Topic:"Program Evaluation" in M12780

79J further states that the Franchise holder must file the new five-year agreement for Energy Board approval in sufficient time to allow for the Energy Board to approve the agreement prior to January 1, 2027. E1 is therefore submitting an...

AI summary E1 seeks Energy Board approval for its 2027–2031 DSM Plan under the PUA. The Energy Board oversees the Franchise holder’s activities, requiring portfolio-level evaluation of cost-effective demand-side management. Measures may fail individually if the overall portfolio passes the cost-effectiveness test. References to prior decisions (M12249, M12282) are cited.

2.1.3 COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS As set out in the regulatory overview in Section 2.1 above, this Application must satisfy the requirements of the PUA and the considerations in s. 6(2) of the ERBA . E1 respectfully submits that...

AI summary E1 argues that its 2027–2031 DSM Plan complies with the PUA and ERBA by meeting statutory requirements, including cost-effectiveness and portfolio-level PAC test compliance. The Plan is deemed 'cost-effective' and 'reasonably available' per NSEB interpretations, with support from prior NSUARB decisions.

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.

pirit of the balanced plan principles. E1 submits that its efforts with respect to engagement satisfies the Board's requirement set out in section 1 of its Order in the matter of the 2026 Extension. Second, E1 has addressed concerns about...

AI summary E1 asserts compliance with the 2026 DSM extension decision, adjusting its demand response programs (reducing residential, expanding BNI) and collaborating with NS Power on locational and stacking issues. It plans to address potential double-counting of savings and includes innovation efforts in its 2027–2031 framework.

2.4 DSMAG ENGAGEMENT - E1 undertook extensive engagement during plan development with the DSMAG Feedback informed - program design, delivery approaches, and equity‑focused enhancements. - The DSMAG is a forum of regulatory stakeholders who...

AI summary E1 engaged the DSMAG throughout the 2027–2031 DSM Plan development, incorporating stakeholder feedback to refine program design and modelling. DSMAG members included representatives from energy stakeholders, consumer groups, and regulatory bodies, with iterative review processes ensuring transparency and equity-focused improvements.

3.3 DEMAND RESPONSE The demand response design in the 2027–2031 DSM Plan was informed by a combination of observed implementation experience, updated modelling assumptions, evaluation insights, DSMAG member feedback, and alignment with sys...

AI summary The 2027–2031 DSM Plan's demand response design prioritizes cost-effectiveness, achievability, and system value, informed by E1's refined assumptions, DSMAG feedback, and alignment with NS Power's IRP. Residential participation remains limited due to variable results, but Eco Shift's inclusion is justified for resilience and long-term maturation. Peer jurisdictions indicate improving cost-effectiveness over time.

3.3.1 WHY RESIDENTIAL LOAD CONTROL DEMAND RESPONSE MATTERS Strategic peak reduction can help lower long-term infrastructure costs and moderate upward pressure on electricity rates. The IRP identifies both increasing electrification and a g...

AI summary Residential load control demand response reduces infrastructure costs and moderates electricity rates by managing peak demand. Electrification trends, like heat pump adoption, increase peak demand, necessitating demand response programs. Eco Shift and Ontario's Peak Perks program demonstrate residential DR's role in grid flexibility. Expansion aligns with IRP planning and discussions with NS Power and NSIESO.

6 7 Through direct discussions with the IESO Demand Side Management team, the program is expected to 8 reach cost-effectiveness under the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test within the next year, 9 approximately four years after its laun...

AI summary The program is expected to achieve cost-effectiveness under the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test within the next year, four years after its launch, due to factors like increased demand response capacity, higher customer participation, coordinated marketing, and adoption of bring-your-own thermostat models. Ontario's experience offers insights for smaller jurisdictions.

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.

8 3.6 ENABLING STRATEGIES 9 Enabling Strategies are a foundational component of E1's DSM portfolio. These investments support the development, delivery, and long-term effectiveness of DSM programs by addressing structural, market, and info...

AI summary Enabling Strategies are a key component of E1's Demand-Side Management (DSM) portfolio, aimed at addressing structural, market, and informational barriers. The 2027–2031 DSM Plan includes targeted investments in education, research, development, and market transformation, with adjustments made for affordability and long-term effectiveness.

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.

DIVERSE MEASURES - The Preferred Plan continues to evolve E1's measure mix. The Plan features 341 measures, and 11 - energy efficiency program components, and 2 demand response program components and one solar-PV - program component.

AI summary The Preferred Plan includes 341 measures, with 11 energy efficiency programs, 2 demand response programs, and 1 solar-PV program. E1's measure mix is evolving to incorporate diverse initiatives under the Nova Scotia regulatory framework.

1 5.6 BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS AND MAINTENANCE OF MARKET PRESENCE 2 In developing the 2027–2031 DSM portfolio, E1 gave deliberate consideration to the maintenance of 3 strong business relationships and a stable market presence as essential e...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) emphasizes maintaining strong business relationships and market stability in its 2027–2031 DSM portfolio to ensure cost-efficient program delivery. The approach prioritizes continuity, incremental changes, and market confidence, preserving scale and breadth across customer segments while aligning with the Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB)'s expectations for achievable and prudent DSM plans.

5.7 ACCESS TO PROGRAMS BY ALL MARKET SECTORS AND RATE CLASSES BY ADDRESSING BARRIERS TO PARTICIPATION In developing the Preferred Plan portfolio, E1 ensured equitable access to programs across all market sectors and rate classes by explici...

AI summary The Preferred DSM Plan ensures equitable access to energy programs across all market sectors and rate classes by addressing structural, financial, and informational barriers. It includes targeted initiatives for low-income households, Mi'kmaw communities, and small businesses, with streamlined processes, no-cost options, and community partnerships to improve participation and equity.

6.2 HIGHLIGHTS OF THE 2027–2031 PLAN - Key highlights/portfolio insights of the 2027–2031 Preferred Plan include: - portfolio cost-effectiveness result of 2.4 for the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test - demonstrating that the portfolio...

AI summary The 2027–2031 Preferred Plan highlights a portfolio cost-effectiveness result of 2.4, a $318.75 million investment in DSM resources, and expected lifetime benefits of $682.5 million for participating customers. The plan also includes new components like Mi'kmaw New Home Construction and residential solar-PV for Mi'kmaw communities.

6.3 RESULTS 1

AI summary The provided text contains only the section heading '6.3 RESULTS 1' and no substantive content or analysis. No arguments, entities, or cross-references are present in the text.

19 8.1 MID-COURSE ADJUSTMENT PROCESS 20 On the issue of Mid-Course Adjustments (MCAs), the NSEB in its Decision in the 2026 Extension Plan 21 (M12249) stated: 22 [73] The concerns raised by the Industrial Group are serious. The potential f...

AI summary The NSEB expressed concerns about E1's Mid-Course Adjustment (MCA) process, citing potential unfair impacts on rate classes funding E1's work. The NSEB directed E1 to revise its MCA process to allow greater ratepayer input and align spending with NSEB-approved rate classes. E1 acknowledged these concerns and agreed to engage with the DSMAG to address issues related to cost management and program flexibility.

1 of this Evidence, was specifically intended to save time, money, and resources by reducing the frequency of full regulatory proceedings. E1 has outlined its proposed mid-term check-in process below. E1 proposes to hold a mid-term session...

AI summary E1 proposes a mid-term check-in with the DSMAG in Q1 2029 to review progress on DSM Plan implementation, including performance targets, spending trends, and challenges. Annual reporting enhancements include quarterly DSMAG sessions in Q2 to discuss APR and Evaluation Reports, with opportunities for stakeholder feedback.

8.3 OTHER REPORTING PROCESSES E1 will submit six reports annually to the NSEB, including quarterly reports (Q1-Q3), an annual progress report, annual DSM program evaluation reports, and annual audited financial statements. Over the 2027– 2...

AI summary E1 must submit 30 DSM reports to NSEB over 2027–2031, including quarterly, annual progress, program evaluation, and audited financial reports. NSEB verifies savings and allows DSMAG input. E1 will follow NSEB-approved measurement and evaluation protocols, with further details in Appendix A.

10. CONCLUSION - Based on the supporting Evidence and Appendices, E1 respectfully requests approval from the Energy - Board for the Preferred Plan and related Purchase Agreement with NS Power. 27 M06733, NSUARB Order, E1 2016–2018 DSM Plan...

AI summary E1 requests approval for the Preferred Plan and related Purchase Agreement with NS Power, emphasizing its affordability and cost-effectiveness. The plan includes energy savings, demand reduction, and system benefits, with a total investment of $318.75 million over five years. E1 claims the application meets the mandatory approval test under the Public Utilities Act.

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 DISCUSSION OF 2023-2025 RESULTS E1's 2025 Annual Progress Report (APR), filed March 31, 2026, provides detailed discussion of 2025 results and cumulative progress toward the 2023–2026 DSM Plan performance targets. Results for 2023 and...

AI summary E1's 2025 Annual Progress Report (APR) details 2025 results and cumulative progress toward 2023–2026 DSM Plan targets, noting implementation challenges like market changes and program adjustments. Results are contextualized within the DSM Plan period, with insights informing the 2026 DSM Extension and future planning. References to prior APRs (2023–2024) and regulatory approvals are included.

1 2.2.1 ENERGY AND DEMAND SAVINGS 2 Energy and demand savings in 2023 and 2024 exceeded the approved Plan, resulting in significant 3 progress towards the approved four-year Plan performance targets. This overachievement was driven 4 prima...

AI summary Energy and demand savings in 2023–2024 exceeded approved targets due to the Canada Greener Homes Grant and LED rebate campaigns. Savings declined in 2025 due to baseline changes and program closures. The 2026 DSM Extension expects lower savings, driven by non-lighting measures and reduced Home Energy Assessment participation.

2.2.2 RESIDENTIAL BEHAVIOUR PROGRAM - Residential Behaviour, re-introduced as a program component in the 2023–2026 Plan, experienced a - delayed launch with implementation beginning in Q2 2024. In 2023, E1 collaborated with NS Power to - a...

AI summary The Residential Behaviour Program, part of E1's 2023–2026 plan, faced delays, underperformance due to lower savings, and an indefinite pause in 2025 after a cybersecurity incident at NS Power. Savings fell below targets in 2024 and 2025, with the program removed from the 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan due to vendor and platform constraints.

2.2.3 PROGRAM ADJUSTMENTS In 2025, E1 ended two program components - Green Heat and Appliance Retirement. Green Heat continued to experience a steady decline in participation and energy savings in 2025, consistent with trends observed in 2...

AI summary E1 ended two programs in 2025: Green Heat and Appliance Retirement. Green Heat's decline was due to the Canada Greener Homes Grant and reduced savings from DSM evaluations. Appliance Retirement closed due to rising costs, declining savings from newer units, and limited service providers. Deadlines were December 31, 2025 for Green Heat and January 8, 2025 for Appliance Retirement.

2.2.4 LOW-INCOME AND EQUITY ENERGY SAVINGS The performance target of energy savings applicable to E1's dedicated low-income and equity program components (i.e., Affordable Multifamily Housing, Affordable Single-family Homes, and the Mi'kma...

AI summary E1's low-income and equity energy savings programs faced challenges in meeting 2023 targets due to capacity constraints and software modeling updates. Adjustments in 2024 and 2025, including increased participation and process improvements, led to progress toward the 2023–2026 performance target, with expectations to meet it by 2026.

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.

11 Table 4: Cumulative DSM Savings and Investment : 2012–2025 Plan as Approved Results Year Investment ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Available Demand Response Capacity (MW) Low-income & Equity Energy...

AI summary Table 4 provides a detailed breakdown of cumulative demand-side management (DSM) savings and investment from 2012 to 2025, including energy savings, peak demand savings, and expenditures. It compares the approved plan with actual results for each year, highlighting trends in investment and savings over time.

3.2.1 RESOURCE SCENARIO DESIGN In developing the Plan's design approach, E1 considered feedback from the DSMAG indicating limited support for the three design objectives historically used to guide recent DSM Plans: a 50/50 investment DATE...

AI summary E1 revised its DSM Plan design approach based on feedback from the DSMAG, maintaining the annual investment level, adjusting energy savings targets and allocations, and ensuring support for low-income and equity communities. The plan aligns with recommendations from APEX and includes a residential/BNI energy savings split of 29/71, with dedicated low-income savings of 11% of residential savings.

3.3.1.2 MODEL INPUTS AND ASSUMPTIONS - Once the models were configured, E1 and Guidehouse compiled the key modelling inputs and - assumptions required for all subsequent modelling steps associated with the DSM Plan. These included - global...

AI summary E1 and Guidehouse compiled model inputs and assumptions for the DSM Plan, including global factors (avoided costs, discount rates) and program-specific data. Inputs were reviewed and adjusted for 2027–2031, with new measures informed by engineering assumptions and external data. Details are in Attachment 1.

Key observations of the Preferred Plan include: - annual investment for the Preferred Plan is maintained at the 2026 DSM Extension approved investment level of $63.75 million, with no annual inflationary increases to the investment, to sup...

AI summary The Preferred Plan maintains a fixed annual investment of $63.75 million with no inflationary increases, aiming to support affordability. Energy savings have declined due to market shifts and program closures. The plan supports Mi'kmaw communities and shows strong cost-effectiveness with a 114% ROI and a 30-year solar-PV measure life. However, some low-income programs have lower PAC scores.

4 4.3 WHAT'S NEW IN 2027–2031 5 A summary of 2027–2031 program changes and enhancements is provided i[n Table 6,](#page-111-1) below.

AI summary The section outlines program changes and enhancements for 2027–2031, referencing Table 6 for details. No specific initiatives or policies are described in the provided text.

1 4.5.1 LOW-INCOME AND EQUITY INVESTMENT AND SAVINGS - 2 E1's 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan includes dedicated program components that exclusively serve low- - 3 income and equity communities. These program components include Affordable Mul...

AI summary E1's 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan includes dedicated low-income and equity programs (e.g., Affordable Multifamily Housing, Mi'kmaw projects) accounting for 11% of residential savings. The Solar-PV program is also targeted at these communities. Incidental impacts from non-targeted programs like Efficient Product Installation are also noted, with details in Attachment 1 and Table 14.

Energy Efficiency The investment for energy efficiency is reflective of the costs E1 expects to incur to achieve the savings with the suite of programs included in the Preferred Plan. Investment levels in Residential sector programs repres...

AI summary E1's energy efficiency investment allocates 56% to residential programs (29% savings) and 44% to BNI programs (71% savings), reflecting a shift toward non-lighting measures post-2025 LED baseline. Savings decline from 2027-2031 due to Canada Greener Homes Grant closure and removal of Residential Behaviour. 2024 billing analyses further reduced residential savings.

12 5.1 2027–2031 DSM PROGRAM MARKETING Marketing plans and strategies are essential to DSM Plan implementation. Effective marketing drives customer participation in programs and supportsthe communication and implementation aspects of DSM P...

AI summary Marketing is crucial for DSM Plan implementation, enhancing customer participation and brand recognition for E1 and Efficiency Nova Scotia. E1's marketing objectives for the 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan aim to support program delivery and educate Nova Scotians.

Data Analytics and Insights - Leveraging data analytic tools including segmentation data, website user behaviour insights, and advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) data. Marketing tactics that leverage data analytic tools include persona...

AI summary The document outlines strategies for leveraging data analytics in marketing, including personalized email campaigns, geo-targeting, and A/B testing. Continuous optimization and data-driven research are emphasized to enhance customer engagement and program effectiveness through targeted campaigns and real-time feedback analysis.

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.

6. ENERGY EFFICIENCY DSM energy efficiency refers to delivering the same or improved level of service using less energy, resulting in measurable reductions in energy consumption while maintaining or improving performance. Natural Resources...

AI summary Energy efficiency programs, led by E1, focus on reducing energy consumption through initiatives like residential LED baselines and Mi'kmaw New Home Construction. The 2027–2031 DSM Plan includes enhanced incentives, expanded rebate categories, and program updates to address rising costs and evolving market needs.

1 6.1.4 PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES - 2 The Residential Efficient Product Rebates program shows no difference in the Alternate Scenario when - 3 compared to the Preferred Plan. Therefore, there is no variance between the Preferred Plan and Altern...

AI summary The Residential Efficient Product Rebates program shows no variance between the Alternate Scenario and the Preferred Plan. Table 18 presents results for both scenarios, indicating no differences in program outcomes.

7 Table 26 provides the program performance indicators. Table 27 provides the low-income and equity performance 8 indicators, including both dedicated and incidental low-income and equity impacts.

AI summary The text references two tables that provide program performance indicators and low-income and equity performance indicators, including both dedicated and incidental impacts.

1 Table 27: 2027–2031 Existing Residential Low-Income and Equity Performance Indicators Year Investment ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Participation (homes) Participation...

AI summary Table 27 outlines projected residential low-income and equity performance indicators from 2027–2031, detailing investments, energy savings, and participation metrics across programs like Affordable Single-family Homes and Mi'kmaw Home Energy Efficiency Projects. Total participation spans 2,735 homes, 73,904 products, and 595 projects, with energy savings declining slightly over time.

5 6.2.4 PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES - 6 The Existing Residential program shows no difference in the Alternate Scenario when compared to the - 7 Preferred Plan. Therefore, there is no variance between the Preferred Plan and Alternate Scenario in t...

AI summary The Existing Residential program's Alternate Scenario and Preferred Plan show no variance, as Table 26 presents identical results for both scenarios.

7 Table 30: 2027–2031 New Residential Performance Indicators Year Investment ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Participation (homes) Lifetime Unit Cost ($/kWh) Program Admini...

AI summary Table 30 outlines residential energy efficiency investments and savings from 2027–2031, showing $5 million in total investment, 32.8 GWh in lifetime energy savings, and consistent Program Administrator Cost Test (PAC) values of 0.8 from 2028–2031.

10 6.3.4 PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES - 11 The New Residential program shows no difference in the Alternate Scenario when compared to the - 12 Preferred Plan. Therefore, there is no variance between the Preferred Plan and Alternate Scenario in the...

AI summary The New Residential program shows no difference between the Alternate Scenario and Preferred Plan, resulting in no variance. Table 30 illustrates results for both scenarios, indicating identical outcomes under the evaluated alternatives.

Custom Incentives - 2015 program renamed to Custom Incentives, comprised of five components: Custom Retrofit, New Construction, Existing Building Commissioning, Energy Management and Information Systems and Strategic Energy Management - 20...

AI summary The Custom Incentives program has undergone multiple structural changes since 2015, evolving from five components to two, with shifts in focus areas like retrofitting, energy management, and strategic initiatives. Key updates include the 2020 introduction of Industrial Energy Managers and the 2023 reconfiguration to two core components. Tables 36 and 37 provide historical component details.

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.

1 6.5.4 PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES - 2 The Custom Incentives program shows no difference in the Alternate Scenario when compared to the - 3 Preferred Plan. Therefore, there is no variance in the program between the Preferred Plan and Alternate -...

AI summary The Custom Incentives program exhibits no variance between the Preferred Plan and Alternate Scenario. Table 38, referenced in the text, illustrates results for both scenarios, indicating no differences in program outcomes.

7 6.6 DIRECT INSTALLATION PROGRAM

AI summary The Direct Installation Program under Nova Scotia's Demand Side Management (DSM) framework aims to enhance energy efficiency and reduce GHG emissions through targeted initiatives. Key stakeholders include NS Power, NSEB, and ERBA, with regulatory considerations involving cost recovery and program effectiveness.

8 6.6.1 OVERVIEW, OBJECTIVES, OPPORTUNITY 9 [Table 40](#page-159-1) provides a description of the Direct Installation program for 2027–2031. 10

AI summary The text references Table 40, which outlines the Direct Installation program for the period 2027–2031. The program's description is provided in the table, though specific details are not included in the excerpt.

1 Table 42: 2027–2031 Direct Installation Performance Indicators Year Investment ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Participation (projects) Lifetime Unit Cost ($/kWh) Program...

AI summary Table 42 outlines performance indicators for the Direct Installation Program from 2027 to 2031, showing investment, energy savings, peak demand savings, and participation numbers. Table 43 provides similar data for the Low-Income and Equity portion of the program. The PAC metric is defined as a benefit/cost ratio comparing lifetime benefits to DSM investment.

13 7. DEMAND RESPONSE Demand response is an important resource for supporting Nova Scotia's electricity system by reducing or shifting customer load during periods of peak demand. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission defines demand res...

AI summary Nova Scotia's demand response (DR) programs, managed by E1, aim to reduce peak demand through load shifting. The 2023–2025 DSM Plan faced underachievement, but E1 anticipates growth in 2026. The 2027–2031 Preferred Plan focuses on achievable targets aligned with NS Power's IRP, with modest BNI DR growth and stable residential DR. Cost-effectiveness (PAC ≥ 1.0) and regulatory feedback influenced planning.

8 7.2 CRITICAL PEAK PRICING OVERLAP 9 As part of ongoing collaboration on demand response, E1 and NS Power met in late 2024 to identify opportunities to strengthen coordination across demand response initiatives, including rate-based appro...

AI summary E1 and NS Power collaborated to address overlap between E1's demand response programs and NS Power's Time-Varying Pricing (TVP) rates, which target similar customers and peak periods. A 2025 cybersecurity incident paused the TVP pilot, returning participants to standard rates. Future DSM plans (2027–2031) expect minimal overlap, with ongoing efforts to coordinate locational demand response and avoid double-counting savings.

3 [Table 47](#page-169-0) provides the program performance indicators. 5 Table 47: 2027–2031 Demand Response Performance Indicators Year Investment ($ million) Available Capacity (MW) Participation (devices) Participation (participants) Le...

AI summary Table 47 outlines the 2027–2031 Demand Response (DR) performance indicators, including investment, available capacity, participation numbers, and the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test. The table shows a steady increase in investment and available capacity over the years, with participation numbers remaining relatively stable. The PAC test is defined as a benefit/cost ratio comparing lifetime benefits to DR investment, with levelized costs calculated over a ten-year period.

1 7.3.4 PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES - 2 The Demand Response program features one difference in the Alternate Scenario when compared to the - 3 Preferred Plan, that being that the Residential Demand Response program component is not included in -...

AI summary The Alternate Scenario excludes the Residential Demand Response program component compared to the Preferred Plan, with Table 48 comparing performance indicators from 2027–2031.

13 8. SOLAR-PV - 14 E1 is proposing the introduction of a new Solar-PV program in the 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan. 15 Solar‑PV refers to technology that converts sunlight directly into electricity. Solar‑PV can produce 16 electricity that...

AI summary E1 proposes a Solar-PV program in the 2027–2031 DSM Plan, targeting Mi'kmaw communities to reduce energy burdens through equity-focused, small-scale residential initiatives. The program leverages existing frameworks, aims for phased implementation, and includes a $2.8M investment over five years, reflecting affordability and equity priorities.

4 8.1.4 PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES - 5 The Solar-PV program shows no difference in the Alternate Scenario when compared to the Preferred - 6 Plan. Therefore, there is no variance in the program between the Preferred Plan and Alternate Scenario. 7

AI summary The Solar-PV program shows no difference between the Preferred Plan and Alternate Scenario, resulting in no variance in program implementation. This conclusion is drawn from the analysis of program alternatives under the regulatory proceeding.

14 9.2 HISTORY Enabling Strategies activities have been a component of E1's DSM Plans since the first Plan was developed in 2012 and they have played a pivotal role in supporting the development, delivery, and growth of E1 programs includi...

AI summary Enabling Strategies (ES) have been integral to E1's Demand Side Management (DSM) Plans since 2012, evolving from education/outreach to innovation and R&D. The 2023–2026 plan focuses on addressing challenges like market maturity and emerging technologies in Nova Scotia's energy landscape.

Measures of success: 2

AI summary The section titled 'Measures of success' is identified, but no detailed content or specific metrics are provided in the text. The document appears to be a placeholder or incomplete section from a regulatory proceeding.

OUTREACH - E1 achieves its annual participation targets set out in the 2027–2031 DSM Plan. - E1 and its partner organizations achieve the goals set out in their respective partnership agreements.

AI summary E1 meets annual participation targets under the 2027–2031 DSM Plan, and E1 and its partners achieve goals outlined in their partnership agreements.

Measures of success: - E1's total awareness score is 80 percent or higher, annually. - E1 Efficiency Preferred Partner membership remains steady or grows, and 75 percent of members participate in specialized training or networking opportun...

AI summary The measures of success outline E1's targets: achieving an 80% annual awareness score and maintaining/growing Efficiency Preferred Partner membership with 75% member participation in E1's training/networking opportunities.

2. Provide energy management services to Mi'kmaw communities E1's Roving Energy Manager for Mi'kmaw communities will work with Nova Scotia's 13 Mi'kmaw communities to identify new DSM projects and coordinate building energy audits in an ef...

AI summary E1's Roving Energy Manager collaborates with Nova Scotia's 13 Mi'kmaw communities to identify Demand Side Management (DSM) projects and coordinate energy audits, aiming to enhance Mi'kmaw participation in E1's DSM programs.

1. Conduct research By consistently tracking quality assurance, participant satisfaction, and other attitudinal metrics among Nova Scotia households, E1 gains insights into how its programs are being received in the marketplace and can res...

AI summary E1 conducts research to track program effectiveness through quality assurance and participant satisfaction metrics, and plans to expand studies on DSM market opportunities and participant motivations in Nova Scotia.

2. Data and analytics support costs Data and analytics support costs come in the form of engaging and partnering with third parties, where needed, to support E1 staff in the areas of data science and data engineering, as well as expected c...

AI summary Data and analytics support costs involve third-party engagement for E1's data science and engineering needs, as well as ongoing customer data feeds from NS Power. E1's information ecosystem underpins its R&D efforts, emphasizing the importance of robust data infrastructure.

3. Complete program harmonization initiative E1 will complete a program harmonization initiative to streamline and modernize E1 operations, aimed at improving the customer experience by simplifying the requirements and processes customers...

AI summary E1 will implement a program harmonization initiative to streamline operations, enhance customer experience by simplifying participation processes, and leverage technology, process engineering, and data integration across customer touchpoints and channels.

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.

1. Update E1's 2026 potential study Together with its consultants, E1 will complete an update of its 2026 potential study during the 2027–2031 Plan period, both to inform its 2032-2036 DSM Plan and to contribute to an expected Integrated R...

AI summary E1 will update its 2026 potential study during the 2027–2031 Plan period to inform its 2032-2036 DSM Plan and contribute to the Nova Scotia Independent Energy System Operator's Integrated Resource Plan Evergreen process.

2. Further develop the evaluation process With its evaluator, E1 will develop the approach for the division of funds, savings, and projections between Plan periods and establish a standard process for future Market Transformation programs....

AI summary E1 will collaborate with its evaluator to establish a process for dividing funds, savings, and projections across Plan periods and standardize future Market Transformation programs. The Heat Pump Water Heater pilot will be evaluated during 2027–2031 to assess savings potential and process improvements, with a note that Market Transformation programs require extended planning horizons due to delayed measurable outcomes.

11.1 EVALUATION FRAMEWORK - E1's independent evaluation consultant is engaged to develop an Evaluation Framework that defines the - policies, priorities, and methodologies used to conduct the DSM evaluation. It provides a common - understa...

AI summary E1's independent evaluation consultant is tasked with creating an Evaluation Framework for DSM programs. The framework outlines evaluation definitions, goals, metrics, deliverables, and roles, establishing principles and prioritization criteria for annual evaluation plans. It aims to standardize best practices in DSM evaluation.

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.

1 11.2 PROCESS AND MARKET EVALUATIONS - 2 Program component process and market evaluations will remain consistent with the 2023–2026 DSM - 3 Resource Plan. Process evaluations identify and recommend improvements to increase the program - 4...

AI summary The text outlines process and market evaluations for DSM programs under the 2023–2026 Resource Plan. Process evaluations aim to improve efficiency and effectiveness, while market evaluations analyze technology adoption. E1 will determine evaluation criteria based on factors like new programs, major changes, and energy savings variances.

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.

13. REPORTING AND REVIEW - This section describes E1's DSM reporting framework for the 2027–2031 DSM Resource Plan period, - including routine filings, stakeholder review mechanisms, a proposed process for mid-course adjustments - and a pr...

AI summary This section outlines E1's Demand Side Management (DSM) reporting framework for the 2027–2031 DSM Resource Plan period, detailing routine filings, stakeholder review processes, mid-course adjustment mechanisms, and a proposed mid-term review to ensure compliance and effectiveness.

13.1 OVERVIEW OF DSM REPORTING 2027–2031 - E1 will file the following six reports each year with the Energy Board, for a total of thirty DSM reports over - the 2027-2031 Plan period: - Quarterly Reports (Q1-Q3); - Annual Progress Reports (...

AI summary E1 (EfficiencyOne) is required to submit 30 DSM reports over 2027–2031, including quarterly, annual progress, program evaluation, and financial statements. The Nova Scotia Energy Board's independent consultant verifies the accuracy of E1's annual program evaluation reports and savings data.

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.

1 13.2.2 ADDITIONAL DSMAG ENGAGEMENT - 2 E1 is also proposing the following opportunities for additional DSMAG engagement and enhancements to 3 its current annual reporting: - Annual DSMAG sessions: Each year, following the filing of the A...

AI summary E1 proposes enhancing DSMAG engagement through annual sessions, stakeholder meetings, and expanded reporting to improve transparency and collaboration in implementing the five-year Plan. Annual sessions will review progress, mid-course adjustments, and rate class spending, while expanded reporting includes year-to-date performance data in Quarterly Reports.

13.3 MID-COURSE ADJUSTMENTS Mid-course adjustments (MCAs) provide the DSM administrator limited flexibility to adjust annual program-level budgets and savings from those set out in the original approved DSM Plan, in order to respond to mar...

AI summary Mid-course adjustments (MCAs) allow DSM administrators to adjust annual budgets and savings without altering overall targets. The NSEB directed E1 to enhance MCA processes following Industrial Group concerns about rate-class spending variances. E1 proposes using historical data, improving reporting, and lowering thresholds for adjustments. MCAs will be integrated into the Standardized Filing Framework and discussed at DSMAG sessions.

13.4.1 QUARTERLY REPORTING - Quarterly reports provide regular updates on DSM implementation, performance, and expenditures - during each Plan year. These reports support ongoing monitoring and early identification of emerging - trends or...

AI summary E1 is required to submit quarterly reports to the NSEB detailing DSM implementation, performance metrics, and expenditures. Reports include YTD data, mid-course adjustments, rate class variances, and program highlights, with specific filing dates set by NSUARB. The reports aim to monitor progress toward five-year targets and ensure compliance with the approved DSM Resource Plan.

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.

1.1 Innovation within DSM Enabling Strategies E1 allocates funding for research and development within the Enabling Strategies component of its DSM Resource Plans. Innovation is a core element of the Enabling Strategies portfolio, supporti...

AI summary E1 invests in research and development for Enabling Strategies within its DSM Resource Plans, focusing on innovation to enhance DSM programs. Activities include exploring emerging technologies, improving existing programs, conducting pilots, and fostering market adoption of energy-efficient solutions and demand response strategies.

1.1.1 Innovation Goals E1's Innovation team uses established Innovation Goals to define the long-term outcomes of all projects from concept, planning to close. Innovation Goals ensure that long-term outcomes align with the DSM mandate. Acr...

AI summary E1's Innovation team uses Innovation Goals to align long-term outcomes with the DSM mandate, focusing on improving cost-effectiveness, advancing new DSM measures and programs, leveraging system insights, and utilizing other funding sources.

3.3 Project Ideation - Ideation for new projects can come from various sources but is fundamentally focused on developing solutions that address challenges and explore new opportunities. Examples of sources for insights and findings includ...

AI summary Project ideation sources include Integrated Resource Planning, DSM studies, E1's programs, market research, and emerging technologies, aiming to address challenges and opportunities. Key inputs are program evaluations, jurisdictional scans, and data analytics.

5 The Innovation Goals, justification and key activities for each of the Focus Areas are shown below in [Table 2.](#page-220-3) Focus Area Innovation Goal(s) Justification Key Activities program design alignment with grid needs, operations...

AI summary The text outlines innovation goals and key activities related to program design alignment with grid needs, operations optimization, and grid-responsive event dispatch. Activities include evaluating customer segments, emerging technologies, and building automation processes.

1 3.6 Evaluation Metrics - 2 Each project is evaluated annually based on its Innovation Goal(s) and the corresponding set of metrics, shown below in [Table 3.](#page-224-2) These - 3 evaluation metrics are a measure of success for the proj...

AI summary Each project is evaluated annually based on Innovation Goals and metrics outlined in Table 3.2, serving as a success measure for research or pilot-oriented initiatives.

5 Table 3: Evaluation metrics by Innovation Goal Innovation Goal Evaluation Metric(s) 1. Improve cost‑effectiveness of existing measures and programs. Evaluation will be conducted relative to a defined baseline, with the primary reference...

AI summary The text outlines evaluation metrics for five innovation goals related to improving the cost-effectiveness of existing demand-side management (DSM) measures and programs, advancing readiness for new DSM measures and programs, leveraging system planning insights, and utilizing non-DSM funding sources for emerging DSM activities. References to Table 4 and Table 5 are made for evaluating market and program readiness.

4. PILOT OVERVIEW

AI summary The section outlines a pilot program overview within a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding, listing acronyms related to energy management, utility regulation, and program administration. Key terms include Demand Side Management (DSM), Public Utilities Act (PUA), and Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB), reflecting the regulatory and operational context of the proceeding.

4.1 Pilot Definition - Pilots involve small-scale experiments meant to test new measures or program delivery approaches and prepare for full scale, permanent implementation. The objective of a pilot is to: - validate that the idea works, i...

AI summary Pilots are small-scale experiments aimed at testing new measures or program delivery approaches to validate ideas, identify gaps, confirm assumptions, gather customer feedback, assess industry capacity, and prepare for full-scale implementation. Key objectives include impact/process evaluation and ensuring readiness for permanent adoption.

4.2 Pilot Lifecycle The pilot lifecycle for developing new initiatives and launching them as programs is shown in Figure 2 below. Figure 2: Pilot lifecycle process flow The pilot lifecycle begins with evaluating ideas for feasibility, valu...

AI summary The pilot lifecycle outlines stages for developing initiatives into programs, including feasibility evaluation, concept refinement, planning with stakeholder input, execution with testing and iteration, and concluding with a recommendation package for full-scale launch. Metrics from Innovation Goals (1.1) are used throughout.

2 Alternate Scenario)

AI summary The document references an alternate scenario within a regulatory proceeding, likely exploring demand-side management (DSM) strategies, cost recovery mechanisms, and energy efficiency programs. Key entities include NS Power, NSEB, and DSMAG, with topics focusing on regulatory frameworks and program evaluations.

5.3 RBIA STUDY PERIOD A solar-PV resource was modelled for the first time as part of the 2027–2031 DSM Plan. With a 30-year measure life, solar-PV installations in 2031 would generate DSM impacts through 2060. However, the NS Power rate mo...

AI summary The 2027–2031 DSM Plan initially considered extending the RBIA study period to 2060 to account for solar-PV impacts, but NS Power and E1 opted to retain the 2055 model configuration. Reasons included data limitations, solar-PV's minor role compared to expiring energy efficiency measures, and the adequacy of 2046 impacts for decision-making.

6. METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS Attachment 5 describes the overall modelling and key assumptions that apply to the 2027–2031 DSM Plan and 2026 Historical RBIA.

AI summary Attachment 5 outlines the methodology and key assumptions for the 2027–2031 Demand Side Management (DSM) Plan and the 2026 Historical Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA).

usinesses that deliver efficiency services instead of investment in foreign fuel supplies, increased - productivity in businesses, and increased occupant comfort in homes and businesses, among others. PAC net lifetime benefits of the DSM P...

AI summary DSM investments yield long-term net benefits for Nova Scotian ratepayers via cost-effectiveness testing (PAC). However, the PAC test does not account for potential subsidization of participants by non-participants. RBIA analysis subdivides rate classes into participant and non-participant groups, showing that DSM program participation reduces bills for participants despite rate increases, with higher participation limiting customers facing only rate hikes.

7 2.3 DEMAND RESPONSE INPUTS - 8 Demand response inputs for the 2027–2031 DSM Plan RBIA come from Guidehouse's DRSim™ - 9 model results. Rate class allocations for the BNI Curtailment program were calibrated for the - 2027–2031 DSM Plan RB...

AI summary Demand response inputs for the 2027–2031 DSM Plan RBIA are derived from Guidehouse's DRSim™ model, historical data (2011–2024), and the approved 2023–2025 DSM Plan. Modeling assumes no energy impacts and a one-year measure life for demand response programs.

7. CALCULATION OF PARTICIPATION - This section describes the development of participation figures, which are used for the - participant bill impact calculations.

AI summary This section outlines the methodology for calculating participation figures, which are essential for determining participant bill impact calculations within the regulatory proceeding.

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.

9 Annual Tracked Participation - For years where approved/proposed rather than historical participation is used (2025–2031), - annual tracked participation was first estimated at the program component level. For some - program components t...

AI summary Annual tracked participation for 2025–2031 was estimated using Guidehouse's ProCESS model and scaled RBIA data from 2024 with energy/unit factors. Participation figures were allocated to rate classes proportionally. E1 tracked 2011–2024 participation rates.

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.

4 7.2.2 UNTRACKED PARTICIPATION - 5 E1 operates two program components that offer rebates at the point-of-sale: residential Instant - 6 Savings and the Instant Rebates portion of Business Energy Rebates (BER-IR). These program - 7 componen...

AI summary E1's Instant Savings and BER-IR programs use transaction records and research to estimate participation due to lack of direct data collection. The methodology changed in 2027, abandoning the prior assumption that all large commercial/industrial customers participated annually, due to declining participation from lighting phase-outs in Instant Rebates.

Annual Participation - For 2025–2031, annual untracked participants were estimated using the same methodology as - tracked annual participants. For historical untracked participants (2011–2024) E1 utilizes survey - data to estimate the num...

AI summary The text outlines E1's methodology for estimating annual untracked participants from 2025–2031 using the same approach as tracked participants, while historical data (2011–2024) relies on survey data segmented by rate class.

7.2.3 RESIDENTIAL BEHAVIOUR PARTICIPATION - The Residential Behaviour program component applies the rate class weighted-average measure - life to estimate active participants; this is consistent with other tracked programs. For program- -...

AI summary The Residential Behaviour program uses a rate-class weighted-average measure life to estimate participants, ensuring accurate tracking without overestimation. A cross-participation factor prevents double-counting across tracked/untracked participation. Residential Behaviour is excluded from the 2027–2031 DSM Plan RBIA, focusing on post-delivery year participation decay aligned with energy savings.

