Topic:"Fuel Cost Adjustment" in M09096

ntial Study, developed by 2 Navigant. The DSM Potential Study set out the achievable energy savings potential in Nova Scotia (i.e., how much DSM Nova Scotia can feasibly achieve).[16](#page-21-0) 3 4 5 One of the core outputs of the 2014 I...

AI summary The 2014 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) identified Mid-Level Demand Side Management (DSM) as optimal for minimizing long-term electricity costs in Nova Scotia. Synapse confirmed this as part of the least-cost utility plan, while the Board emphasized the IRP's role in preventing uneconomic decisions. NSP cited affordability and near-term rate concerns, which would be addressed through DSM and ratemaking processes.

14 15 Figure 2: NS Power 2018 operating costs as a percentage of annual electric 16 revenues NS Power - 2018 Operating Costs as % of Annual Electric Revenues $ Million % of Total Annual Electric Revenues $ 1,412 Fuel 593 42.0% Operating, M...

AI summary The text presents a table showing NS Power's 2018 operating costs as a percentage of annual electric revenues, highlighting that fuel costs account for the largest share (42.0%), followed by depreciation and amortization (15.5%) and operating, maintenance, and general expenses (17.8%).

7 6.3.1.2 How does the Preferred Plan balance short term and long-term affordability? 8 9 A balanced and properly implemented DSM Plan resulting in real, long term cost 10 savings must be weighed against the rate impact of the plan in the...

AI summary The Preferred Plan balances short-term and long-term affordability by emphasizing energy efficiency as the lowest-cost fuel. While short-term rate impacts are considered, the plan focuses on long-term cost savings. Energy efficiency reduces fuel costs and lowers the fuel adjustment mechanism, benefiting all ratepayers.

NS Power provided estimates for 2019 by class, including block 1, block 2, Fuel Adjustment Mechanism, and demand charges where applicable. base charges are assumed to remain flat after 2019. Transformer credits are not included in rates. C...

AI summary NS Power provided 2019 estimates for block 1, block 2, Fuel Adjustment Mechanism, and demand charges. Base charges are assumed flat after 2019, and transformer credits are excluded from rates. Historical and forecasted energy sales data, including DSM assumptions from the 2014 IRP, are used to estimate no-DSM rates and sales scenarios.

Benefits (Avoided Costs) In the societal test, the Energy Trust will include the following benefits: 1. The value of the electrical and/or gas energy saved based on the avoided cost forecasts of the utilities whose customers are served by...

AI summary The Energy Trust includes benefits such as avoided costs, non-energy benefits, line losses, and natural gas capacity benefits in its societal test. These benefits are based on forecasts from utilities and the PUC, and include a 10 percent credit for energy efficiency as required by the Northwest Power Act and OPUC Docket UM-551.

d uncertainty. Avoided costs based on integrated resource planning will be provided to the Energy Trust by utilities. The utility system test will include items 1, 3, 4 and 5 above. 14 https://energytrust.org/library/policies/4.06.000.pdf...

AI summary The text discusses avoided costs in utility planning, including the inclusion of forecasted reduced carbon dioxide emissions and the consideration of other environmental pollutant costs as per OPUC guidance. It also mentions the application of societal tests and specific measure evaluations by the Energy Trust.

Covers shipments impacted by the proposed Regulations between 2019 and 2030. All benefits and costs are discounted at 3% to the year 2018. Table 3: Summary of benefits and costs to Canadians Aggregate Total Cumulative Annual Totals Present...

AI summary The text discusses the economic impacts of proposed regulations from 2019 to 2030, including benefits such as fuel savings and avoided GHG damages, and costs related to technology, installation, and compliance. All values are discounted to 2018 prices.

HEA Performance HEA aimed to achieve 7.5 GWh in net electrical energy savings and 2.1 MW in net peak demand savings at the generator in 2018. The Evaluator determined that HEA achieved 5.724 GWh in net electrical energy savings and 1.600 M...

