Topic:"Performance Monitoring" in M09096

19 Approval of Supply Agreement with NS Power 20 21 EfficiencyOne also requests the Board's approval of its form of Supply Agreement with 22 Nova Scotia Power Inc. ("NS Power"). The operating terms and conditions of the 23 Supply Agreement...

AI summary EfficiencyOne seeks Board approval for a revised Supply Agreement with Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSP), aligning with prior 2016–2018 and 2019 DSM Plans but adding a 'lifetime energy savings' performance target and updated reporting requirements under the Standardized Filing Framework.

1 Approval of Lifetime Energy Savings Performance Target 2 3 EfficiencyOne further requests the Board's approval to implement a new Performance 4 Target: Lifetime Energy Savings. 5 6 EfficiencyOne proposes this target be included as a meas...

AI summary EfficiencyOne requests the Board's approval to implement a new DSM performance target: Lifetime Energy Savings. This metric evaluates energy savings over a measure's lifetime, complementing existing annual targets. It aims to ensure long-term savings considerations in future DSM planning.

15 Established Performance Targets 16 17 The Standardized Filing Framework establishes the performance targets and thresholds 18 that EfficiencyOne is to meet in executing the approved DSM Plan. These Established 19 Performance Targets are...

AI summary The Standardized Filing Framework sets performance targets for EfficiencyOne under the approved DSM Plan, requiring cumulative annual energy and peak demand savings. Compliance is evaluated over the Board-approved Supply Agreement period, with 90% achievement on each target deemed substantial compliance.

28 Proposed Lifetime Energy Savings Target 29 30 In this application, EfficiencyOne proposes and requests approval to add a third 1 Performance Target: Lifetime Energy Savings. 2

AI summary EfficiencyOne proposes adding a third performance target: Lifetime Energy Savings, requesting approval for this new energy savings initiative as part of regulatory proceedings in Nova Scotia.

Quality Assurance The Residential Efficient Product Rebates program has a quality assurance framework which includes retailer site visits (during both campaign and non-campaign periods), random customer record review, appliance metering, a...

AI summary The Residential Efficient Product Rebates program employs a quality assurance framework involving retailer site visits, random customer record reviews, appliance metering, internal temperature testing, and customer satisfaction surveys to ensure program effectiveness during campaign and non-campaign periods.

4.3.6 Performance Indicators 2 1 Performance indicators for the New Residential program are provided in Table 13 below 5 4

AI summary The document section outlines performance indicators for the New Residential program, referencing Table 13 for detailed metrics. Key focus is on quantifiable measures to assess program effectiveness.

4.3.7 Low-Income Performance Indicators 1920 Low-income participation in the New Residential program is assumed to be zero. 2122

AI summary The document assumes zero low-income participation in the New Residential program under Low-Income Performance Indicators. This assumption is part of the regulatory proceeding's analysis of program effectiveness and equity considerations.

5.1.7 Performance Indicators 14 15 13 Performance indicators for the BNI Efficient Product Rebate program are provided in Table 16 below. 17 18 16

AI summary The document discusses performance indicators for the BNI Efficient Product Rebate program, referencing Table 16 for detailed metrics. The section outlines evaluation criteria for the program's effectiveness and compliance with regulatory standards.

5.2.7 Performance Indicators 13 Performance indicators for the Custom Incentives program are provided in Table 19 below. 16 17

AI summary The section introduces performance indicators for the Custom Incentives program, referencing Table 19 for detailed metrics. No specific data or claims are elaborated in the provided text.

5.3.7 Performance Indicators 2 1 Performance indicators for the Direct Installation program are provided in Table 22 4 below. 5 6

AI summary The section outlines performance indicators for the Direct Installation program, referencing Table 22. The text provides minimal detail beyond directing readers to a table for specific metrics.

5.3.8 Low-Income Performance Indicators 18 19 Low-income performance indicators for the Direct Installation program are provided in Table 23 below. 22 & lt;sup>a TRC is a benefit/cost ratio comparing lifetime benefits to the sum of Efficie...

AI summary The section outlines low-income performance indicators for Nova Scotia's Direct Installation program, referencing metrics like TRC (Total Resource Cost Test) and PAC (Program Administrator Cost Test). It defines cost calculations, including levelized and nominal costs of saved energy, using Nova Scotia Power's WACC.

Performance Targets consist of: - i. Cumulative annual energy savings; - ii. Cumulative annual system-peak demand savings; and NSUARB would use its discretion to determine appropriate action. iii. Cumulative lifetime energy savings.

AI summary The document outlines three performance targets: cumulative annual energy savings, cumulative annual system-peak demand savings, and cumulative lifetime energy savings. The NSUARB reserves discretion to determine appropriate actions related to these targets.

rogram, in the first year that they participate in the program. Darker bars show "tracked" participants (i.e. programs that do not collect participation info, where participant figures are estimated). This graph shows cumulative program pa...

AI summary The text describes graphical representations of program participation rates, distinguishing between 'tracked' and non-tracked participants. Cumulative and annual participation metrics are presented as percentages of total customers or eligible participants, with tracked participants using estimated figures due to lack of participation data collection.

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 the UARB's performance requirements outlined in Schedule 'C' and Section 79M of the Public Utilities Act (PUA).

13. FORCE MAJEURE - 13.1 Neither Party shall be in breach of its obligations under this Agreement where failure to perform or delay in performance of any obligation is due, wholly or in part, to a Force Majeure Event. - 13.2 Each Party sha...

AI summary The Force Majeure clause outlines that neither party is in breach if performance is hindered by Force Majeure Events. Parties must notify each other promptly, take steps to mitigate impacts, and resume performance. However, failures by EfficiencyOne or its affiliates are explicitly excluded from Force Majeure protections.

22. AUDIT AND INSPECTION - 4 22.1 EfficiencyOne shall, during the Term and for a period of thirty-six (36) months thereafter, 5 keep accurate records of all EECA supplied to NSPI, as necessary to determine that the 6 EECA was provided in a...

AI summary EfficiencyOne must maintain records of EECA provided to NSPI for 36 months post-term. NSPI may request UARB access to these records or inspect EECA. EfficiencyOne must facilitate inspections and ensure safe facilities for audits.

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 Energy 8 Savings,Cumulativ...

AI summary This document outlines the scope of savings from Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Activities (EECAs) over a specified term, including cumulative annual energy and peak demand savings. It also references the Performance Targets set out in Schedule E and mentions the regulatory process that could be triggered if targets are not met.

43 45 SCHEDULE C 46 47 Performance Requirements 48 I. UARB-APPROVED PERFORMANCE TARGETS, THRESHOLDS, AND 49 INDICATORS 50 51 a) Performance Targets and Thresholds: 52 53 i. Performance Targets are set over the three year contract period, r...

AI summary This section outlines performance requirements and compliance thresholds for EfficiencyOne under the UARB-approved plan. It specifies that performance targets are set over a three-year period and defines the criteria for substantial compliance, including thresholds for energy and peak demand savings.

underserved populations/markets Date Filed: March 29, 2019 NS Power IR-15 Attachment 2 Page 22 of 32 Objective Indicators / Evaluation Questions Data Sources & Collection Approaches (Desired Output/ Outcome) Staff find marketing plan is •...

AI summary The document outlines an objective related to the implementation of a marketing plan by staff, emphasizing clarity, effectiveness, and the resolution of concerns. It includes evaluation indicators such as staff reports, interviews with managers, and digital metrics from Google Analytics.

fective at 5. Marketing connects customers to ENS provide feedback/input identifying needed system programs; customers interested in pursuing 5. Staff have adequate resources and enhancements/changes programs know where to go for help 6. S...

AI summary The document discusses marketing efforts by ENS to connect customers with programs, the adequacy of staff resources, internal communication at ENS, and the monitoring of key performance indicators across marketing initiatives.

3) What problems or issues, if any, have your customers faced? 4) What has worked well for your customers? Q16. How about the M&V phase? 1) What problems or issues, if any, have you faced with M&V procedures? 2) What has worked well for yo...

AI summary The text outlines a series of questions related to customer experiences with energy efficiency programs, including challenges faced, successes, and satisfaction with M&V tools. It also explores reasons for project abandonment and strategies to encourage project completion, as well as the role of ENS and BDMs in supporting customers.