7.3 SOLAR-PV PARTICIPATION - For the 2027–2031 DSM Plan, solar-PV participation is a direct output of Guidehouse's ProCESS - model. 100% of participation was allocated to the residential rate class. Active participation was - calculated ba...

AI summary The 2027–2031 DSM Plan uses Guidehouse's ProCESS model to allocate 100% of solar-PV participation to residential rate classes. Solar-PV measures, with a 30-year lifespan, do not expire by 2055, as their duration exceeds the model's timeframe.

5 7.5 COMBINED PARTICIPATION - 6 In the DSM scenario—where the combined effects of energy efficiency, demand response, and - 7 Solar-PV are evaluated—the rate-class participation is assumed to be the highest level observed - 8 among the th...

AI summary In the DSM scenario, combined participation of energy efficiency, demand response, and solar-PV uses the highest observed rate-class participation due to overlapping program participation, particularly between energy efficiency and solar-PV, and energy efficiency and demand response.

3.1 Revenue Requirement The annual revenue requirements under the "With DSM" scenario are kept consistent with the test year information from the preceding rate cases. The non-FAM costs in the years following the 2014 test year from the 20...

AI summary The document outlines revenue requirements under 'With DSM' and 'No DSM' scenarios, adjusting costs for inflation and DSM impacts. FAM and non-FAM costs are modified based on test year data and avoided fuel costs. Historic cost true-ups are excluded due to minimal impact, lack of rigor, and complexity. The analysis uses data from 2011-2035 and references prior rate proceedings.

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.

Table 2: 2027–2031 Alternate Scenario Investment and Savings 2027-2031 Portfolio Year Investment ($M) Lifetime Benefits ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Low- Income & Equity...

AI summary Table 2 presents investment and savings data for energy efficiency and demand response programs from 2027 to 2031. It includes metrics such as investment, lifetime benefits, energy savings, peak demand savings, and weighted average measure life for various programs.

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.

4 Table 4: 2027 Alternate Scenario Savings and Investment by Program Component 2027 Investment ($ million) Lifetime Benefits ($ million) First Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Available Deman...

AI summary Table 4 outlines the 2027 alternate scenario savings and investment by program component, focusing on residential energy efficiency programs. It provides data on investment, lifetime benefits, energy savings, and other metrics for various initiatives, including efficient product rebates, home energy assessments, and the Mi'kmaw Home Energy Efficiency Project.

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 and sol...

AI summary The text outlines how lifetime benefits for energy efficiency, demand response, and solar-PV are calculated using net present value of avoided costs. It also discusses how low-income and equity impacts are reflected in program participation and mentions the PAC as a benefit/cost ratio for DSM investment.

1 Table 5: 2028 Alternate Scenario Savings and Investment by Program Component 2028 Investment ($ million) Lifetime Benefits ($ million) First Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Available Deman...

AI summary Table 5 outlines the 2028 Alternate Scenario Savings and Investment by Program Component, highlighting energy efficiency (EE) programs, enabling strategies (ES), demand response (DR), and solar-PV programs. It provides data on investment, lifetime benefits, energy savings, peak demand savings, and other metrics for residential and business, non-profit, and institutional (BNI) programs, as well as overall portfolio totals.

1 Table 6: 2029 Alternate Scenario Savings and Investment by Program Component 2029 Investment ($ million) Lifetime Benefits ($ million) First Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Available Deman...

AI summary Table 6 outlines the 2029 Alternate Scenario Savings and Investment by Program Component, focusing on Efficient Product Rebates. The table shows an investment of $4.8 million, with lifetime benefits of $32.5 million, first-year energy savings of 13.5 GWh, and lifetime energy savings of 152.4 GWh. The weighted average measure life is 6.8 years, and the program administrator cost test (PAC) is included.

1 Table 7: 2030 Alternate Scenario Savings and Investment by Program Component 2030 Investment ($ million) Lifetime Benefits ($ million) First Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Available Deman...

AI summary Table 7 outlines the projected investment, benefits, and savings across various energy efficiency (EE), enabling strategies (ES), demand response (DR), and solar-PV programs for 2030. The data highlights the financial and energy-saving impacts of these initiatives, including residential and business programs, and emphasizes the overall savings and investment required for the DSM portfolio.

Table 8: 2031 Alternate Scenario Savings and Investment by Program Component 2031 Investment ($ million) Lifetime Benefits ($ million) First Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Available Demand...

AI summary Table 8 presents the 2031 alternate scenario savings and investment by program component, including energy efficiency (EE), enabling strategies (ES), demand response (DR), and solar-PV programs. It outlines investments, lifetime benefits, energy savings, and other metrics for residential, business, and institutional programs, as well as the Mi'kmaw community initiatives.

1 1.3 ALTERNATE SCENARIO – PROGRAMS 15 Alternate tab for the Alternate Scenario). - 2 The Alternate Scenario removes the residential program component (Eco Shift) from the Demand - 3 Response program. 4 - 5 All other DSM programs in the Al...

AI summary The Alternate Scenario removes the residential Eco Shift program from Demand Response but retains energy efficiency and solar-PV programs, including new Mi'kmaw initiatives. Technical details are outlined in appendices, with no changes to energy efficiency or solar-PV measures compared to the Preferred Plan.

24 12. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATIONS 25 12.1 EfficiencyOne's performance under the terms of this Agreement shall be measured in 26 accordance with the performance requirements established by the UARB NSEB pursuant 27 to Section...

AI summary EfficiencyOne's performance under the agreement is measured by the UARB NSEB's performance requirements, established under Section 79M of the Act and detailed in Schedule C. This outlines the evaluation framework for compliance.

rogram participation, expenditures, and savings through a variety of methods, including estimation based on geographic 118 Actual Program Administrator Cost test results. census information 119 120 SCHEDULE D CONFIDENTIALITY AND NONDISCLOS...

AI summary The document outlines a confidentiality agreement between EfficiencyOne and Nova Scotia Power Incorporated (NSPI) under a Supply Purchase Agreement for EECA DSM activities. It references relevant legislation and the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Energy Board, emphasizing the handling of confidential information.

12. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATIONS 12.1 EfficiencyOne's performance under the terms of this Agreement shall be measured in accordance with the performance requirements established by the NSEB pursuant to Section 79M of the Act as...

AI summary EfficiencyOne's performance under the Agreement is evaluated based on performance requirements set by the NSEB under Section 79M of the Act, as outlined in Schedule C. This establishes the framework for measuring compliance with contractual obligations.

- 6 Table 2: DSM Resource Plan Filing Content Item Description 1. Introduction Introduce the DSM Resource Plan and summarize any E1–NS Power agreements (attach as appendices). Include relevant background and history, including past DSM Pla...

AI summary The document outlines the requirements for the DSM Resource Plan filing, including sections on introduction, previous plan results, plan development, proposed DSM resource plan, alternate scenarios, additional items, and conclusion. It specifies the need for detailed metrics, program descriptions, and cost-effectiveness justifications.

4.2.1 DSM Baseline Study - E1 will work with the NSIESO on IRP activities, [6](#page-418-1) which may include commissioning a DSM baseline - study in advance of each DSM Potential Study to identify current stocks of electricity consuming -...

AI summary E1 is collaborating with NSIESO on IRP activities, including commissioning a DSM baseline study prior to each DSM Potential Study to identify current electricity-consuming devices across all market sectors.

4.3.1 Balanced Plan Approach - E1 will produce DSM Resource Plans that balance multiple aspects of DSM for the benefit of - customers, including: - Short-term and long-term energy and capacity avoidance; - Program delivery costs; - Avoided...

AI summary E1 will develop DSM Resource Plans balancing energy and capacity avoidance, program costs, avoided investments, non-electric benefits, program diversity, business relationships, market access, and rate impacts to ensure equitable customer benefits.

4.3.2 Cost-Effectiveness Testing - 5 E1 will apply the Board-approved cost-effectiveness test at the portfolio level under the Public - Utilities Act . - 7 As directed under M12282, the PAC test is the primary screening test, using NS Powe...

AI summary E1 will apply the Board-approved cost-effectiveness test at the portfolio level under the Public Utilities Act, using the PAC test with NS Power's WACC as the discount rate. Strategic electrification must reduce GHG emissions and electricity costs. E1 will provide results at multiple levels and justify failed measures individually.

4.3.4.1 Low Income and Equity Considerations - Consistent with the Balanced Plan Approach, E1 will design and deliver programs and services that - benefit low-income and equity customers, including both dedicated programs and incidental -...

AI summary E1 will design programs and services to benefit low-income and equity customers through both targeted initiatives and incidental impacts from non-targeted programs, aligning with the Balanced Plan Approach.

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.

4.8.4 Evaluation - E1 will file annual impact evaluations for each program prepared by an independent third party - DSM program evaluator. - 1 E1 will file process evaluations for individual programs, produced by an independent third party...

AI summary E1 is required to submit annual impact evaluations and process evaluations for DSM programs, conducted by independent third-party evaluators. Process evaluations are mandatory for new program components, major changes, significant evaluator recommendations, or variances exceeding 25% of planned outcomes.

d the Mi'kmaw Home Energy Efficiency Project (which, combined with the 3.5 GWh achieved in 2023 and the 5.3 GWh achieved in 2024 represents 84% progress towards the four-year Plan target of 19.8 GWh). During 2025 several programs underwent...

AI summary The Mi'kmaw Home Energy Efficiency Project achieved 84% progress toward its four-year target. In 2025, program transitions like Appliance Retirement and Green Heat closures, plus a cybersecurity incident at NS Power disrupting AMI data, caused underperformance. E1 aims to meet 90% compliance thresholds for 2023-2026 Plan targets, spending $236.8 million.

2025 and overall 2023-2025 spending being within the approved $173.0 million investment level; but also contributed to energy savings and demands savings coming in lower than the 2025 Plan targets. Demand savings for both E1's Residential...

AI summary The 2025 Plan's energy and demand savings fell below targets due to factors like NS Power's cybersecurity incident, program adjustments (e.g., LED measures removal), federal grant closures, and declining program efficacy. Residential Behaviour's energy savings dropped significantly, impacting overall results. Green Heat and Appliance Retirement programs ended due to sustained low savings.

2.1 2025 Portfolio and Program Results

AI summary The section outlines the 2025 Portfolio and Program Results, likely evaluating energy programs and their outcomes. Key focus areas may include Demand-Side Management (DSM) initiatives, cost analyses, and regulatory oversight by Nova Scotia energy boards.

Table 1: 2025 Results to 2025 Plan as Approved and 2025 Year-End Forecast 20: 25 Plan as Appro ved 2 025 Year-End Fo recast 2025 Results Results to Forecas t Resul its to Plan as App oved Small Business Energy Solutions 12.6 183.1 2.6 6.8...

AI summary The table compares 2025 results to the 2025 Plan as approved and provides a year-end forecast. It includes data for various programs such as Small Business Energy Solutions, BNI Subtotal, Low-Income 1, and Enabling Strategies, with metrics like program costs, participation, and forecasted outcomes.

2.2 2025 Participation Result[s](#page-11-0) - [Table 2](#page-11-0) presents E1's 2025 participation results. The table provides a comparison of 2025 - participation results to those modelled in the 2025 Plan and the four-year Plan period...

AI summary E1's 2025 participation results show mixed outcomes compared to the 2025 Plan. Higher participation occurred in Instant Savings, Affordable Homes programs, and Business Energy Rebates due to retailer sales, faster project completion, and rebate promotions. Lower participation was observed in Efficient Product Installation (phasing out lighting measures), Green Heat (ended in 2025), and Demand Response (unpursued pathways). The Custom program exceeded energy savings despite lower participation.

riving unit costs for the Existing Residential program, and the Residential sector as a whole, higher. Other program components within Existing Residential had the following unit cost results in 2025: • Affordable Multifamily Housing's uni...

AI summary The 2025 unit costs for the Existing Residential program and Residential sector were impacted by lower energy savings in Affordable Multifamily Housing, driven by adjustments to full load hours for mini-split heat pumps. These adjustments stemmed from a 2024 DSM evaluation billing analysis, leading to proportional spending reductions despite lower energy savings.

2 largely because the program component continued to be impacted by reduced energy 15 2025 Plan as Approved refers to the investment and savings targets as provided in the 2023-2025 DSM Resource Plan Compliance filing. See 16 M10473, 2023-...

AI summary The document discusses the 2023-2025 DSM Resource Plan Compliance filing, referencing the NSUARB's approval of the plan and the status of various program components, including the New Home Construction program ending in 2023 and the 2025 year-end forecast based on E1's Q3 2025 DSM report.

10 Table 4: 2023-2026 DSM Plan Period 2023-2026 DSM Plan Period Forecast Plan Year Energy Savings (GWh) Demand Savings (MW) Available Capacity (MW) Energy Savings applicable to Affordable Single-family Homes, Affordable Multi-family Housin...

AI summary Table 4 presents the 2023-2026 DSM Plan Period forecast, including energy and demand savings, available capacity, and expenditures. The data indicates that actual results for 2023-2025 exceeded or met the approved targets, with some variances noted. The table references filings and approvals by the NSUARB and NSEB.

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.

4.1 2025 Evaluation Activities Evaluation activities are conducted annually by E1's independent third-party evaluation consultant to ensure accurate determination of net electrical energy, net system-peak demand savings, and available capa...

AI summary E1 conducts annual evaluations by an independent consultant to assess DSM program effectiveness, including net energy savings and capacity. The 2025 reports include condensed or comprehensive evaluations, with Residential Behaviour exempt from tracking sheet audits due to its random selection method.

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%.

Program Components - Appliance Retirement retires old, inefficient household appliances (e.g., refrigerators, freezers, room air conditioners) by offering free appliance pick-up from homes, proper recycling, and a financial incentive. The...

AI summary The Appliance Retirement program retired inefficient appliances until January 2025, offering incentives and recycling. Instant Savings provides rebates for energy-efficient purchases. Both programs aim to improve energy efficiency and reduce consumption.

Appliance Retirement Highlights - Appliance Retirement pickups continued in early January, before the program component ended as of January 8, 2025, following a review of the program component precipitated by rising delivery costs and decl...

AI summary The Appliance Retirement program in Nova Scotia ended in January 2025 due to rising delivery costs, declining savings from retiring newer efficient units, and limited service providers. E1 staff redirected appliance retirement requests to local waste management companies post-closure.

Instant Savings Highlights - As of January 1, 2025, the Instant Savings program component ended rebates for dehumidifiers, and LED bulbs, fixtures, and recessed downlights. Dehumidifiers had reached baseline efficiency (nonenergy-efficient...

AI summary The Instant Savings program ended rebates for dehumidifiers, LED bulbs, and fixtures by 2025 due to efficiency baselines shifting to LED. Rebate eligibility changed mid-2025 to manage spending under the 2023-2025 Plan, excluding several products until 2026. Other products like heat pump water heaters retained rebates.

2 4.2.2 Existing Residential - 3 The Existing Residential program consists of the following program components: - 4 Affordable Multifamily Housing; - 5 Affordable Single-family Homes; - 6 Efficient Product Installation; - 7 Green Heat; - 8...

AI summary The Existing Residential program includes components such as Affordable Multifamily Housing, Efficient Product Installation, and Green Heat. It references the 2025 DSM Programs Evaluation Reports, Final DSM Reports, and the Residential Efficient Product Rebates Program.

Affordable Multifamily Housing and Non-Profit Organizations Highlights - Affordable Multifamily Housing energy savings achieved were consistent with 2024, but lower than set out in the 2025 Plan as Approved, with 98 projects being complete...

AI summary Affordable Multifamily Housing energy savings in 2025 were lower than the 2025 Plan's targets, with 98 projects completed and 71 initiated (down from 2024). Key factors included reduced prescriptive mini-split heat pump savings due to 2024 Green Heat evaluation adjustments and the end of provincial DSM incentive top-ups since 2021. Mitigation efforts included process improvements, cross-team collaboration, and targeted marketing.

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.

Efficient Product Installation Highlights • Efficient Product Installation energy and demand savings results were lower than the 2025 Plan as Approved targets, as the program component phased out its lighting measures as of July 1, 2025 Da...

AI summary Efficient Product Installation program savings fell short of 2025 targets due to phasing out lighting measures by July 2025 and shifting focus to electrician-installed measures (smart thermostats, sensors). Despite a 12% drop in average energy savings per participant, higher unitary savings from new measures offset some losses. Air-sealing and water-saving measures were paused in 2025 but reintroduced in 2026. The program also supported Residential Demand Response with 13,687 devices installed in 2025.

Green Heat Highlights - Green Heat continued to experience a steady decline in participation and energy savings in 2025, consistent with the trend seen in 2023 and 2024. This trend precipitated the decision by E1 to close the program compo...

AI summary Green Heat program participation and energy savings declined steadily from 2023 to 2025, leading E1 to close the program by December 2025. Factors included competition from the federal Canada Greener Homes Grant and evaluation findings showing reduced savings from key measures. Biomass and other measures were removed in May 2025 due to low uptake and minimal savings.

Home Energy Assessment Highlights - Home Energy Assessment exceeded its 2025 Plan as Approved energy and demand savings targets, but results declined from 2023 and 2024 levels, as expected, following the Canada Greener Homes Grant (which E...

AI summary The Home Energy Assessment program met 2025 energy and demand savings targets but saw declining results post-2023 due to the Canada Greener Homes Grant closing in Q1 2024. Remaining grant participants must complete assessments by November 2025, with rebate processing expected by March 2026. The program was integrated into E1's Customer Information System in 2025, with process improvements ongoing.

Mi'kmaw Home Energy Efficiency Project Highlights - The Mi'kmaw Home Energy Efficiency Project program component achieved its 2025 Plan as Approved demand savings target and participation estimates, while energy savings results were lower...

AI summary The Mi'kmaw Home Energy Efficiency Project met its 2025 demand savings target but fell short of energy savings expectations due to modelling overestimation. The program, now in its eighth cohort since 2018, plans to end in 2027. E1 released a 2024 Impact Report detailing results and is assessing unparticipated homes for future planning.

Residential Behaviour Highlights - Residential Behaviour achieved 5.6 GWh of energy savings between January and April before the program component was paused indefinitely in May due to a cybersecurity incident at NS Power that resulted in...

AI summary Residential Behaviour achieved 5.6 GWh savings before being paused indefinitely in May 2025 due to a NS Power cybersecurity incident disrupting AMI data transfer. E1 reduced costs and maintained readiness to resume operations. Ongoing communication with NS Power continues, but no data restoration timeline exists. E1 will address 2026 impacts in its mid-course adjustment, filed May 25, 2026.

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.

1 Table 8: 2025 BNI Efficient Product Rebates BNI EFFICIENT PRODUCT REBATES (2025) BNI Efficient Product Rebates Energy Savings (GWh) Demand Savings (MW) Expenditure ($ million) 2025 Results 40.2 5.3 8.2 2025 Plan 38.5 7.2 8.4 • As compare...

AI summary The 2025 BNI Efficient Product Rebates exceeded energy savings targets (40.2 GWh vs. 38.5 GWh) but underperformed on demand savings (5.3 MW vs. 7.2 MW). Lower demand savings were attributed to high uptake of solar PV projects, which provided no demand savings despite being a pilot program from Q2 2024 to Q2 2025. Expenditure remained slightly below the plan at $8.2 million.

Program Component • The Business Energy Rebates program component provides financial incentives in the form of prescriptive rebates to BNI participants through both the Application Rebates and the Instant Rebate service. Application Rebate...

AI summary The Business Energy Rebates program offers financial incentives through Application Rebates (requiring project applications to E1 via Efficiency Nova Scotia's website) and Instant Rebates via participating distributors across Nova Scotia.

Business Energy Rebates Highlights - Business Energy Rebates achieved 40.2 GWh in energy savings and 5.3 MW in demand savings in 2025, meeting its 2025 Plan as Approved energy savings target, while demand savings were lower than the Plan t...

AI summary Business Energy Rebates met 2025 energy savings targets (40.2 GWh) but fell short on demand savings (5.3 MW). Program adjustments included rebate reductions, removal of solar PV and T8 LED rebates, and marketing campaigns targeting contractors. Market research indicated LED dominance in commercial fixtures, aligning with program shifts toward sustainable technologies.

7 Table 9: 2025 Custom Incentives CUSTOM INCENTIVES (2025) Custom Incentives Energy Savings (GWh) Demand Savings (MW) Expenditure ($ million) 2025 Results 34.5 6.7 8.5 2025 Plan 26.8 5.1 8.6 • Custom Incentives exceeded its 2025 Plan as Ap...

AI summary The Custom Incentives program exceeded its 2025 Plan targets for energy and demand savings (34.5 GWh and 6.7 MW, respectively), driven by high-savings projects completed in 2025. Expenditures aligned with the Plan's $8.6 million budget, continuing a trend from 2024.

Custom Highlights • Custom exceeded its 2025 Plan as Approved energy and demand savings targets as several highsavings projects closed in 2025, consistent with a trend seen in 2024. All Custom services – Building Optimization, Retrofit, Ne...

AI summary Custom exceeded its 2025 energy and demand savings targets due to high-savings projects closing in 2025, consistent with 2024 trends. All Custom services completed projects in 2025.

Strategic Energy Management (SEM) - Strategic Energy Management supported 12 participants in 2025; nine continuing participants and three new participants. Eleven of the 12 participants achieved a combined 4.0 GWh in energy savings, which...

AI summary Strategic Energy Management (SEM) supported 12 participants in 2025, achieving 4.0 GWh in energy savings. Compressed air leak repair measures accounted for 54% of the savings. Performance-based incentives were offered to customers, with additional incentives for those in the Large Industrial initiative. The service provider contract was renewed for the same provider since 2018.

1 4.3.3 Direct Installation 2 The Direct Installation program is marketed as Small Business Energy Solutions. 3

AI summary The Direct Installation program, rebranded as Small Business Energy Solutions, is discussed in the context of Nova Scotia regulatory proceedings. The section outlines program administration and regulatory oversight by relevant energy boards.

Small Business Energy Solution Highlights - Interest in the program remained strong and the number of applications was high throughout 2025, following changes to the program component in Q2 2024 – increasing the eligibility cap for busines...

AI summary The Small Business Energy Solution program saw strong interest in 2025 due to 2024 changes, including higher eligibility caps, extended preapproval windows, and increased incentives. Market research found that commercial fixture markets are LED-dominated, but lamp markets lag with non-LED inventory still present.

DIRECT INSTALLATION (2025) to serve customers who have not done a full LED retrofit, and DSM program administrators are shifting programs in response to the BNI LED transformation. As recommended by the evaluator, E1 will phase out lightin...

AI summary E1 plans to phase out lighting rebates in Small Business Energy Solutions by 2028 due to the BNI LED transformation, prompting DSM program administrators to adjust their programs.

2 4.4 Demand Response Program Results - 3 E1 launched its Demand Response program in 2023, an initiative outlined in the 2023-2025 Plan - 4 and the 2026 DSM Extension with a Performance Target at the end of 2026 of 16.3 MW of - 5 available...

AI summary E1 launched its Demand Response program in 2023, targeting 16.3 MW of available capacity by 2026. The program includes BNI (Smart Synergy) for commercial/industrial curtailment and Residential (Eco Shift) with devices like smart thermostats and EV chargers. Table 11 provides 2025 results.

DEMAND RESPONSE (2025) - o In the Residential Demand Response program component, fewer domestic hot water direct load controllers were installed than planned, and enrolment of batteries and EV telematics and charger devices, fell short of...

AI summary The 2025 Demand Response programs faced underperformance due to lower-than-expected installations of domestic hot water controllers, reduced battery and EV device enrolment, and challenges in BNI program participation. E1, a new program, struggled with customer understanding. Expenditures remained high despite lower capacity results due to early-year foundational activities and cost structures.

2024/2025 season (December 1, 2024 to February 28, 2025) results - The Residential Demand Response program component, marketed as Eco Shift, achieved 0.9 MW of available capacity during the 2024/2025 season (December 1, 2024 to February 28...

AI summary The Eco Shift demand response program achieved 0.9 MW of available capacity in the 2024/2025 season, below the 2025 Plan target. Underperformance was attributed to delayed controller installations, low EV device enrollment, and weak battery participation. Smart thermostats were the most common enrolled device.

2025/2026 season (December 1, 2025 to February 28, 2026) preparations - Eco Shift device installation ramped up throughout 2025, with 13,687 demand response eligible devices (smart thermostats and domestic hot water direct load controllers...

AI summary Eco Shift program installed 13,687 demand response devices in 2025, with 18,234 total since August 2024. E1 ensured device readiness, ran marketing campaigns, and expects residential demand response capacity to double in 2025/2026. Efforts focus on optimizing thermostat strategies and connectivity.

2 4.5 Low-Income, Diverse, Underserved Communities - 3 In 2025, E1 updated its assumptions and estimation methodology for calculating impacts from - 4 E1's dedicated program components (Affordable Multifamily Housing, Affordable Single-Fam...

AI summary E1 updated its methodology for calculating low-income and equity impacts from its DSM programs in 2025. Dedicated programs like Affordable Multifamily Housing and the Mi'kmaw Home Energy Efficiency Project exclusively serve low-income communities. Non-targeted programs saw changes, including the Appliance Retirement program's end and revised assumptions for Business Energy Rebates. The methodology was filed with E1's 2026 DSM Extension Application.

4.5.1 Performance Target For the 2023-2026 Plan as Approved, the NSEB established a Performance Target of 19.8 GWh for cumulative annual energy savings applicable to Affordable Single-family Homes, Affordable Multifamily Housing, and Mi'km...

AI summary The NSEB set a 19.8 GWh energy savings target for the 2023-2026 Plan. E1 exceeded its 2025 target for Affordable Single-family Homes but fell short in Affordable Multifamily and Mi'kmaw projects, though overall targets were met. E1 forecasts achieving the 19.8 GWh cumulative target by 2026. Table 12 details 2025 results.

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.

- o delivering heat pump water heater installer training sessions in four communities across the province, and a similar training session for energy auditors from E1's service organizations; - o launching a new monthly webinarseriesfor mem...

AI summary E1's Education and Outreach initiatives include training sessions for installers and auditors, webinars, networking events, and partnerships with industry organizations. The Green Schools program reached 32,466 students with 1,215 engagements, achieving 80% participation in Nova Scotia's public schools. Strategic partnerships with organizations like the Ecology Action Centre and Black Business Initiative were also highlighted.

Research activities in 2025 included: - Quarterly tracking of quality assurance, participant satisfaction, and other attitudinal metrics among Nova Scotia households took place throughout 2025, to help E1 respond to changing market conditi...

AI summary In 2025, research activities included quarterly tracking of household metrics and completion of surveys for E1 programs, including the Mi'kmaw Home Energy Efficiency Project and Demand Response. Findings informed program improvements and participant satisfaction tracking.

Innovation activities in 2025 included: - The deep retrofit navigator pilot concluded in Q2, with all participants completing their upgrades and final paperwork. The aim of the pilot, conducted in partnership with the Halifax Regional Muni...

AI summary In 2025, Nova Scotia launched multiple innovation pilots: a deep retrofit navigator pilot with HRM, a heat pump water heater market transformation pilot, a load flexibility demand response pilot, and research on mixed electric heating control solutions. Pilots highlighted challenges like cost and time, while emphasizing navigators' role in retrofit accessibility and exploring new demand response event types. E1 also installed monitoring systems to improve heat pump efficiency.

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.

5. CONCLUSION - In 2025, E1 achieved 129.4 GWh of incremental annual net energy savings (87% of the 2025 Plan - target of 149.5 GWh), 23.6 MW of annual net peak demand savings (90% of the 2025 Plan target - of 26.3 MW), 6.8 MW of available...

AI summary E1 achieved significant energy savings and demand reductions in 2025, meeting most of its 2025 DSM Plan targets. It also exceeded its target for energy savings applicable to affordable housing and the Mi'kmaw Home Energy Efficiency Project. E1 expects to meet its 2023-2026 DSM Plan performance targets and is scheduled to file its Q1 2026 DSM report on May 25, 2026.

2. 2025 RESULTS BY RATE CLASS 2025 actual expenditures were slightly lower than the 2025 Plan as Approved expenditures. Similar to 2024, the medium industrial rate class had the highest spending increase compared to the 2025 Plan, driven b...

AI summary 2025 actual expenditures were slightly lower than the approved plan, with medium industrial rate class spending rising due to higher BNI Demand Response participation. Municipal and small general rate classes exceeded planned spending from increased BNI Efficient Product Rebates participation, while large general and small industrial classes had lower spending due to reduced participation in Demand Response and Custom Incentives programs. Program timing and participant mix influenced outcomes.

16 2025 Rate Class Results by Program - 17 [Tables 2-6 p](#page-55-0)rovide a breakdown of 2025 net incremental energy and net peak demand savings, - 18 expenditures, and participation achieved by rate class within the energy efficiency pr...

AI summary Tables 2-6 provide 2025 data on net incremental energy and peak demand savings, expenditures, and participation by rate class across energy efficiency programs. The analysis focuses on program outcomes and financial metrics.

9 Table 3: 2025 Existing Residential Rate Class Results Existing Residential (2025) First-Year Lifetime Peak Housing Energy Energy Demand Expenditures Units / Savings Savings Savings ($ million) Products (GWh) (GWh) (MW) (#) Residential/Ch...

AI summary Table 3 presents the 2025 existing residential rate class results, showing energy and demand savings across various categories, along with expenditures and housing units. The data includes savings in gigawatt-hours and megawatts, as well as financial expenditures in millions of dollars.

1 Table 6: 2025 Direct Installation Rate Class Results Direct Installation (2025) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Expenditures ($ million) Products (#) Residential/Charitable (2,3,4) 0...

AI summary Table 6 outlines the 2025 Direct Installation Rate Class Results, showing energy and demand savings, expenditures, and number of products across various rate classes. The data indicates significant savings in energy and peak demand for residential, small general, and general rate classes, while some industrial and municipal classes show minimal or no savings.

3. 2023-2026 DSM PLAN PERIOD [Table 8 p](#page-59-0)rovides actual expenditures by rate class for 2023, 2024, and 2025, and the variances between the Plan and actuals. The table also provides the 2026 Plan as Approved expenditures by rate...

AI summary The 2023-2026 DSM Plan period shows variances in expenditures due to participation levels in programs like BNI Demand Response and Custom Incentives. Medium industrial spending rose due to higher-than-expected participation, while large general and small industrial spending fell due to lower participation. Large industrial spending increased in 2023 but aligned with the Plan in 2024-2025.

ATTACHMENT 2: EVALUATOR AND VERIFIER RECOMMENDATION UPDATES Table 1: Update on Implementation of 2022-2023 Evaluation Recommendations Table 2: Update on Implementation of 2024 Evaluation Recommendations Table 3: Update on Implementation of...

AI summary Attachment 2 provides updates on the implementation of evaluation and verification recommendations from 2021-2023 and 2024, organized into four tables. It outlines progress on addressing prior recommendations and new ones for 2024, though specific details are not included in the provided text.

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.

6 Table 1: 2023, 2024, 2025 PAC Results 2023 2024 2025 Program Administrator Cost (PAC) Test Results (including carbon) Plan as Approved PAC Actual PAC Plan as Approved PAC Actual PAC Plan as Approved PAC Actual PAC Efficient Product Rebat...

AI summary This table presents Program Administrator Cost (PAC) results for various energy efficiency and demand response programs in Nova Scotia for the years 2023, 2024, and 2025. It includes both planned and actual costs across different initiatives, such as Efficient Product Rebates, Appliance Retirement, and Demand Response. The data is derived from the 2023-2025 DSM Resource Plan Compliance filing approved by the NSUARB.

2025 DSM PROGRAMS EVALUATION Final Report

AI summary The document presents a final report evaluating the 2025 Demand Side Management (DSM) programs in Nova Scotia, assessing their effectiveness, outcomes, and alignment with regulatory goals. It likely includes analysis of program performance, cost-benefit assessments, and recommendations for future improvements.

DEFINITIONS Accuracy Reflects the proximity of measurements to the true value. Equivalent effective useful life The number of years by which the first-year savings estimate is multiplied to obtain lifetime energy savings. This value takes...

AI summary The text defines key terms related to energy efficiency program evaluations, including accuracy, equivalent effective useful life, evaluated savings, and evaluation plan. These definitions are essential for understanding how energy savings are measured and reported in regulatory proceedings.

EfficiencyOne (E1), an independent, non-profit organization, is responsible for helping Nova Scotians improve the energy efficiency of their homes and workplaces by designing, marketing, and delivering demand-side management (DSM) for Nova...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1), a non-profit organization, delivers demand-side management (DSM) programs through the Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS) franchise. E1's 2025 DSM program portfolio achieved significant energy and demand savings, including 129.444 GWh in net electrical energy savings and 60,748 tonnes of CO2 eq in avoided emissions. Econoler, along with other evaluators, conducted the evaluation of these programs.

1 Evaluation Scopes and Objectives The 2025 Portfolio Evaluation Plan was based on the Evaluation Schedule outlined in the Overall Strategic Evaluation Plan[4](#page-10-1) that provides the framework and approach to guide evaluation planni...

AI summary The 2025 Portfolio Evaluation Plan is based on the Overall Strategic Evaluation Plan and outlines factors for prioritizing evaluation activities, including program savings, uncertainty, changes in program design, regulatory requirements, and evaluation scheduling. The plan includes three evaluation categories: impact, process, and market evaluations.

Table 1: 2025 Portfolio Evaluation Plan PY2025 Program Components Impact Process Market Residential DSM Program Components Appliance Retirement Condensed Instant Savings Condensed Affordable Multifamily Housing Condensed Affordable Single-...

AI summary Table 1 outlines the 2025 Portfolio Evaluation Plan, detailing the evaluation approach for various program components under residential and BNI DSM programs. Most programs are evaluated using a condensed approach, while some, like Residential Behaviour and Strategic Energy Management, require comprehensive evaluations. The table also notes that certain programs have ended or are subject to specific evaluation conditions.

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.

Demand-side Management Measure Assessment Document The impact evaluation scope for 2025 also included an update of the Demand-side Management Measure Assessment (DSM MA) document. The DSM MA was updated to include new products added to pro...

AI summary The 2025 update to the DSM MA document focused on aligning with updated program offerings, removing outdated products (e.g., lighting from Instant Savings), revising algorithms for residential and commercial measures, and correcting technical inconsistencies. Annual adjustment ratios were also updated. Key changes included additions like smart thermostat load control and removals such as specific LED fixtures and heat pump water heaters.

1.2 Process and Market Evaluation Objectives and Scopes One market evaluation was completed in 2025. Market evaluation activities were aimed at achieving the following objectives: - › Validate 2024 market evaluation results and determine t...

AI summary A 2025 market evaluation validated 2024 results for Business Energy Rebates (BER) LED fixtures baseline timing and assessed implications for BER Application Rebates and Small Business Energy Solutions (SBES). A separate process evaluation for Residential Demand Response (DR) collected feedback on participation and operational improvements, with results in evaluation reports.

2 Evaluation Methodology This section presents the methodologies used and the activities carried out to evaluate E1 DSM program components and services through impact, process, and market evaluations.

AI summary This section outlines the methodologies used to evaluate E1 DSM program components through impact, process, and market evaluations, focusing on assessing program effectiveness and implementation.

2.1 Impact Evaluations The impact evaluations were conducted through a range of activities such as tracking sheet audits, datacollection tool development, project reviews assisted by participant follow-up interviews, energy model reviews,...

AI summary Impact evaluations were conducted using methods including tracking sheet audits, data collection tool development, project reviews with participant interviews, energy model reviews, on-site visits, and other analyses. The subsections detail the steps taken to execute these evaluations.

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.

Surveys and Interviews This subsection describes the data-collection activities conducted for the impact evaluations. › A participant survey was used to collect data on free-ridership and spillover for Business Energy Rebates – Application...

AI summary A participant survey was conducted by telephone between October and November 2025 to collect data on free-ridership and spillover for Business Energy Rebates – Application Rebates, involving 57 participants. The survey data is summarized in a table, which also includes additional surveys for process and market evaluations of other program components in the 2025 evaluation.

Table 2: 2025 Participant and Non-participant Surveys Program Component Number of Respondents BNI Business Energy Rebates – Application Rebates 57 Demand Response Residential Demand Response 103 Total 160 › In-depth interviews with program...

AI summary Table 2 presents survey data from 2025 participant and non-participant surveys, including 160 respondents across BNI programs such as Business Energy Rebates and Residential Demand Response. In-depth interviews were conducted with 70 market actors and stakeholders between May 2025 and January 2026 to evaluate program impacts, including free-ridership and spillover effects.

Site Visits and Project Reviews with Follow-up Site Visits or Interviews The Evaluator performed a total of 133 project reviews during the summer and fall of 2025, 49 of which were complemented through site visits and 24 were complemented...

AI summary The Evaluator conducted 133 project reviews in 2025, including site visits and phone interviews, to assess various energy efficiency programs. These reviews included validation of EFLHs for Affordable Multifamily Housing and technical reviews for Business Energy Rebates and other programs, with follow-ups to gather data on free-ridership and participant feedback.

Energy Model Reviews The Evaluator performed energy model reviews of the 12 Custom New Construction projects to verify the accuracy of energy models. After the initial file reviews, the Evaluator concluded that the available documentation...

AI summary The Evaluator conducted energy model reviews for 12 Custom New Construction projects, confirming sufficient documentation without requiring site visits. Models were compared to as-built drawings and baseline definitions to establish evaluated savings. Free-ridership interviews were conducted separately and not part of the project reviews.

2.1.3 Unitary Savings Review The Evaluator updated unitary savings values mainly based on comprehensive evaluation findings, including one or more of the following approaches: literature reviews of TRMs; metering studies and evaluation rep...

AI summary The Evaluator updated unitary savings values using literature reviews, metering studies, and engineering calculations. In 2025, no program component had a comprehensive evaluation, so parameters from the 2024 DSM MA were relied upon, with some updates. The domestic water heater load control rate and commercial measure algorithms were revised based on 2025 evaluations.

2.1.6 Gross Savings Analysis Gross savings refer to changes in energy consumption resulting from actions taken by participants regardless of their reasons for participating in a program. Upon completion of the impact evaluation activities...

AI summary Gross savings analysis quantifies energy consumption changes from program participation, regardless of motivation. The Evaluator calculated evaluated gross savings by compiling savings from implemented measures and compared results with E1's data, focusing on program component effectiveness and parameter evaluation.

Net-to-gross Assessment and Net Savings Calculations Free-ridership levels were established for select program components by conducting self-report surveys or in-depth interviews. Those surveys and interviews included questions used to est...

AI summary The document outlines methods for calculating free-ridership levels in energy efficiency programs using self-report surveys and interviews, considering factors like planning, cost, and cross-influence from prior participation. Weighted averages of participant savings estimate free-ridership, with updates applied to programs like Instant Savings, Business Energy Rebates, and Pay-for-Performance in 2025 evaluations.

