Topic:"Performance Monitoring" in M06733

4.4 Performance Requirements Efficiency Nova Scotia retained Dunsky Energy Consulting to provide advice on a set of performance requirements that ENS should propose for the UARB's consideration in this Application. Dunsky was asked to cond...

AI summary Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS) engaged Dunsky Energy Consulting to advise on performance requirements for Demand Side Management (DSM) programs, with a focus on metrics and targets for the Nova Scotia Utility and Ratepayer Board (UARB). Dunsky's report, attached as Appendix G, includes a jurisdictional scan showing over 80% of North American regions use energy savings and peak demand savings as primary performance metrics. Definitions for performance-related terms are provided.

4.2.2 Development of DSM Information Management and Program Execution Systems - Changes to enhance the customer experience through Programs 2.0 will require an information management system that can easily track and provide insight into al...

AI summary The development of DSM Information Management and Program Execution Systems aims to enhance customer experience, streamline reporting, and improve data tracking for ENS. The system will reduce processing time, minimize external consulting, and boost program uptake via database marketing, with investments continuing through 2016-2018.

Other Jurisdictions ENS retained Dunsky Energy Consulting to provide advice on a set of performance requirements that ENS should propose for the UARB's consideration in this Application. The Dunsky report, DSM Performance Indicators, is at...

AI summary Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS) retained Dunsky Energy Consulting to advise on performance requirements for the Nova Scotia Utility and Ratepayer Board (UARB). The Dunsky report, 'DSM Performance Indicators' (Appendix G), recommends ENS propose UARB-approved performance targets including cumulative annual energy and peak demand savings over three years at the portfolio level.

3. Contract Price In the Supply Agreement, Section 4.2 states the Contract Price shall constitute full compensation for the Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Activities, and no additional compensation shall be payable to, arising out...

AI summary The Contract Price in the Supply Agreement covers full compensation for Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Activities without additional payments for losses or costs. ENS accepts cost risk and proposes a three-year term for deliverables. Surplus funds may be split between a reserve fund and NS Power. Flexibility in adjusting strategies is emphasized.

24 Research Questions. The next process evaluation should begin not at the level of official documents, the expectations of executive management and the mechanics of balanced scorecard and key performance indicators but with a practical an...

AI summary This section outlines research questions aimed at evaluating the practical functioning of ENSC, including how well it operates in real-world scenarios, the challenges faced by staff, the quality of service provided to customers, and the overall work environment and culture within the organization.

2.5.4 Utility Non-energy Benefits In addition to avoided energy and capacity costs, demand-side resources often are considered a lower risk option compared with many supply-side alternatives. By contrast with major supply infrastructure, d...

AI summary Demand-side resources are highlighted as lower-risk investments compared to supply-side alternatives due to their dispersed nature and reliability. They reduce fuel supply needs for fossil generators, mitigating market price volatility. These benefits are not typically addressed in traditional cost-effectiveness analyses of demand-side resources.

Approach Few regions have adopted a formal and publically available set of principles to guide their DSM plans. This is partly the result of the complexity of DSM itself which, for reasons we will explain below, does not lend itself well t...

AI summary The document outlines the complexity of Demand Side Management (DSM) and identifies four guiding principles for DSM plans: maximizing energy savings, optimizing net benefits, minimizing risk, and ensuring equitable access. It emphasizes balancing these goals with trade-offs and the need for diverse portfolios and sustained market presence.

and "discretionary" savings opportunities. 5 For example, a portfolio that is focused exclusively on market-driven opportunities may be vulnerable to exogenous events like economic downturns that slow the pace of new home starts or of comm...

AI summary The text emphasizes the importance of diversifying Demand Side Management (DSM) portfolios between market-driven and discretionary programs to mitigate risks from economic fluctuations. Over-reliance on either type can lead to missed savings opportunities during market changes, underscoring the need for a balanced approach to ensure long-term performance and stability.

SUMMARY SUMMARY& CONCLUSION & CONCLUSION The business of "selling" Demand-Side Management is not fundamentally different from most business ventures: when taking a long-term perspective, strategic planning involves balancing multiple objec...

AI summary Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS) must balance multiple objectives in its Demand-Side Management (DSM) strategy, including maximizing short-term and long-term savings, minimizing costs, ensuring value, managing risks, preserving relationships, and ensuring broad access. A balanced approach is emphasized to achieve long-term success in DSM portfolio development.

2. TARGET PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

AI summary Section 2 outlines Target Performance Indicators (TPIs) for Nova Scotia's energy efficiency and demand-side management programs. It references regulatory bodies like the NSUARB, organizations such as NSPI and ENS, and programs including DSM and BER. Key themes involve performance metrics, program administration, and compliance with energy efficiency standards.

2.1. DEFINITIONS Several terms can be used in the context of evaluating program administrators' performance with respect to their mandate of delivering energy efficiency. The following will be used through this report: - Target Performance...

AI summary The document defines Target Performance Indicators (TPIs) and Other Performance Indicators (OPIs) for evaluating ENS' energy efficiency programs. TPIs measure progress against quantified targets, such as achieving 400 GWh of annual net savings, while OPIs provide additional metrics like customer satisfaction. The report focuses on selecting TPIs for ENS' first three-year plan, emphasizing annual tracking and independent verification by the UARB.

3.1. CHOICE OF CASE STUDIES For purposes of this study, we conducted a scan of target performance indicators used in ten jurisdictions across the U.S. and Canada. The selected regions were chosen using the following criteria: - Third-Party...

AI summary The study selected ten jurisdictions in the U.S. and Canada for case studies, focusing on regions with third-party DSM administrators and recognized DSM leaders. The criteria included regions using third-party PAs and those with performance incentive mechanisms, such as California and Ontario.

Highlights : - Nine of the ten jurisdictions have an energy savings metric and six of them also have a peak demand savings metric. Massachusetts is the only region that has not incorporated an energy savings performance target indicator pe...

AI summary The analysis compares energy efficiency performance metrics across jurisdictions, noting that most use energy and peak demand savings, while others incorporate cost, benefits, or local economic indicators. Massachusetts uses TRB instead of energy savings targets. Vermont, DC, and Oregon have unique approaches, with Oregon avoiding financial incentives. The 29 regions are categorized by complexity of performance evaluation, with 83% using simple metrics.

Total Resource Benefits (TRB) includes the lifetime value of saved electricity, non-electric fuels, water, and non-resource benefits (non-energy benefits, or NEBs). The Value metric measures the net benefits and is calculated as the TRB mi...

AI summary Total Resource Benefits (TRB) includes the lifetime value of saved electricity, non-electric fuels, water, and non-energy benefits. The Value metric is calculated as TRB minus Total Resource Costs. Massachusetts uses avoided costs to update performance goals and protect PAs from uncontrollable cost changes. Ex-ante estimates are used for non-energy benefits and useful lives of implemented measures.

3.4. TAKEAWAYS Returning to the four main categories of target performance indicators identified in Section 2, the chart below illustrates how each jurisdiction's target performance indicators align to the four categories of TPIs discussed...

