Topic:"Integrated Resource Plan" in M10473

red for EfficiencyOne, January 2022. 1 Figure 1: In 2021, Nova Scotians Paid $1.5 Billion for Electricity. Here's How That Money Was Used. 2 3 It is this historical success and commitment to deliver cost-effective energy efficiency to Nova...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) proposes a 2023-2025 DSM Plan as a 'Settlement Plan,' emphasizing cost-effective energy efficiency, alignment with Nova Scotia Power's 2020 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), and addressing updated environmental goals. The plan aims to realign DSM spending within three years while ensuring affordability and meeting climate objectives.

2.3 STANDARDIZED FILING FRAMEWORK - This Application adopts the Standardized Filing Framework ("Framework"), intended to ensure consistent - content in DSM Plan filings, which was developed in consultation among E1, NS Power, and stakehold...

AI summary The Application adopts the Standardized Filing Framework, developed by E1, NS Power, and stakeholders, requiring DSM Plan filings to include alternate scenarios and align with NS Power's IRP. E1 challenges the IRP scenario's suitability due to recent legislative changes on renewable energy standards and coal retirements.

3.1 SUMMARY - The Settlement Plan represents a comprehensive suite of programs and service offerings which will - deliver approximately 412.7 GWh of affordable, incremental net energy savings and 96.7 MW (78.8 MW - from energy efficiency a...

AI summary The Settlement Plan delivers 412.7 GWh of energy savings and 96.7 MW of demand reduction, aligning with the 2020 IRP's DSM spending levels. It proposes a $173M investment (vs. $188M in the IRP) over 2023-2025, with a lifetime unit cost of $0.035/kWh. Past DSM programs have already saved ratepayers $1.5B.

E1 Responses to Industrial Group (IG) Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL Request IR-06: Reference: EfficiencyOne 2023-2025 DSM Resource Plan Filing, Evidence, 4.2.4 Application of Costs, Page 18 (Page 27/584 of PDF), Line 12 "The Board...

AI summary The NSUARB requires the Total Resource Cost test to be applied at the program level for DSM, not the measure level, to ensure equitable access to services. The IG requests E1 to clarify definitions of 'program,' 'categories,' 'sector,' 'customer group,' and 'segments,' as well as historical program categorizations and components.

M10473 – EfficiencyOne (E1) Application for Approval of a Supply Agreement for Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Activities between E1 and NS Power (2023-2025 DSM Plan) E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB) In...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) responds to Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB) queries about its 2023-2025 DSM Plan alignment with the 2020 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). E1 clarifies that energy and demand savings are both aligned with IRP levels, attributing a prior statement's focus on energy savings to an oversight.

between E1 and NS Power (2023-2025 DSM Plan) E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB) Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 (b) The “optimal IRP levels” referenced in the DSM Plan are taken to mean those annual 2 ene...

AI summary E1 outlines energy efficiency investment levels from the 2020 IRP Reference Plan for the 2023-2025 DSM Plan, citing $61M (2023), $65M (2024), and $62M (2025). E1 emphasizes the IRP's role as a strategic tool balancing cost, reliability, and environmental standards, with priorities including affordability and clean energy.

orities 17 as: safety, reliability, affordability, clean energy, and robustness. With regard to the 18 environmental standards considered in the 2020 NS Power IRP, NS Power noted: Date Filed: April 29, 2022 E1 (NSUARB) IR-01 Page 2 of 4 M1...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) seeks approval for a supply agreement with NS Power under the 2023-2025 DSM Plan. The proceeding references environmental standards from NS Power's 2020 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and affordability considerations as key priorities.

1 “At its core, the IRP outlines our commitment to supporting provincial decarbonization 2 and providing a clean, reliable energy system at the lowest cost to customers—in both 3 the near and long term.” (emphasis added) 1 4 5 (d) In the d...

AI summary The Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) emphasizes decarbonization, affordability, and reliability. NS Power's 2020 IRP incorporates stakeholder priorities like safety and clean energy, with E1 highlighting the reliability of near-term modelling over long-term projections. The IRP will be updated through an evergreen process to align with evolving standards.

rements are reflective 23 of current conditions; while over the longer-term, the results will provide a directional path 24 toward optimal supply side and demand-side options. 1 NS Power website “Powering a Green Nova Scotia, Together” htt...

