E-1Application
12 passages
10.2 DEMAND RESPONSE SHOULD BE TREATED AS A PERFORMANCE INDICATOR As a new portfolio item that will introduce an additional 17.9 MW of capacity to the grid by the end of 2025, DR will become an important contributor toward the overall 96.7...
AI summary E1 argues that demand response (DR) should be treated as a performance indicator between 2023 and 2025, given its role in contributing to system-peak demand savings under the 2023-2025 DSM Plan and its complementarity with demand reduction activities under the Settlement Plan.
11. PERFORMANCE TARGETS - E1's success in implementing an approved DSM Plan is evaluated through Performance Targets. The - Standardized Filing Framework sets out the performance targets and thresholds which must be met - through the execu...
AI summary E1's performance in implementing the DSM Plan is evaluated through cumulative annual energy and peak demand savings targets. Substantial compliance is achieved with 90% attainment. E1 also proposes new Demand Response activities under the Settlement Plan, aiming for a 17.9 MW reduction over three years as a performance indicator.
12.1 HISTORICAL RATE AND BILL IMPACT ANALYSIS Currently, E1 files a historical RBIA on, or before, October 31 of each year. The historical RBIA estimates the high-level, long-term impact to rates and bills of all DSM activities up to and i...
AI summary E1 proposes to stop filing the historical RBIA annually except during DSM Plan Application years, citing limited utility and resource consumption. The change aims to reduce internal costs and has minimal impact on stakeholder assessments of DSM Plan performance.
4.2.3.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE - 19 The Existing Residential program has an established quality assurance framework inclusive of random and - targeted site visits, energy model file reviews and rebuilds, documentation review, and customer surve...
AI summary The Existing Residential program includes a quality assurance framework with random and targeted site visits, energy model file reviews, documentation review, and customer surveys to ensure program effectiveness.
5.2.3.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE - The Custom Incentives program has an established framework for quality assurance. Quality control of - projects includes pre and post measurement of energy consumption (e.g. direct, modelled, expert review), - r...
AI summary The Custom Incentives program has a quality assurance framework that includes pre and post measurement of energy consumption, site visits, documentation review, and customer surveys to ensure project quality.
9.7 PERFORMANCE METRICS - For the 2023-2025 Plan period, E1 proposes the following definitions and requirements for Performance - Targets and Thresholds as consistent with requirements outlined in the Standardized Filing Framework[45](#pag...
AI summary E1 proposes definitions and requirements for performance targets and thresholds for the 2023-2025 Plan period, aligning with the Standardized Filing Framework.
Performance Indicators consist of: - Annual incremental energy savings (reported by program and rate class); - Cumulative annual energy savings (reported by program and rate class); - Annual lifetime energy savings (reported by program and...
AI summary The document outlines performance indicators for energy efficiency and demand response programs, including annual and cumulative energy savings, system-peak demand savings, and demand response capacity. Performance targets are set at the portfolio level, specifically the DSM Plan. Metrics such as customer satisfaction and low-income program participation are also included.
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 based on performance requirements established by the UARB under Section 79M of the Act, as outlined in Schedule 'C' – Performance Requirements.
\ \ \ 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 percent...
AI summary The text outlines the conditions under which EfficiencyOne is deemed to be in substantial compliance with approved performance targets, requiring a regulatory process if targets are not met at the 90 percent level. It also includes a table with unspecified labels and a reference to Schedule B.
46 48 49 SCHEDULE C 50 Performance Requirements 51 I. UARB-APPROVED PERFORMANCE TARGETS, THRESHOLDS, AND 52 INDICATORS 53 54 a) Performance Targets and Thresholds: 55 56 i. Performance Targets are set over the three year contract period, r...
AI summary Schedule C outlines performance requirements and targets set by the UARB for EfficiencyOne, including cumulative annual energy and peak demand savings, reporting indicators, and compliance thresholds. A regulatory process is triggered if EfficiencyOne fails to meet 90% of these targets.
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 based on performance requirements established by the UARB under Section 79M of the Act, as detailed in Schedule 'C' – Performance Requirements.
48 On the First Business Day of: 20202023 20212024 20222025 January February March April May June July August September October November December Total SCHEDULE C Performance Requirements I. UARB-APPROVED PERFORMANCE TARGETS, THRESHOLDS, A...
AI summary Schedule C outlines performance requirements for EfficiencyOne under the UARB-approved Plan, including targets for cumulative annual net energy and peak demand savings. Compliance is measured against 90% achievement thresholds, with a regulatory process triggered if these targets are not met. Performance indicators include energy savings, customer satisfaction, and impacts on rates.
