DSM Plan 2013-2015 - Efficiency Nova Scotia

DSM Plan 2013-2015 - Efficiency Nova Scotia
Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation
IN THE MATTER OF The Public Utilities Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c.380,
as amended.
- and -
IN THE MATTER OF An Application to Approve Efficiency Nova
Scotia Corporation’s Electricity Demand Side Management (DSM) Plan
for 2013-2015.
Evidence of ENSC
As DSM Administrator
REVISED
April 18, 2012
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
EVIDENCE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
1.1
Development of the 2013-2015 DSM Plan ..............................................................3
1.2
DSM Advisory Group ..............................................................................................4
1.3
Public Engagement ..................................................................................................5
2011 DSM RESULTS..........................................................................................................7
2.1
2011 Energy Savings Achieved ...............................................................................7
2.2
2011 DSM Expenditures and Energy Savings Results ............................................8
2.3
2011 DSM Programs..............................................................................................10
MULTI-YEAR PLANNING .............................................................................................13
3.1
Multi-year Planning Cycle .....................................................................................14
3.2
Annual Progress Reports........................................................................................14
3.3
Evaluation ..............................................................................................................15
3.4
Quarterly Meetings and Reports ............................................................................16
2013-2015 DSM PLAN .....................................................................................................17
4.1
Summary ................................................................................................................17
4.2
Energy Savings and Investment .............................................................................18
4.3
DSM Targets ..........................................................................................................23
COST ALLOCATION, RATE AND BILL IMPACTS ....................................................29
5.1
DSM Cost Allocation Approach ............................................................................30
5.2
Preliminary Program Cost Allocations, Rate and Billing Impacts ........................32
5.3
Annual Rate Rider Adjustment Filing ...................................................................33
ENSC’S RESPONSE TO VERIFICATION CONSULTANT’S REQUESTS .................35
6.1
The Safe Disposal of CFLs ....................................................................................35
6.2
Leveraging Sources of Financing ..........................................................................37
6.3
A Dual Baseline Approach for Savings Evaluations .............................................38
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................45
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page i
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
EVIDENCE
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 - 2011 Evaluated Savings Results ................................................................................. 7
Figure 2.2 - 2011 DSM Plan Expenditures and Evaluated Energy Savings ................................... 9
Figure 4.1 - 2013-2015 DSM Plan Savings and Investment including Outlook to 2017 ............. 18
Figure 4.2 - 2013 DSM Plan Savings and Investment .................................................................. 19
Figure 4.3 - 2014 DSM Plan Savings and Investment .................................................................. 20
Figure 4.4 - 2015 DSM Plan Savings and Investment .................................................................. 21
Figure 4.6 - Estimated Savings from Codes and Standards 2013-2017 ....................................... 22
Figure 4.7 - DSM Targets 2008-2017 (from 2009 IRP Update)................................................... 23
Figure 4.8 - Cumulative Savings Targets and Results 2008-2017................................................ 24
Figure 4.9 - Incremental Annual Energy Savings from ENSC DSM Programs (GWh) .............. 25
Figure 6.1 - Two-part Calculation of Energy Savings Using a Dual Baseline Approach ............ 40
APPENDICES
Appendix A
2013-2015 DSM Plan
Appendix B
Regulatory Oversight, Dunsky Energy Consulting
Appendix C
Cost Allocation Report, Elenchus Research Associates Inc.
Appendix D
Detailed Review of Completed Energy Efficiency Projects at New Page, Port
Hawkesbury, Energy Performance Services (EPS /Canada) Inc.
Appendix E
Green Heating Systems, Dunsky Energy Consulting
Appendix F
Socket Study, Corporate Research Associates Inc.
Appendix G
ENSC Fuel Substitution Pilot
Appendix H
ENSC Green Schools Pilot
Appendix I
ENSC Demonstration Homes Pilot
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page ii
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
1
1.
EVIDENCE
INTRODUCTION
2
3
This Evidence is in support of an electricity Demand Side Management (DSM) Plan for
4
2013 to 2015 (2013-2015 DSM Plan), filed with the Nova Scotia Utility and Review
5
Board (UARB) by Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation (ENSC or the Corporation) in its
6
role as the administrator of electricity DSM programs for Nova Scotia.
7
8
Responsibility and accountability for the administration of DSM programs were
9
transferred from Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI) to ENSC effective October 1, 2010, with
10
transfer of operational activities phased in during the fall of 2010. The transition was
11
completed by December 31, 2010. NSPI and ENSC continue to work closely in the areas
12
of effective program delivery, data sharing, customer communication and the
13
coordination of planning and forecasting.
14
15
ENSC submitted its first DSM Plan filing, the 2012 DSM Plan, on February 28, 2011,
16
which was approved by the UARB on June 30, 2011. Throughout 2011, ENSC delivered
17
DSM programs and services, in accordance with the 2011 DSM Plan, which was filed by
18
NSPI on February 26, 2010 and approved (as amended) by the UARB on July 27, 2010.
19
20
In accordance with the June 30, 2011 UARB Order, ENSC filed:
21
22
п‚·
23
24
Verification Reports, on July 29, 2011
п‚·
25
26
its response to the recommendations of the 2010 DSM Evaluation and
its Cost Allocation Methodology, to separately account for ENSC’s costs
related to electricity and other fuels mandates, on September 30, 2011
п‚·
its DSM Net-to-Gross Evaluation Methodology Report (referred to in the
27
UARB Order as the free ridership and spillover study), on December 15,
28
2011
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 1 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
1
EVIDENCE
The June 30, 2011 UARB Order also directed ENSC to:
2
3
п‚·
engage stakeholders regarding changes to the Program Development
4
Working Group (PDWG) or the creation of a new stakeholder process –
5
(this is addressed in Section 1.2)
6
п‚·
meet with UARB staff and consultants on a quarterly basis to review
7
progress on program implementation, program expenditures and
8
achievement of the targeted energy and demand savings – (this began in
9
the fall of 2011 with a meeting on progress to the end of Q3)
10
п‚·
provide enhanced information on rate and bill impacts in connection with
the 2013 DSM Plan – (this is addressed in Section 5)
11
12
13
On December 19, 2011, the UARB ordered ENSC to lead the review of the cost
14
allocation methodology in consultation with stakeholders and file its proposed
15
methodology coincident with the filing of its 2013 DSM Plan. This is addressed in
16
Section 5.
17
18
In a letter from the UARB to ENSC, dated January 9, 2012, ENSC was directed, as part
19
of its 2013 DSM Plan filing, to address three issues arising from Dr. Peach’s review of
20
ENSC’s Report on 2010 Evaluation and Verification Action Items (filed July 20, 2011)
21
and ENSC’s subsequent responses to Information Requests (filed November 18, 2011).
22
The issues are: the safe disposal of CFLs; leveraging sources of financing; and the
23
development of a dual baseline approach for savings evaluations. These issues are
24
discussed in Section 6.
25
26
Through an open and competitive request for proposals process, ENSC retained Econoler
27
Inc. to perform process and impact evaluations of the 2011 DSM portfolio of programs.
28
The results of the evaluation are filed separately.
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 2 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
1
1.1
EVIDENCE
Development of the 2013-2015 DSM Plan
2
3
To aid in the preparation of the 2013-2015 DSM Plan, ENSC retained the advice and
4
assistance of Navigant, Dunsky Energy Consulting (Dunsky) and Elenchus Research
5
Associates Inc. (Elenchus). ENSC also received input and counsel from DSM
6
stakeholders, and drew from its experiences delivering the 2011 DSM Plan. ENSC’s
7
Board of Directors has actively engaged with ENSC’s senior management and
8
consultants Navigant, Dunsky and Elenchus in the development of this Plan and has
9
formally approved its submission to the UARB.
10
11
ENSC is committed to broad, transparent and effective stakeholder consultation. On
12
November 3, 2011, ENSC hosted a full-day DSM consultation session for stakeholders.
13
ENSC provided an update on its 2011 DSM programs and pilots. Dunsky and Navigant
14
gave presentations on a potential regulatory framework and on multi-year DSM planning.
15
These presentations were directional in nature, engaging stakeholders in a discussion of
16
the key drivers for multi-year DSM planning and notional multi-year DSM target levels.
17
Elenchus led a discussion on the accounting of ENSC costs between electric rate-payer-
18
funded DSM services and those funded by the provincial government for other fuel types.
19
Elenchus also discussed the cost allocation methodology for allocating ENSC’s
20
electricity DSM costs among electricity rate classes.
21
22
A second stakeholder consultation session was held on December 8, 2011. The meeting
23
included presentations and further discussions on the elements of a multi-year DSM
24
framework and the approximate energy savings targets over the multi-year horizon. There
25
was also further discussion on potential revisions to the methodology for allocating DSM
26
costs among electricity rate classes.
27
28
Before or after the second session, ENSC had informal, individual discussions with
29
representatives from the Ecology Action Centre, the Affordable Energy Coalition, the
30
Consumer Advocate, the Small Business Advocate, the Large Industrial sector and the
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 3 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
1
EVIDENCE
Extra-Large Industrial sector.
2
3
1.2
DSM Advisory Group
4
5
The PDWG has proven to be a valuable resource and stakeholder forum. It has provided
6
advice and guidance on the design and implementation of DSM programs, beginning
7
with the development of the 2008-09 DSM Plan by NSPI and continuing through the
8
transition of DSM administrator responsibilities to ENSC in 2010.
9
10
A continuation of the PDWG was supported by stakeholders during the UARB hearings
11
for the 2011 and 2012 DSM Plans. In its 2012 DSM Plan filing, ENSC stated that it
12
would engage the PDWG and stakeholders on necessary changes to the PDWG or the
13
creation of a new stakeholder process. The UARB directed ENSC to file the results of its
14
review as part of the 2013 DSM Plan.
15
16
The role, composition and structure of an ongoing DSM stakeholder group was discussed
17
at the July 21, 2011 PDWG meeting and again on September 21, 2011. These discussions
18
were continued at the November 14, 2011 meeting and the group reached agreement on a
19
re-focused role and expanded membership of the newly named DSM Advisory Group.
20
21
Whereas the PDWG provided guidance on operational matters involving the development
22
and implementation of ENSC programs and ongoing modifications, the role of the DSM
23
Advisory Group is to provide directional advice and stakeholder perspectives on
24
emerging issues.
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 4 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
EVIDENCE
1
One representative from each of the Large Industrial sector, the Nova Scotia Department
2
of Energy and the Small Business Advocate has been invited to join the DSM Advisory
3
Group. With ENSC as the chair and host, the invited membership of the DSM Advisory
4
Group is as follows:
5
6
п‚·
Consumer Advocate
7
п‚·
Ecology Action Centre
8
п‚·
Extra-Large Industrial Sector
9
п‚·
Halifax Regional Municipality
10
п‚·
Large Industrial Sector
11
п‚·
Municipal Electric Utilities
12
п‚·
Nova Scotia Department of Energy
13
п‚·
NSPI
14
п‚·
Small Business Advocate
15
п‚·
UARB
16
17
1.3
Public Engagement
18
19
ENSC recognizes that many Nova Scotians have little knowledge of the value of and
20
opportunities provided by DSM. With that in mind, ENSC’s Board of Directors has emphasized
21
the need to engage Nova Scotians more broadly in building awareness, in education, and
22
ultimately in changing behaviour regarding energy efficiency.
23
24
In 2011, the Corporation sought to reach a broad base of Nova Scotians who are typically not
25
actively engaged in the regulatory process for electricity DSM. ENSC staff developed
26
relationships with groups such as local chambers of commerce, school boards, and associations
27
such as the Building Owners and Managers Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent
28
Business, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, the Nova Scotia Home Builders’ Association,
29
commercial developers, public housing authorities, the Investment Property Owners Association
30
and the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities, among others. Critical to building these
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 5 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
1
EVIDENCE
relationships is the mutual exchange of information and feedback.
2
3
ENSC also engaged Nova Scotians through traditional means such as op-ed pieces in
4
newspapers, stories in the media, appearances at trade shows, conferences and speaking
5
engagements throughout the province. As well, the “Take Charge!” speaking tour, featuring
6
journalist Silver Donald Cameron, began in 2011. The tour ultimately visited nine communities,
7
engaging participants and creating significant media coverage on how energy efficiency “saves
8
money, creates jobs and helps the planet.” The Corporation also used other non-traditional means
9
to reach out and engage Nova Scotians through social media, including promotions on its
10
website, Facebook and Twitter.
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 6 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
1
2.
2011 DSM RESULTS
2.1
2011 Energy Savings Achieved
EVIDENCE
2
3
4
5
In its July 27, 2010 Decision1, the UARB approved the 2011 DSM Plan, filed by NSPI, to
6
achieve an energy savings target of 158.5 GWh at an expenditure of up to $41.9 million.
7
8
Figure 2.1 shows the evaluated savings results for 2011. The results are subject to final
9
verification by the UARB’s savings verification consultant.
10
11
Figure 2.1 - 2011 Evaluated Savings Results
Energy
ENSC DSM
Programs
Adjustment to
ELI Savingsa
Total
a
Demand
Target
Result
Target
Result
(GWh)
(GWh)
(MW)
(MW)
158.5
141.8
30.9
28.9
-
74.2
-
5.8
158.5
216.0
30.9
34.7
in addition to the 80 GWh and 12 MW reported in the 2012 DSM Plan
12
Adjustment to Savings from Extra-Large Industrial (ELI) Projects
13
In its 2012 DSM Plan filed in February 2011, ENSC recorded 80 GWh of energy savings
14
and 12MW of demand savings from energy efficiency projects completed by the ELI
15
class of customers. These values were conservative preliminary estimates at the time of
16
filing and subject to a more detailed evaluation in 2011. ENSC retained Energy
17
Performance Services (EPS/Canada) Inc. to perform an analysis of the ELI savings; the
18
EPS report is included as Appendix D. Econoler subsequently evaluated the ELI savings
1
[2010] NSUARB 155.
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 7 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
EVIDENCE
1
as part of its evaluation of 2011 DSM Programs; the results are documented in the 2011
2
DSM Evaluation Report filed separately.
3
4
The evaluated results for the ELI projects are: 154.2 GWh of energy savings, compared
5
to 80.0 GWh (preliminary value), resulting in an adjustment of +74.2 GWh; and 17.8
6
MW of demand savings, compared to 12.0 MW (preliminary value), resulting in an
7
adjustment of +5.8 MW.
8
9
2.2
2011 DSM Expenditures and Energy Savings Results
10
11
The UARB approved an expenditure of up to $41.9 million for the 2011 DSM Plan. The
12
2011 DSM energy savings were achieved with an expenditure of $35.8 million, based on
13
unaudited financial results for the year ended December 31, 2011.
14
15
Expenditures and evaluated energy savings results by program are provided in Figure 2.2.
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 8 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
1
EVIDENCE
Figure 2.2 - 2011 DSM Plan Expenditures and Evaluated Energy Savings
Expenditures
(Unaudited)
($ million)
Residential
Efficient Products a
Evaluated
Energy
Savings
(GWh)
Evaluated
Demand
Savings
(MW)
11.20
49.4
8.9
2.13
6.4
2.3
Low Incomec
4.98
12.4
2.7
New Homes
1.40
2.5
0.9
Prescriptive Rebate
2.97
15.0
3.5
Custom
3.69
32.9
3.8
Small Business Direct Install
6.46
23.2
6.8
141.8
28.9
Existing Homes
b
Commercial and Industrial
Multi-sector
Education and Outreach
0.86
Development and Research
1.42
ENSC Startup
Total
0.68
35.79
Columns may not add correctly due to rounding.
not including Low Income Renter
b
including Fuel Substitution
c
including Low Income Renter
a
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 9 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
1
2.3
EVIDENCE
2011 DSM Programs
2
3
In its first full year of operation, ENSC built awareness as the new place for Nova
4
Scotians to go for energy efficiency solutions, largely through the promotion of its
5
programs, advertising, media opportunities and outreach, reinforcing the value of
6
efficiency. Central to these efforts was the creation of a strong, interactive presence
7
online. ENSC’s website, Facebook page, and Twitter and YouTube accounts all reflect its
8
efforts to reach Nova Scotians who are using social media to get the information they
9
need, as quickly and conveniently as possible.
10
11
To further enhance accessibility in 2011, ENSC provided more opportunities for low- and
12
modest-income homeowners, renters, and residents of multi-family dwellings to
13
participate in ENSC’s DSM programs and save energy. For the first time, the Low
14
Income program exceeded its annual target, achieving 12.4 GWh of energy savings
15
compared to a target of 9.08 GWh2, with an investment of $4.98 million; while assisting
16
10,023 homeowners and renters.
17
18
Renters are now able to qualify for and receive the benefits of ENSC’s programs. In
19
2011, 4920 income-qualified renters received free direct-install upgrades of low-cost
20
efficiency measures including the replacement of incandescent bulbs, installing low-flow
21
showerheads and faucet aerators, and wrapping water pipes and hot water tanks.
22
23
ENSC also modified its program so that more low- and modest-income homeowners may
24
now receive free direct-install upgrades; in 2011, 4,292 homeowners received direct-
25
install upgrades to help them save on average 950 kWh per household. Performing the
26
direct-install upgrades has also proved successful in encouraging homeowners to take
27
advantage of other programs. While onsite, ENSC’s direct install agents may identify
28
additional opportunities for the homeowner to save energy through building envelope
2
Includes Low Income Homeowners and Low Income Renters
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 10 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
EVIDENCE
1
upgrades or appliance retirement. If so, ENSC follows up with those who are eligible, to
2
inform them about the Low Income, EnerGuide or Appliance Retirement programs.
3
4
In 2011, ENSC engaged the youth and other band members of a First Nations community
5
to directly install energy savings measures in 171 homes. In this project, several young
6
people received training on energy efficiency and skills training on direct installation.
7
They delivered energy savings to the members of their community by engaging
8
participants and installing the energy efficiency measures.
9
10
Two pilots launched in 2011 helped increase awareness of energy efficiency among Nova
11
Scotians. The Green Schools program was piloted at 16 schools across the province,
12
where students, parents, teachers, and custodial staff put energy efficiency to work in
13
their own schools. The Demonstration Homes pilot engaged homebuilders, homeowners,
14
community college students and the public at large, showing that leading-edge energy
15
efficiency is accessible, affordable and worthwhile and happening within our province.
16
Over a ten-week period, 5,500 people toured the two demonstration homes, which were
17
designed and built for the pilot and are two of the most efficient homes ever built in Nova
18
Scotia. More information is provided in Appendices H and I.
19
20
The fuel substitution pilot, launched in April 2011, displaced electric heat with heat from
21
wood/pellet and natural gas sources in 296 homes. The success of the pilot and the
22
experience gained has contributed to the development of a green heating systems
23
initiative. The 2011 fuel substitution pilot is described in Appendix G, and ENSC’s green
24
heating systems initiative is described in Dunsky’s report attached as Appendix E.
25
26
Planning and implementation activities are underway for the Home Energy Report pilot
27
program, which is expected to launch in mid-2012. A vendor was selected in September
28
2011 through a competitive process, with the first phase targeting delivery of reports to
29
60,000 residential accountholders. The experience gained in the first year of the program
30
will guide the planning of future phases.
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 11 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
EVIDENCE
1
2
The Small Business Energy Solutions program completed lighting retrofits for 1468
3
customers in 2011, compared to 801 in 2010. Delivery agents have continued to build
4
capacity, and a number of non-lighting measures are being added for planned
5
implementation in 2012.
6
7
Through the Efficient Products program, CFLs and LED exit-sign lamps were installed
8
for 4,595 businesses, non-profit and institutional customers in 2011. Additional efforts
9
included a successful LED lighting pilot for applications not suited to CFL upgrades such
10
as incandescent and halogen lamps in retail displays.
11
12
The Custom program continues to have strong participation from commercial, industrial
13
and institutional customers. Program enhancements were launched in 2011 for
14
compressed air system upgrades, retro-commissioning, and energy management
15
information systems.
16
17
The Prescriptive Rebates program has been enhanced to include a wider selection of
18
products, upstream rebates and a “Preferred Partner” trade ally strategy, which are
19
expected to result in higher savings in 2012.
20
21
In 2011, ENSC targeted outreach to segments such as auto dealers, multi-unit residential
22
building owners, governments, grocery stores and ice rinks. An “Embedded Energy
23
Manager” program was successfully piloted in 2011 and will continue, facilitating
24
dedicated support for large customers to coordinate their participation in ENSC’s
25
programs. Three account managers and a marketing specialist are now in place.
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 12 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
1
3.
EVIDENCE
MULTI-YEAR PLANNING
2
3
In its 2012 DSM Plan filing, ENSC indicated its intent to engage stakeholders in
4
consultation and dialogue to further assess the available options for the implementation of
5
a future multi-year regulatory model. Such a model would still provide cost-recovery
6
rates to pay for DSM investment and would also allow greater flexibility and capacity in
7
the delivery of DSM programming.
8
9
ENSC engaged Dunsky to review the current regulatory oversight model and propose
10
changes to improve ENSC’s ability to assist Nova Scotians in saving energy as efficiently
11
and effectively as possible. Dunsky consulted with ENSC’s Board of Directors and senior
12
management, as well as DSM program administrators in other jurisdictions. Dunsky
13
further consulted with ENSC’s stakeholders during the ENSC-led stakeholder
14
consultation sessions on November 3, 2011 and December 8, 2011. Dunsky’s report and
15
recommendations are attached as Appendix B.
16
17
Dunsky’s review identified a number of strengths from which ENSC benefits, and which
18
form a solid foundation for performance. These include the open and transparent
19
communication between ENSC and its stakeholders, the organization’s clarity of purpose,
20
a growing degree of operational flexibility allowed by the UARB and stakeholders, and
21
the meaningful budgets that allow ENSC to hold some sway in the market.
22
23
Dunsky noted that the limited (twelve month) approval period of ENSC’s plans creates
24
uncertainty in the market. ENSC is unable to make a commitment longer than one year to
25
its contractors (who must decide whether, and to what extent, to invest in building
26
capacity in Nova Scotia), to critical market players (including those who are being asked
27
to provide new products and services to Nova Scotians), to its current and prospective
28
staff, and to its larger customers (who often plan important investments in equipment and
29
buildings over several years). The one-year approval period can further lead to missed
30
savings, as well as diverted organizational time and focus.
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 13 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
EVIDENCE
1
2
ENSC is seeking approval to adopt the recommended approach contained in Dunsky’s
3
report (Appendix B). The key components are summarized below.
4
5
3.1
Multi-year Planning Cycle
6
7
ENSC has prepared a multi-year DSM Plan for UARB approval, subject to a full-scale
8
regulatory hearing. The Plan contains the following:
9
10
п‚·
the approach it intends to take to achieve savings within its target markets
11
п‚·
a forecast of annual costs (budgets) and energy savings for each of the
12
three years
п‚·
13
14
a high-level evaluation plan indicating when and how evaluation activities
would be conducted, and a timetable for reporting the results
15
16
In addition, the multi-year filing includes two additional years of DSM outlook, intended
17
for directional information purposes, not for UARB approval. This rolling approach is
18
designed to keep the period between formal plan approvals relatively short for the UARB
19
and stakeholders, while allowing ENSC, its delivery agents, and trade allies to operate
20
with a multi-year view that enables capacity building for continued future success.
21
22
3.2
Annual Progress Reports
23
24
Beginning in 2013, and in each intervening year between multi-year filings, ENSC will
25
file an annual progress report in the first quarter of the calendar year, intended to be a
26
paper filing and consisting of:
27
28
29
п‚·
a summary of the context, activities and milestones achieved in the prior
year
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 14 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
п‚·
1
EVIDENCE
a management discussion and analysis of any major discrepancies relative
to the original plan’s intent and forecasts
2
п‚·
3
a summary of costs and savings for each program or target market area
4
5
Dunsky recommends, and ENSC concurs, that the UARB consider adopting a trigger
6
mechanism whereby, if reported results fall below 75 percent of the original plan’s
7
forecast savings up to that point, ENSC would be required to file a corrective action plan
8
designed to achieve the total approved energy savings target, within the approved multi-
9
year budget.
10
11
3.3
Evaluation
12
13
Revisions to the schedule and approach for evaluating DSM program savings are also
14
proposed, changing from an all-in-one annual process to an ongoing multi-year process.
15
16
The revised approach provides more timely information to facilitate program
17
adjustments, focuses resources more strategically and cost-effectively, and strengthens
18
the validity of results in the long-term. The proposed approach is comprised of ongoing
19
tracking (as is currently the case); ongoing, “rapid-fire” free ridership surveys of a
20
number of programs and activities that are suitable for this approach; annual spillover
21
surveys conducted the year after participants have been involved in programs; and a
22
rolling schedule of full-scale evaluations, including verification activities, measurement
23
and/or billing analysis, as appropriate, and ex-post spillover surveys. Reporting to
24
program managers, contractors, stakeholders and the UARB would be as follows:
25
26
п‚·
quarterly reports consisting of preliminary net-to-gross (NTG) values,
27
based on a combination of tracked data, initial NTG estimates and updated
28
free ridership results from quarterly surveys
29
30
п‚·
a first-year progress report containing the results of more comprehensive
evaluations of the program areas selected for full-scale evaluation
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 15 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
п‚·
1
EVIDENCE
subsequent annual reports providing further adjustments to previously
2
reported values within the multi-year plan timeframe, as the results of
3
additional evaluations, including spillover surveys, are available
4
5
3.4
Quarterly Meetings and Reports
6
7
ENSC recommends that it continue to meet quarterly with the UARB. Regular meetings
8
with the DSM Advisory Group will provide ongoing opportunities to update stakeholders
9
and discuss issues and concerns. The meetings and reports will provide quarterly status
10
updates and highlights, as well as communicate course changes within the approved
11
DSM Plan.
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 16 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
1
4.
2013-2015 DSM PLAN
4.1
Summary
EVIDENCE
2
3
4
5
ENSC’s 2013-2015 DSM Plan, presented in Appendix A, is a multi-year plan, which
6
identifies proposed DSM programs, services, and strategies, and annual investment and
7
energy savings targets, for 2013, 2014 and 2015. The plan builds on experience to date
8
delivering DSM in Nova Scotia and is a continuation of enabling strategies introduced in
9
the 2012 DSM Plan to achieve long-term energy savings for Nova Scotians.
10
11
Notable in the Plan are changes to the way ENSC delivers customer services in the
12
future, moving to a one-window approach that puts the customers first and does not
13
expect them to know which ENSC programs might suit them. Instead, a customer-
14
focused approach allows Nova Scotians to simply connect with ENSC and let the
15
Corporation’s staff provide a personalized energy solution for each customer. The
16
strategy also recognizes that offering a wide variety of programs (where names, details,
17
or entire offerings may be altered or discontinued over time) can be confusing and
18
frustrating to customers – and ultimately lead to less participation than expected.
19
20
ENSC recognizes that, in the long term, the energy efficiency and conservation business
21
is about changing the energy culture in Nova Scotia. Public information, education and
22
awareness are required to build increasing support for this cultural shift. It is essential
23
however, to more directly engage with individual Nova Scotians in ways that help them
24
to understand the relevance of energy efficiency and conservation to their interests and
25
that contribute to their adoption of energy efficiency and conservation as an individual
26
and social norm. In addition, ENSC will be working to build a community-based social
27
marketing dimension across its programs to help to ensure that all programs, including
28
those based largely on incentives, contribute not only to immediate reductions in energy
29
use but also to behaviours that both sustain those energy savings and that also lead to the
30
avoidance of energy waste in the longer term. Education and outreach have been integral
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 17 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
EVIDENCE
1
components of electricity DSM plans since 2008, and the emphasis on communications
2
activities will continue to grow.
3
4
4.2
Energy Savings and Investment
5
6
Figure 4.1 provides a summary of the energy savings and investment for the 2013-2015
7
DSM Plan and an additional two years of outlook to 2017. Projected savings from the
8
adoption of energy efficiency codes and standards are not included in the DSM Plan and
9
are presented separately in Figure 4.6.
10
11
Figure 4.1 - 2013-2015 DSM Plan Savings and Investment including Outlook to 2017
Currency is expressed in 2013 dollars. Columns may not add correctly, due to rounding.
An avoided cost of $135/MWh was provided by NSPI in February 2012 and includes the combined cost of
energy and capacity.
a
Lifetime benefits are expressed as the net present value of the avoided costs, including energy and
capacity, over the life of the program measures.
b
TRC is a benefit/cost ratio comparing lifetime benefits to the sum of ENSC’s and participants’ costs.
c
PAC is a benefit/cost ratio comparing lifetime benefits to ENSC’s costs.
DATE REVISED: April 18, 2012
Page 18 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
EVIDENCE
1
Figures 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 provide the program level savings and investment for 2013,
2
2014, and 2015 respectively.
3
4
Figure 4.2 - 2013 DSM Plan Savings and Investment
Currency is expressed in 2013 dollars. Columns may not add correctly, due to rounding.
