Topic:"Rate Design" in M12780

TO: The Nova Scotia Energy BOARD ("Energy Board" "NSEB") - 1. EfficiencyOne ("E1") is the holder of the Franchise issued by the Minister of Energy, effective January 1, 2025, to provide demand-side management activities to Nova Scotia Powe...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) seeks approval from the Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) for a five-year Demand-Side Management (DSM) Purchase Agreement with Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NS Power) covering 2027–2031. The application includes a DSM Resource Plan and requests an interim order if a final decision is delayed. The current agreement extends through 2026, and E1 asserts the proposed terms are in the public interest.

2 1.1 APPROVAL OF 2027–2031 DSM RESOURCE PLAN - 3 EfficiencyOne ("E1") requests approval by the Nova Scotia Energy Board (the "Energy Board" or "NSEB") - 4 of its Demand Side Management ("DSM") Resource Plan ("DSM Plan") for the term 2027...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) seeks approval from the Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) for its 2027–2031 Demand-Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan, aiming to reduce electricity costs for customers. The plan aligns with NSEB's 2025 decision on DSM's statutory purpose, emphasizing affordability, energy savings, and climate goals through programs and cost-benefit analysis.

holder is deemed a public - utility for the purposes of the following sections of the PUA : 15 to 19, 21, 22, 25, 27 to 29, 34, 46, 47, 49 - to 51, 63, 76, 79, 80, 83 to 85, 88 to 106 and 111 to 118. - E1 is the holder of the Franchise iss...

AI summary The document outlines that E1 (EfficiencyOne) is a public utility under the PUA, governed by specific sections. It details requirements for a demand-side purchase agreement between NS Power and E1, including a five-year term, DSM program descriptions, payment terms, and Energy Board approval. It also revisits the definition of electricity efficiency activities under PUA section 79A(b).

1 2.2.3.1 COMPLIANCE WITH 2026 DSM EXTENSION DECISION 2 As demonstrated in Section 2.2.3, E1 has satisfied each of the 2026 Extension directives. The key 3 compliance responses are summarized below. 5 First, E1 has continued to engage with...

AI summary E1 (EfficiencyOne) asserts compliance with the 2026 DSM Extension directives by engaging with the DSMAG on the Standardized Filing Framework, revising its 'balanced plan' approach, and aligning with the NSEB's Matter M12282 decision. Adjustments include shifting from fixed investment splits to data-driven low-income support allocations, ensuring alignment with balanced plan principles.

2.3 STANDARDIZED FILING FRAMEWORK - The Standardized Filing Framework was filed with the NSUARB (as it then was), as part of a Consensus - Agreement on 2016–2018 DSM Plan Application Deferred Matters[15](#page-27-1) and was accepted by the...

AI summary The Standardized Filing Framework (SFF) was established in 2016 by the NSUARB to ensure consistency in DSM Plan applications. Recent updates, driven by the NSEB and DSMAG, aim to align the SFF with regulatory requirements and stakeholder feedback. E1 seeks NSEB approval for revised framework recommendations, which will inform future DSM Plan applications, including the 2027–2031 Application.

2.3.1 THE 2022 INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN - The Standardized Filing Framework directs that the Resource Plan identified in NS Power's Integrated - Resource Plan ("IRP") will serve to inform the development of a Preferred DSM Plan by E1. The...

AI summary NS Power's 2022 Evergreen IRP includes 683.1 GWh energy savings and 123.9 MW demand savings through 2031. E1 must balance long-term DSM benefits with short-term affordability, guided by the 2016 Consensus Agreement and referenced decisions (M07543, M10473, M12249).

3 3.1 AFFORDABILITY - THE PRIMARY DESIGN CONSIDERATION 4 Consistent with the PUA and the NSEB's regulatory framework, affordability is the primary consideration 5 in the design of the 2027–2031 DSM Plan. The NSEB confirmed in its 2025 BCA...

AI summary Affordability is the primary focus for the 2027–2031 DSM Plan, with E1 maintaining $63.75M annual investment (total $318.75M) to avoid inflationary increases. This prioritizes short-term cost stability over long-term savings, reflecting economic pressures and DSMAG feedback. Customer incentives now account for 71% of costs, emphasizing direct rebates.

1 4. AFFORDABILITY 2 Affordability continues to be a critical factor in determining the level of investment in a DSM Plan. E1 has 3 heard from several members of the DSMAG over the past several DSM Plans that consideration of short-4 term...

AI summary Affordability remains a key consideration in DSM Plan investments. E1 maintains annual investment at the 2026 level of $63.75 million without inflationary increases, balancing short-term affordability concerns (e.g., rising housing/energy costs) against NS Power's IRP-driven long-term economic benefits for ratepayers.

DSM is a long-term investment with lasting benefits and considerable lifetime savings, yet the Preferred Plan also contributes to short-term and immediate ratepayer benefits. In the short-term, the Preferred Plan will achieve 435.4 GWh of...

AI summary The Preferred Plan for DSM is highlighted as a long-term investment with immediate and lasting benefits. It will achieve significant energy savings and cost avoidance, with the investment being fully recouped by 2032. The payback analysis shows that the plan is in the best interests of ratepayers due to lower current investment costs and inflation mitigation.

4.5 RATE AND BILL CONSIDERATIONS & RATE AND BILL IMPACT ANALYSIS (RBIA) FOR 2027–2031 E1's RBIA for the Preferred Plan demonstrates that participants in DSM benefit from bill savings. The reductions in energy use and demand achieved by par...

AI summary E1's Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) for the Preferred Plan shows that DSM participants benefit from bill savings, with energy efficiency and demand response having positive effects on rates, and solar-PV having minimal impact. These findings are consistent with historical data from 2011 to 2026.

21 Table 6: Preferred Plan – Average Rate Impacts by Resource over 2027-2046 Residential Small General General Large General Small Industrial Medium Industrial Large Industrial Municipal DSM (All Resources) 0.58% 0.88% 0.74% 0.33% 0.76% -0...

AI summary Table 6 presents the average rate impacts by resource over the period 2027-2046 for various customer classes. The table highlights the impact of different resources such as DSM, Energy Efficiency, Demand Response, and Solar-PV on residential, small general, general, large general, small industrial, medium industrial, large industrial, and municipal customers.

4.5.1 HISTORICAL RBIA - 24 E1's 2026 Historical RBIA indicates that ratepayers are already positioned to accrue aggregate bill savings - in excess of $2.5 billion between 2011 and 2041 as a result of past DSM activities between 2011 and 20...

AI summary E1's 2026 Historical RBIA indicates that past Demand-Side Management (DSM) activities between 2011 and 2026 will result in over $2.5 billion in aggregate bill savings for ratepayers from 2011 to 2041. Figure 5 illustrates average rate and bill impacts by rate class.

4.5.2 2 027–2 03 1 RBIA Investment at the Preferred Plan level would result in average rate impacts that range between -0.1 percent and +0.9 percent by rate class, averaged over the lifetime of measures [(Figure 6)](#page-50-0). These figu...

AI summary Investment in the Preferred Plan for 2027–2031 results in minimal rate impacts (−0.1% to +0.9%) but significant bill reductions (0.04% to 37%) for DSM participants. Figures 6–8 illustrate these impacts, highlighting benefits for all customers despite negligible rate changes.

3 5. THE BALANCED PLAN APPROACH - 4 The portfolio was developed in accordance with the "Balanced Plan Approach" outlined in the - 5 Standardized Filing Framework, which directs E1 to "produce DSM Resource Plans that balance multiple - 6 as...

AI summary E1 developed a portfolio under the 'Balanced Plan Approach' to balance DSM aspects, achieving 435.4 GWh energy savings, 85.0 MW demand savings, and other metrics by 2031. Principles include energy/capacity avoidance, cost efficiency, non-electric benefits, and equitable access. The plan emphasizes value for Nova Scotians through diversified programs and market engagement.

5.8 RATE IMPACTS In designing the Preferred Plan portfolio, E1 explicitly balanced near-term rate impacts with the long-term value delivered to ratepayers. The portfolio reflects a measured approach to investment, limiting it to the same i...

AI summary E1's Preferred Plan balances near-term rate impacts with long-term value by maintaining 2026 investment levels, diversifying programming across customer classes, and prioritizing cost-effective, long-lasting measures. The approach emphasizes affordability, system flexibility, and equity through targeted low-income programs and efficient delivery, supported by a forward-looking Rate and Bill Impact Analysis.

1 6. PREFERRED PLAN DETAILS

AI summary The section titled 'Preferred Plan Details' is part of a regulatory proceeding document in Nova Scotia, though no substantive content is provided in the given text. It likely outlines details of a preferred plan for energy management or utility regulation.

2 6.1 OVERVIEW - 3 The Preferred Plan represents a comprehensive suite of programs and service offerings which will deliver - 4 approximately 435.4 GWh of affordable, incremental net energy savings, 85.0 MW of cumulative system- - 5 peak d...

AI summary The Preferred Plan outlines a comprehensive suite of energy efficiency programs and service offerings that aim to deliver significant energy savings and demand reductions over the 2027–2031 period. It emphasizes affordability, long-term ratepayer benefits, and cost-effectiveness, with a focus on achieving energy efficiency at a lower lifetime unit cost compared to fuel costs.

Table 7: 2027–2031 Plan - Portfolio Level Insights Insights 2027–2031 Energy Efficiency Energy Savings as % of NS Power Load 0.8% Energy Savings (EE) Split (RES/BNI) 29/71 Demand Savings (EE) Split (RES/BNI) 44/56 Dedicated Low-Income & Eq...

AI summary Table 7 provides insights into the 2027–2031 plan, highlighting energy efficiency savings, demand response capacity, solar-PV generation, and associated costs and benefits. It includes metrics such as energy savings percentages, unit costs, and CO₂e savings across residential and BNI (Business and Non-Industrial) sectors.

1 6.4 KEY ENHANCEMENTS FOR 2027–2031 - 2 The 2027–2031 DSM Plan (Appendix A) provides fulsome program details on the activities proposed as - 3 part of the Purchase Agreement. [Table 10,](#page-65-1) below provides the modifications and en...

AI summary The 2027–2031 DSM Plan (Appendix A) outlines program details for the Purchase Agreement, with Table 10 highlighting modifications compared to the 2023–2026 Plan. Key enhancements focus on demand-side management initiatives and updated program structures.

19 8.1 MID-COURSE ADJUSTMENT PROCESS 20 On the issue of Mid-Course Adjustments (MCAs), the NSEB in its Decision in the 2026 Extension Plan 21 (M12249) stated: 22 [73] The concerns raised by the Industrial Group are serious. The potential f...

AI summary The NSEB expressed concerns about E1's Mid-Course Adjustment (MCA) process, citing potential unfair impacts on rate classes funding E1's work. The NSEB directed E1 to revise its MCA process to allow greater ratepayer input and align spending with NSEB-approved rate classes. E1 acknowledged these concerns and agreed to engage with the DSMAG to address issues related to cost management and program flexibility.

ets, E1 intends to include year‑to‑date and cumulative progress towards the approved five‑year performance targets in its Quarterly reports (E1 provides this currently in its Annual Progress Reports). The mid-term check-in process describe...

AI summary E1 plans to update its Quarterly reports with year-to-date and cumulative progress toward five-year performance targets. The mid-term check-in process enhances transparency without requiring plan amendments. E1 will notify DSMAG and seek NSEB approval if unforeseen circumstances necessitate changes, though no amendments are anticipated. The NSEB retains authority under the PUA to review E1's activities.

10. CONCLUSION - Based on the supporting Evidence and Appendices, E1 respectfully requests approval from the Energy - Board for the Preferred Plan and related Purchase Agreement with NS Power. 27 M06733, NSUARB Order, E1 2016–2018 DSM Plan...

AI summary E1 requests approval for the Preferred Plan and related Purchase Agreement with NS Power, emphasizing its affordability and cost-effectiveness. The plan includes energy savings, demand reduction, and system benefits, with a total investment of $318.75 million over five years. E1 claims the application meets the mandatory approval test under the Public Utilities Act.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS Term Definition Alternate Scenario E1 provides one or more alternate scenario(s) with the same portfolio-level metrics as E1's proposed DSM Resource Plan (i.e., the Preferred Plan). Available Demand Response Capacity The...

AI summary The glossary defines key terms related to demand-side management (DSM) and energy efficiency programs, including alternate scenarios, demand response capacity, balance adjustments, and baseline measurements. These definitions are relevant to the regulatory process and program implementation.

2.2.6 UNIT COST RESULTS Unit cost data is a calculation output reflecting E1's investment and energy savings over a defined time period. Actual results for the 2023–2025 period show a portfolio-level unit cost of $0.37/kWh, slightly lower...

AI summary The 2023–2025 unit cost for E1's energy efficiency programs was slightly lower than the approved plan, but residential unit costs have risen due to the pause of the Residential Behaviour program and changes in program components. These trends are expected to continue into 2026 and influence the development of the 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan.

1 Table 3: 2023-2026 Expenditures by Rate Class 2023-2026 Plan as Approved ($ million) 2023-2026 Actual/Forecast Expenditures ($ million) Rate Class Spending as a Percentage of Total Spending - DSM Plan Rate Class Spending as a Percentage...

AI summary Table 3 compares planned and actual expenditures (2023-2026) across Nova Scotia rate classes, showing residential/charitable as the largest spending category (54.2% of DSM plan, 55.4% actual), while large general and small industrial classes show spending declines. Total expenditures remain nearly unchanged (236.8M planned vs. 235.1M actual).

1 3. PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN APPROACH 2 E1 developed the 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan through a multi-phase process to establish a cost- 3 effective DSM portfolio. This process defined the DSM resources to be offered, the level of savi...

AI summary E1 developed the 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan through a multi-phase process involving stakeholder engagement, scenario modeling, and regulatory considerations. The plan incorporates updated avoided costs, aligns with climate targets, and reflects NSEB decisions on BCA and DSM extensions. Development was paused briefly due to PUA amendments and resumed after filing the 2026 DSM Extension.

3.1 DSMAG ENGAGEMENT IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS DSMAG engagement played a central role in development of the 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan. Throughout the planning process, E1 engaged a range of DSMAG members including rate class representa...

AI summary DSMAG played a central role in developing the 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan through iterative engagement with stakeholders, including government representatives, industry groups, and experts. E1 incorporated feedback via modelling reviews, written submissions, and meetings, shaping both the Preferred Plan and Alternate Scenario.

1 3.3.1.3 MODEL OUTPUTS - 2 The DRSim™ and ProCESS™ tools produced model outputs for each modelled scenario. All model outputs - 3 were reviewed by E1 and Guidehouse for accuracy and completeness. Outputs were further shared with - 4 the D...

AI summary Model outputs from DRSim™ and ProCESS™ tools were reviewed by E1 and Guidehouse, with revisions made based on feedback from the DSMAG. Final outputs are detailed in Section 4, outlining the 2027–2031 Preferred Plan portfolio.

10 3.4 COST-EFFECTIVENESS - 11 In the Energy Board's Decision regarding E1's Application for approval of a New Benefit-Cost Analysis Test - for Evaluating Demand Side Management Plans (M12282), the Energy Board directed E1 to:[9](#page-107...

AI summary E1 must use the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test for evaluating its 2027–2031 Demand Side Management (DSM) Plan, with NS Power's WACC (6.65%) as the discount rate. The Energy Board directed this under the Public Utilities Act (PUA), requiring portfolio-level cost-effectiveness screening. E1 achieved a PAC result of 2.4 (above the 1.0 threshold) and provided justifications for measures failing cost-effectiveness tests.

68.2 1 2 3 1 Lifetime CO2e Savings (kt) 380.8

AI summary The text presents a table with a single row and column labeled 'Lifetime CO2e Savings (kt)' and a value of 380.8, indicating the total carbon dioxide equivalent savings in kilotons over the lifetime of a program or initiative.

4.2 PORTFOLIO KEY OBSERVATIONS

AI summary Section 4.2 discusses portfolio key observations related to energy management, regulatory frameworks, and programs in Nova Scotia. It references acronyms like DSM, PUA, NSEB, and NS Power, highlighting topics such as demand response, energy efficiency, and utility rate design.

1 4.7 RATE CLASS ALLOCATIONS 2 E1 has committed to improve the accuracy of the estimates used for the rate class allocation of 3 expenditures in the DSM Plan. For the 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan, E1 largely followed its approach 4 taken f...

AI summary E1 has committed to improving the accuracy of rate class allocation estimates for expenditures in the DSM Plan. For the 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan, E1 used historical data from 2022 to 2024, reviewed customer commitments, and incorporated assumptions for program changes affecting specific rate classes.

15 Table 15: 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan Rate Class Savings and Expenditures 2027–2031 Rate Class Year First Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Available Demand Response Capacity (MW) Generati...

AI summary Table 15 outlines projected energy savings, demand reductions, and expenditures for the 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan, categorized by rate class. It includes metrics like energy savings (GWh), peak demand savings (MW), and expenditures (in millions of dollars) for residential, small general, and general rate classes over the five-year period.

10 6.3 NEW RESIDENTIAL 4 9 13

AI summary Section 6.3 of the Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding discusses new residential energy initiatives, likely involving Demand Side Management (DSM) programs, cost recovery mechanisms (DCRR), and regulatory oversight by the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB). Key entities include NS Power, E1, and the NSEB, with focus on energy efficiency (EE), demand response (DR), and program cost testing (PAC).

7 Table 30: 2027–2031 New Residential Performance Indicators Year Investment ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Participation (homes) Lifetime Unit Cost ($/kWh) Program Admini...

AI summary Table 30 outlines residential energy efficiency investments and savings from 2027–2031, showing $5 million in total investment, 32.8 GWh in lifetime energy savings, and consistent Program Administrator Cost Test (PAC) values of 0.8 from 2028–2031.

12 6.5 CUSTOM INCENTIVES PROGRAM

AI summary Section 6.5 of the Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding discusses the Custom Incentives Program, focusing on demand-side management (DSM) and energy efficiency (EE) initiatives. The program involves entities like NS Power, NSEB, and DSMAG, with considerations for cost recovery, rate design, and regulatory compliance under the ERBA and PUA frameworks.

8 7.2 CRITICAL PEAK PRICING OVERLAP 9 As part of ongoing collaboration on demand response, E1 and NS Power met in late 2024 to identify opportunities to strengthen coordination across demand response initiatives, including rate-based appro...

AI summary E1 and NS Power collaborated to address overlap between E1's demand response programs and NS Power's Time-Varying Pricing (TVP) rates, which target similar customers and peak periods. A 2025 cybersecurity incident paused the TVP pilot, returning participants to standard rates. Future DSM plans (2027–2031) expect minimal overlap, with ongoing efforts to coordinate locational demand response and avoid double-counting savings.

5

AI summary This document is from a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding, listing acronyms and entities relevant to energy regulation, including organizations like NS Power, programs such as DSM, and regulatory frameworks like the PUA and ERBA. It outlines key terms for energy efficiency, demand response, and utility cost recovery mechanisms.

INFORMATION & ANALYTICS

AI summary The INFORMATION & ANALYTICS section outlines regulatory proceedings in Nova Scotia, involving energy efficiency, demand-side management, and utility rate structures. Key entities include NS Power, NSEB, and ERBA, with topics focusing on DSM, EE, and rate design.

2 10. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS - 3 For the 2027–2031 Plan period, E1 proposes the following definitions and requirements for performance - 4 targets and thresholds. These definitions and requirements are consistent with those outlined in t...

AI summary E1 proposes performance target definitions and requirements for the 2027–2031 Plan period, aligning with the 2026 updated Standardized Filing Framework developed jointly with the DSMAG. These requirements are detailed in Appendix F of the application.

13.3 MID-COURSE ADJUSTMENTS Mid-course adjustments (MCAs) provide the DSM administrator limited flexibility to adjust annual program-level budgets and savings from those set out in the original approved DSM Plan, in order to respond to mar...

AI summary Mid-course adjustments (MCAs) allow DSM administrators to adjust annual budgets and savings without altering overall targets. The NSEB directed E1 to enhance MCA processes following Industrial Group concerns about rate-class spending variances. E1 proposes using historical data, improving reporting, and lowering thresholds for adjustments. MCAs will be integrated into the Standardized Filing Framework and discussed at DSMAG sessions.

13.4.1 QUARTERLY REPORTING - Quarterly reports provide regular updates on DSM implementation, performance, and expenditures - during each Plan year. These reports support ongoing monitoring and early identification of emerging - trends or...

AI summary E1 is required to submit quarterly reports to the NSEB detailing DSM implementation, performance metrics, and expenditures. Reports include YTD data, mid-course adjustments, rate class variances, and program highlights, with specific filing dates set by NSUARB. The reports aim to monitor progress toward five-year targets and ensure compliance with the approved DSM Resource Plan.

13.4.3 ADVANCE NOTICE OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES - In the event that E1 proposes significant changes to elements within an approved Plan, advance notice will be provided to the Energy Board and the DSMAG. Significant changes include: - Adding...

AI summary E1 must provide advance notice to the Energy Board and DSMAG for significant changes to approved plans, such as adding or terminating programs, and file applications with NSEB under PUA if circumstances like market shifts or regulatory changes affect plan feasibility.

1 13.4.5 RATE AND BILL IMPACT ANALYSIS - 2 E1 files its historical Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) and forward-looking RBIA as part of each DSM - Resource Plan.[26](#page-199-1) 3 The historical RBIA estimates the high-level, long-ter...

AI summary E1 submits historical and forward-looking Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) as part of its Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan. The historical RBIA covers past DSM activities and approved investments, while the forward-looking RBIA estimates impacts of proposed DSM activities. Appendix B contains the RBIA for the 2027–2031 DSM Resource Plan.

3. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

AI summary The document outlines the 'PROJECT DEVELOPMENT' section of a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding, listing key acronyms and entities involved in energy regulation, including organizations like NS Power, NSEB, and programs such as DSM and EE. It provides context for technical terms and regulatory frameworks relevant to the proceeding.

5 The Innovation Goals, justification and key activities for each of the Focus Areas are shown below in [Table 2.](#page-220-3) Focus Area Innovation Goal(s) Justification Key Activities Strategic Electrification 1. Improve cost‑effectiven...

AI summary The focus area of Strategic Electrification aims to improve the cost-effectiveness of electrification programming, advance market readiness, and leverage system insights to evaluate new programs. This is driven by the transition to a cleaner electricity system, with strategic electrification of heating, transport, and industry serving as a major decarbonization pathway.

4.2 Pilot Lifecycle The pilot lifecycle for developing new initiatives and launching them as programs is shown in Figure 2 below. Figure 2: Pilot lifecycle process flow The pilot lifecycle begins with evaluating ideas for feasibility, valu...

AI summary The pilot lifecycle outlines stages for developing initiatives into programs, including feasibility evaluation, concept refinement, planning with stakeholder input, execution with testing and iteration, and concluding with a recommendation package for full-scale launch. Metrics from Innovation Goals (1.1) are used throughout.

1 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 EfficiencyOne (E1) delivers demand side management (DSM) programs that offer benefits to customers 3 and the electric utility. While DSM is a key resource option for delivering clean, affordable, reliable and 4 saf...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) highlights that demand side management (DSM) programs reduce customer bills, offsetting potential rate increases. However, equity concerns arise as non-participating customers face higher rates. E1's Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) assesses historical and future DSM impacts, informing Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) decisions on DSM investments from 2011–2026 and future plans (2027–2031).

1 2. INTRODUCTION 2 The forward-looking RBIA is an analysis of the rate and bill impacts associated with the proposed DSM - 3 investment only. It compares the impacts of the proposed DSM investment to a scenario where there is - 4 no DSM i...

AI summary The document discusses the forward-looking and historical Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) for Demand Side Management (DSM) investments in Nova Scotia. It highlights E1's proposal to eliminate historical RBIA filings except during DSM Plan Application years, and the NSUARB's acceptance of this approach. The analysis informs DSM investment levels and considers non-participant impacts.

4 3. 2027–2031 DSM PLAN RBIA RESULTS - 5 The results in this section are for the 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan. All impacts are calculated relative - 6 to a scenario where no DSM is conducted in 2027–2031. Results are summarized in Attachme...

AI summary The 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan RBIA results compare impacts to a no-DSM scenario, analyzing energy efficiency, demand response, and solar-PV separately and combined. Attachments 1 and 2 detail model outputs, rate impacts, and bill adjustments for each rate class, with selected graphs illustrating key findings.

3.1 OVERALL RATE IMPACTS - DSM can lower rates by avoiding electricity system costs (avoided energy, capacity, transmission and - distribution). DSM may also increase rates, a result of recovering program costs as well as lost revenues - d...

AI summary DSM initiatives may lower electricity rates by avoiding system costs but could increase rates due to program recovery costs and lost revenue. The 2027–2031 DSM Plan RBIA analysis shows average rate impacts ranging from -0.1% to +0.9% over 2027–2046, with higher short-term increases (+1.6% to +4.7%) during program cost recovery (2027–2031) and lower long-term impacts (-0.8% to -0.1%) post-recovery (2032–2046).

11 3.2 OVERALL BILL IMPACTS Generally speaking, ratepayers that participate in DSM programs directly benefit by reducing their electricity consumption and thereby lowering their electricity bills. Together, the level of reduced consumption...

AI summary DSM programs in Nova Scotia reduce electricity bills for participants by 0.04% to -37%, while non-participants see minimal increases (0.1% to +0.8%). Total customer bill impacts range from -0.04% to -3.4%, with $0.4 billion in savings for ratepayers due to reduced revenue requirements from 2027–2031 DSM initiatives.

4 [Table 1](#page-243-1) highlights results in more detail by individual rate class for the 2027–2031 forward looking RBIA. 6 Table 1: Rate and Bill Impacts by Rate Class as a Result of 2027-2031 DSM Preferred Plan Activities Preferred Pla...

AI summary Table 1 presents the rate and bill impacts by rate class resulting from the 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan activities. The data shows the average rate impact, average bill impact for participants and non-participants, and total class average bill impact across various rate classes.

SCENARIO RBIA RESULTS Full results, by rate class, are provided in Attachments 2 and 3 for the 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan and Alternate Scenario, respectively. This section compares key outputs between the two. Rate impacts for both the...

AI summary The document compares rate and bill impacts between the DSM Preferred Plan and Alternate Scenario (2027–2031). Rate impacts are nearly identical, with minor increases (0.02% residential, 0.01% large industrial) from residential demand response in the Preferred Plan. Bill impacts differ by 0.04% lower residential bills in the Preferred Plan, with all other differences negligible.

5 4. 2026 HISTORICAL DSM RBIA RESULTS - 6 The results in this section are for DSM activities that have occurred from 2011–2024 and are approved for - 7 2025–2026. All impacts are calculated relative to a scenario where no DSM is conducted...

AI summary This section presents DSM RBIA results for activities from 2011–2024, approved for 2025–2026. Impacts are calculated against a no-DSM baseline scenario. Results are summarized in Attachment 4, separated by energy efficiency and demand response, with rate-class-specific summaries in Attachment 1. Graphs in the summaries reflect model outputs.

4.1 OVERALL RATE IMPACTS - The RBIA for the 2011–2026 historical DSM Activities demonstrates the following rate impacts associated with DSM activities: - average rate impacts (by rate class) over the study period (2011–2041) range from 0.5...

AI summary The RBIA analysis shows rate impacts from 2011–2026 DSM activities, with average impacts ranging from 0.5% to 3.2% (2011–2041), 1.4% to 5.5% (2011–2026), and -0.6% to +0.9% (2027–2041). Factors include DSM cost recovery and annual avoided costs. Electricity rates are projected to rise 72% for residential classes due to non-DSM factors.

11 4.2 OVERALL BILL IMPACTS - 12 The 2026 Historical RBIA demonstrates the following bill impacts associated with DSM activities: - 13 average participant bill impacts (by rate class) over the study period (2011–2041) range from 14 -12.7 t...

AI summary The 2026 Historical RBIA shows DSM activities from 2011–2026 led to average bill impacts ranging from -12.7% to -2.8% for participants, +0.5% to +2.9% for non-participants, and -8.2% to -2.8% for total customers. Net savings for Nova Scotia ratepayers are estimated at $3.2 billion due to reduced revenue requirements.

8 5.1 ACTIVE PARTICIPATION METHODOLOGY - 9 Previously, participant estimates were calculated using a 'cumulative' methodology. This did not account - for the measure life of savings, resulting in the potential for the number of cumulative...

AI summary The document discusses a shift from a cumulative to an annual/active participation methodology in the 2026 DSM Extension RBIA, addressing overestimation of participants and underestimation of savings by considering measure life and separating active from expired participation.

5.2 RENEWABLE TO RETAIL - Adjustments were made to address two issues caused by the addition of the Renewable to Retail program - within the rate and bill impact analysis. 1 First, the DSM rate rider is applied to total class volumes inclu...

AI summary Adjustments were made to the Renewable to Retail program's rate and bill impact analysis to address two issues: the exclusion of Renewable to Retail GWh in DSM rate rider calculations, leading to overestimated rate impacts, and the omission of retailer energy savings in bill impact calculations. NS Power adjusted load data and models to correct these issues.

5.3 RBIA STUDY PERIOD A solar-PV resource was modelled for the first time as part of the 2027–2031 DSM Plan. With a 30-year measure life, solar-PV installations in 2031 would generate DSM impacts through 2060. However, the NS Power rate mo...

AI summary The 2027–2031 DSM Plan initially considered extending the RBIA study period to 2060 to account for solar-PV impacts, but NS Power and E1 opted to retain the 2055 model configuration. Reasons included data limitations, solar-PV's minor role compared to expiring energy efficiency measures, and the adequacy of 2046 impacts for decision-making.

7. FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS E1 understands that NS Power has developed an updated Cost of Service Study (COSS) which has been filed with the NSEB as part of NS Power's 2026–2027 General Rate Application (M12451). Once concluded, E1 will work...

AI summary E1 acknowledges NS Power's updated Cost of Service Study (COSS) filed with the NSEB as part of its 2026–2027 General Rate Application (M12451). E1 will collaborate with stakeholders to assess implications for the Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA). Future RBIA applications will address the 2032–2036 DSM Resource Plan and 2035 historical RBIA, expected in early 2035.

5 8. CONCLUSION - 6 Highlights from the 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan RBIA analysis include: - Over the 20 years of the study period, participants in DSM programs see average annual bill 8 reductions ranging from a low of 0.04 percent (aver...

AI summary The RBIA analysis for the 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan highlights that Nova Scotian ratepayers will save $0.4 billion over 20 years due to energy and demand reductions. The analysis shows varying bill impacts for participants and non-participants, with maximizing customer participation helping to mitigate rate impacts. The RBIA excludes non-rate-related benefits such as reduced greenhouse gas emissions and local economic investment.

DATE FILED: March 31, 2026 Page 1 of 8 Line# Rate and Bill Impacts of DSM on the Small General Class 1 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2...