E-22021 DSM Evaluation Reports
23 passages
Custom The key findings of the Custom impact evaluation overall were as follows: - › Custom net electrical energy and peak demand savings fell short of targets in 2021. - › Compared to 2020, Custom participation increased in 2021 due in pa...
AI summary The Custom impact evaluation found that energy and peak demand savings fell short of targets in 2021, though participation increased. Adjustments were made to savings estimates, and free-ridership trends were noted. The Retrofit and New Construction evaluations highlighted successful client-led M&V approaches and design influences, while the OEM Operational Demand Savings Pilot showed positive results but opportunities for improvement in program guidelines and M&V methodologies.
[Table](#page-153-2) 38 compares the energy and peak demand savings established through this evaluation to those tracked by EOne. The realization rate representing the ratio of evaluated net savings to tracked net savings, was established...
AI summary Table 38 compares energy and peak demand savings tracked by EOne with those evaluated in the proceeding. The realization rate for both energy and peak demand savings is 104%, indicating that evaluated net savings slightly exceed tracked net savings.
EPI Findings and Recommendations This section presents the key findings from the EPI evaluation. The Evaluator has no specific recommendation for EPI. Deferred recommendations from the previous year are summarized in Appendix XVI. 2021 EPI...
AI summary The EPI evaluation found that net electrical energy and peak demand savings fell short of targets by 27% and 47% respectively in 2021. Savings per participant decreased due to fewer LED lamps installed per household. Free-ridership levels remained stable, and overall participant satisfaction was high. Evaluator and EOne tracked results showed minimal differences due to adjustments in NTGR and installation rates.
Table 46: 2021 EPI Evaluation Approach Evaluation Objectives Research Questions Methodology Collect information on participant perspectives › How did participants become aware of EPI? › Why did participants want to participate in EPI? › Wh...
AI summary Table 46 outlines the 2021 EPI Evaluation Approach, detailing objectives, research questions, and methodologies for evaluating the Efficient Product Installation program. It includes participant surveys, tracking sheet audits, on-site visits, and calculations for gross and net results, including free-ridership and spillover levels.
[Table](#page-26-1) 73 below compares the energy and peak demand savings established through this evaluation to those calculated in the 2021 tracking sheet. The realization rate, representing the ratio of evaluated net savings to tracked n...
AI summary The table compares energy and peak demand savings from the current evaluation to those from the 2021 tracking sheet, noting a 77% realization rate for energy savings and a 121% realization rate for peak demand savings.
Table 1: Verification of 2021 HEA Data Field Completeness and Accuracy Data Fields Complete (Y/N/Partial) Consistent with Previous Evaluations If Incomplete or Inconsistent, Action Taken by the Evaluator Unitary Savings Partial N/A The Eva...
AI summary This table verifies the completeness and accuracy of 2021 HEA data fields. It highlights that some data fields are incomplete or inconsistent, and corrective actions were taken by the evaluator, such as adding unitary savings values and correcting equations for peak demand-to-energy ratios.
BER Findings and Recommendations This subsection presents the key findings and recommendations from the BER evaluation. 2021 BER-Finding: BER net electrical energy and peak demand savings fell short of targets. As outlined in Figure 1, BER...
AI summary The 2021 BER evaluation found that net electrical energy and peak demand savings fell short of targets by 6% and 25%, respectively. Participation in Mail-in and Instant Rebates increased, and overall satisfaction with BER was high. However, inaccuracies in reported parameters such as hours of use and peak coincidence factors were identified, leading to downward adjustments in savings. The Evaluator recommended changes to the lighting measure worksheet to improve accuracy.
Note on Margin of Error For evaluation activities that yield quantitative results based on a sample, the Evaluator aimed to achieve a maximum margin of error of 10% at a confidence level of 90%. This means that if measurements were conduct...
AI summary The evaluation of BER programs includes calculating margins of error for savings adjustment ratios and free-ridership levels, aiming for a 10% margin of error at a 90% confidence level. This ensures precision in measurements, though it does not account for non-sampling errors or biases.
Data Completeness and Accuracy Table 1 lists all the parameters required for the Mail-in evaluation. The Evaluator validated whether the data contained in the tracking sheet submitted by EOne were accurate based on previous evaluation resu...