An avoided cost of $135/MWh was provided by NSPI in February 2012 and includes the combined cost of
energy and capacity.
a
Lifetime benefits are expressed as the net present value of the avoided costs, including energy and
capacity, over the life of the program measures.
b
TRC is a benefit/cost ratio comparing lifetime benefits to the sum of ENSC’s and participants’ costs.
c
PAC is a benefit/cost ratio comparing lifetime benefits to ENSC’s costs.
d
Includes participation by low income households.
DATE REVISED: April 18, 2012
Page 19 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
1
EVIDENCE
Figure 4.3 - 2014 DSM Plan Savings and Investment
Currency is expressed in 2013 dollars. Columns may not add correctly, due to rounding.
An avoided cost of $135/MWh was provided by NSPI in February 2012 and includes the combined cost of
energy and capacity.
a
Lifetime benefits are expressed as the net present value of the avoided costs, including energy and
capacity, over the life of the program measures.
b
TRC is a benefit/cost ratio comparing lifetime benefits to the sum of ENSC’s and participants’ costs.
c
PAC is a benefit/cost ratio comparing lifetime benefits to ENSC’s costs.
d
Includes participation by low income households.
DATE REVISED: April 18, 2012
Page 20 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
1
EVIDENCE
Figure 4.4 - 2015 DSM Plan Savings and Investment
Currency is expressed in 2013 dollars. Columns may not add correctly, due to rounding.
An avoided cost of $135/MWh was provided by NSPI in February 2012 and includes the combined cost of
energy and capacity.
a
Lifetime benefits are expressed as the net present value of the avoided costs, including energy and
capacity, over the life of the program measures.
b
TRC is a benefit/cost ratio comparing lifetime benefits to the sum of ENSC’s and participants’ costs.
c
PAC is a benefit/cost ratio comparing lifetime benefits to ENSC’s costs.
d
Includes participation by low income households.
DATE REVISED: April 18, 2012
Page 21 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
EVIDENCE
1
Savings from Codes and Standards
2
In addition to savings resulting from the 2013-2015 DSM Plan, ENSC is forecasting
3
energy savings attributed to the adoption of new energy efficiency codes and standards as
4
provided in Figure 4.6. ENSC’s strategy to support and influence the development and
5
adoption of codes and standards is important for achieving long-term energy savings in
6
Nova Scotia. Appendix A contains additional information about specific codes and
7
standards initiatives.
8
9
Figure 4.6 - Estimated Savings from Codes and Standards 2013-2017
Incremental Annual Savings
Savings Area
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Notes
GWh
MW
GWh
MW
GWh
MW
GWh
MW
GWh
MW
Residential new
1
construction
2.8
0.7
2.8
0.7
2.8
0.7
2.8
0.7
2.9
0.7
2010
code
(adopted)
General-service
lighting
0.0
0.0
3.3
0.4
8.8
1.0
5.7
0.6
1.0
0.1
2014
federal
standard
Linear
fluorescent
lighting
12.7
2.0
14.4
2.2
16.1
2.5
17.0
2.6
17.0
2.6
2012 NS
standard
Non-residential
new
construction
0.0
0.0
6.0
0.3
12.5
0.5
13.1
0.6
13.6
0.6
2013 NS
code
LED street
lights
4.0
1.0
4.0
1.0
4.0
1.0
4.0
1.0
4.0
1.0
2013 NS
standard
Total
19.5
3.7
30.5
4.6
44.2
5.7
42.6
5.5
38.5
5.0
1
These savings are revised from an initial multi-year forecast with incremental savings of between 10 and 12
GWh each year, reported in ENSC’s response dated March 29, 2011 to Multeese IR-6. The changes are the
result of a revised baseline of Energuide 78 for residential new construction. Information is provided in
ENSC’s 2011 Evaluation Report.
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 22 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
1
4.3
EVIDENCE
DSM Targets
2
3
ENSC affirms that the overall purpose of electricity DSM in Nova Scotia is to help meet
4
the province’s long-term electricity needs through conservation and energy efficiency as
5
a lower-cost alternative to new supply.
6
7
As such, ENSC has stated that one of its primary goals is to meet IRP targets. To date,
8
electricity DSM in Nova Scotia has been successful in meeting the energy savings targets
9
of the 2009 IRP Update.
10
11
For reference, the DSM targets for 2008-2017, as set out in the 2009 IRP Update3, are
12
presented in Figure 4.7.
13
Figure 4.7 - DSM Targets 2008-2017 (from 2009 IRP Update)4
14
Year
Incremental
Demand
Savings
(MW)
Cumulative
Demand
Savings
(MW)
Incremental
Energy
Savings
(GWh)
Cumulative
Energy
Savings
(GWh)
Incremental
Program Cost
($ millions)
Cumulative
Program Cost
($ millions)
2008a
2
2
16
16
3
3
a
7
9
50
66
10
13
2010b
17
26
83
149
23
36
b
31
57
146
295
41
77
2012b
44
101
205
500
61
137
b
63
164
305
805
82
219
2014b
57
222
276
1081
74
293
b
57
279
276
1357
74
367
2016b
57
336
276
1632
74
442
b
56
392
268
1901
75
516
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
Numbers are rounded.
a
(expressed in 2008 dollars)
b
(expressed in 2010 dollars)
3
4
[NSUARB-NSPI-P-884]– 2009 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) Update Report (November 30, 2009)
Supra, Note 3, Appendix D, Attachment 4, page 1.
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 23 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
EVIDENCE
1
With the 2013-2015 DSM Plan and continuing through 2017, DSM planned savings will
2
be below the annual and cumulative targets of the 2009 IRP Update. Figure 4.8 compares
3
cumulative savings targets from the 2009 IRP Update with the actual and expected
4
savings results for 2008-2017.5
5
6
Figure 4.8 - Cumulative Savings Targets and Results 2008-2017
Year
IRP Target
Result
IRP Target
Result
(GWh)
(GWh)
(MW)
(MW)
2008
a
16
21
2
5
2009
a
66
86
9
15
2010
a
149
168
26
31
b
295
384
57
65
c
500
618
101
109
2013
d
805
773
164
139
2014
d
1081
941
222
170
2015d
1357
1123
279
203
2016
e
1632
1306
336
236
2017
e
1901
1486
392
269
2011
2012
a
verified results
b
verified results and includes savings outside DSM programs
c
estimate based on approved Plan and includes savings outside DSM programs
d
estimate based on proposed Plan and includes savings outside DSM programs
e
estimate based on outlook beyond proposed Plan and includes savings outside DSM
programs (from the adoption of new codes and standards)
5
It does not include adjustments that would arise through the potential adoption of a dual baseline
evaluation approach, which is discussed in Section 6.3.
DATE REVISED: April 18, 2012
Page 24 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
EVIDENCE
1
Figure 4.9 shows the DSM savings results and targets compared to IRP targets for 2008-
2
2017.
3
4
Figure 4.9 - Incremental Annual Energy Savings from ENSC DSM Programs
5
(GWh)
350
300
250
200
IRP
150
Programs
100
50
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
0
6
The 2007 IRP set aggressive targets and a steep ramp-up from 2008 through 2013 for
7
DSM in Nova Scotia. The targets were more than double the DSM achievements of
8
leading North American jurisdictions at the time. In establishing these targets, the 2007
9
IRP acknowledged stakeholder issues raised during the development of the IRP
10
concerning DSM investment levels and implementation issues. The 2007 IRP also
11
pointed out the importance of testing energy and demand savings projected in the IRP as
12
the DSM program progressed. It stated that “Whether the forecast level of savings can be
13
achieved at the projected cost in Nova Scotia will not be known until specific initiatives
14
are undertaken and the foundation for a comprehensive DSM program is established and
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 25 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
1
EVIDENCE
monitored.” 6
2
3
The 2009 IRP Update, which was coincident with the first full year of DSM
4
implementation, made no adjustments to the DSM targets established in 2007.
5
6
ENSC has a role in forecasting, tracking and recording substantive electricity savings
7
realized outside DSM programs. Savings from energy efficiency projects completed by
8
the Extra-Large Industrial class of customers were identified in ENSC’s February 2011
9
filing of the 2012 DSM Plan. These projects were subsequently evaluated in 2011, and
10
have made a major contribution (154.2 GWh) to tracked energy savings.
11
12
In the absence of additional substantial energy savings occurring outside ENSC DSM
13
programs, and without a significant increase in investment by electricity ratepayers, the
14
energy savings in the 2013-2015 DSM Plan from ENSC programs cannot meet the
15
targets in the 2009 IRP Update.
16
17
This Plan proposes a multi-year model with the appropriate levels of DSM savings and
18
investment to achieve desired long-term sustainable energy savings for Nova Scotia to
19
restrain the need for currently projected future supply, and illustrates that revisions to
20
DSM targets in the 2009 IRP Update are now warranted.
21
22
In advance of an expected IRP update, ENSC has shared its five-year DSM target
23
projection with NSPI to test for impact against the 2009 IRP Update. NSPI has indicated
24
that, based on its preliminary review, ENSC’s five-year DSM target projection is within
25
range of the load sensitivities evaluated in the 2009 IRP Update.
6
Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) Report, Volume 1: Nova Scotia Power Inc. (July 2007), at pp 35-36.
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 26 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
EVIDENCE
1
2013-2015 Savings and Investment
2
In 2012, ENSC has more experience with DSM in Nova Scotia, which is reflected in the
3
2013-2015 savings forecast. ENSC’s 2013-2015 DSM Plan considers:
4
5
п‚·
DSM program achievements to date
6
п‚·
the saturation of low-cost CFL measures
7
п‚·
the importance of building a culture of energy efficiency for sustained
8
9
energy savings
п‚·
energy efficiency service capacity in Nova Scotia
10
11
DSM program achievements to date have benefitted greatly from the availability of
12
substantial, low-cost energy savings from CFL measures. Pursuit of these energy savings
13
was both appropriate and effective from 2008 to 2011; 40 percent of the DSM program
14
energy savings to date have come from CFL measures.
15
16
A study conducted in 2011 for ENSC by Corporate Research Associates Inc. (CRA) and
17
included in Appendix F shows that the opportunity to achieve additional savings from
18
installing CFLs is significantly diminished. Approximately half of all sockets in the
19
residential sector contain CFLs, and the average home in Nova Scotia has 16 CFLs
20
installed. Installing more CFLs will achieve ever-decreasing per-unit savings, because the
21
sockets remaining to be treated are typically those with the lowest usage. Low-cost,
22
easily installed CFL measures will no longer be a cost-effective way to achieve energy
23
savings.
24
25
ENSC recognizes the need to build a culture of energy efficiency in Nova Scotia that
26
encourages all Nova Scotians to continue to implement new ways of saving energy.
27
ENSC acknowledges that DSM in Nova Scotia is in the early stages of development
28
compared to other jurisdictions with well-established DSM services spanning decades.
29
To encourage Nova Scotians’ participation and to ultimately help change behaviour
30
around energy efficiency, the Corporation is committed to education and outreach, with a
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 27 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
EVIDENCE
1
growing emphasis on a more community-based approach to social marketing and
2
awareness building, using research, insights and feedback from staff, customers,
3
stakeholders and trade allies, best practices from other jurisdictions and home-grown
4
innovation.
5
6
An evolution to a one-window customer service approach will help optimize saving
7
opportunities for Nova Scotians. Such an approach will allow the Corporation to provide
8
individualized energy solutions to customers, rather than putting the onus on customers to
9
have detailed knowledge of which program(s) might work best for them. As well, ENSC
10
will continue to advocate and promote the adoption of more energy efficient codes and
11
standards that will increase long-term savings across the province.
12
13
ENSC is also developing and sustaining relationships with trade allies, to facilitate the
14
building of a strong energy efficiency industry in Nova Scotia. Trade allies have an
15
increasingly important role in assisting ENSC to stimulate increased demand for DSM
16
services and deliver a broader range of cost-effective, energy saving products and
17
services.
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 28 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
1
5.
EVIDENCE
COST ALLOCATION, RATE AND BILL IMPACTS
2
3
ENSC’s 2012 DSM Plan included a preliminary program cost allocation for allocating
4
electricity DSM costs to NSPI ratepayers in accordance with the DSM Cost Allocation
5
Approach Settlement Agreement approved by the Board on August 4, 2009 for the years
6
2010, 2011 and 2012. On December 19, 2011, the Board ordered ENSC to lead the
7
review of the cost allocation methodology in consultation with stakeholders and file its
8
proposed methodology coincident with the filing of its 2013 DSM Plan.
9
10
On June 30, 2011, the Board ordered ENSC to develop and file, no later than September
11
30, 2011, its policy to track time and costs for electric and other fuel mandates. The June
12
30, 2011 Board Order also directed ENSC to undertake the necessary consultation to
13
provide enhanced information on rate and bill impacts in future proceedings.
14
15
In response to the above UARB Orders, ENSC retained Elenchus to:
16
17
п‚·
18
19
assist in developing a cost allocation model (CAM) to fully allocate ENSC
costs to taxpayer-funded programs and ratepayer-funded programs
п‚·
lead the review, in consultation with stakeholders, of the DSM cost
20
allocation approach for allocating ENSC DSM costs to electricity
21
ratepayer classes, to be considered for implementation for the 2013-2015
22
DSM Plan years
23
п‚·
24
25
prepare the preliminary program cost allocation tables for filing with the
2013-2015 DSM Plan
п‚·
conduct an analysis of the projected rate and bill impacts for NSPI’s
26
ratepayers of ENSC’s DSM programs, based on the cost projections
27
contained in the 2013- 2015 DSM Plan
28
29
The Cost Allocation Report prepared by Elenchus, including attachments containing
30
annual preliminary DSM program cost allocations and rate and billing impact analyses
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 29 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
1
EVIDENCE
for 2013-2015, is provided in Appendix C.
2
3
Elenchus has developed a cost allocation model (CAM) for ENSC that consists of two
4
parts:
5
п‚·
6
Part One of the CAM uses the methodology that was filed with the UARB
7
on Sept. 30, 2011, with additional information filed on Oct. 14, 2011. This
8
part of the model is being used to prepare ENSC’s audited financial
9
statements for 2011. The same model will be used for allocating costs to
10
ratepayers and taxpayers for ENSC’s audited financial statements in future
11
years.
12
п‚·
13
Part Two allocates the ratepayer-funded program costs to NSPI customer
14
classes. Part Two of the model will be used for the rate rider adjustment
15
commencing with the 2013 program year. It will establish the true-up
16
adjustments for the NSPI rate riders to recover the total costs (including
17
the allocated costs) based on ENSC’s actual expenditures. This part of the
18
model is consistent with the DSM Cost Allocation Approach that is in
19
place for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012, as set out in the 2009 Settlement
20
Agreement with one exception, as noted in Section 5.1.
21
22
5.1
DSM Cost Allocation Approach
23
24
The approach being taken by Elenchus in developing the CAM and in recommending
25
changes to the DSM cost allocation approach was presented to stakeholders for comment
26
and feedback at the two stakeholder sessions conducted by ENSC in November and
27
December 2011.
28
29
A presentation by Elenchus at the November 3, 2011 stakeholder session outlined the
30
approach and sought input on options for allocating costs. In addition, separate meetings
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 30 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
EVIDENCE
1
were held in person and by telephone to provide further briefings to stakeholders and
2
their expert advisors who were unable to attend the November 3 session. The purpose of
3
this stage of the consultation process was to survey the views of stakeholders prior to
4
finalizing the CAM.
5
6
At the December 8, 2011 stakeholder session, Elenchus presented the preferred options
7
for allocating ENSC’s costs. The purpose of this session was to ensure that the
8
stakeholders had an opportunity to raise any concerns about the approach that was being
9
implemented in developing the CAM.
10
11
Two issues received the most attention during the stakeholder sessions:
12
13
п‚·
The weighting to be used in allocating costs on the basis of System
14
Benefits and Participating Class Benefits: There was broad acceptance for
15
the recommendation to maintain the 25/75 percent split that was agreed to
16
by stakeholders in the 2009 Settlement Agreement for use in 2010, 2011
17
and 2012.
18
19
п‚·
The allocator to be used for Enabling Strategies: There was general
20
support for the recommendation to replace the current allocator (customer
21
count) and instead allocate these costs using the System/Participant
22
Benefit approach where feasible, or using total other program costs as the
23
allocator where participating classes are not practical to identify.
24
25
ENSC is proposing the following modifications to the DSM Cost Allocation Approach,
26
based on the consultations with stakeholders and recommendations by Elenchus.
27
28
Recommendation #1: Electricity DSM costs should continue to be allocated to NSPI
29
rate classes for purposes of determining the preliminary and final rate riders, with
30
25 percent of costs being allocated on the basis of system benefits, and 75 percent of
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 31 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
EVIDENCE
1
costs being allocated on the basis of participating class benefits. This approach was
2
accepted in the 2009 Settlement Agreement on the basis that it resulted in a reasonable
3
division of costs and benefits between participating and non-participating classes. The
4
premise of this approach is that no customer class should be made worse off as a result of
5
the implementation of the DSM Plan.
6
7
Recommendation #2: Enabling Strategies costs should be allocated using the
8
System/Participant Benefit approach similar to that used for other programs.
9
Hence, 75 percent of costs of the Enabling Strategy would be allocated on the basis of the
10
customer classes that are expected to benefit from the Enabling Strategy, where those
11
classes can be reasonably identified. Where it is not practical to identify the participating
12
(or benefiting) customer classes), the Participant Benefit costs (75 percent of the costs of
13
the Enabling Strategy) should be allocated on the basis of the proportional allocation of
14
all other program costs to the customer classes.
15
16
This treatment of Enabling Strategies that targets specific customer classes maintains
17
consistency with the treatment of other program costs. In the case of Enabling Strategies
18
that target or benefit all customer classes, it is assumed that all customer classes will
19
benefit in proportion to ENSC’s total expenditures on other DSM programs. Because
20
Enabling Strategies are intended to enhance the results of programs, program costs are a
21
suitable proxy for the Participant Benefits of these Enabling Strategies.
22
23
It is recommended that this approach be implemented for allocating electricity DSM costs
24
to customer classes for the 2013-2015 DSM Plan years.
25
26
27
5.2
Preliminary Program Cost Allocations, Rate and Billing Impacts
28
29
Tables showing the preliminary allocation of DSM program costs to electricity customer
30
rate classes are provided in Appendix C, Attachment 1. The DSM costs for 2013-2015
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 32 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
EVIDENCE
1
include overhead costs based on a proportional mark-up to direct program costs. To
2
calculate the preliminary allocation of Enabling Strategies, all customer classes are
3
assumed to benefit in proportion to ENSC’s total direct costs of the other DSM programs.
4
This is a change from previous DSM plans in which customer count was used to allocate
5
Enabling Strategies costs.
6
7
Preliminary DSM rate and electricity bill impacts are in Appendix C, Attachments 2 and
8
3. Since the 2012 DSM rate rider includes a true-up (balance adjustment) for 2010, the
9
DSM rate impact are showing both with and without the balance adjustment included in
10
the 2012 DSM rate.
11
12
The bill and rate impacts should be viewed as indicative only. Actual impacts will vary
13
for a number of reasons, including the following.
14
п‚·
15
When the CAM is used to allocate the ENSC’s actual costs as per its
16
audited financial statements, the results can be expected to differ from the
17
preliminary budget which projects program costs using a standard mark-
18
up for overhead costs rather than the more detailed and precise CAM.
19
п‚·
20
Actual program costs may vary from the preliminary budget as ENSC
21
identifies opportunities. If expenditures are reallocated between programs
22
that benefit different customer classes, the rate and bill impacts by class
23
may change.
24
п‚·
25
26
NSPI rates and load forecasts can be expected to change in future years,
which will change the calculation of rate and bill impacts.
27
28
5.3
Annual Rate Rider Adjustment Filing
29
30
ENSC is requesting approval from the UARB that the responsibility for filing the annual
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 33 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
EVIDENCE
1
DCRR (DSM Cost Recovery Rider) adjustment by October 1st of each year be transferred
2
from NSPI to ENSC. As is currently the case, the process will be used annually to adjust
3
the rate rider with the balance adjustment of the previous year, along with the UARB-
4
approved cost projection for the upcoming year. These projected costs for the upcoming
5
year will be based on updated preliminary cost allocation tables as reported in the annual
6
progress report filing and revised with the most recent NSPI sales forecasts by rate class.
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 34 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
1
6.
EVIDENCE
ENSC’S RESPONSE TO VERIFICATION CONSULTANT’S REQUESTS
2
3
On January 9, 2012, the UARB directed ENSC to address, as part of its 2013 DSM filing,
4
three issues arising from Dr. Peach’s review of ENSC’s Report on 2010 Evaluation and
5
Verification Action Items (filed July 20, 2011) and ENSC’s subsequent responses to
6
Information Requests (filed November 18, 2011). The three issues and ENSC’s responses
7
are provided below.
8
9
6.1
The Safe Disposal of CFLs
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
36
37
38
39
Dr. Peach states:
One continuing need is development of provision for the safe disposal of
CFLs (Request & Response IR-2). The marketing, promotion and installation
of CFLs will eventually result in a large substitution of CFLs for less efficient
incandescent lighting. As these new CFLs age they will eventually have to be
replaced and as they approach the end of their effective useful life (EUL), a
very substantial number will need to be disposed of each year. The eventual
need for disposal of tens of thousands of CFLs per year is a non-trivial
hazardous waste problem (essentially an externality associated with the
production of energy savings by means of CFLs). ENSC suggests that
establishing recycling centers for CFLs is outside the scope of the DSM
program, though ENSC would be supportive of any initiative that helps to
facilitate CFL recycling.
At the same time, ENSC is to be commended for solving the problem of
disposal of large quantities of fluorescent tube lamps generated by the
Administrator’s DSM programs by arranging for them to be collected and
shipped out of province for safe destruction in a specially designed “bulb
eater” (and potentially developing access to a “bulb eater” in Nova Scotia in
the future). While safe disposal of CFLs will require a different solution, at
some point in the future large numbers of CFLs will need to be destroyed each
year. Currently, as noted by ENSC, CFL recycling facilities do not exist in
Nova Scotia. There are a few regions that have retail stores that provide instore used CFL drop-off service, but many regions do not. Clean up for a
single broken CFL follows a hazardous materials protocol. The possibility of
thousands of tens of thousands of broken CFLs flowing into sanitation
equipment and dumps is a prospect best avoided. This is a problem that will
require continuing examination.
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 35 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
EVIDENCE
1
ENSC’s Response:
2
As a point of clarification, the old fluorescent tubes from ENSC’s Small Business Energy
3
Solutions program are fully recycled, as opposed to being destructed in a standard bulb
4
eater where its mercury-laden filter could end up in a landfill. The process that ENSC has
5
been using for full recycling includes the packaging and transport of unbroken
6
fluorescent tubes to a specialized facility in Quebec that completely separates the glass,
7
metals, phosphors and mercury for re-use in new products. In 2011, the cost to ENSC for
8
full recycling of fluorescent tubes was approximately $300,000.
9
10
ENSC is aware that the Nova Scotia Department of Environment is engaged with other
11
provinces, under the lead of Environment Canada, in developing an extended producer
12
stewardship program, which will address the disposal of CFLs for the entire country.
13
Extended stewardship programs would require producers to be responsible for the
14
collection and disposal of CFLs, including the retrieval of mercury. The regulations are
15
expected to be posted in the Canada Gazette this year, and it is anticipated that they
16
would be approved and in force by January 1, 2014 to coincide with the Federal
17
efficiency standard for general-service lights.
18
19
ENSC encourages and is supportive of this stewardship initiative.
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 36 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
1
6.2
EVIDENCE
Leveraging Sources of Financing
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Dr. Peach states:
The response to IR-20 states that for the Small Business Energy Solutions
program there is an option for on-bill financing. This concept of facilitating
leverage through on-bill financing or, by extension, other sources of financing
such as energy efficient mortgages has the potential to secure a multiple of the
energy savings that would be possible through DSM Administrator funding
alone. It lowers the DSM Administrator’s cost per kWh conserved. It may be
very important to gradually building the effectiveness of ENSC. It will be
important for ENSC to gradually extend and develop this type of leveraging
strategy.
14
ENSC’s Response:
15
ENSC recognizes that lack of financial capital may be a barrier to customers adopting
16
energy efficiency measures. Removal of this barrier could increase participation in
17
energy efficiency programs and therefore increase energy savings. In co-operation with
18
Nova Scotia Power, ENSC offers an on-bill financing option for businesses, non-profits
19
and institutional customers.
20
21
ENSC has considered a broad range of potential financing options and is in discussions
22
with several prospective partners about potential delivery of a financing program, which
23
would make financing available to a much broader spectrum of potential DSM
24
participants in all sectors. These include discussions with NSPI about an expanded on-bill
25
financing program, discussions with chartered banks about the delivery of energy
26
efficiency project financing, and discussions with other financial institutions about the
27
potential use of New Houses program rebates as a source of funds for mortgage down
28
payments. These potential financing options feature opportunities to leverage the
29
financial capital, infrastructure and expertise of prospective partners, to assist participants
30
in saving energy through user-friendly financing arrangements.
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 37 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
EVIDENCE
1
As discussions progress, more detailed cost-benefit analyses will be conducted to
2
determine the cost per kWh based on the cost of capital acquisition and extent of interest
3
rate buy down, administrative requirements and provisions for potential responsibility for
4
loan losses. These analyses will guide the implementation of an expanded financing
5
program in 2012, with the intention of gradually expanding the program as circumstances
6
and opportunities allow.
7
8
6.3
A Dual Baseline Approach for Savings Evaluations
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Dr. Peach states:
In Response to IR-25, ENSC notes that it is seeking advice on a dual baseline
approach from its evaluation consultant which, if appropriate, could be
implemented as part of the evaluation of the 2012 programs. This is a
reasonable pace for development of a dual baseline approach. A dual baseline
approach simply counts energy savings produced by retrofit of new equipment
as the difference between the energy use of new equipment vs. existing
equipment for the remaining useful life (RUL) of existing equipment and
thereafter as the difference between the new equipment and the current
standard replacement equipment on the market. However, as a dual baseline
approach is developed it quickly becomes more complex in its details. It will
be important for ENSC to develop and present its dual baseline approach,
ideally during 2012 for use in the evaluation of 2012 programs.
24
ENSC has investigated the feasibility and benefits of implementing a dual baseline
25
approach and is providing a two-part response. First, some background is provided,
26
including an explanation of key terms and how a dual baseline approach differs from the
27
more common method used to calculate savings. Second, ENSC addresses the costs,
28
benefits and issues related to implementing a dual baseline approach, and indicates its
29
commitments for 2012 with respect to considering the implementation of a dual baseline
30
approach.
31
32
Background:
33
A dual baseline approach calculates energy savings using a more complex method than is
34
used by the majority of North American DSM administrators. Most jurisdictions use the
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 38 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
EVIDENCE
1
effective useful life (EUL), or assumed average life of the new measure to calculate the
2
annual savings of the new measure. An example is the replacement of a heating system
3
with one that uses energy more efficiently. For the EUL of the new system (for example,
4
25 years), the difference in energy use between the new system and the replaced one is
5
claimed as energy savings.
6
7
A dual baseline approach uses, in addition to EUL, the remaining useful life (RUL) of the
8
replaced equipment, which is the length of time the equipment is expected to remain in
9
operation (the length of time until its EUL is at an end). Using a dual baseline approach
10
in the example of the heating system, the difference in energy use between the replaced
11
and new system is claimed as savings only for the RUL of the replaced system. After the
12
RUL (for example 10 years) of the replaced equipment and until the end of the EUL of
13
the new equipment (15 years, if the new system is assumed to have an EUL of 25 years),
14
the difference in energy use between the new system and the standard of equipment at
15
that time is claimed as energy savings. This method takes into account improvements in
16
technology and the market over time; even without an incentive, energy savings for some
17
equipment will occur when old equipment is replaced, because the standard version of
18
newer equipment uses less energy.
19
20
In the year an energy-efficient measure is installed, if the replaced measure is still in
21
working order, its RUL must be calculated based on its EUL and the length of time it has
22
been in use prior to replacement. Once calculated, energy savings are affected in the
23
following ways:
24
25
п‚·
When a measure is replaced and it has a RUL, the full unitary savings
26
value (the replaced measure’s estimated annual kWh usage minus the new
27
measure’s estimated annual kWh usage) is calculated. These savings can
28
be claimed for each year of the RUL of the measure (Figure 6.1, step 1).
29
When the RUL of the replaced measure expires in the future, a new
30
baseline for annual kWh savings must be used. This baseline is calculated
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 39 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
EVIDENCE
1
using the most common energy-use values for replacement products:
2
either those legislated through codes and standards or those installed by
3
common practice (Figure 6.1, step 2).
4
п‚·
5
If the replaced measure has reached the end of its EUL at the time of
6
replacement, then the current code or most commonly used measure is
7
used to calculate the energy savings, rather than the difference between the
8
new measure and the replaced one.
