E-1EfficiencyOne Application - Revised Application see Exhibit E-43
26 passages
rm rate impacts, particularly with a legislated $100 million cap on amortization of DSM. ENS agrees the impacts would be inappropriate when considering the additional analysis undertaken by NS Power. While short-term rate impacts are impor...
AI summary The document discusses the importance of balancing short-term and long-term considerations in the development of a Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan, emphasizing the negative impacts of pausing or reducing DSM investments. It highlights the long-term benefits of maintaining consistent DSM investment levels to avoid increased fuel costs and start-up expenses.
t benefits to Nova Scotians from the Plan of more than $200 million.[16](#page-44-1) Conversely, failure to invest in DSM results in a sizable opportunity cost of preventable electrical expenditures. ENS' rate and bill impact analysis demo...
AI summary The document discusses the affordability benefits of Nova Scotia Power Inc.'s Integrated Resource Plan, highlighting over $200 million in savings from Demand Side Management (DSM) programs. While short-term rates may rise, long-term rate reductions occur by avoiding new capacity. ENS' analysis shows all customers benefit, with participants gaining more. Navigant's 2015 report emphasizes DSM's role in lowering bills and improving affordability through broad program access.
ENS Performance Thresholds: Dunsky's paper points out that, in almost all of these regions, the achievement of Performance Targets is the basis for awarding a financial bonus to the DSM Administrator. As an example, in its response to NSPI...
AI summary ENS seeks approval from the UARB to define success as achieving minimum Performance Thresholds of 90% of UARB-approved Performance Targets, rather than requiring precise achievement of targets. This is due to the challenges of aligning a three-year DSM plan with a four-year development cycle, and the recognition that hitting targets exactly may not be realistic.
ENSC did not require the level of investment forecast in each rate class except for the Municipal and Large Industrial rate classes. In the Q1 Demand Side Management Report submitted to the UARB on May 14, 2014, ENSC anticipated overspendi...
AI summary ENSC did not require the level of investment forecast in each rate class except for the Municipal and Large Industrial rate classes. In the Q1 Demand Side Management Report submitted to the UARB on May 14, 2014, ENSC anticipated overspending in the Municipal rate class and brought this to the attention of the class's DSM representative. During 2014 ENSC managed participation, to the extent possible, in the Municipal rate class to limit additional expenditures where possible. Approximately 38 percent of the investment in the Large Industrial rate class occurred in the last month of the year.
1. INTRODUCTION The 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan has been developed based on ENS's growing experience and history in delivering successful DSM programs and services to Nova Scotians. As part of the process, ENS engaged Navigant Consulting a...
AI summary The 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan by Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS) outlines energy efficiency programs, emphasizing flexibility for mid-course adjustments based on market conditions and evaluations. It balances affordability, avoids electrical system capacity additions, and includes residential, business, and enabling strategy programs. The Plan is for planning and cost-effectiveness testing, not direct implementation.
2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan Rate and Bill Impact Analysis
AI summary This document provides an analysis of the rate and bill impact associated with the 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan, which outlines energy efficiency initiatives and their financial implications.
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The rate and bill impact analysis completed by Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS) provides an overall trend-based picture of the rate and bill impacts of DSM at a rate-class level to help inform stakeholders and the UARB of...
AI summary Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS) conducted a rate and bill impact analysis for its 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan, showing rate increases but overall bill savings across all rate classes. While residential rates rose 3.5%, average bills decreased by 4% due to DSM measures, highlighting affordability considerations for stakeholders and the UARB.
2. INTRODUCTION Efficiency Nova Scotia's rate and bill impact analysis is intended to be a high-level estimate of the impacts of demand-side management (DSM) activities on rate classes' rates and bills. The analysis model, initially filed...
AI summary Efficiency Nova Scotia's rate impact analysis model for demand-side management (DSM) provides high-level estimates of rate and bill impacts, developed by ENS and Elenchus Research Associates with Synapse Energy Economics' framework. The model was reviewed by Synapse and the DSM Advisory Group, with revisions made based on their feedback. Results are not literal but illustrate DSM options' impacts.
3. RATE AND BILL IMPACT ANALYSIS REFINEMENTS For a complete list of feedback provided by stakeholders after the October 1, 2014 filing, as well as ENS's responses and subsequent impacts on the model, please refer to Attachment 1. In additi...
AI summary The document discusses refinements to the rate and bill impact analysis, referencing stakeholder feedback and Efficiency Nova Scotia's (ENS) responses. ENS addressed feedback from Nova Scotia Power (NSP) and other stakeholders, with some updates deferred to future model iterations due to timing constraints.
Deferral and Amortization At the request of stakeholders, ENS has incorporated functionality into the model to assess the impacts of deferral and amortization on rates and bills. Two scenarios have been provided: DSM being 100 percent expe...
AI summary ENS analyzed deferral and amortization impacts on rates and bills, presenting two scenarios: 100% expensing of DSM or 50% amortization over eight years. The eight-year period aligns with the 2015 DSM plan, while the 50% cap avoids exceeding the $100M legislative limit. Short-term benefits are noted, but long-term rate increases are minimal (<1%) compared to avoided capacity costs.
Rates versus Bills (Affordability) ENS has taken an in-depth and focused view of affordability in its 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan Application. This analysis provides information on which to analyze the impacts of DSM, providing additional...
AI summary ENS's 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan analysis shows that while short-term rates increase with 100% expensing, long-term rates decrease due to avoided capacity costs. Residential customers see bill reductions despite higher rates, but model discrepancies from removing the Home Energy Report affect savings estimates. ENS plans to address these issues in future models.
Rate and Bill Impact Trends With NS Power's release of non-confidential annual avoided costs, annual, rather than levelized, avoided costs have been used in the 2016-2018 analysis. This change in inputs has affected the presentation of res...
AI summary NS Power's shift from levelized to annual avoided costs in 2016-2018 analysis altered rate impact timing, showing greater near-term increases and long-term decreases while maintaining overall DSM benefits. This methodological change affects presentation but not total benefits over the DSM timeframe.
Balanced Portfolio Approach ENS's Evidence highlights the importance of a balanced portfolio approach. A balanced approach is also supported in Appendix E, which consists of Dunsky Energy Consulting's Balanced Plan Principles memo. The bil...
AI summary ENS's Evidence emphasizes a balanced portfolio approach, supported by Dunsky Energy Consulting's memo in Appendix E. DSM activities across rate classes provide benefits to Nova Scotians, outweighing rate impacts. The broad DSM program offerings demonstrate value to customers.
5. 2016-2018 RATE AND BILL IMPACT ASSUMPTION CHANGES ENS has maintained the general structure and assumptions filed in its 2013 and 2014 rate and bill impact analyses. Presented here are assumptions which may require further clarification...
AI summary ENS has maintained the general structure of its 2013-2014 rate and bill impact analyses but updated assumptions based on stakeholder feedback. Attachments 1 and 2 provide details on feedback responses and full assumption lists.
Overall Assumptions Differing from previous years, this rate and bill impact analysis is forward-looking and does not present historical results from 2011-2014. There are some instances however, that historical data were utilized; their sp...
AI summary The analysis is forward-looking, using ENS's 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan and Navigant Consulting's EL-RAM model. It incorporates the 2014 IRP's energy forecasts up to 2040 provided by NS Power, with benefits extending 16 years beyond the plan's timeframe. Historical data is selectively used where relevant.
Rate Impact Assumptions In addition to an illustrative assumption of potential amortization impact on rates and bills, as described in the results section of this report, rate impacts are presented as year- over-year impacts (i.e., how rat...
AI summary The analysis presents rate impacts as year-over-year changes rather than comparing to a no-DSM baseline, following Synapse's recommendation that a no-DSM scenario was not considered during 2016-2018. This approach focuses on incremental changes rather than absolute comparisons.
Participation Assumptions As part of the rate and bill impact analysis, overall estimated participation rates, rather than participation numbers, for each rate class are presented. This is based on feedback from Synapse Energy Economics. C...
AI summary ENS uses participation rates instead of account numbers for rate class analysis, adjusting for multiple accounts and excluding unlikely participants. Historical data from 2012-2013 informs participation assumptions, with adjustments for Large Industrial and Municipal Utility classes. Repeat participation in Residential Instant Savings was validated at 71% based on market research. Exclusions for commercial/industrial customers in Appliance Retirement were made per DSM Advisory Group feedback.
Output Potential Summary sheets for rate, bill, participation and alternative DSM scenario impacts for each applicable rate class are included in Attachment 3. Inclusions on the summary sheet have been selected based on representative outp...
AI summary Attachment 3 contains summary sheets analyzing rate, bill, participation, and alternative DSM scenario impacts for each applicable rate class. The inclusions are based on representative model outputs from the analysis.
7. FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS During the initial development process of ENS's rate and bill impact analysis, Tim Woolf of Synapse emphasized that this type of analysis is an ongoing, collaborative process. Because it is based on a large number...
AI summary ENS acknowledges ongoing feedback on its rate and bill impact analysis, emphasizing collaboration and refinement. Despite limited time to incorporate NS Power's February 2015 feedback, ENS has addressed it in Attachment A and will consider future revisions. The process relies on continuous improvement based on stakeholder input.
8. CONCLUSION ENS's rate and bill impact analysis provides an overview of general trends in relation to a specific snapshot in time of DSM in Nova Scotia. It captures the rate, bill and participation impact trends of particular DSM scenari...
AI summary ENS's rate and bill impact analysis outlines general trends in DSM impacts for Nova Scotia, providing a trend-based view rather than exact yearly values. This informs discussions for the 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan by highlighting overall rate class impacts.
Assumptions used in ENS's 2016-2018 Rate and Bill Impact Analysis Stakeholder Stakeholder Comment ENSC's Response Inclusion in the model Consumer Advocate The data did attempt to model changes in savings resulting from changes in investmen...