AI summary The Home Energy Assessment (HEA) program achieved 5.724 GWh in net electrical energy savings and 1.600 MW in net peak demand savings in 2018, with 791 participants. Savings decreased compared to 2015 due to the removal of provincial funding for non-electrically heated households. However, net energy savings per participant increased due to changes in eligible measures and billing analysis. Non-electrically heated households were reintroduced in 2018 with federal funding, though impacts are yet to be observed.

5.3 Net Savings Net savings are defined as the changes in energy use that are specifically attributable to Instant Rebates. Net savings were estimated by applying the overall NTGR presented above to the revised gross savings, as exemplifie...

AI summary Net savings are calculated using the Netting and Transfer Guidance Ratio (NTGR) applied to revised gross savings. Total net energy and peak demand savings are estimated at 54.884 GWh and 8.255 MW, respectively, leading to 35,622 tonnes of avoided CO2 eq annually. These calculations use a 2017 Nova Scotia-specific GHG factor and data from Nova Scotia Power.

9.0 DSM AS A FAM EXPENDITURE NS Power proposes that DSM costs be dealt with either as part of the FAM or in a similar manner. As NS Power has $34.05 million in its non-fuel budget apportioned to DSM, the Company proposes that any variation...

AI summary NS Power proposes that Demand Side Management (DSM) costs be managed through the Fuel Adjustment Mechanism (FAM) or a similar approach. With a non-fuel budget of $34.05 million allocated to DSM, the company suggests that any approved variations be transferred to the FAM account before the next General Rate Application (GRA), ensuring greater transparency for customers.

10.1 Levelized avoided fuel costs Consistent with the Company's position provided in comments on the 2016 RBIA Report, due to the manner in which fuel costs have been incorporated, the use of levelized fuel costs from the 2014 IRP based on...

AI summary The document discusses the discrepancy between levelized fuel costs used in the 2014 IRP and actual marginal fuel costs experienced by customers. It highlights that the RBIA should reflect the recovery pattern of fuel costs, which are recovered as they are used, unlike future fixed costs. The levelized costs from the 2014 IRP are significantly higher than actual and projected marginal fuel costs.

Q. Mr. Levitan, what are your key findings and observations? - A. I have eight key findings and observations. - First, EfficiencyOne's Preferred Plan does not meet the Board's definition of affordability as the certain and significant near...

AI summary Mr. Levitan outlines eight key findings: EfficiencyOne's Preferred Plan lacks affordability, the Alternate scenario is suboptimal, lifetime energy savings are uncertain, less costly DSM plans are feasible, organic efficiency measures exist, jurisdictional analysis is flawed, ProCESS modeling is subjective, and inflated fuel costs skew cost-effectiveness. These critiques focus on DSM plan evaluation, cost-benefit analysis, and modeling methodologies.

PROJECT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS (OTHER THAN DIVESTITURE RELATED) Conducted real options valuation of the Newington Station for Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH). Performed financial and engineering assessment of PSNH's thermal flee...

AI summary The document outlines financial analyses for energy projects, including real options valuations for power plants, enterprise valuations for energy companies, and infrastructure optimization for universities and institutions. It covers assessments of renewable energy economics, fuel cost analysis, and regulatory evaluations for utilities and governments across North America.

RBIA Observations - The apportionment of DSM costs and benefits to rate classes in the current RBIA methodology uses a static allocator factor based on class shares in one historic year (2014 test year) throughout the RBIA period of 2011-2...

AI summary The current RBIA methodology's static allocation of DSM costs and benefits across rate classes, based on 2014 data, fails to account for dynamic changes in class usage, line losses, and long-term load forecasts. Additionally, the use of levelized fuel costs extending beyond the RBIA's 2011-2033 timeframe overstates early savings and understates later ones.

Approach to Updated Avoided Costs - NS Power proposes to use annual avoided fuel costs rather than levelized avoided fuel costs, using the annual values from the last two IRPs. For avoided capacity, NS Power has proposes to use the 2014 IR...

AI summary NS Power proposes using annual avoided fuel costs from recent IRPs and 2014 avoided capacity costs. A new IRP, directed by UARB, will update long-term planning for DSM (2023-2026). Current system data (lower marginal costs, renewables, self-generation) challenges reliance on 2014 IRP values.

