E-1Notice of Application and Evidence
10 passages
EfficiencyOne IN THE MATTER OF The Public Utilities Act, RSNS 1989, c 380, as amended - and – IN THE MATTER OF An Application by EfficiencyOne for Approval of a New Benefit-Cost Analysis Test for Evaluating Demand Side Management (DSM) Pla...
AI summary EfficiencyOne seeks approval from the Nova Scotia Energy Board to implement a new benefit-cost analysis test for evaluating Demand Side Management (DSM) Plans. The application follows the extension of the 2023-2026 DSM Plan through legislative amendment, with EfficiencyOne holding the Efficiency Nova Scotia Franchise under the Public Utilities Act.
herefore, directs E1 to work with the DSMAG before the 2026-2028 DSM Plan application to assess and develop an optimal DSM cost-effectiveness testing methodology. 11. In accordance with the Board’s direction, E1 worked with the DSMAG to re...
AI summary The document outlines E1's collaboration with the DSMAG to develop a new benefit-cost analysis (BCA) test for Nova Scotia's DSM Plan, including workshops and legislative changes. A 2022 PUA amendment shifted cost-effectiveness testing from program to portfolio level, impacting the BCA's application.
screening test used by E1 is the total resource cost 23 test (“TRC”). The Energy Board, in turn, uses the TRC to inform its assessment of the cost-effectiveness of 24 E1’s DSM Plan, in accordance with the Public Utilities Act. 4 25 26 In i...
AI summary The document discusses EfficiencyOne's (E1) use of the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test to assess demand-side management (DSM) plans under the Public Utilities Act. The Energy Board evaluates E1's DSM Plan using TRC, while the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB) directed E1 to develop an optimal cost-effectiveness test, leading to hiring Energy Futures Group (EFG) for analysis.
mscribed by the wording of the 24 legislation to be limited to whether DSM activities are affordable and result in the lowest long-term 25 electricity costs for ratepayers: 14 26 27 [47] The Board finds that “cost-effective” means consider...
AI summary The text discusses the interpretation of the Public Utilities Act (PUA) in 2020 regarding the definition of 'cost-effective' in the context of EfficiencyOne's demand-side management (DSM) activities. It states that 'cost-effective' involves assessing whether DSM activities are affordable and result in the lowest long-term electricity costs for ratepayers.
G in accordance with the NSUARB’s directive as noted above. In 14 addition to the EFG Report, sections 7 to 13 herein describe how the proposed new BCA test was assessed 15 and developed by E1. 16 17 6. CHANGES TO NOVA SCOTIA POLICY OBJECT...
AI summary The document discusses changes to the Public Utilities Act in Nova Scotia, specifically the amendment replacing the definition of 'electricity efficiency and conservation activities' with 'demand-side management'. This change impacts the NSUARB's jurisdiction over non-energy impacts.
1 6.2 CHANGES UNDER ENERGY REFORM ACT 2 The Energy Reform (2024) Act, SNS 2024, c 2, (“Energy Reform Act”) which was passed in early April 2024, 3 establishes two new statutes: 4 5 • The Energy and Regulatory Boards Act 6 • The More Access...
AI summary The Energy Reform (2024) Act introduces two new statutes, the Energy and Regulatory Boards Act and the More Access to Energy Act, and amends existing energy-related statutes such as the Electricity Act, Gas Distribution Act, and the Public Utilities Act. The Energy and Regulatory Boards Act expands the Energy Board's mandate to consider factors like competition, innovation, and sustainable development in regulatory decision-making.
ctrification programs, which can 27 be influenced by the commodity costs of displaced fuels 19 Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act, SNS 2021, c 20, section 7(b) DATE FILED: May 16, 2025 Page 16 of 38 EfficiencyOne Benefit-...
AI summary The text discusses the importance of including non-utility impacts, such as fuel savings and GHG emissions, in the cost-effectiveness analysis of strategic electrification programs under the BCA. The amendment to the PUA in 2022 expanded the definition of demand-side management to include strategic electrification.
est with 7 Legislative Framework 8 Q: What steps did EFG take to ensure the recommended Nova Scotia BCA test is aligned with and 9 reflects Nova Scotia policy and legislative priorities? 10 A: Conducting an inventory of Nova Scotia’s relev...
AI summary EFG ensured alignment of the Nova Scotia BCA test with policy and legislative priorities by reviewing relevant legislation, including the Public Utilities Act and Energy Reform Act. Amendments to the Energy and Regulatory Boards Act and More Access to Energy Act expanded the scope of impacts considered in regulatory decisions to include sustainable development and prosperity.
;JÿBA=Eÿ̀H<@@ÿ̀A;IÿCAB= ?E?MÿopEEÿpEF=<8;ÿzMmÿA;IÿlCCE;I<ÿlMtÿ_;ÿF8;I:F=<;Jÿk7l?ÿ̀=KEBEL8BEÿ̀@8?=ÿBENE;:E?ÿ?K8:@IÿHEÿ ÿFA;ÿHEÿCB8CEB@>ÿEF@:IEIÿLB89ÿk7l?ÿA;IÿCB8CEB@>ÿ<;F@:IEIÿ<;ÿBA=Eÿ̀H<@@ÿ̀A;Iÿ CAB= ?E?Mÿ _;ÿJE;EBA@ÿ̀?ENEBA@ÿ]E>ÿLAF=8B?...
AI summary The text discusses the Board of Commissioners and the Board of Fuel Costs in the context of a regulatory proceeding involving fuel cost adjustments and demand side management. It references a proceeding related to the Public Utilities Act and mentions cybersecurity and yield zone considerations.
Page 30 of 68 EfficiencyOne Benefit-Cost Analysis Test Application Appendix B energyfuturesgroup.com 31 and criteria air pollutants are supported by the ERA’s pending amendments to the Public Utilities Act. 2. Nova Scotia Public Utilities...
AI summary The text discusses the Nova Scotia Public Utilities Act, specifically the demand-side management (DSM) section, which supports electrification to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and electricity costs. It outlines the definition of DSM and the Board's role in determining cost-effective demand-side management programs.
E-9Evidence and Resume of Courtney Lane - Synapse
8 passages
1 be based on a review of literature, proxy values used by other jurisdictions, and 2 should consider differences between jurisdictions. 3 Q. What are your recommendations? 4 A. Based on my conclusions, I offer the following recommendation...
AI summary The text discusses the recommendation to approve the Nova Scotia Test for use in the 2027–2031 DSM Plan, including modifications to NEB proxy adders and a process for updating them in 2029. It also references the current TRC test and its implementation in Nova Scotia, based on the Public Utilities Act.
Q. Why is it appropriate for Nova Scotia to use the NSPM process? A. The NSPM provides a set of principles and steps to support jurisdictions with the review and modification of an existing cost-effectiveness test or the development of a n...
AI summary Nova Scotia uses the NSPM process to align with the Board's directive to review or develop cost-effectiveness tests. Recent policy changes, such as amendments to the Public Utilities Act expanding demand-side management, necessitate this approach. The NSPM provides structured principles for jurisdictions to evaluate cost-effectiveness, as referenced in Board Decision M10473.
Q. How will the Nova Scotia Test be used to determine cost-effectiveness? - A. As was done in the prior DSM Plans, E1 will conduct the BCA at the measure, program - component, program, resource, and portfolio (i.e., Plan) levels and will m...
AI summary The Nova Scotia Test will evaluate DSM Plans' cost-effectiveness at the portfolio (Plan) level, per the November 9, 2022, Public Utilities Act amendment. E1 will conduct BCA analyses at multiple levels, but the Board's evaluation focus has shifted from program to portfolio level.
Q. How does the proposed Nova Scotia Test compare to the TRC? - A. [Table 2](#page-16-0) below provides a comparison between the proposed Nova Scotia Test and the - TRC test as most recently applied in the 2023–2025 DSM Plan. Response to N...
AI summary The proposed Nova Scotia Test is compared to the TRC test in Table 2, referencing the 2023–2025 DSM Plan. The response cites the amended Public Utilities Act (SNS 2022, c 53) and references NSEB IR-01 and IR-07(c).
- 5 exercise. 6 Table 3. Justification for Inclusion of Non-Utility System Impacts in Nova Scotia Test Non-Utility System Impact Relevant Policy Other Fuels • Environmental and Climate Change Reduction Act • Nova Scotia's Climate Plan for...
AI summary The text outlines the justification for including non-utility system impacts in the Nova Scotia Test, referencing various policies and acts such as the Environmental and Climate Change Reduction Act and Nova Scotia's Climate Plan for Clean Growth. It also cites a source related to a regulatory proceeding.
