Topic:"Performance Monitoring" in M12780

1.2 APPROVAL OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH NS POWER - E1 also requests the NSEB's approval of its Purchase Agreement with NS Power, together with the - associated Performance Targets, which is attached in redline form as Appendix "D" and in c...

AI summary E1 seeks NSEB approval for a Purchase Agreement with NS Power, including Performance Targets. The agreement's terms align with previously approved DSM Plans (2016–2018, 2019, 2020–2022, 2023–2025, 2026 Extension). Appendices D (redline) and E (clean) are provided.

2.2.3 2026 DSM EXTENSION DECISION - In approving E1's 2026 DSM Plan Extension, the NSEB issued the following directives relevant to this - Application: [14](#page-23-0) - (a) To continue engagement with the DSMAG on the Standardized Filing...

AI summary The NSEB approved E1's 2026 DSM Plan Extension with directives to engage DSMAG, assess program concerns, and revise mid-course adjustment processes. E1 addressed these in the 2027–2031 DSM Plan. References include Matter M12282 and NSEB Decision M12249.

21 3.3.3 TECHNOLOGY & FIELD LEARNING Program deployment to date has provided valuable operational experience and insights into the technologies that deliver the strongest performance and program economics. This includes heat pump hot water...

AI summary Program deployment has enhanced operational experience with technologies like heat pump hot water controllers, behind-the-meter batteries, and smart thermostats. Improvements in workflows, dispatch strategies, and vendor relationships have reduced costs and improved demand response reliability during peak events.

3.3.4 SUMMARY - Eco Shift continues to demonstrate measurable progress as it moves through its development phase. - Preliminary results show increasing customer participation and improved device responsiveness across - multiple technologie...

AI summary Eco Shift demonstrates measurable progress with increased customer participation and device responsiveness, enhancing demand response capacity and cost-effectiveness under PAC. Operational refinements, scaling participation, and alignment with constrained system areas are expected to reduce costs and improve reliability. Eco Shift is projected to achieve cost-effectiveness within two to three seasons.

4.4 DSM CONTINUES TO BE THE LEAST RISK OPTION - DSM is a low-risk energy investment as there is: - Certainty with respect to the level in investment; - No unexpected costs associated with an investment in DSM; and - No variability in the c...

AI summary DSM is identified as the least risky energy investment due to capped spending, no unexpected costs, and E1's consistent performance. Ratepayers benefit from cost certainty, while fuel and capital projects by NS Power carry higher risks and volatility. E1's reliability ensures adherence to approved spending levels, minimizing financial uncertainty.

- 9 organizations, and DSM administrators, where appropriate, through market research and market comparisons prepared by independent third parties. E1 worked closely with subject matter experts to examine current market conditions when con...

AI summary E1 emphasizes competitive procurement, independent reviews, and process improvements to ensure cost-effective program delivery. Methods include third-party audits, multi-year contracts, and digital channel enhancements to reduce administrative and transaction costs while aligning incentive methodologies with market conditions.

5.5 DIVERSITY OF PROGRAM DELIVERY - Diversity in program delivery is a key way to minimize risk and involves the diversification of measures, - markets and strategies. The Preferred Plan includes a full suite of programs and strategies tha...

AI summary Diversity in program delivery reduces risk by diversifying measures, markets, and strategies. The Preferred Plan includes a broad range of programs targeting residential and BNI sectors. E1's diversified portfolio aims to ensure equitable participation despite higher unit costs or lower benefit/cost ratios for some opportunities.

bers. E1 has and will continue to be responsive to concerns and is mitigating the magnitude of the Balance Adjustment in the next DSM Plan's DSM Cost Recovery Rider through the proposed MCA Process. - In the 2026 DSM Extension matter, E1 a...

AI summary E1 outlines its mid-course adjustment (MCA) process to improve DSM Plan accuracy and transparency, including enhanced reporting, lower variance thresholds, and stakeholder input. Enhancements include using historical data, improved rate-class forecasting, and DSMAG review of MCAs. These changes aim to address regulatory concerns and ensure compliance with approved DSM Plan parameters.

ets, E1 intends to include year‑to‑date and cumulative progress towards the approved five‑year performance targets in its Quarterly reports (E1 provides this currently in its Annual Progress Reports). The mid-term check-in process describe...

AI summary E1 plans to update its Quarterly reports with year-to-date and cumulative progress toward five-year performance targets. The mid-term check-in process enhances transparency without requiring plan amendments. E1 will notify DSMAG and seek NSEB approval if unforeseen circumstances necessitate changes, though no amendments are anticipated. The NSEB retains authority under the PUA to review E1's activities.

with all applicable NSEB directives from the 2023-2025 DSM Plan Decision, the 2025 BCA Decision, and the 2026 DSM Extension Decision, as detailed in Section 2 of this Evidence. In particular, E1 has: - (a) used the PAC test as the primary...

AI summary E1 outlines compliance with NSEB directives, using PAC test for cost-effectiveness, excluding strategic electrification due to insufficient GHG and cost benefits, and proposing five performance targets for 2027–2031, including energy savings, peak demand reduction, and solar-PV generation. An Innovation Framework is also introduced.

1.2 REPORT ORGANIZATION - Appendix A provides the following: - overview of the development of the Preferred Plan including approach and methodology; - overview of the proposed portfolio and program targets, investment levels, and performan...

AI summary The report outlines its organizational structure, detailing sections covering DSM plan results, development approaches, portfolio overviews, program descriptions, enabling strategies, performance metrics, and reporting. Appendix A includes the Preferred Plan's methodology, program targets, and a DSM Purchase Agreement under the PUA. Sections 2–13 provide historical data, plan development, program specifics, and evaluation frameworks for 2027–2031.

2.2.5 AVAILABLE DEMAND RESPONSE CAPACITY Demand response was introduced as a new program in 2023 following pilot initiatives undertaken from 2020-2022. In the 2023 season (December 1, 2022 to February 28, 2023), early implementation challe...

AI summary Demand Response (DR) program challenges in 2023–2025 included participant drop-outs, operational constraints, and technical issues like controller removals. E1 adjusted strategies for 2026, improving engagement and infrastructure, leading to early 2026/2027 results doubling 2024/2025 capacity. Target of 16.3 MW available capacity is expected to be met.

3 2.3 CUMULATIVE DSM SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT: 2012-2025 4 [Table 4,](#page-100-0) below, presents E1's cumulative DSM Plan savings and expenditures from 2012 to 2025 compared with the corresponding Board-approved Plans.[4](#page-99-2) 5 6 7...

AI summary This section discusses E1's cumulative DSM savings and investment from 2012 to 2025, noting that expenditures are 6% below the Board-approved investment, while energy and demand savings are 5% above the approved targets. Factors such as program mix and market conditions are cited as reasons for the underspend in earlier years.

Continuous Measurement, Learning and Optimization • Continue internal tracking and measurement of marketing campaigns to allow E1 to understand return of efforts and budgets and best allocate future marketing resources.

AI summary E1 aims to continue tracking and measuring marketing campaigns to evaluate the return on efforts and budgets, ensuring optimal allocation of future marketing resources.

1 Table 29: 2027–2031 Summary of the Mi'kmaw New Home Construction Program Component Mi'kmaw New Home Construction Quality Assurance • The centralized Quality Assurance framework will apply to Mi'kmaw New Home • Construction under the New...

AI summary The Mi'kmaw New Home Construction Program Component outlines a centralized Quality Assurance framework that will apply to construction under the New Residential program. The framework focuses on compliance and performance metrics, including operational standards, safety, customer satisfaction, and installation accuracy.

DATE FILED: March 31, 2026 Page 63 of 112 Business Energy Rebates • Tactics may include paid media campaigns, success stories and business cases, outreach to current distributors and recruitment of new distributor partners, signage, trade...

AI summary The document outlines tactics for promoting Business Energy Rebates, including media campaigns, outreach, and partnerships, and mentions a quality assurance framework that includes site visits, documentation reviews, and customer surveys. E1 plans to integrate BNI programs into a centralized quality assurance framework by 2028.

Quality Assurance - Strategic Energy Management has an established quality assurance framework which includes pre and post measurement of energy consumption (e.g., direct, modelled, expert review), random and targeted site visits, document...

AI summary Strategic Energy Management employs a quality assurance framework with pre/post measurement, site visits, and customer surveys. E1 plans to integrate its BNI programs into a centralized QA framework by 2028 to ensure process consistency across programs.

6.5.3 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS - 3 Table 38 provides the program performance indicators. Table 39 provides the low-income and equity - 4 performance indicators.

AI summary Section 6.5.3 references Table 38 (program performance indicators) and Table 39 (low-income and equity performance indicators), outlining metrics for evaluating program effectiveness and equity considerations.

2 8.1.3 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS - 3 [Table 51,](#page-175-2) below, provides the program performance indicators. Solar-PV is a dedicated low-income and - 4 equity program therefore, the low-income and equity performance indicators are the s...

AI summary The document outlines that Solar-PV, as a dedicated low-income and equity program, has performance indicators aligned with its program-specific metrics. Table 51 is referenced for detailed program performance indicators.

INFORMATION & ANALYTICS - E1's customer satisfaction and total awareness of Efficiency Nova Scotia scores will be reported as performance indicators in each DSM Annual Progress Report during the five-year Plan. - Study findings and data an...

AI summary E1 will report customer satisfaction and awareness metrics in DSM Annual Progress Reports. Data insights will guide program decisions and customer engagement. Program harmonization aims to reduce wait times and customer inquiries.

2 10. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS - 3 For the 2027–2031 Plan period, E1 proposes the following definitions and requirements for performance - 4 targets and thresholds. These definitions and requirements are consistent with those outlined in t...

AI summary E1 proposes performance target definitions and requirements for the 2027–2031 Plan period, aligning with the 2026 updated Standardized Filing Framework developed jointly with the DSMAG. These requirements are detailed in Appendix F of the application.

8 10.1 PERFORMANCE DEFINITIONS - 9 To provide clarity, the following definitions are used: - 10 Performance metric: a quantifiable measure that is used to track and assess the status of a 11 specific achievement; - 12 Performance indicator...

AI summary The document defines key performance-related terms for regulatory proceedings, including performance metrics, indicators, targets, and thresholds. These definitions emphasize quantifiable measures, progress monitoring, goal-setting, and allowable deviations from targets, all aligned with Energy Board approvals.

1 10.2 PERFORMANCE TARGETS AND THRESHOLDS - Performance targets[21](#page-186-3) 2 apply over the Plan period as reflected in the Energy Board-approved DSM 3 Purchase Agreement or as ordered by the Energy Board; and - 4 E1 is in substantia...