Updated Avoided Fuel Costs - Recommend use of annual avoided fuel costs from IRP studies - 2011-2014 from the 2009 IRP. - 2015-2033 from the 2014 IRP. - The IRP calculates the difference in Partial Revenue Requirements (PRR) using Strategi...

AI summary The document recommends using annual avoided fuel costs from IRP studies (2009 for 2011-2014, 2014 for 2015-2033). PRR calculations consider DSM effects, including fuel, purchased power, and capital costs. NSPI confirmed new resource costs are amortized over their lifetime, as requested by UARB in a March 6, 2017 letter.

Small Business Advocate Issue ENS Position/Proposal IG Comments NEW_3 Line losses Use "at generator" savings to determine avoided costs; use "at meter" savings for lost revenues and bill impacts Agree. NEW_4 Cumulative customer counts Use...

AI summary The Small Business Advocate discusses proposals related to line losses, cumulative customer counts, and the method of averaging bill impacts. The ENS position is supported by IG comments. Additionally, there are observations about changes in NS Power's cost structure since 2014, including increased COMFIT generation and its impact on avoidable fuel costs and fixed cost recovery.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL Request IR-04: Reference: Application, page 1 and page 31. "The Preferred Plan is the DSM Plan which will provide the best value to Nova Scotians by delivering the most energy and demand savings at an affordable price and...

AI summary The document discusses Nova Scotia Power's (E1) response to Heritage Gas Limited regarding a DSM Plan aimed at reducing energy and demand through demand-side management. Key points include deferring capacity investments by lowering peak demand and mitigating long-term rate impacts. Questions focus on DSM's purpose and potential increases in peak demand from electric heating incentives versus natural gas.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-07: 2 3 Question: 4 With regard to the modelling assumptions for incentives provided for space heating and/or 5 domestic hot water measures in a New Construction project funded through the Custom 6 program: 7...

AI summary The document outlines a regulatory request (IR-07) seeking details on methodology, assumptions, and documentation for HVAC performance in new construction projects under E1's Custom Incentives program. It also asks about fuel type determination without E1 incentives and the division of responsibilities between applicants and E1 for system characteristics.

g in the face of other near-term cost pressures - The plans are not different enough in spending or savings levels to satisfy the UARB's direction for E1 to produce alternate scenarios of DSM budgets. E1's recently approved DSM budgets are...

AI summary NSP's E1 submitted DSM budget plans that fail to meet UARB's requirement for multiple alternate scenarios. E1's Preferred Plan (25% increase) and Alternate Plan (9% increase) face criticism for rising per-unit costs amid other cost pressures like cap-and-trade and fuel costs. UARB's 2018 Decision (Matter 06733) mandated alternate scenarios, which E1 partially addressed. NSP emphasizes cost efficiency and affordability.

Janet MacDonald From: Nancy G Rubin Sent: December 21, 2018 1:35 PM To: albert e dominie; DSMAG; Alice Napoleon; Bill Mahody ([email protected]); Bob Green; Brian ([email protected]); Brian ([email protected]); David Landrigan; D...

AI summary The Industrial Group agrees with NSPI's comments on the 2020-2022 DSM Plan update, advocating for alternative models beyond the status quo. They criticize the outdated 2014 IRP as an ineffective benchmark due to system changes and highlight that efficiency programs do not offset fixed costs from high-cost renewables. The group emphasizes the need for demand-focused efficiency programs and CO2 reductions.

Sally Martin; Shannon Miedema; Sheena Parris; Stephen Thomas; Suman Gautam; Tim Wood ([email protected]) Subject: Re: Request for DSMAG comments on 2020-2022 DSM Plan update by December 21, 2018 Please note the following from MEUNSC The...

AI summary DSMAG comments on the 2020-2022 DSM Plan update, expressing concerns about aggressive spending increases (25% preferred) and their impact on rates. They advocate for restraint, suggest alternatives like a one-year extension or three-year plan, and emphasize the need for updated marginal costs and rate stability benchmarks.