Indicators performance GHG emissions are reduced to contribute to Canada’s goal to reduce GHG Percentage of product models Energy efficiency reports emissions by at least 30% below 2005 levels by 2030 that meet MEPS Import reports Consumer...

AI summary The text outlines performance indicators related to GHG emissions reduction, energy efficiency, and cost savings from using efficient products. It emphasizes monitoring through compliance reporting, third-party verification, and market data collection to assess outcomes.

similar to the 2016, 2017 and 2018 evaluation scopes with the exception of adding the 28 following criteria to be used to determine when a process evaluation should occur: Date Filed: March 29, 2019 E1 (NS Power) IR-29 Page 1 of 2 Efficien...

AI summary EfficiencyOne outlines its approach to process evaluations for its energy efficiency programs, stating that evaluations should occur every three years and that it relies on the NSUARB verification consultant for annual reviews of evaluation activities.

fficiencyOne has confirmed that application of such sensitivity analysis as 27 suggested in this IR is not an industry standard practice performed for short-term DSM 28 planning. 29 Date Filed: March 29, 2019 E1 (NS Power) IR-36 Page 1 of...

AI summary EfficiencyOne states that sensitivity analysis for short-term DSM planning is not standard industry practice. They highlight their consistent achievement of NSUARB-approved energy savings targets and the use of expert modeling and planning in their DSM Resource Plan, supported by over a decade of experience and verified results.

vings. This 26 strategy is consistent with industry trends and is discussed in section 4.3 of Evidence and 27 in David Hill’s Direct Testimony in Appendix D of the Application. 28 Date Filed: March 29, 2019 E1 (NS Power) IR-37 Page 1 of 2...

AI summary EfficiencyOne's 2020-2022 Preferred DSM Plan includes only achievable energy savings directly attributable to its actions. Free-ridership and savings from codes and standards are not included in the achievement of EfficiencyOne’s Performance Targets. The response also notes that other forms of load reduction or increase are not addressed.

1 2018 DSM RESULTS In its Order dated October 7, 2015, the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB) approved the 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan and the corresponding 2016-2018 DSM Plan Consensus Agreement. 1 The NSUARB Order approved a 2...

AI summary The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB) approved a 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan in 2015, setting 2018 investment and savings targets. Mid-course adjustments in 2018 revised energy and demand savings goals based on cumulative 2016-2017 results, aiming to meet three-year performance targets of 405.9 GWh energy and 62.5 MW peak demand savings. Tables detail expenditures, program participation, and unit costs.

Table 1 Update on Implementation of 2013-2016 Evaluation Recommendations Year Evaluation/ Verification Recommendation Text Source Status Comments Expected Period of Completion

AI summary The document provides an update on the implementation of recommendations from the 2013-2016 evaluation, including progress on various initiatives and their status. It outlines the evaluation and verification processes, along with expected completion periods.

Attachment 1, Page 15 of 30 Recommendation Text Source Status Comments Expected Period of Completion Recommendation 2017 General-SVR-2: The Savings Verification study recommends increase in the level of effort in process evaluation for the...

AI summary The 2017 General-SVR-2 recommendation suggests increasing the level of effort in process evaluation for the Savings Verification study. E1 agrees and implemented the recommendation by conducting three process evaluations in 2018, an increase from the two conducted in 2017.

Executive Summary Net savings Energy or peak demand savings that can be reliably attributed to a program. This includes effects, such as free-ridership and spillover, that negatively or positively affect the savings attributable to a progr...

AI summary The document defines key terms related to energy program evaluation, including net savings, net-to-gross ratio, peak demand savings, and tracked savings. It also outlines statistical and measurement concepts such as precision, sampling error, and secondary market impacts.

2 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY This section presents the methodology used and the activities carried out to evaluate ENS DSM program components and services. The Evaluator first reviewed all relevant documentation, particularly focusing on the m...

AI summary This section outlines the methodology for evaluating ENS DSM program components, including documentation review, data collection activities, and statistical analysis with a 10% margin of error at 90% confidence. Appendices provide examples of error calculation methods, and some results exceeded the 10% threshold with justifications in individual reports.

2.5 Unitary Savings Review For those program components whose savings were established on a unitary basis, the Evaluator reviewed the savings presented in the tracking sheet. First, consistency with the savings results of the previous eval...

AI summary The Evaluator reviewed unitary savings for programs like Efficient Product Installation and Business Energy Rebates, ensuring consistency with prior evaluations. Methods included using technical reference manuals, product specifications, and sampling popular products to calculate average characteristics. Savings from the 2017 evaluation were reapplied in 2018 for certain measures.

Green Heat The 2018 Green Heat participation level was much higher than in previous years with 3,055 measures installed. MSHPs were still the most popular measure, accounting for 92 percent of measures installed. The Evaluator found that t...

AI summary In 2018, the Green Heat program saw high participation with 3,055 measures installed, primarily mini-split heat pumps. The program achieved significant energy and peak demand savings. However, evaluated net energy and peak demand savings were lower than tracked values due to a decrease in the net-to-gross ratio (NTGR) and differences in participant selection processes.

Strategic Energy Management Four participants generated savings in 2018, all of whom were new participants. The Evaluator determined that Strategic Energy Management achieved 1.455 GWh in net electrical energy savings and 0.190 MW in net p...

AI summary Strategic Energy Management achieved 1.455 GWh in net electrical energy savings and 0.190 MW in net peak demand savings in 2018. However, savings were 8% below tracked values due to untracked capital project savings and an adjustment from revised savings on a lighting project. Net savings were 13% below tracked values due to these adjustments.

4 Mid-course planned savings adjusted by ENS. Residential programs achieved 51.831 GWh in net energy savings and 11.333 MW in net peak demand savings at the generator. Energy savings were 1 percent lower than planned due to lower than expe...

AI summary Residential and BNI programs in Nova Scotia achieved significant energy savings in 2018, though some components underperformed. Instant Savings and Green Heat exceeded targets, compensating for shortfalls in other programs. Business Energy Rebates saw a record number of rebated products, while some programs, like Efficient Product Installation, fell below savings goals. Adjustments in modeling and participation levels influenced outcomes.

6 RECOMMENDATIONS Once again, the Evaluator commends ENS on its ability to quickly and effectively implement the recommendations formulated and submitted as part of past evaluations. The 2018 evaluation revealed that two-thirds of former r...

AI summary The Evaluator commends ENS for implementing past recommendations but notes that strategies to engage participants in non-lighting energy efficiency measures are not fully effective. Lighting measures still account for most savings, and ENS is discontinuing support for certain high-saving measures starting in 2019.

HEA Recommendations The 2018 evaluation revealed that HEA succeeded in achieving significant net and peak demand energy savings, although at lower levels than in previous years. Significant changes to HEA occurred in the second half of 201...

AI summary The 2018 evaluation of the Home Energy Assessment (HEA) program showed significant energy savings, though lower than in previous years. Changes in 2018, such as reinstating funding for non-electrically heated households and revising incentives, were too recent to impact the evaluation. Recommendations include conducting a billing analysis to assess overestimation ratios and sharing evaluation findings with energy advisors to improve simulation accuracy.

2 HEA EVALUATION OBJECTIVE AND METHODOLOGY The main objective of the HEA evaluation is as follows: › Calculating program results, namely electrical first-year and lifetime energy savings, peak demand savings, and avoided GHG emissions This...

AI summary The HEA evaluation aims to calculate program results, including energy savings and GHG emissions. The methodology involves reviewing program documentation, meeting with the program manager, and collecting data through structured instruments. The evaluation also calculates margins of error for free-ridership and spillover levels to ensure the precision of quantitative results.

11 EPI EVALUATION OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY The main objectives of the EPI evaluation are as follows: - › Reporting on participant perspectives - › Calculating program results, namely electrical first-year and lifetime energy savings, pea...

AI summary The EPI evaluation objectives include reporting on participant perspectives and calculating program results such as energy savings and GHG emissions. The methodology involved reviewing EPI documentation, meeting with the program manager, and using a sampling approach with a 10% margin of error at a 90% confidence level to ensure precision in measurements.

