Topic:"Operating Expenses" in M12249

those that are mainly electrically heated (i.e., they have a secondary heating system) to update unitary savings for heat pumps and wood/pellet burning equipment. The billing analysis resulted in significantly lower unitary savings for the...

AI summary The 2025 forecast highlights lower unitary savings for electrically heated homes due to billing analysis, increased unit costs in the Custom program driven by New Construction participation, and higher costs in Small Business Energy Solutions from new measures. E1 notes delayed availability of 2024/25 demand response capacity results until mid-2025, affecting the 2025 forecast.

20statutes/2024%20Spring/c002.pdf> Public Utilities Act, C 380, R.S.N.S 1989, as amended; 79W Includes Energy Efficiency + Enabling Strategies - changes to savings in programs (e.g., changes to evaluated unitary savings, free-ridership lev...

AI summary The document discusses changes to 2026 DSM program savings and costs, including shifts in energy efficiency investments between residential and BNI sectors. Higher unit costs in residential programs are linked to the phase-out of low-cost lighting initiatives and reduced participation in home energy assessments.

Q. Was the demand response portfolio cost-effective in prior years? 17 A. In its response to Synapse IR-08, E1 provided 2023 and 2024 actual lifetime 18 benefits and 2025 forecasted lifetime benefits for the demand response portfolio 19 as...

AI summary E1 provided 2023-2025 data on demand response portfolio benefits and calculated Program Administrator Costs (PACs), concluding the portfolio was not cost-effective from a PAC perspective in prior years.

3 Q. Did E1 apply the updated avoided T&D costs for the constrained system in 4 the 2026 DSM Extension? - 5 A. No. E1 did not propose to target energy efficiency efforts to the constrained 6 system in the 2026 DSM Extension. As a result, E...

AI summary E1 did not apply updated avoided T&D costs for the constrained system in the 2026 DSM Extension, using system-wide costs instead. Concerns were raised about not targeting DSM efforts to the constrained system, given the high avoided T&D costs there.

1 Q. WHAT IS DRIVING THIS INCREASED COST TO ACQUIRE SAVINGS? - 2 A. There are many factors driving this change. One of the main drivers is the retiring of - 3 LED savings from the residential sector, with the effects of this starting in 20...

AI summary The increased cost to acquire savings is driven by retiring residential LED savings starting in 2025, alongside rising program costs and declining savings per participant. Program design and viability require thorough examination in future filings.

Economic and Policy Analysis Small Business Utility Advocate - California (June 2020 – Present) - Provided testimony and analysis on cost recovery for wildfire management and grid hardening efforts for Southern California Edison (Docket No...

AI summary The individual served as the Small Business Utility Advocate in California, providing testimony and analysis on various energy-related topics including cost recovery for wildfire management, grid hardening, program budgets, non-energy benefits, phase-out of gas incentives, cost-effectiveness tests, and clean energy financing. They also worked on program design, underserved customer definitions, and participation rates in energy efficiency programs.

2.4 CALCULATING ACTUAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR COSTS AND TOTAL RESOURCE COSTS

AI summary This section outlines the methodology for calculating program administrator costs and total resource costs (TRC) in the context of regulatory proceedings, involving EfficiencyOne, Nova Scotia Power Inc., and the Nova Scotia Energy Board.

E1 Response E1 will carry out, as part of the 2027-2031 DSM Plan development, a comprehensive review of the residential energy efficiency program offerings. E1 plans to work with the Consumer Advocate, Green Energy, and other stakeholders...

AI summary E1 commits to reviewing residential energy efficiency programs as part of its 2027-2031 DSM Plan, ensuring costs are reasonable and aligned with market conditions. Collaboration with stakeholders like the Consumer Advocate and Green Energy is emphasized, along with referencing Quarterly and Annual Reports for cost drivers.

4.4 Synapse [37] Synapse stated that the 2026 DSM extension of energy efficiency initiatives remains cost-effective at the portfolio level. It stated: "The first-year cost of saved energy falls in the middle of the Canadian and leading U.S...

AI summary Synapse asserts the 2026 DSM extension's energy efficiency initiatives are cost-effective, recommending approval. It also supports demand response approval but urges E1 to ensure future plans meet PAC thresholds and conduct benchmarking studies. Synapse further suggests targeting constrained areas and incorporating avoided transmission costs in benefit analyses.

5.10 Evaluation and Reporting [85] In the 2026 DSM Extension, E1 proposes to follow the same measurement and evaluation activities as approved in the 2023-2025 DSM Plan. This includes an annual impact evaluation for each program. E1 also p...