AI summary The Nova Scotia Energy Board sets performance targets for E1's DSM Purchase Agreement, requiring 90% compliance. E1's 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan includes five targets, with a table summarizing them. Non-compliance may trigger discretionary actions by the Energy Board.

12 Table 61: Proposed 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan Performance Targets 2027–2031 Performance Targets DSM Resource Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Low-Income & Equity Energy Savings (GWh) Available Demand Response Capacity (MW...

AI summary Table 61 outlines proposed 2027–2031 DSM performance targets, including 435.4 GWh energy savings from Energy Efficiency, 85.0 MW peak demand savings, 14.0 GWh low-income equity savings, 29.3 MW demand response capacity, and 1.7 GWh solar-PV generation. Targets aim to balance energy efficiency, demand response, and renewable integration.

11.1.1 IMPACT EVALUATIONS - Annual impact evaluations will provide E1, stakeholders, and the Energy Board with up-to-date impacts - on net electrical energy, net system-peak demand savings and available capacity as progress indicators - to...

AI summary The document outlines annual impact evaluations for DSM programs, distinguishing between condensed and comprehensive evaluations. Condensed evaluations use prior data for stable programs, while comprehensive ones are required for newer or changed programs. E1 and the Energy Board will use these evaluations to track progress toward 2027–2031 DSM performance targets.

12.1.1 ENERGY EFFICIENCY EVALUATION APPROACH E1 will engage a third-party Evaluator to develop and perform an evaluation of E1's portfolio of energy- efficiency, demand response and solar-PV programs for the 2027–2031 DSM Plan period. Each...

AI summary E1 will engage a third-party Evaluator to assess its energy-efficiency, demand response, and solar-PV programs from 2027–2031. The Evaluator will develop annual evaluation plans, conduct impact assessments, and report metrics like net energy savings and system peak demand reductions to the Nova Scotia Energy Board, ensuring transparency and alignment with evaluation principles.

12.1.2 DEMAND RESPONSE EVALUATION APPROACH Demand response program evaluation is aimed at verifying and quantifying the available capacity to the utility during the winter peak period. The Evaluator will present total available capacity, d...

AI summary Demand response evaluation focuses on quantifying available capacity during winter peaks. Available capacity differs from peak demand savings as E1 cannot control event scheduling. Evaluation considers events from December to February, with 50/50 weighting of morning and evening results. Capacity is measured over four-hour events and summed per participant, with 2027 capacity reflecting December 2026 to February 2027 data.

12.1.3 SOLAR-PV EVALUATION APPROACH E1 has proposed a new solar-PV program in the 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan. Evaluation of estimated generation (kWh) and installed capacity (MW) will be determined by the Evaluator on an annual basis thr...

AI summary E1 proposes a solar-PV program in the 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan, requiring annual impact evaluations. Installed capacity (MW) is verified via desk reviews, while estimated generation (kWh) uses a calibration factor updated every 3-5 years by comparing modelled and actual generation data.

4 12.1.4 MARKET TRANSFORMATION EVALUATION APPROACH 5 Market transformation programs aim to transform the entire market, typically including multiple points 6 along the supply chain as well as the end-use customer — and to do so in a lastin...

AI summary Market transformation programs aim to drive long-term, sustained changes across the energy market, measured through market progress indicators. The evaluation uses a theory-based approach, assessing logic models and market dynamics, with examples from U.S. jurisdictions. Success depends on aligning program interventions with market changes, ensuring observed outcomes are attributable to the program.

1 13.2 OVERSIGHT AND DSMAG REVIEW - 2 Each report filed with the NSEB provides opportunities for DSMAG stakeholder questions and comments, - 3 either directly to E1 or through an Energy Board-initiated regulatory process. Additionally, the...

AI summary The NSEB oversees E1's DSM Plan implementation, allowing DSMAG stakeholder input through reports and regulatory processes. Post-2022 PUA amendments extending DSM Plans to five years, DSMAG raised concerns about performance risks. E1 responded by proposing mid-term check-ins to ensure transparency and ongoing engagement during the extended plan period.

13.2.1 MID-TERM CHECK-IN - E1 proposes a structured mid-term check-in process for the 2027–2031 Plan. This process is intended to - provide transparency and opportunities for meaningful review and discussion of Plan implementation - progre...

AI summary E1 proposes a mid-term check-in process for the 2027–2031 Plan, including a 2029 session with the DSMAG to review progress, spending trends, and challenges. Materials, stakeholder comments, and one-on-one meetings will be used, mirroring NSEB's DSM reporting approaches.

13.4.2 ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORTS - The APR provides reporting on DSM performance, expenditures, and progress toward approved Plan targets. In the first quarter of each calendar year, E1 will file an APR with the Energy Board, which will incl...

AI summary The Annual Progress Report (APR) requires E1 to submit detailed DSM performance data, expenditures, and progress toward Plan targets to the Nova Scotia Energy Board. Key components include variance analysis, expenditure summaries, program metrics, and mid-course adjustment notifications, with references to the MCA process in section 13.3.

2.1 Innovation Oversight The Executive Leadership Team oversees E1's innovation activities, providing strategic direction, approvals, and compliance oversight. - Responsibilities include: - Reviewing and approving innovation projects; - De...

AI summary The Executive Leadership Team oversees E1's innovation activities, ensuring alignment with strategic goals, 2027–2031 DSM priorities, and available resources. Responsibilities include project approval, resource allocation, and performance monitoring through success metrics.

nts that have been approved by the Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB or "Board") (to the end of 2026). E1's 2027–2031 DSM Plan RBIA, provides a broad trend-based assessment of the rate and bill impacts associated with the proposed DSM activit...

AI summary The Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) has approved E1's DSM plans through 2026. E1's 2027–2031 Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) evaluates DSM impacts until 2046, while the 2026 historical RBIA assesses DSM effects from 2011–2026, extending to 2041. These analyses highlight DSM's long-term influence on customer rates and bills.

in annual avoided 6 costs. The annual impacts depicted in [Figure 4](#page-240-0) should not be interpreted to be the actual rate changes 7 that will occur in these years as experienced by customers. Figure 4: Annual Rate Impacts (2027-204...

AI summary The text discusses NS Power's RBIA methodology, explaining that rate impacts from DSM activities vary by rate class due to differing fuel and fixed cost structures. It notes that classes with higher fuel costs benefit more from DSM, while those with higher fixed costs see smaller benefits. The model's simplification of savings lifespans introduces inaccuracies, as real-world measure lifespans vary.

7.1 PARTICIPATION COUNTS BY CLASS - Participation estimates used in the RBIA model are different than participation estimates used in - development of DSM plans, since the RBIA tracks participating accounts , rather than the number - of pr...

AI summary The RBIA model uses account-based participation estimates, differing from DSM plans which track products. RBIA de-duplicates across programs and years, calculating annual and active participants to determine bill savings per participant.

7.2 ENERGY EFFICIENCY PARTICIPATION - Within each rate class and year, both the annual and active energy efficiency participant - estimates are the sum of three components: tracked participants (customers who participate in - a program oth...

AI summary The section outlines the methodology for calculating energy efficiency participants in Nova Scotia, dividing them into tracked, untracked, and Residential Behaviour groups. Adjustments are made to avoid double-counting, and totals are capped per rate class annually.

Active Tracked Participation - For years where approved/proposed rather than historical participation is used (2025–2031), - active participants in each year are estimated by applying a factor that accounts for how likely - participants ar...

AI summary The document outlines methods for estimating active participants in energy programs from 2025–2031 using historical tracked data (2019–2023) and a re-participation factor. Post-2032, participation degrades at the same rate as cumulative energy savings. E1 tracked participation rates from 2011–2024 using customer records.

7.6 MUNICIPAL RATE CLASS PARTICIPATION - Municipal customers within the NS Power model are Municipal account numbers that take - service under the Municipal tariff. The number of customers within the NS Power model - fluctuates from year-t...

AI summary The number of municipal customers under the NS Power model fluctuates yearly. E1's RBIA model treats all municipal customers as one utility, adjusting for participant numbers and load, but results are uncertain due to data volatility.

Savings in energy and demand usage by rate class Savings in energy and demand usage arising from DSM programs for each class are tracked in the following class tabs: R-Savings, SG-Savings, G-Savings, LG-savings, SI-Savings, MI-Savings, LI-...

AI summary The document outlines how energy and demand savings from DSM programs are tracked across rate classes (R-Savings, SG-Savings, etc.) using data from 2011–2022. Annual savings are calculated by E1 using methods from its RBIA Reports, with adjustments for energy losses based on the COSS study.

13 18 Columns may not add correctly due to rounding. Currency is expressed in nominal dollars. For the five-year total row, currency is a straight sum of 5 years of nominal values. Lifetime benefits for energy efficiency, demand response a...

AI summary The text discusses the methodology for calculating lifetime benefits of energy efficiency, demand response, and solar-PV programs, using net present value of avoided costs. It also outlines how low-income and equity impacts are calculated, including participation from specific programs and the use of the Program Administrator Cost Test (PAC) as a benefit/cost ratio.

ies 8 Schedule "B": Compensation 9 Schedule "C": Performance Requirements 10 Schedule "D": Confidentiality Agreement 11 Schedule "E": Approved EECA DSM Resource Plan

AI summary The document outlines schedules related to compensation, performance requirements, confidentiality agreements, and an approved energy efficiency DSM resource plan, highlighting regulatory components of a Nova Scotia utility proceeding.

7 Electricity Efficiency and ConservationDemand-Side Management Activities The figure below identifies the scope of savings (3 5 year cCumulative Annual eEnergy sSavings, cCumulative Annual pPeak dDemand sSavings, cCumulative Annual eEnerg...

AI summary The document outlines Energy Efficiency Corporation (EECA) Demand-Side Management (DSM) performance targets over a five-year plan, including energy and peak demand savings, solar-PV generation, and low-income equity programs. Compliance requires achieving 90% of targets; otherwise, a regulatory process is triggered. Schedule B addresses compensation mechanisms.

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS - I. UARBNSEB-APPROVED PERFORMANCE TARGETS, THRESHOLDS, AND INDICATORS - a) Performance Targets and Thresholds: - Performance Targets are set over the three five year contract period, rather than annually. - ii. Ef...

AI summary Performance targets for EfficiencyOne (E1) are set over three five-year contract periods, requiring 90% achievement of metrics like energy savings, peak demand reduction, and solar-PV generation. Non-compliance triggers regulatory action, with the Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) determining remedies. Targets include specific programs for affordable housing and Mi'kmaw communities.

22. AUDIT AND INSPECTION - 2 22.1 EfficiencyOne shall, during the Term and for a period of thirty-six (36) months thereafter, 3 keep accurate records of all DSM supplied to NSPI, as necessary to determine that the 4 DSM was provided in acc...