AI summary This section discusses the validation of data accuracy and completeness in the Mail-in evaluation process. The Evaluator checked data from the tracking sheet submitted by EOne against previous results and made adjustments where necessary.
ments fell into one of the following categories: - › M&V methodology errors or gaps - › Peak demand savings absent from project files - › Keying and typographical errors While adjustment ratios were generally low for these services, this i...
AI summary The document highlights issues with M&V methodology, missing peak demand savings data, and typographical errors in project files. Adjustments were needed in 46% of sampled files in 2021, and there is a need to improve M&V processes and documentation. A 2021 recommendation calls for prioritizing improvements in service requirements and internal review practices for Retrofit and Building Optimization programs.
Retrofit Key Findings and Recommendations 2021 Retrofit-Finding: The pay-for-performance projects reviewed by the Evaluator included an excellent client-led M&V approach that required almost no adjustments, had a free-ridership level of ze...
AI summary The 2021 Retrofit evaluation found that a structured pay-for-performance approach in Retrofit, Building Optimization, and Operational Demand Savings programs led to minimal adjustments, zero free-ridership, and high customer satisfaction. It also noted that solar PV and compressed air leak repair projects used a quasi-prescriptive M&V approach, which is suitable for these project types but requires clear distinctions from traditional custom projects to avoid confusion and ensure accurate evaluation.
Overall, the gross evaluated peak demand savings were 0.465 MW, or 90% of tracked savings. Gross energy savings were evaluated at 0.634 GWh, or 99% of tracked savings, and the service effective useful life (EUL) was adjusted upward to 6.3...
AI summary The evaluation of energy and peak demand savings showed 90% and 99% of tracked savings, respectively. Adjustments were made to the service effective useful life. Participant 2 had savings recalculated due to the impact of the pandemic, while Participants 1 and 3 had appropriate savings calculation methodologies.
age of files required adjustment. The adjustments required in past years were: in 2020, 11 of 26 (42%), in 2018, 13 of 25 (52%), however, in 2019, 20 of 24 (83%) of sampled files required adjustments. The Evaluator noted a mix in quality i...
AI summary The evaluation of project files revealed a significant need for adjustments, with a high percentage requiring revisions in recent years. The quality of M&V practices varied, with some projects demonstrating excellent practices and others facing challenges related to data collection and documentation. The Evaluator recommends adjustments to program requirements and improved communication to address these issues.
or of 10.6% for 2021. This result represents the latest data point in what appears to be a continuing trend of small incremental increases in free-ridership since the inception of the service in 2014. While the overall free-ridership level...
AI summary The free-ridership rate for 2021 was 10.6%, showing a small upward trend since 2014. While overall levels are reasonable, the Evaluator suggests that the influence section of the algorithm may be reducing free-ridership. For P4P projects, free-ridership was 0%. The Evaluator attempted a multisource approach for collecting decision-maker views but faced challenges in 2021.
ve and deploy M&V processes, savings calculation protocols, service requirements, as well as documentation and associated supporting materials to align these with best practices for custom programs. EOne should work on a priority basis to...
AI summary The document discusses the need to improve M&V processes and service documentation for custom programs, with a focus on increasing the level of detail and quality. It also highlights free-ridership levels for Retrofit and New Construction, noting a slight increase and the need for monitoring. Additionally, it mentions a trend of projects closing after the sampling period, which could affect future evaluation quality.
Retrofit Key Findings and Recommendations 2021 Retrofit-Finding: The pay-for-performance projects reviewed by the Evaluator included an excellent client-led M&V approach that required almost no adjustments, had a free-ridership level of ze...
AI summary The 2021 Retrofit evaluation found that pay-for-performance projects had minimal adjustments, zero free-ridership, and high satisfaction. It recommended expanding structured pay-for-performance approaches for Retrofit, Building Optimization, and Operational Demand Savings. Solar PV and compressed air leak repair projects were found to be suitable for quasi-prescriptive methods, requiring distinct evaluation protocols and documentation.
2021 SEM-Finding: The savings measurement approaches are now more diversified, and an increasing proportion of participants use a bottom-up approach. The Evaluator noted that only two of the six participants used a whole-facility energy mo...
AI summary The 2021 SEM-Finding highlights that savings measurement approaches are more diversified, with an increasing use of bottom-up methods. The Evaluator expressed concerns that bottom-up approaches may miss operational and behavioral improvements, leading to fewer overall savings. Guidelines for bottom-up approaches are recommended to align with program objectives and ensure consistency with energy management strategies.
