of social discount rates (e.g., California's 3% real rate) and VEIC's recommendation to use a 12-month average of 30-year Treasury yields. It highlights administrative efficiency and the need for universal discount rate application across screening tools, citing Massachusetts and Efficiency Vermont practices.
5. Cost-effectiveness Screening Rationale and Practices at the Portfolio, Program, Project and Measure level. The EEU scope of services calls for the portfolio administrator to maximize the amount of costeffective electric and heating and...
AI summary The EEU scope emphasizes maximizing cost-effective energy efficiency savings using ratepayer funds. The Vermont Public Service Board outlines three cost-effectiveness tests (Societal, TRC, and Utility) for evaluating energy-efficiency investments. The Societal test is highlighted as the primary indicator for EEU, with VEIC tasked to maximize net benefits. References include the VEIC Order of Appointment and Docket 5270.
COMPONENTS OF BENEFITS AND COSTS UNDER VERMONT'S THREE COST-EFFECTIVENESS TESTS EEU economic performance is also currently judged according to two additional costeffectiveness tests. - 1. Total Resource Benefits (TRB) are the projected mar...
AI summary The document outlines Vermont's cost-effectiveness tests for energy efficiency programs, focusing on Total Resource Benefits (TRB) and Electric Resource Benefits (ERB). TRB measures overall savings, while ERB focuses on electricity savings. Efficiency Vermont uses these tests for planning, budgeting, and reporting, with TRB as the primary economic indicator and ERB as the key performance requirement.
Project and measure cost-effectiveness is generally determined at the customer level during the course of implementing residential and business custom projects. This assessment helps Efficiency Vermont identify and promote with custom fina...
AI summary Efficiency Vermont evaluates the cost-effectiveness of residential and business custom projects at the customer level using the Societal cost-effectiveness test. This approach helps identify and promote measures that maximize net societal benefits. Annual reports summarize the results of these analyses, and standardized assumptions from the Technical Reference Manual are used for prescriptive and semi-prescriptive programs.
1 Request IR-04: 2 - 3 Please provide a list of all North American jurisdictions that have electricity efficiency - 4 programs and identify within that list which, if any, have NEBs that are quantified and - 5 provide a description of how...
AI summary The response to Request IR-04 provides a list of U.S. jurisdictions with electricity efficiency programs that account for Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs), along with a description of how these benefits are quantified. The information is sourced from a report by NEEP.
NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-07: 2 3 Ref: Attachment 4, page 4 of 64, paragraph 1. 4 5 Please provide a list of all Canadian jurisdictions that have "statutes and regulations 6 requiring that electricity efficiency is the least cost energ...
AI summary The response to Request IR-07 explains that while no Canadian jurisdictions explicitly require electricity efficiency to be the least cost energy procurement option, many require efficiency programs to be cost-effective, considering factors like affordability. In the U.S., 85% of ratepayer-funded efficiency programs are subject to cost-effectiveness testing.
10 Measure Name Technology Target Type Market Category 4 Zero Energy Doors for Reach-In Coolers and Freezers COM Other Refrigeration Commercial Zero Energy Doors for Reach-In Coolers and Freezers COM Retail Refrigeration Zero Energy Doors...
AI summary The document presents a table listing various energy efficiency measures, including zero energy doors for reach-in coolers and freezers, strip curtains for refrigerated display cases, and air-entraining air nozzles, along with their associated technologies and target markets. The table is part of a filing dated November 14, 2018, by NSPI.
NON-CONFIDENTIAL Request IR-21: Preamble – Section 79J of the Public Utilities Act states that: …in order to purchase electricity efficiency and conservation activities from a franchise holder to meet its obligation pursuant to clause 79I(...
AI summary The document addresses Request IR-21 under Section 79J of the Public Utilities Act, requiring Nova Scotia Power Incorporated (NSPI) to enter into three-year agreements with franchise holders for electricity efficiency and conservation activities. The response directs to EfficiencyOne's prior answer to UARB IR-09, noting that VEIC's work excludes societal benefits, focusing only on participant-related benefits.
E-10-(i)Book of Authorities
69 passages
EfficiencyOne
AI summary The document pertains to a regulatory proceeding in Nova Scotia, with 'EfficiencyOne' as the primary subject. No further details, arguments, or entities are provided in the given text.
