8 9 Finally, EfficiencyOne has included other resource costs and benefits where 10 appropriate. These other resource costs and benefits are limited to natural gas and water 11 impacts, and are based on utility rates, as opposed to true avo...
AI summary EfficiencyOne has included natural gas and water impacts as resource costs and benefits, based on utility rates rather than true avoided costs, as such information is not available to them.
rnate Scenario. 10 11 f) Please refer to EfficiencyOne’s response to NS Power IR-67 for a description of how 12 measure quantities were determined to generate the Alternate Scenario. Date Filed: March 29, 2019 E1 (NS Power) IR-07 Page 4 of...
AI summary The document references EfficiencyOne's Alternate Scenario based on their response to NS Power's IR-67, detailing how measure quantities were determined. It includes a table from NS Power's 2020-2022 DSM Resource Plan requesting a $34M investment, outlining incremental investments, energy savings, and cost-test metrics.
N/A N/A Total 34.2 181.4 124.1 1819.6 33.5 2.1 5.3 Incremental Incremental Lifetime Energy Annual Net Program Investment Lifetime Benefits Annual Net Total Resource 2022 a Savings at Demand Savings b Administrator ($ million) ($ million) E...
AI summary The text presents a table with financial and energy metrics, including investment figures, lifetime benefits, annual energy savings, and cost tests (TRC and PAC). It appears to evaluate program performance and resource allocation, focusing on energy efficiency and cost recovery mechanisms.
N/A N/A Total 34.4 188.0 123.2 1817.1 33.3 2.1 5.5 Incremental Incremental Lifetime Energy Annual Net Program Investment ($ Lifetime Benefits Annual Net Total Resource Year Savings at Demand Savings Administrator million) ($ million)a Ener...
AI summary The text presents a table with columns related to energy program metrics, including incremental investment, lifetime energy savings, annual net benefits, and cost tests (TRC and PAC). It appears to evaluate program administrator performance and resource costs within a regulatory context.
Generator (GWh) (MW) 2020 33.4 171.0 123.2 1774.5 32.8 2.0 5.1 2021 34.2 181.4 124.1 1819.6 33.5 2.1 5.3 2022 34.4 188.0 123.2 1817.1 33.3 2.1 5.5 Total 102.0 540.3 370.5 5411.2 99.5 2.1 5.3 aLifetime benefits are expressed as the net pres...
AI summary The text defines TRC (Total Resource Cost Test) and PAC (Program Cost Test) as benefit/cost ratios comparing lifetime benefits to combined or individual costs. It references avoided costs (energy, capacity, transmission/distribution) and utility WACC for net present value calculations, emphasizing cost-benefit analysis frameworks for program evaluation.
N/A N/A Total 27.1 128.2 99.8 1433.0 22.3 2.0 4.7 Incremental Incremental Lifetime Energy Annual Net Program Investment Lifetime Benefits Annual Net Total Resource 2021 a Savings at Demand Savings b Administrator ($ million) ($ million) En...
AI summary The text provides a summary of investment, benefits, and costs related to energy programs, including incremental investments, lifetime benefits, energy savings, and cost tests such as the Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) and Program Cost Test (PAC).
N/A N/A Total 27.1 132.4 97.8 1421.9 22.2 2.1 4.9 Incremental Incremental Lifetime Energy Annual Net Program Investment Lifetime Benefits Annual Net Total Resource 2022 a Savings at Demand Savings b Administrator ($ million) ($ million) En...
AI summary The text presents a table with financial and energy data, including investment, benefits, energy savings, and cost tests related to programs. It includes metrics such as lifetime energy savings, annual net demand savings, and program administrator details.
N/A N/A Total 26.8 136.2 94.5 1408.5 21.7 2.1 5.1 Incremental Incremental Lifetime Energy Annual Net Program Investment ($ Lifetime Benefits Annual Net Total Resource Year Savings at Demand Savings Administrator million) ($ million)a Energ...
AI summary The text presents a table with columns including Total, Investment, Lifetime Benefits, Annual Net Energy Savings, and Program Administrator, suggesting it is related to energy program metrics and cost evaluations.
A N/A Total 33.1 166.9 118.0 1702.9 32.7 2.0 5.0 Incremental Incremental Lifetime Energy Annual Net Program Investment Lifetime Benefits Annual Net Total Resource 2021 a Savings at Demand Savings b Administrator ($ million) ($ million) Ene...
AI summary The document presents a table with financial and energy-related metrics, including investment, benefits, energy savings, and cost tests. It includes columns such as 'Incremental Investment,' 'Lifetime Benefits,' 'Annual Net Energy Savings,' and 'Total Resource Cost Test (TRC).'
A N/A Total 34.2 179.7 118.9 1745.9 34.6 2.1 5.3 Incremental Incremental Lifetime Energy Annual Net Program Investment Lifetime Benefits Annual Net Total Resource 2022 a Savings at Demand Savings b Administrator ($ million) ($ million) Ene...