AI summary EfficiencyOne must maintain DSM records for 36 months post-agreement. NSPI may request NSEB access to these records and inspect DSM operations, with EfficiencyOne required to facilitate inspections. Compliance with agreement terms is emphasized through audit and inspection rights.

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS 50 I. NSEB-APPROVED PERFORMANCE TARGETS, THRESHOLDS, AND 51 INDICATORS a) Performance Targets and Thresholds:

AI summary The document outlines performance targets and thresholds approved by the Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB). These targets are part of a broader set of performance requirements and indicators established for regulatory oversight.

i. Performance Targets are set over the five year contract period, rather than annually. ii. EfficiencyOne is deemed to be in substantial compliance with the NSEB- approved Plan Performance Targets if ninety percent (90%) or greater achiev...

AI summary The document outlines performance targets and indicators for EfficiencyOne under a five-year contract with the NSEB. Key targets include cumulative energy and peak demand savings, solar-PV generation, and demand response capacity. Compliance is measured based on achieving at least 90% of these targets.

4.3.3 Performance Metrics - The following performance metric definitions and performance requirements were established - under the 2016–2018 DSM Plan. [1](#page-408-4) - 4.3.3.1 Definitions - The following definitions are used: - Performan...

AI summary The section defines performance metrics, indicators, targets, and thresholds under the 2016–2018 DSM Plan, emphasizing their roles in tracking progress and ensuring compliance with Board-approved goals.

Performance Targets - Performance targets apply over the Plan period as reflected in the Board-approved DSM Purchase - Agreement or as ordered by the Board. - E1 is in substantial compliance if it achieves 90 percent or greater on each app...

AI summary E1 must achieve 90% or more of approved performance targets under the Board-approved DSM Purchase Agreement. Failure below 90% may trigger Board action. E1 will propose specific DSM resource targets, including energy savings, peak demand reductions, low-income equity measures, and demand response capacity, for Board approval.

Performance Indicators - E1 will propose DSM resource specific performance indicators within each DSM Resource Plan - application for consideration and approval by the Board. Performance indicators may include - annual incremental and cumu...

AI summary E1 will propose DSM-specific performance indicators for approval by the Board, including energy savings, peak demand reductions, low-income impacts, demand response capacity, ratepayer benefits, spending, and PAC test results, with the Board retaining authority to order additional metrics.

4.4 DSM Tracking, Evaluation and Verification - 4.4.1 Tracking - 9 E1 will track the energy and capacity savings by program and report results in quarterly reports. - 4.4.2 Evaluation - E1 will retain the services of an independent DSM eva...

AI summary E1 will track DSM program savings, conduct annual evaluations, and submit quarterly and annual reports. The NSEB's Board verifies savings. DSM Resource Plans are filed every five years, with mid-course adjustments and mid-term check-ins pending NSEB decisions. Reporting includes APRs, performance indicators, and compliance with Board-approved targets.

4.8.2 Quarterly Reports - E1 will file quarterly reports with the Board for quarters one through three of each year. Reporting - requirements were established under the 2013–2015 DSM Plan Settlement Agreement and - continue to evolve: [9](...

AI summary E1 is required to submit quarterly reports to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board, detailing program performance, variances, forecasts, and equity outcomes under the 2013–2015 DSM Plan Settlement Agreement. Reports must include mid-course adjustments, variance explanations, year-end forecasts, rate-class expenditures, and Enabling Strategies updates.

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EfficiencyOne ("E1") delivers demand side management ("DSM") programs and is the - administrator and operator of the Efficiency Nova Scotia ("ENS") franchise. The 2025 Annual - Progress Report ("APR") summarizes E1's...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) reports on its 2025 progress toward DSM program targets, including energy and demand savings. E1's 2023-2025 DSM Plan was approved by NSUARB in 2022, and its 2026 extension by NSEB in 2025. The approved plan includes $236.8M investment and four performance targets. In 2025, E1 achieved 82% progress toward the 528.7 GWh energy savings target.

efficient units being retired. - Energy savings in Green Heat remained in steady decline in 2025, continuing a multi-year - trend, which prompted the decision to end the program on December 31, 2025. - The BNI sector achieved its 2025 Plan...

AI summary The Green Heat program is ending in 2025 due to declining energy savings. The BNI sector met its 2025 energy savings targets, with some programs overachieving. Demand Response missed its capacity target due to challenges, with details in section 4.4. Table 1 compares portfolio results to 2025 targets.

- 1 Figures 2 5 show E1's results in 2023, 2024, and 2025 and the Plan savings for 2026 in comparison to the NSEB-approved four-year - 2 Performance Targets. Date Filed: March 31, 2026 Page 15 of 47

AI summary The text includes figures showing E1's results for 2023, 2024, and 2025, as well as Plan savings for 2026, compared to the NSEB-approved four-year Performance Targets. The document was filed on March 31, 2026, and is page 15 of 47.

4. 2025 PROGRAM RESULTS - This section provides an overview of 2025 results and activities for E1's Residential and BNI sector - programs including: - evaluation activities; - program results and highlights; - discussion of program varianc...

AI summary The section outlines E1's 2025 program results for Residential and BNI sector programs, including evaluation activities, results, variance explanations for programs with 25%+ deviations, savings for underserved communities, and Enabling Strategies highlights. Program rate class results are detailed in Attachment 1.

4.2 Residential Sector Results - The Residential sector consists of the following programs: - Efficient Product Rebates; and - Existing Residential. (Note: The New Home Construction program component under the New Residential program, ende...

AI summary The Residential sector in Nova Scotia achieved 46.8 GWh energy savings and 10.1 MW peak demand savings in 2025, below the 71.6 GWh and 11.3 MW targets. Programs include Efficient Product Rebates and Existing Residential. E1 provided variance explanations for programs missing targets by 25%.

Affordable Single-family Homes - Affordable Single-family Homes more than doubled the energy and demand savings targets set out for the program component in the 2025 Plan as Approved, achieving 6.1 GWh in energy savings and 2.3 MW in deman...

AI summary The Affordable Single-family Homes program exceeded 2025 energy and demand savings targets (6.1 GWh and 2.3 MW), driven by improved project management and contractor collaboration. Participant completions increased due to streamlined processes, and backlog prioritization addressed long-waiting applicants.

1 4.3 Business, Non-Profit and Institutional (BNI) Sector Results - 2 The BNI sector is comprised of the following programs: - 3 Efficient Product Rebates; - 4 Custom Incentives; and - 5 Direct Installation. 6 - 7 In 2025, the BNI sector a...

AI summary The BNI sector in Nova Scotia achieved 82.6 GWh energy savings and 13.5 MW peak demand savings in 2025, exceeding 2025 Plan targets. Key programs include Efficient Product Rebates, Custom Incentives, and Direct Installation. E1's Energy Manager initiative contributed to DSM savings, with 30 Energy Managers active by year-end. Variance explanations were provided for programs deviating by ±25% from targets.

CUSTOM INCENTIVES (2025) The Retrofit and Pay-for-Performance services also had some partial savings claims. [10](#page-34-0) The Retrofit and New Construction services accounted for most of the energy and demand savings achieved. - o The...

AI summary In 2025, Nova Scotia's Retrofit and New Construction services achieved significant energy savings, while Pay-for-Performance faced delays due to a cybersecurity incident at NS Power. The New Construction team is preparing for the 2020 NECB Tier 1 code adoption, with impacts expected by 2026-2027. Partial savings claims were reported across multiple programs.

4.5.2 Performance Indicator The NSEB also approved a Performance Indicator of incidental cumulative annual energy savings of 30.2 GWh applicable to low-income and underserved communities from non-targeted programs. [19](#page-42-1) 2025 en...

AI summary The NSEB approved a 30.2 GWh cumulative energy savings target for low-income and underserved communities via non-targeted programs. By 2025, cumulative savings reached 29.9 GWh (99% of the target), but 2025's 3.5 GWh fell short of the annual target due to E1's updated methodology, which reduced assumptions about low-income and equity impacts.

2 4.7 Additional 2025 Performance Indicators - 3 The NSUARB approved additional Performance Indicators as identified in the Supply - Agreement. 22 4 In 2025, results of E1's additional Performance Indicators are as follows: - 5 Total lifet...

AI summary The NSUARB approved additional 2025 performance indicators under the Supply Agreement. E1 achieved $170.7 million in lifetime ratepayer benefits, an 89.0 Customer Satisfaction Index, and 87% program awareness. Results align with 2024 figures. The provincial government extended the DSM Plan period to 2027-2031 following stakeholder feedback.

Table 1 Update on Implementation of 2022-2023 Evaluation Recommendations Year Evaluation/ Verification Recommendation Text Source Status Comments Expected Period of Completion 2022 For any future Retrofit indoor horticultural lighting proj...

AI summary The 2022-2023 evaluation recommends that EOne use the IPMVP Option C approach for M&V in future indoor horticultural lighting projects. E1 agrees and is exploring methods and trialing a project, though delays have pushed the assessment to 2026.

1.1 Impact Evaluation Objectives and Scope The impact evaluation activities were aimed at determining: - › Gross electrical energy and peak demand savings at the meter and at the generator - › Available DR capacity for DR programs - › Net-...

AI summary The impact evaluation objectives include assessing energy savings, demand response capacity, net-to-gross ratios, effective useful life, and GHG emissions. Two evaluation types (comprehensive and condensed) are outlined, with factors like program maturity and complexity influencing their application.

2.1.1 Tracking Sheet Audits The final tracking sheets submitted to the Evaluator by E1 contained both data for all completed projects for 2025 and the tracked results required to calculate final savings. The final tracking sheets were audi...

AI summary E1 submitted final tracking sheets to the Evaluator, which were audited for consistency and completeness. The Evaluator corrected discrepancies in project data and compiled evaluated savings, ensuring accuracy in program performance assessments.

ings, [11](#page-19-4) Efficient Product Installation, Home Energy Assessment, Green Heat, Business Energy Rebates – Instant Rebates, Building Optimization, as well as Small Business Energy Solutions. The impact evaluations included assess...

AI summary The text outlines methods for evaluating program impacts, including spillover assessments through participant surveys to quantify additional energy savings attributed to program components. Surveys identified measures implemented without direct program funding, with influence levels determining savings attribution. Literature reviews and free-ridership levels were referenced for specific programs.

Analysis The results of the process and market evaluation activities were analyzed in relation to the research objectives identified in Subsection [1.2](#page-13-0) above. The results from all evaluation activities were consolidated and tr...

AI summary The analysis consolidated and triangulated results from process and market evaluation activities, aligning them with research objectives outlined in Subsection 1.2. Findings were validated through a preponderance of evidence to ensure robustness.