EFFICIENCYONE BOOK OF AUTHORITIES
AI summary The document titled 'EFFICIENCYONE BOOK OF AUTHORITIES' appears to be part of a regulatory proceeding in Nova Scotia, though no further content or context is provided in the text. It likely contains references to EfficiencyOne's programs, policies, or legal arguments related to energy efficiency initiatives.
CASE LAW - 1. Re: Efficiency Nova Scotia, 2011 NSUARB 99 - 2. Re: EfficiencyOne, 2015 NSUARB 204 - 3. Re: EfficiencyOne, 2017 NSUARB 174 - 4. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. S&D Smith Central Supplies Limited, 2019 NSCA 22 - 5. Re: Rizzo...
AI summary The document cites regulatory and legal cases involving Efficiency Nova Scotia, EfficiencyOne, a dispute between Nova Scotia's Attorney General and S&D Smith Central Supplies Limited, and a Supreme Court of Canada reference. Cases pertain to utility regulation, energy efficiency programs, and legal proceedings.
- [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.
2.0 BACKGROUND [10] Prior to January 26, 2010, the electricity DSM conservation and energy plan for Nova Scotia was administered by NSPI. ENSC was established under the Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation Act, S.N.S. 2009, c. 3, as amended...
AI summary Prior to January 26, 2010, Nova Scotia's electricity demand-side management (DSM) conservation plan was administered by NSPI. ENSC was established under the Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation Act, S.N.S. 2009, c. 3, as amended.
[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.
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.
[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.
ty revenue and demand. While some Intervenors and consultants may argue for higher spending levels, the 2012 DSM Plan as filed, exceeds the savings targets which were included in the 2009 IRP update. While the thrust of the questions by th...
AI summary ENSC's 2012 DSM Plan meets and exceeds IRP energy savings targets. NPB opposes increasing the budget, arguing it is already among North America's highest in terms of utility revenue and demand percentages. Avon Group supports the current budget, while EAC's consultant agrees non-program savings should be included. ENSC claims the plan balances aggressive savings targets with budget levels.
[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.
4.4 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.
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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
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.
7.1 Findings [147] The Board notes that while ENSC stated it has the "gas pedal hard to the floor going full out" in order to achieve targeted savings, Mr. Crandlemire has also indicated that the targets are achievable. He has not suggeste...
AI summary The Board acknowledges ENSC's efforts to meet energy savings targets but notes lingering doubts expressed by parties. Despite ENSC's assertion of full commitment and Mr. Crandlemire's confidence in achievability, the Board mandates quarterly reviews with staff and consultants to monitor progress, expenditures, and savings outcomes.
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).
changes to DSM programming by amending the PUA and repealing the ENSC Act . Electricity efficiency and conservation activities were defined: 79A In this Section and Sections 79B to 79V, . . . - (b) "electricity efficiency and conservation...
AI summary The document discusses amendments to the Public Utilities Act (PUA) and repeal of the Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation Act (ENSC Act), defining electricity efficiency and conservation activities. DSM is mandated by franchise holders under PUA, with the Board using DSM and efficiency activities interchangeably. The franchise is granted by the Minister of Energy, with the holder deemed a public utility.
e 2014 evaluation for those programs involved validating ENSC's tracked savings and ensuring that the evaluation parameters corresponded to those established in previous full-scale impact evaluations. - [30] The 2014 DSM portfolio included...
AI summary The 2014 DSM program evaluation by Econoler validated ENSC's savings, achieving 151.9 GWh energy savings and 27.1 MW peak demand reductions. The evaluation included 16 programs and 71 recommendations, with concerns raised about HER program data confidentiality and methodology. E1 claimed savings exceeded targets by 10.2%.
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.
programs, particularly as it relates to incentives. The Industrial Group expressed concern about the level of incentives as well as the role incentives play with respect to energy efficiency targets. - 45. The Industrial Group is very conc...
AI summary The Industrial Group expressed concerns about the level of incentives provided by E1 and how they affect energy efficiency targets. They also highlighted that E1's service delivery framework discourages the elimination of incentives. The Industrial Group, NSPI, and the DOE recommended that E1 model various funding scenarios in future hearings and suggested a lower spending level, close to $22 million per year.