AI summary The Consumer Advocate challenges ENSC's assumption that a 50% reduction in DSM spending would result in a 50% reduction in savings, as this was not modeled. ENSC acknowledges that the 50% Low Case from the IRP was not tested and agrees that the assumption is not supported by modeling. However, ENSC included the scenario for comparison purposes in the rate and bill impact analysis.
Appendix D, Attachment 3 1 2 Impacts of DSM on the Large General Rate Class 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Units 3 Incremental DSM Savings 7.5 7.3 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0...
AI summary The table details the impacts of Demand Side Management (DSM) on the Large General Rate Class from 2016 to 2030. It shows incremental and cumulative DSM savings, costs, and savings per participant over time, highlighting a decline in savings after 2018 and a decrease in cost per kWh saved.
- 5. Delivering reliable service at least cost is a fundamental tenet of prudent utility service, and lowering both customer usage and marginal system costs through investments in demand-side resources makes electricity bills more affordab...
AI summary The summary highlights the importance of demand-side management in reducing electricity bills and improving affordability. It emphasizes the benefits of Efficiency Nova Scotia's programs, including environmental, economic, and social advantages. The proposed investment in demand-side resources for 2016–2018 is lower than what was considered in the 2014 Integrated Resource Plan.
2.3 Relative Size of Demand-side Resource Investments in Nova Scotia [Figure 1](#page-194-1) includes the investment level proposed by ENS over the 2016-2018 period and approved for 2015, and presents a comparison of both historical demand...
AI summary This section discusses the relative size of demand-side resource investments in Nova Scotia, comparing proposed and approved investment levels over specific periods and showing their proportion of residential revenue requirements. The data indicates that demand-side investments account for 2.4% of average household electricity costs, with a gross monthly cost share of less than $3.45.
2.6 Affordability of Demand-side Resource Investments in Nova Scotia Utility resource planning efforts face a long-term responsibility to deliver reliable service at least cost for ratepayers. In the context of this guiding principle, the...
AI summary The text argues that under-investing in demand-side resources (DSM) in Nova Scotia could lead to higher long-term costs and reduced benefits for ratepayers. While ENS reduced short-term DSM investments compared to Nova Scotia Power's Preferred Resource Plan, the analysis suggests that long-term benefits are still significant. Alternative rate mitigation strategies, like rate smoothing, are recommended over reducing DSM investments.
published (this protects the franchisee from TRB changes that are outside of its control). The measures' estimated useful lives (EUL) used in the TRB calculation are also based on ex-ante values, which are regularly updated. Figure 3: Verm...
AI summary The document discusses the Total Resource Benefits (TRB) calculation, emphasizing that the estimated useful lives (EUL) used are based on ex-ante values and are regularly updated. It also highlights that energy and peak savings make up the majority of performance targets, with a weighted contribution of 59%, while TRB accounts for 30%.
E-22014 Electricity Demand Side Management Plan Evaluation Reports
7 passages
Table 19: Recommendations for Custom New Construction No. Recommendations NC-R4. Adding the Nova Scotia Power's rate code to the DSMDS report: While the Nova Scotia Power's rate code is entered into the DSMDS, it does not appear in the Eva...
AI summary The document recommends adding Nova Scotia Power's rate code to the DSMDS report to facilitate the application of the correct line loss factor when evaluating energy and demand savings at the meter level. This would help in accurately comparing values from the DSMDS report with project feasibility studies and M&V reports.
Free-ridership Free-ridership for ARet corresponds to the energy consumption of the appliances that would have been disposed of in the absence of ARet. It does not include the consumption of appliances that would have been transferred to a...
AI summary Free-ridership in the context of ARet refers to the energy consumption of appliances that would have been disposed of without the program. The Evaluator surveyed participants to determine how they would have disposed of their refrigerators, identifying those who would have discarded them as free-riders. The results are presented in a table, with further details provided in Appendix III.
3.5 Overall Gross Savings Gross energy and peak demand savings resulting from the retirement of old appliances through ARet are presented in the table below, for all three types of appliances. Overall, total gross energy and peak demand sa...
AI summary The overall gross energy and peak demand savings from appliance retirement through ARet are reported as 7.201 GWh and 1.145 MW at the meter, and 7.921 GWh and 1.259 MW at the generator, using a line loss factor of 1.100 provided by Nova Scotia Power.
In-service Rate For upstream programs like Instant Savings, the UMP has made the following recommendation: "In-service rates should be calculated through an in-home audit. Since program bulbs cannot be easily identified, the in-service rat...
AI summary The UMP recommends calculating in-service rates for upstream programs like Instant Savings using in-home audits and recent bulb purchases. However, the Evaluator decided to claim all savings within the year of purchase due to the high cost and complexity of determining in-service rates for LED lamps in Nova Scotia, as existing studies are based on CFLs and are not applicable to LEDs.
3.4 Tracking System The Econoler team reviewed the 2014 RDI tracking sheet content. It was presented under the form of a spreadsheet, in which each of the DA's installations is compiled. At this point in time, ENSC does not use the DSMDS f...
AI summary The tracking system for the Residential Direct Install (RDI) program is reviewed, highlighting its use of spreadsheets to compile installation data. ENSC does not use the DSMDS for daily management, but the system tracks participant information, energy savings, and other relevant data for program evaluation. Some data collection challenges remain, such as missing rate codes.
Calculation of Adjusted Gross Savings To calculate the adjustment ratio, the Evaluator used eight of the nine projects reviewed. The LEED project savings that had not been adjusted to take into account the LEED energy performance requireme...
AI summary The document discusses the calculation of an adjustment ratio for gross energy and peak demand savings, excluding a LEED project due to its unique certification requirements. The adjustment ratios calculated were 0.982 for energy savings and 0.976 for peak demand savings, based on eight projects. The savings at the meter and generator levels are also detailed, with specific values provided for Custom NC.
5.3.2 Revised Gross Savings for BES Non-lighting Measures The Evaluator revised the gross energy and peak demand savings calculated for the BES non-lighting measures (section 5.1.2) based on the adjustments made to the following: - › Adjus...
AI summary The Evaluator revised the gross energy and peak demand savings for BES non-lighting measures based on adjustments to heat pump and pipe insulation ratios, installation rates, and diversity factors. A line loss factor of 1.084 was applied to account for electricity losses between the meter and the generator, with Nova Scotia Power providing the line loss factors for each rate code.
E-7E1 (NSPI) RIR-1 to RIR-47
16 passages
te Filed: March 27, 2015 E1 (NSPI) IR-11 Page 1 of 7 2016-2018 Supply Agreement for EECA M06733 (E-ENS-R-15) E1 Responses to NSPI Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 b) As shown in ENS’s rate and bill impact analysis, for total custome...
AI summary The document discusses the impact of different Demand Side Management (DSM) scenarios on average customer bills, showing that increased investment in DSM reduces bills, while reduced investment increases them. It references ENS’s rate and bill impact analysis and provides examples from the Small General rate class.
nt for EECA M06733 (E-ENS-R-15) E1 Responses to NSPI Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Mid-DSM Scenario 2 3 4 For clarification, the reason that participants’ (the blue lines) bills are reduced in all 5 scenarios is because of the as...
AI summary The text explains how the ENS rate and bill impact model assumes that 75% of changes in energy savings are due to changes in the number of participants, while 25% are due to changes in energy savings per participant. It also notes that the UARB-approved cost allocation methodology was used due to NSPI not filing its own proposed methodology.
Filed: March 27, 2015 E1 (NSPI) IR-11 Page 3 of 7 2016-2018 Supply Agreement for EECA M06733 (E-ENS-R-15) E1 Responses to NSPI Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 general trends would be expected to remain the same but specific values...
AI summary The document discusses the impact of varying levels of Demand Side Management (DSM) investment on rates and bills, showing that increased DSM investment leads to higher rates in the short term but lower rates over the lifetime of the program for most rate classes.
EECA M06733 (E-ENS-R-15) E1 Responses to NSPI Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Mid-DSM Scenario 2 3 4 These results are dependent on the cost-allocation methodology approved for the 2016- 5 2018 years. Rate impacts by class are affe...
AI summary The document discusses the impact of the cost-allocation methodology approved for the 2016-2018 period on rate and bill impacts, noting that rate impacts are more significantly affected than bill impacts. It also references the use of the existing UARB-approved methodology and directs to specific appendices for detailed rate-class specific results.
: Rates, Bills and Participation Impacts Slide 3 Date Filed: March 27, 2015 NSPI IR-12 Attachment 1 Page 4 of 26 Actual Utility with Aggressive Efficiency Plan • Analysis here is based on a proposed three-year energy efficiency plan for Rh...
AI summary The document outlines a proposed three-year energy efficiency plan for Rhode Island, which includes various programs targeting different customer types, with cost recovery through a system benefits charge and decoupled distribution rates. The programs are described as relatively cost-effective, with benefit-cost ratios and costs of saved energy provided for different customer segments.
Date Filed: March 27, 2015 NSPI IR-12 Attachment 1 Page 13 of 26 Summary of Results - Residential Rate Impacts Bill Savings 2015-2017 Participation (% of Total Rate) (% of Total Bill) (New % of Customers) New Construction 2.1% 9.3% 0.5% HV...
AI summary The document presents a summary of residential energy efficiency program results, highlighting rate impacts, bill savings, and participation rates for various initiatives such as new construction, HVAC, home retrofits, and lighting. The data shows the percentage of total rate and bill savings, as well as the proportion of new customers participating in each program from 2015 to 2017.
lide 24 Date Filed: March 27, 2015 NSPI IR-12 Attachment 1 Page 25 of 26 Large C&I Rate Impacts – by Components 2.0 c::::JTransmission -Lost Revenue Recovery Distribution- lost Revenue Recovery 1.5 - Energy Efficiency Cha rge - Avoided Tra...
AI summary The slide presents the impact of large commercial and industrial rate changes, including components such as transmission and distribution lost revenue recovery, energy efficiency charges, and avoided costs. Tim Woolf from Synapse Energy Economics is associated with this analysis.
NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Response IR-19: 2 3 EfficiencyOne asserts this IR, which is requesting individual, customer-specific details, engages 4 issues of relevance and confidentiality. 5 6 The individualized detail sought by NSPI in this IR is...
AI summary EfficiencyOne argues that NSPI's request for individual customer details is irrelevant and confidential, as the UARB's focus is on approving a DSM supply agreement. Aggregate data has already been provided, and retrieving individual data would be overly burdensome.
NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-27: 2 3 Reference: EfficiencyOne, Evidence - Page 34, Lines 4-5: 4 5 E1 states that “maintaining current DSM levels has the additional benefit of providing 6 DSM-related rate stability over time.” 7 8 Please r...
AI summary The response to Request IR-27 explains that maintaining current DSM levels helps avoid future rate increases by reducing the need for costly capital expenditures. It references the UARB’s 2014 decision on the DSM Cost Recovery Rider and changes to the Public Utilities Act that embedded DSM costs into the overall energy charge.
Filed: March 27, 2015 E1 (NSPI) IR-27 Page 1 of 2 2016-2018 Supply Agreement for EECA M06733 (E-ENS-R-15) E1 Responses to NSPI Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 All else being equal, these amendments would have caused a reduction in...
AI summary The document discusses the financial implications of the 2015 DSM deferral and its impact on the FAM under-recovery balance. It notes a $53 million offset from the deferral, along with other contributions, which are expected to largely repay the FAM under-recovery in 2015. The 2015 DSM level of activity is $39 million, with $35 million to be recovered over 8 years starting in 2016.
stment for 2016, 2017, and 2018 together 20 with the annual amortized cost of 2015 DSM for these years. This investment can be made 21 without DSM putting pressure on overall electricity rates. Date Filed: March 27, 2015 E1 (NSPI) IR-27 Pa...
AI summary The document discusses the 2016-2018 Supply Agreement for EECA M06733 and responses to information requests regarding IT system enhancements. The response indicates that the changes will improve reporting efficiency but no additional information will be available.
ate Filed: March 27, 2015 E1 (NSPI) IR-28 Page 2 of 2 2016-2018 Supply Agreement for EECA M06733 (E-ENS-R-15) E1 Responses to NSPI Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-29: 2 3 Reference: EfficiencyOne, Evidence – Appendix D 2...
AI summary E1 responds to NSPI's request regarding the exclusion of lost revenue recovery in its rate and bill impact model. E1 explains that it was unable to incorporate NSPI's feedback due to timing issues and plans to address it in future model versions.
efficiency or demand-side management initiatives. This is largely because the 30 RIM test reflects a very partial perspective – that of non-participants alone. For Date Filed: March 27, 2015 E1 (NSPI) IR-30 Page 1 of 2 2016-2018 Supply Agr...
AI summary The text discusses the RIM test's limited perspective, focusing only on non-participants, and notes that the Participant Cost Test was not considered a reasonable screening option. It also includes responses to information requests related to a supply agreement and a filing date.
.6% 86.6 88 86 1 1 2015 59.2 70.1% 84.5 85 84 1 0 Budgeted 13 The table above does not include EfficiencyOne’s On-Site Energy Managers (OEMs), as these 14 positions are not included in compensation expenses. The cost of OEMs is covered thr...
AI summary The text discusses the exclusion of EfficiencyOne’s On-Site Energy Managers (OEMs) from compensation expenses, as their costs are covered through incentives and reimbursements. It also references a 2016-2018 supply agreement for EECA and E1 responses to NSPI information requests.
NSPI IR-42 Attachment 2 Page 9 of 67 Range structure projections by geography 4% 2015 projections 2014 projections National 3% average 1.7% 2.3% 2.4% 2.1% 2.1% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% % Increase 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.4% 1.2% 1% 0%...
AI summary The text presents range structure projections by geography, comparing 2015 and 2014 projections across different regions, including national averages and specific percentages for various sub-sectors and geographies. It includes compensation elements, job levels, and revenue considerations.
NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-46: 2 3 (a) Please provide, as applicable, total annual cost (historical and forecasted/budgeted) 4 for benefits offered by E1 and ENS (as applicable) for each of the years 2011 to 2018 5 inclusive. 6 7 (b) Pl...
AI summary The response to Request IR-46 provides historical benefit costs for the years 2011 to 2015, including statutory, dental, and pension costs, as well as their percentage of total payroll. It also notes that 2016-2018 data will be available after the UARB’s decision on the DSM Resource Plan.
E-8Evidence of Nova Scotia Power Inc.
18 passages
1 E1 (NSPI) IR-14, March 27, 2015, page 1, lines 3-6. E1 (NSPI) IR-26(b), March 27, 2015, page 1, lines 26-28. the creation of a "reserve fund" financed by NS Power customers with 50 percent of any surplus balance being placed in a reserve...
AI summary NS Power requests E1 to redesign its DSM plan with a more appropriate portfolio of programs and spending level, suggesting a funding level of approximately $22 million per year over the Contract Period to achieve energy savings of about 100 GWh annually and avoid adding generation capacity until 2032.
1 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2 3 As a result of recent amendments to the Public Utilities Act (Nova Scotia) ("Act"), the 4 Province of Nova Scotia has created a franchise system for the supply of cost-effective 5 energy efficiency and conservation a...
AI summary Nova Scotia amended the Public Utilities Act to create a franchise system for energy efficiency (DSM) programs. NS Power and E1 could not finalize a 3-year Supply Agreement due to disagreements over DSM quantity, cost, and E1's autonomy. NS Power supports DSM for stable prices but opposes E1's flexibility in altering plans, citing testimony from David Pickles.
3 Affordability of electricity service is of paramount concern to NS Power customers. This 4 is evident through NS Power engagements with our customers and stakeholders, both in 5 regulatory forums such as General Rate Applications and the...
AI summary NS Power emphasizes the affordability of electricity service for customers and highlights the impact of demand-side management (DSM) on rate pressure. The company notes that removing the energy efficiency charge from bills has left no dedicated funding for DSM, and additional DSM spending increases revenue requirements, thereby raising rates. NS Power seeks to balance DSM efforts with cost-effectiveness to avoid economic impacts on the province.
10 11 12 13 14 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 In its initial evidence for the 2013-2015 DSM Plan Evidence, E1 proposed an increase in installed DSM costs. 25 Actual results to-date show that E1 actually achieved significantly lower costs than proposed. T...
AI summary The document discusses the performance of E1's 2013-2015 DSM Plan, noting that actual costs were significantly lower than initially proposed. It compares E1's costs to Manitoba Hydro's programs and highlights that E1's 2015 DSM programs are among the highest-cost in Canada, while the Canadian average is around $0.25/kWh. NS Power argues that a robust program can align with this average.
17 3.3 Affordability from a System Planning Perspective 18 19 Through the course of the 2014 IRP, the Company analyzed revenue requirements 20 resulting from a variety of different DSM profiles. NS Power has further considered the 21 affor...
AI summary NS Power analyzed the affordability of DSM profiles via NPV of revenue requirements over time horizons. The $22M annual DSM plan (Contract Period) yields the lowest long-term NPV beyond 2030, while the $25M plan (CRP 1-1) is more affordable in the short term. NS Power argues this balances cost-effectiveness and rate stability.
Figure 3.6: Ranking of CRPs low and low to a mid-investment level. In terms of a revenue requirement analysis, the Low DSM energy and capacity savings for the $22 million expenditure plan again demonstrates superior near term affordability...
AI summary The text discusses the affordability and cost-effectiveness of different Demand Side Management (DSM) expenditure levels in the context of the 2014 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). It highlights that the 'Low' DSM energy and capacity savings plan offers superior near-term affordability while remaining cost-effective beyond 2030.
18 6.2 Schedule B – Compensation 19 20 E1 takes the position that the Supply Agreement should effectively be a fixed price 21 contract based on the total deliverable at the end of the Contract Period. E1 is paid 22 monthly and this would e...
AI summary E1 argues that the Supply Agreement should be a fixed price contract based on total deliverables at the end of the Contract Period, while NS Power believes the contract price should be allocated annually with adjustments for unspent funds.
49 EfficiencyOne Evidence, February 27, 2015, page 44. 1 discretion to make significant adjustments to the approved E1 DSM Program without any 2 further input from NS Power, the Board, or other stakeholders. Such changes could 3 include la...
AI summary The text discusses concerns about the potential for significant adjustments to the approved DSM Program by EfficiencyOne without input from NS Power, the Board, or stakeholders, which could affect implementation and cost distribution among customers. Appendix C includes draft forms of Schedules 'A' and 'B' based on an alternate DSM plan proposed by NS Power.
1 8.0 RATE IMPACT, BILL IMPACT AND PARTICIPATION RATES 2 3 As part of the E1 DSM Plan, E1 filed a Rate and Bill Impact analysis as Appendix C to 4 its Application. NS Power and other stakeholders had provided feedback on the Rate and Bill...
AI summary E1's Rate and Bill Impact Model (RBIM) does not account for the recovery of fixed costs lost due to reduced energy consumption from DSM programs, leading to an incomplete and understated analysis of rate and bill impacts. NS Power has pointed out this critical issue and supports future improvements to the model.
51 EfficiencyOne Evidence, February 27, 2015, Appendix D, page 2. 1 9.0 RESERVE FUND 30 likely these can be addressed through the established regulatory process. 31 1 In summary, NS Power submits that the protections afforded E1 under its...
AI summary NS Power argues that the protections provided to EfficiencyOne (E1) under its franchise and through the implementation of the Energy Efficiency Conservation Agreement (EECA) are sufficient to address potential risks without requiring additional insulation from market challenges. NS Power also recommends that the Board reject E1's application to establish a reserve fund.