3. M&V Plans and Documentation 1a. Is there any documentation that describes the plan for M&V dated from before the project takes place? (Y/N) IF ANSWER TO QUESTION 1a. IS "NO", GO TO NEXT SECTION 1b. Does this document provide a descripti...
AI summary The text outlines a structured questionnaire for evaluating M&V (measurement and verification) plans and documentation in energy efficiency projects. It includes questions about the existence of pre-project M&V documentation, the scope and detail of the plan, and alignment with project complexity. The document also references an M&V Table and includes notes for interviews and worksheets for on-site or virtual reviews.
On-Site Visit Protocol - 2021 Efficency Nova Scotia 4. On-site or Virtual Review (continued) Section to be filled out with questions prior to virtual visits, and answers to be included during the call. Create new worksheet and reapeat for...
AI summary The document outlines an on-site visit protocol for Efficiency Nova Scotia in 2021, detailing procedures for validating energy efficiency measures, verifying baseline data, assessing operating schedules, and evaluating savings calculations during reviews.
Project Review Protocol The Evaluator made several minor improvements to the 2020 project review protocol to develop the 2021 project review protocol. These improvements included the addition of questions and assessment fields for measurem...
AI summary The Evaluator updated the 2020 project review protocol to include M&V plans and reports and reorganized data fields to improve clarity. The protocol involves reviewing project documentation from EfficiencyOne, including studies, EEM calculations, and M&V reports, and using a structured form to collect and summarize technical data during interviews.
3. M&V Plans and Documentation 1a. Is there any documentation that describes the plan for M&V dated from before the project takes place? (Y/N) IF ANSWER TO QUESTION 1a. IS "NO", GO TO NEXT SECTION 1b. Does this document provide a descripti...
AI summary The text outlines a series of questions related to Measurement and Verification (M&V) plans and documentation for energy efficiency projects. It includes inquiries about the existence of pre-project M&V documentation, the scope and detail of the M&V plan, alignment with project complexity, and whether the M&V plan was followed in the M&V report. It also references other questionnaires such as market, free-ridership, and spillover questionnaires.
4. M&V be repeated as ned essary for an y number of m easures for w vhich M& (Y/N) V is conduc if not, hide the Were any b aseline measuremer its taken ? (Y/N) Are electric cal savings based on measurements s? (Y/N) Are demand d savings ba...
AI summary The text contains a table related to measurement and verification (M&V) processes, including questions about baseline measurements, electric and demand savings based on measurements, and predicted versus actual results. It also includes notes and placeholders for comments from M&V reports.
COVID Did Covid had an impact on the implemented measures? Are the savings calculations impacted by Covid? Were any adjusments made by the SP regarding Covid? Are the reported savings based on a typical year? IMPACT EVALUATION NOTES Projec...
AI summary The text focuses on impact evaluation and savings adjustments related to energy efficiency measures, including questions about the impact of COVID-19, measurement boundaries, regression analysis, and adjustments to energy savings calculations. It also includes sections for documenting savings calculations and evaluator adjustments.
E-32021 DSM Annual Progress Report
9 passages
EfficiencyOne (E1) is pleased to provide its 2021 Annual Progress report (APR). The report summarizes E1's 2021 Demand Side Management (DSM) results and activities as administrator and operator of the Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS) franchise...
AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) reported its 2021 Annual Progress Report, showing 109.4 GWh in net energy savings and 27.5 MW in net peak demand savings. E1 did not meet its 2021 targets due to the impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, but showed a quicker recovery compared to 2020. E1 is working to meet its three-year contractual energy savings targets but may not meet the demand savings threshold.
- protocols for Safe Work Practices for delivery partners and staff remained in effect throughout 2021 and were updated as public health directives evolved; these safety protocols were developed and implemented in 2020 and include requirem...
AI summary In 2021, E1 implemented safety protocols for service delivery, resumed in-person activities after a suspension, expanded virtual service options, increased marketing and incentives for energy programs, and provided quarterly updates on performance targets amid pandemic challenges. MHEEP's activities were delayed in some communities due to public health restrictions.
2.1 Progress towards Three-Year Performance Targets - The 2021 savings results mark progress towards the achievement of E1's three-year NSUARB - approved Performance Targets. - 1 [Figure 1](#page-8-1) outlines the progress E1 has made in 2...
AI summary E1 reports progress toward achieving its three-year NSUARB-approved Performance Targets, with 2020 and 2021 savings results detailed in Figure 1. The data illustrates E1's performance relative to contractual targets, highlighting advancements in energy efficiency outcomes.
