Topic:"Infrastructure Planning" in M08888

EfficiencyOne

AI summary The document discusses the EfficiencyOne program, a regulatory proceeding in Nova Scotia. Key acronyms include DSMAG (Demand Side Management Advisory Group), TRC (Total Resource Cost), PAC (Program Administrator Cost), and IRP (Integrated Resource Planning). No specific arguments or entities are detailed in the provided text.

EfficiencyOne Response to DSMAG Comments on VEIC Report on Measure-Level Non-Energy Benefits December 18, 2017 Page 2 of 27

AI summary EfficiencyOne responds to DSMAG's comments on the VEIC report analyzing non-energy benefits of energy efficiency measures. The document addresses program-level cost considerations, including TRC, PAC, and IRP frameworks, while engaging with DSMAG's feedback on benefit quantification methodologies.

1.1 Background As part of the June 30, 2016 agreement signed on deferred issues related to the 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan, Intervenors in that proceeding agreed to: …work collaboratively with the DSM Advisory Group to pursue the nature an...

AI summary In 2016, EfficiencyOne and DSMAG agreed to improve TRC test accuracy by incorporating non-energy benefits (NEBs). A draft scope of work proposing adapted NEBs from another jurisdiction was circulated, facing mixed reactions. Feedback led to revisions, with VEIC conducting the study. Stakeholders including Synapse Energy Economics, NS Power, and advocates provided input on the draft report.

EFFICIENCYONE RESPONSE TO DSMAG NEBs COMMENTS EfficiencyOne supports the application of low-income specific participant and utility NEBs and suggests their inclusion be subject to additional discussion at the DSMAG. EfficiencyOne suggests...

AI summary EfficiencyOne supports incorporating low-income specific non-energy benefits (NEBs) but recommends further DSMAG discussion. They reference the Three3/NMR study and note no jurisdictions (e.g., Massachusetts) have integrated such NEBs into market-rate programs. They agree with Synapse on HomeWarming program reporting and advocate for a long-term NEB strategy, including National Screening Practice Manual alignment.

2.3 Comments from the Affordable Energy Coalition The Affordable Energy Coalition (the "AEC") provided comments which centrally express concern about the lack of application of low-income NEBs to the existing DSM Affordable Multifamily Hou...

AI summary The Affordable Energy Coalition (AEC) criticizes the exclusion of low-income Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) from the DSM Affordable Multifamily Housing Pilot and broader studies. EfficiencyOne supports including participant and utility NEBs in the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test but excludes societal NEBs. They explain the study's focus on 2016-2018 DSM plans and suggest future discussions with DSMAG on low-income NEBs.

largely financed by the participating businesses receiving the non-energy benefits. I would not expect that Efficiency1 would ask the ratepayers to pay more than the energy benefits for this program. In EfficiencyOne's experience, small bu...

AI summary EfficiencyOne argues that the TRC test may allow non-energy benefits (NEBs) without energy savings, advocating for the PAC test to ensure ratepayers are not overcharged. They suggest including PAC test results in future DSM Resource Plans to align with electricity system benefits, emphasizing that PAC results must equal or exceed one.

Attachment 3: DSMAG NEBs Presentation – June 27, 2018 Date Filed: September 19, 2018

AI summary Attachment 3 from a June 27, 2018 DSMAG NEBs presentation discusses Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) in regulatory proceedings, likely involving programs like Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS) and considerations of Total Resource Cost (TRC), Program Administrator Cost (PAC), and Integrated Resource Planning (IRP).

Section 2.0 Introduction to Non-Energy Benefits

AI summary This section introduces non-energy benefits (NEBs) within the context of regulatory proceedings, emphasizing their role in integrated resource planning (IRP) and evaluation, measurement, and verification (EM&V). It highlights the importance of quantifying NEBs alongside energy-related costs for comprehensive decision-making.