9 In addition to the policies identified above, recent amendments to the Public Utilities Act , 10 defines "demand-side management" to include strategic electrification of energy end uses 11 currently powered by fossil fuels in a manner th...
AI summary The text discusses the proposed update to the Nova Scotia Test, emphasizing the need for an 'evergreen' review process to ensure it reflects current data and policy objectives. It also highlights limitations of the current TRC test, including the exclusion of host customer impacts and failure to account for recent legislative changes such as the 2022 amendments to the Public Utilities Act.
Q. Should the Nova Scotia Test include other fuels? A. Yes. There are several policies and energy goals that support the inclusion of other fuels, such as natural gas, fuel oil, propane, and gasoline and diesel for electric vehicles, in th...
AI summary The Nova Scotia Test should include other fuels like natural gas and propane to align with climate policies and electrification goals. The Climate Change Plan for Clean Growth and amended Public Utilities Act support this, emphasizing reduced heating oil use and strategic electrification. The Energy Reform Act and related legislation also expand regulatory considerations to include sustainable development and host customer impacts.
Q. Did the DSMAG previously investigate NEBs? - A. Yes. As part of the Settlement Agreement in the 2016–2018 DSM Plan, the parties to the settlement agreed to work with the DSMAG "to pursue the nature and quantification of estimates associ...
AI summary The DSMAG investigated non-energy benefits (NEBs) as part of the 2016–2018 DSM Plan, with E1 retaining VEIC to develop NEB values. In 2020, the Board ruled it lacked jurisdiction to consider NEBs in cost-effectiveness testing under the Public Utilities Act.
100256Board Decision
29 passages
IN THE MATTER OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT - and - IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION by EFFICIENCYONE for approval of a New Benefit-Cost Analysis Test for Evaluating Demand Side Management Plans BEFORE: Stephen T. McGrath, K.C., Chair Steven...
AI summary EfficiencyOne applied for approval of a new benefit-cost analysis test for demand side management plans. The Board rejected the application, directing instead to focus on reducing electricity costs for customers. Multiple intervenors, including consumer advocates, industry groups, and Nova Scotia Power, participated in the proceeding.
- [4] In response to this evidence, E1 submitted that a broad review of costeffectiveness testing methodologies may be appropriate given recent legislative changes, and the advancement in demand response and electrification initiatives. E1...
AI summary E1 proposes a jurisdiction-specific cost-effectiveness test for DSM, citing legislative changes and advancements in demand response. The NSUARB found E1's approach reasonable, but the Board argues the test may conflict with the PUA's requirement to reduce electricity costs. E1 claims legislative updates allow broader consideration of non-energy benefits and sustainability.
2.0 PROPOSED BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS TEST - [8] E1 is the holder of a franchise issued by the Minister of Energy to provide demand-side management activities to NS Power. Under the Public Utilities Act , E1 must develop a demand-side managem...
AI summary E1, a franchise holder under the Public Utilities Act, must develop demand-side management (DSM) plans for NS Power, subject to Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board approval. The DSM framework uses a tiered structure (measure, program, portfolio levels) and cost-effectiveness testing to evaluate plans, ensuring measurable benefits for ratepayers.
3.1 Consumer Advocate [28] The Consumer Advocate is a signatory to the Consensus Agreement. The Consumer Advocate argues that recent amendments to the Public Utilities Act altered the criteria the Board is to apply in evaluating E1's propo...
AI summary The Consumer Advocate argues that amendments to the Public Utilities Act require the NSUARB to evaluate demand-side management at the portfolio level, incorporating sustainability and environmental factors. They support E1's BCA test over the PAC test, citing its alignment with policy goals like sustainable development and greenhouse gas reduction. The 2% social discount rate is preferred for long-term impacts, and the 10% proxy value for beneficial electrification is maintained.
3.2 Industrial Group [34] The Industrial Group is not a party to the Consensus Agreement. It objects to the use of the proposed BCA test as the new primary cost-effectiveness test. It recommends the Board approve the PAC test as the primar...
AI summary The Industrial Group opposes using the BCA test for DSM Plan applications, advocating instead for the PAC test at portfolio, program, and measure levels. They argue the Board should exclude non-energy impacts like carbon social effects. The group also highlights changes to the Public Utilities Act that expanded DSM to include strategic electrification, emphasizing cost reduction as the Act's focus.
3.4 Nova Scotia Power [48] NS Power does not support E1's proposed BCA test and recommends the Board approve the current TRC with two modifications which would consider, in the context of strategic electrification, GHG emissions reductions...
AI summary Nova Scotia Power opposes E1's proposed BCA test, advocating for TRC modifications to include GHG emissions reductions (net tonnage) and electricity cost reductions. It emphasizes that the Public Utilities Act mandates strategic electrification to reduce emissions and costs, arguing that the Board's core mandate is ensuring just and reasonable rates, not broader social considerations.
3.6 Eastward Energy [61] In its submissions, Eastward Energy asked the Board to make a preliminary and final order that Eastward be added as a full member of DSMAG. On November 4, 2025, the Board noted that Eastward has a valuable perspect...
AI summary Eastward Energy requested DSMAG membership, which the NSUARB approved. They supported strategic electrification testing methods aligning with Posterity Group's recommendations and advocated for hybrid heating in E1's 2027-2031 DSM Plan, emphasizing economic benefits and regulatory alignment with the PUA.
4.1 Demand-side Management Legislation and Policies in Nova Scotia
AI summary The section discusses Nova Scotia's demand-side management (DSM) legislation and policies, highlighting key entities like the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB) and Nova Scotia Power (NS Power). It references acronyms such as TRC, PAC, and BCA, and mentions the role of programs like DSMAG and the National Standard Practice Manual (NSPM).
4.1.1 Introduction [69] The Public Utilities Act requires NS Power to engage E1 to undertake "costeffective demand-side management". The Board must approve these agreements and "determine the cost-effective demand-side management that must...
AI summary The NSUARB must determine the cost-effectiveness test for demand-side management under the Public Utilities Act. E1 argues the Board now has jurisdiction to consider non-energy impacts, while some intervenors disagree. Legislative amendments since 2020, including the Energy Reform (2024) Act, expanded the Energy Board's consideration scope. The Board will assess statutory interpretation and the meaning of 'cost-effective' in DSM provisions.
n the present tense, it shall be applied to the circumstances as they arise, so that effect may be given to each enactment, and every part thereof, according to its spirit, true intent, and meaning … - (5) Every enactment shall be deemed r...
AI summary The text outlines principles for statutory interpretation under the Public Utilities Act (PUA), emphasizing consideration of legislative context, purpose, and remedial intent. The NSUARB must evaluate the cost-effectiveness of demand-side management (DSM) by analyzing the text, context, and purpose of relevant statutory provisions.
fed by assessments against electric public utilities. The NSUARB had to approve expenditures from the fund for electricity demand-side management. This statute was proclaimed in force in January 2010. - [79] In 2014, the Province enacted t...
AI summary The NSUARB approved DSM expenditures under the Public Utilities Act (PUA), amended by the 2014 Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Restructuring Act. Subsection 79I of the PUA mandates NS Power to enter a five-year purchase agreement with E1 (franchise holder) for cost-effective demand-side management to reduce customer costs.
4.1.4 The 2020 Non-energy Benefits Decision - [83] The NSUARB determined it did not have the jurisdiction to consider nonenergy benefits in the cost-effectiveness testing for demand-side management in Re EfficiencyOne , 2020 NSUARB 56. In...
AI summary The NSUARB ruled it lacked jurisdiction to consider non-energy benefits in DSM cost-effectiveness testing in Re EfficiencyOne , 2020 NSUARB 56. E1 argued that the Public Utilities Act grants the NSUARB broad discretion to assess factors like thermal comfort and property value impacts as part of customers' best interests, beyond mere electricity savings.
4.1.5 Statutory Changes [86] In the present case, E1 notes there have been significant statutory changes since the NSUARB's decision in 2020. E1 argues that changes to the Public Utilities Act and s. 6(2) of the Energy and Regulatory Board...
AI summary E1 highlights statutory changes to the Public Utilities Act and Energy and Regulatory Boards Act since 2020, requiring the NSUARB to evaluate non-energy impacts of demand-side management. The new definition of 'demand-side management' includes strategic electrification, and affordability requirements were removed from legislation previously considered in the 2020 NSUARB decision.
4.1.6 The Meaning of "Cost-effective" under the Public Utilities Act [96] From the text used by the Legislature in s. 79I(1) of the Public Utilities Act , it follows that NS Power's statutory duty relates to demand-side management (as defi...