4 Figure 1: 2020 and 2021 Results as Progress towards 2020-2022 DSM Plan Performance Targets 6 Energy and demand savings are calculated at the generator and net of free ridership and spillover. 2020 results are evaluated results and 2021 7...
AI summary Figure 1 evaluates 2020 and 2021 energy/demand savings progress toward the 2020-2022 DSM Plan targets. Savings calculations account for free ridership and spillover effects. 2020 results are finalized, while 2021 results remain pending verification. The planned savings reference the Compliance Filing Plan's targets.
2.1.1 Forecast for 2020-2022 DSM Plan Period E1 has provided an updated three-year Plan period forecast in [Table 1](#page-11-1) to provide stakeholders and the NSUARB with additional insight on mid-term DSM Plan implementation.[7](#page-9...
AI summary E1 provides a three-year forecast for the 2020-2022 DSM Plan, projecting energy savings of 127.0 GWh in 2022 (90% of the target threshold) but not meeting the system-peak demand savings target. Expenditures remain within the approved $110 million investment level, though unforeseen circumstances could lead to falling short of energy savings goals.
3.1 2021 Evaluation Activities - Evaluation activities are conducted annually to ensure accurate determination of net electrical - energy and net system-peak demand savings. E1 utilizes the annual impact evaluations as up-to- - date progre...
AI summary In 2021, E1 conducted various evaluation activities including impact, market, and process evaluations for its programs. Modifications were made due to pandemic restrictions, such as using online surveys and virtual data collection methods. Research on market transformation programs was also completed.
- In 2021, E1's low-income savings results were approximately 69 percent lower in energy savings, - 63 percent lower in demand savings, and 65 percent lower in expenditures[41](#page-36-1) than E1's projected - participation and expenditur...
AI summary E1's low-income savings results in 2021 were significantly lower than projected, impacted by the ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Several program components, including EPI, AMH, and MHEEP, fell short of their savings targets. However, the Residential Efficient Product Rebates program met its 2021 savings targets.
3.7 Additional 2021 Results and Updates - E1 has additional Performance Indicators (a set of particular performance metrics) that indicate - progress towards its Performance Targets.[51](#page-47-2) In 2021, the results of E1's additional...
AI summary In 2021, E1 achieved significant results from its energy efficiency programs, including lifetime ratepayer benefits of $175.4 million and annual avoided CO2e emissions of 63,911 tonnes. Customer satisfaction and awareness of Efficiency Nova Scotia remained consistent with 2020 levels.
Table 4: Update on Implementation of 2020 Verification Recommendations Year Evaluation/ Verification Recommendation Text Source Status Comments Expected Period of Completion 2014 Evaluation Adapt the tracking system (DSMDS) to the QA progr...
AI summary This table updates the implementation status of 2020 verification recommendations, specifically addressing the adaptation of the tracking system (DSMDS) to a QA program. E1 has evaluated the cost and scope of integrating QA activities into the CIS system and has contracted an external party to conduct an internal audit for quality assurance improvements.
E-6Verification Report - Gil Peach
4 passages
The savings verification review was conducted as follows: - We focus on the "installed" annual energy savings and demand reductions. These are the annualized value of savings and demand reductions from the measures installed, regardless of...
AI summary The savings verification review focused on annualized energy savings and demand reductions from installed measures, without verifying mathematical calculations but reviewing method presentations. Due to the pandemic, site visits were not conducted for 2020, but customer surveys and interviews were used as alternatives.
7. Affordable Multifamily Housing The Affordable Multifamily Housing (AMH) program provides affordable-housing owners with incentives for building-wide energy retrofit projects to reduce consumption of electricity. The program uses the sam...
AI summary The Affordable Multifamily Housing (AMH) program incentivizes energy retrofits in affordable housing, using a model similar to Small Business Energy Solutions. In 2021, incentive amounts increased, but pandemic-related audit suspensions reduced project completions. Evaluation highlights high participant satisfaction but notes unmet energy savings targets, with prescriptive projects driving most savings.
engagement in market transformation and suggests the next step would be to conduct a preliminary assessment of potential markets in which market transformation programs would most likely be effective. We find this study of market transform...
AI summary The document praises a study on market transformation and codes/standards as well-crafted, noting its comprehensive coverage of current practices. It explains that codes and standards savings are calculated via differences in regulated minimum efficiency standards, while program savings are based on product efficiency improvements. Risks and opportunities are acknowledged, with the advice deemed sound.
evaluation? - (16) Is statistical confidence and statistical precision reported for surveys or interview sets? - (17) For programs that require on-sites, are there enough on-site visits? - (18) Are there careful project file reviews? - (19...