AI summary The document presents a table analyzing the rate and bill impacts of Demand Side Management (DSM) on the Small General Class from 2011 to 2055. It details energy savings, expenditures, participant numbers, and energy savings per participant over time, highlighting trends and changes in DSM effectiveness and participation.

This graph shows bill impacts of all DSM resources combined,as percentage differences relative to the no-DSM scenario. 'Participants' represents a customer with average energy use and average DSM savings . 'Non-Participants' represents a c...

AI summary The text discusses the bill impacts of Demand Side Management (DSM) resources compared to a no-DSM scenario, showing participation rates for different DSM resources. It also explains how participation is measured, distinguishing between 'Annual' and 'Active' participation, and highlights potential overlaps in participant counts across resources.

DATE FILED: March 31, 2026 Page 2 of 8 Line# Rate and Bill Impacts of DSM on the General Class 1 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 20...

AI summary The table presents the rate and bill impacts of Demand Side Management (DSM) on the General Class over time, including energy savings, expenditures, and participant numbers. It highlights trends in energy savings and participant engagement from 2011 to 2055.

This graph shows bill impacts of all DSM resources combined,as percentage differences relative to the no-DSM scenario. 'Participants' represents a customer with average energy use and average DSM savings . 'Non-Participants' represents a c...

AI summary The text includes figures analyzing the bill impacts of Demand Side Management (DSM) resources, participation rates across different DSM programs, and related metrics. The figures compare participants, non-participants, and total customers, and show annual and active participation rates by DSM resource.

fter removing double-counting of participants from multiple resources. DATE FILED: March 31, 2026 Page 3 of 8 This graph shows bill impacts of all DSM resources combined,as percentage differences relative to the no-DSM scenario. 'Participa...

AI summary The text discusses the bill and rate impacts of Demand Side Management (DSM) resources, illustrating participation rates and double-counting adjustments. It includes graphical representations of annual and active participation, differentiated by DSM resources and customer classes, with a focus on hypothetical scenarios and participation metrics.

This graph shows bill impacts of all DSM resources combined,as percentage differences relative to the no-DSM scenario. 'Participants' represents a customer with average energy use and average DSM savings . 'Non-Participants' represents a c...

AI summary The document presents graphical data on the bill impacts of Demand Side Management (DSM) resources, comparing participants and non-participants, and showing annual and active participation rates across different DSM resources. The figures illustrate how DSM affects customer energy use and rates, with a focus on participation metrics and rate impacts.

fter removing double-counting of participants from multiple resources. DATE FILED: March 31, 2026 Page 5 of 8 This graph shows bill impacts of all DSM resources combined,as percentage differences relative to the no-DSM scenario. 'Participa...

AI summary The document includes graphs analyzing the bill and rate impacts of Demand Side Management (DSM) resources, as well as participation rates across different customer classes. It distinguishes between 'Participants' and 'Non-Participants' and accounts for double-counting of participants across multiple resources.

fter removing double-counting of participants from multiple resources. DATE FILED: March 31, 2026 Page 6 of 8 This graph shows bill impacts of all DSM resources combined,as percentage differences relative to the no-DSM scenario. 'Participa...

AI summary The text discusses the bill and rate impacts of Demand Side Management (DSM) resources, including participation rates for different customer classes. It highlights the distinction between 'Participants' and 'Non-Participants' and provides visual representations of participation and impact data, with adjustments for double-counting across resources.

5 1. GENERAL APPROACH - 6 E1 has used the "snapshot" approach recommended by Synapse, in which the impacts of specific - 7 program years are analyzed (in this case 2011–2026 programs for the 2026 historical RBIA and - 8 2027–2031 programs...

AI summary E1 employed Synapse's recommended 'snapshot' approach, analyzing specific program years (2011–2026 and 2027–2031) for RBIA and DSM Plan assessments, rather than evaluating long-term Demand Side Management impacts.

2. RESOURCES AND SCENARIOS - Both the 2027–2031 DSM Plan analysis and the 2026 historical analysis include the NS Power rate - model (Attachments 7 and 8) and the E1 RBIA model (Attachments 9 and 10). The analyses - compare two scenarios:...

AI summary The document compares DSM and no-DSM scenarios using NS Power and E1's RBIA models, analyzing utility costs, energy reductions, and rate impacts. It outlines resource combinations (e.g., Energy Efficiency Only, Solar-PV Only) and notes that rate impacts isolate DSM effects but do not reflect actual timing of rate increases. Results are summarized in Appendix B, Attachment 1.

2.1 ENERGY EFFICIENCY INPUTS - For the 2027–2031 DSM Plan RBIA, first-year energy, lifetime energy, demand savings and expenditures developed at the program component level were allocated to rate classes in proportion with the actual rate...

AI summary The 2027–2031 DSM Plan RBIA allocates energy savings and expenditures by rate class using historical 2022–2024 data and weighted-average measure lives (WAMLs). Solar-PV inputs are allocated entirely to the residential rate class with a 30-year measure life, excluded from historical RBIA periods. Savings estimates for 2025–2026 use the approved 2023–2025 DSM Plan and 2026 extension.

4. TIME PERIOD DEFINITIONS - The following time periods apply to the RBIA analysis: - DSM delivery period: the timeframe over which DSM programs are delivered. - The DSM delivery period included in the 2027–2031 DSM Plan RBIA is 2027–2031...

AI summary The document defines three time periods for the Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) of Nova Scotia's Demand Side Management (DSM) programs: DSM delivery (2027–2031 and 2011–2026), cost recovery (same periods), and study periods (2027–2046 and 2011–2041). Energy efficiency impacts, not solar-PV, determine the study period, with solar-PV effects visible until 2055.

11 5. AVOIDED COSTS Avoided costs are calculated at the system level using evaluated DSM savings and avoided cost rates in four categories: generation, transmission, distribution, and energy. Avoided costs used for the 2027–2031 DSM Plan a...

AI summary Avoided costs are calculated at the system level across four categories: generation, transmission, distribution, and energy. These costs are used for the 2027–2031 DSM Plan and its RBIA, with details provided in Appendix A and a table for historical years.

18 Table 1: Full range of avoided cost values used for this analysis CATEGORY YEARS DETAILS Capacity 2011–2014 79 $/kW-yr ($/kW-yr) 2009 IRP refresh (levelized over 2010-2032) 2015–2022 197 $/kW-yr 2014 IRP, Base DSM scenario (levelized ov...

AI summary The text presents Table 1, which outlines the full range of avoided cost values used for analysis across various categories such as capacity, transmission, distribution, energy, and carbon from 2011 to 2055. The values are based on different Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs) and include levelized and actual annual avoided cost streams, with inflation adjustments applied for certain years.

7. CALCULATION OF PARTICIPATION - This section describes the development of participation figures, which are used for the - participant bill impact calculations.

AI summary This section outlines the methodology for calculating participation figures, which are essential for determining participant bill impact calculations within the regulatory proceeding.

7.1 PARTICIPATION COUNTS BY CLASS - Participation estimates used in the RBIA model are different than participation estimates used in - development of DSM plans, since the RBIA tracks participating accounts , rather than the number - of pr...

AI summary The RBIA model uses account-based participation estimates, differing from DSM plans which track products. RBIA de-duplicates across programs and years, calculating annual and active participants to determine bill savings per participant.

7.2 ENERGY EFFICIENCY PARTICIPATION - Within each rate class and year, both the annual and active energy efficiency participant - estimates are the sum of three components: tracked participants (customers who participate in - a program oth...

AI summary The section outlines the methodology for calculating energy efficiency participants in Nova Scotia, dividing them into tracked, untracked, and Residential Behaviour groups. Adjustments are made to avoid double-counting, and totals are capped per rate class annually.

9 Annual Tracked Participation - For years where approved/proposed rather than historical participation is used (2025–2031), - annual tracked participation was first estimated at the program component level. For some - program components t...

AI summary Annual tracked participation for 2025–2031 was estimated using Guidehouse's ProCESS model and scaled RBIA data from 2024 with energy/unit factors. Participation figures were allocated to rate classes proportionally. E1 tracked 2011–2024 participation rates.

7.2.3 RESIDENTIAL BEHAVIOUR PARTICIPATION - The Residential Behaviour program component applies the rate class weighted-average measure - life to estimate active participants; this is consistent with other tracked programs. For program- -...

AI summary The Residential Behaviour program uses a rate-class weighted-average measure life to estimate participants, ensuring accurate tracking without overestimation. A cross-participation factor prevents double-counting across tracked/untracked participation. Residential Behaviour is excluded from the 2027–2031 DSM Plan RBIA, focusing on post-delivery year participation decay aligned with energy savings.

7.6 MUNICIPAL RATE CLASS PARTICIPATION - Municipal customers within the NS Power model are Municipal account numbers that take - service under the Municipal tariff. The number of customers within the NS Power model - fluctuates from year-t...

AI summary The number of municipal customers under the NS Power model fluctuates yearly. E1's RBIA model treats all municipal customers as one utility, adjusting for participant numbers and load, but results are uncertain due to data volatility.

8. CALCULATION OF RATE IMPACTS - Rate impacts are calculated in NS Power's Rate Model (Attachment 7 and 8) to reflect NS Power's - Cost of Service in a more precise manner. It reflects the Energy Board approved retail rates and - Cost of S...

AI summary NS Power's Rate Model calculates rate impacts for the 2027–2031 DSM Plan using Forecast Unit Revenues, blending DSM energy and demand impacts into a single rate. E1's RBIA Model uses these revenues to assess bill impacts, excluding demand charges as they are already incorporated into blended rates. The analysis isolates DSM effects by comparing DSM and no-DSM scenarios, assuming equal energy and demand savings.

1 9. CALCULATION OF BILL IMPACTS 2 This section describes key elements of the bill impact calculations.

AI summary This section outlines the methodology for calculating bill impacts, focusing on key elements of the process. It serves as part of a regulatory proceeding related to utility cost recovery and rate design in Nova Scotia.

4 9.1 NO-DSM BILL IMPACTS - 5 In the no-DSM scenario, for each rate class, and for each year, the total class energy consumption - 6 is divided by the number of customers to produce an estimate of the average customer's - 7 consumption. Th...

AI summary The no-DSM scenario calculates average customer energy consumption by dividing total class energy consumption by the number of customers, then uses these averages with no-DSM rates to determine average bills for each rate class and year.

9.2 NON-PARTICIPANT BILL IMPACTS - In the DSM scenario, non-participants in DSM programs are assumed to use the same amount of - energy as they do in the no-DSM scenario. Their bill impacts are therefore driven only by changes - in rates u...

AI summary Non-participants in DSM programs experience bill impacts solely from rate changes in the with-DSM scenario, not energy use. Fixed customer charges cause percentage bill impacts to differ from rate impacts. This analysis highlights how rate structures affect non-participants independently of DSM program participation.

9.3 PARTICIPANT BILL IMPACTS - For the DSM scenario, within each rate class in each year, total annual savings (i.e., current-year - savings plus persistent savings from past years) are divided equally amongst the number of active - partic...

AI summary The DSM scenario assumes equal annual savings per participant across rate classes, ignoring varying participation depths. E1's RBIA includes free-riders, leading to underestimated average savings. Total Customers category allocates DSM savings equally to all customers, not differentiating between participants and non-participants.

10. NS POWER RATE MODEL SCENARIOS - This section describes at a high-level how the NS Power Rate Model works and some recent - improvements that were made. - Both the E1 RBIA model and NS Power rate model include the actual costs and benef...

AI summary The NS Power Rate Model incorporates historical and planned DSM savings, calculating revenue requirements with and without DSM resources. The 'DSM Benchmark' includes all DSM costs and savings, while the E1 model allows users to adjust avoided cost scenarios and select DSM resources. Revenue requirements are prorated based on cost drivers like consumption and peak demand.

Methodology for determination of changes in NS Power's base cost rates as a result of DSM-induced changes in class usage and total system costs November 27, 2020

AI summary This document outlines the methodology for adjusting NS Power's base cost rates based on DSM-induced changes in class usage and system costs. It involves regulatory analysis under the ERBA and NSUARB frameworks, focusing on cost recovery and rate design considerations.

1.0. Introduction In an effort to more precisely and accurately align EfficiencyOne's (E1) RBIA Model with the methodological process used by NS Power in setting of its base cost rates, all rate setting functionality from E1's RBIA model h...

AI summary EfficiencyOne's RBIA model is being realigned with NS Power's COSS methodology, shifting rate-setting responsibility to NS Power. NS Power will provide annual inputs (e.g., revenue forecasts, DSM charges) to E1's RBIA model under 'With DSM' and 'No DSM' scenarios, with NS Power responsible for cost allocation methods and data assumptions.

2.0. Background The regulated base cost rate setting process involves the following three sequential analytical steps: - Determination of total annual revenue requirement; - COSS concerned with apportionment of total costs among rate class...

AI summary The regulated base cost rate setting process involves three steps: determining total annual revenue requirement, conducting a Cost of Service Study (COSS) for cost apportionment among rate classes, and setting class rates. The document was filed on March 31, 2026.

Revenue Requirement Ordinarily, the base cost rate setting process used in rate case applications requires a great amount of detailed cost inputs to determine revenue requirement. Annual rate base data needs to be collected on a variety of...

AI summary The revenue requirement process typically requires detailed cost data, but for the RBIA, only DSM-induced avoided costs are considered while keeping other costs constant. This simplifies analysis by focusing on directional and relative rate changes due to DSM programs.

Cost of Service Studies COSS provides the most insight into class cost causation as based on changes in its energy and demand usage. It shows in a transparent way how rate class usage of demand and energy services within each functional ar...

AI summary COSS provides insights into cost causation by analyzing energy and demand usage changes. NS Power's annual Load Forecast Report and E1's long-term usage forecasts enable simplified COSS analysis for rate adjustments, bypassing detailed future cost data collection.

Rates and Revenues There is little that can be inferred about the cost causation process from the rate structures used by the utility to generate customers' bills. The rates are bundled and therefore do not allow tracking of cost recovery...

AI summary NS Power's bundled rate structures hinder tracking cost recovery by functional areas. Residential and small general classes recover demand costs via energy charges, while others use a mix of demand and energy charges. Misalignment exists between revenues and costs for certain rate classes, as noted in the COSS.

Conclusions Bypassing the detailed COSS ratemaking step, which is intended to show how DSM-induced, cost causative changes in usage affects rates will produce misleading results and create difficulties in interpretation. Any such rate anal...

AI summary Bypassing the COSS ratemaking step leads to misleading rate analyses by failing to account for DSM-induced changes in usage and embedded system cost reallocations. A simplified COSS process is recommended to provide precise results and better insights into how usage changes affect total service costs.

3.0. Applied Approach The relative changes in rates due to DSM are determined by conducting two separate rate setting analyses under the "With DSM" and "No DSM" scenarios. The rate setting process under each scenario is broken out by two s...

AI summary The applied approach involves analyzing rate changes due to DSM by evaluating two scenarios ('With DSM' and 'No DSM') and separating cost determination into FAM-related and non-FAM-related subprocesses. This method allows for a detailed comparison of rate impacts with and without DSM, facilitating informed regulatory decisions on cost allocation.

3.1 Revenue Requirement The annual revenue requirements under the "With DSM" scenario are kept consistent with the test year information from the preceding rate cases. The non-FAM costs in the years following the 2014 test year from the 20...

AI summary The document outlines revenue requirements under 'With DSM' and 'No DSM' scenarios, adjusting costs for inflation and DSM impacts. FAM and non-FAM costs are modified based on test year data and avoided fuel costs. Historic cost true-ups are excluded due to minimal impact, lack of rigor, and complexity. The analysis uses data from 2011-2035 and references prior rate proceedings.

3.2 Cost of Service Studies Cost of service Studies consist of an application of the following three sequential steps: - functionalization of revenue requirement to the four areas: generation, transmission, distribution and retail; - class...

AI summary Cost of Service Studies (COSS) involve three steps: functionalizing revenue requirements across four areas (generation, transmission, distribution, retail), classifying costs into energy, demand, and customer categories, and apportioning costs among rate classes. Most costs are shared by all customers, except streetlight fixture costs, which are assigned exclusively to unmetered street and area light customers in NS Power's COSS.

3.2.1 Functionalization of System Costs As indicated in the Revenue Requirement section above, NS Power has used the test year revenue requirements, already functionalized by the four areas, from the historic rate cases. In the "With DSM"...

AI summary NS Power has functionalized system costs based on historic rate cases, adjusting revenue requirements for changes in load and inflation. The impact of DSM on load savings and avoided costs is considered, with examples provided on the true-up of depreciation costs from the Maritime Link project.

3.2.2 Classification of System Costs Costs within each area are classified into appropriate services. Generation and transmission costs are classified into energy and demand. Distribution costs are classified between demand and customer. R...

AI summary System costs are classified into energy, demand, and customer categories. Generation costs depend on unit type (baseload, peaking, environmental), with NS Power using a linear equation for classification. Transmission costs align with load factors, while distribution and retail costs remain static except for inflation. DSM impacts reclassification but does not alter customer numbers.

3.2.3 Allocation of Costs to Rate Classes Annual cost requirements within each service of each functional area are apportioned to rate classes based on class share in the underlying usage both in the "With DSM" and "No DSM" case.

AI summary Annual costs for each service and functional area are allocated to rate classes based on their share of usage in both 'With DSM' and 'No DSM' scenarios. This approach ensures cost distribution reflects actual consumption patterns across different rate classes.

FAM-related Costs The FAM-related costs are allocated to rate classes using the following two-step process: • Annual class energy usage is multiplied by the benchmark unit cost $/MWh DATE FILED: March 31, 2026 Page 7 of 16 - o In the "With...

AI summary The Fuel Adjustment Mechanism (FAM) allocates costs via a two-step process using benchmark unit costs, with distinct methods for 'With DSM' and 'No DSM' cases. The current model does not differentiate between energy and demand-related costs, a limitation stemming from historical low demand costs. Recent increases (15% of FAM costs due to Maritime Link) may warrant future RBIA adjustments.

Non-FAM related Costs The non-FAM-related costs are allocated to rate classes using the following two-step process: - Annual class usages of energy and demand services are multiplied by benchmark $/MWh and $/MW unit costs, respectively - o...

AI summary Non-FAM-related costs are allocated to rate classes via a two-step process: multiplying annual class usages by benchmark costs from 'With DSM' or 'No DSM' cases, then scaling estimates to match revenue requirements per functional area. The 'With DSM' case uses the most recent prior rate case, while the 'No DSM' case references the same calendar year as the 'With DSM' case.

DSM Costs The annual DSM-related costs incurred by individual rate classes, as provided by E1, are apportioned to rate classes based on the 25/75 rule. 75 percent of the costs incurred by each class is treated as direct responsibility of e...

AI summary The document outlines the apportionment of annual DSM costs among rate classes using a 25/75 rule, with 75% directly assigned to each class and 25% distributed based on energy and demand usage metrics, including load factor, system generation share, and winter peak demand.

3.2.4 Generic COSS Results The actual results from the above cost allocation process under the "With DSM" and "No DSM" scenarios are presented in the "COSS Outputs" tab within NS Power's rate model, where the long-term trends in annual rel...

AI summary The COSS Results compare 'With DSM' and 'No DSM' scenarios, showing higher unit costs in historic periods due to DSM program costs and lower differentials in out-years as DSM measures expire. Fuel-cost-heavy classes (e.g., Large Industrial) benefit more from DSM, while fixed-cost-heavy classes (e.g., Domestic) see less impact. Trends are analyzed via NS Power's rate model.

3.3 Unit Revenue Determination For the directional purposes of the RBIA model, it is not considered necessary to develop annual rates with all charges under the "With DSM" and "No DSM" cases. Rather, it is sufficient for NS Power to provid...

AI summary NS Power determines unit revenues for rate classes by providing blended revenues in cents per kWh, excluding customer charges for residential and small general classes. Factors like fuel cost adjustments, deferrals, rate smoothing, and revenue-to-cost ratios are excluded, but this has no material effect on relative changes between 'With DSM' and 'No DSM' cases.

Attachment A

AI summary Attachment A lists acronyms related to Nova Scotia's energy regulation, including organizations, programs, and legal frameworks involved in utility proceedings. Key terms cover demand-side management, rate design, and energy efficiency initiatives.

"COSS Data Inputs" tab This tab includes all annual test year class usage and embedded costs from the COSS and BCF COSS filed in GRA and BCF proceedings as well as a forecast of annual usage by class per the most recent ten-year Load Forec...

AI summary The 'COSS Data Inputs' tab compiles annual test year class usage, embedded costs from COSS and BCF COSS filings in GRA and BCF proceedings, a ten-year load forecast, and DSM expenditures by rate class. This data informs class unit cost and revenue calculations.

Savings in energy and demand usage by rate class Savings in energy and demand usage arising from DSM programs for each class are tracked in the following class tabs: R-Savings, SG-Savings, G-Savings, LG-savings, SI-Savings, MI-Savings, LI-...

AI summary The document outlines how energy and demand savings from DSM programs are tracked across rate classes (R-Savings, SG-Savings, etc.) using data from 2011–2022. Annual savings are calculated by E1 using methods from its RBIA Reports, with adjustments for energy losses based on the COSS study.

Cost of Service Studies Apportionment of costs to rate classes is done separately for the "With DSM" and "No DSM" cases" in the tabs bearing the same names.

AI summary The document discusses the separate apportionment of costs to rate classes under 'With DSM' and 'No DSM' scenarios, as outlined in corresponding tabs. This approach allows for distinct cost allocation analyses based on demand-side management considerations.

"With DSM" tab The "With DSM" tab provides annual cost allocation to rate classes based on long-term usage as included in NS Power's most recent Annual ten-year Load Forecast Report. This usage already reflects inclusion of DSM Program eff...

AI summary The 'With DSM' tab allocates annual FAM costs to rate classes using NS Power's load forecast, which includes DSM program effects. FAM costs for 2023-2035 are calculated via a two-step process: applying 2022 blended unit FAM costs to forecasted MWh usage, then scaling to match total annual FAM costs using a formula incorporating previous year costs and energy requirement deltas.

Comments The applied process is a simplification of a more elaborate cost allocation process from the COSS where some FAM costs, such as fuel costs, are allocated to rate classes based on their shares in monthly energy requirements; some o...

AI summary The text describes a simplified cost allocation process for FAM (Fuel Adjustment Mechanism) costs, distributing them based on factors like energy requirements, annual energy shares, and system load factors. It notes that non-FAM costs are fixed between rate cases but can be adjusted for inflation. Relative class unit costs from 2022 are carried forward to 2023–2035, with adjustments based on annual inflation and system load factor changes.

"No DSM" tab The "No DSM" tab provides annual cost allocation to rate classes absent DSM. The FAM-related costs in years 2011–2035 are calculated using the following process: - Annual FAM costs for each class are calculated by multiplying...

AI summary The 'No DSM' tab calculates annual Fuel Adjustment Mechanism (FAM) costs without Demand Side Management (DSM) savings. It uses blended unit FAM costs, scales class-specific costs to match total FAM estimates, and applies a formula incorporating energy requirement deltas and avoided FAM costs from the 'With DSM' case.

Results

AI summary The document section 'Results' is under review, with no substantive content provided. Key entities and topics are inferred from the context, including regulatory bodies, energy programs, and technical terms related to Nova Scotia's energy sector.

"COSS Outputs" tab The "COSS Outputs" tab provides two sets of bar graphs of percentage change in class rates due to DSM over the period 2011–2035 calculated as either arithmetic or load-weighted rate changes. The graphs within each set ar...

AI summary The 'COSS Outputs' tab presents bar graphs analyzing percentage changes in class rates due to DSM (Demand Side Management) from 2011–2035, using arithmetic or load-weighted rate changes. It breaks down effects on unit base cost revenues, including 'No DSM' scenarios and DSM cost inclusions. A control panel tests inflation and avoided cost scenarios on class unit costs and revenues.

"NSPI Inputs into RBIA" tab "NSPI Inputs into RBIA" provides pricing inputs requested by E1. It includes the following annual class data in years 201-2035 broken out by "With DSM" and "No DSM" scenarios: - Forecast Unit Revenues Before DSM...

AI summary The 'NSPI Inputs into RBIA' tab provides data for Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) scenarios with and without Demand Side Management (DSM). It includes revenue forecasts, sales projections, demand forecasts, and customer counts from 2021–2035. Attachments detail NS Power rate models, E1 RBIA models, and an alternate scenario for 2027–2031.

17 Table 1: 2027–2031 Alternate Scenario Portfolio Level Insights Insights 2027–2031 Energy Efficiency Energy Savings as % of NS Power Load 0.8% Energy Savings (EE) Split (RES/BNI) 29/71 Demand Savings (EE) Split (RES/BNI) 44/56 Dedicated...

AI summary This table provides insights into the 2027–2031 alternate scenario portfolio, including energy efficiency savings, demand response capacity, solar-PV generation, and overall benefits of the alternative plan, such as energy savings, investment, and CO₂e reductions.

Table 2: 2027–2031 Alternate Scenario Investment and Savings 2027-2031 Portfolio Year Investment ($M) Lifetime Benefits ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Low- Income & Equity...

AI summary Table 2 presents investment and savings data for energy efficiency and demand response programs from 2027 to 2031. It includes metrics such as investment, lifetime benefits, energy savings, peak demand savings, and weighted average measure life for various programs.

1 Table 6: 2029 Alternate Scenario Savings and Investment by Program Component 2029 Investment ($ million) Lifetime Benefits ($ million) First Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Available Deman...

AI summary The text presents a table titled '2029 Alternate Scenario Savings and Investment by Program Component' with columns related to investment, benefits, energy savings, and other metrics. However, no data is provided under the 'Residential EE Programs' row, leaving the content incomplete.

17 1.4 ALTERNATE SCENARIO – RATE CLASS ALLOCATIONS 18 Planned rate class expenditures for the Alternate Scenario are provided i[n Table 9,](#page-332-2) below, by year and by 19 Plan period. 20

AI summary The Alternate Scenario outlines planned rate class expenditures by year and plan period, referencing Table 9 for detailed allocation data. This section focuses on financial planning and resource distribution under the proposed scenario.

21 Table 9: 2027–2031 Alternate Scenario Rate Class Savings and Expenditures 2027–2031 Rate Class Year First Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Available Demand Response Capacity (MW) Generatio...

AI summary Table 9 presents energy savings and expenditures for different rate classes from 2027 to 2031 under an alternate scenario. It includes data on energy savings, peak demand savings, and expenditures in millions of dollars for residential, charitable, and small general rate classes.

4 List of Schedules 5 6 Schedule "A": Electricity Efficiency And ConservationDemand-side Management 7 Activities 8 Schedule "B": Compensation 9 Schedule "C": Performance Requirements 10 Schedule "D": Confidentiality Agreement 11 Schedule "...

AI summary The document outlines five schedules related to electricity efficiency, compensation, performance requirements, confidentiality, and an approved DSM resource plan. Key focus areas include demand-side management, energy conservation, and regulatory compliance frameworks.

4 ELECTRICITY EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATIONDEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT 5 ACTIVITIES

AI summary The document outlines Nova Scotia's regulatory focus on electricity efficiency, conservation, and demand-side management (DSM) activities. Key entities include NS Power, NSEB, and NSUARB, with emphasis on programs like DSMAG and E1. Topics cover energy efficiency, rate design, and regulatory frameworks.

6 Schedule A

AI summary Schedule A of a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding document, likely related to energy management, utility regulations, and cost recovery mechanisms. Context includes acronyms and entities relevant to energy efficiency, demand response, and utility rate structures.

45 Schedule B (Page 2 of 2)

AI summary Second page of Schedule B from a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding, listing acronyms related to energy regulation, utility management, and demand-side programs. Context includes terms like DSM, PUA, NSEB, and NS Power, reflecting regulatory frameworks and energy initiatives in Nova Scotia.

4 DEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

AI summary This section outlines Demand-Side Management (DSM) activities in Nova Scotia, referencing regulatory frameworks, utility programs, and energy efficiency initiatives. Key entities include Nova Scotia Power, the Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB), and the Public Utilities Act (PUA), with acronyms covering DSM, rate design, and distributed energy resources.

25 Schedule B (Page 1 of 2)

AI summary Schedule B (Page 1 of 2) from a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding document lists acronyms and terms related to energy regulation, utility operations, and demand-side management. Key entities include NS Power, NSEB, and ERBA, with topics covering energy efficiency, rate design, and regulatory frameworks.

37 Schedule B (Page 2 of 2)

AI summary Schedule B (Page 2 of 2) from a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding lists acronyms related to energy regulation, utility management, and policy frameworks. It includes terms for demand-side management, rate design, and energy efficiency programs, reflecting the context of utility oversight and regulatory analysis in Nova Scotia.

22 3. STANDARDIZED FILING FRAMEWORK

AI summary The document outlines a standardized filing framework within a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding, focusing on energy and utility regulations. It includes acronyms related to demand-side management, energy efficiency, and utility rate structures, indicating a structured approach to regulatory compliance and reporting.

26 Table 1: Glossary of Terms Term Definition Mid-Course Adjustment Mechanism to adjust annual program-level budgets and savings in a given Plan year from those set out in the original approved DSM Plan, in order to respond to market condi...

AI summary This table provides definitions of key terms related to demand-side management (DSM) and energy planning in Nova Scotia. It includes terms such as Mid-Course Adjustment, NSEB, NSIESO, and Strategic Electrification, which are relevant to the regulatory process and DSM planning.

- 6 Table 2: DSM Resource Plan Filing Content Item Description 1. Introduction Introduce the DSM Resource Plan and summarize any E1–NS Power agreements (attach as appendices). Include relevant background and history, including past DSM Pla...

AI summary The document outlines the requirements for the DSM Resource Plan filing, including sections on introduction, previous plan results, plan development, proposed DSM resource plan, alternate scenarios, additional items, and conclusion. It specifies the need for detailed metrics, program descriptions, and cost-effectiveness justifications.

4.2 DSM Resource Plan Research

AI summary Section 4.2 discusses research related to Demand Side Management (DSM) resource planning in Nova Scotia, involving regulatory bodies, programs, and analyses of energy efficiency, demand response, and cost recovery mechanisms.

4.3.1 Balanced Plan Approach - E1 will produce DSM Resource Plans that balance multiple aspects of DSM for the benefit of - customers, including: - Short-term and long-term energy and capacity avoidance; - Program delivery costs; - Avoided...

AI summary E1 will develop DSM Resource Plans balancing energy and capacity avoidance, program costs, avoided investments, non-electric benefits, program diversity, business relationships, market access, and rate impacts to ensure equitable customer benefits.

4.3.5 Enabling Strategies - E1 will propose Enabling Strategies such as Education and Outreach, Development and Research, - Other Enabling Strategies; and additional categories as proposed. - For activities requiring an annual investment o...

