Topic:"Rate Design" in M09096

James R. Gogan Direct Dial: (902) 563-5920 E-Mail: [email protected] File No. 41736-72 February 28, 2019 Nova Scotia Utility & Review Board PO Box 1692, Unit "M" Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3S3 Attention: Doreen Friis, Regulatory Affairs...

AI summary EfficiencyOne is submitting an application to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board for approval of a 2020-2022 DSM Resource Plan and a Supply Agreement with Nova Scotia Power Inc. Supporting evidence includes appendices with technical tables, rate impact models, and HST refund values.

22 5.1.3 Does diversifying away from lighting increase first-year unit cost? 23 24 Yes. 25 26 The overall unit cost of the Preferred Plan has increased from an estimated first-year 37 David Hill Direct Evidence February 27, 2019, page 8, l...

AI summary The text discusses the increase in first-year unit costs of the Preferred Plan from 2016-2018 to 2020-2022, noting that the removal of lighting measures from the plan has contributed to an increase in unit costs, with adjusted 2016-2018 unit costs estimated at approximately $0.27/kWh.

1 Improving and Providing Accessibility to all Market Sectors and Rate Classes 2

AI summary The document focuses on improving accessibility across all market sectors and rate classes in Nova Scotia. Key considerations include ensuring equitable access to services, though specific details or proposals are not elaborated in the provided text.

24 Avoided Capacity Investments 25 26 2019 is the first year in which avoided cost of capacity from the 2014 IRP is greater 27 than zero. There is now an opportunity to derive value from investing in capacity 28 avoidance. The Preferred Pl...

AI summary The Preferred Plan emphasizes demand reduction initiatives over demand response to avoid capacity investments. These initiatives reduce peak demand, deferring or avoiding capacity investments and mitigating long-term rate impacts. The plan increases investment in demand reduction from $1 million in 2019 to $3.3 million annually, aiming to reduce demand by 20.7 MW over the 2020-2022 DSM Plan term.

9 Residential 10 11 Demand reduction in the Residential sector focuses on installing electric thermal 12 storage (ETS) units and electric storage domestic water heater timers in the Green Heat 13 and Home Energy Assessment program componen...

AI summary The Residential and BNI sectors focus on demand reduction via electric thermal storage (ETS) and water heater timers. These technologies enable passive peak demand savings, reduce customer inconvenience, and align with the Preferred Plan's goal of achieving 120.1 MW demand reduction by 2022 through increased investment in DSM initiatives.

30 o Determine potential for costs reduction (e.g., test effectiveness of remote 1 strategies in order for Nova Scotians to meet energy and demand savings targets now 22 EfficiencyOne is vigilant about cost containment and control. It is k...

AI summary The text discusses the importance of cost containment in Demand Side Management (DSM) programs and highlights the need to consider near-term rate impacts in DSM planning. EfficiencyOne emphasizes its commitment to managing costs effectively while ensuring that customer funds are handled responsibly.

2 Table 8: DSM investment as a percentage of annual electric revenues Total Electric Revenues (NS Power Audited Financial Statements) $ million 2015 $ 1,389 2016 1,327 2017 1,309 2018 1,412 Total $ 5,437 Approved DSM Investment 2015 $ 39 2...

AI summary Table 8 shows NSP's DSM investment as a percentage of annual electric revenues from 2015-2018 (2.6%) and projects 3.0% for 2020-2022. The Preferred Plan's negligible impact on residential rates is noted, referencing Table 9.

nergy and capacity 49 M06733, para. 143 50 M06733, Decision at para. 82. 51 M05522, NS Power 2014 IRP Update savings that result in the lowest revenue requirement for customers.[52](#page-52-1) 1 The 2020– 2022 2 Preferred DSM Plan seeks t...

AI summary The Preferred DSM Plan for 2020–2022 aligns with the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) by maximizing IRP benefits and ensuring cost-effectiveness. It is more affordable than the 2014 mid-DSM scenario and balances short-term and long-term affordability for ratepayers. The proposed plan increases DSM investment by approximately $3 million annually compared to the last nine years of approved levels.

1 8. ALTERNATE SCENARIO 2 3 EfficiencyOne has been directed by the Board to provide one or more alternate 4 scenarios of DSM budgets for the Board to consider. NS Power has been directed to 5 provide rate impact analysis on those scenarios...

AI summary EfficiencyOne is required to provide alternate DSM budget scenarios for the Board's consideration, while NS Power must analyze their rate impacts. The alternate scenario aims to offer a lower-cost plan.

16 Assets acquired on or after Implementation Date 17 8. Any assets of the Corporation acquired on or after the Implementation Date 18 must be transferred to Nova Scotia Power Incorporated for the benefit of the 19 customers of Nova Scotia...

AI summary The text discusses the transfer of assets acquired by the Corporation on or after the Implementation Date to Nova Scotia Power Incorporated for customer benefit. It also outlines a proposal by EfficiencyOne to apply an HST refund across the 2020–2022 DSM Plan to reduce required investment and enhance affordability.

1 Methodology Used to Allocate HST Refund by Rate Class 2 3 To enable the appropriate rate class allocation of funds associated with HST amounts 4 paid by ratepayers from 2010 through 2014, EfficiencyOne has developed a cost 5 allocation m...

AI summary EfficiencyOne developed a cost allocation model to distribute HST refunds by rate class (2010-2014), using prior balance adjustments and financial reporting data. Discontinued rate classes had their HST amounts redistributed proportionally. The methodology claims accuracy in reflecting original HST payments, while also estimating reinvestment benefits via present value calculations.

22 Incorporate the Value of Avoiding C02 Emissions in its DSM Cost Effectiveness 23 24 In its Reply Submissions, filed in support of the 2019 Demand Side Management 25 (DSM) Resource Plan, EfficiencyOne agreed to study opportunities to inc...

AI summary EfficiencyOne agrees to study incorporating the value of avoided CO2 emissions into its DSM cost effectiveness screening. It also explains that its eTRM is an operationalized system integrated with IT infrastructure, which cannot be printed or shared like a traditional TRM, but stakeholders were provided with a detailed overview and demonstration.

17 Value - 18 Consistent with the Standardized Filing Framework, the Preferred Plan adopts a 19 Balanced Plan Approach which incorporates multiple factors of DSM for the benefit of 20 customers. The application of these principles has resu...

AI summary The Preferred Plan adopts a Balanced Plan Approach incorporating multiple factors of Demand Side Management (DSM) to benefit customers. It includes initiatives such as diversifying beyond lighting savings, improving accessibility, avoiding capacity investments, and managing rate and bill impacts.

946, EfficiencyOne 2018 Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (31 October 2018), Electronically filed model version, Microsoft Excel file). 1 supports a robust energy efficiency industry in Nova Scotia. 2 3 Over the past decade demand side managem...

AI summary The document highlights the success of demand side management (DSM) in Nova Scotia, noting that benefits to ratepayers have far exceeded utility investments by a 4:1 ratio. It emphasizes the continued evolution of the energy efficiency market and the cost-effectiveness of the 2020-2022 Preferred DSM Resource Plan, which includes efforts to improve accessibility and achieve deeper savings.

-14 effective energy solutions; - 15 providing accessibility for a wider variety of market sectors and customer 16 segments; and - 17 increasing the level of system-peak demand reduction benefits. 18 19 EfficiencyOne also considered afford...

AI summary EfficiencyOne evaluated the 2020-2022 Preferred Plan, noting minor rate increases (0.8–1.7%) and bill reductions (1–11%) for customers. The plan offsets nearly 6,000 GWh of energy production and reduces annual peak demand by 120 MW, with lifetime benefits exceeding $600 million.

Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity were provided by NS Power, from the 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2018. & lt;sup>a Lifetime benefits are expres...

AI summary Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity from the 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM were provided by NS Power, along with avoided costs of transmission and distribution from 2018. The text describes metrics like TRC and PAC, which are benefit/cost ratios, and highlights EfficiencyOne's planned participation by low-income customers.

Table 4: 2021 Preferred DSM Resource Plan Investment and Savings 2021 Investment ($ million) Lifetime Benefits ($ million) a First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Total Resource Cost Test (T...

AI summary Table 4 outlines the 2021 Preferred DSM Resource Plan investment and savings, detailing program investments, lifetime benefits, energy savings, and cost tests for residential and non-residential DSM programs in Nova Scotia.

Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity were provided by NS Power, from the 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2018. & lt;sup>a Lifetime benefits are expres...

AI summary The text discusses annual avoided costs of energy and capacity from the 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM, as well as avoided costs of transmission and distribution from 2018. It also references metrics such as TRC and PAC, which are benefit/cost ratios used to evaluate program effectiveness.

Table 14: New Residential Performance Indicators - Comparison of Preferred and Alternate Plans Scenario Year Investment ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Total Resource Cost...

AI summary Table 14 compares the performance indicators of preferred and alternate plans for new residential energy efficiency initiatives. It includes metrics such as investment, energy savings, peak demand savings, and cost indicators for both scenarios over the years 2020 to 2022. The alternate plan shows slightly lower investment and energy savings compared to the preferred plan.

Marketing Strategy The strategic marketing focus is to enhance relationships with the distributor network. The marketing strategy will be aligned by customer segment or vertical. Key messages will focus on non-energy benefits as well as wa...

AI summary The marketing strategy focuses on enhancing distributor relationships through customer segmentation, emphasizing non-energy benefits and rebates. EfficiencyOne collaborates with ETN and partners to use tactics like trade shows, marketing materials, and distributor training to promote programs effectively.

Impact Evaluations Annual impact evaluations will provide EfficiencyOne, stakeholders, and the NSUARB with up-to-date impacts on net electrical energy and net system-peak demand savings as progress indicators towards the overall approved 2...

AI summary Annual impact evaluations will track progress towards the 2020-2022 DSM Resource Plan targets, providing updates on energy and system-peak demand savings. EfficiencyOne will determine whether a full or condensed evaluation is needed, with condensed reports referencing prior evaluations and including program changes.

Rate and Bill Impact Analyses EfficiencyOne will file its historical Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) by October 31st of each year. The historical RBIA estimates the high-level, long-term impact to rates and bills of all DSM activities...

AI summary EfficiencyOne is required to file historical and forward-looking Rate and Bill Impact Analyses (RBIA) annually and as part of each DSM Resource Plan. The DSM Advisory Group provides strategic input on DSM issues, and a Standardized Filing Framework for DSM Supply Agreements was approved by the NSUARB in 2016.

1 that identifies the desired outcome of an activity at a specific point in time. In this 2 Application Performance Targets refer to NSUARB-approved targets. Performance Threshold: A predefined quantity, percentage, or range which identifi...

AI summary The text defines Performance Targets and Performance Thresholds in the context of an application, noting that Performance Targets apply to the period of the NSUARB-approved Supply Agreement with NS Power, rather than annually.

census information. 1 vi. Total ratepayer benefits; 2 vii. Total spending (reported by program and rate class); 3 viii. Customer satisfaction; 4 ix. An analysis of the impact on rates through the implementation of the 5 programs will be in...

AI summary The document outlines various reporting requirements related to ratepayer benefits, customer satisfaction, and low-income program participation. It also mentions the inclusion of rate and bill impact analysis by EfficiencyOne, to be filed annually by October 31st.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EfficiencyOne's 2020-2022 Demand-Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan Rate and Bill Impact Analysis provides a broad trend-based picture of the rate and bill impacts of proposed DSM activities to be carried out during the...

AI summary EfficiencyOne's 2020-2022 DSM Resource Plan analysis compares rate and bill impacts of proposed DSM activities under Preferred and Alternate scenarios, modeling effects until 2035. It evaluates DSM vs. no-DSM scenarios, excluding utility-specific factors, to assess long-term average impacts on rates and bills.

1. INTRODUCTION This rate and bill impact analysis (RBIA) provides a high-level estimate of the impact of DSM activities proposed within EfficiencyOne's 2020-2022 DSM Resource Plan ("the Plan") on customer rates and bills, within each part...

AI summary This Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) estimates the impact of Demand Side Management (DSM) activities in EfficiencyOne's 2020-2022 DSM Resource Plan on customer rates and bills across participating rate classes. The analysis covers the period from 2020 to 2035 and was developed using a model reviewed and revised over time with input from the DSMAG and Synapse Energy Economics.

Timeframe for levelization of avoided capacity costs EfficiencyOne adopted a recommendation to levelize the annual avoided capacity costs from the 2014 IRP over the RBIA study period, instead of using the levelized value from the 2014 IRP,...

AI summary EfficiencyOne adjusted the timeframe for levelizing avoided capacity costs from the 2014 IRP study period to the RBIA study period, increasing the levelized value from $195,355/MW to $195,990/MW. This change reflects a methodological shift in cost allocation over different study periods.

Addition of "Rates with and without DSM" graph in Attachments 1 and 2 This analysis previously included a graph for each class showing year-over-year percentage changes in rates with and without DSM (the bottom-left graph of odd- numbered...

AI summary The analysis replaces a graph showing erratic year-over-year rate changes with and without DSM with a new graph depicting full projected rates over the study period, providing clearer context on DSM's impact relative to total rates.

12 3.2 SCENARIOS 13 The models each compare two scenarios: a DSM scenario and a no-DSM scenario. 14 The DSM scenario includes the estimated administrative costs and resulting energy 15 and system-peak demand reductions of DSM programs that...

AI summary The analysis compares DSM and no-DSM scenarios (2020-2022), evaluating administrative costs, energy reductions, and system-peak demand. Rate and bill impacts are presented as differences between scenarios to isolate DSM effects. Results are detailed in Sections 4 (Preferred Plan) and 5 (Preferred vs. Alternate Plans).

- 28 Small General (rate code 10); 1 • General (rate code 11); 2 • Large General (rate code 12); 3 • Small Industrial (rate code 21); 4 • Medium Industrial (rate code 22;) 5 • Large Industrial (rate codes 23 and 25, and customers under the...

AI summary The document outlines different rate codes and discusses the definitions related to the time periods for Demand Side Management (DSM) programs. It specifies the DSM delivery period as 2020-2022, the cost recovery period as 2020-2022, and the avoided costs and lost revenues periods as 2020-2035. The analysis considers the average measure life of DSM measures installed in 2022 for the Residential class as approximately 14 years.

6 3.7 CALCULATING RATE IMPACTS 7 This section describes key elements of the rate impact calculations. The model does 8 not forecast the timing of general rate applications, or the occurrence of any future 9 rate adjustments; it instead ass...

AI summary This section outlines a model for calculating rate impacts, assuming annual rate changes and isolating DSM effects from other utility factors. Results are presented as annual 'rate pressure' from DSM by comparing DSM and no-DSM scenarios.

14 3.7.1 NO-DSM SCENARIO RATES 15 The model uses a set of forecast rates without DSM, on top of which calculated DSM 16 impacts are added. The last year for which actual (i.e. with-DSM) rates are known is 17 2019. An approximate Program Co...

AI summary The analysis models no-DSM rates by subtracting 2019 program costs from actual rates, escalating them annually by 2.7%, and using them to calculate class revenue and average energy rates. This forms the baseline for comparing DSM impacts.

1 3.7.2 DSM SCENARIO RATES 2 The DSM rates are calculated by taking the average no-DSM rates, adding a program 3 cost recovery component (upward rate pressure), adding a lost revenue component 4 (upward rate pressure), and subtracting an a...

AI summary DSM rates are calculated by adjusting average no-DSM rates with program cost recovery, lost revenue, and avoided costs components. Key assumptions include recovering all lost revenues and not recovering avoided costs, leading to upward rate pressure.

11 Program cost recovery 12 EfficiencyOne tracks costs by rate class within each year. For each year of the 2020- 13 2022 DSM Plan, which was originally modelled by Navigant at the program level 14 (not by rate class), the planned investme...

AI summary EfficiencyOne tracks program costs by rate class annually. The 2020-2022 DSM Plan, originally modeled by Navigant at the program level, allocated investments to rate classes based on 2017 expenditure distributions. Annual DSM costs are converted to a $/kWh recovery component by dividing costs by with-DSM kWh sales per rate class.

10 Class allocation of avoided costs and lost revenues 11 The annual avoided costs and lost revenues at the portfolio level are then reallocated 12 back to rate classes based on class shares of the total revenue requirement. For classes 13...

AI summary The text explains how annual avoided costs and lost revenues are reallocated to rate classes based on their share of revenue. For classes without demand charges, impacts are calculated per kWh, while classes with demand charges split impacts into energy and demand rate components.

1 3.8 CALCULATING BILL IMPACTS 2 This section describes key elements of the bill impact calculations. 3

AI summary The section outlines the key elements involved in calculating bill impacts, which is part of the regulatory proceeding related to energy efficiency and utility management in Nova Scotia.

4 No-DSM consumption 5 In the no-DSM scenario, for each rate class, in each year, the estimate of total class 6 energy consumption is divided by the number of customers to produce an estimate of 7 the average customer's consumption. This a...

AI summary The no-DSM scenario calculates average customer energy consumption by dividing total class energy consumption by the number of customers. This average, combined with no-DSM rates, determines average bills. Post-2019, the ratio of block 1 energy consumption to total consumption within each class is assumed constant.

12 Non-participant consumption and bill impacts 13 In the DSM scenario, non-participants in DSM programs are assumed to use the same 14 amount of energy as they do in the no-DSM scenario. Their bill impacts are therefore 15 driven only by...

AI summary In the DSM scenario, non-participants use the same energy as in the no-DSM scenario, so their bill impacts are driven only by rate changes. Fixed customer charges cause percentage bill impacts to differ from rate impacts.

20 Participant consumption and bill impacts 21 For the DSM scenario, within each rate class, in each year, total annual savings (i.e. 22 current-year savings plus persistent savings from past years) are divided equally 23 amongst the numbe...

AI summary The DSM scenario assumes equal distribution of total annual savings (current and past) among all participants in each rate class, ignoring variations in participation depth. This approach assumes uniform energy and system-peak demand savings per participant, despite real-world disparities.

1 Total customer consumption and bill impacts 2 The output graphs include a third category of participants, called Total Customers. 3 Impacts for this category are determined by allocating DSM savings for the class 4 equally among all cust...

AI summary The analysis describes a method for estimating bill impacts by allocating Demand-Side Management (DSM) savings equally among all customers in a class, without differentiating between participants and non-participants. This approach provides a simplified estimate of total customer consumption and bill impacts.

7 3.9 CALCULATING PARTICIPATION IMPACTS 8 For illustrative purposes, participation graphs provided in Attachments 1 and 2 9 include historical participation in 2011-2019 DSM programs. These participation 10 figures are identical to those u...

AI summary The section references historical participation data in DSM programs from 2011-2019, as presented in Attachments 1 and 2, which are identical to those used in EfficiencyOne's 2018 RBIA.

12 Forecasted 2020-2022 participation 13 For the current analysis, which looks only at DSM delivered over 2020-2022, 14 estimates of both annual and new participants are required for each program, within 15 each rate class, for each year o...

AI summary This section discusses the methodology used to forecast participation in demand-side management (DSM) programs from 2020 to 2022. EfficiencyOne estimated participation based on 2017 data, scaled by factors related to program magnitude and product mix. Exceptions include New Home Construction and Custom Incentives, which were handled differently.

9 4.1 OVERALL RATE IMPACTS 10 The general trend in rates, visible in all classes, is that the avoided costs and lost 11 revenues are approximately in balance throughout the life of DSM measures; this 12 means that DSM program cost recovery...

AI summary DSM program cost recovery drives rate impacts, with small (<1.7%) average rate increases across classes from 2020-2022. Avoided costs and lost revenues balance over DSM measures' lifetimes, but annual rate effects peak during 2020-2022 before nearing zero post-2022. Figures 2-4 illustrate average impacts, annual trends, and expenditure comparisons.

1 Figure 4: DSM Expenditures and Investments per kWh 2 3 Note: 2016 and 2017 energy savings use evaluated results while 2018 are estimated. 4 5 [Table 2](#page-203-0) presents the average rate impacts over the study period (the same values...

AI summary Figure 4 and Table 2 compare DSM expenditures and investments per kWh over different time periods, highlighting changes in rate impacts from 2018 to the current analysis. The current analysis covers 2020-2035 with impacts averaged over 16 years, while the 2018 RBIA covered 2011-2019 with impacts averaged over 21 years. Differences in calculation methods, such as avoided energy costs and line losses, are noted.

13 14 Table 2: Average Rate Impact compared to No-DSM Scenario, 2018 Historical to 2020-2022 Preferred Plan 15 Results Comparison 2018 Historical RBIA Result (Average Impact over 2011-2032) 2020-2022 Preferred Plan RBIA Result (Average Imp...

AI summary The table compares the average rate impact of the 2018 historical DSM plan and the 2020-2022 preferred DSM plan across various rate classes. The preferred plan shows higher rate impacts, particularly in the first three years when program costs are being recovered. Figure 5 illustrates that rate increases due to factors other than DSM will be significant over the study period, with DSM and no-DSM rates shown for three representative classes.

8 4.3 OVERALL PARTICIPATION IMPACTS 9 Figures 4 through 7 present actual participation for 2011-2017 and estimates for 2018 10 through 2022. The 2011-2019 figures are presented here to provide context for the 11 2020-2022 estimates. The es...