DATE FILED: April 10, 2015 Page 48 of 51 1 11.0 ICFI EVIDENCE 2 3 To assist in its analysis of the E1 DSM Plan, NS Power engaged ICFI to carry out a 4 separate review and provide testimony. Attached hereto as Appendix A is a copy of the 5...
AI summary NS Power argues that the proposed E1 DSM Plan is not cost-effective or affordable for Nova Scotians. While recognizing the long-term benefits of DSM, NS Power suggests a reduced investment level during the Contract Period, estimating annual spending of approximately $22 million would achieve energy savings of 100 GWh per year and avoid the need for additional generation capacity until 2032.
1 Table 7. Summary of Scenario C (Company's Alternate Scenario) Impacts Cumulative Cost ($Millions) Peak Demand (MW) Cumulative (GWh) TRC Ratio Program Name E1 Case C % Diff. E1 Case C % Diff. E1 Case C % Diff. E1 Case C % Diff. RES‐Applia...
AI summary Table 7 presents the impacts of Scenario C, the company's alternate scenario, on various programs and enabling strategies. It shows cumulative costs, peak demand, and cumulative energy usage for different program categories, highlighting significant differences in cost and demand reductions compared to the baseline (E1). The TRC ratio also shows an increase in some cases.
EXPERIENCE OVERVIEW Mr. Pickles serves as a Senior Vice President for the Energy Efficiency Practice, where he is responsible for project execution, business development, and management. Mr. Pickles has over twenty five years experience as...
AI summary Mr. Pickles, a Senior Vice President in Energy Efficiency Practice, has over 25 years of experience in regulation, utility leadership, and consulting. He has designed and managed over 100 energy efficiency programs, provided expert testimony 20+ times, and worked on program planning, marketing, rate-making, and regulatory policy for public and private clients.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS, POLICY, AND IMPLEMENTATION For a confidential Southwestern electric utility, provided a detailed assessment of DSM cost recovery mechanisms including financial modeling of alternative DSM cost recovery, lost mar...
AI summary ICF International provided energy efficiency and DSM program analysis, cost recovery modeling, regulatory filings, and stakeholder engagement for multiple utilities and states, including Entergy, Maryland Energy Administration, Hawaii Electric Light Company, and others. Services included DSM potential studies, rate design assessments, and shareholder incentive mechanisms.
Attachment A Page 3 of 6 2016-2018 DSM NS Power Evidence Appendix A Page 46 of 100 For multiple clients, prepared an analysis of innovative DSM in a competitive environment. Mr. Pickles provided a summary and analysis of innovative approac...
AI summary Mr. Pickles conducted analyses of demand-side management (DSM) programs for multiple clients, including assessments of rate impacts, rebate/loan program comparisons, and design of energy efficiency rate structures (e.g., time-of-use, interruptible rates). Work involved evaluating effectiveness, equity, and regulatory compliance across utilities in Wisconsin, Indiana, Hawaii, and Guam.
e Management Report, 2014 Quarter Two Activity for the period April 1 to June 30, 2014, August 27, 2014.Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation, Evidence of ENSC As DSM Administrator – Revised July 3, 2014 EfficiencyOne, Evidence of Efficiency...
AI summary The document lists references and evidence submissions related to energy efficiency programs, regulatory proceedings, and utility reports in Nova Scotia. Key entities include Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation, Fortis Inc., Hydro One, and EfficiencyOne. Topics involve demand-side management (DSM), rate plans, and savings verification studies. Legal matters include applications under the Public Utilities Act and regulatory reviews.
MeasureLevel Results for Baseline E1 and Optimized Case D Scenarios Pro m T gra ype Sub ͲPro gra m Me asu re Mo del Bui ldin g T ype End Use Cat ego ry Sto ck T tme nt rea Dem and (kW ) Ene rgy (M Wh ) Tot l. Cos al I mp t ($ ) eba 43 Bus...
AI summary The table presents results for baseline E1 and optimized Case D scenarios, including demand, energy, and total cost impact for various measures and programs. It covers business energy efficiency rebates and includes metrics such as kW, MWh, and cost in dollars.
Schedule B
AI summary Schedule B from the Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding document lists acronyms and their expansions relevant to energy efficiency, utility regulation, and resource planning. It includes organizations, programs, and regulatory frameworks involved in Nova Scotia's electricity sector.
62745Board Decision
14 passages
- The Board is to determine the activities to be undertaken, and NSPI is to undertake the activities by virtue of an agreement for a three year term with the franchise holder, approved by the Board ( PUA ss. 79(H), 79(I), and 79(J)). Custo...
AI summary The document outlines the Board's role in approving and regulating demand-side management (DSM) activities by NSPI, including spending limits and recovery deferral terms. The agreement between NSPI and E1 for DSM activities is governed by the Public Utilities Act and the Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Restructuring (2014) Act.
he $53 million that was in rates for DSM in 2014 and which amount was subsequently repurposed by Order of the Board for 2015 fuel expenses. It expanded on these points in its post-hearing submission: - It is $69 million, or 38 percent. les...
AI summary The document discusses the repurposing of funds allocated for demand-side management (DSM) in 2014 for 2015 fuel expenses and outlines the proposed DSM Plan's investment levels. It emphasizes affordability, cost-effectiveness, and participation balance across sectors, ensuring long-term planning and avoiding new capacity additions until 2032.
3.5.2.1 Findings [71] The CA summarized his view of the purpose of a DSM program: The basic purpose is to reduce the level of energy required by Nova Scotia in the future, both short and long term. DSM programs are an integral component in...
AI summary The Consumer Advocate emphasizes the importance of DSM programs in reducing energy demand and supporting Nova Scotia's energy strategy. The Board expresses concerns with NSPI's plan, noting reduced residential spending and a disconnect with the IRP, while favoring El's plan for better alignment with the PUA and long-term cost savings.
This suggests that the targets could have been met with less spending. [74] The Board is also very concerned about the lack of rigor with respect to the determination of incentives. The Board is not satisfied that El presently has sufficie...
AI summary The Board is concerned about the lack of rigor in determining incentives for achieving savings targets and has reduced the Quantum Agreement amounts by 10% for 2016, 2017, and 2018. The Board also denied inflationary increases requested by E1 due to insufficient evidence linking NSPI's costs to general inflation.
3.5.3 Affordability - [76] Having determined the parameters of a preferred plan, the Board is specifically directed by the 2014 amendments to the PUA to address the issue of affordability. The most relevant sections are Section 79L(8) and...
AI summary The Board must assess affordability of electricity efficiency programs under PUA amendments (Sections 79L(8)-(9)), shifting from traditional lowest long-term cost criteria. Affordability has long been relevant in rate shock discussions and capital expenditure reviews, with Section 79L(9) explicitly requiring affordability evaluation. The Industrial Group emphasizes affordability in its post-hearing submission.
3.5.3.1 Findings [88] The Board notes that the DSM amount of $33,210,000, as set by the Board for 2016, is below DSM spending in each of the last four years. It is also an amount significantly below that recommended in the IRP, and the Boa...
AI summary The Board acknowledges that the 2016 DSM amount of $33,210,000 is below recent spending levels and the IRP recommendation. It considers the amount affordable under the PUA while aligning with ratepayer interests.
3.5.6 Avoided Cost Analysis [101] Synapse, in its evidence, indicated that rate impact analysis should account for all factors that impact rates either positively or negatively, which would include avoided costs that might exert downward p...
AI summary The text discusses avoided cost analysis in Nova Scotia's regulatory context, emphasizing Synapse's view on rate impact analysis, E1's recognition of DSM benefits, NSPI's interest in locational avoided costs, and the Board's encouragement of collaboration. Key considerations include environmental compliance, transmission deferral, and stakeholder coordination.
3.5.7 Rate and Bill Impact Analysis [105] In approving the Consensus Agreement the Board approves the Section 6 provisions related to rate and bill impact analysis.
AI summary The Board approves the Consensus Agreement's Section 6 provisions related to rate and bill impact analysis as part of the regulatory proceeding. This approval is explicitly referenced in the document's paragraph [105].
3.7 Mid-Course Adjustments and Flexibility [112] In the Consensus Agreement, the parties agreed to the setting of targets over a three year period, instead of annual targets. El had sought the ability to make changes of up to 25% in target...
AI summary The Consensus Agreement allows El to adjust program targets by up to 25% annually at the sector level, requiring explanations for changes exceeding this threshold. El must avoid substantial annual impacts on customer classes and provide written notice for mid-course adjustments. The Industrial Group opposes this flexibility, arguing that adjustments exceeding 25% impact on customer classes should be denied.
5.0 SUMMARY OF BOARD FINDINGS [138] E1 applied to the Board for approval of its 2016-2018 DSM Plan, pursuant to s. 79J(3) of the PUA , as it was unable to reach agreement with NSPI on the terms of the Supply Agreement. E1 sought approval f...
AI summary The Board rejected the Quantum Agreement and approved a reduced DSM spending of $102.15 million over three years, a 10% reduction, due to concerns about underspending and overachievement of savings targets, aiming to improve incentive calculations.
3) PERFORMANCE TARGETS, INDICATORS AND THRESHOLDS - a) The parties agree to the following Performance Targets and Performance Indicators: - Performance Targets are set over the three-year contract period, rather than annually. - ) Efficien...
AI summary Parties agree to three-year performance targets for energy and peak demand savings, requiring 90% achievement for compliance. Indicators include annual savings, customer satisfaction, and rate impacts. EfficiencyOne must report by program and rate class, with specific methodologies for lifetime savings and ratepayer benefits.
5) EVALUATION AND REPORTING - a) The Parties support EfficiencyOne's proposal for annual program impact evaluations and process evaluations at the organizational level with program process evaluations if required. EfficiencyOne wilt provid...
AI summary The parties support EfficiencyOne's proposal for annual program evaluations, including impact and process assessments. EfficiencyOne will report on performance requirements, explain substantial changes, avoid rate class impacts, and provide notice for mid-course adjustments. Reporting timelines and contents are subject to Board revisions.
