E-1Application
29 passages
1 To allow the work performed to remain relevant to NS, both EfficiencyOne and 2 VEIC recommend that the values described in the VEIC Report (specifically 3 Appendix C) form a "living document". 4 5 Specifically, EfficiencyOne plans to und...
AI summary EfficiencyOne seeks the UARB's approval to use specific values from the VEIC Report for future CE testing and to implement annual NEB values on a per-first-year kWh basis for the BNI sector. They also request approval for an ongoing management and update strategy and to base future Low Income NEB estimates on a 2016 Massachusetts study.
he sole ENS program that uses customer simple back as a metric to modify incentives, and has included known customer NEBs (e.g. changes in O&M costs) in that calculation since the program's inception. Also of note is that the TRC test has...
AI summary The Industrial Group (IG) highlights that ENS uses customer simple back metrics with Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) since inception. It criticizes the TRC test's insensitivity to incentive levels and advocates for more quantification of NEBs. The IG argues mercury disposal costs are societal and not suitable for TRC inclusion, while acknowledging the study's potential to reduce incentives through improved customer communication.
2.4 Comments from the Small Business Advocate (Daymark) The Small Business Advocate, via Daymark Energy Advisors, (the "SBA") provided several recommendations relating to the study and Report. These recommendations will be addressed below...
AI summary The Small Business Advocate (SBA), through Daymark Energy Advisors, recommends improving direct energy savings over reliance on NEBs for marginally cost-effective programs. It criticizes the TRC test as flawed, referencing DSMAG discussions.
Attachment 2: EfficiencyOne Special DSMAG Meeting Action Items – March 12, 2018 Date Filed: September 19, 2018 To: DSM Advisory Group From: Cheryl Jenkins, Asa Parker, Vermont Energy Investment Corporation Date: March 12, 2018 Re: Response...
AI summary EfficiencyOne and VEIC respond to DSMAG action items regarding the Massachusetts TRC test, confirming it includes non-energy benefits (NEB) like rate discounts and utility benefits beyond avoided costs. Appendix C of the 2016-2018 Massachusetts TRM lists these benefits. The Massachusetts Energy Efficiency Guidelines define non-electric benefits for Program Participants.
its), [https://www.mass.gov/files/2017-07/Order\_DPU%2009-116%20thru%2009-120%20%281%2028%2010%29.pdf;](https://www.mass.gov/files/2017-07/Order_DPU%2009-116%20thru%2009-120%20%281%2028%2010%29.pdf) 6 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Dep...
AI summary The text references studies on non-energy impacts (NEB) conducted by Massachusetts entities, including research on low-income health/safety benefits and program evaluations. It cites the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (D.P.U.) and related reports, such as those by Three 3 and NMR Group, along with order numbers and URLs for regulatory documents.
Discussion and findings during regulatory review of Program Administrators' 2013-2015 Three-Year Plans 13 In the 2013- 2015 Order approving the Program Administrators' 2013-2015 Three-Year Plans, the Department stated that non-energy impac...
AI summary The Department of Public Utilities reviewed Program Administrators' 2013-2015 Three-Year Plans, focusing on non-energy impacts in cost-effectiveness analyses. The Attorney General argued for reevaluating the TRC test's reliance on non-energy benefits, questioning their reliability, uniformity, and whether they accrue to participants. The Department considered excluding three non-energy impacts (National Security, Refrigerator/Freezer Turn-In, Economic Development) due to societal vs. participant benefit distinctions.
Department Analysis and Findings - In the 2013- 2015 Order, the DPU stated that NEIs are "a well-established component of the program costeffectiveness analyses conducted by the Program Administrators. With the exception of the non-energy...
AI summary The DPU accepted Program Administrators' proposed updates to non-energy impacts, except for point (4), and expects further study through the EM&V framework. Non-energy impacts remain a key component of program cost-effectiveness analyses.
(2) Whether the non-energy impacts should be treated uniformly across programs
AI summary The proceeding examines whether non-energy impacts (NEIs) should be uniformly evaluated across demand-side management programs. Key considerations include TRC methodology, program administrator costs (PAC), and the role of NEB in IRP frameworks.
Position of the Attorney General - "The Attorney General argues that the non-energy impacts for an owner's perceived increase in property value due to energy efficiency measures in the Low-Income Multifamily Retrofit program is subjective,...
AI summary The Attorney General challenges the credibility of non-energy impacts (NEIs) related to property value increases in the Low-Income Multifamily Retrofit program, arguing they rely on subjective survey data rather than expert property valuation. This undermines the reliability of NEIs as a basis for regulatory decisions.
(4) That non-energy impacts for three individual benefits do not accrue specifically to program participants
AI summary The document argues that non-energy impacts (NEIs) for three specific benefits do not exclusively benefit program participants. This challenges the assumption that these impacts are directly tied to participants in efficiency programs, potentially affecting the evaluation of program effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses.
Position of Program Administrators - "In response to the Attorney General's objection to including the national Security non-energy impact as a program benefit in the cost-effectiveness analyses, the Program Administrators assert that the...
AI summary Program Administrators argue that the National Security non-energy impact should not be considered a societal benefit in cost-effectiveness analyses, as it only applies to Massachusetts oil end-use customers, not all participants. They assert this benefit is limited to Massachusetts energy consumers.