AI summary The document analyzes participation data from 2011-2022, distinguishing between tracked and untracked participants. It notes that certain customer classes have 100% participation in BER-IR, while others show increasing rates. Figures 7-10 illustrate these trends.

Figure 9: Annual Participation Rates by Rate Class (tracked only) (Preferred Plan) Figure 10: Annual Participation Rates by Rate Class (tracked + untracked) (Preferred Plan)

AI summary The document presents two figures (Figure 9 and Figure 10) showing annual participation rates by rate class for the Preferred Plan, tracking both tracked and untracked participants. These figures are part of a regulatory proceeding involving Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSP) and the Nova Scotia Utility and Regulatory Board (NSUARB), likely related to demand-side management (DSM) program performance metrics.

1 4.4 RESULTS BY RATE CLASS 2 This section highlights results in more detail, by individual rate class for the Preferred 3 Plan.

AI summary Section 4.4 details results by rate class for the Preferred 3 Plan, providing a breakdown of outcomes specific to different rate categories within the regulatory proceeding.

17 4.4.2 SMALL GENERAL 18 • As modelled, the Small General class Small General 19 includes Rate Code 10 only. ↑ 1.1% Rates 20 • Participants in the Small General class ↓ 5.3% Avg. Participant bills 21 see an average bill decrease of 5.3 ↓...

AI summary The Small General class, which includes Rate Code 10, sees an average bill decrease of 5.3% for participants over the study period, while non-participants experience an average bill increase of 1.0%.

1 4.4.3 GENERAL 2 • As modelled, the General class 3 includes Rate Code 11 only. 4 • Participants in the General class see an 5 average bill decrease of 3.2 percent 6 over the study period. 7 • Non-Participants see an average bill increase...

AI summary The General and Large General classes show differing bill impacts. General class participants saw a 3.2% bill decrease, while non-participants faced a 1.0% increase, with an overall 3.1% decrease. Large General participants had a 3.5% decrease, non-participants a 1.1% increase, and an overall 3.5% decrease. Rate impacts increased by 1.3% (0.1 cents/kWh) and 1.5% (0.2 cents/kWh) respectively.

1 4.4.5 SMALL INDUSTRIAL 2 • As modelled, the Small Industrial class 3 includes Rate Code 21 only. 4 • Participants in the Small Industrial 5 class see an average bill decrease of 6 4.4 percent over the study period. 7 • Non-Participants s...

AI summary The analysis compares bill impacts for Small, Medium, Large Industrial, and Municipal classes under Nova Scotia's regulatory proceeding. Small Industrial participants saw a 4.4% bill decrease, while non-participants increased by 1.1%. Medium Industrial participants decreased by 1.2%, with a 0.8% rate increase. Large Industrial and Municipal classes showed similar trends, with Municipal utilities experiencing a 3.6% average bill decrease. Rate impacts ranged from 0.1–0.2 cents/kWh across classes.

1 5. COMPARISON OF PREFERRED AND ALTERNATE PLANS 2 Full results by class for both the Preferred Plan and Alternate scenario for 2020-2022 3 are provided in Attachments 1 and 2. This section compares key outputs between the 4 two Plans. 5 6...

AI summary The document compares the Preferred Plan and Alternate scenario for 2020-2022, noting similar rate impacts (0.1% difference due to DSM costs) and minor variations in participant bill savings. The Preferred Plan allows more customers to participate, while program scaling differences in the Alternate scenario create minor savings discrepancies.

29 • Further exploring NS Power's proposed means of allocating lost revenues and 30 avoided costs to rate classes; 1 • Discussing which avoided cost estimates to use when avoided cost estimates 2 change (EfficiencyOne indicated its intende...

AI summary The text discusses NS Power's proposed allocation of lost revenues and avoided costs to rate classes, focusing on the use of avoided cost estimates and historical data in the Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) model. EfficiencyOne has provided its approach and expects to collaborate with stakeholders for the next RBIA filing.

1 7. CONCLUSION 2 This analysis captures the impacts of 2020-2022 DSM programs to customer rates 3 and bills throughout the full lifetime of the DSM impacts. Over the lifetime of 4 measures installed in 2020-2022, NS Power customers will s...

AI summary This conclusion discusses the long-term benefits of DSM programs from 2020-2022, including customer savings of over $475 million. It highlights the Total Resource Cost and Program Administrator Cost ratios, rate increases, and bill savings. The analysis also acknowledges the limitations of the evaluation and mentions future improvements to the model.

Appendix B – Attachment 1: Results by Rate Class (Preferred Plan) Long-Term Rate and Bill Impact Analysis of the 2020-2022 DSM Plan This graph shows estimated rate impacts of DSM, relative to the no-DSM scenario. Blue bars show the impact...

AI summary This section presents a long-term rate and bill impact analysis of the 2020-2022 DSM Plan. It includes visual representations showing the estimated rate impacts of DSM, including program cost recovery, lost revenues, and avoided utility costs, as well as bill impacts for participants, non-participants, and total customers relative to a no-DSM scenario.

f positive and negative rate pressures), which accounts for recovery of fixed costs that are not avoided due to DSM. The dotted red line shows the average net rate impact of DSM over the study period. This graph shows bill impacts of DSM a...

AI summary The text discusses the financial and billing impacts of Demand Side Management (DSM) programs, showing how they affect customer bills and participation rates. Graphs illustrate the average net rate impact, monthly bill differences, and cumulative program participation for tracked and untracked programs.

otal customers in the class. Each customer is counted once for each year that they participate in any program. This graph shows estimated rate impacts of DSM, relative to the no-DSM scenario. Blue bars show the impact of program cost recov...

AI summary The text discusses the estimated rate and bill impacts of Demand Side Management (DSM) programs, comparing scenarios with and without DSM. It highlights program cost recovery, lost revenues, and avoided utility costs, while also showing cumulative participation rates across eligible customers.

This graph shows estimated rate impacts of DSM, relative to the no-DSM scenario. Blue bars show the impact of program cost recovery. Red bars show the impact of lost revenues due to reduced sales. Purple bars show the impact of avoided uti...

AI summary The text presents visual data on the estimated rate and bill impacts of Demand Side Management (DSM) programs, comparing scenarios with and without DSM. Graphs illustrate the net rate effect, participation rates, and cumulative participation over time, highlighting the financial and usage impacts of DSM on customers and the utility.

participant is counted once in each year that they participate. Darker bars show "tracked" participants (i.e. programs that do not collect participation info, where participant figures are estimated). This graph shows annual program partic...

AI summary The text discusses visual representations of program participation rates and their impact on utility rates and bills. It includes graphs showing annual participation percentages, estimated rate impacts, and bill impacts of Demand Side Management (DSM) relative to a no-DSM scenario. The analysis considers participants, non-participants, and total customers.

Appendix B – Attachment 2: Results by Rate Class (Alternate Scenario) Long-Term Rate and Bill Impact Analysis of the 2020-2022 DSM Plan This graph shows estimated rate impacts of DSM, relative to the no-DSM scenario. Blue bars show the imp...

AI summary This document presents a long-term rate and bill impact analysis of Nova Scotia's 2020-2022 DSM Plan. Graphs compare rate impacts (cost recovery, lost revenues, avoided costs) and bill impacts for participants vs. non-participants. Visuals also show cumulative program participation rates across customer classes, distinguishing tracked vs. untracked programs.

This graph shows annual program participation for the class, as a percentage of total customers in the class. Each customer is counted once for each year that they participate in any program. # Rate a nd Bill I mpacts o f DSM or the Sm all...

AI summary The graph illustrates annual program participation for the small industrial rate class, showing incremental and cumulative DSM savings, DSM costs, and average savings per participant over time. Participation and savings increase from 2020 to 2022 before plateauing, with costs and savings per participant also noted.

This graph shows estimated rate impacts of DSM, relative to the no-DSM scenario. Blue bars show the impact of program cost recovery. Red bars show the impact of lost revenues due to reduced sales. Purple bars show the impact of avoided uti...

AI summary The text includes graphs analyzing the rate and bill impacts of Demand-Side Management (DSM) programs, comparing scenarios with and without DSM. It also discusses program participation rates, distinguishing between tracked and non-tracked participants, and shows participation trends over time.

al program participation for the class, as a percentage of total customers in the class. Each customer is counted once for each year that they participate in any program. This graph shows estimated rate impacts of DSM, relative to the no-D...

AI summary The text discusses the rate and bill impacts of Demand-Side Management (DSM) programs, showing estimated effects on utility rates and customer bills. Graphs illustrate the impact of program cost recovery, lost revenues, and avoided utility costs, as well as differences between participants, non-participants, and total customers in the context of DSM.

otal customers in the class. Each customer is counted once for each year that they participate in any program. This graph shows estimated rate impacts of DSM, relative to the no-DSM scenario. Blue bars show the impact of program cost recov...

AI summary The text discusses the estimated rate and bill impacts of Demand-Side Management (DSM) programs, comparing scenarios with and without DSM. It highlights the effects of program cost recovery, lost revenues, and avoided utility costs, with visual representations of the net rate and bill impacts for participants, non-participants, and total customers.

Page 13 of 16 Rate a nd Bill I mpacts of of DSM or า the Lar ge Indus trial Clas s - ALTE RNATE F PLAN Impacts of DSM on the Large Industrial Rate Class 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2...

AI summary This table presents the impacts of the Large Industrial Class Demand-Side Management (DSM) Plan from 2011 to 2035, including incremental and cumulative DSM savings, DSM costs, participant numbers, and the levelized cost of saved energy. Savings and costs are shown over time, with notable data starting in 2020.

f positive and negative rate pressures), which accounts for recovery of fixed costs that are not avoided due to DSM. The dotted red line shows the average net rate impact of DSM over the study period. This graph shows bill impacts of DSM a...

AI summary The graph illustrates the bill impacts of Demand-Side Management (DSM) as a percentage difference relative to a no-DSM scenario. It differentiates between participants, non-participants, and total customers, showing how DSM affects average energy use and cost recovery.

Appendix B – Attachment 3: Assumptions Long-Term Rate and Bill Impact Analysis of the 2020-2022 DSM Plan

AI summary The document presents a long-term analysis of the rate and bill impacts of Nova Scotia Power Inc.'s 2020-2022 Demand-Side Management (DSM) Plan, likely part of a regulatory proceeding involving the Nova Scotia Utility and Regulatory Board (NSUARB).

2 Attachment 3: Assumptions - 3 This document is intended to provide an overview of the assumptions used in - 4 EfficiencyOne's 2020-2022 Plan Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA). - 5 These assumptions are for RBIA purposes only and do no...

AI summary This document outlines the assumptions used in EfficiencyOne's 2020-2022 Plan Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA), emphasizing that these assumptions are specific to the RBIA and do not influence EfficiencyOne's broader operations.

- 6 construction of the Plan or calculation of energy savings. Item Description General EfficiencyOne has used the "snapshot" approach recommended by approach Synapse, in which the impacts of specific program years are analyzed (in this ca...

AI summary The document discusses the construction of the Plan and the calculation of energy savings, using a 'snapshot' approach for specific program years (2020-2022) rather than long-term DSM analysis. Two models (Preferred and Alternate) compare DSM and no-DSM scenarios, with results provided for multiple rate classes.

NS Power provided estimates for 2019 by class, including block 1, block 2, Fuel Adjustment Mechanism, and demand charges where applicable. base charges are assumed to remain flat after 2019. Transformer credits are not included in rates. C...

AI summary NS Power provided 2019 estimates for block 1, block 2, Fuel Adjustment Mechanism, and demand charges. Base charges are assumed flat after 2019, and transformer credits are excluded from rates. Historical and forecasted energy sales data, including DSM assumptions from the 2014 IRP, are used to estimate no-DSM rates and sales scenarios.

Appendix B – Attachment 4: Equations Long-Term Rate and Bill Impact Analysis of the 2020-2022 DSM Plan

AI summary This document presents the Long-Term Rate and Bill Impact Analysis of the 2020-2022 Demand-Side Management (DSM) Plan, focusing on equations used to evaluate financial impacts. It is part of a regulatory proceeding involving Nova Scotia's energy efficiency initiatives.

2 Attachment 4: Equations - 3 The following set of equations describes the modeling approach to calculating lost revenues and - 4 avoided costs, and their allocation to rate classes. Lost fixed revenues are not calculated directly; - 5 ins...

AI summary Attachment 4 presents equations for calculating lost revenues (LR) and avoided costs (AC) in Nova Scotia's electricity regulatory proceedings. Lost revenues are recovered by Nova Scotia Power through the difference between lost revenues and avoided costs, which can be positive or negative. Equations allocate these values across rate classes using attribution factors.

1 Description of the indices: Parameter (Index) Index Value Description Rate class 1 Residential (i) 2 Small General 3 General 4 Large General 5 Small Industrial 6 Medium Industrial 7 Large Industrial 8 Municipal 9 Unmetered/Other Year 1 t...

AI summary The text describes the parameters and indices used in a regulatory proceeding, including rate classes and year ranges from 2011 to 2040. It outlines the structure of the indices, with rate classes categorized by customer type and year indices spanning three decades.

14 15 16 Tables 2, 3, and 4 provide the program-level savings and investment for 2020, 2021, and 2022 respectively. & lt;sup>a Lifetime benefits are expressed as the net present value of the avoided costs, including energy, capacity, trans...

AI summary Tables 2, 3, and 4 present program-level savings and investment data for 2020, 2021, and 2022. The text explains that lifetime benefits are calculated as the net present value of avoided costs, including energy, capacity, transmission, and distribution, using the utility WACC. TRC and PAC are defined as benefit/cost ratios comparing lifetime benefits to the combined costs of EfficiencyOne and participants, and to EfficiencyOne's costs, respectively.

Table 2: Alternate DSM Resource Scenario Investment and Savings 2020 Investment ($ million) Lifetime Benefits ($ million) a First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Total Resource Cost Test (TR...

AI summary Table 2 outlines investment and savings for alternate Demand-Side Management (DSM) resource scenarios in 2020, including residential and business programs, with details on energy savings, peak demand reductions, and cost tests. The data reflects avoided costs provided by NS Power from the 2014 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and 2018 transmission and distribution costs.

& lt;sup>a Lifetime benefits are expressed as the net present value of the avoided costs, including energy, capacity, transmission and distribution, over the life of the program measures, using the utility WACC. & lt;sup>b TRC is a benefit...

AI summary The text explains the calculation of lifetime benefits for energy efficiency programs, using net present value of avoided costs and benefit/cost ratios such as TRC and PAC. It also mentions EfficiencyOne's planned participation by low-income customers across various residential programs.

Table 3: 2021 Alternate DSM Resource Scenario Investment and Savings 2021 Investment ($ million) Lifetime Benefits ($ million) a First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Total Resource Cost Tes...

AI summary Table 3 presents the 2021 investment and savings data for alternate Demand-Side Management (DSM) resource scenarios, including program-specific investments, lifetime benefits, energy savings, and cost tests. The data is provided by Nova Scotia Power and includes information from the 2014 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and 2018 transmission and distribution avoided costs.

Q: What is your experience in providing testimony? 1 A: I have provided testimony in regulatory hearings on more than a dozen occasions, and have 2 participated in scores of technical workshops and working groups on behalf of many clients,...

AI summary The witness has extensive experience providing testimony in regulatory hearings and technical workshops, including work with NS Power's AMI project, EmPOWER Maryland, Pennsylvania's Act 129, and Ontario's Brampton and Hydro One. They have also testified on efficiency programs, rate design, net metering, and solar market strategies in multiple U.S. states.

- From Nova Scotia Power's perspective, yield 4.8 dollars for every dollar invested in DSM 2 over the lifetime of the installed measures. - From a total resource cost perspective, which includes participating customer costs, 4 yield 2.0 do...

AI summary Nova Scotia Power (NSP) highlights that DSM 2 investments yield $4.8 per dollar over the lifetime of measures, with total resource cost analysis showing $2.0 per dollar. Rate impacts vary by class (0.8%-1.7%), while participant bills reduce 1-11%, offsetting nonparticipant increases via high EfficiencyOne program participation. Benchmarking against North American peers assesses EfficiencyOne's savings and spending合理性.

IV. Rate and Bill Impacts - Q: What are the expected rate and bill impacts of EfficiencyOne's proposed 2020-2022 DSM - expenditures? - A: I will only summarize the high-level takeaways from the comprehensive and detailed Long- - Term Rate...

AI summary EfficiencyOne's 2020-2022 DSM plan results in minimal rate increases (0.8%-1.7%) but significant bill savings for participants (1%-11%) and overall savings of $475 million. Non-participants see slight bill increases (0.5%-1.1%). The analysis emphasizes bill impacts over rate changes for customers.

V. Portfolio and Program Cost Effectiveness - Q: From a total resource cost (TRC) and program administrator cost (PAC) perspective, are the proposed programs cost effective? - A: Yes, from both perspectives the proposed 2020-2022 Preferred...

AI summary The proposed 2020-2022 Preferred Plan is deemed cost-effective from both total resource cost (TRC) and program administrator cost (PAC) perspectives. The TRC benefit-cost ratio (BCR) is 2.0, while the PAC BCR is 4.8. Ratepayer net benefits are estimated at $494 million over the 2020-2035 timeframe.

Preferred Plan is affordable? Direct Testimony of Glenn Reed / February 27, 2019 Page 15 On Behalf of EfficiencyOne DATE FILED: February 28, 2019 Pp18-19, ibid. - 1 A: Yes. EfficiencyOne is proposing to achieve its Plan savings at or below...

AI summary EfficiencyOne asserts that its Preferred Plan is affordable, achieving savings at or below peer Program Administrators, with minimal rate impacts of 0.8% to 1.7% and total bill savings of $477 million from 2020 to 2035.

The figure below identifies the Contract Price to be paid by NSPI allocated for each year of the Term. 2020 2021 2022 UARB Approved Contract Price to be Paid by NSPI The Parties acknowledge that any surplus realized by EfficiencyOne in del...

AI summary The document outlines the Contract Price to be paid by Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI) over the Term and specifies that any surplus from EfficiencyOne meeting Performance Targets must be reported to and refunded by the UARB, unless otherwise directed.

43 45 SCHEDULE C 74 ii. Cumulative annual net peak demand savings at generator 75 iii. Lifetime Energy Savings 76 77 c) Performance Indicators (for UARB reporting) consist of: 78 i.Annual incremental energy savings (reported by program and...

AI summary The text outlines performance indicators and reporting requirements for the UARB, including energy savings, demand savings, ratepayer benefits, customer satisfaction, and low-income program participation. EfficiencyOne is responsible for submitting a historical rate and bill impact analysis annually.

EFFICIENCYONE 2020-2022 DSM RESOURCE PLAN FILING EVIDENCE 1 Plan move towards the levels set out in the IRP, but still do not achieve the optimal 2 level. 3 4 Accordingly, the gap between customer benefits contemplated by the IRP and benef...

AI summary EfficiencyOne's 2020-2022 DSM plan underinvests compared to the IRP's optimal levels, creating a widening gap between customer benefits and approved DSM outcomes. The text argues that insufficient funding for energy efficiency harms ratepayers and emphasizes the need for investment aligned with the IRP's targets, referencing a chart comparing UARB-approved expenditures to IRP plans.

N/A N/A Total 27.1 132.4 97.8 1421.9 22.2 2.1 4.9 Incremental Incremental Lifetime Energy Annual Net Program Investment Lifetime Benefits Annual Net Total Resource 2022 a Savings at Demand Savings b Administrator ($ million) ($ million) En...

AI summary The text presents a table with financial and energy data, including investment, benefits, energy savings, and cost tests related to programs. It includes metrics such as lifetime energy savings, annual net demand savings, and program administrator details.

35.7 2.1 5.4 aLifetime benefits are expressed as the net present value of the avoided costs, including energy, capacity, transmission and distribution, over the life of the program measures, using utility WACC. bTRC is a benefit/cost ratio...

AI summary The document discusses the EfficiencyOne application for a supply agreement with Nova Scotia Power Inc. for electricity efficiency and conservation activities from 2020 to 2022. It references the Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) and Program Cost Test (PAC) as benefit/cost ratios used in the evaluation of the program.

ment levels, was subject to 13 rigorous stakeholder and regulatory review and ultimately determined to be in the best 14 interest of NS Power ratepayers; and therefore affordable. 15 At an average annual investment of $43.0M, the Efficienc...

AI summary The text discusses the approval of EfficiencyOne’s Preferred DSM Plan, which was subject to stakeholder and regulatory review and determined to be in the best interest of NS Power ratepayers. The plan involves an average annual investment of $43.0M over a 9-year period.

ement for Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Activities between E1 and Nova Scotia Power Inc. (DSM 2020- 2022) M09096 (E-ENS-R-19) E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NS Power) NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 history and is closer to the avera...

AI summary EfficiencyOne argues that its proposed DSM Plan for 2020-2022 is affordable and requires lower ratepayer contributions than historical averages, citing amortization of HST settlement recovery and underspend from previous plans.

Perceived Return on Value Investment Figure 2: Balance of Price Setting Influences The return on investment criteria, in most cases, can be quantified and precisely calculated; however, the perceived value to a consumer can only be measure...