6) RATE AND BILL IMPACT ANALYSIS - a) As with prior filings of its rate and bill impact analysis, EffidencyOne agrees to develop, in consultation with the OSM Advisory Group, assumptions to its rate and bill impact analysis. This will incl...
AI summary EfficiencyOne agrees to collaborate with the OSM Advisory Group to develop assumptions for its rate and bill impact analysis, including fixed costs contributions, and to submit historical analyses annually by October.
Lagend: Filing has not historically triggered an automatic regulatory Filing has historically tr riggered a regulatory process process (would be on request or by Decision of the UARB). ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 2015 Q2 Report...
AI summary The document outlines a filing process and its historical relationship with regulatory actions, mentioning quarterly reports, meetings with the DSMAG, and the timing of filings. It also references specific reports and processes.
63307Board Order
8 passages
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: - 1. The Board approves a DSM Plan for 2016-2018 in the aggregate amount of $102,150,000 with a target of total cumulative energy savings of 405.9 GWh and demand savings of 62.5 MW. Approved spending is $33,210,0...
AI summary The Board has approved a DSM Plan for 2016-2018 with a total budget of $102,150,000, setting energy and demand savings targets. It also approved a supply agreement between E1 and NSPI, and directed E1 and NSPI to file various reports and analyses, including on financing deferrals, accounting treatments, and locational DSM efforts.
The figure below identifies the scope of savings (3-year Cumulative Annual Net Energy and Net Peak Demand Savings) associated with carrying out EECAs over the Term. Cumulative Annual Net Cumulative Annual Net Peak Energy Savings at Generat...
AI summary The text outlines the expected savings from implementing the Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Act (EECA) over a three-year period, including cumulative annual net energy and peak demand savings. These targets are to be achieved through the EECA Plan and a Consensus Agreement adopted by the Board.
PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS - ix. An analysis of the impact on rates through the implementation of the 2016-2018 programs will be included as part of EfficiencyOne's historical-looking rate and bill impact analysis, filed by October 31st of e...
AI summary EfficiencyOne must analyze rate impacts of 2016-2018 programs annually by October 31, report low-income program metrics using census data, and submit performance indicators by rate class to the UARB in Q3 reports.
1. INTRODUCTION 1 2 3 4 5 The 2016-2018 Demand-Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan has been developed based on ENS's growing experience and history in delivering successful DSM programs and services to Nova Scotians. As part ofthe process,...
AI summary The 2016-2018 Demand-Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan was developed by ENS with input from consulting firms. It outlines a comprehensive suite of programs for Nova Scotia electricity users, not intended as an implementation plan but for planning and cost-effectiveness testing. Adjustments will be made based on market conditions, technology, and stakeholder agreements, including those from the Consensus Settlement Agreement and a 2015 Board decision.
ive House. These initiatives are planned within an average investment that was evaluated at, or lower than, that of comparison jurisdictions in 20131, and has been reduced further for the 2016 to 2018 period in consideration of short-term...
AI summary ENS argues that increasing Enabling Strategies investments, despite short-term affordability concerns, is crucial for expanding energy efficiency outreach. Their 2014 evaluation shows public awareness has risen to 35%, but more outreach is needed. They emphasize the importance of communicating DSM benefits, though technical analyses make this challenging.
1) ESTABLISHMENT OF A STANDARDIZED FILING FOR FUTURE APPLICATIONS TO APPROVE A DSM SUPPLY AGREEMENT - a) The Parties agree to the establishment of a standardized filing for future applications, the substance of which will be vetted through...
AI summary Parties agree to establish a standardized filing for future DSM supply agreement applications, including templates and data points like energy savings, cost-effectiveness analysis, and rate impact assessments. The DSM Advisory Group will vet the filing, and EfficiencyOne may add relevant information.
3) PERFORMANCE TARGETS, INDICATORS AND THRESHOLDS - a) The parties agree to the following Performance Targets and Performance Indicators: - i) Performance Targets are set over the three-year contract period, rather than annually. - ii) Eff...
AI summary Parties agree to three-year performance targets for EfficiencyOne, requiring 90% achievement on cumulative energy and peak demand savings. Performance indicators include annual and lifetime savings, ratepayer benefits, and customer satisfaction. Reporting by program and rate class is required, with low-income participation analysis and rate impact studies mandated.
6) RATE AND BILL IMPACT ANALYSIS - a) As with prior filings of its rate and bill impact analysis, EffidencyOne agrees to develop, in consultation with the DSM Advisory Group, assumptions to its rate and bill impact analysis. This will incl...
AI summary EfficiencyOne agrees to collaborate with the DSM Advisory Group on developing rate and bill impact analysis, including fixed cost contributions, and to submit historical analyses annually by October 31. This aligns with prior filings and regulatory requirements.
62378Closing Statement - Nova Scotia Department of Energy
5 passages
(2) A plan shall include: (i) an assessment of the estimated lifetime cost, reliability and magnitude of all available energy efficiency and demand reduction resources that are cost effective or less expensive than supply; (ii) the amount...
AI summary The Public Utilities Act mandates plans to assess cost-effective energy efficiency and demand reduction resources, propose demand resources, estimate energy cost savings, and detail programs enhancing affordability and reliability. Emphasis is on efficiency, demand response, load management, and supporting low-income customers through rate stability.
ectives in order to maintain affordability and stability in power rates as we continue to pursue other public interest objectives relating to a greener, more diversified and secure electricity system. 27 Transcript, June 18, 2015, pp. 792-...
AI summary The document discusses balancing the affordability and stability of power rates with public interest objectives like a greener electricity system, emphasizing the role of Demand Side Management (DSM) within Nova Scotia Power Incorporated's (NSPI) Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) under the Public Utilities Act (PUA).
sup>41 Transcript, June 16, 2015, pp. 491-492. & lt;sup>42 As the successor to Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation. & lt;sup>43 Transcript, June 16, 2015, p.486. Undertaking U-4. 45 E1 also conceded that there are some parts of its incentiv...
AI summary The text critiques E1's incentive-setting processes for being less rigorous and opaque, with incentives up to three times incremental costs. NSPI's rates are argued to already drive conservation, while technological innovations reduce electricity sales. NSPI claims 100 GWh/year savings could delay new generation capacity until 2032.
Consensus Settlement Agreement and Terms of Consensus Agreement 47. The Province supports some aspects of the terms of Consensus Agreement but does not agree with the DSM investment level and performance targets. The Province notes that in...
AI summary The Province supports aspects of the Consensus Agreement but disagrees with DSM investment levels and performance targets. Other topics for discussion include standardized filing, rate impact analysis, DSM expenditure criteria, and cost-effectiveness testing. The Province supports mid-course adjustments, flexibility for E1, and the Principles of Equity and Performance Targets.
Conclusions - 51. The amendments to the PUA in 2014 bring a new focus to the affordability of DSM in Nova Scotia. In the context of current and anticipated rate pressures, and in light of the fact that DSM is not required to address near t...
AI summary The Province argues that E1's DSM plan is overly expensive and unnecessary given current rate pressures and lack of near-term capacity needs. It requests a more modest plan, affordability-focused alternatives, and NSPI to address rate pressures. The Province also emphasizes assessing DSM effectiveness and proper handling of Supply Agreement costs.
62379Closing Submission - Nova Scotia Power Inc.
12 passages
24 In the face of these challenges to affordability, NS Power has, amongst other things, 25 significantly reduced its workforce and its capital expenditure program. These efforts 26 have been very challenging for NS Power and for those Nov...
AI summary The text discusses the financial challenges faced by NS Power due to aggressive policies such as renewable energy standards, demand-side management, and emission reductions, which have increased costs for ratepayers. Efforts to control costs, including workforce reductions and capital expenditure cuts, have been made with the goal of maintaining affordability for Nova Scotians.
5 2016-2018 Demand Side Management Resource Plan (M06733), Transcript, June 19, 2015, pages 976-977, lines 1-22 and lines 1-18. 6 Public Utilities Act , R.S.N.S. 1989, c.380, s. 79L(9). 1 representatives. Nova Scotians expect such cost red...
AI summary The document highlights concerns with E1's 2016-2018 DSM Plan, noting that it proposed higher costs per kWh and excessive energy savings compared to what is needed. It also points out flaws in E1's rate and bill impact model, suggesting that lower savings and costs would be more economically beneficial for NS Power's customers.
17 2016-2018 Demand Side Management Resource Plan (M06733), Transcript, June 16, 2015, page 538, lines 5-6. 18 Ibid, page 538, lines 12-13. Mr. Faulkner, on behalf of E1, also acknowledged on cross-examination by the IG that it would be ap...
AI summary NS Power acknowledges the benefits of DSM but emphasizes the need to balance short-term affordability with long-term savings. It recommends a DSM plan that provides 100 GWh of annual energy savings at a cost of $22 million per year, avoiding additional capacity requirements until 2032. E1 acknowledges that NS Power's proposal aligns with compliance requirements and could be more affordable for customers over the long term.
5.0 RATE PRESSURE Electricity rates are a critical consideration in assessing the affordability of DSM expenditures and an issue which the Board must take into account. Indeed, as noted above, the DOE in its comments on the balancing of sh...
AI summary The DOE opposes DSM spending that increases electricity rates, while NS Power argues DSM costs are incremental and not currently in customer rates. NS Power highlights DSM's flexibility and three-year review under the Public Utilities Act. The removal of the DSM rate rider in 2015 and use of fuel charges to address FAM deferrals are also discussed.
& lt;sup>24 2016-2018 Demand Side Management Resource Plan (M06733), Transcript, June 19, 2015, pages 780-781. 1 Although NS Power is confident E1 can deliver a program in the range of $22 million 13 14 MS. VINCENT: Our Director of Program...