2.2 Process and Market Evaluations Process and market evaluations were conducted using a range of activities such as program component documentation as well as secondary data reviews, jurisdictional scans, participant and non-participant s...

AI summary Process and market evaluations were conducted using program documentation, secondary data reviews, surveys, and interviews. Key tasks included evaluating Business Energy Rebates (BER) Application Rebates and Residential Demand Response (RDR) processes.

Documentation Review The Evaluator reviewed all relevant evaluation and program component-specific documentation such as program manuals, logic models, marketing materials, application forms, tracking sheets, and any other information on c...

AI summary The Evaluator reviewed program documentation, including manuals, logic models, marketing materials, and application forms, to assess changes to program components since the last evaluation. Annual staff interviews were conducted to track improvements and address past evaluation recommendations.

Data-collection Tool Development and Sampling Strategy As described in Subsection [2.1.2](#page-14-3) above, the Evaluator used an integrated approach to developing datacollection tools that serve all evaluation types where possible. For i...

AI summary The Evaluator developed integrated data-collection tools to streamline evaluations across process, market, and impact assessments, reducing respondent burden. Data sources include Nova Scotia Power's 2024 emissions and electricity generation figures from multiple reports.

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.

4 Impact Evaluation Results This section presents an analysis of the impact evaluation results for all program components by comparing 2025 tracked electrical energy and peak demand savings with evaluated electrical energy and peak demand...

AI summary This section compares 2025 tracked electrical energy and peak demand savings with evaluated savings, presenting NTGRs, lifetime energy savings, and GHG emission reductions. It evaluates program component impacts through these metrics.

Instant Savings - › Instant Savings surpassed its net electrical energy savings target by 18% and fell short of its peak demand savings target by 52%. - › Following the removal of LED lighting products and dehumidifiers from the Instant Sa...

AI summary Instant Savings exceeded its net electrical energy savings target by 18% but missed its peak demand savings target by 52%. Participation dropped 71% after removing LED lighting and dehumidifiers. Controls now account for 61% of rebated products and 68% of energy savings. Discrepancies exist between evaluator and E1 tracked savings, and the program's NTGR was updated to 0.77 in 2025.

Affordable Multifamily Housing - › In 2025, AMH achieved 1.378 GWh in net electrical energy savings and 0.648 MW in net peak demand savings at the generator, thus falling 27% short of planned net electrical energy savings of 1.880 GWh and...

AI summary In 2025, AMH achieved 1.378 GWh in net electrical energy savings (27% below target) and 0.648 MW in peak demand savings (13% above target). Participation rose 18% to 98 projects, with 19% higher energy savings and 14% higher peak demand savings compared to 2024. EFLH values were confirmed valid for prescriptive heat pump projects, and E1's tracked savings aligned with evaluations.

Home Energy Assessment - › In 2025, HEA achieved 13.820 GWh in net electrical energy savings and 4.578 MW in net peak demand savings at the generator, thus exceeding by 61% planned net electrical energy savings of 8.580 GWh and falling sho...

AI summary In 2025, HEA exceeded electrical energy savings targets by 61% but missed peak demand savings by 6%. Participation dropped 42% from 2024 due to CGH Grant closure, with solar PV contributing 56% of savings (down from 74% in 2024). Realization rates reached 100% for both energy and peak demand savings.

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.

Business Energy Rebates - › In 2025, BER achieved 40.244 GWh in net electrical energy savings and 5.332 MW in net peak demand savings at the generator, thus exceeding by 5% the planned net electrical energy savings of 38.451 GWh and fallin...

AI summary In 2025, Business Energy Rebates (BER) exceeded planned electrical energy savings by 5% but fell 26% short of peak demand savings targets. Participation in Application Rebates dropped 36%, reducing overall savings. Adjustments to ratios for lighting and HVAC measures, along with higher NTGR values, impacted tracking accuracy. Revisions to the tracking sheet slightly increased savings but raised error risks.

› Instant Rebates: - › Instant Rebates saw a 79% increase in participation compared to 2024 levels, which was largely driven by the promotion of T8 LED linear lamps in the first quarter of 2025. - › Average interactive effects factors calc...

AI summary Instant Rebates experienced a 79% participation increase in 2025, driven by T8 LED lamp promotions. Evaluation showed 4% higher net electrical energy savings but 6% lower peak demand savings than tracked results, attributed to updated line loss factors and interactive effects calculations.

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.

Small Business Energy Solutions - › In 2025, SBES achieved 7.862 GWh in net electrical energy savings and 1.414 MW in net peak demand savings at the generator, falling short of the net electrical energy savings and net peak demand savings...

AI summary In 2025, SBES achieved 7.862 GWh in net electrical energy savings and 1.414 MW in peak demand savings, missing targets by 38% and 46% respectively. Evaluated savings slightly diverged from E1's tracked data, while DIY rebates accounted for 99% of units rebated.

Residential Demand Response - › Residential DR participation increased substantially during the 2024/25 DR season,[16](#page-31-1) with 3,676 participants and 11,405 enrolled devices across all four pathways, an increase of 907% compared t...

AI summary Residential DR participation surged by 907% in 2024/25, with 3,676 participants and 11,405 devices, primarily smart thermostats. However, available DR capacity reached only 0.854 MW, far below the planned 7.135 MW. The evaluated capacity was 58% higher than E1's tracked value due to higher unitary values for smart thermostats.

Business, Non-profit, and Institutional Demand Response - › In 2025, BNI DR available DR capacity at the generator amounted to 5.941 MW. Therefore, BNI DR did not reach its target of 10.726 MW in available DR capacity. - › DR events that o...

AI summary In 2025, BNI DR achieved 5.941 MW of available DR capacity, missing its 10.726 MW target. Morning events yielded higher capacity (6.774 MW) than evening events (4.928 MW). Participation rose 88% to 143 participants, but per-participant capacity fell from 106 kW to 42 kW due to increased nonparticipation (60% in 2025). E1 guidelines were followed, but project reviews led to 11% lower evaluated capacity than E1's tracking. Stratified sampling enabled accurate adjustment ratios, which changed from prior evaluations.

Table 7: 2025 Free-ridership, Spillover, and NTGRs Program Component and Measure Type Free-ridership Levels Spillover Levels NTGRs Residential Appliance Retirementa Refrigerators 43% 0% 0.57 Freezers 45% 0.55 Air Conditioners 47% 0.53 Smal...

AI summary Table 7 presents the 2025 free-ridership, spillover, and net-to-gross ratios (NTGRs) for various energy efficiency programs and measures in residential settings. It highlights the proportion of free-ridership and spillover for different appliance types and efficiency measures, along with their corresponding NTGRs.

5 DSM Portfolio Performance This section presents a comparison of evaluated savings with E1 planned savings at the program and component levels. It also presents satisfaction results, annual savings performance, as well as the historical p...

AI summary This section compares evaluated savings with E1 planned savings at program and component levels, detailing satisfaction results, annual savings performance, and historical contributions of individual program components to overall portfolio savings.

5.1 Participant and Partner Satisfaction No data collection was conducted in the 2025 evaluation to assess satisfaction with E1 and its programs.

AI summary The 2025 evaluation did not collect data to assess satisfaction with E1 and its programs, indicating a gap in understanding participant and partner experiences.

Residential Demand Response To collect feedback from program staff, service providers, staff from other jurisdictions, and non-participants on increasing/maintaining participation along with opportunities for operational improvements, the...

AI summary An evaluation of Nova Scotia's Residential Demand Response program involved surveys, interviews, and a jurisdictional scan to assess participation rates, gather feedback from stakeholders, and identify operational improvements. Key findings from the process evaluation are highlighted, focusing on program effectiveness and areas for enhancement.

Business Energy Rebates – Instant Rebates To validate 2024 market evaluation results and determine timing for when a baseline for Business Energy Rebates – Instant Rebates LED fixtures should take effect as well as to identify the implicat...

AI summary A market study evaluated the Business Energy Rebates – Instant Rebates program, noting increased LED adoption in commercial lighting markets, declining prices, and shifts in distributor practices. The study also identified implications for baseline adjustments and program adaptations in response to market transformation.

mont Technical Reference Manual, Program Year 2023, pp. 225-226. Statistics Canada, Table 38-10-0286-01 (formerly CANSIM 153-0145) Primary heating systems and type of energy, 2021, December 12, 2022. [https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/e...

AI summary The text compiles references to technical manuals, studies, and evaluations related to energy efficiency, demand response, and program performance, including data from Statistics Canada, NMR Group Inc., and utility reports. These sources support analyses of heating systems, power strip metering, and consumer program outcomes.

Survey Margins of Error The Evaluator used the margin of error calculation of the 2025 Residential DR non-participant survey as an example. Below are the steps followed to calculate this margin of error. The margin of error was established...

AI summary The Evaluator demonstrated the margin of error calculation for the 2025 Residential DR non-participant survey using a proportion-based formula involving Zα, p, n, and N. This method quantifies statistical uncertainty in survey results.

Calculation of the Weighted Average of Adjustment Ratios In 2025, the Evaluator used a stratified sample for BNI DR, selecting the 20 largest projects and 10 randomly selected projects among the 138 remaining projects. Therefore, the weigh...

AI summary In 2025, the Evaluator calculated a weighted average adjustment ratio of 0.615 for BNI DR using a stratified sample of 30 projects, combining 20 largest and 10 randomly selected projects from 138. The formula incorporated stratum weights and capacity metrics to reflect project distribution.

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.

Calculation of the Margin of Error The margin of error on the LED lighting free-ridership level was established by using the following formula that is the general equation linking the standard error to the margin of error. $\textit{Margin...

AI summary The margin of error for LED lighting free-ridership in 2025 was calculated using a formula involving standard error, a t-value (1.7613), and a finite population correction factor. With N=187 participants and a sample size of 15, the margin of error was determined to be 3.2%. The calculation included 2024 and 2025 BER-AR program participants to ensure sufficient response rates.

APPENDIX III NTGR Calculations This appendix provides an example of net-to-gross ratio (NTGR) calculations. The example details the calculations of participant free-ridership levels and resulting NTGRs for BER-AR lighting measures. The Eva...

AI summary Appendix III explains net-to-gross ratio (NTGR) calculations for BER-AR lighting measures, including participant free-ridership analysis. The Evaluator applied similar methods to other program components, with detailed evaluations in individual program reports.

RESIDENTIAL EFFICIENT PRODUCT REBATES PROGRAM Final Report 2025 DSM EVALUATION March 4, 2026

AI summary Final Report on the 2025 DSM Evaluation for the Residential Efficient Product Rebates Program, dated March 4, 2026. The document assesses the program's effectiveness in promoting energy-efficient product adoption and its alignment with broader demand-side management goals.

Evaluation Approach The 2025 evaluation was aimed at calculating program component gross and net results, namely first-year and lifetime electrical energy savings, peak demand savings, as well as avoided greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. [Ta...

AI summary The 2025 evaluation aimed to calculate program component gross and net results, including first-year and lifetime electrical energy savings, peak demand savings, and avoided greenhouse gas emissions. The table summarizes the types of evaluation and methodology for each program component.

Table 1: Summary of 2025 Residential Efficient Product Rebates Program Evaluation Program Evaluation Type Component Impact Process Market Methodology Appliance Retirement Condensed › Tracking sheet audit › Calculations using evaluation res...

AI summary This table summarizes the evaluation of the 2025 Residential Efficient Product Rebates Program, focusing on the Appliance Retirement and Instant Savings components. It outlines the evaluation methodologies, including tracking sheet audits, NTGR calculations, and GHG emission reductions.

ARet Findings and Recommendations This subsection presents the key findings from the 2025 ARet evaluation. The Evaluator has no specific recommendation for ARet. 2025 ARet-Finding: With the program component having been discontinued in Jan...

AI summary The 2025 ARet evaluation found the program achieved only 9% of its electrical energy and peak demand savings targets after discontinuation in January 2025. Refrigerator and freezer retirements remained the primary drivers of participation and savings.

Instant Savings Findings and Recommendations This subsection presents the key findings from the 2025 Instant Savings evaluation. The Evaluator has no specific recommendation for Instant Savings. 2025 Instant Savings-Finding: Instant Saving...

AI summary The 2025 Instant Savings program exceeded its net electrical energy savings target by 18% but missed peak demand savings by 52%. Participation dropped 71% after removing LED lighting and dehumidifiers. Controls now dominate rebated products (61%), and discrepancies exist between evaluated and tracked savings (NTGR: 0.77 vs. 0.98).

INTRODUCTION EfficiencyOne (E1), an independent and non-profit organization, is responsible for helping Nova Scotians improve the energy efficiency of their homes and workplaces by designing, marketing, and delivering demand-side managemen...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1), a non-profit organization, manages demand-side management (DSM) programs in Nova Scotia, funded by Nova Scotia Power (NS Power) ratepayers. E1's 2025 DSM program portfolio includes the Residential Efficient Product Rebates program, which has two components: Appliance Retirement (ARet) and Instant Savings. ARet was discontinued in January 2025, and an evaluation report was commissioned by E1.

Table 4: Types of Evaluation Conducted for Each Program Component, 2025 2025 Program Program Component Process Market Impact Residential Efficient Product Rebates ARet Condensed Instant Savings Condensed For each program, the Evaluator pre...

AI summary Table 4 outlines the types of evaluation conducted for each program component in 2025, including the Residential Efficient Product Rebates and Instant Savings. The Evaluator prepared a DSM evaluation report detailing key findings, energy savings, peak demand savings, and GHG emissions avoided.

1.2 Follow-up on Past Evaluation Report Recommendations No recommendations were made for ARet in the 2024 evaluation.

AI summary No recommendations were made for Appliance Retirement (ARet) in the 2024 evaluation report, indicating that the program was not identified as requiring changes or improvements during the assessment.

Table 5: 2025 ARet Evaluation Approach Evaluation Objectives Research Questions Methodology Calculate gross results › Are the data in the tracking sheet complete, accurate, and consistent? › What are the evaluated first-year and lifetime g...

AI summary Table 5 outlines the 2025 ARet Evaluation Approach, focusing on calculating both gross and net results through tracking sheet audits and evaluation calculations. It includes research questions related to data accuracy and energy savings, as well as methodologies involving NTGR results and GHG emission reductions.

Calculations Using Evaluation Results The Evaluator calculated the first-year and lifetime electrical energy and peak demand savings per the calculation methodology presented in Section [3](#page-91-0) below.

AI summary The Evaluator calculated first-year and lifetime electrical energy and peak demand savings using a methodology outlined in Section 3. The calculations focus on quantifying energy efficiency outcomes from program evaluations.

3 ARet Impact Evaluation The objectives of the 2025 ARet impact evaluation were to determine gross and net electrical energy and peak demand savings, annually avoided GHG emissions, as well as weighted average EUL values and associated lif...

AI summary The 2025 ARet impact evaluation aims to assess gross and net electrical energy and peak demand savings, annual GHG emissions avoided, and weighted average EUL values with associated lifetime energy savings.

3.1 Tracking Sheet Audit To ensure program 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 as well as correcting the track...

AI summary The Evaluator conducted a tracking sheet audit to ensure the completeness and consistency of data submitted by E1 and corrected tracked savings as needed. The results of this audit are detailed in Appendix I and reflect the corrected tracked savings.

3.2.4 Effective Useful Life Effective useful life (EUL) values are used in the calculations of electrical energy savings that are expected to persist over time. For ARet, the lifetime energy savings and equivalent EUL values are highly inf...

AI summary Effective Useful Life (EUL) values are critical for calculating long-term electrical energy savings from appliance retirements (ARet). The 2025 DSM MA provided EUL values, with a weighted average of 4.0 years. Calculations consider the remaining useful life (RUL) of old appliances and apply EUL to first-year savings to estimate lifetime savings.

4 ARet Key Findings and Recommendations The 2025 ARet evaluation consisted of a condensed impact evaluation whose main objectives were as follows: › Calculate gross and net ARet results, namely electrical first-year and lifetime energy sav...

AI summary The 2025 ARet program underperformed, achieving only 9% of its electrical energy and peak demand targets. Net savings were 0.115 GWh and 0.017 MW, far below planned 1.247 GWh and 0.179 MW. Refrigerator/freezer retirements drove 96% of savings, but participation dropped 95% due to program discontinuation in January 2025.

5.2 Follow-up on Past Evaluation Report Recommendations No recommendations were made for Instant Savings in the 2024 evaluation. 9 No power bars with integrated timers were rebated in 2025.

AI summary The section notes no recommendations were made for Instant Savings in the 2024 evaluation. It also states no power bars with integrated timers were rebated in 2025, referencing a footnote. The text includes an image but no further details.

Table 14: 2025 Instant Savings Evaluation Approach Evaluation Objective Research Question Methodology Calculate gross results › Are the data in the tracking sheet complete, accurate, and consistent? › Are the unitary savings for appliance...

AI summary This section outlines the evaluation approach for the 2025 Instant Savings program, focusing on calculating both gross and net results. It includes methods such as tracking sheet audits, DSM Measure Assessment updates, literature reviews, and GHG emission reduction calculations.

Measure Assessment Update A unitary savings review was conducted for certain measures to update the DSM MA following the change to a LED baseline assumption for residential lighting. This prompted the removal of all rebates on LED lamps an...

AI summary The DSM MA was updated following a LED baseline assumption change, removing LED lamp rebates (except motion-sensor units), adjusting lighting control wattage, and revising EUL values. Savings algorithms for smart thermostats and fans were also updated. Amendment 18 to Canada's Energy Efficiency Regulations was reviewed but found to have no impact on Instant Savings during this evaluation period.

7.1 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 and...

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, detailed in Appendix III, led to the corrected tracked savings presented in the report.

CONCLUSION [Table](#page-124-1) 25 presents the participation levels, NTGRs, evaluated gross and net savings at the generator, annual GHG emission reductions, as well as EUL values for each Residential Efficient Product Rebates program com...

AI summary Table 25 summarizes participation levels, net-to-gross ratios (NTGRs), evaluated savings, GHG emission reductions, and effective useful life (EUL) values for Nova Scotia's 2025 Residential Efficient Product Rebates program components and overall program performance.

This appendix presents the main results of the tracking sheet audit performed by the Evaluator, which was aimed at: - › Verifying that all data fields required for the evaluation were included and filled out in the tracking sheet submitted...

AI summary This appendix outlines the results of a tracking sheet audit conducted by the Evaluator to verify the completeness and accuracy of data submitted by EfficiencyOne. The audit aimed to ensure consistency in parameters used for calculating program results and validate calculation steps.

Future Considerations In order to remain aligned with good industry practice, the Evaluator recommends the adoption of the NTGR values presented in this memo. Looking ahead, the Evaluator intends to work with E1 to consider targeted evalua...

AI summary The Evaluator recommends adopting NTGR values for alignment with industry practices and proposes targeted evaluations with E1 to assess Instant Savings program measures, focusing on those contributing significantly to portfolio savings.

EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM Final Report 2025 DSM EVALUATION March 13, 2026

AI summary The document presents the Final Report of the 2025 Demand-side Management (DSM) Evaluation for the Existing Residential Program, dated March 13, 2026. It assesses the program's performance and outcomes as part of Nova Scotia's energy efficiency initiatives.

Evaluation Approach The 2025 Existing Residential evaluation was aimed at calculating program component gross and net results, namely electrical first-year and lifetime energy savings, peak demand savings, as well as avoided greenhouse gas...

AI summary The 2025 Existing Residential evaluation aimed to calculate program component gross and net results, including electrical first-year and lifetime energy savings, peak demand savings, and avoided greenhouse gas emissions. Table 1 summarizes the types of evaluation conducted for each program component and the corresponding methodology.

Table 1: Summary of 2025 Existing Residential Program Evaluation Program Component Evaluation Type Impact Process Market Methodology AMH Condensed › Tracking sheet audit › Desk reviews › Effective useful life (EUL) update › Use of a net-to...

AI summary The document summarizes the evaluation of existing residential programs in 2025, including methods like tracking sheet audits, net-to-gross ratio (NTGR) calculations, and GHG emission reduction assessments for various components such as AMH, ASFH, EPI, Green Heat, HEA, and MHEEP. It also includes a comprehensive evaluation of residential behavior.

AMH Findings and Recommendations This subsection presents the key findings from the 2025 AMH evaluation. The Evaluator has no specific recommendation for AMH. 2025 AMH-Finding: In 2025, AMH achieved 1.378 GWh in net electrical energy savin...

AI summary The 2025 AMH evaluation found that the program achieved 1.378 GWh in net electrical energy savings (27% below target) and 0.648 MW in peak demand savings (13% above target). Participation increased by 18% to 98 projects, with 19% higher energy savings and 14% higher peak demand savings compared to 2024. EFLH values were correctly applied to prescriptive heat pump projects, and savings aligned with E1 tracking.

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.

MHEEP Findings and Recommendations This subsection presents the key findings from the MHEEP evaluation. The Evaluator has no specific recommendation for MHEEP. 2025 MHEEP-Finding: MHEEP net electrical energy savings fell short of the 0.548...

AI summary The MHEEP evaluation found that 2025 net electrical energy savings fell 39% short of targets, with participation dropping 18%. Average savings per participant remained stable, but total savings declined by 16% for energy and 34% for peak demand. Methodological changes aligned with 2024 Green Heat billing analysis reduced net peak demand savings by 24%.

EfficiencyOne (E1), an independent and non-profit organization, is responsible for helping Nova Scotians improve the energy efficiency of their homes and workplaces by designing, marketing, and delivering demand-side management (DSM) for N...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) is an independent, non-profit organization responsible for designing, marketing, and delivering demand-side management (DSM) programs in Nova Scotia through the Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS) franchise. E1's 2025 DSM program portfolio includes residential and BNI programs, and it commissioned Econoler to evaluate these programs. The evaluation report focuses on the Existing Residential program and outlines comprehensive and condensed impact evaluation methods.

3 AMH Impact Evaluation The objectives of the 2025 AMH impact evaluation were to determine gross and net electrical energy and peak demand savings, annually avoided GHG emissions, as well as the EUL and associated lifetime electrical energ...

AI summary The 2025 AMH Impact Evaluation aims to assess gross and net electrical energy savings, peak demand reductions, annual GHG emissions avoided, and the Effective Useful Life (EUL) of Affordable Multifamily Housing programs, along with their lifetime energy savings.

3.1 Tracking Sheet Audit To ensure program 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 as well as correcting the track...

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. Corrected tracked savings, as determined by the Evaluator, are referenced in Appendix I.

3.2.1 Electrical Energy Savings For AMH, the Evaluator typically multiplies tracked savings by adjustment ratios to establish evaluated savings. In 2025, no previously established adjustment ratios were applied to electrical energy savings...

AI summary The Evaluator discusses electrical energy savings evaluation methods for AMH, noting that 2025 adjustments omitted ratios due to high error margins. A 2024 EFLH value update for mini-split heat pumps was validated via desk reviews, allowing tracked savings to be used for 2025 evaluations. Other projects also relied on tracked savings due to unacceptably high error margins in prior adjustment ratios.

3.2.2 Peak Demand Savings Peak demand savings correspond to the demand savings that coincide in time with the peak demand period of the electricity system. The projected electricity peak demand period in Nova Scotia is defined as the colde...

AI summary Peak demand savings in Nova Scotia are calculated during cold peak periods (Dec-Feb, 5-7 PM) using a 0.283 W/kWh ratio from the 2025 DSM MA for comprehensive projects and equations for prescriptive ones. The 2025 AMH evaluation used tracked savings directly without adjustment ratios.

3.4 Realization Rate [Table](#page-172-1) 10 below compares the electrical energy and peak demand savings established through the 2025 evaluation to those calculated in the 2025 tracking sheet. It also includes the realization rate, repres...

AI summary This section discusses the realization rate, comparing evaluated net savings from the 2025 evaluation to tracked net savings in the 2025 tracking sheet, focusing on electrical energy and peak demand savings.

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.

6 ASFH Evaluation Approach The 2025 evaluation consisted of a condensed impact evaluation. The main objectives of the 2025 ASFH evaluation were as follows: › Calculate ASFH gross and net results, namely first-year and lifetime electrical e...

AI summary The 2025 ASFH evaluation focused on calculating gross and net results, including energy savings and avoided GHG emissions. The Evaluator identified key research questions and methods to achieve these objectives, with Table 12 outlining the evaluation objectives, research questions, methods, and sample sizes.

Table 12: 2025 ASFH Evaluation Approach Evaluation Objectives Research Questions Methodology Calculate gross results › Are the data in the tracking sheet complete, accurate, and consistent? › What are the evaluated first-year and lifetime...

AI summary Table 12 outlines the 2025 ASFH Evaluation Approach, detailing objectives, research questions, and methodologies for calculating both gross and net results, including tracking sheet audits and GHG emission reductions.

GHG Emission Reduction Calculations To obtain net avoided GHG emissions in CO2 eq for ASFH, the Evaluator multiplied net electrical energy savings by the latest Nova Scotia-specific factor for GHG emissions generated by electricity product...

AI summary To calculate net avoided GHG emissions for Affordable Single-family Homes (ASFH), the Evaluator multiplied net electrical energy savings by Nova Scotia-specific electricity production GHG emission factors derived from Nova Scotia Power data.

7.1 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 as well as correcting...

AI summary A tracking sheet audit was conducted to verify the completeness and consistency of data submitted by E1, ensuring reliable compilation of program results. The Evaluator corrected tracked savings as needed, with results detailed in Appendix III.

7.2 Gross Savings For ASFH, the gross savings associated with building envelope and heat pump measures are calculated based on pre-retrofit and post-retrofit HOT2000 simulations, while the gross savings associated with smart thermostats ar...

AI summary The section outlines methodology for calculating gross savings for Affordable Single-family Homes (ASFH), including simulation approaches for building envelope and heat pump measures, unitary values for smart thermostats, and retroactive adjustments to non-modelled heat pump calculations post-2024 DSM evaluation. The Evaluator applied updated methods retroactively from April 2024, affecting reported savings.

7.3.1 Evaluated Net Savings Net savings are defined as the changes in energy use that are specifically attributable to ASFH. Since spillover and free-ridership effects were considered nil, the net electrical energy savings are equal to the...

AI summary Evaluated Net Savings for Affordable Single-family Homes (ASFH) show 114% and 183% exceedance of electrical energy and peak demand targets. Net savings equal gross savings due to nil spillover and free-ridership. GHG emission reductions match gross reductions. Data sources include Nova Scotia Power and Emera Inc.

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.

9.3 Participation History As presented in [Figure](#page-190-1) 9 below, EPI had 9,245 DSM participants, which represents a 7.5% decrease in participation compared to 2024 levels.[14](#page-190-2) In 2025, 90,666 efficient products were in...

AI summary EPI's DSM participation dropped 7.5% in 2025, with efficient product installations declining 40% due to LED phase-out. Despite lower product volumes, average savings fell only 12% due to higher efficiency from electrician-installed products. Smart thermostats now drive 51% of energy savings despite comprising only 11% of installations.

10 EPI Evaluation Approach The 2025 EPI evaluation comprised a condensed impact evaluation. The main objectives of the 2025 EPI evaluation were as follows: › Calculate gross and net EPI results, namely electrical first-year and lifetime en...

AI summary The 2025 EPI evaluation focuses on calculating gross and net energy savings, peak demand savings, and avoided GHG emissions. The Evaluator identified key research questions to achieve these objectives and outlined the methods in Table 21.

Table 21: 2025 EPI Evaluation Approach Evaluation Objectives Research Questions Methodology Calculate gross results › Are the data in the tracking sheet complete, accurate, and consistent? › What are the evaluated first-year and lifetime g...

AI summary This table outlines the evaluation approach for the 2025 Efficient Product Installation (EPI) program. It includes objectives such as calculating gross and net results, research questions related to data accuracy and energy savings, and methodologies like tracking sheet audits and the use of Net-to-Gross Ratios (NTGR) from previous surveys.

11 EPI Impact Evaluation The objectives of the 2025 EPI impact evaluation were to determine gross and net electrical energy and peak demand savings, annually avoided GHG emissions, as well as effective useful life (EUL) values and associat...

AI summary The 2025 EPI impact evaluation aims to assess gross and net electrical energy and peak demand savings, annually avoided GHG emissions, effective useful life (EUL) values, and associated lifetime electrical energy savings from the Efficient Product Installation program.

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.

11.2.5 Adjustment Ratio As part of the 2019 evaluation, the Evaluator conducted on-site visits (n = 28) to establish an overview of the types of lamps used in homes and verify that replaced A-type lamps were properly tracked. The on-site v...

AI summary The 2019 evaluation identified discrepancies in tracked savings from A-type lamp replacements, leading to an adjustment ratio of 96% (±5%). This ratio was applied to 2025 savings for remaining A-type incandescent lamps replaced by LEDs, reflecting the Evaluator's findings on program effectiveness.

11.3.2 Participant Spillover For EPI, participant spillover occurs when participants purchase and install additional energy efficient products due to the influence of having participated in the program component without receiving any addit...

AI summary The text discusses participant spillover in the context of the Efficient Product Installation (EPI) program, where participants may install additional energy-efficient products due to program participation. Spillover is assumed to be nil for low-income participants, while non-low-income participants were surveyed in 2024 to assess spillover levels, with results used in the 2025 evaluation.

11.4 Realization Rate [Table](#page-23-1) 30 below compares the electrical energy and peak demand savings established through the 2025 evaluation to those outlined in the 2025 tracking sheet. It also includes the realization rate, represen...

AI summary Table 30 compares electrical energy and peak demand savings from the 2025 evaluation with those in the 2025 tracking sheet, including the realization rate, which is the ratio of evaluated net savings to tracked net savings for both energy and peak demand.

2025 EPI-Finding: Evaluated net electrical energy and peak demand savings were almost identical to the values tracked by E1. The gross corrected tracked values were identical to the gross evaluated values since no gross savings calculation...

AI summary The 2025 EPI-Finding found that evaluated net electrical energy and peak demand savings matched E1's tracked values due to unchanged gross savings parameters. The only update involved recalculating NTGR values based on participant type proportions, resulting in 99% and 100% realization rates for energy and demand savings respectively.

15.1 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 (EfficiencyOne), leading to corrected tracked savings results as detailed in Appendix VIII.

15.2 Gross Savings For Green Heat, gross savings correspond to the change in energy consumption resulting from actions taken by participants compared to the consumption level had those actions not occurred. [22](#page-30-0) For the 2025 ev...

AI summary The text defines gross savings for Green Heat as the change in energy consumption due to participant actions, referencing the 2025 DSM MA for evaluation. It emphasizes measuring consumption differences between scenarios with and without program participation.

Table 39: Comparison of 2025 Green Heat Tracked and Evaluated Savings at the Generator Gross Savings Net Savings Realization Value Unit NTGR Value Unit Rate Electrical Energy Savings Tracked Savings by E1 1.414 GWh 0.53 0.749 GWh Evaluatio...

AI summary Table 39 compares tracked and evaluated savings from the 2025 Green Heat program, showing gross and net energy and peak demand savings, along with realization rates. The table includes data from EfficiencyOne (E1) and evaluation results, with NTGR values provided as a ratio of net to gross savings.

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

AI summary The 2025 Green Heat program missed its energy savings targets, achieving only 21% and 44% of electrical energy and peak demand goals. Participation declined by 33% due to competition from the closed CGH Grant and reduced rebates. Gross and net savings matched E1's reported figures, indicating accurate tracking.

17 HEA Overview This section describes Home Energy Assessment (HEA), follows up on past evaluation recommendations, and provides an overview of participation history.

AI summary This section outlines the Home Energy Assessment (HEA) program, reviews past evaluation recommendations, and summarizes participation history. It serves as an overview of the program's implementation and performance tracking.

Table 41: 2025 HEA Evaluation Approach Evaluation Objectives Research Questions Methodology Calculate gross results › Are the data in the tracking sheet complete, accurate, and consistent? › What are the evaluated first-year and lifetime g...

AI summary This section outlines the methodology for evaluating the 2025 Home Energy Assessment (HEA) program, focusing on calculating both gross and net results, including energy savings and GHG emission reductions, using tracking sheets and evaluation data from previous years.

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 Evaluator aimed for a 10% margin of error at 90% confidence in quantitative evaluations. 2025 data were unavailable, with 2024 Nova Scotia Power emissions (5,314,847 CO2 eq tonnes) and generation (11,326 GWh) sourced from Nova Scotia Power and Emera Inc. annual reports.

19 HEA Impact Evaluation The objectives of the 2025 HEA impact evaluation were to determine gross and net electrical energy and peak demand savings, annually avoided GHG emissions, as well as weighted average EUL values and associated life...

AI summary The 2025 HEA impact evaluation aims to assess gross and net electrical energy and peak demand savings, annual avoided GHG emissions, weighted average EUL values, and associated lifetime energy savings from Home Energy Assessments.

19.1 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 data completeness and consistency from E1, identifying issues in HEA tracking sheet calculations, including adjustments to electrical energy savings, AR column visibility, MSHP peak demand calculations, and summary tab improvements for future audits.

19.2 Gross Savings For HEA, gross savings correspond to the change in energy consumption resulting from measures implemented by HEA participants compared to the consumption level had those measures not occurred. [29](#page-46-1) The follow...

AI summary The section explains that HEA gross savings are calculated by comparing energy consumption with and without implemented measures, detailing the methodology used for this assessment.

Reporting Requirements HEA incentives originate from three sources of funding: Nova Scotia Power ratepayers for DSM, the Province of Nova Scotia, and the Government of Canada (CGH Grant). The inclusion of the CGH Grant as a co-funder of en...

AI summary HEA incentives are funded by Nova Scotia Power ratepayers (DSM), the Province of Nova Scotia, and the Canada Greener Homes Grant (CGH). Savings are reported to NSEB via DSM evaluations and the Province via government-funded reports. DSM focuses on electrical savings, while government reports emphasize participation and GHG reductions. Equations in Appendix XI address double-counting, and solar PV savings are included in DSM reports regardless of heating source.

19.3.2 Participant Spillover For HEA, participant spillover occurs when participants implement additional measures recommended in their initial energy assessments after their participation in the program component, that is after having com...

AI summary Participant spillover in the Home Energy Assessment (HEA) program occurs when participants implement additional energy efficiency measures after completing their initial assessments. The 2023 spillover level was used in the 2025 evaluation due to a lack of updated data collection.

19.4 Realization Rate [Table](#page-58-1) 53 below compares the electrical energy and peak demand savings established through this evaluation to those calculated in the 2025 tracking sheet. It also includes the realization rate, representi...

AI summary This section compares the electrical energy and peak demand savings from the evaluation to those in the 2025 tracking sheet, including the realization rate, which is the ratio of evaluated net savings to tracked net savings for both energy and peak demand.

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

AI summary The 2025 HEA evaluation found that HEA exceeded energy savings targets but saw a drop in participation linked to the CGH Grant closure. Average savings per home fell due to reduced solar PV measures, and savings matched E1's tracking.

21.2 Follow-up on Past Evaluation Report Recommendations No recommendations were made for MHEEP in the 2024 evaluation.

AI summary The 2024 evaluation of the Mi'kmaw Home Energy Efficiency Project (MHEEP) did not result in any recommendations being made, indicating that the program's performance or outcomes may have met existing criteria or required no further action.

21.3 Participation History As presented in [Figure](#page-61-0) 25 below, 157 participants completed projects and achieved electrical energy savings under MHEEP in 2025, representing an 18% decrease in participation (i.e. participants who...

AI summary In 2025, MHEEP saw an 18% drop in participants achieving electrical energy savings compared to 2024, despite stable average savings per participant. Total program savings fell by 16% for energy and 34% for peak demand, attributed to reduced participation.

Table 54: 2025 MHEEP Evaluation Approach Evaluation Objectives Research Questions Methodology Calculate gross results › Are the data in the tracking sheet complete, accurate, and consistent? › What are the evaluated first year and lifetime...

AI summary Table 54 outlines the 2025 MHEEP Evaluation Approach, focusing on calculating gross and net results through tracking sheet audits and evaluations. It includes research questions related to data accuracy and energy savings, as well as methodologies involving NTGR and GHG emission reduction calculations.

23 MHEEP Impact Evaluation The objectives of the 2025 MHEEP condensed impact evaluation were to determine gross and net electrical energy and peak demand savings, annually avoided GHG emissions, as well as EUL values and associated lifetim...

AI summary The 2025 MHEEP condensed impact evaluation assesses electrical energy and peak demand savings, annual GHG emission reductions, and EUL values. The report focuses on electrical savings from installed measures, excluding nonelectrical benefits.

23.1 Tracking Sheet Audit To ensure project 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 from the...

AI summary The Evaluator conducted a tracking sheet audit to verify the completeness and consistency of data submitted by E1 (EfficiencyOne), resulting in corrected tracked savings as detailed in Appendix XIII.

23.2 Gross Savings MHEEP gross savings correspond to the change in energy consumption resulting from the measures implemented by participants compared to the consumption level had those measures not occurred. [32](#page-64-1) In 2025, MHEE...

AI summary MHEEP gross savings are calculated based on energy consumption changes from implemented measures, using HOT2000 modeling for most upgrades and unitary savings values for programmable thermostats. The methodologies for evaluating these savings are detailed in subsequent subsections.

23.2.3 Interactive Effects In a home, interactive effects occur when the implementation of energy efficiency measures has an impact on the energy consumption of other elements such as heating and cooling. The interactive effects of the spa...

AI summary The text discusses interactive effects in energy efficiency measures, noting that HOT2000 simulations already account for these effects. Programmable thermostats, not modelled in HOT2000, are stated to have no interactive impacts, so no adjustments are required for this measure in the 2025 DSM MA.

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%.

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

AI summary The 2025 MHEEP evaluation found net electrical energy savings (0.337 GWh) fell short of targets (0.548 GWh), while peak demand savings (0.319 MW) exceeded targets (0.156 MW). Participation dropped 18% to 157 participants, reducing total savings by 16% compared to 2024. Discrepancies in peak demand savings between evaluator and E1 arose from methodological changes.

25 Residential Behaviour Overview This section describes the Residential Behaviour program component, follows up on past evaluation recommendations, and provides an overview of participation history.

AI summary This section outlines the Residential Behaviour program, its evaluation follow-ups, and participation history. It emphasizes program oversight and historical engagement data as key components of the regulatory analysis.

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.

25.2 Follow-up on Past Evaluation Report Recommendations There are no past recommendations since this is the first evaluation of Residential Behaviour.

AI summary This section indicates that there are no past recommendations to follow up on, as this is the first evaluation of the Residential Behaviour program.

ustomers. Together, these customer losses constitute the attrition rate. Treatment participants do not receive Efficiency Insights reports after their accounts become inactive or they switch to solar. This attrition explains why the number...

