E-12027-2031 DSM Plan Application
8 passages
25 In addition to reducing total investment through prioritization, E1 has responded to DSMAG member 26 comments regarding Enabling Strategies. Specifically, E1 heard that there was a desire to better - 1 understand the goals and objective...
AI summary E1 has responded to feedback from the DSMAG regarding Enabling Strategies by introducing measures of success for education and outreach activities and an Innovation Framework for 2027–2031. E1 argues that eliminating Enabling Strategies would weaken its ability to develop and deliver effective DSM programs, reduce program reach, and hinder strategic management of the DSM portfolio.
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.
Participation is the number of participants in Strategic Energy Management and the number of projects in Custom.
AI summary The text references the number of participants in Strategic Energy Management and the number of projects in Custom, indicating a focus on program participation metrics.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
E-32025 DSM Evaluation Reports
37 passages
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.
Mi'kmaw Home Energy Efficiency Project - › In 2025, MHEEP achieved 0.337 GWh in net electrical energy savings and 0.319 MW in net peak demand savings at the generator, thus falling 39% short of planned net electrical energy savings of 0.54...
AI summary In 2025, the Mi'kmaw Home Energy Efficiency Project (MHEEP) achieved 39% less electrical energy savings than planned but exceeded peak demand savings targets by 104%. Participation dropped 18%, reducing gross savings. Methodological changes limited peak demand savings evaluations to fully electric households, aligning with 2024 Green Heat analysis.
Custom - › Custom achieved 30.487 GWh in net electrical energy savings and 6.372 MW in net peak demand savings at the generator in 2025, thereby surpassing by 26% the planned electrical energy savings of 24.160 GWh and by 32% the planned p...
AI summary Custom program achieved 30.487 GWh in electrical energy savings and 6.372 MW in peak demand savings in 2025, exceeding targets by 26% and 32% respectively. Participation trends, adjustment ratios (0.993–1.011 for Retrofit), free-ridership levels (8%–38%), and a 8% discrepancy between Evaluator and E1 savings tracking were reported.
1.3 Participation History Since 2012, ARet has retired or replaced a total of 77,981 old and inefficient appliances from homes and schools. These appliances were recycled so that they could not be refurbished, sold second hand, or left plu...
AI summary ARet retired 77,981 appliances from 2012-2024, with 285 in 2025. Discontinuation in 2025 caused a 95% drop. Incentives increased in 2021, and eligibility criteria changed in 2020 and 2023.
Green Heat Findings and Recommendations This subsection presents the key findings from the Green Heat evaluation. The Evaluator has no specific recommendation for Green Heat. 2025 Green Heat - Finding: In 2025, Green Heat achieved 0.749 GW...
AI summary The 2025 Green Heat program underperformed, achieving only 79% of planned energy savings and 56% of peak demand savings. Participation dropped 33% year-over-year, driven by shifts to the Canada Green Homes Grant and reduced rebates. Savings tracked by E1 matched evaluator findings.
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.
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: Participation decreased in 2025 compared to 2024 levels. The number of participants decreased in 2025 by 7.5% compared to 2024 levels, while the number of measures installed through EPI decreased by 40% compared to 2024 l...
AI summary Participation in the Efficient Product Installation (EPI) program decreased by 7.5% in 2025 compared to 2024, with a 40% drop in installed measures due to the phase-out of lighting measures, particularly LED lamps. Despite this, average savings per participant only fell by 12% due to higher savings from electrician-installed products.
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.
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.
25.3 Participation History Residential Behaviour is an opt-out program component, which means that E1 enrolls customers, and customers remain in the program until they opt out online or by contacting E1. The targeted population for Residen...
AI summary The Residential Behaviour program by E1 is an opt-out initiative targeting NS Power customers with rate codes 02B and 03B. Participants are split into high, medium, and low usage groups, with attrition rates driven by account closures, relocations, and solar rate code switches. Inactive accounts and solar-switching customers are excluded from receiving Efficiency Insights reports.
Analysis of Participation in Other Programs The Evaluator compared the participation levels between the treatment and control groups in other residential program components offered by E1, namely Efficient Product Installation (EPI), Green...