Going forward from 2013 Finding that the benefits of the non-energy impacts are quantifiable and flow to Massachusetts ratepayers, subject to the few exceptions identified above, the Department approved the non-energy impacts as proposed i...
AI summary The Department of Public Utilities (D.P.U.) approved non-energy impacts (NEIs) in the 2013-2015 Program Administrators' Three-Year Plans, citing quantifiable benefits to Massachusetts ratepayers. Energy Efficiency Guidelines also require NEIs in cost-effectiveness tests. NEIs were not contested in subsequent 2016-2018 filings.
Synapse Question 1: E1's Response indicates that "VEIC's approach assumed that improvements in comfort within the cooling season are valued equally to those within the heating season" (p. 9). Is this assumption reasonable? VEIC and Efficie...
AI summary E1 challenges VEIC's assumption that comfort improvements in heating and cooling seasons are equally valued. VEIC and EfficiencyOne defend this as reasonable, citing Massachusetts data where heating and cooling degree days were compared to adjust comfort benefits for heat pump systems, as separate categorization wasn't feasible.
Synapse Question 5: Per p. 22 of the VEIC report, a blank cell in the treatment column indicates that the NEB value was directly applied to E1's portfolio. Some clarification is appropriate, however, as all values were apparently adjusted...
AI summary The text clarifies that NEB values in the VEIC report were adjusted for exchange rates and property value differentials. Synapse confirms exchange rate adjustments, while EfficiencyOne and VEIC note property value adjustments are indicated in Table 10 (pages 23-35) with a forthcoming footnote. Discrepancies in reporting methods are highlighted.
Summary of EfficiencyOne Position - True double-counting of property value does not exist in the results of the Massachusetts primary research - ENS agrees with the philosophical argument made by Research Insight, however, does not agree t...
AI summary Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS) acknowledges Research Insight's philosophical argument but disputes its impact on Massachusetts data quantitatively. ENS argues miscategorization of NEBs via pro rata treatment requires costly new research, which is impractical. ENS recommends no changes to VEIC's report, citing no double-counting in Massachusetts primary research results.
Pro-rata Inclusion of Low-Income NEBs - Synapse recommended exploring the inclusion of low-income (LI) NEBs within market-rate programs, based on proportional participation - At the February DSMAG meeting regarding NEBs, VEIC indicated tha...
AI summary Synapse recommended proportionally including low-income NEBs in market-rate programs. VEIC argued additional NEBs would be minimal and not justify effort. Synapse requested data on LI customer participation in ENS programs. Other members had mixed support, with some conditional approval.
Summary of ENS's Position - Required effort and expense to integrate LI NEBs into the analysis of market-rate programs is high - Mass. did not apply this treatment to market-rate programs - The added benefits of performing this step are co...
AI summary ENS argues against integrating LI Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) into market-rate program analyses due to high costs and low added benefits, citing Massachusetts' approach and VEIC's evaluation. ENS does not recommend this integration currently.
Analysis of the Affordable Multifamily Housing Pilot - AEC and others have submitted that the exclusion of lowincome NEBs from the analysis was inappropriate - AEC and others suggested that an initial analysis could include the Affordable...
AI summary AEC and others argue that excluding low-income non-energy benefits (NEBs) from the analysis was inappropriate and suggest including the Affordable Multifamily Housing pilot in initial assessments. Resource Insight recommends incorporating participant and utility NEBs in future evaluations of low-income programs.
Challenges in a Preliminary Assessment - ENS's Affordable Multifamily Housing Pilot has an "open" measure-list (i.e. custom measure approach) - Very few measures have been installed to-date due to challenges in gaining additional participa...
AI summary ENS's Affordable Multifamily Housing Pilot faces low participation due to an open measure-list and barriers to engagement. The Low-Income Advisory Group collaborates with ENS to address these challenges. Few measures have been installed to date.
Impact of NEBs on Investment Allocation - The Industrial Group requested clarification on whether NEBs will affect the distribution of investment within programs - ENS does not anticipate the reallocation of program efforts due to the incl...
AI summary The Industrial Group seeks clarification on whether Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) influence investment distribution. ENS asserts that program efforts will not be reallocated due to NEBs, emphasizing that meeting energy savings targets, maintaining a Balanced Portfolio, and strategic planning remain the primary factors in investment allocation.
Attachment 4: Final VEIC NEBs Report with Appendices – July 12, 2018 Date Filed: September 19, 2018
AI summary Attachment 4 presents the Final VEIC NEBs Report with Appendices dated July 12, 2018, submitted on September 19, 2018. It outlines non-energy benefits (NEBs) analysis for regulatory proceedings, involving entities like Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS) and the Utilities and Ratepayers Board (UARB).
Section 2.0 Introduction to Non-Energy Benefits
AI summary This section introduces non-energy benefits (NEBs) within the context of regulatory proceedings, emphasizing their role in integrated resource planning (IRP) and evaluation, measurement, and verification (EM&V). It highlights the importance of quantifying NEBs alongside energy-related costs for comprehensive decision-making.
Currently, in the screening methodology for Nova Scotia's portfolio, all of the costs of the programs are included in the ratio, but some of the benefits, namely benefits to participants beyond direct energy savings, are not included in th...