AI summary Section 79I of the Public Utilities Act mandates that NS Power's demand-side management (DSM) must be cost-effective and reasonably available, with the goal of reducing customer costs. The NSUARB must review DSM agreements, ensuring compliance with s. 79I and evaluating cost-effectiveness at the portfolio level. The Act does not explicitly define 'cost-effective,' leaving regulatory interpretation to the Board.
(2) A franchise (a) gives the franchise holder the exclusive right to supply Nova Scotia Power Incorporated with reasonably available, cost-effective demand-side management for the purpose of this Act; … - 79K (1) Nova Scotia Power Incorpo...
AI summary The franchise agreement outlines Nova Scotia Power Incorporated's (NSP) obligations to provide information for demand-side management (DSM) activities, emphasizing cost-effectiveness and availability. The IESO's role in integrated resource planning and avoided cost calculations is highlighted, with references to the Energy Reform Act 2024. E1 argues for broader benefit-cost analysis beyond utility impacts, while the NSUARB reinforces cost-effectiveness requirements.
The current version is: (iv) strategic electrification of energy end uses currently powered by fossil fuels in a manner that reduces overall greenhouse gas emissions and electricity costs [108] E1 submits that strategic electrification can...
AI summary E1 argues that strategic electrification, defined under the PUA amendment, requires expanding cost-effectiveness testing beyond traditional PAC/TRC frameworks to account for non-utility benefits like fuel savings and GHG reductions. E1 claims this is essential to fulfill its mandate under the updated DSM definition.
[124] Eastward expressed similar comments in its reply submissions: E1 has continued in its Closing Submissions to put considerable emphasis on the Board's requirement at section 6(2)(d) of the Energy and Regulatory Boards Act to give "app...
AI summary E1 emphasizes the Board's duty under the Energy and Regulatory Boards Act to consider sustainable development in DSM evaluations, while East Coast Environmental Law argues this does not override other considerations like affordable energy rates. NSPI notes E1's BCA is driven by sustainability, not overall legislative requirements. E1 also disputes the Industrial Group's interpretation of legislative changes.
4.1.6.1 Findings [128] Considering the text, context and purpose of the legislation, the Board finds that the purpose of the demand-side management provisions in the Public Utilities Act is to reduce electricity costs for customers. Demand...
AI summary The NSUARB finds that demand-side management under the PUA aims to reduce electricity costs for customers, primarily through NS Power's initiatives. Strategic electrification, now included in DSM definitions, must also reduce electricity costs. The removal of 'affordability' from legislative provisions suggests cost reduction (specifically electricity costs) remains the focus.
4.2 Benefit-Cost Test Alternatives [143] No party in this proceeding argued that the existing TRC test should be maintained in its present form. [144] As discussed in more detail previously, E1's proposed BCA test includes utility system a...
AI summary No party supports maintaining the existing TRC test. E1 proposes a BCA test incorporating utility and non-utility system impacts, aligning with Nova Scotia's legislative changes and sustainability goals. Table 5 compares the existing TRC and proposed BCA tests.
[146] In its closing submissions, the Industrial Group said: Where the PUA has clearly mandated the focus of DSM to be on the reduction of costs, the PAC is able to demonstrate that as a primary test; the Proposed BCA cannot. As confirmed...
AI summary The Industrial Group argues that the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test aligns with the PUA's mandate to reduce electricity costs, unlike the Proposed BCA. NS Power proposes a modified Total Resource Cost (TRC) test to account for fuel switching benefits, while E1 criticizes both approaches, claiming they fail to meet legislative requirements or address strategic electrification mandates. The debate centers on cost-effectiveness criteria for demand-side management.
4.2.1 Findings [151] E1 and its consultants purported to follow guidance in the NSPM in determining the proposed BCA test. However, a process that simply takes account of an inventory of energy and climate change policy goals and objective...
AI summary The NSUARB rejects E1's proposed BCA test for DSM cost-effectiveness, citing misalignment with the PUA's mandate to reduce electricity costs. The TRC test is criticized for asymmetrical application, while the PAC test is endorsed as it aligns with statutory goals. The Board directs E1 to use the PAC test for DSM plans starting in 2027.
4.3 Strategic Electrification [158] Strategic electrification that reduces overall GHG emissions and electricity costs is included in the definition of "demand-side management" in s. 79A(b)(iv) of the Public Utilities Act . The PAC test, a...
AI summary The document discusses challenges in applying the traditional PAC test to strategic electrification programs under the Public Utilities Act. Mr. Bowman proposes modifying the PAC test to include increased revenues from electrification as a benefit, ensuring cost-effective programs. The Industrial Group supports this approach, aligning with E1's mandate to reduce electricity costs for NSPI customers.
[160] Eastward made similar comments in its submissions: In this regard the IG has noted that the approach proposed by Mr. Bowman to costeffectiveness testing for E1 for strategic electrification – running the PAC test with the additional...
AI summary Eastward supports Mr. Bowman's modified PAC test for strategic electrification, aligning with Posterity Group's recommendations to ensure cost-effective programs. E1 argues the test assesses rate impacts, not cost-effectiveness, and has focused on GHG emissions rather than electricity cost reductions in its BCA.
4.3.1 Findings [162] The Board accepts the Industrial Group's suggestion that traditional cost effectiveness tests may be modified to suit specific jurisdictional requirements. The means of assessing strategic electrification in Nova Scoti...
AI summary The NSUARB accepts modifying traditional cost-effectiveness tests for strategic electrification in Nova Scotia. E1's approach to demonstrating cost reductions remains incomplete, so it must follow Mr. Bowman's PAC test recommendation temporarily. The Board allows E1 to propose an alternative method in its 2027-2031 DSM Plan if it meets statutory requirements for reducing both GHG emissions and electricity costs.
4.4 Portfolio Level Assessment [164] Section 79H(2) requires the Board to evaluate the proposed cost-effective demand-side management at the portfolio level. In its submissions, the Industrial Group urged that it was particularly important...
AI summary Section 79H(2) of the PUA mandates the NSUARB to assess demand-side management at the portfolio level. The Industrial Group and NS Power argue for applying cost-effectiveness tests at portfolio, program, and measure levels, while E1 insists on portfolio-level screening.
e cost of capital. He suggested that the BCA could use two different discount rates, one for measures related to GHG emissions reductions where 2% is applied and WACC for all other costs and benefits. [186] E1 argued that in a BCA, the dis...
AI summary The document discusses the use of discount rates in Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) for Demand-Side Management (DSM) programs. E1 advocates for a 2% rate for GHG-related measures, while NS Power and others support WACC, arguing it better reflects affordability and investor risk. E1 counters that WACC conflicts with legislative requirements and overstates capital risk.
s. 7.1 about the discount rate to be used: The discount rate is the rate at which future costs and benefits are converted to their present equivalents. Discounting accounts for the fact that: - there is a time preference for current consum...
AI summary The NSUARB mandates using the opportunity cost of capital (WACC) as the discount rate for DSM programs, aligning with Treasury Board guidelines. This reflects the alternative investment returns of funds from NS Power ratepayers. The Board rejects social discount rates except for long-term regulatory proposals, emphasizing WACC's consistency with NS Power's IRP and PAC test requirements.
ill) The emissions rates that we have used for illustrative examples that were included in the BCA Application were based on information from Nova Scotia Power and represented average emissions rates. Q. Okay. A. (Neme) But may I add that...
AI summary E1 used average emissions rates in illustrative examples for its BCA Application, acknowledging that long-run marginal rates are ideal but not yet finalized. The DICE method in prior submissions also relied on average rates. E1 plans to refine assumptions for its DSM Plan, including emission rates, in the coming months.
5.0 SUMMARY OF BOARD FINDINGS [217] The Board finds it does not have the authority to approve E1's proposed BCA because the Public Utilities Act restricts the Board's ability to consider non-energy and societal benefits in assessing the co...
AI summary The Board cannot approve E1's proposed BCA due to Public Utilities Act restrictions on non-energy benefits. E1 must use PAC test and NS Power's WACC for DSM plan assessments. Strategic electrification must meet GHG and cost reduction criteria. Eastward is added to DSMAG. Portfolio-level evaluation allows overall cost-effective DSM plans despite individual measure failures.
99638Closing Submission - E1
13 passages
EfficiencyOne IN THE MATTER OF The Public Utilities Act , RSNS 1989, c. 380, as amended -and- IN THE MATTER OF An Application for Approval of a New Benefit-Cost Analysis Test for Evaluating Demand Side Management Plans
AI summary The document pertains to an application under the Public Utilities Act for approval of a new benefit-cost analysis test to evaluate Demand Side Management Plans. The proceeding involves EfficiencyOne and focuses on regulatory approval for a methodological change in assessing demand-side management initiatives.
to apply the TRC test at the program level starting January 1, 2012. The approach was reconfirmed by the Board in its 2022 decision relating to the E1 2023-2025 DSM Plan Application: [3](#page-3-2) M03669, NSUARB Decision, Efficiency Nova...
