Topic:"Environmental Compliance" in M08888

Value of Distributed Solar Electric Generation by Location Category Value (¢/kWh) Pittsburgh, PA Harrisburg, PA Scranton, PA Philadelphia, PA Jamesburg, NY Newark, NJ Atlantic City, NJ ME NY MA CT Fuel cost savings 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.8 4.2 3.9...

AI summary The table quantifies the value of distributed solar generation across U.S. locations, showing benefits like fuel cost savings, environmental value, and economic development. Total values range from 22.6 to 33.7 cents/kWh, with Maine and Massachusetts having higher totals. Data sources include academic studies and regulatory bodies.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL - (i) in the case of a demand-side measure of FortisBC Inc., an amount that the commission is - satisfied represents FortisBC Inc.'s long-run marginal cost of acquiring electricity generated - from clean or renewable resou...

AI summary The text outlines rules for calculating benefits of demand-side measures, including long-run marginal costs for renewable energy and adjustments for non-energy benefits. Exceptions apply to measures reducing natural gas use without lowering GHG emissions or promoting fuel switches to natural gas/electricity. FortisBC Inc. is referenced as a case example.

to exercise extensive - oversight of the DSM activities undertaken by EfficiencyOne, including the approval of proposed - activities, and the language used in the PUA to define the extent of and considerations relevant to the - Board's ove...

AI summary The NSUARB has broad oversight authority over DSM activities, including EfficiencyOne's programs. Legislative history shows ENSC was replaced by EfficiencyOne in 2014, with PUA amendments reflecting dual objectives: reducing electricity use and environmental protection at low cost. The ENSCA's creation emphasized energy efficiency as a key environmental and economic goal.

[107] Mr. Foote, in his direct evidence, stated that: Any discussion of whether to include non-program standards and at what level should not distract the UARB and stakeholders from the main purpose of this process which is to ensure spend...

AI summary Mr. Foote argues that non-program savings should be considered to justify ENSC's spending and meet energy demand and environmental targets. EAC opposes non-program savings due to DSM planning uncertainties, while Mr. Whalen and Mr. Woolf support ENSC's estimates and inclusion of industrial savings in the 2012 Plan.

subsequent update in 2009. So I believe we filed a quote from the Terms of Reference for the 2009 IRP and it lists basically what we're trying to evaluate in doing the IRP. Bullet number three says: Develop and evaluate alternative plans i...

AI summary The 2016-18 DSM Plan aligns with the 2014 IRP's objective of minimizing costs through DSM, which saves ratepayers money and reduces emissions. The IRP's Terms of Reference (2009) emphasize evaluating alternatives using total resource cost metrics. DSM is framed as a key component of long-term energy planning, balancing economic and environmental benefits.

4.0 LETTERS OF COMMENT AND PUBLIC SPEAKERS [129] The Board received 37 letters of comment from various persons, who wrote individually or on behalf of organizations. With only two exceptions, all were supportive of E1 and maintaining the a...

AI summary The Board received 37 letters, mostly supporting E1's DSM plan, citing environmental, economic, and low-income benefits. Public speakers emphasized maintaining DSM programs and energy efficiency culture. One letter critiqued Dr. Peach's evidence, while concerns about industry capacity if spending decreases were raised.

n the corridor area, he would not be compensated because of that knowledge. Mr. Smith said that was the moment when he concluded he could not do anything on that land. He "knew we were in trouble". … - [36] As a result of the conversation...

AI summary Mr. Smith abandoned plans for a Lower South River store after a 1998 meeting with Mr. Bushell, citing insurmountable challenges. The Board accepted his testimony about this conversation. The 'blue route' was approved in 2000 but officially announced in 2005 following an environmental assessment.

- [339] But the Province could not proceed with expropriation until an Environmental Assessment was done. This was not complete until August 6, 2005. It passed. - [340] Mr. Smith said that he knew that the Blue Route was still not "solid"...

AI summary The Province delayed expropriation until an Environmental Assessment was completed in August 2005. Mr. Smith highlighted the Blue Route's development was subject to assessment, but a neighbor's trailer park led to quick land acquisition. Central's counsel argued Central received no purchase offers, forcing expropriation. Central expanded, and legal counsel was engaged in 2005. Provincial witnesses, including Mr. Bushell, were questioned about Central's expansion plans.

- lady came forward and questioned me as we did this Conserve Nova Scotia program for people at the - home show at Exhibition Park on the Prospect Road. - When I told her I wasn't Mr. Dodge, that I was the Minister of Energy, I want you to...