- version of the Rate and Bill Impact Analysis. Response IR-11: - The current version of Appendix C uses the 2014 IRP-generated Base-DSM avoided costs. On - October 16, 2018 EfficiencyOne received confirmation from Nova Scotia Power that t...

AI summary The current version of Appendix C uses avoided costs from the 2014 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), and EfficiencyOne was informed by Nova Scotia Power that these costs will not be updated until the next IRP.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL Request IR-10: Ref: Attachment 4, page 13 of 64, last paragraph. Please list all "local insights" provided by the project subcontractor and used in the study. Response IR-10: The following response has been provided by Ver...

AI summary VEIC's subcontractor, Ramzi Kawar, provided local insights on Nova Scotia's energy use, costs, health, and poverty, focusing on NEBs within the 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan. Input on low-income and health benefits was limited. Filed November 14, 2018, as part of E1 responses to NSPI.

4.2 Level of Spending [51 ] In section 6.2 of its evidence, ENSC identified the guiding principles observed in preparing the 2012 DSM Plan. The first two state: Meet IRP Targets: ENSC's primary goal is to meet IRP targets as a whole, both...

AI summary ENSC outlines the guiding principles for the 2012 DSM Plan, emphasizing meeting IRP targets and minimizing program costs. Figures 4.1 and 4.2 from the evidence illustrate DSM targets and cumulative savings results from 2008 to 2012.

[57] Further, Mr. Whalen recommends: ... that ENSC adjust its plan to provide energy savings from its programs that are at least equal to the 2011 plan. Such an approach sustains the momentum of the 2011 plan and makes the achievement of t...

AI summary Mr. Whalen recommends ENSC adjust its energy savings plan to match the 2011 target, increasing 2012 spending to $53.4 million. This would yield incremental savings of 158.6 GWh and 29.4 MW, ensuring achievable 2013 targets without over-achievement. He argues maintaining the 2011 level avoids reducing effort and aligns with economic feasibility.

[65] In its Closing Submission of May 13, 2011, ENSC stated: With respect to the proposed budget for the 2012 DSM Plan of $43.7M - a modest increase over the 2011 DSM Plan budget of $41.9M - ENSC submits that there is insufficient evidence...

AI summary ENSC argues against increasing the 2012 DSM Plan budget from $43.7M to $53.4M or $58M, citing insufficient evidence and rationale for further increases, especially given that the 2012 plan already exceeds energy savings targets from the 2009 IRP Update. ENSC acknowledges concerns but maintains that the Board should evaluate whether increasing the budget is justified.

[107] Mr. Foote, in his direct evidence, stated that: Any discussion of whether to include non-program standards and at what level should not distract the UARB and stakeholders from the main purpose of this process which is to ensure spend...

AI summary Mr. Foote argues that non-program savings should be considered to justify ENSC's spending and meet energy demand and environmental targets. EAC opposes non-program savings due to DSM planning uncertainties, while Mr. Whalen and Mr. Woolf support ENSC's estimates and inclusion of industrial savings in the 2012 Plan.

[111] NPB in its Closing Submission stated that: None of the various consultants who filed testimony in this proceeding were opposed to the inclusion of energy efficiency savings from codes and standards and ELI projects, and the Board's v...

AI summary NPB argues that consultants and Dr. Peach support including energy efficiency savings from codes, ELI projects, and verification. They request the Board confirm ENSC can include these savings beyond IRP forecasts in DSM plans.

3.5.1 Program Development [56] E1's 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan, as modified by the Quantum Agreement, recommends DSM investments for the three year period of: - (1) $36.9 million in 2016, - (2) $37.8 million in 2017, - (3) $38.8 million i...

AI summary E1's 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan, modified by the Quantum Agreement, recommends total DSM investments of $113.5 million over three years. E1 argues that its plan is 38% less than the Mid-DSM level of the IRP and is consistent with past expenditures, ensuring affordability and cost-effectiveness for Nova Scotians.