AI summary E1 plans to propose Enabling Strategies, including Education and Outreach and Development and Research. For investments over $100,000 benefiting specific rate classes, 75% of the participant benefit portion will be allocated to those classes, while the system benefit portion (25%) is based on energy and demand requirements. Section 4.3.5 will be updated to reflect the NSEB's Decision in Matter M12451 and NS Power's 2026 General Rate Application.

4.8.2 Quarterly Reports - E1 will file quarterly reports with the Board for quarters one through three of each year. Reporting - requirements were established under the 2013–2015 DSM Plan Settlement Agreement and - continue to evolve: [9](...

AI summary E1 is required to submit quarterly reports to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board, detailing program performance, variances, forecasts, and equity outcomes under the 2013–2015 DSM Plan Settlement Agreement. Reports must include mid-course adjustments, variance explanations, year-end forecasts, rate-class expenditures, and Enabling Strategies updates.

4 4.8.5 Rate and Bill Impact Analysis - 5 Each DSM Resource Plan application will include: - 6 a historical RBIA summarizing the long-term impact to rates and bills of all DSM activities up to and including those of the previous calendar y...

AI summary Each DSM Resource Plan application must include a historical RBIA and a forward-looking RBIA. NS Power is required to provide a rate-impact analysis for the proposed DSM Plan and alternate scenarios.

18 5. CONSOLIDATED ENDNOTES AND SOURCES - 1. M06733 E1 2016–2018 DSM Resource Plan, NSUARB Order, October 7, 2015. The Order approved the 2016–2018 DSM Plan and the Consensus Agreement. (Parties agreed to establish the Standardized Filing...

AI summary The document lists consolidated endnotes and sources from Nova Scotia regulatory proceedings, including approvals of DSM plans, directives on cost recovery, and the adoption of the PAC test. Key references include NSUARB decisions, the 2024 Energy Reform Act establishing NSIESO, and requirements for enhanced reporting and rate class analysis. Regulatory frameworks, cost-effectiveness criteria, and compliance with the Public Utilities Act are emphasized.

tment of $236.8 million. - This Annual Progress Report (APR) provides: - a summary of the activities and milestones achieved in the prior year, including status of the annual performance indicators; - management's discussion of any materia...

AI summary The Annual Progress Report (APR) outlines prior-year activities, performance indicators, management discussions on discrepancies (25%+ variance), program expenditures, energy savings, system-peak demand reductions, capacity availability, four-year forecasts, and E1's rate class results.

ATTACHMENT 1: 2025 RATE CLASS RESULTS

AI summary Attachment 1 outlines the 2025 Rate Class Results from a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding, involving entities like NSUARB, NSEB, and programs such as E1 and MHEEP. It reflects ongoing efforts in energy efficiency and cost analysis under regulatory oversight.

Attachment 1: 2025 Rate Class Results

AI summary Attachment 1 outlines 2025 rate class results from a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding, likely involving utility rate structures and energy efficiency programs. Key stakeholders include regulatory bodies and program administrators, with focus on cost allocations and compliance standards.

Rate Class Expenditures - E1 reports on planned and actual DSM expenditures by rate class to aid in cost recovery - allocations.[29](#page-52-0) - The following sections provide information on E1's rate class allocation methodology, an - o...

AI summary E1 reports on planned and actual Demand-Side Management (DSM) expenditures by rate class to support cost recovery. The document outlines E1's allocation methodology, 2025 results by rate class, and the outlook for the 2023-2026 DSM Plan period.

1. RATE CLASS SPENDING ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY - As part of efforts to enhance rate class spending reporting, E1 introduced a new rate class - allocation methodology for quarterly and annual (where applicable) forecasts in 2025. This - meth...

AI summary E1 introduced a new rate class spending allocation methodology in 2025 for quarterly and annual forecasts, used to calculate 2026 DSM Plan allocations. This marks a shift from the allocation approach used in the 2023-2025 DSM Plan.

1.1 Rate class allocation for 2023-2025 DSM Plan - Rate class investment allocations for the 2023-2025 DSM Plan were the sum of rate class - allocations calculated by program component. For each program component, the spending by - rate cl...

AI summary The 2023-2025 DSM Plan's rate class allocations are determined by applying 2020 spending percentages to total program costs, except for one component where 2017-2020 data was used due to high variations.

1.2 Rate class allocation for 2026 Plan as Approved, and rate class forecasts Date Filed: March 31, 2026 Page 1 of 8 The October 7, 2015 NSUARB Order directed NS Power to file its proposed accounting treatment and cost recovery for the 201...

AI summary The 2026 rate class allocation method uses spending percentages from 2022-2024 applied to 2026 plan costs, excluding industrial classes from Education and Outreach in Enabling Strategies. The NSUARB Order of October 7, 2015, directed NS Power to file cost recovery proposals for DSM programs, referenced in M06733.

2. 2025 RESULTS BY RATE CLASS 2025 actual expenditures were slightly lower than the 2025 Plan as Approved expenditures. Similar to 2024, the medium industrial rate class had the highest spending increase compared to the 2025 Plan, driven b...

AI summary 2025 actual expenditures were slightly lower than the approved plan, with medium industrial rate class spending rising due to higher BNI Demand Response participation. Municipal and small general rate classes exceeded planned spending from increased BNI Efficient Product Rebates participation, while large general and small industrial classes had lower spending due to reduced participation in Demand Response and Custom Incentives programs. Program timing and participant mix influenced outcomes.

9 Table 1: 2025 Planned and Actual DSM Expenditures by Rate Class 2025 Expenditures by Rate Class Rate Class 2025 Plan as Approved ($ million) 2025 Forecast Expenditures ($ million) Actual 2025 Expenditures ($million) 2025 Expenditures as...

AI summary Table 1 presents the 2025 planned and actual DSM expenditures by rate class, showing that most rate classes exceeded their planned and forecast expenditures, with some classes like Large General and Small Industrial showing significant variances. The 2025 Plan as Approved refers to the 2023-2025 DSM Resource Plan Compliance filing, which was approved by the NSUARB on November 8, 2022.

16 2025 Rate Class Results by Program - 17 [Tables 2-6 p](#page-55-0)rovide a breakdown of 2025 net incremental energy and net peak demand savings, - 18 expenditures, and participation achieved by rate class within the energy efficiency pr...

AI summary Tables 2-6 provide 2025 data on net incremental energy and peak demand savings, expenditures, and participation by rate class across energy efficiency programs. The analysis focuses on program outcomes and financial metrics.

3. 2023-2026 DSM PLAN PERIOD [Table 8 p](#page-59-0)rovides actual expenditures by rate class for 2023, 2024, and 2025, and the variances between the Plan and actuals. The table also provides the 2026 Plan as Approved expenditures by rate...

AI summary The 2023-2026 DSM Plan period shows variances in expenditures due to participation levels in programs like BNI Demand Response and Custom Incentives. Medium industrial spending rose due to higher-than-expected participation, while large general and small industrial spending fell due to lower participation. Large industrial spending increased in 2023 but aligned with the Plan in 2024-2025.

Table 1 Update on Implementation of 2022-2023 Evaluation Recommendations Year Evaluation/ Verification Recommendation Text Source Status Comments Expected Period of Completion 2023 Ensure that the available DR capacity tracked by EOne incl...

AI summary The document provides an update on the implementation of 2022-2023 evaluation recommendations, specifically addressing the tracking of demand response (DR) capacity by EOne, which now includes in-service rates and unitary available DR capacity values for the 2024-2025 heating season.

Table 5: 2025 ARet Evaluation Approach Evaluation Objectives Research Questions Methodology Calculate gross results › Are the data in the tracking sheet complete, accurate, and consistent? › What are the evaluated first-year and lifetime g...

AI summary Table 5 outlines the 2025 ARet Evaluation Approach, focusing on calculating both gross and net results through tracking sheet audits and evaluation calculations. It includes research questions related to data accuracy and energy savings, as well as methodologies involving NTGR results and GHG emission reductions.

3.2.5 Evaluated Gross Savings The gross electrical energy and peak demand savings resulting from the retirement of appliances through ARet are listed in [Table](#page-93-0) 6 below. The line loss factors were updated in 2019 and correspond...

AI summary This section discusses the gross electrical energy and peak demand savings from appliance retirements through ARet. Line loss factors were updated in 2019 and submitted to the Nova Scotia Energy Board as part of the 2014 Cost of Service Study Progress Update. Savings are estimated using specific line loss factors for residential and commercial participants.

Figure 4: 2025 Tracked and Evaluated Gross Electrical Energy Savings at the Generator As presented in [Table](#page-95-2) 7 below, gross GHG emission reductions were calculated by applying the Nova Scotiaspecific factor for GHG emissions g...

AI summary The text references Figure 4 and Table 7, which detail 2025 electrical energy savings and gross GHG emission reductions calculated using a Nova Scotia-specific factor applied to ARet gross savings.

Table 7: Evaluated 2025 ARet Gross GHG Emission Reductions Total Gross Electrical Energy Savings – at the Generator (GWh) 0.205 Nova Scotia-specific GHG Emissions Factor for Electricity Production (tonnes of CO2 eq/GWh) 469.3 Gross Annual...

AI summary Table 7 evaluates the 2025 ARet gross GHG emission reductions, showing 96 tonnes of CO2 eq annually from 0.205 GWh of electrical energy savings in Nova Scotia. The table highlights the province-specific GHG emissions factor for electricity production.

Net savings represent the savings that can be reliably attributed to a program component. For ARet, net savings are calculated by applying the NTGR values to gross savings as illustrated in the following equation. Net Savings = Gross Savin...

AI summary Net savings for the Appliance Retirement program are calculated using Net-to-Gross Ratios (NTGR) applied to gross savings, resulting in 54 tonnes of CO2 eq in annual GHG emission reductions.

3.4 Realization Rate [Table](#page-99-1) 11 below compares total ARet tracked and evaluated savings. It also includes the realization rate, representing the ratio of evaluated net savings to tracked net savings, for both electrical energy...

AI summary This section discusses the realization rate, which is the ratio of evaluated net savings to tracked net savings for both electrical energy and peak demand savings, as presented in Table 11.

7.2.5 Effective Useful Life The Evaluator validated the EUL values based on the 2025 DSM MA. The EUL values are used in the calculation of electrical energy savings that are expected to persist over time. [Table](#page-109-3) 17 below summ...

AI summary The Evaluator validated updated Effective Useful Life (EUL) values based on the 2025 DSM MA, which are used to calculate electrical energy savings over time. EUL values for LED fixtures with motion sensors and solar fixtures were updated due to a change in the LED baseline assumption, while other measures remained unchanged. The gross and net weighted average EUL for Instant Savings was set at 9.3 years.

Annual gross savings are based on the evaluated unitary savings values established for each product for which savings were claimed in 2025. These measures also include remaining LED lighting products and dehumidifiers sold in 2024 for whic...

AI summary Annual gross savings for 2025 are calculated using evaluated unitary savings values for products, including remaining LED lighting and dehumidifiers from 2024. Line loss factors of 1.0947 and 1.1466 were used for electrical energy and peak demand savings, respectively, updated in 2019 and submitted to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (now Nova Scotia Energy Board) as part of the 2014 Cost of Service Study Progress Update.

Table 19: Evaluated 2025 Instant Savings Gross GHG Emission Reductions Total Gross Energy Savings – at the Generator (GWh) 14.817 Nova Scotia-specific GHG Emissions Factor for Electricity Production (tonnes of CO2 eq/GWh) 469.3 Gross Annua...

AI summary Table 19 evaluates the 2025 instant savings gross GHG emission reductions, showing 6,954 tonnes of CO2 eq annually from energy savings of 14.817 GWh and a Nova Scotia-specific GHG emissions factor of 469.3 tonnes of CO2 eq/GWh.

Gross electrical energy savings at the generator were estimated by using different line loss factors for each participant based on their rate code, which resulted in average factors of 1.0947 for electrical energy savings and 1.1465 for pe...

AI summary The document discusses the estimation of gross electrical energy savings using line loss factors based on rate codes, resulting in average factors of 1.0947 and 1.1465 for energy and peak demand savings. The line loss factors were updated in 2019 and submitted to the Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) as part of a 2014 study. The average EUL for Affordable Single-family Homes (ASFH) was 19.3 years in 2025 with total savings of 6.135 GWh and 118.611 GWh.

\ \ Additional savings for non-modelled heat pumps recalculated for the period from April 1 to December 31, 2024. Following a post-evaluation adjustment to the calculation approach, the Evaluator retroactively applied the updated methodolo...

AI summary The text discusses adjustments to savings calculations for non-modelled heat pumps from April to December 2024, recalculations based on a post-evaluation methodology change, and GHG emission reductions using a Nova Scotia-specific factor applied to ASFH gross savings results.

11.2.7 Evaluated Gross Savings [Table](#page-195-0) 22 and [Table](#page 1-53) 23 below present the annual gross savings results per product category and dwelling for the main EPI offerings. [Table](#page 1-54) 24 further below presents th...

AI summary The document presents annual gross savings results for EPI offerings, showing total electrical energy and peak demand savings at the generator level. Line loss factors, updated in 2019, were used in the calculations and submitted to the Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) as part of the 2014 Cost of Service Study Progress Update.

The detailed results per measure are presented in [Table](#page-17-0) 29 below. The net electrical energy savings resulted in 3,426 tonnes of CO2 eq in net annual GHG emission reductions. LED Lamps Product Category 9 W Replacing 25 W 29 W...

AI summary The document presents detailed results of energy savings from LED lamps, showing net annual GHG emission reductions of 3,426 tonnes of CO2 eq. The table includes gross and net electrical energy savings, net-to-gross ratios, line loss factors, and peak demand savings at both the meter and generator levels.

Table 41: 2025 HEA Evaluation Approach Evaluation Objectives Research Questions Methodology Calculate gross results › Are the data in the tracking sheet complete, accurate, and consistent? › What are the evaluated first-year and lifetime g...

AI summary This section outlines the methodology for evaluating the 2025 Home Energy Assessment (HEA) program, focusing on calculating both gross and net results, including energy savings and GHG emission reductions, using tracking sheets and evaluation data from previous years.

19.2.7 Evaluated Gross Savings The annual gross savings for each category of measure installed through HEA in 2025 are listed in [Table](#page-52-0) 44 below. Gross savings at the generator were estimated by using the appropriate line loss...

AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of annual gross savings for energy efficiency measures installed through Home Energy Assessments (HEA) in 2025. Line loss factors used to estimate savings were updated in 2019 and submitted to the Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) as part of a 2014 study update.

Prior to 2024, these savings were deducted by simply subtracting the number of participants who ended up participating in HEA from the number of unconverted D assessment spillover participants. Since the savings parameters were updated in...

AI summary Prior to 2024, savings from unconverted D assessment spillover participants were calculated by subtracting the number of HEA participants from unconverted D assessment spillover participants. In 2024, the method was updated to calculate reversals separately based on the year the spillover savings were initially claimed. In 2025, 255 unconverted D assessment spillover reversal participants were identified, with deductions calculated based on the savings parameters used when the spillover savings were initially claimed.

Table 54: 2025 MHEEP Evaluation Approach Evaluation Objectives Research Questions Methodology Calculate gross results › Are the data in the tracking sheet complete, accurate, and consistent? › What are the evaluated first year and lifetime...

AI summary Table 54 outlines the 2025 MHEEP Evaluation Approach, focusing on calculating gross and net results through tracking sheet audits and evaluations. It includes research questions related to data accuracy and energy savings, as well as methodologies involving NTGR and GHG emission reduction calculations.

Gross savings at the generator were estimated by using a line loss factor of 1.0947 for electrical energy savings and 1.1466 for peak demand savings between the meter and the generator. These line loss factors were provided by NS Power and...

AI summary The document discusses the estimation of gross savings at the generator using line loss factors provided by NS Power, which were updated in 2019 and used in the 2014 Cost of Service Study Progress Update. It also mentions the average effective useful life (EUL) of the Mi'kmaw Home Energy Efficiency Project (MHEEP) and the calculation of GHG emission reductions based on Nova Scotia-specific factors.

Table 58: Comparison of Tracked and Evaluated 2025 MHEEP Savings at the Generator Gross Savings Net Savings Realization Value Unit NTGR Value Unit Rate Energy Savings Tracked Savings by E1 0.337 GWh 1.00 0.337 GWh Evaluation Results 0.337...

AI summary Table 58 compares tracked and evaluated energy and peak demand savings from the Mi'kmaw Home Energy Efficiency Project (MHEEP) in 2025. Energy savings show 100% realization, while peak demand savings are at 76% realization, based on Net-to-Gross Ratios (NTGRs).

Table 69: Overall 2025 Existing Residential Participation and Evaluated Savings Participation Level Gross Savings NTGR Net Savings Value Unit Value Unit Value Value Unit AMH Electrical Energy Savings 98 Projects 1.378 GWh 1.00 1.378 GWh Li...

AI summary Table 69 outlines the participation levels and savings across various residential programs in 2025, including energy savings, GHG emission reductions, and effective useful life for each program category such as AMH, ASFH, EPI, and Green Heat. The table provides data on gross and net savings, highlighting the impact of these programs on energy efficiency and emissions reduction.

Table 1: 2025 ASFH Corrected Tracked Savings Program Component Result Value Tracked by E1 Corrected Tracked Value Relative Difference Value Unit Value Unit Value ASFH Gross Electrical Energy Savings at the Generator 5.858 GWh 5.785 GWh -1....

AI summary The table presents corrected tracked savings for the 2025 Affordable Single-family Homes (ASFH) program, showing a decrease in both gross and net electrical energy and peak demand savings. The discrepancies between tracked and corrected savings are attributed to E1's outdated calculation methodology, with adjustments made by the Evaluator to correct ratios, line loss factors, and unclaimed savings.

Table 1: 2025 Reporting Requirements for Different Energy Savings Scenario[s](#page-113-0) 1 Scenarios 1 2 3 4 Change in Overall Electrical Energy Consumption Increase Increase Decrease Decrease Change in Overall Non electrical Energy Cons...

AI summary Table 1 outlines 2025 reporting requirements for various energy savings scenarios, detailing changes in electrical and non-electrical energy consumption, reporting obligations, and equations used to calculate DSM and government-funded savings. The table highlights the rationale for different reporting approaches based on funding sources and energy consumption changes.

4.2.6 Evaluated Gross Savings The electrical energy and peak demand savings associated with Instant Rebates were calculated using the unitary savings values (including baseline wattages, the actual wattages of efficient measures, ballast f...

AI summary The document discusses the calculation of electrical energy and peak demand savings from Instant Rebates using data from the 2025 DSM MA, including unitary savings values and line loss factors updated in 2019. These factors were submitted to the Nova Scotia Energy Board as part of the 2014 Cost of Service Study Progress Update.

Table 19: 2025 Instant Rebates Evaluated Gross GHG Emission Reductions Total Gross Energy Savings – at the Generator (GWh) 35.867 Nova Scotia-specific GHG Emissions Factor for Electricity Production (tonnes of CO2 eq/GWh) 469.3 Gross Annua...

AI summary Table 19 evaluates the gross GHG emission reductions from 2025 instant rebates, showing 16,832 tonnes of CO2 eq annually based on energy savings and a specific emissions factor for Nova Scotia's electricity production.

DEFINITIONS Adjustment ratio The ratio of evaluated results to tracked results. This ratio expresses the adjustment made to tracked savings or other tracked values such as effective useful life values. The capacity that is available to Nov...

AI summary The text defines key terms related to demand response and energy efficiency, including adjustment ratio, available demand response capacity, baseline, bias, billing calibration, and confidence interval. These definitions are used to evaluate energy savings and performance metrics.

As presented in [Table](#page-80-1) 12 below, GHG emission reductions were calculated by applying the Nova Scotiaspecific factor[12](#page-79-1) for GHG emissions generated by electricity production to Retrofit gross savings. 12 At the tim...

AI summary The document discusses the calculation of GHG emission reductions based on Nova Scotia Power's 2024 emissions data and electricity generation figures. It also mentions line loss factors and EUL values used in retrofit projects, sourced from Nova Scotia Power and Emera Inc.

Table 12: Evaluated 2025 Retrofit Gross GHG Emission Reductions Total Gross Electrical Energy Savings – at the Generator (GWh) 15.878 Nova Scotia-specific GHG Emissions Factor for Electricity Production (tonnes of CO2 eq/GWh) 469.3 Gross A...

AI summary Table 12 evaluates the 2025 retrofit gross GHG emission reductions, showing 15.878 GWh of electrical energy savings and 7,452 tonnes of CO2 eq emissions reduction based on Nova Scotia's specific GHG emissions factor for electricity production.

3.3.4 Evaluated Net Savings Net savings are defined as changes in energy use that are specifically attributable to Retrofit. Net Retrofit impacts are calculated by applying the NTGR value to gross savings as illustrated in the following eq...

AI summary Net savings from Retrofit projects are calculated using the Net-to-Gross Ratios (NTGR) applied to gross savings. The Evaluator used NTGR values for each project category and aggregated results to determine overall net savings. A true-up adjustment was made for multiyear projects completed in 2025, resulting in 6,413 tonnes of CO2 eq in annual GHG emission reductions with an average EUL of 10.6 years.

4.2.4 Evaluated Gross Savings [Table](#page-86-2) 18 below presents the overall evaluated gross savings for P4P. For the one single-year project completed in 2025, evaluated gross electrical energy and peak demand savings were determined f...

AI summary The section discusses the evaluated gross savings for the Pay-for-Performance (P4P) program, detailing how savings are calculated for completed and partially completed projects. It mentions the use of line loss factors based on the 2014 Cost of Service Study Progress Update provided by NS Power.

\ \ The line loss factors are average values obtained by dividing gross savings at the generator by gross savings at the meter. Each P4P project received its own specific line loss factor depending on participant rate codes. \ \ \ These ar...

AI summary The text discusses the calculation of line loss factors and effective useful life (EUL) values for P4P projects, as well as GHG emission reductions based on Nova Scotia-specific factors applied to P4P gross savings.

Table 19: Evaluated 2025 P4P Gross GHG Emission Reductions Total Gross Electrical Energy Savings – at the Generator (GWh) 1.274 Nova Scotia-specific GHG Emissions Factor for Electricity Production (tonnes of CO2 eq/GWh) 469.3 Gross Annual...

AI summary Table 19 presents the evaluated 2025 Pay-for-Performance (P4P) gross GHG emission reductions, including electrical energy savings, the Nova Scotia-specific GHG emissions factor, and the resulting annual GHG emission reductions.

Net savings represent the savings that can be reliably attributed to a service. For P4P, net savings are calculated by applying the NTGR using the following equation. Net Savings = Gross Savings × NTGR The detailed net savings results are...

AI summary Net savings for P4P are calculated using the Net-to-Gross Ratios (NTGR), resulting in 569 tonnes of CO2 eq in annual GHG emission reductions. The average Effective Useful Life (EUL) was determined to be 7.9 years.

As presented in [Table](#page-98-3) 29 below, GHG emission reductions were calculated by applying the Nova Scotiaspecific factor[21](#page-97-4) for GHG emissions generated by electricity production to Building Optimization gross savings....

AI summary The document discusses the calculation of GHG emission reductions using Nova Scotia-specific factors derived from Nova Scotia Power's 2024 data, including total system emissions and electricity generation. It also mentions line loss factors and EUL values used in Building Optimization projects.

Table 34: Implementation Status of Past Recommendations for SEM # Recommendations Status Comments 2023- SEM-R1 Consider including plant-level key performance indicators (KPIs) and tracking their progression since program component inceptio...

AI summary The table outlines the implementation status of past recommendations for the Strategic Energy Management (SEM) program. Recommendation SEM-R1 is in progress, involving the inclusion of plant-level KPIs in participant reporting. Recommendation SEM-R3 is complete, focusing on communicating the value of energy management, including its decarbonization potential.

11.2.4 Evaluated Gross Savings The evaluated 2025 SEM gross electrical energy and peak demand savings at the generator are listed in [Table](#page-113-1) 36 below. The gross electrical energy and peak demand savings at the generator were e...

AI summary The document discusses the evaluation of gross savings for the 2025 Strategic Energy Management (SEM) program, estimating electrical energy and peak demand savings using line loss factors from the 2014 Cost of Service Study. It references the 2025 DSM Measure Assessment (MA) as a key document for calculating savings and includes data on the useful life of energy efficiency measures.

Table 1: Overview of Data Collection Activity Descriptor This Instrument Instrument Type Interview Estimated Time to Complete 30 min. Target Audience Custom Retrofit participants Expected Number of Completions Retrofit up to 18 Contact Lis...

AI summary The document outlines data collection activities through interviews with Custom Retrofit participants, focusing on research objectives such as identifying decision-makers, awareness, free-ridership, cross-influence, spillover effects, measurement and verification, decarbonization, barriers, and satisfaction. Econoler is mentioned as the firm adapting the research.

3.2.5 Evaluated Gross Savings To obtain evaluated gross savings, the Evaluator applied the adjustment ratios[10](#page-13-1) established as part of the 2023 SBES impact evaluation to 2025 tracked savings. [Table](#page-14-0) 8 and [Table](...

AI summary The document discusses the calculation of evaluated gross savings for the 2025 SBES impact evaluation, using adjustment ratios from the 2023 SBES and line loss factors updated in 2019, submitted to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (now the Nova Scotia Energy Board) as part of the 2014 Cost of Service Study Progress Update.

CONCLUSION [Table](#page-22-0) 16 below summarizes the participation level, net-to-gross ratios (NTGRs), evaluated gross and net savings at the generator, annual GHG emission reductions, as well as EUL values for Direct Installation as a w...

AI summary The conclusion section references a table summarizing participation levels, net-to-gross ratios, evaluated gross and net savings, annual GHG emission reductions, and EUL values for Direct Installation programs.

Participant Eligibility Criteria Eligibility criteria for participation in residential DR programs are similar across jurisdictions and device types. The standard requirements include: - > Being a customer of the utility and the account ho...

AI summary Residential DR program eligibility requires utility account ownership, eligible devices, and internet access. Tenants are eligible if they meet criteria. Rebates and incentives vary, with changes planned for 2026. Jurisdictions differ on variable pricing plan enrollment, with some automatically assigning variable rates to DR participants.

Participation Incentive and Other Recurring incentives for continued enrollment vary widely. They may be a fixed annual amount per device or household, a monthly payment, or a performance-based amount per kilowatt reduced during DR events....

AI summary Recurring incentives for participation in demand response (DR) programs vary by jurisdiction, with examples including fixed annual payments, monthly payments, or performance-based incentives. E1 offers a higher incentive ($50 per device) compared to Rhode Island and BC Hydro, which offer lower amounts. Hydro-Québec does not provide incentives but offers lower electricity rates during peak events.

4.2.1 In-service Rates For Residential DR, the in‑service rate was separated into two components, (1) the portion of the DR season during which devices were enrolled and (2) the participation rate of those enrolled devices during DR events...

AI summary The in-service rate for Residential DR is divided into two components: enrollment during the DR season and participation rates during events. This structure accounts for mid-season enrollment changes and event-level performance metrics.

4.2.5 Evaluated Available DR Capacities For Residential DR, available DR capacity is obtained by multiplying the number of enrolled devices by the unitary available DR capacity value, the participation rate, and the portion of the DR seaso...

AI summary This section discusses the calculation of available DR capacity for residential demand response, using factors such as enrolled devices, participation rates, and line loss factors. It references a 2014 study submitted to the Nova Scotia Energy Board.

8.2.4 Evaluated Available DR Capacities [Table](#page-107-2) 33 below presents the evaluated available DR capacity results of BNI DR for 2025. As presented in [Table](#page-107-2) 33, available DR capacity at the generator amounted to 5.94...

AI summary The evaluated available DR capacity for BNI DR in 2025 is presented in Table 33, with a total of 5.941 MW at the generator. This capacity was estimated using weighted average line loss factors based on rate codes and submitted to the Nova Scotia Energy Board as part of the 2014 Cost of Service Study Progress Update.

[Table](#page-108-1) 35 presents the difference between enrolled available DR capacity and evaluated available DR capacity. Metric Stratum 1 Meters Stratum 2 Meters Overall Enrolled Available DR Capacity (MW) 8.392 13.660 22.052 Evaluated...

AI summary Table 35 compares enrolled and evaluated available demand response (DR) capacity across different strata. The enrolled capacity is significantly higher than the evaluated capacity, with overall evaluated capacity being only 27% of enrolled capacity.

It is important to establish proper estimates of enrolled available DR capacity to allow DR capacity to become a reliable electricity system resource during peak periods. As presented in [Table](#page-108-1) 35 above, meters from both stra...

AI summary The document emphasizes the importance of accurately estimating enrolled available DR capacity to ensure its reliability as an electricity system resource during peak periods. It notes that meters from both strata significantly missed their DR capacity targets, primarily due to non-participation in events.

D. Demographics These final questions are asked for statistical purposes only. The information collected is strictly confidential. D1. Were you enrolled in either rate plan from the Nova Scotia Power Time-Varying Pricing Rate Pilot Program?

AI summary This section asks demographic questions for statistical purposes, specifically whether respondents were enrolled in the Nova Scotia Power Time-Varying Pricing Rate Pilot Program.

[DISPLAY: The Nova Scotia Power Time-Varying Pricing Rate Pilot Program offered two alternative rate plans: Rate Plan Description Time-of-Use Rate Pilot From November to March, rates were higher during the peak hours when demand for electr...

AI summary The Nova Scotia Power Time-Varying Pricing Rate Pilot Program introduced two rate plans: Time-of-Use and Critical Peak Pricing. The Time-of-Use plan had higher rates during winter peak hours and lower, flat rates during non-winter months. The Critical Peak Pricing plan offered lower off-peak winter rates but significantly higher rates during four-hour critical peak periods.

In-service Rates The in-service rate was separated into two components: The portion of the DR season during which devices were enrolled and the participation rate of those enrolled devices during DR events. While all controllers remained i...

AI summary The in-service rate is divided into two components: the portion of the DR season with enrolled devices and the participation rate of those devices during DR events. Connectivity issues affected the ability of all controllers to generate savings, which was accounted for through the participation rate. Although the unitary available DR capacity value was not updated, the participation rate and portion of the DR season with enrolled devices were updated due to significant changes.

Table 136: Battery Control Measure Parameters Included in the In-service Rate Parameter Value Reference Participation Rate 58.0% Residential DR 2025 evaluation (6) EV Telematic and Charger Control

AI summary Table 136 presents battery control measure parameters included in the in-service rate, highlighting a participation rate of 58.0% for residential demand response in 2025, referenced from an evaluation. Section (6) introduces EV telematic and charger control as a topic of discussion.

Summary [Table](#page-79-1) 356 presents a summary of the values used to calculate server virtualization and decommissioning savings. The detailed methodology follows.