AI summary Most regions prioritize energy savings and benefits in target performance indicators (TPIs), emphasizing simplicity and measurable metrics. Jurisdictions stress the need for transparent, independent measurement and verification (M&V) processes to ensure accuracy. Clear upfront definitions of performance metrics are highlighted as critical for program administrator planning.

Energy & Capacity - Energy savings: California and Wisconsin are the only two regions that have a formal lifecycle (lifetime) energy saving target. 4 All other regions track cumulative annual savings (over the Plan's duration). However, li...

AI summary The text compares energy saving methodologies across regions, noting California and Wisconsin as the only areas with formal lifecycle energy targets. Other regions track annual savings, though lifetime savings influence key metrics like Total Resource Benefits and Net Resource Benefits. Six regions have peak demand indicators, but only California measures lifetime savings, which impact performance metrics.

Costs and Benefits - Several metrics may be used to ensure effective use of program expenditures, the most frequently used being Total Resource Benefits (Hawaii, Massachusetts and Vermont), which focuses on the benefits side of the equatio...

AI summary The text discusses metrics like Total Resource Benefits (TRB) and Net Benefits used in regions such as Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Vermont to evaluate program expenditures. It highlights that TRB focuses on benefits, while Net Benefits considers both costs and benefits. Tracking total expenditure as a Target Performance Indicator (TPI) is also noted in Vermont, DC, and Ontario.

velopes. Clearly, performance of a plan whose savings will last 20 years beyond the plan period must be understood differently from a plan whose savings will cease 5 years after the end of the period. Cumulative lifetime energy savings hav...

AI summary The document recommends delaying the formal adoption of cumulative lifetime energy savings as a target performance indicator due to lack of prior reporting in Nova Scotia. Instead, Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS) should develop a methodology to track estimated lifetime savings, report results annually as an Other Performance Indicator (OPI), and later propose it as a Target Performance Indicator (TPI) in its 2019-21 plan.

5. CONCLUSION The jurisdictional scan showed that a vast majority of North American jurisdictions reviewed (over 80%) have restrained their set of target performance indicators to energy and peak demand savings only. These regions have foc...

AI summary The jurisdictional scan indicates that most North American regions focus on energy and peak demand savings as target performance indicators due to their ease of measurement and established evaluation processes. The document recommends two primary TPIs, with a third to be added later, and suggests considering up to five additional OPIs for reporting purposes.

The table below summarizes our recommendations: Performance Indicator Target (TPI) Other (OPI) Note on metrics Cumulative Annual Electricity Savings GWh/yr (last year of plan) Cumulative Annual Peak Demand Savings MW (last year of plan) Cu...

AI summary The table outlines performance indicators for energy efficiency programs, including cumulative annual electricity and peak demand savings, lifetime electricity savings, and considerations for value and other factors. The document notes that one indicator should transition from an Other Performance Indicator (OPI) to a Target Performance Indicator (TPI) in the next three-year plan.

22. AUDIT AND INSPECTION - 22.1 EfficiencyOne shall, during the Term and for a period of thirty-six (36) months thereafter, keep accurate records of all EECA supplied to NSPI, as necessary to determine that the EECA was provided in accorda...

AI summary EfficiencyOne must maintain records of EECA compliance for 36 months post-term. NSPI may request UARB access to these records and inspect EECA implementation, with EfficiencyOne required to facilitate inspections. This outlines audit and inspection obligations under the agreement.

1.2.4 Unitary Savings Review For all the evaluated programs where savings were established on a unitary basis, the Evaluator reviewed the savings presented in the tracking system. First, their consistency with the result of the previous ev...

AI summary The Evaluator reviewed unitary savings for programs like BER Instant Rebates and Green Heat, ensuring consistency with prior evaluations. Methods included using Technical Reference Manuals (TRMs) from other jurisdictions, product specifications, and survey data (e.g., Atlantic Quarterly Survey). Sampling popular products helped establish average properties for categories with diverse offerings.

1.2.5 Project Files Review For those programs whose savings were established based on custom calculations for each measure installed, the Evaluator reviewed savings for a sample of projects. To ensure the accuracy of the calculations used,...

AI summary The Evaluator reviewed project files for programs using custom calculations, verifying accuracy through documentation and on-site visits. Adjustments were made to equations/parameters, sometimes extrapolated to non-sampled projects. Custom Retrofit sub-components (EMIS, EBC) received only file reviews, with qualitative recommendations instead of adjustments.

1.2.6 Billing Calibration For 2014, ENSC collected actual energy consumption and demand data for the buildings which participated in Custom New Construction from 2011 to 2013 evaluations, and provided them to the Evaluator to make a compar...

AI summary ENSC collected actual energy data from 2011-2013 for Custom New Construction participants to compare with simulated figures. Seven projects were evaluated using IPMVP guidelines, but the small sample size and limited data prevented conclusive accuracy assessments of energy simulations.

2.3 Net-to-gross Ratio As shown in Tables 6 and 7 above, the interactive effects factors and NTGRs were applied to the gross savings impacts in order to estimate net savings impacts. NTGRs were established based on the levels of free-rider...

AI summary The document discusses the calculation of the Net-to-Gross Ratio (NTGR) for Energy Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation (ENSC) programs in 2014. It outlines the methodology used to estimate free-ridership and internal spillover effects, which were applied to gross savings impacts to determine net savings. The NTGR formula is provided, and exceptions for certain programs are noted.

2.6 Overall Performance In 2014, ENSC's program component portfolio achieved a total of 151.888 GWh in net energy savings and 27.077 MW in net peak demand savings at the generator. In addition to the savings generated by ENSC's DSM program...

AI summary In 2014, ENSC achieved its overall energy savings targets through a combination of successful program components and new initiatives. While some program components did not meet their individual goals, others like Custom Incentives and Energy Savings Actions made up for the shortfalls. ENSC has made significant improvements in program tracking, partner relationships, and education efforts. However, some savings calculation parameters were not updated as recommended.

Table 14: Recommendations for Residential Direct Install No. Recommendations RDI-R2. Follow up with DAs to identify the cause of entry errors. In 2014, the installation rates observed by the Evaluator during the on-site visits were general...

AI summary This recommendation highlights the need for ENSC to investigate entry errors by Delivery Agents (DAs) that led to discrepancies in installation rates observed during on-site visits in 2014, which significantly impacted the gross savings evaluation.

thoroughly and properly conducted. One element that explains why adjustments to peak demand savings were more significant is that the Evaluator changed some of the diversity factors estimated by ENSC. Moreover, when calculating the net ene...

AI summary The document discusses adjustments to peak demand savings, noting that changes in diversity factors by the Evaluator impacted the results. In 2014, Custom Retrofit achieved significant energy and peak demand savings, while EBC and EMIS contributed additional energy savings. Participant satisfaction with Custom Retrofit remained high, with most recommending it to others and expressing interest in future ENSC programs.

Table 18: Recommendations for Custom Retrofit No. Recommendations Custom-R1. Perform thorough M&V and document it in a complete report for every large project for which thorough M&V work is justified and required. The Evaluator has observe...