PA2 Score (Series B) IF PA1<=50% OR FRM4<>1 PA2 = 0%, OTHERWISE MEAN VALUE OF: (FRM4a;FRM5;FRM6) Inconsistency Test #1 IF FRM4a = 100% and FRM5 < 70% FRM4a = EMPTY

AI summary The text outlines a calculation method for the PA2 Score (Series B), which depends on the PA1 score and FRM4. If PA1 is less than or equal to 50% or FRM4 is not equal to 1, PA2 is set to 0%. Otherwise, PA2 is the mean of FRM4a, FRM5, and FRM6. An inconsistency test is also defined where if FRM4a is 100% and FRM5 is less than 70%, FRM4a is set to empty.

This appendix summarizes all the recommendations made by the Evaluator throughout the report as well as the section from which the recommendations originated. Sections Recommendations 3. Share evaluation findings with the EAs to ensure sus...

AI summary This section highlights the Evaluator's recommendations to improve the accuracy of energy simulations and ensure all required documentation is included in participant files, noting that while improvements have been made since 2016, many files still lack essential building plans or as-built reports.

SEM Energy Savings To evaluate energy savings, the Evaluator reviewed the preliminary project documentation provided by ENS to prepare on-site visits and understand the key operating variables that had been chosen to create the regression...

AI summary The Evaluator assessed the energy savings from the Strategic Energy Management (SEM) program in 2018, finding that the tracked savings required minimal adjustments, primarily due to errors in ENS tracking. Peak demand savings were calculated by the Evaluator, and an average effective useful life of three years was applied to the savings. Free-ridership and spillover effects were assumed to be nil, but the Evaluator recommended continued monitoring. A special adjustment was made for a participant who installed high-efficiency lighting through Business Energy Rebates (BER) before starting SEM.

EMIS and SEM Recommendations Both EMIS and SEM achieved their savings targets in 2018 and participation satisfaction remained high. EMIS saw additional incremental savings being achieved in the continuing participant's fourth year of parti...

AI summary EMIS and SEM achieved their savings targets in 2018 with high participant satisfaction. However, participants rely heavily on service providers for energy performance tracking, and many lack the resources to continue independently. The Evaluator recommends reviewing program delivery to improve participant understanding and mastery of energy performance tracking.

4.1.2 Project Review Findings The 25 sampled projects were reasonably well documented and included some form of measurement and verification (M&V) documentation that defined how the savings were to be verified. A new QA workbook was implem...

AI summary The review of 25 sampled projects found that while documentation was generally good, adjustments were needed for energy and peak demand savings due to verification gaps, administrative errors, and incorrect calculations. The Evaluator recommended improvements to QA processes and M&V planning to increase accuracy. Adjustment ratios were calculated at 0.948 for energy and 0.825 for peak demand savings.

Table 17: Implementation Status of the 2017 Recommendations for EMIS 2017 Recommendations Status 2017 EMIS-R1. Ensure that the tracking sheet is complete and accurate. Being Implemented 2017 EMIS-R2. Design baseline regressions and plan M&...

AI summary Table 17 outlines the implementation status of 2017 recommendations for the Energy Management Information System (EMIS). While some recommendations were implemented, discrepancies in 2018, such as incorrect savings and missing demand savings, led to the conclusion that one recommendation was only partly implemented.

15.1 Description SEM was launched in 2014 as a pilot to provide industrial and institutional participants with funding and support to implement energy management practices within their organizations. The program component became a part of...

AI summary SEM, launched in 2014, supports industrial and institutional participants in implementing energy management practices. It provides tools, training, and audits to achieve energy savings and improve long-term performance. Participants must commit to 12 months of involvement, with an option for a second year. SEM aimed for 0.7 GWh in electrical savings and 0.1 MW in peak demand savings in 2018.

On-site Visits and Savings Review In the fall of 2018, the Evaluator carried out a review of project documentation for all SEM projects in preparation for site visits. The on-site visits, also performed in the fall of 2018, allowed the Eva...

AI summary In the fall of 2018, an Evaluator reviewed project documentation and conducted on-site visits for SEM projects to understand energy consumption drivers, validate energy models, and assess savings calculations. The visits also aimed to evaluate free-ridership and program satisfaction.

ew of each regression workbook to verify that each of the four models were statistically significant and that any routine and non-routine adjustments needed to calculate 2018 savings had been applied. The tracked savings of all four partic...

AI summary The evaluation of energy savings from four participants in 2018 showed minimal adjustments, primarily due to discrepancies between tracked and reported savings. The Evaluator estimated peak demand savings as an average of energy savings, considering that most savings were driven by production levels and facilities operated during peak hours.

19 EMIS AND SEM RECOMMENDATIONS Both EMIS and SEM achieved their savings targets in 2018 and participation satisfaction remained high. EMIS saw additional incremental savings being achieved in the continuing participant's fourth year of pa...

AI summary EMIS and SEM achieved their savings targets in 2018 with high participant satisfaction. However, participants rely heavily on service providers for energy performance tracking, which limits their ability to sustain efforts independently. Recommendations focus on improving participant understanding and mastery of energy performance tracking to increase savings persistence and satisfaction.

Custom Custom is comprised of the Retrofit, New Construction and Building Optimization services. Altogether, these services generated 11.603 GWh in net electrical energy savings and 1.200 MW in net peak demand savings at the generator in 2...

AI summary The Custom program, including Retrofit, New Construction, and Building Optimization services, achieved significant energy and peak demand savings in 2018. However, the Evaluator noted issues with documentation accuracy and free-ridership, particularly in New Construction, and recommended improvements in communication and process clarity.

5. On-Site Observations and Findings Report the on-site visit and indicate the key observations and findings made on site. 6. Questionnaires Market Information Questionnaire Completed? (Y/N) Free Ridership Questionnaire Completed? (Y/N) 7...

AI summary The document contains tables related to on-site observations, questionnaires, and measurement and verification (M&V) results. It includes sections for reporting findings, completing questionnaires, and summarizing energy savings and load profiles. The content appears to be part of a regulatory process involving energy efficiency and demand-side management.

6. On-Site Observations and Findings Report the on-site visit and indicate the key observations and findings made on site. 7. M&V Post Implementation Results Were any baseline measurements taken ? (Y/N) Are electrical savings based on meas...

AI summary The document contains a table outlining on-site observations and findings, as well as monitoring and verification (M&V) post-implementation results. It includes fields for baseline measurements, electrical and demand savings, measurement plans, seasonal load profiles, and predicted results. However, most fields are empty or not filled out.

DEFINITIONS Accuracy Reflects the proximity of measurements to the true value. Net-to-gross ratio The ratio of net energy savings to gross energy savings. Non-sampling error Errors arising during the course of all survey activities other t...

AI summary The document defines key terms related to energy efficiency and measurement, including accuracy, net-to-gross ratio, non-sampling error, peak coincidence factor, precision, random sampling error, sample size, secondary market impacts, and tracked savings. These definitions are relevant to evaluating the effectiveness of energy programs and measurement methodologies.

SBES Energy Savings The Evaluator reviewed ENS gross savings estimates using the information contained in the tracking sheet, the CIRx Screening Tool, and findings from the on-site visits. Overall, this review found continued improvement i...

AI summary The Evaluator reviewed ENS gross savings estimates for SBES Energy Savings, noting improvements in DIY project accuracy but significant adjustments due to inaccuracies in tracked HOUs and peak coincidence factors. Audit path savings were also adjusted due to various issues, leading to an overall adjustment ratio of 0.811. Free-ridership values from 2017 were reapplied in 2018, and spillover was found to be nil. Net energy and peak demand savings in 2018 were 9.589 GWh and 1.441 MW respectively.

Site Visit Guidelines All ENS programs have written QA site visit guidelines, though the guidelines are housed in different types of documents including in their program manuals, a spreadsheet, and in the request-for-proposals (RFP) they i...

AI summary ENS programs have QA site visit guidelines housed in various documents, described as too general compared to the QA Framework Manual. Inspectors follow ENS procedures, and most programs meet inspection targets despite fluctuations. Updates to guidelines occur annually or due to program changes.

Effectiveness of Site Visit Practices and Procedures ENS staff and inspectors agree the programs conduct appropriate numbers of site visits and use appropriate sampling approaches. The ENS Evaluation Manager determines the number of QA sit...