AI summary The current screening methodology for Nova Scotia's programs includes all costs but omits some benefits, particularly those beyond direct energy savings. This omission violates the symmetry principle in the National Standard Practice Manual, leading to potentially misleading results. Including all benefits would improve the accuracy of efficiency program valuations for policy-makers and ratepayers.
Tetra Tech and NMR 2011 MA Res and LI NEI Evaluation(76).pdf - TetraTech 2012. Commercial and Industrial Non-Energy Impacts Study. Prepared for the Massachusetts Program Administrators. http://www.rieermc.ri.gov/documents/evaluationstudies...
AI summary The text references studies on non-energy impacts (NEIs) and non-energy benefits (NEBs) conducted by Tetra Tech and DNV GL for Massachusetts Program Administrators. It also mentions Itron's adaptation of NEB values for EmPOWER Maryland, citing a 2014 Itron report and a Maryland PSC order. Documents include evaluations of commercial and industrial energy efficiency programs.
3.1 Local Adjustments to MA TRM Values In some cases, the adaptation of NEBs directly from the MA TRM was not feasible – for example, if a measure in Nova Scotia was similar but not the same as a measure in Massachusetts. In this case, we...
AI summary The document outlines challenges in directly applying Massachusetts TRM NEB values to Nova Scotia measures due to differences in program design. When measures differ, primary research was used to assign NEB values based on technology type (e.g., commercial end-use categories). The process is categorized into six groups, emphasizing technology-based NEB allocation where direct alignment was not possible.
3.2 Adjustments for Residential Measures Some residential measures and some of the Efficient Products were linked with a one-time NEB in the MA TRM. For lighting, this one-time value was attributed to lighting quality and lifetime. In othe...
AI summary Residential measures and efficient products are linked with a one-time non-energy benefit (NEB) in the MA TRM. For lighting, this benefit is attributed to quality and lifetime, while for property value increases, it is prorated to 44% to adjust for higher property values in Massachusetts compared to Nova Scotia. This adjustment is based on the ratio of median house prices in both regions.
Section 4.0 Methodology for Total Resource Cost Test Comparisons
AI summary Section 4.0 outlines the methodology for comparing Total Resource Cost (TRC) tests, likely involving evaluation frameworks and cost-benefit analyses for energy efficiency programs. Key entities and acronyms related to regulatory proceedings and energy management are referenced.
6.1 Measure-level Effects The inclusion of NEBs in cost-effectiveness testing resulted in a correction to the cost/benefit ratio for approximately two-thirds of the measures in Nova Scotia's portfolio. The research assigned NEB values to m...
AI summary Incorporating Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) in cost-effectiveness testing altered the cost/benefit ratio for two-thirds of Nova Scotia's energy efficiency measures, while 82 measures remained unchanged. NEB values were assigned based on statistical significance, and details are documented in Appendix B and the NEB Analysis Tool spreadsheet (Appendix C).
Appendix A: NEBs Research Studies NMR Group Inc. / TetraTech 2011. Massachusetts Special and Cross-Sector Studies Area, Residential and Low-Income Non-Energy Impacts (NEI) Evaluation. Prepared for the Massachusetts Program Administrators....
AI summary A 2011 study by NMR Group and TetraTech evaluated Non-Energy Impacts (NEIs) from Massachusetts' residential and low-income efficiency programs. The research used literature reviews, interviews, and surveys to quantify NEIs, influencing regulator-approved values in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Maryland.
E-6E1 (NSPI) RIR-1 to RIR-43
13 passages
E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Power Incorporated Information Requests 1 Request IR-02: 2 3 Ref: Application, page 4 of 15, lines 18, 19. 4 5 Please provide the results of all research undertaken by E1 to "identify and distill the 6 approach...
AI summary E1 responded to Nova Scotia Power Incorporated's request by providing a list of North American jurisdictions that do and do not consider non-energy benefits in their primary cost effectiveness testing, as part of research on quantifying non-energy benefits for the TRC test.
Twenty Years of Progress on NEBs Over the past 20 years, NEB research has progressed from hypothesized lists of generalized benefits that might be attributable to programs, to tentative applications in lowincome programs, to full-fledged e...
AI summary Over 20 years, NEB research evolved from hypothetical benefit lists to detailed estimation across hundreds of programs. Key steps include early low-income program applications and expanded categorization of benefits (Skumatz 2013, Skumatz et al. 2009).
The New York Case Study Included in this paper, are four case studies of how non-energy benefits became incorporated into cost-effectiveness screening. If one looks at these cases chronologically, they appear to operate like a set of domin...
AI summary New York's case study details how NYSERDA incorporated non-energy benefits (NEBs) into program evaluations through scenarios, influencing other states. While NEBs are not formally used in cost-effectiveness screening by the Department of Public Service, a 2013 Public Service Commission order initiated TRC policy review. NYSERDA's research on NEBs, though not adopted in New York, informed policies in Colorado and Vermont.
The Colorado Case Study Two main factors led to Colorado's 2008 decision to adopt an NEB adder for electric and low-income electric programs: evidence from research and the engagement of interveners. Evidence in research contributed greatl...
AI summary Colorado's 2008 decision to adopt an NEB adder for electric and low-income programs was driven by research evidence and interverner support. The Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) incorporated an NEB adder into a modified Total Resource Cost Test (TRC). Proxy values (e.g., 10% for electric programs) were mandated for cost-effectiveness analyses, with special consideration for low-income programs using a Utility Cost Test (UCT) if TRC fell below 1.0.
