Topic:"Incentive Structures" in M08888

2.2 Comments from the Industrial Group On page 1 of its letter of comment, the Industrial Group (the "IG") provides comments relating to the effects of quantifying NEBs on incentive levels, insofar as further customer benefits have been id...

AI summary The Industrial Group (IG) recommends explicitly quantifying Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) to set appropriate incentives. EfficiencyOne clarifies their method already accounts for NEBs in customer research but focuses on quantifying them for the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test. CLEAResult's recommendations also consider Program Administrator Cost (PAC) and customer simple payback, with the Custom program under Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS) incorporating NEBs since inception.

Low-Income Proportions - 2017 2017 Results First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) 1 Peak Demand Savings (MW) Expenditures ($ million) Residential Efficient Product Rebates 22.6 202.2 3.0 4.2 Instant Savings 19.5 179....

AI summary This table provides a breakdown of energy savings and expenditures for low-income and overall residential and business programs in 2017. It highlights the contribution of various initiatives, such as efficient product rebates, home energy assessments, and business energy programs, to energy savings and expenditures, with low-income proportions noted for each category.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL Request IR-01: 3 Regarding the inclusion of residential Property Value as an NEB (Application, p. 9). 4 a) Please provide any evidence available to VEIC or E1 that the Massachusetts 5 program administrators have included a...

AI summary The document requests evidence on whether residential property value increases were included as net energy benefits (NEB) in Massachusetts programs, and whether such increases could lead to double-counting of avoided energy costs. It also asks for explanations on how Massachusetts surveys addressed this issue and how benefits would be computed over time.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-05: 2 3 At Attachment 1 (Page 14 of 27), E1 states that the "Custom Program is the sole ENS 4 Program that uses customer simple back [sic – payback] as a metric to modify 5 incentives". 6 a) Why is the custom...

AI summary The document discusses a request and response regarding the use of customer simple payback as a metric in the Custom Program. The Custom Program is the only program that uses this metric due to its detailed scoping and feasibility studies, while other programs lack the structure to use it similarly. EfficiencyOne follows CLEAResult recommendations in setting incentives, with simple payback being a consideration in prescriptive rebate calculations.

6.1 BUSINESS ENERGY REBATES - MAIL-IN

AI summary Section 6.1 outlines a mail-in business energy rebate program under Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS), referencing Vermont Energy Investment Corporation (VEIC) and Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs). The section discusses Overall Prevalence (OP) metrics but lacks detailed arguments, citations, or procedural specifics.

6.2 BUSINESS ENERGY REBATES - INSTANT REBATES

AI summary The section outlines instant rebates for business energy programs in Nova Scotia, though no detailed content is provided in the given text. Key entities and arguments are not explicitly mentioned.

Assumption Actual program participants are apartment building owners. Avoided energy benefits are assumed to flow-through to tenants either a) directly, where tenants pay power bills, or b) indirectly, by means of deferred increases in ren...

AI summary The assumption is that apartment building owners participate in programs, with avoided energy benefits flowing to tenants directly or indirectly. The BER-IR program's installation locations are unknown, and low-income participation is assumed similar to BER-MI.

7 BNI - CUSTOM INCENTIVES

AI summary The section discusses custom incentives under BNI, referencing programs like Business Energy Rebates and Efficiency Nova Scotia, along with acronyms for Non-Energy Benefits and Overall Prevalence. Key entities and incentives are outlined for regulatory consideration.

8.1 SMALL BUSINESS ENERGY SOLUTIONS

AI summary The section titled '8.1 SMALL BUSINESS ENERGY SOLUTIONS' introduces regulatory considerations for energy programs targeting small businesses in Nova Scotia. Key entities include Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS) and rebate programs like BER-IR and BER-MI, though specific details or arguments from the text are not provided.

Table>2-1:2010 Energy &Demand Net;.,to-Gross Ratios Program Net-to-Gross Ratio Efficient Products -RetaiL eFLs 133% EfficientProducts ~Retail 'ixtures, Controls & Appliances 44% Efficient Products -Retail: Appliance R.etirement&Replacement...