9
10
Figure 6.1 - Two-part Calculation of Energy Savings Using a Dual Baseline
11
Approach
Annual Consumption (kWh/yr)
120
100
80
Savings
for RUL
60
Savings for EUL minus RUL
40
20
0
Existing
Equipment
Efficient
Equipment
Step 1: Savings
calculated for the RUL
of a replaced measure
12
Standard
Equipment
Efficient
Equipment
Step 2: Savings calculated
for the remaining EUL of
the new measure
13
14
A dual baseline approach would result in the following changes to ENSC’s savings
15
calculations:
16
17
18
п‚·
For a replaced measure at the end of its EUL, incremental savings would
be calculated at a lower value than is currently calculated if common
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 40 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
EVIDENCE
1
practice or standards have an estimated annual kWh usage lower than the
2
replaced measure.
3
4
п‚·
For a replaced measure with an RUL, future cumulative energy savings
5
could change when the RUL expires. A new savings value would need to
6
be calculated if common practice or standards have an estimated annual
7
kWh usage lower than the replaced measure.
8
9
The approach would result in no changes to the following savings calculations:
10
11
п‚·
For replaced equipment having an RUL, annual incremental savings
12
claimed in the year the measure was installed would not change because
13
ENSC’s current methodology is the same as it would be using dual
14
baseline.
15
16
п‚·
For replaced measures for which the energy use of a standard or common
17
replacement is the same as the replaced measure, annual and cumulative
18
savings would not change.
19
20
п‚·
When measures are added to a residential or commercial site rather than
21
replaced, annual and cumulative savings would not change because no
22
replacement of a measure occurs.
23
24
п‚·
For new construction, expansion or renovation projects, savings would not
25
change because the measures implemented would be considered market-
26
driven decisions, not discretionary replacement decisions. Therefore, they
27
do not need to be accounted for using a dual baseline.
28
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 41 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
EVIDENCE
1
Implementation of a Dual Baseline Approach:
2
ENSC agrees with Dr. Peach, as stated in the 2010 Verification Study, that adopting a
3
dual baseline approach for ENSC programs would more accurately record energy savings
4
in some situations. The majority of ENSC programs target replacement of equipment
5
having a RUL, so the approach for calculating annual incremental savings would not
6
change. However, the cumulative savings claimed by ENSC would be reduced, since full
7
replacement savings are currently claimed, rather than a change in savings occurring
8
upon expiry of the RUL of the replaced equipment.
9
10
Because of its complexity, a dual baseline evaluation involves additional research and
11
resources. After receiving input and advice from its consultants, ENSC has the following
12
concerns regarding implementation:
13
14
п‚·
Resources required for implementation: The establishment of the current
15
baseline and the remaining useful life of measures is complex and requires
16
accurate market data in order to make reliable assumptions. Much of this
17
information has not yet been collected in Nova Scotia. In the absence of
18
specific product legislation, the difficulty of establishing current market
19
baselines is even greater. As an example, ENSC will need to determine
20
how the distribution of actual measure lifetimes around the average EUL
21
will factor into savings calculations. ENSC will need to devote significant
22
resources for the determination of the dual baseline for each measure used.
23
24
п‚·
Cost-effectiveness given the size of Nova Scotia’s market: The few
25
regions in North America that have implemented dual baseline have done
26
so for large customer programs that can devote significant resources to
27
determining the baseline. The majority of ENSC’s programs focus on
28
small and medium enterprises and residential customers.
29
30
п‚·
Recalculation of the IRP: The long-term DSM savings targets used for the
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 42 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
EVIDENCE
1
IRP would require adjustment. Cumulative savings are currently
2
determined by adding each year’s incremental savings to the sum of all
3
previous years’ incremental savings. With the implementation of dual
4
baseline, ENSC’s forecasted IRP cumulative savings would need to be
5
revised to incorporate the change in savings that would occur whenever a
6
replaced measure reaches the end of its EUL. Tracking these results as
7
well as changes in common practices and standards would require a
8
greater investment of time and resources.
9
10
п‚·
Application of dual baselines across the organization: If a dual baseline
11
approach is developed, it would not be feasible to implement it for every
12
program. For example, in programs that offer a large number of products
13
that change frequently, in which participants are not likely to know how
14
long existing measures have been installed, or that do not involve
15
communication with end users, it would not be practical to incorporate a
16
dual baseline evaluation. Considering the few programs for which dual
17
baseline may be practical, the benefits of greater accuracy of evaluated
18
savings may be exceeded by the associated costs.
19
20
ENSC understands the added value of implementing a dual baseline approach. However,
21
ENSC believes that a measured approach to deciding whether to implement a dual
22
baseline policy is prudent. Even if only a small portion of programs implement a dual
23
baseline, the time and resources required to do so may be significant. This investment
24
must be weighed against the value gained.
25
26
As a result of the noted concerns, it is prudent for ENSC to complete a more thorough
27
analysis to determine if the implementation of a dual baseline approach is feasible. ENSC
28
commits to the following tasks in 2012:
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 43 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
1
п‚·
EVIDENCE
determine the programs in which early replacement is a major component
2
and prioritize them on the basis of the potential success of determining a
3
baseline
4
п‚·
5
6
assess other jurisdictions’ determination of dual baseline mechanisms and
identify the lessons learned from their experiences
п‚·
evaluate the benefits and costs of implementing a dual baseline approach
7
in the programs identified as priorities, including an assessment of the
8
likely change in annual incremental and cumulative savings over time
9
10
п‚·
review the feasibility, conditions and impacts of implementing a dual
baseline policy in Nova Scotia
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 44 of 45
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
1
7.
EVIDENCE
CONCLUSION
2
3
The 2013-2015 DSM Plan provides a sound approach for enabling Nova Scotians to
4
achieve significant and cost-effective energy savings while building capacity for
5
continued long-term success. The 2013-2015 DSM Plan incorporates the Nova Scotia
6
DSM experience gained to date and strives for ambitious energy efficiency and
7
conservation goals while remaining financially responsible.
8
9
With this Application, ENSC is seeking:
10
11
п‚·
12
13
associated multi-year framework as outlined in Section 3
п‚·
14
15
16
approval of the 2013-2015 DSM Plan, provided as Appendix A, and its
approval to transfer the responsibility for filing the annual DCRR
adjustment, from NSPI to ENSC
п‚·
approval of revisions to the DSM Cost Allocation Methodology
commencing with the 2013 DSM plan year
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 45 of 45
Appendix A
2013-2015 DSM Plan
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
Appendix A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1
1.1
2.0
3.0
2013-2015 DSM Plan Savings and Investment ........................................................ 4
RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS AND SERVICES ................................................................ 8
2.1
Efficient Product Rebates ......................................................................................... 8
2.2
Existing Residential .................................................................................................. 9
2.3
New Residential ...................................................................................................... 12
2.4
Energy Saving Actions ........................................................................................... 14
PROGRAMS AND SERVICES FOR BUSINESSES, NON-PROFIT AND
INSTITUTIONAL CUSTOMERS ..................................................................................... 15
4.0
3.1
Efficient Product Rebates ....................................................................................... 16
3.2
Custom Incentives ................................................................................................... 17
3.3
Direct Installation.................................................................................................... 20
ENABLING STRATEGIES ............................................................................................... 22
4.1
Education and Outreach .......................................................................................... 22
4.2
Development and Research..................................................................................... 24
4.3
Innovative Financing .............................................................................................. 25
4.4
Capacity Building ................................................................................................... 26
4.5
Working with Governments .................................................................................... 29
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 - 2013-2015 DSM Plan Savings and Investment .......................................................... 4
Figure 1.2 - 2013 DSM Plan Savings and Investment .................................................................... 5
Figure 1.3 - 2014 DSM Plan Savings and Investment .................................................................... 6
Figure 1.4 - 2015 DSM Plan Savings and Investment .................................................................... 7
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page i
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
1
1.0
Appendix A
INTRODUCTION
2
3
ENSC drew from its experiences delivering the 2011 DSM programs, consulted with
4
stakeholders and engaged Navigant and Dunsky Energy Consulting (Dunsky) to develop
5
the 2013-2015 DSM Plan. The proposed plan is a comprehensive portfolio of DSM
6
programs for residential customers, businesses, non-profit organizations and institutions,
7
which will cost-effectively deliver electrical energy and demand savings. While the 2013-
8
2015 DSM Plan includes information on approach and efficiency measures, as with all
9
plans, it must incorporate a degree of flexibility. As ENSC implements the Plan, elements
10
may be revised to reflect lessons learned, changing circumstances, new information or
11
evolving market conditions.
12
13
Whether it was partnering with Air Miles on online promotions or meeting with Nova
14
Scotians at community trade shows, 2011 illustrated that Nova Scotians are receptive to
15
energy efficiency and they expect a positive customer experience. That is why ENSC is
16
moving towards a true “one-window” approach to customer service. It is an experience
17
that puts the customers first and does not expect them to know which ENSC programs
18
work for them. Instead, a customer-focused approach allows Nova Scotians to simply
19
connect with ENSC and let the Corporation’s staff provide a personalized energy solution
20
for each customer.
21
22
With that in mind, ENSC’s marketing efforts for 2013-2015 will aim at reinforcing the
23
concept that Efficiency Nova Scotia is the place to turn for customer solutions. This
24
broader marketing approach may employ seasonal campaigns using traditional and social
25
media, as well as earned media to drive the general public to Efficiency Nova Scotia for
26
their energy efficiency questions and needs.
27
28
The expectation is that by 2015, marketing will focus primarily on general promotions
29
aimed at raising the profile of Efficiency Nova Scotia as the organization with energy
30
efficiency solutions for residential customers, businesses, non-profit organizations and
31
institutions. Selective, program-specific campaigns will continue as warranted, and will
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 1 of 32
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
Appendix A
1
target highly segmented customer bases, through a combination of e-marketing,
2
advertising (i.e. in trade journals), social media and grassroots, and social marketing
3
campaigns. While the benefits of DSM to reduce fuel bills and improve bottom lines are
4
generally evident to program participants – particularly those who are making significant
5
changes – the broader benefits of DSM, as they relate to the environment and the
6
economy, are not as readily understood by the general public. Efficiency Nova Scotia is
7
committed to communicating these benefits, through education, community outreach and
8
awareness-building.
9
10
ENSC recognizes that, in the long term, an important aspect of the energy efficiency and
11
conservation business is changing the energy culture in Nova Scotia. Public information,
12
education and awareness are required to build increasing support for this change. For
13
ENSC, it includes identifying and understanding the barriers and benefits, and developing
14
strategies for the gradual shift to a new norm for Nova Scotia where every sector in the
15
province is more efficient with respect to energy use. Not unlike the journey of change in
16
Nova Scotia in recent years regarding solid waste management, we need comparable
17
progress, community by community, on reducing our energy waste in all sectors in order
18
to improve our productivity and competitiveness. It is essential however, to engage
19
directly with individual Nova Scotians in ways that help them to understand the relevance
20
of energy efficiency and conservation to their interests, and that contribute to their
21
adoption of energy efficiency and conservation as an individual and social norm. The
22
implementation of the home energy report initiative, approved in the 2012 Plan,
23
contributes to this objective. In addition, ENSC will work to build community-based
24
social marketing into its services so that all programs, including those based largely on
25
incentives, contribute not only to immediate reductions in energy use but also to
26
behaviours that sustain those energy savings and that lead to increased energy savings in
27
the longer term.
28
29
The 2013-2015 DSM Plan documents the objectives and approaches for the delivery of
30
ENSC’s energy efficiency programs and services. Section 2 describes programs and
31
services for residential customers. Programs and services for businesses, non-profit and
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 2 of 32
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
Appendix A
1
institutional customers are discussed in Section 3. Enabling strategies including activities
2
focused on education, development and research, and on developing industry standard
3
practices are described in Section 4.
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 3 of 32
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
1
1.1
Appendix A
2013-2015 DSM Plan Savings and Investment
2
3
ENSC will invest $144.4 million (in 2013 dollars) over three years, from 2013 to 2015, to
4
achieve 410.8 GWh and 79.8 MW of incremental installed annual net savings at the
5
generator. The annual savings targets and investments are in Figure 1.1
6
7
Figure 1.1 - 2013-2015 DSM Plan Savings and Investment
Currency is expressed in 2013 dollars. Columns may not add correctly due to rounding.
An avoided cost of $135/MWh was provided by NSPI in February 2012 and includes the combined cost
of energy and capacity.
a
Lifetime benefits are expressed as the net present value of the avoided costs, including energy and capacity,
over the life of the program measures.
b
TRC is a benefit/cost ratio comparing lifetime benefits to the sum of ENSC’s and participants’ costs.
c
PAC is a benefit/cost ratio comparing lifetime benefits to ENSC’s costs.
8
9
Figures 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 present program investment budgets, and the incremental annual
10
GWh energy and the MW demand net savings at generator for 2013, 2014 and 2015,
11
respectively. They also provide the lifetime total resource benefits, the total resource cost
12
(TRC) test results and the program administrator cost (PAC) test results for each of the
13
three years.
DATE REVISED: April 18, 2012
Page 4 of 32
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
1
Appendix A
Figure 1.2 - 2013 DSM Plan Savings and Investment
Currency is expressed in 2013 dollars. Columns may not add correctly due to rounding.
An avoided cost of $135/MWh was provided by NSPI in February 2012 and includes the combined cost of energy and
capacity.
a
Lifetime benefits are expressed as the net present value of the avoided costs, including energy and capacity, over the
life of the program measures.
b
TRC is a benefit/cost ratio comparing lifetime benefits to the sum of ENSC’s and participants’ costs.
c
PAC is a benefit/cost ratio comparing lifetime benefits to ENSC’s costs.
d
Includes participation by low income households.
DATE REVISED: April 18, 2012
Page 5 of 32
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
1
Appendix A
Figure 1.3 - 2014 DSM Plan Savings and Investment
Currency is expressed in 2013 dollars. Columns may not add correctly due to rounding.
An avoided cost of $135/MWh was provided by NSPI in February 2012 and includes the combined cost of energy and
capacity.
a
Lifetime benefits are expressed as the net present value of the avoided costs, including energy and capacity, over the
life of the program measures.
b
TRC is a benefit/cost ratio comparing lifetime benefits to the sum of ENSC’s and participants’ costs.
c
PAC is a benefit/cost ratio comparing lifetime benefits to ENSC’s costs.
d
Includes participation by low income households.
DATE REVISED: April 18, 2012
Page 6 of 32
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
1
Appendix A
Figure 1.4 - 2015 DSM Plan Savings and Investment
Currency is expressed in 2013 dollars. Columns may not add correctly due to rounding.
An avoided cost of $135/MWh was provided by NSPI in February 2012 and includes the combined cost of energy and
capacity.
a
Lifetime benefits are expressed as the net present value of the avoided costs, including energy and capacity, over the
life of the program measures.
b
TRC is a benefit/cost ratio comparing lifetime benefits to the sum of ENSC’s and participants’ costs.
c
PAC is a benefit/cost ratio comparing lifetime benefits to ENSC’s costs.
d
Includes participation by low income households.
DATE REVISED: April 18, 2012
Page 7 of 32
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
1
2.0
Appendix A
RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS AND SERVICES
2
3
The overarching objective for ENSC’s residential sector electricity DSM initiatives is to
4
help Nova Scotians achieve long-term energy savings by building energy efficiency and
5
conservation considerations into their decision making. Specific measures focus on
6
increasing the adoption of energy-efficient lighting, appliances, consumer electronics and
7
other mass-market products, as well as more comprehensive approaches to electrical
8
energy savings by addressing whole-home efficiency, space- and water-heating
9
equipment. Additionally, the residential initiatives encourage customers to turn in or
10
replace inefficient or spare appliances that are still in use, and make other changes that
11
will reduce consumption. They will also provide broad-based education based on social-
12
and behavioural-change research and increase awareness of individual home energy use
13
compared to peers via direct mail home energy reports, enabling Nova Scotians to save
14
energy through their energy-efficient behaviour.
15
16
Residential initiatives are summarized using the following four categories, although
17
delivery with ENSC’s customer-focused approach will emphasize customers’ specific
18
needs and services:
19
п‚·
20
21
Efficient Product Rebates (includes components currently referred to as
Retail Markdown and Appliance Retirement)
22
п‚·
Existing Residential (provides services for all existing residential housing)
23
п‚·
New Residential (includes the program currently referred to as EnerGuide
24
for New Houses)
п‚·
25
26
Energy Saving Actions (includes the new program currently referred to as
Home Energy Report)
27
28
2.1
Efficient Product Rebates
29
30
Financial incentives to offset the higher cost of efficient products, along with public
31
awareness, education, and retail availability, are the foundation of Efficient Product
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 8 of 32
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
Appendix A
1
Rebates. All homeowners and renters can take part. Low income residential homeowners
2
and renters may receive free efficient products through direct installation within the
3
Existing Residential service offerings, as identified in section 2.2.
4
5
Financial incentives are provided to customers who purchase eligible high efficiency
6
products. ENERGY STARВ® products are promoted, and financial incentives are offered
7
for selected products that meet or exceed the ENERGY STARВ® level of performance.
8
Eligible measures include a variety of lighting products, appliances and electronics.
9
10
The Appliance Retirement component offers cash incentives, and free pick-up and
11
recycling of second, inefficient but functioning, refrigerators and freezers.
12
13
2.2
Existing Residential
14
15
The Existing Residential service is designed to promote cost-effective energy efficiency
16
improvements to Nova Scotia’s housing stock of single detached houses, duplexes, rental
17
housing, mobile/mini homes and multi-family buildings, and includes small community
18
buildings such as firehalls and churches.
19
20
Incentives are available for lighting upgrades, measures to reduce electric water heating
21
energy use, appliance upgrades and other items. Incentives for homes with electric space-
22
heating may include a full range of envelope measures, such as air-sealing and insulation,
23
and green heating system measures.
24
25
The Existing Houses program will likely continue to be offered within a seamless, all-
26
fuels home retrofit program, with funding from the Province of Nova Scotia covering the
27
rebates for non-electric energy efficiency improvements. Through a competitive Request
28
for Proposal process, ENSC contracts with service organizations and their certified
29
energy advisors who operate throughout the province. Implementation policies and
30
procedures are in place with service organizations and may be modified as appropriate to
31
enhance the program.
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 9 of 32
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
1
Appendix A
Enhancements over previous programming include:
2
3
п‚·
renter eligibility
4
п‚·
direct installation of certain low-cost measures during the initial audit
5
п‚·
innovative financing methods
6
п‚·
customer advisory assistance (through an enhanced delivery agent service,
7
to identify all eligible measures and guide participants through the
8
process)
9
п‚·
trade ally engagement (including developing and maintaining a list of
10
qualified contractors, and supporting and promoting contractor training in
11
building science and key measures, such as air sealing)
12
13
Low Income
14
The Low Income Homeowners component builds on the existing program, providing free
15
energy audits and turnkey implementation of energy efficiency measures at no cost to
16
participants. Building envelope measures include upgrades such as draft-proofing and
17
insulating the basement, crawl spaces, walls and attic. Additional measures may include
18
installing CFLs, insulating the electric water tank and hot water piping, installing low-
19
flow shower heads and faucet aerators, providing power bars to reduce standby losses
20
from electronic devices, installing programmable thermostats, and replacing qualifying
21
freezers and refrigerators with ENERGY STARВ® Tier 3 appliances. The Low Income
22
Homeowners component also includes customer education and the free installation of
23
program measures on a site-by-site basis. Eligible measures may be expanded to include
24
advanced drain water heat recovery and fuel substitution, which will provide low income
25
households with higher levels of energy and cost savings.
26
27
A direct installation service will be provided to low income renters in single-family and
28
multi-family dwellings. Products such as CFLs, power bars with integrated timers, and
29
hot water tank and pipe insulation will be installed, and incandescent holiday lighting will
30
be exchanged for LED lights. Large appliances will be assessed for potential
31
replacement, and information on efficiency will be provided to the renter.
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 10 of 32
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
Appendix A
1
Low-income seniors are a specific market segment that ENSC can target for participation
2
in its programs.
3
4
ENSC’s 2013-2015 DSM Plan includes an investment of $13.3 million in Low Income
5
DSM programs over three years to achieve 19.0 GWh of incremental annual energy
6
savings.
7
8
Green Heating Systems
9
The promotion of green heating systems is intended to increase market penetration of
10
space and water heating systems that provide all, or a substantial share, of their heat from
11
renewable energy sources, i.e. from solar energy provided directly by the sun, from heat
12
stored in the air or ground, or from biomass. Information on green heating systems is in
13
Appendix E.
14
15
This service will target the residential sector, including existing homes and new
16
construction, within a seamless, all-fuels offering, and will provide incentives for the
17
following technologies:
18
19
п‚·
Solar thermal (space and water heating)
20
п‚·
Ground source heat pumps
21
п‚·
Biomass systems (stoves, boilers or furnaces, including whole-house
22
automated systems)
23
п‚·
Ductless air source heat pumps
24
п‚·
Ducted air source heat pumps
25
26
Eligible systems may be revised as appropriate, based on market conditions, technology
27
development, evaluation and verification results, and implementation experience.
28
Focused on the promotion of the most efficient systems available, specifications for each
29
eligible technology will, to the extent possible, be based on independent third-party
30
processes, which may include minimum efficiency or other quality requirements.
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 11 of 32
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
Appendix A
1
Marketing activities will promote the benefits of specific systems, as well as the broader
2
benefits of green heating systems, efficiency and the reduction of environmental
3
impacts.
4
5
As a component of its capacity building strategy to develop relationships with its trade
6
allies, ENSC will develop and maintain a list of qualified contractors, plumbers and
7
HVAC installers who meet defined criteria. ENSC will promote and support training for
8
contractors and installers. ENSC will evaluate the opportunity to provide upstream
9
incentives to contractors, installers, and builders.
10
11
ENSC recognizes that there are specific issues for some technologies, translating into
12
higher barriers to adoption of those technologies. Of particular interest are automated
13
whole-house pellet boilers and furnaces. ENSC may work with potential distributors to
14
understand and help overcome barriers to establishing or piloting a wood pellet delivery
15
service. This could include support and promotion of demonstration projects to increase
16
awareness of this opportunity.
17
18
2.3
New Residential
19
20
The New Residential services are available to builders and owner/builders of new houses
21
in Nova Scotia, to encourage the construction of high performance housing by promoting
22
the use of energy-efficient products and design practices. Objectives include:
23
24
п‚·
25
26
27
increasing the number of new houses that exceed the Building Code
energy efficiency requirement
п‚·
increasing the number of new houses installing ENERGY STARВ®
labeled products
28
29
Strategies used to achieve the objectives include design consultation, financial
30
incentives, promotion and marketing, and contractor education and training.
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 12 of 32
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
Appendix A
1
Energy assessments and design advice are provided to builders before construction.
2
Using data on the planned building envelope and equipment, along with the expected
3
energy consumption, energy analysts suggest improvements that will enhance the
4
expected energy performance. The EnerGuide system rates homes on a scale of 0-100
5
based on the expected energy performance of the home, which is determined through
6
computer software modeling. Upon completion of the new home, a final inspection and
7
rating is provided. The Nova Scotia Building Code requires all new residential houses to
8
either meet prescriptive requirements (intended to achieve an EnerGuide rating of 80) or
9
demonstrate an energy efficiency performance through an EnerGuide rating of 80. To
10
promote higher efficiency in new construction, ENSC’s current minimum incentive
11
eligibility threshold is an EnerGuide rating of 83 and will be revised as code revisions are
12
implemented. ENSC will adapt its program design and eligibility criteria, based on the
13
evolution of the federal rating system and tools available. A tiered incentive structure will
14
be offered, providing higher incentives for houses that achieve higher EnerGuide ratings.
15
16
Marketing activities will target builders, buyers of new homes and trade allies who
17
support the new home industry. Trade ally outreach will include training in residential
18
new construction focusing on best energy efficiency practices, advanced design
19
techniques and the integration of energy efficiency technologies into a home’s design.
20
21
ENSC will continue to work with municipalities to increase participation by providing
22
program information at the permit application stage. ENSC will work with the Canada
23
Mortgage and Housing Corporation to allow participants to use ENSC rebates as part of
24
their mortgage down payment.
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 13 of 32
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
1
2.4
Appendix A
Energy Saving Actions
2
3
The Energy Saving Actions initiative being implemented in 2012 is known as the Home
4
Energy Report and involves a combination of mailed information and an Internet portal.
5
It may be continued for use in 2013 to 2015 and/or enhanced and expanded. In addition
6
to expanding the number of customers receiving reports, future versions may make use
7
of smart meters, other platforms and channels, and modified messaging.
8
9
The Home Energy Report is designed to produce measurable, cost-effective energy
10
savings for residential customers by providing feedback on their household energy
11
consumption. This is not a measure-specific service, but rather targets behavioural
12
changes (e.g. lowering the thermostat, using cold water for clothes washing, switching
13
off lights in unoccupied rooms, etc.). The program is also expected to drive participation
14
in other ENSC residential services.
15
16
The program, to be delivered in cooperation with Nova Scotia Power, is designed to
17
provide residential customers with regular feedback on their electricity use via their
18
electricity bill or through direct mail. The feedback will show the customer’s
19
consumption over time and compare it with relevant benchmarks, such as averages for
20
similar homes, or those in the neighbourhood. The comparison homes with their relative
21
efficiency rankings will be anonymous. The program may also provide participants with:
22
23
п‚·
a qualitative performance assessment focusing on positive reinforcement
24
as energy efficiency behaviours are implemented, and energy
25
consumption decreases
26
п‚·
27
28
recommendations for improving energy efficiency through behavioural
changes, low-cost and larger-scale measures
п‚·
referrals to, and promotion of, relevant ENSC DSM programs
29
30
Customers will have the option of completing an online or mail-in questionnaire about
31
their home, which will allow ENSC to provide more customized recommendations.
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 14 of 32
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
1
2
3.0
PROGRAMS
AND
SERVICES
Appendix A
FOR
BUSINESSES,
NON-PROFIT
AND
INSTITUTIONAL CUSTOMERS
3
4
ENSC is using the term “Business, Non-profit and Institutional” (BNI), to describe the
5
sector formerly referred to as “Commercial and Industrial (C&I)”. This does not change
6
the target markets and more accurately describes segments, such as healthcare and
7
education, which typically do not self-identify as commercial or industrial.
8
9
The objective of ENSC’s electricity DSM initiatives in this sector is to build energy
10
efficiency and conservation considerations into its’ customers’ decision-making
11
processes. ENSC’s energy efficiency services for this sector include program categories
12
that package technical and financial resources and deliver a suite of products and services
13
to targeted segments.
14
15
ENSC’s aim is to provide a single point of contact through which BNI customers may
16
access its services. With this approach, energy efficiency services are offered through
17
direct outreach to targeted segments and through the strategic technical support of
18
qualified trade allies. The goal of this strategy is to enable ENSC staff and qualified trade
19
allies to work one-on-one with customers to develop plans tailored to their needs.
20
21
Initiatives for the Business, Non-Profit and Institutional sector are described using the
22
following three categories, although delivery with ENSC’s customer-focused approach
23
will emphasize customers’ specific needs and services:
24
25
п‚·
26
Efficient Product Rebates (includes components currently referred to as
Business Energy Rebates and Smart Lighting Choices)
27
п‚·
Custom Incentives
28
п‚·
Direct Installation (includes the Small Business Energy Solutions
29
program)
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 15 of 32
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
1
3.1
Appendix A
Efficient Product Rebates
2
3
The Efficient Product Rebates category is intended to secure cost-effective electrical
4
energy savings for customers in the retrofit and new construction markets, through
5
promotion and rebates on high-efficiency equipment. To address first-cost barriers,
6
ENSC offers financial incentives, including measure rebates, which typically buy down
7
the participant’s incremental cost of efficiency to a simple payback of one to five years.
8
The incremental cost of a measure is the difference in first cost to the customer between
9
the standard efficiency product and the high-efficiency product. In addition to offering
10
measure rebates, ENSC offers financing to qualifying customers for the remaining
11
portion of project costs. The goal of offering financing for the non-incentive portion of a
12
project is to enable customers to install energy-efficient technologies without requiring
13
them to commit the full capital cost at project initiation. By offering measure rebates and
14
project financing, ENSC will provide a full-service solution for customers to implement
15
energy-efficient technologies.
16
17
In 2012, Business Energy Rebates (BER) and Smart Lighting Choices (SLC) will be
18
combined as the Business Energy Rebates (BER) program.
19
20
The BER program is designed to use existing market channels to promote high-efficiency
21
equipment and to encourage the adoption of efficient technologies. BER provides
22
prescriptive rebates to qualifying customers for a variety of efficient product types. The
23
BER program is focused on market-driven opportunities in natural replacement and new
24
construction markets. It offers rebates and upstream discounts for qualifying equipment
25
or services in new construction or retrofit projects. Businesses and owners/operators of
26
multi-unit residential buildings are eligible to participate in the program.
