Topic:"Program Requirements" in M12780

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.

Table 1 Update on Implementation of 2022-2023 Evaluation Recommendations Year Evaluation/ Verification Recommendation Text Source Status Comments Expected Period of Completion 2024 Evaluation E1 should update the Custom New Construction lo...

AI summary The document outlines the progress on implementing recommendations from the 2022-2023 evaluation of the Custom New Construction program. E1 agrees with the recommendation to update the logic model and theory of change, with planned completion by March 31, 2026.

- › Residential DR offers a comprehensive mix of eligible device types compared to other jurisdictions. All reviewed programs offer smart thermostats, with five out of nine jurisdictions offering EV chargers, home batteries, and hot water...

AI summary Residential DR in Nova Scotia offers more device types than other jurisdictions, with positive service provider relationships and program updates based on lessons learned. However, program documentation lags behind changes, and slower growth is expected due to challenges in demonstrating demand response value.

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.

A. Identifying Key Decision-makers - A1. Did you play a key role in your organization's financial decision to implement the energy efficiency project? - 1. Yes - 2. No - 98. Don't know - 99. Refused - A2. [IF A1=YES OR DK/REFUSE] Please de...

AI summary The text outlines a survey section aimed at identifying key decision-makers in energy efficiency projects. It asks respondents about their role in financial decisions, with follow-up questions for those who answered 'yes' or 'no,' including requesting contact information for alternative decision-makers.

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.

1.1 SBES Description SBES offers incentives and resources to Nova Scotia small businesses to encourage them to implement energy efficient upgrades in their facilities. To be eligible, businesses must annually consume less than 600,000 kWh...

AI summary SBES provides energy efficiency incentives and on-bill financing to Nova Scotia small businesses consuming under 600,000 kWh annually. It offers two participation paths: Audit (no-cost energy audit) and DIY (self-identified measures). Rebates depend on technology factors, with a 2025 target of 12.616 GWh energy savings and 2.621 MW peak demand reduction. The CDI Pilot was discontinued in 2025.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

2.3. Eligible Energy Modelers Energy models must be submitted by a consultant who: - Is on the list of Approved Energy Modelers; or - Has been approved by ENS for a one-time submission (must be approved prior to submitting an energy model)...

AI summary Energy models must be submitted by consultants on ENS's Approved Energy Modelers list or through a one-time approval process. Consultants seeking inclusion or single-project approval must apply via an Experienced Energy Modeler Application and be approved by ENS NC personnel.

3. Program Application - Prior to commencing modeling, Energy modeler submits the Energy Modeling Incentive Application on behalf of the project - The application must be signed by both the consultant and Customer (or Customer's representa...

AI summary The process requires an Energy Modeling Incentive Application submitted by the energy modeler, signed by both the consultant and customer or their representative. Upon approval, the project is registered in the NC program, enabling modeling to proceed. This ensures proper authorization and program compliance.

6.8. Solar PV Model Requirements Electrical energy savings achieved through a solar PV system will be added to a project's total electrical savings. Models of PV energy production must be submitted in one of the following: - 1. PV Watts -...

AI summary The document outlines requirements for solar PV model submissions, specifying that models must use PV Watts, RETScreen, or Helioscope. Models must account for site-specific factors like shading and component efficiencies as per design specifications.

- Publicize a version of the ISP document. Setting incentives for EE and DSM programs can sometimes seem like an opaque process from an external perspective. Interested third parties and stakeholders may not have an understanding of how E1...

AI summary The text recommends that E1 publicize its Incentive Setting Process (ISP) document to increase transparency, integrate a prioritization framework from Massachusetts for reviewing measure assumptions, and develop program logic models to better define program goals and outcomes. These actions aim to improve stakeholder understanding and program effectiveness.

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.

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.

) Please confirm that Strategic Energy Management is not included in the "Custom" Table 18 36. If not confirmed, please explain why it is separated in the Exhibit E-1-(ii) tables. 1 4 13 16 (f) Please explain the decrease in Strategic Ener...

AI summary The response addresses questions about the exclusion of Strategic Energy Management from a table, the decrease in participation, and the breakdown of incentive levels for custom programs. It explains that the table reflects a proposed plan and that changes in cost categorization, not program structure, caused the exclusion and participation decrease.

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.

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 can set the stage for incentive adjustments in order to properly balance the incentive rate vs. the identified market barriers and the requirements to adequately deliver the...

AI summary The text discusses the importance of setting appropriate incentive rates to balance program goals and market barriers, while considering the impact on program budgets. It highlights the need for financial forecasting and identifying budget constraints that may hinder program delivery.

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.

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.

For the Instant Savings Program, CLEAResult has the following recommendations: General Principle Current Activities Recommended Activities Understand Financial Impacts For Instant Savings, EfficiencyOne gains an understanding of financial...

AI summary CLEAResult recommends continuing current activities for the Instant Savings Program, including program evaluation, planning, and financial analysis. They also suggest implementing general principles to support the program, particularly regarding incentive level changes and the introduction of new measures.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Table 17: Update on Board Directives Relating to the 2027-2031 Plan Board Directives E1 Update • While the Board leaves it open to E1 to propose another approach for addressing strategic electrification, in the absence of an acceptable app...