Mi'kmaw Home Energy Efficiency Project - › In 2025, MHEEP achieved 0.337 GWh in net electrical energy savings and 0.319 MW in net peak demand savings at the generator, thus falling 39% short of planned net electrical energy savings of 0.54...

AI summary In 2025, the Mi'kmaw Home Energy Efficiency Project (MHEEP) achieved 39% less electrical energy savings than planned but exceeded peak demand savings targets by 104%. Participation dropped 18%, reducing gross savings. Methodological changes limited peak demand savings evaluations to fully electric households, aligning with 2024 Green Heat analysis.

Custom - › Custom achieved 30.487 GWh in net electrical energy savings and 6.372 MW in net peak demand savings at the generator in 2025, thereby surpassing by 26% the planned electrical energy savings of 24.160 GWh and by 32% the planned p...

AI summary Custom program achieved 30.487 GWh in electrical energy savings and 6.372 MW in peak demand savings in 2025, exceeding targets by 26% and 32% respectively. Participation trends, adjustment ratios (0.993–1.011 for Retrofit), free-ridership levels (8%–38%), and a 8% discrepancy between Evaluator and E1 savings tracking were reported.

Strategic Energy Management - › In 2025, SEM achieved 4.031 GWh in net electrical energy savings and 0.372 MW in net peak demand savings at the generator, thus exceeding the 2.657 GWh target by 52% and the planned 0.289 MW in net peak dema...

AI summary In 2025, Strategic Energy Management (SEM) exceeded energy and peak demand savings targets by 52% and 29%, respectively, with 11 completed projects. However, energy savings per participant declined. Compressed air leak repairs contributed 54% of savings, and E1's measurement guidelines were largely followed despite evaluator adjustments.

Calculation of the Standard Error Since the overall adjustment ratio is based on a stratified weighted average, the Evaluator also calculated a stratified weighted standard error for the adjustment ratio instead of a simple standard error....

AI summary The Evaluator calculated a stratified weighted standard error for the adjustment ratio using a formula from the Uniform Methods Project (UMP) Chapter 11, resulting in a standard error of 160 for evaluated available DR capacity. This approach accounts for stratified sampling in adjustment ratio calculations.

Where: H is the number of strata (2) and h represents each stratum. - $N_h$ is the number of projects in the population for a stratum. - $n_h$ is the number of projects in the sample for a stratum. & lt;sup>2 Khawaja, M.S., Rushton, J. and...

AI summary The text outlines statistical methods for calculating adjustment ratios in demand response (DR) capacity evaluations, using strata-based sampling. It presents formulas for weighted standard error calculations and notes a weighted standard error of 160 for BNI DR projects. The methodology references the Uniform Methods Project by NREL.

Calculations Using Evaluation Results Building on all the above methods and collected data, the Evaluator calculated first-year and lifetime electrical energy and peak demand savings as per the calculation methodology presented in Section...

AI summary The Evaluator calculated first-year and lifetime electrical energy and peak demand savings using the methodology outlined in Section 7, building on prior data and methods.

ASFH Findings and Recommendations This subsection presents the key findings from the 2025 ASFH evaluation. The Evaluator has no specific recommendation for ASFH. 2025 ASFH-Finding: ASFH achieved 6.135 GWh in net electrical energy savings a...

AI summary The 2025 ASFH program exceeded its energy and peak demand savings targets by 114% and 183%, respectively, with 1,920 homes participating—a 59% increase from 2024. Energy savings were 1% higher than E1-tracked figures due to inclusion of 2024 unclaimed savings from non-modelled heat pump measures.

HEA Findings and Recommendations This subsection presents the key findings from the 2025 HEA evaluation. The Evaluator has no specific recommendation for HEA. 2025 HEA-Finding: HEA net electrical energy savings exceeded the 8.580 GWh targe...

AI summary The 2025 HEA exceeded energy savings targets by 61% and peak demand savings by 6%, but participation dropped significantly due to the closure of the Canada Greener Homes Grant. Realization rates reached 100% for both energy and peak demand savings, aligning evaluated results with E1 tracking.

4 AMH Key Findings and Recommendations As mentioned previously, the main objectives of the 2025 AMH evaluation were as follows: › Calculate AMH gross and net results, namely first-year and lifetime electrical energy savings, peak demand sa...

AI summary The 2025 AMH evaluation found that while net electrical energy savings targets were unmet (1.378 GWh vs. 1.880 GWh target), peak demand savings exceeded expectations (0.648 MW vs. 0.572 MW target). Participation reached a record high with 98 projects, and EFLH values were correctly applied to heat pump projects. Savings tracked by E1 aligned with evaluator calculations.

7.2.1 Electrical Energy Savings For ASFH, electrical energy savings are calculated based on HOT2000 simulation results adjusted with billing analysis results and unitary savings values for prescriptive measures, as demonstrated in the equa...

AI summary Electrical energy savings for Affordable Single-family Homes (ASFH) are calculated using HOT2000 simulations adjusted with billing analysis and unitary savings values for prescriptive measures. The methodology combines simulation results with real-world data to estimate savings.

8 ASFH Key Findings and Recommendations As previously mentioned, the main objectives of the 2025 ASFH evaluation were as follows: › Calculate gross and net ASFH results, namely electrical first-year and lifetime energy savings, peak demand...

AI summary The 2025 ASFH program exceeded electrical energy and peak demand savings targets by 114% and 183%, respectively. Participation grew by 59% compared to 2024, with 1,920 homes enrolled. Evaluator results aligned closely with E1's tracking, differing by only 1% due to unclaimed 2024 savings from non-modelled heat pumps.

11.1 Tracking Sheet Audit To ensure program component results were reliably compiled, the Evaluator first performed a tracking sheet audit aimed at verifying the completeness and consistency of the data submitted by E1. The verification an...

AI summary The Evaluator conducted a tracking sheet audit to verify the completeness and consistency of data submitted by E1, ensuring reliable compilation of program results. Corrective actions are detailed in Appendix VI, with reported savings reflecting post-audit adjustments.

23.3.1 Evaluated Net Savings Net savings are defined as the electrical energy savings specifically attributable to MHEEP. Since spillover and free-ridership effects were considered nil, net MHEEP impacts are equal to the gross savings gene...

AI summary The evaluated net savings from the Mi'kmaw Home Energy Efficiency Project (MHEEP) amount to 0.337 GWh and 0.319 MW, with no spillover or free-ridership effects. The program underperformed its energy savings target by 39% but exceeded peak demand savings by 104%.

25.1 Description Residential Behaviour, publicly branded as Efficiency Insights, is designed to help Nova Scotia Power (NS Power) residential customers reduce their electricity consumption. The component provides a subset of customers with...

AI summary Residential Behaviour (Efficiency Insights) by Nova Scotia Power helps customers reduce energy use via personalized Home Energy Reports and advice. Funded under E1's 2023-2025 DSM Plan, the program was paused in 2025 due to a cybersecurity incident disrupting AMI data access.

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 conduc...

AI summary The evaluation methodology for the 2025 Residential Behaviour program employs a 10% margin of error at a 90% confidence level to quantify savings from billing analysis. This approach accounts only for random sampling errors, excluding non-sampling biases like data entry inaccuracies or response limitations.

27.2 Net Savings For Residential Behaviour, savings are obtained from the change in electricity consumption resulting from behaviours adopted by treatment group participants compared with the change in electricity consumption observed amon...

AI summary Net savings for Residential Behaviour programs are calculated by comparing electricity consumption changes between treatment and control groups, using the Uniform Methods Project (UMP) framework. Savings are net of control group changes, eliminating free-ridership adjustments. However, increased participation in other programs may require avoiding double-counting between ENS initiatives.

APPENDIX VI EPI Tracking Sheet Audit This appendix presents the results of the EPI tracking sheet audit performed by the Evaluator, which was aimed at: - › Verifying that all data fields required for the evaluation were included and filled...

AI summary This audit of the EPI tracking sheet verifies data completeness and accuracy, revealing corrected savings lower than initially reported due to Home Warming project removal (3% gross, 6% peak) and updated smart thermostat unitary savings values. The Evaluator validated consistency with prior evaluations and adjusted calculation methods.

Savings Calculation The following provides an example of how the monthly savings margin of error was calculated for high users in January 2025 to determine if they were statistically significant or not. This methodology is applied consiste...

AI summary The text outlines a methodology to calculate the monthly savings margin of error for high users in January 2025 using a 90% confidence level. It details the formula for relative margin of error (MoE) and combined standard error (SE), emphasizing statistical significance when savings exceed the margin of error.

for electrical energy savings and 0.514 for peak demand savings. The 0.514 adjustment ratio has a higher margin of error than anticipated, which means this value may not be reliable for future years. Recommendation #1: Use the calculated a...

AI summary The text discusses adjustment ratios (ARs) for energy and demand savings, noting the 0.514 AR's reliability issues. It recommends using calculated ARs (excluding 0.514 for non-lighting/HVAC) and reassessing ratios in 2026. The 2025 BER findings show updated NTGR values for Application Rebates, with higher net savings due to reduced free-ridership and revised adjustment ratios.

Application Rebates Project File Reviews and Participant Site Visits In the fall of 2025, Equilibrium Inc. carried out a full technical review of project documentation for 47 BER-AR projects implemented by 40 participants. Pursuant to the...

AI summary In fall 2025, Equilibrium Inc. conducted technical reviews of 47 BER-AR projects across 40 participants, including site visits and interviews to assess spillover effects, using Appendix V's protocol for evaluation.

3.1 Tracking Sheet Audit To ensure program component results were reliably compiled, the Evaluator first performed a tracking sheet audit aimed at verifying the completeness and consistency of the data submitted by E1. The results obtained...

AI summary The Evaluator conducted a tracking sheet audit to verify the completeness and consistency of data submitted by E1, ensuring reliable compilation of program component results. Corrected tracked savings are detailed in Appendix I.

Custom General Key Findings and Recommendations 2025 Custom-Finding: Custom achieved 30.487 GWh in net electrical energy savings and 6.372 MW in net peak demand savings at the generator in 2025, thereby surpassing by 26% the planned electr...

AI summary The 2025 Custom program exceeded energy savings targets by 26% and 32% for electrical energy and peak demand, respectively. Participation shifted toward BOpt and New Construction, while Retrofit participation declined. Adjustment ratios varied across services, and free-ridership levels decreased for most categories. Evaluated savings were 8% higher than E1-tracked savings.

SEM Findings and Recommendations This subsection provides the key findings from the SEM evaluation. The Evaluator has no specific recommendation for SEM. 2025 SEM-Finding: SEM net electrical energy savings exceeded the 2.657 GWh target by...