Lessons Learned Combining social equity goals with energy efficiency goals introduces competing priorities that might require revision throughout the course of program operations. Therefore, when such goals are combined, it is important to...
AI summary Combining social equity and energy efficiency goals creates competing priorities requiring ongoing program review and flexibility to adjust and rebalance objectives throughout implementation.
- Skumatz, L. 2002. "Comparing Participant Valuation Results using Three Advanced Survey Measurement Techniques: New Non-Energy Benefits Computations of Participant Value," Proceedings of the 2002 ACEEE Summer Study on Buildings . - Skumat...
AI summary The references focus on Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) and Non-Energy Impacts (NEIs) in energy efficiency programs, with studies by Lisa Skumatz and organizations like ACEEE, SERA, and CIEE. Key topics include evaluating NEBs in cost-effectiveness tests, low-income programs, and impact evaluation methodologies.
Quantification - Computational - Participant Surveys - Statistical Analysis of Revealed Preferences - Existing Research-other jurisdictions - Percent Adder
AI summary The document outlines quantification methods including computational analysis, participant surveys, statistical analysis of revealed preferences, existing research from other jurisdictions, and the use of a percent adder. These approaches aim to evaluate demand-side management and energy efficiency programs.
5. Cost-effectiveness Screening Rationale and Practices at the Portfolio, Program, Project and Measure level. The EEU scope of services calls for the portfolio administrator to maximize the amount of costeffective electric and heating and...
AI summary The EEU scope emphasizes maximizing cost-effective energy efficiency savings using ratepayer funds. The Vermont Public Service Board outlines three cost-effectiveness tests (Societal, TRC, and Utility) for evaluating energy-efficiency investments. The Societal test is highlighted as the primary indicator for EEU, with VEIC tasked to maximize net benefits. References include the VEIC Order of Appointment and Docket 5270.
COMPONENTS OF BENEFITS AND COSTS UNDER VERMONT'S THREE COST-EFFECTIVENESS TESTS EEU economic performance is also currently judged according to two additional costeffectiveness tests. - 1. Total Resource Benefits (TRB) are the projected mar...
AI summary The document outlines Vermont's cost-effectiveness tests for energy efficiency programs, focusing on Total Resource Benefits (TRB) and Electric Resource Benefits (ERB). TRB measures overall savings, while ERB focuses on electricity savings. Efficiency Vermont uses these tests for planning, budgeting, and reporting, with TRB as the primary economic indicator and ERB as the key performance requirement.
r of each performance period. For prescriptive and semi-prescriptive programs, measure cost-effectiveness is determined using standardized assumptions as documented in the Technical Reference Manual. - (a) Individual measure cost-effective...
AI summary The document discusses the use of standardized assumptions from the Technical Reference Manual for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of prescriptive and semi-prescriptive programs. It outlines the Societal cost-effectiveness test and other related tests used to determine program offerings. VEIC provides comments on heating and process fuel cost-effectiveness screening.
BRITISH COLUMBIA - Regulations pursuant to Utilities Commission Act[9](#page-50-1) , R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 473, s. 1 establish explicit - cost-effectiveness testing guidelines, which includes the application of the total resource cost - test[1...
AI summary British Columbia's Utilities Commission Act establishes explicit cost-effectiveness guidelines requiring the use of the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test. The Commission must assess demand-side measures using avoided electricity and natural gas costs, aligning with long-run marginal costs for clean/renewable energy. Regulations under the Act and the Demand-Side Measures Regulations (BC Reg 326/2008) are cited.
NON-CONFIDENTIAL - (a) in addition to conducting any other analysis the commission considers appropriate, use the - total resource cost test, and - (b) in using the total resource cost test, make the adjustments referred to in subsection (...
AI summary The document outlines regulatory requirements for assessing demand-side measures, mandating the use of the Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) with specific adjustments and a 40% benefit increase. It prohibits using the Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM) test for cost-effectiveness determinations and references repealed regulations. Nova Scotia Power Incorporated's information requests are also mentioned.
4 Scope of Work EfficiencyOne would like to quantify the NEBs of its efficiency measures in a simplified manner. Through consultation with the DSMAG, the rationale for this preference is based on more expeditious and cost-efficient impleme...
AI summary EfficiencyOne seeks to quantify Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) of its efficiency measures using simplified methods, preferring adaptation of Massachusetts research. The approach requires measure-specific factors (percentages, per unit, or per kWh) and consideration of jurisdictional differences. Attachments provide resource plans and Massachusetts studies for reference.
E-10-(i)Book of Authorities
44 passages
NSPI's role in DSM and consequently, whether the DSM Plan it proposes is in the public interest, is cost effective, meets the established objectives, and warrants approval. [2010 NSUARB 155, pp. 5-6] - [3] The shift in responsibility for D...
AI summary The NSUARB evaluates NSPI's proposed 2012 DSM Plan, focusing on its public interest, cost-effectiveness, and alignment with objectives. Key issues include TRC test application, free ridership, pilot programs (fuel substitution, green schools), and energy savings reporting. The Board's 2011 hearing considered ENS's application and 2010 evaluation reports.