27
28
The Business Energy Rebates program targets equipment for which the unit electrical
29
energy savings can be reliably prescribed, and standard per-measure savings and
30
incentive levels can be, or have already been, established.
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 16 of 32
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
Appendix A
1
Program measures include products and services in the following areas: lighting; heating,
2
ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC); adjustable speed drives for motors;
3
refrigeration; compressed air; food service and hospitality equipment; and agricultural
4
and food processing equipment. Program measures and measure categories are subject to
5
change.
6
7
For targeted market segments, technical and financial services will be bundled into a
8
single application package for delivery. For instance, lighting measures are commonly
9
included in packages for a variety of industries and building types, while commercial ice
10
machines are less common and primarily included in market segments such as hospitality
11
and food service.
12
13
While most customers will receive these services through their ENSC key account
14
manager, qualified trade allies may also help customers engage in programs.
15
16
3.2
Custom Incentives
17
18
The Custom program is designed to secure cost-effective electrical energy savings from
19
energy efficiency projects and to promote efficient fuel choices in new construction
20
projects as well as existing facilities.
21
22
The program works directly with eligible customers to identify and implement cost-
23
effective electrical energy and demand saving measures on a case-by-case basis.
24
Participants may choose to aggregate multiple sites into a single retrofit project for which
25
cost-effectiveness is improved and incentives from other programs do not apply.
26
27
The Custom program offers financial assistance for engineering studies and upgrades,
28
with the goal of helping customers complete all phases of their electrical energy
29
efficiency projects. The Custom program promotes the engineering and installation of
30
electrical energy-efficient products or measures for which the operation and
31
characteristics are not conducive to a prescriptive rebate structure. The installation of
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 17 of 32
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
Appendix A
1
these measures is conducted by third parties or qualified participant staff, as selected by
2
the participant. The recruitment of participants with custom projects depends largely
3
upon direct contact, referrals, and networking among program allies to identify feasible
4
projects. Because of their complexity, custom projects can have longer lead times.
5
6
While all BNI customers will remain eligible to participate in the Custom program,
7
ENSC will continue to refine its services for market segments. This aligns with its
8
customer-focused approach, offering both custom and prescriptive services and
9
incentives that consider the needs of the market segments. ENSC may target segments
10
such as grocery stores, commercial refrigeration, schools, large multi-unit residential
11
buildings, military, and high-tech industry.
12
13
New construction and major renovation projects are eligible for the Custom program
14
through one of the energy modeling or the whole building paths.
15
16
New construction technical services will provide participants with financial support for
17
consulting services that deliver efficient facility designs. Additional implementation
18
incentives through the Custom program, rebates through the Business Energy Rebates
19
program and project financing will be available to participants who opt for qualifying
20
efficient designs. New construction incentives will be based on the incremental electrical
21
energy savings and the difference in measure costs between the proposed design features
22
and a baseline design (for example, one conforming to Canada’s Model National Energy
23
Code for Buildings). ENSC will pre-approve all incentives for new construction
24
technical services.
25
26
Eligible measures must save electrical energy and may vary based on custom
27
applications. Measures may include system upgrades, green heating systems, and
28
equipment not addressed through other ENSC programs.
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 18 of 32
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
1
Appendix A
Measures are categorized as:
2
3
п‚·
market-driven
measures,
such
as
equipment
replacement,
new
4
construction, renovation and expansion, where the program can result in
5
higher efficiency choices than would otherwise have been purchased
6
п‚·
discretionary retrofit measures, where energy-efficient lighting, HVAC
7
equipment, refrigeration, motors, process equipment or building envelope
8
components are replaced before the end of their useful lives as a cost-
9
effective retrofit
10
11
Technical and financial services may:
12
13
п‚·
14
15
help participants identify and secure qualified third-party sources of
technical expertise
п‚·
provide incentives and rebates for initial scoping studies or audits of
16
existing facilities, and for detailed engineering assessments of specific
17
retrofit projects
18
п‚·
19
20
designs in new facilities and major renovation projects
п‚·
21
22
23
provide funding support for technical assistance to achieve more efficient
provide financial incentives for implementing cost-effective electrical
energy efficiency projects
п‚·
provide project financing through low- or no-interest repayable loans, or
where available, other financing options to support the program
24
25
The Custom program will continue to provide customized offerings for market segments
26
and targeted end uses, such as retro-commissioning, compressed air and energy
27
management information systems, and will develop new market segments, recruit
28
additional trade allies, and continue to build technical expertise through program staff
29
training. Potential initiatives include continuous energy improvement at sites, and
30
biomass energy feasibility studies. Although a targeted market sector and end-use
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 19 of 32
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
Appendix A
1
approach requires a range of talents and technical expertise, this strategy can achieve
2
significant savings at a low cost.
3
4
Custom implementation incentives are based on incremental cost investment barriers for
5
market-driven and new construction measures, and the full-cost investment barrier for
6
retrofit projects. While the program provides general guidance for setting incentives, the
7
actual incentive for each project is based on a case-by-case analysis of energy savings
8
and rate of return.
9
10
3.3
Direct Installation
11
12
In the Direct Installation category, the Small Business Energy Solutions (SBES)
13
program is designed to acquire electrical energy savings through the direct installation
14
of energy-efficient measures for small businesses, primarily through high-performance
15
lighting retrofits. Formerly referred to as “Small Business Direct Install”, the new
16
program name reflects an expanding suite of eligible measures.
17
18
A broad range of businesses, non-profit organizations and institutional customers can
19
benefit from this program, including small offices, retail shops, convenience and grocery
20
stores, service stations, restaurants and lodgings, non-profit organizations, government
21
facilities, cafeterias, pharmacies, bakeries, farms, and institutional and healthcare
22
facilities. Non-profit and voluntary organizations have an important role in our
23
communities and their financial resources are stretched very thinly; ENSC can help by
24
making their facilities more efficient.
25
26
The program provides direct, turnkey installation of a set of cost-effective, energy-
27
efficient measures. Energy-saving opportunities are either addressed by the current suite
28
of measures, or noted for future programming. Implementation contractors identify and
29
recruit service providers for the direct installation of measures and the recycling/disposal
30
of old materials.
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 20 of 32
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
Appendix A
1
Projects typically include upgraded lighting, refrigeration equipment, hot water
2
conservation, compressed-air leak reduction, and controls. The program design may be
3
modified as required to achieve electrical energy savings through the direct installation of
4
other cost-effective, electrical energy-efficient measures, as opportunities arise.
5
6
The implementation contractor conducts the program marketing and generates leads. The
7
contractor conducts the efficiency audit, at no charge to the customer, using an audit tool
8
provided by ENSC. ENSC reviews all audits and grants approval to proceed. The
9
contractor orders and installs the materials and removes the old materials for
10
recycling/disposal.
11
12
ENSC may authorize the contractor to work with third parties, such as business
13
associations or Chambers of Commerce, to promote the program. ENSC either approves
14
or develops all program marketing materials, and may provide additional targeted
15
marketing support.
16
17
Incentives may cover up to 80 per cent of the overall project cost, and may be paid
18
directly to the contractor to minimize out-of-pocket expenses for participants. ENSC may
19
also offer financing to cover the balance of customer costs.
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 21 of 32
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
1
4.0
Appendix A
ENABLING STRATEGIES
2
3
Enabling Strategies include the following elements:
4
5
п‚·
Education and Outreach
6
п‚·
Development and Research
7
п‚·
Innovative Financing
8
п‚·
Capacity Building
9
п‚·
Working with Governments
10
11
Enabling Strategies have two purposes:
12
п‚·
13
to support the achievement of energy savings through participation in
14
ENSC’s DSM services (Education and Outreach, Development and
15
Research, Innovative Financing, and Capacity Building)
п‚·
16
to drive market transformation by changing standard industry practices,
17
notably through training, labeling and regulation (Capacity Building and
18
Working with Governments)
19
20
4.1
Education and Outreach
21
22
Education and Outreach has been part of the electricity DSM plans in Nova Scotia since
23
2008, and will continue in 2013 through 2015. This component of ENSC’s strategy is
24
designed to increase awareness by all Nova Scotians of the value of energy efficiency,
25
leading to greater levels of participation in DSM programs.
26
27
Nova Scotians will adopt energy-efficient behaviours if they understand the value of
28
energy efficiency to their own interests and to those of their communities, particularly if
29
their understanding is reinforced by the emergence of energy efficiency as an individual
30
and social norm. To further encourage Nova Scotians to participate in DSM programs,
31
ENSC will continue to focus on systematic education and outreach efforts that enhance
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 22 of 32
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
Appendix A
1
customer understanding, complemented by a wide variety of communications activities.
2
Education and outreach strategies for 2013 through 2015 will build on existing programs,
3
research, feedback from Nova Scotians (through customer feedback, presentations,
4
speeches, trade shows, online dialogue, and so on), and experience gained through past
5
DSM initiatives.
6
7
Areas of focus include:
8
9
п‚·
educating customers on the value provided by electricity DSM
10
п‚·
educating students on energy efficiency and its economic and
11
12
environmental benefits
п‚·
13
14
achieve cost-effective energy savings and lower their electric utility bills;
п‚·
15
16
educating customers on ways to conserve energy, reduce peak demand,
increasing public awareness of the value of participating in DSM
programs
п‚·
enabling and encouraging the adoption of energy efficiency as a social
17
norm through a focus on both individual and community-based
18
commitments to energy efficiency
19
п‚·
connecting customers to relevant DSM programs and services
20
п‚·
learning from our customers – ensuring their experiences and advice are
21
incorporated to improve programs and services
22
23
The following components support this strategy:
24
25
п‚·
training for delivery agents to directly answer customers’ inquiries and
26
provide energy efficiency information related to the relevant efficiency
27
services for the customer
28
п‚·
a revised website (www.efficiencyns.ca) with a strong customer focus,
29
providing energy technical information, program materials, assistance and
30
links to other resources, as well as complementary social media
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 23 of 32
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
Appendix A
1
(Facebook, Twitter, YouTube) to drive awareness and use of ENSC’s
2
online presence
п‚·
3
4
marketing and advertising materials that highlight Nova Scotians’ energy
efficiency successes and encourage others to participate
п‚·
5
the use of community-based social marketing to increase the opportunities
6
for individuals, businesses and organizations to include energy efficiency
7
in their decision making and influence others to adopt energy-efficient
8
behaviours
п‚·
9
10
online energy analysis software and other energy savings calculators to
help make energy efficiency and conservation more tangible
п‚·
11
the Green Schools program, to supplement learning and stimulate young
12
people about energy efficiency and help build an energy-efficient culture
13
in Nova Scotia
14
п‚·
public speaking and presentations on energy efficiency
15
п‚·
stories in the media on energy efficiency
16
п‚·
additional activities as opportunities arise
17
18
ENSC staff will work with contractors and educational institutions, including schools,
19
community colleges and universities, to develop, manage and deliver education and
20
outreach programs.
21
22
Energy savings are not attributed directly to Education and Outreach activities. Rather,
23
energy savings are captured through participation in the individual DSM programs that
24
benefit from broad-based education and outreach activities.
25
26
4.2
Development and Research
27
28
Through its Planning and Analytics division, ENSC will focus on emerging electrical
29
energy efficiency strategies and technologies. This includes staying abreast of strategy
30
and technology development, as well as evaluation methodologies, analysis and reporting
31
of results and energy efficiency activities in other jurisdictions. ENSC will continue to
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 24 of 32
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
Appendix A
1
develop expertise in new, energy-efficient technologies and program strategies that have
2
the potential to generate additional energy-savings opportunities.
3
4
Through activities such as market assessments, baseline evaluations and pilot projects,
5
ENSC will continue to explore opportunities for DSM programming. Although no
6
electrical energy or demand savings are attributed directly to this effort, the knowledge
7
and experience gained through development and research activities are intended to
8
increase the effectiveness of all DSM programs and develop new DSM opportunities for
9
future years. To do so, ENSC will work to identify and understand barriers to the
10
adoption of energy-efficient behaviours and to develop strategies that will enable a shift
11
to a social norm that embraces energy efficiency. For example, ENSC may work with
12
potential distributors of wood pellets to understand and help overcome barriers to
13
establishing or piloting a wood pellet delivery service. This could include support and
14
promotion of demonstration projects to increase awareness as well as peer- and
15
community-based promotion of the service.
16
17
The DSM tracking system, public opinion surveys and market research will continue to
18
be important tools that help ENSC to understand Nova Scotians’ behaviours and
19
determine effective ways to reach them.
20
21
4.3
Innovative Financing
22
23
ENSC recognizes that a lack of upfront capital can be a barrier to customers adopting
24
energy efficiency measures. ENSC’s objective is to deliver innovative financing to
25
remove this barrier and increase participation in DSM programs. Financing may be of
26
particular value for capital intensive projects such as those supported by the Existing
27
Residential program, including green heating systems, for example. Different financing
28
vehicles will be available so that a broad spectrum of residential and commercial
29
customers may benefit.
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 25 of 32
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
Appendix A
1
ENSC is evaluating several financing options, including potential opportunities to
2
collaborate with Nova Scotia Power and one or more financial institutions. Key financing
3
program characteristics being considered include:
4
п‚·
5
6
longer customer repayment terms that are comparable to the expected life
of energy savings
п‚·
7
8
simplicity of administration for deep retrofit projects, which combine a
number of energy efficiency measures
п‚·
9
transferable payment options, such that payment responsibility remains
10
with the beneficiary of energy savings (e.g. the tenant in a rental property
11
which is improved by the property owner but where the tenant pays for
12
heat and/or hot water)
п‚·
13
14
interest rate buy-downs that make financing rates more attractive to
potential borrowers
п‚·
15
16
convenient customer payment methods, including on property tax bills or
on utility bills
17
18
No electrical energy or demand savings will be attributed directly to the financing
19
vehicles; savings will accrue to the DSM programs commensurate with the efficiency
20
measures implemented. Financing efforts may also lead to spillover savings, in addition
21
to those attributed to the existing programs.
22
23
4.4
Capacity Building
24
25
The Capacity Building strategy has the following objectives:
26
27
п‚·
Build capacity of the energy efficiency industry in Nova Scotia, through
28
the growth of ENSC programs. This growth will lead to increased demand
29
for trained builders, renovators, insulators and installers. ENSC has
30
already seen, and expects to see, continued growth in local energy
31
efficiency industries that supply products such as water heater insulating
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 26 of 32
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
Appendix A
1
blankets, cellulose insulation, heating systems, and high-performance
2
windows and doors. ENSC expects continued growth in Nova Scotia’s
3
solid waste reduction efforts through the proper recycling and reclamation
4
of inefficient products such as refrigerators, lights and building materials.
5
6
п‚·
7
Provide customers with access to contractors and service providers who
are knowledgeable and competent in energy efficiency.
8
9
п‚·
Provide customers with the ability to identify the most energy-efficient
10
technologies available. ENSC will continue to employ highly-trained
11
program advisors and will provide training to wholesale and retail sales
12
staff.
13
14
Building on the experiences of DSM administrators in jurisdictions such as Vermont and
15
Oregon, ENSC’s approach is to build a network of trade allies (architects, designers,
16
engineers, builders, contractors, tradespeople, service providers, wholesalers and
17
retailers) and engage them, as appropriate, to meet their needs and enhance their abilities
18
in areas of energy efficiency training, quality assurance and certification. Initial work
19
began in 2011, and efforts will continue in 2012 and beyond.
20
21
Initially, ENSC is focusing its efforts in three areas:
22
23
п‚·
enhancing existing training and quality assurance for its delivery agents
24
п‚·
identifying and assessing needs and opportunities for training and
25
26
certification through third-party organizations
п‚·
working with stakeholders, such as universities, colleges, and professional
27
associations, to develop training programs to address priority gaps and
28
develop capacity to meet future needs
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 27 of 32
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
Appendix A
1
ENSC is creating a long-term training and development strategy and beginning
2
implementation via outreach and coordination with educational institutions and other
3
partners.
4
5
To identify, understand, and influence the market channels that support the distribution of
6
consumer products, the following activities will be employed with trade allies:
7
8
п‚·
Build partnerships with retailers and distributors to stock and promote
ENERGY STARВ® products.
9
10
11
п‚·
12
Work through market channels to influence the supply and pricing of
energy-efficient products.
13
14
п‚·
15
Work with regional and national alliances, or other partners, to coordinate
program activities and share information.
16
17
п‚·
18
Identify any gaps in the labeling or identification of high-performance
equipment and, to the extent possible, develop solutions for the market.
19
20
п‚·
21
Work with bulk purchasers who may bypass traditional distribution
channels or make purchase decisions across provincial boundaries.
22
23
п‚·
Create a trade ally website, with public access for consumers, and a
24
password-protected intranet for trade allies for online training and
25
program updates.
26
27
To qualify, trade allies would receive training on ENSC’s mandate and programs and, as
28
appropriate, program-specific, technical training provided by experts in related fields.
29
Other requirements may include installation quality, customer satisfaction and use of
30
high-performance technologies.
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 28 of 32
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
1
Appendix A
Trade allies may benefit in a number of ways. For example:
2
п‚·
3
Where appropriate, in some of ENSC’s future programs, participants may
4
be required to engage network members in order to become eligible to
5
receive incentives (this is already the case for incentives for ground-source
6
heat pumps, which require installers to be members in good standing of
7
the Canadian GeoExchange Coalition).
8
п‚·
9
ENSC may offer network members marketing benefits, including, for
10
example, references through its website, marketing materials, sales
11
training or other marketing benefits.
12
п‚·
13
ENSC may organize activities for network members, providing an
14
opportunity to build business relationships and influence ENSC’s
15
programs and strategies.
16
17
Trade allies have an important role in recruiting customers to ENSC programs. ENSC
18
will continue to educate trade allies and vendors about energy efficiency services so they
19
can communicate those benefits directly to their customers.
20
21
4.5
Working with Governments
22
23
ENSC’s objective is to drive market transformation by promoting energy efficiency,
24
notably through regulatory changes such as energy codes and standards, and building
25
energy labeling, as well as through other government levers.
26
27
Collaboration with Municipal Governments
28
Working with municipal governments across Nova Scotia helps ENSC promote its DSM
29
programs to citizens, building owners, builders, developers, and others. ENSC will
30
continue to work with municipal governments to facilitate participation in relevant
31
energy efficiency programs and to collaborate on specific program offerings, including,
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 29 of 32
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
Appendix A
1
for example, the possibility of offering innovative financing through municipal property
2
taxes.
3
4
Codes and Standards
5
ENSC supports the development, adoption and enforcement of increasingly advanced
6
building energy codes, and equipment and product standards for Nova Scotia. ENSC’s
7
role may include:
8
п‚·
9
identifying and assessing opportunities, providing technical and funding
10
support, continued participation in national or regional committees, and
11
preparing business cases for developing standards that complement ENSC
12
programs
п‚·
13
14
encouraging the adoption of new model codes and standards through
marketing and trade ally engagement
п‚·
15
16
conducting baseline studies to determine the need for, and value of,
contractor training and provincial building code enforcement
п‚·
17
18
evaluating the amount of energy and demand savings attributable to
enhanced codes and standards
19
20
Some of the codes and standards activities that are currently underway are described
21
below.
22
23
Residential new construction: A new Nova Scotia residential building code, adopted in
24
2010, will result in energy efficiencies. The code requires all new residential houses to
25
either meet prescriptive requirements (intended to achieve an EnerGuide rating of 80) or
26
demonstrate energy efficiency performance through an EnerGuide rating of 80.
27
28
General-service lighting: As a result of feedback from consumer and business groups, the
29
federal government announced a delay of two years in the implementation of the
30
proposed general-service lighting energy efficiency standard, which was due to come into
31
effect on January 1, 2012. ENSC will continue to work with its provincial Department of
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 30 of 32
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
Appendix A
1
Energy counterparts to strongly encourage the adoption of the new regulations at the
2
earliest possible date.
3
4
Linear fluorescent lighting: ENSC has been working with the government of Nova Scotia
5
with a view to eliminating inefficient T12 linear fluorescent lighting from the market, and
6
now anticipates that such a standard will be adopted before the end of 2012. ENSC also
7
intends to encourage the development of a further standard that would require that T8
8
lighting systems (lamps and ballasts) sold in Nova Scotia meet high performance
9
specifications.
10
11
Non-residential new construction: ENSC has been working with the government of Nova
12
Scotia, with a view to adopting the National Energy Code for Buildings (NECB) as soon
13
as possible. It is anticipated that a new code could be ready for announcement before the
14
end of 2012, with its savings impact potentially beginning in 2014. ENSC further intends
15
to support the federal government’s planned 2016 update to the new NECB, which
16
currently anticipates an additional 25 percent of energy savings.
17
18
LED street lighting: Nova Scotia is introducing regulation requiring the adoption of LED
19
technology to replace current street lighting technologies. It is anticipated that the
20
regulations will be in place later in 2012, with conversion activity being completed within
21
a ten-year period.
22
23
Building Labeling
24
Based on experience gained in Europe, the United States and Australia, a mix of policies
25
may include government lead-by-example labeling and rating requirements for its own
26
buildings and leases, a time-of-sale labeling requirement for residential buildings, and/or
27
some form of disclosure policy for commercial/industrial buildings.
28
29
ENSC will develop technical expertise to support market participants and provincial or
30
municipal governments interested in mandatory labeling. The federal government is
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 31 of 32
ENSC 2013-2015 DSM FILING (E-ENSC-R-12)
Appendix A
1
developing draft voluntary labeling systems for residential and commercial buildings, and
2
ENSC is collaborating so that systems are appropriate to Nova Scotia’s needs.
3
4
ENSC also will work with its provincial partners to promote the voluntary use of labels
5
by DSM program participants and organizations, to increase familiarity and expertise
6
with labels and labeling tools. Depending on the level of availability of benchmarking
7
tools and labels, ENSC will incorporate labeling into its programs. ENSC will encourage
8
the adoption of internal labeling policies by the provincial government, municipalities
9
and organizations.
10
11
The strategy includes engaging in discussions with key market participants and agencies,
12
participating in working groups, providing technical and other support as needed, and
13
contributing to research efforts. This work is expected to encourage implementation of a
14
number of measures, including building envelope retrofits, heating systems and new
15
energy management initiatives.
16
17
Labeling activities are not expected to generate immediate savings. Once labeling is in
18
place, it is expected to increase uptake of other DSM programs, potentially reduce the
19
need for incentives, and generate additional savings outside of programs.
DATE FILED: February 27, 2012
Page 32 of 32
Appendix B
REGULATORY OVERSIGHT –
A BALANCED APPROACH FOR
EFFICIENCY NOVA SCOTIA
Prepared by
PHILIPPE DUNSKY, PRESIDENT
DUNSKY ENERGY CONSULTING
Submitted to:
EFFICIENCY NOVA SCOTIA CORPORATION
January 24th, 2012
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
i
Appendix B
ABOUT DUNSKY ENERGY CONSULTING
Dunsky Energy Consulting is a Montreal-based firm specialized in the design, analysis and
implementation of successful energy efficiency and renewable energy programs and policies. Our clients
include leading utilities, government agencies, private firms and non-profit organizations throughout
Canada and the U.S.
To learn more, please visit us at www.dunsky.ca.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In preparing this report, we benefitted from the collaboration, insights and experience of ENSC’s Senior
Management, including notably Allan Crandlemire, John Aguinaga and Chuck Faulkner. We also
appreciate the thoughtful comments and suggestions of a number of ENSC’s stakeholders, received
during two consultation sessions held on November 3rd and December 8th, 2011. We remain solely
responsible for the recommendations contained in this report, as well as for any errors or omissions.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Philippe Dunsky has 20 years of experience in the fields of energy efficiency and renewable energy (EE/RE)
programs, plans and policies. Throughout much of his career, he has provided analytical support and strategic
counsel to a clientele comprised primarily of leading electric and gas utilities, government agencies, private firms
and non-profit organizations throughout North America.
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
ii
Appendix B
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 3
MANDATE ....................................................................................................................................................................3
CONTEXT ......................................................................................................................................................................3
CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................................................................4
OBJECTIVES: A BALANCED, EFFECTIVE APPROACH ................................................................................................. 5
PERFORMANCE DRIVERS ..................................................................................................................................................5
LATITUDE......................................................................................................................................................................6
OVERSIGHT ...................................................................................................................................................................7
ASSESSMENT OF ENSC’S FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................................. 8
RECENT ADJUSTMENTS ....................................................................................................................................................8
STRENGTHS ...................................................................................................................................................................9
WEAKNESSES ..............................................................................................................................................................10
1.
2.
3.
4.
Contracting Inefficiencies ................................................................................................................................................ 10
Market Credibility ............................................................................................................................................................ 10
Missed Savings Opportunities ......................................................................................................................................... 12
Diverted Organizational Focus ........................................................................................................................................ 12
CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................................................................13
RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 14
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................14
#1. MULTI-YEAR DSM PLAN FILING ................................................................................................................................14
#2. ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORTS....................................................................................................................................15
#3. EVALUATION ACTIVITIES...........................................................................................................................................15
#4. QUARTERLY MEETINGS & REPORTS............................................................................................................................16
#5. RATE RIDER ADJUSTMENTS FILING .............................................................................................................................17
#6. ENSC BOARD OF DIRECTORS ....................................................................................................................................17
OVERVIEW AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................... 18
OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED PROCESS..................................................................................................................................18
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES........................................................................................................................................19
RISKS .........................................................................................................................................................................20
CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................................... 21
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
iii
Appendix B
Appendix B
SUMMARY
Dunsky Energy Consulting was tasked by Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation (ENSC) with reviewing the
oversight framework that currently applies to its Demand-Side Management plans. Specifically, we were
tasked with identifying opportunities and recommending changes that could enable greater
performance, while ensuring a robust framework of stakeholder consultation and regulatory oversight.
Our review pinpoints a number of strengths from which ENSC currently benefits, and which form a solid
foundation for performance. These include most notably the trust that appears to have developed
between ENSC and its stakeholders; the organization’s clarity of purpose which, among other things,
provides a foundation for the aforementioned trust; the growing degree of operational flexibility
allowed for by the UARB and stakeholders; and the meaningful budgets that allow the organization to
hold some sway in the market.
Our review also focuses on an important hindrance: the limited approval period (twelve months) of its
plans. This approval period creates uncertainty in the market, as ENSC is unable to make commitments
of longer than a single year to its contractors (who must decide whether and to what extent to invest in
building capacity in Nova Scotia), to critical market players (including those who are being asked to
provide new products and services to Nova Scotians), to its current and prospective staff (a number of
whom may attribute strong value to job security), and to its larger customers (who often plan important
investments in their equipment or buildings over several years). The one-year approval period can
further lead to missed savings as well as diverted organizational time and focus, especially of senior
management.
Given the above, as well as stakeholder comments received during two consultation sessions held in the
fall of 2011, we devised a framework that we believe could address much of those concerns without in
any way sacrificing the ability of the UARB and stakeholders to continue to ensure effective oversight of
ENSC’s performance. This framework involves the following characteristics:
1. Multi-year Plan: ENSC would submit a multi-year (e.g. five-year) plan, and request UARB
approval for the first three years;
2. Annual Progress Reports: In the intervening years, ENSC would file annual progress reports, and
would further be required to file a detailed Corrective Action Plan in the event that evaluated
savings fall significantly short of goals;
3. Ongoing Evaluation: ENSC’s evaluation framework would change to allocate more resources to
priority areas, and to provide more timely feedback to program managers as well stakeholders
and the UARB;
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
1
Appendix B
4. Quarterly Meetings: ENSC would meet with UARB representatives quarterly to present and
discuss status updates; it would hold similar meetings with stakeholders in order to keep them
informed of progress and obtain their input going forward;
5. Rate Rider Adjustment: ENSC would largely maintain the current mechanism, using the balance
adjustment (BA) of the previous year to adjust the rider, as well as the cost allocation tables
reported in the Annual Progress Report and NSPI’s most recent sales forecasts by rate class.
6. ENSC Board of Directors: Finally, we note that in addition to the regulatory oversight process,
ENSC is now governed by an independent Board of Directors (BOD) that adds another layer of
governance to the process.
The chart below illustrates the recommended approach, including both the regulatory and extraregulatory oversight mechanisms.
THREE-YEAR PLAN
2012
Q1
Q2
F
H Af
REGULATORY
Multi-Year Plan
Q4
Q1
Progress Reports
Evaluation activities
O
Meetings, Reports
Multi-Year Plan
Q2
Q3
2014
Q4
Q1
F
Q2
Q3
2015
Q4
Q1
Q2
F
H Af
Q3
2016
Q4
Q1
F
O
O
O
O
F
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
M,R M,R M,R M,R M,R M,R M,R M,R M,R M,R M,R M,R M,R
F
Rate Rider
ENSC BOD
Q3
2013
Af
F
Af
F
Af
Ai
F
Af
Ai
Progress Reports
Ai
Ongoing Reporting
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Oversight
O
O
O
O
Ai
Ai
F = filing. H = hearing. M = meeting. R = report. Ai = internal approval (BOD). Af = final approval (UARB). O = ongoing.