AI summary The text discusses the challenges of quantifying perceived value to consumers in pricing decisions, noting that it is imprecise and varies by individual. It also describes the sigmoid relationship between uptake and incentives in energy efficiency programs, as illustrated in Figure 3.

We change the way people use energy™ Date Filed: March 29, 2019 NS Power IR-15 Attachment 1 Page 47 of 206 Nova Scotia homes do not have a large space cooling load. The primary cooling system is an electric fan, while only three percent of...

AI summary Nova Scotia homes have limited space cooling loads, primarily relying on electric fans and a small percentage of air conditioners. The province is a winter peaking region, making off-peak cooling savings less impactful for capacity management. A high proportion of electric water heaters presents significant efficiency opportunities for energy conservation programs.

vernment - Ministry of Energy  Ontario Energy Board (OEB)  Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO)  72 Local Distribution Companies (LDCs) The Ministry of Energy sets policy for the electricity sector, and is able to provide the...

AI summary The Ministry of Energy sets electricity policy in Ontario and provides direction to the IESO and OEB through ministerial directives. The IESO operates electricity markets, contracts with generators, coordinates system planning, and oversees conservation efforts. The OEB regulates LDCs and natural gas utilities, reviewing their rate applications. Conservation activities are funded separately and managed by the IESO.

and for assessing the appropriateness DSM plans for 2015-2020. The framework can also be used in gas utilities’ proposal reviews/approvals for their DSM plans by the OEB. Guiding principles include: 1. Invest in DSM where the cost is equal...

AI summary The document outlines guiding principles for assessing DSM plans, emphasizing cost-effectiveness, customer participation, and integration with other energy efficiency efforts. It also mentions the submission of annual budgets, eligibility criteria, and studies for OEB approval, including a mid-term review in 2018 to assess performance and impact on customer rates and shareholder incentives.

munity engagement  Technology innovation  Indirect and portfolio enabling activities  Information technology  Rate structures 107 We change the way people use energy Date Filed: March 29, 2019 NS Power IR-15 Attachment 1 Page 124 of 206

AI summary The text outlines key areas of focus including community engagement, technology innovation, indirect and portfolio enabling activities, information technology, and rate structures. These topics are central to the regulatory proceeding.

Benefits (Avoided Costs) In the societal test, the Energy Trust will include the following benefits: 1. The value of the electrical and/or gas energy saved based on the avoided cost forecasts of the utilities whose customers are served by...

AI summary The Energy Trust includes benefits such as avoided costs, non-energy benefits, line losses, and natural gas capacity benefits in its societal test. These benefits are based on forecasts from utilities and the PUC, and include a 10 percent credit for energy efficiency as required by the Northwest Power Act and OPUC Docket UM-551.

d uncertainty. Avoided costs based on integrated resource planning will be provided to the Energy Trust by utilities. The utility system test will include items 1, 3, 4 and 5 above. 14 https://energytrust.org/library/policies/4.06.000.pdf...

AI summary The text discusses avoided costs in utility planning, including the inclusion of forecasted reduced carbon dioxide emissions and the consideration of other environmental pollutant costs as per OPUC guidance. It also mentions the application of societal tests and specific measure evaluations by the Energy Trust.

• ► ➢ ➢ ➢ ► • • 3 Date Filed: March 29, 2019 NS Power IR-15 Attachment 4 Page 5 of 6 • • • • • o o o o o ► ► ► 4 Date Filed: March 29, 2019 NS Power IR-15 Attachment 4 Page 6 of 6 ► o o ► 5 EfficiencyOne – EfficiencyOne Application for app...

AI summary This document includes a filing related to EfficiencyOne's application for approval of a supply agreement for electricity efficiency and conservation activities between E1 and Nova Scotia Power Inc. for the period 2020-2022, identified as matter M09096 (E-ENS-R-19), along with E1's responses to NS Power.

ese commitments will provide benefits to Canadians through energy cost savings and improved environmental outcomes, which lead to increased productivity, competitiveness and energy affordability. In December 2016, First Ministers adopted t...

AI summary The text outlines international and national commitments to energy efficiency and climate change mitigation, including the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change, and efforts to align energy efficiency standards between Canada and the United States. These initiatives aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy affordability, and support economic growth.

nergy use, a lack of capacity within organizations to understand and manage energy use, and split incentives (e.g. landlords may not purchase efficient equipment if tenants pay the energy bill). In 2011, the Canada–United States Regulatory...

AI summary The text discusses the need for regulatory action to reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions by aligning Canadian energy efficiency standards with those of the U.S., addressing unnecessary regulatory differences, and reducing the load on the electricity system. It highlights challenges such as split incentives and the limitations of voluntary measures.

esult in significant net benefits over the lifetime of affected product models. The benefits vary by individual user depending on end­use sector, geographical location and operational practices. Annual reductions in energy consumption asso...

AI summary The Amendment is expected to result in significant energy consumption and GHG emission reductions over time, with estimated annual energy savings increasing from 3.76 PJ in 2020 to 15.76 PJ in 2030. It is projected to yield $4.55 billion in net benefits by 2030, with total benefits exceeding total costs by a ratio of almost five to one.

ast efficient; and (2) the efficiency of the average unit impacted. Where relevant, regional sensitivities were evaluated (e.g. a heat pump would save more energy per year in a colder location). Social cost of carbon The social cost of car...

AI summary The text discusses evaluating energy efficiency improvements by considering both the efficiency of the product and regional factors, such as climate. It also explains the use of the social cost of carbon to estimate economic benefits from reducing GHG emissions and outlines a methodology to calculate incremental costs associated with meeting more stringent energy efficiency standards.

ct categories to arrive at the estimate of total energy saved. This was then monetized by multiplying the results by the cost of energy per unit of energy saved (i.e. dollars per kilowatt­hour). The reductions in GHG emissions were calcula...

AI summary The text discusses methods for estimating energy savings and associated GHG emissions reductions. Energy savings are monetized based on energy cost, while GHG emissions are calculated using fuel-specific and average emission factors. Social cost of carbon is used to monetize GHG emissions. Key assumptions underpin these calculations.

Indicators performance GHG emissions are reduced to contribute to Canada’s goal to reduce GHG Percentage of product models Energy efficiency reports emissions by at least 30% below 2005 levels by 2030 that meet MEPS Import reports Consumer...

AI summary The text outlines performance indicators related to GHG emissions reduction, energy efficiency, and cost savings from using efficient products. It emphasizes monitoring through compliance reporting, third-party verification, and market data collection to assess outcomes.

s estimated that, by applying a social cost of carbon to these reductions, the cumulative present value of economic benefits associated with GHG emission reductions will be $701 million by 2030. 12 Canadian consumers will also realize econ...

AI summary The document estimates that the Amendment will yield $701 million in economic benefits from GHG emission reductions by 2030, with over $2 billion in energy savings. The cumulative present value of net benefits is projected to be $1.80 billion by 2030, with total benefits exceeding costs by more than two to one.

ct categories to arrive at the estimate of total energy saved. This was then monetized by multiplying the results by the cost of energy per unit of energy saved (i.e. dollars per kilowatt hour). The reductions in GHG emissions were calcula...

AI summary The analysis estimates energy savings and monetizes them using the cost of energy per unit saved. GHG emissions reductions are calculated using fuel-specific emission factors and a social cost of carbon, with projected annual reductions increasing from 0.13 Mt in 2020 to 1.03 Mt in 2030.

Covers shipments impacted by the proposed Regulations between 2019 and 2030. All benefits and costs are discounted at 3% to the year 2018. Table 3: Summary of benefits and costs to Canadians Aggregate Total Cumulative Annual Totals Present...

AI summary The text discusses the economic impacts of proposed regulations from 2019 to 2030, including benefits such as fuel savings and avoided GHG damages, and costs related to technology, installation, and compliance. All values are discounted to 2018 prices.

$0.12 administrative costs Government administration Government $0.10 $0 $0.10 $0.01 Total costs $34.89 $146.67 $1,040.49 $104.53 Net benefits $132.28 $231.54 $1,804.06 $181.24 B. Quantified impacts (in non­$) Energy savings (petajoules) 1...

AI summary The table outlines administrative and total costs, as well as net benefits and quantified impacts such as energy savings and GHG emission reductions from 2019 to 2030. It also highlights additional benefits of energy efficiency, including cost savings, productivity, and environmental improvements, while noting the lack of data on certain non-energy benefits.

ption associated with the Amendment are estimated to be 0.4 petajoules (PJ) in 2020, and to reach 3.57 PJ in 2030 as the sale of more efficient equipment steadily replaces the pre­regulation stock. Annual reductions in GHG emissions result...

AI summary The Amendment is expected to result in significant energy savings and GHG emission reductions, with estimated benefits exceeding costs by a ratio of more than three to one by 2030. The cumulative present value of net benefits is estimated at $818 million by 2030.

Indicators Measure Performance GHG emissions are reduced to contribute to Canada’s goal to reduce GHG Energy efficiency emissions by at least 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. reports Import reports Market data Consumers save money by purchas...

AI summary The text outlines performance indicators related to reducing GHG emissions and promoting energy efficiency. It highlights consumer savings from purchasing efficient products, business benefits from using regulated equipment, and the importance of energy efficiency reports, market data, lab testing, and emission factors in measuring progress.

., 2018. Experience Curves of Residential Gas­fired Furnaces in Canada. 24 Costs for technology and installation. 25 Benefits from energy savings and GHG emission reductions. 26 The administrative burden reported in Table 3 was estimated a...

AI summary The text discusses the costs and benefits of residential gas-fired furnaces in Canada, including energy savings, GHG emission reductions, and administrative burdens. It mentions the use of discount rates for cost-benefit analysis and references standards and stakeholders involved in the regulatory process.

numerous persistence and retention studies) DEER 9 - EL(=9) [6] [29] [34] GDS Associates, Inc. Appendix C Page C-1 Date Filed: March 29, 2019 NS Power IR-41 Attachment 1 Page 18 of 36

AI summary The text references a study related to persistence and retention, citing DEER and EL with associated numbers. It also mentions GDS Associates, Inc. and a document related to NS Power IR-41 Attachment 1.

CALMAC 6; 7.2; 9 included numerous persistence and retention studies)

AI summary The text references CALMAC and mentions that it included numerous persistence and retention studies, though no further details are provided.

“The future is already present with ECOMBI System” 4 Date Filed: March 29, 2019 NS Power IR-41 Attachment 3 Page 5 of 16 EFFICIENCY IS ALL DOWN TO CONTROL The cornerstone of ECOMBI technological innovation patented by ELNUR is the dynamic...

AI summary The ECOMBI system uses advanced thermostat technology and dynamic energy management to optimize heating efficiency and reduce energy consumption. It adjusts energy charging based on temperature readings and customer comfort needs, and utilizes off-peak electricity tariffs for cost-effective heating.

n the same way as any traditional storage heater, the ECOMBI system is designed to use the Time-Of-Use (TOU) or Time- Of-Day (TOD) low cost off-peak electricity. How does Off Peak Electricity works Most Utilities offer heavily discounted r...

AI summary The ECOMBI system uses off-peak electricity, which is available at lower rates during specific times of the day, typically between 11pm and 7am. This helps users save money on their energy bills by utilizing electricity during periods of low demand.

e room heat requirements where it is installed. An ECOMBI installation does not require external charging control units or additional timers. It is all included in each ECOMBI heater. POSSIBILITY OF MANAGING DIFFERENT CHARGING PERIODS ECOM...

AI summary The ECOMBI system allows for flexible programming of charging periods, delayed charging, and temperature settings to optimize energy use and cost. It supports off-peak tariff periods and can be integrated with digital meters for direct management by the electricity company.

ement for Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Activities between E1 and Nova Scotia Power Inc. (DSM 2020- 2022) M09096 (E-ENS-R-19) E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NS Power) NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-43: 2 3 Reference: Evid...

AI summary EfficiencyOne assumes that all residential customers with ETS systems use Time-of-Use (TOU) rates, but the benefits of ETS systems are based on avoided costs, not TOU rates. If TOU rates are discontinued, participation in ETS programs may decrease due to the perceived lack of key benefits.

Use rate as the key benefit and EfficiencyOne 28 would be unlikely to attract significant participation through incentives alone if the Time- 29 of-Use rate were to be discontinued. Date Filed: March 29, 2019 E1 (NS Power) IR-43 Page 1 of...

AI summary The text discusses EfficiencyOne's application for approval of a Supply Agreement for Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Activities between E1 and Nova Scotia Power Inc. It outlines a request for additional information regarding the inclusion of Lifetime Energy Savings as a third Performance Target.

ticed produces a systemic bias against DSM as compared with supply-side options. As a result, the test often fails to fairly reflect its intended “total” cost and benefit perspective. 3. Ratepayer Value: The TRC perspective itself is focus...

AI summary The text discusses limitations of the Total Resource Cost (TRC) methodology in evaluating Demand-Side Management (DSM) programs, highlighting biases against DSM compared to supply-side options, lack of consideration for ratepayer value, and potential conflicts with policy objectives. It notes that many leading DSM regions have moved toward alternative tests like the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test.

and far less expensive – exercise than “fixing” the current TRC by, among other things, assessing non-energy benefits. It may also be less contentious (see below). • Accuracy: Even if the TRC were to be corrected, in part by efforts to acc...

AI summary The text discusses the challenges with the Total Resource Cost (TRC) approach, highlighting concerns about accuracy, relevance, and alignment with existing legislation. It suggests that the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test may be a more effective and less contentious alternative for evaluating demand-side management (DSM) programs.

pass the TRC, so long as the program as a whole passes (NSUARB - Decision In The Matter of an Application by ENSC for Approval of its Electricity Demand Side Management Plan for 2012, 2011). The Terms of Reference of NSPI’s 2014 IRP specif...

AI summary The text discusses the Total Resource Cost (TRC) approach and how the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test is used in evaluating Demand-Side Management (DSM) programs. It references the Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) process and legislation, including the Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Restructuring Act (2014), which aims to reduce costs for NSPI customers through energy efficiency initiatives.

program costs in year t PCNt = Net participant costs in year t UICt = Utility increased supply costs in year t Specifically, at least six key components of the TRC calculation may be subject to entirely different methodological approaches...

AI summary The document discusses the Total Resource Cost (TRC) calculation, emphasizing how different regions approach the inclusion of costs and benefits associated with free riders in DSM measures. It highlights varying methodologies used in regions like Ontario, California, and Quebec.

analysis they can account for, and the benefits of measures with longer lifespans (e.g. new construction, envelope retrofits, ground source heat pumps) may literally be cut short as a result. WWW.DUNSKY.CA 12 Date Filed: March 29, 2019 NS...

AI summary The text discusses concerns about the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test's potential bias in neglecting non-energy benefits (NEBs) from demand-side management (DSM) measures. It highlights that while TRC accounts for costs, it may not fully capture benefits to participants, utilities, and society, especially from long-term measures like ground source heat pumps.

state markets could value efficiency at $20,000 per home, but if 15 This is notably, though not solely, the case where strong energy performance labeling policies are in place. WWW.DUNSKY.CA 15 Date Filed: March 29, 2019 NS Power IR-44 Att...

AI summary The text discusses the Total Resource Cost (TRC) methodology and its potential bias against energy efficiency investments by not fully accounting for non-energy benefits (NEBs). It highlights that while TRC considers all participant costs, it only accounts for a portion of benefits, leading to regulatory decisions that may undervalue efficiency measures. This bias is becoming more significant as DSM goals increase and baselines improve.

18 Date Filed: March 29, 2019 NS Power IR-44 Attachment 1 Page 23 of 46 generate, for every million dollars in DSM program spending, a net increase in provincial GDP of between $2.7 and $4.1M, and from 22 to 33 job-years of net employment....

AI summary The text discusses the economic benefits of DSM programs, noting that they generate GDP and employment. It also addresses the use of discount rates in TRC calculations, questioning whether utility WACC is appropriate or if a societal discount rate should be used instead, as seen in regions like New York and New England.

contributions to the program administrator budget). This approach – direct installation of all TRC-positive measures – could well achieve the most possible savings that are deemed cost effective from the TRC perspective, at the least total...

AI summary The text discusses the Total Resource Cost (TRC) approach in energy efficiency programs, noting that while it aims to minimize total costs, it may not effectively reflect program efficiency or how efficiently program funds are used to achieve energy savings. It also highlights concerns that focusing too much on TRC may lead to suboptimal decisions for ratepayers.

tition with procurement of supply. Only the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test reflects the costs and benefits of DSM from a utility least-cost procurement perspective. 25 For example, if consumers value solar hot water (SHW) systems mo...

AI summary The text discusses the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test as a method to evaluate Demand-Side Management (DSM) programs from a utility's least-cost procurement perspective. It also raises concerns about the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test potentially conflicting with public policy by not reflecting consumer preferences, which could lead to less effective energy savings.

22 Date Filed: March 29, 2019 NS Power IR-44 Attachment 1 Page 27 of 46 In Nova Scotia, this is not yet an important concern in that specific electric DSM goals are based on an assessment of the potential for cost-effective DSM, and not on...

AI summary Nova Scotia's DSM goals are based on cost-effective assessments rather than legislated targets. The Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Restructuring (2014) Act emphasizes least-cost procurement, aligning with the PAC test rather than the TRC. The use of the TRC for screening DSM was inconsistent with this policy, and the framework was modified in December 2011.

the TRC. contradictory in that all programs were required to pass the original TRC – remained in place for another five years. This framework was finally modified in December 2011. WWW.DUNSKY.CA 23 Date Filed: March 29, 2019 NS Power IR-44...

AI summary The Total Resource Cost (TRC) framework faced criticism for errors, bias, and conflicts with energy policies, leading to modifications in 2011. Many regions, including top DSM leaders, have since moved to adjust or replace the TRC with alternatives like Modified Total Resource Cost (MTRC), Program Administrator Cost (PAC), or Societal Cost Test (SCT).

Finally, one region uses the PAC alone, and one uses the SCT alone. We note an absence of consistency in the terms used, such that MTRC and SCT can to some extent be interchangeable. WWW.DUNSKY.CA 24 Date Filed: March 29, 2019 NS Power IR-...

AI summary The text highlights inconsistencies in the use of terms like MTRC and SCT across different regions, with some regions using one or the other exclusively. It also references case studies, including Massachusetts and California, that use alternative approaches to the standard TRC.

f move to the PAC test with its fully vetted inputs and while accounting for all costs. non-energy benefits in particular. inherent symmetry. RATEPAYER NESP silent on whether ratepayer Give strong consideration to value of the PAC test, VA...

AI summary The text discusses the TRC's potential misalignment with policy goals and the need to consider ratepayer dollar efficiency over societal efficiency. It also highlights the importance of the PAC test in evaluating DSM programs and mentions the Nova Scotia Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Restructuring (2014) Act.

e against the inaccuracy of different approach to avoided costs and by seeking to no value. integrate non-energy benefits in the TRC equation. Under the new approach, participant NEBs can now be included in the TRC benefits, through one of...

AI summary The document discusses the integration of non-energy benefits (NEBs) into the Test Rate Case (TRC) equation, proposing three methods: direct quantification, a 15% adder for non-low income programs, and a 30% adder for low-income programs. It also references proxy adjustments used in Vermont and the U.S. northwest for cost-effectiveness calculations.

30 Date Filed: March 29, 2019 NS Power IR-44 Attachment 1 Page 35 of 46 We note that accounting for environmental externalities goes beyond what is needed to more accurately reflect the TRC’s stated “all consumers” perspective (it is in fa...

AI summary The text discusses the importance of accounting for environmental externalities and revisiting discounting practices in the context of energy efficiency programs. It notes that environmental costs already internalized, such as compliance with regulations, should not be double-counted. It also highlights the need to reassess the use of the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) for discounting future energy savings, especially in regions with shareholder-owned utilities.

34 Date Filed: March 29, 2019 NS Power IR-44 Attachment 1 Page 39 of 46 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS There are several options available to Nova Scotia to improve the value provided by cost-effectiveness screening of DSM initiatives. Some...

AI summary The document discusses options for improving the cost-effectiveness screening of DSM initiatives in Nova Scotia. It highlights concerns with the current TRC framework and suggests alternatives like the PAC, which is seen as a more balanced and familiar approach for evaluating program efficiency and value to ratepayers.

greement for Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Activities between E1 and Nova Scotia Power Inc. (DSM 2020- 2022) M09096 (E-ENS-R-19) E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NS Power) NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 from energy and capacity (inclu...

AI summary The document discusses the comparison between the 2016-2018 and 2020-2022 DSM Resource Plans, highlighting a shift in the proportion of NPV avoided costs from energy to capacity. The 2020-2022 plan shows a more balanced mix of short and long-term energy and system peak demand avoided costs.

was instead used as a constraint. The measure and program 25 mix in the Preferred Plan and Alternate scenario was guided by internal expertise and 26 program delivery experience. Date Filed: March 29, 2019 E1 (NS Power) IR-55 Page 1 of 1 E...

AI summary The document discusses assumptions made in the 2020-2022 DSM Plan, specifically the assumption of 100% participation in certain rate classes. This assumption is embedded in the Long-Term Rate and Bill Impact Analysis and is referenced in the EfficiencyOne DSM Resource Plan Application.

forecasts are made (2020-2022). 1 1 Synapse Energy Economics, Inc., Memo Re: M08946 – EfficiencyOne – 2018 Rate and Bill Impact Analysis and Model (E-ENSC-R-18), 3 December 2018 Date Filed: March 29, 2019 E1 (NS Power) IR-64 Page 1 of 1 Ef...

