Topic:"Incentive Costs" in M12780

n the 2025 Plan, as a significant number of participants completed their projects in order to receive the Canada Greener Homes Grant top-up incentive. At the time of the 2023-2025 DSM Plan development, the impact of the federal program was...

AI summary The 2025 DSM Plan discusses the impact of the Canada Greener Homes Grant on program participation, with unit costs for BNI and other components compared to the 2025 Plan and year-end forecasts. Program costs are managed through participation scaling and incentive adjustments, particularly for small business energy solutions.

1 Table 4: 2025 BNI Efficient Product Rebates Rate Class Results BNI Efficient Product Rebates (2025) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Expenditures ($ million) Units Rebated (#) Residen...

AI summary Table 4 presents the 2025 BNI Efficient Product Rebates Rate Class Results, showing energy and demand savings across various rate classes, along with expenditures and number of units rebated. Savings are net of free-ridership and spillover, and expenditures are unaudited.

r than the values tracked by E1. For Instant Rebates, evaluated net electrical energy savings were 4% higher than tracked results, while evaluated net peak demand were 6% lower than tracked results. The differences between tracked and eval...

AI summary The text evaluates discrepancies between tracked and evaluated savings in BER programs, attributing differences to free-ridership changes, adjustment ratios, and updated factors like line loss. It recommends retaining DLC wattages for multi-wattage products and conducting spot checks for accuracy.

- (a) EfficiencyOne's (E1) Statement of Operations are being provided in Attachments 1, 2, and 3 of this IR response, which outlines the proposed 2027–2031 DSM Plan's anticipated expenses by cost category. Please note that incentives costs...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) provides its Statement of Operations and outlines the anticipated expenses for the proposed 2027–2031 DSM Plan, including incentive costs and program support costs. E1 follows the ENSC Cost Allocation Methodology (CAM) approved by the Board in 2011 and ensures the plan's achievability.

Date Filed: May 28, 2026 IG IR-12, Attachment 1, Page 1 of 1 DSM Statement of Operations ($ millions) DSM Statement of Operations ($ millions) by Program Component by Year 2028 Instant Savings Affordable Multifamily Affordable Single Famil...

AI summary The document presents a DSM Statement of Operations for 2028, detailing direct costs, incentives, and evaluation & verification expenses across various program components such as Instant Savings, Affordable Multifamily, Efficient Product Installation, and others.

Plan as program administration. This approach ensures consistency DATE FILED: May 28, 2026 E1 (IG) IR-19 Page 3 of 8 between program components in how these types of incentive costs are categorized. (c) Participation increases in New Const...

AI summary The document discusses E1's approach to program administration, emphasizing consistency in categorizing incentive costs. It highlights increased participation in New Construction and Industrial Retrofit due to E1's efforts, and notes low participation in Pay for Performance. A table is referenced for detailed investment, savings, and participation data in the Custom Incentives program.

Table 1: Custom Incentives Program: Investment, Savings, and Participation Custom Incentive s Program Year Program Measure Investment ($M) First Year Energy Demand Savings Participation rear Component rieasure Incentives Administration Tot...

AI summary The table presents data on the Custom Incentives Program, including investment amounts, energy savings, and participation numbers for 2027 and 2028. It details various components of the program, such as Pay for Performance, New Construction, Industrial Retrofit, and Commercial Retrofit, along with their associated costs and savings.

ive for 5 batteries, a $300/kW-yr performance incentive, and the Delivery Costs EcoShift tab 6 includes annual battery DRMS/OEM device costs of approximately $163.44/device-year 7 from 2027–2031. 8 9 (c) Round 1 modelling conducted cost ef...

AI summary The text discusses cost effectiveness testing for battery control in demand side management programs, referencing the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test, Total Resource Cost (TRC) test, and the NS Cost test. It also notes that residential battery systems were not modeled as program costs since they are considered existing customer-owned assets.

25 • For the "Solar Security Fixture" measure under the "Efficient Products 26 Installation" program: 1 a) Efficient Product Installation appointments are focused on installing 2 smart thermostats, draft proofing measures, and water conser...

AI summary The 'Solar Security Fixture' measure under the 'Efficient Products Installation' program involves higher unit costs compared to other measures like smart thermostats. E1 screens participants and uses service providers' best judgment to determine product mix. Incentive costs are based on average bids, and measure life is determined by a third-party evaluator.

Financial Considerations as Related to Participant Perceived Value There are several different costs and metrics that may affect the financial considerations involved a participant's perceived value: - 1. Retail Price - 2. Project Costs -...

AI summary The text outlines key financial considerations affecting a participant's perceived value, including retail price, project costs, project payback, and incremental equipment costs. Incremental equipment costs are defined as the net present value of the difference between efficient and base case options, with the base case being critical for accurate analysis.

Participant Cost Test In evaluating a participant's purchase decision from a financial perspective, the PC test is a useful analysis to deploy. It assesses all of the direct financial considerations that a participant faces in making a pur...

AI summary The Participant Cost (PC) test evaluates whether the financial benefits of a technology or service outweigh the financial costs from the participant's perspective. Benefits include incentives, tax credits, and utility bill savings, while costs include purchase, installation, and maintenance expenses, excluding utility bill savings to avoid double-counting.