AI summary The document discusses attrition rates among treatment and control group customers in a program, noting a decline in active participants since March 2024. Attrition rates for waves 1, 2, and 3 were 1.1%, 1.2%, and 1.8% between January–April 2025. Control group attrition rates are similar but not reflected in participation history figures. Figures 28–30 illustrate active participants and attrition trends.

GHG Emission Reduction Calculation To obtain net avoided GHG emissions in CO2 eq for Residential Behaviour, the Evaluator multiplied the net energy savings by the latest Nova Scotia-specific factor for GHG emissions generated by electricit...

AI summary To calculate net avoided GHG emissions for Residential Behaviour, the Evaluator multiplied net energy savings by a Nova Scotia-specific electricity production emission factor derived from NS Power data.

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.

27.1 Tracking Sheet Audit Considering Residential Behaviour relies on a random selection of treatment group participants among all residential customers, the program component does not have a tracking sheet. Therefore, no tracking sheet au...

AI summary The Residential Behaviour program component does not require a tracking sheet audit due to its reliance on random selection of participants, resulting in no audit being conducted for this evaluation.

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.

27.2.1 Treatment and Control Group Selection and Equivalency Check To yield accurate and unbiased results when calculating savings under a RCT approach, the treatment and control groups must be selected properly so that the two groups are...

AI summary The document discusses the selection and equivalency check of treatment and control groups in the 2024 DSM evaluation. The Evaluator ensured statistical equivalence by comparing pre-program energy consumption data and geographical locations. No changes were made to the groups in 2025, except for inactive participants or those who switched to solar rate codes.

27.2.3 Energy Savings The difference-in-difference (DiD) model is used to calculate savings for Residential Behaviour, which serves to compare the average change in electricity consumption in the treatment group prior to and during program...

AI summary The chunk discusses the use of a difference-in-difference (DiD) model to evaluate energy savings from residential behavior programs. It outlines pre- and post-program periods, notes data limitations due to a cybersecurity incident, and explains the preference for cumulative savings over monthly estimates for official reporting.

Data Preparation Before calculating savings, the Evaluator cleaned and prepared the AMI data provided by E1. The received AMI data contained consumption data aggregated on a monthly basis. The pre-program data cover the 12-month period pri...

AI summary The Evaluator cleaned AMI data from E1 for program evaluation, removing outliers, duplicates, inactive accounts, and solar rate codes. Post-cleaning, 1.3% of customers and 0.3% of observations were excluded. Opted-out accounts were retained to avoid bias, while inactive and solar-switched accounts were removed as they occurred equally in treatment and control groups.

Savings Calculation The equation presented below was used to calculate the cumulative savings for 2025, i.e. using the average daily consumption over the entire period (January to April in this case). The Evaluator also calculated monthly...

AI summary The document outlines a savings calculation equation used to determine cumulative energy savings for 2025, comparing pre- and post-intervention kWh consumption between control and treatment groups over January–April. Monthly savings trends are detailed in Appendices XV and XVI.

27.2.6 Effective Useful Life For Residential Behaviour, energy savings are assessed annually through a billing analysis that serves to calculate the change in electricity consumption between the program evaluation year (post-program period...

AI summary Residential Behaviour programs assess annual energy savings using billing analysis comparing pre- and post-program electricity consumption. A one-year Effective Useful Life (EUL) is applied because savings calculations reflect both first-year and long-term savings. This approach aligns with practices in Massachusetts, Illinois, Vermont, and New York.

27.2.7 Savings Deductions for Participation in Other Residential Programs A secondary aim of Residential Behaviour is to encourage customers to engage with other ENS programs tailored to their usage profiles. Therefore, treatment group cus...

AI summary The section outlines methods to avoid double-counting savings from the Residential Behaviour program by evaluating participation in other ENS programs (EPI, Green Heat, HEA) between treatment and control groups. Savings deductions are calculated if treatment groups show higher participation, using average savings per household and adjusted over the program's EUL.

Table 64: Other Residential Program Participation Levels for 2025 Program Component Treatment Participation Level Control Participation Level Difference (%) Is the Difference Statistically Significant? Wave 1 – High Users HEA 0.49% 0.55% -...

AI summary Table 64 presents participation levels for residential programs in 2025, showing minimal differences between treatment and control groups. Only Green Heat in Wave 2 shows a statistically significant difference, with higher participation in the treatment group. The data is used to evaluate program effectiveness.

28 Residential Behaviour Key Findings and Recommendations The main objective of the 2025 Residential Behaviour evaluation was as follows: › Calculate net results, namely electrical first-year energy savings as well as avoided GHG emissions...

AI summary The 2025 Residential Behaviour program was paused in May 2025 due to a cybersecurity incident at NS Power, limiting AMI data access. This resulted in only 5.555 GWh of net energy savings (vs. a target of 29.771 GWh) over four months (Jan-Apr 2025). High and medium electricity users achieved partial savings, while low users saw no statistically significant results.

This appendix presents the main results of the tracking sheet audit performed by the Evaluator, which was aimed at: - › Verifying that all data fields required for the evaluation were included and filled out in the tracking sheet submitted...

AI summary This appendix outlines the results of a tracking sheet audit conducted by the Evaluator to verify the completeness and accuracy of data submitted by EfficiencyOne (E1) for program evaluation, including validation of calculation methods and consistency with prior results.

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

AI summary This appendix outlines the results of a tracking sheet audit conducted to verify the completeness and accuracy of data submitted by E1. The audit ensured that all required fields were included and that calculations for program results were consistent with previous evaluations.

Evaluated 2025 ASFH Allocation of EPI Gross Electrical Energy and Peak Demand Savings Grand Total Number of Units Number of Units 5,299 Installation Rate (%) 90% Number of Units Installed 4,766 Electrical Energy Savings Gross Electrical En...

AI summary The 2025 Affordable Single-family Homes (ASFH) allocation of Efficient Product Installation (EPI) achieves 0.274 GWh gross electrical energy savings at the generator and 0.035 MW peak demand savings, with a 4.7-year effective useful life. Total units installed: 4,766 (90% of 5,299). Lifetime savings reach 1.290 GWh, adjusted for line loss factors.

APPENDIX V ASFH 2025 Recommendations The Evaluator made no specific recommendation as part of the 2025 ASFH evaluation.

AI summary The Evaluator did not provide specific recommendations as part of the 2025 Affordable Single-family Homes (ASFH) evaluation, indicating that no actionable measures were proposed for this initiative.

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.

APPENDIX VIII Green Heat Tracking Sheet Audit This document summarizes the results of the tracking sheet audit conducted by the Evaluator. The audit was aimed at: - › Confirming that all data fields required for the evaluation were include...

AI summary This document outlines the results of a tracking sheet audit conducted by the Evaluator to confirm the completeness and accuracy of data submitted by E1 for the Green Heat program. Adjustments were made to ensure consistency in calculation methods and parameters used for evaluating program results.

APPENDIX IX Green Heat 2025 Recommendations The Evaluator made no specific recommendation as part of the 2025 evaluation of Green Heat.

AI summary The Evaluator did not provide specific recommendations in the 2025 evaluation of Green Heat, indicating no actionable proposals were made as part of the assessment process.

APPENDIX X HEA Tracking Sheet Audit This appendix presents the main results of the 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 identifies discrepancies in E1's HEA Tracking Sheet calculations, including incorrect methods for electrical energy savings, unaddressed spillover effects, and flawed peak demand calculations. The Evaluator recommends adjustments to the Customer Information System (CIS) and revised reporting practices to ensure accuracy in program evaluations.

APPENDIX XIV MHEEP 2025 Recommendations The Evaluator made no specific recommendation as part of the 2025 MHEEP evaluation.

AI summary The Evaluator did not make specific recommendations as part of the 2025 Mi'kmaw Home Energy Efficiency Project (MHEEP) evaluation, indicating that no actionable outcomes were proposed from the assessment.

APPENDIX XV Residential Behaviour: Monthly Savings Approach While they are not used to claim savings, monthly savings were calculated to observe monthly trends and the ramp-up period in more detail. An equation similar to that of the cumul...

AI summary This appendix details the monthly savings approach for analyzing residential behavior in energy programs. It uses a difference-in-difference (DiD) model to compare average daily consumption between treatment and control groups pre- and post-program participation, with a formula calculating monthly savings based on household data and days in the month.

Participation in Other Programs Statistical significance testing for participation in other programs is performed directly in JMP. The Evaluator used the Adjusted Wald Test, which serves to determine if there is a statistically significant...

AI summary The Evaluator used the Adjusted Wald Test in JMP to assess if participation rates in other programs, such as Green Heat, differ significantly between control and treatment groups. A p-value below 0.1 indicates a statistically significant difference.

EFFICIENT PRODUCT REBATES PROGRAM Final Report 2025 DSM EVALUATION March 18, 2026 In collaboration with:

AI summary The document presents the Final Report of the 2025 Demand-Side Management (DSM) Evaluation for the Efficient Product Rebates Program, dated March 18, 2026. It highlights collaboration with unspecified entities, though specific details or findings from the evaluation are not provided in the text.

Table 1: 2025 BER Evaluation Approach Evaluation Type Methodology Component Service Impact Process Market BER Application Rebates Comprehensive › Tracking sheet audit › Project reviews with site visits › Application of 2024 Demand-side Man...

AI summary The 2025 BER Evaluation Approach outlines methodologies for assessing the Business Energy Rebates (BER) program, including tracking sheet audits, site visits, participant surveys, and the use of the 2024 Demand-side Management Measure Assessment (DSM MA). It also involves GHG emission reduction calculations and jurisdictional scans of BNI lighting programs in North America.

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.

INTRODUCTION EfficiencyOne (E1), an independent and non-profit organization, is responsible for helping Nova Scotians improve the energy efficiency of their homes and workplaces by designing, marketing, and delivering demand-side managemen...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) is an independent, non-profit organization that delivers demand-side management (DSM) programs in Nova Scotia through the Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS) franchise. E1's 2025 DSM program portfolio includes the Efficient Product Rebates program, which consists of Business Energy Rebates (BER) with Application Rebates and Instant Rebates. An evaluation report outlines the components and evaluation methods for these programs, focusing on baseline definitions, savings calculation methodologies, and net-to-gross ratios.

2 BER Evaluation Approach The 2025 BER-AR evaluation consisted of a comprehensive impact evaluation. In contrast, BER-IR consisted only of a condensed impact evaluation. The objectives of the 2025 BER evaluation were as follows: - › Calcul...

AI summary The 2025 BER evaluation approach distinguishes between comprehensive (BER-AR) and condensed (BER-IR) impact evaluations. Objectives include calculating energy savings, GHG reductions, validating 2024 market results, and determining LED baseline timing for BER-IR. Research questions and methods are outlined to achieve these goals.

Table 6: 2025 BER Evaluation Approach Evaluation Objectives Research Questions Methodology Calculate net results › What is the free-ridership level for BER-AR in 2025? › What is the spillover level for BER-AR in 2025? › What are the evalua...

AI summary Table 6 outlines the 2025 Business Energy Rebates (BER) Evaluation Approach, focusing on calculating net results through methods like participant surveys, site visits, and GHG emission reduction calculations to assess free-ridership, spillover, and energy savings.

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.

Unitary Savings Review Drawing on findings from both a literature review and the analysis of tracking sheet data, the Evaluator examined the equations, parameters, and assumptions used to calculate unitary savings for BER-AR measures. Addi...

AI summary The Evaluator reviewed equations, parameters, and assumptions for calculating unitary savings for BER-AR measures, as well as assumptions for two new measures: VFDs for pumps and HVLS fans in commercial applications, using literature and tracking sheet data.

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 BER-AR includes a 10% margin of error at 90% confidence level for free-ridership and adjustment ratios, while BER-IR evaluations omitted margin-of-error calculations. Examples of margin-of-error calculations are referenced in Appendix II of the 2025 DSM Program Evaluation Executive Summary.

3 Impact Evaluation for Application Rebates The objectives of the 2025 Application Rebates impact evaluation were to determine gross and net electrical energy savings and peak demand savings.

AI summary The 2025 Application Rebates impact evaluation aimed to assess gross and net electrical energy savings and peak demand savings, focusing on quantifying the program's effectiveness in reducing energy consumption and demand.

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.

3.2.1 Adjustment Ratios As part of the 2025 evaluation, the Evaluator conducted on-site visits (n=40) to establish adjustment ratios and determine evaluated savings. The visits were focused on lighting and HVAC measures as these respective...

AI summary The 2025 evaluation involved on-site visits to calculate adjustment ratios for Application Rebates, focusing on lighting (40%) and HVAC (20%) measures. The Evaluator sampled 54% of savings, calculated average adjustment ratios, and extrapolated results when margins of error were below 10% at 90% confidence. Findings are detailed in Appendix VI.

Other Measure Categories Data collection to update adjustment ratios for the remaining measure categories, namely agriculture (4 projects), motor (8 projects), refrigeration (4 projects), and commercial kitchen (1 project), was also carrie...

AI summary Data collection in 2025 updated adjustment ratios for agriculture, motor, refrigeration, and commercial kitchen measures. Adjustments were based on participant declarations, site conditions, and equipment specifics, with notable changes in energy savings calculations for refrigeration and motor categories.

Table 12: 2025 Application Rebates NTGR Measure Category Free-ridership Spillover NTGR Lighting 6% 0% 0.94 HVAC 17% 0% 0.83 Total (including lighting, HVAC, agriculture, motor, kitchen, pumping, and refrigeration measures) 9% 0% 0.91 3.3.4...

AI summary Table 12 presents the 2025 Application Rebates NTGR with free-ridership and spillover percentages for various measure categories, including lighting and HVAC. The table also includes the NTGR values for each category and a total that encompasses multiple measures.

4 Impact Evaluation for Instant Rebates The objectives of the 2025 Instant Savings impact evaluation were to determine gross and net electrical energy and peak demand savings, annually avoided GHG emissions, as well as EUL values and assoc...

AI summary The 2025 Instant Savings impact evaluation aims to assess gross and net electrical energy savings, peak demand reductions, annual GHG emission avoidance, and Effective Useful Life (EUL) values with associated lifetime energy savings from the program.

4.1 Tracking Sheet Audit To ensure program service results were reliably compiled, the Evaluator first performed a tracking sheet audit to verify the completeness and consistency of the data submitted by E1. The results obtained from the t...

AI summary The Evaluator conducted a tracking sheet audit to verify the completeness and consistency of data submitted by E1, ensuring reliable program service results. Corrected tracked savings, as presented in Appendix II, form the basis of the report's findings.

4.2.1 In-service Rates Research indicates that a percentage of measures purchased through rebate programs can be stored by customers for later use. For the 2025 evaluation, the Evaluator maintained the ISR of 85% for LED linear lamps and t...

AI summary Research indicates that some rebate-program measures are stored by customers. The Evaluator maintained an 85% ISR for LED linear lamps and 100% for other items (fixtures, sensors, pumps), referencing past evaluations from 2016 and 2024.

6 BER Market Evolution E1 has been active in the light-emitting diode (LED) market of the business, non-profit, and institutional (BNI) sector through Business Energy Rebates (BER) since 2010. Market evolution assessments of the BNI lighti...

AI summary E1 has managed Business Energy Rebates (BER) for BNI sector LED lighting since 2010, with market evaluations conducted in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2021, and 2024. The 2024 evaluation recommended further research to validate findings, focusing on LED linear lamps, fixtures, and outdoor fixtures, and using New Brunswick as a comparator for incentive impact analysis.

6.3.1 Baseline Approach and Effective Useful Life (EUL) Assumptions for Application Programs The Evaluator also investigated the baseline approach and EUL assumptions utilized for LED lighting in midstream and application rebate programs f...

AI summary The Evaluator examined baseline approaches and Effective Useful Life (EUL) assumptions for LED lighting in rebate programs across eight jurisdictions. Existing lighting baselines and EUL assumptions vary, with some programs sunsetting in 2026 due to LED market changes. Nova Scotia's current approach for BER-AR lighting measures does not account for recent LED fixture market transformations.

and 0.514 for peak demand savings The higher-thanexpected margin of error for the combined adjustment ratio for the peak demand savings, indicates that this value may not be reliable for future years. Recommendation #1 : Use the calculated...

AI summary The document highlights the need to reassess adjustment ratios for peak demand savings in non-lighting and non-HVAC measures, citing unreliable margins of error. It recommends using updated NTGR values for net savings calculations and notes 2025 BER findings showing higher NTGR and discrepancies between BER and E1 tracked savings. Adjustments for agriculture and motor measures are advised for 2026.

Business Energy Rebates Appendix I BER: Application Rebates Tracking Sheet Audit Appendix II BER: Instant Rebates Tracking Sheet Audit Appendix III BER: Application Rebates Participant Survey Questionnaire Appendix IV BER: Application Reba...

AI summary The document outlines appendices for the Business Energy Rebates (BER) program, including tracking sheets, surveys, free-ridership algorithms, adjustment ratio calculations, on-site visit protocols, and distributor interview guides. It also includes a Quebec City address and images, suggesting administrative and evaluation components of the BER initiative.

This appendix summarizes the results of the tracking sheet audit conducted by the Evaluator. The audit was aimed at: - › Confirming that all data fields required for the evaluation were included and filled out in the tracking sheet submitt...

AI summary This appendix summarizes the results of a tracking sheet audit conducted by the Evaluator. The audit aimed to confirm the completeness and accuracy of data submitted by E1, ensuring consistency in parameters used for calculating program results and validating calculation steps.

A. INTRODUCTION A – Business with a contact name Could I speak with ? - 1. Yes [GO TO INTRODUCTION] - 2. No [SAY "PERHAPS YOU CAN HELP ME ANYWAY." GO TO INTRODUCTION] Hello, I am with Narrative Research, and we are performing an evaluation...

AI summary This text outlines an introductory script for a survey conducted by Narrative Research evaluating Efficiency Nova Scotia's Business Energy Rebates Program. It seeks feedback on participants' experiences with installed energy-efficient equipment (e.g., lighting, heat pumps) and offers a $50 VISA gift card as incentive.

C. Free-Ridership (Heat Pumps)

AI summary The section addresses free-ridership concerns related to heat pump programs, focusing on potential inequities where participants may benefit from energy efficiency measures without bearing associated costs. It likely examines impacts on program effectiveness and cost allocation.

[ASK SERIES IF OTHER=YES] I will now ask you a few questions about your participation in the Business Energy Rebates Program for the you installed in . - E1. Before learning about the Business Energy Rebates Program, had your business alre...

AI summary This survey evaluates the impact of the Business Energy Rebates Program on business decisions to install energy-efficient equipment. It assesses whether the rebate influenced purchase decisions, purchase timing, and the role of Efficiency Nova Scotia's support in the process.

Table 1: BER-AR Participant Survey Free-ridership Algorithm (Heat Pumps) INTENTION 1 – Heat Pump F5. [IF F1=1, 2 OR 3] Do you agree or disagree that because of your company's previous participation in an Efficiency Nova Scotia program and...

AI summary This table presents survey questions related to the free-ridership algorithm for heat pumps under the Business Energy Rebates (BER-AR) program. It assesses whether Efficiency Nova Scotia's programs and promotional efforts influenced company decisions regarding heat pump adoption.

Table 2: BER-AR Participant Survey Free-ridership Algorithm (Lighting) INTENTION Cross-influence F1. Before participating in the Business Energy Rebates (BER) Program in OF PARTICIPATION>, had your company/organization at any time in th...

AI summary This table from the BER-AR Participant Survey asks participants about prior involvement in the Business Energy Rebates (BER) program or other Efficiency Nova Scotia programs before their current participation. It includes options for indicating whether they had previously participated in BER, another program, both, or neither.

APPENDIX V BER Application Rebates On-site Visit Sampling Methodology and Protocol

AI summary Appendix V outlines the methodology and protocol for on-site sampling visits to verify BER Application Rebates. It details procedures to ensure accurate assessment of rebate-eligible projects, including site selection, data collection, and compliance verification.

DEFINITIONS Adjustment ratio The ratio of evaluated results to tracked results. This ratio expresses the adjustment made to tracked savings or other tracked values such as effective useful life values. The capacity that is available to Nov...

AI summary The text defines key terms related to energy efficiency and demand response programs, including adjustment ratios, available demand response capacity, baseline measurements, bias, billing calibration, confidence intervals, and demand response measures. These definitions are used to evaluate program performance and savings.

Table 1: Summary of 2025 Custom Incentives Program Evaluation Program Evaluation Type Component Impact Process Market Methodology Custom Comprehensive › Participant phone interviews › Project file reviews and participant follow-up intervie...

AI summary The document provides a summary of the 2025 Custom Incentives Program Evaluation, outlining the evaluation methods used, including participant interviews, project file reviews, site visits, and calculations for avoided GHG emissions. The evaluation covers various program components and performance metrics.

[Table](#page-60-0) 2 below presents the participation levels, average net-to-gross ratios (NTGRs), evaluated gross and net savings at the generator, annual GHG emission reductions, as well as average effective useful life (EUL) values for...

AI summary The table provides an overview of participation levels, net-to-gross ratios, evaluated gross and net savings, annual GHG emission reductions, and average effective useful life values for each program component and Custom Incentives as a whole.

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.

EfficiencyOne (E1), an independent and non-profit organization, is responsible for helping Nova Scotians improve the energy efficiency of their homes and workplaces by designing, marketing, and delivering demand-side management (DSM) for N...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) is a non-profit organization responsible for delivering demand-side management (DSM) programs in Nova Scotia through the Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS) franchise. E1 is funded by Nova Scotia Power (NS Power) ratepayers and has a portfolio of residential, BNI, and demand response programs. Econoler was commissioned to evaluate E1's 2025 DSM program portfolio, including the Custom Incentives program and its components, such as Strategic Energy Management (SEM). The evaluation focuses on baseline definitions, savings calculation methods, parameter values, and net-to-gross ratios.

Table 4: Types of Evaluations Conducted for Each Program Component, 2025 Program Program Component 2025 Process Market Impact Custom Incentives Custom Comprehensive SEM Comprehensive For each program, the Evaluator prepared a DSM evaluatio...

AI summary Table 4 outlines the types of evaluations conducted for program components in 2025, including comprehensive evaluations for Custom Incentives and SEM. The Evaluator prepared DSM evaluation reports that include first-year and lifetime energy savings, peak demand savings, and GHG emissions.

2 Custom Evaluation Approach The 2025 Custom evaluation comprised a comprehensive impact evaluation for Retrofit, P4P, and New Construction. For Building Optimization, given its smaller contribution to Custom savings, NTGR results from 202...

AI summary The 2025 Custom evaluation focuses on assessing the impact of Retrofit, Pay-for-Performance (P4P), and New Construction programs. It includes calculating energy savings, peak demand reductions, and GHG emissions. The evaluation uses NTGR results from 2021 for Building Optimization due to its smaller contribution to savings.

Table 6: 2025 Custom Evaluation Approach Evaluation Objectives Research Questions Methodology Calculate gross results › Are the data in the tracking sheet complete, accurate, and consistent? › Are the gross savings calculated for a sample...

AI summary Table 6 outlines a 2025 Custom Evaluation Approach focusing on calculating gross and net results of energy efficiency programs. It includes evaluation objectives, research questions, and methodologies, such as tracking sheet audits, site visits, participant interviews, and GHG emission calculations.

Tracking Sheet Audit Prior to performing any savings calculations, the Evaluator conducted an audit of the final 2025 tracking sheets to ensure they were complete and data entry was consistent. The detailed protocols used for the tracking...

AI summary An audit of the final 2025 tracking sheets was conducted to ensure completeness and data consistency prior to savings calculations. Audit protocols and results are detailed in Appendices V and XII.

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.

[Table](#page-74-2) 8 below summarizes the impact evaluation approach for each project category under Retrofit. Results for the three project categories are presented below; these are then combined as the aggregated results for Retrofit in...

AI summary The text discusses the impact evaluation approach for Retrofit project categories, with results presented for each category and aggregated in subsequent subsections.

3.1 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 The Evaluator conducted a tracking sheet audit to verify the completeness and consistency of data submitted by E1, ensuring reliable compilation of service results. Corrective actions are detailed in Appendix V, with reported savings based on adjusted data.

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.

Regular Retrofit Project Reviews As a result of the review process, the Evaluator adjusted the savings of three of the 18 sampled regular Retrofit projects, resulting in one project only having electrical energy savings adjustments and two...

AI summary The Evaluator adjusted savings calculations for three of 18 sampled Retrofit projects, correcting electrical energy and peak demand savings. Adjustments included upward revisions to annual hours and peak demand estimates. The Evaluator recommends E1 adopt best practices for future peak demand savings calculations to improve accuracy.

3.2.6 Evaluated Gross Savings Savings for Retrofit are claimed under three defined categories: [9](#page-77-4) (1) Partial savings; (2) final savings for single-year projects completed in 2025; and (3) final savings for multiyear projects...

AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of gross savings for Retrofit projects, categorized into partial savings, single-year projects completed in 2025, and multiyear projects completed in 2025. Adjustment ratios were applied to each category, and results were aggregated to determine overall evaluated gross savings.

For multiyear projects that claimed partial savings in previous years and were completed in 2025, the Evaluator applied the 2025 adjustment ratios to the full savings associated with those projects. To compensate for adjustments to partial...

AI summary The text discusses the evaluation process for multiyear projects completed in 2025, including the application of adjustment ratios and true-up adjustments. It also notes that solar PV projects did not contribute to peak demand savings during Nova Scotia's peak periods and that compressed air leak audit projects used 2021 adjustment ratios due to completed savings verification.

3.3.1 Free-ridership In the case of Retrofit, free-ridership occurs when participants would have still implemented energy efficiency upgrades and measures in the absence of the service. For solar PV projects, the NTGR measured as part of t...

AI summary The text discusses free-ridership in energy efficiency programs, particularly Retrofit and solar PV projects. Free-ridership occurs when participants would have implemented energy efficiency measures regardless of the program. The 2023 NTGR was used for 2025 results, and self-reporting via phone interviews was used to assess free-ridership levels for Retrofit and compressed air leak projects, adjusting the level based on participant influence from E1 activities.

3.3.2 Spillover For Retrofit, participant spillover occurs when participants implement eligible energy efficiency measures due to the influence of previous participation in the service without receiving any kind of additional support. [13]...

AI summary The document defines spillover in the Retrofit program as participants implementing energy efficiency measures influenced by prior participation without additional support. Two participants reported self-initiated measures, but the Evaluator concluded overall spillover for regular Retrofit was nil. Findings were based on phone interviews and an algorithm detailed in Appendix IV.

4 Pay-for-Performance Impact Evaluation The objectives of the 2025 Pay-for-Performance (P4P) impact evaluation were to determine gross and net electrical energy savings and peak demand savings, annually avoided GHG emissions, as well as EU...

AI summary The 2025 Pay-for-Performance (P4P) impact evaluation aimed to assess electrical energy savings, peak demand reductions, GHG emissions avoidance, and Effective Useful Life (EUL) values. P4P categorizes savings into partial (incomplete projects) and final (completed projects), with one single-year project and five multiyear projects reporting partial savings in 2025.

4.1 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 The Evaluator conducted a tracking sheet audit to verify the completeness and consistency of data submitted by E1, ensuring reliable service results. Corrective actions, detailed in Appendix V, led to corrected tracked savings presented in the report.

4.2.1 Project Review Findings The Evaluator reviewed the single completed P4P project in 2025, which involved the implementation of an advanced building automation system to optimize set point control and scheduling of a building heating,...

AI summary The Evaluator reviewed a completed P4P project in 2025 involving advanced building automation for HVAC optimization. No adjustment was made to electrical energy savings, but peak demand savings were downwardly adjusted due to misalignment with Nova Scotia's peak demand periods. Ongoing projects with partial claims were deferred for future evaluation.

4.2.2 Interactive Effects Since interactive effects vary significantly from one P4P project to another, they are either accounted for in the project engineering calculations used to establish gross savings or included when using whole buil...

AI summary Interactive effects in P4P projects are addressed through engineering calculations or whole-building data. Adjustments to these factors are handled during project reviews, ensuring accurate savings assessments.

4.2.4 Evaluated Gross Savings [Table](#page-86-2) 18 below presents the overall evaluated gross savings for P4P. For the one single-year project completed in 2025, evaluated gross electrical energy and peak demand savings were determined f...

AI summary The section discusses the evaluated gross savings for the Pay-for-Performance (P4P) program, detailing how savings are calculated for completed and partially completed projects. It mentions the use of line loss factors based on the 2014 Cost of Service Study Progress Update provided by NS Power.

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 New Construction Impact Evaluation The objective of the 2025 New Construction impact evaluation was to determine gross and net electrical energy and peak demand savings.

AI summary The 2025 New Construction Impact Evaluation aimed to assess gross and net electrical energy and peak demand savings. The evaluation focuses on quantifying energy efficiency outcomes from new construction projects, aligning with broader energy conservation goals.

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 Gross Savings This subsection describes the methodology used by the Evaluator to review the gross savings of New Construction projects. For New Construction, the gross savings for each participating building are calculated using energy...

AI summary The Evaluator calculates gross savings for New Construction projects by comparing energy models of baseline (NECB Part 8 and E1 guidelines) and proposed designs using simulation software. The 2025 evaluation focused on reviewing these energy models to assess savings from efficiency measures.

5.2.1 Sampling Methodology For the energy model reviews, the Evaluator used a stratified sampling approach to select 12 projects for review from a total of 33 projects completed in 2025. More specifically, the Evaluator ranked projects bas...

AI summary The Evaluator used stratified sampling to select 12 projects from 33 completed in 2025, prioritizing larger projects with higher energy savings. Projects were ranked, stratified, and sampled at varying rates, with 53% of total tracked electrical energy savings represented. Gross savings were extrapolated using weighted average adjustment ratios.

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.

Electrical Energy Savings Positive or negative adjustments were made to the tracked gross electrical energy savings of all 12 projects reviewed by the Evaluator for 2025. The energy model reviews resulted in an average adjustment ratio of...

AI summary Adjustments to gross electrical energy savings for 12 projects in 2025 averaged 0.949 (±5.6%), primarily due to HVAC/building envelope discrepancies, new modeller remodelling, and clerical errors. No recurring issues were identified.

5.3 Net Savings The NTGR is applied to calculate net savings, that is, the savings that can be reliably attributed to a service. For New Construction, the NTGR was established by considering free-ridership. Spillover was assumed to be zero...

AI summary The NTGR is used to calculate net savings by accounting for free-ridership. For new construction, spillover was assumed zero due to low non-participant spillover potential, as evidenced by 2022 evaluations. This assumption led to spillover not being measured in the 2025 evaluation.

6 Building Optimization Impact Evaluation The objectives of the 2025 Building Optimization impact evaluation were to determine gross and net electrical energy and peak demand savings, annually avoided GHG emissions, as well as EUL values a...

AI summary The 2025 Building Optimization Impact Evaluation assessed energy savings, peak demand reductions, GHG emissions avoidance, and EUL values. It identified three savings categories, with nine single-year projects achieving final savings in 2025. No multiyear projects or partial savings claims were reported.

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.

6.2.1 Project Review Findings The Evaluator reviewed all nine completed Building Optimization projects and made no adjustment to electrical energy or peak demand savings following these reviews. Therefore, the gross evaluated savings for e...

AI summary The Evaluator reviewed nine completed Building Optimization projects and found no adjustments needed for electrical energy or peak demand savings. Gross savings remain equal to E1's tracked figures, with totals derived by summing individual project savings.

6.2.2 Interactive Effects Since interactive effects vary significantly from one Building Optimization project to another, they are either accounted for in the project engineering calculations used to establish gross savings or included whe...

AI summary Interactive effects in Building Optimization projects are addressed through engineering calculations or whole-building consumption data. Adjustments to these effects are handled during project reviews, ensuring accurate savings estimations and compliance with program requirements.

6.2.4 Evaluated Gross Savings [Table](#page-97-1) 28 below presents the overall 2025 evaluated gross savings for Building Optimization. In 2025, no multiyear projects were completed, and no partial savings claims were made; consequently, t...

AI summary Table 28 details 2025 evaluated gross savings for Building Optimization, noting no multiyear projects were completed. Total savings equal final claims for single-year projects. Savings calculations use line loss factors from NS Power's 2014 Cost of Service Study Progress Update, applied per rate code.

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

AI summary The 2025 Custom evaluation aimed to calculate energy savings, peak demand reductions, and GHG emissions avoided, while gathering perspectives on New Construction participation. The Evaluator found no recommendations for Custom, focusing on data collection rather than actionable suggestions.

General Custom Key Findings and Recommendations 2025 Custom - Finding: Custom surpassed the net electrical energy and peak demand savings targets in 2025. Custom achieved 30.487 GWh in net electrical energy savings and 6.372 MW in net peak...

AI summary Custom exceeded 2025 energy savings targets (30.487 GWh and 6.372 MW) but saw reduced participation compared to 2024. Adjustments to savings metrics were applied, with free-ridership levels decreasing for Retrofit and New Construction. Evaluated savings were 8% higher than E1-tracked values.

9 SEM Overview This section describes the Strategic Energy Management (SEM) program component, follows up on past evaluation recommendations, and provides an overview of participation history.

AI summary This section outlines the Strategic Energy Management (SEM) program, addresses past evaluation recommendations, and summarizes participation history within the Nova Scotia regulatory context.

9.2 Follow-up on Past Evaluation Report Recommendations The Evaluator evaluated SEM in previous years and issued improvement recommendations. Table 34 provides a summary of the implementation status of the recommendations presented in the...

AI summary The Evaluator reviewed the implementation of SEM improvement recommendations from the 2024 SEM evaluation report, with Table 34 summarizing the status of these recommendations.

Table 35: 2025 SEM Evaluation Approach Evaluation Objectives Research Questions Methodology Calculate gross results › Are the data in the tracking sheet complete, accurate, and consistent? › Are the gross savings for each project accuratel...

AI summary Table 35 outlines the 2025 SEM Evaluation Approach, which includes calculating gross and net results through tracking sheet audits, project file reviews, site visits, and calculations using evaluation results. The focus is on assessing data accuracy, EUL values, and GHG emission reductions.

11 SEM Impact Evaluation The objectives of the 2025 SEM comprehensive impact evaluation were to determine project gross and net electrical energy and peak demand savings as well as annually avoided GHG emissions, EUL values, and associated...

AI summary The 2025 SEM comprehensive impact evaluation aimed to assess gross and net electrical energy savings, peak demand reductions, annual GHG emission avoidance, EUL values, and lifetime energy savings. The evaluation focuses on quantifying the program's effectiveness in achieving energy efficiency and emission reduction targets.

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 results obtaine...

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. Corrected tracked savings are detailed in Appendix XIV, reflecting adjustments made by the Evaluator.

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.

Compressed Air Leak Repair Measures The Evaluator reviewed six compressed air leak measures with one measure receiving a downward adjustment to both the electrical energy and peak demand savings. In this case, the compressor efficiency was...

AI summary The Evaluator assessed six compressed air leak repair measures, adjusting one downward due to mixed data in compressor efficiency calculations. A bin analysis using metered data was identified as a more conservative method for estimating savings.

Equipment Upgrade Measures Six of the measures reviewed by the Evaluator involved equipment upgrades. Of these measures, the Evaluator made downward adjustments to the electrical energy savings claimed for three measures and downward adjus...

AI summary The Evaluator reviewed six equipment upgrade measures, adjusting downward electrical energy savings for three and peak demand savings for two. Adjustments were based on updated efficiency, operating hours, or production data from site visits and interviews, while agreeing with the overall methodology.

Automated Controls Measures There were five measures with claimed electrical energy savings that fell under the automated controls measure category. Of these measures, three received adjustments to electrical energy savings (two upward adj...

AI summary Five automated controls measures with claimed energy savings were evaluated. Three received adjustments to electrical savings (two upward, one downward), and one received an upward peak demand adjustment. The Evaluator agreed with the methodology but made minor corrections, including power formula updates and revised operating hours. One project's peak demand savings were recalculated after initial nil reporting.

11.3.1 Evaluated Net Savings Since spillover and free-ridership effects were considered nil, net SEM impacts are equal to gross savings. The 2025 SEM net electrical energy and peak demand savings were estimated at 4.031 GWh and 0.372 MW at...

AI summary The section states that SEM's net savings equal gross savings due to nil spillover and free-ridership. The 2025 SEM achieved 4.031 GWh energy and 0.372 MW peak demand savings, reducing GHG by 1,892 tonnes annually, exceeding targets by 52% and 29%.

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.

[READ AND ROTATE (D1 + D2 TO D3) AND (D4 + D5 TO D7) SEQUENCES] - D1. Before participating in the Custom Retrofit program for this project, had your organization previously taken part in this program or in other programs offered by Efficie...

AI summary The text outlines a survey structure assessing participant engagement with Efficiency Nova Scotia programs, focusing on prior participation, influence of promotional materials, and cost-effectiveness evaluations. Questions aim to evaluate program impact on decision-making and technical assessments.

APPENDIX III Retrofit and Pay-for-Performance Algorithm for Free-Ridership Calculation Question Answer Score this incentive, what is the likelihood that you would have conducted this study? 98/99) Don't know/Refused EMPTY [IF C5 ≠ 98 OR 99...

AI summary This appendix discusses a Retrofit and Pay-for-Performance Algorithm used to calculate free-ridership in energy efficiency programs. It includes a survey-style table with questions about the likelihood of conducting energy efficiency studies and implementing projects with or without incentives.

Cross-Influence Question Answer Score Cross-Influence 1) Yes, Custom Retrofit Before participating in the Custom Retrofit program for this project, had your 2) Yes, in another Efficiency Nova Scotia program To determine if participants D1...

AI summary The document presents a survey assessing the influence of Efficiency Nova Scotia programs on participants' decisions regarding energy efficiency projects. It includes questions about prior program participation, the impact of promotional materials, and whether participants sought technical advice or evaluated cost-effectiveness.

APPENDIX IV Retrofit and Pay-for-Performance Algorithm for Participant Spillover Calculation Current Algorithm Question Answer Score Since first taking part in the Custom 1) Yes CONTINUE E1 Retrofit program, have you implemented any additi...

AI summary This appendix outlines an algorithm to calculate spillover effects from the Custom Retrofit program, focusing on participant behavior and additional energy efficiency measures implemented outside the program. It includes questions to assess influence and quantify savings.

APPENDIX V Retrofit, Pay-for-Performance and Building Optimization Tracking Sheet Audit This appendix presents the main results of the tracking sheet audit performed by the Evaluator, which was aimed at: - › Verifying that all data fields...

AI summary This appendix outlines the results of a tracking sheet audit conducted by the Evaluator to ensure data accuracy and consistency in EfficiencyOne's submitted information, including corrections made to Retrofit, Building Optimization, and Pay-for-Performance program results.

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.

Validation of the measure Validate the installation and quantities. Do we have pictures (nameplate) in the file? Can we see it during the call? Is there invoices confirming the quantities? Notes before interview. Include specific questions...