AI summary The document outlines EfficiencyOne's application for approval of a supply agreement with Nova Scotia Power Inc. for electricity efficiency and conservation activities from 2020 to 2022. It includes responses to NS Power and references a prior rate and bill impact analysis conducted by Synapse Energy Economics, Inc.

ement for Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Activities between E1 and Nova Scotia Power Inc. (DSM 2020- 2022) M09096 (E-ENS-R-19) E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NS Power) NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-66: 2 3 Reference: Appe...

AI summary The document discusses EfficiencyOne's assumption that all customers in specific classes participate in BER-IR annually, citing Synapse's recommendation and historical use in filings since 2016. It also outlines the reasoning behind this assumption, including the availability of high-efficiency equipment replacements.

ement for Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Activities between E1 and Nova Scotia Power Inc. (DSM 2020- 2022) M09096 (E-ENS-R-19) E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NS Power) NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-68: 2 3 Please provide...

AI summary The document is a response to a request for Appendix B files related to the 2020-2022 DSM Resource Plan Application by EfficiencyOne. The response indicates that the files are available on the NSUARB website under Matter number M09096.

GHG Estimate Total Emissions Unnamed: 1 Unnamed: 2 Emissions intensity Unnamed: 4 Avoided GHGs from DSM Unnamed: 6 Unnamed: 7 Unnamed: 8 Unnamed: 9 Unnamed: 10 Savings Streams Unnamed: 12 Unnamed: 13 Unnamed: 14 Unnamed: 15 Unnamed: 16 Emi...

AI summary The document presents a GHG Estimate table with data on total emissions, emissions intensity, avoided GHGs from DSM, and emissions caps. It includes figures for 2020, such as a GHG cap of 7.5 million tonnes, emissions intensity of 612.6 tonnes/GWh, and total electricity production of 10,978 GWh.

4 PLANNED AND ACTUAL DSM EXPENDITURES 2345 The October 7, 2015 NSUARB Order directed NS Power to file its proposed accounting treatment and cost recovery for the 2015 DSM programs and the 2016-2018 programs. 42 To aid in such cost recovery...

AI summary The NSUARB Order from October 7, 2015 directed NS Power to file its proposed accounting treatment and cost recovery for DSM programs from 2015 and 2016-2018. EfficiencyOne will report on planned and actual DSM expenditures by rate class, with data presented in multiple tables.

Table 1 Update on Implementation of 2013-2016 Evaluation Recommendations Year Evaluation/ Verification Recommendation Text Source Status Comments Expected Period of Completion 2016 Evaluation Identify energy efficiency measures installed u...

AI summary This table updates the implementation of recommendations from the 2013-2016 evaluation. A key recommendation was to identify energy efficiency measures installed under ENS instant rebate programs and avoid double-counting savings. E1 agrees and implemented the recommendation by providing an event log to track changes and crossover participation in other ENS programs.

3.4 Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions The Evaluator established the reduced GHG emissions due to the DSM portfolio at 92,659 tonnes of CO2 eq in terms of annual avoided GHG emissions. Table 9 presents the GHG emission reductions of each p...

AI summary The Evaluator calculated that the DSM portfolio led to a reduction of 92,659 tonnes of CO2 eq in annual avoided GHG emissions. Table 9 breaks down the GHG emission reductions by program component in 2018.

ARet Energy Savings For the 2018 evaluation, the Evaluator revised the unitary savings values of appliances retired through ARet and HomeWarming using a methodology similar to that used in previous evaluations, except that induced consumpt...

AI summary The 2018 evaluation of ARet Energy Savings revised unitary savings values for retired appliances, using 2017 metering data due to inconsistencies in 2018 data. Net unitary savings for refrigerators and freezers decreased, while those for air conditioners and small appliances increased. The equivalent net-to-gross ratio (NTGR) was calculated using updated free-ridership and spillover values.

4.14 NTGR Calculation Given the methodology used to obtain net savings, the NTGR could not be calculated as a sum of the percentages of all the effects values. As required by the UMP calculation methodology, the savings associated with eac...

AI summary The document explains the methodology for calculating the equivalent NTGR (Net Total Gross Savings) by using a weighted average of savings from scenarios with and without appliance retirement. It also presents a table with appliance-specific data and notes that HomeWarming replacements assume a NTGR of 1 due to their direct replacement nature.

Net Unitary Savings Calculation Table 21 below presents the unitary savings value calculated for room air conditioners retired through ARet after free-ridership and secondary market impacts were deducted. This unitary savings value is obta...

AI summary Table 21 presents the net unitary savings value of 115 kWh per unit for room air conditioners retired through ARET, after accounting for free-ridership and secondary market impacts. The value is a weighted average of all scenarios.

HEA Performance HEA aimed to achieve 7.5 GWh in net electrical energy savings and 2.1 MW in net peak demand savings at the generator in 2018. The Evaluator determined that HEA achieved 5.724 GWh in net electrical energy savings and 1.600 M...

AI summary The Home Energy Assessment (HEA) program achieved 5.724 GWh in net electrical energy savings and 1.600 MW in net peak demand savings in 2018, with 791 participants. Savings decreased compared to 2015 due to the removal of provincial funding for non-electrically heated households. However, net energy savings per participant increased due to changes in eligible measures and billing analysis. Non-electrically heated households were reintroduced in 2018 with federal funding, though impacts are yet to be observed.

8.3 Net Savings Net savings are defined as the energy use reductions specifically attributable to Green Heat. Net savings were estimated by applying the NTGRs listed above to the evaluated gross savings using the following equation: Net Sa...

AI summary Net savings from the Green Heat Program are calculated using NTGRs applied to gross evaluation savings. The program resulted in 4.227 GWh of annual electrical energy savings and 4.042 MW of peak demand savings. These savings equate to 2,589 tonnes of avoided CO2 eq annually, with a weighted average EUL of 18.05 years for net energy savings.

Other lighting products For products other than general-service lamps, there is no indication that regulations will significantly change over the lifetime of these products. Furthermore, in the case of linear ambient luminaires, linear rep...

AI summary The document discusses the regulation of lighting products beyond general-service lamps, noting that current regulations are already efficient and unlikely to change significantly. It also references the 2017 DSM Evaluation Report for revised EUL values, including occupancy sensors, and mentions a summary table of EUL values from BER Mail-in.

PA4 Score: FR3b . [ASK IF MEASURE CATEGORY = LIGHTING AND TOTAL MEASURE CATEGORY QTY>1] If BER had not been offered, what is the likelihood that you would have implemented exactly the same quantity of lighting products that you installed t...

AI summary This section of the regulatory proceeding document asks respondents to consider the likelihood of implementing the same quantity of lighting products through an alternative program (BER) if the original measure category had not been offered. The scoring methodology is outlined with conditional logic based on responses.

. Energy and Demand Savings Adjustments Energy Savings from Tracking Sheet: kWh/yr Project Estimated Liergy Savings from Hacking Sheet. kW Finish Month: Demand Savings from Tracking Sheet: KVV Notes on Project Peak Coincidence Factor Used...

AI summary The text includes tables and forms related to energy and demand savings adjustments, including fields for tracking energy and demand savings, peak coincidence factors, and project status. The content appears to be part of a regulatory process for evaluating energy savings and associated adjustments.

4.3 Net Savings Net savings are defined as the energy use reductions that are specifically attributable to SBES. Program component net impacts were estimated by applying the NTGR listed above to the revised gross savings by using the follo...

AI summary The document discusses net savings from the Smart Building Energy Savings (SBES) program, including energy use reductions, calculations using the NTGR factor, and the impact on GHG emissions. It provides data on energy and demand savings, as well as the methodology used to estimate net savings and their environmental benefits.

Internal Understanding and Use of the ETN ENS staff are aware of the ETN's uses and benefits in the marketplace. They are aware of the searchable online list and they recognize that the ETN can help build industry capacity in Nova Scotia....

AI summary ENS staff recognize the ETN's benefits, using it to refer customers and communicate updates. Its importance varies by customer size, being more critical for small businesses and homeowners than larger clients with established contractor relationships.

3.1.2. Staff Use of and Referrals to the ETN Staff who are closest to customers and contractors—the two BDMs and four Program Managers- reported they use the ETN as a resource for their customers as well as for their own needs. Four of the...

AI summary ENS staff, including BDMs and Program Managers, use the ETN to refer customers and communicate with professionals. The ETN is more critical for small businesses and homeowners than for large commercial clients, as the latter often have established contractor relationships. Staff highlighted the ETN's role in program growth, information dissemination, and contractor expectations.

Additionally, the 2014 IRP's forecast of the cost of avoided energy is significantly higher than what has occurred and what is forecast to occur. The 2014 IRP included a forecast levelized cost of avoided energy of $107/MWh, but the actual...

AI summary The 2014 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) overestimated the cost of avoided energy compared to actual and forecast marginal costs. NS Power argues that E1's proposed DSM plan is not cost-effective and would increase customer fuel costs. E1 counters that moderately-priced DSM is becoming scarcer, and NS Power must achieve further cost reductions to avoid rate increases.

Subsidies available for solar either through Halifax's Solar City program or through the non-electric customer-funded programs offered by E1 and funded by the Government of Canada will promote energy savings that provide customers with sim...

AI summary The text discusses the impact of subsidies for solar energy and non-customer funded DSM initiatives, such as heat pump conversions, on energy savings and system capacity requirements. It highlights that non-subsidized DSM efforts have provided significant energy savings and rate relief to customers without sacrificing system value.

EfficiencyOne 2017 Progress and Evaluation Report, page 17, line 13. 1 6.0 DSM NEGOTIATION 2 3 In the 2016 to 2018 DSM Supply Agreement process E1 presented a single DSM Plan to 4 the UARB for approval. The UARB in its Decision directed as...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) submitted a Preferred Plan and an Alternate Plan for the 2020-2022 DSM Supply Agreement process. However, E1 did not consult with NS Power during the development of these plans and did not consider alternatives that could have informed the process. The Preferred Plan was developed using the ProCESS model with Navigant, and the Alternate Plan was a scaled-back version of the Preferred Plan.

1 8 Any assets of the Corporation acquired on or after the Implementation 2 Date must be transferred to Nova Scotia Power Incorporated for the 3 4 benefit of the customers of Nova Scotia Power Incorporated as directed by the [Review] Board...

AI summary The text discusses the transfer of assets acquired by the Corporation after implementation to Nova Scotia Power Incorporated for customer benefit, as directed by the Review Board. It also mentions the HST settlement funds collected via the DSM Rider and argues they should be returned to all customers, not just DSM participants. EfficiencyOne's use of these funds to justify higher DSM expenditures is questioned, with concerns that it may not be in customers' best interests.

9.0 DSM AS A FAM EXPENDITURE NS Power proposes that DSM costs be dealt with either as part of the FAM or in a similar manner. As NS Power has $34.05 million in its non-fuel budget apportioned to DSM, the Company proposes that any variation...

AI summary NS Power proposes that Demand Side Management (DSM) costs be managed through the Fuel Adjustment Mechanism (FAM) or a similar approach. With a non-fuel budget of $34.05 million allocated to DSM, the company suggests that any approved variations be transferred to the FAM account before the next General Rate Application (GRA), ensuring greater transparency for customers.

M07730, EfficiencyOne – 2016 Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (E-ENSC-R-16), NSPI letter to the UARB, November 30, 2016. 1 marginal costs for the period 2011-2020, and the 2021-2033 annual marginal cost 2 forecast from the 2014 IRP, is $74/MW...

AI summary NS Power argues that the current RBIA model used by EfficiencyOne does not accurately reflect the variability in bill and rate impacts among rate classes. They propose separating fuel cost savings from fixed cost savings or losses to improve the accuracy of the RBIA results and better reflect the differences in cost causation between rate classes.

DATE FILED: April 12, 2019 Page 33 of 37 1 1. Annual fuel costs reduced by avoided fuel cost of DSM programs should be 2 allocated to rate classes based on their shares in annual GWh requirement in each 3 year. 4 5 2. Annual fixed generati...

AI summary The text outlines proposed modifications to the allocation of DSM program benefits to rate classes based on annual GWh and MW demand shares. It also highlights that the current RBIA methodology uses a static allocation factor based on a historic year, and that E1's model does not differentiate between energy and demand-related cost responsibilities across different classes.

6 Q. What conclusions did Mr. Reed reach from his benchmarking analysis? - 7 A. Mr. Reed stated that his "analysis ... supports the contention that EfficiencyOne's - proposed budget in its Preferred 2020-2022 DSM Plan is affordable, will l...

AI summary Mr. Reed concluded that EfficiencyOne's proposed DSM Plan is affordable, reduces long-term power generation costs, provides significant bill savings, and has minimal long-term rate impact.

11 Q. Do you agree with Mr. Reed's conclusions? - 12 A. No, I do not. I believe Mr. Reed's benchmarking analysis is flawed. Therefore, I question - the reasonableness of his conclusions. I recommend that the Board not put significant - wei...

AI summary The respondent disagrees with Mr. Reed's conclusions, citing flaws in his benchmarking analysis and advising the Board not to rely heavily on them regarding E1's Preferred Plan.

Q. Are you familiar with the previous Board guidance on affordability that EfficiencyOne is referring to? A. Yes. In its decision approving the 2016-2018 DSM Plan, the Board stated: The Board finds that the inclusion of Section 79L (9) of...

AI summary The Board's 2016-2018 DSM Plan decision emphasizes balancing short-term affordability with long-term cost savings, referencing Section 79L of the PUA. The Board stresses that exclusive focus on short-term rates could harm customers by neglecting long-term benefits.

Q. How did EfficiencyOne determine that its Preferred Plan is affordable? A. EfficiencyOne stated that it "considers the determination of affordability to be a balancing of short term and long term rate and bill impact considerations to el...

AI summary EfficiencyOne defines affordability by balancing short-term and long-term rate impacts on electricity customers and deems Demand Side Management (DSM) affordable if its benefits justify resource allocation. However, no affordability surveys were conducted for the Preferred Plan.

Q. Are Nova Scotians well-equipped to tolerate these increased short-term costs? - A. In my opinion, the answer is no. As mentioned previously, the six states in Mr. Reed's benchmarking analysis are among the most prosperous in the U.S. In...

AI summary Nova Scotians may struggle with increased short-term costs due to lower income compared to U.S. states and Canadian provinces. DSM measures targeting peak demand reduction could raise electricity rates but may be justified if benefits are bankable. Rate increases from 2020-2022 are projected across customer segments, with residential rates rising 3.25% and large industrial rates up to 7.78%.

Q. Can you describe the average long-term rate increases associated with EfficiencyOne's proposed DSM activities? A. Yes. From 2020 to 2035, the average annual impact will be 0.8% for residential customers, 1.1% for small general customers...

AI summary EfficiencyOne's proposed DSM activities from 2020 to 2035 are expected to result in average annual rate increases ranging from 0.8% to 1.7% across different customer classes. However, concerns are raised about the uncertainty of benefits from peak demand reduction programs and whether these justify the costs, particularly given the lack of results from previous DSM pilots and uncertain capacity avoidance capabilities.

Q. Why do you think the proposed demand reduction measures are not affordable? A. EfficiencyOne proposes to invest $3.3 million per year in the peak demand reduction program and assumes these measures will reduce peak demand by 20.7 MW ove...

AI summary EfficiencyOne's proposed demand reduction measures are questioned for their affordability due to reliance on uncertain 2019 pilot results, simplified projections, and assumptions about participation and TOU tariff adoption. The effectiveness depends heavily on TOU rate parameters, which may not provide sufficient incentive for behavior change.

$1.07/W for the 2020-2022 Preferred Plan and $1.08/W for the 2020-2022 Alternate scenario. Relative to baseline 2019, EfficiencyOne Evidence, from page 31 of 62, line 28, to page 32 of 62, line 2.

AI summary EfficiencyOne's Preferred Plan and Alternate scenario propose peak demand reductions at $1.07/W and $1.08/W respectively, relative to 2019 baseline, based on evidence from pages 31-32 of their submission.

1 Q. Did EfficiencyOne break down its proposed investment under the Preferred Plan 2 and Alternate scenario by customer class? 3 A. Yes. The proposed investment and projected peak demand reductions under both plans 4 were provided for resi...

AI summary EfficiencyOne provided a breakdown of its proposed investment and projected peak demand reductions under both the Preferred Plan and Alternate scenario, categorized by residential, business, not-for-profit, and institutional (BNI) customer classes.

LITIGATION SUPPORT Represented Pio Pico combined cycle plant in its lawsuit against San Diego Gas & Electric Co. regarding PPA breach. Represented NJ BPU on LCAPP litigation regarding the standard contract awards to LCAPP awardees, i.e., H...

AI summary The document outlines litigation support work across multiple jurisdictions, including representation in PPA disputes, expert testimony in rate cases, and analysis of energy infrastructure projects. Key entities involved include utilities, regulatory bodies, and legal counsel, with cases spanning power generation, pipeline transportation, and merger reviews.

RETAIL & WHOLESALE CHOICE Formulated risk management option programs for University of Rochester, Cornell University, Phelps Dodge, and Visy Paper. Negotiated gas supply and transportation contracts for Texas Instruments. Profiled and aggr...

AI summary The text details energy-related activities including contract negotiations, RFP design, and energy procurement for various organizations across North America and internationally. Key activities involve gas and electricity contracts, rate design, and representation in regulatory transitions, with a focus on universities, utilities, and industrial clients.

RATE DESIGN Evaluated NGrid's imbalance resolution, daily scheduling procedures, and penalty exposure for PSEG-Long Island associated with gas/electric scheduling. Evaluated open access transmission tariffs in PJM, New York and New England...

AI summary The text outlines evaluations of rate design, transmission tariffs, and utility rate structures across multiple jurisdictions. Key activities include assessing NGrid's scheduling procedures, analyzing PJM and New York transmission tariffs, evaluating Noreste's distribution rates in Panama, and studying utility unbundling impacts. Additional work involves transportation rate calculations, marginal cost studies, and assessments of cogeneration and off-peak rate proposals.

Revisions to Rate and Bill Impact Analysis Confidential for Discussion Purposes

AI summary The document outlines revisions to Rate and Bill Impact Analysis, though no detailed content is provided. It is marked as confidential for discussion purposes, suggesting ongoing regulatory proceedings in Nova Scotia related to utility rate structures and billing impacts.

2019 DSM Resource Plan (M08604) UARB Order (July 18, 2018) […]6. NSPI is also directed to provide E1, and the DSM Advisory Group, its suggested revisions to the rate and bill impact analysis (RBIA) by September 30, 2018.

AI summary The UARB Order (July 18, 2018) directs NSPI to submit revised rate and bill impact analysis (RBIA) to E1 and the DSM Advisory Group by September 30, 2018, as part of the 2019 DSM Resource Plan (M08604) proceeding.

RBIA Observations - The apportionment of DSM costs and benefits to rate classes in the current RBIA methodology uses a static allocator factor based on class shares in one historic year (2014 test year) throughout the RBIA period of 2011-2...

AI summary The current RBIA methodology's static allocation of DSM costs and benefits across rate classes, based on 2014 data, fails to account for dynamic changes in class usage, line losses, and long-term load forecasts. Additionally, the use of levelized fuel costs extending beyond the RBIA's 2011-2033 timeframe overstates early savings and understates later ones.

Proposed Revisions to RBIA Methodology - To the extent practical, the RBIA should reflect the Cost of Service Study methodology in the allocation of forgone recovery of fixed system costs and benefits of DSM programs. - Annual fuel costs r...

AI summary Proposed revisions to the Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) methodology aim to align with the Cost of Service Study approach, allocating DSM program costs and benefits based on energy usage and demand shares, using a top-down revenue determination process similar to General Rate Adjustments (GRAs). Enhancements include class line loss considerations and aligning customer participation with energy savings.

Illustration of Differences in Annual Rate Changes as a Result of Proposed Changes in RBIA Methodology

AI summary The document illustrates differences in annual rate changes resulting from proposed changes in the RBIA methodology. It includes figures and images but no textual analysis, focusing on regulatory proceedings in Nova Scotia related to rate and bill impact assessments.

Illustration of Cumulative Differences in Rate Changes as a Result of Proposed Changes in RBIA Methodology

AI summary The document illustrates cumulative differences in rate changes resulting from proposed modifications to the RBIA (Rate and Bill Impact Analysis) methodology. Visual figures (Figure 2 and 3) are referenced but not described in the text, focusing instead on the analytical impact of methodological adjustments on rate structures.

Illustration of Differences in Average Bill Impacts as a Result of Proposed Changes in RBIA Methodology

AI summary The document illustrates differences in average bill impacts resulting from proposed changes to the RBIA (Rate and Bill Impact Analysis) methodology in a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding. It focuses on analyzing how revised methodologies affect customer bills, though specific numerical data or arguments are not detailed in the provided text.

Under NS Power's approach: - 1) Non-participants show slightly more diversified bill effects not visible due to scale of the graph. - 2) Participants show higher bill savings due to reflection of changing number of participating customers...