AI summary The discussion revolves around the 2016-2018 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan, with participants debating the impact of DSM on non-participants' bills. It is noted that non-participants may face higher bills in the short term, and evidence shows they may be worse off over 20 years when considering the full revenue requirement.
igawatt hours at 62.5 37 megawatt hours of demand savings over the three-year period is 38 informed by very specific market research, you would have no 39 reason to disagree with that; would you, sir? 41 MR. PICKLES: You know, I would thin...
AI summary The Industrial Group (IG) asserts that 37 megawatt hours of demand savings over three years are supported by market research. MR. PICKLES challenges this, arguing there is no evidence in the record justifying the incentive levels proposed.
lines 10-22 and lines 1-3. 1 2 NS Power submits E1's incentives are artificially high as E1 is biased to providing high 3 incentives in order to achieve their energy savings targets. NS Power refers to the 4 comments of the IG in its Openi...
AI summary NS Power argues that E1's incentives are artificially high, as E1 is motivated to achieve energy savings targets. NS Power references the Industrial Group's comments, suggesting that many DSM programs are cost-effective for customers without the need for incentives, especially given current higher rates. An example is provided where a dishwasher upgrade would recoup its cost in 3.5 months due to energy savings.
& lt;sup>63 2016-2018 Demand Side Management Resource Plan (M06733), Transcript, June 19, 2015, page 969, Lines 9-20. 1 2 While it is a hypothetical possibility, it is not a reason to incur more cost than necessary now. I have two observat...
AI summary The testimony discusses the impact of increasing DSM spending on rates, emphasizing that higher costs could negatively affect the provincial economy. It also suggests that adding rigor to the DSM incentive process and right-sizing incentives could reduce disparities between participants and non-participants without harming industry capacity significantly.
64 Exhibit E-40, Evidence of the Drazen Consulting Group, on behalf of the Industrial Group, June 2, 2015, page 19, lines 7-14. 1 when sort of that stable level of activity and I believe in the Province's 2 energy report that one of the th...
AI summary The document discusses the changing supply and demand balance in Nova Scotia's electricity system, noting a significant decrease in demand due to the loss of major industrial customers and energy efficiency programs, as well as an increase in supply from new wind farms and COMFIT projects. It argues that affordability is more important than maintaining stable spending levels on demand-side management (DSM) programs.
& lt;sup>69 2016-2018 Demand Side Management Resource Plan (M06733), Transcript, June 18, 2015, page 470, lines 4-8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The Board's decisions regarding the 2016-2018 program will most likely set—or at least strongly influenc...
AI summary The 2016-2018 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan is discussed, with E1 arguing that cutting back on DSM programs would lead to higher costs and loss of momentum. E1 claims that DSM is more economical than fuel costs, citing a 50% return on investment. NS Power disagrees, stating E1's arguments are misleading.
3 11.1 Non-Financial Settlement 4 5 NS Power, E1, IG, CA, SBA, AEC and EAC entered into a Consensus Settlement Agreement dated as of June 16, 2015 (Non-Financial Settlement Agreement).76 6 The 7 Non-Financial Settlement Agreement provides...
AI summary A Non-Financial Settlement Agreement was signed by NS Power, E1, IG, CA, SBA, AEC, and EAC on June 16, 2015, addressing standardized filings, cost allocation models, performance targets, and rate impact analysis. Disputes unresolved by the DSM Advisory Group will be referred back to the Board. NS Power supports the agreement's approval.
1 12.0 CONCLUSION 2 3 E1 has failed to discharge the burden placed on it under the Act. E1 has not provided the 4 evidence necessary to justify the DSM programs and level of expenditure put forward in 5 the E1 DSM Plan as being affordable...
AI summary E1 has not met its burden of proof to justify the DSM programs and expenditure levels in its plan as affordable or in customers' best interests. The proposed energy savings and costs are not necessary for regulatory compliance or system demand, and many incentives are deemed unreasonable. NS Power recommends a reduced DSM plan to support affordability and avoid additional capacity needs until 2032.
62380Closing Submission - Efficiency One
7 passages
the $53 million currently embedded in rates, the level of 25 DSM in the Quantum Agreement - on its own - will not impact rates. This is an important short- 26 term affordability consideration. 27 28 In addition, the level of energy savings...
AI summary The document discusses the affordability impact of the Quantum Agreement and EfficiencyOne's proposed Plan, noting that while the agreement does not impact current rates, it will save over $400 million in electricity costs over time. EfficiencyOne argues that efficiency is the lowest-cost supply option, while NS Power claims the proposed plan is not affordable and suggests a lower investment level.
2 Program Cost Allocation 3 - In the Consensus Agreement, the Parties agreed to discuss further the issue of cost allocation.[3](#page-7-1) 4 - 5 Accordingly, EfficiencyOne respectfully asks the Board to approve the terms and conditions se...
AI summary EfficiencyOne requests the Board to approve the Consensus Agreement's DSM cost allocation terms, noting the omission of the 2014 Balance Adjustment and advocating for its inclusion in future discussions.
13 Rate and Bill Impact Analysis 14 - 15 In the Consensus Agreement, the Parties agreed to a process regarding rate and bill impact - analysis[4](#page-7-2) 16 . 17 - 18 Under this agreement, EfficiencyOne has agreed to develop, in consult...
AI summary EfficiencyOne agrees to revise its rate and bill impact analysis with DSM Advisory Group input, including fixed cost contributions, and to file annual historical analyses. It argues against dismissing its current analysis, emphasizing its intent to show long-term DSM benefits rather than detailed projections, and cites Synapse consultant Tim Woolf's recommendations.
20 Supply Agreement 21 - 22 The Consensus Agreement addresses the establishment of a standardized filing for future - applications[15](#page-10-4) 23 . Accordingly, EfficiencyOne asks that the Board approve the terms and conditions - 24 of...
AI summary The Consensus Agreement seeks to establish a standardized filing process for future DSM Supply Agreement applications, as requested by EfficiencyOne. The standardized filing, vetted by the DSM Advisory Group, includes program templates and specific metrics. EfficiencyOne may add relevant information and must provide technical data in its Plan filing.
17 Position of EfficiencyOne 18 - 19 Appendix J to the EfficiencyOne 2016-2018 DSM Filing set out the form of DSM Supply - 20 Agreement negotiated between EfficiencyOne and Nova Scotia Power Incorporated ("NS - 21 Power") prior to the fili...
AI summary EfficiencyOne outlines its position regarding the 2016-2018 DSM Filing, noting an agreement with Nova Scotia Power that was not finalized at the time of the Application. Outstanding issues include the quantity of DSM activities, contract deliverables, and contract price.
1 EfficiencyOne has factored in affordability to its Quantum Agreement investment level of 2 $113.5 million: 3 4 • It is $69 million, or 38 percent, less (over the three-year term) than the Mid-DSM level of 5 the IRP's Preferred Resource P...
AI summary EfficiencyOne's Quantum Agreement investment level of $113.5 million is significantly lower than previous DSM investment levels and aims to balance short and long-term affordability. It avoids new capacity additions until 2032 and ensures a balanced participation across sectors.
15 [emphasis added] 16 - 17 The uncontradicted evidence presented in the hearing established an estimated average - 18 generation cost of 12 cents per kWh while the corresponding cost of avoiding this kWh of - 19 generation through DSM equ...
AI summary The document highlights that DSM investments cost 3 cents per kWh, significantly lower than the 12 cents per kWh generation cost, making them affordable for Nova Scotia ratepayers. EfficiencyOne's plan, under the Quantum Agreement, achieves savings at 1.7 cents per kWh. The Consumer Advocate emphasizes DSM's focus on bill savings, not just generation avoidance, countering NSP's framing.
62381Closing Submission - Industrial Group
9 passages
(I) Non-Budgetary Consensus Agreement - 2. The Industrial Group was a signatory to the all-party Consensus Agreement 1 which addresses a number of non-budget items. There are three issues which the parties agree should be addressed through...
AI summary The Industrial Group and EfficiencyOne (E1) agree on non-budget items, including DSM advisory group recommendations, E1's reserve fund withdrawal, and three-year performance targets. Stakeholders broadly support Exhibit E-62, with Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI) endorsing it. The Industrial Group reserves rights regarding E1's flexibility in program funding.
(II) DOLLAR BUDGET AND PROGRAM SAVINGS 7. The Industrial Group was not a signatory to Exhibit E-61, the Agreement among E1 and two customer class stakeholder groups (residential and small business) (the "Budget Agreement"). For the reasons...
AI summary The Industrial Group opposes the proposed DSM investment level of $113.5 million for 2016–2018, arguing that the energy savings targets are unnecessary for NSPI's system needs and that non-participants will bear the cost for over 20 years. They also claim that energy savings can be achieved at a lower cost.
from 22 percent to 35 percent (average quarterly results)." In fact, in recognition of the increased awareness of E1, E1 plans that this aspect of its advertising budget will be decreased in 2015. 15 - 23. In terms of the other potential i...
AI summary The text argues that scaling back DSM funding won't cause steep rate increases, citing the IRP's findings. E1 plans to reduce advertising spending, while Mr. Drazen emphasizes Nova Scotia's 'efficiency culture' and past cost management strategies. The IRP also shows no system need for higher DSM levels.
you acknowledge that there are measures in your portfolio that pay for themselves from the customers' perspective without any incentive from EfficiencyOne? On an economic basis. Ms. Vincent: Yes. Ms. Rubin: And some of them would pay for t...
AI summary The document highlights concerns that EfficiencyOne (E1) has not adequately evaluated incentive levels and payback periods for energy efficiency measures. Despite 44 measures with payback periods under 12 months, E1 offers up to 100% cost incentives. While E1 acknowledges customer payback should influence incentives, there is no evidence they tested lower levels. E1's response cites benchmarking other jurisdictions but lacks concrete modeling.
(e) Alternative Proposal - 51. The Industrial Group presented one simple approach used in Florida in designing DSM Plans. There, the Florida Public Service Commission screens out efficiency measures with a payback of two (2) years or less...