AI summary ENS staff and inspectors agree current site visit practices are statistically valid, with random sampling and 'red flag' project inclusion. While most ENS managers don't yet use findings to plan future inspections, others use inspection data to adjust visit numbers. Alternative methods like desk inspections are suggested to reduce costs. Budgets are deemed sufficient but with staffing concerns. Improved customer communication could reduce visit refusals, and ENS staff seek better data aggregation for performance assessment.

-7-0) , help them improve, and to stop using their services if they do not improve. In addition, this process can be used to reduce the number of on-site visits needed for high performing DAs and SOs. Recommendation 4-1: ENS should use QA...

AI summary The document outlines recommendations for Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS) to enhance Quality Assurance (QA) processes. Key proposals include using QA data to assess program performance, reducing site visits for high-performing entities, exploring phone inspections and smart technology, and standardizing customer feedback collection. ENS is advised to support underperforming entities or terminate ties if standards are unmet, while leveraging technology to minimize field inspections.

1.1. Overview Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS) uses quality assurance (QA) site visits, along with other feedback mechanisms, including customer experience surveys, file assessments, internal documentation review, Workers Compensation Board ce...

AI summary Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS) employs quality assurance (QA) site visits and other feedback mechanisms to verify energy savings and ensure proper installation of efficiency improvements. ENS conducts QA inspections internally for five program components and contracts external inspectors for the remaining three due to specialized requirements.

Program Program Component Who Conducts Site Visits Residential Efficient Product Rebates Instant Savings ENS Efficient Product Rebates ENS Existing Residential Green Heat ENS Efficient Product Rebates Business Energy Rebates ENS Direct Ins...

AI summary The table outlines which program components receive quality assurance (QA) site visits and who conducts them. Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS) conducts site visits for several program components, while QA inspectors conduct visits for others, such as Home Energy Assessments and Home Warming.

[Table 1-3](#page-10-0) provides an outline of Chapter [3](#page-15-0) and shows where, within the chapter, the research team addresses each of the study's research questions as listed i[n Table 1-2.](#page-9-1) Overarching Issues Research...

AI summary The document outlines research questions related to the effectiveness of QA site visit management and practices for energy-efficiency programs, both internally and by contractors, including alignment with guidelines and adherence to timelines and data collection requirements.

2.1. Document Review The evaluation team initially examined ENS documents to familiarize themselves with QA site visit practices and procedures. These documents included ENS's QA framework manual, QA reports, QA surveys, supplier performan...

AI summary The evaluation team reviewed ENS documents to understand QA site visit practices, including the QA framework manual, reports, surveys, and supplier performance records. Appendix A lists all consulted program documents.

2.3. QA Inspector Interviews The evaluation team interviewed three QA inspectors. The team gathered in-depth information about inspector interactions with the QA program including site visit goals, practices and procedures, QA site visit g...

AI summary The evaluation team interviewed three QA inspectors to assess interactions with the QA program, covering site visit practices, ENS support, and opportunities for improvement. Research Into Action conducted the October 2018 interviews, analyzing data via NVivo and Excel. Appendix C includes the interview guide.

3.1.3. Use of Internal Staff versus External QA Contractors The use of internal staff or external inspectors for QA site visits vary, with each approach having its own benefits . All ENS program managers said they were satisfied with the a...

AI summary The document discusses the use of internal staff versus external QA contractors for ENS program inspections. Program managers highlight benefits of internal staff's program familiarity and learning opportunities, while external inspectors are preferred for expertise and resource constraints. QA inspectors report satisfaction with current processes, emphasizing flexibility, support from ENS, and efficient survey systems.

QA Objective (from Framework Manual) Objective Accomplished Through QA Site Visit Guidelines? How QA Site Visit Guidelines Meet Manual Objectives Identify quality customer experience, quality work, quality documentation, safety, energy sav...

AI summary The QA Site Visit Guidelines aim to ensure quality customer experience, safety, and energy savings. They help identify process improvements, reduce evaluation risks, and align with program objectives. Some objectives are partially met, such as basing decisions on data and addressing underperforming DAs and SOs.

3.3.1. Site Visit Sampling All ENS staff and inspectors agree ENS programs conduct appropriate numbers of site visits. ENS staff explained that the ENS Evaluation Manager determines the number of QA site visits needed for each program comp...

AI summary ENS staff confirm site visits are statistically determined with 90% confidence and 10% margin of error. Most program managers currently do not use past site visit data to allocate future inspections but plan to, while one manager uses deficiencies to increase visits for underperforming DAs/SOs.

rogram managers, include a table to show how QA activities align with QA Framework Manual objectives (see [Table 3-1)](#page-18-0), and address QA data tracking, aggregation, analysis, and reporting. Conclusion 3: ENS staff and other progr...

AI summary The text discusses aligning QA activities with the QA Framework Manual, recommending a centralized QA site visit manager through the CDMC. It emphasizes using QA results to adjust site visits based on DA/SO performance, reducing visits for high performers while increasing them for underperformers.

Appendix A. ENS Documents Reviewed for this Study - 〉 Efficiency Nova Scotia. Appendix A Residential Programs Evaluation Criteria spreadsheet. 2017. - 〉 Efficiency Nova Scotia. General Participation Agreement. August, 2017. - 〉 Efficiency...

AI summary Appendix A lists Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS) documents reviewed, including evaluation criteria, quality assurance frameworks, supplier performance reports, and home energy assessment surveys from 2014 to 2017. These materials focus on residential programs, QA processes, and program delivery metrics.

[QACs] Q7. I understand that ENS is planning for a Central Data Management Coordinator, or CDMC, to oversee QA site visits, among the CDMC's other responsibilities. When do you expect the CDMC to take on that role? What needs to happen bef...

AI summary ENS is planning to establish a Central Data Management Coordinator (CDMC) to oversee QA site visits. The question seeks clarification on the timeline for the CDMC assuming this role and the prerequisites required for its implementation.

QA Site Visit Goals, and Overview of Practices and Procedures [ALL] Q8. How would you describe the goals of QA site visits? What purpose do the site visits serve [ If PM, "your program" ]? Now I'd like to learn more about the QA site visit...

AI summary The document text presents a question (Q8) about the goals and purpose of QA site visits within a regulatory proceeding. It seeks to understand the QA site visit process and its role in evaluating practices and procedures, though no explicit answers or detailed information are provided in the excerpt.

[PMs] Q9. Please briefly describe how QA site visits work for your program. [ Probe if needed ] Who conducts the site visits—ENS staff or an outside contractor? What steps are involved and who is responsible for each step? How many site vi...

AI summary The question asks about QA site visits for a program, inquiring about conductors (ENS staff or contractor), steps involved, responsibilities, number of visits, and inspection criteria.

QA Site Visit Effectiveness at Serving Intended Purpose I'd like to shift gears a bit and talk about how ENS uses QA site visits results. [ALL] Q31. Who reports QA site visit findings? Where are the findings documented? How are they commun...

AI summary The document explores the effectiveness of QA site visits in achieving their intended purpose, focusing on reporting processes, data collection, and program improvements. It questions how ENS uses findings, whether communication channels could be simplified, and if data sufficiency impacts performance assessments. The discussion also addresses potential adjustments to future site visit frequencies based on organizational track records.

Appendix C. QA Inspector Interview Guide

AI summary The document outlines Appendix C, which contains a QA Inspector Interview Guide. No substantive content or discussion is present in the provided text, only the heading of the appendix.

Successes, Challenges, and Opportunities To wrap-up, I'd like to get your feedback about the successes and challenges of QA site visits for [ insert first/second/third program ] as well as about opportunities for the future. - Q23. What wo...

AI summary The document outlines feedback requests regarding QA site visits for an unspecified program, focusing on benefits to customers and ENS, process improvements, and stakeholder communication. It also addresses the use of anonymous quotes in the final report.

Roles and Responsibilities - Q1. Let's start with a bit about you. Can you please tell me your title and briefly describe your role and responsibilities at (organization)? How long have you been in that role? - Q2. [ If not already address...

AI summary The text outlines interview questions focusing on an individual's role and responsibilities, including their tenure and involvement in QA inspections. Questions aim to clarify their position and specific duties related to quality assurance processes.