AI summary The text recommends thorough Measurement and Verification (M&V) for large energy efficiency projects, citing the need for complete reports following standard protocols like IPMVP, especially for projects receiving significant incentives. For smaller projects, a simplified summary of measurement methods and equations is suggested.

3.1 Follow-up on 2012 and 2013 Evaluation Report Recommendations This section reports on the progress made in acting on the recommendations made by the Evaluator in the 2012 and 2013 evaluation reports. The Evaluator follows up on recommen...

AI summary This section provides an update on the progress made in implementing recommendations from the 2012 and 2013 evaluation reports. A monitoring tool is used to track the implementation status of each recommendation, ensuring transparency and accountability in following through on the evaluator's suggestions.

DEFINITIONS Base case A base case details the information on how assumed gross savings used in the tracking sheet have been established. Usually, these savings are calculated with a series of variables such as hours of operation, wattage o...

AI summary This section provides definitions related to energy efficiency programs and evaluations, including terms such as base case, billing calibration, distortion effects, gross and net energy savings, net-to-gross ratio, and tracked savings. These definitions support the evaluation and tracking of program outcomes.

- S5. Now, using the same 10 point scale, how satisfied are you with Efficiency Nova Scotia's overall performance in working with you? 2 2013 2014 Satisfaction with Overall Performance Sample Size Satisfied Sample Size Satisfied Responsive...

AI summary The text presents survey results measuring customer satisfaction with Efficiency Nova Scotia's performance, including responsiveness, appointment times, and perceived value of services. The data shows high satisfaction levels, with mean scores around 9.4 to 9.6 on a 10-point scale.

DEFINITIONS Accuracy Reflects the proximity of measurements to the true value. Bias Systematic deviations of measurements from the true value. Confidence interval The estimated range of values which is likely to include the unknown populat...

AI summary The document defines key terms related to energy efficiency program evaluation, including accuracy, bias, confidence intervals, free-ridership, distortion effects, and net energy savings. It outlines the methodology for evaluating program effectiveness and the factors influencing energy savings.

This Appendix summarizes all the recommendations made by the Evaluator throughout this report as well as the sections from which the recommendations originated. Sections Recommendations 3 Conduct a billing analysis to compare the pre-parti...

AI summary This appendix outlines recommendations for conducting a billing analysis to compare electricity consumption between treatment and control groups before program participation. It suggests analyzing socio-demographic data and electricity consumption trends over five years to determine if observed savings are attributable to the program.

3.2 Pilot Design and Evaluation Most incentives offered by energy efficiency programs are meant to offset part or all of the incremental cost of energy efficiency measures. If the participant does not have enough capital to pay for a measu...

AI summary The Evaluator recommends integrating Residential Financing into Green Heat, Solar, and HEA programs for evaluation purposes due to misleading distinctions. Issues with loan disbursement, including delays and misallocation, were reported but resolved by ENSC. Contractors and participants' satisfaction with the process and performance indicators should be monitored.

3.2 Follow-up on 2012 and 2013 Evaluation Report Recommendations This section reports on the progress made in acting on the recommendations made by the Evaluator in the 2012 and 2013 evaluation reports. The Evaluator follows up on recommen...

AI summary This section outlines the follow-up on recommendations from the 2012 and 2013 evaluation reports. The Evaluator assessed whether ENSC implemented the recommendations, using a monitoring tool to track progress. A partial evaluation in 2013 did not review the implementation status of the 2012 recommendations.

Recommendations Overall, the Econoler team believes that Custom Retrofit is working well and is achieving good energy savings. In addition to the general recommendations presented for all ENSC program components in the overall 2014 evaluat...

AI summary The Econoler team recommends thorough M&V reporting for large Custom Retrofit projects to ensure accurate energy savings documentation, citing current practices as insufficient for high-value incentives.

Table 4: Implementation Status of Recommendations in 2012 and 2013 Executive Summaries Recommendation Status 2012 Recommendation 2012 Custom-R1 Consider diverting or assigning a proportion of the simple lighting retrofit projects to other...

AI summary Table 4 outlines the implementation status of recommendations from 2012 and 2013 executive summaries, focusing on improvements in energy efficiency programs, such as retrofit projects, diversity factor calculations, and the use of measurement and verification (M&V) procedures. Many recommendations have been fully or partially implemented, with ongoing efforts in some areas.

Milestones The Milestones tab provides the amount of savings claimed at each step of the project. This tab is particularly useful for projects whose implementation period extends over more than one year. This is also where any subsequent s...

AI summary The Milestones tab tracks energy savings at various project stages, including meter and generator levels. It is especially useful for long-term projects and includes adjustments based on M&V. The Evaluator suggests adding clarity by specifying whether peak demand savings are at-the-meter or at-the-generator level.

5 IMPACT EVALUATION FOR CUSTOM RETROFIT The objective of the 2014 impact evaluation for Custom Retrofit was to determine the gross and net energy savings. Both electrical energy and peak demand savings were estimated by analyzing the follo...

AI summary The 2014 impact evaluation for Custom Retrofit aimed to assess gross and net energy savings by analyzing feasibility studies, M&V reports, on-site visits, and participant feedback, while considering factors like free-ridership and internal spillover.

Adjustments to Lighting Retrofit Projects The adjustment factors for lighting retrofits were determined through the analysis of the information obtained during the 10 on-site visits for lighting retrofit measures. The overall energy and pe...

AI summary Adjustments to lighting retrofit projects were determined based on 10 on-site visits, identifying discrepancies in operation hours, fixture counts, and interactive effects. Energy savings adjustment factor was set at 1.009, and peak demand ratio at 1.142. Recommendations include standardizing M&V plans and focusing verification on larger projects.

Adjustments to Other Custom Retrofit Projects The remaining Custom projects in the sample are classified as "other" Custom Retrofit projects for this report. The tracked savings for each project were adjusted using a similar methodology as...

AI summary The report discusses adjustments to energy and peak demand savings for 'other' Custom Retrofit projects, noting minor discrepancies in energy savings calculations and significant errors in documentation. An overall energy savings adjustment factor of 0.991 was applied, while a peak demand adjustment factor of 0.686 was used, influenced by differences in methods for estimating peak coincidence factors.

Continued success in the delivery of non-lighting Custom projects will require continued improvement to the application of M&V practices. In a number of cases, M&V activities were not summarized or documented in the DSMDS. More specificall...

AI summary The document highlights the need for improved M&V practices in non-lighting Custom projects, noting that only 13 out of 22 sampled projects included measurements. Savings for the 2014 Custom Retrofit are estimated at 21.279 GWh at the meter and 22.547 GWh at the generator, with peak demand savings of 1.619 MW and 1.716 MW respectively.

5.2.2 Internal Spillover For Custom Retrofit, internal spillover occurs when participants implement eligible energy efficiency measures under the influence of their previous participation in the program, yet without having any kind of addi...

AI summary The 2013 and 2014 evaluations of the Custom Retrofit program found minimal internal spillover, with only 1% identified in 2013 and no significant spillover in 2014. The Evaluator tested new methods, including a web-based survey for free-ridership, but it was not effective due to low response rates. An Embedded Energy Manager (EEM) was investigated for potential spillover, but no significant impact was found.

vings were calculated in both reports using baseline models that were not described in detail, and appeared to have been developed using relatively short monitoring periods (one month and two months). Since the verified savings must be der...