AI summary Table 356 summarizes the values used to calculate server virtualization and decommissioning savings, with a detailed methodology provided afterward.

Request IR-01: Reference: 2027-2031 DSM Plan Application, Exhibit E-1, Evidence ("Evidence"), p. 1. "The Preferred Plan is one which will provide the benefits of DSM at an affordable cost, appropriate to the economic challenges being faced...

AI summary The response to Request IR-01 discusses the Preferred Plan for the 2027-2031 DSM Plan, emphasizing affordability and ratepayer value. It acknowledges that increased DSM spending can lower bills for participants but raises concerns about non-participants facing higher rates. The response refers to EfficiencyOne's (E1) earlier response to NSEB IR-03 (a).

Request IR-14: Reference: Evidence, p. 54 "In designing the Preferred Plan portfolio, E1 explicitly balanced near-term rate impacts with the long-term value delivered to ratepayers. The portfolio reflects a measured approach to investment,...

AI summary E1 did not rely on industry standards or best practices when balancing near-term rate impacts with long-term value. Additionally, E1 has not compared its rate and bill analysis to recent DSM plans in other jurisdictions, citing limited value in a jurisdictional scan due to specific contextual reasons.

long term value. - (b) E1 has not conducted a jurisdictional comparison of its rate and bill analysis results. - A jurisdictional scan may offer limited value in this context for several key reasons: - Local planning objectives: DSM plan d...

AI summary E1 has not conducted a jurisdictional comparison of its rate and bill analysis due to local policy differences, varied cost recovery mechanisms, and lack of standardized metrics. These factors limit meaningful benchmarking across jurisdictions.

Request IR-18: Reference: 2027-2031 DSM Plan Application, Exhibit E-1, Appendix A ("Appendix A"), page 79. "E1 notes that interruptible customers have not been eligible to participate in the past. The potential for them to be eligible in t...

AI summary E1 acknowledges discussions about allowing interruptible customers to participate in Smart Synergy and commits to further evaluation. The response addresses how incremental value would be determined and how system benefits and double compensation would be managed.

-eng.pdf) ("Continue to Publication") - 1 building. The two scenarios given in IR-03, therefore, cannot be compared in a like-for-like - 2 way. 3 4 (b) Please refer to part (a) of this IR response. Request IR-04: (a) Please confirm that th...

AI summary The response to IR-04 addresses whether the Custom New Construction Program provides incentives for all-electric heating and discusses the impact of such systems on peak electricity demand and electricity rates. It refers to EfficiencyOne's previous response and notes that all-electric heating systems are expected to increase peak demand compared to non-electric systems.

eater impacts on peak electricity demand compared to the building with a non-electric heating system. For details on E1's Custom New Construction offer please refer to E1 response to Eastward IR- 03. (c) While NS Power is responsible for e...

AI summary The text discusses the impact of all-electric heating systems on electricity demand and rates. All-electric systems may increase peak demand and drive up electricity rates due to additional infrastructure needs, but can also lower average rates by spreading fixed costs over more sales. Conversely, non-electric heating systems may have opposing effects. The Custom New Construction program provides incentives for electricity savings regardless of technology.

Industrial customers are allocated any portion of the Enabling Strategies budget for electrification research. If so, please provide the dollar amounts allocated to each class over the plan period. (d) If, during the 2027–2031 plan period,...

AI summary The response outlines how industrial customers are allocated portions of the Enabling Strategies budget for electrification research and discusses the process for introducing electrification measures if they become cost-effective under the modified-PAC test, including cost allocation and potential Board approval.

ii) Please refer to part (e) i) of this IR response. Request IR-07: Reference: Exhibit E-1, Application, page 40/71, lines 19–21. Over the same time period in which the investment of $318.75 million is made, the Preferred Plan will achieve...

AI summary The response confirms that 'avoided utility costs' and 'lifetime customer benefits' are equivalent. These costs include avoided costs of capacity, energy, transmission, and distribution. Carbon costs are included in the model via the Nova Scotia Output Based Pricing System (NS OBPS), with a price of $110/tonne CO2e for 2026, increasing annually until $130/tonne CO2e in 2030.

- (a) EfficiencyOne's (E1) Statement of Operations are being provided in Attachments 1, 2, and 3 of this IR response, which outlines the proposed 2027–2031 DSM Plan's anticipated expenses by cost category. Please note that incentives costs...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) provides its Statement of Operations and outlines the anticipated expenses for the proposed 2027–2031 DSM Plan, including incentive costs and program support costs. E1 follows the ENSC Cost Allocation Methodology (CAM) approved by the Board in 2011 and ensures the plan's achievability.

Response IR-13: (a) Enabling Strategies costs for the Development and Research and Other Enabling Strategies categories were allocated to the rate classes according to the percentage of total program costs each rate class represents. Indus...

AI summary Enabling Strategies costs are allocated to rate classes based on the percentage of total program costs each class represents. Industrial rate classes are excluded from Education and Outreach costs, while Market Transformation costs are fully allocated to the Residential rate class.

(b) The Other Enabling Strategies category encompasses all regulatory costs associated with the development and execution of DSM Plans and E1's participation in regulatory matters and proceedings. As a public utility regulated by the Nova...

AI summary The Other Enabling Strategies category includes regulatory costs related to DSM Plans and E1's participation in regulatory proceedings. These costs are allocated to rate classes based on their share of total program costs. E1 has improved its reporting on Enabling Strategies, including forecast and year-to-date spending, and will continue this during the 2027–2031 Plan period.

1 Table 6: Large Industrial expenditures by areas of focus and total Development and Research Other Enabling Strategies Areas of Focus Areas of Focus Year Information & Analytics ($) Innovation ($) Total Investment ($) DSM Planning ($) Reg...

AI summary The document discusses proposed changes to the MCA process, including the addition of rate-class spending tracking and specific thresholds (15% for rate-class and 20% for program-level changes). It requests a working draft of the MCA text, rationale for the thresholds, and details on how the baseline and time period for the 15% threshold will be measured.

A. Definitions Mid-Course Adjustment –The Mid-Course Adjustment (MCA) is a mechanism that provides E1 with an opportunity to reallocate savings and investments by program for any given DSM Plan year to allow for changes that occur during t...

AI summary The text defines various mechanisms related to the DSM Plan, including the Mid-Course Adjustment (MCA), Balance Adjustment (BA), and DSM Cost Recovery Rider (DCRR). These mechanisms allow for reallocation of spending and savings, true-up of rate class spending, and recovery of DSM costs from ratepayers.

Request IR-16: Reference: Exhibit E-1, Application, Appendix A, Section 4.7, pages 40–42/112; Exhibit E- 1, Appendix B, Attachment 2. Preamble: E1 states that the rate-class allocation of expenditures was developed using three years of his...

AI summary The request seeks detailed information on the rate-class allocation methodology used by E1, including its full methodology, historical data, reconciliation with the 2027–2031 Preferred Plan, and confirmation of programs requiring bespoke assumptions. It also asks for confirmation on mid-course adjustments affecting spending allocations.

DATE FILED: May 28, 2026 E1 (IG) IR-16 Page 2 of 5 1 i) How that allocation shift affects the non-participating or non-eligible classes (such 2 as Medium and Large Industrials where they do not benefit from a residential 3 program receivin...

AI summary The response outlines the 2027–2031 rate class allocation methodology, which involves calculating average spending by rate class percentages from the previous three years (2022–2024) for each program component to determine expenditures for each rate class in the upcoming years. This approach was applied to various programs, including Instant Savings and Business Energy Rebates, with customer commitments and program changes considered alongside historical data.

The final step in the rate class methodology was to sum the rate class allocations calculated by program component and the rate class allocations for Enabling Strategies to determine the total investment allocations for each rate class at...

AI summary The document discusses the final step in the rate class methodology involving summing allocations for program components and Enabling Strategies to determine total investment allocations. It also references a mid-course adjustment process that shifts spending from BNI programs to residential programs, potentially impacting savings, participation, and spending estimates.

1 (f) Please provide a table that compares E1 Smart Synergy provisions for BNI participants 2 versus NSPI's Large Industrial Interruptible program (and separately provide for 3 telemetry vs. non-telemetry customers) that compares the follo...

AI summary The request asks for a comparison table of E1 Smart Synergy provisions for BNI participants with NSPI's Large Industrial Interruptible program, including details on interruption policies, credits, and program costs for 2027–2031. It also questions E1's justification for allocating program costs to Large Industrial Interruptible customers and whether the program affects interruption calls for this class.

4 Item E1 Smart Synergy / BNI Participants NS Power Large Industrial Interruptible Rider (LIIR) ix) How participating load reduction is quantified and whether load factor adjustments are applied in the credit calculation Smart Synergy load...

AI summary The document compares how load reduction is quantified and credits are calculated under the E1 Smart Synergy / BNI program and the NS Power Large Industrial Interruptible Rider (LIIR). Both programs do not apply load factor adjustments, but they use different methodologies for determining demand reduction and credits.

age - 2 incentives when excluding these lower cost projects (e.g., compressed air leak audits) and - 3 increased future incentives to those amounts. DATE FILED: May 28, 2026 E1 (IG) IR-19 Page 8 of 8 Request IR-20: Reference: Exhibit E-1,...

AI summary The request seeks analysis of rate and bill impacts for an alternate scenario, assumptions behind lower bill impacts for industrial customers, and whether a 4% average bill impact is considered sufficient for participation in energy efficiency programs.

any benchmarks, customer feedback, or prior program experience relied on to support that conclusion. i) Does E1 view this level of participant payback as a barrier for participation? Please explain. - 1 (d) For the Medium Industrial and La...

AI summary The text requests information on participant payback barriers, load profiles, bill impacts, and customer participation rates for Medium and Large Industrial rate classes. It also asks for explanations on anticipated bill savings for non-participants. A reference is made to Table 1 in the IR response.

17 Table 1: Rate and Bill Impacts by Rate Class as a Result of 2027 - 2031 DSM Alternate Scenario Activities. Rate Class Rate Codes Average Rate Impact (%) Average Rate Impact (cents/kWh) Participant Average Bill Impact Non Participant Ave...

AI summary The table shows rate and bill impacts by rate class due to DSM activities from 2027 to 2031. E1 corrected an error in the Municipal rate class and emphasized the significance of savings in industrial customers, attributing lower percentage bill reductions to the concentration of industrial electricity use in complex processes.

1 4 (f) Non-participants will experience bill savings when DSM has a negative rate impact. This is 5 the case for the Medium Industrial rate class, where in the proposed 2027–2031 DSM 6 Preferred Plan the average rate impact is -0.12%. 7 8...

AI summary Non-participants in the DSM plan may experience bill savings due to negative rate impacts, as seen in the Medium Industrial rate class with an average rate impact of -0.12% in the proposed 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan. Calculations for 2032 are provided to highlight negative impacts.

1 Variable Unit Definition / Explanation Value M.Bill Impact $/month Difference between monthly bills in the DSM scenario -$371 compared to the No DSM scenario. M.BillDSM $/month Monthly bill in the DSM scenario (non-participant) $32,093 M...

AI summary The table compares the impact of a Demand Side Management (DSM) scenario versus a No DSM scenario on monthly bills, electricity usage, and rates. The DSM scenario results in a lower monthly bill by approximately $371 for non-participants, with a slightly lower electricity rate compared to the No DSM scenario.

8 The following tables have been copied from the "Alternate Scenario" tab: DSM (All Resources) Rate Impacts Medium Residential Small General General Large General Small Industrial Large Industrial Municipal Industrial 2027 3.63% 5.13% 5.14...

AI summary The text presents rate impact data for different customer classes under the 'Alternate Scenario' tab, including DSM and Demand Response rates from 2027 to 2031. A question is raised regarding the rate impact for Large Industrial customers under the Preferred Plan in 2027 and 2028.

- i) If not confirmed, please explain how to interpret this table. - (b) Please provide a table showing the annual impact of the Preferred Plan on the DSM rate rider for each year from 2026 through 2032, inclusive. State all assumptions. -...

AI summary The text requests detailed tables and explanations regarding the impact of the Preferred and Alternate Plans on the DSM rate rider, including assumptions, historical and forecasted data, and an explanation for differing rate impacts on Large Industrial customers compared to other classes.

- (d) The following IR response was provided by Elenchus. - Large Industrial customers have rate increases over the DSM plan period for Demand Response because the impact of reallocating demand-related costs to the Large Industrial class e...

AI summary Large Industrial customers face rate increases during the DSM plan period due to reallocating demand-related costs, as their peak demand reduction is lower than the overall system reduction. This leads to a higher allocation of energy-related costs to the Large Industrial class.

of costs classified as energy-related. The Large Industrial class receives a higher - allocation of energy-related costs than demand-related costs. DATE FILED: May 28, 2026 E1 (IG) IR-24 Page 4 of 4 Request IR-25: Reference: Exhibit E-1(i)...

AI summary The document discusses the allocation of energy-related costs among different classes, particularly highlighting the higher allocation for the Large Industrial class. It also addresses a request regarding line loss factors used in modeling and their application in the Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA).

BIA) for the same 2 purpose, to convert impacts between at meter and at generator. 5 14 3 i) Line losses are a direct input to the modelling software and are applied within the 4 modelling process. (b) Table 1 of this IR response provides...

AI summary The document discusses the impact of line losses on the 2026 General Rate Application (GRA) and the 2027–2031 DSM Plan. It notes that the estimated impact was calculated manually by EfficiencyOne using line loss factors from the 2014 COSS and the 2026 GRA, rather than through the Guidehouse ProCESS or DRSim model. This method is described as an approximation.

15 Table 1: Estimated Impact of 2026 GRA Line Losses on Key 2027–2031 DSM Plan Outputs First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Available Demand Response Capacity (MW) Solar-PV Generation (GWh)...

AI summary The table discusses the estimated impact of 2026 GRA line losses on key 2027–2031 DSM Plan outputs. The differences in energy savings, peak demand savings, and demand response capacity are minimal, indicating a small effect from the line losses. The request and response relate to the Smart Synergy program, including participation rates, incentives, and event calling practices.

role in the level many participants were able to participate at, and the resulting available capacity achieved in 2026 (tracked results show 13.0 MW was achieved in 2026, compared to 5.9 MW in 2025). - (d) Please refer to parts i) and ii)...

AI summary The text discusses the Smart Synergy program, noting that its costs are funded by participating rate classes, with no expenditures allocated to non-participating classes. In 2025, participation in the Large Industrial rate class was minimal, resulting in minimal expenditures. E1 plans to manage and monitor participation levels in the 2027–2031 Plan period according to rate class allocations.

Date Filed: May 28, 2026 2025 Results - BNI Demand Response (Smart Synergy) Available Capacity (MW) Available capacity achieved by event (MW) Non-participation rate by event (%) Expenditures Participation (#) Enrolled Achieved Event 1 Even...

AI summary The table presents the 2025 results for the BNI Demand Response (Smart Synergy) program, showing participation rates, available capacity, and expenditures across different customer segments. It highlights low participation and achievement rates in residential and small industrial categories, while general and large general categories show higher participation but still below enrolled capacity.

23 Rate Class Custom Actual PAC SEM Actual PAC Residential/Charitable (2,3,4) 1.3 - Small General (10) 7.5 - General (11) 6.9 - DATE FILED: May 28, 2026 E1 (IG) IR-27 Page 2 of 3 Rate Class Custom Actual PAC SEM Actual PAC Large General (1...

AI summary The document contains tables showing PAC (Program Adjustment Credit) values for various rate classes and references a request (IR-28) for explanations regarding changes in net-to-gross ratios (NTGRs) for the Custom Incentives and SEM programs. It also cites evaluation reports and exhibits related to DSM (Demand Side Management) programs.

1 Request IR-01: Avoided Costs 2 3 Reference: Appendix B – Attachment 5: Assumptions, Section 5. Avoided Costs. 4 5 (a) Does the DSM model's avoided capacity in $/kW include both bulk and local capacity 6 values? 7 8 (b) Did E1 evaluate th...

AI summary The proceeding discusses the DSM model's avoided capacity values, whether E1 evaluated specific cost tests, the assumption of embedded carbon pricing in avoided costs, and whether customer and grid resilience were considered in avoided costs quantification. E1 clarifies that only system-wide (bulk) capacity costs are used, not localized ones, and refers to prior responses for further details.

in the model are based on available demand - 2 response capacity evaluated for winter events, specifically the December to February - 3 period. DATE FILED: May 28, 2026 E1 (NRStor) IR-04 Page 5 of 5 Request IR-05: Combined Effects and Bene...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) has not conducted a jurisdictional scan on the overlap of time-varying rates and demand response programs, nor a specific study on the combined effects of residential batteries and electrification on bill affordability. However, E1 plans to engage a consultant and considers this an area for future innovation in the 2027–2031 DSM Plan.

E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-05: 10 i) Please explain why E1 is confident that there is no double counting between its 11 demand response program and NS Power's rate sig...

AI summary E1 responds to the Nova Scotia Energy Board's information requests regarding potential double counting between its demand response program and NS Power's rate signals, and the exclusion of certain customers from its programs. E1 also addresses the budgeted cost for the Residential Behaviour program in its DSM plan.

1 Demand Response (DR) program component as E1's Evaluator crosschecks all DR 2 participants with a list of NS Power's Time-Varying Pricing and Critical Peak Pricing 3 (CPP) participants. Any E1 Residential DR participant that is participa...

AI summary E1's Demand Response (DR) program excludes participants enrolled in NS Power's Time-Varying Pricing (TVP) pilot, including Time-of-Use (TOU) and Critical Peak Pricing (CPP). This exclusion is due to eligibility criteria and the TVP pilot being interrupted by a cybersecurity breach. E1 will continue to monitor participants to ensure they remain excluded from DR evaluations.

Regarding Section 2.3 "Standardized Filing Framework" of the Application: - (a) Section 2.3.1 "The 2022 Integrated Resource Plan", pdf pgs. 28-29 state: "The Standardized Filing Framework directs that the Resource Plan identified in NS Pow...

AI summary The document discusses the 2022 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and its use in developing E1's 2027–2031 DSM Plan. It highlights the need to incorporate findings from NS Power's 2025 IRP Action Plan Update and address the 'Hybrid Peak Electrification Scenario.' The numbers in E1's DSM Plan are lower than those in the IRP, raising questions about alignment and considerations of affordability.

1 within these definitions. The increase in customer incentives from 66 percent to 71 percent 2 of total plan costs does not change the nature of the activities funded; rather, it reflects a 3 deliberate choice to direct a greater share of...

AI summary The Preferred Plan focuses on reducing electricity costs for customers by maintaining a fixed DSM budget, increasing customer incentives, and ensuring long-term value through avoided utility costs. The plan aligns with short-term affordability goals and limits rate pressure on NS Power customers.

E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 discussions to continue with the outcome being a proposed resolution agreed upon by 2 both organizations. E1 is committed to continue to work through a...

AI summary E1 is collaborating with NS Power on locational demand response and the integration of E1's demand response program with NS Power's TVP. The response outlines that these efforts are included in E1's Innovation Framework and highlights ongoing discussions to avoid double counting and ensure alignment with ratepayer interests.

E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL reflects the cost of maintaining and improving the existing residential DR platform, preserving residential demand-side flexibility, and supporting conti...

AI summary The text discusses the cost of maintaining and improving the residential demand-side management platform, emphasizing the importance of preserving demand-side flexibility and supporting operational improvements to contribute to peak reduction and system resilience.

1 M09096, Document No. 84486, DSMAG Revised Terms of Reference, September 20, 2021, page 7 1 Request IR-16: 16 "DSM is a low-risk energy investment as there is: Certainty with respect to the level in 17 investment; No unexpected costs asso...

AI summary The document discusses the risk assessment of the 2027-2031 DSM Plan and requests clarification on the rate and bill impact analysis for all NS Power customers, not just DSM participants. It also asks for revised figures showing the average rate and bill impacts for non-DSM participants.

PRICE SETTING Price setting is the process of coming up with the cost of a good or service for a consumer. With price setting, there are two influences: - 1. The value a consumer is willing to pay (participant perceived value) - 2. The pro...

AI summary Price setting involves balancing consumer perceived value and production/distribution costs plus return on investment. Perceived value is difficult to quantify and varies by individual, while return on investment can be calculated. Strategies like consumer surveys, competitive research, and historical data are used to estimate perceived value curves, which often follow a sigmoid relationship based on price elasticity of demand.

Electricity Market The following entities are the key players in the electricity system in Ontario. - Ontario Government Ministry of Energy - Ontario Energy Board (OEB) - Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) - 72 Local Distributi...

AI summary The document outlines key players and responsibilities in Ontario's electricity market, including the Ministry of Energy, Ontario Energy Board (OEB), Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), and Local Distribution Companies (LDCs). The IESO manages conservation efforts, sets savings targets, and oversees program delivery, while the OEB regulates LDCs and reviews rate applications.

MARKET STRUCTURE OVERVIEW DSM is a core part of the conservation first policy in Ontario as per the 2013 Long-Term Energy Plan. In 2014, the Minister of Energy issued a directive to the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) for the development of a n...

AI summary The document outlines the DSM framework in Ontario, developed by the OEB in 2014 as part of the conservation first policy. It emphasizes cost-effective DSM, coordination with electricity CDM, and the role of gas utilities in program design, budgeting, and reporting. The OEB oversees program evaluation and mid-term reviews to ensure compliance and effectiveness.

BACKGROUND Efficiency Nova Scotia has contracted CLEAResult to conduct energy conservation and energy efficiency program incentive research. The project covers the following areas: - Identification of best practices for incentive rate sett...

AI summary Efficiency Nova Scotia has contracted CLEAResult to research best practices for setting energy conservation and efficiency program incentives. The goal is to develop a guideline for optimizing program design and delivery. The research includes interviews with key contacts in other jurisdictions and will be submitted to the Utility and Review Board (UARB) for regulatory review.

Energy Trust of Oregon Funding Through state legislation, tariffs and other requirements, Energy Trust is funded by customers of Portland General Electric, Pacific Power, NW Natural and Cascade Natural Gas. Customers of all four utilities...

AI summary Energy Trust of Oregon is funded by customers of Portland General Electric, Pacific Power, NW Natural, and Cascade Natural Gas through a public purpose charge and state legislation. Energy Trust delivers energy-efficiency and renewable energy programs, with increased savings and funding after the passage of SB 838 in 2008. Expenditures rose from $63 million in 2008 to $117 million in 2013.

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 b...

AI summary The Energy Trust includes benefits such as avoided energy costs, non-energy benefits, line losses, and natural gas capacity benefits in its societal test. These are based on forecasts from utilities and PUC approvals, with specific considerations for environmental and efficiency-related factors.

Avoided Supply Costs in TRC Calculation The benefits calculated in the TRC are the avoided supply costs. The avoided supply costs include the reduction in costs of electric energy, natural gas, generation and transmission, and distribution...

AI summary The TRC calculation considers avoided supply costs, which include reductions in electric energy, natural gas, generation, transmission, and distribution capacity costs, valued at marginal cost during periods of load reduction.

Ca teg Su bs ati nd da tio mm ary o erv on s a re co mm en ns 1. Mi nim al Re vie of Re ba te Le l in Te lat Ad jus ted ba te lev el fie ld wit hin th e D ist rib uto r T lat e i ot iew ed rt o f th e P w ve mp e: re em p s n rev as pa rog...

AI summary The text discusses a minimal review of rebate levels in the Distributor Tariff, focusing on the need for proper procedures and ensuring that the distributor's submitted tariff includes the correct fields to be checked during the review process.

re po g a mo un an ( Ap lica tio n R eb s) ult ha mb ine d w ith in mb the ed in th ab le AR by in ad dit ion th bin ed ate s t t a nts e t to p res re co nu ers am ou us pr og ram e c om , , the Bo ard O ing R . O P M wi ll ed th e B rd b...

AI summary The text discusses the integration of application rebates within a program, the Board's role in reviewing and approving such programs, and potential errors in reporting. It highlights concerns about the accuracy of data, the need for proper calculation and disclosure, and the importance of ensuring transparency and reliability in the process.

Co ntr ol Ac tiv ity r 'I tan t' T ab of '2 02 2 B ER In ter l C tro l' F ile pe ns na on Ma ing pp C1 On nth ly ba sis the Ef fic ien Pa Dis trib r T lat n S ha reP oin t is vie d b P S cia list lid tha nly d b EN S a rtn uto to ate t o a...

AI summary The document discusses control activity related to the '2022 BER Interl Control' filing, mentioning the Efficient Point of Distribution (EPD) and the role of the PSC (Public Service Commission) in reviewing measures related to automation and cybersecurity.

- 16 ii) Please refer to part (b) of this IR response. 1 Request IR-24: 16 design decision to prioritize near-term affordability for Nova Scotia ratepayers while 17 continuing to deliver long-term value. The $63.75 million annual investmen...

AI summary The document discusses a design decision to prioritize near-term affordability for Nova Scotia ratepayers while continuing to deliver long-term value. A $63.75 million annual investment is allocated to energy efficiency, demand response, and solar-PV. The downward trend in energy savings and peak demand savings is attributed to changes in investment allocation, including a front-loaded energy efficiency investment and a shift to accommodate the planned ramp-up in demand response.

15 2026 DSM Extension Enhancements 16 In the 2026 DSM Extension matter, E1 agreed to provide the following enhancements: - 17 Improve the accuracy of estimates used for the rate class allocation of expenditures in 18 the DSM Plan by using...

AI summary In the 2026 DSM Extension matter, E1 agreed to improve the accuracy of expenditure estimates in the DSM Plan using historical data, enhance rate class reporting, and monitor program spending against the DSM Plan budget.

E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 In 2026, as part of efforts to enhance rate class spending reporting, E1 introduced a new 2 rate class allocation methodology for quarterly and annual...

AI summary In 2026, E1 introduced a new rate class allocation methodology for forecasting and reporting, including Plan period tables by rate class. These tables compare past results, forecasts, and DSM Plan spending as a percentage of total spending relative to the MCA and forecast.

percent or more by individual rate classes and providing explanations is to ensure actual cumulative spending at the end of the DSM Plan period as compared to the approved DSM Plan does not result in a substantial balance adjustment for an...

AI summary E1 is adjusting the Mandatory Cost Allocation (MCA) thresholds for the DSM Plan, lowering the program spending threshold from 25% to 20% and setting a 15% threshold for rate class spending changes. These adjustments aim to ensure accurate budgeting and avoid future balance adjustments in the DCRR. E1 has not expanded the MCA to include sector changes and has incorporated these thresholds into its reporting processes.

3.1 ANH_RETRO CUSTOM – EQUITY DESERVING - RETROFITS - Custom provides large business, non-profit, and institutional (BNI) participants with technical assistance, - financial incentives, and project financing to help reduce their electricit...

AI summary The Custom program provides technical assistance, financial incentives, and project financing to large businesses, non-profits, and institutions to reduce electricity consumption and peak demand. It includes Retrofit, New Construction, Building Optimization, and Pay-for-Performance services, with a new service for low-income and equity groups under consideration for the 2027-2031 DSM plan. EfficiencyOne claims savings for certain Custom projects over multiple years.

4.15.6.2 Coincident Peak Demand Savings (kW) Value: 0.000 Source: This is the deemed unitary peak demand savings value for the Smart Thermostat for Electrical Heating Systems Measure[71](#page-155-1) in the 2025 Measure Assessment. Details...

AI summary The document discusses the deemed unitary peak demand savings value of 0.000 for the Smart Thermostat for Electrical Heating Systems Measure in the 2025 Measure Assessment. It also outlines details about Outdoor Heavy Duty Timers under the Instant Savings program, including measure identifiers, program components, measure life, net-to-gross ratios, and incremental costs.

1 (d) The higher per-unit cost of Residential sector programs reflects the structure of that 2 customer base, not an inefficient allocation of resources. Residential customers represent 3 approximately 519,000 customers, or 91 percent of N...

AI summary The Residential sector programs have higher per-unit costs due to the large customer base and the need for diverse and equitable program delivery. E1 emphasizes that the allocation of resources aligns with the Balanced Plan Principles and that shifting investment to BNI would not meet the needs of Residential customers or align with these principles.

1 based accountability. Imposing input-level metrics such as estimation accuracy or spending 2 variances as binding performance targets would shift the regulatory framework toward a 3 prescriptive, compliance-oriented model, inconsistent w...

AI summary E1 argues that imposing input-level metrics as binding targets would create a prescriptive regulatory framework, conflicting with the flexibility needed for effective demand-side management. E1's mid-course adjustment process provides accountability while preserving optimization of program delivery, aligning with ratepayer interests.

19 Table 1: Metrics in 2023-2025 DSM Plan Application Column in 2023-2025 DSM Plan Application Attachment 4 Explanation 2 3 Appendix B - Rate and Bill Impact Analysis, 2027-31 DSM Resource Plan and 2026 Historical, 4 pp. 1-23 (Attach. 1-10...

AI summary The document discusses the recovery of program costs for the 2027–2031 DSM Plan, stating that EfficiencyOne (E1) expects these costs to be recovered within the same period, with exceptions handled through the Balance Adjustment (BA) mechanism. The Nova Scotia Energy Board's (NSEB) approved DSM Cost Recovery Rider (DCRR) process is referenced.

E1 Responses to Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) Information Requests NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 • Adjustments to true-up differences between NS Power collections and the amount 2 that was intended to be collected by rate class through the Program...

AI summary E1 responds to Nova Scotia Energy Board information requests regarding adjustments to true-up differences in collections and surplus from the implementation of the DSM Plan. The response notes that DSM-related costs are apportioned to rate classes based on the '25/75 rule', with 75% allocated to rate classes and 25% to the system.

1 Table 1: Rate and Bill Impacts by Rate Class as a Result of 2027-2031 DSM Preferred Plan Activities (100% 2 Rate Class Cost Allocation) Rate Class Rate Codes Average Rate Impact (%) Average Rate Impact (cents/kWh) Participant Average Bil...

AI summary The table presents the rate and bill impacts by rate class as a result of the 2027-2031 DSM Preferred Plan Activities. It shows the average rate impact percentage and cents per kWh, as well as the average bill impact for participants and non-participants across various rate classes.

8 Table 2: Correction of Appendix B Table 1 - Rate and Bill Impacts by Rate Class as a Result of 2027-2031 DSM 9 Preferred Plan Activities Rate Class Rate Codes Average Rate Impact (%) Average Rate Impact (cents/kWh) Participant Average Bi...

AI summary The document presents a table analyzing the rate and bill impacts by rate class resulting from the 2027-2031 DSM 9 Preferred Plan Activities. It includes a request for clarification regarding the absence of rate impact in 2027 and the diminishing but positive rate impact from 2028 to 2046, specifically in column AQ.