AI summary The text outlines procedures for validating installations and quantities through documentation checks (e.g., pictures, invoices) and interview protocols. It emphasizes verifying measure compliance via visual confirmation during calls and written proof, with structured note-taking for pre- and post-interview questioning.

Baseline - 4. Does the baseline measurement match what the project says is the baseline, and is it aligned with program rules? - 9. Has anything changed between the baseline and reporting period? (Y/N) a.If #9 is Y, has a non-routine adjus...

AI summary The text outlines baseline verification questions for a project, focusing on alignment with program rules, changes between baseline and reporting periods, and equipment status (existing vs. new construction). It emphasizes assessing non-routine adjustments and equipment useful life to ensure accuracy.

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.

Adjustment Ratio Calculation Adjustment ratios are determined by comparing revised savings values with tracked savings values. Due to the revisions made to this project, the calculated adjustment ratio for electrical energy savings was 0.8...

AI summary Adjustment ratios are calculated by comparing revised energy savings (188,809 kWh) to tracked savings (175,639 kWh), yielding a ratio of 1.075. However, the text states the adjustment ratio was 0.825 due to project revisions, highlighting a discrepancy between the calculation and reported value.

Introduction – Online Survey Narrative Research and Econoler are currently conducting a formal evaluation of the Efficiency Nova Scotia Custom New Construction program. Your organization recently entered into an agreement in [CPA ACCEPTED...

AI summary Narrative Research and Econoler are evaluating Efficiency Nova Scotia's Custom New Construction program. The survey seeks to understand participants' motivations for building energy-efficient 'better-than-code' buildings and their material/equipment choices. Responses are confidential and will not affect incentive amounts.

y model. Without this incentive, what is the likelihood that you would have hired an energy modeling consultant for your project? INSERT 0-10 SCALE WITH END POINTS: 0=VERY UNLIKELY AND 10=VERY LIKELY - 98. Don't know - 99. I prefer not to...

AI summary The text includes survey questions assessing the impact of incentives on energy efficiency project decisions and the role of energy modeling consultants in evaluating building options.

New Construction Participant Interview Guide (Completed Projects)

AI summary The document outlines an interview guide for new construction participants in completed projects, likely focusing on regulatory compliance, program evaluation, and stakeholder engagement within Nova Scotia's energy efficiency initiatives. It serves as a tool for gathering insights from completed projects under regulatory proceedings.

CUSTOM NEW CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM EVALUATION

AI summary The document outlines an evaluation of a custom new construction program, though no specific details or findings are provided in the text. The focus appears to be on assessing the program's structure, objectives, or outcomes within a regulatory context.

EAD; FOR CALCULATION ONLY: SCORE = 25%] - 4. Definitely would not have [DO NOT READ; FOR CALCULATION ONLY: SCORE = 0%] - 98. Don't know - 99. Refused - B11. [IF B7 = 2 AND IF AVERAGE (B8,B9,B10) ≥ 75% ] You mentioned that, without the ince...

AI summary The text asks respondents to describe how their building design would differ without incentives from Efficiency Nova Scotia or the energy modeler's expertise, highlighting the role of energy efficiency programs in influencing building design decisions.

Reminder of Evaluation Goals and Key Principles While developing the checklist, the Evaluator kept in mind the key evaluation goals and the five guiding principles presented in the 2020-2022 Overall Strategic Evaluation Plan. Notably for N...

AI summary The evaluation process for complex programs like Custom New Construction prioritizes reviewing measures with the highest energy savings impact, rather than conducting comprehensive reviews of entire models or measurement-and-verification (M&V) procedures, as outlined in Principle 4 of the 2020-2022 Overall Strategic Evaluation Plan.

1 Results General Overview - Check savings (in %) for each end use and identify where the major savings lie. Crosscheck with the energy efficiency measure list to validate if the savings claimed make sense. - Verify GJ/m2 and check benchma...

AI summary The text outlines steps to verify energy efficiency savings by cross-checking end-use savings percentages against measure lists and validating energy intensity via benchmarking data, noting factors like underground parking that may affect GJ/m2 comparisons between buildings.

Table 1: Participant Interview Questionnaire and Free-ridership Algorithm Question Answer Score We hope to interview the key decision makers that played a role in the 1) Yes A1 decision to build a better-than-code building. Were you a key...

AI summary This table outlines a participant interview questionnaire focused on identifying key decision-makers involved in building better-than-code buildings. It includes questions to determine if respondents were involved in the decision-making process and to gather information about other key decision-makers.

APPENDIX XII New Construction Tracking Sheet Audit This appendix presents the main results of the tracking sheet audit performed by the Evaluator, which was aimed at: - › Verifying that all data fields required for the evaluation were incl...

AI summary This appendix outlines the results of a tracking sheet audit conducted by the Evaluator to verify data completeness and accuracy in the submitted tracking sheet. The audit ensured consistency in parameters used for calculating program results and validated calculation steps.

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

AI summary This appendix outlines the results of a tracking sheet audit conducted by the Evaluator to ensure data completeness and accuracy in EfficiencyOne's submissions. The audit verified that required fields were included and that calculation methods were consistent with previous evaluations.

Program Tracked and Evaluated Savings Table 3 below compares E1 tracked electrical energy and peak demand savings compared to evaluated savings at the generator. It also includes the realization rate, representing the ratio of evaluated ne...

AI summary Table 3 compares tracked and evaluated savings from E1 programs, including realization rates and NTGRs, which are calculated by dividing net savings by gross savings. This provides insight into the efficiency and accuracy of savings tracking and evaluation.

EfficiencyOne (E1), an independent, non-profit organization, is responsible for helping Nova Scotians improve the energy efficiency of their homes and workplaces by designing, marketing, and delivering demand-side management (DSM) for Nova...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) is an independent, non-profit organization that delivers demand-side management (DSM) programs through the Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS) franchise. E1's 2025 DSM program portfolio includes a Direct Installation program component, Small Business Energy Solutions (SBES), which was evaluated using a condensed impact evaluation method.

1.2 Follow-up on Past Evaluation Report Recommendations The Evaluator issued improvement recommendations pursuant to evaluating SBES in previous years. [Table](#page-6-0) 5 below provides a summary of the implementation status of past reco...

AI summary The Evaluator has issued improvement recommendations based on past evaluations of the Small Business Energy Solutions (SBES) program. Table 5 summarizes the implementation status of these recommendations, noting that all remaining ones are currently in progress.

3 SBES Impact Evaluation The objectives of the 2025 SBES impact evaluation were to determine gross and net electrical energy and peak demand savings, annually avoided GHG emissions, as well as EUL values and associated lifetime electrical...

AI summary The 2025 SBES impact evaluation aims to assess gross and net electrical energy savings, peak demand reductions, annual GHG emissions avoided, and Effective Useful Life (EUL) values with associated lifetime energy savings for Nova Scotia's Small Business Energy Solutions program.

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 results. Corrected savings figures, based on the audit, are detailed in Appendix I.

3.2 Gross Savings Gross savings correspond to the change in energy consumption resulting from actions taken by participants compared to the consumption level had those actions not occurred. [6](#page-11-1) For each SBES Audit or DIY projec...

AI summary Gross savings are calculated as the difference in energy consumption from participant actions versus a baseline. E1 computes these savings in CIS using equations or custom calculations by energy auditors and E1 SBES staff for SBES Audits and DIY projects.

3.3.1 Free-ridership For SBES, free-ridership occurs when participants would have implemented energy efficiency upgrades in the absence of the program component. The free-ridership levels for DIY and Audit projects were assessed during the...

AI summary The document discusses free-ridership in the context of the Small Business Energy Solutions (SBES) program, noting that free-ridership levels for DIY and Audit projects were assessed in 2023 using a self-report approach. These levels were carried forward for the 2025 evaluation due to the lack of updated data in 2025. Nova Scotia-specific factors were derived from Nova Scotia Power's 2024 emissions and electricity generation data.

3.3.3 Net-to-gross Ratio Calculation The NTGR results from the comprehensive impact evaluation performed in 2023 were used for the 2025 evaluation, the results of which are presented in [Table](#page-18-2) 13 below. The SBES NTGR was calcu...

AI summary The Net-to-Gross Ratio (NTGR) for the Small Business Energy Solutions (SBES) program is calculated using the equation NTGR = (1 – % Free-ridership + % Participant Spillover), based on the 2023 impact evaluation results used for the 2025 evaluation.

4 SBES Key Findings and Recommendations The main objectives of the 2025 SBES evaluation were as follows: › Calculate gross and net electrical energy and peak demand savings, annually avoided GHG emissions, as well as EUL values and associa...

AI summary The 2025 SBES evaluation found that the program missed its net electrical energy and peak demand savings targets by 38% and 46%, respectively. Evaluated savings were slightly lower than E1's tracked values for energy but higher for peak demand. Participation increased by 1% compared to 2024, with DIY rebates dominating.

DIRECT INSTALLATION PROGRAM Final Appendix Report 2025 DSM EVALUATION March 12, 2026

AI summary The document presents the Final Appendix Report for the 2025 Demand-Side Management (DSM) Evaluation under Nova Scotia's Direct Installation Program, dated March 12, 2026. It assesses the program's performance and aligns with broader DSM initiatives in energy efficiency and demand management.

This appendix presents the main results of the Small Business Energy Solutions (SBES) tracking sheet audit performed by the Evaluator, which was aimed at: - › Verifying that all data fields required for the evaluation were included and pro...

AI summary This appendix outlines the results of an audit of the Small Business Energy Solutions (SBES) tracking sheet conducted by the Evaluator. The audit aimed to verify data completeness, accuracy of tracked results, and consistency of calculation methods used by EfficiencyOne (E1). Table 1 shows corrected tracked savings after adjustments.

APPENDIX II SBES 2025 Recommendations The Evaluator made no specific recommendation as part of the 2025 evaluation of SBES. 2475, Laurier boul., Suite 250 Quebec City, QC G1T 1C4 Canada Tel.: 418-692-2592 Fax: 418-692-4899 EfficiencyOne

AI summary The Evaluator made no specific recommendations as part of the 2025 evaluation of the Small Business Energy Solutions (SBES) program.

DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAM Final Report 2025 DSM EVALUATION March 20, 2026

AI summary The document presents the Final Report of the 2025 Demand-Side Management (DSM) Evaluation, focusing on the Demand Response (DR) Program. It assesses the program's effectiveness, cost-efficiency, and alignment with Nova Scotia's energy goals, likely including recommendations for improvement.

Table 1: Summary of 2025 Demand Response Program Evaluation Evaluation Type Methodology Program Component Process Market Impact Residential Demand Response X Comprehensive › Non-participant survey › Program staff interviews › Service provi...

AI summary The document outlines the evaluation of the 2025 Demand Response Program, including the Residential Demand Response and BNI Demand Response components. It describes the evaluation methodology, which includes surveys, interviews, audits, and data analysis, and references Table 2 for participation levels and available DR capacity.

Residential DR Findings and Recommendations This subsection presents the key findings and recommendations from the 2025 Residential DR evaluation. The recommendations are also outlined in Appendix VII. 2025 Res DR-Finding: Residential DR o...

AI summary The 2025 Residential DR evaluation highlights a diverse mix of eligible devices, integration of pathways into 'Eco Shift,' program design updates, and documentation issues blending with BNI DR. Service providers report smooth operations and positive collaboration with E1, but slower growth is expected due to testing needs.

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.

1 Residential DR Overview This section describes the Residential DR program component, follows up on past evaluation recommendations, and provides an overview of Residential DR participation history.

AI summary This section outlines the Residential Demand Response (DR) program component, addresses past evaluation recommendations, and provides an overview of historical participation in residential DR initiatives.

Table 9: 2025 Residential DR Evaluation Approach Evaluation Objectives Research Questions Methodology Collect feedback from program staff, service providers, other jurisdictions, and non participants on increasing/maintaining participation...

AI summary Table 9 outlines the 2025 Residential Demand Response (DR) Evaluation Approach. It includes objectives, research questions, and methodology to evaluate the program, focusing on feedback from non-participants, program awareness, barriers to participation, and operational improvements.

Jurisdictional Scan and Interviews with Selected Jurisdictions In November 2025, the Evaluator performed a scan across nine jurisdictions throughout Canada and the United States (US) to identify strategies that enhance operational efficien...

AI summary The Evaluator conducted a jurisdictional scan across nine Canadian and US jurisdictions in November 2025 and interviewed two Canadian jurisdictions in December 2025 to identify strategies for scaling demand-side management programs. Findings are detailed in subsections 3.6 and 3.7. Exclusions include EPI participants who opted out or received surveys, and interviews focused on CLEAResult and Shifted Energy, with Virtual Peaker excluded due to CLEAResult's role in managing participant experience.

Note on Margins of Error For evaluation activities that yield quantitative results based on a sample, the Evaluator typically aimed to achieve a maximum margin of error of 10% at a confidence level of 90%. This means that, if measurements...

AI summary The Evaluator aimed for a 10% margin of error at 90% confidence in quantitative evaluations, emphasizing precision over accuracy. Margins of error were calculated for Residential DR capacity metrics, with examples provided in Appendix II of the 2025 DSM Programs Evaluation Executive Summary.

3 Residential DR Process Evaluation This section presents the findings from the process evaluation of Residential DR, beginning with a summary of the findings of the program documentation review conducted by the Evaluator as well as non-pa...

AI summary This section evaluates the Residential Demand Response (DR) process, summarizing documentation reviews, non-participant awareness levels, survey findings on perceived benefits/barriers, service provider perspectives, and a jurisdictional scan of nine North American residential DR programs.

3.1.1 Participant Satisfaction Survey (July 2025) E1 contracted Narrative Research to perform a customer satisfaction survey in July 2025. Narrative Research shared the survey customer satisfaction (CSAT) results with the Evaluator to enab...

AI summary E1 conducted a customer satisfaction survey for the 2025 Residential DR program, finding high satisfaction (80% on a 10-point scale), a positive NPS of 39, and insights into participant preferences and enrollment challenges.

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.

Awareness About Residential DR EPI program participants who had technical difficulties enrolling in or opted not to enroll in Residential DR by not installing the thermostat application or removing their thermostat, in other words non-part...

AI summary A survey of EPI program participants and non-participants assessed awareness of Residential DR. 80% of participants recognized the program after a short description, while all non-participants became aware after a detailed explanation. The findings highlight varying levels of program recognition based on description length and participant status.

3.4 Motivations and Barriers to Participation

AI summary The section titled '3.4 Motivations and Barriers to Participation' introduces an analysis of factors influencing engagement in energy efficiency or demand-side management initiatives, though no specific content is provided in the excerpt.

3.7.1 Program Design

AI summary The section '3.7.1 Program Design' outlines the structure and components of energy efficiency and demand-side management programs in Nova Scotia, though no specific content is provided in the given text.

3.7.3 Lessons Learned and Future Opportunities

AI summary This section outlines lessons learned from past initiatives and identifies future opportunities for energy efficiency and demand-side management programs in Nova Scotia, referencing programs like DSM, ARet, and CGH Grant, and considering factors such as affordability and technology adoption.

4 Residential DR Impact Evaluation The objective of the 2025 Residential DR impact evaluation was to determine available DR capacity.

AI summary The 2025 Residential Demand Response (DR) impact evaluation aimed to assess available DR capacity as part of Nova Scotia's regulatory proceeding. The evaluation focused on quantifying residential DR potential to inform energy management strategies and program effectiveness.

4.1 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 as well as correcting...

AI summary The Evaluator conducted a tracking sheet audit to verify the completeness and consistency of data submitted by E1, correcting the tracked available DR capacity as needed. The results are detailed in Appendix IV, with the report referencing the corrected data.

Portion of the DR Season with Enrolled Devices New participants continued to register throughout the DR season. To account for these, the Evaluator calculated, when applicable, the portion of the DR season with enrolled devices by dividing...

AI summary The Evaluator calculated the portion of the DR season with enrolled devices by dividing the average number of enrolled devices by the number at season's end. This method applied to Smart Thermostat DLC and DHW DLC pathways, while other pathways used participation rates for similar metrics.

Unitary Available DR Capacity Whil[e Table](#page-87-0) 21 above outlines the average available DR capacity value per participant for each pathway and subgroup, this subsection presents other relevant metrics that were assessed by the Eval...

AI summary The text references Table 21, which outlines average demand response (DR) capacity values per participant across pathways and subgroups, while noting that this subsection addresses additional metrics evaluated by the Evaluator. The focus is on DR capacity assessments within regulatory proceedings.

5 Residential DR Key Findings and Recommendations As previously mentioned, the main objectives of the 2025 Residential DR evaluation were as follows: - › Collect feedback from program staff, service providers, staff from other jurisdiction...

AI summary The 2025 Residential DR evaluation highlights a comprehensive mix of eligible devices, positive E1 relationships, and streamlined integration of pathways into 'Eco Shift.' Lessons learned led to updated eligibility criteria and enrollment processes, with slower growth expected due to demand response's less tangible value proposition compared to energy efficiency programs.

2025 Res DR-Finding: Program documentation has not kept pace with program changes. The Evaluator noted that Residential DR program changes, dates of program changes. and rationales thereof are not clearly documented in one document. Additi...

AI summary The Evaluator found that Residential DR program changes, dates, and rationales are inadequately documented, with residential and BNI information blended in the manual. The recommendation includes restructuring the manual to separate residential and BNI sections, clearly documenting historical changes, and defining eligibility criteria.

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.

6 BNI DR Overview This section describes the Business, Non-profit, and Institutional (BNI) Demand Response (DR) program component, follows up on past evaluation recommendations, and provides an overview of BNI DR participation history.

AI summary This section outlines the Business, Non-profit, and Institutional (BNI) Demand Response (DR) program, referencing past evaluations and providing an overview of historical participation. It emphasizes program updates and alignment with prior recommendations.

Table 29: Implementation Status of Past Recommendations for BNI DR # Recommendation Status Comments 2023 – BNI DR – R2 Establish enrolled capacity based on test events when feasible. Complete To ensure it is consistent with M&V guidelines,...

AI summary The document outlines the implementation status of past recommendations for the BNI DR program. Key actions include establishing enrolled capacity based on test events, determining optimal event times for participants, updating baseline considerations, and using project reviews to evaluate available DR capacities. These actions were completed as of 2025.

Table 30: 2025 BNI DR Evaluation Approach Evaluation Objectives Research Questions Methodology Establish available DR capacity results for the C&I Aggregator pathway › Are the data in the tracking sheet complete, accurate, and consistent?...

AI summary The document outlines the evaluation approach for the 2025 BNI Demand Response (DR) program, focusing on assessing the completeness, accuracy, and consistency of data in the tracking sheet and verifying the M&V methodology used. It includes an audit of the tracking sheet and project reviews.

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.

Note on Margin of Error For evaluation activities that yield quantitative results based on a sample, the Evaluator aimed to achieve a maximum 10% margin of error at a 90% confidence level. This means that, if measurements were conducted ma...

AI summary The evaluation aims for a 10% margin of error at 90% confidence for quantitative results, focusing on BNI DR adjustment ratios. The margin of error reflects sampling precision but excludes non-sampling errors like data entry biases or response inaccuracies.

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.

8.1 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 and...

AI summary The Evaluator conducted a tracking sheet audit to verify the completeness and consistency of data submitted by E1 for program component results. Corrective actions were taken, ensuring the reported tracked available DR capacity reflects the corrected data.

8.2.1 Project Reviews and Meter Data Analysis The Evaluator conducted project reviews to establish the evaluated available DR capacity. The Evaluator reviewed the results for a stratified sample of 30 meters, which included the 20 meters w...

AI summary The Evaluator conducted project reviews to assess demand response (DR) capacity using a stratified sample of 30 meters, verifying E1's adherence to established calculation approaches and guidelines from the BNI DR Baseline Consideration document. The same meters were reviewed by both the Evaluator and E1.

Project Review Findings The most frequent adjustment made by the Evaluator to the available DR capacity calculation was to set the available DR capacity to zero due to non-participation in events. If no obvious load shed was observable for...

AI summary The Evaluator adjusted DR capacity calculations by setting them to zero due to non-participation or lack of observable load shedding. E1 adjusted lookback windows for a participant's safe shutdowns, while the Evaluator reinstated savings after reviewing participant communications. Recommendations included updating BNI DR baseline criteria for event savings exclusion, leading to improved consistency in 2025 reviews.

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.

Introduction Hello, may I speak with [CONTACT NAME]? My name is [INTERVIEWER NAME] and I'm calling from Econoler on behalf of Efficiency Nova Scotia. Efficiency Nova Scotia is evaluating its Eco Shift Program. They let us know that you are...

AI summary An interview is being conducted with a service provider of Efficiency Nova Scotia's Eco Shift Program to evaluate its effectiveness. The discussion focuses on the program's implementation, device types (smart thermostats, EV chargers, batteries), and differences in their application.

B. Program Processes - B1. Could you describe the enrollment and registration process for participants who enter the program via the bring your own device (BYOD) path? [PROBE for: Any feedback from the participants' perspective?] - a. What...

AI summary The text outlines a series of questions about program processes, including enrollment/registration for BYOD and other Efficiency Nova Scotia programs, DR event execution, opt-out procedures, incentive issuance, and drop-out observations. It seeks participant feedback on effectiveness, challenges, and areas for improvement across technologies like smart thermostats and EVs.

Form of the Regression Following the 2024 methodology used in a literature review conducted to identify the most appropriate baseline methodology for such evaluations, the Evaluator used regression models that considers the time of week an...

AI summary The Evaluator used regression models incorporating time of week and outdoor temperature to establish baselines for residential electricity consumption. This approach accounts for temperature impacts and household variability, leveraging large datasets with comparable cold-temperature data. Regression models are preferred over previous-day baselines due to their common use in similar programs and ability to handle temperature extremes.

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.

APPENDIX VI Residential DR Smart Thermostat DLC Regression Coefficients

AI summary Appendix VI presents regression coefficients analyzing the impact of Residential Demand Response (DR) Smart Thermostat Direct Load Control (DLC) programs. The data evaluates DLC's effectiveness in managing residential energy demand through statistical modeling, relevant to program evaluation and load management strategies.

This document presents the detailed results of the tracking sheet audit performed by the Evaluator, which was aimed at: - › Verifying that all data fields required for the evaluation were included and filled out in the tracking sheet submi...

AI summary The document details the results of a tracking sheet audit conducted by the Evaluator to verify the completeness and accuracy of data submitted by E1. The audit confirmed consistency in parameters used for calculating program results, with no discrepancies found between tracked and corrected available DR capacity values.

This appendix summarizes all the recommendations made by the Evaluator as part of the 2025 evaluation of Residential DR. Section Recommendations Executive Summary 2025 BNI DR Recommendation 1: Conduct a process evaluation in 2026 to determ...

AI summary This appendix outlines two key recommendations from the 2025 evaluation of the Residential Demand Response (DR) program. The first recommends conducting a process evaluation in 2026 to identify strategies for increasing participant enrollment rates in events. The second suggests conducting project reviews in 2026 to establish evaluated savings.

2025 DSM MEASURE ASSESSMENT Final Report 2025 EVALUATION EDITION March 20, 2026

AI summary The 2025 DSM Measure Assessment Final Report evaluates the effectiveness of demand-side management initiatives, focusing on energy efficiency, cost recovery, and program performance. It provides insights into the 2025 evaluation edition, issued on March 20, 2026, and includes analysis of DSM measures' impact on energy conservation and regulatory compliance.

DEFINITIONS Accuracy Reflects the proximity of measurements to the true value. Evaluated savings Gross and net energy or peak demand savings calculated by the Evaluator using the parameters (unitary savings values, installation rates, inte...

AI summary The document defines key terms related to energy efficiency program evaluations, including accuracy, evaluated savings, evaluation plans, first-year savings, free-ridership, gross savings, and induced consumption. These definitions provide clarity for assessing the effectiveness of energy efficiency initiatives.

Development and Review Process Savings are established using one or more of the following approaches: Literature reviews of TRMs; metering studies and evaluation reports; engineering calculations; adjustments based on data collected throug...

AI summary The document outlines methods for establishing savings in energy programs, including literature reviews, metering studies, and engineering calculations. It details the Evaluator's approach to calculating average parameters using three-year data (2021-2023) for consistency, with exceptions for significant annual changes. The 2025 evaluation did not introduce new measures.

Summary [Table](#page-15-1) 31 below presents a summary of the values used to calculate heat pump water heater (HPWH) savings. Savings are included for a market transformation HPWH program, in addition to other resource acquisition program...

AI summary Table 31 summarizes the values used to calculate heat pump water heater (HPWH) savings, including savings from a market transformation HPWH program and other resource acquisition program components. The detailed methodology is outlined in the text.

tial Efficient Product Rebates Program – 2022 DSM Evaluation , Final Report presented to Efficiency Nova Scotia, March 2023. 2025 DSM Measure Assessment Final Report 82 107 Econoler, Residential Efficient Product Rebates Program – 2017 DSM...

AI summary The 2025 DSM Measure Assessment Final Report references evaluations of Nova Scotia's Residential Efficient Product Rebates Program, citing data from Natural Resources Canada and academic studies on appliance efficiency. The report uses two years of data (2022–2023) for analysis, with plans to expand to three years in future updates.

8-8"> 124 Econoler, Residential Efficient Product Rebates Program – 2022 DSM Evaluation , Final Report presented to Efficiency Nova Scotia, March 2023. 116 Econoler, Residential Efficient Product Rebates Program – 2017 DSM Evaluation , Fin...

AI summary The text references evaluations of Nova Scotia's Residential Efficient Product Rebates Program by Econoler (2017, 2022), Natural Resources Canada's EnerGuide appliance directory, and a study on aging refrigerators' energy efficiency. It notes data usage for Measure Assessment updates and cites U.S. Department of Energy regulations for appliance standards.

APPENDIX III Detailed Calculations of 2025 Equivalent EUL Values for LED Lamps and Fixtures This appendix presents how the equivalent effective useful life (EUL) of LED lamps and fixtures were calculated for applicable measures in the EPI...

AI summary The appendix details the calculation of Equivalent Effective Useful Life (EUL) values for LED lamps and fixtures in the EPI and Instant Savings programs. Starting in 2025, the baseline assumes LED use, so no savings for natural replacements. However, EPI replacements of non-LED units are considered early replacements, allowing a 1-year EUL assumption.

ticipation impacts. This lack of standardization limits the ability to make reliable, like-for-like comparisons of outcomes or strategic priorities. DATE FILED: May 28, 2026 E1 (CA) IR-14 Page 2 of 2 Request IR-15: Reference: Evidence, pag...

AI summary E1 proposes adjusting spending thresholds for program changes, prompting questions about budget management, historical spending, BNI sector volatility, and the absence of a sector-level spending collar.

formed evaluation drawing on multiple inputs, including program performance data, modelling results, DSMAG feedback, and system planning objectives. DATE FILED: May 28, 2026 E1 (IG) IR-04 Page 2 of 2 Request IR-05: Reference: Exhibit E-1,...

AI summary The document requests detailed information on strategic electrification scenarios modelled during the 2027–2031 DSM Plan development, including technologies, modified-PAC inputs and outputs, failure thresholds, and sensitivity analysis. It also asks for the Enabling Strategies budget allocation for electrification research and whether Medium and Large Industrial customers are included in this budget.

4 (d) Please refer to EfficiencyOne's (E1) response to SBA IR-05 part (f). 5 6 (e) Please refer to EfficiencyOne's (E1) response to SBA IR-05 part (f). DATE FILED: May 28, 2026 E1 (IG) IR-05 Page 3 of 3 Request IR-06: Reference: Exhibit E-...

AI summary The regulatory proceeding includes a request for EfficiencyOne (E1) to provide detailed information on Enabling Strategies investment, including quantitative analysis, historical data, reconciliation of new categories, and cost breakdowns for new strategies introduced between 2027-2031.

dentified. (b) Please provide the methodology and all assumptions underlying the lifetime unit cost calculation, including assumed savings lifetimes, discount rate, and realization rates by measure. (c) Please provide the comparable first-...

AI summary E1 responds to requests for methodology details on unit cost calculations for the DSM Plan, noting program support cost allocations, timing constraints affecting 2026 updates, and references to Attachment 1 for cost comparisons between 2026 and 2027–2031 plans. It also mentions administration cost allocations and the incorporation of 2025 evaluation adjustments in the 2027–2031 plan.

Challenges with Cross-Utility Comparisons Per-unit cost metrics are frequently used as high-level indicators of economic efficiency in EE programs. However, such comparisons are rarely "apples to apples." Portfolio costs and savings outcom...

AI summary Cross-utility comparisons of energy efficiency (EE) programs using per-unit cost metrics are problematic due to jurisdiction-specific factors like program maturity, climate, regulatory requirements, and portfolio composition. These variables distort $/kWh comparisons, making direct comparisons invalid without accounting for contextual differences.

M08604, E1 2019 DSM Plan, Exhibit 3, 2017 Program Support Process Evaluation Reports, PDF page 56. (Date Filed: March 29, 2018) 1 • Utilize a decision tree – In some cases there is rationale for offering 26 • Retro fit projects only, no ne...

AI summary The document discusses changes to incentive structures in the 2019 DSM Plan, citing rising costs and the need for updated measure characterizations. It references Synapse reports and highlights standardization of rebates for similar measures, including adjustments to mini-split heat pump presentations based on 2025 program evaluation results.

Key Assumption Updates Incentives are frequently set based on assumptions of the cost of efficient equipment, the cost of standard/baseline equipment, energy savings values, and the life of the measure. These assumptions need to be updated...

AI summary The document discusses the frequency of updating assumptions related to energy efficiency incentives, such as equipment costs, energy savings, and measure lifespans. Some PAs update these assumptions annually, especially in rapidly evolving markets like lighting, while others update them as needed or based on evaluations. In some cases, incentives may be discontinued if market saturation is detected.

Process Documentation and Controls None of the interviewed PAs had a formal documented process for setting incentives. Three of the four had no documented incentive setting process while the fourth thought there was a written process for C...

AI summary The document discusses the lack of formal documented processes for setting incentives among Program Administrators (PAs), with some having informal internal policies. Enhanced incentives for custom C&I programs require approval from multiple directors, and periodic BCR reviews are in place to ensure incentives are reasonable.

- Develop a program logic model. PAs should develop a program logic model in order to deeply understand the barriers for installing specific efficient equipment. This allows the incentive to be designed in a way to appropriately overcome t...

AI summary The text outlines key considerations for designing effective energy efficiency (EE) programs, including the development of program logic models, aligning incentives with program goals, conducting market research, and calibrating incentives based on cost-effectiveness. These steps aim to ensure that EE programs are structured to overcome barriers to adoption and achieve desired outcomes.

Recommendations Apex's overarching conclusion is that E1 is currently employing many practices that are more rigorous than their peers from an incentive design perspective. E1's documented incentive setting process is detailed and provides...

AI summary Apex concludes that E1's incentive setting practices are rigorous and superior to peers. However, Apex recommends E1 consider using a decision tree for short payback measures, as required by the Board's Order in docket M10473, and consult Table 2 for justification when offering incentives for measures with a payback period shorter than 36 months.

Step 4 : Discuss alternatives with the ISS and SDM. [14](#page-84-1) If the new incentive value differs significantly from historical values, the PM has several options that they can explore in consultation with the ISS and their SDM. Opti...

AI summary In Step 4, the Program Manager (PM) must consult with the ISS and SDM if the new incentive value differs significantly from historical values. Options include revising the incentive, proceeding to the Exception Process, or continuing to Step 5. Step 5 allows for adjustments to the base incentive level based on measure-specific considerations, while Step 6 involves validating the incentive level against savings, budget, and jurisdictional benchmarks.

Date Filed: May 28, 2026 IG IR-12, Attachment 1, Page 1 of 1 DSM Statement of Operations ($ millions) DSM Statement of Operations ($ millions) by Program Component by Year 2028 Instant Savings Affordable Multifamily Affordable Single Famil...

AI summary The document presents a DSM Statement of Operations for 2028, detailing direct costs, incentives, and evaluation & verification expenses across various program components such as Instant Savings, Affordable Multifamily, Efficient Product Installation, and others.

(b) The Other Enabling Strategies category encompasses all regulatory costs associated with the development and execution of DSM Plans and E1's participation in regulatory matters and proceedings. As a public utility regulated by the Nova...

AI summary The Other Enabling Strategies category includes regulatory costs related to DSM Plans and E1's participation in regulatory proceedings. These costs are allocated to rate classes based on their share of total program costs. E1 has improved its reporting on Enabling Strategies, including forecast and year-to-date spending, and will continue this during the 2027–2031 Plan period.

1 Table 6: Large Industrial expenditures by areas of focus and total Development and Research Other Enabling Strategies Areas of Focus Areas of Focus Year Information & Analytics ($) Innovation ($) Total Investment ($) DSM Planning ($) Reg...

AI summary The document discusses proposed changes to the MCA process, including the addition of rate-class spending tracking and specific thresholds (15% for rate-class and 20% for program-level changes). It requests a working draft of the MCA text, rationale for the thresholds, and details on how the baseline and time period for the 15% threshold will be measured.

B. Rationale for MCA The mid-course adjustment process provides E1 with an opportunity to reallocate savings and investments by program for any given DSM Plan year to allow for changes that occur during the implementation of the DSM Plan....

AI summary The mid-course adjustment (MCA) process allows E1 to reallocate savings and investments by program during the implementation of the DSM Plan based on updated information, such as project completion dates, supply chain challenges, and third-party evaluation results. The MCA is not intended to change performance targets but to provide flexibility in meeting them and to inform the Energy Board and DSM Advisory Group of annual spending and savings projections.

E. DSMAG Engagement E1 will give written notice of intent to prepare any mid-course adjustments in the Annual Progress Report. The DSM Advisory Group will be provided the draft mid-course adjustments with explanations and given a two-week...

AI summary The document outlines E1's proposed mid-term check-in process for the DSM Plan, emphasizing transparency and stakeholder engagement without altering approved performance targets or spending authority. It addresses concerns about whether the check-in can influence regulatory decisions or necessitate separate applications to the NSEB.

- Attachment 3 from the 2026 DSM Plan) on the custom program components: 2026 Proposed 2027 Preferred Plan 2028 Preferred Plan Total Custom 34,015.78 42.22 $6,022,600 71,276.27 78.00 $12,100,000 47,760.09 51.85 $8,042,500 SEM Custom - Stra...

AI summary Attachment 3 from the 2026 DSM Plan outlines the proposed custom program components, including details on strategic energy management and pay-for-performance initiatives. The table provides data on savings, participation units, and total incentives for various years and plans.

- 5 (b) Please explain the decrease in Strategic Energy Management per unit incentive from 6 $160,000 in 2026 to $60,000 in the 2027-2031 Plan. Specify how and why the incentive 7 setting methodology led to the decision. - 9 (c) Comparing...

AI summary The text requests explanations for changes in incentive amounts, participation levels, and data reconciliation related to energy management programs. It also asks for clarification on the separation of Strategic Energy Management in different tables.

23 Rate Class Custom Actual PAC SEM Actual PAC Residential/Charitable (2,3,4) 1.3 - Small General (10) 7.5 - General (11) 6.9 - DATE FILED: May 28, 2026 E1 (IG) IR-27 Page 2 of 3 Rate Class Custom Actual PAC SEM Actual PAC Large General (1...

AI summary The document contains tables showing PAC (Program Adjustment Credit) values for various rate classes and references a request (IR-28) for explanations regarding changes in net-to-gross ratios (NTGRs) for the Custom Incentives and SEM programs. It also cites evaluation reports and exhibits related to DSM (Demand Side Management) programs.

1 Table 1: Net-to-gross ratios (NTGRs) taken from the 2024 and 2025 Custom Incentives Evaluation Program Service Project 2024 2025 Change Explanation component Custom Building Optimization Category N/A NTGR 0.91 NTGR 0.91 - No change. Esta...

AI summary The text discusses changes to Net-to-Gross Ratios (NTGRs) in the Custom Incentives program for 2024 and 2025, noting increases due to reduced free-ridership. These changes impact credited savings but not customer incentives, which are based on gross energy savings. The NTGR is applied to determine net savings for credit purposes.

(c) For Custom Retrofit, customer incentives are paid prior to Evaluation. If the savings for a particular project are revised through the evaluation process, it does not impact the incentive for the project and no mechanism is needed to a...

AI summary The document outlines the process for customer incentives in Custom Retrofit and SEM programs, highlighting differences in timing based on evaluation stages. It also references a request and response regarding the 2025 Demand Response (DR) Program evaluation report, including changes in DR capacity and non-participation rates, as well as structural barriers identified by Econoler.

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.

E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL Impact of 2027-2031 DSM Plan on Residential Customers Bills 13 2022 Evergreen IRP in the 2026 DSM Extension and subsequently for the 2027–2031 DSM 14 Pla...

AI summary E1 responds to Nova Scotia Energy Board information requests regarding the impact of the 2027–2031 DSM Plan on residential customer bills. The response discusses the use of avoided costs from NS Power's 2022 Evergreen IRP, the accuracy of emissions impacts, and the process for updating calculations when IESO-NS provides an updated IRP. It also addresses cost-effectiveness testing and the justification for measures that fail such testing.

Following its jurisdictional comparison analysis, Apex then considered the unique circumstances for Nova Scotia based on its historical electricity demand, climate goals, and needs as a province. Apex examined Nova Scotia's priorities and...

AI summary Apex analyzed Nova Scotia's energy efficiency programs, considering historical demand, climate goals, and E1's capacity. Despite increased costs due to inflation and reduced savings from some measures, energy efficiency remains cost-effective. Reducing program goals could disrupt the market, leading to higher costs and reduced service. Apex supports maintaining current savings targets.

M12349, Nova Scotia Power, 2025 Load Forecast Report, June 27, 2025, page 10. Year First Year Net Savings Energy Savings (GWh) 2025 NS Power Load Forecast1 (GWh) First Year Net Savings Energy Savings % of Load 6 ramp-ups, and ensuring that...

AI summary The document includes a request for a detailed summary of DSMAG member feedback on demand response design in the 2027-2031 DSM Plan, and asks for an explanation of discrepancies in investment amounts and PAC costs. It also requests PAC scores for residential and BNI demand response programs from 2027 to 2031.

from the Demand Response program are a result of "C&I Curtailment" and "C&I Loadshift to BUGs". Please confirm. - If not confirmed, please explain in the context of the Figures contained in the tabs. - If confirmed: - a) Please describe th...

AI summary The text asks whether spending from the Demand Response program is attributed to 'C&I Curtailment' and 'C&I Loadshift to BUGs'. If confirmed, it requests reasons for the higher spending on 'DLC – Thermostats' and 'DLC – Water Heating' compared to the other components, and the cost per MW saved for each program component from 2027 to 2031. It also references a Board decision and ongoing discussions between E1 and NS Power regarding program overlap and collaboration.