AI summary The EMIS documentation provides an overview of the energy management process and tracked savings but lacks detailed information necessary for savings validation. The Evaluator emphasizes the need for a thorough M&V procedure to ensure accurate and reliable savings estimation.

CONCLUSION The 2014 evaluation of Custom Retrofit demonstrated that most of the recommendations made in previous evaluations have been implemented. The Evaluator commends ENSC on its efforts in improving and optimizing Custom Retrofit. Amo...

AI summary The 2014 evaluation of Custom Retrofit showed that most previous recommendations were implemented, with improvements in project documentation and a shift of simple lighting projects to prescriptive programs. The evaluation found that 100 projects completed in 2014 generated good electrical savings. Savings were calculated using on-site visits and technical documentation, and the verification process was found to be thorough. Free-ridership increased slightly, but no internal spillover was detected. Participant satisfaction with the program remained high.

This Appendix presents all recommendations made by the Evaluator throughout the report as well as the sections from which the recommendations originated. Sections Recommendations Executive Summary 1 Perform thorough M&V and document it in...

AI summary The Evaluator recommends thorough M&V for large energy efficiency projects and suggests a simplified approach for smaller ones, emphasizing the need for accurate documentation to justify significant incentives.

6. Pre-Visit Assessment of the Project key observations fron main information to co report analysis. These no otes will serve on site to guide the visit and _ e Observations a on-site visit and indicate _ linas made on site. Tioport and I...

AI summary The text outlines a pre-visit assessment framework for a project, including key observations, spillover assessments, M&V post-implementation results, seasonal load profiles, and notes from M&V reports. The table format suggests a structured approach to evaluating project performance and outcomes.

4.1.1 Adjustment Methodology Nine on-site visits were conducted with the intent of confirming that the tracked savings recorded in the DSMDS were appropriate and accurate using a similar approach than the one used in 2013. The on-site visi...

AI summary The document outlines the adjustment methodology used to verify the accuracy of energy savings recorded in the DSMDS through on-site visits. Key factors considered include baseline assumptions, equipment specifications, installation rates, hours of operation, diversity factors, and M&V procedures for NCEM projects.

DEFINITIONS Accuracy Reflects the proximity of measurements to the true value. Bias Systematic deviations of measurements from the true value. Confidence interval The estimated range of values which is likely to include the unknown populat...

AI summary The document defines key terms related to energy efficiency program evaluation, including accuracy, bias, confidence intervals, free-ridership, gross and net energy savings, and interactive effects. These definitions are foundational for understanding how energy savings are measured and evaluated in regulatory contexts.

- j. The ability to provide estimates of the savings or return on investment associated with the program. Response 98 Don't Know 99 Refused S5. performance in working with your business? [CODE ONE ONLY] Now, using the same 10 point scale,...

AI summary The text discusses the ability to provide estimates of savings or return on investment for a program, with some survey responses indicating 'Don't Know' or 'Refused' as answers. It also includes survey questions about performance and satisfaction with Efficiency Nova Scotia's services.

Scan America® Goals Statement - Excellence in the integration of knowledge, method, and practice - Improvement and learning at all levels - Contextually sound measurement, analysis, and reporting - Anticipate and meet the needs of our clie...

AI summary Scan America® outlines goals emphasizing excellence in integrating knowledge and practice, contextual measurement, client-centric approaches, ethical research, and continuous innovation. The statement highlights commitments to improvement, learning, and anticipating client needs through principled analysis and reporting.

C. Home Energy Assessment (Tracked Savings) Home Energy Assessment (HEA) provides financial incentives in the form of rebates or zero-interest financing to homeowners to reduce consumption of energy. It is focused on shell insulation measu...

AI summary The Home Energy Assessment (HEA) program offers rebates and zero-interest financing for insulation to reduce energy consumption. Evaluation includes 'test-in/test-out' audits, data validation, and incorporation of prior 2012 analysis. The inclusion of 'Unconverted D Study Savings' strengthens program impact, suggesting past evaluations understated savings. The evaluator's methods are deemed appropriate with no recommendations.

G. Residential Direct Install (Full-Scale) The Residential Direct Install Program (RDI) provides direct installation of standard energy-efficient lighting and domestic hot water-heating products free of charge. In addition, participants ma...

AI summary The Residential Direct Install Program (RDI) offers free energy-efficient home upgrades. Econoler's evaluation found increased savings from LED adoption and smart controllers, despite fewer households served. Data entry errors inflating savings were identified, prompting recommendations for improved error checks. The evaluation methods and assumptions were deemed valid.

iled: March 27, 2015 E1 (NSPI) IR-2 Page 7 of 7 2016-2018 Supply Agreement for EECA M06733 (E-ENS-R-15) E1 Responses to NSPI Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-3: 2 3 Reference: EfficiencyOne, Evidence - Page 46, Lines 18-2...

AI summary E1 (EfficiencyOne) responds to NSPI's IR-3 request regarding DSM providers' multi-year approval periods and performance requirements. E1 cites the Edison Foundation's report, noting it does not specify approval periods but provides a table evaluating ten jurisdictions' annual vs. multi-year performance metrics.

r Plan approval process, as 28 well as, to the best of our knowledge, whether their performance indicators are evaluated 29 at the multi-year contract level or on an annual basis. Date Filed: March 27, 2015 E1 (NSPI) IR-3 Page 1 of 2 2016-...

AI summary The document discusses the approval process for the 2016-2018 EECA supply agreement and evaluates whether performance indicators are assessed annually or over multi-year periods. A table lists jurisdictions with their respective approval and performance evaluation timelines.

E1 (NSPI) IR-22 Page 1 of 1 2016-2018 Supply Agreement for EECA M06733 (E-ENS-R-15) E1 Responses to NSPI Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-23: 2 3 Reference: EfficiencyOne, Appendix G – DSM Performance Indicators (Dunsky E...

AI summary The document outlines ENS's response to an information request regarding the measurement and verification of performance indicators in the 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan. ENS proposes eight performance indicators, with cumulative energy and peak demand savings as targets assessed once at the end of the contract, while annual progress reports would be provided.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 (g) Please explain why Ontario was the only Canadian province included in the 2 research sample. 3 4 (h) Which states or jurisdictions researched applied performance metrics only at the 5 end of a compliance or target pe...

AI summary The response addresses questions about performance metrics and targets in energy efficiency programs, noting that only California and Wisconsin explicitly use cumulative lifetime energy savings as performance targets, while others may use it implicitly. New Hampshire is the only jurisdiction using cost-effectiveness as a performance metric.

“Customer satisfaction” and “Pipeline of projects” 23 metrics were both considered for Nova Scotia, but in the Other Performance Indicators 24 category. We did not recommend including them as Target Performance Indicators as 25 they are no...

AI summary The text discusses the consideration of 'Customer satisfaction' and 'Pipeline of projects' metrics for Nova Scotia, noting that while they were evaluated, they were not included as Target Performance Indicators due to not being core to ENS’ performance. However, reporting on them could add value in understanding Target Performance Indicator results.