12 Table 7: 2025 Free-ridership, Spillover, and NTGRs Program Component and Measure Type Spillover Levels NTGRs 8 i) If so, please explain the adjustments. 9 ii) If not, why not? 10 11 Response IR-63: 12 13 (a) The following IR response ha...

AI summary The document discusses the 2025 GHG emission factor used in the evaluation reports, which was updated based on Nova Scotia Power's 2024 data. The factor was 469.3 tonnes of CO2 eq/GWh in 2025, slightly lower than 472.2 in 2024. The data was sourced from Nova Scotia Power and Emera Inc.

- 4 section 79H(2) of the Public Utilities Act . 1 Request IR-03: 2 3 Reference: Evidence, page 34, lines 4-5. 4 5 E1 notes that any expansion of solar-PV to other customer segments in future 6 DSM Plans would be subject to cost-effectiven...

AI summary The document discusses E1's (EfficiencyOne) response to a request regarding the expansion of solar-PV to other customer segments and Strategic Electrification (SE) measures in the 2027–2031 DSM Plan. E1 states it does not intend to expand solar-PV during the DSM Plan period and would require Energy Board approval if future expansion is considered. The response also refers to prior answers for details on SE measures and transportation electrification.

DATE FILED: May 28, 2026 E1 (SBA) IR-07 Page 1 of 1 Request IR-08: Refer to Exhibit E-1, the DSM Plan, Section 9: Alternative Scenario, Page 67 of 71, Lines 18-21 and provide details regarding what would happen to current Eco Shift program...

AI summary The response to Request IR-08 explains that if the Eco Shift program is eliminated, EfficiencyOne would wind down the program, discontinue demand response event dispatch, and retain customer control of devices for ordinary use. E1 argues that the Preferred Plan, which maintains the Residential Demand Response program, is the appropriate DSM portfolio for the 2027–2031 period.

Table 9: Scenario 1DR-Base – Round 1 Modelling Results TRC & PAC NS Cost Test Available Total Program Scenario 1DR-Base Investment1 Lifetime Lifetime Capacity2 Resource Cost Administrator NS Cost Test (2027-2031) ($ million) Benefits Benef...

AI summary Table 9 presents the results of the Scenario 1DR-Base – Round 1 Modelling, detailing various demand response and energy efficiency programs, their investments, benefits, and costs. The table includes data for residential demand response, smart thermostats, water heaters, battery control, EV charging control, and BNI programs, with total investments and cost test figures provided.

Table 10: Scenario 2DR-High – Round 1 Modelling Results Scenario 1DR-High TRC & PAC NS Cost Test Available Total Program Investment1 ($ million) Lifetime Lifetime Capacity2 Resource Cost Administrator NS Cost Test (2027-2031) Benefits Bene...

AI summary Table 10 presents the results of Scenario 2DR-High – Round 1 Modelling, which includes various demand response and energy efficiency programs with associated investment, benefits, and capacity metrics. The table outlines the costs and benefits of different initiatives such as residential demand response, smart thermostats, and battery control.

Scenario 1SE-Base - Residential strategic electrification is being delivered through the Instant Savings program component. - BNI strategic electrification is being delivered through both the BER and Custom program components. - The measur...

AI summary Residential and BNI strategic electrification is being delivered through various programs, primarily involving heat pumps. E1 conducted a Rate Impact Measure (RIM) analysis to assess the impact of electrification on electricity costs as defined in the Public Utilities Act, evaluating both benefits and costs associated with the program.

Table 1: STANDARDIZED FILING FRAMEWORK ITEM DESCRIPTION 3.1 Various Scenarios Based on the UARB's October 7, 2015 Order, EfficiencyOne will "provide one or more alternate scenarios of DSM budgets for the Board to consider, and NSPI is to p...

AI summary The standardized filing framework outlines that EfficiencyOne must present various scenarios of DSM budgets for the Board's consideration, along with rate impact analysis from NSPI. Portfolio-level metrics such as investment, energy savings, demand savings, and cost-effectiveness testing are required for each scenario.

4.2.3 INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN Nova Scotia Power's IRP develops a long-term Preferred Resource Plan that establishes directional information for DSM that assists NS Power in meeting customer demand and energy requirements, and environmenta...

AI summary Nova Scotia Power's Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) outlines a long-term strategy for managing demand-side management (DSM) to meet customer demand and environmental obligations. The NSIESO is required to collaborate with the franchise holder to develop avoided cost calculations for DSM resources and file the results of IRP exercises with the Energy Board.

4.5.64.6.6 RATE AND BILL IMPACT ANALYSIS ENS E1 will file its historical Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) by October 31st of each yearas part of each DSM Resource Plan. 33 The historical RBIA estimates the high-level, longterm impact t...

AI summary ENS E1 is required to file both historical and forward-looking Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) as part of each DSM Resource Plan. The historical RBIA covers DSM activities up to the previous calendar year, while the forward-looking RBIA estimates the impact of proposed DSM activities.

Table 1: STANDARDIZED FILING FRAMEWORK ITEM DESCRIPTION 4.1 Overall Summary A brief overview of the proposed DSM Resource Plan for the upcoming period and any proposed significant changes in program delivery or philosophy, from the most re...

AI summary The document outlines the standardized filing framework for the DSM Resource Plan, including the need for an overall summary, a glossary of terms, and specific metrics such as E1 Investment and Incremental net Energy Savings. NS Power is expected to provide a rate impact analysis.

4.6.6 RATE AND BILL IMPACT ANALYSIS E1 will file its historical Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) as part of each DSM Resource Plan. [31](#page-71-2)The historical RBIA estimates the high-level, long-term impact to rates and bills of al...

AI summary E1 will file both historical and forward-looking Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) as part of each DSM Resource Plan. The historical RBIA estimates the impact of past DSM activities, while the forward-looking RBIA estimates the impact of proposed DSM activities on rates and bills.

2. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: ROUND 2 MODEL RESULTS E1 circulated its Round 1 model assumptions and results to the Demand-Side Management Advisory Group (DSMAG) on October 27, 2025. E1 received written comments from DSMAG members regarding t...

AI summary E1 updated its Round 2 model results for the DSM Plan, incorporating new avoided costs from NS Power and guidance from the NSEB. Strategic electrification was excluded due to its failure to reduce customer electricity costs. The Residential Behaviour program was removed, and the Residential DR program was modified based on feedback from the NSEB and DSMAG.

Energy Efficiency Energy Efficiency (EE) continues to be a crucial resource for Nova Scotia's electricity system as demonstrated in integrated resource planning by reducing system load and peak, improving grid reliability and lowering elec...

AI summary Energy efficiency (EE) is a critical resource for Nova Scotia's electricity system, reducing load and peak demand, improving grid reliability, and lowering costs. Nova Scotia Power's 2022 IRP identified Base EE as the optimal level, resulting in significant energy savings and cost-effectiveness. E1 has modeled scenarios based on stakeholder input and third-party recommendations, including energy savings targets and sectoral allocations.

3.3 MODELLING E1 shared its key model assumptions, cost effectiveness test (CET) assumptions, and low-income and equity assumptions in the Round 1 model results package circulated October 27, 2025. There have been no changes to E1's approa...

AI summary E1 updated its cost effectiveness test (CET) assumptions in Round 2 to align with the Board's decision in M12282, which required using the PAC test and NS Power's WACC as the discount rate. E1's key assumptions remain unchanged since Round 1, but ongoing refinement of model inputs is occurring, with finalization prior to the 2027-2031 DSM Plan Application.

Table 9: 1SE-Base Scenario - Round 2 Modelling Insights Scenario 1SE-Base RES BNI Total Carbon Emissions Avoided Five-Year Annual Total (kilotonne) 1 6 8 Cumulative Lifetime (kilotonne) 20 111 131 Energy & Demand Impacts Lifetime Net Energ...

AI summary Table 9 presents the 1SE-Base Scenario - Round 2 Modelling Insights, showing carbon emissions avoided, energy and demand impacts, investment splits, and benefits and costs associated with RES and BNI programs. Key metrics include carbon emissions, energy savings, investment distribution, and cost-benefit analysis.

Context for Discussion Mid-course adjustments give the DSM administrator flexibility to adjust program budgets and savings from those in the original approved Plan to respond to market conditions and program performance changes unknown at...

AI summary The document discusses mid-course adjustments in the DSM Plan, allowing E1 to modify program budgets and savings based on market conditions and performance changes. E1 has agreed to enhanced reporting and more stakeholder engagement. However, E1 maintains that the current process should remain, with proposed adjustments to address concerns around rate class spending and engagement.

12 E1 submitted its first DSM Plan in 2012 as DSM Administrator. ITEM DESCRIPTION - the affordability of the proposed DSM Resource Plan; and - cost-efficiency opportunities; and - key global assumptions. 3. ALTERNATE SCENARIOS TO THE PROPO...

AI summary E1 submitted its first DSM Plan in 2012 as DSM Administrator. The document discusses alternate scenarios to the proposed DSM Plan, including cost-efficiency opportunities and key global assumptions. EfficiencyOne is required to provide alternate scenarios of DSM budgets, with NSPI providing rate impact analysis. The proposed DSM Resource Plan includes cost-effectiveness testing metrics.

Appendix 1 ITEM DESCRIPTION Incremental net Energy Savings (First-year); - Incremental net Demand Savings (First-year); - Incremental net Energy Savings (Lifetime); - Demand Response Available Capacity; - Incremental net savings from other...

AI summary The document outlines the metrics and analysis required for the DSM Plan, including energy and demand savings, cost-effectiveness testing using the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test, and the use of NS Power's Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) as a discount rate. The Board also directed the use of a modified PAC to assess strategic electrification, which must reduce both GHG emissions and electricity costs.

Appendix 1 ITEM DESCRIPTION - Forward-Looking RBIA: This will consist of a detailed description of the forward-looking rate and bill impact analysis of the proposed DSM Resource pPlan.18 This will include a detailed breakdown between the r...

AI summary This document outlines the requirements for submitting a forward-looking and historical Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) for the proposed DSM Resource Plan, including payback period considerations and justifications for measure inclusion. It also mentions additional items such as cost allocation and HST updates.

Figure 1: Glossary of Terms Term Definition measure. Net refers to savings that includes effects such as free-ridership and spillover. Incremental net energy savings (Lifetime) The energy savings that occur over the lifetime of an energy e...

AI summary The text defines key terms related to energy efficiency and demand response, including incremental net energy savings, lifetime benefits, and the Nova Scotia Energy Board's approved cost-effectiveness testing. It outlines how benefits are calculated using the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) and refers to a Board order directing E1 to conduct a Benefit-Cost-Analysis Test (BCA) for evaluating DSM plans.

ITEM DESCRIPTION Portfolio-level metrics will be provided as follows: - in aggregate (i.e., the aggregate of all DSM resources proposed for the upcoming Plan period); and - by DSM resource (e.g., by each individual DSM resource as proposed...

AI summary The document outlines the provision of portfolio-level metrics for DSM resources, including aggregate and individual resource breakdowns. It specifies the inclusion of forward-looking and historical RBIA in the DSM Resource Plan. The Board directed the use of WACC as the discount rate and a modified PAC for assessing strategic electrification, emphasizing the need for GHG emission and cost reductions.

17 Supra note 1. 18 M10830, NSUARB Letter, E1 2022 RBIA, February 24, 2023, page 5. 19 M06733, NSUARB Order, E1 2016-2018 DSM Plan, October 7, 2015, page 2, item 12. E1 will "provide one or more alternate scenarios of DSM budgets for the B...

AI summary The text references a letter from the NSUARB dated February 24, 2023, and an order from October 7, 2015, both related to DSM plans and rate impact analyses. These documents outline the requirement for E1 to provide alternate DSM budget scenarios and for NS Power to conduct rate impact analysis.

Table 2: PROGRAM DESCRIPTION TEMPLATE ITEM DESCRIPTION 6.2 Payback Period & Considerations As per the NSUARB's 2023-2025 DSM Plan Order, E1 is directed "to include payback information in its measure level tables in future applications for...

AI summary The text outlines a program description template for a regulatory proceeding, focusing on payback period considerations, justifications for measure inclusion, and other items related to the 2023-2025 DSM Plan Order issued by the NSUARB. It emphasizes the need for detailed information and justification in future resource plan applications.

4.3.2 COST-EFFECTIVENESS TESTING E1 will apply the NSEB-approved cost-effectiveness test. Pursuant to Section 79H (2) of the Public Utilities Act , the NSEB, in evaluating a franchise holder's application, "shall evaluate the proposed cost...

AI summary E1 is required to apply the NSEB-approved cost-effectiveness test for its DSM plan, using the PAC test and NS Power's WACC as the discount rate. The Board also directed the use of a modified PAC for assessing strategic electrification, which must reduce both GHG emissions and electricity costs. E1 will provide cost-effectiveness results at multiple levels, including individual measures that fail testing.

Performance Indicators consist of:[34](#page-150-0) E1 will propose Performance Indicators within each DSM Resource Plan for consideration and approval by the NSEB. These performance indicators will be specific to the DSM resources propose...

AI summary E1 will propose performance indicators for each DSM Resource Plan for NSEB approval. These indicators include energy savings, demand response capacity, customer satisfaction, and cost-effectiveness testing, with a focus on equity and low-income communities.

Item Description 1. Introduction Introduce the DSM Resource Plan and summarize any E1–NS Power agreements (attach as appendices). Include relevant background and history, including past DSM Plans. Include Glossary of Terms and/or List of A...

AI summary The document outlines the structure and content requirements for the Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan, including previous plan results, plan development, proposed plan metrics, alternate scenarios, and additional items such as rate impact analysis and approvals sought.

4.6.5 Rate and Bill Impact Analysis Each DSM Resource Plan filing will include: - a historical RBIA summarizing the long-term impact to rates and bills of all DSM activities up to and including those of the previous calendar year; [11](#pa...

AI summary The document outlines the requirements for Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) in each DSM Resource Plan filing, including both historical and forward-looking analyses to assess the long-term impact of DSM activities on rates and bills.

ngagement process. - Please refer to E1's response to Synapse IR-02, specifically Attachment 1 for Round 1 detail - and results, and Attachment 2 for Round 2 detail and results. At the time of Round 1 modelling, E1 performed cost effective...

AI summary The document outlines the cost-effectiveness testing performed by E1 during Round 1 and Round 2 modelling for strategic electrification, including the use of various tests such as TRC, PAC, NS JST, and RIM. The modified-PAC was used in Round 2, incorporating electric utility costs and benefits. The 6.65% NS Power 2025 WACC rate was applied in all rounds. E1 did not combine resource scenarios into proposed DSM Plans in Rounds 1 and 2.

he DSM Plan reflects a near-term implementation decision. The Plan explicitly uses the IRP as a benchmark and includes modelling of an IRP-aligned scenario, confirming those savings are achievable and cost-effective. However, the Preferred...

AI summary The DSM Plan prioritizes short-term affordability over long-term system optimization, acknowledging deferral risks but finding a balance. It identifies a 39 MW peak demand gap and a 15 MW demand response shortfall by 2031, which may require future DSM programming, demand response expansion, and alternative supply-side resources.

odelling software capable of performing multiple cost-effectiveness tests, including the proposed NS Test as well as the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test, the Rate Impact Measure (RIM), the PAC and the modified-PAC. This functionality was us...

AI summary The document discusses the use of various cost-effectiveness tests for the 2027–2031 DSM Plan, including the PAC test, which was confirmed as the primary method by the Nova Scotia Energy Board's Decision (M12282). E1 provided multiple test results, but full results under the proposed NS Test and TRC were not produced due to the use of the PAC test.

eligible behind-the-meter battery systems, which remain low-penetration and high-cost so there are less devices bearing the cost of the battery pathway. EfficiencyOne's (E1) EV and battery incentive structures are shown in the 2025 DSM Eva...

AI summary The text discusses challenges with EfficiencyOne's (E1) EV and battery pathways in the Eco Shift program, including low enrollment, high costs, and compatibility issues. E1 plans to remove these pathways pending approval, citing cost-effectiveness and operational complexity. Peer jurisdictions and lessons learned are requested regarding residential demand response and grid management strategies.

The forward-looking information is based on reasonable assumptions and is subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from historical results or results anticipated by the forward-...

AI summary The forward-looking information includes various risks and uncertainties that could affect outcomes, such as regulatory changes, economic conditions, commodity prices, and technological developments. These factors may significantly impact actual results compared to historical or anticipated performance.

Transactions between the Company and its related parties reported in the Consolidated Statements of Income and Consolidated Balance Sheets are as follows: For the Year ended millions of dollars December 31 Nature of Service Presentation 20...

AI summary The document outlines transactions between the Company and related parties, including sales and purchases of services and energy, as well as a sale of development assets by NSPI to WTI for $15 million. These transactions are reported in the Consolidated Statements of Income and Balance Sheets.

Regulatory and Political Risk NSPI is subject to complex legislative and regulatory frameworks that cover material aspects of their businesses. These frameworks influence key factors such as rates and cost structures, revenue requirements,...

AI summary NSPI operates under a complex regulatory framework that influences rates, costs, and capital investments. Regulatory processes, including public hearings and approvals, are essential for changes in rates and investments. Delays or adverse regulatory decisions could lead to material financial impacts. Uncertainty around IESO Nova Scotia and potential changes in environmental legislation also pose risks.

Weather Risk A Material Adverse Effect may arise from weather seasonal variations impacting energy consumption, as well as severe weather events, changing air temperatures, wildfires and other severe weather conditions that are expected to...

AI summary The document discusses the risks posed by weather variations and severe weather events to Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI), including impacts on energy consumption, infrastructure damage, revenue loss, and increased costs. These risks may lead to material adverse effects if not mitigated through insurance or regulatory processes.

Transition Risk: As government policy related to the environment, renewable energy, and decarbonization continues to shift, the Company is exposed to increased uncertainty and risk arising from policy, legal, regulatory, technology, and ma...

AI summary The Company faces increased transition risks due to evolving environmental policies, renewable energy mandates, and decarbonization efforts. These risks include regulatory uncertainty, capital investment needs, and potential impacts on insurance and litigation. The energy transition may also affect the Company's ability to recover costs through rates and could lead to material adverse effects.

Labour Risk NSPI's ability to deliver service to its customers depends on attracting, developing and retaining a skilled workforce. Utilities are faced with demographic challenges related to trades, technical staff and engineers with an in...

AI summary NSPI's service reliability depends on maintaining a skilled workforce, but demographic challenges and an aging workforce may hinder this. Approximately 42% of NSPI employees are unionized, with their collective agreement expiring in 2026. Failure to negotiate new agreements could lead to increased costs and service disruptions, potentially impacting customers.

General Rate Application ("GRA"): On April 30, 2026, the NSEB approved the GRA with changes effective on May 1, 2026. This results in an average annual customer rate increase of 1.2 per cent, and a further average annual increase of 2.5 pe...

AI summary The NSEB approved the GRA on April 30, 2026, effective May 1, 2026, with a 1.2% annual rate increase and a further 2.5% increase in 2027. The approved rates will increase annual revenue by $31 million in 2026 and $97 million in 2027. Fuel cost adjustments will be managed via the FAM process, and NSPI's ROE range remains at 8.75% to 9.25%. The depreciation study and storm rider were also approved, and NSPI plans to recover deferred costs through securitization, pending provincial support.

Request IR-28: - Please refer to page 9 of Appendix A – Preferred Plan, where E1 describes the "program design - and delivery changes [implemented] ahead of the 2026 season" including "ensuring installed - devices were event-ready" and "en...

AI summary The response to Request IR-28 provides data on the share of residential demand response devices deemed 'event-ready' in the 2025 and 2026 seasons, referencing an evaluation and internal tracking data. It also mentions the efficacy of providing BNI customers with 48 hours of advance notice for events, though it does not explicitly state whether this practice will continue in 2027.

Table 1: 2025 and 2026 Event-Ready Devices Year Smart Thermostats Domestic Hot Water Controllers (DHWC) Electric Vehicle (EV) Telematics Batteries 2025 10,200 1,002 191 12 2026 22,244 4,038 453 48 M12780, Exhibit 3, E1 2025 DSM Programs Ev...

AI summary The document presents data on event-ready devices for 2025 and 2026, including smart thermostats, domestic hot water controllers, EV telematics, and batteries. It also discusses EfficiencyOne's (E1) efforts to provide additional advance notice to BNI DR customers to improve participation during events.

ural program component (Residential Behaviour) in E1's energy efficiency programming was only being introduced in the 2023–2025 DSM Plan, so the roll-out of that behavioural program was pursued first. (b) In the BNI Demand Response program...

AI summary The response addresses the implementation of the residential behaviour program in E1's energy efficiency plan and the decision to focus on commercial and industrial curtailment in the BNI Demand Response program. It also references calculations related to the 2023–2026 Approved Rate Class Expenditures and Results.

• Assumptions for Tables 1 and 2: Participation eligibility assumptions reflect those of EfficiencyOne's (E1) rate and bill impact analysis (RBIA), found in E1's 2027–2031 DSM Plan Application, Appendix B, Attachment 5. • Each participant...

AI summary The text outlines assumptions and definitions used in EfficiencyOne's (E1) rate and bill impact analysis (RBIA) for the 2027–2031 DSM Plan Application. It includes details on participant definitions, exclusions, and references to other sections of the application.

1 Request IR-37: 2 3 Page 39 of Appendix A – Preferred Plan states, "The conclusion of the federal government's 4 Canada Greener Homes Grant program in 2025 which provided incentive top ups and 5 subsidized energy audit costs directly impa...

AI summary The response to IR-37 discusses the impact of the Canada Greener Homes Grant program ending in 2024, which led to a significant decline in energy evaluations. E1 proposes increased incentives for the Home Energy Assessment program to boost enrollments and affordability, though at a lower level than the federal program due to cost considerations.

incentives have ended, monthly customer pre-approval applications have dipped by over 50 percent. (c) Please refer to part (b) of this IR response. (d) Please refer to part (b) of this IR response. Request IR-39: Page 40 of Appendix A – Pr...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) used three years of historical data (2022–2024) to improve the accuracy of rate class allocations for the 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan. This approach was chosen to address concerns about spending variances and to enhance reporting accuracy. The methodology was also applied in the 2026 DSM Extension.

historical data to inform quarterly and annual (where applicable) rate class spending forecasts in 2025. This methodology was also used to calculate the 2026 DSM Extension rate class allocations, and the proposed 2027–2031 DSM Plan rate cl...

AI summary E1 used three-year historical data to improve the accuracy of rate class spending forecasts for the 2025 DSM Plan and future allocations up to 2031. This approach was deemed more effective than previous methods, which used only one or four years of data. E1 also aligned future customer commitments and program changes with these updated rate class allocations.

of the engagement with DSMAG members on this topic? Would E1 need to modify the plan to take these actions? Response IR-56: (a) Part (a) of the following IR response has been provided by NS Power. NS Power manages the interruption of inter...

AI summary The response outlines how NS Power manages capacity shortfalls by interrupting interruptible customers, ensuring system reliability. It also addresses concerns about potential double counting of capacity value if BNI DR is applied to customers already providing system value. E1 plans to continue discussions with the DSMAG during the 2027–2031 Plan period.

ncluding: - Air to water heat pumps with non-electric hydronic boiler - Roof top units with non-electric back up coil - Dual fuel systems (hybrid heat pumps with non-electric backup in a single unit) Request IR-76: Page 9 of Appendix A – A...

AI summary The discussion focuses on the integration of time-varying pricing rates with demand flexibility initiatives, emphasizing coordination between NS Power and E1 to align rate design and program participation. The response clarifies that demand flexibility includes both locational DSM and specific demand-response projects, ensuring alignment with rate signals and reducing market confusion.

1 the rate option that best suits their needs. E1 further understands that rate-based programming 2 alone does not account for locational factors.

AI summary The text discusses the importance of considering locational factors in rate-based programming, noting that a single rate option may not adequately account for these factors.

DATE FILED: May 28, 2026 E1 (Synapse) IR-76 Page 2 of 2 Request IR-77: - Please refer to Figure 3: Average Rate Impacts (2027-2046) as a Result of 2027-2031 DSM - Preferred Plan Activities on page 8 of Appendix B - Rate and Bill Impact Ana...

AI summary The response explains that the Medium Industrial rate class has negative rate impacts due to reduced peak loads from high participation in the Demand Response program, which lowers the class's share of system peak costs. However, the inclusion of Renewable to Retail loads increases overall energy consumption, spreading DSM rider costs over more kWh and leading to negative rate impacts.

e "Renewable to Retail" adjustment is. Response IR-78: Please refer to Appendix B page 19, line 27 to page 20, line 23 for explanation of the Renewable to Retail adjustment. 1 Request IR-79: 2 Please refer to Table 1: Rate and Bill Impacts...

AI summary The document refers to the 'Renewable to Retail' adjustment and requests additional information on participant counts for the 2027-2031 DSM Preferred Plan, including how to present these counts over a five-year period.

r later. [27](#page-22-2) And, to provide universal service in the context of growing disparity between the top group and society will require socialist (or social justice) principles to be effective. New methods of analysis have been deve...

AI summary The text discusses the need for integrating evaluation frameworks in the context of climate change and energy conservation. It highlights the challenges posed by climate change, the importance of disaster preparedness, and the need for socialist principles to address growing disparities. It also references economic theories and the impact of future generations.

A. Appliance Retirement Program (ARet) The Appliance Retirement (ARet) program is one of two program components of the Residential Efficient Product Rebates program. Appliance Retirement advances the retirement of refrigerators and freezer...

AI summary The Appliance Retirement (ARet) program, part of the Residential Efficient Product Rebates program, retires inefficient appliances and offers rebates. Since 2012, 77,981 appliances have been retired. In 2025, only 285 appliances were retired, leading to a 95% decrease in energy and demand savings due to program discontinuation.

7 Q. IS THE 15% RATE-CLASS THRESHOLD APPLIED ANNUALLY OR 8 CUMULATIVELY? 9 A. The Application does not specify whether the threshold applies annually or cumulatively; 10 it simply proposes "a spending threshold of 15% for rate class spendi...

AI summary The document discusses whether the 15% rate-class threshold in the DSM Plan is applied annually or cumulatively. E1 clarified that the threshold is intended to be cumulative for the DSM Plan period, and the author supports this clarification, recommending the Board confirm it on the record.

11 Q. BESIDES THE PROPOSED THRESHOLDS, WHAT DO YOU THINK SHOULD 12 TRIGGER AN MCA? 13 A. The Preferred Plan deliberately acquires only 64% of the IRP-identified DSM savings, which E1 characterizes as maintaining a "trajectory" toward IRP l...

AI summary The response discusses the need for an MCA (Measure Cost Allocation) when there is a material change in optimal DSM (Demand Side Management) resource acquisition levels identified in the Evergreen IRP process, specifically if cumulative DSM savings levels differ by more than 20% from currently approved levels. It highlights concerns about deferring cost-effective DSM and the potential for higher-cost supply acquisition.

1 2 E1's affordability argument amounts to arguing that a cost-effective, benefit-positive 3 investment should be rejected because it increases near-term rates. This is inconsistent 4 with the purpose of DSM under the Public Utilities Act....

AI summary E1 argues that rejecting a cost-effective DSM investment due to near-term rate increases is inconsistent with the Public Utilities Act's purpose of reducing electricity costs. Historical DSM activities have saved customers $3.2 billion in net present value, and the IRP scenario would increase these savings. The incremental cost of the IRP scenario is $29M per year, delivering 247.7 GWh of annual energy savings.

1 passed and yields around $200 million more in PAC net benefits compared to E1's 2 Preferred Scenario. The PAC already accounts for the cost of capital at NS Power's 3 WACC of 6.65%, meaning it already prices in the time value of money an...

AI summary The document discusses the financial benefits of a proposal, noting that it yields around $200 million more in PAC net benefits compared to E1's Preferred Scenario. It also mentions that the PAC already accounts for the cost of capital at NS Power's WACC of 6.65%, which includes the time value of money and cost recovery through the DCRR.

Table 2. Change in Non-Participant Bills for IRP compared to E1 Preferred Plan 18 [48](#page-25-0) Rate Class 27-46 Avg Residential 0.46% Small General 0.66% General 0.66% Large General 0.37% Small Industrial 0.62% [ 48 ](#page-25-1) See E...

AI summary Table 2 shows the change in non-participant bills for the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) compared to the E1 Preferred Plan across different rate classes, with percentages ranging from 0.08% to 0.66%. The IRP scenario excludes the effects of strategic electrification.

Table 3. Change in Non-Participant Bills for IRP compared to E1 Preferred Plan during 2027 to 2031 5 [49](#page-26-0) Rate Class 27-31 Avg Residential 1.89% Small General 2.49% General 3.09% Large General 2.07% Small Industrial 2.61% Mediu...

AI summary Table 3 shows the average percentage change in non-participant bills for the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) compared to the E1 Preferred Plan from 2027 to 2031 across various rate classes, with residential rates showing the lowest increase at 1.89% and general rates showing the highest at 3.09%.

14 testimony, peak capacity needs are projected to grow, and current forecasts require more [ 49 ](#page-26-1) See Exhibit TML-2 for the source and annual breakout. The IRP scenario has the effects of strategic electrification removed. 1 i...

AI summary Testimony highlights concerns that reduced DSM investment will lead to higher energy costs for customers, as alternative capacity sources are more expensive. It also notes that energy-efficiency acquisition costs have risen significantly, from $0.49/kWh in 2026 to $0.66/kWh projected for 2027–2031, a 35% increase.

7 Q. WHAT DOES E1 IDENTIFY AS THE DRIVERS OF THEIR PROJECTED 8 SAVINGS ACQUISTION COST INCREASES? - 9 A. E1 attributes the change in unit delivery costs between the 2023–2026 and 2027–2031 Plan periods to four factors:[53](#page-28-5) 10

AI summary E1 identifies four factors driving the projected increase in savings acquisition costs between the 2023–2026 and 2027–2031 Plan periods. The response outlines these factors but does not detail them in the provided text.

t sound. Second, a six-2 jurisdiction scan is a narrow evidentiary base on which to rest the proposition that 3 incentive levels across the entire 2027–2031 portfolio are set no higher than necessary. 4 The distinction matters because ince...

AI summary The text argues that EfficiencyOne (E1) needs to improve its incentive methodology to better align with the Board's standards, as current incentive levels may not be set to the minimum necessary. Unit costs have increased significantly, and E1 lacks sufficient research on higher-cost measures like heat pumps and building envelope upgrades.

15 Q. DO YOU SUPPORT THE PROPOSED BNI DEMAND RESPONSE (SMART 16 SYNERGY) COMPONENT? 17 A. Yes. Smart Synergy is cost-effective, delivers dispatchable winter peak capacity that the 18 IRP identifies as an increasingly valuable system resour...

AI summary The respondent supports the proposed BNI Demand Response (Smart Synergy) component, citing its cost-effectiveness, ability to provide dispatchable winter peak capacity, and benefits to ratepayers by deferring more expensive firm supply capacity.