, by letter dated September 22, 2010, which provided: The Board has carefully reviewed the DSM Transition Plan and grants approval to proceed with implementation, subject to the following directives: - a) The DSM Transition Committee is to...
AI summary The NSUARB approved ENSC's DSM Transition Plan with directives including quarterly financial reporting, stakeholder meetings, and filing transition agreements. ENSC complied with these directives, and the Board noted positive feedback on DSM efforts. The Board also reviewed the 2010 DSM Evaluation Report and 2010 SVS, with findings detailed later.
3.1 Evaluation Report and Savings Verification Study - [17] ENSC reported in its Application (Exhibit E-1, pp. 8-9) that in 2010 the DSM energy savings results had exceeded the target (84.79 GWh v. 81.13 GWh). The demand savings results we...
AI summary The 2010 DSM energy savings targets were exceeded by 5%, while demand savings were 98% of the target. The Efficient Products - Residential program exceeded its target by 153%, but other programs like the Low Income Households and Business Energy Rebates fell short. NMR's evaluation highlighted data quality and accessibility challenges, and the Board commissioned an SVS to review the savings data.
[25] The SVS contains two basic findings: Finding 1: All of the 2010 DSM programs were competently administered by the DSM Administrator. This finding is based on the NMR evaluations, our review of program documentation and tracking databa...
AI summary The SVS identifies two key findings regarding the 2010 DSM programs. First, they were competently administered, but improvements are suggested, particularly in internal control and addressing free-ridership. Second, the NMR evaluations were generally conducted within accepted frameworks, though some adjustments are recommended, including more electrical measurement and a socket study.
[26] The SVS recommended acceptance of: ... the NMR evaluation results for ... 2010, except for a ten percent (10%) cut for Efficient Products-Direct Install. .. [Exhibit E-3, p. 6] - [27] Additional recommendations were made in the SVS fo...
AI summary The SVS recommended accepting NMR's 2010 evaluation results except for a 10% reduction for Efficient Products-Direct Install. It also proposed method improvements, with Dr. Peach emphasizing methodology concerns over results and praising DSM program execution by Nova Scotia Power and the new administrator.
3.1.1 Findings [38] As pointed out by the CA in examination of both the ENSC panel and Dr. Peach, the evaluation and verification of the DSM program and results are of critical importance to ratepayers. It is the means by which ratepayers...
AI summary The Board emphasizes the importance of evaluating DSM programs to ensure ratepayer investments are prudent. It accepts the 2010 DSM Plan evaluation with a 10% reduction for the Efficient Products-Direct Install program. The Province endorses SVS recommendations, and ENSC must respond by July 31, 2011. An audit is deferred until the 2013 DSM Plan application.
scaling back and that an alternative approach would be to maintain or increase the budget and that would be consistent with the more long-term ramp ups in making it a bit easier to get to 2013 goals. [Transcript, p. 224] BOARD: But you're...
AI summary The transcript discusses support for maintaining or increasing energy efficiency program budgets to meet 2013 goals, emphasizing cost-effectiveness. Mr. Woolf, Mr. Reed, and Dr. Peach endorse Mr. Whalen's recommendations, highlighting concerns about budget cuts and the importance of consistent funding for DSM programs.
ergy savings from actual DSM programs in future years. [ENSC Closing Submission, pp. 3-5] [66] ENSC acknowledged some of the concerns raised, and submitted that the proper question for the Board is: ... what evidence is on the record to su...
AI summary ENSC argues that the NSUARB should assess whether proposed DSM spending increases are justified given over-achievement of IRP targets and stakeholder opposition. The CA raises concerns about a 100% budget increase from 2010 and ENSC's operational inexperience as a new entity. ENSC emphasizes analyzing rate impacts of DSM spending.
4.2.1 Findings - [71] The Board understands that the targets for energy and demand savings are considered to be aggressive when compared to other jurisdictions; however, these targets and associated investments were established early in th...
AI summary The Board acknowledges the aggressive DSM targets set in the IRP and notes that NSPI exceeded them. ENSC, as the new administrator, finds the targets challenging but achievable. The Board supports including savings from non-program funded initiatives and approves the 2012 DSM investment of $43.7 million.
4.4 Bill Impacts [79] In his direct evidence on behalf of Board Counsel, Mr. Woolf discussed the need to establish key principles regarding how to quantify bill and rate impacts due to increasing DSM budgets in order that these rate and bi...
AI summary The document outlines principles for quantifying bill and rate impacts from increased DSM budgets, emphasizing analysis of program participant and non-participant effects, long-term impacts, and cost-benefit considerations. The Province recommends ENSC collaborate with NSPI and PWDG to refine DSM plan filings, which ENSC agrees to.
5.1 Total Resource Cost ("TRC") [82] ENSC's application proposes to use the TRC test at the program level and not at the measure level starting in 2012: ENSC is proposing that the TRC test for the 2012 DSM Plan be applied at the program le...
AI summary ENSC proposes applying the TRC test at the program level for the 2012 DSM Plan, allowing consideration of strategic benefits beyond TRC. The CA and Province support this approach, while EAC highlights TRC's limitations in quantifying non-energy benefits. Programs in 2012 show TRC values above 1.0, indicating cost-effectiveness.