AI summary The 2025 SEM evaluation found that net electrical energy savings exceeded targets by 52%, with participation reaching its highest level since 2018. However, savings per participant declined. M&V methodologies were deemed appropriate and accurate, though no specific SEM recommendations were provided.

Table 5: Implementation Status of Past Recommendations for Custom # Recommendations Status Comments 2022-Retrofit-R2 Require measurement and verification (M&V) efforts based on the International Performance Measurement and Verification Pro...

AI summary The 2022-Retrofit-R2 recommendation requires M&V efforts based on the IPMVP Option C approach for indoor horticultural lighting projects. Implementation is in progress, with E1 staff trialing the approach and facing delays that have pushed the assessment into 2026.

Note on Margins 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 condu...

AI summary The Evaluator aimed for a 10% margin of error at 90% confidence in quantitative evaluations. Margins were calculated for Retrofit and New Construction programs but not for Building Optimization and P4P, as all 2025 projects were fully reviewed. Examples of calculations are in Appendix II of the 2025 DSM Programs Evaluation Executive Summary.

3.2 Gross Savings Gross savings correspond to the changes in energy consumption resulting from measures installed or actions taken by Retrofit participants compared to the consumption level had those measures or actions not occurred. [5](#...

AI summary Gross savings are calculated based on energy consumption changes from Retrofit projects. E1 tracks annual savings using M&V practices, combining participant data with engineering assumptions and professional judgments to assess project impacts.

Note on the M&V Approach Used for Compressed Air Leak Projects For most compressed air leak projects completed through Retrofit, permanent or temporary submetering was not available. In these cases, the Evaluator accepted the use of ultras...

AI summary The Evaluator accepts ultrasonic leak detectors as a valid M&V method for compressed air leak projects when submetering is unavailable, citing industry acceptance and cost considerations. Leak-down tests are deemed impractical due to production interruptions. Conservative compressor efficiency assumptions are used when facility-specific data is absent, aligning with IPMVP Core Concepts.

3.2.2 Project Review Sampling Methodology For the regular Retrofit project category, the Evaluator used a stratified sampling approach to select 18 projects for review from a total of 27 projects completed in 2025. More specifically, the E...

AI summary The Evaluator used stratified sampling to review 18 of 27 completed Retrofit projects in 2025, prioritizing larger projects (100% sample rate) and randomly selecting from smaller strata. The sample represented 88% of total energy savings, excluding projects with partial 2025 savings claims. Gross savings were extrapolated using a weighted average adjustment ratio.

3.2.3 Project Review Findings The Evaluator reviewed a sample of projects completed in 2025 to ensure the best M&V practices were applied to commercial and industrial energy efficiency projects and adjusted the tracked savings accordingly....

AI summary The Evaluator reviewed 2025 energy efficiency projects to ensure proper M&V practices were applied, adjusting tracked savings accordingly. Nine ongoing projects with partial 2025 savings claims were excluded from review and will be evaluated upon completion.

4.2 Gross Savings Gross savings correspond to changes in energy consumption resulting from actions taken by participants compared to the consumption level had those actions not occurred. This subsection describes the review methodology use...

AI summary Gross savings are calculated based on energy consumption changes from P4P projects, using M&V practices and data from participants and E1. Engineering assumptions supplement available data to assess project impacts.

\ \ The line loss factors are average values obtained by dividing gross savings at the generator by gross savings at the meter. Each P4P project received its own specific line loss factor depending on participant rate codes. \ \ \ These ar...

AI summary The text discusses the calculation of line loss factors and effective useful life (EUL) values for P4P projects, as well as GHG emission reductions based on Nova Scotia-specific factors applied to P4P gross savings.

The Evaluator determined the net electrical energy and peak demand savings, that is, the electrical energy and peak demand savings that can be reliably attributed to a service, by estimating the NTGR. Specifically, the NTGR includes effect...

AI summary The Evaluator calculated net electrical energy and peak demand savings by estimating the Net-to-Gross Ratios (NTGR), which account for free-ridership and spillover effects. For Pay-for-Performance (P4P), both free-ridership and participant spillover are considered in the NTGR calculation.

Table 22: Comparison of 2025 P4P Tracked and Evaluated Savings at the Generator Gross Savings NTGR Net Savings Realization Rate Value Unit Value Value Unit Value Electrical Energy Savings Tracked Savings by E1 1.274 GWh 0.86 1.095 GWh Eval...

AI summary The table compares tracked and evaluated savings from the 2025 P4P program. Evaluated electrical energy savings were higher than tracked savings due to higher NTGR values used by the Evaluator. Evaluated peak demand savings were lower due to a downward adjustment following the project review process.

5.1 Tracking Sheet Audit To ensure service results were reliably compiled, the Evaluator first performed a tracking sheet audit intended to verify the completeness and consistency of the data submitted by E1. The verification and correctiv...

AI summary The Evaluator conducted a tracking sheet audit to verify the completeness and consistency of data submitted by EfficiencyOne (E1), with detailed verification and corrective actions outlined in Appendix XII. The reported tracked savings reflect corrected data.

5.2.2 Project Review Findings The 12 project reviews were intended to validate the energy models developed for the baseline and proposed cases of each project and the resulting savings. The Evaluator based the review mainly on the project...

AI summary The project reviews validated energy models for 12 projects, primarily using eQuest. Most files were well-documented, but two projects by a new modeller required remodelling. The Evaluator recommended additional review time for new modellers and clarification on heat recovery ventilator parameters in program guidelines.

6.1 Tracking Sheet Audit To ensure service results were reliably compiled, the Evaluator first performed a tracking sheet audit aimed at verifying the completeness and consistency of the data submitted by E1. The verification and correctiv...

AI summary A tracking sheet audit was conducted by the Evaluator to verify the completeness and consistency of data submitted by E1. Corrective actions are detailed in Appendix V, ensuring the reliability of tracked savings results presented in the report.

6.2 Gross Savings Gross savings correspond to changes in energy consumption resulting from actions taken by Building Optimization participants compared to the consumption level had those actions not occurred. The following subsections desc...

AI summary Gross savings are calculated based on energy consumption changes from Building Optimization projects, using data from participants and E1, supplemented by engineering assumptions. The Evaluator applied best measurement and verification practices for commercial and industrial energy efficiency projects.

11.2.1 Project Review Findings The Evaluator reviewed the calculation methodologies for the 18 SEM measures based on project documentation and information from interviews with participants (where required) and the Service Provider. All exc...

AI summary The Evaluator reviewed 18 SEM measures' M&V methodologies, finding most approaches thorough and aligned with best practices. Bottom-up and top-down methods were used appropriately depending on context. Adjustments were made to seven measures, with specific attention to compressed air leak quantification using submetering or ultrasonic detectors. Overall, methodologies were deemed reasonable despite practical limitations in testing.

12 SEM Key Findings and Recommendations As mentioned previously, the main objectives of the 2025 SEM evaluation were as follows: › Calculate SEM gross and net results, namely electrical first-year and lifetime electrical energy savings, pe...

AI summary The 2025 SEM evaluation found that SEM exceeded net electrical energy and peak demand savings targets, with 4.031 GWh and 0.372 MW achieved, respectively. Participation levels rose to the highest since 2018, though energy savings per participant dropped by 43% compared to 2024. M&V methodologies were deemed generally appropriate and accurate.

Table 1: Overview of Data Collection Activity Descriptor This Instrument Instrument Type Interview Estimated Time to Complete 30 min. Target Audience Custom Retrofit participants Expected Number of Completions Retrofit up to 18 Contact Lis...

AI summary The document outlines data collection activities through interviews with Custom Retrofit participants, focusing on research objectives such as identifying decision-makers, awareness, free-ridership, cross-influence, spillover effects, measurement and verification, decarbonization, barriers, and satisfaction. Econoler is mentioned as the firm adapting the research.

Project Review Protocol The Evaluator used the same project review protocol in 2025 as the one used for the 2024 Custom Retrofit evaluation. The protocol includes questions and assessment fields for measurement and verification (M&V) plans...

AI summary The Evaluator applied a consistent project review protocol in 2025, similar to 2024, focusing on measurement and verification (M&V) plans, dedicated worksheets for measure-specific data, and pre-review analysis of EfficiencyOne-submitted documents including feasibility studies, M&V reports, and equipment details.

ECONOL ≣I R Efficency Nova Scotia On-Site Visit Protocol - 2025 1. General Info rmation Virtual Visit Date: Project ID: Project Type (Reg Team: essed Air/ Bopt) : Contact Name: Contact Title: Role on the projet: Administer FR/SO? Company N...

AI summary This document outlines a protocol for an on-site visit by Efficiency Nova Scotia in 2025, including sections for general information, facility description, and M&V (Measurement and Verification) plans and documentation. It provides a structured format for collecting and verifying information during the visit.

Operating Schedule Include notes on schedule and seasonal variations. The operating schedule corresponds to the typical one (non-COVID). - 6. Is the M&V period appropriate? (Y/N) - a. Do both the baseline and reporting periods cover all ra...

AI summary The operating schedule includes considerations for the M&V period, asking whether it is appropriate by evaluating if it covers all operation parameters, occurs around the time of EE project implementation, and captures seasonal effects.

Savings calculation approach - Projects with M&V 5. Are the M&V boundaries capturing all the energy consumption that's impacted by the project? (Y/N) 7. Are M&V results measured in a short period extrapolated to annual results appropriatel...

AI summary The document outlines a structured approach for evaluating energy savings calculations using Measurement and Verification (M&V) methods, including questions about M&V boundaries, extrapolation of results, regression validity, and the impact of external factors like COVID-19 on savings calculations. It also includes sections on peak demand savings and interactive effects.

Project Background The participant operates a steel fabrication facility, and the retrofit project consisted of replacing a 100 horsepower (hp) variable speed drive compressor and dryer with two 30 HP compressors and a heatless desiccant d...

AI summary The participant replaced a 100 HP variable speed drive compressor and dryer with two 30 HP compressors and a heatless desiccant dryer, improving compressed air efficiency. Performance data and post-implementation M&V were used to adjust savings calculations.

Revised Savings Calculation The Evaluator found that the assumptions and the analysis performed by the participant were generally sound. However, after reviewing the savings calculations, the Evaluator found a mistake in some of the Excel...

AI summary The Evaluator identified errors in the participant's Excel formulas for calculating savings, which incorrectly omitted post-implementation annual HOU values. Correcting this mistake increased gross electrical energy savings estimates, though peak demand savings remained unaffected as correct HOU values were used for those calculations.