Welcoming a more ambitious plan EAC would like to see a more aggressive DSM Plan from E1 for 2020-2022. The Preferred Plan provided by E1 is much lower than the DSM Preferred Level indicated in the 2014 IRP. The 2016-2018 and 2019 DSM Plan...

AI summary EAC urges E1 to adopt a more ambitious DSM Plan for 2020-2022, citing past plans' underperformance relative to the 2014 IRP. The UARB's 2015 decision (M06733) emphasized long-term cost savings for ratepayers, but current restrictions hinder this. Energy efficiency is highlighted as the cheapest fuel source, offering cost stability and GHG emission reductions, necessitating higher investment.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-30: 2 3 Please explain how NSP's proposal to apportion the variation from the $34.05 million for 4 DSM that NSP carries in its non-fuel budget is consistent with the Board's decision in 5 M062...

AI summary EfficiencyOne responds to a request regarding NSP's proposal to apportion DSM budget variations through the Fuel Adjustment Mechanism, noting it is a departure from current practices and would require NSUARB review and stakeholder discussions.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1. The Efficient Products Installation program component will have a new contract with service providers in 2020. While the future contract costs are unknown, EfficiencyOne applied a global increase of 2%; an average estim...

AI summary EfficiencyOne is updating the Efficient Products Installation program's contract for 2020, factoring in a 2% inflation increase and a 30% rise in smart power controller costs due to US-China trade tensions.

ENS Issue 1a: annual avoided fuel costs Annual avoided costs are appropriate.

AI summary The regulatory proceeding evaluates the appropriateness of annual avoided fuel costs. Nova Scotia Power (NSP) and the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB) are involved, with the position that annual avoided fuel costs are appropriate.

ENS Issue 1b: marginal avoided fuel costs versus cost change from no DSM The fuel benefit of DSM is the change in costs from the without-DSM case to the with-DSM case. Marginal fuel costs are quite slippery for a utility (including NS Powe...

AI summary The document discusses challenges in quantifying the fuel benefit of Demand Side Management (DSM) versus cost changes without DSM. Nova Scotia Power (NSP) struggles with defining marginal fuel costs, particularly for Port Hawkesbury Paper, due to complexities in reoptimizing dispatch and commitment costs.

ENS Issue 1d: further breakdown of lost revenues and avoided costs into those arising from fuel and fixed rate components I agree that NS Power needs to provide more explanation of its approach.

AI summary The speaker agrees that NSP requires further explanation regarding its approach to breaking down lost revenues and avoided costs into fuel and fixed rate components under ENS Issue 1d.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL Request IR-42: Refer to Page 33 of NS Power's evidence, which states: "As proposed by NS Power in its comments on the 2016 RBIA report, the effect of fuel cost savings should be determined and shown separately from fixed c...

AI summary NS Power proposes separating fuel cost savings from fixed cost savings in the RBIA model to improve accuracy. EfficiencyOne argues this may unnecessarily complicate analysis, increase costs, and not sufficiently inform DSM investment decisions. The RBIA model is used for high-level rate impact assessments, not rate setting. EfficiencyOne emphasizes balancing accuracy with practicality in modeling.

2017_ENS_1a) Use of annual avoided fuel costs

AI summary The document discusses the use of annual avoided fuel costs in a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding, involving Nova Scotia Power (NSP) and the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB). Key considerations include Demand Side Management (DSM), Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI), and related methodologies for cost allocation and rate design.

Issue • Should the model use annual or levelized avoided fuel costs?

AI summary The proceeding examines whether the model should use annual or levelized avoided fuel costs. This decision impacts cost calculations for energy efficiency programs, with implications for rate design and regulatory oversight by Nova Scotia's utility board.

Considerations - 2016 Consensus Agreement indicated that levelized costs would be used - NS Power has proposed that annual fuel costs be used - Main risk of using annual avoided costs in the model is that it will introduce greater volatili...