5.1.1 Findings [87] The Board has considered the ENSC's request to change the TRC test from the measure level to the program level. There appears to be no opposition to this request and the Board agrees with the benefits and flexibility wh...
AI summary The Board (NSUARB) approved ENSC's request to apply the TRC test at the program level starting January 1, 2012, citing benefits and flexibility. No opposition was noted.
5.4 Reporting of Energy and Demand Savings [103] The Application notes that the proposed target for the 2012 DSM Plan includes savings for ELI projects of 80 GWh in energy and 12 MW in demand. The proposed savings from the adoption of ener...
AI summary The Application proposes 2012 DSM Plan targets including 80 GWh energy and 12 MW demand savings from ELI projects, plus 10 GWh and 2.7 MW from energy codes. ENSC reports savings from ELI and code adoption, expanding beyond previous customer-funded DSM programs to align with the 2009 IRP Update.
5.1.1 Extra-Large Industrial Projects ELI customers completed efficiency projects in 2009 and 2010. The resulting energy and demand savings contribute to the IRP targets and are reported in this filing because they are incremental to custo...
AI summary ELI customers completed efficiency projects in 2009-2010, contributing 80 GWh and 12 MW in energy/demand savings to IRP targets. These conservative estimates, based on third-party investigations for ENSC, will be evaluated in 2011, with variances reported in the 2013 DSM Plan.
[111] NPB in its Closing Submission stated that: None of the various consultants who filed testimony in this proceeding were opposed to the inclusion of energy efficiency savings from codes and standards and ELI projects, and the Board's v...
AI summary NPB argues that consultants and Dr. Peach support including energy efficiency savings from codes, ELI projects, and verification. They request the Board confirm ENSC can include these savings beyond IRP forecasts in DSM plans.
6.0 ROLE OF PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT WORKING GROUP [136] On March 5, 2008, NSPI and most of the Intervenors in the 2009 DSM proceeding signed a Settlement Agreement ("SA") and filed that agreement with the Board as part of an amended DSM Plan....
AI summary The Program Development Working Group (PDWG) was established under a 2008 Settlement Agreement to assist with program design and implementation, including performance measures for the new administrator, ENSC. The Board approved its continuation until ENSC became fully functional in late 2010, ensuring continuity during the transition. The PDWG included NSPI, Board staff, Conserve Nova Scotia, and stakeholders, with the goal of developing transparent processes and reporting to the UARB.
[138] In its Application, ENSC stated: The Program Development Working Group (PDWG), established during NSPl's tenure as interim DSM Administrator, has advised ENSC during the transition from NSPI to ENSC and during the preparation of the...
AI summary ENSC proposes continuing the Program Development Working Group (PDWG) in 2011, citing its value as a stakeholder forum. They committed to stakeholder consultation, with UARB's support. Intervenors did not oppose the proposal, and ENSC emphasized expert and stakeholder backing for the process.
[142] In response to questions from EAC, Mr. Crandlemire stated: In terms of level of effort on DSM, the 2011 targets are approximately double the 2010 targets. I can assure you that Efficiency Nova Scotia has got its foot on the gas pedal...
AI summary Mr. Crandlemire emphasized that 2011 DSM (Demand-Side Management) targets are double the 2010 targets, and Efficiency Nova Scotia is fully committed to meeting them with increased efforts.
Whalen: MR. FOREMAN: In fairness the evidence that Mr. Crandlemire gave yesterday also clearly indicated, with respect to that foot on the pedal analogy, that they do have - or from his perspective, from Efficiency's perspective, they have...
AI summary The Consumer Advocate (CA) raised concerns about Efficiency Nova Scotia's (ENS) 2012 budget increase and its operational readiness, noting a 100% budget jump from 2010 and ENS being a new entity. ENS claims full commitment to meeting 2011 challenges.
7.1 Findings [147] The Board notes that while ENSC stated it has the "gas pedal hard to the floor going full out" in order to achieve targeted savings, Mr. Crandlemire has also indicated that the targets are achievable. He has not suggeste...
AI summary The Board acknowledges ENSC's efforts to meet energy savings targets but notes lingering doubts expressed by parties. Despite ENSC's assertion of full commitment and Mr. Crandlemire's confidence in achievability, the Board mandates quarterly reviews with staff and consultants to monitor progress, expenditures, and savings outcomes.
9.0 SUMMARY OF BOARD FINDINGS [153] The Board accepts the 2010 DSM Plan evaluation and verification, with the qualification made in the SVS for a 10% reduction for the Efficient Products-Direct Install program. [154] The Board understands...
AI summary The Board accepts the 2010 DSM Plan evaluation, approves the 2012 DSM investment, and sets conditions for ENSC, including data system improvements, quarterly progress reviews, and policy development. It also approves changes to the TRC test and requires studies on free ridership and spillover effects.
3.1 Evaluation Report of 2014 DSM Programs (Econoler) [28] As in the previous year, E1 engaged the services of Econoler Inc. ("Econoler") to conduct independent evaluations of the 2014 DSM programs. The Econoler team collaborated with two...
AI summary Econoler evaluated 2014 DSM programs, collaborating with Corporate Research and Equilibrium Engineering. The evaluation followed a rolling schedule from the 2012 Settlement Agreement, validating ENSC's tracked savings and ensuring consistency with prior evaluations.