A. Demand-Side Management as Continuous Improvement It can be useful in approaching evaluation to review how DSM works and where evaluation and savings verification fit. 2 DSM is a cycle of repeated activities with the 7 Page & lt;sup>1 No...

AI summary The document outlines Demand-Side Management (DSM) as a continuous improvement cycle, emphasizing its iterative process. It details the transition of DSM administration from Nova Scotia Power, Inc. to Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation, noting program maturity by 2018. The DSM cycle includes planning, implementation, and evaluation phases, with periodic major planning efforts every 3–5 years.

whole building energy efficiency approaches. There is a growing recognition that whole building approaches to energy efficiency hold promise for realizing deep energy savings in commercial buildings. Automated metering infrastructure with...

AI summary The text discusses the potential of whole-building energy efficiency approaches for deep commercial building savings, emphasizing the need for automated metering infrastructure with high-frequency data and Energy Management Information Systems. It cautions that robotic approaches in 'Evaluation 2.0' may overlook data and analysis challenges, risking inaccuracies and misstatements of energy savings.

The savings verification review was conducted as follows: - During the year, we conducted a set of due diligence site visits for each program component except Appliance Retirement. These provide an independent view of each program and of a...

AI summary The savings verification review involved site visits, discussions on tracking systems, and evaluation of energy savings and demand reductions. The focus was on installed annual energy savings and demand reductions, with a review of evaluation methods including free-ridership and net-to-gross approaches.

IV. General Recommendations 1. Savings Verification Recommendation No. 1: The Savings Verification study recommends acceptance of the 2018 evaluation results for energy savings and for demand-reduction for all programs. SVR-1: The Savings...

AI summary The document outlines two key recommendations from the Savings Verification study. First, it recommends accepting the 2018 evaluation results for energy savings and demand reduction across all programs. Second, it advocates for enhanced process evaluations, including participant observation and comprehensive reporting, to better understand program implementation and identify improvements. The 737 Max analogy is used to emphasize the need for process evaluators to detect unforeseen operational discrepancies.

10. BNI Strategic Energy Management (SEM) Strategic Energy Management is an approach for integrating energy management into business practice – so that a focus on continually advancing energy-efficiency becomes an integral aspect of workpl...

AI summary Strategic Energy Management (SEM) integrates energy efficiency into business practices, inspired by Japanese Kaizen. In 2018, four SEM projects achieved energy savings, evaluated via regression analysis and onsite visits. Projects had a 3-year expected useful life, with no free-ridership. Econoler recommends improving participant understanding of energy tracking and sustaining initiatives through a 'socio-technical circuit rider' to ensure long-term viability.

19 DSM Plan are available, that is, the pilot programs test out and extrapolation risk is addressed. Until then the additional peak demand reduction DSM programs should not be authorized by the Board.

AI summary The DSM Plan's pilot programs are being evaluated to address extrapolation risks. Until these risks are mitigated through testing, the Board has stated that additional peak demand reduction programs should not be authorized.

Does the LES metric rely on any other uncertainties? Q. 1 2 3 4 5 6 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Yes, it does. The lifetime benefits in the LES metric are themselves based on the measure's avoided costs, which are subject to similar uncertai...

AI summary The LES metric relies on avoided costs from the 2014 IRP, which may be outdated and inaccurate for long-term Performance Targets. EfficiencyOne's LES metric sums annual savings over a measure's lifetime, using 2014 IRP avoided costs for the 2020-2022 DSM Resource Plan. Concerns are raised about using obsolete data for future planning.

A. Yes, they have. EfficiencyOne explained that: 17 EfficiencyOne's relative experience with LES is significantly less than for Incremental Energy and Demand Savings at the time they were proposed and accepted as Performance Targets. Incre...

AI summary EfficiencyOne acknowledges limited experience with Lifetime Energy Savings (LES) compared to established metrics like Incremental Energy and Demand Savings, which have been foundational since 2008. LES, introduced more recently, has only three years of experience under an evolving methodology.

Q. Mr. Levitan, do you think it would be premature for the Board to approve the use of LES as a third Performance Target in the 2020-2022 DSM plan? A. Yes, I do. EfficiencyOne has acknowledged that there they have less experience with LES...

AI summary Mr. Levitan argues it is premature to approve LES as a third Performance Target in the 2020-2022 DSM plan due to EfficiencyOne's limited experience with LES, an arbitrary threshold, and insufficient stakeholder input. He recommends using LES as a Performance Indicator instead and highlights the use of Navigant's ProCESS model with constraints to ensure realistic DSM outcomes.

Q. Mr. Levitan, what are your key findings and observations? - A. I have eight key findings and observations. - First, EfficiencyOne's Preferred Plan does not meet the Board's definition of affordability as the certain and significant near...

AI summary Mr. Levitan outlines eight key findings: EfficiencyOne's Preferred Plan lacks affordability, the Alternate scenario is suboptimal, lifetime energy savings are uncertain, less costly DSM plans are feasible, organic efficiency measures exist, jurisdictional analysis is flawed, ProCESS modeling is subjective, and inflated fuel costs skew cost-effectiveness. These critiques focus on DSM plan evaluation, cost-benefit analysis, and modeling methodologies.

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 measured under the Agreement based on UARB-established requirements from Section 79M of the Act, as detailed in Schedule C. This outlines the performance evaluation framework for the program.

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 for 36 months post-term. NSPI can request UARB access to these records and inspect EECA, with EfficiencyOne facilitating inspections and providing safe facilities.

45 4 The 2017 payments owing by NSPI will be reduced to reflect any 2015 under-spending by EfficiencyOne, if any, against the 2015 UARB-approved DSM Resource Plan, together with any 2014 Balance Adjustment interest earned in 2015. 5 The 20...

AI summary The text outlines adjustments to payments owed by NSPI based on EfficiencyOne's performance under the UARB-approved DSM Resource Plan, with specific performance targets and thresholds set for compliance. A regulatory process is triggered if targets are not met.

UARB. 74 75 76 b) Performance Targets consist of: 77 i. Cumulative annual net energy savings at generator 78 ii. Cumulative annual net peak demand savings at generator 79 iii. Lifetime Energy Savings 80 81 c) Performance Indicators (for UA...

AI summary The document outlines performance targets and indicators for the Utility and Rate Board (UARB), including energy and demand savings, lifetime energy savings, ratepayer benefits, customer satisfaction, and low-income program participation. EfficiencyOne is required to report on these metrics by program and rate class, with specific deadlines.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 [E1 responses to NSPI IRs] 2 Request IR-19: 3 4 Reference: E1 (NSPI) IR-15, Attachment 1 CLEAResult Report, p.51 of 206. 5 6 … Some educational initiatives are incurring savings attribution issues, and 7 have received te...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) addresses concerns about savings attribution from educational initiatives, noting that some programs, like home energy reports, have faced issues with savings being tentatively disallowed. E1 acknowledges the need to consider these issues if the goal is to shift from financial incentives to educational ones and achieve market transformation in energy efficiency.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL a) While there are educational initiatives proposed in the 2020-2022 DSM Plan (e.g. Green Schools, funded under Enabling Strategies), there are no education-only initiatives that will generate energy or demand savings clai...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) clarifies that its education initiatives under the DSM Plan do not directly generate energy savings but support program awareness. Energy savings are attributed to specific programs like LED Holiday Light Exchange (discontinued) and Codes and Standards, though the latter's savings are not counted toward E1's performance targets. E1 reports these savings for informational purposes only.

1 Request IR-01: 2 3 In its Application, EfficiencyOne (E1) is requesting Board approval to include Lifetime 4 Energy Savings (LES) as an additional performance target. Since the effective useful life of 5 specific measures will greatly ex...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) requests approval to add Lifetime Energy Savings (LES) as a performance target, relying on estimated Effective Useful Life (EUL) values. The NSUARB questions the confidence in EUL estimates, equal weighting of targets, and accountability implications. E1 notes limited quantitative data on EUL uncertainty but observes consistency in EUL values for common equipment.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL pumps), refrigeration equipment (e.g. freezers and refrigerators), and other replacement equipment. Areas with less observed consistency include: • Long-lived measures such as building envelope improvements; • Control and...