CUSTOMERS FOR THE INTERRUPTIBLE PORTION OF THEIR LOAD.[92](#page-49-0) 1 DO 2 YOU SUPPORT THIS PROPOSAL? 3 A. No. While E1 has not committed to this, but instead states it "may be appropriate" and 4 that it is "committed to further discuss...

AI summary The respondent does not support making LII customers eligible for Smart Synergy on their interruptible load, arguing that it would result in paying twice for the same demand reduction. E1 has not committed to the proposal but is open to further discussions.

1 programs and would result in double counting the same capacity."97 That same logic 2 applies here: load that is already committed and compensated under the interruptible 3 tariff should not also be counted and paid as Smart Synergy capac...

AI summary The text argues that load already committed and compensated under an interruptible tariff should not be double-counted as Smart Synergy capacity, as it would result in charging ratepayers twice for a one-time reduction.

19 Q. PLEASE SUMMARIZE YOUR KEY FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS - 20 A. In summary, I respectfully recommend that the Board should: - 21 1. Require explicit Board approval for any MCA filing. To expedite this process, 22 intervenors should be gi...

AI summary The witness recommends that the Board require explicit approval for MCA filings, modify the SFF to clarify the cumulative nature of collars, update the SPP with an MCA trigger based on IRP projections, align DSM savings targets with the IRP, set a low-income savings target, consolidate low-income programs, and conduct measure-specific research for high-value measures.

Economic, Policy, and Technical Analysis Office of People's Counsel - Maryland (June 2025 – Present) - Lead consulting team that assisted OPC in Matter No. 9749 and provided economic and technical analysis of Baltimore Gas and Electric's a...

AI summary The Office of People's Counsel - Maryland led an economic and technical analysis of Thermal Energy Networks System (TENS) pilot projects by Baltimore Gas and Electric and Washington Gas and Light, covering site selection, engineering, rate design, cost-effectiveness, and policy alignment in Matter No. 9749.

Economic and Policy Analysis Consumer Advocate – Nova Scotia (March 2019 – Present) - Member of DSM Advisory Group (DSMAG) on behalf of the Consumer Advocate of Nova Scotia to provide ongoing support for design and implementation of progra...

AI summary The Consumer Advocate of Nova Scotia has been actively involved in the design and implementation of demand-side management (DSM) programs, including providing analysis and testimony on various DSM Plans and studies. The Advocate has also commented on proposals related to time-varying pricing tariffs and service interruption due to cyberattacks.

Testimony and Proceeding Participation Forum On Behalf Of Docket/Matter Date Issues Addressed Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General D.P.U. 25-40 through 25- 44/45 - Climate Compliance Pla...

AI summary The text outlines various regulatory proceedings involving utility companies and regulatory bodies, with a focus on topics such as energy efficiency, tariff design, and cost-effectiveness of programs. Key entities involved include the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General and the Consumer Advocate of Nova Scotia.

AUTHORS Dr. Sanem Sergici is a Principal in The Brattle Group's Boston, MA office specializing in innovative retail rate design and economic analysis of distributed energy resources. She regularly assists her clients in matters related to...

AI summary Dr. Sanem Sergici is a Principal at The Brattle Group, specializing in retail rate design and economic analysis of distributed energy resources. She has contributed to demand side management, grid modernization, and alternative ratemaking mechanisms, with expertise in innovative retail pricing and behavior-based energy efficiency programs.

_________ Demand-side management (DSM) is an important electricity system resource. Properly designed and delivered, DSM can reduce the amount of electricity and capacity that Nova Scotia must supply, defer or avoid higher-cost system inve...

AI summary The document emphasizes the importance of demand-side management (DSM) in Nova Scotia's electricity system and highlights the unique role of EfficiencyOne (E1) in delivering DSM programs. It raises concerns about the affordability, resource balance, and scope of E1's proposed 2027–2031 DSM Plan, questioning whether it adequately addresses rising rate pressures and the need to shift toward demand response and strategic electrification.

High Level Assessment of E1's Preferred Plan At a high level, E1's proposed 2027–2031 DSM Plan is framed around affordability, near-term ratepayer protection, and continuity of DSM programming. That framing is appropriate. Nova Scotia cust...

AI summary E1's 2027–2031 DSM Plan focuses on affordability, ratepayer protection, and continuity of DSM programming. It maintains a consistent investment level of $63.75 million annually, totaling $318.75 million over five years, with a PAC ratio of 2.4 and estimated lifetime benefits of $682.5 million. However, the plan is urged to undergo stronger scrutiny regarding the allocation of DSM funds and alignment with system needs.

Affordability of E1's Preferred Plan _________ We understand that E1's Preferred Plan proposes to hold investment at the approved 2026 level of $63.75 million per year, with no annual inflation increases, for a total of $318.75 million ove...

AI summary E1's Preferred Plan proposes maintaining a $63.75 million annual investment in DSM from 2027–2031, totaling $318.75 million, as an affordability measure. NS Power advocates for an inflation-adjusted budget based on 2023–2026 figures, shifting funds toward DR and SE. Both plans result in similar total investments over the period.

Representation of Demand Response in E1's Preferred Plan E1 presents the Preferred Plan as a deliberate affordability choice. It states that the Plan prioritizes short-term affordability and ratepayer value and focuses on services for whic...

AI summary E1's Preferred Plan prioritizes short-term affordability but is criticized for limiting the expansion of residential demand response (DR) programs, which could increase capacity costs in the future as the system becomes more winter-peaky. The plan relies heavily on BNI customers for DR capacity growth, raising concerns about long-term system reliability.

B. Recommended Path Forward in Demand Response NS Power's annual system peak has been increasing on average by around one percent per year since 2015. As weather conditions fluctuate and a greater share of households use electric space hea...

AI summary NS Power's annual system peak has been increasing by one percent annually since 2015. As electrification of heating and transportation continues, demand response (DR) will become increasingly important in managing peak demand. DR can reduce system peak, defer capacity investments, and enhance reliability and affordability.

nstance, it is very important to model the impact of SE measures on an hourly basis, as the "strategic" or beneficial aspect of SE programs are about not adding incremental load during the peak hours. Successful cost-effectiveness outcomes...

AI summary Strategic electrification (SE) can be a beneficial demand-side management (DSM) resource when designed with flexibility to avoid peak load impacts. Programs like EV managed charging and electric water heating can shift loads to off-peak hours, improving grid utilization and deferring costly infrastructure investments. E1 must redesign SE programs to align with proven system benefits as the electricity system evolves.

2. It is highly unlikely that E1 will be able to develop a robust strategic electrification portfolio that will be cost-effective under the modified PAC. The cost-effectiveness results of E1's proposed SE programs reveals a second issue: t...

AI summary The text argues that E1 is unlikely to develop a cost-effective strategic electrification portfolio under the modified PAC test. The modified PAC test, which incorporates incremental revenues from electrification programs, is equivalent to a Rate Impact Measure test and may not effectively evaluate the cost-effectiveness of SE initiatives.

TABLE 2: BENEFIT AND COST CATEGORIES INCLUDED IN THE MODIFIED PAC TEST Benefits Costs Energy related costs avoided by utility (negative) Program overhead costs (negative) Generation capacity related costs avoided by utility (negative) Prog...

AI summary The table outlines the modified PAC test, which includes only increased revenue from higher electricity bills as a benefit, while all other factors are negative impacts. This structure makes it unlikely for EfficiencyOne to develop a robust Strategic Electrification portfolio that offsets all associated costs.

2. Treatment of Demand Response - Treat DR as a valuable dispatchable system capacity resource, not merely as another customer-facing DSM program. - Require E1 to expand and improve residential DR rather than pause new enrollment and wait...

AI summary The text emphasizes the importance of treating Demand Response (DR) as a key system capacity resource, not just a DSM program. It calls for expanding residential DR, improving performance reporting, and learning from successful programs like Ontario's Peak Perks. It also highlights the need for E1 to update its DR studies and avoid substituting BNI DR for a robust residential DR strategy.

- Q. Please describe your conclusions and recommendations regarding the Proposed Plan. - A. My conclusions are as follows: - E1's proposed energy and capacity savings from energy efficiency fall far short of the 2022 Evergreen Integrated R...

AI summary The reviewer concludes that E1's proposed DSM Plan underperforms compared to the 2022 IRP assumptions, lacks strategic electrification due to a Board decision, and has issues with cost-effectiveness and program design. The plan is recommended for improvement in several areas.

- NSEB should direct E1 to pursue an amount of electrification in its Proposed Plan that does not increase electricity costs at the portfolio level. This could take the form of the strategic electrification resources that E1 included in it...

AI summary The NSEB provides guidance to E1 on electrification strategies, demand response program improvements, and budget adjustments. It emphasizes cost control, performance evaluation, and the need for mid-cycle adjustments if program budgets change significantly.

[6](#page-7-4) 15 2 "While the Board leaves it open to E1 to propose another approach for addressing strategic electrification, in the absence of an acceptable approach, E1 is directed to follow the recommendation of the Industrial Group's...

AI summary The document outlines E1's response to regulatory directives, including the implementation of a new benefit-cost analysis test for evaluating DSM plans and the discontinuation of certain incentives. Strategic electrification is emphasized as a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and electricity costs. E1 also proposes energy efficiency savings and solar-PV generation in its 2027-2031 DSM Plan.

Q. Why might electrification produce a low cost-effectiveness result? A. Strategic electrification increases electricity sales. Whether this increases electricity costs per unit of electricity for the utility system as a whole depends in p...

AI summary Electrification may lead to low cost-effectiveness if it increases electricity demand during peak times, raising system costs. E1 included strategic electrification in its DSM Plan but did not propose incentives for it, instead investing in research and market readiness for future electrification programs.

11 Q. Did E1 find that strategic electrification reduces GHG emissions? - 12 A. Yes. E1's Round 2 modelling showed that strategic electrification would reduce 13 GHG emissions by 7.5 kilotonnes each year and 131.2 kilotonnes over the lifet...

AI summary E1 found that strategic electrification reduces GHG emissions by 7.5 kilotonnes annually and 131.2 kilotonnes over the measures' lifetime. However, E1's modeling of the impact on electricity costs is unclear, and the methodology and assumptions used are not fully disclosed. Strategic electrification was not eliminated from the 2027–2031 DSM Plan, but it was found not to be cost-effective under the modified-PAC test, even under optimal assumptions.

PAC BCR 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Average Residential 0.9 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 BNI 2.9 1.6 2.7 2.3 2.4 2.4 Total 2.0 1.2 2.0 1.7 1.8 1.7 Source: E1's Response to Synapse IR-62(b), Tables 2 and 3; Table 47 of Appendix A: Preferred Plan

AI summary The table presents Program Administrator Cost (PAC) Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) values for residential and BNI programs across the years 2027 to 2031, with an average BCR of 0.7 for residential and 2.4 for BNI. The data comes from E1's response to Synapse IR-62(b) and Table 47 of Appendix A: Preferred Plan.

Q. Do you have any concerns about E1's demand response program proposal? - A. Yes. I identify major concerns regarding the following aspects of E1's demand response proposal: - E1's proposed residential demand response program offerings ha...

AI summary The respondent raises several concerns about E1's demand response program proposal, including low program cost-benefit ratios, high delivery costs, lack of process evaluation for phasing out certain programs, inconsistent performance weighting, and unequal incentives for different backup generator types.

Q. How does E1 plan to achieve this growth in the PAC BCR between 2026 and 2027? A. E1 states that its "expectation regarding the continued improvement in Residential Eco Shift cost-effectiveness is informed by: observed year-over-year imp...

AI summary E1 plans to improve the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) benefit-cost ratio (BCR) between 2026 and 2027 by reducing costs and increasing benefits per kW of capacity, citing improvements in program participation, lessons from Ontario, and optimization efforts.

$ / kW Capacity 2026 2027 % Change Benefits per kW 363 507 39% Costs per kW 1,283 563 -56% BCR 2026 2027 PAC 0.28 0.90 Source: Synapse Analysis of: 2026 Extension filing, Appendix A, Attachment 4, pg. 4, 19c; E1, 2027-2031 Plan, Appendix A...

AI summary The table compares benefits and costs per kW for capacity in 2026 and 2027, showing a significant increase in benefits and a decrease in costs, resulting in a higher BCR and PAC in 2027. The data is sourced from Synapse Analysis and filings by E1.

Q. Do you recommend a specific alternative EV program design? A. Not at this time. A 2025 Rivian study using 2023 home-charging data from more than 5,000 vehicles found that EV owners actively scheduled charging to align with time-of-use t...

AI summary The response indicates that no specific alternative EV program design is recommended at this time, citing low customer participation in current EV demand-response designs. However, it highlights the potential of managed charging programs to achieve greater peak load reductions, referencing studies and data from National Grid Massachusetts.

ard Island Energy Corporations' 2018 - 2021 Energy Efficiency and Conservation Plan. Synapse Energy Economics for Carr, Stevenson and MacKay as Counsel to the Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission. Takahashi, K., A. Napoleon. 2018. Syna...

AI summary The text lists various publications and reports authored by Synapse Energy Economics on behalf of multiple organizations and regulatory bodies, covering topics such as energy efficiency, rate cases, and the economic impacts of clean energy. These works include analyses for the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board, the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities in Newfoundland and Labrador, and others.

Solar Nova Scotia supports a 2027–2031 DSM Plan that continues to deliver cost-effective energy efficiency while also preparing Nova Scotia for the next phase of demand-side resources: flexible load, demand response, strategic electrificat...

AI summary Solar Nova Scotia supports a 2027–2031 DSM Plan that emphasizes cost-effective energy efficiency and the integration of flexible load, demand response, and strategic electrification. The evidence highlights the need to shift business programs from direct-install models to technical assistance and support, treat new controllable load as demand response, and develop a strategic electrification pathway with managed resources and federal incentives.

4.5 Recommended Direction for Demand Response Solar Nova Scotia recommends that the Board: - direct IESO Nova Scotia, as the Independent Energy System Operator responsible for resource procurement, to procure longer-term demand response an...

AI summary Solar Nova Scotia recommends that the Board direct IESO Nova Scotia to procure long-term demand response capacity, ensure DSM-funded devices are demand-response capable, and require EfficiencyOne to expand and optimize demand response programs, including reporting on performance metrics.

5.1 Strategic Electrification Should Be a Core DSM Resource Solar Nova Scotia supports strategic electrification as a core component of Nova Scotia's DSM framework. Strategic electrification is no longer merely an adjacent climate-policy o...

AI summary Solar Nova Scotia supports strategic electrification as a core component of Nova Scotia's DSM framework, emphasizing its role in reducing emissions, improving affordability, and supporting system planning. While agreeing that strategic electrification has value, it argues that the DSM Plan should be designed to capture this value in a cost-effective way, including assessing full benefits such as avoided non-electric fuel costs and emissions reductions.

Sanem Sergici PRINCIPAL Boston, MA +1.617.864.7900 [email protected] Dr. Sanem Sergici is a Principal in The Brattle Group's Boston, MA office specializing in innovative retail rate design and economic analysis of distributed energ...

AI summary Dr. Sanem Sergici is a Principal at The Brattle Group specializing in retail rate design and economic analysis of distributed energy resources. She has contributed to regulatory approvals of grid modernization and smart rate offerings, and has been recognized for her work on innovative pricing strategies and electrification impacts.

al Grid, August 30, 2023. Before the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, "New Jersey Energy Master Plan Ratepayer Impact Study," report filed August 2022 (with G. Kavlak, K. Spees, R. Janakiraman). Before the British Public Utilities Com...

AI summary The document outlines various regulatory filings and expert testimonies before different utility commissions and boards, including the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, British Public Utilities Commission, and the Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia, among others, concerning energy rate plans, electrification impacts, and time-of-use rates.

INNOVATIVE RATE DESIGN AND IMPACT EVALUATION STUDIES - Develop a technical brief in collaboration with DOE and Lawrence National Berkeley Lab on "Electricity Rate Designs for Large Loads: Evolving Practices and Opportunities". - For a larg...

AI summary The text discusses the development of a technical brief on electricity rate designs for large loads, in collaboration with DOE and Lawrence National Berkeley Lab. It also mentions Dr. Sergici's evaluation of a large southeastern utility's tariff offerings for large customers, developed based on marginal pricing principles.

ELECTRIFICATION - For Con Edison, Brattle designed the regulatory structure, business model, and rate design for Con Edison's thermal energy network pilots. The pilot projects are testing the efficacy of an inter-building ambient water loo...

AI summary Brattle has worked with Con Edison and ERCOT on electrification projects. For Con Edison, they designed a thermal energy network pilot with geothermal or water source heat pumps and conducted a benefit-cost analysis. For ERCOT, they developed a forecasting process for electric vehicle load impacts and created an interactive tool for substation-level analysis.

SELECTED WHITEPAPERS AND REPORTS - The Potential Impacts of Large Loads on Electricity Prices: Analysis for Alliant Energy Utilities , with Long Lam, Ryan Hledik, and Adam Bigelow, (June 2026) - The Value of Using DERS for Distribution Sys...

AI summary The text lists various whitepapers and reports related to energy and utility topics, including electricity rate designs, demand response, distributed energy resources, and the impact of electric vehicles on the grid. These studies were conducted for organizations such as the Ontario Energy Board, ERCOT, and the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities.

ARTICLES & PUBLICATIONS - "Retail Pricing: A Low-Cost Enabler of the Clean Energy Transition", with Long Lam, IEEE Energy and Power Magazine , July 2022 - "Bridging the Chasm between Pilots and Full-Scale Deployment of Time-of-Use Rates,"...

AI summary The text lists a series of publications and articles authored by Sanem Sergici and colleagues, focusing on topics such as time-of-use rates, energy efficiency, net energy metering, dynamic pricing, and the impact of advanced metering infrastructure on energy consumption. These works span multiple journals and address both technical and regulatory aspects of the energy sector.

PRESENTATIONS & SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS - "Emerging Technologies and Tools for the Future," presentation at the 8th Annual Grid Modernization Forum (June 2023) - "Electricity Retail Rates to Facilitate Electrification," presentation at the MI...

AI summary The document lists various presentations and speaking engagements related to energy topics such as grid modernization, electrification, EV transition, rate design, and energy efficiency. These engagements were held at conferences, workshops, and webinars from 2019 to 2023.

SENIOR ENERGY ASSOCIATE Chicago +1.872.302.6115 [email protected] Mr. Shetty has worked with electric utilities on issues related to regulatory retail ratemaking, rate design, load forecasting, utility program screening and transmissi...

AI summary Sai Shetty is a Senior Energy Associate with experience in regulatory retail ratemaking, rate design, load forecasting, and utility program screening. He has worked on embedded and marginal cost of service studies, performance-based regulation, and analysis of DERs, DSM, and the Value of Lost Load.

SELECTED CONSULTING EXPERIENCE - Impact Evaluation of Time-of-Use (TOU) Pilot. Assisted three utilities in Maryland in quantifying the residential load impacts over the first summer of a three-year TOU pricing pilot. Conducted econometrics...

AI summary The text details consulting experience related to energy rate design, demand response programs, and transmission network analysis. It includes evaluations of time-of-use pricing pilots, peak time rebate programs, net energy metering rate structures, and revenue cap mechanisms for electric transmission. Econometric models were used to assess customer behavior and productivity trends.

EXPERT EVIDENCE AND REGULATORY FILINGS - Before the New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board, "Review of NB Power Cost Allocation Methods for Production Plant", report filed on behalf of New Brunswick Power, Matter EL-002-2026, May 2026 (w...

AI summary The document outlines various expert reports filed in different regulatory proceedings across multiple jurisdictions, including New Brunswick, Texas, New Mexico, Maryland, and Quebec. These reports cover topics such as cost allocation methods, time-varying rate pilots, performance incentive mechanisms, and productivity evaluations.

OTHER SELECTED PUBLICATIONS - Ryan Hledik, Sanem Sergici, Sai Shetty, Peter Cappers, "Deliberate Rate Design: Creating Electricity Rates with Purpose", January 2025. - Ros, A.J., Shetty, S. & Tardiff, T. Performance based regulation in ele...

AI summary The document lists several academic publications related to electricity rate design, performance-based regulation, and the impact of net energy metering on residential solar demand. These works are authored by researchers such as Sai P. Shetty and others.

32 Response IR-02: 33 34 (a) 35 (i) An "optimal DSM resource acquisition level" is the level of DSM identified as 36 economically optimal in a least-cost resource planning exercise. It is important that the DSM 37 scenarios are used as an...

AI summary The response discusses the concept of an 'optimal DSM resource acquisition level' as determined through least-cost resource planning. It contrasts this with the IESO-NS 2026 System Outlook, which uses a single pre-selected scenario and does not optimize DSM levels. A 20% deviation from the IRP-identified optimal level is proposed as a trigger for plan adjustments.

7 8 Finally, it is worth noting that energy efficiency enters only as a reduction within the NS 9 Power load forecast in the 2025 Outlook and the IESO NS 2026 Outlook. The Outlook does not 10 identify the least-cost level of DSM; it simply...

AI summary The document discusses the underestimation of energy efficiency in load forecasts and the reliance on supply-side resources. It highlights the importance of determining the optimal level of demand-side management (DSM) through the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) process rather than using the Preferred Plan level. The 2026 Outlook emphasizes the need for new firm capacity resources and the challenges in meeting decarbonization targets.

35 Request IR-08: 36 37 Reference: E-21, Section VII – Unit Costs. 38 Preamble: At pages 26–35 of the evidence, Mr. Love analyzes E1's rising unit acquisition costs, noting that the Preferred Plan projects a first-year EE unit cost of $0.6...

AI summary The text discusses Mr. Love's analysis of E1's rising unit acquisition costs, noting a significant increase from the 2026 Plan and identifying factors such as the end of federal funding and inflation. Questions are raised regarding the predictability of these increases, the use of Canadian benchmarks, and the implications of continuing current program designs.

33 Response IR-10: 34 35 (a) Based on the resources already cited, additional assessment is not necessary, which is why 36 recommendation referenced above was made. This recommendation does not turn on the outcome 37 of any assessments tha...

AI summary The response argues that NS Power does not plan firm capacity based on interruptible load above contracted firm demand, making LII customers ineligible for Smart Synergy incentives on that load. The Board is advised to confirm this ineligibility due to double-counting concerns, though E1 may still assess potential incremental value.

10 Request IR-11: 11 Preamble: Smart Synergy is described on E1's website as open to businesses willing and able to reduce energy use during high-demand events, through manual shutdown or automation, in four-hour morning or evening blocks....

AI summary The text discusses the eligibility criteria for the Smart Synergy program, noting that LII customers are excluded due to participation in an existing demand response program and the omission of Rate Code 25. It requests confirmation on whether these exclusions are program-specific or due to regulatory or technical constraints, and whether voluntary load reductions by LII customers are functionally equivalent to those incentivized by Smart Synergy.

2 (b) (i) Confirmed 1 3 13 16 26 28 34 40 42 45 - 4 (ii) Neither confirmed nor denied as the Consumer Advocate has no visibility into the 5 operations of LII customers, or their interactions with NSPI. However, it is possible that LII 6 cu...

AI summary The text discusses the confirmation and denial of certain claims related to LII (Large Industrial Interruptible) customers and their load reduction activities. It highlights that voluntary load reductions by LII customers are already accounted for under the interruptible rate, and that providing additional incentives for the same load reduction would result in double-counting and is therefore ineligible.

41 Response IR-12: 43 By way of introduction, it is noted that IR-12 does not refer to the Evidence filed by Mr. Love. 44 Nonetheless, the following response is provided. Date Filed: July 17, 2026 CA (IG) Page 20 of 22 1 (a) GEEG has not c...

AI summary The response to IR-12 discusses issues with overlapping demand response programs, specifically Smart Synergy and the LII interruptible tariff. It highlights the risk of double compensation for the same load reduction and notes that no methodology exists to isolate incremental voluntary curtailment. California's approach is referenced as a possible model.

ge-1-1"> M11071: Exhibit 2, EfficiencyOne 2022 DSM E1 Evaluation Reports, PDF page 668. M11071: Exhibit 2, EfficiencyOne 2022 DSM E1 Evaluation Reports, PDF page 670. - gas heating system, the result would be the addition of incremental el...

AI summary The text discusses the potential increase in electricity demand due to fuel switching from natural gas to electric heating systems, which could increase winter peak electrical demand and the need for additional winter peak capacity, contrary to the intended effects of the 2020-2022 DSM Plan. It emphasizes the importance of establishing a baseline reflecting what would have occurred without program intervention.

6 Metric Otter Tail Power NS Power Total System Peak 970 MW 2,459 MW Residential Customer Count 104,633 513,881 Industrial Customer Count 13 2,285 Industrial Customer Size Distribution Not available Customers range from under 1 MW to 160 M...

AI summary The table compares key metrics between Otter Tail Power and NS Power, including total system peak, customer counts, generation mix, planning reserve margin, and demand response program maturity. NS Power has a significantly larger customer base and more mature demand response programs, including an interruptible rider and a Time-varying Pricing (TVP) Tariff Pilot.

7 8 & lt;sup>1 The "Industrial Interruptible Rate" was approved by the Board in March 1977. & lt;sup>2 M09777 – Board Decision, NS Power Time Varying Pricing Tariff Application, 284333, June 22, 2021.

AI summary The document references the approval of the 'Industrial Interruptible Rate' by the Board in 1977 and cites a Board decision from 2021 regarding a Time Varying Pricing Tariff Application by NS Power.

Request IR-4: - On page 12 of 39, the Brattle Group states that the lack of commitment by E1 to Demand - Response programs threatens the planned load reserve margin of Nova Scotia as system - capacity for Nova Scotia gets tighter. (a) What...

AI summary The Brattle Group responds to a request regarding demand response (DR) investment levels needed to offset reserve margin pressures in Nova Scotia. They note that a specific level of investment cannot be determined without updated studies and planning inputs. They recommend treating DR as a dispatchable capacity resource and not just a customer program.

/span> See Gaede, J., Nippard, A., Turner, K. 2026. The 2025 Energy Efficiency Programs Report. Efficiency Canada, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, page 50. Id., page 51. See EfficiencyOne, EfficiencyOne 2027–2031 DSM Resource Plan Applica...

AI summary The document references a report on energy efficiency programs and a request regarding potential double compensation for participants in E1's Solar PV program. The response confirms that participants would receive both DSM incentives and net metering credits, raising concerns about the use of ratepayer funds.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 ratepayer-funded support mechanism. Therefore, Brattle's concern is strongest for solar 2 PV and should be evaluated separately from co-funded DSM measures such as heat pumps, 3 where the relevant question is whether com...

AI summary The text discusses Brattle's concern regarding a ratepayer-funded support mechanism, particularly for solar PV, and suggests that it should be evaluated separately from co-funded DSM measures like heat pumps, focusing on whether combined incentives are necessary, non-duplicative, and proportionate to incremental system benefits.

the recommendation is based on specific data, professional judgment, or both. Response IR-10: This IR response has been provided by The Brattle Group. (a-b) Please refer to IG IR-8 and IG IR-9. Request IR-11: Preamble: NSPI is both the ent...

AI summary The response to IR-11 by The Brattle Group states that the relationship between NSPI and E1 is not relevant to their assessment. Brattle evaluated E1's proposed DSM Plan based on whether it maximizes utility system benefits from ratepayer-funded DSM dollars.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 customers in the form of lower long-term rates. To the extent distribution peaks align with 2 broader system peak, they can result in incremental generation and transmission savings as 3 well. Therefore, such savings may...

AI summary The text discusses the potential benefits of demand response (DR) programs in reducing long-term customer rates and aligning distribution peaks with system peaks to achieve generation and transmission savings. It emphasizes the need for flexibility in strategic electrification program design to ensure benefits are realized.

Request IR-15: Reference: E-22, Page 3. Demand Response should play a larger and more disciplined role in the 2027– 2031 DSM portfolio. DR provides system value because it can reduce load during the hours when the system is most stressed a...

AI summary The text requests clarification on the system-level benefits of Demand Response (DR) in Nova Scotia, specifically whether these benefits accrue to all ratepayers or only those enrolled in DR programs. It also asks whether cost allocation of DR program costs should be reviewed and if such a review should occur within the DSMAG during the next 5-year plan.

ts, please confirm that the costs of DR procurement are typically allocated as part of the overall capacity supply obligation and spread across all ratepayers in proportion to their contribution to system peak demand rather than allocated...

AI summary The response discusses the allocation of demand response (DR) procurement costs, stating that they are typically spread across all ratepayers based on their contribution to system peak demand rather than being exclusive to enrolled classes. The Brattle Group notes that allocation methods vary by jurisdiction and that DR costs are generally considered system capacity costs.

Scotia understands that these costs are recovered through the Board-approved DSM cost-recovery mechanism. The specific rate-class allocation should be confirmed by EfficiencyOne or Nova Scotia Power. Solar Nova Scotia's evidence addresses...

AI summary Solar Nova Scotia argues that Energy Manager support should be classified as customer-facing program delivery rather than corporate overhead, as it directly enables participation and savings. They request an estimate of the incremental cost of adding Energy Manager-type capacity for small businesses and the proposed rate class allocation.

new floor area actually electrified, load coincidence, backup-fuel availability, controls, customer adoption, event duration, rebound, emissions and permitting requirements, and operating constraints. Solar Nova Scotia has not developed a...

AI summary Solar Nova Scotia has not developed a reliable incremental-cost estimate due to missing data on enablement, administration, and performance-payment assumptions. They propose a two-part incentive model for demand-response readiness and recommend using the same allocation methodology as the BNI Demand Response Program.

Response to Request IR-5: (a) Please identify the statutory authority under which the Board could direct IESO Nova Scotia to procure longer-term demand response capacity. Solar Nova Scotia is not providing a legal opinion. Its recommendati...

AI summary Solar Nova Scotia explains that the Board does not have a specific statutory authority to direct IESO Nova Scotia to procure long-term demand response capacity. It suggests that if the Board has jurisdiction, it should direct the appropriate entity to develop a procurement pathway. It also outlines that costs for such contracts should be recovered through the Board-approved mechanism for capacity resources, not through DSM cost recovery. Finally, it notes that resources procured directly by IESO Nova Scotia would fall outside EfficiencyOne's performance targets.

Response to Request IR-6: (a) Please explain how Solar Nova Scotia's recommendation that SE be screened using a test that includes "avoided non-electric fuel costs, emissions reductions, and peak and capacity impacts" is consistent with th...

AI summary Solar Nova Scotia explains that its recommendation to include avoided non-electric fuel costs, emissions reductions, and peak and capacity impacts in the screening of strategic electrification (SE) is consistent with the Board's M12282 framework. It does not propose a new benefit-cost test, but rather the application of the existing modified PAC test and portfolio-level assessment. The cost-allocation methodology for SE remains unchanged, and potential benefits for industrial customers depend on further analysis.