AI summary The 2016 Consensus Agreement advocated for levelized costs, but NSP proposes annual fuel costs. Using annual avoided costs risks volatility in output data, partly due to DSM effects and non-DSM factors like fuel price fluctuations. The model shows escalating rates due to non-levelized fuel cost recovery mechanisms.

Proposed action • Switch to annual avoided fuel costs instead of levelized avoided fuel costs Date Filed: May 13, 2019 Synapse IR-42 Attachment 1 Page 6 of 25

AI summary Nova Scotia Power (NSP) proposes switching from levelized to annual avoided fuel costs in a submission dated May 13, 2019, as part of Synapse IR-42 Attachment 1.

2017_ENS_1b) Use of marginal avoided fuel costs instead of those made relative to a no-DSM scenario

AI summary The document discusses the use of marginal avoided fuel costs in Demand Side Management (DSM) programs, arguing against basing calculations on a no-DSM scenario. This relates to Nova Scotia Power's (NSP) regulatory proceedings under the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB).

Issue Should marginal fuel costs be used in place of IRP avoided fuel costs?

AI summary The proceeding examines whether marginal fuel costs should replace IRP avoided fuel costs in regulatory calculations. This issue involves Nova Scotia Power (NSP) and the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB), focusing on fuel cost methodology and its implications for rate design and cost allocation.

Considerations - Marginal fuel costs are similar, but not the same as IRP avoided fuel costs: - Marginal fuel costs (in $/MWh) represent the incremental fuel cost savings that would be realized by reducing the actual energy load by a margi...

AI summary The text distinguishes between marginal fuel costs and IRP avoided fuel costs, noting NS Power's proposal to use marginal costs for rate estimation rather than replacing IRP avoided costs. It clarifies that NS Power's 2017 proposal was mischaracterized, emphasizing the use of marginal costs within their rate-impact framework. The discussion concludes that marginal costs should not replace IRP avoided costs in DSM analyses.

2017_ENS_1d) Further breakdown of lost revenues and avoided costs into those arising from fuel and fixed rate components

AI summary The document provides a breakdown of lost revenues and avoided costs from fuel and fixed rate components in Nova Scotia's energy sector. It involves analysis by Nova Scotia Power (NSP) and the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB), focusing on revenue impacts from demand-side management (DSM) programs and rate design considerations.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-3: 2 3 Has NS Power determined, aside from reliability considerations, what fuel savings it 4 experiences from having all remaining coal units (Lingan 3 and 4, Aconi, Tupper, and 5 Trenton 5 and 6) available i...

AI summary NS Power discusses the economic considerations of mothballing coal units in the summer, noting that current forecasting models do not support seasonal outages as cost-effective. The response highlights that while reliability is not a factor, other system services and economic factors may make year-round operation more optimal.

Memorandum TO: M08059 GENERATION UTILIZATION AND OPTIMIZATION STAKEHOLDERS FROM: BOB FAGAN – SYNAPSE ENERGY ECONOMICS DATE: OCTOBER 19, 2018 RE: AVOIDED ENERGY AND CAPACITY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH DSM RESOURCES This memo presents the results...

AI summary This memo calculates avoided energy and capacity costs from demand-side management (DSM) resources in Nova Scotia's Generation Utilization and Optimization Study. Using a differential revenue requirements approach, Synapse Energy Economics compares Scenario 1 (reference) and Scenario 2 (medium DSM) to determine per-MWh and per-kW avoided costs. Key findings include declining avoided energy costs post-2020 due to Maritime Link energy and rising avoided capacity costs starting in 2023 from new combined cycle resource construction.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-1: 2 3 Reference: Page 7. 4 5 …Residential rates have increased an average of 0.8 percent per year since 6 2014 customers have seen an effective decrease in costs since 2014 as NS 7 Power has been able to main...

AI summary The document contains a request for data on non-fuel rate increases for Large Industrial Interruptible and Medium Industrial classes from 2012-2019, a table of non-fuel cost components with deferred regulatory accounts, and a forecast for 2020-2022. The response directs to Attachment 1 and SBA IR-9.