AI summary NS Power's approach highlights that DSM participants achieve higher bill savings through targeted programs, while non-participants show less visible diversification. Customer classes face initial rate increases despite long-term bill reductions. Graph scale limitations obscure full bill effect visibility.

Updated Avoided Fuel Costs - Recommend use of annual avoided fuel costs from IRP studies - 2011-2014 from the 2009 IRP. - 2015-2033 from the 2014 IRP. - The IRP calculates the difference in Partial Revenue Requirements (PRR) using Strategi...

AI summary The document recommends using annual avoided fuel costs from IRP studies (2009 for 2011-2014, 2014 for 2015-2033). PRR calculations consider DSM effects, including fuel, purchased power, and capital costs. NSPI confirmed new resource costs are amortized over their lifetime, as requested by UARB in a March 6, 2017 letter.

Annual Avoided Fuel Costs Year Avoided Energy Cost ($/MWh) Avoided Energy Costs used in RBIA ($/MWh) Actul Margin real IND IA ($/ IVIVVII) Cost 2009 IRP 2014 IRP Current Proposed Variance ($/MW h) 2010 133.73 59 .11 2011 108.44 166.00 108....

AI summary The document presents a table detailing annual avoided fuel costs from 2010 to 2039, comparing values from different Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs) and the actual margin. The data shows a general trend of increasing avoided energy costs over time, with variations between the current and proposed values. The table also includes metrics like the Actul Margin and associated costs.

Illustration of differences in Rate Changes as a Result of Changes in Treatment of Avoided Generation Costs

AI summary The document illustrates differences in rate changes resulting from varying treatments of avoided generation costs. It includes figures and images from page 153, highlighting analysis related to regulatory proceedings in Nova Scotia.

Illustration of Cumulative Differences in Rate Changes as a Result of Changes in Treatment of Avoided Generation Costs

AI summary The document illustrates cumulative differences in rate changes resulting from varying treatments of avoided generation costs. Figures on page 154 (labeled Figure 2, Figure 3, and Picture 4) are referenced but not described in textual detail, focusing instead on visual representation of rate impacts.

Escalation Rate - DSMAG to "Review the current energy and demand escalation rate (2.7% per year) and select a new escalation rate if appropriate." - NS Power proposes simulated increases at the rate of inflation for 2020 – 2030.

AI summary DSMAG is tasked with reviewing Nova Scotia's current energy and demand escalation rate (2.7% annually) and proposing a new rate if needed. NS Power suggests aligning future rates with inflation between 2020 and 2030.

Recommendations - NS Power recommends COSS-based DSM cost and benefit apportionment methodology for the purposes of 2020-2022 DSM Plan and RBIA methodology going forward. - Annual Avoided Fuel costs to be used in lieu of levelized fuel cos...

AI summary NS Power recommends using a COSS-based DSM cost and benefit apportionment methodology for the 2020-2022 DSM Plan and RBIA calculations. They propose using annual avoided fuel costs instead of levelized fuel costs and suggest specific avoided fixed costs for generation, transmission, and distribution. They also recommend using weighted average bill impact graphs and an inflation rate for years 2021 to 2033.

Assumption Actual program participants are apartment building owners. Avoided energy benefits are assumed to flow-through to tenants either a) directly, where tenants pay power bills, or b) indirectly, by means of deferred increases in ren...

AI summary The assumption outlines that apartment building owners are program participants, with avoided energy benefits flowing to tenants either directly through power bill payments or indirectly via deferred rent increases.

y Group c/o Holly Brown EfficiencyOne 230 Brownlow Avenue, Suite 300 Dartmouth, NS B3B 0G5 Via email RE: Revised Comments on EfficiencyOne's Proposed Enhancements to its Rate and Bill Impact Model Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. (Synapse) r...

AI summary Synapse Energy Economics submits revised comments on EfficiencyOne's proposed enhancements to its rate and bill impact model. The document addresses nine existing and six new issues with EfficiencyOne's long-term analysis, following feedback from the DSMAG and NS Power. NS Power provided comments, Excel files, and filed reply comments in December 2018. The NSUARB requested comments on EfficiencyOne's 2018 R&BIA.

Re: EfficiencyOne Rate and Bill Impact Model - Comments on Proposed Enhancements The Small Business Advocate (SBA) has reviewed Efficiency Nova Scotia's (ENS) proposed enhancements to its Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) on January 21,...

AI summary The Small Business Advocate (SBA) reviewed Efficiency Nova Scotia's (ENS) proposed enhancements to the Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) in 2019. These enhancements stem from 2017 RBIA process action items and new stakeholder input from Nova Scotia Power (NSP), ENS, and others. The SBA acknowledges ENS's stakeholder engagement efforts and provides comments on the proposed changes.

AVOIDED COSTS ENS is proposing to use the avoided costs prepared by NSP for the 2014 Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) when they prepare the 2020 – 2022 DSM Plan RBIA. The various input variables – such as prices, load forecast, technolog...

AI summary ENS proposes using 2014 avoided costs from NSP's IRP for the 2020–2022 DSM Plan RBIA. SBA argues that updated inputs reflecting current Nova Scotia market conditions should be used instead of outdated 2014 data.

FILING OF 2020-2022 DSM PLAN On page 24 of Efficiency Nova Scotia's presentation circulated on January 21, 2019, there is reference to a change in the required filing date. It would be appreciated if further information could be provided,...

AI summary The document references a change in the filing date for the 2020-2022 DSM Plan, with a request for clarification on the new date and the reasons for an accelerated schedule. It also cites several pages from a 2018 Rate and Billing Impact Analysis.

Small Business Advocate Issue ENS Position/Proposal IG Comments 2017_ENS_1.a. Avoided fuel costs Switch from levelized to annual avoided fuel costs. Agree. 2017_ENS_1.b. Marginal avoided fuel cost versus IRP avoided fuel costs The two are...

AI summary The Small Business Advocate discusses various proposals and positions related to avoided fuel costs, allocation methods, and modeling approaches. ENS proposes changes to how costs are calculated and modeled, and the IG provides feedback, agreeing with most proposals but requesting further clarification on some points.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL Request IR-04: Reference: Application, page 1 and page 31. "The Preferred Plan is the DSM Plan which will provide the best value to Nova Scotians by delivering the most energy and demand savings at an affordable price and...

AI summary The document discusses Nova Scotia Power's (E1) response to Heritage Gas Limited regarding a DSM Plan aimed at reducing energy and demand through demand-side management. Key points include deferring capacity investments by lowering peak demand and mitigating long-term rate impacts. Questions focus on DSM's purpose and potential increases in peak demand from electric heating incentives versus natural gas.

11 Response IR-04: 12 a) Please refer to Table 1 below for the forecasted and actual spending by customer rate class, by year from 2015 through to 2018 and forecasted investment for 2019. Please refer to Table 2 below for a forecasted inve...

AI summary The response provides tables detailing forecasted and actual spending by customer rate class from 2015 to 2018, along with investment forecasts for 2019-2022 under E1's Preferred Plan and Alternate Scenario. The data supports analysis of financial planning and investment strategies.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 [Re: E1's Evidence] 2 Request IR-05: 3 4 Reference: Page 31 (PDF 43). 5 6 Demand reduction activities have a primary objective of reducing system coincident 7 demand through the installation of passive measures (proactiv...

AI summary The document distinguishes between proactive demand reduction (passive measures) and reactive demand response (utility signals). The Preferred Plan prioritizes demand reduction for DSM experience. Questions are posed to E1 about NSPI's Interruptible Rider and Time-of-Day rates, their classification as demand response/reduction, and their effectiveness in reducing peak demand.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL utilities? If so, which utilities? Please provide copies of the information reviewed and the results of E1's analyses. - (f) How does "demand-focused DSM" differ from rates designed by NSPI to give customers incentives to...

AI summary EfficiencyOne distinguishes between demand-focused DSM and Time-of-Day rates, noting that interruptible rates are demand response activities while Time-of-Use rates may reduce peak demand. They acknowledge NS Power's Time-of-Day rates but lack quantitative analysis on their effectiveness. Technical distinctions are made between proactive rate designs and reactive demand response mechanisms.

1 Table 1:Source Documents for Demand Response and Demand Reduction Research 2018 Utility Demand Response Market Snapshot. Smart Electric Power Alliance, Navigant Consulting, Peak Load Management Alliance. 2018. Best Practices in Utility D...

AI summary The document lists source materials for demand response and demand reduction research, including reports from organizations like Synapse, ACEEE, and IEEE. Key topics include rate design, energy efficiency, and demand response programs. EfficiencyOne argues that NS Power lacks direct incentive structures like Critical Peak Pricing to encourage peak consumption reduction.

2014 DSM Potential 2014 DSM Potential 4 b) EfficiencyOne's consideration focused on the affordability of DSM as opposed to other 5 rate pressures that may be faced by customers. 6 7 c) EfficiencyOne is not fully aware of the anticipated Ba...

AI summary EfficiencyOne discusses the affordability of DSM programs in 2014, noting that it is not fully aware of the anticipated base cost of fuel increases for customers in 2020-2022. It acknowledges that DSM is one of several factors considered by the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board in approving spending on DSM programs.

\ \ 10 11 12 13 16 17 - 1 - \ For certainty, in accordance with the performance requirements set out in Schedule "C" attached hereto, EfficiencyOne shall be deemed to be in substantial compliance with the approved Performance Targets if 90...

AI summary The document outlines the compensation structure under a contract between NSPI and EfficiencyOne, including the net contract price to be paid by NSPI over the term of the agreement. It also details the Balance Adjustment, which refers to the return of a 2014 surplus of DSM funds. The UARB has approved the cost-allocation methodology for this adjustment, and any surplus realized by EfficiencyOne at the end of the term must be reported and refunded to NSPI.

33 Schedule B (Page 2 of 2)

AI summary Schedule B (Page 2 of 2) from a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding document outlines procedural elements related to utility cost tests and rate design. Key entities include Nova Scotia Power Incorporated (NSPI) and the Utility and Rate Board (UARB), with topics focusing on demand-side management (DSM) and cost methodologies.

45 4 The 2017 payments owing by NSPI will be reduced to reflect any 2015 under-spending by EfficiencyOne, if any, against the 2015 UARB-approved DSM Resource Plan, together with any 2014 Balance Adjustment interest earned in 2015. 5 The 20...

AI summary The text outlines adjustments to payments owed by NSPI based on EfficiencyOne's performance under the UARB-approved DSM Resource Plan, with specific performance targets and thresholds set for compliance. A regulatory process is triggered if targets are not met.

UARB. 74 75 76 b) Performance Targets consist of: 77 i. Cumulative annual net energy savings at generator 78 ii. Cumulative annual net peak demand savings at generator 79 iii. Lifetime Energy Savings 80 81 c) Performance Indicators (for UA...

AI summary The document outlines performance targets and indicators for the Utility and Rate Board (UARB), including energy and demand savings, lifetime energy savings, ratepayer benefits, customer satisfaction, and low-income program participation. EfficiencyOne is required to report on these metrics by program and rate class, with specific deadlines.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-04: 2 3 (a) The delivery of energy over the Maritime Link, an updated IRP, rate structure 4 changes (TOU), and the conclusion of the Government enacted Rate Stabilization 5 period, will all have significant im...

AI summary The document asks if changes in energy delivery via the Maritime Link, updated IRP, rate structure changes (TOU), and the conclusion of the Government enacted Rate Stabilization period will impact the 2020-22 DSM delivery compared to the 2023-25 plan. EfficiencyOne refers to previous responses, indicating no other major influences on the 2020-22 DSM plan.

g in the face of other near-term cost pressures - The plans are not different enough in spending or savings levels to satisfy the UARB's direction for E1 to produce alternate scenarios of DSM budgets. E1's recently approved DSM budgets are...

AI summary NSP's E1 submitted DSM budget plans that fail to meet UARB's requirement for multiple alternate scenarios. E1's Preferred Plan (25% increase) and Alternate Plan (9% increase) face criticism for rising per-unit costs amid other cost pressures like cap-and-trade and fuel costs. UARB's 2018 Decision (Matter 06733) mandated alternate scenarios, which E1 partially addressed. NSP emphasizes cost efficiency and affordability.

Janet MacDonald From: Nancy G Rubin Sent: December 21, 2018 1:35 PM To: albert e dominie; DSMAG; Alice Napoleon; Bill Mahody ([email protected]); Bob Green; Brian ([email protected]); Brian ([email protected]); David Landrigan; D...

AI summary The Industrial Group agrees with NSPI's comments on the 2020-2022 DSM Plan update, advocating for alternative models beyond the status quo. They criticize the outdated 2014 IRP as an ineffective benchmark due to system changes and highlight that efficiency programs do not offset fixed costs from high-cost renewables. The group emphasizes the need for demand-focused efficiency programs and CO2 reductions.

Sally Martin; Shannon Miedema; Sheena Parris; Stephen Thomas; Suman Gautam; Tim Wood ([email protected]) Subject: Re: Request for DSMAG comments on 2020-2022 DSM Plan update by December 21, 2018 Please note the following from MEUNSC The...

AI summary DSMAG comments on the 2020-2022 DSM Plan update, expressing concerns about aggressive spending increases (25% preferred) and their impact on rates. They advocate for restraint, suggest alternatives like a one-year extension or three-year plan, and emphasize the need for updated marginal costs and rate stability benchmarks.

4. We support the P referred Plan. Efficiency investments create the best long term value for electricity customers. We support the Preferred Plan for this reason and because it will enable a higher investment in the Affordable Multi-famil...

AI summary The text supports the Preferred Plan due to its long-term value for electricity customers through efficiency investments and its alignment with increased funding for the Affordable Multi-family Housing program.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL Request IR-07: Regarding the approximate $7 million surplus remaining from the 2016-2018 DSM Plan, please provide E1's perspective on how that might best be used to benefit electricity ratepayers. Response IR-07: Efficienc...

AI summary EfficiencyOne proposes using a surplus of approximately $7 million from the 2016-2018 DSM Plan to benefit ratepayers by applying it equally across the 2020-2022 DSM Plan, citing alignment with past practice and maximum customer benefit. It also suggests investing a $15 million HST refund into the 2020-2022 DSM Plan for a higher return compared to direct refunds or early repayment of 2015 financing.

2.5 Financial Tests Calculated EERAM also calculates several financial tests2, including: - Total Resource Cost (TRC): This test includes all quantifiable costs and benefits of an energy efficiency measure that may accrue to participants o...

AI summary EERAM calculates financial tests (TRC, PAC, RIM, PCT, Simple Customer Payback, Levelized Measure Cost/kWh) to assess energy efficiency measures' cost-effectiveness from various perspectives, including total resource cost, program administrator costs, ratepayer impact, and participant costs. Outputs guide program administrators in setting energy efficiency goals and estimating cost-effective savings.

Appendix E. EERAM Economic Tests Measure, program, end‐use, building type, and overall portfolio level costs and benefits are calculated in EERAM. Some of these costs and benefits are calculated as net and others as gross. Net values take...

AI summary This section of Appendix E discusses the Economic Evaluation of Resource and Measures (EERAM) framework, which calculates costs and benefits of energy efficiency programs at various levels. It outlines four financial tests (TRC, PAC, RIM, PCT) used to evaluate program impacts, including how benefits and costs are defined and calculated, with a focus on net-to-gross adjustments and discount rates.

E1 Responses to Small Business Advocate (SBA) 1 Request IR-09: 2 3 Please refer to EfficiencyOne 2020-2022 DSM Resource Plan Filing, Evidence, Page 13, 4 lines 23-26, E1 states that DSM should be subsidized by HST savings, it is in the bes...

AI summary The response to the Small Business Advocate (SBA) discusses a 480% return on investment from DSM programs, calculated as the average PAC ratio of lifetime benefits to program administrator costs. The response refers to EfficiencyOne's 2020-2022 DSM Resource Plan for detailed calculations and allocation by rate class.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL Request IR-10: Referring to Efficiency One 2020-2022 DSM Plan Application Table 6, pg. 25-26, and Table 7, pg. 28, which outline the proposed DSM programs and potential barriers to participation. Affordability seems to be...

AI summary The Small Business Advocate (SBA) requested a comparative analysis between savings from affordability improvements in EfficiencyOne's DSM plan and estimated electricity rate increases. EfficiencyOne responded that such analysis was conducted in Appendix B of their application, addressing rate and bill impacts for the Preferred Plan and Alternate Scenario.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL LineLossFactors LineLossFactors Instead of using a provincial average, E1 weighted line losses by sector based on historical program participation by rate class and line losses by rate class. The latter of which was provid...

AI summary E1's 2020-2022 DSM Resource Plan uses avoided costs from the 2014 Integrated Resource Plan, confirmed by NS Power. Transmission and distribution avoided costs were also determined by NS Power and presented to the DSM Advisory Group. The plan begins in 2020 with no inflation rate applied, and certain fields like reserve margin and CO2 density were not used in the model.

Date Filed: May 13, 2019 E1 (SBA) IR-13 Page 3 of 3 Sector Avoided Cost Savings Types 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 BNI Avoided Costs of Transmission and Distribution (kW) $15.57 $15.84 $16.10 $16.38 $16.66 $1...

AI summary The document presents a table with avoided cost savings across various sectors and years, highlighting data related to energy efficiency and demand-side management. It includes specific figures for BNI and residential sectors, covering transmission and distribution costs, water, gas, and energy savings, as well as demand and capacity savings.

2 \ \ Rate and Bill Impacts Analysis (RBIA) E1 Responses to Small Business Advocate (SBA)

AI summary This section outlines the Rate and Bill Impacts Analysis (RBIA) and includes E1's responses to the Small Business Advocate (SBA). It is part of a regulatory proceeding and involves discussions on rate impacts and stakeholder engagement.

Appliance Retirement Appliance retirement direct install costs were based on actual direct install costs for the program, adjusted for inflation in each year at a rate of 1.8% with an additional 5% increase in the first year to account for...

AI summary The document outlines adjustments to direct install costs for appliance retirement, including a 1.8% annual inflation rate and a 5% first-year increase due to U.S. tariffs. EfficiencyOne identified an error in applying inflation rates using 2017 instead of 2018 costs, leading to slightly higher estimates, with a corrected analysis provided in an attachment.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-01: 2 3 Please describe how EfficiencyOne proposes to recover the costs of its proposed programs. 4 5 a. Over what time period would costs be recovered? 6 7 b. How would costs be allocated to different rate cl...

AI summary EfficiencyOne is asked about its cost recovery methodology for its proposed programs, including the time period for recovery, allocation across rate classes, and the current process. It explains that prior to 2015, it used a true-up process with the DCRR, but this changed in 2015 when DSM costs were incorporated into NS Power's non-fuel costs.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL Request IR-08: - Refer to EfficiencyOne's evidence, page 60, lines 9 to 12. Are water savings included in a) the - Preferred Plan and b) the Alternate Plan? If yes, for each plan please indicate how these - benefits are ca...

AI summary EfficiencyOne confirms water savings are included in both the Preferred Plan and Alternate Scenario, though an incorrect conversion factor led to underestimation. They provided corrected methodologies using Halifax Water rates (adjusted for inflation) and note water benefits constitute 0.0002% of total benefits. No model modifications are sought despite the error.

7 D 4 69 R ate Impa ct Partici pant Bill Impact Non-Participant Bill Impact Rate Class Low (-25%) Base High (+25%) Low (-25%) Base High (+25%) Low (-25%) Base High (+25%) Residential 1.6% 0.3% -1.1% -5.7% -6.8% -7.9% 1.5% 0.2% -1.0% Small...

AI summary The table provides a breakdown of bill impact percentages for different rate classes under various participation scenarios. It includes low, base, and high impact percentages for participants and non-participants. The data is sourced from a 2017 rate and bill impact analysis by EfficiencyOne.

6 D. J. GI R ate Impa ct Partici ipant Bill Impact Non-Participant Bill Impact Rate Class Low (-25%) Base High (+25%) Low (-25%) Base High (+25%) Low (-25%) Base High (+25%) Residential 0.7% 0.3% -0.1% -6.5% -6.8% -7.1% 0.6% 0.2% -0.1% Sma...

AI summary The table presents rate impact and bill impact percentages for different rate classes under various scenarios. It shows the effect of rate changes on participants and non-participants, with specific figures for each category. The data is sourced from a 2017 analysis by EfficiencyOne referenced as M08372.

Request IR-31: - Refer to Page 6 of 37 of Appendix B, which states that EfficiencyOne applies "a - conservative escalation rate of 2.0 percent per year" to its avoided transmission and - distribution costs. What is this escalation rate bas...

AI summary EfficiencyOne uses a 2.0% annual escalation rate for avoided transmission and distribution costs, justified as reflecting the Bank of Canada's inflation target, after analyzing historical data showing higher rates over a short period.

1 page 3 of 4, in the "New Issue 2" section, Mr. Chernick discusses potential issues with 2 NS Power's derivation of its avoided T&D cost estimates. Date Filed: May 13, 2019 E1 (Synapse) IR-33 Page 2 of 2 PO Box 910 ● Halifax, Nova Scotia...