AI summary The Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) has directed E1 to follow the recommendation of Mr. Patrick Bowman, a consultant for the Industrial Group, to assess strategic electrification using the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test. E1 has applied a modified PAC test in Round 2 results but notes that strategic electrification has not met the requirement of reducing electricity costs for customers.

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

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

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.

Standardized Filing Framework ii. EfficiencyOne E1 is deemed to be in substantial compliance with the UARB NSEBapproved Plan Performance Targets if 90 percent or greater achievement is reached on each of the Performance Targets. If less th...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) is considered substantially compliant with the NSEB-approved Plan Performance Targets if it achieves 90% or more on each target. If it falls below 90%, a regulatory process will be initiated, with the NSEB deciding the appropriate action.

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.

(c) Upfront Demand Response (DR) costs are levelized over ten years to ensure a consistent and accurate representation of cost-effectiveness within the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) framework. This approach aligns costs with the timing...

AI summary Upfront Demand Response (DR) costs are spread over ten years within the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) framework to ensure accurate cost-effectiveness evaluation. This method aligns costs with benefit timing, reflects typical program durations, and improves result comparability, as recommended by Guidehouse.

Improves comparability and clarity of results For the 2023–2025 DSM Plan and 2026 DSM Extension, Guidehouse applied a 10-year cost effectiveness framework to reflect the full expected duration of DR programs and capture all associated cost...

AI summary Guidehouse applied a 10-year cost effectiveness framework for the 2023–2025 DSM Plan and 2026 DSM Extension, but this approach introduced challenges such as reliance on long-term assumptions and post-modeling adjustments. Levelizing upfront costs over ten years improves comparability and clarity of benefit-cost ratios for DR programs within the PAC test.

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.

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.

(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.

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.

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.

Why or why not? Please confirm multiplier interpretation. 158 CA IR-2(a) 209 210 211 "… the programs should continue to be developed for at least five to seven years to see if both participation levels and demand response results can be me...

AI summary The text presents questions regarding the evaluation of demand response programs, focusing on milestones for practical significance and when to re-examine programs that are persistently below their capacity targets.

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.

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.

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.

1 DSM delivery, or other extraordinary events materially impacting plan feasibility 2 or ratepayer value."78 E1 does not mention the addition of programs or 3 termination of programs as a trigger for an MCA. E1 intends for MCAs to be 4 inf...

AI summary E1 does not propose specific performance thresholds or triggers for mid-cycle adjustments (MCAs) in the 2027-2031 DSM Plan. MCAs are intended as informational, year-only adjustments to program-level budgets and savings, not tied to performance targets. If E1 files an MCA, it will be proposed in the Q1 Report filed on May 25th.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

- (b) A cost-effectiveness test (CET) score of 0.7 for Strategic Electrification shows that the resource by itself does not reduce electricity costs. However, I expect that the Round 2 portfolio as a whole (including EE, DR, PV, and SE) wo...

AI summary The text discusses the cost-effectiveness of Strategic Electrification (SE) as part of a broader portfolio of demand-side management (DSM) resources. While SE alone has a CET score of 0.7 and does not reduce electricity costs, the Round 2 portfolio as a whole, including EE, DR, PV, and SE, is expected to reduce costs. The Board is asked to consider assessing resources at the portfolio level, and E1 is encouraged to provide justification for including non-cost-effective components.

- 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.

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.

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.

- 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.

Undertaking U-10: - To provide an update to the PAC scores to include program administration costs related to - Smart Thermostats in response to Solar Nova Scotia IR-1, Table 1 of Exhibit E-15. Response U-10: Table 1 of this Undertaking pr...

AI summary This response to Undertaking U-10 discusses an update to the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) scores by removing smart thermostat-related administrative costs. The calculation was manually performed by EfficiencyOne using data from the Preferred DSM Plan but excluding smart thermostats.

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.

on page 80 of Appendix A – Preferred Plan which states, "Overview: Provides incentives to 1 customers to shift or curtail loads during peak events when there is value to the utility (Eco Shift 23 constrained area once NS Power files its DE...

AI summary The text references the Preferred Plan's Overview, which includes incentives for customers to shift or curtail loads during peak events. It also raises questions about the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) for 2028 and requests additional tables and analysis related to constrained areas and avoided costs. There is also a mention of E1's proposed solar-PV program focusing on equity for Mi'kmaw communities.

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 (c) What would constitute an extraordinary event or material impact to plan feasibility 2 or ratepayer value? 3 4 (i) How will Plan feasibility and ratepayer value be evaluated over the course of 5 the Plan period? 6 7 R...

AI summary The text outlines several requests related to evaluating plan feasibility, ratepayer value, and the governance of energy efficiency programs. It includes questions about E1's internal review processes for DSM measures, heat pump cleaning as an energy efficiency measure, and the governance structure for the Innovation Framework.

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.

______________ 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.