Topic:"Evidence Requirements" in M06733

specified above shall not be considered a Force Majeure Event. - (l) " Franchise " has the meaning ascribed to it in the Act. - (m) " Franchise Holder " has the meaning ascribed to it in the Act.

AI summary The text defines 'Franchise' and 'Franchise Holder' as terms with meanings assigned by the Act, indicating their legal significance within the regulatory framework of Nova Scotia's utility sector.

2014 HER-R1. Explain in greater detail the characteristics of HER in the program documentation. Designed to influence and change participants' electricity use behaviour, HER is different from other program components undertaken by ENSC. Th...

AI summary The Evaluator emphasizes the need for detailed documentation of HER's characteristics, challenges, and evaluation methods. Key issues include discrepancies in participant numbers, selection processes, data confidentiality, and the need for comprehensive evaluation plans. Recommendations focus on validating data adjustments, comparing treatment/control groups, and analyzing long-term electricity consumption trends.

2.2 Evaluation Activities Figure 1 illustrates the research strategy and data collection activities used for the 2014 evaluation. Analysis of Program Documentation Interviews Figure 1: Methodological Model Each step of this methodological...

AI summary Section 2.2 outlines evaluation activities, including a methodological model (Figure 1) with steps described in sub-sections. Key activities involve program documentation analysis, interviews, and data collection as part of the 2014 evaluation.

3.2 Program Documentation As part of the evaluation, the Evaluator analyzed the program documentation and worked together with the PM to improve and revise the content of certain program documents. A number of changes have already been mad...

AI summary The Evaluator reviewed program documentation for HER and recommended updates to clarify participant selection, criteria, and tip processes. They suggested removing gross savings calculations for HER, enhancing evaluation plan comprehensiveness, and improving tip library organization with an index. The Evaluator praised HER's report quality but noted cross-program tip references.

3.3 Tracking System Opower is in charge of tracking the savings of the paper-based component and submits savings summary reports to ENSC every month. ENSC has created its own internal tracking system using some of the data provided in thes...

AI summary Opower tracks paper-based component savings for ENSC, submitting monthly reports. ENSC uses internal systems for data analysis, but web-based component savings lack tracking. Reports include electricity savings, opt-outs, and web metrics. Opower provides customer databases (excluding web phone numbers) and tip actions, though data comparison is limited. CRA was commissioned to obtain missing phone numbers for surveys.

D8. [DO NOT READ] Gender: - 1. Male - 2. Female END: THAT IS ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE FOR YOU. THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO RESPOND TO THIS SURVEY.

AI summary This document contains a gender selection question (Male/Female) from a survey conducted as part of a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding. The text indicates the conclusion of the survey and includes an image reference.

2.2 Evaluation Activities Figure 1 illustrates the research strategy and data collection activities used for the 2014 evaluation. Figure 1: Methodological Model Project No. 5870 Each step of this methodological model is further described i...

AI summary The section outlines evaluation activities for the 2014 program, referencing a methodological model (Figure 1) and Project No. 5870, which details research strategies and data collection approaches.

2.2.1 Interview with Program Manager The Econoler team conducted one interview with the PM in September 2014 to gain a basic understanding of the program's mechanisms and delivery. Based on the information obtained from this interview, a l...

AI summary The Econoler team interviewed the Program Manager in September 2014 to understand the program's mechanisms and delivery, leading to the preparation of questions and topics for data collection tools.

3.2 Program Documentation As part of the evaluation, the Evaluator analyzed the program documentation and worked together with the PM to improve and revise the content of certain program documents. A number of changes have already been mad...

AI summary The Evaluator reviewed program documentation and collaborated with the Program Manager (PM) to revise materials. Key issues identified include outdated participant numbers in the Home Energy Report (HER), missing criteria for home age in group selection, and incomplete evaluation plan data. The Evaluator recommended improving HER documentation, updating the evaluation plan, and reorganizing the tip library for better navigation.

3.3 Tracking System Opower is in charge of tracking the savings of the paper-based component and submits savings summary reports to ENSC every month. ENSC has created its own internal tracking system using some of the data provided in thes...

AI summary Opower tracks paper-based component savings for ENSC, submitting monthly reports. ENSC uses internal systems for tracking but lacks web-based tracking data. Opower provides customer databases and tip actions, but phone numbers for web-based participants were unavailable, requiring CRA's assistance. Databases and tip actions could not be compared to assess participant actions.

Gross Peak Demand Savings Some of the tips selected to calculate energy savings might have also achieved a certain level of peak demand savings. However, additional information is required to estimate the demand savings attributable to eac...

AI summary The analysis notes that while some energy-saving tips may reduce peak demand, specific data is needed to quantify savings. The HER component lacks on-peak demand-to-energy ratio data from the DSM Plan, and the web-based component's minimal impact excludes it from peak demand savings attribution in 2014.