[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.
3.5.3 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.
ner future and it does so in a way that saves our customers hundreds of millions of dollars. That's the primary reason we're doing DSM. [Emphasis added] [M02783 Transcript, April 19, 2010, pp. 30-32] [97] In developing the 2016-2018 DSM Pl...
AI summary The 2016-18 DSM Plan by E1 reduces energy savings and expenditures compared to the Preferred Resource Plan, with NSPI's proposal further lowering targets. The Board emphasizes cost savings for customers but criticizes the disconnect from the IRP. E1's plan saves 22% in energy and 34% in costs, while NSPI's proposal cuts 42% in energy and 64% in costs.
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.
programs which they hope will lead to positions in energy efficiency or sustainability businesses. They want to ensure that the "culture" of energy efficiency is maintained. They, too, supported E1. [133] Rev. Charles Bull, representing th...
AI summary Stakeholders emphasize maintaining energy efficiency culture and supporting low-income participation in E1 programs. Rev. Charles Bull highlights environmental and social impacts of cutting E1's plan. Julian Boyle stresses equal DSM access and peak demand reduction. The Board acknowledges NSPI's contributions to Clean Nova Scotia and encourages E1 to address low-income renters.
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.
7) RESOLUTION PROCESS Year Report/ Process Filing Timeframe Inclusions 2017 Evaluation Reports End of February Impact evaluation (all programs; shortened version referencing 2016 evaluation for methodology unless it changed) Process evalua...
AI summary The document outlines the resolution process, including various reports and evaluations related to energy efficiency programs, financial statements, and meetings with the Demand-Side Management Advisory Group (DSMAG). It details filing timelines and inclusions for different years and reports.
III ISSUES - [16] The issues to be decided in this Application are: - a) Whether the Names and Emails are information in NSPI's possession or control respecting customer electricity usage and load that is necessary to enable E1 to provide...
AI summary The proceeding addresses two issues: whether NSPI possesses customer data (names, emails, usage) necessary for E1 to deliver cost-effective energy efficiency programs. The Board must determine if this data is within NSPI's control and essential for E1's activities.
-sector company. It cites R v. Orlandis-Habsburgo , 2017 ONCA 649, for the proposition that its clients have a legitimate expectation of privacy. The Ontario Court of Appeal found in that case that a utility sharing a customer's energy con...
AI summary The text discusses privacy expectations in energy data sharing, citing R v. Orlandis-Habsburgo (2017 ONCA 649). It highlights the Consumer Advocate's support for E1's position that transferring energy efficiency programs from NSP to ENS did not intend to hinder cost-effective initiatives. NSP raises concerns about PIPEDA compliance under PUA's Section 79K(1), while statutory interpretation references Re Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (1998 SCC).
Information and assistance for new franchise holder - 79E (1) In the event of the termination or expiration of a franchise, the franchise holder shall provide a new franchise holder with the information in its possession or control, includ...
AI summary This section outlines obligations for franchise holders to transfer information and assistance to new holders or Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSP) upon franchise termination, ensuring uninterrupted electricity efficiency activities. Confidentiality rules apply, with exceptions for publicly available information. The Minister directs the transfer process, and NSP acts as a fallback recipient if no new franchise holder exists.
iii) Are the Names and Email necessary to enable E1 to provide NSPI with reasonably available cost-effective energy efficiency and conservation activities? [75] NSPI's position on the necessity of the Names and Emails is summarized at p. 1...
AI summary NSPI argues E1 has not proven the necessity of customer Names and Emails for cost-effective DSM activities, emphasizing existing data availability and privacy concerns. The CA found E1's evidence insufficient and requested further comments. Privacy balancing is emphasized over E1's cost pressures.
a) Evidence [111] E1 does not have access to customer data on approximately 70% of electricity ratepayers. For the remaining 30% of ratepayers, E1 maintains basic, static information. [112] The Customer Usage Data requested by E1 consists...
AI summary E1 (EfficiencyOne) requests access to customer data for program design and analysis, citing needs for eligibility determinations, geographic analysis, and targeted marketing. However, E1 lacks access to 70% of customer data, holding only basic information for the remaining 30%. The data includes usage patterns, billing details, and contact information.