& lt;sup>10 E1 (NSPI) IR-14(a), March 27, 2015, page 1, lines 22-25. 11 Please refer to Appendix A, Direct Testimony of David Pickles, April 10, 2015, page 19, lines 13-20. assess the impacts, if any, which result if E1 is not able to clai...

AI summary E1 refused to provide data on the impact of not claiming ITCs and failed to compare DSM plans as requested by NS Power. NS Power criticized E1's use of flat load profiles instead of hourly 8760-hour DSM profiles, which contradicted the ELRAM model and the Final 8760 profile.

13 A. I find that: - 14 The program information provided by EfficiencyOne is insufficient for 15 regulatory approval and contract development, and I recommend that 16 EfficiencyOne be directed to provide additional information; - 17 The re...

AI summary The findings indicate that EfficiencyOne's program data lacks sufficiency, cost justification, and breadth. The board recommends enhanced data submission, broader program evaluation, alternative DSM portfolio analysis, improved reporting standards, and expanded performance targets. These issues require corrective action for regulatory approval.

12 Contractual, Reporting, and Approval Requirements - 14 Q. HAVE YOU REVIEWED EFFICIENCYONE'S PROPOSED "SUPPLY 15 AGREEMENT FOR ELECTRICITY ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND 16 CONSERVATION ACTIVITIES BETWEEN NOVA SCOTIA POWER 17 INCORPORATED AND EFF...

AI summary The reviewer evaluated EfficiencyOne's proposed agreement with Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSP), finding it lacking in oversight, detail, and alignment with industry standards. The proposal requires more frequent reporting, stricter performance standards, and reduced autonomy for EfficiencyOne to ensure program reliability and compliance. The reviewer recommends enhanced scope descriptions, approval processes, and remedies for underperformance.

- 22 Annual budget detail, including at least the following categories: 23 incentives (cash), incentives (free/discounted services), administration, 1 marketing, EM&V, QA/QC, application/incentive processing, IT, and 6 EfficiencyOne's uniq...

AI summary EfficiencyOne proposes an Annual Performance Report (APR) with detailed reporting requirements to support regulatory oversight. The report would include summaries of context, activities, and performance indicators, as well as management discussion and analysis of discrepancies. Additional data elements are recommended, including participation metrics, project pipelines, and energy savings by measure.

- 22 These indicators would be at the portfolio level, for informational purposes 23 only, and would not be used to formally assess performance. 1 2 Q. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE PROPOSED PERFORMANCE TARGETS 3 ARE SUFFICIENT? 4 A. No. I recom...

AI summary The respondent does not believe the proposed performance targets are sufficient, suggesting a one-year time horizon for energy and demand portfolio performance targets and adding annual spending as a performance target. They also recommend program-level reporting and customer satisfaction metrics.

3 Q. WHY ARE THESE MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY? 2 4 A. The shortening of time horizon to reflect annual savings achievement is 5 necessary because the three-year time horizon proposed does not permit 6 evaluation of EfficiencyOne's satisfactio...

AI summary Modifications are necessary to shorten the performance evaluation time horizon from three years to annual assessments, ensuring timely adjustments to EfficiencyOne's programs. Annual targets are more common and allow earlier intervention if performance thresholds are not met. Adding 'budget spend' as a target prevents fund misallocation, while program-level metrics ensure efficiency and equity. Failure to meet 90% of targets could trigger UARB review for contract termination.

Context and Limitations The unique nature of DSM programs (given utilities and program administrators with differing objectives, between individual programs within a single program administrator, between outwardly similar programs at diffe...

AI summary The text discusses challenges in evaluating Demand Side Management (DSM) programs due to differences in design, objectives, and metrics across utilities and program administrators. Variations in program structure, customer demographics, and regulatory environments complicate peer group analysis. Metrics remain unadjusted for factors like accounting practices and weather zones, limiting comprehensive comparisons.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 The Company's GRA also highlighted affordability as a key criterion in determining the costs it 2 included in the Application: 3 4 We know Nova Scotians are frustrated with rising prices. We receive customer 5 complaints...

AI summary NSPI emphasizes affordability in its GRA, addressing customer concerns about rising electricity prices. They assert efficient operations, supported by audits, while meeting regulatory and environmental standards. References include a DSM Plan and audit reports.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-39: 2 3 Reference: Appendix A, Page 30 of 100, lines 9-11. 4 5 If the UARB approves EfficiencyOne's Performance Targets to be cumulative annual 6 energy and demand savings over the 3-year term, would Efficienc...

AI summary The response to Request IR-39 confirms that if the UARB approves EfficiencyOne's cumulative annual energy and demand savings targets, quarterly reporting of costs and savings would allow tracking progress against these targets. This is supported by David Pickles' testimony.

3.6 Performance Targets, Indicators, and Thresholds [108] El proposed that the performance targets be cumulative annual energy and peak demand savings at the end of the three year period at the portfolio level and the performance indicator...

AI summary El proposes cumulative energy and demand savings targets with annual reporting, a 90% threshold, and 405.9 GWh/62.5 MW targets. The Board's reduced DSM spending may affect these targets.

3.6.1 Findings [111] The Consensus Agreement signed by the parties, and approved by the Board, provides further details on the performance targets, indicators and thresholds. These targets are cumulative at the end of the three year period...

AI summary The Consensus Agreement, approved by the Board, sets performance targets with a 90% compliance threshold. The Board ordered El to include these targets in its Compliance Filing, ensuring adherence to the agreed-upon indicators and thresholds over a three-year period.

10) NS POWER'S CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTION - a) The parties encourage Nova Scotia Power to provide the evaluated results or its low income program to the Board and to stakehotders an an annual basis and to coordinate administration and evaluat...

AI summary The parties encourage NS Power to annually report on its low-income program's results to the Board and stakeholders, coordinating with EfficiencyOne. They also agree that NS Power's charitable contribution-related DSM activities will not affect EfficiencyOne's performance targets.

3) PERFORMANCE TARGETS, INDICATORS AND THRESHOLDS - a) The parties agree to the following Performance Targets and Performance Indicators: - Performance Targets are set over the three-year contract period, rather than annually. - ) Efficien...

AI summary Parties agree to three-year performance targets for energy and peak demand savings, requiring 90% achievement for compliance. Indicators include annual savings, customer satisfaction, and rate impacts. EfficiencyOne must report by program and rate class, with specific methodologies for lifetime savings and ratepayer benefits.

5) EVALUATION AND REPORTING - a) The Parties support EfficiencyOne's proposal for annual program impact evaluations and process evaluations at the organizational level with program process evaluations if required. EfficiencyOne wilt provid...

AI summary The parties support EfficiencyOne's proposal for annual program evaluations, including impact and process assessments. EfficiencyOne will report on performance requirements, explain substantial changes, avoid rate class impacts, and provide notice for mid-course adjustments. Reporting timelines and contents are subject to Board revisions.