AI summary E1 aligns the 2023–2025 DSM Plan with the 2020 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), citing stakeholder input and alignment with Nova Scotia ratepayers' best interests. The response addresses NSUARB information requests regarding the supply agreement with NS Power.

between E1 and NS Power (2023-2025 DSM Plan) E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB) Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-04: 2 3 On p. 10 of 65, E1 stated that the proposed energy savings of 412.7 GWh r...

AI summary E1 responds to NSUARB's queries about its 2023-2025 DSM Plan, stating it includes 78.8 MW of peak demand savings and 17.9 MW from demand response. E1 asserts its mandate does not prioritize energy savings over peak demand savings, aligning both with the 2020 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). The response references NS Power’s 2021 Load Forecast for context.

1 The initial model results and assumptions, including design objectives were shared with the 2 DSMAG on September 29, 2021. As a result of the stakeholder feedback received on the 3 initial model results, E1 modelled four energy efficienc...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) modeled multiple DSM scenarios (Mid-DSM, Base-Plus, Base-DSM, Low-DSM, and Demand Response) after stakeholder feedback, leading to the 2023-2025 DSM Resource Plan. E1 emphasized balanced DSM portfolios despite historical shortfalls and used avoided costs from the 2020 IRP Reference Plan for cost-effectiveness testing.

7 Q. How do the Settlement Plan savings compare with the energy efficiency 8 savings from the 2020 IRP? 9 A. We show the first-year energy and peak demand savings for energy efficiency for 10 the Settlement Plan and 2020 IRP in [Table 4,](...

AI summary The response refers to Table 4 for comparing first-year energy and peak demand savings between the Settlement Plan and the 2020 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), focusing on energy efficiency outcomes.

14 Q. How does this budget compare to investment for energy efficiency assumed 15 in the 2020 IRP? 16 A. We show the budget for the Settlement Plan and the investment in energy 17 efficiency in the 2020 IRP in [Table 8,](#page-12-0) below.

AI summary The response refers to Table 8 for comparing the Settlement Plan budget with energy efficiency investments in the 2020 IRP. The answer does not explicitly detail the comparison but directs to the table for specifics.

5 Q. How does the COSE compare to the cost of other energy resources? 6 A. We show the levelized cost of saved energy for the Settlement Plan and the 7 levelized cost of other energy resources in the 2020 IRP in [Table 10,](#page-13-1) bel...

AI summary The response directs to Table 10 in the 2020 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) to compare the levelized cost of saved energy under the Settlement Plan with the levelized costs of other energy resources.

R10030225): Direct testimony of David Nichols regarding New Jersey Natural Gas Company's Proposed Energy Efficiency Program. On behalf of New Jersey Division of the Ratepayer Advocate. July 9, 2010. Virginia State Corporation Commission (C...

AI summary The text lists multiple testimonies from individuals and organizations across various U.S. states regarding energy efficiency programs, integrated resource plans, and utility regulatory matters. Key entities include the New Jersey Ratepayer Advocate, Southern Environmental Law Center, and Delaware Public Service Commission Staff, with topics centered on energy efficiency, integrated resource planning, and utility control changes.

1. Avoided Costs The CA's consultant, Theodore Love, makes the following recommendation on the issue of avoided costs: I support the recommendations of David Hill and further recommend that, if the Board approves a plan, E1 should work wit...

AI summary The CA's consultant, Theodore Love, recommends updating avoided costs to align with current legislation and the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), involving stakeholder processes. NS Power will collaborate with E1 and DMSAG for future DSM plans, ensuring alignment with updated costs and IRP scenarios.

g responsibilities from E1 to NS Power only would only shift those costs to NS Power without inducing any savings for ratepayers, while sacrificing the advantages of the collaborative efforts to date. It is E1's position that Demand Respon...

AI summary E1 argues that shifting demand response responsibilities to NS Power would not benefit ratepayers and that non-rate-based approaches are critical for effective demand management. E1 highlights the value of incentive/event-based programs, citing a 2019 Navigant study showing their cost-effectiveness and inclusion in NS Power's Integrated Resource Plan.

2 .0 BACKGROUND [13] ETs 2023-2025 DSM Resource Plan application uses the Standardized Filing Framework (Framework), developed in consultation among E1, NS Power, and stakeholders, and filed with the Board in a Consensus Agreement on July...

AI summary The document outlines the use of the Standardized Filing Framework (Framework) for E1's 2023-2025 DSM Resource Plan application. The Framework, developed with E1, NS Power, and stakeholders, ensures consistent DSM filings, requires alternate scenarios, and aligns with NS Power's Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). E1 claims its plan meets these requirements.