RULES OF CONSTRUCTION
AI summary The document outlines rules of construction, including definitions and interpretations of terms used in regulatory proceedings involving Nova Scotia utility and energy efficiency programs, with extensive acronym listings for organizations, legislation, and programs.
(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.
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.
Interpretation - 79A In this Section and Sections 79B to 79V, - (a) "affiliate" means an affiliate within the meaning of Companies Act , and includes a person that Nova Scotia Power Incorporated does not deal with at arm's length; - (b) "e...
AI summary Section 79A defines key terms including 'affiliate,' 'electricity efficiency and conservation activities,' and 'franchise.' It references the Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Restructuring (2014) Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (Canada), and the Companies Act. Definitions focus on regulatory frameworks for energy efficiency and conservation programs.
Terms of franchise 79C (1) Upon application pursuant to Section 79B, the Minister may grant an electricity efficiency and conservation franchise pursuant to this Section.
AI summary Section 79C(1) outlines the process for granting an electricity efficiency and conservation franchise by the Minister upon application under Section 79B, emphasizing the regulatory framework for such franchises.
Board determines required activities 79H The Board shall determine the cost-effective electricity efficiency and conservation activities that must be undertaken for the purpose of this Act. 2014, c. 5, s. 15.
AI summary The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board is mandated to determine cost-effective electricity efficiency and conservation activities under the Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Restructuring (2014) Act, section 15.
N.S. Power Inc. to undertake activities - 79I (1) On and after the Implementation Date, Nova Scotia Power Incorporated shall undertake cost-effective electricity efficiency and conservation activities that are reasonably available in an ef...
AI summary Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI) is required to implement cost-effective electricity efficiency and conservation activities post-Implementation Date. NSPI may fulfill this obligation via agreements with franchise holders (approved by the Board) or alternative methods approved by the Board. Exceptions include rate structure development, financing arrangements, charitable activities, and other Board-approved initiatives, as outlined in the Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Restructuring (2014) Act.
(2) Each agreement must - (a) be for a term of three years, ending on December 31st of the third year of the agreement; - (b) not be terminable or terminated unless the franchise holder's franchise is terminated or the termination is appro...
AI summary Agreements must be three-year terms, non-terminable without Board approval, outline efficiency activities by franchise holders, and specify payments to them. If agreements fail, the Board may intervene to establish terms. Applications under subsection (3) are treated as Section 79L approvals.
Information for franchise holder - 79K (1) Nova Scotia Power Incorporated shall provide a franchise holder with such information in its possession or control, including records and personal information, respecting customer electricity usag...
AI summary Nova Scotia Power Incorporated (NSPI) must provide franchise holders with customer electricity usage data to support energy efficiency programs. Franchise holders may request this information, and NSPI must comply within a reasonable period. Confidentiality applies except for publicly available or legally required disclosures. Disputes may be resolved by the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB).
Board's approval of agreements - 79L (1) No agreement between Nova Scotia Power Incorporated and a franchise holder, including an agreement amending such an agreement, is valid until it has been approved by the Board pursuant to this Secti...
AI summary The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (Board) mandates approval of agreements between Nova Scotia Power Incorporated (NSPI) and franchise holders. The process requires both parties to submit information, with franchise holders primarily responsible for justifying electricity efficiency activities. The Board must ensure affordability and alignment with customer interests, referencing Section 79J and the Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Restructuring (2014) Act.
First franchise - 79Q (1) Notwithstanding clause 79C(2)(b), the first franchise granted after the coming into force of this Section expires December 31, 2025. - (2) Notwithstanding Sections 79I and 79J, for the purpose of Section 79I, Nova...
AI summary Section 79Q outlines terms for the first franchise post-implementation, including a 2025 expiration date, a 2015 initial agreement between Nova Scotia Power and the franchise holder for electricity efficiency activities, and requirements for proposal submission and Board approval. Legal references include 2014 and 2015 legislative amendments.
> __________ 1 2 3 HANSARD 09-29 DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS Speaker: Honourable Charlie Parker 4 Published by Order of the Legislature by Hansard Reporting Services and printed by the Queen's Printer. 5 Available on INTERNET at http://nslegis...
AI summary This text discusses the introduction of Bill No. 49, the Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation Act, which follows recommendations from Dr. David Wheeler's report. The bill aims to establish the Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation and is part of a legislative process involving public consultation and stakeholder engagement.