AI summary The evaluation focuses on methodological rigor in energy program assessments, including statistical validity, data accuracy, model reviews, and GHG calculations. Key concerns include metering precision, simulation model validation, EUL estimation, and proper accounting for free-ridership and spillover effects in program evaluations.
E-12E1(NSUARB) RIR-1 to RIR-41
12 passages
151.4 124.6 95.5 109.4 127.0 120.7 142.6 149.5 Variance 16.7 3.8 (5.8) 15.1 (2.6) (23.7) (12.1) (0.1) 4 5 The two primary drivers of unit cost changes between proposed and actuals are as follows: 6 • the level of participation in a program...
AI summary The text discusses variance analysis in a DSM Plan, noting that unit cost changes are driven by customer participation levels and product mix. A KPMG study (M09750) found no upward bias in E1’s resource cost estimates for 2015 and 2016–2018. E1’s 2023–2025 DSM Plan application (M10473) is referenced, highlighting alignment between estimated and actual costs.
6-9 months PIO (Process Improvement Opportunity) – Requires management consideration within a reasonable The proposed mitigation timeline for these risks represents an identified business process area time period requires action by Efficie...
AI summary The text outlines a Process Improvement Opportunity (PIO) identified within EfficiencyOne, requiring management consideration and action over a 6-9 month and 9-12 month timeline. The PIO focuses on improving business processes for greater efficiency and alignment with organizational objectives.
between E1 and NS Power (2023-2025 DSM Plan) E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB) Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-12: 2 3 Page 15 of 65 of the Application notes that E1 is taking a strategic appr...
AI summary E1 responded to the NSUARB's information request regarding its process improvement methodology, clarifying that it uses Lean Six Sigma rather than the TRC or PAC Test. The methodology involves a five-phase approach (DMAIC) to identify and eliminate inefficiencies.
eloped until months after the conclusion of the Department’s review. For example: (1) a proposal for allowing mixed-income buildings to participate in the low-income programs will not be developed until the second quarter of 2022; (2) the...
AI summary The text discusses delays in developing program proposals, adjustments to budget allocations targeting environmental justice communities, and the need for more comprehensive program descriptions in future Three-Year Plans. It also highlights errors in initial filings and data anomalies discovered during the proceeding.
nue to deliver nation-leading energy efficiency services is not in question. The Department must acknowledge the nation-leading status of the Program Administrators; their innovation and success in the area of energy efficiency remains a c...
AI summary The Department acknowledges the nation-leading energy efficiency services provided by Program Administrators but criticizes the poor quality of recent filings. A reduction to the performance incentive pool is proposed due to filing deficiencies, with further reductions possible if compliance issues persist. The Climate Act and new benefit-cost screening model requirements are noted as additional challenges.
nters. Further, the Program Administrators’ strategic plan currently in development will not be implemented until 2022 is almost over. Contrary to the Program Administrators’ assertions, the Department is unconvinced that incentives for el...
AI summary The Department is unconvinced that incentives for electric lawn mowers and similar tools are appropriate for renters at this time. It requires the Program Administrators to submit a finalized strategic renter plan by September 30, 2022. The Department also refuses to adopt data tracking recommendations due to potential privacy concerns, though it supports electrification efforts that reduce energy use and GHG emissions.
nd develop new program designs during the 2022-2024 Three-Year Plans term.103 However, the Program Administrators propose significant enhancements in every Three-Year Plan. D.P.U. 18-110 through D.P.U. 18-119, Statewide Plan, Exh. 1, at 13...
AI summary The Program Administrators propose significant enhancements to energy efficiency programs during the 2022-2024 Three-Year Plans term, including new initiatives, realignments, and outreach strategies. However, there is a discrepancy in the reported PP&A budget, and the Department emphasizes the need for accurate and complete filings to ensure an efficient review within the statutory 90-day period.
018 Three-Year Plans Order, at 57-58; 2013-2015 Three-Year Plans Order, at 92-93; 2010-2012 Gas Three-Year Plans Order, at 82-83; 2010-2012 Electric Three-Year Plans Order, at 95-96. The Department finds that a savings component is an esse...