AI summary The Evaluator compared participation in E1's residential programs (EPI, Green Heat, HEA) between treatment and control groups to check for higher participation and avoid double-counting savings.
Interview with a Non-participating Distributor The Evaluator conducted one interview with an Atlantic Canada distributor that does not participate in BER-IR or MBRP but operates in both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. That non-participating...
AI summary The Evaluator interviewed a non-participating Atlantic Canada distributor operating in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, which supplies lighting products but does not engage in BER-IR or MBRP programs. The interview guide is detailed in Appendix VIII.
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.
Tracked savings Gross and net savings calculated based on various parameters such as number of participants or units installed or sold, unitary savings values, installation rates, interactive effects, and net-to-gross ratios. Those paramet...
AI summary The text explains how tracked savings are calculated using parameters such as unitary savings values, installation rates, interactive effects, and net-to-gross ratios, with the exception of the number of participants or units installed or sold, which are obtained from the previous evaluation.
[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.
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.
Custom APPENDIX I Retrofit and Pay-for-Performance Participant Interview Guide APPENDIX II Compressed Air Leak Participant Interview Guide APPENDIX III Retrofit and Pay-for-Performance Algorithm for Free-Ridership Calculation APPENDIX IV R...
AI summary The document outlines appendices related to custom programs, including interview guides, algorithms for free-ridership and spillover calculations, tracking sheets, and 2025 recommendations. These materials focus on methodologies for assessing program participation and performance metrics.
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.
Table 1: Overview of Data Collection Activity Descriptor This Instrument Instrument Type Semi-directed in-depth interview Estimated Time to Complete 15-20 Minutes Target Audience › Participant Builders › Expected Number of Completions › Pa...
AI summary The document outlines data collection activities for a regulatory proceeding, including semi-directed interviews with 12 participants to assess free-ridership levels and program satisfaction related to New Construction projects. The fielding firm is Econoler, and the timeline is set for November 2025.
ld receive an incentive from Efficiency Nova Scotia? [READ] - 1. Very confident - 2. Somewhat confident - 3. Not very confident - 4. Not at all confident - 98. Don't know - 99. Refused
AI summary The text presents a survey question assessing participants' confidence in receiving incentives from Efficiency Nova Scotia, likely tied to free-ridership analysis in regulatory proceedings.
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.
a unique identifier across both program components and inconsistent collection of device information by installers lead to gaps in enrollment tracking, indicating that the process could be fine‑tuned. 2025 Res DR/EPI Recommendation 2: Ensu...
AI summary The text highlights gaps in data collection for Residential DR and EPI programs, recommending improved tracking via unique identifiers. It identifies barriers to participation, such as privacy concerns and enrollment challenges, and suggests enhancing program messaging and flexibility to increase engagement.
1.3.1 Participation by Enrollment Pathway [Figure](#page-52-2) 4 below outlines participation in Residential DR for Smart Thermostat DLC by the Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) and EPI enrollment pathways. In 2025, 81% of Residential DR Smart...
AI summary In 2025, 81% of Residential DR Smart Thermostat DLC participants enrolled via Bring Your Own Device (BYOD), while 19% joined through EPI. The Evaluator estimates 40% of EPI participants with smart thermostats failed to enroll in Residential DR, citing data matching limitations. Results are indicative, not precise.
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.
3.3.2 Level and Sources of Program Awareness Among Non-participants
AI summary This section examines the awareness levels and sources of information about energy efficiency programs among non-participants in Nova Scotia. It likely explores outreach effectiveness, barriers to participation, and the role of existing programs in informing residents and businesses.
Enrollment Challenges Non-participants cited various reasons for not continuing the Residential DR enrollment process following their participation in EPI. Three in 10 (28%) indicated that they did not recall receiving an invitation to enr...
AI summary Non-participants in Residential DR enrollment cited reasons including not receiving invitations (28%), lack of follow-up on manual invites (26%), technical difficulties (14%), and thermostat usability issues. Half of non-participants who received manual invites stated no interest, while 19% saw no benefit. Technical confusion (60% of those with enrollment issues) and eligibility concerns were also reported.