DEFINITIONS Accuracy Reflects the proximity of measurements to the true value. Baseline To determine gross savings, a baseline (or base case) is established, providing detailed information about the reference (e.g. pre-existing or standard...

AI summary The text defines key terms related to energy efficiency and measurement, including accuracy, baseline, bias, billing calibration, and confidence interval. These definitions are essential for evaluating the effectiveness of energy-saving measures and ensuring accurate measurement and verification processes.

Finding : Program documentation has not kept pace with program changes. Residential DR information is blended with BNI DR information in the program manual, without clear delineation between sectors. 2025 Res DR Recommendation 1: Include a...

AI summary Residential DR program documentation is outdated, blending Residential and BNI DR information without clear separation. Participation surged by 907% in 2024/25, but DR capacity fell short of targets. High retention rates contrast with enrollment tracking gaps due to inconsistent data collection and lack of unique identifiers.

BNI DR Findings and Recommendations This subsection presents the key findings and recommendations from the 2025 BNI DR evaluation. 2025 BNI DR - Finding: In 2025, BNI DR available DR capacity at the generator amounted to 5.941 MW. Therefor...

AI summary The 2025 BNI DR evaluation found that available DR capacity (5.941 MW) fell short of the 10.726 MW target. Morning events generated higher capacity than evening ones, and while participation increased by 88%, capacity per participant dropped from 106 kW to 42 kW due to non-participation. Recommendations include process evaluations in 2026 and project reviews to improve accuracy and savings tracking.

3.1.2 Operational Review Workshop Results (April 2025) CLEAResult (the service provider for the Smart Thermostat, EV, and Battery pathways) facilitated a workshop on April 14, 2025 focused on the second DR season (2024/25). The workshop wa...

AI summary CLEAResult facilitated a workshop with E1 and NS Power to review the 2024/25 DR season, highlighting Residential DR growth, manufacturer integrations, and event operations. Action items included improving device connectivity, participant education, and DERMS data collection. The 2025/26 season will involve the Evaluator.

EV Telematics and Chargers For EV telematics and chargers, the Evaluator used device-level data to establish consumption during and after DR events and calculate what would have been drawn from the grid during the events in the absence of...

AI summary The Evaluator used device-level data to calculate demand response (DR) capacity by analyzing EV charger consumption during and after DR events. Data was cleaned to remove duplicates, and hourly savings were calculated by comparing energy use during events with post-event consumption, assuming devices stopped charging during events. Non-responsive devices were excluded from the analysis.

2025 Res DR-Finding: Residential DR participation grew substantially during the 2024/25 DR season. In the 2024/25 DR season, Residential DR participation increased by 907% compared to 2023/24 levels, reaching 3,676 participants and 11,405...

AI summary Residential DR participation surged 907% in 2024/25, reaching 3,676 participants and 11,405 devices, but failed to meet its 7.135 MW capacity target (actual: 0.854 MW). Retention remains high (>90%), yet 40% of EPI-program recipients did not enroll in DR despite mandatory enrollment rules.

Project Reviews with Meter Data Analysis E1 staff sampled and reviewed a total of 30 meters to establish tracked available DR capacity. The sample was stratified so that the 20 meters generating the largest amount of tracked available DR c...

AI summary E1 staff conducted a stratified review of 30 meters to evaluate demand response (DR) capacity, ensuring accuracy by validating adjustments beyond standard M&V protocols. The sample included 20 high-capacity meters and 10 randomly selected smaller ones, confirming 71% of savings with no margin of error. The Evaluator verified calculations and load profiles to confirm correct M&V application.

8 BNI DR Impact Evaluation The main objective of the 2025 BNI DR impact evaluation was to determine available DR capacity. In addition, the Evaluator validated that the M&V protocol agreed upon following the last two evaluations, including...

AI summary The 2025 BNI DR impact evaluation aimed to assess available demand response (DR) capacity and validate the correct application of the measurement and verification (M&V) protocol from previous evaluations, ensuring consistency in exception handling.

9 BNI DR Key Findings and Recommendations As previously mentioned, the main objective of the 2025 BNI DR evaluation was as follows: › Calculate BNI DR results, namely the available DR capacity This section provides the Evaluator's key find...

AI summary The 2025 BNI DR evaluation found that the program missed its available DR capacity target (5.941 MW vs. 10.726 MW). Morning events generated higher capacity than evening ones. Enrollment increased by 88%, but per-participant capacity dropped from 106 kW to 42 kW due to low event participation (60% non-participation). The Evaluator recommends process evaluations in 2026 and project reviews to improve participation and accuracy.

Residential Demand Response Appendix I: Residential DR Non-participant Survey Questionnaire Appendix II: Residential DR Non-participant Survey Results Appendix III: Residential DR Service Provider Interview Guide Appendix IV: Residential D...

AI summary The document outlines appendices related to Nova Scotia's Residential Demand Response (RDR) initiative, including survey questionnaires, service provider interviews, tracking sheets, data analysis methodologies, regression coefficients, and 2025 recommendations for RDR program implementation and evaluation.

APPENDIX V Residential DR Smart Thermostat DLC Detailed Metering Data Analysis Methodology This appendix summarizes the methodology used by the Evaluator to establish the available DR capacity for the Smart Thermostat Direct Load Control (...

AI summary This appendix outlines the methodology for evaluating residential demand response (DR) capacity from smart thermostats using metering data. The Evaluator updated unitary DR capacity values for subgroups of space heating systems, analyzing whole-house consumption data to predict hourly load and compare expected vs. actual loads during events, prioritizing whole-house data over device-level data to account for interactive effects.

Where: - $\rightarrow$ $\beta_{D,H}$ is the regression intercept. - $\alpha_{D.H}$ is the regression slope. - $\rightarrow$ RMSE h is the hourly model root mean square error. - $n_h$ is the number of observations. - $\bar{x}_h$ is the mean...

AI summary The text outlines statistical methods for evaluating demand response (DR) program effectiveness, including regression models, error propagation calculations, and uncertainty quantification for load reduction estimates. Key metrics include RMSE, standard error, and unitary savings calculations.

General Guidelines Following are general guidelines that serve as the de facto assumptions for any DR M&V - › High 6 of 10 baseline - › Additive adjustment - › Adjustment lookback window spans two hours - › Adjustment lookback window start...

AI summary The guidelines outline baseline assumptions for Demand Response (DR) Measurement and Verification (M&V), including a 60% baseline threshold, symmetric adjustments capped at ±20%, a two-hour lookback window starting three hours pre-event, exclusion of holidays/weekends, and additive adjustment methodology.

E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-01: 2 3 Evidence – Exhibit E-1, pp.1-71 (pdf pp. 8-78) 4 5 Pdf pg. 9 outlines that the Preferred Plan will save 14 GWh of energy through low...

AI summary The document outlines responses to information requests by the Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) regarding energy savings estimates from E1's programming and a Purchase Agreement with NS Power. E1 refers to previous responses for details on savings calculations and requests confirmation of NS Power's agreement with proposed changes.

Date Filed: May 28, 2026 NSEB-17, Attachment 1, Page 46 of 46 REDACTED 1 Request IR-18: 10 a) Please provide the market research and market comparisons 11 prepared by independent third parties that were used by E1 12 to ensure that its cos...

AI summary The text includes a request for market research, market comparisons, and details on E1's incentive program and third-party audits. It also references diversity in program delivery and mentions the submission of independent reviews and audits to ensure accurate reporting.

TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH Technology research can provide both the basis for the value of the incentive investment through understanding the energy savings and it can provide insight into how often the incentive should be reviewed. It is very im...

AI summary The document outlines parameters for evaluating technology research in the context of energy efficiency programs. It emphasizes the importance of understanding factors such as technology penetration, cost, and energy savings to determine appropriate incentive levels. Reviews of these parameters are conducted annually or bi-annually through the Technology Research Methodology (TRM) process.

INSTANT SAVINGS PROGRAM FINANCIAL SIMULATION For the Instant Savings Program, the program financial simulation analysis included the following six steps for each measure: - 1. Identify the current (2015) participation and incentive level;...

AI summary The Instant Savings Program's financial simulation analysis involves six steps to evaluate participation, market penetration, and cost-effectiveness thresholds for each measure. The process compares current incentive levels to these thresholds to determine if changes are needed.

While Ontario does not have a documented incentive level setting methodology, a formal process has been established for all potential program changes and new program proposals. This process covers incentive level changes. All proposed chan...

AI summary Ontario's incentive level setting process involves a formal business case development and approval process, requiring input from LDCs, IESO, and market research. Incentive levels are reviewed annually or as needed, with specific programs like the Retrofit program recently updating prescriptive lighting incentives based on historical and future participation trends.

re po g a mo un an ( Ap lica tio n R eb s) ult ha mb ine d w ith in mb the ed in th ab le AR by in ad dit ion th bin ed ate s t t a nts e t to p res re co nu ers am ou us pr og ram e c om , , the Bo ard O ing R . O P M wi ll ed th e B rd b...

AI summary The text discusses the integration of application rebates within a program, the Board's role in reviewing and approving such programs, and potential errors in reporting. It highlights concerns about the accuracy of data, the need for proper calculation and disclosure, and the importance of ensuring transparency and reliability in the process.

Process improvement opportunities thth

AI summary The document discusses process improvement opportunities, focusing on areas where efficiency and effectiveness can be enhanced within the regulatory framework. It highlights the need for improvements in various processes and outlines potential initiatives to achieve these goals.

Digital enablement Reliance on manual processes is inhibiting efficiency and productivity: Many manual work processes remain in place (e.g. manually maintained spreadsheets and data sources). This can complicate simple inquiries, lead to d...

AI summary The document highlights inefficiencies caused by reliance on manual processes, such as spreadsheets, which hinder productivity and create heavy workloads. It also notes upcoming digital implementations in HR and Finance, emphasizing the need for strategies to manage change and ensure user adoption to avoid disruptions.

E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 providing the NSEB with an objective, independently verified basis on which to assess E1's 2 compliance with its mandate. E1 respectfully submits that...

AI summary E1 submits that the proposed Performance Targets are appropriate for the NSEB's oversight, and that Performance Indicators should remain supplemental rather than being elevated to formal targets. E1 argues that the scale of its DSM investment is proportionate to its mandate and that additional targets would impose unnecessary costs on ratepayers.

- 3 Please also refer to E1's response to part (a) of Synapse IR-70 for further detail. 1 Request IR-44: 2 3 Appendix A - Preferred Plan pp. 1-112 (Attach. 1-5) 4 5 Exhibit E-1, Appendix A, page 108 of 112 (pdf pg. 196): 6 7 E1 discusses e...