CONFIDENTIAL (Attachment Only) 1 Rider with the Base Cost of Fuel (BCF) rate component and the DCRR BA with the FAM 2 AA component. The DSM riders would be updated in the FAM BCF AA/BA filings. 3 4 (b) The DSM and FAM costs are allocated t...

AI summary The text discusses the allocation of DSM and FAM costs to rate classes using separate methodologies. NS Power proposes updating the FAM BCF AA/BA filings and clearing outstanding DSM cost imbalances annually, aligning with the UARB's methodology.

CONFIDENTIAL (Attachment Only) 1 Request IR-7: 2 3 On page 11, NS Power stated: "The Company recognizes that there is a difference between 4 the calculation of marginal and avoided costs; however, NS Power anticipates that over the 5 short...

AI summary NSP explains marginal costs (hourly generation costs via Plexos model) and avoided costs (incremental costs saved by DSM). It acknowledges short-to-medium term comparability but emphasizes methodological differences. The response addresses IR-7 requests for clarification and cost estimates from 2019–2035.

Regulated Statements of Income Operating revenues $ 1,439 millions of Canadian dollars December 31 2018 For the Twelve months ended Operating expenses Management Control Notes Fuel for generation and purchased power and FAM Expense 588 Min...

AI summary The document outlines the regulated statements of income for Nova Scotia Power, detailing operating revenues and expenses, including fuel costs, depreciation, and demand side management expenses. It also references the 2020-2022 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan and NSPI's responses to NSUARB information requests.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-9: 2 3 On page 13, NS Power stated that E1's Preferred Plan is not in alignment with the 4 economic reality in Nova Scotia for a number of reasons. One of the stated reasons is that 5 "NS Power has not increas...

AI summary NS Power asserts that its non-fuel rates have not increased since 2014 and that it has not exceeded the 9.25% ROE cap, as excess revenues were returned to customers via FAM. The requesting party challenges this, citing potential overearnings and misalignment with economic reality. NS Power returned $93 million in excess revenues from 2014-2018.

2020-2022 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan (NSUARB M09096) NSPI Responses to NSUARB Information Requests 1 Request IR-14: 9 expenditures, please explain why it is appropriate to include capital related costs in 10 a fuel adjustme...

AI summary NSPI responds to NSUARB's request regarding the inclusion of capital-related costs in the Fuel Adjustment Mechanism (FAM). NSPI argues that DSM programs have both avoided capacity and energy components, and that integrating DSM costs within the FAM aligns with provincial legislation, as the 2014 Act does not prohibit future approvals for DSM recovery mechanisms.

- [1] The efficient use of electricity, including how and when it is used, as well as the need to conserve or use less electricity, are widely acknowledged to result in financial and environmental benefits. Programs which promote these act...

AI summary The document outlines the approval of a Consensus Agreement and Settlement Agreement by the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board for DSM programs. The Consensus Agreement sets a total DSM budget of $110 million for 2020-2022, with some programs remaining at the Preferred Plan level. The Board approves the agreements, except for Clause 5 regarding funding through the Fuel Adjustment Mechanism, which will be addressed in a separate proceeding.

2.1 Consensus Agreement [17] Ultimately, E1 and NS Power filed a Consensus Agreement which is attached as Appendix A to this Decision. In addition to setting the spending, energy savings target, and demand savings target levels of $110 mil...

AI summary E1 and NS Power filed a Consensus Agreement setting spending, energy savings, and demand savings targets for 2020-2022. Key provisions include DSM funding for First Nations and low-income programs, FAM-based expensing of DSM costs, HST refunds via FAM, and operational responsibilities for the HomeWarming Program. The agreement also withdraws the Lifetime Energy Savings target and revises DSMAG terms.

3.4 Future DSM as a FAM Expense [39] In its Evidence, NS Power proposed that any variance from $34.05 million in approved annual DSM costs for 2020-2022 should be included in the FAM account prior to the next General Rate Application (GRA)...