Request IR-25: - Page 44-45 of 65 of the Application Table 7: - a) Please provide an electronic copy (with all formulae intact) of the methodology used to calculate the "Carbon Savings Intensities (tonne/MWh)" noted in Table 7. - b) Please...

AI summary Request IR-25 seeks details on Carbon Savings Intensities calculations and comparative tables for IRP scenarios (3.1C and 3.2C) against Base-DSM and No-DSM baselines. The request includes methodological transparency and scenario comparisons from Table 7 of the Application.

Request IR-29: - On p. 59 of 65, E1 stated that "the current benefits as examined through the DSM Plan development process have indicated that the utility costs for DR programming outweigh the benefits". - a) Given that indication, please...

AI summary E1 asserts that demand response (DR) programming costs exceed benefits, yet requests funding for DR pilots and designation as a Performance Indicator. The proceeding questions E1's rationale for allocating funds and whether ratepayers should hold E1 accountable for DR performance.

Request IR-32: - Appendix A, page 34 of 149: please explain why the TRC calculation for Energy Efficiency - considers only the cost and benefits impact over the three-year DSM plan period, while for - Demand Reduction the cost and benefit...

AI summary Request IR-32 questions why the TRC calculation for Energy Efficiency considers cost and benefits over a three-year DSM plan period, while Demand Reduction uses a ten-year levelized timeframe. The discrepancy in timeframes for cost-benefit analysis is highlighted as a key issue.

4.0 ISSUES

AI summary The '4.0 ISSUES' section of the regulatory proceeding document is not provided in the text. Key acronyms related to energy regulation and proceedings are defined, but no substantive content or arguments are present in the excerpted text.

4.3 Avoided Costs [58] In determining the cost effectiveness of its DSM portfolio, E1's calculations incorporated the avoided costs of energy, capacity, transmission, distribution and carbon. The avoided costs of capacity and energy were c...

AI summary E1 calculated avoided costs for NS Power's DSM portfolio using Reference Plan 2.0C and historical investments, but faced criticism for not aligning with updated climate goals. The CA recommended recalculating avoided costs, while MEUs highlighted differences in wholesale market factors. Synapse disputed E1's inclusion of non-energy impacts, citing Matter M08888. NS Power deferred updates until 2025, with the Board directing DSMAG to address climate goals for the 2026-2028 DSM Plan.

4.5 Allocation of Program Costs [74] Ei said it applied the following "guiding principles" in developing its 2023 2025 DSM Resource Plan: Transparency - E1 will provide stakeholders and customers with information and insight into the analy...

AI summary E1 outlined guiding principles for its 2023-2025 DSM Resource Plan, emphasizing transparency, accessibility/equity, and affordability. It aligned its approach with the 'Balanced Plan Approach' from the 2016 Consensus Agreement, referencing section 4.3.1.

Mi'kmaw and diverse communities was supported by most of the parties in this proceeding, recognizes past under-service in these areas and attempts to address barriers to participation in DSM programs. [113] The Board finds the SBA's recomm...

AI summary The Board rejects the SBA's recommendation for unbalanced investment shifts away from residential and low-income programs, accepts ET's reliance on 2016 data, and rejects the Industrial Group's 2021 Census update. It emphasizes E1's statutory obligations under the PUA and its need for Board-approved supply agreements for DSM activities.

[122] The E1 response referenced by the Industrial Group stated: There are several reasons why a measure might be included despite having a TRC ratio less than one. Given that many of the reasons are global across all measures, E1 has prov...

AI summary E1 argues that measures with TRC ratios below 1 may still be justified due to understated avoided costs, non-energy benefits, low-income targeting, market presence, and bundling with higher TRC measures. It emphasizes program-level cost-effectiveness screening and customer experience. The Industrial Group recommends individual measure justification for TRC failures.

4.6 Demand Response [142] In its application, E1 stated: For the first time, E1 is proposing targeted Demand Response activities under its Settlement Plan. These DR activities are intended to facilitate direct electricity customer response...

AI summary E1 proposes targeted Demand Response (DR) activities in its Settlement Plan, aiming for 17.9 MW reduction over three years. The Board directs this target to be a performance target, not an indicator, requiring quarterly reporting. NS Power supports DR programs but emphasizes rate design as its responsibility. Past initiatives like the Klondike pilot are noted, with E1's role as DSM franchise holder acknowledged.