AI summary The Department of Public Utilities (DPUE) approves the inclusion of a savings component in the performance incentive mechanism for the 2022-2024 Three-Year Plan, requiring 75% of planned benefits or the statewide weighted portfolio threshold. The Program Administrators propose removing the value component, arguing it may discourage targeting costly equity and electrification measures, a position supported by the Attorney General and DOER as redundant.
omm 2-14, Att. A). Of those 15 towns, eleven have a participation rate for electric combined at or below 30 percent and seven are at or below 25 percent (Exh. DPU-Comm 2-14, Att. A). In 189 As discussed in Section XI.C., above, National Gr...
AI summary The document highlights low energy efficiency participation rates in most of the Compact's service area, with many municipalities below 30% participation. The Department of Energy and Resources finds these rates concerning and notes the Compact's historically high customer incentives compared to other Program Administrators.
entive mechanism easily applicable to the Compact. As investor-owned utilities, all other Program Administrators are subject to performance incentives and penalties, and poor performance will be the responsibility of the utility’s sharehol...
AI summary The Department emphasizes the need for additional scrutiny of the Compact's performance due to its historical poor performance and the necessity of ensuring that municipal aggregators meet energy efficiency goals and deliver programs safely and equitably.
st effectiveness separately (Exhs. DPU-EGMA 1-1; DPU-NSTAR Gas 1-1). NSTAR Gas and EGMA shall submit separate BCR models and data tables in all filings for the 2022-2024 Three-Year Plans term. The Department will review the performance of...
AI summary The Department of Public Utilities (DPU) requires NSTAR Gas and EGMA to submit separate BCR models and data tables for their 2022-2024 Three-Year Plans. It also mandates that performance incentives be calculated and reported on an individual-company basis, rather than jointly, to ensure cost-effectiveness and avoid underperformance in one service territory.
1 increase in the DSM investment proposed in the 2023-2025 DSM Plan in addition to helping to 2 offset any potential electricity rate increases. 3 4 E1 has not requested changes to the existing or introduction of additional performance tar...
AI summary E1 has not requested changes to existing performance targets for the 2023-2025 DSM Plan, emphasizing their relevance and the low-risk nature of DSM investments for ratepayers. E1 operates as a not-for-profit and ensures underspending is returned to ratepayers. Performance targets are subject to legislative and regulatory oversight.
E-12-(i)NSUARB IR-17 Attachment 2_ACEEE’s Entire State Database - Excel
6 passages
iciency programs. The BSA is applied on a monthly basis to the distribution charge of all customer classes except street lighting and telecommunications network customers. More info is available here. In April 2016, Washington Gas filed a...
AI summary The document discusses energy efficiency programs, the Bill Stabilization Adjustment (BSA), and the Clean and Affordable Energy Act (CAEA) of 2008 in Washington, D.C. It outlines how the BSA is applied to customer classes and details the CAEA's authorization of a Sustainable Energy Utility (SEU) contract with performance-based incentives and penalties. In 2017, DCSEU transitioned to a five-year contract for larger, longer-term energy efficiency projects.
incremental savings totaling 357,400 MWh over 2018-2020, or approximately 2.4% of annual sales. Natural gas - Three-year annual incremental savings of 192,599 Mcf spanning 2018-2020, or 0.5% of sales. Vermont does not have traditional EERS...
AI summary Vermont's energy efficiency programs focus on incremental savings in electricity and natural gas, with no traditional EERS legislation. Instead, the PUC sets budgets and goals every three years through a Demand Resource Plan proceeding, with compensation tied to performance. The EEU structure is reviewed every six years, and the administrator may be replaced if goals are not met.
U-16302, U-16303, U-16736, U-17281, U-17601). The Commission also approved a performance incentive for SEMCO Gas (U-17362) and Indiana Michigan Power Company (U-17353) for program years 2014 and 2015. PA 295 (2008) contained two provisions...
AI summary The Commission approved performance incentives for several utilities, including SEMCO Gas and Indiana Michigan Power Company, for program years 2014 and 2015. PA 295 (2008) allowed utilities to capitalize energy efficiency program costs and earn performance incentives for exceeding annual energy savings targets. The MPSC updated its administrative rules in 2017 regarding data privacy and accessibility.
s, within five years of implementation of their energy efficiency and peak demand reduction programs, and until such time as all cost-effective energy efficiency is achieved in each utility territory. The Board of Public Utilities has adop...