AI summary E1 proposes to follow existing DSM evaluation methods, but Synapse requests PAC and TRC calculations for 2023-2026. E1 lacks verified data for retroactive analysis and suggests limiting reporting to PACs, which would not require third-party support. Synapse emphasizes the value of actual results in other jurisdictions for cost-effectiveness transparency.

Request IR-6: Regarding E1's annual expenditures: Document: 321929 Date Filed: June 4/25 NSEB (E1) Page 2 of 6 - a) What dollar amount was spent on salaries and benefits during each of the past 5 years? - b) Did any employees receive bonus...

AI summary Request IR-6 seeks detailed information about E1's annual expenditures, focusing on salaries and benefits over the past five years, bonus distribution policies, employee eligibility for bonuses, and the criteria used to determine bonus awards. The request also asks for documentation outlining bonus policies.

14 Request IR-9: - 15 (a) Please explain the "enhanced discussion on variances" referenced on 16 page 6-7. - 17 (b) Please describe the specific steps being taken by E1 to manage inter-class 18 reallocation of budgetary amounts, including...

AI summary Request IR-9 seeks clarification on an 'enhanced discussion on variances' referenced on pages 6-7 and asks E1 to detail steps for managing inter-class budget reallocation, including caps on program components, availability, and yearly limits during the 2023-2025 Plan and beyond.

Mid-Course Adjustments and True-Ups The Industrial Group has been expressing concerns with respect to E1's so-called "mid-course adjustments" by which E1 retains the discretion to shuffle spending between programs and customer classes. Whe...

AI summary The Industrial Group criticizes E1's mid-course adjustments for allowing program spending shifts between customer classes without quantifying 'substantial changes' or providing advance notice, despite Board-imposed 25% variance limits and commitments. E1 acknowledges shortcomings but outlines strategies to address concerns, citing historical data reliance and future allocation plans.

Conclusion The Industrial Group recommends that the Board: - 1. Take into consideration the cost-effectiveness results provided in relation to the program and/or measure level, in addition to the portfolio level, considering the requiremen...

AI summary The Industrial Group recommends the NSUARB consider cost-effectiveness at program and portfolio levels, engage DSMAG pre-2027-2031 plan filing, reject Mr. Peach's savings exclusion, mandate E1's comprehensive DR analysis, coordinate with NSPI on overlapping programs, and manage budgeted spending. E1 must address cybersecurity breach impacts and clarify Supply Agreement amendments.

4.0 POSITION OF THE INTERVENORS

AI summary The section outlines the positions of intervenors in the regulatory proceeding. Key arguments focus on Demand-Side Management (DSM), Total Resource Cost (TRC), and Program Administrator Cost (PAC), with emphasis on rate design and cost methodologies. NS Power's role and program cost structures are central to the discussion.

4.4 Synapse [37] Synapse stated that the 2026 DSM extension of energy efficiency initiatives remains cost-effective at the portfolio level. It stated: "The first-year cost of saved energy falls in the middle of the Canadian and leading U.S...

AI summary Synapse supports approving the 2026 DSM Extension's energy efficiency and demand response components but recommends specific conditions for the 2027-2031 plan, including a PAC test value ≥1.0, independent benchmarking studies, targeting constrained areas, and incorporating avoided transmission costs. It also urges E1 to leverage Efficiency Canada's research.

r the very large sample size. Dr. Peach stated that for very large sample sizes, statistical significance loses meaning and it is necessary to, instead, gauge performance using practical significance. [57] Econoler did not agree with Dr. P...

AI summary Econoler and Dr. Peach disagree on evaluating program effectiveness, with Econoler citing industry standards for residential behavior programs and Dr. Peach emphasizing practical significance. The Industrial Group warns that adopting Dr. Peach's recommendations would increase 2026 program costs and highlights E1's suspended residential program due to NS Power's cybersecurity incident, requesting revisions to achieve performance targets.

5.10 Evaluation and Reporting [85] In the 2026 DSM Extension, E1 proposes to follow the same measurement and evaluation activities as approved in the 2023-2025 DSM Plan. This includes an annual impact evaluation for each program. E1 also p...

AI summary E1 proposes continuing existing DSM evaluation practices, while Synapse urges reporting actual PACs and TRCs for 2023-2026. E1 cites data limitations but later agrees to PAC reporting without third-party support, while TRC calculations would require additional resources and be delayed. The dispute centers on cost-effectiveness transparency and methodological complexity.