AI summary The Minister of Energy highlights Conserve Nova Scotia's role in promoting energy efficiency and the transition to a new Energy Efficiency Corporation. Emphasizes staff expertise, program continuity, and environmental benefits from reduced fossil fuel use. Acknowledges public engagement and commitment to maintaining accessible energy-saving initiatives.

have to they have - no choice but to consume electricity, have less capability to deal with implementing energy - efficiency programs. Yet those who have the ability, like myself and every member of this House, - that could do a lot of our...

AI summary The text highlights disparities in demand-side management capabilities among Nova Scotians, calls for government clarity on energy initiatives, and emphasizes unaddressed opportunities like co-gen and biomass. It critiques the lack of emission reduction strategies and proposes Sydney Harbour dredging to stabilize the rate base, reducing reliance on Nova Scotia Power's rate increases.

EFFICIENCYONE 2019 DSM FILING 2019 Snpply Agreement 1 27. SURVIVAL 18 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 (o) Substances" "Hazardous any substance or material that means is prohibited, regulated Governmental Authority pursuant to Environmental controlled o...

AI summary The text contains definitions related to hazardous substances and indemnified costs under the 2019 EfficiencyOne DSM Filing. It outlines substances prohibited or regulated by environmental laws and the scope of indemnified costs, including liabilities, legal expenses, and environmental remediation costs.

6. SAFETY 3 34 - 4 5 6.1 EfficiencyOne shall at all times be responsible for safety and loss management in the supply or performance of the EECA. - 6 7 8 9 6.2 EfficiencyOne shall ensure that all employees, Subcontractors, agents and repre...

AI summary EfficiencyOne is mandated to manage safety and loss in the EECA, ensuring compliance with all federal, provincial, and municipal health, safety, and environmental regulations. The entity must enforce these standards across its employees, subcontractors, and agents.

21 8. ENVIRONMENT - 22 23 24 25 8.1 EfficiencyOne and its Subcontractors shall at all times comply with all Environmental Laws that apply in any way to the supply or performance of the EECA. EfficiencyOne and its Subcontractors shall not c...

AI summary EfficiencyOne and its subcontractors must comply with Environmental Laws and avoid hazardous substance releases. They must indemnify NSPI against any resulting costs from breaches or releases.

d's powers as found in Section 79L(9) must be read in light of the broader statutory context which clearly articulates that a franchise's activities are to provide energy-related benefits and savings. Ultimately, EfficiencyOne may be corre...

AI summary The NSUARB's authority to assess EfficiencyOne's DSM plan is contested, with the Industrial Group arguing that the Board's consideration of non-energy savings data exceeds its statutory mandate under the PUA. The Industrial Group disputes the inclusion of CO2 emissions in cost-effectiveness analysis, citing Synapse's study on compliance costs and consumer savings as a basis for the 2018 Board Order.

Counsel: Ian Blue, Q.C., and Elizabeth E. May, for Flamborough Residents Against Propane Inc. and David L. Hitchcock H. Dahme, for Corporation of the Town of Flamborough and the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth. John A. Olah, fo...

AI summary A regulatory proceeding involving multiple stakeholders, including residents, municipalities, conservation authorities, industry groups, and legal representatives, with counsel listed for various parties. The proceeding likely pertains to energy or public utility matters, given the involvement of pipeline companies and regulatory bodies.

Hansard EfficiencyOne respectfully suggests that NS Power is incorrect to suggest the reference to the Hansard in EfficiencyOne's submissions is an attempt to extend the powers of the NSUARB to spheres not granted by the legislature. The j...

AI summary EfficiencyOne challenges NS Power's assertion that referencing Hansard expands NSUARB's jurisdiction, arguing the NSUARB has broad discretion to consider environmental factors in DSM activities. Cites the 2018 NSUARB Order requiring CO2 emission inclusion in cost-effectiveness analysis and references PUA s. 79(L)(9). Notes NEB application relevance but maintains NSUARB's jurisdiction focus.

ers", in the absence of any limiting language, allows "a cumulative consideration of the diverse interests of the customer" in a manner that accounts for the unrestrictive range of costs and benefits. [36] EfficiencyOne also argued that a...

AI summary EfficiencyOne argues the Public Utilities Act allows broad environmental considerations in determining customers' best interests, citing a 2009 ministerial comment. The Board and Industrial Group counter that statutory definitions in Section 79A(b) limit the Board's jurisdiction to specific 'electricity efficiency and conservation activities.'

to determine what is in the best interests of customers and must be necessarily limited by the statutory definition of "electricity efficiency and conservation activities" outlined in Section 79A(b). [38] The Board interprets the comments...

AI summary The NSUARB interprets Section 79A of the Public Utilities Act to limit the Board's jurisdiction to cost-effective electricity efficiency programs, rejecting an environmental mandate. It clarifies that 2014 amendments eliminated the Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation's environmental role, requiring NS Power to focus on customer cost reduction through DSM programs. The Board rejects expanding regulatory oversight beyond statutory definitions.