AI summary The text presents a table with financial and energy-related metrics, including investment, benefits, energy savings, and cost tests. It includes columns such as 'Investment ($ million)', 'Lifetime Benefits ($ million)', 'Annual Net Energy Savings at Generator (GWh)', and 'Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)' and 'Program Administrator Cost Test (PAC)' metrics.
program costs in year t PCNt = Net participant costs in year t UICt = Utility increased supply costs in year t Specifically, at least six key components of the TRC calculation may be subject to entirely different methodological approaches...
AI summary The document discusses the Total Resource Cost (TRC) calculation, emphasizing how different regions approach the inclusion of costs and benefits associated with free riders in DSM measures. It highlights varying methodologies used in regions like Ontario, California, and Quebec.
e DSM goals and improving baselines (whether by codes and standards or market interest) is turning a largely theoretical bias into a practical – and increasingly significant – problem. In fact, in the past two years alone, clients of ours...
AI summary The Total Resource Cost (TRC) test is criticized for not fully accounting for non-energy benefits (NEBs), leading to a potential bias against conservation programs. This issue has become more significant as NEBs have grown in prevalence due to the very programs the TRC previously allowed.
vice's Energy Efficiency Plan, Re: Phase II. Vermont Public Service Board. (2011). Order approving updated avoided costs for use by the Energy Efficiency Utilites (EEU-2011-02). Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. (2013, Oc...
AI summary The text includes references to energy efficiency plans, regulatory orders from Vermont and Washington, and an academic paper on industrial energy efficiency. It also mentions a resource value framework assessment in Nova Scotia and a document from Xcel Energy.
NS Power IR-44 Attachment 1 Page 45 of 46 APPENDIX A: RESOURCE VALUE FRAMEWORK – N.S. ASSESSMENT Figure 9: Resource Value Framework - NS Qualitative Assessment
AI summary This section of the document presents the Resource Value Framework as applied in Nova Scotia, focusing on a qualitative assessment. It outlines the approach used to evaluate the value of different resources within the context of energy planning and regulation.
Qualitative Resource Value Framework – Nova Scotia Legacy TRC Program Name: Electric DSM Date: December 2014 1. Key Assumptions, Parameters and Summary of Results Program Analysis Level □ Portfolio Measure Life n/a Discount Rate WACC 2. Mo...
AI summary This document outlines the Key Assumptions, Parameters, and Summary of Results for the Electric DSM Program under the Qualitative Resource Value Framework – Nova Scotia Legacy TRC. It details monetized program administrator costs and benefits, including avoided energy and capacity costs, as well as participant costs and benefits such as fuel savings and non-energy benefits.
1 M09096, 2018 DSM Evaluation Reports Final Report, March 27, 2019. 1 d) Please refer to the 2018 Existing Residential Program Evaluation Report and 2018 Efficient 2 EfficiencyOne notes that non-Energy benefits were not considered as an av...
AI summary The document references the 2018 DSM Evaluation Reports and highlights that non-energy benefits were not considered as an avoided cost stream in the 2020-2022 Resource Plan. It notes that 'Per unit Present Value Avoided Costs Benefits' is the only applicable benefit column for the TRC calculation, with columns Q and S being identical.
1 Figure 22: NS Power 10 Year Load and Resources Outlook Load and Resour rces Outlook for 1 NSPI - Winte r 2018/2019 to 2027/2028 (All values in MW except as noted) 2018/2019 2019/2020 2020/2021 2021/2022 2022/2023 2023/2024 2024/2025 2025...
AI summary The document presents a 10-year load and resources outlook for NS Power, showing projections for firm peak load, demand-side management (DSM) contributions, required reserve capacity, and existing and planned resources. It highlights the need for additional capacity and the impact of DSM on reducing peak load demand.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 a. To what extent-in both percentage and absolute values-does the incorporation of customer-related costs distort the allocation of benefits an...
AI summary The text presents several requests for information related to NS Power's evidence, including the incorporation of customer-related costs, avoided marginal costs, levelized fuel costs, and the impact of demand-side management (DSM) on thermal generation capacity factors. It also references a report on energy efficiency's effect on planning reserve requirements.
3.2 Historic Underspending by EfficiencyOne [32] E1 has historically not spent its planned budget and at the same time exceeded energy savings targets. Board counsel witness, Alice Napoleon, compared ETs actual spending with planned spendi...
AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) historically underspent its budget by 10% annually (2015-2018) while exceeding energy and demand savings targets. Board counsel Alice Napoleon noted a potential upward bias in E1's resource cost estimates, prompting the Board and Consumer Advocate (CA) to recommend an investigation. E1 expects no 2019 surplus, with terms of reference due by October 31, 2019, and the investigation concluded by March 31, 2020.
Table 7: 2020-2022 Residential Efficient Product Rebates Performance Indicators Year Investment ($ million) First-Year Energy Savings (GWh) Lifetime Energy Savings (GWh) Peak Demand Savings (MW) Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) a Program Adm...
AI summary Table 7 presents performance indicators for the Residential Efficient Product Rebates program from 2020 to 2022, including investment amounts, energy savings, and cost metrics such as the Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) and Program Administrator Cost Test (PAC).
Disclaimer: These summaries were generated by AI from the filings they describe. We take care to make them accurate, but errors are possible - and they aren't advice. Only the filings themselves are the record: if you're relying on something here, confirm it against the source documents or the Nova Scotia Energy Board's own record. Full disclaimer →