AI summary This letter from Jennifer Parker of NS Power provides initial estimates for transmission and distribution avoided costs ($8,365.06/MW and $3,524.35/MW, respectively) for use in EfficiencyOne's historic Rate and Bill Impact Analysis model for M07543 – 2016-2018 DSM Deferred Matters. The methodology is detailed in Appendix A.

ENS Issue 1d: further breakdown of lost revenues and avoided costs into those arising from fuel and fixed rate components I agree that NS Power needs to provide more explanation of its approach.

AI summary The speaker agrees that NSP requires further explanation regarding its approach to breaking down lost revenues and avoided costs into fuel and fixed rate components under ENS Issue 1d.

ENS Issue 1g: Energy and demand cost escalation rate The 2.7% escalation rate seems appropriate.

AI summary The proposed 2.7% energy and demand cost escalation rate is deemed appropriate for Nova Scotia's regulatory proceeding. This rate pertains to the Energy and Demand Cost Escalation Rate (ENS Issue 1g) under consideration by the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board.

DSMAG Issue 2: Treatment of Municipal Electric Utilities Treating the municipal utilities as customers in Rate 24 seems reasonable. Reduced energy usage by the MEU customers would reduce NS Power revenues at the Rate 24 tariff rates.

AI summary The text discusses treating municipal electric utilities as customers under Rate 24, noting that reduced energy usage by these customers would lower NS Power's revenues at the Rate 24 tariff rates.

DSMAG Issue 3: Expand the participation assumptions section within the report I remain concerned that NS Power has not made more progress in developing the RBIA model, considering NS Power's concern about rate pressure from the DSM program...

AI summary The text expresses concern that NS Power has not sufficiently advanced the RBIA model development, citing NS Power's own concerns about rate pressure from DSM programs as a potential barrier to progress.

Both annual rate changes and cumulative changes are useful parameters. NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-34: 2 3 Refer to Section 3.7.1 (No-DSM Scenario Rates) on Page 11 of 37 of Appendix B. 4 5 a. How was the "approximate Program Cost Recove...

AI summary The document discusses the calculation of the 'approximate Program Cost Recovery amount' for 2019 and the basis for the 'demand rate escalation factor of 2.7 percent'. It explains that the cost recovery was calculated by dividing the estimated 2019 DSM investment by class by the estimated 2019 with-DSM class energy consumption, and that the escalation factor was based on historical and forecasted rate escalation data.

2019 RBIA Updates

AI summary The document heading indicates updates to the Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) in 2019, though no detailed content is provided in the text. Key entities include Nova Scotia Power (NSP) and the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB), with acronyms related to energy regulation and housing mentioned.

Purpose Propose enhancements to EfficiencyOne's Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) model and report.

AI summary The document outlines the purpose of proposing enhancements to EfficiencyOne's Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) model and report, aiming to improve its methodology and outcomes.

Overview - 1. Describe issues assigned to EfficiencyOne and the DSMAG from the 2017 RBIA Summary of Actions, with proposed actions for each. - 2. Describe other new issues raised by NS Power and EfficiencyOne since 2017, with proposed acti...

AI summary The document outlines two tasks: addressing issues assigned to EfficiencyOne and DSMAG from the 2017 RBIA Summary of Actions, and describing new issues raised by NS Power and EfficiencyOne since 2017, each with proposed actions.

Source Information for this Discussion - 2016 Consensus Agreement - Stakeholder comments, EfficiencyOne replies, and UARB letters re: EfficiencyOne's 2017 and 2018 historical RBIA filings - Additional suggestions from NS Power in October 2...

AI summary The discussion references the 2016 Consensus Agreement, stakeholder comments, EfficiencyOne's 2017-2018 RBIA filings, NS Power's 2018 suggestions, and the introduction of New Issues #1 and #6 in a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding.

Actions for ENS - 1. Work with NS Power to explore issues, including: - a. use of annual avoided fuel costs; - use of marginal avoided fuel costs instead of those made relative to a no-DSM scenario; - c. timeframe for levelization of avoid...

AI summary The document outlines actions for ENS, including collaborating with NS Power on avoided fuel cost methodologies, refining class allocation ratios, addressing model errors, and expanding participation assumptions. It also mentions discussions with Synapse and Resource Insight regarding model accuracy and participation studies.

Actions for the DSM Advisory Group - Review and discuss results of ENS and NS Power collaboration on issues listed above, as well as any other outstanding issues or questions. - Discuss treatment of Municipal Electric Utilities as customer...

AI summary The DSM Advisory Group will review collaboration outcomes between ENS and NS Power, discuss municipal electric utilities' treatment in the RBIA model, and address the development and initial use of NS Power's rate impact model.

New Issues New Issue #1 – Which avoided costs to use when avoided cost estimates change New Issue #2 – Source of avoided costs for 2020-2022 DSM Plan RBIA New Issue #3 – Line losses New Issue #4 – Expiry of customers New Issue #5 – Average...

AI summary Six new issues are raised in the proceeding: determining avoided costs when estimates change, sourcing avoided costs for the 2020-2022 DSM Plan RBIA, line losses, customer expiry, weighted average bill impact graphs, and clarifying rate impacts in NS Power's DSMAG Presentation. NSP and NSUARB are central to the discussion.

2017_ENS_1a) Use of annual avoided fuel costs

AI summary The document discusses the use of annual avoided fuel costs in a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding, involving Nova Scotia Power (NSP) and the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB). Key considerations include Demand Side Management (DSM), Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI), and related methodologies for cost allocation and rate design.

Considerations - 2016 Consensus Agreement indicated that levelized costs would be used - NS Power has proposed that annual fuel costs be used - Main risk of using annual avoided costs in the model is that it will introduce greater volatili...

AI summary The 2016 Consensus Agreement advocated for levelized costs, but NSP proposes annual fuel costs. Using annual avoided costs risks volatility in output data, partly due to DSM effects and non-DSM factors like fuel price fluctuations. The model shows escalating rates due to non-levelized fuel cost recovery mechanisms.

Issue Should marginal fuel costs be used in place of IRP avoided fuel costs?

AI summary The proceeding examines whether marginal fuel costs should replace IRP avoided fuel costs in regulatory calculations. This issue involves Nova Scotia Power (NSP) and the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB), focusing on fuel cost methodology and its implications for rate design and cost allocation.

Considerations - Marginal fuel costs are similar, but not the same as IRP avoided fuel costs: - Marginal fuel costs (in $/MWh) represent the incremental fuel cost savings that would be realized by reducing the actual energy load by a margi...

AI summary The text distinguishes between marginal fuel costs and IRP avoided fuel costs, noting NS Power's proposal to use marginal costs for rate estimation rather than replacing IRP avoided costs. It clarifies that NS Power's 2017 proposal was mischaracterized, emphasizing the use of marginal costs within their rate-impact framework. The discussion concludes that marginal costs should not replace IRP avoided costs in DSM analyses.

2017_ENS_1c) Timeframe for levelization of avoided costs

AI summary The document discusses the timeframe for levelizing avoided costs in the context of Nova Scotia's regulatory proceedings. Key entities involved include Nova Scotia Power (NSP) and the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB). The analysis focuses on methodologies for allocating avoided costs over time, potentially impacting rate design and demand-side management initiatives.

Considerations - Historically EfficiencyOne has used the levelized values provided by NS Power from each IRP, which were levelized over the study period of the IRP - EfficiencyOne is in possession of the annual avoided capacity costs from...

AI summary EfficiencyOne proposes to levelize capacity costs over the period they apply, using the same method for transmission/distribution costs modeled in IRPs, while ensuring confidentiality by performing calculations offline and only sharing levelized values in the RBIA model.

2017_ENS_1d) Further breakdown of lost revenues and avoided costs into those arising from fuel and fixed rate components

AI summary The document provides a breakdown of lost revenues and avoided costs from fuel and fixed rate components in Nova Scotia's energy sector. It involves analysis by Nova Scotia Power (NSP) and the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB), focusing on revenue impacts from demand-side management (DSM) programs and rate design considerations.

Considerations - EfficiencyOne held a series of stakeholder consultations in 2016 to develop a stakeholder-supported means of estimating the fixed cost adjustment - NS Power did not make recommendations on how this could be achieved within...

AI summary EfficiencyOne conducted 2016 consultations on fixed cost adjustment methods. NS Power initially proposed its own model, while Synapse, Resource Insight, and Drazen Consulting suggested a transparent method without detailed fixed cost data. NS Power later altered RBIA models using new approaches but withheld fixed cost data during DSMAG's advisory phase, potentially influencing the method selection.

Issue • Should EfficiencyOne adopt NS Power's proposed means of allocating lost revenues and avoided costs to rate classes?

AI summary The issue concerns whether EfficiencyOne should adopt Nova Scotia Power's proposed method for allocating lost revenues and avoided costs to rate classes, as considered by the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board.

Considerations - The model currently uses a single set of rate class allocation ratios, developed for a single year (2013), but applied to all years under the assumption that class consumption and number of customers will not change signif...

AI summary The document discusses concerns about the use of outdated rate class allocation ratios and model complexity in NSP's methodology. Stakeholders debate whether the model should mirror Cost of Service Study (COSS) methods for accuracy or if simpler approaches suffice. Key issues include transparency, data updates, confidentiality, and collaboration with EfficiencyOne and DSMAG. Options include maintaining the current method or further discussing NSP's proposal for future Rate and Bill Impact Analyses (RBIAs).

2017_ENS_1f) Modeling of billed demand reductions

AI summary The document addresses the modeling of billed demand reductions within a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding, focusing on methodologies for forecasting demand-side management impacts. It involves analysis of programs like AMI and DSM, with implications for utility rate structures and cost-of-service studies.

Considerations - Evaluated demand savings are measured at the time of the overall system peak - Customers are charged based on their individual system peak, which is not related to the overall system peak - Underlying issue: customer deman...

AI summary The text discusses challenges in aligning customer demand charges with system peak costs, noting current methods assume proportional relationships between customer and system peaks. It suggests new AMI-based rate designs could improve accuracy but recommends maintaining existing methods until post-AMI rate reforms or EfficiencyOne's peak savings quantification capabilities mature.

2017_ENS_1g) The energy and demand cost escalation rate

AI summary The 2017 regulatory proceeding addresses the energy and demand cost escalation rate, focusing on Nova Scotia Power's (NSP) rate structures and potential impacts on consumers, with oversight by the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB).

Proposed Action Continue using 2.7% per year

AI summary The proposed action involves continuing the use of a 2.7% annual growth rate, likely related to cost or rate structures in a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding. The text is brief, focusing on maintaining this percentage without additional context on rationale or implications.

2017_DSMAG_2) Discuss treatment of Municipal Electric Utilities as customers of NS Power within the RBIA model

AI summary The document discusses the treatment of Municipal Electric Utilities as customers of Nova Scotia Power (NSP) within the Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) model. Key considerations involve regulatory frameworks, cost allocation, and the role of the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB) in oversight.

Considerations - In 2016, while developing a method to account for the fixed cost adjustment, NS Power shared an early, incomplete version of its model with the DSMAG; however it was shared in the context of suggesting that EfficiencyOne u...

AI summary NSP shared an incomplete rate impact model with DSMAG in 2016 but did not involve them in its UARB-ordered model development. EfficiencyOne repeatedly requested NSP to collaborate with DSMAG on the model to align with the 2016 Consensus Agreement, which required DSMAG involvement prior to DSM Plan filings. NSP instead prepared altered versions of EfficiencyOne's model and withheld its own UARB-ordered model from stakeholders.

Proposed Action Await information from NS Power on its rate impact model

AI summary The NSUARB is awaiting information from Nova Scotia Power regarding its rate impact model as part of the regulatory proceeding. The model's details are critical for assessing the financial implications of proposed actions.

Considerations - We currently have long-term avoided cost estimates from the 2009 IRP Update and 2014 IRP; will soon have a new set from the 2020 IRP - Historically, the RBIA has applied the same avoided cost rates to all DSM savings in a...

AI summary The document discusses the application of avoided cost estimates from different Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) updates (2009, 2014, 2020) to Demand Side Management (DSM) savings in the Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA). Historically, the same avoided cost rates were applied to all DSM savings in a given year, but the text proposes using the IRP avoided costs specific to the program year's cost-justification. This change will not affect the 2020-2022 DSM Plan RBIA but will be implemented prior to the 2019 Historical RBIA.

NEW_2) Source of avoided costs for 2020-2022 DSM Plan RBIA

AI summary The document addresses the source of avoided costs for the 2020-2022 Demand Side Management (DSM) Plan Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) under Nova Scotia Power's regulatory proceeding with the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB).

Issue Which sets of avoided costs should be used for the 2020-2022 DSM Plan RBIA?

AI summary The issue concerns determining the appropriate avoided costs for the 2020-2022 Demand Side Management (DSM) Plan Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) under Nova Scotia regulatory proceedings.

Considerations - The analysis will only include DSM proposed in the DSM Plan application (2020-2022 program years) - The UARB directed NS Power to update avoided costs as required by EfficiencyOne for use in preparation of the 2020-2022 DS...

AI summary The analysis focuses on DSM proposals for 2020-2022, with the UARB directing NS Power to update avoided costs per EfficiencyOne. Synapse recommends using costs from the Generation Optimization matter, while NS Power advocates retaining 2014 IRP avoided costs and updated transmission/distribution costs. EfficiencyOne supports NS Power’s position in the 2018 RBIA matter.

Considerations - Savings reported by EfficiencyOne are "at generator" - "At generator" savings can be converted to "at meter" by subtracting line losses - Historically the model has used a single set of savings, which were "at generator" -...

AI summary The text discusses the distinction between 'at generator' and 'at meter' savings, noting that historical models used 'at generator' savings for avoided costs, while 'at meter' savings (adjusted for line losses) are used for lost revenues and customer bill impacts. EfficiencyOne's reported savings are framed as 'at generator' in the current model.

Considerations - Historically, the model has calculated a running annual total of cumulative unique participants, without any expiry of participants - However, savings for each class do expire at the end of the weighted-average measure lif...

AI summary The current method counts unique DSM participants without expiry, but NS Power suggests aligning participant counts with expiring energy savings. However, this could undercount participants and overstate savings. The current method is preferred as it's conservative and accurate. Future steps include associating participants with NS Power accounts and considering dropping early years from RBIA reports.

Issue In some cases an arithmetic average of multi-year bill impacts is used instead of a weighted average

AI summary The text highlights a discrepancy in methodology where an arithmetic average, rather than a weighted average, is applied to multi-year bill impacts in certain cases, potentially affecting the accuracy of cost or service analyses.

Considerations - Bill impact graphs that show multiple rate classes in the same image use an arithmetic average - Bill impact graphs for each individual class use a weighted average - This is an error; the weighted average should have been...

AI summary The text identifies an error in the use of arithmetic averages for bill impact graphs displaying multiple rate classes, recommending the use of weighted averages instead.

Proposed action Use a weighted average of bill impacts for all multi-year averages

AI summary The proposed action suggests using a weighted average of bill impacts across all multi-year periods, likely to standardize or simplify the calculation of financial effects over time in regulatory proceedings.

NEW_6) Clarifying rate impacts in NS Power's DSMAG Presentation In its October 2018 RBIA presentation to the DSMAG, NS Power included several "cumulative rate impact" graphs that it generated from its altered version of EfficiencyOne's 201...

AI summary EfficiencyOne clarifies that NS Power's 2018 RBIA presentation to DSMAG used altered versions of EfficiencyOne's 2017 model to create misleading 'cumulative rate impact' graphs. These graphs incorrectly sum percentage rate impacts across years, exaggerating long-term effects (e.g., a 1% annual increase appears as 1%, 2%, 3% over years).

Summary of proposed actions # Item Proposed Action 2017_ENS_5 Consolidate model inputs which are common to all classes on a separate Excel tab Most common inputs are entered on the 'R-Inputs' tab; Inputs tabs for other classes link back to...

AI summary The document outlines proposed actions related to model input consolidation, error investigation, and discussions on the treatment of Municipal Electric Utilities and rate impact models. It also addresses the use of avoided costs when estimates change.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-4: 2 3 What level of winter peak reduction would be needed to allow NS Power to retire another 4 coal unit, in addition to Lingan 2? 5 6 Response IR-4: 7 8 Please refer to NSUARB IR-22. Date Filed: May 13, 201...

AI summary The document contains a non-confidential request and response regarding the level of winter peak reduction required for NS Power to retire another coal unit beyond Lingan 2, with the response directing the reader to refer to NSUARB IR-22.

2020-2022 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan (NSUARB M09096) NSPI Responses to Consumer Advocate Information Requests 1 (c) Board approval of a DSM plan that allows for the inclusion of non-cost-effective 2 measures to satisfy regu...

AI summary The document discusses concerns regarding the inclusion of non-cost-effective measures in the 2020-2022 DSM Plan, arguing that such measures may not be included in a plan that only allows verified cost-effective measures. It references the TRC ratios of various measures, noting some fall below 1 or are in the 1-1.26 range, which is seen as potentially harmful to consumers.

Memorandum TO: M08059 GENERATION UTILIZATION AND OPTIMIZATION STAKEHOLDERS FROM: BOB FAGAN – SYNAPSE ENERGY ECONOMICS DATE: OCTOBER 19, 2018 RE: AVOIDED ENERGY AND CAPACITY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH DSM RESOURCES This memo presents the results...

AI summary This memo calculates avoided energy and capacity costs from demand-side management (DSM) resources in Nova Scotia's Generation Utilization and Optimization Study. Using a differential revenue requirements approach, Synapse Energy Economics compares Scenario 1 (reference) and Scenario 2 (medium DSM) to determine per-MWh and per-kW avoided costs. Key findings include declining avoided energy costs post-2020 due to Maritime Link energy and rising avoided capacity costs starting in 2023 from new combined cycle resource construction.

(b) Please refer to the table below. Year General Rate Application Base Cost of Fuel FAM AA/BA DSM 2010 YES 2011 YES YES YES 2012 YES YES YES 2013 YES YES YES 2014 YES YES YES 2015 YES YES 2016 YES 2017 YES 2018 YES 2019 YES 1 Request IR-4...

AI summary The document references a table and a request for information regarding renewable energy sources over the Application window, including their operational years, levelized cost of energy, size, and forecasted energy output. It also cites NS Power's evidence and requests detailed information from NSUARB IR-1 and NSUARB IR-12.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-1: 2 3 Reference: Page 7. 4 5 …Residential rates have increased an average of 0.8 percent per year since 6 2014 customers have seen an effective decrease in costs since 2014 as NS 7 Power has been able to main...

AI summary The document contains a request for data on non-fuel rate increases for Large Industrial Interruptible and Medium Industrial classes from 2012-2019, a table of non-fuel cost components with deferred regulatory accounts, and a forecast for 2020-2022. The response directs to Attachment 1 and SBA IR-9.

2020-2022 DSM IG IR-01 Attachment 1 Page 1 of 1 REDACTED (CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION REMOVED) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Non-fuel Rate Components Demand Charge $/kVA 10.369 11.032 11....

AI summary The document presents historical data on demand charges, non-fuel energy charges, and deferred amounts from 2011 to 2019, including annual percentage rate increases for different customer classes. It also references the 2020-2022 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan (NSUARB M09096) and NSPI's responses to information requests.

1 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMISSIONS REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 2 3 6.1 Renewable Electricity Requirements 4 5 The Nova Scotia Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) includes a renewable energy 6 requirement for NS Power of 25 percent of energy sa...

AI summary Nova Scotia's Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) mandates 25% (2015) and 40% (2020) renewable energy sales for NS Power. COMFIT and Net Metering programs support community and small-scale renewables. Regulatory amendments in 2016 allowed COMFIT inclusion in RES compliance and removed the 'must-run' requirement for the Port Hawkesbury biomass facility. NS Power exceeded RES targets in 2015-2017 and forecasts 2018 compliance.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-9: 2 3 On page 13, NS Power stated that E1's Preferred Plan is not in alignment with the 4 economic reality in Nova Scotia for a number of reasons. One of the stated reasons is that 5 "NS Power has not increas...

AI summary NS Power asserts that its non-fuel rates have not increased since 2014 and that it has not exceeded the 9.25% ROE cap, as excess revenues were returned to customers via FAM. The requesting party challenges this, citing potential overearnings and misalignment with economic reality. NS Power returned $93 million in excess revenues from 2014-2018.

EMERGING POTENTIAL AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE SOLAR INDUSTRY TO ENGAGE IN NEW SERVICE AREAS 3 The solar industry is well positioned to meet future market demand for emerging technologies; namely battery storage and electric vehicles chargin...

AI summary The solar industry in Nova Scotia is poised to expand into battery storage and EV charging infrastructure, though current residential storage adoption is limited (15–35% by 2035). Alternative rate structures could boost demand and create 10–30 FTEs by 2030. EV home charger installations may generate 20–70 FTEs, offering new revenue streams and lead generation for solar businesses, based on NSPI's EV adoption forecasts.

KEY MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY FACTORS The projected demand for residential solar is sensitive to a range of market and technology factors. Four key factors were identified, and a sensitivity analysis was conducted to show the impact of each fa...

AI summary The document outlines four key factors influencing residential solar demand in Nova Scotia: electricity rates, system cost reductions, system output, and uncertainty in future projections. Nova Scotia has high electricity rates, with projected 2.7% annual increases. System costs have decreased but remain uncertain, while system output depends on regional and installation factors. References to external studies and reports are cited.