AI summary The Industrial Group proposed Florida's approach to exclude efficiency measures with paybacks under two years. Mr. Drazen suggested using TRC thresholds (1.1) to adjust incentives, estimating an $81M budget. Florida's method could further reduce annual costs by $8M. Mr. Pickles' methodology aligns with Drazen's, focusing on right-sizing incentives based on TRC ratios.
(III) AFFORDABILITY - 59. All participants have spoken about affordability and what it means. The Industrial Group wishes to make it clear that it does not favour short-term affordability at the expense of long-term risks. The Industrial G...
AI summary The Industrial Group emphasizes balancing short-term and long-term affordability, advocating for a 10-20 year IRP horizon and regular reviews of DSM spending. They note NSPI's existing rate capacity for DSM and recommend future transparency and scenario modeling by E1 and NSPI.
(IV) OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY SOUGHT IMPACTS CUSTOMER RATES - 66. E1 delivers programs to two sectors: the Residential Sector and the BNI Sector (Business, Non-Profit and Institutional). Over the three year contract period, the budget for e...
AI summary E1 proposes operational flexibility in managing DSM budgets for Residential and BNI sectors, allowing up to 25% budget shifts without advance notice. This flexibility may cause instability in customer rates, as DSM costs are based on forecasts and could lead to unpredictable rate class variations despite overall budget stability.
[short pause] Mr. Faulkner: Certainly we recognize that the customer classes don't – would prefer that we don't over spend under the current model, and we do our level best to manage that. It's worth pointing that that's to the detriment o...
AI summary Mr. Faulkner acknowledges challenges in managing rate classes under the current model, which may hinder customer energy-saving participation. The Industrial Group opposes E1's proposed 25% sector-level funding flexibility, arguing it could disproportionately impact customer classes and requests regulatory guidance to ensure equitable ratepayer management.
(V) CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS - 76. This was the first contract to be negotiated between E1 and NSPI. It is unfortunate that the parties were not able to reach agreement however, the silver lining is that the process provided more inf...
AI summary The Industrial Group recommends the Board approve a Non-Budgetary Consensus Agreement, reject E1's proposed DSM investment level, and direct E1 to implement a lower spending plan with specific energy and demand savings targets. They also request additional time for settlement discussions and emphasize the need for transparency and appropriate incentive levels in E1's programs.
62745Board Decision
15 passages
- The Board is to determine the activities to be undertaken, and NSPI is to undertake the activities by virtue of an agreement for a three year term with the franchise holder, approved by the Board ( PUA ss. 79(H), 79(I), and 79(J)). Custo...
AI summary The Board determines NSPI's three-year agreement with E1 for DSM activities under PUA sections 79R, limiting spending to $35M and deferring recovery over eight years. Customers won't see DSM charges separately. The EECR Act mandates DSM agreements, with 2016-2018 spending subject to this proceeding.
3.5.1 Program Development [56] El's 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan, as modified by the Quantum Agreement, recommends DSM investments for the three year period of: - (1) $36.9 million in 2016, - (2) $37.8 million in 2017, - (3) $38.8 million i...
AI summary El's 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan, modified by the Quantum Agreement, allocates $113.5 million over three years. El argues that this plan is 38% less than NSPI's Mid-DSM plan and aligns with past expenditures, including the $53 million from 2014 repurposed for 2015 fuel expenses by the Board.
3.5.2.1 Findings [71] The CA summarized his view of the purpose of a DSM program: The basic purpose is to reduce the level of energy required by Nova Scotia in the future, both short and long term. DSM programs are an integral component in...
AI summary The CA emphasizes the importance of DSM programs in reducing energy demand and supporting Nova Scotia's energy strategy. The Board criticizes the NSPI Plan for significantly reducing residential DSM spending and disconnecting from the IRP's long-term cost-saving goals. The El Plan is viewed as more aligned with the PUA and IRP, though concerns remain about past underspending and overachievement of energy savings targets by El.
This suggests that the targets could have been met with less spending. [74] The Board is also very concerned about the lack of rigor with respect to the determination of incentives. The Board is not satisfied that El presently has sufficie...
AI summary The Board is concerned about the lack of rigor in determining incentives for achieving energy savings targets and has reduced the Quantum Agreement amounts by 10% for 2016, 2017, and 2018. The Board also denied inflationary increases requested by E1 due to insufficient evidence linking NSPI's costs to inflation.
3.5.3 Affordability - [76] Having determined the parameters of a preferred plan, the Board is specifically directed by the 2014 amendments to the PUA to address the issue of affordability. The most relevant sections are Section 79L(8) and...
AI summary The Board is directed by 2014 PUA amendments to assess affordability in DSM programs under Section 79L(9). Affordability, previously considered in rate shock discussions and Annual Capital Expenditure Plans, now requires explicit evaluation. The Industrial Group highlights affordability's importance in its posthearing submission, while the Board must determine if Section 79L(9) alters its assessment of DSM expenditures.
3.5.3.1 Findings [88] The Board notes that the DSM amount of $33,210,000, as set by the Board for 2016, is below DSM spending in each of the last four years. It is also an amount significantly below that recommended in the IRP, and the Boa...
AI summary The Board observes that the 2016 DSM amount of $33,210,000 is below recent spending levels and the IRP recommendation. It considers this amount affordable under Section 79L of the PUA while aligning with ratepayer interests.
ure and it does so in a way that saves our customers hundreds of millions of dollars. That's the primary reason we're doing DSM . [Emphasis added] [M02783 Transcript, April 19, 2010, pp. 30-32] In developing the 2016-2018 DSM Plan, E1 stat...
AI summary The 2016-2018 DSM Plan, proposed by E1, includes significantly reduced energy savings and expenditures compared to the Preferred Resource Plan, with NSPI's proposal being even lower. This has raised concerns about its alignment with the Integrated Resource Plan and long-term affordability.
3.5.6 Avoided Cost Analysis [101] Synapse, in its evidence, indicated that rate impact analysis should account for all factors that impact rates either positively or negatively, which would include avoided costs that might exert downward p...
AI summary The section discusses avoided cost analysis in regulatory proceedings, emphasizing the inclusion of avoided costs in rate impact analysis. Synapse highlights the need to consider factors like environmental compliance and transmission/distribution savings. E1 notes that locational DSM efforts can reduce capital investments, while NSPI expresses interest in exploring locational avoided costs. The Board encourages collaboration between parties on these issues.
3.5.7 Rate and Bill Impact Analysis [105] In approving the Consensus Agreement the Board approves the Section 6 provisions related to rate and bill impact analysis.
AI summary The Board approves the Consensus Agreement's Section 6 provisions related to rate and bill impact analysis as part of the regulatory proceeding.
3.7 Mid-Course Adjustments and Flexibility [112] In the Consensus Agreement, the parties agreed to the setting of targets over a three year period, instead of annual targets. El had sought the ability to make changes of up to 25% in target...
AI summary The Consensus Agreement sets three-year targets instead of annual ones, allowing El to adjust program savings by up to 25% at the sector level, with explanations for changes exceeding 25%. The Industrial Group opposes this if it impacts customer classes over 25%.
3.7.1 Findings [114] The Board is satisfied that the provisions of the Consensus Agreement adequately address the ability of El to make mid-course adjustments and allow sufficient flexibility at the program level. Limiting the 25% adjustme...
AI summary The Board approves the Consensus Agreement's provisions allowing mid-course adjustments limited to 25% per program, reducing customer class impacts. The Industrial Group's participation is noted.
5.0 SUMMARY OF BOARD FINDINGS [138] E1 applied to the Board for approval of its 2016-2018 DSM Plan, pursuant to s. 79J(3) of the PUA , as it was unable to reach agreement with NSPI on the terms of the Supply Agreement. E1 sought approval f...
AI summary E1 applied for approval of its 2016-2018 DSM Plan, seeking funding of $121.5 million. NSPI proposed a lower amount of $66 million. A Quantum Agreement was presented, but the Board rejected it, approving instead $102.15 million, a 10% reduction, based on past spending patterns and to encourage more rigorous incentive calculations.
1) ESTABLISHMENT OF A STANDARDIZED FILING FOR FUTURE APPLICAT IONS To APPROVE A DSM SUPPLY AGREEMENT - a) The Parties agree to the establishment of a standardized filing for future applications, the substance of which will be vetted throug...
AI summary Parties agree to establish a standardized filing for future DSM supply agreement applications, vetted by the DSM Advisory Group. The filing includes program descriptions, energy savings metrics, cost-effectiveness analysis, and bill impact details, with EfficiencyOne allowed to add relevant information.
6) RATE AND BILL IMPACT ANALYSIS - a) As with prior filings of its rate and bill impact analysis, EffidencyOne agrees to develop, in consultation with the OSM Advisory Group, assumptions to its rate and bill impact analysis. This will incl...
AI summary EffidencyOne agrees to collaborate with the OSM Advisory Group to develop rate and bill impact analysis assumptions, including fixed costs, and to submit historical analyses annually by October Jl. This aligns with prior filings and ensures transparency in future submissions.
Lagend: Filing has not historically triggered an automatic regulatory Filing has historically tr riggered a regulatory process process (would be on request or by Decision of the UARB). ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 2015 Q2 Report...
AI summary The text outlines the historical regulatory process triggered by filings, including quarterly reports and meetings with the DSMAG. It notes the timing and content of reports, as well as the frequency of meetings related to these filings.
63292Supply Agreement EfficiencyOne and NSPI Form of Agreement Final Executed in Counterparts
5 passages
27. SURVIVAL 27.1 Subject to the provisions of the Act, all provisions of this Agreement which by their express terms or nature are continuing shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement, including, without limitation, th...
AI summary This section outlines the survival of specific provisions in the Agreement upon its expiration or termination, including those related to the EECA Plan, confidentiality, indemnity, and intellectual property, among others.
PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS - ix. An analysis of the impact on rates through the implementation of the 2016-2018 programs will be included as part of EfficiencyOne's historical-looking rate and bill impact analysis, filed by October 31st of e...
AI summary EfficiencyOne must analyze rate impacts of 2016-2018 programs annually, report low-income program metrics using census data, and submit performance indicators by rate class to the UARB by Q3.
1. INTRODUCTION The 2016-2018 Demand-Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan has been developed based on ENS's growing experience and history in delivering successful DSM programs and services to Nova Scotians. As part of the process, ENS enga...
AI summary The 2016-2018 Demand-Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan outlines ENS's comprehensive suite of programs and services for Nova Scotia electricity users, developed with input from consulting firms. The Plan is not an implementation plan but a tool for planning and cost-effectiveness testing, with flexibility for mid-course adjustments based on market changes and stakeholder agreements.
Annual avoided costs, calculated using ENSC's DSM Potential Study at the Base Level, were provided by NS Power. They include the cost of energy and capacity. a Lifetime benefits are expressed as the net present value of the avoided costs,...
AI summary Annual avoided costs, calculated using ENSC's DSM Potential Study, were provided by NS Power and include energy and capacity costs. Lifetime benefits are expressed as the net present value of these avoided costs. TRC and PAC are benefit/cost ratios comparing lifetime benefits to combined and individual costs, respectively. The data reflects ENS's planned participation by low-income customers under the 2015 DSM Resource Settlement Agreement.
4.1 Education and Outreach The complexity of the electricity system means that many concepts and terms are not familiar or accessible to most Nova Scotians. The concept of energy efficiency is equally challenging to communicate effectively...
AI summary Education and Outreach is critical to DSM efforts in Nova Scotia, as energy efficiency concepts are complex and require public understanding to drive adoption. The 2014 Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Restructuring Act emphasizes energy efficiency as part of the electricity supply. While Enabling Strategies have improved public awareness (35% unaided awareness in 2014), further outreach is needed to increase participation in DSM programs. Strategies will build on feedback from Nova Scotians and past initiatives.
63307Board Order
11 passages
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: - 1. The Board approves a DSM Plan for 2016-2018 in the aggregate amount of $102,150,000 with a target of total cumulative energy savings of 405.9 GWh and demand savings of 62.5 MW. Approved spending is $33,210,0...
AI summary The Board approves a DSM Plan for 2016-2018 with a budget of $102.15 million and sets targets for energy and demand savings. It also approves a supply agreement, consensus agreement, and various filing requirements. The TRC test is maintained, and E1 is directed to explore alternate DSM budget scenarios and improve incentive determination processes.
The figure below identifies the scope of savings (3-year Cumulative Annual Net Energy and Net Peak Demand Savings) associated with carrying out EECAs over the Term. Cumulative Annual Net Cumulative Annual Net Peak Energy Savings at Generat...
AI summary The document outlines the cumulative energy and peak demand savings targets associated with Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Activities (EECA) over the Term. These targets are 405.9 GWh of energy savings and 62.5 MW of peak demand savings, to be achieved through the EECA Plan and Consensus Agreement adopted by the Board.
PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS - ix. An analysis of the impact on rates through the implementation of the 2016-2018 programs will be included as part of EfficiencyOne's historical-looking rate and bill impact analysis, filed by October 31st of e...
AI summary EfficiencyOne must analyze rate impacts of 2016-2018 programs annually, report low-income program data using census info, and submit performance indicators by rate class to the UARB by Q3.
1. INTRODUCTION 1 2 3 4 5 The 2016-2018 Demand-Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan has been developed based on ENS's growing experience and history in delivering successful DSM programs and services to Nova Scotians. As part ofthe process,...
AI summary The 2016-2018 Demand-Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan was developed by ENS with input from consulting firms. It outlines a range of programs and services for Nova Scotia electricity users, emphasizing flexibility for mid-course adjustments based on stakeholder agreements and regulatory decisions. The plan balances affordability and long-term planning while avoiding unnecessary system capacity additions.
Figure 1.3 - 2017 DSM Resource Plan Investment and Savings 2017 Investment ($ million) Lifetime Benefits ($ million)8 Incremental Annual Net Energy Savings at Generator (GWh) Incremental Annual Net Demand Savings at Generator (MW) Total Re...
AI summary Figure 1.3 presents the 2017 DSM Resource Plan Investment and Savings, outlining investments, lifetime benefits, and energy and demand savings for various residential and business programs. The table includes program-specific data such as investment amounts, benefits, and cost tests.
ive House. These initiatives are planned within an average investment that was evaluated at, or lower than, that of comparison jurisdictions in 20131, and has been reduced further for the 2016 to 2018 period in consideration of short-term...
AI summary ENS (Efficiency Nova Scotia) maintains commitment to Enabling Strategies despite reduced investment due to short-term affordability concerns, citing increased public awareness (35% in 2014) and the importance of outreach. They argue that communication of DSM benefits remains challenging but critical for program participation.
28 1 • Researching opportunities from otherjurisdictions; 2 of • Researching new measures, which demand-response and/or demand-control 3 be measures are expected to included; 4 of • from Piloting new programs and changes to existing progra...
AI summary The text discusses research into new demand-response and demand-control measures, piloting new programs, and enhancing customer experience through improved information management systems. It also mentions the development of DSM (Demand-Side Management) systems and the need for better customer interaction and marketing strategies.
1) ESTABLISHMENT OF A STANDARDIZED FILING FOR FUTURE APPLICATIONS TO APPROVE A DSM SUPPLY AGREEMENT - a) The Parties agree to the establishment of a standardized filing for future applications, the substance of which will be vetted through...
AI summary Parties agree to establish a standardized filing for future DSM supply agreements, including energy savings metrics, cost-effectiveness analysis, and rate impact details. The DSM Advisory Group will vet the template, modeled on Efficiency Maine. EffidencyOne may add relevant information and provide technical data in its filings.
3) PERFORMANCE TARGETS, INDICATORS AND THRESHOLDS - a) The parties agree to the following Performance Targets and Performance Indicators: - i) Performance Targets are set over the three-year contract period, rather than annually. - ii) Eff...
AI summary Parties agree to three-year performance targets (cumulative energy and peak demand savings) with 90% achievement thresholds. Non-compliance triggers regulatory review. Indicators include annual savings, lifetime benefits, and customer satisfaction. EffidencyOne must report by rate class and analyze rate impacts from 2016-2018 programs, including low-income participation via census data.
5) EVALUATION AND REPORTING - Advisory in 2016 for discussion. - b) EffidencyOne will explore methodologies of demand savings evaluations with its evaluator. - c) EffidencyOne agrees to provide a full report on its 2016-2018 Performance Re...
AI summary EfficiencyOne must report on 2016-2018 performance, explain substantial changes (≥25% variance), avoid rate-class impacts via cost allocation, and provide advance notice for mid-course adjustments. The Board may revise report contents based on DSM Advisory Group discussions. EfficiencyOne claims inability to notify for third-party evaluation adjustments.
6) RATE AND BILL IMPACT ANALYSIS - a) As with prior filings of its rate and bill impact analysis, EffidencyOne agrees to develop, in consultation with the DSM Advisory Group, assumptions to its rate and bill impact analysis. This will incl...
AI summary EffidencyOne agrees to collaborate with the DSM Advisory Group to develop assumptions for rate and bill impact analysis, including fixed costs contributions, and to file historical analyses annually by October 31.
63791Grant Thornton Report - Financing Demand Side Management
5 passages
igorous program for determining incentives, which should be filed with the UARB by March 31, 2016. - In future application, EfficiencyOne is to provide one or more alternate scenarios of DSM budgets for the UARB to consider, and NSPI is to...
AI summary The consensus agreement outlines requirements for EfficiencyOne to submit an incentive program to UARB by March 31, 2016, and NSPI's role in rate impact analysis. The DOE raised concerns about deferring DSM costs under the Public Utilities Act, while UARB questioned the high financing cost (7.78%) for deferred costs and urged exploring cheaper alternatives.
Revolving funding structure - Upfront approval for 100% of the required financial commitment with such revolver limit to be reduced each year as the annual Tranche is drawn down and converted to a term loan arrangement. - Eliminates the re...
AI summary The revolving funding structure allows upfront approval for 100% of financial commitments, reducing the revolver limit annually as funds are drawn. It eliminates future credit needs and reduces fees, but incurs higher initial arrangement and stand-by fees based on market rates. An example with a $102.1 million Revolver and associated fees is provided.
October 1, 2010 – December 31, 2014 The responsibility and accountability for DSM administration was transferred from NSPI to Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation ("ENSC") effective October 1, 2010. ENSC was an independent non-profit company...
AI summary Responsibility for DSM administration shifted from NSPI to ENSC in 2010. ENSC, a non-profit, funded electricity programs via ratepayer DSM Cost Recovery Rider and non-electricity programs through government funding. UARB determined efficiency targets and funding levels for electricity programs.
- As of January 1, 2015, NSPI is required by regulation to undertake cost-effective electricity efficiency and conservation activities that are reasonably available in an effort to reduce costs for its customers. As the franchise holder, E...
AI summary As of January 1, 2015, NSPI is required to undertake cost-effective electricity efficiency and conservation activities, administered by E1 under a contractual agreement approved by the UARB. The 2015 transition year had a spending cap of $35 million, with a specific 8-year amortization period. E1 and NSPI have not reached agreement on the Supply Agreement and have applied to the UARB for a decision.
Summary of NSPI's proposed DSM plan 2016-2018 3 NSPI recommends a DSM plan with a spending level of approximately $22 million per year or $66 million over the three year period. NSPI also made, among others, the following requests: - The c...
AI summary NSPI proposed a DSM plan with a spending level of approximately $22 million annually over three years. Key requests included annual allocation of contract prices, deferring cost allocation decisions, rejecting a reserve fund and a change in cost effectiveness methodology, and establishing standardized filings for future DSM applications.