AI summary The document discusses the application of the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test at the program level for DSM plans, reaffirmed by the NSUARB in 2022 (M10437). It argues that measure-level TRC testing is restrictive, potentially preventing proactive consideration of market developments and denying equitable access to DSM services. The 2022 legislative amendment under the Public Utilities Act shifted evaluation to the portfolio level.
3.1 OVERVIEW OF RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS E1 is the franchise holder, granted the exclusive right to supply Nova Scotia Power Incorporated (NS Power) with reasonably available, cost-effective DSM pursuant to section 79A and following o...
AI summary This section outlines the statutory provisions relevant to demand-side management (DSM) in Nova Scotia, including the 2022 amendment to the Public Utilities Act and the 2024 Energy Reform Act . These amendments expanded E1's mandate and the Nova Scotia Energy Board's responsibilities to include sustainable development, climate goals, and the transition to an independent energy system operator.
(b) the franchise holder granted a franchise pursuant to Section 79C of the Public Utilities Act; […] Thereby, these Acts together provide the Energy Board with the authority and direction to consider sustainable development and sustainabl...
AI summary The document outlines the legal framework empowering the Nova Scotia Energy Board to integrate climate and sustainability considerations into its decisions on demand-side management (DSM). This authority is rooted in statutory provisions such as the Energy and Regulatory Boards Act and the More Access to Energy Act, ensuring regulatory decisions align with provincial climate action objectives.
s it then was) considered the matter of a deferral of DSM funds and whether such deferral would properly be included in the NS Power rate base. In its decision, the Board commented: [33](#page-18-1) The [Department of Energy] DOE raised th...
AI summary The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB) questioned the inclusion of deferred DSM funds in NS Power's rate base, citing a 7.78% financing cost versus available 3% bank rates. The Board emphasized that DSM, administered by EfficiencyOne (E1), is not a utility capital asset, undermining the use of NS Power's WACC for DSM evaluations. The DOE advocated deferring DSM costs during budget setting, while the Board directed E1 to explore cheaper financing options under the PUA.
4.4 EVERGREEN PROCESS - E1's proposed evergreen process represents a foundational commitment to maintaining the integrity, - relevance, and adaptability of its Proposed BCA framework. This process ensures that the BCA test remains - aligne...
AI summary E1's evergreen process ensures the BCA framework remains aligned with evolving legislation, policy, and market conditions in Nova Scotia. It involves periodic reviews, stakeholder engagement, and collaboration with DSMAG to quantify non-energy impacts. E1 claims no opposition to the process.
5. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE AND HEARING RECORD Cost-effectiveness testing is not new in Nova Scotia. Section 79H(1) of the Public Utilities Act requires that the Board "determine the cost-effective demand-side management that must be undertaken...
AI summary The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board is evaluating the replacement of the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test with a Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) for demand-side management (DSM) cost-effectiveness. Critics, including EfficiencyOne and the Consumer Advocate, argue the TRC test is asymmetrical and fails to incorporate new legislative priorities like sustainable development. E1 proposes the BCA test as a more comprehensive alternative.
6.1 INTRODUCTION - It is E1's position that the Proposed BCA satisfies the legislative requirements for cost-effectiveness testing, - including new or amended legislative requirements. More specifically, E1 submits that the Proposed BCA -...
AI summary E1 argues that their proposed BCA meets legislative requirements for cost-effectiveness testing, including portfolio-level DSM assessment and sustainable development considerations. They also claim Mr. Bowman's approach fails to satisfy statutory requirements.
6.3.1 E1'S PROPOSED BCA In addressing this matter, it is appropriate to apply the rules of statutory interpretation and consider the relevant provisions "in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with...
AI summary E1's proposed BCA under the Public Utilities Act outlines statutory obligations for the NSUARB to evaluate DSM initiatives at the portfolio level. The Act requires NS Power to enter DSM purchase agreements with E1, which must be approved by the Board. The evaluation of cost-effectiveness is distinct from high-level portfolio assessments.
ate in the circumstances, whereas I see you coming at it from the other perspective where your focus is on a much narrower net that casts a narrower range of options, but also using secondary tests or M12282, E-14, Evidence of Patrick Bowm...
AI summary E1 challenges the IG's proposed approach, arguing it misaligns with statutory requirements for cost-effective DSM evaluation at the portfolio level, not measure/program levels. The IG emphasizes utility-focused policy objectives, while E1 advocates for broader policy considerations. Legal references to subsection 79H(2) of the PUA are cited.
6.4.2 IG'S PROPOSED APPROACH E1 notes that Mr. Bowman's proposed cost-effectiveness test is insufficient to address E1's legislated DSM mandate, in particular its expanded strategic electrification mandate. Mr. Bowman's proposal is to use...
AI summary E1 argues that the PAC test is insufficient for evaluating strategic electrification under its DSM mandate, as it only considers costs. E1 proposes the BCA as a more effective primary test, citing flaws in the PAC approach and complexity from using multiple tests. Experts like Dr. Hill (EFG) and Mr. Neme support this, emphasizing legislative requirements for electrification.
Public Utilities Act , RSNS 1989, c 380, s 79L(5). 1 (a) support competition and innovation in the provision of energy resources 25 (a) increase competition and innovation in the Province's energy sector; 26 (b) ensure the provision of a s...
AI summary The document outlines the objectives of the Public Utilities Act, emphasizing the promotion of competition and innovation in energy provision, ensuring reliable and economical energy supply, and supporting sustainable development and greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals as defined by the Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act.
9 7. REQUESTED BOARD ORDER - Based the evidence and analysis before the Board in this matter, including as set out in this Closing - Submission, E1 respectfully requests the Board approve the Proposed BCA as supplemented by the PCA, - spec...
AI summary E1 requests the NSUARB to approve the Proposed BCA with PCA modifications, including a 2% discount rate and evergreen process. It aligns with PUA, supports decarbonization goals, and reflects stakeholder input via DSMAG. The BCA is deemed evidence-based, consistent with legislation, and in the public interest.
99640Closing Submission - IG
11 passages
Delivered by E-mail Crystal Henwood Regulatory Affairs Officer/Clerk Nova Scotia Energy Board 3rd Floor, 1601 Lower Water Street PO Box 1692, Unit "M" Halifax NS B3J 3S3 Dear Ms. Henwood: Re: M12282 - E1- New Benefit Cost Analysis Test for...
AI summary Efficiency One (E1) proposes a new benefit-cost analysis (BCA) test for demand-side management (DSM) plans, incorporating non-energy impacts like social cost of carbon. The Industrial Group opposes this, arguing the Board should not consider non-energy benefits and instead adopt a Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test. The proceeding addresses whether the Board can/should use the Proposed BCA under the Public Utilities Act.
Background and Principles of Statutory Interpretation This application arose out of the Board's direction to undertake a "thorough assessment of the relative merits of both the PAC test and a jurisdiction-specific test,["](#page-1-0) 2 as...
AI summary The Board directed an assessment of PAC test vs. jurisdiction-specific test for DSM. E1 engaged EFG and DSMAG, but omitted comparative analysis with PAC. Province amended PUA, and E1 argues these changes expanded the Board's jurisdiction over DSM, contrary to prior rulings limiting non-energy impact considerations.
Applicable Legislative Provisions for Cost Effectiveness Testing The issue before the Board now, is what costs and what benefits should be weighed when evaluating DSM. Energy efficiency and conservation activities are contained within thei...
AI summary The Board considers legislative provisions under the PUA governing DSM cost-effectiveness testing. NSPI and E1 have statutory obligations under ss 79A-79W of the PUA , with E1 serving as NSPI's franchisee for energy efficiency. The PUA mandates NSPI to contract with E1 for DSM activities, emphasizing alignment with regulatory objectives.
Prior Interpretation of the Board's Jurisdiction Up until this application, the predecessor Board made clear that it did "not have the jurisdiction to take into account non-energy impacts in cost-effectiveness testing" in relation to DSM.[...
AI summary The Board clarified its jurisdiction excludes non-energy impacts in DSM cost-effectiveness testing, focusing solely on energy-based costs and benefits. EfficiencyOne argued for broader environmental considerations under the PUA, but the Board rejected this, citing statutory definitions. The Board emphasized 'cost-effective' means evaluating electricity efficiency activities for affordability and long-term cost reduction, acknowledging limited environmental benefits.