2020-2022 DSM NSUARB IR-11 Attachment 1 Page 14 of 40 REDACTED (CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION REMOVED) with the Canadian average. Improvements in solar PV technologies or changes to the quality of installed systems (i.e. more homes with better...

AI summary The text discusses factors influencing residential solar PV system sizes in Nova Scotia, including incentives like SolarHomes, net-metering regulations, and electrification trends. It assumes an average 8 kW system size with 20% variation and notes potential impacts from financing programs and rate structures on solar adoption.

Alternative Compensation Mechanisms Numerous studies by utilities, regulators and other entities have been conducted to identify the value of distributed solar to utilities through quantifying the benefits and costs associated with solar a...

AI summary The text discusses the economic impact of distributed solar on utilities, balancing benefits like avoided generation costs against lost revenue from energy sales. It highlights challenges in cost-allocation between solar and non-solar customers and references Non-Wire Alternatives (NWA) as a grid management strategy. Studies by Hansen et al. and Wood Mackenzie are cited.

Alternative Rate Structures In addition to compensation mechanisms, electricity rate designs and structures also have a significant impact on solar. Alternative rate structures have also been used in some judications to address similar con...

AI summary Alternative rate structures, including fixed fees, peak demand charges, and Time of Use (TOU) rates, impact solar adoption by reducing avoidable costs, thereby weakening the business case for solar. These structures aim to address cost allocation and market price signal issues between customers.

2020-2022 DSM NSUARB IR-11 Attachment 1 Page 32 of 40 REDACTED (CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION REMOVED) Figure 10: Illustration of Impact of Battery Storage on Solar Uptake Under status-quo conditions in Nova Scotia, incremental costs of couplin...

AI summary The text discusses the current cost-benefit analysis of residential solar-plus-storage systems in Nova Scotia, estimating 15-35% of solar deployment by 2030 will be storage-paired. Future factors like declining battery costs, net-metering changes, and incentives may improve the business case. Commercial/industrial customers have a better case for storage than residential.

APPENDIX B: KEY INPUTS AND ASSUMPTIONS

AI summary This appendix lists key acronyms and their expansions relevant to a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding, including terms related to energy efficiency, utility regulation, and renewable energy initiatives. No substantive content is provided beyond the acronym definitions.

The model uses variable rates ($/kWh based) paid for electricity consumption to assess the economic returns of PV systems to adopting customers. Electricity rates for the duration of the system's assumed lifetime (30 years) are required, t...

AI summary The model evaluates the economic returns of PV systems using variable electricity rates over a 30-year period, with baseline, low, and high rate escalation assumptions based on NSPI forecasts and historical data.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-17: 2 3 Regarding the Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA), NS Power is critical of E1's use of the 4 2014 IRP levelized avoided costs in that analysis. 5 6 (a) Has E1 incorporated any of NS Power's suggested...

AI summary NS Power is critical of E1's use of 2014 IRP levelized avoided costs in the Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA). NS Power provided E1 with updated avoided cost inputs on October 10, 2018, specifically annual avoided fuel costs from the last two IRPs.

2020-2022 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan (NSUARB M09096) NSPI Responses to NSUARB Information Requests 1 Request IR-18: 2 3 NS Power references the Board's letter of March 6, 2017 which stated that the DSMAG 4 should review sev...

AI summary NSPI responded to NSUARB's information request regarding the timing and acceptance of NS Power's alternate method for accounting in the 2017 RBIA. NS Power did not provide the method before the October 2017 filing, but communicated ongoing efforts to align methodologies with E1 and the DSMAG. The DSMAG has not endorsed or rejected the alternate method.

2.0 BACKGROUND [11] Board approval is required under s. 79L of the PUA of any agreement for the supply of electricity efficiency and conservation activities. A mutually finalized agreement is contemplated in the PUA ; however, provision is...

AI summary E1 applied for Board approval of a DSM plan, including a Preferred Plan with $43M annual spending and energy savings, and an Alternate Scenario. NS Power opposed, arguing the plan's cost is too high, rate impacts are significant, and it doesn't align with the 2014 IRP. The Board previously directed E1 to provide alternate scenarios.

2.1 Consensus Agreement [17] Ultimately, E1 and NS Power filed a Consensus Agreement which is attached as Appendix A to this Decision. In addition to setting the spending, energy savings target, and demand savings target levels of $110 mil...

AI summary E1 and NS Power filed a Consensus Agreement setting spending, energy savings, and demand savings targets for 2020-2022. Key provisions include DSM funding for First Nations and low-income programs, FAM-based expensing of DSM costs, HST refunds via FAM, and operational responsibilities for the HomeWarming Program. The agreement also withdraws the Lifetime Energy Savings target and revises DSMAG terms.

2.2 Terms of Settlement Agreement [18] HGL intervened in the proceeding and had a specific issue with ETs application. HGL objected to E1 's proposal to offer incentives underthe Custom Incentive Program for new construction multi-unit res...

AI summary HGL objected to E1's proposal for incentives in the Custom Incentive Program promoting electric heat pumps in multi-unit residential buildings where natural gas is available. A settlement agreement was reached, leading to a collaborative review and E1 refraining from new participants during the review period.

ters the Board considers appropriate. The term "affordability" is not defined in the PUA. - [24] In its decision on the 2016-2018 DSM Plan, the Board discussed how it should interpret affordability: The Board finds that the inclusion of Se...

AI summary The Board evaluates DSM spending affordability under the PUA, emphasizing a balance between short-term rate impacts and long-term cost savings. It rejects exclusive focus on short-term affordability, citing potential harm to ratepayers. The 2016-2018 DSM Plan's spending was deemed affordable despite being lower than prior years and the 2014 IRP recommendations, aligning with ratepayers' best interests.

3.4 Future DSM as a FAM Expense [39] In its Evidence, NS Power proposed that any variance from $34.05 million in approved annual DSM costs for 2020-2022 should be included in the FAM account prior to the next General Rate Application (GRA)...

AI summary NS Power proposes including future DSM costs in the FAM account prior to the next GRA and 100% during the GRA for transparency. The Consensus Agreement with E1 supports FAM-based DSM funding at the next GRA. The Consumer Advocate opposes automation via FAM, citing transparency risks and cost allocation issues. The Board defers resolution to future applications.

number of the hourly loads are at or close to the system peak? MR. LANDRIGAN: Oh, yes, sorry. A small amount of our overall load would be at or close to system peak, yes. [Transcript, pp. 72-73] [45] Stephen MacDonald, of E1, stated the Co...

AI summary The discussion centers on demand reduction and demand response initiatives, with E1 proposing a budget for demand reduction measures and the Industrial Group opposing prescriptive demand reduction activities, advocating instead for cost-effective demand response and rate design changes.

7.1 Directives [74] E1 is to investigate historic underspending of planned budgets and historic exceeding of energy savings to determine the factors that lead to the overestimation. E1 is to file terms of reference by October 31,2019, and...

AI summary E1 is directed to investigate historic budget and energy savings discrepancies, filing terms of reference by October 2019 and concluding by March 2020. E1 and NS Power must collaborate on demand response measures and rate design changes, reporting to DSMAG by June 2020. NS Power must submit rate design proposals to the Board separately if needed.

eneral Rate Application subject to UARB approval. NS Power agrees to support adoption of this methodology in a manner that does not result in additional material regulatory burden being imposed on E1. - 6. The HST Refund, together with any...

AI summary NS Power agrees to support a methodology for the HST Refund return via FAM without additional regulatory burden. DSMAG will revise terms of reference for DSM Plans, focusing on stakeholder engagement, avoided cost updates, and affordability criteria. If unresolved by June 30, 2020, UARB will determine the terms.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Board approves a DSM Plan for 2020-2022 in the aggregate amount of $110 million with a target of total cumulative energy savings of 367.8 GWh and demand savings of 98.3 MW. Approved spending is $34.4 milli...

AI summary The Board approves a DSM Plan for 2020-2022 with a total budget of $110 million and energy savings targets. It also approves a Supply Agreement between E1 and NS Power, and various agreements and reports related to energy efficiency and conservation activities. The HST refund is to be returned to customers through the FAM.

Document: 268936 Date Filed: April 29, 2019 Synapse (E1) Page 1 of 11 1 2 Request IR-1: programs. costs of Please describe how EfficiencyOne proposes to recover the its proposed 24 25 b. Which specific utility effects happen during the cur...

AI summary The document contains a series of requests for information related to EfficiencyOne's proposed programs, including questions about utility effects, discount rates, and avoided energy costs. These requests are part of a regulatory proceeding and involve topics such as cost recovery, demand-side management, and integrated resource planning.

xi. cost effectiveness 1 5 14 15 - 2 3 Request IR-12: Please refer to NS Power's Evidence, p. 23, lines 13 to 20. Does NS Power have estimates of capacity requirements beyond 10 years? If not, why not? - 4 Request IR-13: Please refer to NS...

AI summary The section discusses requests for information related to cost-effectiveness, including questions about capacity requirements, DSM expense recovery processes, transparency in proposals, and the use of marginal fuel costs and rate impact models in NS Power's evidence. It also references past board orders and requests for detailed workbooks and data.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 a. To what extent-in both percentage and absolute values-does the incorporation of customer-related costs distort the allocation of benefits an...

AI summary The document contains several requests for information related to NS Power's evidence on customer-related costs, avoided marginal costs, and the impact of DSM on thermal generation. It also references a report on energy efficiency and its effect on planning reserve requirements.

36 1 2 3 b. basis for Mr. Levitan's assumption that 127.2 GWh of What is the the first same cost of saved energy of EfficiencyOne's 2020-2022 DSM Plan has the the 2019 portfolio? entire 5 6 line loss factors were estimated for Please expla...

AI summary This text outlines requests for explanations regarding differences in rate and bill impact results between NS Power and EfficiencyOne, focusing on the 2020-2022 DSM Plan and the basis for assumptions about energy savings and cost factors.

1 (b) Please produce all studies, calculations, or other documents and 2 evidence relied upon by E1 rely upon to quantify that risk? 3 (c) Is this submission regarding risk any different from the submission 4 regarding risk to industry cap...

AI summary The text outlines several information requests related to EfficiencyOne's (E1) DSM Resource Plan, including requests for studies, weighting of aspects in the plan, and cost allocation tables. It also distinguishes between demand reduction and demand response activities in E1's Preferred Plan. The proceeding involves an application by E1 for approval of a supply agreement and DSM Resource Plan with Nova Scotia Power Inc.

32 activity? If no, why not? 1 2 3 (b) Does E1 consider NSPI's Time-of-Day rate to be a demand response activity? If not, does it consider that rate to be a demand reduction activity? 4 5 (c) Does E1 consider NSPI's Time-of-Day rate to be...

AI summary The document includes questions about whether EfficiencyOne considers NSPI's Time-of-Day rate as demand response or demand reduction activity, its effectiveness in reducing peak demand, and differences between passive demand reduction and demand response. It also asks about E1's study of other utilities' activities and the discrepancy between two demand reduction figures (20.7 MW and 120.1 MW) in the Preferred Plan.

30 1 Request IR-11: 2 Reference: Appendix A, page 94. 3 4 5 Dependent on approved cost allocation methodology, EfficiencyOne will undertake reasonable efforts to avoid program changes that will result in substantial changes to any customer...

AI summary The text outlines several requests for information related to cost allocation methodology, definitions of 'substantial changes' to customer rate classes, and the basis for cost allocation using 2017 data. It also asks for calculations and regulatory decisions supporting budget figures, as well as a redline version of a supply agreement.

4138-0008-7068 v1 1 2 3 (b) Please provide a table listing the non-fuel cost components for each year since 2012. Identify separately the balance of all deferred regulatory accounts. 4 (c) Please provide the most current forecast of non-fu...

AI summary The document contains requests and references related to non-fuel cost components, demand response programs, and the distinction between 'demand reduction' and 'demand response' measures. NSPI is asked to clarify its views on these topics and whether it agrees with E1's approach.

4138-0008-7068 v1 - 1 the operational considerations at the various proposed funding levels i.e., the E1 Preferred Plan, - 2 Alternate Scenario and at $27 million annually. - 3 Request IR-10: - 4 Reference: Appendix A, Levitan Evidence, Pa...

AI summary The document references rate increases for different customer classes in Nova Scotia due to DSM activities, with specific inquiries about the 4.11% increase for Large Industrial customers and whether fuel cost rate increases are included in the figures.

Request IR-8 Please provide all analysis and workpapers associated with the latest rate and bill impact analysis performed for the preferred plan.

AI summary Request IR-8 seeks analysis and workpapers for the latest rate and bill impact analysis of the preferred plan, focusing on financial and operational implications of proposed energy initiatives.

Request IR-4 Please provide all analysis and workpapers associated with the latest rate analysis and bill impact analysis performed for the preferred plan, and any other higher or lower scenarios that NSP has analyzed.

AI summary The request asks NSP to provide analysis and workpapers related to rate and bill impact analysis for the preferred plan, along with higher or lower scenarios considered.

Issue 10 – DSM as a FAM expenditure The Parties support, in principle, DSM funding being expensed through the FAM at the time of the next General Rate Application, subject to review under a further Board process..

AI summary The Parties support expensing Demand Side Management (DSM) funding through the FAM at the next General Rate Application, pending further Board review. This positions DSM as a FAM expenditure under regulatory consideration.

Applicable legal framework and principles In terms of the general principles applicable to this Application, the Board must be satisfied that the proposed Consensus Agreement is in the public interest, and that it fulfills the test of "aff...

AI summary The Board must ensure the Consensus Agreement meets public interest and affordability, balancing short-term and long-term costs. Emphasis is on long-term savings from DSM programs, avoiding exclusive short-term focus. References include matter M09096 and PUA sections 79L(8) and (9).

Summary of AEC Position The expert reports filed on behalf of the NSUARB, the Consumer Advocate and the AEC demonstrate that the preferred funding level for the First Nations and Kevin Russell, IPOANS, letter of comment May 22, 2019 Jeff D...

AI summary The AEC supports low-income energy efficiency programs but raises concerns about insufficient funding in the proposed Agreement. It argues that underfunding would hinder long-term affordability and deprive future generations of benefits. The AEC references past Board decisions emphasizing the need for alignment between the IRP and NSPI plans.

Supra note 1, at para 72. 2 in the E1 Preferred Plan 12 and will provide far more system wide benefits. 3 Further, postponing transient energy-efficient measures (such as new construction, 4 or addition of new equipment) will have a long t...

AI summary The Affordable Energy Coalition (AEC) argues that delaying energy-efficient measures and not reinvesting HST refunds in efficiency programs could have long-term negative impacts. They urge the Board to approve funding for First Nations and AMFH programs at the Preferred level as agreed in the Consensus Agreement between E1 and NSPI.

savings as a performance target to the DSMAG. The SBA supports the HST Refund, together with interest, being refunded to customers through the FAM, as set out at clause 6 of the Consensus Agreement. The SBA does have some concern with the...

AI summary The SBA supports the HST Refund with interest via the FAM but raises concerns about the Settlement Agreement between E1 and Heritage Gas, which excludes DSMAG from input on the study's terms. The SBA argues that DSMAG should provide feedback to ensure equitable input, as E1 will fund the study. The statement is submitted by E.A. Nelson Blackburn, Q.C., on behalf of the SBA.

DSM INVESTMENT LEVELS AND ANTICIPATED SAVINGS Following the completion of the discovery and evidence filing phases of the hearing process, EfficiencyOne and NSPI entered a Consensus Agreement. That Agreement has been filed with the Board a...

AI summary EfficiencyOne and NSPI entered a Consensus Agreement, supported by the Consumer Advocate as reasonable but with emphasis on maintaining DSM investment. The Board references past decisions (2008 NSUARB 140, 2016 NSUARB 216) on settlement agreements, stressing public interest and long-term cost savings through DSM programs.

(ii) Interaction between DSM assessments and the Fuel Adjustment Mechanism (FAM) In its pre-filed evidence, NSPI suggested that DSM funding should be automated either through the FAM or some other mechanism. At the hearing, NSPI expressed...

AI summary NSPI proposes automating DSM funding via FAM or another mechanism, but the Consumer Advocate opposes due to transparency and cost allocation concerns. The Consumer Advocate also highlights the complexity of automating DSM through FAM compared to one-time HST refund credits. The Consensus Agreement emphasizes returning HST refunds directly to ratepayers.

DEMAND REDUCTION/DEMAND RESPONSE In its Preferred Plan, E1 proposed to include $9.9 million ($3.3 million a year) for demand reduction. With the Consensus Agreement, Mr. MacDonald, for E1, explained during the hearing that $5.4 million is...

AI summary E1 proposed a demand reduction budget of $9.9 million, but with the Consensus Agreement, the amount was adjusted to $5.4 million. This funding can be used for both demand reduction and demand response initiatives. The Industrial Group emphasizes the importance of real-time demand management over scheduled approaches and criticizes E1's slow progress on its 2019 DSM pilot, which has only spent $30,000 of its $1 million budget.

HST REFUND The Industrial Group supports Clause 6 and the return of the HST refund to customers through the FAM to be applied against fuel costs. With the BCF filing, it is now abundantly clear that the Large Industrial and Medium Industri...

AI summary The Industrial Group supports Clause 6, advocating for HST refund returns to customers via FAM to offset fuel costs. They highlight that the BCF filing will cause significant rate increases for industrial customers over three years and urge NSPI to reduce FAM costs.

DSM ADVISORY GROUP With respect to the DSM Advisory Group, the Industrial Group supports the reinvigoration of the existing Group and the list of issues to be addressed within that forum. Avoided costs, customer payback periods and the set...

AI summary The Industrial Group supports reinvigorating the DSM Advisory Group, emphasizing concerns over avoided costs, customer payback periods, and incentive adjustments. E1 delayed its 2018 incentive review, reducing 95% of 38 measures by up to 50%, arguing that lower incentives could achieve equivalent energy savings at reduced costs for NSPI ratepayers.

FINAL SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ECOLOGY ACTION CENTRE Submitted: Jul 4, 2019 Emma Norton Energy Conservation Coordinator Ecology Action Centre 2705 Fern Lane Halifax, NS B3K 4L3 Phone: (902) 240-6696 E-mail: [email protected]...

AI summary The Ecology Action Centre (EAC) opposes the Consensus Agreement between EfficiencyOne and Nova Scotia Power Inc., arguing that proposed DSM levels are below cost-effective thresholds from 2014 and 2018 reports. EAC supports Philip Mosenthal's recommendation for 2%/year energy efficiency, emphasizing that rate impacts should not override overall benefits of DSM.

5 Investment Level and Energy Savings - 6 The proposed investment for the three year period of the DSM Resource Plan is $110 million (M). - While less than the Preferred Plan proposed by EfficiencyOne in its Application[1](#page-4-2) 7 , a...

AI summary The proposed investment for the DSM Resource Plan over three years is $110 million, balancing elements from EfficiencyOne's Preferred Plan and the Alternate Scenario. Key initiatives include maintaining support for underserved markets and removing participation barriers. The investment level is based on current funding and accumulated underspend from previous years.

16 In Undertaking U-1, filed with the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB) on June 14, 17 2019, EfficiencyOne provided a preliminary explanation of adjustments to the Alternate Scenario 18 necessary to achieve the savings level in...

AI summary EfficiencyOne provided preliminary adjustments to the Alternate Scenario in Undertaking U-1, demonstrating the ability to achieve the Consensus Agreement Scenario with programming that passes the TRC test and delivers $530M in lifetime benefits. The scenario includes an increase in low-income participation in Residential DSM programs.

1 6. CONCLUSION AND ORDER SOUGHT - 2 EfficiencyOne respectfully submits the Consensus Agreement establishes cost-effective energy - 3 efficiency targets which are reasonably available to Nova Scotia ratepayers for the 2020 2022 - 4 term. T...

AI summary EfficiencyOne requests the NSUARB to establish cumulative annual net energy and net peak demand savings and investment levels over a three-year term based on the Consensus Agreement. The agreement includes cost-effective energy efficiency targets and improvements to the DSM Resource Plan development process.

mpt to resolve this matter without the need for further Board intervention. The only party who posed questions on the Settlement Agreement at the Oral Hearing was the Small Business Advocate ("SBA"). The SBA dealt principally with two issu...

AI summary The Small Business Advocate (SBA) questioned the cost of a study and ratepayer review under the Settlement Agreement. E1 agreed to fund the study related to the Custom Incentive Program, citing relevance to their Demand Side Management (DSM) funds. Heritage Gas raised concerns about unintended effects from the program and emphasized the need for the study. E1 confirmed ratepayer input would be sought during the Board review process.

y future DSM amounts) through the FAM without affecting transparency. Information about non-fuel items and their inclusion in the FAM is available on a monthly basis through the FAM Calculation Model. With respect to the broader issue of f...

AI summary NS Power supports establishing a separate review process for future DSM funding expensing through the FAM, involving customer representatives and NSUARB staff, while emphasizing transparency. Monthly FAM Calculation Model data provides details on non-fuel items included in FAM.

2.0 BACKGROUND [11] Board approval is required under s. 79L of the PUA of any agreement for the supply of electricity efficiency and conservation activities. A mutually finalized agreement is contemplated in the PUA ; however, provision is...