D8. [DO NOT READ] Gender: - 1. Male - 2. Female END: THAT IS ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE FOR YOU. THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO RESPOND TO THIS SURVEY.

AI summary A gender selection question (Male/Female) from a survey conducted as part of a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding. The text indicates the end of the survey and includes an image reference.

Scan America® Vision Statement To be a world leader in developing truthful measurement and useful results; to support development of efficient, ethical, and effective practices, sustained economically; to advance human development.

AI summary Scan America® aims to lead globally in truthful measurement and impactful results, promoting efficient, ethical, and economically sustainable practices while advancing human development.

uld only report on what the program vendor asserted that it did with the dataset and the assignment of houses to groups. The analysis conducted by the evaluator cannot be characterized as independent. - The results of this study are not ad...

AI summary The evaluation of a program's energy savings and demand reduction is criticized for lacking independence, as the program vendor conducted the primary analysis. The DSM Administrator could not verify data due to lacking access to the customer database, leading to reliance on the vendor's claims. The secondary evaluator's analysis was constrained by the vendor's database, further undermining independence.

2 Scope The following DSM program administrators were chosen for research. While mostly Canadian administrators were chosen, Efficiency Maine was added due to proximity to NS. A cross section of sizes, maturities, regulatory environments a...

AI summary The scope section outlines the selection of DSM program administrators across Canada, including Efficiency Maine for proximity to Nova Scotia. Key data points researched include utility sales, DSM savings, and program performance. A complete dataset was not found due to limited public information availability.

, accessed February 4, 2015 Todd Williams, Stu Slote, Gary Cullen (Navigant). Nova Scotia 2015Ͳ2040 Demand Side Management (DSM) Potential Study, January 7, 2014. Total Population, British Columbia, http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/StatisticsB...

AI summary References to studies, plans, and reports related to Nova Scotia's Demand Side Management (DSM) potential, energy efficiency programs, and verification processes. Includes data sources, evaluation reports, and triennial plans from Efficiency Maine Trust and other entities.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 [http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/10/f18/revolution\_now\_updated\_charts\_and\_text\_october](http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/10/f18/revolution_now_updated_charts_and_text_october_2014_1.pdf) 2 _2014_1.pd...

AI summary The document references appendices containing evidence submissions for a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding, including testimonies, energy savings portfolio reviews, and an alternate DSM plan. It cites internal reference numbers (IRs) and associated attachments related to NS Power's evidence and the Consumer Advocate's input.

Finding In the Board's view, what NSPI did was highly unusual and could easily lead to prolongation of the hearing process and delayed decisions if it were to become accepted practice. Having said that, for the following reasons, the Board...

AI summary The UARB permitted NSPI's Memorandum to remain in the record despite concerns over procedural irregularities, emphasizing unique case facts and discouraging future similar practices. The Board criticized NSPI's delayed response to IR-12(g)(iv) but acknowledged E1's limited ability to address incentive rigor. The decision highlights issues with the undertaking process and the inclusion of expert evidence.

portfolio included seven programs which consisted of 16 components and initiatives. Econoler evaluated all 16 in addition to Codes and Standards. The series of reports were filed on February 27, 2015. [31] A revised version of the Home Ene...

AI summary Econoler evaluated Nova Scotia Power Inc.'s 2014 DSM programs, achieving 151.9 GWh energy savings and 27.1 MW peak demand savings. The report included 71 recommendations, with concerns raised about the Home Energy Report's data verification. Savings exceeded the 2014 target by 10.2%, but confidentiality issues limited data review.

en NSPI and EfficiencyOne including all Schedules attached hereto. - (c) "Business Day" means Monday to Friday, except federal, provincial, and civic holidays within the Province of Nova Scotia.

AI summary The text defines 'Business Day' as Monday to Friday, excluding holidays in Nova Scotia, and references NSPI and EfficiencyOne. The interpretation section outlines procedural terms for the regulatory proceeding.

June 1, 2015 Doreen Friis Regulatory Affairs Officer/Clerk Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board 1601 Lower Water Street, 3rd Floor P.O. Box 1692, Unit "M" Halifax, NS B3J 3S3 Re: M06733 – EfficiencyOne – 2016‐2018 Demand Side Management ("...

AI summary NS Power submits a revised version of its Evidence for M06733 – EfficiencyOne's 2016-2018 DSM Plan, incorporating corrections to address Information Requests (IRs) from EAC, Multeese, and SBA. Revisions include updated appendices, tables, and figures, with specific changes outlined in responses to IRs.