The Board Still Cannot Account for Non-energy Benefits The Industrial Group recognizes that certain recent legislative amendments may impact the ongoing interpretation of the PUA provisions. However, the additional factors provide guidance...
AI summary The Industrial Group acknowledges recent legislative changes but argues they don't alter the PUA's focus on reducing electricity costs. E1's environmental goals must align with PUA provisions, not override them. The Board must adhere to statutory mandates, and non-energy benefits aren't within the legislative framework for cost-effectiveness evaluation.
Negative implications of Broad interpretation When interpreting the PUA, this Board should recall Sullivan's third question: what are the consequences of adopting a proposed interpretation? Approving a broad ranging costeffectiveness test...
AI summary The document warns that a broad interpretation of the PUA's cost-effectiveness testing could undermine existing practices, expand E1's mandate beyond legislative intent, and misapply the social cost of carbon (SC-GHG) as a ratepayer tool. It emphasizes that SC-GHG, derived from federal guidelines, is intended for legislative cost-benefit analyses, not utility rate-making.
Host Customer Non-Energy Benefits The proposed BCA test suggests that the Board should weigh a number of unquantifiable proposed benefits, including customer pride, empowerment, economic well-being, comfort, amenity, and health and safety....
AI summary The proposed BCA test includes subjective non-energy benefits like customer pride and health, valued via proxy percentages of energy benefits. Critics argue these are vague and unsupported, conflicting with PUA's DSM definition. E1 clarified non-energy impacts, but the Industrial Group opposes proxy adders for intangible benefits. Synapse's consultant Courtney Lane raised concerns about proxy value arbitrariness.
Broad Societal Impacts E1 also proposes to include broad societal impacts within its cost-effectiveness testing. This goes well beyond the approach taken by any other Canadian jurisdiction. The global cost of carbon as a percentage of the...
AI summary E1 proposes including global carbon costs in its BCA for energy efficiency programs, a unique approach in Canada. Critics argue this is inappropriate as Nova Scotia does not tax carbon, and the PUA mandates cost reduction, not broad societal impacts. The Industrial Group opposes integrating societal impacts into DSM cost-effectiveness tests.
Inconsistency across DERs The Industrial Group takes no issue with the use of the National Standard Practice Manual (" NSPM ") for Distributed Energy Resources (" DERs" ) as a guiding framework in formulating an appropriate cost-effectiven...
AI summary The Industrial Group supports using the NSPM for DERs but highlights inconsistent application of its principles. Concerns include E1's proposed 2% discount rate, which is deemed too low and not aligned with standard practices. The need for non-green energy investments to meet net-zero goals is acknowledged, but the BCA's consistency across NSPI and IESO remains unexplored. The Industrial Group disputes the discount rate's justification and cites legislative gaps.
Evidence of Patrick Bowman The Industrial Group relies on the evidence filed by Mr. Bowman, and his oral evidence at the hearing, and specifically supports his recommendation to use the PAC as the primary costeffectiveness test. This appro...
AI summary The Industrial Group supports Patrick Bowman's recommendation to use PAC as the primary cost-effectiveness test for DSM programs, aligning E1 with Canadian utilities and PUA goals of reducing electricity costs. Bowman notes PAC's widespread use across Canada and its alignment with customer interests.
Modified PAC test for Electrification The PAC need not be rigid or "ruthlessly applied".[73](#page-19-0) It can be applied or modified as needed, like a jurisdictional test. As suggested by Mr. Bowman, this can be done with respect to stra...
AI summary The document discusses modifying the PAC test for electrification, proposing inclusion of increased revenues from electrification to better assess system costs. Mr. Bowman's approach aligns with Posterity Group's hybrid heating recommendations, reducing utility costs and passing PAC tests. This aligns with the PUA and E1's mandate to lower electricity costs for NSPI customers.
99643Closing Submission - NSPI
6 passages
INTRODUCTION NS Power acknowledges the significant effort and collaboration that took place through the Demand Side Management Advisory Group (DSMAG) process to arrive at the proposal now before the Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB, Board) f...
AI summary NS Power submits a proposal for a new Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) Test, emphasizing cost-effective demand-side management (DSM) under section 79I of the Public Utilities Act. The submission outlines NS Power's and EfficiencyOne's (E1) positions, legal review, and recommendations to the Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB). The focus is on affordability and cost reduction obligations.
EFFICIENCYONE'S PROPOSAL E1's DSM Plan is currently subject to the application of the Total Resource Cost ("TRC") Test, as the M03669 Board approved cost effectiveness test applied at the program level. The TRC Test compares benefits and c...
AI summary EfficiencyOne's DSM Plan uses the modified TRC Test post-M10473, which considers host costs but not benefits, creating imbalance. E1 proposes a jurisdiction-specific BCA including non-energy benefits, aligning with societal impact perspectives. Legislative changes reflecting Nova Scotia's policy goals are highlighted as critical for the new BCA framework.
LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AND ANALYSIS Though there have been legislative changes in Nova Scotia, the Board's decision in M08888 issued April 15, 2020 holds. There, the Board found that it did not have the jurisdiction to consid...
AI summary The Nova Scotia Energy Board's 2020 decision (M08888) reaffirms its jurisdictional limits, emphasizing cost-effectiveness, safe service, and reasonable rates over non-energy benefits. Sections 79H and 79I of the PUA mandate NSP to implement cost-effective DSM programs, with cost-effectiveness defined to include E1's efficiency activities. Current legislation does not empower the Board to consider non-energy impacts except for greenhouse gas reduction through electrification.
The Energy and Regulatory Boards Act Bill 404 also created the Energy and Regulatory Boards Act which was proclaimed on April 5, 2025. Section 6(2) states: In approving or fixing rates, tolls, charges, tariffs, capital applications and all...
AI summary Bill 404 established the Energy and Regulatory Boards Act (ERBA), requiring the Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) to consider factors like competition, sustainability, and alignment with other legislation when approving energy-related matters. E1 argues that recent amendments (including MAEA and ERBA) expanded the Board's considerations, particularly for demand-side management (DSM), but failed to provide statutory analysis or contextualize proposed benefits.
NS POWER'S POSITION This initiative overall has made great progress throughout the DSMAG; however, more work is required to eliminate the potential for unintended consequences and to ensure alignment with the current and existing legislati...
AI summary NS Power emphasizes the need for careful evaluation of DSM programs to avoid increasing customer costs and align with legislative frameworks. It recommends modifying the TRC test to include greenhouse gas emissions reductions, electricity cost savings, and displaced fuel impacts. The NSEB's regulatory regime and strategic electrification under the PUA are highlighted as key considerations.
Mechanics of the BCA
AI summary The section outlines the mechanics of the Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) process, likely detailing its application in regulatory proceedings. Key entities involved include Nova Scotia Power, the Nova Scotia Energy Board, and related legislation such as the Public Utilities Act and Energy Reform (2024) Act.
99644Closing Submission - CA
8 passages
21 A. Overview 22 23 E1's new proposed BCA Test was developed by E1 and its consultant, Energy Futures Group 24 ("EFG"), through consultation with the DSM Advisory Group ("DSMAG"). These consultations 25 were informed by recent amendments...
AI summary E1's new BCA Test, developed with Energy Futures Group and DSMAG, aligns with Nova Scotia's Energy Reform Act (2024) and incorporates non-utility impacts like environmental and host customer factors. The Consumer Advocate supports the test post-Partial Consensus Agreement, which adjusted proxy values for BCA testing in the 2027-2031 DSM Plan.
6 a. The Legislative Context for this Application 8 This Application occurs in the context of recent legislative amendments, which have impacted 9 energy regulation in Nova Scotia. 11 Specifically, the Energy Reform Act (2024) , c 2, Bill...
AI summary The legislative context includes the Energy Reform Act (2024) and related statutes, establishing the Energy Board and emphasizing sustainable development, competition, and energy efficiency. Amendments to the PUA require evaluating demand-side management at the portfolio level, including strategic electrification.
7 b. Summary of Evidence 8 9 An extensive amount of written and oral evidence has been provided in this matter. The Consumer 10 Advocate does not intend to summarize all of the evidence provided in this matter, but summarizes 11 some of th...
AI summary The Consumer Advocate acknowledges an extensive amount of written and oral evidence submitted but focuses on summarizing key relevant points rather than providing a comprehensive overview of all evidence presented.
tical steps for development of a jurisdictionally specific benefit cost analysis test."[3](#page-2-4) 30 These Reports are included as an Appendix to EFG's evidence. 31 29 32 Dr. Hill's evidence also discusses how the proposed BCA test com...
AI summary The document discusses Dr. Hill's evidence comparing the proposed Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) test to existing Nova Scotia tests (Total Cost Resource Test and Program Administrator Cost Test). Key differences include the inclusion of other fuel impacts, host customer non-energy benefits, and criteria air pollutant impacts in the new BCA test, which were excluded in prior tests.