Arrows indicate sequence dependency prior to start of three-year plan.
As can be seen, the regulatory process is designed to maintain a full schedule of evaluations, reporting
to the UARB and stakeholders, and opportunity for input. It also involves additional oversight from
ENSC’s independent board of directors.
We believe that this framework will maintain and may even enhance the ability of the UARB and
stakeholders to properly oversee ENSC’s work. It will also enhance ENSC’s ability to commit to the
market and to other critical actors and, as such, improve its ability to perform. We do note, however,
that this approach falls short of providing the sort of longer-term certainty currently provided to other
organizations similar to ENSC.
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
2
Appendix B
INTRODUCTION
MANDATE
Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation (ENSC) has tasked us with reviewing the current regulatory oversight
model and proposing changes that may be useful toward improving the Corporation’s ability to assist
Nova Scotians in saving energy as efficiently and effectively as possible. ENSC also seeks to ensure that
any recommendations in no way diminish the ability of the UARB and stakeholders to track, influence
and, ultimately, oversee ENSC’s performance.
For the purposes of this report, we consulted with ENSC’s Board of Directors and senior management,
and program administrators in other regions. We further consulted with ENSC’s stakeholders during
ENSC-led stakeholder consultation sessions on November 3rd, 2011, and again on December 8th, 2011.
These discussions led to changes that were subsequently incorporated into the recommendations
herein.
CONTEXT
Regulatory oversight of a dedicated DSM “utility” like ENSC is broadly analogous to regulatory oversight
of other monopoly functions. In this respect, regulatory models exist on a continuum, ranging from pure
“cost of service” models1 on one end, to pure “performance-based” models on the other end2.
In Nova Scotia, where NSPI’s rate setting process has historically followed a broadly cost-of-service
model, it is no surprise that regulation of NSPI’s initial DSM activities took a similar approach. To this
end, NSPI submitted its proposed DSM plans to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (UARB), and
the UARB undertook to ensure that the proposed associated revenue requirement was in the interest of
ratepayers.
In April 2008, following stakeholder consultation, a report prepared by Dr. David Wheeler proposed a
new model for DSM administration and delivery in the province.3 This model, which led to the creation
1
A “cost of service” model is fundamentally prospective, requiring the regulator to determine, in advance, the revenue
required to allow the utility to adequately perform its functions and generate a reasonable return for investors, given an
assumed risk profile. The revenue requirement is determined by customer class, and rates are then set based on a forecast of
annual sales. A variety of adjustments may or may not occur ex-post to account for unforeseen variances.
2
“Performance-based” models come in a variety of forms, and may include what are commonly referred to as “rate cap”
approaches, “revenue cap” approaches, loose cost-of-service models or hybrids of any or all of the above.
3
David Wheeler, Stakeholder Consultation Process For An Administrative Model For DSM Delivery In Nova Scotia – Final Report,
th
April 20 , 2008.
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
3
Appendix B
of ENSC, was predicated on the creation of an independent, third-party delivery agency (ENSC),
operating under a performance-based contract with the UARB.
Approximately one year ago, in our review of the programs and frameworks ENSC was inheriting, we
raised the issue of the oversight model and suggested that it be reconsidered in time for the 2013 plan.
With the creation of ENSC and the successful transitioning of programs previously under NSPI
administration now complete, we believe more than ever that it is now appropriate to focus attention
on the regulatory oversight approach. Indeed, this may be considered as another piece of a puzzle
aimed at maximizing the ability of Nova Scotians to access energy cost savings as efficiently and
effectively as possible.
CONTENTS
This report is divided into four main parts:
•
Objectives – a brief discussion of the objectives that we believe should be the focus of any
recommended changes;
•
Assessment – a review of the current regulatory oversight process and its inherent strengths and
weaknesses
•
Recommendations – a presentation and discussion of the changes we recommend for enhancing
ENSC’s ability to deliver savings efficiently and effectively, while maintaining the UARB’s and
stakeholders’ ability to fully exercise their critical oversight roles.
•
Overview of Proposed Approach – an overview of the recommended process and a discussion of
remaining risks.
Finally, we conclude with a recap of the report’s findings and recommendations.
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
4
Appendix B
OBJECTIVES: A BALANCED, EFFECTIVE APPROACH
The purpose of this mandate is to recommend changes needed to arrive at an effective, balanced
regulatory oversight approach for ENSC. While these are subjective terms, we have focused on ensuring
the presence of three “keys to success”, namely:
•
Performance Drivers: The approach must ensure that ENSC does not face any disincentives to
successful delivery of DSM savings, and
indeed has sufficient built-in drivers for
maximizing performance;
PERFORMANCE
OVERSIGHT
•
•
Latitude: The approach must be careful
to ensure that ENSC has all the latitude it
needs to effectively move market decisions
toward improved energy efficiency. This includes the
ability to commit to the market it is seeking to
influence; to be responsive to its evolving needs; and to
bring sufficient resources such that it can sway consumers
and decision-makers toward choices they would not
otherwise have made; and
DRIVERS
BALANCED
APPROACH
LATITUDE
Oversight: The approach must provide sufficient opportunity for regulators, stakeholders and
the general public to oversee and ensure the effective use of ratepayer contributions.
Below we address each of these points distinctly.
PERFORMANCE DRIVERS
Efficiency Nova Scotia may have a mandate to generate energy savings, but does it have the internal and
external drivers to do so?
In many regions throughout North America, regulators have adopted frameworks meant to achieve two
twin goals: remove inherent disincentives to DSM administrator performance, and build incentives
meant to positively drive performance. For example, lost-revenue adjustment mechanisms (LRAMs) are
a common approach to addressing utility concerns about the impact that successful DSM activities
would otherwise have, through reduced sales, on company profits. Similarly, more broad-based
“decoupling” mechanisms also seek to address the problem by making utilities “whole” as a result of
DSM. Meanwhile, a large and growing number of U.S. states and some Canadian provinces have
instituted bonus structures, sometimes known as “shared savings mechanisms”, meant to ensure that
shareholder returns increase alongside increased performance on utility DSM goals.
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
5
Appendix B
Such mechanisms and incentives are not necessarily required for the DSM administrator to be fully
driven to succeed; rather, the issue must be addressed based on the specific context in which the DSM
administrator operates. We note of course that contrary to most other jurisdictions in which utility
administered DSM is subjected to regulatory oversight, ENSC is a non-utility, not-for-profit entity.
LATITUDE
Even if Efficiency Nova Scotia has the clarity of purpose and built-in incentives to perform, does it have
the ability to do so to maximum effect?
ENSC operates in an extremely complex market environment, one that is in many respects very different
from that of a traditional, regulated utility. Indeed, in every market in which it seeks to influence
consumer investments, purchases, and behaviours, ENSC competes with myriad non-energy
opportunities for scarce participant time, attention and money. Furthermore, ENSC’s “product”,
improved energy efficiency, is discretionary: except in extreme situations, the purchase of energy
efficiency improvements (unlike the purchase of electricity, for example) is simply not necessary to live,
to run a business or to operate a government.
For example, in the residential sector, ENSC’s efforts at encouraging home energy retrofits compete
with sellers of granite countertops, stainless steel appliances and a host of possible “home
improvement” projects. Similarly, its efforts at encouraging use of higher first-cost but more efficient
lighting products may compete with other discretionary spending, as simple as an evening at the
restaurant or a night at the movies.
In the commercial sector, ENSC’s efforts at gaining the time and attention of small business owners can
rarely compete with more pressing management priorities, including day-to-day operations. Similarly, its
efforts at convincing larger organizations to consider energy efficiency in their procurement policies,
where first cost is often the sole cost consideration, can run up against inertia built on years or even
decades of management practice in which responsibility for capital and operating budgets sits with
different people. The practical experience of hundreds of DSM plans and programs throughout North
America provides countless similar examples that affect every sector, every market segment and just
about every energy saving measure that DSM administrators are tasked with promoting.
It is for this reason – to compete effectively for customers – that DSM program administrators require
sufficient latitude.
A DSM administrator’s latitude – or ability to compete effectively – can in turn be defined as the
combination of three factors:
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
6
Appendix B
1. Resources: Does the DSM administrator have sufficient market sway (e.g. through incentives) to
influence decisions? Ultimately, this is often (though not always) about being able to offer
enough of an incentive to convince consumers and market actors to make choices they would
not otherwise have made.
2. Responsiveness: Is the DSM administrator able to quickly and easily adjust to ongoing market
dynamics? Can it pounce on external opportunities as they arise; adjust its portfolio and
strategies as markets respond (or fail to respond); sufficiently customize its offerings to ensure it
is meeting the differing needs of participants.
3. Commitment: Is the DSM administrator able to commit to the market in such a way as to elicit
investments and reciprocal commitments by contractors, trade allies, government and others?
This is fundamentally about its reputation and staying power, and can be very difficult if it either
has a history of fluctuating budgets/efforts, or if its very existence can be called into question on
a regular basis.
To the extent the answers to each of these are positive, we believe the DSM administrator should have
sufficient latitude to maximize effective use of the ratepayer dollars with which it will have been
entrusted.
OVERSIGHT
As with any regulatory oversight model, both the regulator and stakeholders should expect to be able to
fully and effectively play their roles. This implies that any regulatory approach must strive to achieve
three goals:
•
Transparency: The regulatory oversight mechanisms should ensure that the regulator and
stakeholders are kept apprised of progress, as well as significant challenges or changes, within a
reasonable timeframe. While regulatory micromanagement can be harmful, the UARB and
stakeholders should not be “left in the dark”; otherwise they would be unable to play their roles.
•
Safeguards: The regulatory oversight mechanisms should provide for safeguards against certain
situations such as the misuse of funds or continuous extreme performance issues.
•
Influence: The mechanisms should provide sufficient opportunity for stakeholders to make
suggestions and otherwise contribute to DSM plans.
As we will discuss further in this report, we believe it is possible to respect these criteria for effective
oversight, while simultaneously providing ENSC the full latitude it needs to be able to move the market
toward greater energy efficiency.
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
7
Appendix B
ASSESSMENT OF ENSC’S FRAMEWORK
RECENT ADJUSTMENTS
The regulatory framework to oversee DSM began with NSPI as the interim administrator and
transitioned as the DSM administrator role was taken over by ENSC in the fall of 2010. As part of its
decision on ENSC’s 2012 filing, the UARB accepted certain adjustments to the original framework, most
notably:
•
Cost-effectiveness: Whereas the UARB had previously required that individual measures
demonstrate a TRC greater than 1, it accepted ENSC’s suggestion that this threshold be moved
to the program level;4
•
Cumulative savings: Whereas the UARB had previously taken an annual view of costs and
savings, in its decision it considered cumulative savings, including over- or under-achievements
from previous years;5 and
•
Multi-annual plans: Whereas the UARB has thus far operated on an annual plan approval basis,
it accepted ENSC’s request to launch a process, including consulting with stakeholders, aimed at
examining the possibility of moving toward a more performance-oriented approach that could
involve a multi-year framework. It is important to note that this decision was not meant to
provide tacit approval for such a move, but only for its further consideration.6
As part of this mandate, we have reviewed the existing framework, with a view to identifying its
strengths and weaknesses in terms of the criteria set forth previously. Our findings in this regard are
presented below.
4
Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board. DECISION In the Matter of an Application by Efficiency Nova Scotia
Corporation for Approval of its Electricity Demand Side Management Plan for 2012, June 30, 2011. See page 31.
5
Ibid, pp. 14-29 and 35-38.
6
Ibid, p. 43.
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
8
Appendix B
STRENGTHS
While the UARB’s oversight of DSM is relatively new as compared to many other regions of North
America, both the framework and the approach it has taken to the task offer benefits that others do not
have. These include:
1. Trust. With the seamless transition of DSM administration from NSPI to ENSC (as an
independent, not-for-profit organization), stakeholder relationships and trust have grown. This
trust is a key strength upon which Nova Scotia can build a more performance-oriented
framework.
2. Clarity of Purpose: Utilities often have a difficult time communicating – externally and internally
– the rationale for reducing sales of their own product. Overcoming the perceived conflict
between sales and savings often requires the adoption of a series of corrective or compensatory
regulatory mechanisms. The decision to entrust administration of DSM goals with an
independent, not-for-profit entity has created clarity of purpose – and an alignment of interests
– that can only be beneficial to effective DSM oversight and implementation. Furthermore, not
only is the organization exclusively dedicated to its DSM mission, it is overseen by an
independent board of directors that acts as an internal performance driver.
3. Flexibility: Since its beginnings in Nova Scotia, the UARB has allowed the DSM administrator to
be nimble in its approach to the market. For example, while DSM plans have been approved
annually, the administrator has been allowed to modify its approach mid-course, in response to
changes in the market or to its own understanding of opportunities, with no need to seek prior
formal approval. The existence of the Program Development Working Group has notably
facilitated this nimbleness, as stakeholders have been kept in the loop and apprised of proposed
changes. Furthermore, in its recent decision on the proposed 2012 plan, the UARB agreed to lift
the previous measure-level TRC requirement, thereby allowing ENSC more latitude in
determining the mix of electricity-saving measures that should be promoted, while ensuring that
the overall effort remains cost-effective.
4. Resources: In its most recent decision, the UARB approved a DSM plan budget of approximately
$45 million, or roughly 4% of system revenue allocated to DSM. While parties may reasonably
argue for higher or lower budgets, this level of resource is significant enough to provide ENSC
with a meaningful ability to influence market behaviour.
5. Long-term View: Also in its recent decision on the proposed 2012 plan, the UARB agreed to a
cumulative savings perspective, in particular by recognizing previous years’ over- or underachievements relative to overall multi-year plan goals and objectives.
These strengths are not insignificant. In particular, it is worth noting that a number of DSM
administrators in North America do not benefit from the same level of trust, clarity of purpose, and
flexibility. Nonetheless, it also has certain weaknesses that can be addressed going forward.
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
9
Appendix B
WEAKNESSES
As we have seen above, the current framework addresses several of the key success factors noted
previously, including to a large extent the question of whether ENSC has sufficient performance drivers,
and whether it can be sufficiently responsive to market needs.
That said, the current framework suffers from the short-term nature of its funding approval process.
Indeed, while the organization has ostensibly been created with a long-term perspective, it relies on
year-by-year approvals for its entire budget. This can create several important barriers to performance,
including contracting inefficiencies, lack of market credibility, missed savings opportunities, and diverted
organizational focus. We address each of these concerns below.
1. CONTRACTING INEFFICIENCIES
Under the current framework, our understanding is that ENSC is unable to take on most financial
commitments for more than a twelve-month timeframe. This year-by-year approach can discourage
contractors from providing more aggressive pricing, and can make it more difficult for them to secure
subcontractors (or to obtain aggressive subcontractor pricing). Furthermore, a single-year commitment
limits ENSC’s ability to convince out-of-province contractors to invest in building capacity in Nova Scotia,
an important aspect of longer-term market transformation. Finally, a limited commitment timeframe
may also hinder the corporation’s ability to attract and retain the best talent. While none of these
concerns are absolute (ENSC has already attracted excellent staff and contractors), they act as
unnecessary impediments to obtaining the best pricing, talent and capacity building that would be
possible.
2. MARKET CREDIBILITY
For ENSC to succeed in transforming markets toward greater energy efficiency, it will need to convince a
wide array of market actors to invest in new business lines, procurement processes, and other ventures.
For example:
•
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
Training: To be successful, ENSC will need to convince market actors to invest in training and
certification. For example, it may seek to convince energy evaluators, retrofit contractors and
HVAC vendors/installers to obtain training and/or certification to ensure that the promise of
energy savings is actually delivered to consumers. Similarly, it may encourage building
professionals to develop new skills and processes, such as integrated design, wherein architects,
engineers and energy evaluators work collaboratively at the earliest stages of construction
planning to ensure that energy performance is not inadvertently impeded. It may want to
encourage training in building commissioning, re-commissioning and retro-commissioning skills.
And it may want to convince municipal code assessors, tax appraisers, and real estate agents to
10
Appendix B
develop the skills required to judge the extent to which homes and buildings are energy
efficient. None of this can happen unless educational institutions and private training
organizations invest in new training and certification programs. Yet to make such investments,
institutions will seek to be convinced that demand for these services will continue to grow
over many years.
•
Retooling: To be successful, ENSC will need to convince market actors to invest in the
development of new lines of business. For example, it may wish to encourage firms to invest in
the provision of Energy Management Information Services (EMIS), or in the development of
wood pellet delivery services and infrastructure (including purchase or conversion of trucks). It
may work to encourage retailers to develop new product lines, for example selling highperformance, premium ductless heat pumps, or more broadly by procuring, stocking and
labeling energy saving products. It will work with financial institutions to develop new energy
efficient financing vehicles, including services, terms and credit evaluation processes. These
(and many others) will require the private market to invest in new approaches, new skills and
qualifications, and new business ventures, all on the basis of the confidence they have in
ENSC’s ability to increase market demand for these services over many years.
•
Consumer processes: Additionally, ENSC will need to convince consumers to change embedded
procurement processes that inadvertently penalize – or simply fail to recognize the benefits of –
energy efficient options. For example, ENSC may work with large corporate and governmental
organizations to encourage changes to procurement rules for products such as lighting, PCs, and
a variety of plug load equipment. Similarly, it may encourage organizations to incorporate
energy efficiency in their leased space procurement, and may work with landlords to adjust
standard lease contract practices to remove undue barriers to energy efficient retrofits. ENSC
may also want to work with industry and large corporations to promote adoption of energy
management continuous improvement processes (e.g. ISO 50000), and/or energy benchmarking
(e.g. through Energy Star Portfolio Manager). Since these are not “quick-hit” equipment
replacements, they do not lend themselves to one-time incentives as much as they do to a
committed, multi-year effort. In many cases, customers will want to know that ENSC can
support them throughout the entire process.
As with contracting, none of these goals are impossible within the current twelve-month process.
Indeed, ENSC may well be able to convince certain training institutions to develop new programs;
certain trade allies to consider retooling and/or offering new services; and certain consumers to rethink
their procurement practices. However, ENSC’s inability to formally commit to them over a multi-year
timeframe will hinder its ability to bring these changes to the broadest possible swaths of the market.
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
11
Appendix B
3. MISSED SAVINGS OPPORTUNITIES
ENSC’s current 12-month approval process can act as a disincentive to securing certain energy savings
opportunities, both short- and long-term.
For example, there may be opportunity within a program that incorporates targeted, on-site visits, to set
aside a small amount of additional time to identify and record savings opportunities that cannot be
pursued immediately, but that ENSC could follow up on in the subsequent year. Yet contractors acting
on a single-year mandate do not have incentive to generate and record such leads, as they will incur the
cost but the benefit may accrue to another contractor. Similarly, contractors have little if any incentive
to push upstream activities such as training that may be likely to generate sales in future years; as a
result, they are likelier to rely more heavily on more expensive, “resource acquisition” strategies.
4. DIVERTED ORGANIZATIONAL FOCUS
The regulatory process can consume significant organizational time, energy and focus. Indeed, from the
priority attention given by senior management, through to the attention and time required of staff, as
well as the costs involved in procuring legal and external consultant services, the process can be
demanding. All of that time, effort and attention results in both direct costs, and in lost opportunities in
terms of organizational performance and focus in delivering DSM.
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
12
Appendix B
CONCLUSION
The current regulatory framework presents a number of important characteristics that enable effective
DSM implementation. However, the short, one-year approval timeframe hinders the corporation’s
ability to commit to the market, consumers and partners, which in turn likely creates an important
impediment to its ability to help transform markets toward greater energy efficiency. The time and
organizational attention focused annually on the full regulatory process may also divert from the
corporation’s ability to deliver DSM savings.
The table below summarizes our findings.
CRITERIA:
LATITUDE
OVERSIGHT
Cost
Influence
Safeguards
Transparency
Ability to Commit
Responsiveness
Resources
Incentives
Examples
No Disincentives
Components
PERFORMANCE
DRIVERS
Are profits Does Sr.
Is budget
Do any
Can ENSC Is reporting
Can
Is the
Can UARB /
unaffected Mgt. have meaningful
rules
commit timely and problems
stakeregulatory
by sales? Is incentive to to market? impede
over long- sufficient? get out of
holders
cost
there clear succeed?
flexibility?
term?
control? influence? reasonable
purpose?
?
ENSC now
Notes
ENSC has no
Mgt.
sales
reputational
disincentive incentive is
(not a utility)
strong
Budget on
Historic
Annual,
UARB
higher-end
flexibility;
single-year meetings;
of typical
measureapproval
PDWG
range
level TRC
process a
meetings;
(aligned with removed last significant Annual plan
higher-end
year
impediment
filings
goals)
Fully addressed
Annual
process
leaves little
room for
runaway
problems
UARB
Direct and
meetings; opportunity
PDWG
cost for
meetings;
ENSC not
Annual plan insignificant
filings
Partially addressed
Challenge remains
The following section will provide recommendations to address the shortcomings we’ve identified, while
maintaining the inherent strengths in the current process. We reproduce the table above as it pertains
to the resulting proposed oversight framework on page 19.
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
13
Appendix B
RECOMMENDATIONS
INTRODUCTION
The electricity context in Nova Scotia is evolving, with the preservation of large industrial loads in flux,
the pending arrival of new shipbuilding activity that could increase other loads, potential new renewable
electricity supplies, and a forthcoming update to NSPI’s Integrated Resource Plan that should seek to
account for these and other changes since the previous 2009 IRP Update. Any proposed changes to the
regulatory framework must be mindful of these shifting sands.
We have previously noted the importance of long-term market commitments. This is underscored by
recent decisions at the only two organizations in North America with a mandate and context as similar
to those of Efficiency Nova Scotia. Indeed, the Energy Trust of Oregon recently had its base funding
commitment approved for an additional fifteen-year period, such that it can engage the market with the
assurance of funding through to 2025. Similarly, Efficiency Vermont recently moved from a six-year to a
twelve-year contract period, again providing long-term stability and predictability.
Our preferred approach for Efficiency Nova Scotia would involve a similar long-term funding
commitment. However, we have chosen to take an evolutionary approach to our recommendations
below, opting instead for what we believe to be relatively simpler changes that can nonetheless provide
considerable value toward ENSC’s ability to effectively engage markets.
Below we present a six-part framework, much of which already exists and some of which represents
change relative to current practice in the province.
#1. MULTI-YEAR DSM PLAN FILING
In order to improve ENSC’s ability to contract efficiently, to build capacity within Nova Scotia, to
effectively engage trade allies and large organizations, and to focus more organizational effort on DSM
delivery, we recommend moving to a multi-year planning process.
Specifically, we recommend that ENSC prepare and seek UARB approval for a 3-year DSM plan that
would include two additional years of DSM outlook (for directional information purposes; not for UARB
approval). This rolling approach is designed to provide the UARB and stakeholders with the comfort
associated with a relatively short period between formal plan authorizations, while allowing ENSC to
continue to operate within – and communicate to the market – a clearly defined vision and plan, even as
the approval period nears its end.
The multi-year plan should clearly describe the corporation’s vision and strategic outlook; should
describe the approach it intends to take to achieving savings within its target markets; should provide a
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
14
Appendix B
forecast of annual costs (budgets) and energy savings; and should provide a high-level evaluation plan
indicating when and how its activities will be evaluated, as well as a timetable for reporting those
results. The plan would be subject to a full-scale regulatory hearing, as is currently the case.
#2. ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORTS
In order to provide both the UARB and stakeholders with the information needed to track the
corporation’s progress, to keep all parties apprised of any changes or risks that may arise, and to
safeguard against unforeseeable problems that could otherwise get out of control, we recommend
adopting an Annual Progress Report filing.
Specifically, the Progress Report would be filed every intervening year between multi-annual plan filings,
and would normally be subject to a paper review. The report would provide parties with a summary of
the context, activities and milestones achieved over the year prior; would provide a Management
Discussion and Analysis of any major discrepancies relative to the original plan’s intent and forecasts;
and would provide a summary report of costs and savings per program or market area.
It is important to note that the report on savings would provide the most up-to-date information
available. The report should be clear as to the nature of the savings presented. For example, some
values may be preliminary estimates based on tracked measure implementation and previously-adopted
deemed savings; others may incorporate preliminary or final free ridership or spillover values; and yet
others may have been subject to verification, to measurement (for some C&I projects), or to billing
analysis (for some residential projects). Whatever the state or source of the information, it should strive
to follow the initial evaluation plan.
In order to safeguard against the possibility of savings going significantly off-track, we further
recommend that the UARB adopt a trigger mechanism. Under this trigger, if reported results fall below
75% of the original plan’s forecast cumulative annual incremental savings up to that point, ENSC should
be required to file a comprehensive Corrective Action Plan. This plan would detail the changes that ENSC
intends to make to correct the situation and ensure that it can achieve its cumulative savings goal by the
end of the third year.
The Annual Progress Report filing is intended to be a paper filing for information purposes. Stakeholders
and UARB should have the opportunity to ask questions and, if necessary, make suggestions going
forward. It could take place toward the end of the first quarter following each calendar year.
#3. EVALUATION ACTIVITIES
In order to measure ENSC’s performance toward its objectives, to facilitate allocation of DSM costs to
rate classes, and to improve and inform program delivery through rapid and reliable feedback, we
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
15
Appendix B
recommend that ENSC adjust its EM&V schedule to an ongoing (as opposed to annual “all-in-one”)
process.
As indicated previously, evaluation activities can be comprised of a number of different components.
Currently, ENSC submits a complete evaluation of all of its programs and activities on an annual basis,
and within barely 60 days of the end of the calendar year. This approach has several problems: first, it
creates a “rushed” timeline for evaluation activities that does not easily accommodate certain types of
projects or evaluation methodologies (e.g. billing analysis). Second, it provides no value to program
implementers through the course of the year, as they must wait until the year is over to receive the
otherwise valuable feedback evaluations can provide. And third, it inadvertently ensures that negligible
or no spillover can be found, since spillover typically takes place after a certain time lag.
We recommend moving toward a layered approach. This approach would be comprised of ongoing
tracking (as is currently the case); ongoing, “rapid-fire” free ridership surveys on a number of programs
and activities (those that lend themselves to this approach); and a rolling schedule of full-scale
evaluations (including verification activities as well as measurement and/or billing analysis, as
appropriate), including ex-post spillover surveys. This approach would provide more timely information
for program managers, contractors, stakeholders and the UARB:
•
Quarterly reports would provide preliminary net-to-gross values, based on a combination of
tracked data, initial NTG estimates, and updated free ridership from quarterly surveys;
•
Initial Annual Progress reports would provide more advanced values, incorporating the results
of more comprehensive evaluations of many program areas; and
•
Subsequent Annual Progress reports would provide further adjustments to the previously
reported values, as the results of additional work, including spillover surveys, come in. These
adjustments would improve the accuracy of the cumulative savings estimates.
#4. QUARTERLY MEETINGS & REPORTS
In order to maximize transparency, to ensure that stakeholders and the UARB are kept apprised of
results as they evolve, and to provide opportunity to discuss concerns and/or make suggestions to ENSC,
we recommend a schedule of quarterly meetings with both the UARB and stakeholders.
The quarterly meetings with the UARB are currently ongoing; we recommend no changes to the process.
The meetings with stakeholders currently take place under the auspices of the Program Development
Working Group. Since the group’s original purpose was to assist in program development when DSM
was in its infancy, we suggest moving toward a DSM Advisory Group approach meant to focus more on
receiving status updates and discussing strategic issues and concerns. It is our understanding that this is
the current PDWG’s intention as well.
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
16
Appendix B
In both cases, we recommend that the latest savings reports be distributed prior to the meetings.
#5. RATE RIDER ADJUSTMENTS FILING
To facilitate an annual adjustment of the DSM rate rider, we recommend that ENSC file the annual rate
rider adjustment following the current process that has been applied by NSPI to date.
As is currently the case, the process would be used to annually adjust the rate rider with the balance
adjustment (BA) of the previous year, along with the projected costs of the upcoming year.
These projected costs for the upcoming year will be based on updated preliminary cost allocation tables
as reported in the annual Progress Report filing, but revised with the most recent NSPI sales forecasts by
rate class.
#6. ENSC BOARD OF DIRECTORS
While not formally a part of the regulatory process, we believe it is worth noting that ENSC’s
independent board of directors (BOD) plays an additional – and in fact crucial – role in the overall
schedule of oversight and governance. Indeed, the board of directors is tasked with the sole purpose of
ensuring that ENSC accomplish its DSM and energy savings mandate efficiently and effectively. The BOD
reviews and approves draft plans and holds ENSC’s executive accountable to deliver on results.