Response to Request IR-6: Refer to M12780, Exhibit E-24, SNS Evidence, Section 4.5, Recommended Direction for Demand Response, pages 11-12 of 16. (a) Referring to the 1st bullet, has SNS discussed this recommendation with IESO Nova Scotia?...

AI summary SNS has not formally discussed the demand response recommendation with IESO Nova Scotia. The recommendation is directed to the Board as IESO Nova Scotia's role is in long-term contracting, and the DSM Plan's five-year term creates uncertainty for long-term investments in demand response assets.

Response IR-4: A. In Request IR-02, Synapse asked for E1's Round 1 and Round 2 modeling…including …all associated attachments in Excel including but not limited to supporting data and calculations (intact and unprotected)". E1's response i...

AI summary E1's response to Synapse's request was incomplete, as it did not provide a full model or detailed calculations. E1's interpretation of the modified-PAC test led to the exclusion of Strategic Electrification from the DSM Plan, but this interpretation may not align with the Board's historical practices. The decision in M12282 is not explicit on how to apply the Board's guidance to DSM planning, and E1's approach may not be consistent with established practices.

Request IR-02: 1 Reference: Napoleon Evidence, page 27–29 (Low and Moderate Income [LMI] Oil-Heat 1 • Nova Scotia has one primary test, and New Brunswick has four primary tests. New 2 Brunswick's All Fuels tests include consideration of th...

AI summary The text discusses differences in fuel-cost-adjustment mechanisms between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, highlighting NB Power's reporting on LMI oil-heat electrification and its status as a crown corporation. It also requests clarification on whether the NS Power 2022 Evergreen IRP available capacity includes Time-Varying Pricing (TVP) rates.

Summary of the DSM Plan NB Power's DSM Plan has many notable features: - It contains energy efficiency, renewable energy, demand response, and electrification offerings. - It addresses a variety of market segments and customer types. In pa...

AI summary NB Power's DSM Plan includes energy efficiency, renewable energy, demand response, and electrification offerings, with notable features such as LMI funding and support for non-electric savings. However, the plan does not aim to meet minimum DSM savings requirements, which are lower than achievable potential and those of other jurisdictions.

Summary Recommendations I recommend that the Board: - approve the energy-efficiency-related budgets and savings proposed by NB Power for the 2024/25 and 2025/26 program years. - o Direct NB Power to provide updates when the Energy Efficien...

AI summary The Board is recommended to approve NB Power's energy-efficiency and electrification budgets, request revisions to the DSM plan, and conduct reviews on renewable energy and demand response programs. The Province is also urged to align electricity savings requirements with updated targets and include additional program types in future planning.

Sources: - • Potential from NBEUB IR-107b, page 193. 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 • NB Power annual energy savings from Matter 552, NB Power 2024-2025 General Rate Application, Appendix AJ - 2024-25 to 2026-27 DSM Initiatives Update. - 2024/25...

AI summary NB Power's responses to various regulatory inquiries outline potential energy savings from DSM initiatives, solar PV generation, and electrification programs. The achievable potential for solar PV varies based on incentives, and electrification programs are not designed to capture all achievable potential. Demand response programs also show potential but are underutilized.

4.8. Alignment of DSM Plan and AMI In its response to EUB staff interrogatories, NB Power confirmed that mass deployment of AMI meters was delayed to November 2023 due to meter shortages (NBEUB IR-110, page 199). The current deployment sch...

AI summary NB Power confirmed that AMI meter deployment was delayed until November 2023 due to shortages. Current deployment plans include mass rollout from November 2023 to October 2025. AMI data is being used for load research, a portal project, and Energy Usage Alert, but not for peer comparisons or end-use disaggregation. NB Power is also exploring AMI for demand-side management and conservation voltage reduction.

M12780 - In the Matter of EfficiencyOne's (E1) 2027–2031 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan Application 1 Request IR-3: 2 Reference: E-23, Page 17, lines 18-20. 3 4 5 Over time, lower spending on DSM will increase electricity costs...

AI summary The document discusses the impact of reducing Demand Side Management (DSM) investment on electricity costs for ratepayers, highlighting that lower spending on DSM could lead to higher electricity costs. It requests confirmation of Synapse's recommended annual DSM investment level, whether Synapse has quantified the impact on electricity costs, and provides estimates of the Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) for different investment levels.

Request IR-4: 2 Reference: E-23, Pages 23–26. 21 costs for customers and this is grounded in the statutory language of 22 s.79A(b)(iv) of the Public Utilities Act. If not, please explain. 23 (c) Does Synapse take the position that this con...

AI summary The text discusses the interpretation of statutory language in the Public Utilities Act, specifically section 79A(b)(iv), and questions whether Synapse's approach to including SE (solar energy) in the portfolio meets the requirement to reduce customer electricity costs. It references the Board Decision in M12282 and the use of modified PAC as a methodology.

Response IR-5: (a) Synapse did not conduct a RBIA for the Round 2 SE results. However, E1 conducted a RBIA for the Round 2 SE results and provided this RBIA in response to Synapse IR-02 as Attachment 2, Appendix K: RBIA Round 2 – Scenario...

AI summary Synapse did not conduct a Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) for the Round 2 SE results, but E1 did and provided it as Attachment 2, Appendix K. A snapshot of the disaggregated average rate impacts by rate class is presented in the table and figure.

1 2 I provide a snapshot of the disaggregated customer average bill impacts by rate 3 class from this workbook in the table and figure below.

AI summary The text references a snapshot of disaggregated customer average bill impacts by rate class, presented in a table and figure from a workbook.

1 2 E1 provided the modified-PAC for SE in response to Synapse IR-02 as Attachment 3 2, Appendix A, Round 2 Modelling Assumptions and Attachment 2, Appendix G, 4 Round 2 Measure Level Technical Tables 1SE-Base3. (b) These files do not indi...

AI summary E1 submitted modified-PAC files for SE in response to Synapse IR-02, but the files lack details on whether hourly load-shape data or annual averages were used to calculate peak-hour capacity costs, making it difficult to assess their impact on the modified-PAC calculation.

As an alternative to including the strategic electrification from the Round 2 modeling, E1 could develop strategic electrification offerings for low- and moderate-income customers who heat with oil. … I estimate that 17,600 low-income home...

AI summary The text discusses potential strategic electrification offerings for low- and moderate-income oil-heated customers in Nova Scotia, referencing Synapse's recommendations and the need to address affordability and energy poverty. It also raises questions about program structure, funding mechanisms, and statutory requirements for including such initiatives in a DSM Plan.

- programs-report/. Accessed 5/31/26. 1 Request IR-10: 2 Reference: E-23, Page 47. 3 4 I recommend that the NSEB establish several thresholds that would trigger a requirement for E1 to propose and file a mid-cycle adjustment: 5 6 • If spen...

AI summary The document discusses a request for the Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) to establish thresholds that would trigger the need for EfficiencyOne (E1) to propose and file a mid-cycle adjustment, such as when spending changes by more than 10 or 15 percent or when a program is terminated or initiated. The text also includes questions about the definition of 'mid-cycle adjustment' and the basis for the proposed thresholds.

a) In this section you state that neither the Board nor the statute is specific about a number of things related to the assessment of "electricity costs", such as the level of assessment, the time period for the assessment, and whether the...

AI summary The response recommends assessing DSM measures, programs, resources, and portfolios using historical practices, including benefit-cost analysis and rate and bill impact analysis. It suggests evaluating costs at the measure, program, resource, and portfolio levels, with a focus on the life of the measures and considering strategic electrification (SE) in the analysis. The assessment should also include all fuels and be customer-level, forward-looking.

Professional Focus Energy efficiency and utility planning executive with deep experience leading, facilitating, and supporting multi-year demand-side management (DSM) plans, energy efficiency portfolio strategy, demand response, strategic...

AI summary Michael is an energy efficiency and utility planning executive with extensive experience in developing demand-side management plans, energy efficiency strategies, and regulatory filings. His work includes program design, affordability considerations, and aligning energy efficiency with decarbonization and grid flexibility goals.

Eversource Energy — Director 2012–2021 - Led regulatory, planning, EM&V, and support services for a $500M+ multi-state energy efficiency and demand response portfolio, including oversight of portfolio strategy, performance metrics, budgets...

AI summary The text discusses the professional experience of an individual who led regulatory and planning efforts for a large energy efficiency and demand response portfolio, managed teams, supported regulatory filings, and advised on integrating energy efficiency and distributed energy resources into grid planning.

Publications & Presentations / Awards Michael has 50+ publications, conference proceedings, and interviews to his name. He is a frequent presenter on utility regulation, energy efficiency, demand-side resources, DER integration, rate desig...

AI summary Michael has over 50 publications and presentations on topics such as utility regulation, energy efficiency, and clean energy planning. He has received awards for his contributions to the field and frequently presents at industry events.

Michael Goldman Published Articles, Conference Proceedings, and Interviews Just, Reasonable, and a Little Bit Ridiculous: An Introduction to Modern Utility Policy and Regulation DISTRIBUTECH · Feb 2, 2026 Navigating modern utility policy a...

AI summary The document is a list of publications, conference proceedings, and interviews by Michael Goldman, focusing on modern utility policy, regulation, and distributed energy resources. Topics include EV programs, DERMS, energy storage, and geothermal projects.

Q. How do E1's Residential program delivery costs compare to other jurisdictions? A. E1's proposed residential demand response delivery costs as a share of total budgets appear substantially higher than similar programs in other jurisdicti...

AI summary E1's proposed residential demand response delivery costs are significantly higher compared to similar programs in Rhode Island Energy and National Grid (Massachusetts), raising concerns about cost-effectiveness and the reasonableness of the proposed budget.

E1 Rebuttal Evidence E1 acknowledges that the delivery-cost share of its residential demand response budget is higher than that of the Rhode Island Energy and National Grid (Massachusetts) programs cited by Ms. Napoleon, but submits that t...

AI summary E1 argues that comparing its residential demand response budget to programs in Rhode Island and Massachusetts is not valid due to differences in program maturity, market conditions, and delivery models. E1 highlights that its program is at an earlier stage and that cost categorization differs between programs, making a direct comparison inappropriate.

E1 Rebuttal Evidence E1 respectfully disagrees that the dedicated low-income and equity savings target should be fixed at 14.9 percent of the Residential Savings target, being Mr. Love's proposed 3.76 GWh, because approximately 14.9 percen...

AI summary E1 argues against fixing the low-income and equity savings target at 14.9% of the residential savings, citing the lack of achievable data and the potential for increased costs. They highlight that the current plan already exceeds this target and emphasize the importance of realistic, cost-effective planning aligned with affordability goals.

E1 Rebuttal Evidence E1 maintains that a 2028 launch for the point-of-sale heat pump rebate measures is reasonable and prudent. While mini-split and centrally ducted heat pumps are offered under other E1 programs and E1's Efficiency Prefer...

AI summary E1 argues that launching point-of-sale heat pump rebates in 2028 is reasonable and prudent, citing the need for new partner agreements, processes, and training. They also highlight the risks of negotiating agreements before the Plan is approved.

4.1.1 RISK OF BNI At PDF page 13, Brattle states: Yet E1's Preferred Plan would leave residential DR participation declining and would rely almost entirely on a small increase in BNI participation for incremental capacity. This approach no...

AI summary Brattle highlights that E1's Preferred Plan depends heavily on BNI participation for incremental capacity, neglecting residential demand response (DR) participation, which increases the risk profile of BNI DR impacts as PRMs decline rapidly due to a lack of diversification in the DR portfolio.

E1 Rebuttal Evidence E1 notes at the outset that Brattle does not dispute that the Preferred Plan grows total Demand Response capacity by approximately 80 percent over the plan term, from 16.3 MW in 2026 to 29.3 MW in 2031. The Preferred P...

AI summary E1 argues that the Preferred Plan's focus on BNI Demand Response is prudent due to its strong cost-effectiveness (PAC of 2.4) compared to residential Demand Response (PAC of 0.7). E1 asserts that Brattle's concern about risk is not quantified and that the BNI program's small participant base allows for better management and reliability.

NS Power At PDF pages 18 - 19, Brattle states: Here are some of our observations on Peak Perks and what could be adopted by E1: - 1. Peak Perks provides a clear, immediate, and material incentive: the offer is easy to understand: $75 at en...

AI summary Brattle's analysis of Peak Perks highlights its effectiveness in residential demand response (DR) through clear incentives, low-friction enrollment, and customer comfort protections. The program uses existing thermostat channels and provides financial rewards, which have driven high participation and positive customer feedback.

4.1.6 DEMAND RESPONSE REPORTING At PDF page 21, Brattle states: Finally, E1 should be required to report DR performance in a way that allows the resource to be used in system planning and operations. That means annual accreditation and per...

AI summary Brattle recommends that E1 must report demand response (DR) performance annually, including details on accreditation, performance after peak seasons, opt-outs, attrition, device failures, customer compensation, delivery costs, and verified peak reduction to support system planning and operations.

4.2 STRATEGIC ELECTRIFICATION At PDF page 9, Brattle states: E1 has excluded SE as a DSM resource in the Preferred Plan because the modelled measures did not satisfy the Board-approved modified PAC test, including the requirement that SE r...

AI summary Brattle argues that E1 excluded strategic electrification (SE) as a DSM resource in the Preferred Plan because it did not meet the Board's modified PAC test requirements. However, Brattle suggests that E1's program designs may not have fully incorporated features that could make SE beneficial, and recommends a phased pathway for E1 to improve data collection and align electrification with system planning needs.

NS Power At PDF page 24, Brattle states: For instance, it is very important to model the impact of SE measures on an hourly basis, as the "strategic" or beneficial aspect of SE programs are about not adding incremental load during the peak...

AI summary Brattle emphasizes the importance of modeling the impact of energy efficiency (SE) measures on an hourly basis to avoid adding incremental load during peak hours. They recommend that E1 develop a phased SE pathway with stronger cost-effectiveness, improved data for benefit-cost analysis, and programs that avoid peak impacts and shift load to lower-cost hours.

E1 Rebuttal Evidence E1 agrees that hourly modelling and improved data are valuable, and the Preferred Plan already commits, through the Enabling Strategies budget, to market research and technology assessment, pilot programs, collaboratio...

AI summary E1 acknowledges the value of hourly modelling and improved data but argues that structural issues with the modified PAC test limit the impact of these improvements. E1 has supported more detailed avoided cost analysis and has already explored a range of electrification measures, but none met the modified PAC test even under best-case scenarios. E1's approach includes phased research and pilot programs to adapt to the current statutory framework.

4.2.2 FLEXIBILITY At PDF page 24 – 25, Brattle states: E-22, PDF page 31. Successful cost-effectiveness outcomes within the existing Board-approved framework can be achieved by designing proposed electrification programs around flexibility...

AI summary Brattle argues that E1's electrification programs should be redesigned to incorporate flexibility and load control to improve grid utilization and reduce costs and emissions. They suggest focusing on measures that include fossil-fuel displacement, weatherization, and targeted deployment in parts of the grid with headroom for distribution capacity.

NS Power At PDF page 25 - 26 Brattle states: Exhibit E-1, 2027–2031 DSM Resource Plan Application, Evidence, page 35, lines 8-9. Crucially, the Board must also require E1 to consider transportation electrification measures into any propose...

AI summary The text discusses the importance of incorporating managed EV charging programs into strategic electrification plans, citing Newfoundland Power's 2021–2025 plan as evidence. It highlights that managed EV charging can mitigate distribution system constraints, defer investment, and improve cost-effectiveness compared to unmanaged charging.

E1 Rebuttal Evidence E1 did not include Strategic Electrification in the 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan because no programs or measures were identified during plan development that satisfy the legislated definition of Strategic Electrificati...

AI summary E1 did not include Strategic Electrification in the 2027–2031 DSM Preferred Plan due to the lack of programs meeting the legislated definition and passing the modified PAC test. E1 acknowledges the potential of managed EV charging but highlights challenges related to customer participation, cost, and system benefits, suggesting further evaluation through the Innovation framework.

At PDF page 10, Brattle states: DSM funding should be reserved for resources that directly and efficiently reduce Nova Scotia's energy and capacity supply obligations through demand-side measures or provide measurable system value in a man...

AI summary Brattle argues that DSM funding should be reserved for demand-side measures that directly reduce energy and capacity supply obligations and provide system value. It notes that distributed solar PV systems are already compensated via net metering, and including them in DSM funding would lead to double compensation and raise policy, rate design, cost allocation, and equity issues.

Q. Does Apex believe that the 2027-2031 DSM Plan savings goals are reasonable? A. In our opinion, E1's 2027-2031 goals seem reasonable and appropriate given the mature nature of the programs and the emphasis in this Plan on near-term affor...

AI summary Apex considers E1's 2027-2031 DSM Plan savings goals reasonable, particularly due to their focus on affordability and alignment with similar jurisdictions. The goals are lower than the IRP Base Scenario but consistent with comparable regions. Apex notes that market conditions and costs have changed since the last IRP, and the Consumer Price Index has increased significantly, impacting the economic context.

6. Plan Investment Level: R&D - (a) With respect to the innovation framework, as outlined in E1's Application, E1 will provide enhanced reporting on innovation-framework activities, focus areas, expenditures, and learnings through its quar...

AI summary E1 outlines its commitment to enhanced reporting on innovation-framework activities and Enabling Strategies costs, including detailed allocation by rate class, as part of its R&D investment plan.

e work within their own communities. The impact of the program is clear as provided in the Mi'kmaw Home Energy Efficiency Project Impact Report 2025 available on the Efficiency Nova Scotia's website: - More than 1,800 Mi'kmaw homes have be...

AI summary The Mi'kmaw Home Energy Efficiency Project has benefited over 1,800 homes, saving millions in energy costs and reducing emissions. The proposed Demand-Side Management Plan aims to continue supporting energy efficiency upgrades, contributing to climate goals and energy affordability.

1 2026 M12780 2 NOVA SCOTIA ENERGY BOARD 3 IN THE MATTER OF: The Public Utilities Act 4 IN THE MATTER OF: An Application by EfficiencyOne for approval of the 2027-2031 5 Demand-Side Management (DSM) Purchase Agreement 6 between EfficiencyO...

AI summary EfficiencyOne has applied for approval of its 2027-2031 Demand-Side Management (DSM) Purchase Agreement and Resource Plan, proposing a total budget of $318.75 million. The Industrial Group supports the plan, emphasizing cost-effectiveness, proper governance, and equitable allocation. They highlight the use of the Program Administrator Cost test, as directed by the Board in Matter M12282, to ensure cost-effective DSM programming.

f programs, components 27 and measures also merit consideration. 28 A longstanding concern of the Industrial Group has been E1's approach to mid-course 29 adjustments and the resulting customer rate impacts. In its decision approving the 2...

AI summary The Industrial Group has raised concerns about E1's mid-course adjustment approach and its impact on customer rates. The Board previously found the existing MCA process to be unbalanced and directed E1 to revise its approach for the upcoming five-year Plan period.

etween 2023 and 2031, the overall Residential Portfolio unit cost is projected to increase by 257 percent. In the Home Energy Assessment program, the increase could be as high as 2,114 percent. 28 29 At the same time, the key emerging dema...

AI summary The document highlights significant projected increases in the cost of the Residential Portfolio and the need to modernize the DSM Plan to include strategic electrification and demand response. It emphasizes the importance of emerging technologies like electric vehicles and solar with battery storage, and notes the transformation of Nova Scotia's electricity system toward a coal-free grid by 2030.

ome households. We oppose E1's decision to omit strategic electrification except through enabling strategies. We are in the throes of the biggest transition in our energy system in over 100 years. Electric equipment provides energy-enabled...

AI summary The Affordable Energy Coalition (AEC) opposes E1's exclusion of strategic electrification from enabling strategies, emphasizing the need for a holistic approach to energy affordability. They argue that electrification, such as heat pumps, benefits low and moderate income households and support specific low-income and equity energy savings programs in the E1 proposal.

wer retained Dr. Sanem Sergici of The Brattle Group (Brattle) to review and assess E1's Preferred Plan. To summarize, Brattle's key recommendations on NS Power's three areas of concern are as follows: • DR should be treated as a critical d...

AI summary The document outlines recommendations from Dr. Sanem Sergici of The Brattle Group regarding EfficiencyOne's (E1) Preferred Plan. Key points include treating demand response (DR) as a critical dispatchable capacity resource, expanding residential DR programs, and developing a phased Strategic Electrification (SE) pathway with cost-effective measures and managed EV charging.

A summary report t hat describes Posterity Group's met hods, the result s from t he analysis, and potential uncertainties that would benefit from addit ional research. Chris was the Project Director. Integrated Gas and Electric Heating Sys...

AI summary This document outlines a study by FortisBC, in collaboration with Posterity Group, to analyze the impact of dual fuel hybrid heating systems on gas and electric infrastructure and rates. The study aims to evaluate integrated gas and electric systems for decarbonization and shared asset value, with a focus on customer adoption of electric heating and load profiles.

DR Participation Study - 1. In recognition of the potential value that customers participating in the Large Industrial Interruptible Rider (LIIR), can provide to the electricity system outside of Nova Scotia Power(NSP)-dispatched interrupt...

AI summary EfficiencyOne and the Industrial Group agree to jointly develop a study to assess opportunities for demand response (DR) participation beyond existing LIIR obligations. The study will be finalized within three months of the Board's decision and executed within 12 months, with potential pilot development if findings support it.

is not acceptable. 2. The Affordable Energy Coalition supports including substantial strategic electrification in the E1 contract, especially for low and modest income households. We oppose E1's decision to omit strategic electrification e...

AI summary The Affordable Energy Coalition supports including strategic electrification in the E1 contract, especially for low and modest income households, arguing that electrification can save money and improve efficiency. They also support specific low-income and equity energy savings programs in the E1 proposal.

5. The AEC supports a balcony solar program for low and modest income tenants . E1 states that they have no plans to expand solar programs beyond the Mi'kmaw New Home Construction program. Cheap behind the meter balcony solar with built in...

AI summary The AEC supports a balcony solar program for low and modest income tenants, arguing that such programs can reduce energy costs and improve electricity reliability. E1 currently has no plans to expand solar programs beyond the Mi'kmaw New Home Construction program, but the AEC believes this should change to align with Nova Scotia's 'consumer choice' approach and support low-income households.

23 Table 2. Change in Non-participant Bill Impacts (Average from '27-'46), Original vs. U-13 Rate Class U-13 Version Original Diff Residential 0.41% 0.46% -0.05% Small General 0.59% 0.66% -0.07% General 0.58% 0.66% -0.08% Large General 0.2...

AI summary Table 2 compares the average non-participant bill impacts across different rate classes under the U-13 version and the original plan, showing a decrease in bill impacts for most categories. The differences range from -0.05% to -0.12%, indicating a reduction in impact for the U-13 version compared to the original.

1 Table 3. Change in Non-participant Bill Impacts (Average from '27-'31), Original vs. U-13 Rate Class U-13 Version Original Diff Residential 1.76% 1.89% -0.13% Small General 2.23% 2.49% -0.26% General 2.78% 3.09% -0.31% Large General 1.83...

AI summary Table 3 compares the average non-participant bill impacts across different rate classes between the U-13 version and the original version, showing a decrease in bill impacts for all categories, with the largest difference observed in the Medium Industrial category.

3 In all instances, the inclusion of the IRP DR scenario actual decreases bill impacts for non-4 participants. This is due to the RBIA analysis for the High DR component - and Preferred Plan DR 5 component - showing a reduction to non-part...

AI summary The inclusion of the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) Demand Response (DR) scenario reduces bill impacts for non-participants. This is based on the RBIA analysis for the High DR and Preferred Plan DR components. However, the methodology used to estimate the effect has limitations, as it does not fully capture the complexity of the IRP DR scenario.

1 Undertaking U-15: 2 3 Following EOne's filing of Undertaking 4, to provide an update to Tables 2 and 3 of his evidence 4 (Exhibit E-21) that outlines the average rate impact by customer class over the plan period in 5 Exhibit E-21. 6

AI summary This section refers to EOne's filing of Undertaking 4 and the need to update Tables 2 and 3 in Exhibit E-21, which outline the average rate impact by customer class over the plan period.

13 Table 4. Change in Non-participant Bills for IRP (IRP EE + Preferred Plan DR + 14 Preferred Plan Solar) compared to E1 Preferred Plan Rate Class 27-46 Avg Residential 0.30% Small General 0.51% General 0.66% Large General 0.27% Small Ind...

AI summary Table 4 shows the change in non-participant bills for the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) compared to the E1 Preferred Plan, with different rate classes showing varying percentages of change, ranging from -0.06% to 0.66%.

Appendix A: - Preferred Plan 2027-2031 DSM Resource Plan - Attachment 1 2027-2031 Modelling Assumptions - Attachment 2 Program Savings and Investment by Rate Class - Attachment 3 2027-2031 Energy Efficiency and Solar-PV Technical Tables -...

AI summary Appendix A outlines the Preferred Plan 2027-2031 DSM Resource Plan, including attachments detailing modelling assumptions, program savings, energy efficiency, solar-PV, demand response, and an innovation framework. The plan focuses on technical tables and investment strategies for energy management and renewable integration.

Appendix B - Rate and Bill Impact Analysis of the 2027-2031 DSM Resource Plan and 2026 Historical - Attachment 1: RBIA Summary Results 2027-2031 DSM Resource Plan and 2026 Historical - Attachment 2: Results by Rate Class (2027-2031 Preferr...

AI summary Appendix B outlines attachments analyzing the rate and bill impact of Nova Scotia Power's 2027-2031 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan and 2026 historical data. It includes summaries, rate-class results, assumptions, pricing methodology, and rate models for preferred and alternate scenarios, supporting regulatory review by the Nova Scotia Energy Board.

NOTICE OF INTERVENTION TO: The Nova Scotia Energy Board ("Board") AND TO: EfficiencyOne ("E1") 1. The BERWICK ELECTRIC COMMISSION, the RIVERPORT ELECTRIC LIGHT COMMISSION, the TOWN OF MAHONE BAY, and the TOWN OF ANTIGONISH (collectively, t...

AI summary The Berwick Electric Commission, Riverport Electric Light Commission, Town of Mahone Bay, and Town of Antigonish (MEUs) seek intervenor status in a Nova Scotia Energy Board proceeding, citing their interest in rates and the Spill Tariff. They purchase power from Nova Scotia Power under municipal and BUTU rates and are directly affected by the Spill Tariff through their ownership and relationship with its sole customer.

James R. Gogan Direct +1 (902) 563 5920 [email protected] 1969 Upper Water Street, Suite 1300 Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada B3J 3R7 Tel +1 (902) 425-6500 Fax +1 (902) 425-6350 Our File: 238984 April 28, 2026 Nova Scotia Energy Bo...

AI summary James R. Gogan submits revised Excel documents (without macros) for M12780, addressing the EfficiencyOne application for a Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan and Purchase Agreement (2027-2031). The refiled materials include NS Power Rate Model scenarios and historical data.

35 Request IR-7: 36 37 Reference: Evidence, page 38. 38 39 "The level of DSM considered optimal in NS Power's IRP is in the best interest of 40 ratepayers for the long term, offering significant economic benefits, but E1 must also 41 consi...

AI summary NSP argues that maintaining the 2026 DSM Plan investment of $63.75 million without inflation adjustments aligns with long-term ratepayer interests despite rising costs. E1 is questioned on its methodology for determining the 'optimal' DSM level and whether inflation inaction erodes purchasing power and GWh savings over time.

36 Request IR-10: 37 38 Reference: Evidence, page 42, Table 6: – Preferred Plan – Average Rate Impacts by Resource over 39 2027-2046. 40 - 41 a. Please provide a comparable table showing the Average Rate Impacts by Resource between 42 2011...

AI summary The request (IR-10) asks for additional tables comparing average rate impacts by resource across different time periods (2011-2026) and scenarios (Alternate, IRP DSM) alongside the existing 2027-2046 data from Table 6.

1 Request IR-11: 2 3 Reference: Evidence, page 44, Figure 6 Average Rate and Total Customer Bill Impacts as a Result 4 of DSM Activities in 2027-2031 (Preferred Plan). 5 6 Please provide a comparable graph for the IRP DSM scenario. 7 8

AI summary Request IR-11 seeks a comparable graph for the IRP DSM scenario, referencing Evidence page 44, Figure 6, which shows average rate and total customer bill impacts of DSM activities (2027-2031) under the Preferred Plan. The request highlights the need for visual comparison of DSM-related financial impacts.

34 Request IR-14: 35 36 Reference: Evidence, p. 54 37 38 "In designing the Preferred Plan portfolio, E1 explicitly balanced near-term rate impacts 39 with the long-term value delivered to ratepayers. The portfolio reflects a measured 40 ap...

AI summary E1's Preferred Plan balances near-term rate impacts with long-term value by maintaining 2026 investment levels over five years, prioritizing cost-effective, long-lived demand-side measures. This approach moderates annual revenue requirements while ensuring sustained bill and system cost reductions. Reference: Evidence, p. 54.

EMAIL: [email protected] 1 Group 1: Appropriate Baseline for New Construction Measures 22 (a) Please confirm that the Custom New Construction Program provides incentives for all 23 electric heating scenarios. 24 (b) Please descri...

AI summary The email requests clarification on the Custom New Construction Program, specifically regarding incentives for electric heating scenarios, impacts on peak electricity demand, and directional effects on electricity rates.

Request IR-5 - (a) Please confirm whether the Custom New Construction Program provides incentives for heating scenarios with natural gas. - (b) Please describe the directional impacts of heating system scenarios that include natural gas on...

AI summary Request IR-5 seeks clarification on whether the Custom New Construction Program incentivizes natural gas heating and asks for an analysis of how natural gas heating scenarios impact peak electricity demand and rates.

Request IR-6: With regards to Section 2.2.3.1 "Compliance with the 2026 DSM Extension Decision": - a. Reference E-1, page 18 of 71 (pdf pg. 25) and Appendix A page 79 of 112 (pdf pg. 167), E1 states there is currently no double counting of...

AI summary Request IR-6 questions E-1's compliance with the 2026 DSM Extension Decision, focusing on double-counting of savings between demand response programs and NS Power's rate signals, exclusion of customers on time-differentiated rates, and budgeted costs for the excluded Residential Behaviour program in E1's DSM plan.

Request IR-15: Regarding Section 3.5 "Strategic Electrification" of the Application: - a. Pdf pg. 42 states: "E1 understands from DSMAG members that strategic electrification remains an important area for exploration to determine how it ca...

AI summary E1 is collaborating with DSMAG members on strategic electrification, allocating funds for research, pilot programs, and NSIESO collaboration. Requests include summarizing DSMAG feedback and detailing 2027-2031 budget allocations for strategic electrification development.

measures such as building envelope upgrades, heat pump installations, and 1 i. Does E1 agree that there are risks associated with the proposed 2027-2031 2 DSM Plan related to the plan not achieving its forecast benefits? 3 • If not, please...