AI summary EfficiencyOne emphasizes reliance on technical expertise for determining Effective Useful Life (EUL) for energy efficiency measures, particularly for less consistent categories like building envelope improvements. It clarifies that performance targets are not weighted, and introduces a Lifetime Energy Savings (LES) Performance Target to enhance transparency and accountability for achieving long-term benefits. The LES target complements existing first-year savings accountability.

Baseline Data Sources Figure 25 provides a summary of all the data sources used throughout this report. When possible, studies which included higher statistical confidence and precision were used.

AI summary The document discusses baseline data sources, referencing Figure 25 which summarizes all data sources used. The report prioritizes studies with higher statistical confidence and precision.

Actions for ENS - 1. Work with NS Power to explore issues, including: - a. use of annual avoided fuel costs; - use of marginal avoided fuel costs instead of those made relative to a no-DSM scenario; - c. timeframe for levelization of avoid...

AI summary The document outlines actions for ENS, including collaborating with NS Power on avoided fuel cost methodologies, refining class allocation ratios, addressing model errors, and expanding participation assumptions. It also mentions discussions with Synapse and Resource Insight regarding model accuracy and participation studies.

NEW_6) Clarifying rate impacts in NS Power's DSMAG Presentation In its October 2018 RBIA presentation to the DSMAG, NS Power included several "cumulative rate impact" graphs that it generated from its altered version of EfficiencyOne's 201...

AI summary EfficiencyOne clarifies that NS Power's 2018 RBIA presentation to DSMAG used altered versions of EfficiencyOne's 2017 model to create misleading 'cumulative rate impact' graphs. These graphs incorrectly sum percentage rate impacts across years, exaggerating long-term effects (e.g., a 1% annual increase appears as 1%, 2%, 3% over years).

NON-CONFIDENTIAL Request IR-5: Provide year over year data, annually, from 2012 to the present concerning the number payment agreements that are varied and renewed, from the domestic customer class. Response IR-5: NS Power's Customer Infor...

AI summary A request (IR-05) seeks annual data from 2012 to 2019 on varied/renewed payment agreements for domestic customers. NSPI (Nova Scotia Power) responds that its Customer Information System does not track this data. Filed May 13, 2019.

2020-2022 DSM IG IR-05 Attachment 1 Page 21 of 158 REDACTED (CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION REMOVED) 1 [Figure 10](#page-30-0) and [Figure 11](#page-31-0) below provide the projected sustaining investments based on 2 the anticipated utilization...

AI summary NS Power outlines sustaining investment strategies for thermal units, considering utilization factors, asset class evaluations, and changes in asset management plans. Key factors include exclusion of unplanned failures, differential investment approaches for systems (e.g., coal vs. turbines), and extended outage intervals to reduce capital costs. The 2018 10-Year System Outlook is referenced for context.

Issue 2 – Verification Report of 2018 DSM Programs The Parties confirm no opposition Verification Report of 2018 DSM programs (Peach);

AI summary The Parties confirm no opposition to the Verification Report of 2018 DSM programs (Peach). The report pertains to Nova Scotia Power's demand-side management initiatives, with no disputes raised regarding its verification.

l Nova Scotians."2 - Even considering immediate rate impacts, higher level investment in DSM than what is - proposed in the Consensus Agreement will reduce cost of energy service for all - customers.3 - EAC also stands by Mr. Mosenthal's s...

AI summary The EAC supports higher DSM investment to reduce energy costs, advocates for including Lifetime Energy Savings (LES) as a performance target, and criticizes the Consensus Agreement for not returning HST refunds to E1. They endorse specific clauses and Mi'kmaq representation in the DSM Advisory Group, citing evidence and references to studies and testimonies.

Quality Assurance The Residential Efficient Product Rebates program has a quality assurance framework which includes retailer site visits (during both campaign and non-campaign periods), random customer record review, appliance metering, a...

AI summary The Residential Efficient Product Rebates program employs a quality assurance framework involving retailer site visits, customer record reviews, appliance metering, temperature testing, and satisfaction surveys to ensure program effectiveness during both campaign and non-campaign periods.

4.3.6 Performance Indicators Performance indicators for the New Residential program are provided in Table 11 below.

AI summary The document outlines performance indicators for the New Residential program, which are detailed in Table 11. No specific metrics or data are provided in the text, as the information is referenced to a table.

4.3.7 Low-Income Performance Indicators 15 Low-income participation in the New Residential program is assumed to be zero. & lt;sup>a TRC is a benefit/cost ratio comparing lifetime benefits to the sum of EfficiencyOne's and participants' co...

AI summary The document outlines Low-Income Performance Indicators, noting zero participation in the New Residential program. It defines TRC and PAC as benefit/cost ratios, and explains metrics like levelized and nominal costs of saved energy, referencing EfficiencyOne and Nova Scotia Power's WACC.

Quality Assurance The BNI Efficient Product Rebates program has an established quality assurance framework that includes random and targeted site visits, documentation review, and customer surveys. 5 6 1 2 3 4

AI summary The BNI Efficient Product Rebates program employs a quality assurance framework involving random and targeted site visits, documentation reviews, and customer surveys to ensure compliance and effectiveness. The document includes numbered references (1-6), though their specific context is unclear.

5.1.7 Performance Indicators 7 Performance indicators for the BNI Efficient Product Rebate program are provided in Table 13 below. 10 11

AI summary The document outlines performance indicators for the BNI Efficient Product Rebate program, referencing Table 13 for detailed metrics. However, the table content is not included in the provided text.

5.2.7 Performance Indicators 13 14 Performance indicators for the Custom Incentives program are provided in Table 15 15 below. 16 17 18

AI summary The document section outlines performance indicators for the Custom Incentives program, referencing Table 15 for detailed metrics. No specific claims, arguments, or cross-references are explicitly mentioned in the provided text.

5.3.7 Performance Indicators Performance indicators for the Direct Installation program are provided in Table 17 below. DATE FILED: August 27, 2019 Page 61 of 80

AI summary The Direct Installation program's performance indicators are detailed in Table 17. This section is part of a regulatory proceeding document filed on August 27, 2019, outlining program performance metrics.

7. EVALUATION EfficiencyOne proposes to take a similar approach to evaluation in 2020-2022 as in 2016-2019, where evaluation activities are conducted to ensure accurate determination of net electrical energy and net system-peak demand savi...

AI summary EfficiencyOne proposes to maintain its evaluation approach from 2016-2019 for 2020-2022, condensing activities where appropriate due to program maturity. Annual impact evaluations will be conducted with modified reporting structures to ensure accurate energy and demand savings assessments and continuous improvement.

Performance Metrics EfficiencyOne proposes the following definitions and requirements for Performance Targets and Thresholds as consistent with requirements outlined in the Standardized Filing Framework. [17](#page-98-3)

AI summary EfficiencyOne proposes definitions and requirements for Performance Targets and Thresholds aligned with the Standardized Filing Framework. The text references a footnote citation but does not explicitly mention regulatory matters or board orders.

8.7.1 Definitions To provide clarity, the following definitions are used: Performance Metric: A quantifiable measure that is used to track and assess the status of a specific achievement. In accordance with the Consensus Agreement to the 2...

AI summary The section defines key terms related to performance metrics, indicators, targets, and thresholds within the context of a DSM Resource Plan. It references the Consensus Agreement (2016-2018) and the NSUARB-approved Standardized Filing Framework (M07543). Definitions emphasize quantifiable measures, management tools, and NSUARB-approved benchmarks.

4.1.7 Performance Indicators 2 1 Performance indicators for the Residential Efficient Product Rebates program are provided in Table 7 below. 5 4

AI summary Section 4.1.7 discusses performance indicators for the Residential Efficient Product Rebates program, referencing Table 7 for detailed metrics. The section outlines evaluation criteria for residential energy efficiency initiatives under Nova Scotia's regulatory framework.

4.4.64.3.6 Performance Indicators Performance indicators for the New Residential program are provided in Table 113 below.

AI summary Section 4.4.64.3.6 discusses performance indicators for the New Residential program, referencing Table 113 for detailed metrics. No further specifics or analysis are provided in the excerpt.

