Topic:"Operating Expenses" in M04819

3 PRINCIPLES ON WHICH THE ENSC CAM IS BASED The goal in developing the ENSC cost allocation model has been to ensure that it is compliant with Generally Accepted Regulatory Principles and with standard Canadian regulatory practices. The "p...

AI summary The ENSC Cost Allocation Model (CAM) is based on three principles: fully allocating direct, support, and administration costs; applying cost causality to assign responsibility for costs; and using proportional allocators when direct causality is unclear. Unlike regulated utilities, ENSC has few common costs, allowing most expenses to be directly allocated, except administrative costs, which use fair allocators. The model emphasizes credible accounting data and empirical analysis for cost allocation.

classes. In order to allocate cost to the electricity and other fuel mandates within the ENSC CAM, ENSC's accounts have been divided into several categories that require different allocation methods: - 1. Direct Program Cost Accounts: A fe...

AI summary ENSC divides its accounts into two categories for cost allocation: Direct Program Cost Accounts (e.g., SBES Recovery) and Joint Direct Program Cost Accounts (e.g., marketing expenses for C&I). Costs are allocated based on invoice details or broad-based allocators when specific data is unavailable. ENSC aims to improve data accuracy to minimize broad-based allocations.

SAVINGS 2013 2014 2015 Gross Savings (Incr. Ann.) 1st Yr Electricity Svgs (MWh) 20,330 25,391 30,816 Levelized-Lifetime (MWh) 230,543 290,735 358,749 Net Savings (Incr. Ann) 1st Yr Electricity Svgs (MWh) 10,150 12,768 15,664 Levelized-Life...

AI summary The Green Heating Systems initiative demonstrates cost-effectiveness with a benefit-cost ratio exceeding 2.8 and passing both the Total Resource Cost and Program Administrator Cost tests, indicating that for every dollar invested by ENSC, there is approximately $3 in savings.

3 PRINCIPLES ON WHICH THE ENSC CAM IS BASED The goal in developing the ENSC cost allocation model has been to ensure that it is compliant with Generally Accepted Regulatory Principles and with standard Canadian regulatory practices. The "p...

AI summary The ENSC CAM is designed to comply with regulatory principles, allocating all costs fully, using cost causality, and pooling costs proportionally. Unlike regulated utilities, ENSC has few common costs, allowing direct allocation of most costs. Administrative costs are allocated using fair allocators. Credible accounting data and empirical analysis are emphasized for accurate cost allocation.

ed allocator (FTE or Direct Costs). In the future, ENSC accounting staff will continue to seek improved information so that the residual amount allocated using broad based allocators can be minimized. - 3. Common Program Cost Accounts: One...

AI summary The document outlines ENSC's cost allocation methodology, including handling of common program costs (e.g., bad debt expenses) and administrative overhead (e.g., rent, insurance). Costs are allocated proportionally via headcount or office space metrics, with efforts to minimize residual amounts using improved data. Common costs are shared across programs and ratepayers.

, the 1988 SPM Correction Memo specifically prohibits applying the NTG ratio to the administrative cost component of TRC costs, since these are costs unrelated to participant expenditures. 6 This means, all other things being equal, the 19...

AI summary The 1988 SPM Correction Memo prohibits applying the NTG ratio to administrative costs (PRC), which are separate from participant expenditures. The Commission focuses on NTG application to TRC components within the SPM framework, deferring a joint petition to modify D.06-06-063. The PRC term replaces the earlier UC term for utility administrative costs.

EFFICIENCY NOVA SCOTIA CORPORATION 3 STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2011 Electricity Demand Side Management Fund $ Capital Asset Fund $ General Fund $ Provincial Fund $ 2011 $ 2010 $ RE...

AI summary The document presents the Statement of Operations and Changes in Fund Balances for Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2011, detailing revenues and costs across various funds including the Electricity Demand Side Management Fund, Capital Asset Fund, General Fund, and Provincial Fund.

7. PROGRAM COSTS Program costs were part of the Plan approved by the UARB and included, but were not limited to, the direct costs of the programs including incentives paid to customers, costs of service delivery paid to implementation part...

AI summary Program costs under the UARB-approved Plan include direct costs (incentives, service delivery, salaries) and support costs (consulting, evaluation, DSM Database System licensing). 2011 costs were tracked differently due to CAM restructuring, with future consistency expected.

