Topic:"Program Evaluation" in M07151

Table 1 (PCR) (2016) Unnamed: 0 Unnamed: 1 Unnamed: 2 Unnamed: 3 Unnamed: 4 Unnamed: 5 Unnamed: 6 Unnamed: 7 Unnamed: 8 Unnamed: 9 Unnamed: 10 16 NaN Shore Power 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 NaN Total 1 1 1.0 0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 18 NaN NaN N...

AI summary The document presents a table (Table 1) from a 2016 PCR (Preliminary Cost Recovery) proceeding, showing the allocation of program costs among rate classes. It includes data on system benefit costs and participating class benefit costs, with figures and relative shares for residential and small general rate classes.

Request IR-4: Please provide a calculation that shows the allocation of Enabling Strategies expenditures by rate class using the program benefits as a method for calculation enabling strategies as recommended by Elenchus in the May 7 Memor...

AI summary The request asks for a calculation allocating Enabling Strategies expenditures by rate class using program benefits as a method, as recommended by Elenchus in their May 7 Memorandum.

Conclusion In summary, EfficiencyOne offers the following recommendations: - adopt the Cost of Service Allocation approach, provided by NS Power, for the allocation of DSM costs; - adopt NS Power's proposal to true up after each three-year...

AI summary EfficiencyOne recommends adopting NS Power's Cost of Service Allocation approach, triennial true-ups, Elenchus' 2014 methodology for Enabling Strategies, and recovering RSA amounts via GRA or Base Cost of Fuel. The text references a regulatory proceeding involving DSM cost allocation and recovery mechanisms.

ly a subset of customers in each of multiple rate classes. Therefore the allocation to allocation to rate classes other than Residential is very difficult to determine by means of a direct allocation. In principle, the entire amount of Ena...

AI summary The text discusses challenges in allocating Enabling Strategies costs to non-Residential rate classes, highlighting risks of double charging and the high cost of tracking invoices. It argues that allocating based on Program Benefits is more appropriate than the February 2012 method.