James R. Gogan Direct Dial: (902) 563-5920 E-Mail: [email protected] File No. 41736-18 June 3, 2015 Nova Scotia Utility & Review Board PO Box 1692, Unit "M" Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3S3 Attention: Doreen Friis, Regulatory Affairs Offi...

AI summary EfficiencyOne revised its evidence submission for M06733, correcting cell reference errors in its response to Synapse IR-17. The revisions address inaccuracies in the 50% Low Alternate Scenario's avoided costs and Municipal Class rate impacts, leading to updated average rate impact figures. Page numbers were added for reference clarity.

Notice of Intention to Participate - MEUNSC EfficiencyOne has reviewed the Notice of Intention to Participate filed by the Nova Scotia Municipal Electric Utilities of Nova Scotia Cooperative received on June 8, 2015 in respect to the above...

AI summary EfficiencyOne objects to adding Nova Scotia Municipal Electric Utilities of Nova Scotia Cooperative as an intervenor, citing the application's lateness and potential prejudice to the co-applicant. They argue the intervenor lacks time to submit evidence and the applicant's interest is unclear, suggesting the applicant's issues should be addressed during the public session on June 16, 2015.

ickles, p.20-25. 64 Exhibit E-40, Direct Evidence from Drazen Consulting Group, Inc. on Behalf of the Industrial Group, pp. 19-20. 65 Direct Evidence of John Athas (SBA), p.18.

AI summary The text references exhibits and direct evidence submitted in a regulatory proceeding related to Demand Side Management (DSM) flexibility. It cites evidence from Drazen Consulting Group on behalf of the Industrial Group and direct testimony from John Athas (SBA), highlighting procedural aspects of the proceeding.

Exhibit 46. EfficiencyOne Reply Evidence. Appendix "B", Page 6, lines 27-28. 36 Exhibit 46. EfficiencyOne Reply Evidence. Appendix "B", Page 8, line 17.

AI summary The document references EfficiencyOne's Reply Evidence (Exhibit 46, Appendix B, pages 6 and 8) but does not include specific arguments or positions from Nova Scotia Power (NSP) in this excerpt. The text highlights procedural references rather than substantive claims.

& lt;sup>16 Exhibit E-40, Evidence of Mark Drazen, p.19. & lt;sup>17 Exhibit E-40. Evidence of Mark Drazen, p.19. - 25. As to the reduced benefits, it is the nature of DSM, that participants will enjoy energy savings by lowering their ener...

AI summary The text critiques E1's lack of evidence on DSM cost impacts and cross-subsidization concerns, while highlighting Mr. Pickles' argument for flexible DSM capacity. The Board emphasizes evidence-based decisions, contrasting E1's vague risk claims with Pickles' testimony on DSM's adaptability to demand needs.

Re: M06733 – Nova Scotia Power Incorporated – Reply Submissions This correspondence is further to your letter of July 13, 2015 and Mr. Gogan's letter of July 9, 2015, objecting to the inclusion of a memorandum prepared by ICF International...

AI summary Nova Scotia Power (NS Power) responds to objections regarding the inclusion of ICF International's memorandum in its submission. NS Power argues E1's objections are without merit, citing E1's failure to provide incentive rationale, E1's use of U-4 documents in its closing submission, and the appropriateness of Mr. Pickles' memorandum based on existing evidence. NS Power asserts the Board should consider the memorandum.

E1 replied: Please refer to EfficiencyOne's response to NSPI IR-10 Attachment 1, filed electronically, for measure-level incentives modelled in the EL-RAM, which are provided in column BK. The modelled incentive dollars provided reflect ac...

AI summary E1's response to IR-12(g)(iv) was deemed non-responsive by NS Power, which argues that E1's submission lacked analysis and relied on unverified data. NS Power cites Board Regulatory Rules and precedents like Wolfson to assert the need for procedural fairness, emphasizing that E1's failure to adequately address the IR prejudiced NS Power's ability to respond to U-4. The Board's jurisdiction to manage undertakings and ensure full disclosure is highlighted.

INCENTIVES Both NS Power and the Industrial Group take effort in their closing arguments to assert that the cost of incentives provided by EfficiencyOne are too high and, somewhat relatedly, that there is a lack of evidence to support the...

AI summary NS Power and the Industrial Group argue that EfficiencyOne's incentives are too costly and lack evidence of value. EfficiencyOne counters that Mr. Pickles' assessment of their Undertaking U-4 has a fundamental flaw. Exhibit E-1 is referenced in the rebuttal.

unt programs, not direct install programs (which include installation costs); costs for specialty LEDs are higher than $10; and the Custom program models incentives of 14 cents/kWh, not 17 cents/kWh. While this information is in evidence,...