3.2 Verification Report of 2014 DSM Programs (Peach) [38] As in previous years, the Board engaged the services of H. Gil Peach & Associates to conduct an independent verification of the 2014 evaluated DSM savings results. Dr. Peach filed h...
AI summary The Board engaged H. Gil Peach & Associates to verify 2014 DSM program savings, resulting in 20 recommendations. Seven programs exceeded energy savings targets, seven underperformed, and three had no targets. The report reviewed evaluation methods, data tracking, and conducted site visits to assess installation quality and compliance.
3.3.1 Findings [52] In his evidence, Dr. Peach commented on the status of the 2013 evaluation and verification recommendations:
AI summary Dr. Peach provided testimony regarding the status of the 2013 evaluation and verification recommendations, highlighting their relevance to ongoing regulatory proceedings in Nova Scotia.
Q. Are you satisfied with the status of the 2013 verification and evaluation recommendations? A. Yes. In general, from year to year Econoler has been responsive to all recommendations in the Savings Verification study, either making small...
AI summary The respondent confirms satisfaction with the 2013 verification recommendations, noting Econoler and E1's responsiveness. The Board accepts this but directs E1 to update on 2014 recommendations and removes Home Energy Report savings from 2014 totals due to concerns. The Home Energy Report is excluded from the 2016-2018 DSM portfolio.
programs, particularly as it relates to incentives. The Industrial Group expressed concern about the level of incentives as well as the role incentives play with respect to energy efficiency targets. - 45. The Industrial Group is very conc...
AI summary The Industrial Group expressed concerns about the level of incentives provided by E1 and how they affect energy efficiency targets. They also highlighted that E1's service delivery framework discourages the elimination of incentives. The Industrial Group, NSPI, and the DOE recommended that E1 model various funding scenarios in future hearings and suggested a lower spending level, close to $22 million per year.
3.5.2 Incentives [66] The Board, in its questioning of E1's witnesses, and NSPI and the Industrial Group in their submissions, expressed significant concerns over the manner in which incentives are determined by E1. It would appear from th...
AI summary The Board expressed concerns about E1's incentive structure, noting over 60% of the DSM budget is allocated to incentives. Expert testimony highlighted issues with incentive justification, with NSPI and the Industrial Group arguing that some incentives lack quantitative criteria and may be influenced by vested interests. Mr. Dunsky's testimony was preferred, but concerns about incentive reasonableness remained.
3.5.9 Evaluation and Reporting [107] In approving the Consensus Agreement the Board approves Section 5 dealing with evaluation and reporting.
AI summary The Board approves Section 5 of the Consensus Agreement, which outlines requirements for evaluation and reporting. This approval is part of the regulatory process for utility-related matters in Nova Scotia.
3.7 Mid-Course Adjustments and Flexibility [112] In the Consensus Agreement, the parties agreed to the setting of targets over a three year period, instead of annual targets. E1 had sought the ability to make changes of up to 25% in target...
AI summary The Consensus Agreement allows E1 to adjust program targets by up to 25% annually at the sector level, with explanations required for changes exceeding this threshold. E1 agreed to avoid substantial annual impacts on customer classes and provide written notice for mid-course adjustments. The Industrial Group opposed this flexibility, arguing against allowing adjustments that could affect customer classes by more than 25%.
3.7.1 Findings [114] The Board is satisfied that the provisions of the Consensus Agreement adequately address the ability of E1 to make mid-course adjustments and allow sufficient flexibility at the program level. Limiting the 25% adjustme...
AI summary The Board approves the Consensus Agreement's provisions allowing E1 to make 25% mid-course adjustments at the program level, not sectors, to minimize customer class impacts. The Industrial Group's signatory status is noted, and the Board deems sector-level adjustments unnecessary due to E1's approach.
5.0 SUMMARY OF BOARD FINDINGS [138] E1 applied to the Board for approval of its 2016-2018 DSM Plan, pursuant to s. 79J(3) of the PUA , as it was unable to reach agreement with NSPI on the terms of the Supply Agreement. E1 sought approval f...
AI summary E1 applied for approval of its 2016-2018 DSM Plan with a budget of $121.5 million, but the Board approved a reduced amount of $102.15 million after considering past underspending and overachievement of savings targets. The Quantum Agreement was not approved, and instead, the Board set a lower spending cap with no inflation increases.
4) COST ALLOCATION - a) The Parties agree to collaboratively work to develop new DSM cost allocation and DSM cost recovery models to be submitted by October 31, 2015 for approval or Decision by the Board, or within a reasonable period of t...
AI summary Parties agree to collaboratively develop DSM cost allocation and recovery models by October 31, 2015, for Board approval. Key items include 2015/2016-2018 DSM cost allocation, a 2014 rate-smoothing adjustment, and mid-course adjustments. Nova Scotia Power retains discretion to apply to the UARB regarding DSM cost accounting treatment.
5) EVALUATION AND REPORTING - a) The Parties support EfficiencyOne's proposal for annual program impact evaluations and process evaluations at the organizational level with program process evaluations if required. EfficiencyOne will provid...
AI summary Parties support EfficiencyOne's proposal for annual program evaluations, including impact and process assessments. EfficiencyOne will report on 2016-2018 performance, explain substantial changes (≥25% variance), and provide advance notice for mid-course adjustments. Reporting timelines and content are subject to Board revisions via Schedule 1.