15. CONTINGENCIES The Corporation has an agreement with NSPI to extend financing to certain Commercial and Industrial ("C&I") customers participating in either the Small Business Energy Solutions or C&I Custom programs. Those customers are...

AI summary The Corporation has a financing agreement with NSPI to support C&I customers in energy programs, with contingent liability for defaults. Financing costs are paid monthly to NSPI, and total outstanding financing was $2,405,768 as of December 31, 2011.

13 Q: Are there any areas in which you can identify the need for improvements in 14 NSPI's estimates of avoided costs? - 15 A: Yes. Even from the limited documentation available, there are some apparent 16 errors in the avoided-cost develo...

AI summary The response identifies multiple flaws in NSPI's avoided-cost estimates, including omitted transmission/distribution costs, incorrect assumptions about wind power needs, unaccounted RES credit sales, misclassified plant costs, and flawed line-loss calculations. It also notes a lack of seasonal differentiation in avoided-cost modeling.

5 Q: Why does ENSC exclude the avoided costs of transmission and distribution? 6 A: That is difficult to determine from the record in this case. On the one hand, 7 ENSC, perhaps quoting NSPI, dismisses the possibility that reducing or 8 el...

AI summary ENSC excludes avoided transmission and distribution (T&D) costs, citing their relative insignificance compared to energy and capacity costs. It argues DSM programs lack geographic targeting to impact specific high-load areas, making T&D upgrades unavoidable. However, ENSC acknowledges future inclusion of T&D costs, referencing a 2012 Dunsky Energy Consulting report on avoided T&D benefits in other jurisdictions.

12 Q HOW HAS ENSC PROPOSED TO ALLOCATE THE COST OF ENABLING STRATEGIES? - A Heretofore, these costs have been allocated on the basis of the number of customers.13 - Elenchus has recommended that they be allocated in a fashion similar to pr...

AI summary ENSC has proposed allocating enabling strategy costs similarly to program costs, as recommended by Elenchus. The response agrees, advocating for true-up mechanisms and documentation of effectiveness. Previously, costs were allocated based on customer numbers.

". The later refers to the visible appearance of the white exhaust from a condensing appliance under some weather conditions, although these concerns apply to gas as well as oil (Weber et. al., 2002). In the 1980 – 2004 time frame oil-fire...

AI summary The text discusses the historical absence of oil-fired condensing appliances in the U.S. market, their growth in Europe, and current concerns in the U.S. regarding maintenance costs, heat exchanger fouling, and uncertain energy savings from condensing technology. European developments include advanced materials and diverse product designs.

3 Request IR-20 - Reference: Appendix C, Attachment 1-2, Table 2 (2013)4 - Please provide a similar table showing the program costs assigned to the Large Industrial Class5 - for 2010F, 2010A, 2011F, 2011A, 2012F, 2013F, 2014F and 2015F.6

AI summary The request (IR-20) asks for a table similar to Appendix C, Attachment 1-2, Table 2 (2013)4, showing program costs for the Large Industrial Class for specific years (2010F, 2010A, 2011F, 2011A, 2012F, 2013F, 2014F, 2015F).

Re: NSUARB-E-ENSC-R-12 – Request for Hearing Adjournment Upon filing its Responses to Information Requests (RIRs) on Friday March 30, 2012, ENSC found what appeared to be a limited formula error in Navigant Consulting's Energy Efficiency R...

AI summary ENSC discovered errors in Navigant Consulting's RAM Tool, initially limited but later found to have broader impacts on program budgets, cost allocations, and test results. Navigant confirmed a duplication error in the NTG factor, requiring revisions to ENSC's evidence. ENSC seeks adjournment to address these issues with Navigant and Elenchus Research Associates.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Request IR-28: Please provide an explanation of why Figure 4.1 - 2013-2015 DSM Plan Savings and Investment including...

AI summary The Consumer Advocate (CA) requests clarifications on discrepancies in ENSC's revised DSM Plan, including unexplained increases in investment without commensurate energy savings, higher sub-program costs, comparisons with past IRPs, and definitions of terms like 'No New DSM' and 'Without Future DSM' in load forecasts. The CA questions the rationale for cost differences and data inconsistencies.