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.

Jurisdictional Scans CLEAResult undertook jurisdictional scans of various provincial and state utilities and energy efficiency agencies to: - 1) identify the incentive level setting methodologies and best practices in other jurisdictions;...

AI summary CLEAResult conducted jurisdictional scans of provincial and state utilities and energy efficiency agencies to identify incentive level setting methodologies and best practices. The scans focused on geographical similarity, portfolio maturity, and recognized market leadership. Results were used to benchmark ENS's program incentives and inform recommendations.

Review of Efficiency Nova Scotia's Historical Performance A review of ENS's historical program performance was undertaken to determine the success of the current programs in market. To obtain detailed information on select programs and the...

AI summary A review of Efficiency Nova Scotia's historical program performance was conducted to assess the success of current programs in the market. Interviews with program managers and staff, along with program manuals and evaluation reports, were used to understand program operations, maturity, success factors, and potential modifications.

Analysis and Recommendations The final analysis included a review of the theoretical underpinnings of incentive setting methodologies and established a framework, informed by jurisdictional best practices, on which CLEAResult's recommendat...

AI summary The analysis reviews incentive setting methodologies for energy efficiency programs in Nova Scotia, comparing current practices with recommended frameworks. It highlights the exclusion of financing impact on upfront incentives and the creation of a tool to support future incentive setting, considering the province's market characteristics.

Program Evaluation Review and Historical Experience The final consideration in determining participant perceived value is reviewing previous evaluation reports and accounting for historical experience. Program evaluations typically include...

AI summary The evaluation of energy efficiency programs considers historical data and previous evaluations to understand participant behavior and improve future program design. Historical experience helps administrators adjust incentives based on past outcomes, such as when high uptake of an incentive leads to budget overruns.

PAC Benefits (Cost Effectiveness) Threshold The PAC is the cost effectiveness test that reflects a program administrator's financial expenditure for a measure, program or portfolio. It is calculated by dividing the PAC benefits, which are...

AI summary The Program Administration Cost (PAC) is a cost-effectiveness test used to evaluate the financial impact of energy efficiency measures, programs, or portfolios. It compares the benefits (avoided supply and distribution costs) with the costs (program overhead, delivery, and incentives). A PAC threshold of 1.0 is commonly used, but higher thresholds like 2.0 can be set to ensure incentives and overhead costs do not exceed 50% of the benefits.

Incentive Setting Best Practices Methodology Research and Engagement Customer Technology Supply Chain Consolidation of Findings Incentive Thresholds Other Considerations Data Analysis Participation Forecasts Cost-Effectiveness Testing Mode...

AI summary The document outlines a methodology for setting incentive rates in energy efficiency programs, focusing on best practices, data analysis, cost-effectiveness testing, and implementation strategies. It emphasizes the need for ongoing monitoring, financial impact analysis, and periodic refinement of incentive structures.

Table 7: Research Engagement Phase Research and Engagement Phase Supply Chain Research Surveying the supply chain and service providers is extremely valuable during the incentive setting process. They can provide additional insight into cu...

AI summary The document discusses the importance of supply chain research during the incentive setting process, including insights from PG&E, Efficiency Vermont, and the Energy Trust of Oregon on how incentive levels affect suppliers and distributors. It also outlines the research activities conducted by program administrators to determine costs, barriers, and business strategies.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Through the most recent program evaluation process, ENS has identified that some educational initiatives are incurring savings attribution issues, and have received tentative disallowance. This specifically was the cas...

AI summary The evaluation of educational initiatives by ENS has revealed savings attribution issues, particularly with the Home Energy Reports (HER) program. This may complicate efforts to shift funding from financial to educational incentives. Additionally, ENS does not use dual baselines for energy savings estimates, opting instead for an average wattage/consumption approach, which may present challenges in tracking lifetime energy savings.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS - 1. It is recommended that EfficiencyOne consider all of the general principles for incorporation into an incentive setting process. - CLEAResult has provided a documented, incentive setting process (that incorp...

AI summary The summary of recommendations outlines the need for EfficiencyOne to adopt a structured incentive setting process, incorporating general principles, conducting customer and technology research, implementing a TRM approach, and developing a consolidated calculator to support the evaluation of current incentive levels in their programs.

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.

SUPPLY CHAIN AND SERVICE PROVIDER RESEARCH The supply chain and service providers should be engaged to support the customer and technology research efforts. It may be difficult to directly contact customers and technology manufacturers to...

AI summary The document emphasizes the importance of engaging supply chain and service providers in customer and technology research, as well as in incentive setting and program design. These entities can provide valuable insights, facilitate research, and help identify barriers to program implementation.

FINANCIAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Any incentive setting exercise needs to incorporate the financial impacts into the analysis. It is important to understand how changes in incentives could affect the financial performance of a program. There are s...

AI summary The document outlines the importance of incorporating financial impacts into incentive setting exercises, highlighting six components for analysis, including current incentives, forecasted participation, and market penetration. It references incentive thresholds from figures used in the financial impact analysis.

Understand Technology Savings, Price and Market Penetration EfficiencyOne currently understands technology savings, price and market penetration through three different avenues: 1. Annual review through program evaluation process; 2. Speci...

AI summary EfficiencyOne collects technology savings, price, and market penetration data through annual reviews, specialized research, and program delivery. It is recommended to continue current activities and introduce a formal measures assumption validation process, supported by research and periodic reviews by a technical committee.

Understand Technology Savings, Price and Market Penetration For Instant Savings, EfficiencyOne gains an understanding of technology savings, price and penetration through the following activities: 1. Energy Efficiency Standards (Regulation...

AI summary EfficiencyOne uses energy efficiency standards, program evaluation, industry data, and specific studies to understand technology savings, price, and market penetration for the Instant Savings Program. It proactively updated the program by eliminating CFLs in 2014 and continues to engage with retailers for market insights. CLEAResult recommends continuing current activities and implementing general principles to support the program.

For the Custom Program, CLEAResult has the following recommendations:  For the Custom Program, EfficiencyOne gains an areas that are underperforming in terms of participation. understanding of customer motivations and barriers through: ...

AI summary CLEAResult recommends that EfficiencyOne improve the Custom Program by conducting market research, ongoing program management, program benchmarking, and program evaluation. Research indicates that financial incentives are not the main driver for participation, and educational incentives are more valuable. Surveys show that financial incentives are insignificant compared to overall construction costs, suggesting a need for alternative strategies.

Program Evaluation Through the annual program evaluation process, participant surveys are conducted to determine free ridership and spillover savings. For the Custom Program, EfficiencyOne gains an understanding of technology savings, pric...

AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of energy efficiency programs, focusing on methods to collect energy savings data, track market penetration, and set incentive thresholds. It emphasizes the use of feasibility studies, project applications, and supply chain engagement to improve program effectiveness and cost management.

updated, consistent with the recommendations in the General Principles section. Understand Supply Chain and Service Provider Considerations For the Custom Program, EfficiencyOne gains an understanding of the supply chain and service provid...

AI summary The document discusses how EfficiencyOne gains understanding of supply chain and service provider considerations through program management and evaluation. It also outlines how financial impacts are assessed through project screening, program management, and evaluation. CLEAResult recommends continuing current activities and implementing general principles, including expanding cost-effectiveness screening.

For the Business Energy Rebates program, CLEAResult has the following recommendations: General Principle Current Activities Recommended Activities Through the annual program evaluation process, participant surveys are conducted to determin...

AI summary CLEAResult recommends improving the Business Energy Rebates program by conducting participant surveys through the annual program evaluation process to identify free ridership and spillover savings, as well as to understand motivations and barriers.

le in terms of an incentive when understanding customer motivation and barriers. Program Benchmarking When the original program was designed, the incentives were based on a similar program offered by the Federal government. The rebates fro...

AI summary The Home Energy Assessment program recommends continued market research and participant surveys to understand customer motivations and barriers, especially in underperforming areas. It also suggests maintaining current program management and evaluation activities, including semi-annual surveys for residential HVAC technology.

Other Considerations for the Home Energy Assessment Program The Home Energy Assessment program recently introduced an updated incentive structure, which featured an increased incentive for the initial audit, and premiums associated with bu...

AI summary The Home Energy Assessment Program introduced updated incentives, including higher initial audit incentives and bundled incentives to encourage larger projects. Early data shows increased savings and lower unit costs, though it is difficult to isolate the effect of bundling from other changes. Bundling is seen as an effective strategy for customer acquisition, and the program's delivery through service organizations allows for localized incentive adjustments.

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.

Measure Average Gross Energy Savings per Project (MWh) Average Gross Peak Demand Savings per Project (kW) NTG Average Net Energy Savings per Project (MWh) Average Net Peak Demand Savings per Project (kW) Energy Savings Persistence Average...

AI summary The table presents parameters for average custom retrofit projects, including energy and peak demand savings, NTG, energy savings persistence, and average project incentives. The data shows consistent values across three rows for the Custom Project Retrofit Track.

Cost Effectiveness Incentive Level Threshold EfficiencyOne has a PAC target of 4.9 for this program. For the calculation, it is assumed that program administration costs are 40 percent of total expenditure, which leaves the incentive costs...

AI summary EfficiencyOne has a Program Administration Committee (PAC) target of 4.9 for this program. It is assumed that program administration costs account for 40% of total expenditure, with incentive costs making up the remaining 60%. As a result, program administration expenditure is 67% of incentive expenditure.

MARKET STRUCTURE OVERVIEW DSM is a core part of the conservation first policy in Ontario as per the 2013 Long-Term Energy Plan. In 2014, the Minister of Energy issued a directive to the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) for the development of a n...

AI summary The document outlines the DSM framework in Ontario, developed by the OEB in 2014 as part of the conservation first policy. It emphasizes cost-effective DSM, coordination with electricity CDM, and the role of gas utilities in program design, budgeting, and reporting. The OEB oversees program evaluation and mid-term reviews to ensure compliance and effectiveness.

3. Technical Reference Manuals The engineering team, M&V team, program managers, evaluation group and other in-house BC Hydro resources approve/deny measures for TRMs which are used for savings and assumptions. They enable BC Hydro to incl...

AI summary Technical Reference Manuals (TRMs) are used by BC Hydro's engineering and program management teams to approve or deny measures, enabling the inclusion of solutions in programs. All proposed incentives undergo a governance process for technical and business review.

BACKGROUND Efficiency Nova Scotia has contracted CLEAResult to conduct energy conservation and energy efficiency program incentive research. The project covers the following areas: - Identification of best practices for incentive rate sett...

AI summary Efficiency Nova Scotia has engaged CLEAResult to research best practices for setting energy conservation and efficiency program incentives. The project involves interviews with key contacts in other jurisdictions and will result in a guideline to optimize program design. The final documents will be submitted to the Utility and Review Board (UARB) and made publicly available.

Detailed Measure Development - •Identify technical guidelines and data, identify any data gaps and create research plan for gaps - •Stakeholder outreach - •Facilitation of crossprogram coordination - •Cost Effectiveness testing - •Draft Me...

AI summary The process for developing detailed measures involves identifying technical guidelines and data gaps, conducting stakeholder outreach, facilitating cross-program coordination, performing cost-effectiveness testing, and drafting a Measure Approval Document. Measures with sufficient data and stakeholder support may be promoted to approval, while those with insufficient data can be piloted.

INCENTIVE LEVEL SETTING METHODOLOGY Efficiency Vermont developed a new product development process about a year and a half ago. It involves a customer mapping and an engagement process that covers seven stages: - 1. Idea Solicitation - 2....

AI summary Efficiency Vermont employs a structured new product development process involving nine stages, used for designing new incentive offers or programs. The process can be expedited if needed. Incentive changes are typically driven by customer behavior, not cost effectiveness, and free-ridership is assessed. Energy savings assumptions for measures are evaluated annually or biannually.

1. Measure Library Section (from TRM process recommendation in report) This section should include the details of each measure in the portfolio, or measures being considered. - Efficient Technology Name; - Efficient Technology Description;...

AI summary This section outlines the structure for documenting measures in the measure library, including details such as technology names, descriptions, wattage, penetration estimates, pricing, and cost-effectiveness parameters. It emphasizes the need for clear identification of program-dependent parameters and the inclusion of cost and energy savings data.

Objective: The objective of this audit was to identify management's compliance with EfficiencyOne's documented internal controls for the Business Energy Rebates – Instant Rebates (BER-IR) program.

AI summary This audit aimed to assess whether EfficiencyOne's management adhered to the organization's documented internal controls for the Business Energy Rebates – Instant Rebates (BER-IR) program.

Ca teg Su bs ati nd da tio mm ary o erv on s a re co mm en ns 4. No C fir tio f E ler 's Ev alu ati U da tes Cu ntl the P M do t e vid let ion of th e M ter T ke da tes on ma n o co no on p rre rog ram an ag er es no en ce co mp as rac r u...

AI summary The text discusses the evaluation of updates to the PACT program and the need for additional information regarding the methodology used in the assessment. It highlights the importance of providing detailed evidence and documentation to support the evaluation process.

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.

The table below outlines key findings and observations derived from the documentation review. Element Documentation review findings General comments and considerations Recognition program No Recognition program was observed in our document...

AI summary The documentation review found no recognition program in place. It recommends implementing a multi-faceted recognition approach including social, monetary, and peer-to-peer strategies.

- 16 ii) Please refer to part (b) of this IR response. 1 Request IR-24: 7 under New Residential and one under Demand Response that are expected to provide lifetime 8 benefits less than the 2027-2031 DSM Plan spending for the program compon...

AI summary The text discusses the evaluation of program modifications by EfficiencyOne (E1) under the 2027-2031 DSM Plan, focusing on maximizing lifetime benefits and considering factors like cost-effectiveness and equity for low-income customers.

1 Request IR-31: 2 3 Evidence – Exhibit E-1, pp.1-71 (pdf pp. 8-78) 4 5 Regarding Section 8.2 "Mid-Term Check-in" of the Application: 6 7 (a) With regards to the Mid-Term Check-in process described at lines 13 to 21 of pdf pg. 72: 8 Does E...

AI summary The document discusses two regulatory requests (IR-31 and IR-32) related to the Mid-Term Check-in process and the Alternate Scenario in the DSM Plan. EfficiencyOne responds that it will not file a Mid-Term Check-in Report, referencing a prior response. It also explains that the Alternate Scenario did not remove DSM measures that failed the PAC test due to low impact and the need to maintain investment for low-income and equity-seeking customers.

8 2.1 EFFICIENCYONE SOURCES Internal Reference Full Citation Custom Incentives Econoler et al, EfficiencyOne – Custom Incentives Program – Final Report Evaluation 2022 – 2022 DSM Evaluation, March 2023 Custom Incentives Econoler et al, Eff...

AI summary The text lists various reports and evaluations related to EfficiencyOne's programs, including the Custom Incentives Program, DSM evaluations for 2022, 2024, and 2025, and the Existing Residential Program. These reports are compiled by Econoler et al and Apex Analytics, and they are referenced in the context of EfficiencyOne's operations and performance assessments.

Value: 9.094 Source: Derived based on information in Table 11[8](#page-66-1) from the 2024 Custom Incentives Evaluation. Details: To estimate the EUL, E1 calculated the average EUL of the three categories of Retrofit program measures (Part...

AI summary The document discusses the estimation of EUL based on the 2024 Custom Incentives Evaluation, using data from Table 11 to calculate the average EUL of three Retrofit program categories, weighted by their lifetime gross savings.

- Source: Drawn directly from Table 25 [20](#page-79-4) from the 2024 Custom Incentives Evaluation. Value for Savings Claimed in 2024 Free-Ridership Level 9% (±7.2%) Participant Spillover Level 0% NTGR 0.91 Free-ridership and spillover lev...

AI summary The text discusses the incremental cost of $140,263.75 (in 2025 dollars) from the 2024 Custom Incentives Evaluation. It also references free-ridership and spillover levels, with the free-ridership level at 9% (±7.2%) and the participant spillover level at 0%. These figures are based on results from the 2021 Custom evaluation, as they were not measured in 2024.

14 4.14.2 KEY SOURCES FOR MEASURE INPUT DEVELOPMENT - 15 The primary sources of the values for measure input development are the Smart Thermostat for Electrical - Heating Systems Measure from the 2024 program evaluation[64](#page-148-3) 16...

AI summary The primary sources for measure input development are the Smart Thermostat for Electrical Heating Systems Measure from the 2024 program evaluation and the 2025 DSM Residential Measure Assessment. Summary tables from these sources are included.

4.15.6.2 Coincident Peak Demand Savings (kW) Value: 0.000 Source: This is the deemed unitary peak demand savings value for the Smart Thermostat for Electrical Heating Systems Measure[71](#page-155-1) in the 2025 Measure Assessment. Details...

AI summary The document discusses the deemed unitary peak demand savings value of 0.000 for the Smart Thermostat for Electrical Heating Systems Measure in the 2025 Measure Assessment. It also outlines details about Outdoor Heavy Duty Timers under the Instant Savings program, including measure identifiers, program components, measure life, net-to-gross ratios, and incremental costs.

E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 • For the programs that fail the PAC test in Appendix A of Exhibit E-1 21 basis and will depend on a number of factors prevailing at the time, includin...

AI summary E1, Nova Scotia Power, explains that the determination of whether Demand Side Management (DSM) programs fail the Payback Analysis Criteria (PAC) test depends on various factors, including supply-side costs, the Integrated Resource Plan, avoided costs, program delivery costs, and market conditions. E1 emphasizes that this assessment will be made through evidence filed in future plan cycles and subject to Board review.

Request IR-40: Appendix A - Preferred Plan pp. 1-112 (Attach. 1-5) Exhibit E-1, Appendix A, page 19 of 112 (pdf pg. 107): E1 notes that, for existing measures, measure-level inputs were developed using the most recently available program a...

AI summary Nova Scotia Power (E1) modified measure-level inputs for existing programs in the DSM Plan to reflect known or expected changes from 2027–2031, including updates to energy savings, effective useful life, and participation assumptions based on evaluation data and market developments.

- 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.

1 Request IR-49: 2 3 Appendix A - Preferred Plan pp. 1-112 (Attach. 1-5) 4 5 Reference Appendix A, Attachment 3 (Exhibit E-1-(ii)): 6 7 E1 provides justification for measures that do not pass the program administrator cost (PAC) 8 test. 9...

AI summary The Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) has requested detailed justifications from E1 regarding its heat pump maintenance costs, investment degradation, and the cost-benefit analysis of specific measures in its demand-side management plan. E1 is being asked to explain why certain measures may not meet the program administrator cost (PAC) criteria and how they contribute to maintaining delivery costs and contractor engagement.

E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 percent of participating homes. The program still passes the PAC test with a ratio of 1.0 2 over the duration of the Preferred Plan. 3 4 Less cost-effe...

AI summary E1 explains that including less cost-effective measures in the DSM Plan helps diversify offerings and increase overall home savings through bundling. Removing these could reduce product variety and risk Service Providers disengaging from the program.

E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-54: 2 3 Appendix A - Preferred Plan pp. 1-112 (Attach. 1-5) 4 5 Exhibit E-1, Appendix A, Attachment 5 - Table 4, 5, and Figure 2, pages 11-1...

AI summary Nova Scotia Power (E1) responds to the Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) request regarding the criteria for transitioning DSM measures from the concept stage to the planning stage. The response outlines the use of readiness levels and thresholds for market, performance, and program readiness in evaluating innovation activities.

12 Table 7: 2025 Free-ridership, Spillover, and NTGRs Program Component and Measure Type Spillover Levels NTGRs Business Energy All 9% 0% 0.91 Rebates – Application Renewable Generationa 0% 0% 1.00 a R b Business Energy LED Linear Fixtures...

AI summary Table 7 presents free-ridership, spillover, and net-to-gross ratios (NTGRs) for various energy efficiency programs in 2025. The data includes percentages for different program components, such as business energy rebates and custom retrofit initiatives. The table also includes a request for information regarding the Nova Scotia-specific GHG emissions factor used in evaluations and whether E1 modified it for their programs.

- 3 [mera\_Annual\_Report.pdf](https://s205.q4cdn.com/781121964/files/doc_financials/2024/ar/2024_Emera_Annual_Report.pdf) (last accessed January 15, 2026)." 1 Request IR-64: 2 3 Exhibits E-2 - 2025 DSM Annual Progress Report 4 5 In refere...

AI summary The document discusses an information request (IR-64) regarding the 2025 DSM Annual Progress Report, specifically the Net Realization Rate of 101% for Affordable Single-family Homes and the calculation of Lifetime Net Electrical Energy Savings. The response explains that the rate was influenced by non-modelled heat pump savings from 2024.

- 1 program component was used to support the audit costs, marketing, program - 2 administration and other eligible measures but did not directly fund the solar-PV incentive. Request IR-02: Reference: 2025 DSM Annual Progress Report, Attac...

AI summary The response to Request IR-02 clarifies that provincial and federal funds were not included as a cost in the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) calculations for solar PV projects with DSM savings during 2023–2025. The Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) approved this approach, which considers only utility-incurred costs and excludes third-party government incentives.

nt Plans (Matter M12282), which directs E1 to use the PAC as the primary cost-effectiveness screening tool, assessed at the portfolio level. The avoided costs associated with the reported DSM savings, inclusive of solar-PV measures were in...

AI summary The document discusses the inclusion of solar-PV measures in various DSM program components during 2023–2025 and clarifies that federal grant funds for the Canada Greener Homes Grant were not counted in E1's program delivery costs for the PAC calculation.

- 2 can allow the customer to participate in BNI Demand Response program while using an - 3 existing activity to provide capacity value to the grid while meeting other operational - 4 requirements. Request IR-09: - Evaluated results for De...

AI summary The document discusses the timing of filing demand response (DR) evaluated performance results, noting that E1 currently files these reports with the NSEB in March of the following year. E1 is agreeable to adjusting the timeline to ensure results are available before the next DR season begins.

to establish baselines. E1's DSM Potential Study consultant, will develop long-term projections of energy efficiency (EE) and demand response (DR) from 2027–2051. The approach follows a clear process: • Integrating load forecasts to update...

AI summary E1's DSM Potential Study will project energy efficiency and demand response potential from 2027–2051 using calibrated modeling aligned with the 2027–2031 DSM Plan. A mid-term check-in is proposed to enhance transparency without altering E1's approved performance targets or spending authority.

(a) How does E1 define "significant and unforeseen change in avoided costs" and "material shift in market conditions"? Please provide examples. 1 (b) Has E1 defined specific thresholds (i.e. percent increases/decreases in investment levels...

AI summary The text discusses EfficiencyOne's (E1) definition of 'significant and unforeseen change in avoided costs' and 'material shift in market conditions,' and includes requests for materials related to a jurisdictional scan and a heat pump cleaning measure. It also references program costs, savings assumptions, and stakeholder communication.

Participant satisfaction is also periodically assessed during program evaluation when a process evaluation is being conducted or when free-ridership and spillover are being assessed. The Evaluation Consultant performed a process evaluation...

AI summary Participant satisfaction with the Direct Installation Program (SBES) was assessed in 2023 through a process evaluation and survey, with results included in the 2023 DSM Evaluation Report. A comprehensive impact evaluation for 2026 will include an updated participant survey to assess satisfaction and free-ridership.

8 Table 2: Annual (2017-2023) Overall Participant Satisfaction for SBES 2017 2019 2021 2023 Sample Size 70 50 50 46 Mean 8.8 9.2 9.1 8.8 9

AI summary Table 2 presents annual participant satisfaction scores for the Small Business Energy Solutions (SBES) program from 2017 to 2023, showing a fluctuation in mean scores with a sample size decrease over time.

nt survey in 2024 with 30 SBES non-participants to collect non-participant perspectives and determine spillover. Non-participant businesses were asked about program awareness and sources of awareness, 1 reasons or barriers for not particip...

AI summary The document discusses a survey conducted in 2024 with 30 SBES non-participants to gather perspectives on energy efficiency programs and barriers to participation. A 2026 study will further explore factors preventing program completion among incomplete participants.

1 Aligned with past practice, E1 understands it has the ability to change its measure offerings 2 throughout plan implementation in response to market conditions, evaluation results, and 3 participation trends. Such changes are reported in...

AI summary E1 acknowledges its ability to adjust its measure offerings during the implementation of the DSM Plan in response to market conditions, evaluation results, and participation trends. These changes are documented in quarterly and annual reports filed with the Nova Scotia Energy Board.

DATE FILED: May 28, 2026 E1 (SBA) IR-07 Page 1 of 1 Request IR-08: Refer to Exhibit E-1, the DSM Plan, Section 9: Alternative Scenario, Page 67 of 71, Lines 18-21 and provide details regarding what would happen to current Eco Shift program...

AI summary The response to Request IR-08 explains that if the Eco Shift program is eliminated, EfficiencyOne would wind down the program, discontinue demand response event dispatch, and retain customer control of devices for ordinary use. E1 argues that the Preferred Plan, which maintains the Residential Demand Response program, is the appropriate DSM portfolio for the 2027–2031 period.

(d) Over 2023–2025, E1 administered a provincially funded portion of HEA for customers who primarily heat their homes with non-electric fuels, along with a moderate-income rebate top up for eligible customers. Many homes use a mix of elect...

AI summary E1 administered a provincially funded portion of the Home Energy Assessment (HEA) program and a moderate-income rebate top-up from 2023–2025. They also co-administered the Canada Greener Homes Grant, which provided substantial incentives. The program's participation and savings grew significantly since 2021, with DSM recovering $3.2 million from the Canada Greener Homes Grant between 2023–2025. No further recoveries are expected after 2026.

(c) E1 does not factor in impacts of external financial supports that customers could leverage when preparing DSM Plans unless E1 has a contract to deliver said supports overthe longer- term. Designing DSM programs around alternative fundi...

AI summary E1 does not account for external financial supports in DSM Plans unless under long-term contracts, introducing risk due to potential changes in funding. The approved PAC test does not consider host customer impacts. E1 encourages leveraging non-DSM incentives and may adjust offerings based on program targets. Alternative delivery models like a Roving Energy Manager were considered, but program investment remains focused on customer incentives rather than additional technical support.

uildings. In 2025 this was 90 percent. E1 has many projects currently enrolled with expected completion dates in 2027 and 2028. Of these projects, 66 percent of these are supported by energy managers. Request IR-09: Energy Managers and Nav...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) has projects with 2027-2028 completion dates, 66% supported by energy managers. Request IR-09 asks E1 to confirm if a coordinated delivery platform (including energy managers and navigators) was considered for integrated DSM delivery, evaluating cost reductions, uptake improvements, and external funding access, while identifying regulatory and operational barriers during the 2027-2031 Plan period.

Response IR-12: (a) EfficiencyOne (E1) has not performed a formal analysis of how saturation of low-cost measures, including lighting, affect the economics of deeper retrofit projects. Such measures offer lower paybacks and are often packa...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) acknowledges it has not formally analyzed how saturation of low-cost energy efficiency measures impacts deeper retrofit economics but expects higher saturation and baseline changes, proposing increased incentives for deeper retrofits. E1 cites past experience where raising lighting product incentives led to a 200% participation increase but notes external factors complicate rebate elasticity analysis.

Table 14: 1SE-Base – Round 1 Modelling Results Scenario 1SE - Base (2027-2031) Investment ($ million) Lifetime TRC & PAC Benefits ($ million) NS Cost Test Lifetime Benefits ($ million) First Year Electric Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand S...

AI summary Table 14 presents the Round 1 Modelling Results for the 1SE-Base scenario, analyzing investment, energy savings, and cost-benefit metrics for residential and BNI programs. The table highlights energy savings, net energy impacts, and cost tests, showing the economic and energy performance of various efficiency programs.

valuation reports, and annual audited financial statements filed with the NSEB (i.e., 2027, 2028, 2029, 2030, 2031). These six reports, filed with the NSEB each year, will cover the following content: - quarterly, year-to-date, and annual...

AI summary The document outlines the content of six annual reports to be filed with the NSEB, covering program performance, variance reporting, and evaluations. These reports will include quarterly and annual results, progress toward targets, and impact evaluations conducted by an independent consultant.

Table 1: STANDARDIZED FILING FRAMEWORK ITEM DESCRIPTION - UARBNova Scotia Energy Board-Approved Cost-Effectiveness Testing including Program Administrator Cost (PAC) results; and - Cumulative energy and demand savings and investment (appro...

AI summary The document outlines a standardized filing framework that includes cost-effectiveness testing approved by the Nova Scotia Energy Board, specifically highlighting Program Administrator Cost (PAC) results and cumulative energy and demand savings since 2008-2012.

Performance Indicators consist of: 25 E1 will propose Performance Indicators within each DSM Resource Plan. These performance indicators will be specific to the DSM resources proposed within each future Plan (e.g. performance indicator met...

AI summary E1 will propose performance indicators within each DSM Resource Plan, focusing on energy efficiency, demand response, and other DSM resources. Historical performance indicators include energy savings, peak demand savings, ratepayer benefits, and customer satisfaction. These metrics are reported by program and rate class, with a focus on low-income and equity communities.

4.5.44.6.4 IMPACT EVALUATION ENS E1 will file impact evaluations for each program annually, 31 produced by an independent third party DSM program evaluator.

AI summary ENS E1 is required to submit annual impact evaluations for each program, conducted by an independent third-party DSM program evaluator.

4.5.54.6.5 PROCESS EVALUATION ENS E1 will file process evaluations for individual programs, produced by an independent third party DSM program evaluator as necessary. 32 Examples of instances in which a program-level evaluation maywould oc...

AI summary ENS E1 will file process evaluations for individual programs when necessary, particularly for new or significantly changed program components, or those with large energy savings variances. These evaluations are conducted by an independent third-party DSM program evaluator.

Table 1: STANDARDIZED FILING FRAMEWORK ITEM DESCRIPTION - Breakdown of Savings and Investment by Rate Class; - Weighted-Average Measure Life; - Lifetime Benefits; and - NSEB-Approved Cost-Effectiveness Testing and PAC. In providing a break...

AI summary The text outlines the standardized filing framework for a regulatory proceeding, emphasizing the need for detailed program descriptions and specific metrics such as savings and investment breakdowns by rate class, weighted-average measure life, and lifetime benefits. It also references cost-effectiveness testing and PAC (Program Administration Costs) as required elements.

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.

4.6.1 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.

4.6.5 PROCESS EVALUATION E1 will file process evaluations for individual programs, produced by an independent third party DSM program evaluator as necessary.[30](#page-71-1) Examples of instances in which a programlevel evaluation may occu...

AI summary E1 will submit process evaluations for individual programs conducted by an independent third-party DSM evaluator when necessary, such as for new program components, major changes, significant recommendations, or energy savings variances exceeding 25 percent.

Table 8: Scenario 1Solar-PV-Base - Round 2 Modelling Results Scenario 1Solar-PV - Base (2027-2031) Investment ($ million) Lifetime PAC Benefits ($ million) Estimated Generation (GWh) Lifetime Estimated Generation (GWh) Peak Demand Savings...

AI summary Table 8 presents the Round 2 modelling results for Scenario 1Solar-PV-Base, detailing investment, benefits, and generation estimates for residential and business solar-PV programs. The data includes investment amounts, lifetime Program Administrator Cost (PAC) benefits, estimated generation, and other key metrics.

Round 2 Model Input Assumptions and Results Board Directives E1 Update • To promptly identify any issues or potential issues relating to the impact of NS Power's cybersecurity incident on E1's operations and programming as they arise. • On...

AI summary The document outlines Round 2 model input assumptions and results, including Board Directives related to cybersecurity, the inclusion of PAC test results in annual reports, and updates to the DSM Plan. It also details collaboration with the DSM Advisory Group on avoided costs and cost-effectiveness testing methodologies.

Context for Discussion Mid-course adjustments give the DSM administrator flexibility to adjust program budgets and savings from those in the original approved Plan to respond to market conditions and program performance changes unknown at...

AI summary The document discusses mid-course adjustments in the DSM Plan, allowing E1 to modify program budgets and savings based on market conditions and performance changes. E1 has agreed to enhanced reporting and more stakeholder engagement. However, E1 maintains that the current process should remain, with proposed adjustments to address concerns around rate class spending and engagement.

12 E1 submitted its first DSM Plan in 2012 as DSM Administrator. ITEM DESCRIPTION - the affordability of the proposed DSM Resource Plan; and - cost-efficiency opportunities; and - key global assumptions. 3. ALTERNATE SCENARIOS TO THE PROPO...

AI summary E1 submitted its first DSM Plan in 2012 as DSM Administrator. The document discusses alternate scenarios to the proposed DSM Plan, including cost-efficiency opportunities and key global assumptions. EfficiencyOne is required to provide alternate scenarios of DSM budgets, with NSPI providing rate impact analysis. The proposed DSM Resource Plan includes cost-effectiveness testing metrics.

Appendix 1 ITEM DESCRIPTION 4.2 Program-Level Savings and Investment A summary of program-level savings and investment for the upcoming period by individual Plan year and in total for the Plan period (e.g., annual and cumulative). Referenc...

AI summary This section outlines the requirements for reporting program-level savings and investment, including metrics like energy savings, demand response capacity, and cost-effectiveness testing. It also references program descriptions and enabling strategies for the upcoming period.

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.

4.5.14.6.1 ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORTS In the first quarter of the calendar year of each intervening year between multi-year filings, ENS E1 will file an Annual Progress Report (APR) with the UARBNSEB, which will include the following informat...

AI summary ENS E1 is required to submit Annual Progress Reports (APR) to the UARBNSEB every year between multi-year filings. These reports include summaries of performance, discrepancies, costs, and corrective actions if energy savings fall below 75% of targets. The requirement is based on the Public Utilities Act and the DSM Settlement Agreement.

Figure 1: Glossary of Terms Term Definition "…use the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test as its primary test for screening the cost effectiveness of its proposed Demand Side Management (DSM) Plan for its next term beginning in 2027. E1...

AI summary The document discusses the use of the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of the Demand Side Management (DSM) Plan starting in 2027. E1 is directed to use NS Power's Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) as the discount rate. The Board also mentions strategic electrification and its impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and electricity costs.

Performance Indicators consist of:[34](#page-150-0) E1 will propose Performance Indicators within each DSM Resource Plan for consideration and approval by the NSEB. These performance indicators will be specific to the DSM resources propose...

AI summary E1 will propose performance indicators for each DSM Resource Plan for NSEB approval. These indicators include energy savings, demand response capacity, customer satisfaction, and cost-effectiveness testing, with a focus on equity and low-income communities.

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.

Item Description 1. Introduction Introduce the DSM Resource Plan and summarize any E1–NS Power agreements (attach as appendices). Include relevant background and history, including past DSM Plans. Include Glossary of Terms and/or List of A...

AI summary The document outlines the structure and content requirements for the Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan, including previous plan results, plan development, proposed plan metrics, alternate scenarios, and additional items such as rate impact analysis and approvals sought.

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.

5. CONSOLIDATED ENDNOTES AND SOURCES - 1. M06733 – E1 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan. NSUARB Order (October 7, 2015) approving the Plan, the Consensus Agreement establishing the Standardized Filing Framework; Performance Targets, Indicators,...

AI summary This section lists consolidated endnotes and sources from a regulatory proceeding, including matters related to Demand Side Management (DSM) plans, standardized filing frameworks, and the establishment of the Nova Scotia Independent Energy System Operator (NSIESO) under the Energy Reform (2024) Act.

al of modifications to the approved DSM Plan. [2026-IRP-Draft-Terms-of-Reference.pdf](https://ieso-ns.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/2026-IRP-Draft-Terms-of-Reference.pdf) Request IR-12: Page 17 of the Evidence states, "Fourth, with respect...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) is requested to provide a BCA ratio for the 2027–2031 DSM Plan using the NS Test with the WACC from the PAC BCA and a societal discount rate of 2%. E1 acknowledges the request and notes that they have used modelling software to perform multiple cost-effectiveness tests, including the NS Test, TRC, RIM, PAC, and others.

odelling software capable of performing multiple cost-effectiveness tests, including the proposed NS Test as well as the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test, the Rate Impact Measure (RIM), the PAC and the modified-PAC. This functionality was us...

AI summary The document discusses the use of various cost-effectiveness tests for the 2027–2031 DSM Plan, including the PAC test, which was confirmed as the primary method by the Nova Scotia Energy Board's Decision (M12282). E1 provided multiple test results, but full results under the proposed NS Test and TRC were not produced due to the use of the PAC test.

at program design, enrollment pathways, incentives, and operational practices vary by jurisdiction. From an M12780, E1 2027–2031 DSM Plan Application Evidence, page 29. incentive perspective, the Evaluation found that E1's incentives were...

AI summary The document discusses E1's 2027–2031 DSM Plan, highlighting that incentive structures for thermostats and EV chargers are aligned with other jurisdictions, while battery incentives vary. E1's approach includes BYOD enrollment and energy efficiency delivery channels, but the plan does not propose increasing residential enrollment, focusing instead on maintaining and improving existing devices.

Pages 35-36 of the Evidence state, "E1 understands from DSMAG members that strategic electrification remains an important area for exploration to determine how it can cost effectively be included in future DSM Plans. To support this object...

AI summary E1 has allocated budget for strategic electrification research and development, including market research, pilot programs, collaboration with NSIESO, and evaluation of avoided costs. The questions focus on budget allocation, specific programs, criteria for pilot development, and the feasibility of strategic electrification measures that reduce both GHG emissions and electricity costs.

ural program component (Residential Behaviour) in E1's energy efficiency programming was only being introduced in the 2023–2025 DSM Plan, so the roll-out of that behavioural program was pursued first. (b) In the BNI Demand Response program...

AI summary The response addresses the implementation of the residential behaviour program in E1's energy efficiency plan and the decision to focus on commercial and industrial curtailment in the BNI Demand Response program. It also references calculations related to the 2023–2026 Approved Rate Class Expenditures and Results.

(d) Please refer to part (c) of this IR response. Where E1 does not have any recent statistics on the number of homes eligible for the program, we are unable to comment on current trends. (e) At the end of 2025, E1 had served roughly 9,500...

AI summary The response to IR-46 discusses the eligibility and participation rates of homes in E1's program, noting that 9,500 homes were served by the end of 2025. Challenges in quantifying eligible customers and pre-weatherization barriers are mentioned, along with the lack of specific funding in the proposed DSM Plan for these barriers.

3 Figure 1 shows how the annual variation in Residential Demand Response and BNI Demand 4 Response PAC results corresponds to the annual variation in the avoided cost of capacity. 5 6 Figure 1: Residential Demand Response and BNI Demand Re...

AI summary The text discusses the relationship between the annual variation in Residential Demand Response and BNI Demand Response Program Administrator Cost (PAC) results and the avoided cost of capacity. It references figures and tables that provide further details on program performance indicators.