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
17
Appendix B
OVERVIEW AND DISCUSSION
OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED PROCESS
The following table provides an overview of the oversight process we have recommended, while also
indicating the extra-regulatory oversight involved.
THREE-YEAR PLAN
2012
Q1
Q2
F
H Af
REGULATORY
Multi-Year Plan
Q4
Q1
Progress Reports
Evaluation activities
O
Meetings, Reports
Multi-Year Plan
Q2
Q3
2014
Q4
Q1
F
Q2
Q3
2015
Q4
Q1
Q2
F
H Af
Q3
2016
Q4
Q1
F
O
O
O
O
F
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
M,R M,R M,R M,R M,R M,R M,R M,R M,R M,R M,R M,R M,R
F
Rate Rider
ENSC BOD
Q3
2013
Af
F
Af
F
Af
Ai
F
Af
Ai
Progress Reports
Ai
Ongoing Reporting
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Oversight
O
O
O
O
Ai
Ai
F = filing. H = hearing. M = meeting. R = report. Ai = internal approval (BOD). Af = final approval (UARB). O = ongoing.
Arrows indicate sequence dependency prior to start of three-year plan.
As can be seen, the regulatory process is designed to maintain a full schedule of evaluations, reporting
to the UARB and stakeholders, and opportunity for input. It also involves additional oversight from
ENSC’s independent board of directors.
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
18
Appendix B
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
Through this process, we have sought to address the remaining weaknesses identified previously, while
maintaining its inherent strengths, including the strength of the UARB’s and stakeholders’ ability to
ensure effective oversight. The following table summarizes the extent to which our recommendations
seek to address these issues.
CRITERIA:
LATITUDE
OVERSIGHT
Cost
Influence
Safeguards
Transparency
Ability to Commit
Responsiveness
Resources
Incentives
Examples
No Disincentives
Components
PERFORMANCE
DRIVERS
Are profits Does Sr.
Is budget
Do any
Can ENSC Is reporting
Can
Is the
Can UARB /
unaffected Mgt. have meaningful
rules
commit timely and problems
stakeregulatory
by sales? Is incentive to to market? impede
over long- sufficient? get out of
holders
cost
there clear succeed?
flexibility?
term?
control? influence? reasonable
purpose?
?
ENSC now
ENSC
proposed
Notes
ENSC has no ENSC BOD
Budget on
Historic
Move to 3-yr Quarterly
See
See
Direct and
sales
holds
higher-end
flexibility;
approval;
reports /
Transparen- Transparen- opportunity
disincentive executive
of typical
measure- still missing meetings; cy; also 75%
cy
cost for
(not a utility) accountable range (as are level TRC longer-term
Annual
trigger for
ENSC
to perform.
goals)
detailed
significantly
removed last predicta- report filing;
year
bility
triennial full Action Plan
reduced.
process
Fully addressed
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
Partially addressed
Full challenge remains
19
Appendix B
RISKS
While we believe the recommended approach can optimize the interests of the UARB, stakeholders and
ENSC, we recognize that no single mechanism can fully address all needs and scenarios. Indeed, the
Nova Scotian electricity context is rapidly evolving, including significant uncertainty regarding its extralarge industrial loads and their impact on NSPI’s future planning requirements. Additional uncertainty,
not specific to Nova Scotia, includes the schedule of adoption of new codes and standards, which can
impact overall savings in a number of ways depending on their extent and timing, as well as the federal
government’s approach to regulating greenhouse gas emissions, which could impact NSPI’s planning
framework. The approval of a multiyear plan therefore raises the question of whether and to what
extent the UARB will be able to ensure a dynamic and timely adjustment to evolving “facts on the
ground”.
We recognize that no single mechanism can fully address all needs and scenarios. We therefore note
that, should the Nova Scotian context require material change to ENSC’s plans, the UARB will retain full
discretion to adjust accordingly. For example, should codes and standards not evolve as expected, the
UARB may decide, in the context of ENSC’s Annual Progress Report filing, to adjust its expectations of
cumulative savings (upward or downward) going forward. Similarly, should a new IRP indicate a need for
either significantly increased or decreased savings, the UARB may choose to advance the schedule for
the following three-year plan, and ask ENSC to submit either a more or less aggressive proposal. In this
latter case, the UARB will presumably give due consideration to the impact that an unplanned budget
reduction would have on ENSC’s commitments to contractors, market actors or consumers, as well as to
its long-term reputation.
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
20
Appendix B
CONCLUSION
The regulatory framework that oversees Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation includes a number of
important strengths, including most notably a culture of focusing on results rather than micromanaging
operations. Furthermore, the UARB has recently adopted changes meant to provide more flexibility to
ENSC, a key component of its ability to perform. This evolving oversight approach is a positive factor in
Nova Scotia’s ability to meet its aggressive DSM goals.
Nonetheless, the Corporation remains hampered by the very short-term nature of the current approval
process. While this is not an insurmountable barrier to delivery of energy efficiency services, it does
impose constraints that make it more difficult to achieve its goals. Most significantly, this barrier limits
ENSC’s ability to engage and indeed to sway the full array of market actors, who ultimately hold the key
to Nova Scotia’s ability to improve its long-term energy performance.
We have developed a series of proposals that seek to minimize these constraints – and in so doing
strengthen ENSC’s position in the market. We have done so with a view to avoiding any undue impact
on the UARB’s and stakeholders’ ability to conduct their important oversight roles. This has been done
primarily by offsetting the proposed longer lag time between plan approvals by a series of mechanisms,
including annual progress reports, more robust ongoing reporting, and a protective trigger mechanism
in case of significant performance setbacks.
While we believe this approach can optimize the interests of the UARB, stakeholders and ENSC, we
recognize that no single mechanism can fully address all needs and scenarios. For this reason, the UARB
should of course maintain full discretion should exogenous events require a material change in course.
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
21
Appendix B
3575 Saint-Laurent Blvd., suite 201, Montreal, QuГ©bec, Canada H2X 2T7 | T. 514.504.9030 | F. 514.289.2665 | [email protected]
22
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
www. dunsky.ca
Appendix C
Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation
Cost Allocation Report
Prepared by
Elenchus Research Associates Inc.
February 2012
Appendix C
Table of Contents
1
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1
2
Review of ENSC’s Cost Allocation Processes ...................................................... 2
3
Principles on Which the ENSC CAM is Based...................................................... 6
4
Cost Allocation Methodology: Overview ............................................................... 8
5
Preliminary Program Cost Allocation for 2013 - 2015 ......................................... 12
5.1
5.2
6
Preliminary Allocation of DSM Costs ............................................................. 12
Preliminary DSM Rate and Bill Impacts ........................................................ 13
Summary of Recommendations and Conclusion ................................................ 14
Attachments
Attachment 1: Derivation of Allocated Costs
Attachment 2: Preliminary DSM Rate Impacts
Attachment 3: Bill Impacts by Rate Class
Appendix C
1 INTRODUCTION
Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation (“ENSC”) filed its first Electricity Efficiency and
Conservation Plan, known officially as the Demand Side Management Plan for 2012
(“2012 DSM Plan”) on February 28, 2011. The 2012 DSM Plan included a Preliminary
Program Cost Allocation for allocating electricity DSM costs to NSPI ratepayers in
accordance with the DSM Cost Allocation Approach approved by the Board on August
4, 2009. In its June 30, 2011 Decision, the Nova Scotia Utilities and Review Board
(“UARB” or “Board”) confirmed the continuation of this DSM cost allocation approach in
2012.
In its June 30, 2011 Decision, the Board ordered ENSC to develop and file, no later
than September 30, 2011, its policy to track time and costs for electric and other fuel
mandates. Pursuant to that direction, ENSC filed a report prepared by Elenchus
Research Associates (“Elenchus”) on September 30, 2011, describing the approach
that it was developing for ENSC’s cost allocation model. This approach has been
implemented by ENSC for purposes of determining the allocation of costs to ratepayer
and taxpayer funded programs for its 2011 financial statements.
On December 19, 2011, the Board ordered ENSC to lead the review of the DSM cost
allocation approach for allocating DSM costs to NSPI ratepayers in consultation with the
stakeholders, and file its proposed methodology coincident with the filing of its 2013
DSM Plan.
The June 30, 2011 Board Order also directed ENSC to undertake the necessary
consultation to provide enhanced information on rate and bill impacts in future
proceedings.
In response to the Board Orders, ENSC retained Elenchus to:
1) Assist it in developing the cost allocation model (“CAM”) to fully allocate its costs
to taxpayer-funded programs and ratepayer-funded programs. Integral to this
work has been the development of an appropriate “policy to track time and costs
for electric and other fuel mandates.”
Appendix C
2) Lead the review of the DSM Cost Allocation Approach to electricity ratepayer
classes, in consultation with the stakeholders, to be considered for
implementation for the 2013-2015 Plan years.
3) Prepare the “Preliminary Program Cost Allocation Tables” for filing with the 2013
- 2015 DSM Plan.
4) Conduct an analysis of the projected rate and bill impacts of ENSC’s DSM
programs for NSPI’s ratepayers based on the cost projections contained in the
2013 - 2015 DSM Plan.
Section 2 of this report summarizes the stakeholder consultation process, which
included presentations and discussions of the cost allocation methodology. Section 3
outlines the principles on which ENSC’s cost allocation methodology is based. Section 4
provides an overview of the methodology. Section 5 presents the preliminary DSM
program cost allocations and projected rate and bill impacts for the 2013 – 2015 DSM
Plan. A summary of recommendations is in Section 6.
2 REVIEW OF ENSC’S COST ALLOCATION PROCESSES
Elenchus reviewed the financial and regulatory requirements that have determined the
approach taken to developing ENSC’s cost allocation model. In conducting this review,
Elenchus observed that ENSC’s requirements differ from those of a typical regulated
distribution utility in several ways, most notably:
1. ENSC’s total program costs, including general administrative costs, are split
between taxpayer and ratepayer funded programs. A single cost allocation
model is required although only the ratepayer funded programs are subject to
regulatory scrutiny and only ratepayer funded costs are allocated to customer
rate classes with regulated “rates” (i.e., the rate rider).
2. The allocation of ENSC’s actual costs to ratepayer and taxpayer funded
programs is required for ENSC’s annual financial statements; hence, that
allocation by general ledger account is reviewed by ENSC’s auditors.
-2-
ENSC Cost Allocation Methodology
February 2012
Appendix C
3. ENSC’s CAM is used to establish the true-up adjustments that ensure that
ratepayer funded program costs are collected correctly from each NSPI rate
class once actual program costs have been determined.
4. The CAM is not used to determine the preliminary cost allocation since the
budget for future years is not established in the detail required as input to the
model. The preliminary cost allocation is based on the planned program
costs, which include an allowance for ENSC budgeted administrative costs.
5. ENSC is expected to adjust its program delivery in response to on-going
results and identified opportunities; hence, the true-up is needed to ensure
that program costs are collected from the appropriate customer classes in a
manner that reflects actual system and participant benefits.
6. Unlike regulated electricity and natural gas distributors, ENSC is not a capital
intensive enterprise and it does not operate facilities that are used in common
by the customers it serves. Most expenditures relate to specific identifiable
programs and most programs relate to specific customer classes.
Given these unique characteristics, Elenchus has developed a CAM that differs
significantly from the typical CAM used by regulated electricity and natural gas
distributors. The ENSC CAM does nevertheless adhere to the same principles, primarily
the allocation of costs in a manner that reflects cost causality. The principles on which
ENSC’s CAM is based are discussed in the next section.
Elenchus has developed a cost allocation model that consists of two parts:
п‚·
Part One allocates all cost to programs so that the total costs of ratepayer-funded
and taxpayer-funded activities can be determined; and
п‚·
Part Two allocates the ratepayer-funded DSM program costs (EDSM) to NSPI
customer classes.
Part One of the CAM uses the methodology that was filed initially with the UARB on
September 30, 2011, with additional information provided on Oct.14, 2011. This part of
the model is being used to prepare ENSC’s audited financial statements for 2011. The
-3-
ENSC Cost Allocation Methodology
February 2012
Appendix C
same model will be used for allocating costs to ratepayers and taxpayers for ENSC’s
audited financial statements in future years.
Part Two of the model will be used for the rate rider adjustment commencing with the
2013 program year. It will establish the true-up adjustments for the NSPI rate riders to
recover the total costs (including allocated costs) based on ENSC’s actual expenditures.
This part of the model is consistent with the DSM Cost Allocation Approach that is in
place for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 as set out in the 2009 Settlement Agreement
with one exception, as noted below.
The approach being taken by Elenchus in developing ENSC’s CAM and in
recommending changes to the DSM Cost Allocation Approach was presented to
stakeholders for comment and feedback at the two Stakeholder Sessions conducted by
ENSC in November and December 2011.
п‚·
Mr. Todd’s presentation at the November 3, 2011 Stakeholder Session outlined
the approach and discussed options for allocators. In addition, separate meetings
were held in person and by telephone to provide further briefings on the
methodology to stakeholders and their expert advisors who were unable to
attend the November 3 session. The purpose of this stage of the consultation
process was to survey the views of stakeholders prior to finalizing the CAM.
п‚·
At the December 8, 2011 Stakeholder Session Mr. Todd presented the preferred
options for allocating ENSC’s costs. The purpose of this session was to ensure
that the stakeholders had an opportunity to raise any concerns about the
approach that was being implemented in developing the CAM.
Two issues received the most attention during the stakeholder sessions:
1. The weighting to be used in allocating costs on the basis of System
Benefits and Participating Class Benefits: There was broad acceptance of
the Elenchus recommendation to maintain the 25%/75% split that was
agreed to by stakeholders in the 2009 Settlement Agreement for use in
2010, 2011 and 2012.
-4-
ENSC Cost Allocation Methodology
February 2012
Appendix C
2. The allocator to be used for Enabling Strategies: There was general
support for the recommendation to replace the current allocator (customer
count) and instead allocate these costs using the System/Participant
Benefit approach where feasible, or using total other program costs as the
allocator where participating classes are not practical to identify.
Elenchus therefore recommends the following based on its review of the current ENSC
Cost Allocation Approach.
Recommendation #1: EDSM costs should continue to be allocated to NSPI
rate classes for purposes of determining the preliminary and final rate
riders with:
п‚·
25% of costs being allocated on the basis of system benefits, and
п‚·
75% of costs being allocated on the basis of participating class benefits.
This approach was accepted in the 2009 Settlement Agreement on the basis that it
resulted in a reasonable division of costs and benefits between participating and nonparticipating classes. The premise of this approach is that no customer class should be
made worse off as a result of the implementation of the DSM Plan.
Recommendation #2: Enabling Strategies costs should be allocated using
the same System/Participant Benefit approach that is used for other
programs. Hence, 75% of costs of the Enabling Strategy would be allocated
on the basis of the customer classes that are expected to benefit from the
Enabling Strategy where those “participants” can be reasonably identified.
For Enabling Strategies where it is not practical to identify the participating
(or benefiting) customer classes, the Participant Benefit costs (75% of the
costs of the Enabling Strategy) should be allocated on the basis of the
proportional allocation of all other program costs to the customer classes.
This treatment of Enabling Strategies that target specific customer classes maintains
consistency with the treatment of other program costs. In the case of Enabling
Strategies that target or benefit all customer classes, it is assumed that all customer
classes will benefit in proportion to ENSC’s total expenditures on the other DSM
-5-
ENSC Cost Allocation Methodology
February 2012
Appendix C
programs. Because Enabling Strategies are intended to enhance the results of DSM
programs generally, program costs are a suitable proxy for the Participant Benefits of
these Enabling Strategies.
It is recommended that this approach be implemented for allocating EDSM costs to
customer classes commencing with the 2013 Plan year.1
3 PRINCIPLES ON WHICH THE ENSC CAM IS BASED
The goal in developing the ENSC cost allocation model has been to ensure that it is
compliant with Generally Accepted Regulatory Principles and with standard Canadian
regulatory practices. The “philosophy” of the cost allocation methodologies used by
regulators as a basis for setting rates differs somewhat from normal accounting
practices.
п‚·
First, all Direct, Support and Administration Costs must be allocated to the
programs and/or customer classes. This is referred to as fully allocated costs.
п‚·
Second, costs are allocated in a manner consistent with the cost causality
principle. That is, each program/class is responsible for the costs they directly or
indirectly “cause”, including the indirect causality of overhead costs.
п‚·
Third, accounting costs are not tracked precisely by program/class. Rather, costs
categories are pooled and allocated to classes on a proportional basis using
allocators, such as head count, energy savings, direct program costs, etc. The
allocator used for any particular cost item is the allocator that best reflects the
way the costs are “caused”. Since the causal relationship between some cost
items and the programs/classes cannot be meaningfully determined (e.g., Board
of Directors expenses), those costs are allocated across programs/classes using
1
Note that the allocation of EDSM costs to customer classes for the years 2010. 2011 and 2012 will
continue to be based on the DSM Cost Allocation Approach that was accepted in the 2009 Settlement
Agreement.
-6ENSC Cost Allocation Methodology
February 2012
Appendix C
an allocator that is deemed to be reasonable and fair (e.g., in proportion to all
other costs).
In the regulatory context, cost allocation models are generally used to set rates for
regulated utilities such as electricity and natural gas distributors. Typically, only a small
proportion of their costs can be allocated directly to customer classes because the vast
majority of assets (and the related operating and maintenance costs) are shared across
customer classes. These are referred to as joint or common costs. For example, an
electricity distributor’s network carries power to all customers over the same facilities.
Hence, based on the cost causality principle, the costs associated with building facilities
to meet peak demand requirements are allocated to customer classes based on the
peak demands of the classes.
Unlike most regulated utilities, ENSC has few common costs; hence, most of its costs
can be directly allocated. The primary exception is its Administrative Costs. Like
regulated utilities, the causal relationship between programs/classes and admin costs is
not easily determined; hence, the allocation is most reasonably based on an allocator
that acts much like an across-the-board mark-up for administrative overheads.
Given this approach, the most significant issue in developing the ENSC CAM is
ensuring that the accounting information that is used to directly allocate Program and
Support Costs to the individual programs (and in the case of costs to be recovered from
NSPI ratepayers to NSPI customer classes) is credible. In particular, the goal is to rely
on detailed invoicing information to the greatest extent possible. Where judgement is
necessary to establish the relationship between program costs and the Business
Segment (i.e., ratepayer/taxpayer, formerly referred to as electricity/non-electricity), it is
important to examine reasonable and cost effective options for supporting the allocation
with empirical analysis or relevant proxies (e.g., the proportion of homes heated with
electricity versus other energy types).
-7-
ENSC Cost Allocation Methodology
February 2012
Appendix C
4 COST ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY: OVERVIEW
ENSC’s cost recovery methodology requires it to recover the actual costs incurred for its
programs from the customers that benefit from those programs. This is accomplished
through a two-stage allocation methodology that first allocates all costs to programs so
that the costs attributable to ENSC’s ratepayer-funded programs (EDSM programs) and
its taxpayer-funded programs (PNS) are appropriately determined. The second stage
allocates the costs associated with ratepayer funded programs to NSPI’s rate classes.
Since actual program activity and costs typically deviate from the initial expectations
due to uncertainty in consumer response to incentives and marketing, ENSC’s EDSM
costs are recovered through an initial rate rider plus an after-the-fact true-up mechanism
that ensures that costs are recovered from each customer class on the basis of actual
rather than forecast costs.
The preliminary cost allocation is established using the program cost estimates provided
as set out in ENSC’s 2013-2015 DSM Plan (Appendix A). These cost estimates include
administrative costs using a generic mark-up percentage rather than the more detailed
cost allocation methodology contained in the CAM. This simplified approach to setting
the initial rate rider is necessary since the level of financial detail required as input data
for the CAM is not available on a budget basis. These projected costs have been used
as the basis for the cost information contained in this filing and for deriving the projected
rate riders and rate impacts for 2013–2015.
The CAM is used once ENSC’s audited financial statements have been finalized to
determine the actual costs of EDSM programs that should be recovered from each
NSPI customer class.
ENSC’s cost allocation model relies on standard fully allocated costing concepts that
are generally accepted by Canadian regulators for rate-setting purposes. In particular,
ENSC’s fully allocated costing methodology allocates 100% of costs to the “customer
classes” based on cost causality principles. The concept of customer classes differs
somewhat from most regulated utilities (such as electricity and natural gas distributors)
since ENSC has two tiers of “customer classes”:
-8-
ENSC Cost Allocation Methodology
February 2012
Appendix C
п‚·
The first tier of “customer classes” is the division between taxpayers and
ratepayers, where the taxpayer “class” is defined in terms of programs that are
funded by taxpayers through government contracts and the ratepayer “class” is
defined in terms of programs that are funded by NSPI ratepayers.
п‚·
The second tier of customer classes relates only to ratepayer-funded programs.
Costs that are allocated to (and recovered from) NSPI ratepayers must also be
allocated by the model to NSPI ratepayer classes.
The Board’s direction in its June 30, 2011 Order relates only to the first tier; that is, the
allocation of costs to taxpayer- and ratepayer-funded programs. While this report
focuses on the first-tier methodology, it should be noted that once costs are allocated to
programs, most EDSM costs will be directly allocated to NSPI rate classes.
In order to allocate cost to the electricity and other fuel mandates within the ENSC
CAM, ENSC’s accounts have been divided into several categories that require different
allocation methods:
1. Direct Program Cost Accounts: A few accounts can be directly allocated to a
single ENSC program. This occurs in cases where the definition of the account is
such that all expense (or revenue offsets) must be allocated to a single program.
For example, the Small Business Energy Solutions (SBES) Recovery is
allocated directly to the SBES program.
2. Joint Direct Program Cost Accounts: Some accounts contain costs that can
be directly allocated to programs but it is necessary to allocate the costs in the
account to two or more programs (for example, joint costs such as certain
marketing expenses) that must be divided between programs. The appropriate
allocation of these costs to specific programs is determined on an invoice-byinvoice basis by ENSC staff whenever sufficient information is available to break
-9-
ENSC Cost Allocation Methodology
February 2012
Appendix C
down the invoiced amount accurately.2 An example of this approach is certain
marketing expenses that are incurred for the C&I group on behalf of multiple
programs. In instances where the amounts related to specific programs are not
known, the expenses are allocated to programs using a broad-based allocator
(FTE or Direct Costs). In the future, ENSC accounting staff will continue to seek
improved information so that the residual amount allocated using broad based
allocators can be minimized.
3. Common Program Cost Accounts: One account (bad debt expenses – the
rate rider component of electricity invoices unpaid by customers) contains
common costs that are “caused” by the ratepayer-funded programs in common.
That is, these costs cannot be said to be caused by specific ratepayer-funded
programs, but are caused by all of these programs together. Hence, while the
costs can be directly allocated to ratepayer-funded programs and recovered
exclusively from NSPI ratepayers, it is allocated to individual electricity programs
on a proportional basis.
4. Administrative and Operational Overhead Accounts: Several accounts
contain expenses that relate to ENSC’s office space or business operations and
are not directly “caused” by ENSC’s programs. These are typically defined as
“common costs” in cost allocation models that should be allocated across
classes on an appropriate proportional basis. Examples include rent, insurance,
and janitorial service, as well as expenses related to ENSC’s Board of Directors.
These common costs are allocated to all ENSC’s programs on a pro rata basis.
Two allocation methods are used:
4.1
Common Costs (Staff/Space): Costs that are “caused” by the number of
staff in the office (or the total office space, which in turn is “caused” by the
number of staff) are allocated to programs on the basis of headcount (i.e.,
2
In general, the necessary information to correctly allocate the costs is provided on the invoices
received by ENSC. Where a supplier does not currently provide the necessary detail of costs by
program, ENSC will require more detailed information to be provided on the invoices in the future.
ENSC is striving to eliminate the need to rely on staff judgement to allocate joint costs across
programs wherever it is practical to do so.
- 10 ENSC Cost Allocation Methodology
February 2012
Appendix C
full-time equivalent, or FTE, associated with each program). Accounts
allocated in this way include rent, insurance and IT equipment.
4.2
Common Costs (Operations): Other common costs in the administrative
and Operational Overhead category are not related to the number of staff
or space but by the overall business activity. Examples include ENSC
Board of Directors’ fees and bank charges. These expenses are allocated
to programs (and hence to the electricity and other fuel mandates) on the
basis of the total directly allocated costs of each program. In effect, these
costs are treated as a fixed percentage adder on the direct costs of the
programs.
5. General Program Administration Cost Accounts: A number of accounts
contain both administrative expenses that are “caused by”, and can be directly
allocated to, programs - either individually or jointly - and administrative
expenses that are “caused by” the general administrative operations. Examples
of this category of costs include office supplies, travel and staff training. Costs in
these accounts are allocated using two methods:
5.1
Program expenses: Costs that are associated with ENSC’s programs,
such as office supplies used by program staff, are allocated using the
methodology described above for Joint Direct Program Cost Accounts.
5.2
Administrative expenses: Costs that are associated with ENSC’s
general administrative operations are common administrative costs.
These costs are transferred to the Common Costs (Operations) category
included in Administrative and Operational Overhead Accounts and are,
therefore, allocated in the same way as those costs (i.e., allocated to
programs and, hence, to the electricity and other fuel mandates on the
basis of the total directly allocated costs of each program).
Salaries and Benefits Accounts: The various accounts that make up total
ENSC salaries and benefits contain both expenses that are caused directly by
the programs (e.g., salaries of program managers) and expenses that relate to
ENSC’s office administration (e.g., executive, accounting and support staff
- 11 -
ENSC Cost Allocation Methodology
February 2012
Appendix C
salaries). These accounts are allocated to programs based on the number of fulltime equivalent (FTE) staff assigned directly to each program
5 PRELIMINARY PROGRAM COST ALLOCATION FOR 2013 2015
This section contains the Preliminary Cost Allocation and the Preliminary Bill and Rate
Impacts for the years 2013, 2014 and 2015.
5.1 PRELIMINARY ALLOCATION OF DSM COSTS
Tables showing the preliminary allocation of DSM program costs to rate classes are
provided in the Attachment 1. To prepare these costs, Elenchus used the 2013-2015
DSM costs provided by ENSC, and included as Table 1 below for ease of reference.
Table 1: Costs by Program, 2013 – 2015 ($ thousands) revised 04/18/12
Program Type
Residential Programs
Efficient Products
Existing Homes
Home Energy Report
New Construction
Commercial and Industrial Programs
Prescriptive
Custom
Small Business
Enabling Strategies
Education and Outreach
Development and Research
Other Enabling Strategies
Total
2013
2014
2015
$3,997
$8,718
$1,017
$5,470
$4,189
$10,351
$1,017
$6,551
$5,014
$11,543
$1,017
$7,950
$8,116
$9,471
$4,625
$7,982
$9,094
$3,524
$7,564
$9,185
$2,933
$2,500
$1,350
$980
$46,246
$2,700
$1,350
$990
$47,748
$2,900
$1,400
$860
$50,366
The DSM costs for future years include all overhead costs based on a proportional
mark-up over direct program costs. To calculate the preliminary allocation of Enabling
- 12 -
ENSC Cost Allocation Methodology
Revised: April 18, 2012
Appendix C
Strategies, all customer classes are assumed to benefit in proportion to ENSC’s total
direct costs of the other DSM programs.3 This is a change from previous years in which
customer count was used to allocate Enabling Strategies costs.
5.2 PRELIMINARY DSM RATE AND BILL IMPACTS
Attachment 2 shows the potential impact on the annual DSM rate rider of the 2013-2015
DSM Plan by customer class. Since the 2012 DSM rate includes a true-up (balance
adjustment) for 2010, the DSM rate impacts are shown both with and without the
balance adjustment included in the 2012 DSM rate.
Attachment 3 presents the impact on electricity bills by customer rate classes of the
2013-2015 DSM Plan.
The bill and rate impacts should be viewed as indicative only. Actual impacts will vary
for a number of reasons, including the following.
п‚·
When the CAM is used to allocate the ENSC’s actual costs as per its audited
financial statements, the results can be expected to differ from the preliminary
budget which projects program costs using a standard mark-up for overhead
costs rather than the more detailed and precise CAM.
п‚·
Actual program costs may vary from the preliminary budget as ENSC identifies
opportunities. If expenditures are reallocated between programs that benefit
different customer classes, the rate and bill impacts by class may change
although the total ENSC EDSM budget does not change.
п‚·
NSPI rates and load forecasts can be expected to change in future years which
will change the calculation of rate and bill impacts.
3
Sufficiently detailed information on the customer classes that will benefit from the Enabling Strategies is not
presently available to allocate costs directly to customer classes. However, direct allocations are expected to be
practical and appropriate for many of the actual 2013-2015 Enabling Strategy costs and the true-up process.