Nova Scotia Corporation what happens to - those programs. At the moment, I would suggest that the programs there, while good, are certainly - wanting when compared to the federal one and other provincial governments. At the moment, - membe...
AI summary The text discusses ambiguities in a bill regarding Efficiency Nova Scotia's (ENS) role, particularly its interaction with provincial government departments and management of tax credits for energy efficiency. Concerns are raised about potential duplication of programs and unclear governance structures, with comparisons to federal and other provincial initiatives.
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 10 11 12 EFFICIENCYONE, the laws of a body corporate, organized under Canada 13 14 "EfficiencyOne") (hereinafter called 15 WHEREAS; 16 A. EfficiencyOne and NSPI are both...
AI summary The document outlines the 2019 DSM Filing and Snpply Agreement between EfficiencyOne and NSPI, emphasizing their roles as public utilities under the Act, and their obligations to supply cost-effective Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Activities.
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; 3...
AI summary The text outlines a supply agreement involving EfficiencyOne and the Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Agreement (EECA), referencing the Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Restructuring (2014) Act and the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (UARB). The agreement details obligations and rights, particularly in relation to electricity efficiency and conservation activities.
Supply Agreement 1 2 (b) provide sufficient resources to enable EfficiencyOne to perform its obligations on time and in accordance with this Agreement; 5 (d) manage the EECA in an efficient manner; and
AI summary The Supply Agreement outlines the obligations of EfficiencyOne, including providing sufficient resources to perform its duties and managing the Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Agreement efficiently.
43 45 SCHEDULE C 46 47 Performance Requirements 48 1. UARB-APPROVED PERFORMANCE TARGETS. THRESHOLDS. AND 49 INDICATORS 50 51 a) Performance Targets Thresholds: and 52 53 i. compliance EfficiencyOne is deemed in substantial with the UARB to...
AI summary This document outlines performance requirements and a confidentiality agreement between EfficiencyOne and Nova Scotia Power Incorporated (NSPI). It includes UARB-approved performance targets, thresholds, and indicators for energy efficiency programs, as well as a confidentiality agreement related to the Supply Agreement for Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Activities.
- 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.
I. Future Cost-Effectiveness Screening We have a statutory duty to require each gas and electric company to establish any program or service that the Commission deems appropriate and cost effective to encourage and promote the efficient us...
AI summary The document outlines the statutory duty to ensure energy efficiency programs are cost-effective and discusses the transition from retrospective to prospective cost-effectiveness screening to foster innovation in Maryland's energy efficiency industry.
A. Cost-Effectiveness Tests Since the inception of the EmPOWER Maryland programs we have focused primarily on the Total Resource Cost ("TRC") test as the key predictor of cost effectiveness. 17 There are, however, four additional tests uti...
AI summary The document discusses the use of various cost-effectiveness tests, including the Total Resource Cost (TRC), Societal Cost (SCT), Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM), Participant Cost, and Program Administrator Cost (PACT) tests, for evaluating energy efficiency programs in Maryland. The TRC is highlighted as the most widely used test, particularly in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions.
B. Cost-Effectiveness Screening Levels In Order No. 84569, we directed the examination of cost effectiveness to occur at the sub-portfolio level, i.e. , collectively for residential programs and collectively for commercial and industrial (...
AI summary The document discusses the regulatory approach to cost-effectiveness screening levels in energy efficiency programs. It highlights the UARB's directive to examine cost effectiveness at the sub-portfolio level and the differing positions of MEA and BGE on the matter. BGE prefers testing at both sub-portfolio and program levels to avoid obscuring the potential of individual programs.
& 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.
2. Non-Energy Benefits Experts argue that the exclusion of non-energy benefits ("NEBs") from the costbenefit tests "may be the most significant problem with energy efficiency program screening methods in the United States today."60 Initial...
AI summary The exclusion of non-energy benefits from cost-benefit tests is a significant issue in energy efficiency program screening. While initially not included, some states have started incorporating 'readily measured' non-energy benefits into their regulatory cost-benefit tests, with others using simple adders for certain categories.
3. Discount Rate A significant input to the cost-effectiveness screening process is the discount rate assumption. Given that each cost-effectiveness test reflects a specific stakeholder perspective in comparing the net present value of the...