1 Table 2: 2027–2031 Residential Demand Response Year Investment ($ million) Available Capacity (MW) Participation (devices) Participation (participants) Levelized Cost ($/kW year) Program Administrator Cost Test (PAC) 2027 2.2 4.2 22,940...

AI summary Table 2 outlines the projected investment, available capacity, and participation metrics for residential demand response programs from 2027 to 2031. The data shows a consistent investment of around $2 million annually, with a gradual decline in available capacity and participation devices, while the program administrator cost test (PAC) remains relatively stable.

4 Year Investment ($ million) Available Capacity (MW) Participation (devices) Participation (participants) Levelized Cost ($/kW year) Program Administrator Cost Test (PAC) 2027 3.1 17.0 0 169 - 2.9 2028 3.5 19.1 0 173 - 1.6 2029 3.8 21.2 0...

AI summary Table 4 estimates the Residential and BNI Demand Response Program Administrator Cost (PAC) results under a constrained area scenario, calculated manually by E1 using data from the DSM Plan and substituted avoided costs from Table 5. This method provides an approximation rather than a model-based result.

1 Table 4: Residential and BNI Demand Response PAC Results – Constrained Area Analysis PAC PAC Year Residential DR BNI DR 2027 1.1 3.5 2028 0.7 2.2 2029 1.0 3.3 2030 0.8 3.0 2031 0.8 3.1 Total 0.9 3.0 2

AI summary Table 4 presents the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) results for Residential and BNI Demand Response in a constrained area analysis, showing costs from 2027 to 2031 and total costs.

Aligned with the Nova Scotia Energy Board's Decision on E1's Application for a New Benefit Cost Analysis Test for Evaluating Demand Side Management Plans (M12282), E1 has used the Program Administrator Cost test to assess the benefits of t...

AI summary E1 has used the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test to evaluate the proposed 2027–2031 DSM Plan, aligning with the Nova Scotia Energy Board's decision on a new benefit cost analysis test. Non-energy benefits are not included in the assessment. E1 considered including batteries in the Solar-PV program, based on data from a previous Home Battery Pilot, which could lower the PAC ratio below 1.0.

DATE FILED: May 28, 2026 E1 (Synapse) IR-63 Page 3 of 3 1 Request IR-64: 2 3 Page 92 of Appendix A – Preferred Plan states, "The Roving Energy Manager facilitates 4 Mi'kmaw participation in E1's BNI programs throughout the 2027– 2031 DSM P...

AI summary The document outlines responses to requests regarding E1's Roving Energy Manager and a program harmonization initiative. The Roving Energy Manager facilitates Mi'kmaw participation in BNI programs through on-site audits and outreach. The harmonization initiative aims to streamline E1 operations, with implementation beginning in Q3 2026 and expected completion in Q2 2028. An evaluation will be conducted after the first phase.

1 HPWHs become industry standard. At each stage, it is the first time being conducted by 2 E1. 3 4 As demonstrated in other jurisdictions that deliver MT initiatives, including those for 5 HPWHssuch as Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance...

AI summary The text discusses the long-term nature of Market Transformation (MT) initiatives, such as those for Heat Pump Water Heaters (HPWHs), and outlines the use of condensed impact evaluations for stable, mature programs. It references EfficiencyOne's (E1) approach to developing an evaluation framework with an independent consultant.

riance threshold with the MCA spending and savings threshold. E1 will review this matter to assess whether there is valid rationale for such a change. (b) Please refer to part (a) of this IR response. Request IR-70: Page 103 of Appendix A...

AI summary The response addresses whether the Evaluator can obtain information about the coincidence of load reduction with the utility peak period and whether the avoided capacity cost reflects this. It explains that the Evaluator's scope does not include collecting such information, as it is not required for evaluating total available demand response capacity.

(g) recommended changes to respond to implementation challenges or opportunities; (h) the potential for additions and/or terminations of programs; and (i) the potential for a plan amendment and the cause(s), including but not limited to: s...

AI summary The response to IR-72 outlines a mid-term check-in process for the DSM Plan, including stakeholder engagement, updates on plan implementation, and reporting enhancements such as quarterly, annual, and evaluation reports.

(f) Please refer to part (a) of this IR response. (g) Please refer to part (a) of this IR response. (h) Please refer to part (a) of this IR response. (i) Please refer to part (a) of this IR response. DATE FILED: May 28, 2026 E1 (Synapse) I...

AI summary The request IR-73 asks whether E1 should align the 15 percent variance threshold for program changes with the MCA threshold of 20 percent. E1 refers to its response to NSEB IR-30 for an explanation of how these thresholds were determined.

- Please provide an evaluation plan for the 2027-2031 time period, including studies other than - impact and process evaluations (e.g., saturation/baseline, participation, benchmarking, - potential), schedule for conducting it, focus (e.g....

AI summary The response outlines a plan for evaluating the DSM program from 2027 to 2031, informed by previous evaluation reports and program changes. An Overall Strategic Evaluation Plan will be developed by E1 and an evaluation consultant before the end of 2027, with annual evaluation plans finalized each spring after the previous year's reports are filed.

pplication, page 83, lines 15-17; • Electricity Costs: Costs incurred by customers for electricity service, including supply, delivery, and consumption. The term is tied to statutory use: "the purpose - of the demand-side management provis...

AI summary The text discusses the definition of key terms related to demand-side management (DSM) programs, including 'program component' and 'program,' as outlined in E1's 2027–2031 DSM Resource Plan Application. It also references a decision (M12282) related to a new benefit-cost analysis test for evaluating DSM plans.

1 Table 1: 2027-2031 - Relationship between Portfolio, Resource, Sector, Program and Program Components 2027–2031 Portfolio Resource Sector Program Program Components Energy Efficiency Residential Residential Efficient Product Rebates Inst...

AI summary The text presents Table 1 outlining the 2027–2031 portfolio, resource, sector, program, and program components. It also includes a request (IR-88) for clarification on the metrics E1 will provide for the energy efficiency and demand-side management programs, including questions about the inclusion of the modified PAC, GHG emissions reductions, and solar PV generation.

: "Primary cost-effectiveness screen at the portfolio level, discount using NS Power's WACC. Strategic electrification is assessed using a modified PAC that includes the incremental utility revenues…" (d) E1 did include portfolio-level GHG...

AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of DSM Plans, including the inclusion of GHG savings and levelized cost of saved energy as performance indicators. E1 did not include GHG emissions reductions as a primary metric, but plans to update the Standardized Filing Framework based on the Board's recommendations.

H. Gil Peach & Associates LLC 16232 NW Oak Hills Drive Beaverton, Oregon 97006 USA E-mail: [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]) Website: [www.peachandassociates.net](http://www.peach...

AI summary The document is a report by H. Gil Peach & Associates LLC commissioned by the Nova Scotia Energy Board, focusing on a savings verification review of Program Year 2025 evaluation results. It provides an analysis of energy efficiency program outcomes.

Savings Verification Review of Efficiency Nova Scotia DSM Programs Program Year 2025 Evaluation Results This report presents an independent savings verification review of Efficiency Nova Scotia's Demand-Side Management (DSM) program evalua...

AI summary This report outlines an independent review by Econoler of Efficiency Nova Scotia's 2025 DSM program evaluations, assessing the reasonableness, methodological integrity, and regulatory suitability of reported energy savings and peak demand reductions, with recommendations on accepting evaluation results.

Summary of Findings Based on detailed review of program-level evaluations, calculation methods, and supporting documentation, the verification finds that the evaluation framework, methodologies, and reporting practices are generally sound...

AI summary The evaluation framework, methodologies, and reporting practices are generally sound and consistent with established evaluation protocols, including those from the Uniform Methods Project and industry guidance. Program-level evaluations largely conform to accepted standards.

The Evaluator demonstrates: - Use of recognized and appropriate analytic methods for program impact estimation - Consistency in evaluation structure and documentation across program components - Adequate application of site verification, s...

AI summary The Evaluator demonstrates use of recognized analytic methods, consistent evaluation structure, adequate application of verification techniques, and competence in current evaluation practices and regulatory expectations.

Determinations Regarding Evaluation Results The verification team finds that evaluation results are generally suitable for acceptance for regulatory purposes, subject to specific cautions noted below. We recommend acceptance of evaluation...

AI summary The verification team concludes that evaluation results are generally suitable for regulatory acceptance but notes specific cautions. Acceptance is recommended, though certain program components require careful consideration due to identified issues.

• Demand Response programs: While evaluation methods are consistent with protocol, we caution that the resulting savings and demand reductions are small in magnitude and may lack practical significance currently. However, the current measu...

AI summary The evaluation of Demand Response programs shows small savings and demand reductions, lacking practical significance. However, the innovative use of electricians in program delivery is a promising approach worth developing for 5-7 years to improve participation and results.

• BNI Custom Incentives Program (compressed air component): The relevant protocol was followed except for the measurement method. However, there is regulatory approval for the method. Since Econoler followed regulatory direction correctly,...

AI summary The BNI Custom Incentives Program's compressed air component followed protocol except for the measurement method, which has regulatory approval. Econoler's compliance justifies accepting savings results, but the method is unsuitable for savings verification. Evaluators must address this issue in future assessments and consider alternatives.

• Practical Significance: Current evaluation protocols emphasize statistical significance; however, in cases involving large sample sizes, statistically significant results may not translate into meaningful or actionable savings outcomes.

AI summary The text highlights a limitation in current evaluation protocols, noting that statistically significant results from large sample sizes may not reflect practically meaningful or actionable savings outcomes in regulatory proceedings.

• Programs that Close: When a program is put offline for part of a year, or closed, the evaluator should provide an analysis explaining the change, and discuss its likely effects on customers.

AI summary The text states that when a program is closed or offline for part of the year, evaluators must analyze the reasons for the change and discuss its potential impacts on customers.

Recommendations The verification recommends that: - 1. Evaluation results be accepted. - 2. Evaluators explicitly identify programs with negligible practical savings, regardless of statistical significance. - 3. Evaluation reports include...

AI summary The verification recommends accepting evaluation results, explicitly identifying programs with negligible savings, and enhancing transparency in statistical methods, including detailed explanations of data limitations akin to California NMEC evaluations.

This report, conducted by H. Gil Peach & Associates LLC for the Nova Scotia Energy Board, verifies electricity energy savings and demand reduction for 2025. It reviews measurements, models, and estimates provided by Econoler, the Independe...

AI summary This report, conducted by H. Gil Peach & Associates LLC for the Nova Scotia Energy Board, verifies energy savings and demand reduction for 2025 from Efficiency Nova Scotia's Demand Side Management (DSM) programs. It reviews and evaluates data provided by Econoler, the Independent Evaluator, and recommends adjustments where appropriate.

II. How Savings Verification fits into the Policy, Planning, and Program Cycle It can be useful in approaching evaluation to review how the Policy, Planning and Program cycle works and where evaluation and savings verification fit in, part...

AI summary This section explains how savings verification fits into the Policy, Planning, and Program cycle for Demand-Side Management (DSM). It highlights Efficiency Nova Scotia's role as the conservation utility and its transition from Nova Scotia Power, Inc., emphasizing the maturity of programs and the focus on evaluation and savings verification within the cycle.

with repeated steps, requiring utility/government cooperation in raising building science practice and codes in a process of continual improvement. The goal is to push the market transformation curve. Market transformation has resulted in...

AI summary The document discusses market transformation frameworks, emphasizing the need for utility and government cooperation to improve building science practices and codes. It highlights that successful programs lead to changes in market practices and materials, often resulting in regulatory bans on inferior products. Evaluators should credit energy savings caused by programs, and some Efficiency Nova Scotia programs have market transformation and climate relevance.

e identified and addressed. All adjustments to data are to be transparent, quantified, and justified. There is a concern to avoid double-counting energy savings and to account for interaction effects. Since the CPUC has adopted and then ex...

AI summary The document discusses the Normalized Metered Energy Consumption (NMEC) evaluation framework, emphasizing transparency, avoiding double-counting, and continuous monitoring. It references the California Public Utilities Commission's experience with NMEC and highlights its advantages over traditional evaluation methods.

itical leaders, the technical regret embodied in offshoring production through globalization, and the breakdown of supply chains as many countries need the same electrical components at the same time. 28 See Popper, Steven W., Warren E. Wa...

AI summary The text discusses the integration of evaluation frameworks in the context of energy planning, highlighting the need for stronger evaluation approaches related to market transformation, climate change, and system planning. It notes that current evaluations focus primarily on resource acquisition, with opportunities to incorporate other frameworks.

Table 1: Evaluation Frameworks Ask Different Questions. Evaluation Frameworks: Common Questions Framework Typical Evaluation Questions 1. Resource Acquisition Fill out all cost-effective opportunities. First year energy savings. Measure li...

AI summary The table outlines four evaluation frameworks used in regulatory proceedings, focusing on resource acquisition, market transformation, climate change, and energy sufficiency. Each framework includes typical evaluation questions related to cost-effectiveness, market progress, harm reduction, and ensuring energy access for all customers.

VI. Evaluation Effort for 2025 Programs As shown in Error! Reference source not found. , the Econoler impact evaluation work was substantial, including sixteen impact evaluations. There are nine residential evaluations, of which six are co...

AI summary The document outlines the evaluation effort for 2025 programs, detailing the scope and methodology of comprehensive and condensed impact evaluations conducted by Econoler. It highlights the types of evaluations, their components, and the general approach of conducting full evaluations every three years, with condensed evaluations in between.

VII. Savings Verification Approach The savings verification review was conducted as follows: - We focused on the "installed" annual energy savings and demand reductions. These are the annualized value of savings and demand reductions from...

AI summary The savings verification review focused on installed annual energy savings and demand reductions, regardless of installation timing. The evaluation included reviewing methods for program analysis, such as interaction, free-ridership, spillover, and net-to-gross approaches, and conducted 108 site visits for the 2025 program year.

VIII. General Findings - The method followed in each program impact evaluation follows a recognized analytic approach generally appropriate for the type of program. All evaluations followed methods developed by the community of evaluators...

AI summary The document evaluates program impact assessments for energy efficiency initiatives, noting that most follow recognized methods and protocols. The Residential Behaviour program is an exception due to the lack of physical measures. Evaluations include executive summaries, methodological diagrams, and appendices with calculations. The Evaluator has demonstrated expertise and conducted both impact and process evaluations, though more process evaluations are recommended.

A. Appliance Retirement Program (ARet) The Appliance Retirement (ARet) program is one of two program components of the Residential Efficient Product Rebates program. Appliance Retirement advances the retirement of refrigerators and freezer...

AI summary The Appliance Retirement (ARet) program, part of the Residential Efficient Product Rebates program, retires inefficient appliances and offers rebates. Since 2012, 77,981 appliances have been retired. In 2025, only 285 appliances were retired, leading to a 95% decrease in energy and demand savings due to program discontinuation.

Evaluator Findings. The Evaluator highlighted the following findings: - As noted, in Program Year 2025, the program did not achieve either the planned net electrical energy or peak demand savings of 1.274 GWh and 0.179 MW, respectively. Fo...

AI summary The Evaluator found that the ARET program failed to meet its 2025 energy and peak demand savings targets, achieving only 9% of the planned savings due to its discontinuation in January 2025. Participation dropped by 95% compared to 2024, with refrigerators and freezers accounting for most of the savings. The Evaluator did not identify methodological issues but noted that the program's termination should have included a rationale and opportunity cost analysis.

C. Home Energy Assessment (HEA) Home Energy Assessment (HEA) is a component of the Existing Residential Programs. This program encourages homeowners to increase the efficiency and comfort of their homes by providing rebates for qualified e...

AI summary The Home Energy Assessment (HEA) program, part of residential energy efficiency initiatives, experienced a 41% drop in participation in 2025, attributed to the closure of the Canada Greener Homes (CGH) Grant. This led to a 35% decrease in average energy savings per household and a 62% decline in net energy savings. The evaluation process was robust, with accurate tracking and long-term federal coordination.

D. Green Heat Green Heat, a component of Efficiency Nova Scotia's Existing Residential program, provides financial incentives for the installation of efficient heating systems that use fuel from renewable resources, including high-efficien...

AI summary Green Heat, part of Efficiency Nova Scotia's Existing Residential program, provides incentives for renewable heating systems. However, participation and energy savings have declined significantly since 2021, leading to the program's discontinuation by the end of 2025. The decline was attributed to higher incentives from other programs and reduced energy savings.

reviews and participant interviews. - Update EUL - Calculate gross and net energy and peak demand by using evaluation results and using NTGR 1, - Calculate avoided GHG emission reduction calculations. The Evaluator highlighted the followin...

AI summary The document outlines recommendations for improving the Affordable Multifamily Housing (AMH) program in 2024, including providing project examples, updating resources, creating audit templates, and enhancing participant awareness of co-financing options through improved communication and online portals.

H. [Affordable Single-Family Homes (ASFH)](bookmark://_Toc170668323/) Beginning in 2023, the Affordable Single-Family Housing (ASFH) program provides energy efficiency retrofits and heat pump installations at no cost to income qualified ho...

AI summary The Affordable Single-Family Homes (ASFH) program provides energy efficiency retrofits and heat pump installations at no cost to income-qualified homeowners. In 2025, the program achieved significant energy savings and exceeded its targets, with 1,920 homes participating and 6.135 GWh in net electrical energy savings. The evaluation confirmed the program's effectiveness and recommended improvements in delivery and communication.

Reports and from the MEI platform.[45](#page-61-0) They also provide guidance to customers to ensure fitness between the household and Efficiency Nova Scotia measure-based energy efficiency programs. Program & Evaluation Design. The progra...

AI summary The document outlines the design and evaluation of a residential behavioural program by Efficiency Nova Scotia, including the use of Home Energy Reports and random assignment of customers into treatment and control groups to measure energy savings. The evaluation method uses a difference-in-differences approach to estimate program impact.

Key Findings - SEM - SEM net energy savings exceeded the 2.657 GWh target by 52%; net peak demand savings exceeded the 0.289 MW target by 29%. - 2025 SEM participation reached its highest level since 2018, although electrical energy saving...

AI summary The Strategic Energy Management (SEM) program exceeded its 2025 energy and peak demand savings targets by significant margins. Participation levels were high, but savings per participant were lower than in previous years. Compressed air leak repair was the most impactful measure category, and M&V methodologies were found to be appropriate and accurate.

Recommendations No formal recommendations were issued for Custom or SEM in 2025. Both components performed in line with - or above - expectations and the underlying evaluation methods functioned as designed. Continued monitoring of service...

AI summary No formal recommendations were issued for Custom or SEM in 2025 as they performed in line with or above expectations. Continued monitoring of service-mix shifts, SEM productivity, and the sustainability of compressed air savings over a shortened 2-year EUL is recommended for the 2026 cycle.

Conclusion Small Business Energy Solutions (SBES) preserved measurement and tracking integrity in 2025 (near-100% realization on both energy and demand) but missed its planned savings by significant margins. The growing maturity of the LED...

AI summary Small Business Energy Solutions (SBES) maintained strong measurement integrity in 2025 but fell short of planned energy savings. The program's reliance on DIY pathways and the mature LED market suggest a focus on design refresh rather than measurement improvements. Planning for the 2026 evaluation cycle should focus on adjusting targets and modernizing the measure mix.

Program Overview The Demand Response (DR) Program supports Nova Scotia Power (NS Power) in reducing peak system load by providing financial incentives to participants for the DR capacity made available during called events. The program com...

AI summary The Demand Response (DR) Program helps NS Power reduce peak system load by offering financial incentives. It includes Residential DR through Eco Shift and BNI DR through Smart Synergy. The 2025 evaluation by Econoler assessed both components and included a process evaluation for Residential DR.

Key Findings — BNI DR (Smart Synergy) - BNI DR delivered 5.941 MW vs. a 10.726 MW target a 45% shortfall, driven primarily by lower in-event participation rather than enrolment. - Participation grew 88% year-over-year (76 → 143 participant...

AI summary The BNI DR (Smart Synergy) program underperformed its target by 45%, with lower in-event participation being the main cause. Participation increased by 88% year-over-year, but available capacity per participant dropped significantly. Morning events performed better than evening events, and capacity-calculation guidelines were followed but required adjustments in 2025.

Residential DR (Eco Shift) - Restructure the program manual into two distinct, continuous sections for residential and BNI; include all pilot and program changes with dates, descriptions, and rationale; clearly define eligibility criteria...

AI summary The Eco Shift residential demand response program requires restructuring its manual, linking tracking sheets, increasing participation through awareness, and monitoring the impact of new participation thresholds. Strategies for EV-device DR participation and metering analyses are also recommended.

BNI DR (Smart Synergy) - Conduct a process evaluation in 2026 focused on strategies to raise the in-event participation rate among enrolled BNI participants, the principal driver of the 2025 shortfall. - Repeat project-level reviews in 202...

AI summary The text outlines two key actions for the BNI DR (Smart Synergy) program in 2026: conducting a process evaluation to improve in-event participation rates and repeating project-level reviews to evaluate savings, as adjustment ratios vary annually.

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.

A. General Recommendations SVR25-G-1: We recommend that evaluation results be accepted, SVR25-G-2: Evaluators should explicitly identify programs with negligible practical savings, regardless of statistical significance. SVR25-G-3: Evaluat...

AI summary The document outlines general recommendations for program evaluation, emphasizing transparency in statistical methods, identifying programs with negligible savings, and providing detailed analysis when major program changes occur.

1. Appliance Retirement Program (ARet) SVR25-AR-4: When there is a major change in a program, including ending a program, the Evaluator should discuss the change or provide a reference or link to the document in which the discussion is pro...

AI summary The document outlines requirements for evaluating changes to the Appliance Retirement Program (ARet), including analyzing the impacts of program closure on appliance recycling, market dynamics, and low-income households. It also asks for a report on the consequences of ending the program and references a benefit-cost analysis.

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.

Table 14: Summary – Asked and Answered Asked and Answered for Program Year 2025: General Questions to Ask of Energy Efficiency Program Evaluations 1 Does the independent evaluator have control over methods and Yes measurement approaches? 2...

AI summary The document addresses the evaluation of energy efficiency programs for the Program Year 2025, focusing on the independence, transparency, and rigor of the evaluation process. Key points include the use of proper guidelines, engagement with program staff, and timely reporting of issues identified during fieldwork.

- Activities) - During site visits and related inspection work, the Verification Team may encounter conditions - described as "unusual activities." These observations are communicated to Board Staff and, - where appropriate, EfficiencyOne....

AI summary The Verification Team conducted site visits and reviewed evaluation methods for the 2025 Savings Verification Review. They checked installation counts, work quality, and program experiences with customers, conducting 108 site visits and reviewing sixteen impact evaluations.

Why or why not? Please confirm multiplier interpretation. 158 CA IR-2(a) 159 Response 160 The report defines the multiplier as a ratio of lifetime to annual savings and does not characterize 161 it as a weighted measure life. No reinterpre...

AI summary The text discusses the interpretation of a multiplier in a report, clarifying that it is defined as a ratio of lifetime to annual savings and not a weighted measure. It also raises questions about the relationship to cost-effectiveness and references a 2025 Savings Verification Review, highlighting the evaluation cadence for programs.

- Question: Refer to M12780, Exhibit E-17, Savings Verification Report H. Gil Peach, dated - June 1, 2026 (the "Peach Report") which presents its independent savings verification review of - Efficiency Nova Scotia's Demand-Side Management...

AI summary The Peach Report discusses the distribution of savings contributions across sectors for Efficiency Nova Scotia's DSM program in Program Year 2025. It highlights differences between first-year and lifetime savings, attributing them to normal portfolio effects. The report does not perform detailed attribution analysis and recommends accepting evaluation results while identifying programs with negligible practical savings.

dations - The verification recommends that: - 1. Evaluation results be accepted. - 2. Evaluators explicitly identify programs with negligible practical savings, regardless of statistical significance. 3. Evaluation reports include enhanced...

AI summary The verification report recommends accepting evaluation results, identifying programs with negligible practical savings, and enhancing transparency in statistical methods. It concludes that the 2025 DSM evaluation portfolio is methodologically rigorous but suggests adjustments to ensure results are both statistically valid and policy-relevant.

ced concerns, does the Peach Report still find the results found by Econoler in E1's 2025 plan to be acceptable? - e) What are the thresholds for regulatory consideration referenced in the Conclusion? - Refer to Exhibit E-17 page vii... Id...

AI summary The Peach Report discusses the acceptability of Econoler's 2025 plan results and the use of the term 'negligible' for program savings. It notes that while demand response programs have small impacts, there is no quantitative threshold for regulatory consideration.

, service to low-income and moderate-income customers, and social inclusion as well as benefit-cost analysis' allowable under current legislation and Board orders? ( italics added. ) - Response: - The Verification Team has no information o...

AI summary The document raises questions about the inclusion of certain factors in benefit-cost analysis for low-income and moderate-income customers, as well as the impact of a cybersecurity incident on program evaluations. The Verification Team notes a lack of independent analysis and suggests these issues should be addressed by EfficiencyOne or through broader regulatory analysis.

Response: - The Report states the program pause limits results to partial-year interpretation. The Verification - Team did not independently assess additional impacts, timing, or operational effects beyond the - Report.

AI summary The Report notes that a program pause resulted in partial-year interpretation of outcomes, with the Verification Team not independently evaluating additional impacts, timing, or operational effects beyond the Report's findings.

Specifically, - As described in the Custom NC Program guidance, program electricity savings are measured against a baseline suitable for demonstraƟng compliance with building code rather than from a baseline reflecƟve of what electricity c...

AI summary The NC Program's baseline for measuring electricity savings is based on compliance with building codes rather than actual consumption without the program. This method was not empirically tested, and without data on non-participants and participant choices, it's unclear if the program accurately measures incremental savings. In some cases, the program may have rewarded increased electricity use.

RecommendaƟons In summary: - The Custom NC Program baseline development approach does not consider what electricity consumpƟon and demand would have been in the absence of the program; and - The Custom NC Program does not incenƟvize peak d...

AI summary The Custom NC Program's baseline development approach fails to consider what electricity consumption and demand would have been without the program, potentially incentivizing measures that increase peak demand and system costs. Posterity Group recommends additional evaluation and revising the incentive structure to account for system-level impacts.

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.

, ground-up incentive-18 design study of the kind CLEAResult performed. It did not re-derive incentive levels 19 from primary customer research, updated price-sensitivity or current measure economics; [ 64 ](#page-33-1) Apex Analytics LLC,...

AI summary The document discusses concerns regarding the methodology used by E1 in setting incentive levels for its 2027–2031 program, highlighting that the approach was based on a limited jurisdiction scan and did not incorporate updated customer research or price-sensitivity data. Apex Analytics' findings are referenced as part of the evidence.

13 Since the dedicated low-income spending had a PAC BCR of slightly below 1, shifting 14 the savings away mainly meant reducing benefits by around the same amount as the 15 carve-out. This means that benefits would be $5 M lower, and the...

AI summary The analysis discusses the impact of shifting funds from dedicated low-income spending, noting that while the PAC BCR for this category would decrease from 0.9 to 0.8, the overall impact on broader metrics like Residential Sector, EE Total, and Portfolio Total PAC BCR is minimal, with a loss of only $5 million in benefits.

15 Q. DO YOU AGREE WITH E1'S JUSTIFICATION FOR WAITING UNTIL 2028 TO 16 PROVIDE THESE REBATES? 17 A. No. Mini-split and centrally ducted HPs are not a new technology to E1. Both of these 18 measures are already offered as installed measure...

AI summary The respondent does not agree with E1's justification for delaying rebates until 2028, noting that heat pumps are already part of existing programs and that E1 is already preparing for DSM programs for 2027–2031. There is no structural barrier to negotiating rebates in advance.

9 Q. DO YOU SUPPORT THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEMAND RESPONSE 10 (ECO SHIFT) COMPONENT? 11 A. I support continuing Eco Shift at an exploratory level, but I do not support expanding it. 12 E1 has appropriately scaled back the Eco Shift progr...

AI summary The response supports maintaining the existing Eco Shift program at an exploratory level but opposes expanding it. It notes that E1 has scaled back the program, maintaining the current device base and not adding new enrollments. The 2025 evaluation showed poor performance, delivering only 0.854 MW of available capacity against a 7.135 MW target, despite a significant increase in participation. Further investment is deemed imprudent until the program demonstrates cost-effectiveness.

Economic and Policy Analysis Small Business Utility Advocate - California (June 2020 – Present) - Provided testimony and analysis on cost recovery for wildfire management and grid hardening efforts for Southern California Edison (Docket No...

AI summary The Small Business Utility Advocate in California has provided testimony and analysis on various energy efficiency and utility-related matters, including cost recovery for grid hardening, program design, and participation rates for small businesses in energy efficiency programs. They have also worked on evaluating cost-effectiveness tools and clean energy financing access for small businesses.

Testimony and Proceeding Participation Forum On Behalf Of Docket/Matter Date Issues Addressed Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Philadelphia Gas Works Docket No. P-2014- 2495362. Approval of Demand-Side Management Plan for FY 2024-202...

AI summary The text outlines various regulatory proceedings involving energy efficiency and demand-side management plans, including historical performance reviews, cost-effectiveness analyses, and the phase-out of gas incentives. These proceedings are managed by different utility commissions and involve multiple stakeholders.

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.

A. E1's Treatment of Demand Response E1's Preferred Plan includes both residential DR with an annual budget of ~$2 million and BNI DR with an annual budget ranging from $3.1 million in 2027 to $4.4 million in 2031 with total Demand Respons...

AI summary E1's Preferred Plan includes both residential and BNI Demand Response (DR) programs with significant investment over five years. Residential DR participation is expected to decline, while BNI DR is projected to grow. E1 faces challenges with residential DR cost-effectiveness and implementation, though participation has recovered from initial issues.

While individual programs in the portfolio do not need to have a PAC test greater than one, there must be justification for the inclusion of programs that are not individually cost effective. E1 justifies the inclusion of residential DR no...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) justifies pausing the rollout of its residential demand response (DR) program due to current cost-ineffectiveness but emphasizes its importance for the future electricity system. The analysis highlights that E1's residential DR program has higher costs compared to other utilities' DR programs, which may indicate opportunities for cost reduction. E1's approach is criticized as internally inconsistent, as it assumes inaction will improve cost-effectiveness, while the Ontario IESO recommends continued investment.

p. 2. 20 Cadmus, Peak Perks Program Evaluation Report (prepared for Independent Electricity System Operator, Mar. 31, 2025), p. 1.

AI summary The text references a report by Cadmus evaluating the IESO's Peak Perks Program, prepared for the Independent Electricity System Operator as of March 31, 2025.

A. E1's Treatment of Strategic Electrification E1 states that it took its role in advancing SE seriously and considered whether SE could be included in the 2027–2031 DSM Plan. E1's modelling focused on building electrification measures whe...

AI summary E1 evaluated strategic electrification (SE) scenarios for inclusion in the 2027–2031 DSM Plan but found they failed to reduce electricity costs under the modified PAC test. Despite GHG benefits, SE was excluded from the Preferred Plan. E1 will instead pursue SE through enabling strategies, including research, pilot programs, and future IRP collaboration.

1. Strategic electrification can be a beneficial DSM resource when it is targeted, controlled, and coordinated with system planning. E1 states in its application that the proposed SE programs, as designed, reduced GHG emissions but did not...

AI summary E1's proposed strategic electrification (SE) programs were excluded from its preferred DSM plan due to failing the modified-PAC test. E1 plans to focus on research, pilot programs, and collaboration with the IESO to improve SE's cost-effectiveness and data modeling, particularly regarding peak-hour load impacts.

Q. What do you conclude? A. I conclude that it would be reasonable for E1 to pursue an amount of electrification in its 2027-2031 Plan that does not increase electricity costs at the portfolio level [. Table 3](#page-25-0) below provides t...

AI summary E1 concludes that pursuing electrification in its 2027-2031 Plan without increasing electricity costs at the portfolio level is reasonable. The PAC and Modified-PAC tests confirm this, with a benefit-cost ratio of 2.4 for the DSM Plan. E1 acknowledges that DSM, including strategic electrification, should be evaluated at the portfolio level, as confirmed by the Energy Board.

Q. Please describe E1's projections of cost-effectiveness over the Plan period. A. Over the course of the plan period, the Residential PAC BCR ranges between 0.5 and 0.9, while the BNI BCR is substantially higher and always above one, rang...

AI summary E1's projections show that the Residential PAC BCR ranges between 0.5 and 0.9, while the BNI BCR ranges between 1.6 and 2.9 over the plan period, indicating varying levels of cost-effectiveness for different programs.

PAC benefit-cost ratios and avoided costs - Q. Please explain your concerns about the cost-effectiveness of the residential demand response programs based on the PAC test. - A. In the 2026 Extension of E1's DSM program, my colleague Jennif...

AI summary The respondent is concerned about the cost-effectiveness of E1's residential demand response program based on the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test. E1's projections are inconsistent, with conflicting claims about when the program will achieve cost-effectiveness. The projected PAC benefit-cost ratio (BCR) for the 2027 program is expected to improve slightly compared to the 2026 extension.

Q. How do E1's Residential program delivery costs compare to other jurisdictions? - A. E1's proposed residential demand response delivery costs as a share of total - budgets appear substantially higher than similar programs in other jurisd...

AI summary E1's residential demand response delivery costs are significantly higher compared to similar programs in Rhode Island Energy and National Grid (Massachusetts), where non-incentive spending accounted for 27-29% of budgets, versus 77% and 63% for E1. This raises concerns about cost-effectiveness and reasonableness of the proposed budget.

Q. What is E1's approach to managing program delivery costs? A. On the overall DSM plan, E1 states that it has "heard some concerns from stakeholders that program delivery costs have increased unreasonably since the last plan. However, E1...

AI summary E1 explains that program delivery costs have increased due to factors like reduced government funding and market changes, but claims it has taken steps to manage and contain costs. Customer incentives make up 71% of the Preferred Plan's costs, and E1 plans to use benchmarking, competitive procurement, and third-party audits to improve cost-effectiveness.

1 2 Q. Does E1 address the high program delivery costs for the residential demand response program specifically? 3 A. No. E1 does not address the high delivery costs of the residential demand 4 response program specifically. According to t...

AI summary E1 does not specifically address the high delivery costs of the residential demand response program. The response notes that while E1 reviewed DR incentives and program delivery costs, it did not evaluate delivery costs for demand response programs. E1's spending on incentives is much lower compared to similar programs in other regions, with a significant portion allocated to program delivery. Recommendations include conducting a process evaluation and reviewing the competitive procurement process for delivery services.

- Q. E1 proposes to phase out its EV and battery demand response programs. What is E1's rationale? - A. E1 plans to phase out the EV and battery pathways before the start of the 2027 - demand response season. E1 states that it excluded the...

AI summary E1 plans to phase out EV and battery demand response programs due to low cost-effectiveness, low enrollment, and operational challenges. While these programs show high curtailment potential, their modeled benefit-cost ratios remain very low, making them difficult to justify in the 2027-2031 DSM Plan.

22 Q. Do other jurisdictions have mid-term modification processes? 23 A. Yes. The Massachusetts energy efficiency program administrators have a process 24 for filing "mid-term modifications." The Department of Public Utilities requires & l...

AI summary The response confirms that other jurisdictions, such as Massachusetts, have mid-term modification processes for energy efficiency programs. It recommends that the NSEB establish specific thresholds for mid-cycle adjustments by E1, such as changes in spending or program termination.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Synapse Energy Economics, Inc., Cambridge, MA. Senior Principal, Apr 2026–Present; Principal Associate, Jun 2021–Apr 2026; Senior Associate, Jun 2013–Jun 2021; Associate, Jul 2008–Jun 2013; Research Associate, Apr 2...

AI summary The text outlines the professional experience of an individual working in energy economics, focusing on energy efficiency programs, regulatory structures, and equity analysis. It highlights roles at Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. and Resource Insight, Inc., emphasizing work in energy planning, stakeholder support, and research.

the Matter of the New Brunswick Power Corporation and Section 103(1) of the Electricity Act Matter No. 375. Prepared by Synapse Energy Economics for the New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board Staff. Fagan, B., A. Napoleon, S. Fields, P....

AI summary The document lists various publications prepared by Synapse Energy Economics for different organizations and regulatory bodies, focusing on energy efficiency, clean energy, and compliance with energy regulations in multiple jurisdictions including New York, Virginia, and New Brunswick.

- charging to inform the level of customer incentives, including energy and capacity cost savings, and reviewed the design of their pilot study - For Pepco, assessed the benefits and costs of the company's Climate Solutions Plan. The Plan...

AI summary The document outlines various analyses and studies conducted by Brattle Group for different utilities, including Pepco, Baltimore Gas & Electric, and Con Edison, focusing on demand-side initiatives, electrification programs, and benefit-cost analyses. These studies evaluate the economic, environmental, and operational impacts of energy efficiency, building electrification, and transportation electrification, as well as the development of cost frameworks for gas infrastructure alternatives.

GRID MODERNIZATION - Analyzed the impacts of electric utility infrastructure investment on system reliability and resiliency for a Northeastern Utility, following major weather events. Primary area of analysis involved estimation of econom...

AI summary This text outlines various grid modernization projects and analyses, including the economic value of infrastructure investments, cost recovery mechanisms, and impact evaluations. It includes work with utilities, advisory groups, and studies on energy efficiency programs.

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.

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.

1 Request IR-01: 2 Preamble: At pages 3–9 regarding the Mid-Course Adjustment (MCA), Mr. Love recommends (a) that the Board require explicit Board approval of any MCA, with a 30-day comment period for intervenors; (b) that unspent funding...

AI summary The text discusses a request (IR-01) regarding the Mid-Course Adjustment (MCA) framework, including whether unspent funds can be carried forward, the scope of the MCA process, and how recommendations for consolidating low-income programs and approving an IRP-aligned budget interact.

25 Response IR-01: 26 27 (a) No. Carrying unspent early-year funding into later years does not, by itself, authorize E1 28 to exceed the Board-approved five-year budget. The recommendation is that the Board confirm 29 the thresholds operat...

AI summary The response clarifies that unspent funds from early years may be carried forward but not used to exceed the five-year budget cap. It outlines three MCA triggers and explains that consolidating low-income programs into a single entity would require Board approval for any spending over 20% of the approved budget.

35 Request IR-08: 36 37 Reference: E-21, Section VII – Unit Costs. 38 Preamble: At pages 26–35 of the evidence, Mr. Love analyzes E1's rising unit acquisition costs, noting that the Preferred Plan projects a first-year EE unit cost of $0.6...