- 13 -
ENSC Cost Allocation Methodology
February 2012
Appendix C
6 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
Elenchus has developed a cost allocation model that consists of two parts:
п‚·
Part One allocates all cost to programs so that the total costs of ratepayer-funded
and taxpayer-funded can be determined; and
п‚·
Part Two allocates the ratepayer-funded program costs to NSPI classes.
Part One of the CAM relies on the methodology that was approved by the UARB in its
December 19, 2011 Order. This part of the model is being used to prepare ENSC’s
audited financial statements for 2011. The same model will be used for allocating costs
to ratepayers and taxpayers for ENSC’s audited financial statements in future years.
Part Two of the model will be used commencing with the 2013 program year to
determine the appropriate DSM costs to recover from each customer class. The final
true-up adjustments for the DSM rate riders will be established to recover the allocated
costs based on ENSC’s actual expenditures. This part of the model is consistent with
the DSM Cost Allocation Approach that is in place for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 as
set out in the 2009 Settlement Agreement with one exception, as noted below.
Elenchus reviewed the current Cost Allocation Approach as requested by ENSC. As a
result of this review, Elenchus recommends the following.
Recommendation #1: EDSM costs should continue to be allocated to NSPI
rate classes for purposes of determining the preliminary and final rate
riders with:
п‚·
25% of costs being allocated on the basis of system benefits, and
п‚·
75% of costs being allocated on the basis of participating class benefits.
Recommendation #2: Enabling Strategies costs should be allocated using
the same System/Participant Benefit approach that is used for other
programs where feasible. Hence, 75% of costs would be allocated on the
basis of the customer classes that are expected to benefit from an Enabling
Strategy where those participants can be reasonably identified. For
- 14 -
ENSC Cost Allocation Methodology
February 2012
Appendix C
Enabling Strategies where it is not practical to identify the participating (or
benefiting) customer classes, the Participant Benefit costs (75% of the
costs of the Enabling Strategy) should be allocated on the basis of the
proportional allocation of all other program costs to the customer classes.
The methodological change contained in Recommendation #2 would come into effect
starting with the 2013 Plan Year.
- 15 -
ENSC Cost Allocation Methodology
February 2012
Appendix C
Attachment 1:
Derivation of Allocated Costs
Table
Page
TABLE 1 (2013) Allocation of program costs associated with system benefits
Attachment 1-1
TABLE 2 (2013) Allocation of Program Costs associated with participating classes
Attachment 1-2
TABLE 2 a) (2013) DSM Program participation before accounting for Municipal Class
Attachment 1-3
TABLE 2 b) (2013) DSM Program participation after accounting for Municipal Class
Attachment 1-4
TABLE 3 (2013) Preliminary Allocation of Program Costs among rate classes
Attachment 1-5
TABLE 1 (2014) Allocation of program costs associated with system benefits
Attachment 1-6
TABLE 2 (2014) Allocation of Program Costs associated with participating classes
Attachment 1-7
TABLE 2 a) (2014) DSM Program participation before accounting for Municipal Class
Attachment 1-8
TABLE 2 b) (2014) DSM Program participation after accounting for Municipal Class
Attachment 1-9
TABLE 3 (2014) Preliminary Allocation of Program Costs among rate classes
Attachment 1-10
TABLE 1 (2015) Allocation of program costs associated with system benefits
Attachment 1-11
TABLE 2 (2015) Allocation of Program Costs associated with participating classes
Attachment 1-12
TABLE 2 a) (2015) DSM Program participation before accounting for Municipal Class
Attachment 1-13
TABLE 2 b) (2015) DSM Program participation after accounting for Municipal Class
Attachment 1-14
TABLE 3 (2015) Preliminary Allocation of Program Costs among rate classes
Attachment 1-15
Appendix C
Attachment 2:
Preliminary DSM Rate Impacts
Table
Page
Table 2.1 Derivation of Prospective Rates
Attachment 2-1
Table 2.2 DSM Rate Rider Impacts using 2012 DSM Rate Rider
with Balance Adjustment
Attachment 2-2
Table 2.3 DSM Rate Rider Impacts using 2012 DSM Rate Rider
without Balance Adjustment
Attachment 2-3
Appendix C
Attachment 3:
Bill Impacts by Rate Class
Table
Page
Table 3.1 Residential (Domestic)
Attachment 3-1
Table 3.2 Residential (Domestic, winter time-of-day)
Attachment 3-2
Table 3.3 Residential (Domestic, non-winter time-of-day)
Attachment 3-3
Table 3.4 Small General
Attachment 3-4
Table 3.5 General Demand
Attachment 3-5
Table 3.6 Large General
Attachment 3-6
Table 3.7 Small Industrial
Attachment 3-7
Table 3.8 Medium Industrial
Attachment 3-8
Table 3.9 Large Industrial
Attachment 3-9
Table 3.10 ELI 2P-RTP
Attachment 3-10
Table 3.11 Municipal
Attachment 3-11
Table 3.12 Unmetered
Attachment 3-12
Table 3.13 Bowater Mersey (AE only)
Attachment 3-13
Table 3.14 Gen. Repl. / Load Following
Attachment 3-14
Appendix C
TABLE 1 (2013) Allocation of 25% of program costs associated with system benefits
Line #
1
COLUMN
2
3
System Benefits
Combined Class and
Participant Benefits
Total
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
D
E
F
G
H
25% $ 11,561,515
75% $ 34,684,545
100% $ 46,246,060
Classification of System Benefit DSM
Costs
Factors1
Factors
Generation
Transmission
Distribution
Retail
100%
0%
0%
0%
Demand Related Costs
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Rate Class
Residential
Small General
General Demand
Large General
Small Industrial
Medium Industrial
Large Industrial
ELI 2P-RTP
Municipal
Unmetered
Bowater Mersey (AE only)4
Gen. Repl. / Load Foll.
Wholesale Market Backup / Top-up
1P-RTP
29
30
31
32
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
C
Functionalization of system Benefit DSM Costs
10
37
B
Program Cost Recovery by Benefits
4
5
6
33
34
35
36
A
Total
Classification Breakdown
Energy-related
44.5%
2.2%
25.8%
4.0%
2.7%
5.2%
9.5%
0.0%
2.0%
1.2%
28,133
10,496
-
179,900
108,400
-
1.8%
1.1%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0% $ 3,871,951
9,829,200
Demand-related
57.5%
2.6%
22.2%
2.7%
1.8%
3.5%
5.6%
0.0%
2.1%
1.2%
42,230
15,756
-
0.7%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
33.5%
33.49%
66.51%
100%
Energy Related Costs
MWh Energy
Requirement3
4,372,500
219,500
2,534,000
394,400
261,900
512,900
932,600
197,400
115,700
3 CP kW Demands2
3,341,202
150,267
1,289,092
155,014
102,631
202,071
324,325
122,094
67,488
5,812,170
Demand-related
Energy-related
Total
$ Amount
$ 2,225,842
$
100,105
$
858,767
$
103,267
$
68,371
$
134,615
$
216,059
$
$
81,337
$
44,959
$
$
$
$
Total
$ Amount
$ 3,420,687
$
171,719
$ 1,982,395
$
308,546
$
204,889
$
401,251
$
729,590
$
$
154,430
$
90,514
$
$
$
$
140,739
84,803
-
100.0% $ 7,689,564
66.5%
Relative Share
48.8%
2.4%
24.6%
3.6%
2.4%
4.6%
8.2%
0.0%
2.0%
1.2%
1.5%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
Total Amount
$ 5,646,529
$
271,824
$ 2,841,162
$
411,814
$
273,260
$
535,867
$
945,649
$
$
235,766
$
135,473
$
$
$
$
168,872
95,299
-
100.0% $ 11,561,515
100.0%
1
The classification is the weighted average of the fully classified total generation plant portion of rate base as shown in the "Base Cost of Fuel Cost of Service Allocation of Fuel Expenses among Rate Classes" table in line
#32 under Purchased Power Regular / Fixed section in Appendix C of the 2011 Base Cost of Fuel Compliance Filing submission.
2
Initially sourced from Base Cost of Fuel of Service Allocation of Fuel Expenses among Rate Classes" table under Cost Allocation Factors in Appendix C of the 2011 Base Cost of Fuel Compliance Filing submission,
subsequently scaled in proportion to the change in MWh from that submission to the Nova Scotia Power Inc. 2012 General Rate Application - Operating Revenues
3
Source: Nova Scotia Power Inc. 2012 General Rate Application - Operating Revenues
4
Source: Nova Scotia Power Inc. 2012 General Rate Application - Operating Revenues
5
All residential rate classes use the same unit fixed cost estimate
Attachment 1-1
E-ENSC-R-12
Date Revised: April 18, 2012
Appendix C
TABLE 2 (2013) Preliminary Allocation of 75% of DSM Program Costs associated with benefits realized by participating classes
Line #
1
COLUMN
FORMULA
2
3
4
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
∑ col A to J
K * 75%
Program
Costs
Directly Assigned
to Participating
rate classes (75%
of the total)
Program costs incurred on participating rate classes
Existing
Homes
New
Construction
Efficient
Products
Home
Energy
Report
Custom
997,795
19,626
-
$ 703,037
$ 700,322
$ 4,584,422
$
23,441
$ 400,790
$
70,197
$ 132,765
$
$ 187,885
$ 1,313,549
$
$
$
$
-
$
74,422
$
55,787
$ 6,764,270
$
620,262
$
24,314
$
720,598
$
406,067
$
$
249,035
$
556,524
$
$
$
$
-
$ 696,273
$ 721,774
$ 2,704,490
$
$ 376,142
$
$
$
$ 126,478
$
$
$
$
$
-
$ 1,530,830
$
82,616
$ 627,553
$
29,271
$
35,700
$
34,473
$
23,451
$
$
54,717
$
81,389
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
687,408
57,108
433,794
20,233
24,677
23,830
16,210
30,480
56,260
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
706,851
22,804
173,223
8,080
9,854
9,516
6,473
20,734
22,466
-
$ 22,386,371
$ 2,060,794
$ 15,653,893
$
730,143
$
890,508
$
859,914
$
584,967
$
$ 1,049,283
$ 2,030,188
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
16,789,778
1,545,595
11,740,419
547,607
667,881
644,936
438,725
786,962
1,522,641
-
$ 1,017,420
$ 8,116,407
$ 9,471,279
$ 4,625,157
$ 2,500,000
$
1,350,000
$
980,000
$ 46,246,060
$
34,684,545
Program
Rate Class
Residential
Small General
General Demand
Large General
Small Industrial
Medium Industrial
Large Industrial
ELI 2P-RTP
Municipal
Unmetered
Bowater Mersey (AE only)
Gen. Repl. / Load Foll.
Wholesale Market Backup / Top-up
1P-RTP
$ 8,550,215
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 168,176
$
$
$
$
$
-
$ 5,364,453
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 105,515
$
$
$
$
$
-
$ 3,075,086
$ 420,383
$ 366,141
$
28,856
$
19,031
$
1,301
$
$
$
86,639
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
22
23
24
25
26
Total
$ 8,718,391
$ 5,469,968
$ 3,997,437
Development
and Research
All Program
Costs
Combined
Prescriptive
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Education &
Outreach
Other
Enabling
Strategies
Small
Business
Attachment 1-2
E-ENSC-R-12
Date Revised: April 18, 2012
Appendix C
Line #
TABLE 2 a) (2013) Estimate of DSM Program participation by rate classes before accounting for the Municipal Class
1
2
COLUMN
A
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
Relative shares of program costs incurred on particpating rate classes before Municipal Class
Program
Rate Class
Residential
Small General
General Demand
Large General
Small Industrial
Medium Industrial
Large Industrial
ELI 2P-RTP
Municipal
Unmetered
Bowater Mersey (AE only)
Gen. Repl. / Load Foll.
Wholesale Market Backup / Top-up
1P-RTP
Total
Existing
New
Efficient Home Energy
Homes Construction Products
Report
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
78.6%
10.7%
9.4%
0.7%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Small
Education &
Prescriptive Custom Business
Outreach
8.9%
0.8%
8.8%
0.6%
57.8% 73.3%
0.3%
6.7%
5.1%
0.3%
0.9%
7.8%
1.7%
4.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
16.6%
6.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0% 100.0%
15.5%
16.0%
60.1%
0.0%
8.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
61.2%
3.5%
26.6%
1.2%
1.5%
1.5%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Development
and Research
50.9%
4.4%
33.7%
1.6%
1.9%
1.9%
1.3%
0.0%
0.0%
4.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Other
Enabling
Strategies
72.1%
2.5%
19.1%
0.9%
1.1%
1.1%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Attachment 1-3
E-ENSC-R-12
Date Revised: April 18, 2012
Appendix C
TABLE 2 b) (2013) Preliminary Estimate of DSM Program participation by rate class after accounting for the Municipal Class
Line #
1
COLUMN
2
A
B
C
Existing Homes
New
Construction
Efficient
Products
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
Program
Rate Class
Residential
Small General
General Demand
Large General
Small Industrial
Medium Industrial
Large Industrial
ELI 2P-RTP
Municipal
Unmetered
Bowater Mersey (AE only)
Gen. Repl. / Load Foll.
Wholesale Market Backup / Top-up
1P-RTP
Total
33
98.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
E
F
G
H
Program costs incurred on participating rate classes
Home Energy
Small
Education &
Report
Prescriptive
Custom
Business
Outreach
76.9%
10.5%
9.2%
0.7%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
98.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
8.7%
8.6%
56.5%
0.3%
4.9%
0.9%
1.6%
0.0%
2.3%
16.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.8%
0.6%
71.4%
6.5%
0.3%
7.6%
4.3%
0.0%
2.6%
5.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
15.1%
15.6%
58.5%
0.0%
8.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
61.2%
3.3%
25.1%
1.2%
1.4%
1.4%
0.9%
0.0%
2.2%
3.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
I
J
Development
and Research
Other Enabling
Strategies
50.9%
4.2%
32.1%
1.5%
1.8%
1.8%
1.2%
0.0%
2.3%
4.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
72.1%
2.3%
17.7%
0.8%
1.0%
1.0%
0.7%
0.0%
2.1%
2.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Relative Shares of Municipal sales in total NSPI sales by sector
4,297,308,762
3,160,475,830
1,801,729,475
Breakdown of Municipal Class Sales by
Sector1
% of Mun
% of NSPI
82,894,296
42.0%
1.929%
97,894,217
49.6%
3.097%
16,578,859
8.4%
0.920%
9,259,514,067
197,367,372
NSPI
DSM-elgibile sales by sector
Residential
General
Industrial
30
31
32
98.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
D
1
100.0%
Source: Municipal electric utility sales and purchase forecasts for 2012 provided by MEUNSC
2.132%
Attachment 1-4
E-ENSC-R-12
Date Revised: April 18, 2012
Appendix C
TABLE 3 (2013) Preliminary Allocation of Program Costs among rate classes
Line #
1
2
3
COLUMN
A
4
FORMULA
Table 2
Column K
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
B
C
D
E
Table 1
Column H
F
G
Table 2
Column L
C+E
System Benefit Costs (25% of Participating Class benefit Costs
the total expenditure allocated (75% of the total expenditure
to classes using COS
directly assigned to
methodology)
participating classes)
Total Expenditure by Rate Class
$ Amount
Relative Share
$ Amount
Relative Share
$ Amount
Relative Share
Rate Class
Residential
Small General
General Demand
Large General
Small Industrial
Medium Industrial
Large Industrial
ELI 2P-RTP
Municipal
Unmetered
Bowater Mersey (AE only)
Gen. Repl. / Load Foll.
Wholesale Market Backup / Top-up
1P-RTP
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Total
$ 46,246,060
22,386,371
2,060,794
15,653,893
730,143
890,508
859,914
584,967
1,049,283
2,030,188
-
48.4%
4.5%
33.8%
1.6%
1.9%
1.9%
1.3%
0.0%
2.3%
4.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
$ 5,646,529
$
271,824
$ 2,841,162
$
411,814
$
273,260
$
535,867
$
945,649
$
$
235,766
$
135,473
$
168,872
$
95,299
$
$
-
100.0% $ 11,561,515
48.8%
2.4%
24.6%
3.6%
2.4%
4.6%
8.2%
0.0%
2.0%
1.2%
1.5%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
$ 16,789,778
$ 1,545,595
$ 11,740,419
$
547,607
$
667,881
$
644,936
$
438,725
$
$
786,962
$ 1,522,641
$
$
$
$
-
100.0% $ 34,684,545
H
48.4%
4.5%
33.8%
1.6%
1.9%
1.9%
1.3%
0.0%
2.3%
4.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Total Allocated Costs
$ Amount
Relative Share
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
22,436,308
1,817,419
14,581,581
959,421
941,141
1,180,802
1,384,374
1,022,728
1,658,114
168,872
95,299
-
48.5%
3.9%
31.5%
2.1%
2.0%
2.6%
3.0%
0.0%
2.2%
3.6%
0.4%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0% $ 46,246,060
100.0%
Attachment 1-5
E-ENSC-R-12
Date Revised: April 18, 2012
Appendix C
TABLE 1 (2014) Allocation of 25% of program costs associated with system benefit
Line #
1
COLUMN
2
3
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Program Cost Recovery by Benefits
4
5
6
System Benefits
Combined Class and
Participant Benefits
Total
7
8
9
10
25% $ 11,936,968
75% $ 35,810,904
100% $ 47,747,872
Functionalization of system Benefit DSM
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Classification of System Benefit DSM
Factors
Factors
Generation
Transmission
Distribution
Retail
100%
0%
0%
0%
Demand Related Costs
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Rate Class
Residential
Small General
General Demand
Large General
Small Industrial
Medium Industrial
Large Industrial
ELI 2P-RTP
Municipal
Unmetered
Bowater Mersey (AE only)4
Gen. Repl. / Load Foll.
Wholesale Market Backup / Top-up
1P-RTP
33
34
35
36
Total
Classification Breakdown
3 CP kW Demands2
3,341,202
150,267
1,289,092
155,014
102,631
202,071
324,325
122,094
67,488
42,230
15,756
5,812,170
Demand-related
Energy-related
Total
$ Amount
$ 2,298,125
$
103,356
$
886,655
$
106,621
$
70,591
$
138,987
$
223,075
$
$
83,978
$
46,419
$
29,047
$
10,837
$
$
-
100.0% $ 3,997,691
9,829,200
Demand-related
57.5%
2.6%
22.2%
2.7%
1.8%
3.5%
5.6%
0.0%
2.1%
1.2%
0.7%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
33.5%
33.49%
66.51%
100%
Energy Related Costs
MWh Energy
Requirement3
4,372,500
219,500
2,534,000
394,400
261,900
512,900
932,600
197,400
115,700
179,900
108,400
-
Energy-related
44.5%
2.2%
25.8%
4.0%
2.7%
5.2%
9.5%
0.0%
2.0%
1.2%
1.8%
1.1%
0.0%
0.0%
$ Amount
$ 3,531,772
$
177,295
$ 2,046,772
$
318,566
$
211,543
$
414,281
$
753,283
$
$
159,445
$
93,454
$
145,309
$
87,557
$
$
-
100.0% $ 7,939,277
66.5%
1
Total
Relative Share
48.8%
2.4%
24.6%
3.6%
2.4%
4.6%
8.2%
0.0%
2.0%
1.2%
1.5%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
Total Amount
$ 5,829,897
$
280,651
$ 2,933,427
$
425,187
$
282,134
$
553,269
$
976,358
$
$
243,423
$
139,873
$
174,356
$
98,394
$
$
-
100.0% $ 11,936,968
100.0%
1
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
The classification is the weighted average of the fully classified total generation plant portion of rate base as shown in the "Base Cost of Fuel Cost of Service Allocation of Fuel Expenses among Rate Classes" table in
line #32 under Purchased Power Regular / Fixed section in Appendix C of the 2011 Base Cost of Fuel Compliance Filing submission.
2
Initially sourced from Base Cost of Fuel of Service Allocation of Fuel Expenses among Rate Classes" table under Cost Allocation Factors in Appendix C of the 2011 Base Cost of Fuel Compliance Filing submission,
subsequently scaled in proportion to the change in MWh from that submission to the Nova Scotia Power Inc. 2012 General Rate Application - Operating Revenues
3
Source: Nova Scotia Power Inc. 2012 General Rate Application - Operating Revenues
4
Source: Nova Scotia Power Inc. 2012 General Rate Application - Operating Revenues
5
All residential rate classes use the same unit fixed cost estimate
Attachment 1-6
E-ENSC-R-12
Date Revised: April 18, 2012
Appendix C
TABLE 2 (2014) Preliminary Allocation of 75% of DSM Program Costs associated with benefits realized by participating classes.
Line #
1
COLUMN
FORMULA
2
3
4
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
∑ col A to J
K * 75%
All Program
Costs
Combined
Program Costs
Directly Assigned
to Participating
rate classes (75%
Program costs incurred on participating rate classes
Existing
Homes
New
Construction
Efficient
Products
Rate Class
Residential
Small General
General Demand
Large General
Small Industrial
Medium Industrial
Large Industrial
ELI 2P-RTP
Municipal
Unmetered
Bowater Mersey (AE only)
Gen. Repl. / Load Foll.
Wholesale Market Backup / Top-up
1P-RTP
$ 10,151,068
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
199,664
$
$
$
$
$
-
$ 6,424,393
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 126,363
$
$
$
$
$
-
Total
$ 10,350,731
$ 6,550,755
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Program
22
23
24
25
26
Other
Enabling
Strategies
Home Energy
Report
Prescriptive
Custom
Small
Business
Education &
Outreach
Development
and Research
$ 3,222,459
$ 440,530
$ 383,688
$
30,239
$
19,943
$
1,364
$
$
$
90,791
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
997,795
19,626
-
$
691,356
$
688,686
$ 4,508,248
$
23,051
$
394,130
$
69,030
$
130,559
$
$
184,763
$ 1,291,723
$
$
$
$
-
$
71,458
$
53,565
$ 6,494,811
$ 595,554
$
23,345
$ 691,892
$ 389,891
$
$ 239,114
$ 534,355
$
$
$
$
-
$ 530,568
$ 550,000
$ 2,060,852
$
$ 286,625
$
$
$
$
96,377
$
$
$
$
$
-
$ 1,697,208
$
83,202
$ 645,707
$
31,155
$
34,766
$
36,602
$
24,990
$
$
58,687
$
87,682
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
692,697
55,250
428,782
20,689
23,086
24,306
16,595
30,370
58,225
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
699,188
23,777
184,526
8,903
9,935
10,460
7,142
21,012
25,057
-
$ 25,178,187
$ 1,895,009
$ 14,706,614
$
709,591
$
791,831
$
833,654
$
569,177
$
$ 1,066,767
$ 1,997,043
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
18,883,640
1,421,257
11,029,960
532,193
593,873
625,241
426,883
800,075
1,497,782
-
$ 4,189,013
$ 1,017,420
$ 7,981,546
$ 9,093,984
$ 3,524,422
$ 2,700,000
$
1,350,000
$
990,000
$ 47,747,872
$
35,810,904
Attachment 1-7
E-ENSC-R-12
Date Revised: April 18, 2012
Appendix C
Line #
TABLE 2 a) (2014) Estimate of DSM Program participation by rate classes before accounting for the Municipal Class
1
2
COLUMN
A
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
Relative shares of program costs incurred on particpating rate classes before Municipal Class
Program
Rate Class
Residential
Small General
General Demand
Large General
Small Industrial
Medium Industrial
Large Industrial
ELI 2P-RTP
Municipal
Unmetered
Bowater Mersey (AE only)
Gen. Repl. / Load Foll.
Wholesale Market Backup / Top-up
1P-RTP
Total
Existing
New
Efficient Home Energy
Homes Construction Products
Report
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
78.6%
10.7%
9.4%
0.7%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Small
Education &
Prescriptive Custom Business
Outreach
8.9%
0.8%
8.8%
0.6%
57.8% 73.3%
0.3%
6.7%
5.1%
0.3%
0.9%
7.8%
1.7%
4.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
16.6%
6.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0% 100.0%
15.5%
16.0%
60.1%
0.0%
8.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
62.9%
3.3%
25.4%
1.2%
1.4%
1.4%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Development
and Research
51.3%
4.3%
33.3%
1.6%
1.8%
1.9%
1.3%
0.0%
0.0%
4.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Other
Enabling
Strategies
70.6%
2.6%
20.1%
1.0%
1.1%
1.1%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
2.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Attachment 1-8
E-ENSC-R-12
Date Revised: April 18, 2012
Appendix C
TABLE 2 b) (2014) Preliminary Estimate of DSM Program participation by rate class after accounting for the Municipal Class
Line #
1
COLUMN
2
A
B
C
Existing Homes
New
Construction
Efficient
Products
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
Program
Rate Class
Residential
Small General
General Demand
Large General
Small Industrial
Medium Industrial
Large Industrial
ELI 2P-RTP
Municipal
Unmetered
Bowater Mersey (AE only)
Gen. Repl. / Load Foll.
Wholesale Market Backup / Top-up
1P-RTP
Total
33
98.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
K
L
M
R
Program costs incurred on participating rate classes
Home Energy
Small
Education &
Report
Prescriptive
Custom
Business
Outreach
76.9%
10.5%
9.2%
0.7%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
98.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
8.7%
8.6%
56.5%
0.3%
4.9%
0.9%
1.6%
0.0%
2.3%
16.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.8%
0.6%
71.4%
6.5%
0.3%
7.6%
4.3%
0.0%
2.6%
5.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
15.1%
15.6%
58.5%
0.0%
8.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
62.9%
3.1%
23.9%
1.2%
1.3%
1.4%
0.9%
0.0%
2.2%
3.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
S
T
Development
and Research
Other Enabling
Strategies
51.3%
4.1%
31.8%
1.5%
1.7%
1.8%
1.2%
0.0%
2.2%
4.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
70.6%
2.4%
18.6%
0.9%
1.0%
1.1%
0.7%
0.0%
2.1%
2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Relative Shares of Municipal sales in total NSPI sales by sector
4,297,308,762
3,160,475,830
1,801,729,475
Breakdown of Municipal Class Sales by
1
Sector
% of Mun
% of NSPI
82,894,296
42.0%
1.929%
97,894,217
49.6%
3.097%
16,578,859
8.4%
0.920%
9,259,514,067
197,367,372
NSPI
DSM-elgibile sales by sector
Residential
General
Industrial
30
31
32
98.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
D
1
100.0%
Source: Municipal electric utility sales and purchase forecasts for 2012 provided by MEUNSC
2.132%
Attachment 1-9
E-ENSC-R-12
Date Revised: April 18, 2012
Appendix C
TABLE 3 (2014) Preliminary Allocation of Program Costs among rate classes
Line #
1
2
3
COLUMN
A
4
FORMULA
Table 2
Column K
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
B
C
D
E
Table 1
Column H
F
G
Table 2
Column L
C+E
System Benefit Costs (25% of Participating Class benefit Costs
the total expenditure allocated (75% of the total expenditure
to classes using COS
directly assigned to
Total Expenditure by Rate Class
methodology)
participating classes)
$ Amount
Relative Share
$ Amount
Relative Share
$ Amount
Relative Share
Rate Class
Residential
Small General
General Demand
Large General
Small Industrial
Medium Industrial
Large Industrial
ELI 2P-RTP
Municipal
Unmetered
Bowater Mersey (AE only)
Gen. Repl. / Load Foll.
Wholesale Market Backup / Top-up
1P-RTP
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Total
$ 47,747,872
25,178,187
1,895,009
14,706,614
709,591
791,831
833,654
569,177
1,066,767
1,997,043
-
52.7%
4.0%
30.8%
1.5%
1.7%
1.7%
1.2%
0.0%
2.2%
4.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
$ 5,829,897
$
280,651
$ 2,933,427
$
425,187
$
282,134
$
553,269
$
976,358
$
$
243,423
$
139,873
$
174,356
$
98,394
$
$
-
100.0% $ 11,936,968
48.8%
2.4%
24.6%
3.6%
2.4%
4.6%
8.2%
0.0%
2.0%
1.2%
1.5%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
$ 18,883,640
$ 1,421,257
$ 11,029,960
$
532,193
$
593,873
$
625,241
$
426,883
$
$
800,075
$ 1,497,782
$
$
$
$
-
100.0% $ 35,810,904
H
52.7%
4.0%
30.8%
1.5%
1.7%
1.7%
1.2%
0.0%
2.2%
4.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Total Allocated Costs
$ Amount
Relative Share
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
24,713,537
1,701,908
13,963,387
957,380
876,007
1,178,509
1,403,241
1,043,498
1,637,655
174,356
98,394
-
51.8%
3.6%
29.2%
2.0%
1.8%
2.5%
2.9%
0.0%
2.2%
3.4%
0.4%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0% $ 47,747,872
100.0%
Attachment 1-10
E-ENSC-R-12
Date Revised: April 18, 2012
Appendix C
TABLE 1 (2015) Allocation of 25% of program costs associated with system benefits
Line #
1
COLUMN
2
3
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Program Cost Recovery by Benefits
4
5
6
System Benefits
Combined Class and
Participant Benefits
Total
7
8
9
10
25% $ 12,591,593
75% $ 37,774,780
100% $ 50,366,374
Functionalization of system Benefit DSM
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Classification of System Benefit DSM
Factors
Factors
Generation
Transmission
Distribution
Retail
100%
0%
0%
0%
Demand Related Costs
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Rate Class
Residential
Small General
General Demand
Large General
Small Industrial
Medium Industrial
Large Industrial
ELI 2P-RTP
Municipal
Unmetered
Bowater Mersey (AE only)4
Gen. Repl. / Load Foll.