4 4 7 4 2 7 1 4.4.74.3.7 Low-Income Performance Indicators 2728 26 Low-income participation in the New Residential program is assumed to be zero. 29 30

AI summary The document states that low-income participation in the New Residential program is assumed to be zero, highlighting a key assumption in the performance indicators for low-income households under the program.

Measure Level Technical Tables) for additional detail.

AI summary The text is a heading directing readers to 'Measure Level Technical Tables' for detailed technical data. No substantive content or arguments are present in the provided text.

Marketing Strategy The strategic marketing focus is to enhance relationships with the distributor network. The marketing strategy will be aligned by customer segment or vertical. Key messages will focus on non-energy benefits as well as wa...

AI summary The marketing strategy focuses on enhancing distributor relationships through customer segmentation, emphasizing non-energy benefits and business operations improvements via rebates. EfficiencyOne collaborates with partners, ETN, and uses tactics like trade shows and distributor training. The BNI Efficient Product Rebates program includes quality assurance with site visits and performance indicators in Table 136.

Ouality Assurance - 7 The Custom Incentives program has an established framework for quality assurance. - 8 Quality control of projects includes pre and post measurement of energy consumption - 9 (e.g. direct, modelled, expert review), ran...

AI summary The Custom Incentives program employs a quality assurance framework involving pre/post energy consumption measurement (direct, modelled, expert review), random/targeted site visits, documentation reviews, and customer surveys to ensure project quality control.

5.2.7 Performance Indicators 13 Performance indicators for the Custom Incentives program are provided in Table 159 below. _ 16 17

AI summary Section 5.2.7 discusses performance indicators for the Custom Incentives program, referencing Table 159. The text provides minimal detail beyond the table reference, focusing on program performance metrics within a regulatory proceeding context.

Ouality Assurance 4 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 19 20 Direct Installation has an established quality assurance framework, which includes random and targeted site inspections, documentation review, and customer surveys.

AI summary Direct Installation is noted to have an established quality assurance framework encompassing random and targeted site inspections, documentation review, and customer surveys as part of its processes.

5.3.7 Performance Indicators Performance indicators for the Direct Installation program are provided in Table 1722 below.

AI summary The section introduces performance indicators for the Direct Installation program, referencing Table 1722. It outlines metrics used to evaluate program effectiveness within the Nova Scotia regulatory framework.

7. EVALUATION EfficiencyOne proposes to take a similar approach to evaluation in 2020-2022 as in 2016-2019, where evaluation activities are conducted to ensure accurate determination of net electrical energy and net system-peak demand savi...

AI summary EfficiencyOne proposes to continue its evaluation approach from 2016-2019, condensing activities for mature programs, conducting annual impact evaluations, and ensuring accurate savings determination for energy and demand.

Performance Metrics EfficiencyOne proposes the following definitions and requirements for Performance Targets and Thresholds as consistent with requirements outlined in the Standardized Filing Framework. [18](#page-205-2)

AI summary EfficiencyOne proposes definitions and requirements for Performance Targets and Thresholds aligned with the Standardized Filing Framework, as outlined in the text with a footnote reference.

8.7.1 Definitions To provide clarity, the following definitions are used: Performance Metric: A quantifiable measure that is used to track and assess the status of a specific achievement. Performance Indicators: A set of particular perform...

AI summary Defines terms like Performance Metrics, Indicators, Targets, and Thresholds. Mentions the Consensus Agreement to the 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan and the Standardized Filing Framework approved by NSUARB (M07543).

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 and Section 79M of the Act.

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 operations, with EfficiencyOne required to facilitate inspections. This outlines audit and inspection obligations under the agreement.

50 51 SCHEDULE C 52 53 Performance Requirements 54 I. UARB-APPROVED PERFORMANCE TARGETS, THRESHOLDS, AND 55 INDICATORS 56 57 a) Performance Targets and Thresholds: 58 59 60 i. Performance Targets are set over the three year contract period...

AI summary This section outlines the performance requirements and targets set by the UARB for EfficiencyOne over a three-year contract period. It specifies that substantial compliance is achieved if EfficiencyOne meets 90% or more of cumulative annual net energy and peak demand savings, or 75% or more of lifetime energy savings targets. Failure to meet these thresholds may trigger a regulatory process.

2.2.1.2 – ASHRAE 90.1 Energy Standard for Buildings ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 – Energy Standard for Buildings except Low-Rise Residential Buildings is mostly used in the United States. It lists minimum equipment efficiency tables which...

AI summary The ASHRAE 90.1 standard outlines building energy efficiency requirements, with updates to VRF heat pump efficiencies since 2007. It includes compliance methods like the Energy Cost Budget and Performance Rating Method, which use metrics such as EER, IEER, and COP. For MURBs, PTHPs with auxiliary heating are referenced as baseline systems, aligning with NECB specifications.

APPENDIX - Building Modeling Assumptions - Annual Consumption by End-Use - System Performance Metrics - Monthly Heating and Cooling Consumptions - Capital Cost Estimates

AI summary The appendix outlines technical sections including building modeling assumptions, annual energy consumption by end-use, system performance metrics, monthly heating/cooling consumption data, and capital cost estimates, reflecting key considerations in energy efficiency and system design analyses.

10.2 Where EfficiencyOne subcontracts any part of the EECA. EfficiencyOne shall preserve 2 and protect the rights of the Parties under this Agreement with respect to the EECA to 3 be supplied or performed under subcontract, and shall be as...

AI summary The text outlines contractual obligations and responsibilities under an agreement involving EfficiencyOne and NSPI, focusing on subcontracting, confidentiality, performance requirements, and force majeure provisions. It emphasizes the need for EfficiencyOne to protect NSPI's interests and maintain compliance with regulations.

PI: 26 General liability insurance shall be in the name of EfficiencyOne and shall name (a) 27 NSPI as an additional insured and shall have limits of not less than five million 28 dollars ($5,000,000) inclusive per occurrence for bodily in...

AI summary The text outlines insurance requirements for EfficiencyOne, including general liability coverage of $5 million naming NSPI as an additional insured, environmental impairment insurance with similar limits, and automobile liability policies with varying coverage based on vehicle ownership. The insurance must be primary and non-contributing with other policies available to NSPI.

16 17 \ \ \ 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 the stipulated 90 pe...

AI summary The text outlines the conditions under which EfficiencyOne would be considered in substantial compliance with approved Performance Targets, requiring at least 90% achievement. If this threshold is not met, a regulatory process will be initiated. It also introduces the concept of Net Contract Price and its allocation over the term of the agreement.

On the First Business Day of: 2020 2021 2022 January 2,261,535 3,050,000 3,250,000 February 2,261,535 3,050,000 3,250,000 March 2,261,535 3,050,000 3,250,000 April 2,261,535 3,050,000 3,250,000 May 2,261,535 3,050,000 3,250,000 June 2,261,...

AI summary The document outlines performance requirements and targets set by the UARB for EfficiencyOne over a three-year contract period. It specifies that compliance is determined based on cumulative annual net energy and peak demand savings at the generator level, with a 90% achievement threshold. If this threshold is not met, a regulatory process is triggered. The document also details performance indicators, including energy savings, customer satisfaction, and rate impacts.

21 4.1.7 Perfomtance Indicators 22 23 Performance indicators for the Residential Efficient Product Rebates program are 24 provided in Table 7 below.

AI summary Section 4.1.7 discusses performance indicators for the Residential Efficient Product Rebates program, referencing Table 7 for detailed metrics. The text focuses on evaluating program effectiveness through quantifiable measures.

20 Quality Assua·auce 21 The New Residential program has an established quality assmance framework, which 22 includes random and targeted site visits, model file review and rebuild, and customer 23 surveys. 24

AI summary The New Residential program employs a quality assurance framework involving random and targeted site visits, model file reviews, rebuilds, and customer surveys to ensure compliance and effectiveness.

25 4.3.6 Performance Indicators 26 27 Performance indicators for the New Residential program are provided in Table 1 1 28 below. 14 15 16

AI summary The text references performance indicators for the New Residential program, with data presented in Table 1. The section is part of a regulatory proceeding document discussing program performance metrics, though specific details or analysis from the table are not included in the provided text.