AI summary The document discusses the background of a regulatory proceeding involving EfficiencyOne (E1) and Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NS Power) regarding the approval of a Demand Side Management (DSM) plan. E1 submitted a Preferred Plan and an Alternate Scenario, while NS Power raised concerns about affordability and the necessity of the spending levels in the Preferred Plan.

ters the Board considers appropriate. The term "affordability" is not defined in the PUA. - [24] In its decision on the 2016-2018 DSM Plan, the Board discussed how it should interpret affordability: The Board finds that the inclusion of Se...

AI summary The Board emphasizes balancing short-term rate impacts with long-term cost savings in DSM programs, citing Section 79L of the PUA. It criticizes exclusive focus on short-term affordability, arguing it undermines long-term benefits for ratepayers. The 2016-2018 DSM Plan's lower spending was deemed affordable while aligning with ratepayer interests.

3.4 Future DSM as a FAM Expense [39] In its Evidence, NS Power proposed that any variance from $34.05 million in approved annual DSM costs for 2020-2022 should be included in the FAM account prior to the next General Rate Application (GRA)...

AI summary NS Power proposes that future DSM costs be treated as FAM expenses, with variances from the approved 2020-2022 budget included in the FAM prior to the next GRA. The Consensus Agreement with E1 aligns with this approach, while the Consumer Advocate raises concerns about transparency and cost allocation risks. The Board defers resolution to future applications.

number of the hourly loads are at or close to the system peak? MR. LANDRIGAN: Oh, yes, sorry. A small amount of our overall load would be at or close to system peak, yes. [Transcript, pp. 72-73] [45] Stephen MacDonald, of E1, stated the Co...

AI summary The discussion focuses on demand reduction and demand response initiatives, with EfficiencyOne proposing a budget for demand reduction measures and the Industrial Group opposing prescriptive demand reduction, advocating for flexibility and cost-effective demand response programs. The Industrial Group also recommends specific actions related to rate design and engagement.

3.8 DSM Advisory Group - [56] The Consensus Agreement noted that the existing DSMAG will develop revised Terms of Reference that will enhance the development of future DSM applications including: - 7. The existing DSMAG will develop revise...

AI summary The DSM Advisory Group (DSMAG) revises its Terms of Reference to enhance future DSM applications, including stakeholder collaboration with UARB, avoided cost methodology, affordability criteria, and Mi'kmaq representation. The Board approves these changes, emphasizing stakeholder engagement and inclusive planning processes.

7.1 Directives [74] E1 is to investigate historic underspending of planned budgets and historic exceeding of energy savings to determine the factors that lead to the overestimation. E1 is to file terms of reference by October 31,2019, and...

AI summary E1 is directed to investigate historic budget underspending and energy savings overestimation, filing terms of reference by October 2019 and concluding by March 2020. The Board mandates E1 and NS Power to develop demand response measures and assess rate design changes, reporting to DSMAG by June 2020. NS Power must initiate separate proceedings for rate design changes requiring Board approval.

eneral Rate Application subject to UARB approval. NS Power agrees to support adoption of this methodology in a manner that does not result in additional material regulatory burden being imposed on E1. - 6. The HST Refund, together with any...

AI summary NS Power and E1 agree on a rate application methodology under UARB approval. The HST Refund, totaling $15,277,651.23, will be returned to customers via FAM. DSMAG will revise terms of reference for DSM Plans, focusing on stakeholder engagement, avoided cost updates, and affordability criteria. If consensus isn't reached by June 30, 2020, UARB will determine the terms.

14 15 16 17 Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity were provided by NS Power, from the 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2018. 18 19 b TRC is a benefit/co...

AI summary The text discusses annual avoided costs of energy and capacity provided by NS Power from the 2014 IRP, as well as benefit/cost ratios (TRC and PAC) used to evaluate EfficiencyOne's programs, including participation by low-income customers and specific rebate programs.

Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity were provided by NS Power, from the 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2018. & lt;sup>a Lifetime benefits are expres...

AI summary NS Power provided annual avoided costs of energy and capacity from the 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided in 2018. Lifetime benefits are calculated as the net present value of avoided costs over the program's life using utility WACC. TRC and PAC are benefit/cost ratios used to evaluate program efficiency, with PAC focusing on EfficiencyOne's costs and TRC on combined costs.

Allocation of Program Costs - Nova Scotia Power was directed by the NSUARB in its Order dated October 7, 2015, Matter - M07151, to file its proposed accounting treatment and cost recovery for the 2015 DSM - programs and 2016-18 DSM program...

AI summary Nova Scotia Power followed NSUARB's 2015 order (M07151) to allocate DSM program costs annually, adjusting variances during GRA. EfficiencyOne provided spending data aligned with NS Power's proposals, with cost allocation figures from 2019 reflecting 100% of program costs by rate class. NS Power's 2020-2022 allocation process used four steps outlined in Undertaking U-1, approved under M06733.

Demand Reduction / Demand Response - NSUARB has directed EfficiencyOne and NS Power to begin discussions to develop, assess, - and evaluate potential demand response measures and any related rate design changes. In - compliance with the NS...

AI summary NSUARB has directed EfficiencyOne and NS Power to develop and assess potential demand response measures and related rate design changes, with a report anticipated by the end of June 2020.

Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity were provided by NS Power, from the 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2018. a Lifetime benefits are expressed as th...

AI summary The text discusses annual avoided costs of energy and capacity from NS Power's 2014 IRP, including transmission and distribution costs from 2018. It outlines how lifetime benefits are calculated using net present value and WACC, and introduces TRC and PAC as benefit/cost ratios. The text also highlights EfficiencyOne's planned participation by low-income customers through various programs.

Marketing Strategy The strategic marketing focus is to enhance relationships with the distributor network. The marketing strategy will be aligned by customer segment or vertical. Key messages will focus on non-energy benefits as well as wa...

AI summary The marketing strategy focuses on enhancing distributor relationships through segment-aligned messaging emphasizing non-energy benefits and rebates. EfficiencyOne will collaborate with ETN and partners using tactics like industry presentations, targeted marketing, and distributor training to promote program participation.

• adding a new Program; 2 terminating an existing Program; • 3 increasing the 3-year plan budget for the total Residential sector by more than 25 • 4 percent; 5 decreasing the 3-year plan budget for the total Residential sector by more tha...

AI summary The text outlines proposed changes to energy efficiency programs, including adding a new program, modifying existing ones, and adjusting budget and savings targets. EfficiencyOne plans to submit quarterly reports to the NSUARB and stakeholders, with mid-course adjustments made if necessary, particularly when there is a 25% variance in energy savings or investment.

Rate and Bill Impact Analyses EfficiencyOne will file its historical Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) by October 31st of each year. The historical RBIA estimates the high-level, long-term impact to rates and bills of all DSM activities...

AI summary EfficiencyOne is required to file annual historical and forward-looking Rate and Bill Impact Analyses (RBIA) to assess the long-term rate and bill impacts of Demand Side Management (DSM) activities. Historical RBIA covers past DSM activities and NSUARB-approved investments, while forward-looking RBIA is part of each DSM Resource Plan. Filing deadlines are October 31st annually.

1 Performance Targets consist of: 2 3 i. Cumulative annual energy savings; 4 ii. Cumulative annual system-peak demand savings; and 5 6 Performance Indicators consist of: 7 8 i. Annual incremental energy savings (reported by program and rat...

AI summary The document outlines performance targets and indicators for energy efficiency programs, including cumulative and annual energy and demand savings, ratepayer benefits, customer satisfaction, and reporting requirements. It also mentions the submission of a rate and bill impact analysis by EfficiencyOne.

Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity were provided by NS Power, from the 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2018. Total cost-effectiveness tests are calc...

AI summary The text provides details on avoided costs of energy and capacity from 2014 and transmission and distribution costs from 2018. It also explains cost-effectiveness tests, including TRC and PAC, and defines terms like levelized cost of saved energy and nominal cost of saved energy.

5.2.2 Enhancements in 2020-2022

AI summary The section outlines enhancements implemented between 2020 and 2022, though specific details are not provided in the text. Key acronyms related to energy management, regulatory bodies, and programs are listed for reference.

Rate and Bill Impact Analyses EfficiencyOne will file its historical Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) by October 31st of each year. The historical RBIA estimates the high-level, long-term impact to rates and bills of all DSM activities...

AI summary EfficiencyOne must file historical and forward-looking Rate and Bill Impact Analyses (RBIA) annually and as part of DSM Resource Plans, respectively. The historical RBIA covers past and approved future DSM activities, while the forward-looking RBIA assesses proposed DSM plans' long-term rate and bill impacts, subject to NSUARB approval.

50 51 SCHEDULE C 79 i. Cumulative annual net energy savings at generator 80 ii. Cumulative annual net peak demand savings at generator 81 iii. Lifetime Energy Savings 82 83 c) Performance Indicators (for UARB reporting) consist of: 84 i.An...

AI summary This document outlines the Performance Indicators required for UARB reporting, including energy and demand savings metrics, customer satisfaction, ratepayer benefits, and low-income program participation. EfficiencyOne is responsible for conducting and filing a historical rate and bill impact analysis annually.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Board approves a DSM Plan for 2020-2022 in the aggregate amount of $110 million with a target of total cumulative energy savings of 367.8 GWh and demand savings of 98.3 MW. Approved spending is $34.4 milli...

AI summary The Board approves a DSM Plan for 2020-2022 with a total budget of $110 million and sets specific spending targets for each year. The Supply Agreement between E1 and NS Power is approved, and E1 is directed to file terms of reference for an investigation into cost overestimation. The HST refund is to be returned to customers through the FAM, and records related to the HomeWarming Program must be segregated from ratepayer funds.

- 3. Subject to adjustment for First Nation and Low Income funding (for both the investment and energy savings), the remainder of the 2020-2022 DSM Plan shall be delivered in accordance with the Alternate scenario filed by E1 in E1's Appli...

AI summary The 2020-2022 DSM Plan will be delivered under the Alternate scenario, with adjustments for First Nation and Low Income funding. E1 withdraws its request for a new performance target and agrees to refer it to DSMAG. Parties support expensing DSM funding through FAM at the next General Rate Application, with NS Power supporting this approach without additional regulatory burden.

Agreement between EfficiencyOne and Heritage Gas Dunsky's study aimed to determine how E1's baseline energy building model should be determined for new construction MURBs where natural gas is available. Dunsky found that the current baseli...

AI summary Dunsky's study identified flaws in EfficiencyOne's baseline energy model for new construction MURBs with natural gas availability, recommending modifications to the VRF baseline definition. EfficiencyOne and Heritage Gas agreed to implement these changes in the Custom Incentives Program, pending Board review of the Dunsky report.

3.1.3.1 – Operating Costs The operating costs consist of energy and maintenance costs. Energy Costs: Monthly results from the building energy modeling are coupled with energy rates in order to get monthly energy costs for the five systems....

AI summary Operating costs include energy costs based on Heritage Gas and E1 rates, with specific pricing for natural gas and electricity. Maintenance costs are estimated using EIA data, a Pacific Northwest National Laboratory study on VRF heat pumps, and professional judgment.

En 1 2 3 4 5 6 discontinue all EECA under this Agreement and will only finish such p01tions of the EECA as may be necessary to preserve and protect the EECA already in progress. Such termination does not relieve either Party from any of th...

AI summary The text outlines termination conditions for an agreement involving EECA, specifying that termination does not relieve either party from obligations incurred up to the termination date. EfficiencyOne must assert any payment claims within 30 days of termination. Additional termination triggers include asset sales, bankruptcy petitions, and changes in corporate control.

On the First Business Day of: 2020 2021 2022 January 2,261,535 3,050,000 3,250,000 February 2,261,535 3,050,000 3,250,000 March 2,261,535 3,050,000 3,250,000 April 2,261,535 3,050,000 3,250,000 May 2,261,535 3,050,000 3,250,000 June 2,261,...

AI summary The document outlines performance requirements and targets set by the UARB for EfficiencyOne over a three-year contract period. It specifies that compliance is determined based on cumulative annual net energy and peak demand savings at the generator level, with a 90% achievement threshold. If this threshold is not met, a regulatory process is triggered. The document also details performance indicators, including energy savings, customer satisfaction, and rate impacts.

3. 2020-2022 DSM RESOURCE PLAN 2 3 The 2020-2022 DSM Resource Plan represents a comprehensive suite of programs and 4 service offerings for Nova Scotia electricity customers. The main goal of each program 5 is to help reduce electricity co...

AI summary The 2020-2022 DSM Resource Plan outlines a comprehensive suite of programs aimed at reducing electricity costs for Nova Scotia consumers, increasing awareness of energy efficiency, and promoting the adoption of energy-efficient technologies. The plan highlights energy savings, CO2 reductions, and net system benefits, with EfficiencyOne investing $110 million to achieve significant energy and demand savings.

Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity were provided by NS Power, from the 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2018. \ \ Lifetime benefits are expressed as...

AI summary Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity from the 2014 IRP and 2018 transmission and distribution costs were provided by NS Power. The text discusses lifetime benefits, TRC, and PAC ratios, as well as EfficiencyOne's planned participation by low-income customers.

Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity were provided by NS Power, from the 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2018. A Lifetime benefits are expressed as th...

AI summary The text discusses annual avoided costs from energy and capacity provided by NS Power using the Base level of DSM from the 2014 IRP. It also mentions the calculation of lifetime benefits using net present value and the benefit/cost ratios (TRC and PAC) for EfficiencyOne's programs, with a focus on low-income participation.

Annual avoided costs of energy and capacity were provided by NS Power, from the 2014 IRP using the Base level of DSM. Avoided costs of transmission and distribution were provided by NS Power in 2018. Total cost-effectiveness tests are calc...

AI summary The text discusses annual avoided costs of energy and capacity from the 2014 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and provides details on cost-effectiveness tests, including the Total Benefit/Cost Ratio (TRC) and Participant Benefit/Cost Ratio (PAC). It also mentions the levelized and nominal costs of saved energy, with references to Nova Scotia Power's weighted average cost of capital (WACC).

12 Marketing Stmtegy 13 The marketing strategy fo1· Custom Incentives is to segment, profile, and launch 14 integrated marketing campaigns (e.g. mass media, print, direct mail, digital and social 15 media, events, outreach) by vertical (e....

AI summary The marketing strategy for Custom Incentives involves segmenting customers, launching integrated campaigns, and aligning messaging with operational efficiency and non-energy benefits. EfficiencyOne will collaborate with agencies and the Efficiency Trade Network, using tactics like case studies, trade shows, and industry outreach to target verticals such as commercial, industrial, and municipal sectors.

20 8.5 Rate and Bill Impact Analyses 21 22 EfficiencyOne will file its historical Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) by October 23 31" of each year. The historical RBIA estimates the high-level, long-term impact to 24 rates and bills of...

AI summary EfficiencyOne is required to submit annual historical and forward-looking Rate and Bill Impact Analyses (RBIA) to assess the long-term effects of Demand Side Management (DSM) activities on rates and bills, with forward-looking analyses tied to approved DSM Resource Plans and NSUARB approvals.

Estimation of Admin Costs Admin costs comprise all other costs remaining after the incentive costs have been removed. EfficiencyOne uses its Cost Allocation Model (CAM), which is audited, and the energy savings as evaluated by a third-part...

AI summary EfficiencyOne uses its audited Cost Allocation Model (CAM) and third-party energy savings evaluations to calculate admin cost rates for 2016-2018 and 2020-2022 plans. Historic costs (excluding direct incentives) were included in calculations, with samples aligning with third-party reports and minor exceptions in input table flows.

Factors of overestimation – Inherent in the regulatory environment as defined by external factors The length of time between the development and implementation of the DSM Resource Plans . DSM Resource Plans and modelling inputs are develop...

AI summary The regulatory environment for Demand Side Management (DSM) plans in Nova Scotia involves a long development-to-implementation timeline, leading to potential overestimations due to changing external factors. EfficiencyOne adjusts plans mid-course based on evaluations, but current reporting may not fully address variances between planned and actual outcomes.

Table 20: Actual to Approved DSM Resource Plan 2014 $ million 2014 Approved DSM Resource Plan 47.70 Inflation Added in DCRR Application 1.00 Reduction Directed by NSUARB in DCRR Decision (0.30) Additional Reduction to Cover Balance Adjustm...

AI summary Table 20 compares the approved 2014 DSM Resource Plan with actual spending, showing a variance of $7.08 million or 15.39% due to several adjustments including inflation, reductions directed by the NSUARB, and delays in collections.

Appendix B EfficiencyOne approach to plan development The below following overviews outline the approach to developing the DSM Resource Plans from 2015 to 2020-2022, as outlined by EfficiencyOne.

AI summary Appendix B outlines EfficiencyOne's approach to developing DSM Resource Plans from 2015 to 2020-2022. The overview emphasizes structured methodologies for plan formulation during this period.

2016-2018 admin costs – model input approach by EfficiencyOne As identified by EfficiencyOne, admin costs are all other remaining costs after the incentive costs have been excluded. EfficiencyOne used the most recent audited full year of t...

AI summary EfficiencyOne calculated administrative costs for 2016-2018 by subtracting incentive costs from the 2013 CAM outputs and using first-year energy savings to derive an admin cost rate per kWh. Adjustments were made for two programs to reflect upcoming changes, with the model input approach based on NSUARB program-level data.

2020-2022 admin costs – model input approach by EfficiencyOne EfficiencyOne stated that the methodology applied to estimate and allocate the admin cost in 2020- 2022 DSM Resource Plan was consistent with that which was followed in the 2016...

AI summary EfficiencyOne claims the 2020-2022 admin cost methodology for DSM aligns with the 2016-2018 plan but applies at a program component level rather than NSUARB program level. Admin costs are derived from 2017 audited CAM output, adjusted by direct incentive costs, with differences noted between the two DSM Resource Plans.

Terms of Reference

AI summary The Terms of Reference outline the scope of a regulatory proceeding, focusing on Demand Side Management (DSM) initiatives. Key arguments center on DSM program effectiveness, cost allocation, and stakeholder engagement. The proceeding involves utility companies, regulators, and consumer advocates.

Deliverables: To achieve this objective, the DSMAG shall complete the following tasks and deliverables: - Establish a framework that will facilitate future DSM Plan development by: - o Adopting a recommended format for joint filing of DSM...

AI summary The DSMAG is tasked with establishing frameworks for DSM Plan development, including updating avoided costs, evaluating reports, and setting affordability criteria under the PUA. E1 must maintain an 18-month calendar for DSMAG timelines. The process aims to streamline regulatory proceedings by resolving disputes pre-submission to the NSUARB, reducing burdens for all Members and ratepayers.

ver, the extent of the future impact on the Company's finances and cash flow are unknown at this time and largely dependent on future developments, including the duration and severity of the pandemic. Given the level of uncertainty NS Powe...

AI summary NS Power and E1 are requesting NSUARB approval to amend the 2020-2022 DSM Supply Agreement, deferring $2 million from 2021 to 2022 to provide financial flexibility due to the uncertainty caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The total investment and energy savings over the three-year term will remain unchanged.

The figure below identifies the Contract Price to be paid by NSPI allocated for each year of the Term. 2020 2021 2022 Total UARB Approved Investment Amount $34,400,000 $34,600,000 $41,000,000 $110,000,000 2016-2018 DSM Plan Underspend ($7,...

AI summary The text outlines the Contract Price to be paid by NSPI for the DSM Plan from 2020 to 2022, including an approved investment amount and an underspend from 2016-2018. It also states that any surplus realized by EfficiencyOne must be reported to the UARB and refunded to NSPI unless directed otherwise.

The figure below identifies the Contract Price to be paid by NSPI allocated for each year of the Term. 2020 2021 2022 Total UARB Approved Investment Amount $34,400,000 $34,600,000 $41,000,000 $110,000,000 2016 – 2018 DSM Plan Underspend ($...

AI summary The text outlines the Contract Price to be paid by NSPI for each year of the Term, including approved investments and a net amount to be paid. It also mentions that any surplus realized by EfficiencyOne must be reported to the UARB and refunded to NSPI unless otherwise directed.

Deliverables: To achieve this objective, the DSMAG shall complete the following tasks and deliverables: - Establish a framework that will facilitate future DSM Plan development by: - o Adopting a recommended format for joint filing of DSM...

AI summary The DSMAG is tasked with developing a framework for DSM Plan creation, including updating avoided costs, evaluating reports, affordability criteria, and timelines. It also involves reviewing long-term planning, rate impact methodologies, and payback periods. E1 must maintain an 18-month calendar for DSMAG activities, with stakeholder input aimed at resolving disputes pre-regulatory proceedings.

Deliverables: To achieve this objective, the DSMAG shall complete the following tasks and deliverables: - Establish a framework that will facilitate future DSM Plan development by: - o Adopting a recommended format for joint filing of DSM...

AI summary The DSMAG is tasked with establishing a framework for DSM Plan development, including updating avoided costs, evaluating reports, setting affordability criteria under the PUA, and managing timelines. E1 must maintain an 18-month calendar for DSMAG activities. Stakeholders may present positions without prejudice, aiming to resolve issues pre-regulatory proceedings.