3.5.2.1 Findings [71] The CA summarized his view of the purpose of a DSM program: The basic purpose is to reduce the level of energy required by Nova Scotia in the future, both short and long term. DSM programs are an integral component in...

AI summary The CA emphasizes the importance of DSM programs in reducing future energy needs and controlling costs. The Board criticizes the NSPI Plan for underfunding residential programs and not aligning with the IRP, while favoring the E1 Plan for better alignment with the PUA and historical spending levels, despite concerns about past under-spending and overachievement of targets.

3.5.3 Affordability [76] Having determined the parameters of a preferred plan, the Board is specifically directed by the 2014 amendments to the PUA to address the issue of affordability. The most relevant sections are Section 79L(8) and (9...

AI summary The NSUARB must address affordability under the 2014 PUA amendments, specifically Sections 79L(8) and (9), which require evaluating electricity efficiency programs' affordability for NSPI customers. Traditionally, the Board used the lowest long-term cost principle, but affordability is now a critical factor. The Board must assess whether the amendments alter DSM expenditure evaluations and if the proposed plan meets affordability criteria.

3.5.4 Relationship of the Proposed 2016-18 DSM Plan to the 2014 Integrated Resource Plan [94] During a 10-month period in 2014, NSPI developed a new IRP in collaboration with Board Staff and consultants, and in consultation with interested...

AI summary The 2016-18 DSM Plan is discussed in relation to the 2014 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), which aimed to balance supply and demand-side resources at the lowest long-term cost to ratepayers. The 'mid-DSM' scenario from the 2014 IRP projected higher energy savings and costs compared to the 2012-2014 DSM Plans, emphasizing the importance of DSM in achieving cost savings for ratepayers.

- [6] Mr. Smith testified "our vision was to keep growing as we had the opportunity". The Board's Decision (2017 NSUARB 124, para. 22) said "while they had no idea of how much they would grow, they shared a vision of continued growth when...

AI summary Mr. Smith testified about Central's expansion plans, including retail stores and a distribution center. The Board's 2017 decision acknowledged Central's growth vision and land reclamation practices. The County extended water service to Lower South River, enabling fire protection for new developments. Central expanded operations across Nova Scotia, including warehouses and manufacturing facilities.

witnesses say about the notion that Central was somehow precluded from pursuit of its plans? Mr. Bushell retired in 2005. He had been the Manager of Acquisitions and Disposals. He testified that there were 3- 400 people at the May 30, 1998...

AI summary Witnesses Mr. Bushell and Michael Croft testified there was no evidence Central was precluded from its plans. The Department did not receive responses about Central's development plans, and Mr. Croft denied advising landowners on development activities.

ELECTRICITY EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION

AI summary The document pertains to regulatory proceedings concerning electricity efficiency and conservation in Nova Scotia, involving entities like Efficiency Nova Scotia, Nova Scotia Power, and regulatory bodies such as the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board. Key topics include demand-side management, integrated resource planning, and legislative frameworks like the Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Restructuring Act.

Pouvoirs de la Commission 36 La Commission peut, d'office ou à la demande d'un intéressé, par ordonnance écrite, après avoir donné un avis aux personnes intéressées et les avoir entendues, - a) fixer des tarifs individuels ou conjoints, de...

AI summary The Commission has authority to set gas utility rates, establish depreciation methods, enforce infrastructure maintenance, and mandate service standards. It may also require gas suppliers to deliver gas under specified terms, ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements and fair practices.

Établissement des tarifs 89 La Commission peut, d'office ou à la demande d'un intéressé, par ordonnance écrite, après avoir donné un avis aux personnes intéressées et les avoir entendues, - a) fixer des tarifs individuels ou conjoints, des...

AI summary The Commission has authority to set just and reasonable rates, depreciation methods, and service standards for public utilities. It may also require infrastructure expansion if deemed reasonable and financially justified by the utility owner.