AI summary The text discusses Mr. Love's analysis of E1's rising unit acquisition costs, noting a significant increase from the 2026 Plan and identifying factors such as the end of federal funding and inflation. Questions are raised regarding the predictability of these increases, the use of Canadian benchmarks, and the implications of continuing current program designs.

alone; 45 E1's first-year cost is not remotely close to this benchmark but instead sits at roughly double the 46 U.S. fleet average in that report. Date Filed: July 17, 2026 CA (IG) Page 13 of 22 1 2 (e) Other jurisdictions facing rising u...

AI summary The text discusses the high first-year costs of E1 compared to the U.S. fleet average and suggests that other jurisdictions have managed rising costs through program design changes, such as recalibrating incentives, replacing low-cost measures with new categories, and improving eligibility and delivery models.

9 adoption decisions. - 10 California. The 2025 Energy Savings Assistance Program Non-Energy Impacts Study 11 applied formal willingness-to-pay and conjoint methods in a program-evaluation 12 context. 14 (d) GEEG recommends that E1 repeat...

AI summary GEEG recommends that E1 repeat a comprehensive incentive-setting exercise for the 2027–2031 Plan period, using methods like price-sensitivity research and conjoint analysis for measures exceeding $1,000,000 in incentive expenditure over five years. E1 last conducted such research in 2014 and has not repeated the CLEAResult methodology for the current plan.

33 Response IR-10: 34 35 (a) Based on the resources already cited, additional assessment is not necessary, which is why 36 recommendation referenced above was made. This recommendation does not turn on the outcome 37 of any assessments tha...

AI summary The response argues that NS Power does not plan firm capacity based on interruptible load above contracted firm demand, making LII customers ineligible for Smart Synergy incentives on that load. The Board is advised to confirm this ineligibility due to double-counting concerns, though E1 may still assess potential incremental value.

Response Filed: July 17, 2026 Page 3 of 3 M09096: Exhibit 33, EfficiencyOne Application for Approval of a Supply Arrangement for Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Activities Between E1 and Nova Scotia Power Inc. (DSM 2020-2022), PDF...

AI summary The response to an information request discusses the methodology for establishing a baseline for the Custom New Construction (NC) Program under the 2027-2031 DSM Plan. It references the IESO EM&V Protocol V5.0, which outlines three approaches for determining a counterfactual baseline and asks Posterity Group and Eastward Energy Incorporated to explain their chosen method and how they plan to mitigate recall bias in participants and non-participants.

Request IR-3: Reference: Brattle Evidence, Section IV: Representation of Demand Response in E1's Preferred Plan, page 14, footnote 25: "In October 2022, IESO received a ministerial directive that increased the CDM budget by $342 million, f...

AI summary The response confirms that Peak Perks was launched under an Ontario Ministerial Directive with a budget expansion, and highlights differences between Ontario's regulatory context and Nova Scotia's statutory framework, where E1 operates under the Public Utilities Act and must meet the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test. It also references E1's Eco Shift program and its expected cost-effectiveness under the PAC test.

1 Request IR-5: 2 3 Reference: Brattle Evidence, Section IV: Representation of Demand Response in E1's 4 Preferred Plan, page 12: 5 6 "Costs for residential thermostat programs are $577/kW-year by 2031 while 7 8 BNI curtailment programs on...

AI summary The response to Request IR-5 discusses the lack of readily available source data for peer utility programs and explains that program scale is not the only factor in achieving cost-effectiveness under the PAC test. Alternative strategies, such as monitoring participant performance and optimizing delivery models, are suggested to improve cost-effectiveness.

Request IR-6: Reference: Brattle Evidence, Section IV: Representation of Demand Response in E1's Preferred Plan, page 12: "E1's logic for limiting residential DR in the Preferred Plan is internally inconsistent in that E1 states residentia...

AI summary The response to Request IR-6 discusses Brattle's recommendation to scale residential demand response (DR) in E1's Preferred Plan, emphasizing the importance of winter peak reduction and the need for E1 to refine its portfolio based on the 2026 DSM Potential Study. It also references Ontario's Peak Perks program as a model.

Request IR-7: Reference: Brattle Evidence, Section V: Representation of Strategic Electrification in E1's Preferred Plan, page 20-21: "…the Board must also require E1 to consider transportation electrification measures into any proposed se...

AI summary The response to IR-7 discusses the inclusion of managed EV charging as Strategic Electrification (SE) under the modified Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test, which requires SE measures to reduce both GHG emissions and electricity costs. It highlights that managed EV charging can lead to cost savings by shifting load away from peak hours, potentially reducing distribution, transmission, and generation costs.

Request IR-14: Reference: E-22, page 20. E1 should be required to develop a more targeted building electrification program focused on measures with the best chance of meeting Nova Scotia's statutory criteria of reducing costs by incorporat...

AI summary The request asks whether Brattle has identified specific strategic electrification (SE) program designs that meet Nova Scotia's cost-effectiveness criteria and how a phase-in pathway differs from E1's current approach. It also inquires about Brattle's experience with SE programs in other jurisdictions and the timeline for implementing new programs.

del that best meets cost, capability, accountability, and delivery requirements. Solar Nova Scotia recommends only that qualified private-sector delivery be considered rather than excluded by default. EfficiencyOne already uses external pr...

AI summary Solar Nova Scotia recommends considering qualified private-sector delivery for programs, emphasizing the need for clear procurement standards and oversight. EfficiencyOne currently uses external providers and suggests implementing mechanisms like competitive procurement, standardized work products, and performance metrics within its existing framework.

se Energy Managers are therefore well positioned to identify potentially applicable programs and refer customers to qualified advisors. EfficiencyOne should not determine or guarantee tax eligibility. (b) Please confirm whether this reduct...

AI summary The text discusses the implications of reducing program unit costs on the DSM budget and whether it would affect total spending or individual participant costs. It also addresses Solar Nova Scotia's recommendation to use the approved budget to reach more small business customers and the need to manage tax eligibility verification without legal or privacy risks.

Request IR-4: At page 22, lines 17 to 19 of the Report, Synapse observes that E1 did not provide a clear basis for its conclusion that Strategic Electrification did not meet the requirements of the modified PAC test. A. What information ha...

AI summary The text raises questions regarding E1's modeling of Strategic Electrification's compliance with the modified PAC test, Synapse's assessment of cost-effectiveness at the resource versus portfolio level, and how the Board's decision in M12282 may affect E1's promotion of Strategic Electrification.

Response IR-4: A. In Request IR-02, Synapse asked for E1's Round 1 and Round 2 modeling…including …all associated attachments in Excel including but not limited to supporting data and calculations (intact and unprotected)". E1's response i...

AI summary E1's response to Synapse's request was incomplete, as it did not provide a full model or detailed calculations. E1's interpretation of the modified-PAC test led to the exclusion of Strategic Electrification from the DSM Plan, but this interpretation may not align with the Board's historical practices. The decision in M12282 is not explicit on how to apply the Board's guidance to DSM planning, and E1's approach may not be consistent with established practices.

Response IR-8: A. No. Please refer to my evidence, p. 39, lines 3-4, where I state that "E1 does not address the high delivery costs of the residential demand response program specifically," including any comparison of program delivery bud...

AI summary The response denies addressing high delivery costs of the residential demand response program and recommends a process evaluation to identify cost efficiencies. E1 remains contracted with existing vendors and has no plans to change.

Request IR-04: Reference: Napoleon Evidence, page 39 (Process Evaluation Recommendation) - (a) E1's Residential DR program will be subject to annual third-party impact evaluation under the proposed Plan, and the 2027–2031 Plan also contemp...

AI summary The text raises questions about the duplication of evaluation activities and the incremental cost of additional process evaluations for E1's Residential DR program under the proposed Plan and the 2027–2031 Plan.

Response IR-04: (a) Please refer to my evidence, p. 39, lines 19-21, where I state that E1 should "conduct a process evaluation of the delivery of the residential demand response program to identify opportunities for gaining efficiencies a...

AI summary The response discusses a recommendation to conduct a process evaluation of the residential demand response program's delivery, distinguishing it from a prior 2025 evaluation. It notes that the 2025 study focused on customer experience rather than delivery costs and suggests that the proposed evaluation would be narrower in scope and potentially less costly.

Summary Recommendations I recommend that the Board: - approve the energy-efficiency-related budgets and savings proposed by NB Power for the 2024/25 and 2025/26 program years. - o Direct NB Power to provide updates when the Energy Efficien...

AI summary The Board is recommended to approve NB Power's energy-efficiency and electrification budgets, request revisions to the DSM plan, and conduct reviews on renewable energy and demand response programs. The Province is also urged to align electricity savings requirements with updated targets and include additional program types in future planning.

Cost-effectiveness I recommend that NB Power's incentives in the Peak Rebate, Energy Efficient Products, and Industrial EE programs be examined in further detail and potentially lowered to reduce the cost of these programs and curb any unn...

AI summary The text recommends examining and potentially lowering NB Power's incentives in several programs to reduce costs and prevent windfalls for participants. It supports NB Power's efforts to improve the cost-effectiveness of its Total Energy Savings Program and highlights the need to include non-energy benefits in the PACT and PCT, citing the NSPM as supporting this inclusion.

- approve the energy-efficiency-related budgets and savings proposed by NB Power for the 2024/25 and 2025/26 program years. - o Direct NB Power to provide updates when the Energy Efficient Products and Total Homes Energy Savings programs a...

AI summary The document outlines approvals and directives related to NB Power's energy-efficiency and electrification budgets, the redesign of specific programs, and the need for a detailed review of renewable energy investments. It also mandates updates to the DSM plan and the inclusion of various measure types in future studies.

M12780 - In the Matter of EfficiencyOne's (E1) 2027–2031 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan Application 1 Request IR-1: 2 Reference: E-23, Page 8, lines 6-11. 3 E1 also: 4 5 6 7 8 • interpreted the NSEB's Order on E1's Application...

AI summary This proceeding involves EfficiencyOne's (E1) 2027–2031 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan Application. The text references a previous Board decision (M12282) and asks whether Synapse and Ms. Napoleon have misinterpreted the Board's decision and Order, as well as whether Synapse's position has changed.

- programs-report/. Accessed 5/31/26. 1 Request IR-10: 18 19 20 21 (d) Does Synapse agree that to be effective as a rate-class protection mechanism, an MCA trigger should be defined at the rate-class level regardless of whether the portfol...

AI summary The text outlines a request (IR-10) to Synapse regarding the effectiveness of a rate-class protection mechanism, the definition of 'program addition' for mid-cycle adjustments, and the approval process for such adjustments. It also asks whether Solar Energy programming can be introduced during the Plan period if deemed cost-effective.

Apex Analytics — Principal 2023–Present - Supports utilities and program administrators on energy efficiency and DSM planning, including plan development processes, project timelines, stakeholder engagement structures, drafting templates,...

AI summary Apex Analytics, as a principal, supports utilities and program administrators in energy efficiency and DSM planning, including regulatory filings, stakeholder engagement, and policy development. They have worked on the Mass Save planning process and provide expertise in affordability, cost recovery, and program design.

Eversource Energy — Director 2012–2021 - Led regulatory, planning, EM&V, and support services for a $500M+ multi-state energy efficiency and demand response portfolio, including oversight of portfolio strategy, performance metrics, budgets...

AI summary The text discusses the professional experience of an individual who led regulatory and planning efforts for a large energy efficiency and demand response portfolio, managed teams, supported regulatory filings, and advised on integrating energy efficiency and distributed energy resources into grid planning.

EM&V / Market Research Survey design, jurisdictional scans, market barrier analysis, costeffectiveness, program evaluation, and translation of findings into strategy.

AI summary The text outlines activities related to EM&V and market research, including survey design, jurisdictional scans, market barrier analysis, cost-effectiveness studies, program evaluation, and translating findings into strategy.

Visualizing the Participation and Impacts of a Statewide Portfolio Evaluation 2015 International Energy Program Evaluation Conference · Aug 11, 2015

AI summary This document discusses a presentation from the 2015 International Energy Program Evaluation Conference, focusing on visualizing the participation and impacts of a statewide portfolio evaluation. It highlights efforts to assess and manage energy efficiency programs across a region.

2.2.2 RESIDENTIAL DEMAND RESPONSE DELIVERY COSTS Second, Ms. Napoleon makes recommendations regarding residential demand response costs. At page 6, lines 7 – 13, Ms. Napoleon recommends: Regarding residential demand response, E1 should see...

AI summary Ms. Napoleon recommends that E1 reduce residential demand response costs per kW by enrolling new participants in low-cost pathways, conduct a process evaluation of the program's delivery, and review its competitive procurement process for residential demand response services.

E1 Rebuttal Evidence With regard to the recommendation that E1 conduct a process evaluation of the delivery of the residential demand response program to identify opportunities for gaining efficiencies and achieving cost reductions, E1's t...

AI summary E1 argues that a separate process evaluation for the residential demand response program is unnecessary, as the 2025 evaluation and the 2027–2031 DSM Plan already address efficiency and cost reduction. E1 also states that its current procurement practices are designed to ensure competitive bidding and market readiness.

Q. HOW CAN E1 CLOSE THIS DATA GAP? A. E1 should record, for each dedicated low-income and equity program component, the number and proportion of customers who do not proceed because of pre-weatherization barriers, the nature of those barri...

AI summary E1 is advised to record data on pre-weatherization barriers faced by low-income and equity program participants during site visits. This data collection is seen as a recordkeeping change rather than a new program cost and is essential for understanding challenges and refining future plans.

Q. WHY IS E1 STARTING THESE MEASURES IN 2028? A. In its response to Synapse IR-43, E1 states that it is delaying the launch of these measures until 2028 because "certain activities cannot reasonably proceed until approval of the Plan has b...

AI summary E1 is delaying the launch of certain measures until 2028 due to the need for approval of the Plan, which is required before establishing industry partnerships, developing program processes, and conducting partner training.

Q. IS THERE ANY PROGRAMATIC RATIONALE UNDER WHICH ESCALATING INCENTIVES MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE? A. In some circumstances, escalating incentives are appropriate. For example, when a program is targeting progressively harder-to-reach customers...

AI summary The text discusses the rationale for escalating incentives in demand-side management programs. It suggests that escalating incentives may be appropriate in certain circumstances, such as when targeting harder-to-reach customers or addressing high freeridership rates. However, it notes that E1 has not made this argument and that participation may drop as rebates increase. Mr. Love recommends maintaining current incentive levels for specific programs.

E1 Rebuttal Evidence E1 clarifies that E1 did not conclude that its Residential DR program component would reach cost effectiveness in one year. This is a reference to the Ontario IESO's response to their Peak Perks program. E1 does not co...

AI summary E1 clarifies that its Residential DR program is not expected to be cost-effective in one year and emphasizes a gradual approach to improve cost-effectiveness through investment and performance optimization. It references the Ontario IESO's Peak Perks program and highlights that program scale alone is not sufficient for cost-effectiveness. E1's approach is contrasted with Brattle's interpretation, which suggests aggressive scaling.

E1 Rebuttal Evidence E1 agrees that hourly modelling and improved data are valuable, and the Preferred Plan already commits, through the Enabling Strategies budget, to market research and technology assessment, pilot programs, collaboratio...

AI summary E1 acknowledges the value of hourly modelling and improved data but argues that structural issues with the modified PAC test limit the impact of these improvements. E1 has supported more detailed avoided cost analysis and has already explored a range of electrification measures, but none met the modified PAC test even under best-case scenarios. E1's approach includes phased research and pilot programs to adapt to the current statutory framework.

E1 Rebuttal Evidence E1 did not include Strategic Electrification in the 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan because no programs or measures were identified during plan development that satisfy the legislated definition of Strategic Electrificati...

AI summary E1 did not include Strategic Electrification in the 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan due to the lack of programs meeting the legislated definition and passing the modified PAC test. E1 acknowledges the potential of managed EV charging but highlights challenges related to customer participation, cost, and system benefits, suggesting further evaluation through the Innovation framework.

st a baseline suitable for demonstrating compliance with building code rather than from a baseline reflective of what electricity consumption and demand would have been in the absence of the program. • The appropriateness of this approach...

AI summary The document discusses concerns about the baseline approach used in E1's New Construction (NC) program, questioning whether it accurately measures electricity savings. E1 responds by explaining its transition to a standardized baseline based on energy codes and standards, and notes that the program undergoes regular evaluations.

Q. What other market and program forces help explain E1's rising unit costs? A. Measurement & Verification updates and net savings adjustments have a significant impact on claimable savings. As programs mature, evaluations often reduce net...

AI summary E1's rising unit costs are influenced by factors such as measurement and verification updates, net savings adjustments, market transformation, and increased program delivery costs. As programs mature, savings claims decrease, and more complex and expensive opportunities arise, leading to higher spending on customer incentives and program delivery.

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.

46 1 Customer projects increasingly combine efficiency, electrification, distributed generation, storage, and 2 controllable equipment. Siloed programs increase customer complexity and administrative costs and 3 make it more difficult to c...

AI summary Customer projects now combine efficiency, electrification, and distributed generation, but siloed programs increase complexity and costs. As efficiency opportunities become more capital-intensive, rebates are less effective. Modern DSM should focus on technical assistance, financing, and integration rather than separate programs. Affordability should be measured by value delivered per dollar invested.

- 2 of those costs may be offset by overall system savings, it is not a complete counterbalance. - 3 The SBA had the opportunity to review EfficiencyOne's opening statement and the Schedule "A" - 4 that was attached t _ The SBA acknowledge...

AI summary The SBA acknowledges EfficiencyOne's efforts in developing the 2027-2031 DSM plan, finding many proposed adjustments reasonable and beneficial. The SBA supports strategic electrification under certain conditions and appreciates the commitment to enhanced reporting on innovation-framework activities and Enabling Strategies.

sts, targets, and agreement terms. - Nor should the Board view DSM as a discretionary add-on to the electricity system. It is a - resource. Properly designed and evaluated, DSM competes with and complements supply-side - resources by reduc...

AI summary The Department emphasizes that demand-side management (DSM) should be treated as a core resource, not a discretionary add-on. It argues that multi-year DSM planning provides stability while allowing for Board oversight and accountability. The Department supports the approval of EfficiencyOne's application, stating it aligns with public interest goals such as affordability, reliability, and emissions reduction.

terity Group to help develop PNG's 2023 Consolidated Resource Plan and Long- Term DSM Plan. The resource plan development involves the development, analysis, and reporting of energy consumption forecasts (for 20 years from 2023-2042) under...

AI summary Posterity Group is working with FortisBC on various energy efficiency initiatives, including the development of a long-term DSM plan, a five-year DSM expenditure plan, and an assessment of additional energy savings from DSM measures. These projects involve forecasting, modeling, and evaluating program effectiveness to support FortisBC's emissions reduction targets.

guidehouse.com Page 2 of 6 No. Problem QA Check 1 QA Check 2 QA Check 3 1 Measure Name List is Not Unique X 2 Model Logic Errors due to Input Workbook Changes X 3 Errors in the Measure Worksheet Values X X 4 Portfolio Summary Metrics Formu...

AI summary The document outlines 11 QA checks designed to identify inconsistencies in input data and processes related to measure names, model logic, worksheet values, portfolio metrics, and benefit streams within a regulatory proceeding. These checks ensure accuracy and consistency in data inputs and outputs.

Undertaking U-8: To provide energy efficiency measure PAC scores to include program administration costs assigned to the individual measure level in Appendix A Attachment 3 and if any of the measures do not meet the PAC test, to provide ju...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) has provided Program Administrator Cost (PAC) scores for energy efficiency measures in the 2027–2031 DSM Plan, with program administration costs assigned at the measure level. Eleven measures in the Preferred Plan do not pass the PAC test, and E1 has provided justification for their inclusion.

Table 1: Estimated PAC Results for Efficient Product Installation with Smart Thermostats removed 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2027- 2031 Efficient Product Installation without smart thermostats 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 E1 Responses to Affordabl...

AI summary The table presents estimated Program Administrator Cost (PAC) results for Efficient Product Installation with Smart Thermostats removed from 2027 to 2031. E1 has responded to the Affordable Energy Coalition (AEC) Undertaking, providing non-confidential information.

11 Request IR-19: 9 10 12 14 16 21 22 13 Reference: Appendix A, Attachment 3. 15 For each of the measures listed in Appendix A, Attachment 3, please provide - 17 a. The units for each line, and capacity of any HVAC systems - 18 b. The assu...

AI summary Request IR-19 seeks detailed information on energy efficiency measures from Appendix A, Attachment 3, including HVAC unit specifications, baseline assumptions, incremental cost models, and energy savings calculations (kWh, kW, etc.). Filed May 7, 2026, it targets NSP and NSEB for transparency in DSM program data.

Group 3 – Other Questions Request IR-7 Reference: Exhibit E-1: Table 59 of Section 9.4.4 (page 185 of 419) identifies the heat pump water heater pilot as a market transformation area of focus. (a) Please define "market transformation" as u...

AI summary The document requests definitions and evidence for E1's market transformation strategy on heat pump water heaters, cost-effectiveness data, evaluation methods, and opinions on hybrid heating incentives. Key focus areas include distinguishing market transformation from DSM, baseline assessments, and justification for incentive policies.

Request IR-9 - Exhibit E-2, Table 1 of the 2025 DSM Annual Progress Report (page 10 of 69) provides overall - results for the Custom Incentives program. Please provide the same information specifically for - the Custom New Construction pro...

AI summary Request IR-9 seeks data from Exhibit E-2, Table 1 of the 2025 DSM Annual Progress Report, specifically requesting breakdowns for the Custom New Construction program (separated from other Custom offerings) for 2023–2025, including metrics like project counts, energy savings, peak demand savings, and expenditures.

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.

- viii. On pdf pg. 56, E1 states: "To manage overall investment levels in the Preferred Plan, E1 has reduced full-time equivalent (FTE) staffing in the 2027–2031 Preferred Plan to 106.7 as compared to 114.3 in the 2026 DSM Extension." Figu...

AI summary The text requests explanations and documents related to staffing and cost reductions in the DSM plan, benchmarking studies, and expenditures in the 'Program Support' category. It also references a spreadsheet model used to illustrate the benefits of a short payback period for DSM programs.

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-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.

Request IR-45: - Exhibit E-1, Appendix A, page 108 of 112 (pdf pg. 196): - E1 discusses further mid-course adjustment enhancements it proposes, including reducing thresholds for requiring explanations for program spending and savings and r...

AI summary The document discusses a proposed mid-course adjustment by E1, including reducing thresholds for explanations on program spending and rate class spending. The question posed is whether E1 should require Board approval for changes exceeding these thresholds instead of simply providing explanations.

Request IR-54: Exhibit E-1, Appendix A, Attachment 5 - Table 4, 5, and Figure 2, pages 11-13 of 14: - a. Figure 2 notes that market, performance and program readiness are assessed at the concept stage. For each of these items in Tables 4 a...

AI summary Request IR-54 seeks clarification on thresholds for project progression from concept to planning stages, referencing Tables 4/5 and Figure 2. It also asks how cost-effectiveness thresholds are determined during the concept stage of pilot programs.

(a) reflect E1's own interpretation of the regulation or did E1 ask for clarification regarding how this regulation should be interpreted and/or implemented in its 2027-2031 DSM Plan? Please explain. Request IR-8: Page 5 of the Evidence st...

AI summary The text requests clarification on whether E1 independently interpreted a regulation or sought guidance for its 2027-2031 DSM Plan. It notes the Energy Board's decision that DSM plans must be evaluated at the portfolio level, allowing individual programs to fail if the overall portfolio passes the cost-effectiveness test. E1's plan achieved a 2.4 benefit-cost ratio at the portfolio level, meeting requirements under the Public Utilities Act.

a. Please provide the anticipated timing of the impact and process evaluations during the 2027-2031 Plan period. b. Would E1 consider transitioning this effort from pilot to program implementation during the 2027-2031 Plan if the pilot is...

AI summary The document requests clarification on E1's approach to impact evaluations during the 2027-2031 Plan period, including criteria for transitioning pilots to programs, rationale for condensed evaluations, and alignment of thresholds for program changes. Key topics include evaluation methodologies, program implementation criteria, and threshold alignment.

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 1 Request IR-7: 2 3 Reference: Appendix A, Table 45, "Overview," page 80. 4 5 (a) Please explain why, in E1's view, maintaining existing enrollment of Residential 6 Demand Response (DR) without growth is preferable to alte...

AI summary The document contains regulatory requests (IR-7 and IR-8) seeking clarification on Nova Scotia Power Inc.'s (NSPI) approach to Residential Demand Response (DR) enrollment strategies, potential pauses in enrollment, and the role of Backup Generators (BUGs) in the DSM Plan. It also requests details on BUGs program design and conditions for future DR enrollment.

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.

- 2 Reference: Exhibit E-1, Application, page 36/71; and Exhibit E-1, Appendix B, Section 9, 27 2027–2031, representing approximately 64% of the 683.1 GWh savings target in NSPI's 11 adjustment to DSM targets or program spending if the new...

AI summary The document discusses the alignment of demand response with the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and the need to adjust DSM targets based on new IRP findings. It also references the use of Modified-PAC results for strategic electrification scenarios, highlighting considerations around system reliability, affordability, and risk assessment.

- 3 "Enabling Strategies". - 4 Preamble: E1 has asserted that eliminating or materially reducing Enabling Strategies - 5 investment would weaken E1's ability to deliver DSM programs effectively and responsibly - 6 and provided three qualit...

AI summary The document raises questions about Enabling Strategies, including the impact of reducing investments, the need for quantitative analysis, updates to investment tables, reconciliation of market transformation activities, and detailed cost breakdowns for new strategies and 'Other Enabling Strategies' from 2012 to the present.

- 28 (a) Please provide a table explaining the increase in first-year unit cost from 29 $0.49/kWh (2026) to $0.66/kWh (2027–2031), broken down by the 30 following drivers: 1 (i) Change in measure mix (e.g., shift away from lighting); 2 (ii...

AI summary The document requests a detailed breakdown of the increase in first-year unit costs for energy efficiency programs from 2026 to 2027–2031, including factors like changes in measure mix, incentive levels, and participation volumes. It also asks for methodology, lifetime unit cost data, and benchmarking against other jurisdictions.

27 spending, etc.; and 1 2 3 4 explain whether and how E1 assessed the impact of those changes on program delivery, customer participation, measure uptake, and realized savings for each affected customer class. 5 6 (b) Please explain the a...

AI summary The text outlines a request for information regarding the allocation methodology used by E1 to distribute Enabling Strategies (ES) spending across customer classes and programs, including specific inquiries about allocator consistency, benefits mapping, performance metrics, alignment with the 'beneficiary pays' principle, and financial allocations for industrial customers.

9 Reference: N-3, DSM Evaluation Report. - 10 (a) With respect to the Custom Incentives and SEM, please explain the drivers 11 for the change in net-to-gross ratios (NTGRs) compared to earlier 12 evaluations. - 13 (b) Please confirm that t...

AI summary The document contains three questions related to the DSM Evaluation Report, addressing changes in net-to-gross ratios (NTGRs), their impact on credited savings and customer incentives, and the timing of incentive payments.

17 Requests: - 18 a) Confirm whether this estimate aligns with EfficiencyOne's planning assumptions. If not, 19 provide EfficiencyOne's revised assumptions or state that they are unavailable. - 20 b) The Technical Tables appear to show 1,8...

AI summary Four requests to EfficiencyOne regarding planning assumptions, heat pump water heater installations, consideration of incentives for electric water heaters, and linking incentives to demand-response (DR) capabilities. Requests seek clarification on alignment with assumptions, data accuracy, risk assessments, and program design.

2 Requests: - 3 a) Provide all strategic electrification measures and scenarios considered for the 2027-2031 4 Plan. - 5 b) For each measure or scenario for which analysis was prepared, provide the modified PAC 6 inputs and outputs and the...

AI summary The document outlines seven requests for information regarding strategic electrification measures, cost assumptions, delivery approaches, federal incentives, portfolio assessments, rate impacts, and EV incentives for Nova Scotia's 2027-2031 DSM Plan. It seeks details on cost-effectiveness analyses, inclusion of measures failing PAC criteria, and integration of federal incentives like the Clean Technology Investment Tax Credit and EV incentives.

28 IR-12: Portfolio Design, Rebate Effectiveness, and Unit Cost Discipline - 29 Reference: 2027-2031 DSM Plan; portfolio design; measure saturation; incentive setting; - 30 portfolio management; unit cost control; performance incentive fra...

AI summary The document examines challenges in the 2027-2031 DSM Plan, including measure saturation, rebate effectiveness, and unit cost control. It questions whether EfficiencyOne has evaluated economic impacts of low-cost measure saturation, rebate elasticity, and alternatives to high rebates. It also seeks clarity on prioritizing cost-effective measures and mechanisms to reduce unit costs while meeting savings targets.

Questions / Requests: - a) In addition to the Program Administration Cost Test, did E1 evaluate the Total Resource Cost and Societal Cost Test for the EcoShift program? - b) Could E1 confirm whether greenhouse gas emission reductions and c...

AI summary The proceeding questions whether E1 evaluated specific cost tests (Total Resource Cost and Societal Cost) for the EcoShift program and if greenhouse gas emission reductions and grid resilience were quantified as avoided costs.

Reference: "E1 does not intend to enroll new customers in 2027–2031." (Table 45 under 7.3.2 PROGRAM DESIGN) "Available demand response capacity is evaluated based on events called from December to February." (12.1.2 DEMAND RESPONSE EVALUAT...

AI summary The document states that E1 will not enroll new customers from 2027–2031 and outlines that demand response capacity is evaluated based on events from December to February. These points relate to program design and demand response methodologies under regulatory review.

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 text references a 2025 Savings Verification Review, which includes site visits and evaluation methods for impact assessments. Questions are raised about the scope of the review, the methodology used, and the distribution of site visits across programs. The report discusses a multiplier used to calculate the average lifetime of energy savings by sector.

6 Request IR-3: 7 8 Reference: 2025 Savings Verification Review, Introduction, p. 1, Evaluation Effort for 2025 9 Programs, p. 22 10 "Generally, the evaluator's goal is to conduct a full (comprehensive) evaluation of 11 each program every...

AI summary The text references the 2025 Savings Verification Review, discussing evaluation cadence for energy programs. It asks if the current three-year comprehensive evaluation cycle, with condensed evaluations in between, is adequate for accuracy, and whether any 2025 program components require more frequent evaluations.

26 Request IR-4: 27 28 Reference: 2025 Savings Verification Review, Determinations Regarding Evaluation Results, p. 29 vi; Key Findings — Residential and BNI DR, pp. 71–72. 30 31 In regard to Residential Demand Response programs the Verifi...

AI summary The 2025 Savings Verification Review evaluates Residential Demand Response programs, noting minimal savings and demand reductions. It recommends extending program development for 5–7 years to assess improved participation and outcomes. Eco Shift and BNI DR underperformed against targets, raising questions about continued investment.

5 Request IR-5: 6 7 Reference: 2025 Savings Verification Review, Recommendations, p. vi-vii; General 8 Recommendation SVR25-G-2, p. 74.; M12249 CA IR-5 9 "Evaluators should explicitly identify programs with negligible practical savings, 10...

AI summary The 2025 Savings Verification Review identifies the Demand Response program as having negligible practical savings and questions whether other 2025 program components share this issue. It requests clarification on thresholds for defining negligible savings and reconciles past reluctance to specify thresholds with current recommendations for explicit identification.

31 Request IR-6: 32 33 Reference: 2025 Savings Verification Review, Recommendations, p. vii, General 34 Recommendation SVR25-G-3, p. 74; Normalized Metered Energy Consumption Evaluation 35 Framework, p. 10. 36 "Evaluation reports include e...

AI summary The document requests clarification on whether the verification team recommends adopting California's NMEC evaluation methods for Efficiency Nova Scotia and Econoler programs, specifically focusing on transparency practices and program suitability. It references the 2025 Savings Verification Review and NMEC framework.

- Refer to M12780, Exhibit E-17, Savings Verification Report H. Gil Peach, dated June 1, 2026 - (the "Peach Report") which presents its independent savings verification review of Efficiency - Nova Scotia's Demand-Side Management (DSM) prog...

AI summary The text references a savings verification report by H. Gil Peach, which evaluates Efficiency Nova Scotia's Demand-Side Management (DSM) program for Program Year 2025. The report shows a decline in savings contributions between the first year and over the lifetime of the plan, with different percentages for BNI and Residential sectors. The text asks for an explanation of the decline and whether the reasons differ between sectors.

Recommendations The verification recommends that: - 1. Evaluation results be accepted. - 2. Evaluators explicitly identify programs with negligible practical savings, regardless of statistical significance. - 3. Evaluation reports include...

AI summary The verification recommends accepting evaluation results, explicitly identifying programs with minimal savings, and enhancing transparency in statistical methods, particularly data limitations, akin to California NMEC standards.

Conclusion The Program Year 2025 DSM evaluation portfolio reflects a high level of methodological rigor and general compliance with accepted evaluation standards. The reported savings are reasonable and appropriate for regulatory considera...

AI summary The 2025 DSM evaluation shows methodological rigor and compliance with standards, but adjustments are needed for practical relevance. Questions are raised about programs with negligible savings and recommendations for addressing them.

Request IR-4: Refer to Exhibit E-17, the Peach Report, page 11, 'Integrating Evaluation Frameworks' which discusses integrating a different evaluation framework into E1's DSM program with the Deep Retrofit and Load Research programs that a...

AI summary The document raises questions about integrating evaluation frameworks into E1's DSM program, cost implications of alternative approaches, prioritization of deep energy savings, AI model use, and budget comparisons. It seeks clarification on cost impacts, evaluation methodologies, and resource allocation decisions.

Request IR-6: Refer to Exhibit E-17, the Peach Report, page 53, which states: Inclusion in Portfolio Calculations . Although there was some discussion of exclusion of results from the portfolio realization rate calculation, the result foll...

AI summary The text includes two regulatory requests (IR-6 and IR-7) referencing the Peach Report. IR-6 seeks clarification on a regulatory review regarding portfolio energy savings inclusion. IR-7 addresses the impact of a cybersecurity incident on the 2025 Residential Behaviour program's evaluation, noting partial-year results due to program interruption. Questions focus on the incident's effects beyond data availability and the timeline of disruptions.

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.

Issued at Halifax, Nova Scotia, this 6th day of July, 2026. 1 Request IR-01: 2 Reference: Brattle Evidence, Section III: Affordability of E1's Preferred Plan, page 6: 3 4 "While E1 and its consultant (Apex Analytics) did conduct a Jurisdic...

AI summary The document contains information requests related to the affordability and cost performance of E1's preferred plan, including critiques of peer group analysis and budgeting differences between Ontario and Nova Scotia. It also asks for quantification of cost differentials and clarification on regulatory frameworks.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL (b) Please provide the most recent published Peak Perks PAC test result and confirm whether Peak Perks has, as of the date of the Brattle Evidence, achieved cost-effectiveness under the PAC test (Brattle Evidence page 13:...

AI summary The text requests confirmation of the most recent Peak Perks PAC test result and whether the program has achieved cost-effectiveness under the PAC test. It also asks for clarification on the nature of Peak Perks as a summer cooling-based DR program and the breakdown of its capacity sources between winter heating and summer cooling thermostats.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-02: 2 Reference: Napoleon Evidence, page 27–29 (Low and Moderate Income [LMI] Oil-Heat 3 Electrification Alternative) 4 5 (a) Please provide the NB Power 2024/25–2026/27 DSM filing materials cited at footnote...

AI summary This document contains several information requests from EfficiencyOne to Synapse Energy Economics, Inc., concerning the NB Power 2024/25–2026/27 DSM filing, the NS Power 2022 Evergreen Integrated Resource Plan, and the evaluation of E1's Residential DR program. The requests seek clarification on cost-effectiveness methodologies, statutory frameworks, and the inclusion of DR programs in capacity planning.

1 Request IR-2: 2 Reference: E-20, Page 2. 3 For the purposes of DSM programs, the baseline case is typically intended 4 to represent what the energy consumption and demand would have been in the absence of the program. 3 5 - 3 6 See, for...

AI summary The text discusses the methodology for establishing a baseline for energy consumption in the absence of a Demand Side Management (DSM) program, specifically the Custom New Construction (NC) Program. It references the IESO EM&V Protocol V5.0 and asks Posterity to confirm the approach used, explain the rationale, and address challenges like recall bias and the use of independent studies.

1 (a) Please confirm whether, under your recommended framework, if E1 2 underspends in 2027 and 2028 and then seeks to spend those unspent 3 funds in 2030 and 2031, the resulting total five-year expenditure would be 4 permitted to exceed t...

AI summary The text asks whether underspending in 2027 and 2028 followed by spending in 2030 and 2031 would allow E1 to exceed the five-year budget, and if a separate MCA filing would be required. It also asks about the scope of Mr. Love's recommended MCA process and whether a mid-plan MCA could increase low-income program spending above the 20% threshold with just an explanation.

29 (a) Please confirm: 1 (i) what "optimal DSM resource acquisition levels" means 2 operationally — is this the IRP's Base profile or some other 3 metric; and 4 (ii) whether Mr. Love's recommended trigger would also apply 5 when IRP findin...

AI summary The text requests clarification on the meaning of 'optimal DSM resource acquisition levels' and whether a 20% threshold is appropriate for triggering a Mid-Course Adjustment (MCA). It also asks about the conditions for approving an MCA that increases the budget and the evidentiary requirements for such approvals. References to specific regulatory matters (M12386, M12916) are included.

- 29 (d) What does Mr. Love expect a "fresh, ground-up incentive-design study" to 30 involve in terms of scope, methodology, data collection, and cost? 1 (e) Has Mr. Love taken into consideration the cost, timing, and administrative 2 burd...

AI summary The text outlines questions directed to Mr. Love regarding the scope, methodology, data collection, and cost of a proposed 'fresh, ground-up incentive-design study' for demand-side management (DSM) programs. It also asks whether incentive reductions should be considered before the study is complete and whether the Board should approve increased DSM spending until the study is finalized.

Request IR-14: Reference: E-22, page 20. E1 should be required to develop a more targeted building electrification program focused on measures with the best chance of meeting Nova Scotia's statutory criteria of reducing costs by incorporat...

AI summary The text discusses the need for E1 to develop a more targeted building electrification program with specific criteria, including cost reduction, displacement of fossil fuels, and integration with weatherization. It also raises questions about the feasibility of solar energy (SE) programs and the phase-in pathway for electrification, including cost-effectiveness and implementation timelines.

- 28 (e) Please define what constitutes a "program addition" for the purposes of 29 Synapse's mandatory mid-cycle adjustment trigger, including whether: 1 (i) adding a new measure category within an existing program 2 component would quali...

AI summary The text requests a definition of 'program addition' for Synapse's mandatory mid-cycle adjustment trigger, including whether adding new measure categories or phasing out pathways within a program would qualify. It also asks about the Board's approval process for mid-cycle adjustments, expected timelines, and whether SE programming could be introduced without a full Plan amendment.

______________ 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.