Lagend: Filing has not historically triggered an automatic regulatory Filing has historically tr riggered a regulatory process 2015 Annual Progress Report End of March Summary of 2015 context, activities and milestones achieved Total inves...

AI summary The document outlines various reporting requirements and timelines for a regulatory proceeding, including annual progress reports, evaluation reports, and quarterly filings. These reports include details on program performance, financial statements, and analyses of rate and bill impacts.

12. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATIONS 12.1 EfficiencyOne's performance under the terms of this Agreement shall be measured in accordance with the performance requirements established by the UARB pursuant to Section 79M of the Act as...

AI summary EfficiencyOne's performance under the Agreement is measured by the UARB according to Section 79M of the Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Act (EECA), as outlined in Schedule C - Performance Requirements.

22. AUDIT AND INSPECTION - 22.1 EfficiencyOne shall, during the Term and for a period of thirty-six (36) months thereafter, keep accurate records of all EECA supplied to NSPI, as necessary to determine that the EECA was provided in accorda...

AI summary The clause outlines EfficiencyOne's obligation to maintain records of EECA compliance for 36 months post-term. NSPI may request UARB access to these records and inspect EECA implementation, with EfficiencyOne required to facilitate inspections safely. NSPI retains rights to observe EECA compliance via its own or third-party inspectors.

(PAGE 1 OF 2) - I. UARB-APPROVED PERFORMANCE TARGETS. THRESHOLDS. AND INDICATORS- - a) Performance Targets and Thresholds: - i. Performance Targets are set over the three-year contract period, rather than annually. - ii. EfficiencyOne is d...

AI summary The UARB-established performance targets and indicators for EfficiencyOne require 90% achievement on two key metrics (energy and peak demand savings) over three years. Non-compliance triggers a regulatory process. The framework was set via a 2015 Consensus Agreement approved by UARB in Decision M06733.

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS - ix. An analysis of the impact on rates through the implementation of the 2016-2018 programs will be included as part of EfficiencyOne's historical-looking rate and bill impact analysis, filed by October 31st of e...

AI summary EfficiencyOne must analyze rate impacts of 2016-2018 programs annually by October 31, report low-income program metrics using census data, and submit performance indicators by rate class to the UARB in Q3 reports.

3) PERFORMANCE TARGETS, INDICATORS AND THRESHOLDS - a) The parties agree to the following Performance Targets and Performance Indicators: - i) Performance Targets are set over the three-year contract period, rather than annually. - ii) Eff...

AI summary Parties agree to three-year performance targets for EfficiencyOne, requiring 90% achievement on cumulative energy and peak demand savings. Performance indicators include annual and lifetime savings, ratepayer benefits, and customer satisfaction. Reporting by program and rate class is required, with low-income participation analysis and rate impact studies mandated.

5) EVALUATION AND REPORTING - Advisory in 2016 for discussion. - b) EffidencyOne will explore methodologies of demand savings evaluations with its evaluator. - c) EffidencyOne agrees to provide a full report on its 2016-2018 Performance Re...

AI summary EfficiencyOne must report on demand savings evaluations, provide annual performance reports, explain substantial changes in energy savings, and avoid rate class impacts. Reporting timelines and contents are governed by Schedule 1, with Board input. EfficiencyOne may not provide advance notice for mid-course adjustments based on third-party evaluations.

i. NS Power's Charitable Contribution The Affordable Energy Coalition is represented on the advisory group for the HomeWarming program that uses NS Power's charitable contribution to fund substantial efficiency retrofits in electrically he...

AI summary The Affordable Energy Coalition highlights NS Power's charitable contribution to the HomeWarming program, which funds efficiency retrofits for low-income households. They recommend reporting program results to the NSUARB for DSM oversight per clause 10 of the Settlement Agreement. Separately, intervenors advocate for 3-year performance targets over annual ones to enable flexibility and a new low-income rental program under clause 3 of the Settlement Agreement.

Consensus Settlement Agreement and Terms of Consensus Agreement 47. The Province supports some aspects of the terms of Consensus Agreement but does not agree with the DSM investment level and performance targets. The Province notes that in...

AI summary The Province supports aspects of the Consensus Agreement but disagrees with DSM investment levels and performance targets. Other topics for discussion include standardized filing, rate impact analysis, DSM expenditure criteria, and cost-effectiveness testing. The Province supports mid-course adjustments, flexibility for E1, and the Principles of Equity and Performance Targets.

16 Performance Targets, Indicators, and Thresholds 17 18 In the Consensus Agreement, the Parties came to an agreement with respect to Performance Targets, Indicators, and Thresholds.[6](#page-8-2) 19 The Parties agreed that Performance Tar...

AI summary The Parties agreed on three-year performance targets, 90% compliance thresholds, and specific energy and demand savings targets (405.9 GWh and 62.5 MW). EfficiencyOne seeks Board approval for these terms in the Consensus and Quantum Agreements.

- 31 cumulative energy and peak demand savings. EfficiencyOne's evidence supported by the 1 Dunsky Report – DSM Performance Indicators25 , recommended that the approved Performance 2 Target include a cumulative annual energy and peak deman...

AI summary The document discusses the resolution of a performance target issue related to cumulative energy and peak demand savings under the DSM Plan. The Consensus Agreement sets a 90% achievement threshold for these targets, with a regulatory process triggered if this threshold is not met. The remaining outstanding items include the quantity of DSM and contract price.

(I) Non-Budgetary Consensus Agreement - 2. The Industrial Group was a signatory to the all-party Consensus Agreement 1 which addresses a number of non-budget items. There are three issues which the parties agree should be addressed through...

AI summary The Industrial Group and EfficiencyOne (E1) agree on non-budget items, including DSM advisory group recommendations, E1's reserve fund withdrawal, and three-year performance targets. Stakeholders broadly support Exhibit E-62, with Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI) endorsing it. The Industrial Group reserves rights regarding E1's flexibility in program funding.

- 44. With respect to the Instant Saving Pricing Research (Attachment 6 to Undertaking U-4), it finds that the rebate offered by EfficiencyNS at the time for an Energy Star light bulb brought the cost within a consumer's acceptable price r...

AI summary The document criticizes E1's proposed 100% rebate incentives for energy efficiency measures, arguing they are excessive despite retail prices already being within acceptable ranges. The Industrial Group expresses concerns that E1's service framework disincentivizes reducing incentives, as performance targets prioritize measurable outcomes over enabling strategies like education. E1's inability to count non-incentive-based strategies toward targets is highlighted as a flaw.

LET EFFICIENCYONE DO ITS JOB While the Consumer Advocate shares the view that DSM programs must be both efficient and effective, we agree that performance of DSM programs must be monitored by the Board. But at the same time, it is to be pr...

AI summary The Consumer Advocate agrees that DSM programs must be monitored by the Board but argues that EfficiencyOne, as a capable DSM supplier, should be given 'elbow room' to perform its role effectively.

pt, June 16, Page 498, Line 12 to Page 499, Line 5. and apart from the issue of being filed too late to be considered by the Board, is based on an erroneous interpretation of the requirement of U-4. For its part, the Industrial Group has t...