20 iii. Board Counsel 22 Counsel to the Nova Scotia Energy Board filed evidence from Courtney Lane of Synapse Energy 23 Economics. 25 Ms. Lane's conclusions in her evidence were as follows: - 27 E1's approach to developing the Nova Scotia...
AI summary Board Counsel submitted evidence from Courtney Lane of Synapse Energy Economics, supporting E1's Nova Scotia Test as an improvement over the TRC test by incorporating energy policy goals and non-energy impacts. Lane recommended approving the BCA test with modifications but noted E1's insufficient justification for NEB proxy values. The Partial Consensus Agreement's zero quantification of certain impacts was also mentioned.
15 iv. Small Business Advocate 16 17 The Small Business Advocate filed evidence in this matter from Consultant Melissa Whitten of 18 Daymark Energy Advisors, Inc. In her evidence, Ms. Whitten presented concerns regarding E1's 19 proposed B...
AI summary The Small Business Advocate raised concerns about E1's proposed BCA test, citing difficulties in quantifying non-energy benefits like amenity, empowerment, and pride. Melissa Whitten of Daymark Energy Advisors supported the Partial Consensus Agreement's zero quantification for these benefits but expressed ongoing concerns about their inclusion in future proceedings.
31 v. Industrial Group 32 33 The Industrial Group filed evidence from Patrick Bowman of Bowman Economic Consulting Inc. 34 In his evidence, Mr. Bowman provided the opinion that the proposed BCA test is "excessively 35 expansive as a primar...
AI summary The Industrial Group submitted evidence from Patrick Bowman, criticizing the proposed BCA test as overly expansive and misaligned with utility and customer interests. Bowman recommended adopting the PAC Test instead, emphasizing the inclusion of beneficial electrification benefits, such as revenue gains for utilities.
26 [201] … The word "expenditure" is not expressly qualified by any language in 27 the PUA which would limit its meaning to expenditures net of third-party funding. Reading 28 in such a qualification might have been justified under histori...
AI summary The text discusses the interpretation of 'expenditure' under the Public Utilities Act (PUA), arguing that the Board's role extends beyond economic regulation to consider broader impacts. It references legal precedents like Nova Scotia Power Incorporated (Re) and Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Nova Scotia (Utility and Review Board) , and notes amendments to s. 35(2) of the PUA effective April 1, 2025, requiring alignment with the Energy Act .
99730Reply Submission - IG
7 passages
Response to NSPI The Industrial Group is supportive of the analytical approach to legislative interpretation of the Public Utilities Act (" PUA ") outlined by NSPI. The new policy goals contained in the Energy and Regulatory Boards Act and...
AI summary The Industrial Group supports NSPI's legislative interpretation of the Public Utilities Act (PUA) and agrees that new policy goals from the Energy and Regulatory Boards Act and More Access to Energy Act should not override demand-side management (DSM) program requirements. Both parties align on the need to prioritize cost-effective programs over sustainability goals.
i. PAC vs TRC Where the Industrial Group diverges from NSPI is with respect to the proposed primary test to be adopted for DSM going forward. In contrast to NSPI, the Industrial Group does not view the Total Resource Cost (" TRC ") test as...
AI summary The Industrial Group opposes NSPI's proposed use of the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test for demand-side management (DSM), arguing it inaccurately measures costs and benefits for utilities and customers. They advocate for the PAC test, which accounts for customer incentives and aligns with Nova Scotia's high electricity prices, aiming to lower ratepayer costs. The Public Utilities Act (section 79L(4)) mandates consideration of customer interests.
Response to E1 Unsurprisingly, E1 takes a vastly different approach to statutory interpretation which has largely been addressed in the Industrial Group's initial submissions. Without repeating those, the Industrial Group will address some...
AI summary The Industrial Group addresses E1's differing statutory interpretation approach, focusing on critiques of Mr. Bowman's endorsement of PAC and DSM application review methods. References include prior submissions, diagrams, and cross-examination testimony confirming GHG inclusion in social cost of carbon calculations.
i. PAC is Not "Too Narrow" and Suite of Tests is not "Cumbersome" and "Complex" E1 claims the PAC test "is too narrow to serve as the main assessment for portfolio-level decisionmaking["](#page-2-0) 5 . The Industrial Group emphasizes that...
AI summary E1 argues the PAC test is too narrow and the proposed tests are complex, while the Industrial Group counters that PAC is foundational and targeted. E1 focuses on environmental goals, whereas PUA mandates cost reduction for NSPI customers. The combination of tests proposed by Mr. Bowman is deemed balanced and not overly burdensome.
ii. Misstatement of Approach to Evaluation of Strategic Electrification While misstating the evidence of Mr. Bowman, E1 again pleads "complexity" to argue against the use of different tests to be applied to different resources. Its submiss...
AI summary E1 argues against using different cost-effectiveness tests for DSM resources, claiming complexity and misrepresenting Mr. Bowman's evidence. The Industrial Group supports Mr. Bowman's proposal to use the PAC test for all DSM, with adjustments for strategic electrification. Critics argue E1's uniform test fails to address electrification's unique benefits and costs, while the Proposed BCA overlooks utility revenue impacts and inadequate evaluation criteria.
iii. The Proposed BCA Could Be Used as a Supplementary Test but is Not Supported in its Current Form and is Not Required E1's submissions imply endorsement of the Proposed BCA by Mr. Bowman: In fact, the IG's expert, Mr. Bowman, indicates...
AI summary E1 argues the Proposed BCA is necessary for addressing societal concerns, but Mr. Bowman clarifies it is not required and should only be a supplementary tool. The Industrial Group supports using the PAC as the primary cost-effectiveness test, with BCA serving as a secondary, non-essential complement. Broader societal costs are deemed unnecessary for lowering electricity costs.
Conclusion The Industrial Group maintains its position that the legislation, as currently drafted, does not allow for a broad societal test to be used for primary cost-effectiveness testing of DSM, and that the PAC should be used as the pr...
AI summary The Industrial Group argues that current legislation does not permit a broad societal test for DSM cost-effectiveness, advocating for PAC as the primary test. Mr. Bowman's proposed tests are deemed manageable for E1 and should guide the DSM Plan application. The submission is signed by Nancy G. Rubin and Brianne Rudderham, with a carbon copy to participants.
99732Reply Submission - E1
10 passages
EfficiencyOne IN THE MATTER OF The Public Utilities Act , RSNS 1989, c. 380, as amended -and- IN THE MATTER OF An Application for Approval of a New Benefit-Cost Analysis Test for Evaluating Demand Side Management Plans
AI summary The document outlines a regulatory proceeding under the Public Utilities Act, involving an application for approval of a new benefit-cost analysis test to evaluate demand side management plans.
2.1 LEGISLATIVE INTERPRETATION & JURISDICTIONAL LIMITS The IG contends that the Board, under the Public Utilities Act (" PUA "), is not empowered to consider broad societal impacts or non-energy benefits when evaluating the cost-effectiven...
AI summary The Industrial Group (IG) argues that the Board under the Public Utilities Act (PUA) cannot consider societal impacts or non-energy benefits when evaluating demand-side management (DSM) cost-effectiveness, emphasizing ratepayer cost reduction. They claim the new strategic electrification provision in the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Act (ERBA) allows EfficiencyOne (E1) to expand programs but still requires adherence to cost-effectiveness, with sustainability limited to specific proposals.
2.2 CRITIQUE OF HOST CUSTOMER NON-ENERGY IMPACTS AND SOCIETAL IMPACTS The IG critiques the inclusion of non-energy impacts and broad societal costs, which are characterized as vague, subjective, and unsupported by evidence. E1 disagrees. T...
AI summary The IG criticizes non-energy and societal impacts as vague and unsupported, while E1 argues they are backed by academic literature and regulatory precedent, citing multiple experts and noting Mr. Bowman's dissent. E1 emphasizes expert consensus and ongoing evidence development.
2.3 RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR COST (PAC) TEST The IG recommends the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test as the primary cost-effectiveness test, citing its alignment with other Canadian jurisdictions and its focus on ut...
AI summary The IG recommends the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test for its alignment with other Canadian jurisdictions and utility cost focus. E1 counters that the test must align with Nova Scotia's legislation, not other provinces, and notes that key stakeholders like NS Power, CA, and SBA do not support PAC. E1 emphasizes NSPM guidance and jurisdiction-specific approaches.
2.6 ALTERNATIVE APPROACH FOR ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAMS - Regarding electrification programs, the IG proposes a modified PAC test that includes increased revenues - from electrification as a benefit, aiming to better assess true system costs...