AI summary E1 (Nova Scotia Power) responds to the Nova Scotia Energy Board's information request regarding performance targets for estimation accuracy and program spending variances. E1 argues against establishing these as standalone targets, citing the need for flexibility in responding to market conditions and customer uptake, while emphasizing the importance of core performance targets such as energy savings and demand response capacity.

er measures or programs that pass cost-effectiveness with a smaller margin. Identify any safeguards against designing programs at the highest unit cost that still passes the cost-effectiveness test. (f) Explain what mechanisms in the propo...

AI summary The text requests explanations on safeguards against high-cost programs passing cost-effectiveness tests and mechanisms to reduce unit costs below forecasts while meeting savings targets.

portfolio that remains cost-effective in aggregate. Second, measures that fail the cost-effectiveness test require explicit justification , reinforcing scrutiny of marginal or high-cost offerings. (f) The 2027–2031 DSM Plan establishes a s...

AI summary The 2027–2031 DSM Plan mandates cost-effectiveness for E1, linking spending to savings outcomes through fixed performance targets, customer incentives, and mid-course adjustments (MCA). It emphasizes budget reallocation, regulatory oversight, and accountability to ensure savings obligations are met efficiently while pursuing lower-cost opportunities.

Table 1: STANDARDIZED FILING FRAMEWORK ITEM DESCRIPTION 4.6 Reporting and Performance Metrics A summary of EfficiencyOne's proposed regular reporting initiatives to the UARB NSEB and the DSMAG for the upcoming period (e.g., Annual Progress...

AI summary The document discusses the standardized filing framework, focusing on reporting and performance metrics for EfficiencyOne, including proposed regular reporting initiatives and performance metrics for the upcoming period. It also mentions the development of the upcoming period's DSM Resource Plan.

Table 2: PROGRAM DESCRIPTION TEMPLATE ITEM DESCRIPTION 1. OVERVIEW A brief description of the program intent, target market, and type of service or rebate. 2. OBJECTIVES Long-term objectives for the program. 3. OPPORTUNITY A summary of the...

AI summary This section provides a template for describing demand-side management (DSM) programs, including their objectives, market potential, implementation strategies, and performance indicators such as energy savings, demand response capacity, and cost-effectiveness. It also outlines specific considerations for low-income and equity performance.

4.3.3.1 DEFINITIONS To provide clarity, the following definitions are used[:20](#page-65-0) Performance Metric: A quantifiable measure that is used to track and assess the status of a specific achievement. Performance Indicators: A set of...

AI summary The section defines key terms related to performance metrics, indicators, targets, and thresholds, emphasizing their use in tracking progress and achieving organizational goals. These definitions are used in the context of regulatory approvals by the UARB.

4.6.1 ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORTS In the first quarter of the calendar year, E1 will file an Annual Progress Report (APR) with the NSEB, which will include the following information:[26](#page-70-0) - A summary of the context, activities and m...

AI summary E1 is required to submit an Annual Progress Report (APR) to the NSEB, detailing prior year activities, performance indicators, and program costs and savings. The APR also serves as a means to notify the NSEB and stakeholders of any significant changes to the approved Plan, such as adding or terminating programs or altering budget targets.

10.2 PERFORMANCE TARGETS AND INDICATORS In each DSM Plan application, E1 proposes performance target metrics and indicators, to be considered and approved by the NSEB. Round 2 Model Input Assumptions and Results For the 2027-2031 DSM Plan,...

AI summary E1 proposes performance target metrics and indicators for the 2027-2031 DSM Plan, to be reviewed and approved by the NSEB. Metrics include energy savings, demand response capacity, and solar-PV generation. E1 invites comments from the DSMAG and anticipates consistency with past performance indicators, with adjustments for new DSM resources.

Appendix 1 ITEM DESCRIPTION 4.5 Evaluation Proposed evaluation activities for the upcoming period, including a summary of any changes that are planned for evaluation activities over the upcoming period. 4.6 Reporting and Performance A summ...

AI summary The text outlines proposed evaluation activities, reporting initiatives, and performance metrics for EfficiencyOne's upcoming DSM Resource Plan. It also references alternate scenarios for the DSM Plan and includes a citation to a 2015 NSUARB Order related to the 2016-2018 DSM Plan.

4.3.3.1 DEFINITIONS To provide clarity, the following definitions are used: 33 Performance Metric: A quantifiable measure that is used to track and assess the status of a specific achievement. Performance Indicators: A set of particular pe...

AI summary The section defines key terms related to performance management, including performance metrics, indicators, targets, and thresholds, all of which are used to monitor and achieve organizational goals as approved by the UARBNSEB.

Performance Indicators may include: - i. Annual incremental energy savings (reported by program and rate class); - ii. Cumulative annual energy savings (reported by program and rate class); - iii. Annual lifetime energy savings (reported b...

AI summary The text outlines a list of performance indicators that may be included in regulatory proceedings, focusing on energy savings, demand response, customer satisfaction, and cost-effectiveness testing. These metrics are reported by program and rate class, and include both annual and cumulative data, as well as considerations for low-income communities and equity impacts.

4.6.1 ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORTS In the first quarter of the calendar year, E1 will file an Annual Progress Report (APR) with the NSEB, which will include the following information:[38](#page-153-1) - A summary of the context, activities and...

AI summary E1 is required to file an Annual Progress Report (APR) with the NSEB, including program performance, expenditures, and forecast information. Quarterly reports will also be filed, providing updates on savings targets, variances, and program activities. Significant changes to the DSM Plan must be reported in advance.

Program description content is described in Table 3. Table 3: Program Description Template Item Description 1. Overview Intent, target market, and type of service or rebate. 2. Objectives Long-term objectives for the program. 3. Opportunit...

AI summary The document outlines a program description template used in regulatory proceedings, focusing on demand side management standards, including program objectives, design, performance indicators, and equity considerations.

Performance Indicators E1 will propose DSM resource specific performance indicators within each DSM Resource Plan filing for consideration and approval by the Board. Performance indicators may include annual incremental and cumulative ener...

AI summary E1 proposes to include specific performance indicators in each DSM Resource Plan filing for Board approval. These indicators cover energy and peak demand savings, customer satisfaction, equity impacts, and cost-effectiveness, among others.

ENTERPRISE RISK AND RISK MANAGEMENT NSPI has a business-wide risk management process which is monitored by the Board of Directors, and also reviewed with the Emera Enterprise Risk Management Committee to ensure risks are appropriately iden...

AI summary NSPI has a comprehensive risk management process overseen by its Board of Directors and the Emera Enterprise Risk Management Committee. The company identifies and assesses significant business risks that could impact its operations, financial position, and reputation, acknowledging that risks may evolve or combine to create material adverse effects.

RISK MANAGEMENT INCLUDING FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS NSPI's risk management policies and procedures provide a framework through which management monitors various risk exposures. The risk management policies and practices are monitored by the Bo...

AI summary NSPI's risk management policies are overseen by the Board of Directors and include processes for identifying and mitigating material risks. The company uses financial instruments such as forwards and swaps to manage commodity and foreign exchange risks. Derivatives are accounted for under regulatory standards, with gains or losses potentially passed to customers via the Fuel Adjustment Mechanism.

l review the findings to understand how program design, dispatch parameters, event timing, duration, and resource mix can be optimized to increase the capacity value of demand response for ratepayers. Request IR-59: Please refer to page 82...

AI summary The response to Request IR-59 discusses how past-season performance is factored into projected achievable demand response capacity, including adjustments to enrollment, retention, and per-device response rates based on observed results. It also addresses the increase in C&I Curtailment potential from 2026 to 2027 despite declining participation.

Conclusion The Demand Response Program substantially expanded its addressable footprint in 2025 — Residential DR participation grew nearly tenfold and BNI DR enrolment nearly doubled — but in-event participation, not enrolment, remained th...

AI summary The Demand Response Program expanded significantly in 2025, but only 38% of the 17.861 MW target was met due to low in-event participation. The evaluation highlights the need for improved communication, event design, and process evaluations to align delivered capacity with targets in the next planning cycle.

5. Demand Response (DR) SVR25-DR-20: Verification teams encountered some confusion surrounding the use and function of DR automation for the Residential DR (Eco Shift) operations. It is recommended that E1 provide more detailed information...

AI summary The document outlines recommendations and issues related to the Demand Response (DR) program, specifically focusing on Residential DR (Eco Shift) and BNI DR (Smart Synergy). Key issues include confusion around DR automation, the need for restructuring program manuals, improving participant engagement, and evaluating the impact of new participation thresholds and metering analyses.

Why or why not? Please confirm multiplier interpretation. 158 CA IR-2(a) 257 b. What threshold — expressed, for example, in MWh, in $/kWh acquisition cost, 258 or as a share of sector or portfolio savings — does the team use, or 259 recomm...

AI summary The text discusses questions related to defining thresholds for distinguishing negligible from meaningful savings in energy efficiency programs, referencing a previous matter (M12249) where no threshold was specified. It also mentions the lack of reconciliation of definitions and the absence of a quantitative threshold in the 2025 Savings Verification Review.

6 Q. HOW SHOULD THIS TARGET BE MADE ENFORCEABLE? 7 A. Through the plan-oversight mechanisms I discuss earlier in this testimony. As I 8 recommend in the section on plan reporting and review, the four dedicated low-income 9 components shoul...

AI summary The response suggests making the target enforceable by consolidating low-income components into a single program, using a 20% explanation threshold and a 14.9% savings level as performance targets. This would ensure consistent oversight and trigger remedies if targets are not met.

years, producing 29.3 MW of available capacity, representing less than one percent for a system with 2,460 MW peak, with a levelized unit cost of $240.1/kW-year and a PAC result of 1.7.[5](#page-8-0) The Plan's DR proposal also demonstrate...

AI summary The document assesses E1's Preferred Plan, highlighting concerns about the low PAC result for residential demand response and the exclusion of strategic electrification due to failure to meet the Board's modified PAC test. It argues for greater accountability, performance obligations, and improved program design for DR and SE to ensure they contribute effectively to system reliability and cost reduction.

UTILITY REGULATORY AND BUSINESS MODELS - Assisted the New York Department of Public Service to develop a comprehensive financial model of a representative (downstate) New York utility capable of demonstrating the impacts of REV initiatives...

AI summary The Brattle Group has assisted various utilities in developing regulatory and business models, including financial modeling for REV initiatives, performance incentive metrics, and alternative regulatory frameworks. Work included stakeholder engagement, analysis of incentive regulation frameworks, and evaluation of performance-based regulation (PBR) models.

tarios-Full-Scale-Roll-Out-of-TOU-Rates.pdf - Comparative Generation Costs of Utility-Scale and Residential Scale PV in Xcel Energy Colorado's Service Area, with Bruce Tsuchida, Bob Mudge, Will Gorman, Peter Fox-Penner and Jens Schoene (En...