AI summary The Industrial Group criticizes EfficiencyOne's service delivery framework, arguing it disincentivizes eliminating incentives by tying performance targets to energy savings. EfficiencyOne counters that it can count savings from non-incentive measures like education and information campaigns, even if customers don't apply for rebates. The dispute centers on how performance metrics are evaluated.

really a function of the kind of industry that they're in, the kind of customer they are, the segment that they're in, the prism segment that they're in, if that means much to you[36](#page-20-1) . Similarly, NS Power has included sections...

AI summary The text discusses discrepancies in NS Power's use of the EL-RAM model to assess EfficiencyOne's incentives. NS Power cited Mr. Pickles' testimony but failed to provide evidence that EfficiencyOne's incentives are excessive. Errors in Mr. Pickles' interpretation of the model, including incorrect assumptions about LED costs and incentive rates, are highlighted as undermining NS Power's claims.

3.6 Performance Targets, Indicators, and Thresholds [108] El proposed that the performance targets be cumulative annual energy and peak demand savings at the end of the three year period at the portfolio level and the performance indicator...

AI summary El proposes cumulative energy and peak demand savings targets over three years, with annual reporting on incremental and lifetime savings. The threshold is 90% of targets, confirmed at 405.9 GWh and 62.5 MW. The Board reduced DSM expenditures, potentially impacting targets. El will also report on ratepayer benefits and customer satisfaction, though not as performance indicators.

3.6.1 Findings [111] The Consensus Agreement signed by the parties, and approved by the Board, provides further details on the performance targets, indicators and thresholds. These targets are cumulative at the end of the three year period...

AI summary The Consensus Agreement, approved by the Board, sets performance targets with a 90% compliance threshold. El is ordered to include these targets in its Compliance Filing as part of the regulatory process.

3) EFFICIENCYONE PERFORMANCE TARGETS al EfficiencyOnes cumulative energy and demand savings targets shall be 405.9 GWh and 62.5 MW respectively, as set out in Efficiencyflne's 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan filing.

AI summary EfficiencyOne's cumulative energy and demand savings targets are set at 405.9 GWh and 62.5 MW respectively, as outlined in its 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan filing. These targets form part of Nova Scotia's regulatory proceedings under the EECR Act.

3) PERFORMANCE TARGETS, INDICATORS AND THRESHOLDS - a) The parties agree to the following Performance Targets and Performance Indicators: - Performance Targets are set over the three-year contract period, rather than annually. - ) Efficien...

AI summary Parties agree to three-year performance targets for energy savings and peak demand, with 90% achievement required for compliance. Indicators include annual and cumulative savings, customer satisfaction, and rate impact analysis. Reporting by program and rate class is mandated.

5) EVALUATION AND REPORTING - a) The Parties support EfficiencyOne's proposal for annual program impact evaluations and process evaluations at the organizational level with program process evaluations if required. EfficiencyOne wilt provid...

AI summary EfficiencyOne agrees to annual impact and process evaluations, condensed reporting to OSM Advisory, and detailed performance reporting for 2016-2018. It will explain substantial changes (≥25% variance) and avoid rate-class impacts via cost allocation. Reporting timelines and content are subject to DSM Advisory Group input, with exceptions for third-party evaluation-driven mid-course adjustments.

Lagend: Filing has not historically triggered an automatic regulatory Filing has historically tr riggered a regulatory process 2015 Annual Progress Report End of March Summary of 2015 context, activities and milestones achieved Total inves...

AI summary The text outlines various filings and reports related to a regulatory process, including annual progress reports, evaluation reports, and financial statements. It details the timing and content of these filings, such as summaries of activities, investment status, and performance indicators.

12. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATIONS 12.1 EfficiencyOne's performance under the terms of this Agreement shall be measured in accordance with the performance requirements established by the UARB pursuant to Section 79M of the Act as...

AI summary EfficiencyOne's performance under the Agreement is evaluated based on performance requirements established by the UARB under Section 79M of the Act, as detailed in Schedule 'C' – Performance Requirements.

22. AUDIT AND INSPECTION - 22.1 EfficiencyOne shall, during the Term and for a period of thirty-six (36) months thereafter, keep accurate records of all EECA supplied to NSPI, as necessary to determine that the EECA was provided in accorda...

AI summary EfficiencyOne must maintain records of EECA provided to NSPI for 36 months. NSPI can request access to these records from UARB and inspect EECA, with EfficiencyOne facilitating inspections.

1 SCHEDULE A 2 3 ELECTRICITY EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION ACTIVITIES 4 Schedule A 5 Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Activities 6 7 The figure below identifies the scope of savings (3-year Cumulative Annual Net Energy and Net 8 Peak...

AI summary The document outlines performance targets for Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Activities (EECAs) under Schedule A, requiring 90% achievement of cumulative energy and peak demand savings over three years. Non-compliance triggers a regulatory process, referencing Schedule E's EECA Plan and the Consensus Agreement adopted by the Board.

43 SCHEDULE C (PAGE 1 OF 2) Performance Requirements I. UARB-APPROVED PERFORMANCE TARGETS, THRESHOLDS, AND INDICATORS5 a) Performance Targets and Thresholds: i. Performance Targets are set over the three-year contract period, rather than a...

AI summary This document outlines performance requirements and targets for EfficiencyOne under the UARB-approved Plan. Performance targets are set over a three-year contract period, with substantial compliance defined as achieving 90% or greater on two key targets: cumulative annual energy savings and cumulative annual peak demand savings. If targets are not met, a regulatory process will be triggered.

12. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATIONS 12.1 EfficiencyOne's performance under the terms of this Agreement shall be measured in accordance with the performance requirements established by the UARB pursuant to Section 79M of the Act as...

AI summary EfficiencyOne's performance is evaluated by the UARB under Section 79M of the Act, as outlined in Schedule C.

22. AUDIT AND INSPECTION - 22.1 EfficiencyOne shall, during the Term and for a period of thirty-six (36) months thereafter, keep accurate records of all EECA supplied to NSPI, as necessary to determine that the EECA was provided in accorda...

AI summary EfficiencyOne must maintain records of EECA supplied to NSPI for 36 months post-term. NSPI may request UARB access to these records and inspect EECA, with EfficiencyOne required to facilitate inspections and provide safe facilities.

12. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATIONS 12.1 EfficiencyOne's performance under the terms of this Agreement shall be measured in accordance with the performance requirements established by the UARB pursuant to Section 79M of the Act as...

AI summary EfficiencyOne's performance under the Agreement is evaluated by the UARB based on Schedule C's performance requirements, as mandated by Section 79M of the Act. The UARB establishes these requirements under the Act's provisions.

22. AUDIT AND INSPECTION - 22.1 EfficiencyOne shall, during the Term and for a period of thirty-six (36) months thereafter, keep accurate records of all EECA supplied to NSPI, as necessary to determine that the EECA was provided in accorda...

AI summary EfficiencyOne must maintain records of EECA provided to NSPI for 36 months post-term. NSPI may request UARB access to these records and inspect EECA activities, with EfficiencyOne required to facilitate inspections. This outlines audit and inspection obligations under the agreement.