AI summary The IG proposes a modified PAC test for electrification programs, incorporating revenue benefits. E1 argues the PAC test has a 'fundamental flaw' as noted by Dr. Hill. The IG's approach is criticized as a rate-impact test, not cost-effectiveness, conflicting with NSPM and PUA definitions. References to M12282 and evidence from Bowman and E1 are cited.
2.7 SUPPORT FOR PRIMARY AND SECONDARY TESTING - 2 The IG supports both primary (PAC) and secondary tests for DSM cost-effectiveness specifically the - 3 Proposed BCA and relevant information on the host customer or Participant Cost test ("...
AI summary The Industrial Group (IG) supports both primary and secondary tests for demand-side management (DSM) cost-effectiveness, including the Proposed BCA and Participant Cost Test (PCT). EfficiencyOne (E1) maintains that cost-effectiveness screening must occur at the portfolio level under the Public Utilities Act (PUA), as outlined in section 79H(2), and clarifies it has not retreated from its original position.
4. RESPONSE TO NS POWER - NS Power's position regarding the Proposed BCA was first communicated to E1 and the DSMAG in its - Closing Submission. - The Closing Submission invites the Board to narrow Nova Scotia's DSM cost-effectiveness fram...
AI summary NS Power proposes revising the BCA framework to use its WACC and exclude certain benefits, conflicting with post-2022 legislation, the proceeding's record, and NSPM methodology. E1 argues for maintaining the current cost-effectiveness framework, including a 2% discount rate and portfolio-level screening under PUA.
4.1.2 WHY M08888 IS NO LONGER DETERMINATIVE Nova Scotia Power submits that "the Board's decision in M08888 issued April 15, 2020 holds".[38](#page-16-1) M08888, reviewed in the context of the legislative framework that existed at that time...
AI summary Nova Scotia Power argues that M08888 is no longer determinative due to legislative changes since 2020, including amendments to the PUA and new acts requiring consideration of non-energy factors like GHG reduction. The Board's previous jurisdictional limitations have been altered by these updates.
4.2 CONFLATING DSM PLAN CONSIDERATIONS WITH COST-EFFECTIVENESS SCREENING E1 takes no issue with the "operational requirements" interpretation of NS Power with respect to the approval of DSM programs. However, this Application is not a broa...
AI summary E1 supports aligning DSM cost-effectiveness screening with PUA statutory requirements, opposing NS Power's integration of affordability into the screening test. Affordability should be addressed separately through mechanisms like the Balanced Plan Approach, not via cost-effectiveness criteria. The application focuses on statutory compliance under s. 79H(2) PUA, distinguishing screening from broader DSM plan approval processes.
5. REQUESTED BOARD ORDER Based the evidence and analysis before the Board in this matter, including as set out in these Reply Submissions, E1 respectfully requests the Board approve the Proposed BCA as supplemented by the PCA, specifically...
AI summary E1 requests the Board to approve the Proposed BCA supplemented by the PCA, including a 2% discount rate, proxy values for the 2027-2031 DSM Plan, and the evergreen process for future DSM applications. The request aligns with PUA 79H(2) and references prior submissions (M12282).
100256Board Decision
28 passages
IN THE MATTER OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT - and - IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION by EFFICIENCYONE for approval of a New Benefit-Cost Analysis Test for Evaluating Demand Side Management Plans BEFORE: Stephen T. McGrath, K.C., Chair Steven...
AI summary EfficiencyOne applied for approval of a new benefit-cost analysis test for demand-side management plans. The Board denied the application, directing instead a focus on reducing electricity costs for customers. Multiple intervenors, including consumer advocates, industry groups, and environmental organizations, participated in the proceeding.
ram Administrator Cost (PAC) test. The PAC test assesses the cost effectiveness of DSM programs from the perspective of the utility. It does not account for participant costs and participant benefits.
AI summary The Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test evaluates the cost-effectiveness of Demand Side Management (DSM) programs from the utility's perspective, excluding participant costs and benefits. This approach has been criticized for not fully capturing the broader impacts of DSM initiatives.
2.0 PROPOSED BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS TEST - [8] E1 is the holder of a franchise issued by the Minister of Energy to provide demand-side management activities to NS Power. Under the Public Utilities Act , E1 must develop a demand-side managem...
AI summary E1, a franchise holder under the Public Utilities Act, must develop demand-side management (DSM) plans for NS Power, structured in tiers (measure, program, portfolio). The NSUARB evaluates these plans using cost-effectiveness testing, ensuring measurable benefits for ratepayers and aligning with Nova Scotia's regulatory practices.
3.0 INTERVENOR POSITIONS
AI summary The section outlines intervenor positions in a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding, though no specific arguments or content are detailed in the provided text. Key entities and acronyms related to the proceeding are listed.
3.1 Consumer Advocate [28] The Consumer Advocate is a signatory to the Consensus Agreement. The Consumer Advocate argues that recent amendments to the Public Utilities Act altered the criteria the Board is to apply in evaluating E1's propo...
AI summary The Consumer Advocate argues that recent amendments to the Public Utilities Act require evaluating demand-side management programs at the portfolio level, including strategic electrification. They emphasize incorporating sustainability factors in the BCA test, preferring E1's approach over the PAC test, and support a 2% social discount rate for long-term impacts. They also maintain the 10% proxy value for electrification and acknowledge the PAC test as a potential secondary measure.
3.2 Industrial Group [34] The Industrial Group is not a party to the Consensus Agreement. It objects to the use of the proposed BCA test as the new primary cost-effectiveness test. It recommends the Board approve the PAC test as the primar...
AI summary The Industrial Group opposes using the BCA test as the primary cost-effectiveness standard, advocating instead for the PAC test for DSM Plan applications and a modified PAC test for strategic electrification. It argues that programs failing the PAC test require justification and that non-energy impacts, like carbon social effects, should not be considered. The group emphasizes complementary use of the PAC test with secondary evaluations and notes the Public Utilities Act amendment adding strategic electrification to DSM's definition.
3.3 Small Business Advocate [45] The Small Business Advocate agreed to the Consensus Agreement and recommends the Board adopt the proposed BCA test as amended by the Consensus Agreement. In closing submissions, the Small Business Advocate...
AI summary The Small Business Advocate agreed to the Consensus Agreement, recommending the Board adopt the amended BCA test. Concerns were raised about quantifying non-energy benefits like amenity and empowerment, with suggestions to set unquantified benefits to zero or adopt the PAC test instead. The Advocate emphasized the need for further analysis on non-energy benefits.
3.4 Nova Scotia Power [48] NS Power does not support E1's proposed BCA test and recommends the Board approve the current TRC with two modifications which would consider, in the context of strategic electrification, GHG emissions reductions...
AI summary NS Power opposes E1's proposed BCA test, advocating for TRC modifications that include GHG emissions reductions (net tonnage basis) and electricity cost reductions, alongside other fuel impacts. It emphasizes that subsection 79A(b)(iv) of the PUA mandates GHG reductions for strategic electrification but argues this does not override the core objective of reducing electricity costs. NS Power asserts the Board's mandate to ensure 'just and reasonable rates' remains central.
3.6 Eastward Energy [61] In its submissions, Eastward Energy asked the Board to make a preliminary and final order that Eastward be added as a full member of DSMAG. On November 4, 2025, the Board noted that Eastward has a valuable perspect...
AI summary Eastward Energy requested DSMAG membership, which the Board approved. They supported strategic electrification testing via PAC with NS Power revenue inclusion, aligned with Posterity Group's advice. Eastward emphasized hybrid heating's economic benefits and urged E1 to prioritize it in the 2027-2031 DSM Plan, citing the Public Utilities Act's cost-reduction mandate.
4.0 DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
AI summary The document section '4.0 DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS' is identified, but no substantive content is provided in the text chunk. Key entities and acronyms are listed in the context, though no arguments, topics, or cross-references are present in the given text.
4.1 Demand-side Management Legislation and Policies in Nova Scotia
AI summary The section introduces demand-side management legislation and policies in Nova Scotia, referencing key entities and acronyms related to utility regulation and cost analysis frameworks.
4.1.1 Introduction [69] The Public Utilities Act requires NS Power to engage E1 to undertake "costeffective demand-side management". The Board must approve these agreements and "determine the cost-effective demand-side management that must...
AI summary The NSUARB must determine the cost-effectiveness test for demand-side management under the Public Utilities Act, with parties disagreeing on whether non-energy impacts should be considered. Post-2020 jurisdictional changes and the 2024 Energy Reform Act split NSUARB into two boards, expanding the Energy Board's consideration scope. E1 argues the Board now has jurisdiction to include non-energy impacts, while some intervenors oppose this. The Board will assess statutory interpretation and decide on BCA approval if jurisdiction is confirmed.
) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65. The court also said it was assumed that legislators intended that administrative decision makers such as this Board would interpret the law consistent with these principles:
AI summary The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Vavilov (2019 SCC 65) is referenced, emphasizing that administrative decision-makers like the NSUARB must interpret the law consistent with statutory principles, as assumed by the court.
fed by assessments against electric public utilities. The NSUARB had to approve expenditures from the fund for electricity demand-side management. This statute was proclaimed in force in January 2010. - [79] In 2014, the Province enacted t...
AI summary The NSUARB approved expenditures for demand-side management under the Public Utilities Act (PUA), amended by the 2014 Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Restructuring Act. This legislation created a franchise for E1 to deliver efficiency programs, requiring NS Power to enter into a five-year purchase agreement with E1 for cost-effective demand-side management.
4.1.4 The 2020 Non-energy Benefits Decision - [83] The NSUARB determined it did not have the jurisdiction to consider nonenergy benefits in the cost-effectiveness testing for demand-side management in Re EfficiencyOne , 2020 NSUARB 56. In...
AI summary The NSUARB ruled in Re EfficiencyOne (2020 NSUARB 56) that it lacked jurisdiction to consider non-energy benefits in cost-effectiveness testing for demand-side management. E1 argued that the NSUARB's duty to act in customers' best interests, under the Public Utilities Act , allowed consideration of factors like thermal comfort and property value impacts beyond electricity savings.
4.1.5 Statutory Changes [86] In the present case, E1 notes there have been significant statutory changes since the NSUARB's decision in 2020. E1 argues that changes to the Public Utilities Act and s. 6(2) of the Energy and Regulatory Board...
AI summary E1 highlights statutory changes to the Public Utilities Act and Energy and Regulatory Boards Act since 2020, requiring the NSUARB to evaluate non-energy impacts of demand-side management. The Act's definition of 'demand-side management' now includes strategic electrification, while affordability considerations were removed from evaluation criteria.
4.1.6 The Meaning of "Cost-effective" under the Public Utilities Act [96] From the text used by the Legislature in s. 79I(1) of the Public Utilities Act , it follows that NS Power's statutory duty relates to demand-side management (as defi...
AI summary The Public Utilities Act (PUA) mandates NS Power to implement cost-effective demand-side management, with the NSUARB ensuring compliance. The Act does not explicitly define 'cost-effective,' leaving interpretation to the Board. The Board must evaluate proposals at the portfolio level and ensure they align with s. 79I's requirements.
(2) A franchise (a) gives the franchise holder the exclusive right to supply Nova Scotia Power Incorporated with reasonably available, cost-effective demand-side management for the purpose of this Act; … - 79K (1) Nova Scotia Power Incorpo...
AI summary The franchise grants exclusive rights to Nova Scotia Power Incorporated (NSPI) for cost-effective demand-side management. NSPI must share customer data with franchise holders and cooperate with the IESO on integrated resource planning. Provisions emphasize cost-effectiveness and 'reasonably available' demand-side management, with E1 arguing for a broader benefits-costs test beyond utility impacts.
The current version is: (iv) strategic electrification of energy end uses currently powered by fossil fuels in a manner that reduces overall greenhouse gas emissions and electricity costs [108] E1 submits that strategic electrification can...
AI summary E1 argues that strategic electrification cannot be evaluated using traditional PAC or TRC tests, as utility impacts are primary costs and non-utility impacts (e.g., fuel savings, GHG reductions) are primary benefits. The 2022 PUA amendment defines strategic electrification as reducing GHG emissions and electricity costs, requiring expanded cost-effectiveness analysis to include non-utility benefits.
[124] Eastward expressed similar comments in its reply submissions: E1 has continued in its Closing Submissions to put considerable emphasis on the Board's requirement at section 6(2)(d) of the Energy and Regulatory Boards Act to give "app...
AI summary Eastward's reply submissions emphasize E1's focus on the Board's duty under the Energy and Regulatory Boards Act to prioritize sustainable development in DSM plans. E1 argues that the Board must explicitly address sustainable development, while East Coast Environmental Law notes this responsibility does not override other statutory considerations like affordable energy rates. NSPI aligns with E1's BCA approach, and E1 disputes the Industrial Group's interpretation of legislative changes.
4.1.6.1 Findings [128] Considering the text, context and purpose of the legislation, the Board finds that the purpose of the demand-side management provisions in the Public Utilities Act is to reduce electricity costs for customers. Demand...
AI summary The Board finds that demand-side management under the Public Utilities Act aims to reduce electricity costs, with NS Power responsible for implementation. Strategic electrification must also reduce electricity costs, as per s. 79A(b)(iv). The removal of 'affordability' from the Act suggests a focus on electricity cost reduction rather than broader affordability considerations.
Impact Category Sub-Category BCA Test TRC Test Utility System Electric Generation Transmission Distribution General All All Gas Only Commodity Costs Not Included Non-Utility System Other Fuels All Not Included Host Customer All (costs and...
AI summary The document outlines the impact categories and subcategories for the BCA and TRC tests, highlighting which aspects are included or excluded. It also mentions Mr. Bowman's recommendation to use the PAC test, modified to include increased utility revenue as a benefit, to align with other Canadian jurisdictions and reduce electricity costs as per the Public Utilities Act.
[146] In its closing submissions, the Industrial Group said: Where the PUA has clearly mandated the focus of DSM to be on the reduction of costs, the PAC is able to demonstrate that as a primary test; the Proposed BCA cannot. As confirmed...
AI summary The Industrial Group advocates for the PAC test over the Proposed BCA, emphasizing cost reduction alignment with the PUA. NS Power proposes a modified TRC test incorporating fuel impacts and GHG reductions. E1 criticizes both approaches, arguing they conflict with post-2022 statutory mandates and fail to balance utility and customer costs.
4.2.1 Findings [151] E1 and its consultants purported to follow guidance in the NSPM in determining the proposed BCA test. However, a process that simply takes account of an inventory of energy and climate change policy goals and objective...
AI summary The Board rejects the proposed BCA test for DSM cost-effectiveness due to misalignment with the PUA's focus on reducing customer electricity costs. The TRC test is criticized for asymmetrical application. The Industrial Group supports the PAC test, which aligns with PUA's statutory requirements. The Board directs E1 to use PAC for future DSM plans.
4.3 Strategic Electrification [158] Strategic electrification that reduces overall GHG emissions and electricity costs is included in the definition of "demand-side management" in s. 79A(b)(iv) of the Public Utilities Act . The PAC test, a...
AI summary The text discusses the challenges of applying the traditional PAC test to strategic electrification programs under the Public Utilities Act. It highlights Mr. Bowman's proposal to modify the PAC test by including increased revenues from electrification as a benefit, ensuring cost-effective programs. The Industrial Group supports this approach, emphasizing alignment with the PUA's mandate to reduce electricity costs for NSPI customers through hybrid heating and other measures.
[160] Eastward made similar comments in its submissions: In this regard the IG has noted that the approach proposed by Mr. Bowman to costeffectiveness testing for E1 for strategic electrification – running the PAC test with the additional...
AI summary Eastward argues that modifying the PAC test to include NSPI's revenue aligns with Posterity Group's recommendations, emphasizing cost-effective hybrid heating programs. E1 counters that this approach assesses rate impacts, not cost-effectiveness, and criticizes E1's BCA focus on GHG reductions over electricity cost savings.
s. 7.1 about the discount rate to be used: The discount rate is the rate at which future costs and benefits are converted to their present equivalents. Discounting accounts for the fact that: - there is a time preference for current consum...
AI summary The document establishes that the discount rate for regulatory analyses should be based on the opportunity cost of capital (WACC), as per Treasury Board guidelines. It emphasizes alignment with NS Power's IRP and the Public Utilities Act, rejecting social discount rates except for specific long-term cases. The NSUARB mandates WACC for cost-effectiveness testing of DSM programs, citing NS Power's funding source and the need for comparable evaluations.
5.0 SUMMARY OF BOARD FINDINGS [217] The Board finds it does not have the authority to approve E1's proposed BCA because the Public Utilities Act restricts the Board's ability to consider non-energy and societal benefits in assessing the co...
AI summary The Board rejects E1's proposed BCA due to the Public Utilities Act's restrictions on non-energy benefits. E1 must use PAC test and NS Power's WACC for DSM plan assessments. Strategic electrification requires GHG reduction and cost savings. Eastward is added to DSMAG. Portfolio-level cost-effectiveness evaluations are mandated.