AI summary NS Power proposes including future DSM costs in the FAM account prior to the next GRA and 100% during the GRA for transparency. The Consensus Agreement with E1 supports FAM-based DSM funding at the next GRA. The Consumer Advocate opposes automation via FAM, citing transparency risks and cost allocation issues. The Board defers resolution to future applications.

3.6 HST Refund [50] Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS) settled its appeal of the Minister of National Revenue's decision to deny certain HST credits relating to the operation of ENS for the period May 2010 through January 2015. The refund of the...

AI summary Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS) received an HST refund of $15 million, which the Consensus Agreement proposes to return to NS Power via FAM. SBA and Industrial Group support this, while AEC and EAC oppose, arguing funds should be reinvested into DSM. The Board ruled in favor of returning funds through FAM, complying with the 2014 Act.

Document: 268936 Date Filed: April 29, 2019 Synapse (E1) Page 1 of 11 1 2 Request IR-1: programs. costs of Please describe how EfficiencyOne proposes to recover the its proposed 11 12 13 Request IR-18: Network. How often training Please re...

AI summary The document outlines several requests for information related to EfficiencyOne's proposed programs, including cost recovery, communication with members, early replacement strategies, definitions of naturally occurring energy efficiency, and the inclusion of fuel switching measures in the 2020-2022 Plan.

xi. cost effectiveness 1 5 14 15 - 2 3 Request IR-12: Please refer to NS Power's Evidence, p. 23, lines 13 to 20. Does NS Power have estimates of capacity requirements beyond 10 years? If not, why not? - 4 Request IR-13: Please refer to NS...

AI summary The section discusses requests for information related to cost-effectiveness, including questions about capacity requirements, DSM expense recovery processes, transparency in proposals, and the use of marginal fuel costs and rate impact models in NS Power's evidence. It also references past board orders and requests for detailed workbooks and data.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 a. To what extent-in both percentage and absolute values-does the incorporation of customer-related costs distort the allocation of benefits an...

AI summary The text includes several requests for information regarding NS Power's evidence, including the impact of customer-related costs, avoided marginal costs, and the use of levelized fuel costs. It also references a statement by Richard Levitan about the potential effects of DSM on thermal capacity factors and system reliability.

32 activity? If no, why not? 1 2 3 (b) Does E1 consider NSPI's Time-of-Day rate to be a demand response activity? If not, does it consider that rate to be a demand reduction activity? 19 Request IR-10: 20 (a) Please provide a table compari...

AI summary The document includes a question about whether E1 considers NSPI's Time-of-Day rate as demand response or demand reduction activity, and requests a table comparing annual budgets and energy savings for various DSM scenarios. It also asks about affordability considerations and awareness of fuel cost increases.

24 NS Power proposes that DSM costs be dealt with either as part of the FAM 25 or in a similar manner… - 26 (a) Please elaborate on the proposal and how this differs from the DSM Rider 27 which was in place prior to legislative changes. -...

AI summary NS Power proposes that DSM costs be handled either as part of the FAM or in a similar manner. The proposal is being questioned regarding differences from the previous DSM Rider, cost allocation differences between DSM and FAM, and how NSPI would address DSM variances assigned to the FAM account.

IN THE MATTER OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT - and - IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION by EfficiencyOne (E1) to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board for Approval of Supply Agreement for Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Activities bet...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) seeks approval for a 2020-2022 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan with Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NS Power). Berwick Electric and the AREA group support the Consensus proposal's funding levels, noting endorsements from SBA, Consumer Advocate, NSDME, and the Industrial Group. Concerns about the 2014 IRP's reliability and the need for further research on demand response programs are raised, alongside support for integrating DSM into FAM with proper cost allocation.

(ii) Interaction between DSM assessments and the Fuel Adjustment Mechanism (FAM) In its pre-filed evidence, NSPI suggested that DSM funding should be automated either through the FAM or some other mechanism. At the hearing, NSPI expressed...

AI summary NSPI proposes automating DSM funding via FAM or another mechanism, but the Consumer Advocate opposes due to transparency and cost allocation concerns. The Consumer Advocate also highlights the complexity of automating DSM through FAM compared to one-time HST refund credits. The Consensus Agreement emphasizes returning HST refunds directly to ratepayers.