AI summary The discount rate assumption is a critical factor in the cost-effectiveness screening process for energy efficiency programs. The EmPOWER Maryland programs currently use the utility's weighted average cost of capital (WACC) as the discount rate for the TRC test. However, some stakeholders, including MEA and Efficiency First, advocate for a lower societal discount rate of 4.7% for the SCT. The staff recommends using the average WACC for all cost-effectiveness tests except the SCT, while the decision supports the use of the 4.7% rate for the SCT and retains the WACC for the TRC test.
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.
1. Electric Energy Efficiency Goals The EmPOWER Maryland Planning Work Group utilized a common set of questions to consider the structure and nature of post-2015 energy savings goals. 88 A high level of consensus was achieved regarding sev...
AI summary The EmPOWER Maryland Planning Work Group reached consensus on structural elements for post-2015 energy savings goals, including utility-wide goals and a three-year program cycle. However, there was no consensus on the expression of specific energy savings targets. OPC and the Coalition recommended expressing goals as a percentage of retail sales and achieving 2% annual incremental gross energy savings, while other parties deferred to a potential study.
2. Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Goals Although the current 2015 EmPOWER Maryland goals measure progress on the basis of electricity energy savings and demand reductions, the guiding statute states that, "[s]ubject to review and approval b...
AI summary The document discusses the need for natural gas energy efficiency goals, contrasting them with the existing EmPOWER Maryland electricity goals. Stakeholders have debated whether to set separate natural gas goals or focus on cost-effective electric savings from fuel conversion. A work group was formed in 2014 to address these issues and coordinate programs across electric and natural gas service territories.
3. Limited-Income Energy Efficiency Goals Improving the energy efficiency of limited-income households remains a critical area of focus for the State. In recent orders we have established a framework of accountability to increase the reach...
AI summary The document discusses the need to set energy efficiency goals for limited-income households under the EmPOWER Maryland program, emphasizing the importance of accountability and the need for input from the current program implementer. A work group is directed to develop a post-2015 goal, considering factors like customer eligibility, historical performance, and bill impacts.
4. Multifamily Energy Efficiency Goals We continue to acknowledge the importance of extending EmPOWER programs to all market segments, although we note that no party recommended the establishment of a separate post-2015 energy efficiency g...
AI summary The document discusses the continuation of EmPOWER programs for all market segments, noting that no party recommended a separate post-2015 energy efficiency goal for the multifamily sector. It acknowledges that multifamily initiatives are currently funded from both residential and C&I surcharges and that tracking progress is important for equitable resource distribution.
l be reflected in 120 Id. 121 See Order No. 86785 (Dec. 23, 2014). the cost-effectiveness screening tools, subject to the modified assumption of a four-year Capacity DRIPE; - (4) That the Utilities' individual weighted average cost of capi...
AI summary The document outlines post-2015 demand reduction goals and specifies adjustments to cost-effectiveness screening tools, including the use of a four-year Capacity DRIPE assumption. It also sets discount rates for various tests, includes specific benefit valuations from Itron, and requires utilities to report forecasted electric savings for the 2015–2017 program cycle.
Appendix 1: Post-2015 Electric Energy Efficiency Goal Structure Illustration Hypothetical: Utility A, Utility B, and Utility C each received Commission approval for their 2015 – 2017 program cycle proposals. Translating the gross savings f...
AI summary This appendix illustrates the structure of post-2015 electric energy efficiency goals by translating the gross savings forecasted by approved 2015–2017 program cycle proposals into a percentage of individual 2013 weather-normalized gross retail sales for three utilities.
Table 2: Revised 2015 – 2017 Program Cycle Goals Annual Incremental Gross Savings as a Percentage of 2013 Weather-Normalized Gross Retail Sales 2015 2016 2017 Utility A 1.50% 1.50% 1.70% Utility B 1.20% 1.25% 1.45% Utility C 1.30% 1.35% 1....
AI summary Table 2 outlines revised energy efficiency goals for Utilities A, B, and C from 2015 to 2017. The utilities are required to submit new electric energy efficiency plans by September 1, 2017, aiming to increase annual incremental gross savings until reaching a 2.0% target. Progress will be measured annually, while achievement is based on the average of three-year targets.