4.3.7 Low-Income Performance Indicators Low-income participation in the New Residential program is assumed to be zero. go com

AI summary The analysis assumes zero low-income participation in the New Residential program, impacting performance indicators. This assumption affects the evaluation of program effectiveness for low-income households, with no specific entities or legislation mentioned.

Quality Assurance The BNI Efficient Product Rebates program has an established quality assurance 3 framework that includes random and targeted site visits, documentation review, and customer surveys. 5 6 1 2

AI summary The BNI Efficient Product Rebates program employs a quality assurance framework involving random and targeted site visits, documentation reviews, and customer surveys to ensure program effectiveness and compliance.

5.1.7 Performance Indicators 7 8 Performance indicators for the BNI Efficient Product Rebate program are provided in Table 13 below. 9 10 11

AI summary The BNI Efficient Product Rebate program's performance indicators are detailed in Table 13, though specific metrics or evaluation criteria are not explicitly described in the provided text.

15 Small New Construction Service 16 The SmatJ New Construction service will offer financial and teclmical assistance to 17 small commercial buildings. Historically these buildings have been underserved by 18 ENS new construction offerings...

AI summary The Smart New Construction Service aims to provide financial and technical assistance to small commercial buildings, addressing historical underservice by ENS offerings. It offers both prescriptive and performance paths to enhance energy performance.

5.2.7 Performance Indicators 12 13 14 Performance indicators for the Custom Incentives program are provided in Table 15 below. 15 16 17

AI summary The section outlines performance indicators for the Custom Incentives program, referencing Table 15. The text provides minimal detail, focusing on the program's metrics and their presentation in a table. No specific data or arguments are elaborated in the provided text.

14 8.7 Performance Metdcs 15 16 EfficiencyOne proposes the following definitions and requirements for Performance 17 Targets and Thresholds as consistent with requirements outlined in the Standardized 18 Filing Framework. 17 19

AI summary EfficiencyOne proposes definitions and requirements for Performance Targets and Thresholds, aligning with the Standardized Filing Framework. This outlines expectations for metrics in regulatory proceedings related to energy efficiency programs.

26 1 Performance Indicators: A set of particular performance metrics used to indicate or 2 monitor progress toward performance targets, Performance Indicators are management 3 tools that provide information to allow an organization to take...

AI summary The text defines performance indicators, performance targets, and performance thresholds, emphasizing their use in monitoring progress and ensuring compliance with NSUARB-approved targets. It outlines that EfficiencyOne must achieve at least 90% of cumulative annual energy and system-peak demand savings targets to be considered in substantial compliance.

1. INTRODUCTION - EfficiencyOne, as the holder of the Efficiency Nova Scotia franchise, is responsible for the - development of Demand Side Management Resource Plans ("Plans") and their implementation. - EfficiencyOne recognizes the import...

AI summary EfficiencyOne, as the Efficiency Nova Scotia franchise holder, develops and implements Demand Side Management (DSM) Plans. Since 2012, it has met or exceeded NSUARB-approved performance targets for energy and peak demand savings while managing funds prudently. EfficiencyOne emphasizes cost control, internal oversight, and achieving targets without overspending to ensure ratepayer benefits.

2. BACKGROUND - EfficiencyOne is providing to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board EfficiencyOne's - Performance Alignment Study conducted by KPMG as Attachment A. During the 2020-2022 DSM - Resource Plan regulatory process, Intervenor...

AI summary EfficiencyOne is providing a Performance Alignment Study by KPMG to the NSUARB, following the Board's 2019 Order to investigate overestimated costs in DSM programs. The study, initiated in October 2019, includes cost reviews, variance analysis, and jurisdictional comparisons.

this rationale linked to supporting studies, evaluations, etc. Documentation of the basis of changes would be particularly useful for estimates of participation rates and customers' choice of measure. We further note that significant assum...

AI summary The text emphasizes the need for thorough documentation of assumptions in EfficiencyOne's Performance Alignment Study, noting improvements in management involvement over time but highlighting gaps in rationale for historical data updates. It contrasts 2016-2018 reliance on third-party models with 2020-2022 use of actual participation data, while citing incomplete documentation for some cost estimates.

entation of the DSM Plan in response to current conditions, as long as performance targets are met at the end of three years. Currently, EfficiencyOne provides the NSUARB with the following reporting: - 1. Mid-course adjustment We understa...

AI summary EfficiencyOne reports to the NSUARB on DSM Plan progress via mid-course adjustments, quarterly progress reports with a 'stop light' energy savings indicator, and annual reports comparing actual results to targets. Adjustments allow reallocation of investment and savings targets based on annual evaluations.

4 NSUARB Question 2 Question 2 posed by the NSUARB was, what are the factors that led to a historic overestimation? We have structured our response to the question in this section as follows: - 1. Approach to responding to NSUARB Question...

AI summary NSUARB Question 2 asked about factors leading to historic overestimation. The response outlines an approach, identifies factors for 2015 and 2016-2018, and includes variance analysis of cost/energy savings. The analysis covers the Plan period from 2015 to 2020-2022.

4.1 Approach to responding to NSUARB Question 2 To respond to NSUARB Question 2, we conducted a variance analysis of costs and energy savings for 2015 and 2016-2018. We worked with EfficiencyOne to understand and document the reason for th...

AI summary The response to NSUARB Question 2 involved a variance analysis of 2015 and 2016-2018 DSM program costs and savings, identifying overestimation factors. EfficiencyOne relied on third-party modellers and faced jurisdictional comparability challenges, leading to limited Canadian benchmarks. NSUARB mandated cost reductions, and underspending declined over time, influenced by FOFI assumptions and market variations.

4.3 Variance analysis for 2015 and 2016-2018 For the purposes of tracking progress against DSM Resource Plans, EfficiencyOne does not have an automated mechanism to comparatively track actuals against Plan at the measure level. It is a 11...

AI summary EfficiencyOne lacks an automated mechanism to track progress against DSM Resource Plans due to differing detail levels between plans and tracking systems. Variance analysis was conducted at the program component level, focusing on units rebated/installed and lighting installation progress.

4.3.2.4 Overall themes of variances The following table outlines overall themes noted during the variance analysis, particularly for 2016- 2018:

AI summary The section references a table outlining overall themes from variance analysis for 2016-2018, though specific themes are not detailed in the provided text.

− Efficiency Vermont : The Vermont Energy Investment Corporation (VEIC) runs Efficiency Vermont's DSM programs. Efficiency Vermont develops and provides the regulator with three-year DSM Plans, which also includes six-year outlook and 20-y...

AI summary Efficiency Vermont, managed by the Vermont Energy Investment Corporation (VEIC), develops three-year Demand Side Management (DSM) plans using in-house modeling tools. The plans include six-year and 20-year outlooks, with flexibility in fund allocation across markets. Budget underspend or overspend triggers specific regulatory processes, including potential refunds or carry-forward. Performance targets influence financial incentives or penalties.

th the current processes and identified areas for improvement based on leading practices (if any) based on a jurisdictional scan of similar organizations. April 21, 2020 Our procedures included identifying and assessing how DSM costs were/...

AI summary The analysis focused on evaluating DSM cost estimation processes, including cost categories, program mix implementation, variance analysis between projected and actual costs/savings, and interviews with EfficiencyOne to understand discrepancies in plan assumptions and execution.

Mr. Stephen McGrath Chair, Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board 3rd Floor, Summit Place 1601 Lower Water Street Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3P6 August 23, 2022 Dear Chair McGrath: EfficiencyOne (E1) is providing this update to the Nova Scotia...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) updates the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB) on its 2020-2022 DSM Plan performance, forecasting achievement of its energy savings target despite risks like COVID-19, supply chain issues, and inflation. E1 plans to mitigate risks through increased marketing, incentive reviews, and new program measures.

by increasing marketing activities and campaigns to the end of 2022; reviewing incentive levels in programs; and introducing new measures within programs where applicable. Presently E1 does not expect to achieve its NSUARB-approved Perform...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) is projected to miss its NSUARB-approved demand savings target due to COVID-19 impacts in 2020-2021. E1 plans to file a Q2 2022 report and remains committed to reducing the gap through ongoing efforts. The Demand Response Working Group is involved in these initiatives.