AI summary The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (NJBPU) has set energy efficiency and peak demand reduction targets for utilities, based on the 2019 market potential study. The program includes triennial reviews, cost recovery mechanisms, and performance incentives. Evaluation is conducted annually by a third party, Rutgers University CEEEP, to ensure independence.
whole house"" program and provide funding in the 5th quarter FY20 budget extension to design and establish this program. Last reviewed: September 2020 ","There are no opt-out programs in New Jersey. A Societal Benefits Credit (SBC) program...
AI summary The text discusses energy efficiency programs in New Jersey, including a proposed 'whole house' program and funding for its establishment. It also describes the Societal Benefits Credit (SBC) program and the Large Energy Users Program, which provide incentives for energy efficiency and combined heat and power projects. Performance incentives and penalties are tied to utility-specific energy savings targets.
ted to low-income or hard-to-reach customers may have lower threshold cost-effectiveness results than other efficiency programs. Coordination of Ratepayer-Funded Low-Income Programs with WAP Services Beginning in 2017 ONG combined the deli...
AI summary The text discusses the coordination of low-income energy efficiency programs with WAP services, the opt-out policies for transportation-only gas and electric customers, and the revenue recovery mechanisms and performance-based ratemaking used by Oklahoma gas utilities, including shared benefit incentive plans.
E-30E1 Compliance Filing 2023-2025 with Appendix A-D FINAL
9 passages
Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity and annual avoided $CO_2$ e emissions were provided by NS Power, from the 2020 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2021. C...
AI summary The text discusses avoided costs and emissions from energy efficiency and demand response programs, including cost-effectiveness ratios and performance indicators for low-income and underserved communities. It highlights the role of NS Power and EfficiencyOne in program implementation and outlines specific energy savings targets.
4.8 DEMAND RESPONSE PROJECT REPORTING - The Board directed E1 to file, in its quarterly reports, details describing E1's proposed demand response - projects, as well as its progress, including spending to date, towards achieving the target...
AI summary The Board directed EfficiencyOne (E1) to report on its demand response projects in quarterly reports, including progress and spending towards achieving a 17.9 MW load reduction target. This marks the first time such targeted demand response savings are included in a resource plan. The Supply Agreement has been amended to include demand response capacity as a performance target.
4.2.3.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE - 19 The Existing Residential program has an established quality assurance framework inclusive of random and - 20 targeted site visits, energy model file reviews and rebuilds, documentation review, and customer su...
AI summary The Existing Residential program has a quality assurance framework that includes random and targeted site visits, energy model file reviews, documentation reviews, and customer surveys to ensure program effectiveness.
9.7.1 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 p...
AI summary The text defines key terms related to performance metrics, indicators, targets, and thresholds, emphasizing their use in tracking achievements and monitoring progress toward goals approved by the NSUARB.
2.3.1 OBJECTIVES OF THE MODELLING PROCESS - The modelling process, and its associated software tools, were used to support the quantitative - development of the Settlement Plan for both EE and DR. Modelling and software tools support the -...
AI summary The modelling process was used to support the quantitative development of the Settlement Plan for Energy Efficiency (EE) and Demand Response (DR). It provides detailed cost-effectiveness impacts, energy and demand impacts, participation estimates, and investment views to support regulatory processes and performance targets.
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 based on performance requirements established by the UARB under Section 79M of the Act, as outlined in Schedule 'C'.
55 57 SCHEDULE C 58 59 Performance Requirements 60 I. UARB-APPROVED PERFORMANCE TARGETS, THRESHOLDS, AND 61 INDICATORS 62 63 a) Performance Targets and Thresholds: 64 65 i. Performance Targets are set over the three year contract period, r...
AI summary The document outlines performance requirements and targets set by the UARB for EfficiencyOne over a three-year contract period. It specifies that substantial compliance requires achieving at least 90% of the performance targets, which include energy and demand savings, and outlines various performance indicators for reporting purposes.
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 based on performance requirements established by the UARB under Section 79M of the Act, as outlined in Schedule 'C'.
53 The 2024 Payment Schedule will be revised to credit NSPI for any amounts owing to 54 NSPI related to underspend from the 2020-2022 DSM Plan. EFFICIENCYONE 2023-2025 DSM PLAN COMPLIANCE FILING Appendix F D – Supply Agreement SCHEDULE C P...
AI summary The 2024 Payment Schedule will credit NSPI for underspend from the 2020-2022 DSM Plan. The UARB-approved EfficiencyOne 2023-2025 DSM Plan outlines performance targets, thresholds, and indicators for compliance, including energy and peak demand savings, with triggers for regulatory processes if targets are not met.