7) RESOLUTION PROCESS Year Report/ Process Filing Timeframe Inclusions 2015 2015 Q2 Report July/Aug Quarterly and YTD Highlights: o Comparison of targets, mid-course adjustments, and results (by program) YTD investment by rate class (compa...
AI summary The document outlines the resolution process for a regulatory proceeding, including quarterly reports and meetings with the Demand-Side Management Advisory Group (DSMAG). Reports provide updates on program performance, investment, and sector highlights, with meetings occurring at least three times per year following the filing of quarterly reports.
a) Evidence and Submissions - [25] E1 has established comprehensive energy efficiency campaigns which are not specifically targeted to individual customers. It says that as DSM markets mature, the opportunity to enhance readily available D...
AI summary E1 argues that non-targeted energy efficiency campaigns yield lower uptake and that mature DSM markets require tailored initiatives. Proposed strategies include customer segmentation, targeted marketing, and geotargeting to address specific consumption patterns and infrastructure needs, supported by evidence of reduced program success without direct customer engagement.
re to advance the goal of a change in pattern of electrical consumption by end-users. This could, for example, take the form of a reduction in usage, or altering the time of day of highest energy use. [85] This goal, including targeted mar...
AI summary The Board evaluates whether collecting customer names and emails is necessary for E1's energy efficiency programs. E1 argues targeted outreach increases participation, supported by evidence. NSPI and SBA agree on data release (excluding phone numbers). The Board concludes targeted methods, like emails, improve engagement.
a) Evidence [111] E1 does not have access to customer data on approximately 70% of electricity ratepayers. For the remaining 30% of ratepayers, E1 maintains basic, static information. [112] The Customer Usage Data requested by E1 consists...
AI summary E1 (EfficiencyOne) requests access to customer data for program design and analysis, citing needs for eligibility determinations, geographic analysis, and targeted marketing. However, E1 lacks access to 70% of customer data, holding only basic information for the remaining 30%. The data includes usage patterns, billing details, and contact information.
ting electricity usage and load", in that it identifies the length of such usage for particular customers, the amount and timing of such usage, the location of the usage or user, and the type of user. [122] All the data can be used by E1 t...
AI summary The text discusses how E1 (EfficiencyOne) utilizes customer data to analyze energy consumption patterns, including usage duration, timing, location, and user type, to create a comprehensive energy consumption profile.
[138] The Board finds that: - a) NSPI shall provide E1 with the Names and Emails and the Customer Usage Data, within 60 days of the date of this Decision; and, thereafter on a monthly basis. If providing the data on a monthly basis is unwo...
AI summary The Board has mandated that NSPI provide E1 with customer data within 60 days and on a monthly basis, with E1 responsible for covering NSPI's reasonable administrative costs for the data transfer. Disputes over cost amounts can be referred to the Board for resolution.
reports. The Board's Decision, para. 826, summarized and accepted PwC eventual amounts for "past losses": lost profit – Antigonish retail: $5,301,499 lost profit – distribution centre: $2,112,504 lost profit – vendor discounts: $1,086,279...
AI summary The Board's decision outlines the calculation of past losses for Central, including lost profits and adjustments for financing costs and incremental operating expenses. It also notes concerns about Mr. Thompson's influence on the Wintrip Report and his credibility as a witness.
- Let's not forget in all this that as much as this was a recommendation, as much as this makes sense to - go, that consumers will be paying for this on their electrical bill, starting January 1st . So electric bills - will rise on January...
AI summary The speaker highlights that electricity rates will increase starting January 1st due to the DSM charge, emphasizing that consumers, industrials, and businesses will bear the cost. They express concern about the government not adequately addressing the rate hikes and question the integration of Conserve Nova Scotia into Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation.
I. Future Cost-Effectiveness Screening We have a statutory duty to require each gas and electric company to establish any program or service that the Commission deems appropriate and cost effective to encourage and promote the efficient us...
AI summary The document outlines the statutory duty to ensure energy efficiency programs are cost-effective and discusses the transition from retrospective to prospective cost-effectiveness screening to foster innovation in Maryland's energy efficiency industry.
4. & lt;sup>64 See PUA § 7-211(i)(1)(ii)-(iv), which directs the Commission to consider the impact on rates, jobs, and the environment. & lt;sup>65 PUA § 7-211(b)(2). & lt;sup>66 MEA Comments at 14-15; OPC Comments at 6; Efficiency First C...
AI summary The document discusses the inclusion of non-energy benefits (NEBs) in cost-effectiveness screening, emphasizing the need to consider quantified benefits such as air emissions, comfort, and reduced customer arrearages. These benefits are included in the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test and the Social Cost Test (SCT) to ensure parity in cost-effectiveness screening and to support statutory inquiries.
3. Limited-Income Energy Efficiency Goals Improving the energy efficiency of limited-income households remains a critical area of focus for the State. In recent orders we have established a framework of accountability to increase the reach...
AI summary The document discusses the need to set energy efficiency goals for limited-income households under the EmPOWER Maryland program, emphasizing the importance of accountability and the need for input from the current program implementer. A work group is directed to develop a post-2015 goal, considering factors like customer eligibility, historical performance, and bill impacts.