AI summary The table presents net-to-gross ratios for various energy efficiency programs in Nova Scotia, indicating the effectiveness of each program in achieving energy savings relative to the total investment. The ratios range from 44% to 133%, with some programs showing higher returns than others.

programs, particularly as it relates to incentives. The Industrial Group expressed concern about the level of incentives as well as the role incentives play with respect to energy efficiency targets. - 45. The Industrial Group is very conc...

AI summary The Industrial Group expressed concerns about the level of incentives provided by E1 and how they affect energy efficiency targets. They also highlighted that E1's service delivery framework discourages the elimination of incentives. The Industrial Group, NSPI, and the DOE recommended that E1 model various funding scenarios in future hearings and suggested a lower spending level, close to $22 million per year.

3.5.2 Incentives [66] The Board, in its questioning of E1's witnesses, and NSPI and the Industrial Group in their submissions, expressed significant concerns over the manner in which incentives are determined by E1. It would appear from th...

AI summary The Board expressed concerns about E1's incentive structure, noting over 60% of the DSM budget is allocated to incentives. Expert testimony highlighted issues with incentive justification, with NSPI and the Industrial Group arguing that some incentives lack quantitative criteria and may be influenced by vested interests. Mr. Dunsky's testimony was preferred, but concerns about incentive reasonableness remained.

[69] Mr. Dunsky countered that argument as follows: Thank you. Just to explain a little bit more. So we do some of this work from time to time. We've done it for Efficiency Nova Scotia and others where we'll go out and, first of all, do pr...

AI summary Mr. Dunsky argues that market barriers, such as organizational silos in large chains, necessitate high incentives for energy efficiency programs. He cites examples like commercial kitchen equipment where payback periods are obscured by purchasing vs. operations divisions. E1 asserts incentive levels depend on factors like jurisdiction comparisons and historical market data.

This suggests that the targets could have been met with less spending. [74] The Board is also very concerned about the lack of rigor with respect to the determination of incentives. The Board is not satisfied that E1 presently has sufficie...

AI summary The Board is concerned about the lack of rigor in determining incentives for E1's programs and is reducing the Quantum Agreement amounts by 10% for 2016, 2017, and 2018. The Board also denies E1's request for inflationary increases due to insufficient evidence linking NSPI's costs to general inflation.

rification reports and recommendations, as set out in paragraphs [53] and [54] of this Decision. The Board finds that the TRC for cost effectiveness screening is to remain in place for the time being. [146] In approving the Consensus Agree...

AI summary The Board maintains the TRC for cost-effectiveness screening, approves the Consensus Agreement with a 2016 deadline for unresolved matters, directs E1 to research incentive programs by 2016, and requires NSPI to provide rate impact analyses for future DSM budget scenarios.

on of the scheme and pre-resumption are to be left out of account, a claimant will not receive compensation for those losses although they were attributable to the scheme. … [Cory J.'s underlining] … The starting point for a consideration...

AI summary The text discusses compensation principles in regulatory proceedings, emphasizing that losses incurred before resumption (expropriation) should be included in compensation calculations. Cory J. argues against the Crown's position, stating that excluding pre-resumption losses would be artificial and contrary to fair compensation. Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead's reasoning in Shun Fung supports including such losses as they are causally linked to resumption.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: - 1. The Board approves a DSM Plan for 2019 in the amount of $34,050,000 with performance targets of 127.2 GWh in incremental annual net energy savings and 20.2 MW in incremental net annual peak demand savings. -...

AI summary The Board approves a 2019 DSM Plan with specific energy and demand savings targets, accepts a progress report, and directs updates to avoided costs and the RBIA. E1 is required to conduct a new DSM Potential Study and improve methodologies for GHG estimates and transparency in its processes. The Board also requests alternate DSM budget scenarios and compliance with filing frameworks.

Request IR-5: - 16 On May 11,2017 E1 submitted its Incentive Setting Methodology. This was approved by the Board - 17 on July 18, 2017. Please specify what effects, if any, the modification of the TRC to include NEBs - 18 will have on this...

AI summary E1 submitted its Incentive Setting Methodology in May 2017, which was approved by the Board on July 18, 2017. The request asks for the effects of modifying the TRC to include NEBs on this methodology and its results.