Topic:"Incentive Costs" in M06733

nt of information regarding the process, time-consuming process, eligibility hard to ensure and communication issues. Participants also recommended that more information be provided about the program. Similar to last year, distributors exp...

AI summary The document discusses dissatisfaction among distributors with the rebate tracking and reporting processes of the BER program, highlighting issues with time, financial responsibility, and complexity. It also outlines the calculation of net savings for BER in 2014, including free-ridership levels and NTGR values for different rebate approaches.

ate Filed: March 27, 2015 E1 (NSPI) IR-16 Page 1 of 2 2016-2018 Supply Agreement for EECA M06733 (E-ENS-R-15) E1 Responses to NSPI Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 b) If EfficiencyOne is not able to claim ITCs during the implementat...

AI summary EfficiencyOne acknowledges responsibility for HST costs if unable to claim ITCs during the 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan. They note that energy savings figures would need adjustment in such a case and mention uncertainty regarding guidance from Canada Revenue Agency.

1 Scenario B: Which is the same as Scenario A and produces similar 2 energy savings, with the exception that program 3 implementation costs are allowed to vary plus or minus 20% 4 relative to the EfficiencyOne assumptions. In addition 5 in...

AI summary Scenario B allows program implementation costs and incentive costs to vary within a +/-20% range relative to EfficiencyOne assumptions, with specific exceptions for solar and fridge/freezer recycling incentives. This leads to a range of participation rates and costs, from which the least expensive option is selected as the preferred portfolio.

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.