AI summary The document lists various whitepapers and reports authored by Sanem Sergici and colleagues, focusing on topics such as time-of-use rates, energy efficiency, demand response, and measurement and verification principles. These works were prepared for organizations such as Xcel Energy, The Sustainable FERC Project, and Opower.

EXPERT EVIDENCE AND REGULATORY FILINGS - Before the New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board, "Review of NB Power Cost Allocation Methods for Production Plant", report filed on behalf of New Brunswick Power, Matter EL-002-2026, May 2026 (w...

AI summary The document outlines various expert reports filed in different regulatory proceedings across multiple jurisdictions, including New Brunswick, Texas, New Mexico, Maryland, and Quebec. These reports cover topics such as cost allocation methods, time-varying rate pilots, performance incentive mechanisms, and productivity evaluations.

r, this argument is buttressed by the IESO- NS 2026 ELCC study, which shows that at lower levels of residential DR penetration, the estimated ELCC is greater than 90 percent. Please refer to IG IR-12. Request IR-8: Reference: E-22, page 16...

AI summary The argument is supported by the IESO-NS 2026 ELCC study, which highlights the effectiveness of residential demand response at lower penetration levels. The response to IR-8 outlines Brattle Group's recommendations for performance, accreditation, and cost-effectiveness metrics for demand response, based on experience and professional judgment, and suggests including metrics from other jurisdictions.

//irac.pe.ca/wp-content/uploads/PEI-Potential-Study-Final-Report-Volume-I-.pdf) PSE Conservation and Demand Response Assessment, Appendix E. 2023 Electric Progress Report. Request IR-10: Reference: E-22, Page 16. Finally, E1 should be requ...

AI summary The text discusses the need for E1 to report DR performance comprehensively, including annual accreditation and performance reporting after each peak season. It emphasizes the importance of verified peak reduction and other metrics to ensure DR can be reliably used in system planning and operations. The response refers to previous IR responses for detailed recommendations.

so it is still nascent relative to the incremental levels assumed in the ELCC study. Even with increasing participation, residential DR will have an ELCC of >90 percent until it hits 10 MW. At levels above that, it can still offer meaningf...

AI summary The text discusses the effectiveness of residential demand response (DR) programs, noting their high ELCC until reaching 10 MW. It also addresses managed EV charging programs, confirming that E1's 2027-2031 Preferred Plan does not include such programs, though savings from managed EV charging can be captured within a DR program framework.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 does not fully capture broader non-electric fuel savings, emissions benefits, or customer 2 benefits. However, unless the applicable test is changed, Brattle's recommendation is not 3 to override the modified PAC result;...

AI summary The text discusses the need for E1 to develop a more targeted and flexible SE (Smart Electrification) portfolio that passes the approved test, rather than overriding the modified PAC result. It highlights that the current approach does not fully capture non-electric fuel savings or emissions benefits.

M12780 - In the Matter of EfficiencyOne's (E1) 2027–2031 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan Application 1 a) I do not make specific recommendations as to how the SE offerings should be structured. 2 I note that E1's SE Round 2 mode...

AI summary The document discusses EfficiencyOne's (E1) 2027–2031 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan Application. It highlights the lack of specific recommendations on structuring Solar Energy (SE) offerings and the absence of data on BNI DR curtailment performance by event hour. It also addresses the need for equal weighting in performance measurement and the potential impact on BNI PAC BCRs.

E1 Rebuttal Evidence - E1 supports transparent, meaningful reporting on Demand Response performance and already reports on - the program through its Annual Progress Reports and annual evaluation reports. This reporting already - includes:...

AI summary E1 provides detailed reporting on Demand Response (DR) performance through Annual Progress Reports and evaluations, covering participation rates, device failures, costs, and capacity metrics. E1 is uncertain about the need for a separate accreditation report and would evaluate its cost and value if required.

1. Annual Adjustment Process - (a) Renaming. The process previously described in the Application as a "mid-course adjustment" (MCA) process is renamed the "Annual Adjustment Process", for purposes of clarity, and in particular to distingui...

AI summary The Annual Adjustment Process is being renamed and modified to include a dedicated low-income/equity program, adjusted variance thresholds measured over a five-year cumulative basis, a specific approval pathway for variances exceeding thresholds, and enhanced reporting requirements including mid-year and forward outlooks.

Request IR-2: - Approval of Purchase Agreement with NS Power: Pdf pg. 9 of the Application states: "E1 also requests the NSEB's approval of its Purchase Agreement with NS Power, together with the associated Performance Targets, which is at...

AI summary Request IR-2 seeks approval of a Purchase Agreement with NS Power, including Performance Targets. Questions focus on NS Power's agreement to changes in Appendix D and the rationale for replacing 'Annual' with 'Total Net' performance targets over the DSM plan's term.

years. The justification for the measure is: "This is a measure that many retailers can offer so it helps us provide a more robust offering. This measure also has added health benefits, as it helps improve indoor air - a) Please provide mo...

AI summary The document includes questions and requests related to the justification for energy efficiency measures, their payback periods, alignment with legislative frameworks, and discrepancies in financial data between different sections of the DSM plan. It also addresses compliance with the 2025 BCA Decision and the use of long-run marginal emissions rates in emissions impact calculations.

measures such as building envelope upgrades, heat pump installations, and 1 i. Does E1 agree that there are risks associated with the proposed 2027-2031 2 savings and higher lifetime value per dollar invested, but at a higher first-year 3...

AI summary The text outlines questions posed to E1 regarding the risks of proposed 2027-2031 measures, including building upgrades and heat pump installations, and their impact on electricity rates. It also asks for details on market research, employee compensation, incentive programs, and third-party audits.

Request IR-29: Table 11: Proposed 2027-2031 DSM Preferred Plan Performance Targets provides the expected energy savings. Please provide the number of customers by rate class that E1 forecasts participating in programs under each demand res...

AI summary The document requests E1 to provide the number of customers by rate class expected to participate in demand-side management (DSM) programs under the 2027-2031 performance targets to achieve energy savings. This data is part of the proposed DSM Preferred Plan Performance Targets outlined in Table 11, aiming to meet energy savings goals through targeted customer participation across different rate classes.

Request IR-42: - Exhibit E-1, Appendix A, page 99 of 112 (pdf pg.187), Table 62: 2027-2031 DSM Preferred Plan Performance Indicators: - a. For each performance indicator identified, please discuss why the indicator should not be developed...

AI summary Request IR-42 seeks analysis of Exhibit E-1, Appendix A, page 99 of 112 (pdf pg.187), Table 62, which outlines 2027-2031 DSM Preferred Plan Performance Indicators. The request asks why each indicator should not be developed as a performance target.

Request IR-44: - Exhibit E-1, Appendix A, page 108 of 112 (pdf pg. 196): - E1 discusses enhancements it agreed to make in the 2026 DSM Extension matter. - a. Should estimation accuracy be established as a performance target? If not, why no...

AI summary The document outlines questions regarding performance targets for estimation accuracy and program spending under the 2026 DSM Extension matter. It also raises concerns about mid-course adjustments and the need for enhanced reporting to address Industrial Group's disputes.

c. Please explain the primary issues or barriers associated with allowing interruptible customers to become eligible participants in the BNI Demand Response program. d. When will E1 engage in further discussions with the DSMAG members on t...

AI summary The text includes multiple information requests (IR-57 to IR-59) related to Nova Scotia's demand response programs, eligibility criteria for interruptible customers, exclusion of certain technologies, and capacity estimates. Questions address inconsistencies in supported technologies, ELCC impacts, and past performance adjustments.

demand." 1 b. Does the avoided capacity cost reflect the value of the load reduction that coincided 2 with the utility peak period? If so, how can the benefits of the program be evaluated if 3 the data regarding the coincidence of the load...

AI summary The document contains several requests related to demand-side management programs, including evaluating avoided capacity costs, analyzing performance differences between morning and evening events, and reviewing progress on various initiatives and plans. It also requests updates on new programs, market transformation efforts, and potential plan amendments.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL (b) Please confirm whether E1 will use the same DSM Potential Study process, approach, and methodology for the IESO Nova Scotia IRP as was used for the 2019 DSM Potential Study? If not, please explain why not and describe...

AI summary The Nova Scotia Public Utilities Board (NSEB) requests E1 (NSPI) to confirm whether the same DSM Potential Study methodology will be used for the IESO Nova Scotia IRP as in 2019. It also seeks definitions of 'significant and unforeseen changes' and thresholds for filing applications with NSEB. The mid-term check-in process is described as enhancing transparency without altering approved targets.

1 Request IR-1: 2 3 Reference: 2025 Savings Verification Review (Exhibit E-17), Introduction, p. 1; Savings 4 Verification Approach, p. 24; and Evaluation Effort for 2025 Programs, p. 22: 5 6 "We have reviewed calculating methods, checked...

AI summary The document outlines a request for information regarding the 2025 Savings Verification Review, including the number of impact evaluations reviewed, the methodology used, and the distribution of site visits. It also references a separate proceeding concerning the approval of a DSM Purchase Agreement and Resource Plan by EfficiencyOne and Nova Scotia Power Inc.

UTILITY REGULATORY AND BUSINESS MODELS - Assisted the New York Department of Public Service to develop a comprehensive financial model of a representative (downstate) New York utility capable of demonstrating the impacts of REV initiatives...

AI summary The text outlines various regulatory and business model assistance projects undertaken by The Brattle Group for utilities across North America. These include developing financial models, incentive regulation frameworks, performance incentive metrics, and alternative regulatory proposals to support utility operations and energy efficiency goals.

______________ DATE UND# DESCRIPTION REQUESTED OF by DUE DATE August 5, 2026 U-6 To provide its documented checklist used to verify the results produced by Guidehouse's proprietary modeling as part of EOne's quality assurance on the inputs...

AI summary The document outlines a series of requests made to EfficiencyOne and Green Energy Economics as part of a regulatory proceeding. These requests pertain to verifying modeling checklists, confirming net-to-gross ratios, providing PAC scores, and reconciling evidence. The due dates for these requests are primarily August 21, 2026, with one request due on August 28, 2026.

August 11, 2026 The Affordable Energy Coalition has long been a strong supporter of Efficiency NS' Demand Side Management programs. We continue to be. The best way to lower bills and increase affordability is through DSM programs. We appre...

AI summary The Affordable Energy Coalition supports Efficiency NS' Demand Side Management (DSM) programs, particularly those targeting low-income households and equity-seeking communities. However, they express concerns about the proposed E1-NSP contract and urge the NS Energy Board to demand improvements, referencing past actions by the UARB.