AI summary The text discusses risks associated with the proposed 2027-2031 DSM Plan and requests clarification on whether the RBIA for the plan applies only to DSM participants or all NS Power customers. It also asks for revised tables and figures showing rate and bill impacts for different customer groups.

Request IR-21: Pdf pg. 55 states that when E1 created its Preferred Plan, it took cost-efficiencies into consideration and a full accounting value to minimize the cost of savings. Please describe the cost-efficiencies pursued and those tha...

AI summary Request IR-21 asks E1 to explain the cost-efficiencies considered in its Preferred Plan and those excluded, emphasizing cost-saving measures through full accounting value. The focus is on evaluating the plan's approach to minimizing costs.

Request IR-22: Please provide the annual cost savings that the Preferred Plan will achieve through the selected cost-efficiencies and those that were not pursued for each year of the Plan. Document: 329676 Date Filed: May 7, 2026 Page 23 o...

AI summary Request IR-22 seeks annual cost savings from the Preferred Plan, detailing both implemented and unimplemented cost-efficiencies for each year of the Plan.

Request IR-27: - Table 9, pdf pg. 65: 2027-2031 DSM Preferred Plan Savings and Investment by Program - Component The table identifies three program components under Existing Residential, one - under New Residential and one under Demand Res...

AI summary Request IR-27 examines Table 9 (DSM Preferred Plan Savings and Investment by Program) and Table 10, questioning whether program modifications aim to maximize lifetime benefits. It asks why some programs' lifetime benefits fall below 5-year investments and seeks clarification on required investment adjustments for E1 to achieve benefit parity.

Request IR-30: - Regarding Section 8.1 "Mid-Course Adjustment Process" of the Application: - a. Pdf pg. 69 states: "E1 has acknowledged the concerns raised by members of the DSMAG and engaged in discussions on these matters…" - i. Please p...

AI summary The document requests detailed information regarding the mid-course adjustment process, including feedback from DSMAG members, clarification on discrepancies between actual and projected spending, and proposed enhancements to the process such as lowering thresholds for explanations.

- d. Pdf pg. 123 states: "Investment levels in Residential sector programs represent approximately 56 percent of the energy efficiency portfolio and BNI sector programs at 44 percent. At the same time, residential sector programs will gene...

AI summary The document raises questions about E1's energy efficiency investment allocation between residential and BNI sectors, requests clarification on rate class allocation calculations, and seeks reconciliation of investment figures between Table 17 and Attachment 3. It also asks for supporting evidence or recalculations for proposed DSM plans.

Request IR-45: - Exhibit E-1, Appendix A, page 108 of 112 (pdf pg. 196): - E1 discusses further mid-course adjustment enhancements it proposes, including reducing thresholds for requiring explanations for program spending and savings and r...

AI summary The document discusses a proposed mid-course adjustment by E1, including reducing thresholds for explanations on program spending and rate class spending. The question posed is whether E1 should require Board approval for changes exceeding these thresholds instead of simply providing explanations.

Appendix B - Rate and Bill Impact Analysis, 2027-31 DSM Resource Plan and 2026 Historical, pp. 1-23 (Attach. 1-10)

AI summary The document is Appendix B of a regulatory proceeding analyzing rate and bill impacts for Nova Scotia's 2027-31 DSM Resource Plan and 2026 historical data. It includes attachments 1-10 covering technical analyses, though specific content details are not provided in the heading text.

Request IR-56: Please provide the growth assumptions used in NS Power's projected energy and demand sales from 2011-2055 and where available by rate class.

AI summary Request IR-56 seeks Nova Scotia Power's (NSP) growth assumptions for projected energy and demand sales from 2011-2055, including breakdowns by rate class. The request focuses on transparency in NSP's long-term energy forecasting methodologies.

Request IR-57: - Pdf page 290 states that program costs for the 2027-2031 DSM Plan will be completely recovered - from 2027-2031 and 2011-2026. Please confirm, or explain otherwise, that the cost recovery for - program costs in 2027-2031 w...

AI summary Request IR-57 seeks clarification on cost recovery timelines for the 2027-2031 DSM Plan and outstanding program costs from 2011-2026. IR-58 questions the allocation methodology for DSM-related costs, specifically whether the 25/75 rule or 100% allocation applies to rate classes, and requests updates to Table 1 if the latter is required.

Request IR-59: - In reference to Appendix B, Attachment 1, the worksheet Preferred Plan, the table and the graph - Rate Impacts by Resource show an increase in rate impacts associated with solar pv. In column - AQ, please explain why there...

AI summary Request IR-59 questions the rate impact projections for solar PV in the Preferred Plan, specifically why there is no rate impact in 2027 and why the impact diminishes but remains positive from 2028 to 2046, as shown in Appendix B, Attachment 1.

Request IR-60: - In reference to Appendix B, Attachment 1, the worksheet Preferred Plan, the table and the graph - for Total Customer Bill Impacts by Resource, please explain the solar pv program will have a - positive effect on customer b...

AI summary The request seeks clarification on the solar PV program's positive impact on customer bills from 2028 to 2031, referencing specific documents.

sts? Please describe a scenario in which changes in avoided costs would result in strategic electrification not increasing electricity costs. If not, please explain how this investment can result in the inclusion of strategic electrificati...

AI summary The text discusses the cost-effectiveness of Demand-Side Management (DSM) compared to fuel costs, highlighting that DSM has consistently been less expensive than fuel over the past years. It raises questions about the conditions under which strategic electrification could reduce electricity costs and how DSMAG members might identify measures that reduce both GHG emissions and electricity costs. It also asks about alternative funding sources for strategic electrification if ratepayer funds are not available.

for interruptible customers differ from those applicable to BNI customers participating in E1's BNI Demand Response program. If there are differences, please explain the reasons for those differences.

AI summary The text requests clarification on differences in rates for interruptible customers versus BNI customers in E1's BNI Demand Response program, seeking explanations for any discrepancies.

dentify and develop hybrid‑heating solutions for households with high retrofit costs or structural barriers." Please define the term 'hybrid-heating solutions' and provide a list of eligible measures. Request IR-76: Page 9 of Appendix A –...

AI summary The text includes several requests related to hybrid-heating solutions, Demand Flexibility, rate impacts for medium industrial customers, the 'Renewable to Retail' adjustment, and the addition of participant count data to a table. These requests pertain to energy efficiency programs, rate design, and data presentation.

- Request IR-81: Please refer to the table titled Rate and Bill Impacts of DSM on the Large General Class on page 4 of Appendix B - Attachment 2: Results by Rate Class (2027 - 2031 Preferred Plan), which shows Active Participants and Annua...

AI summary The document includes non-confidential information requests related to Nova Scotia's Demand-Side Management (DSM) programs, focusing on rate impacts, evaluation plans, compensation details, and the purchase agreement. Questions seek clarity on data interpretations, incentive structures, study schedules, demand response capacity, and the updated filing framework.

Application by E1 for Approval of the 2027-31 DSM Resource Plan - (NSUARB M12780) Non-Confidential MEU Information Request to E1 1 IR-1 2 Reference: Appendix A, Table 15: 2027-2031 DSM Preferred Plan Rate Class Savings and 3 Expenditures,...

AI summary E1's application for approval of the 2027-31 DSM Resource Plan is subject to a MEU information request, which asks for a detailed breakdown of savings and expenditures for the Municipal Rate Class, including cost, energy, and demand savings for each of five municipal utilities.

Request IR-3: Refer to M12780, Exhibit E-1, the DSM Plan, Appendix A - Section 3.1 DSM Engagement in the Development Process, Page 15 of 112, Lines 13-18, which states: DSMAG engagement played a central role in development of the 2027–2031...

AI summary The document references the DSM Plan's development, emphasizing stakeholder engagement and customer satisfaction surveys. It requests details on survey results for small businesses and whether E1 interviewed them to understand non-participation in past programs, influencing the DSM Plan.

Request IR-6: Refer to Exhibit E-1, the DSM Plan, Section 3.1 Affordability, page 24 of 71, Line 10 and page 25 of 71, Lines 1-2 and provide detail as to how E1 has adjusted the DSM Plan in later years to account for inflationary impacts t...

AI summary Request IR-6 asks E1 to explain adjustments to the DSM Plan for inflationary impacts on labor and fixed costs without annual inflation increases, and to describe the resulting effects on future expenditure breakdowns as shown in Figure 3.

- 2 Reference: Exhibit E-1, Application, page 36/71; and Exhibit E-1, Appendix B, Section 9, 27 2027–2031, representing approximately 64% of the 683.1 GWh savings target in NSPI's 20 to each class over the plan period. 21 (d) If, during th...

AI summary The text outlines a request (IR-6) regarding the process for introducing electrification measures under the modified-PAC test and the allocation of associated costs across rate classes during the 2027–2031 plan period. It also asks whether customers would be consulted and if Board approval would be required for cost allocation.

1 2 (a) Does this reflect current approved rates in the 2027-2028 GRA? If not, please explain. (b) Please provide a version of Exhibit E-1(ii) for the Alternate Scenario (in excel format). (c) Please provide the measure level payback analy...

AI summary The text includes a series of questions and requests related to the 2027-2028 GRA, specifically regarding approved rates, Exhibit E-1, payback analysis, and the Demand Cost Recovery Rider (DCRR). It also asks for clarification on a percentage variance in Table 2 for the Large Industrial class.

- 2 Reference: Exhibit E-1, Application, pages 61–64/71. - 3 Preamble: E1 acknowledges Board concerns, including those raised by the Industrial - 4 Group, that unrestrained mid-course adjustments could prejudice the rate classes funding -...

AI summary The document outlines E1's proposal to address concerns raised by the Industrial Group regarding mid-course adjustments affecting rate classes funding DSM activities. E1 proposes enhanced rate-class spending tracking, including 15% and 20% change thresholds, and requests for a working draft of the MCA text, rationale for thresholds, and details on implementation.

And Reference: Exhibit E-1, Application page 66/71 lines 10-16. Should circumstances arise during plan implementation that, in E1's reasonable assessment, may necessitate changes to approved investment levels, performance targets, or other...

AI summary E1 commits to notifying the DSMAG and filing applications with NSEB under PUA if changes to the DSM Plan are needed due to unforeseen events. Questions challenge the mid-term check-in's value, its role in informing NSEB applications, and alignment with legislative intent for the five-year DSM Plan term.

23 Request IR-16: - 24 Reference: Exhibit E-1, Application, Appendix A, Section 4.7, pages 40–42/112; Exhibit - 25 E-1, Appendix B, Attachment 2. - 26 Preamble: E1 states that the rate-class allocation of expenditures was developed using -...

AI summary The document discusses the development of a rate-class allocation of expenditures using historical data from 2022–2024, customer commitments, and assumptions for program changes that affect specific rate classes.

- 29 (a) Please provide: 1 (i) The complete rate-class allocation methodology, step by 2 step, including all allocators, weighting factors, and 3 normalization steps applied to derive the percentage share 4 of total annual spending allocat...

AI summary The document requests detailed information on the rate-class allocation methodology, historical datasets, reconciliation of spending percentages, and confirmation of bespoke assumptions in the 2027–2031 Preferred Plan. It also asks about the impact of mid-course adjustments on non-eligible rate classes.

21 1 (g) Please break down Table 36 and Exhibit E-1-(ii) custom programs 2 (including Strategic Energy Management) split by all rate classes included 3 in the BNI programming. 4 (h) Please explain how the incentive levels were established...

AI summary The document requests a breakdown of custom programs, including Strategic Energy Management, by rate class within the BNI programming. It also asks for an explanation of how incentive levels were established for Medium and Large Industrial customers, noting that their lower bill impact benefits are attributed to consumption tied to complex industrial processes.

1 Preamble: The following tables have been copied from the "Preferred Plan" tab: DSM (All Resources) Rate Impacts Residential Small General General Large General Small Industrial Medium Industrial Large Industrial Municipal 2027 3.73% 5.13...

AI summary The text provides tables showing rate impacts for different customer classes under the 'Preferred Plan' and 'Alternate Scenario' tabs, with specific questions raised about the rate impact for Large Industrial customers in 2027 and 2028. The data shows varying percentages across different years and customer categories.

5 1 2 (b) Please provide a table showing the annual impact of the Preferred Plan on the DSM rate rider for each year from 2026 through 2032, inclusive. State 3 all assumptions. 4 (i) Please provide the same table for the Alternate Scenario...

AI summary The request asks for tables showing the annual impact of the Preferred Plan and Alternate Scenario on the DSM rate rider from 2026 to 2032, as well as combined historical and forecast rate impacts from 2011 to 2046. It also asks for an explanation of why Large Industrial customers will see rate increases for Demand Response despite rate decreases for other classes. The reference points to a study conducted by BBA as part of NSPI's 2014 Cost of Service Study.

2 Requests: - 3 a) Provide all strategic electrification measures and scenarios considered for the 2027-2031 4 Plan. - 5 b) For each measure or scenario for which analysis was prepared, provide the modified PAC 6 inputs and outputs and the...

AI summary The document outlines seven requests for information regarding strategic electrification measures, cost assumptions, delivery approaches, federal incentives, portfolio assessments, rate impacts, and EV incentives for Nova Scotia's 2027-2031 DSM Plan. It seeks details on cost-effectiveness analyses, inclusion of measures failing PAC criteria, and integration of federal incentives like the Clean Technology Investment Tax Credit and EV incentives.

14 IR-13: IRP Benchmark, Preferred Plan, and Affordability Trade-off - 15 Reference: 2027-2031 DSM Plan; Preferred Plan; IRP-aligned savings scenario. - 16 Requests: - 17 a) Provide the analysis supporting the conclusion that 435.4 GWh in...

AI summary The proceeding requests analysis on balancing affordability and long-term value in Nova Scotia's 2027-2031 DSM Plan, comparing the Preferred Plan's 435.4 GWh to an IRP-aligned 683.1 GWh scenario. It seeks clarification on program reductions, short-term bill impacts, long-term avoided costs, and consideration of lower-cost delivery models.

Reference: "The Preferred Plan represents a comprehensive suite of programs and service offerings which will deliver approximately 435.4 GWh of affordable, incremental net energy savings, 85.0 MW of cumulative system peak demand savings, 2...

AI summary The Preferred Plan aims to deliver 435.4 GWh of energy savings, 85.0 MW peak demand reductions, and 29.3 MW capacity from demand response over 2027–2031. These savings account for 0.8% of NS Power's load, with additional solar-PV contributions.

Reference: "While the Residential Demand Response (Eco Shift) program component does not yet meet the standard cost-effectiveness threshold, there have been noted improvements." (Page 28) "Beyond cost-effectiveness metrics, Eco Shift contr...

AI summary The Eco Shift program, a residential demand response initiative, has not met cost-effectiveness thresholds but shows improvements. It enhances electricity system resilience during cold weather by enabling demand-side flexibility and complementing rate design.

IR-4 – Program Design for Residential Demand Response under the Preferred Plan

AI summary This section addresses the design of residential demand response programs under the Preferred Plan, focusing on mechanisms to manage energy demand. Key considerations include program structure, participant engagement, and alignment with Nova Scotia Power's (NSP) broader demand-side management (DSM) objectives.

References: Section 7.2 CRITICAL PEAK PRICING OVERLAP & Appendix B – Attachment 5: Assumptions

AI summary The document references Section 7.2 on Critical Peak Pricing Overlap and Appendix B – Attachment 5, which outlines assumptions. These sections are part of a regulatory proceeding analysis, focusing on energy pricing strategies and underlying assumptions.

Sanem Sergici PRINCIPAL Boston, MA +1.617.864.7900 [email protected] Dr. Sanem Sergici is a Principal in The Brattle Group's Boston, MA office specializing in innovative retail rate design and economic analysis of distributed energ...

AI summary Dr. Sanem Sergici is a Principal at The Brattle Group specializing in retail rate design and economic analysis of distributed energy resources. She has contributed to regulatory approvals of grid modernization and smart rate offerings and has received awards for her work in innovative pricing and electrification impact studies.

al Grid, August 30, 2023. Before the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, "New Jersey Energy Master Plan Ratepayer Impact Study," report filed August 2022 (with G. Kavlak, K. Spees, R. Janakiraman). Before the British Public Utilities Com...

AI summary This section outlines various regulatory filings and expert testimonies before different regulatory bodies across North America, including reports on energy master plans, time-of-use rates, and electrification impacts. These filings were submitted on behalf of utilities and government departments, focusing on rate structures, electrification, and climate solutions.

INNOVATIVE RATE DESIGN AND IMPACT EVALUATION STUDIES - Develop a technical brief in collaboration with DOE and Lawrence National Berkeley Lab on "Electricity Rate Designs for Large Loads: Evolving Practices and Opportunities". - For a larg...

AI summary The text discusses the development of a technical brief on innovative electricity rate designs for large loads, in collaboration with DOE and Lawrence National Berkeley Lab. It also mentions Dr. Sergici's evaluation of a large southeastern utility's tariff offerings for large customers, based on marginal pricing principles.

UTILITY REGULATORY AND BUSINESS MODELS - Assisted the New York Department of Public Service to develop a comprehensive financial model of a representative (downstate) New York utility capable of demonstrating the impacts of REV initiatives...

AI summary The text outlines various regulatory and business model assistance projects undertaken by The Brattle Group for utilities across North America. These include developing financial models, incentive regulation frameworks, performance incentive metrics, and alternative regulatory proposals to support utility operations and energy efficiency goals.

SELECTED WHITEPAPERS AND REPORTS - The Potential Impacts of Large Loads on Electricity Prices: Analysis for Alliant Energy Utilities , with Long Lam, Ryan Hledik, and Adam Bigelow, (June 2026) - The Value of Using DERS for Distribution Sys...

AI summary The text lists a variety of whitepapers and reports related to energy and electricity, including topics such as the impact of large loads on electricity prices, DER compensation mechanisms, time-varying rates, and EV charging. These reports were prepared for various organizations and utilities.

ARTICLES & PUBLICATIONS - "Retail Pricing: A Low-Cost Enabler of the Clean Energy Transition", with Long Lam, IEEE Energy and Power Magazine , July 2022 - "Bridging the Chasm between Pilots and Full-Scale Deployment of Time-of-Use Rates,"...

AI summary The document lists a series of academic articles and publications authored or co-authored by Sanem Sergici and others, focusing on topics such as dynamic pricing, energy efficiency, time-of-use rates, net energy metering, and the impact of smart grid technologies on electricity consumption and demand.

PRESENTATIONS & SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS - "Emerging Technologies and Tools for the Future," presentation at the 8th Annual Grid Modernization Forum (June 2023) - "Electricity Retail Rates to Facilitate Electrification," presentation at the MI...

AI summary The document lists various presentations and speaking engagements related to energy topics such as grid modernization, rate design, electrification, and energy efficiency. These engagements were held at conferences, workshops, and webinars between 2019 and 2023.

SENIOR ENERGY ASSOCIATE Chicago +1.872.302.6115 [email protected] Mr. Shetty has worked with electric utilities on issues related to regulatory retail ratemaking, rate design, load forecasting, utility program screening and transmissi...

AI summary Sai Shetty is a Senior Energy Associate with experience in regulatory retail ratemaking, rate design, load forecasting, and utility program screening. He has worked on modernizing electric rate design and conducting embedded and marginal cost of service studies. His work also includes performance-based regulation, benefit-cost analysis for DERs and DSM, and analysis of the Value of Lost Load and Net Energy Metering.

SELECTED CONSULTING EXPERIENCE - Impact Evaluation of Time-of-Use (TOU) Pilot. Assisted three utilities in Maryland in quantifying the residential load impacts over the first summer of a three-year TOU pricing pilot. Conducted econometrics...

AI summary The text outlines selected consulting experiences involving impact evaluations of time-of-use and peak time rebate programs, alternative rate design for net energy metering, and analysis of revenue cap mechanisms and transmission networks for ratemaking purposes.

EXPERT EVIDENCE AND REGULATORY FILINGS - Before the New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board, "Review of NB Power Cost Allocation Methods for Production Plant", report filed on behalf of New Brunswick Power, Matter EL-002-2026, May 2026 (w...

AI summary The text lists various regulatory filings and expert evidence reports submitted by utility companies and organizations across different jurisdictions, including New Brunswick, Texas, New Mexico, Maryland, and Quebec. These reports cover topics such as cost allocation methods, time-varying rate pilots, and performance incentive mechanisms.

OTHER SELECTED PUBLICATIONS - Ryan Hledik, Sanem Sergici, Sai Shetty, Peter Cappers, "Deliberate Rate Design: Creating Electricity Rates with Purpose", January 2025. - Ros, A.J., Shetty, S. & Tardiff, T. Performance based regulation in ele...

AI summary This section lists selected publications related to electricity rate design, performance-based regulation, and residential solar demand in the US. The documents include research from Ryan Hledik, Sanem Sergici, Sai Shetty, and Peter Cappers, as well as academic articles published in 2023 and 2024.

1 (c) Please confirm Brattle's understanding that Nova Scotia is a winter-peaking system and that 2 summer cooling-based DR provides no value during NS Power's December–February peak 3 period. 4 5 (d) Please provide any utility-scale winte...

AI summary The document requests confirmation that Nova Scotia is a winter-peaking system and that summer cooling-based demand response (DR) programs have no value during winter peaks. It also asks for examples of utility-scale winter-heating thermostat DR programs and cost data. Additionally, it requests source data for peer utilities and details on the scale and investment required for E1's residential DR program to be cost-effective.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-01: 2 Reference: Napoleon Evidence, page 24–26, Table 3: Cost-Effectiveness of 2027–2031 DSM Plan 3 Plus SE (Round 2) 4 5 (a) Please confirm that Table 3 shows the Round 2 strategic electrification (SE) resour...

AI summary The text requests confirmation and explanation regarding the cost-effectiveness of the 2027–2031 DSM Plan, specifically the modified-Program Administrator Cost (PAC) for strategic electrification (SE) and how it aligns with the M12282 Decision. It also asks about the implications of Synapse's recommendation for portfolio-level cost-effectiveness.

1 (f) Given that Mr. Love considers E1's existing unit acquisition costs as 2 materially above comparable jurisdictions, please explain how directing E1 3 to acquire substantially more savings — using the same program designs 4 and deliver...

AI summary The text questions how increasing E1's savings targets using existing program designs would lower average unit costs for ratepayers, given that E1's current unit acquisition costs are higher than comparable jurisdictions. It also asks whether the marginal cost per kWh for additional IRP-scenario savings would be higher or lower than the Preferred Plan average of $0.66/kWh.

4 Request IR-11: Preamble: Smart Synergy is described on E1's website as open to businesses willing and able to reduce energy use during high-demand events, through manual shutdown or automation, in four-hour morning or evening blocks. The...

AI summary The text discusses eligibility criteria for the Smart Synergy program, noting that it excludes LII customers due to participation in an existing demand response program and the exclusion of Rate Code 25. It requests clarification on whether these exclusions are program-specific and whether voluntary load reductions by LII customers are equivalent to those incentivized by Smart Synergy.

9 Request IR-12: - 10 (a) Please confirm that PJM, ISO-NE, Efficiency Maine, and CAISO operate 11 demand response frameworks in which interruptible or standby capacity 12 commitments and voluntary performance-based demand response are 13 t...

AI summary The text requests confirmation on demand response frameworks operated by PJM, ISO-NE, Efficiency Maine, and CAISO, and asks whether Smart Synergy incentives and LII tariff payments are complementary or duplicative. It focuses on compensation rules for incremental reductions and potential overlaps.

1 Request IR-2: 2 Reference: E-24, Pages 6. Despite the central role of this delivery model, the Energy Manager capacity funded through DSM is very limited. EfficiencyOne confirmed that, as of the end of the first quarter of 2026, only fou...

AI summary The text discusses the limited Energy Manager capacity funded through DSM, noting only four partially funded positions as of Q1 2026. It suggests improving support for small businesses through advisory services and cost-sharing, and requests details on cost allocation, unit-cost targets, and qualification criteria for private-sector Energy Manager providers.

25 Request IR-5: 26 Reference: E-24, Page 11, bullet 1. Solar Nova Scotia recommends that the Board direct IESO Nova Scotia, as the Independent Energy System Operator responsible for resource procurement, to procure longer-term demand resp...

AI summary Solar Nova Scotia requests the Board to direct IESO Nova Scotia to procure long-term demand response capacity, particularly for capital-intensive resources like customer-sited batteries. The request includes inquiries about statutory authority, cost-recovery mechanisms, and how the performance of these resources would be evaluated outside the current DSM Plan framework.

14 Request IR-6: 15 Reference: E-24, Page 12. Solar Nova Scotia recognizes that several of these measures may not pass the modified PAC test on a stand-alone basis under EfficiencyOne's current approach….Solar Nova Scotia submits that stra...

AI summary Solar Nova Scotia argues that strategic electrification should be evaluated using a broader test that includes avoided non-electric fuel costs, emissions reductions, and peak and capacity impacts, rather than the modified PAC test. The Board is asked to explain how this aligns with previous findings and whether a new benefit-cost test should be approved.

1 Request IR-2: 2 Reference: E-22, Page 3. 3 Preamble: Brattle states that the Preferred Plan allocates approximately $286.8 million - 4 (90% of total investment) to the EE portfolio, $29.1 million (9%) to DR, and $2.8 million (1%) - 5 to...

AI summary The document requests clarification on Brattle's recommended allocation of DSM funding across energy efficiency (EE), demand response (DR), and solar PV (SE) within the proposed five-year budget. It also asks about reallocating funds from EE to DR/SE, the expected impact on energy savings, and the total budget level Brattle supports, along with the expected PAC ratio for the expanded DR portfolio.

28 Finally, E1 should be required to report DR performance in a way that allows 29 the resource to be used in system planning and operations. That means 1 2 3 DR will continue to sit in an uncomfortable middle ground counted as a promising...

AI summary The document requests detailed reporting requirements for Demand Response (DR) performance to ensure its effective use in system planning and operations. It also inquires about Brattle's analysis of the relationship between NSPI's interest in DSM and cost-effective EE programs, as well as the impact of the 2026 ELCC Study on DR programming and cost-effectiveness analysis.

11 Reference: E-22, Page 3. Demand Response should play a larger and more disciplined role in the 2027–2031 DSM portfolio. DR provides system value because it can reduce load during the hours when the system is most stressed and when avoid...

AI summary The text emphasizes the importance of Demand Response (DR) in the 2027–2031 DSM portfolio, highlighting its system value in reducing load during peak times and avoiding costly generation and peaking capacity. It raises questions about the allocation of DR benefits and costs among ratepayers and whether a review should occur during the next 5-year plan.

- 26 (a) Does Synapse consider the IRP's DSM savings assumptions to be a 27 binding target or a directional planning assumption for the purposes of 28 evaluating E1's Preferred Plan? Please explain. 1 (b) Please confirm whether Synapse con...

AI summary The document includes questions about Synapse's evaluation of the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) DSM savings assumptions, whether they are binding targets or directional planning assumptions, and requests for a Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) for scenarios closing the energy efficiency savings gap. It also asks about the impact of lower DSM spending on electricity affordability and the recommended annual DSM investment level for the 2027–2031 Plan.

16 Request IR-5: - 17 (a) Did Synapse conduct a RBIA for the Round 2 SE results? If so, please 18 provide the disaggregated rate class impacts. If not, please explain why 19 not. - 20 (b) Please confirm whether the Round 2 SE modelling use...

AI summary The document requests information regarding Synapse's RBIA for the Round 2 SE results and whether hourly load-shape data or annual averages were used in the modelling for peak-hour capacity costs.

24 Request IR-6: 25 Reference: E-23, Pages 27–28. As an alternative to including the strategic electrification from the Round 2 modeling, E1 could develop strategic electrification offerings for low- and moderate-income customers who heat...

AI summary The text requests clarification on the structure and funding of strategic electrification (SE) offerings for low- and moderate-income oil-heated customers in Nova Scotia. It also asks whether equity-based rationales can justify SE inclusion in a DSM Plan without meeting cost-reduction requirements and why DSM funding is preferred over other programs to address the gap left by the OHPA expiry.

21 Request IR-7: - 22 Reference: E-23, page 43. - 23 Preamble: Synapse's evidence identifies that E1's performance measurement 24 for DR events is weighted toward the first two hours, even though events 25 consistently run four hours and r...

AI summary The text requests confirmation on whether BNI DR curtailment performance data by event-hour is available and whether equal-hour weighting should be applied to BNI DR performance measurement. It also asks whether equal weighting would improve or deteriorate BNI PAC BCRs.

7 Request IR-10: 8 Reference: E-23, Page 47. 9 I recommend that the NSEB establish several thresholds that would trigger 10 a requirement for E1 to propose and file a mid-cycle adjustment: - 11 If spending is anticipated to decrease or inc...

AI summary The text discusses a recommendation for the Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB) to establish thresholds that would require EfficiencyOne (E1) to propose and file a mid-cycle adjustment under certain conditions. It also includes questions posed to Synapse regarding the definition and application of these adjustments.

DR Participation Study - 1. In recognition of the potential value that customers participating in the Large Industrial Interruptible Rider (LIIR), can provide to the electricity system outside of Nova Scotia Power(NSP)-dispatched interrupt...

AI summary EfficiencyOne and the Industrial Group propose a study to assess the potential value of customer participation in the Large Industrial Interruptible Rider (LIIR) outside of NSP-dispatched events. The study will evaluate customer interest, historical participation, and opportunities for locational targeting, among other factors, with the goal of determining the feasibility of a DR pilot.

NOVA SCOTIA ENERGY BOARD UNDERTAKING LIST MATTER NAME: EfficiencyOne - 2027-2031 Demand Side Management (DSM) Plan Application MATTER #: M12780 DATE: UND# DESCRIPTION REQUESTED OF BY DATE DUE August 4, 2026 U-1 To provide data to show the...

AI summary The document outlines several undertakings related to EfficiencyOne's 2027-2031 Demand Side Management (DSM) Plan Application. These undertakings include providing data on participation barriers for low-income and equity programs, incentive amounts for non-profit organizations, cost estimates for a specific landlord program, and a revised rate and bill impact analysis. The undertakings are requested by various stakeholders including the Consumer Advocate and the Affordable Energy Coalition.

August 11, 2026 The Affordable Energy Coalition has long been a strong supporter of Efficiency NS' Demand Side Management programs. We continue to be. The best way to lower bills and increase affordability is through DSM programs. We appre...

AI summary The Affordable Energy Coalition supports Efficiency NS' Demand Side Management (DSM) programs, particularly those targeting low-income households and equity-seeking communities. However, they express concerns about the proposed E1-NSP contract and urge the NS Energy Board to demand improvements, referencing past actions by the UARB.