PAC Benefits (Cost Effectiveness) Threshold The PAC is the cost effectiveness test that reflects a program administrator's financial expenditure for a measure, program or portfolio. It is calculated by dividing the PAC benefits, which are...

AI summary The Program Administration Cost (PAC) is a cost-effectiveness test used to evaluate the financial impact of energy efficiency measures, programs, or portfolios. It compares the benefits (avoided supply and distribution costs) with the costs (program overhead, delivery, and incentives). A PAC threshold of 1.0 is commonly used, but higher thresholds like 2.0 can be set to ensure incentives and overhead costs do not exceed 50% of the benefits.

Measure 2014 Retail Price 2014 PMI 2014 PME Estimated 2016 Retail Price 2016 Cost to Consumer (Estimated 2016 Retail Price – Current Incentive) Estimated 2016 PME Cost to Consumer Less than PME? Current Incentive as % of Retail Price ENERG...

AI summary The table provides a comparison of retail prices, program measure incentives, and cost-to-consumer estimates for various energy efficiency products and measures between 2014 and 2016. It includes details such as incentives, cost reductions, and percentages of retail prices covered by incentives.

As can be seen from the above analysis, the PAC is greater than 4.9 for measures that have an energy savings persistence greater than 15 years. The break-even point at current incentive and program administration cost targets is an energy...

AI summary The analysis shows that the Program Administration Cost (PAC) is greater than 4.9 for measures with energy savings persistence over 15 years. The break-even point is between 16-17 years. EfficiencyOne should consider energy savings persistence when evaluating project incentives.

2013 2014 2015 2016 Incentive Costs $85,792,815 $87,475,385 $81,650,474 $90,618,627 Administration $68,482,871 $71,734,454 $72,025,504 $77,017,143 Incentive-to Administration Ratio 56:44 55:45 53:47 65:35 2015-2019 STRATEGIC PLAN 13

AI summary The table presents incentive costs and administration costs for the years 2013 to 2016, along with the ratio of incentive-to-administration costs. The 2015-2019 Strategic Plan is referenced as a key document in the context.

Efficiency Vermont's spending for 2013 and 2014 is provided below: Prior Year Current Year 2014 Cumulative starting 1/1/12 Cumulative starting 1/1/12 # participants with installations 37,483 54,135 131,094 131,094 Operating Costs Administr...

AI summary Efficiency Vermont's spending for 2013 and 2014 is detailed, including operating costs, technical assistance costs, support services costs, and incentive costs, along with metrics such as MWh savings and cost-effectiveness ratios.

Costs TRC at the Program level: - Costs incurred by program participants (Incremental Equipment Costs) - Costs of running the energy efficiency programs (delivery and administration costs) TRC at the Measure level: Costs incurred from the...

AI summary The document outlines different cost categories at the Program and Measure levels for energy efficiency programs, including incremental equipment costs, delivery and administration costs, and incentive costs under both TRC and PACT frameworks.

Inputs - Avoided Supply Costs (energy and capacity); - Local Avoided Supply Costs (energy and capacity); - Fixed Program Administration Costs; - Year of Implementation; - Measure Participation; - Variable Costs; - Annual Operating Costs (F...

AI summary The text lists various cost and efficiency-related factors and metrics used in energy programs, including avoided supply costs, program administration costs, energy savings, and financial parameters such as discount and inflation rates.

Table 9: 1SE-Base Scenario - Round 2 Modelling Insights Scenario 1SE-Base RES BNI Total Carbon Emissions Avoided Five-Year Annual Total (kilotonne) 1 6 8 Cumulative Lifetime (kilotonne) 20 111 131 Energy & Demand Impacts Lifetime Net Energ...

AI summary Table 9 presents the 1SE-Base Scenario - Round 2 Modelling Insights, showing carbon emissions avoided, energy and demand impacts, investment splits, and benefits and costs associated with RES and BNI programs. Key metrics include carbon emissions, energy savings, investment distribution, and cost-benefit analysis.

-Québec provides a particularly relevant winter-peaking example, because its winter DR events are called during the December - March period and publicly reported based on event timing and system need. Brattle does not recommend that E1 ado...

AI summary Québec's winter DR events are highlighted as a relevant example for Nova Scotia. Brattle advises E1 to develop metrics tailored to local needs, emphasizing winter peak reduction and customer affordability, while suggesting specific DR program metrics for evaluation by NS Power, IESO Nova Scotia, and the Board.

Q. Why is Apex's benchmarking more meaningful than a broad comparison with large U.S. utilities? In performing a benchmarking analysis, peers must be similar enough to make comparisons meaningful. Broadly comparing the cost of savings in N...

AI summary Apex's benchmarking is more meaningful because it compares with similar entities rather than large U.S. utilities, which have different service areas and programs. The intervenors acknowledge factors driving E1's rising costs, such as inflation and program changes, but question if a raw fleet average can capture these factors accurately.

Q. Is additional third-party incentive review needed? 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 A. An external review can provide additional data points but is also costly. It is also not a given that a third-party review of incen...

AI summary The response argues that an external third-party review of incentive costs is unnecessary due to the existing internal review processes at E1, which include stakeholder input, technical analysis, and market insights, and that such a review would be costly without yielding significant new information.