The figure below identifies the scope of savings (3-year Cumulative Annual Net Energy and Net Peak Demand Savings) associated with carrying out EECAs over the Term. Cumulative Annual Net Energy Savings at Generator over the Term (GWh) Cumu...

AI summary The text outlines performance targets for Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Activities (EECA) over a 3-year term, specifying cumulative net energy and peak demand savings. Achievement of these targets is tied to the EECA Plan and Consensus Agreement, with a regulatory process triggered if less than 90% of the targets are met.

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

AI summary The section outlines performance requirements for utilities, involving Nova Scotia Power Incorporated (NSPI), Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Activities (EECA), and regulated by the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (UARB). It addresses compliance standards and potential regulatory oversight.

(PAGE 1 OF 2) - I. UARB-APPROVED PERFORMANCE TARGETS, THRESHOLDS, AND INDICATORS[5](#page-28-0) - a) Performance Targets and Thresholds: - i. Performance Targets are set over the three-year contract period, rather than annually. - ii. Effi...

AI summary The UARB-established performance targets for EfficiencyOne require 90% achievement on two metrics—cumulative annual energy and peak demand savings—over a three-year period. Non-compliance triggers regulatory action. Indicators include annual and lifetime savings, ratepayer benefits, and customer satisfaction. The framework stems from a 2015 Consensus Agreement approved by the UARB in Decision M06733.

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS - ix. An analysis of the impact on rates through the implementation of the 2016-2018 programs will be included as part of EfficiencyOne's historical-looking rate and bill impact analysis, filed by October 31st of e...

AI summary EfficiencyOne must analyze rate impacts of 2016-2018 programs annually, report low-income program metrics using census data, and submit performance indicators by rate class to the UARB by Q3.

12. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATIONS 12.1 EfficiencyOne's performance under the terms of this Agreement shall be measured in accordance with the performance requirements established by the UARB pursuant to Section 79M of the Act as...

AI summary EfficiencyOne's performance is evaluated by the UARB under Section 79M of the Act, as outlined in Schedule C - Performance Requirements, which establishes the metrics for assessing compliance with the agreement.

22. AUDIT AND INSPECTION - 22.1 EfficiencyOne shall, during the Term and for a period of thirty-six (36) months thereafter, keep accurate records of all EECA supplied to NSPI, as necessary to determine that the EECA was provided in accorda...

AI summary EfficiencyOne must maintain records of EECA provided to NSPI for 36 months post-agreement. NSPI may request UARB access to these records and inspect EECA operations, with EfficiencyOne required to facilitate inspections and provide safe facilities.

\ For certainty, in accordance with the performance requirements set out in Schedule "C" attached hereto, EfficiencyOne shall be deemed to be in substantial compliance with the approved Performance Targets if 90 percent (90%) or greater ac...

AI summary The text outlines a regulatory process that will be triggered if EfficiencyOne fails to achieve at least 90% of the approved Performance Targets under Schedule 'C'. This ensures substantial compliance with performance requirements.

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

AI summary The document outlines performance requirements for a regulatory proceeding in Nova Scotia, involving entities such as Nova Scotia Power Incorporated and the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board. Key stakeholders include the Consumer Advocate, Small Business Advocate, and various advocacy groups.

(PAGE 1 OF 2) - I. UARB-APPROVED PERFORMANCE TARGETS. THRESHOLDS. AND INDICATORS- - a) Performance Targets and Thresholds: - i. Performance Targets are set over the three-year contract period, rather than annually. - ii. EfficiencyOne is d...

AI summary The UARB established performance targets, thresholds, and indicators for EfficiencyOne over a three-year contract period. Compliance requires achieving 90% or more on two key targets: cumulative annual energy savings and peak demand savings. Non-compliance triggers a regulatory process. These metrics were set under a 2015 Consensus Agreement approved by the UARB in Decision M06733.

3) PERFORMANCE TARGETS, INDICATORS AND THRESHOLDS - a) The parties agree to the following Performance Targets and Performance Indicators: - i) Performance Targets are set over the three-year contract period, rather than annually. - ii) Eff...

AI summary Parties agree to three-year performance targets (cumulative energy and peak demand savings) with 90% achievement thresholds. Non-compliance triggers regulatory review. Indicators include annual savings, lifetime benefits, and customer satisfaction. EffidencyOne must report by rate class and analyze rate impacts from 2016-2018 programs, including low-income participation via census data.

onstrated capacity to fund the annual required payments to EfficiencyOne should an - external debt structure be pursued. - Key risk areas identified by the lending community included (i) the risk of investment overspending - by EfficiencyO...

AI summary The text outlines risks associated with financing EfficiencyOne through external debt. Key risks include overspending, failure to meet energy efficiency targets impacting NSPI's funding obligations, and potential non-payment by NSPI if the franchise agreement is revoked or DSM Plans are not approved by UARB.

- As the franchise holder, EfficiencyOne is considered to be a public utility in relation to these activities. - The supply of electricity efficiency and conservation activities will be administered by the Efficiency Nova Scotia franchise...

AI summary EfficiencyOne, as the franchise holder, administers electricity efficiency and conservation services with NSPI under a UARB-approved contract. The 2015 transition year had a $35M spending cap plus ENSC over-recovery. Amortization for 2015 costs was 8 years, but 2016+ periods remain undetermined. UARB sets performance requirements, and EfficiencyOne bears financial risks for DSM programs.

Summary of Consensus Agreement[5](#page-12-3) - On June 16, 2015, EfficiencyOne entered into an agreement ("Consensus Agreement") with Nova - Scotia Power Incorporated, Consumer Advocate, Small Business Advocate, Industrial Group, - Afford...

AI summary The Consensus Agreement (June 16, 2015) between EfficiencyOne, Nova Scotia Power Inc., and stakeholders establishes standardized filings, expedited recovery of funds for extraordinary circumstances, surplus returns to NSPI, multi-year performance targets, and collaboration on DSM cost models. UARB approval is required for key provisions.

- rating and demonstrated capacity to fund the annual required payments to EfficiencyOne should an external debt structure be pursued. - Key risk areas identified by the lending community included (i) the risk of investment overspending by...

AI summary The text outlines risks identified by lenders regarding EfficiencyOne's DSM Plan, including overspending, unmet energy efficiency targets, and NSPI's potential non-payment. Concerns include acrimonious negotiations between EfficiencyOne and NSPI, challenges in securing full financing, and reliance on UARB oversight for future DSM Plan approvals.

Summary of Consensus Agreement 5 On June 16, 2015, E1 entered into an agreement ("Consensus Agreement") with Nova Scotia Power Incorporated, Consumer Advocate, Small Business Advocate, Industrial Group, Affordable Energy Coalition, and Eco...

AI summary On June 16, 2015, EfficiencyOne (E1) and Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI) entered a Consensus Agreement with stakeholders, establishing standardized DSM filings, performance targets, and collaborative cost model development. The agreement allows E1 to seek expedited UARB approval for unforeseen costs if mitigated, with surplus funds returned to NSPI. UARB's approval of both the Quantum and Consensus Agreements is pending, focusing on DSM investment levels and terms.