Participant Eligibility Criteria Eligibility criteria for participation in residential DR programs are similar across jurisdictions and device types. The standard requirements include: - > Being a customer of the utility and the account ho...
AI summary Residential DR program eligibility requires utility account ownership, eligible devices, and internet access. Tenants are eligible if they meet criteria. Rebates and incentives vary, with changes planned for 2026. Jurisdictions differ on variable pricing plan enrollment, with some automatically assigning variable rates to DR participants.
Event Design and Operations While the first Canadian program administrator does not guarantee a minimum or maximum number of events in theory, up to 300 events could be called during the winter season, as two events per day are possible. I...
AI summary The document outlines event design and operations for demand response (DR) programs, noting up to 300 potential winter events but typical participation of 12–14 events per season. Behavioral and connected enrollment paths differ in communication methods, with the latter relying on thermostat displays. Studies show colder temperatures reduce participation, while real-time app notifications and post-event reports enhance engagement and transparency.
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.
Participation in Events Based on the results of a review of 30 meters, it was found that participants did not participate in events around 60% of the time, compared to a non-participation rate of 31% in the 2023/24 DR season. In conducting...
AI summary The analysis found that 60% of participants did not engage in demand response (DR) events, compared to 31% in the 2023/24 season. Lower DR capacity correlated with reduced participation. Meters were categorized into morning and evening platoons, with event windows structured to align with these groups. Extrapolation estimated 63% average meter participation per event.
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.
Installation Rates The installation rate is assumed to be 100%.
AI summary The document assumes a 100% installation rate for the specified context, indicating full implementation or adoption of the referenced program or measure.
Installation Rates Installation rates for solar DHW systems are estimated at 100% due to their relatively high cost.
AI summary Installation rates for solar domestic hot water systems are estimated at 100% due to their high costs, reflecting challenges in adoption despite potential benefits.
Installation Rates Installation rates for wood and pellet stoves are estimated at 100% due to their relatively high cost. & lt;sup>73 Dunsky Energy Consulting, Residential Fuel Substitution Pilot Program , Final Report, December 2010.
AI summary The installation rates for wood and pellet stoves are estimated at 100% due to their relatively high cost, citing a 2010 report by Dunsky Energy Consulting.
Installation Rates For EPI the installation rate is assumed to be 100%.
AI summary The document states that for EPI (EfficiencyOne), the installation rate is assumed to be 100%, indicating full implementation of the program's measures without adjustment for partial adoption or delays.
E-12E1 (NSEB) RIRs 1-66 - Redacted
10 passages
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.
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.
Table 7: Research Engagement Phase Research and Engagement Phase To determine the impact of the measure on the total savings target and budget, it is critical to create a participation forecast. In Ontario, the IESO requires that any new p...
AI summary The document discusses the importance of creating a participation forecast to determine the impact of a measure on the total savings target and budget. It references Ontario's IESO requirement for a formal business case submission process, including a program participation forecast.
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.
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.
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.
r>rpo se s. re w wa s n en ou g o c orr ec e r ev e c ns w as Ma ste r T ke rac r ide nti fie d i Th for the is let ed in ch th. A lon ith th ss ue s. ere e, re co mp ea m on g w e lcu lat ion vie ca re w ten tia l fo nid tifi ed s i n t h...
AI summary The text discusses issues related to the calculation and identification of errors in program assessments, including the need for timely identification of program-related issues and the importance of addressing errors in calculations to ensure accuracy and proper program management.
W klo ad In the 20 24 E loy E t R rch R ort or : mp ee ng ag em en es ea ep • , fie fo rkl d i s i de nti d a s t he urt h m t c riti l w ork lac wo oa os ca p e c on ce rn. W ork loa d h be lin ke d t t o f m l ta sk tly be ing as en o a...
AI summary The text discusses workload and employee engagement issues, identifying critical workloads and concerns related to employee capacity and participation. It notes that 78% of tasks are being assigned to employees, impacting their ability to participate in programs and initiatives. It also touches on policy implementation and flexibility.