AI summary EfficiencyOne defends its DSM incentive modeling, noting discrepancies between modeled and actual incentives, while NS Power and the Industrial Group argue insufficient evidence supports the proposed levels. EfficiencyOne emphasizes operational flexibility, whereas opponents highlight inconsistencies in TRC and investment levels across measures.

5.4 Incentives 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 E1 states that "there has been no evidence placed before this Board that would show that incentives provided by EfficiencyOne with respect to specific measures are excessive." 35 As noted above, th...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) argues that its incentive levels for energy efficiency measures are not excessive, but expert testimony from Mr. Drazen and Mr. Pickles highlights a lack of transparency in E1's methodology. E1 did not provide sufficient quantitative or qualitative analysis to support its application, according to the experts.

James R. Gogan Direct Dial: (902) 563-5920 E-Mail: [email protected] File No. 41736-18 July 9, 2015 Nova Scotia Utility & Review Board PO Box 1692, Unit "M" Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3S3 Attention: Doreen Friis, Regulatory Affairs Offi...

AI summary EfficiencyOne objects to Nova Scotia Power Incorporated's inclusion of a new expert memorandum by ICF International in its closing submissions, arguing it prejudices their position by introducing late evidence. EfficiencyOne asserts they complied with the Board's deadline for filing undertakings, including U-4, well before the July 8 closing submissions date.

ing 4 directed EfficiencyOne to provide an assessment of its incentive levels. This document was filed with the Board on June 24, 2015, well in advance of the closing submissions date of July 8, 2015. Through the ICF Memorandum, NS Power n...

AI summary NS Power submitted a memorandum introducing evidence on EfficiencyOne's incentive levels, which EfficiencyOne objects to, arguing it is prejudicial and prevents cross-examination of Mr. Pickles. The Board previously rejected new evidence in closing submissions, as seen in Halifax Regional Municipality Charter and Clarke et al., 2013 NSUARB 163 .

Finding In the Board's view, what NSPI did was highly unusual and could easily lead to prolongation of the hearing process and delayed decisions if it were to become accepted practice. Having said that, for the following reasons, the Board...

AI summary The UARB permits NSPI's Memorandum in the record despite concerns over its timing and potential precedent. The Board acknowledges procedural issues with undertakings but allows the Memorandum due to unique case facts. NSPI's argument that the Memorandum was not new evidence is rejected, though the Board notes E1's failure to address incentive rigor in reply evidence. The decision discourages similar practices in future proceedings.

- [22] The Consensus Agreement addressed a number of issues, which were identified in the Board's Final Issues List in this proceeding, and which the Board discusses below. - [23] In a number of previous decisions relating to electricity m...

AI summary The Consensus Agreement addresses issues from the Board's Final Issues List, with the Board emphasizing its support for settlement agreements. The Board highlights that 80% of the rate hearing process occurs pre-hearing, including evidence submission and responses to Information Requests. The Board assures the public that agreements supported by all customer classes are in the public interest and that members have thoroughly reviewed materials prior to decisions.

3.5.2 Incentives [66] The Board, in its questioning of El's witnesses, and NSPI and the Industrial Group in their submissions, expressed significant concerns over the manner in which incentives are determined by El. It would appear from th...

AI summary The Board raised concerns about El's incentive design for DSM programs, noting over 60% of the budget is allocated to participants. Experts like Mr. Pickles and Mr. Drazen criticized the lack of justification and reasonableness in incentives, while NSPI argued El's plan lacks quantitative criteria and affordability analysis. Mr. Dunsky's testimony was favored, but concerns about incentive structure were acknowledged.

investigation, proceeding or claim; and - (iii) any costs, liabilities or damages arising out of a settlement of a claim by the indemnified party, with or without the consent of the indemnifying party. - (q) " Law " means the common law, t...

AI summary The text defines key terms in a regulatory proceeding, including legal frameworks, indemnification obligations, and party roles. It references NSPI, EfficiencyOne, and EECA, with definitions covering liabilities, laws, and statutory obligations under the Act.

Residual Information 11. The Recipient or its designate or any other person having access to the Confidential Information pursuant to this Agreement shall not, during and after the termination of this Agreement, use in its business any Res...

AI summary The text defines 'Residual Information' as ideas, know-how, and techniques retained in the unaided memory of a skilled person after accessing confidential information. It prohibits the recipient and others from using this residual information post-agreement termination, emphasizing that memory is 'unaided' unless intentionally memorized for retention or disclosure.

specified above shall not be considered a Force Majeure Event. - (l) "Franchise" has the meaning ascribed to it in the Act. - (m) "Franchise Holder" has the meaning ascribed to it in the Act.

AI summary The text defines key terms such as 'Force Majeure Event,' 'Franchise,' and 'Franchise Holder,' all referencing the Act. No specific claims, entities, or cross-references are explicitly mentioned in the provided excerpt.