HST REFUND The Industrial Group supports Clause 6 and the return of the HST refund to customers through the FAM to be applied against fuel costs. With the BCF filing, it is now abundantly clear that the Large Industrial and Medium Industri...

AI summary The Industrial Group supports Clause 6, advocating for HST refund returns to customers via FAM to offset fuel costs. They highlight that the BCF filing will cause significant rate increases for industrial customers over three years and urge NSPI to reduce FAM costs.

IN THE MATTER OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT - and - IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION by EfficiencyOne (E1) to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board for Approval of Supply Agreement for Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Activities bet...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) seeks approval for a 2020-2022 Demand Side Management (DSM) plan with Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NS Power). Berwick Electric and the AREA group support consensus funding levels, citing endorsements from stakeholders. Concerns about the 2014 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) reliability are noted, with a call for further research on demand response programs and inclusion of a First Nations representative in the DSM Advisory Group.

t project for the larger scheme if all DSM funding going forward was managed through the FAM. This would be your first test of it, if I can put it that way. MR. LANDRIGAN: Sure. Okay. 4 With respect to the apparent concern expressed by the...

AI summary NS Power argues that returning the HST refund and future DSM funds through the FAM is feasible, citing past instances like tax deferrals and wind farm benefits. They emphasize transparency and proper cost allocation methods, noting the FAM's prior use for non-fuel items.

- [1] The efficient use of electricity, including how and when it is used, as well as the need to conserve or use less electricity, are widely acknowledged to result in financial and environmental benefits. Programs which promote these act...

AI summary The document discusses the approval of a Consensus Agreement and a Settlement Agreement by the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board. The Consensus Agreement outlines a DSM budget for 2020-2022, with support from multiple parties, though some intervenors urged higher spending. The Settlement Agreement pertains to a study on a Custom Incentive Program for multi-unit residential buildings.

2.1 Consensus Agreement [17] Ultimately, E1 and NS Power filed a Consensus Agreement which is attached as Appendix A to this Decision. In addition to setting the spending, energy savings target, and demand savings target levels of $110 mil...

AI summary E1 and NS Power filed a Consensus Agreement outlining spending, energy savings, and demand savings targets for 2020-2022. The agreement includes provisions for DSM funding, FAM usage, HST refunds, and program administration by E1. It also acknowledges several evaluation reports without objection.

3.6 HST Refund [50] Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS) settled its appeal of the Minister of National Revenue's decision to deny certain HST credits relating to the operation of ENS for the period May 2010 through January 2015. The refund of the...

AI summary Efficiency Nova Scotia received an HST refund of $15 million, which is proposed to be returned to NS Power customers through the Fuel Adjustment Mechanism. The Small Business Advocate and Industrial Group support the refund, while the AEC and EAC argue that funds should be reinvested into DSM programs. The Board ruled in favor of returning the refund through the FAM, citing compliance with the Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Restructuring Act.

7.0 SUMMARY OF BOARD FINDINGS [71] The Consensus Agreement, which sets spending, energy saving target levels, and demand savings target levels of $110 million, 367.8 GWh, and 98.3 MW respectively, over the 2020-2022 term, is approved as ar...

AI summary The Board approved the Consensus Agreement with specific spending and energy saving targets for 2020-2022. It also approved the Settlement Agreement between E1 and HGL. E1 and NS Power are required to submit a compliance filing by August 27, 2019, with intervenor comments due by September 10, 2019, and reply comments by September 17, 2019.

Agreement between EfficiencyOne and Heritage Gas Dunsky's study aimed to determine how E1's baseline energy building model should be determined for new construction MURBs where natural gas is available. Dunsky found that the current baseli...

AI summary Dunsky's study identified flaws in EfficiencyOne's baseline energy model for new construction MURBs with natural gas availability, recommending modifications to the VRF baseline definition. EfficiencyOne and Heritage Gas agreed to implement these changes in the Custom Incentives Program, pending Board review of the Dunsky report.