Wholesale Market Backup / Top-up
1P-RTP
33
34
35
36
Total
Classification Breakdown
3 CP kW Demands2
3,341,202
150,267
1,289,092
155,014
102,631
202,071
324,325
122,094
67,488
42,230
15,756
5,812,170
Demand-related
Energy-related
Total
$ Amount
$ 2,424,155
$
109,024
$
935,279
$
112,468
$
74,462
$
146,609
$
235,309
$
$
88,583
$
48,965
$
30,639
$
11,431
$
$
-
100.0% $ 4,216,925
9,829,200
Demand-related
57.5%
2.6%
22.2%
2.7%
1.8%
3.5%
5.6%
0.0%
2.1%
1.2%
0.7%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
33.5%
33.49%
66.51%
100%
Energy Related Costs
MWh Energy
Requirement3
4,372,500
219,500
2,534,000
394,400
261,900
512,900
932,600
197,400
115,700
179,900
108,400
-
Energy-related
44.5%
2.2%
25.8%
4.0%
2.7%
5.2%
9.5%
0.0%
2.0%
1.2%
1.8%
1.1%
0.0%
0.0%
$ Amount
$ 3,725,455
$
187,018
$ 2,159,017
$
336,036
$
223,144
$
437,001
$
794,593
$
$
168,189
$
98,579
$
153,278
$
92,359
$
$
-
100.0% $ 8,374,669
66.5%
1
Total
Relative Share
48.8%
2.4%
24.6%
3.6%
2.4%
4.6%
8.2%
0.0%
2.0%
1.2%
1.5%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
Total Amount
$ 6,149,609
$
296,042
$ 3,094,296
$
448,504
$
297,606
$
583,610
$ 1,029,902
$
$
256,772
$
147,543
$
183,918
$
103,790
$
$
-
100.0% $ 12,591,593
100.0%
1
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
The classification is the weighted average of the fully classified total generation plant portion of rate base as shown in the "Base Cost of Fuel Cost of Service Allocation of Fuel Expenses among Rate Classes" table
in line #32 under Purchased Power Regular / Fixed section in Appendix C of the 2011 Base Cost of Fuel Compliance Filing submission.
2
Initially sourced from Base Cost of Fuel of Service Allocation of Fuel Expenses among Rate Classes" table under Cost Allocation Factors in Appendix C of the 2011 Base Cost of Fuel Compliance Filing submission,
subsequently scaled in proportion to the change in MWh from that submission to the Nova Scotia Power Inc. 2012 General Rate Application - Operating Revenues
3
Source: Nova Scotia Power Inc. 2012 General Rate Application - Operating Revenues
4
Source: Nova Scotia Power Inc. 2012 General Rate Application - Operating Revenues
5
All residential rate classes use the same unit fixed cost estimate
Attachment 1-11
E-ENSC-R-12
Date Revised: April 18, 2012
Appendix C
TABLE 2 (2015) Preliminary Allocation of 75% of DSM Program Costs associated with benefits realized by participating classes.
Line #
1
COLUMN
FORMULA
2
3
4
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
∑ col A to J
K * 75%
All Program
Costs
Combined
Program Costs
Directly Assigned
to Participating
rate classes (75%
Program costs incurred on participating rate classes
Existing
Homes
New
Construction
Efficient
Products
Home Energy
Report
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Program
Rate Class
Residential
Small General
General Demand
Large General
Small Industrial
Medium Industrial
Large Industrial
ELI 2P-RTP
Municipal
Unmetered
Bowater Mersey (AE only)
Gen. Repl. / Load Foll.
Wholesale Market Backup / Top-up
1P-RTP
$ 11,320,809 $ 7,796,450 $ 3,856,765 $
$
$
$ 527,243 $
$
$
$ 459,213 $
$
$
$
36,191 $
$
$
$
23,869 $
$
$
$
1,632 $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
222,672 $
153,350 $ 108,662 $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
22
23
24
25
26
Total
$ 11,543,481 $ 7,949,800 $ 5,013,575 $
997,795
19,626
-
Prescriptive
Custom
Small
Business
Education &
Outreach
Development
and Research
$ 655,172 $
72,172 $ 441,591 $ 1,719,358 $
$ 652,642 $
54,100 $ 457,764 $
99,112 $
$ 4,272,298 $ 6,559,751 $ 1,715,244 $ 761,997 $
$
21,845 $ 601,509 $
$
38,640 $
$ 373,502 $
23,579 $ 238,557 $
38,638 $
$
65,417 $ 698,810 $
$
44,868 $
$ 123,726 $ 393,790 $
$
30,319 $
$
$
$
$
$
$ 175,093 $ 241,505 $
80,215 $
63,733 $
$ 1,224,118 $ 539,698 $
$ 103,335 $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,017,420 $ 7,563,812 $ 9,184,914 $ 2,933,371 $ 2,900,000 $
715,854
57,913
445,245
22,578
22,577
26,217
17,716
31,521
60,380
-
Other
Enabling
Strategies
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
601,113
21,349
164,139
8,323
8,323
9,665
6,531
18,298
22,259
-
$ 28,177,079 $
$ 1,870,124 $
$ 14,377,887 $
$
729,085 $
$
729,044 $
$
846,610 $
$
572,081 $
$
$
$ 1,114,674 $
$ 1,949,789 $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
21,132,809
1,402,593
10,783,415
546,814
546,783
634,958
429,061
836,006
1,462,342
-
1,400,000 $ 860,000 $ 50,366,374 $
37,774,780
Attachment 1-12
E-ENSC-R-12
Date Revised: April 18, 2012
Appendix C
Line #
TABLE 2 a) (2015) Estimate of DSM Program participation by rate classes before accounting for the Municipal Class
1
2
COLUMN
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Program
Rate Class
Residential
Small General
General Demand
Large General
Small Industrial
Medium Industrial
Large Industrial
ELI 2P-RTP
Municipal
Unmetered
Bowater Mersey (AE only)
Gen. Repl. / Load Foll.
Wholesale Market Backup / Top-up
1P-RTP
Total
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
Relative shares of program costs incurred on particpating rate classes before Municipal Class
Existing
New
Efficient Home Energy
Education & Development
Homes Construction Products
Report
Outreach
and Research
Prescriptive Custom Small Business
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
78.6%
10.7%
9.4%
0.7%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
8.9%
0.8%
8.8%
0.6%
57.8% 73.3%
0.3%
6.7%
5.1%
0.3%
0.9%
7.8%
1.7%
4.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
16.6%
6.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0% 100.0%
15.5%
16.0%
60.1%
0.0%
8.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
59.3%
3.6%
27.8%
1.4%
1.4%
1.6%
1.1%
0.0%
0.0%
3.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
51.1%
4.3%
33.3%
1.7%
1.7%
2.0%
1.3%
0.0%
0.0%
4.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
J
Other Enabling
Strategies
69.9%
2.7%
20.5%
1.0%
1.0%
1.2%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
2.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Attachment 1-13
E-ENSC-R-12
Date Revised: April 18, 2012
Appendix C
TABLE 2 b) (2015) Preliminary Estimate of DSM Program participation by rate class after accounting for the Municipal Class
Line #
1
COLUMN
2
A
B
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
Program
Rate Class
Residential
Small General
General Demand
Large General
Small Industrial
Medium Industrial
Large Industrial
ELI 2P-RTP
Municipal
Unmetered
Bowater Mersey (AE only)
Gen. Repl. / Load Foll.
Wholesale Market Backup / Top-up
1P-RTP
Total
33
34
98.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
98.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
D
E
F
G
Program costs incurred on participating rate classes
Home
Efficient
Energy
Small
Products
Report
Prescriptive Custom
Business
76.9%
10.5%
9.2%
0.7%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
98.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
8.7%
8.6%
56.5%
0.3%
4.9%
0.9%
1.6%
0.0%
2.3%
16.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.8%
0.6%
71.4%
6.5%
0.3%
7.6%
4.3%
0.0%
2.6%
5.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
15.1%
15.6%
58.5%
0.0%
8.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
M
N
O
Education &
Outreach
Development
and Research
Other
Enabling
Strategies
59.3%
3.4%
26.3%
1.3%
1.3%
1.5%
1.0%
0.0%
2.2%
3.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
51.1%
4.1%
31.8%
1.6%
1.6%
1.9%
1.3%
0.0%
2.3%
4.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
69.9%
2.5%
19.1%
1.0%
1.0%
1.1%
0.8%
0.0%
2.1%
2.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Relative Shares of Municipal sales in total NSPI sales by sector
4,297,308,762
3,160,475,830
1,801,729,475
Breakdown of Municipal Class Sales by
Sector1
% of Mun
% of NSPI
82,894,296
42.0%
1.929%
97,894,217
49.6%
3.097%
16,578,859
8.4%
0.920%
9,259,514,067
197,367,372
NSPI
DSM-elgibile sales by sector
Residential
General
Industrial
30
31
32
Existing Homes
New
Construction
C
1
100.0%
2.132%
Source: Municipal electric utility sales and purchase forecasts for 2012 provided by MEUNSC
Attachment 1-14
E-ENSC-R-12
Date Revised: April 18, 2012
Appendix C
TABLE 3 (2015) Preliminary Allocation of Program Costs among rate classes
Line #
1
2
3
COLUMN
A
4
FORMULA
Table 2
Column K
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
B
C
D
E
Table 1
Column H
F
G
Table 2
Column L
C+E
System Benefit Costs (25% of
Participating Class benefit Costs
the total expenditure allocated
(75% of the total expenditure
to classes using COS
directly assigned to participating
methodology)
classes)
Total Expenditure by Rate Class
$ Amount
Relative Share
$ Amount
Relative Share
$ Amount
Relative Share
Rate Class
Residential
Small General
General Demand
Large General
Small Industrial
Medium Industrial
Large Industrial
ELI 2P-RTP
Municipal
Unmetered
Bowater Mersey (AE only)
Gen. Repl. / Load Foll.
Wholesale Market Backup / Top-up
1P-RTP
$ 28,177,079
$ 1,870,124
$ 14,377,887
$
729,085
$
729,044
$
846,610
$
572,081
$
$ 1,114,674
$ 1,949,789
$
$
$
$
-
Total
$ 50,366,374
55.9%
3.7%
28.5%
1.4%
1.4%
1.7%
1.1%
0.0%
2.2%
3.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
6,149,609
296,042
3,094,296
448,504
297,606
583,610
1,029,902
256,772
147,543
183,918
103,790
-
100.0% $ 12,591,593
48.8%
2.4%
24.6%
3.6%
2.4%
4.6%
8.2%
0.0%
2.0%
1.2%
1.5%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
21,132,809
1,402,593
10,783,415
546,814
546,783
634,958
429,061
836,006
1,462,342
-
100.0% $
37,774,780
H
55.9%
3.7%
28.5%
1.4%
1.4%
1.7%
1.1%
0.0%
2.2%
3.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Total Allocated Costs
$ Amount
Relative Share
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
27,282,418
1,698,635
13,877,711
995,318
844,389
1,218,568
1,458,963
1,092,778
1,609,885
183,918
103,790
-
54.2%
3.4%
27.6%
2.0%
1.7%
2.4%
2.9%
0.0%
2.2%
3.2%
0.4%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0% $
50,366,374
100.0%
Attachment 1-15
E-ENSC-R-12
Date Revised: April 18, 2012
Appendix C
Table 2.1 Derivation of Prospective Rates
Line #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
21
22
23
24
25
26
COLUMN
FORMULA
Rate Class
Residential
Small General
General Demand
Large General
Small Industrial
Medium Industrial
Large Industrial
ELI 2P-RTP
Municipal
Unmetered
Bowater Mersey (AE only)
Gen. Repl. / Load Foll.
1
2
A
B
Energy
2013
Allocated Cost
GWh2
($millions)
4,373
220
2,534
394
262
513
933
197
116
180
108
22.44
1.82
14.58
0.96
0.94
1.18
1.38
1.02
1.66
0.17
0.10
C
B/A
D
E
Rate
(cents
/kWh)
Energy
2014
Allocated Cost
GWh2
($millions)
0.513
0.828
0.575
0.243
0.359
0.230
0.148
0.518
1.433
0.094
0.088
4,373
220
2,534
394
262
513
933
197
116
180
108
24.71
1.70
13.96
0.96
0.88
1.18
1.40
1.04
1.64
0.17
0.10
F
E/D
G
H
I
H/G
Rate
(cents
/kWh)
Energy
2015
Allocated Cost
GWh2
($millions)
0.565
0.775
0.551
0.243
0.334
0.230
0.150
0.529
1.415
0.097
0.091
4,373
220
2,534
394
262
513
933
197
116
180
108
27.28
1.70
13.88
1.00
0.84
1.22
1.46
1.09
1.61
0.18
0.10
Rate
(cents
/kWh)
0.624
0.774
0.548
0.252
0.322
0.238
0.156
0.554
1.391
0.102
0.096
Source: Nova Scotia Power Inc. Tarrifs & Regulations Effective January 1, 2012
Source: Nova Scotia Power Inc. 2012 General Rate Application - Operating Revenues
Attachment 2-1
E-ENSC-R-12
Date Revised: April 18, 2012
Appendix C
Table 2.2 DSM Rate Rider Impacts using 2012 DSM Rate Rider with Balance Adjustment
Line #
1
2
3
4
5
COLUMN
FORMULA
B
2012
Rate Class
Rate 1,2
cents
/kWh
Residential
Small General
General Demand
Large General
Small Industrial
Medium Industrial
Large Industrial
ELI 2P-RTP
Municipal
Unmetered
Bowater Mersey (AE only)
Gen. Repl. / Load Foll.
0.587
1.123
0.457
-0.202
0.506
0.448
0.185
0.069
0.490
-0.201
0.066
0.021
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A
C
B-A
D
C/A
E
2013
Rate
cents
/kWh
0.513
0.828
0.575
0.243
0.359
0.230
0.148
0.000
0.518
1.433
0.094
0.088
1
Source: Nova Scotia Power Inc. Tariffs & Regulations Effective January 1, 2012
2
Includes Rate Rider and Balance Adjustment
Increase
cents
/kWh
%
-0.074
-0.295
0.118
0.445
-0.147
-0.218
-0.037
-0.069
0.028
1.634
0.028
0.067
-12.6%
-26.3%
25.9%
N/A
-29.0%
-48.6%
-19.8%
-100.0%
5.7%
N/A
42.2%
318.6%
Rate
cents
/kWh
0.565
0.775
0.551
0.243
0.334
0.230
0.150
0.000
0.529
1.415
0.097
0.091
F
E-B
G
F/B
2014
Year over Year
Increase
cents
/kWh
%
0.052
-0.053
-0.024
-0.001
-0.025
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.011
-0.018
0.003
0.003
10.1%
-6.4%
-4.2%
-0.2%
-6.9%
-0.2%
1.4%
0.0%
2.0%
-1.2%
3.2%
3.2%
H
Rate
cents
/kWh
0.624
0.774
0.548
0.252
0.322
0.238
0.156
0.000
0.554
1.391
0.102
0.096
I
H-E
J
I/E
2015
Year over Year
Increase
cents
/kWh
%
0.059
-0.001
-0.003
0.010
-0.012
0.008
0.006
0.000
0.025
-0.024
0.005
0.005
10.4%
-0.2%
-0.6%
4.0%
-3.6%
3.4%
4.0%
0.0%
4.7%
-1.7%
5.5%
5.5%
K
H-A
L
H/A
Increase over 2012
cents
/kWh
%
0.037
-0.349
0.091
0.454
-0.184
-0.210
-0.029
-0.069
0.064
1.592
0.036
0.075
6.3%
-31.1%
19.8%
N/A
-36.3%
-47.0%
-15.4%
-100.0%
13.0%
N/A
54.9%
355.9%
Attachment 2-2
E-ENSC-R-12
Date Revised: April 18, 2012
Appendix C
Table 2.3 DSM Rate Rider Impacts using 2012 DSM Rate Rider without Balance Adjustment
Line #
1
2
3
4
5
COLUMN
FORMULA
B
2012
Rate Class
Rate 1,2
cents
/kWh
Residential
Small General
General Demand
Large General
Small Industrial
Medium Industrial
Large Industrial
ELI 2P-RTP
Municipal
Unmetered
Bowater Mersey (AE only)
Gen. Repl. / Load Foll.
0.548
0.674
0.437
0.270
0.415
0.503
0.210
0.090
0.433
0.177
0.083
0.066
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A
C
B-A
D
C/A
E
2013
Rate
cents
/kWh
0.513
0.828
0.575
0.243
0.359
0.230
0.148
0.000
0.518
1.433
0.094
0.088
1
Source: Nova Scotia Power Inc. Tariffs & Regulations Effective January 1, 2012
2
Includes Rate Rider only
Increase
cents
/kWh
%
-0.035
0.154
0.138
-0.027
-0.056
-0.273
-0.062
-0.090
0.085
1.256
0.011
0.022
-6.4%
22.8%
31.7%
-9.9%
-13.4%
-54.2%
-29.3%
-100.0%
19.7%
709.7%
13.1%
33.2%
Rate
cents
/kWh
0.565
0.775
0.551
0.243
0.334
0.230
0.150
0.000
0.529
1.415
0.097
0.091
F
E-B
G
F/B
2014
Year over Year
Increase
cents
/kWh
%
0.052
-0.053
-0.024
-0.001
-0.025
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.011
-0.018
0.003
0.003
10.1%
-6.4%
-4.2%
-0.2%
-6.9%
-0.2%
1.4%
0.0%
2.0%
-1.2%
3.2%
3.2%
H
Rate
cents
/kWh
0.624
0.774
0.548
0.252
0.322
0.238
0.156
0.000
0.554
1.391
0.102
0.096
I
H-E
J
I/E
2015
Year over Year
Increase
cents
/kWh
%
0.059
-0.001
-0.003
0.010
-0.012
0.008
0.006
0.000
0.025
-0.024
0.005
0.005
10.4%
-0.2%
-0.6%
4.0%
-3.6%
3.4%
4.0%
0.0%
4.7%
-1.7%
5.5%
5.5%
K
H-A
L
H/A
Increase over 2012
cents
/kWh
%
0.076
0.100
0.111
-0.018
-0.093
-0.265
-0.054
-0.090
0.121
1.214
0.019
0.030
13.9%
14.8%
25.3%
-6.5%
-22.3%
-52.8%
-25.5%
-100.0%
27.8%
686.1%
23.2%
45.1%
Attachment 2-3
E-ENSC-R-12
Date Revised: April 18, 2012
Appendix C
Line #
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
Table 3.1: Residential (Domestic) Bill Impacts
Monthly Service Charge1
Demand Rate1
Energy Rate 11
Energy Rate 21
1
Energy Rate 3
1
FAM
DSM Cost Recovery
Sub Total
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
DSM Cost Recovery
Sub Total
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
2012 BILL
Rate
$10.83
Charge
$10.83
Volume
1
2013 BILL
Rate
$10.83
Charge
$10.83
kWh
750
$0.12638
$94.79
750
$0.12638
$94.79
kWh
kWh
750
750
$0.00698
$0.00587
$5.24
$4.40
$115.25
$17.29
($11.53)
$121.02
750
750
$0.00698
$0.00513
$5.24
$3.85
$114.70
$17.20
($11.47)
$120.43
Volume
750
2013 BILL
Rate
$0.00513
Charge
$3.85
$114.70
$17.20
($11.47)
$120.43
Volume
750
2014 BILL
Rate
$0.00565
Metric
kWh
2014 BILL
DSM Cost Recovery
Sub Total
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
1
CHANGE IMPACT
Volume
1
Metric
Metric
kWh
Volume
750
Rate
$0.00565
Volume
750
Rate
$0.00624
($0.55)
($0.55)
($0.08)
$0.06
($0.58)
%
(12.6%)
(0.5%)
(0.5%)
0.5%
(0.5%)
CHANGE IMPACT
Charge
$4.24
$115.09
$17.26
($11.51)
$120.84
$
$0.39
$0.39
$0.06
($0.04)
$0.41
%
10.1%
0.3%
0.3%
(0.3%)
0.3%
CHANGE IMPACT
2015 BILL
Charge
$4.24
$115.09
$17.26
($11.51)
$120.84
$
Charge
$4.68
$115.53
$17.33
($11.55)
$121.31
$
$0.44
$0.44
$0.07
($0.04)
$0.46
%
10.4%
0.4%
0.4%
(0.4%)
0.4%
CUMULATIVE
CHANGE IMPACT
$
$0.28
$0.28
$0.04
($0.03)
$0.29
%
6.3%
0.2%
0.2%
(0.2%)
0.2%
Source: Nova Scotia Power Inc. Tariffs & Regulations Effective January 1, 2012
Attachment 3-1
E-ENSC-R-12
Date Revised: April 18, 2012
Appendix C
Line #
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
Table 3.2: Residential (Domestic, winter time-of-day) Bill Impacts
Metric
Monthly Service Charge1
Demand Rate1
Energy Rate 11
Energy Rate 21
Energy Rate 31
FAM1
DSM Cost Recovery
Sub Total
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
DSM Cost Recovery
Sub Total
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
kWh
kWh
kWh
kWh
kWh
Metric
kWh
Volume
1
2012 BILL
Rate
$18.82
1,125
300
75
1,500
1,500
$0.06468
$0.12638
$0.16435
$0.00698
$0.00587
Volume
1,500
2013 BILL
Rate
$0.00513
Volume
1
2013 BILL
Rate
$18.82
$72.77
$37.91
$12.33
$10.47
$8.81
$161.10
$24.17
($16.11)
$169.16
1,125
300
75
1,500
1,500
$0.06468
$0.12638
$0.16435
$0.00698
$0.00513
Charge
$7.70
$159.99
$24.00
($16.00)
$167.99
Volume
1,500
2014 BILL
Rate
$0.00565
Charge
$18.82
2014 BILL
Rate
Metric Volume
1,500
$0.00565
DSM Cost Recovery
kWh
Sub Total
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
1 Source: Nova Scotia Power Inc. Tariffs & Regulations Effective January 1, 2012
CHANGE IMPACT
Charge
$18.82
$72.77
$37.91
$12.33
$10.47
$7.70
$159.99
$24.00
($16.00)
$167.99
Volume
1,500
Rate
$0.00624
($1.11)
($1.11)
($0.17)
$0.11
($1.16)
%
(12.6%)
(0.7%)
(0.7%)
0.7%
(0.7%)
CHANGE IMPACT
Charge
$8.48
$160.77
$24.12
($16.08)
$168.81
$
$0.78
$0.78
$0.12
($0.08)
$0.82
%
10.1%
0.5%
0.5%
(0.5%)
0.5%
CHANGE IMPACT
2015 BILL
Charge
$8.48
$160.77
$24.12
($16.08)
$168.81
$
Charge
$9.36
$161.65
$24.25
($16.17)
$169.74
$
$0.88
$0.88
$0.13
($0.09)
$0.93
%
10.4%
0.5%
0.5%
(0.5%)
0.5%
CUMULATIVE
CHANGE IMPACT
$
%
$0.55
6.3%
$0.55
0.3%
$0.08
0.3%
($0.06) (0.3%)
$0.58
0.3%
Attachment 3-2
E-ENSC-R-12
Date Revised: April 18, 2012
Appendix C
Line #
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
Table 3.3: Residential (Domestic, non-winter time-of-day) Bill Impacts
Monthly Service Charge1
Demand Rate1
Energy Rate 11
Energy Rate 21
Energy Rate 31
FAM1
DSM Cost Recovery
Sub Total
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
DSM Cost Recovery
Sub Total
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
CHANGE IMPACT
Volume
1
2012 BILL
Rate
$18.82
Charge
$18.82
Volume
1
2013 BILL
Rate
$18.82
Charge
$18.82
kWh
kWh
563
188
$0.06468
$0.12638
$36.38
$23.70
563
188
$0.06468
$0.12638
$36.38
$23.70
kWh
kWh
750
750
$0.00698
$0.00587
$5.24
$4.40
$88.54
$13.28
($8.85)
$92.96
750
750
$0.00698
$0.00513
$5.24
$3.85
$87.98
$13.20
($8.80)
$92.38
Volume
750
2013 BILL
Rate
$0.00513
Charge
$3.85
$87.98
$13.20
($8.80)
$92.38
Volume
750
2014 BILL
Rate
$0.00565
Metric
Metric
kWh
2014 BILL
Rate
Metric Volume
750
$0.00565
DSM Cost Recovery
kWh
Sub Total
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
1 Source: Nova Scotia Power Inc. Tariffs & Regulations Effective January 1, 2012
Volume
750
Rate
$0.00624
($0.55)
($0.55)
($0.08)
$0.06
($0.58)
%
(12.6%)
(0.6%)
(0.6%)
0.6%
(0.6%)
CHANGE IMPACT
Charge
$4.24
$88.37
$13.26
($8.84)
$92.79
$
$0.39
$0.39
$0.06
($0.04)
$0.41
%
10.1%
0.4%
0.4%
(0.4%)
0.4%
CHANGE IMPACT
2015 BILL
Charge
$4.24
$88.37
$13.26
($8.84)
$92.79
$
Charge
$4.68
$88.81
$13.32
($8.88)
$93.25
$
$0.44
$0.44
$0.07
($0.04)
$0.46
%
10.4%
0.5%
0.5%
(0.5%)
0.5%
CUMULATIVE
CHANGE IMPACT
$
%
$0.28
6.3%
$0.28
0.3%
$0.04
0.3%
($0.03) (0.3%)
$0.29
0.3%
Attachment 3-3
E-ENSC-R-12
Date Revised: April 18, 2012
Appendix C
Line #
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
Table 3.4: Small General Bill Impacts
Monthly Service Charge1
Demand Rate1
Energy Rate 11
Energy Rate 21
Energy Rate 31
FAM1
DSM Cost Recovery
Sub Total
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
2012 BILL
Rate
$12.65
Charge
$12.65
Volume
1
2013 BILL
Rate
$12.65
Charge
$12.65
kWh
kWh
200
300
$0.13370
$0.11762
$26.74
$35.29
200
300
$0.13370
$0.11762
$26.74
$35.29
kWh
kWh
500
500
$0.01025
$0.01123
$5.13
$5.62
$85.42
$12.81
500
500
$0.01025
$0.00828
$5.13
$4.14
$83.94
$12.59
$98.23
#REF!
DSM Cost Recovery
Sub Total
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
CHANGE IMPACT
Volume
1
Metric
Metric
kWh
Volume
500
2013 BILL
Rate
$0.00828
Charge
$4.14
$83.94
$12.59
$96.53
Volume
500
2014 BILL
Rate
$0.00775
$96.53
Rate
Metric Volume
500
$0.00775
DSM Cost Recovery
kWh
Sub Total
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
1 Source: Nova Scotia Power Inc. Tariffs & Regulations Effective January 1, 2012
$96.23
Volume
500
Rate
$0.00774
(26.3%)
(1.7%)
(1.7%)
0.0%
(1.7%)
$
($0.26)
($0.26)
($0.04)
$0.00
($0.30)
%
(6.4%)
(0.3%)
(0.3%)
0.0%
(0.3%)
CHANGE IMPACT
2015 BILL
Charge
$3.88
$83.68
$12.55
($1.48)
($1.48)
($0.22)
$0.00
($1.70)
%
CHANGE IMPACT
Charge
$3.88
$83.68
$12.55
$96.23
2014 BILL
$
Charge
$3.87
$83.67
$12.55
$96.22
$
($0.01)
($0.01)
($0.00)
$0.00
($0.01)
%
(0.2%)
(0.0%)
(0.0%)
0.0%
(0.0%)
CUMULATIVE
CHANGE IMPACT
$
%
($1.75) (31.1%)
($1.75) (2.0%)
($0.26) (2.0%)
$0.00
0.0%
($2.01) (2.0%)
Attachment 3-4
E-ENSC-R-12
Date Revised: April 18, 2012
Appendix C
Line #
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
Table 3.5: General Demand Bill Impacts
Monthly Service Charge1
Demand Rate1
Energy Rate 11
Energy Rate 21
Energy Rate 31
FAM1
DSM Cost Recovery
Sub Total
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
DSM Cost Recovery
Sub Total
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
CHANGE IMPACT
Metric
Volume
2012 BILL
Rate
Charge
Volume
2013 BILL
Rate
Charge
kW
kWh
kWh
100
20,000
25,000
$9.27600
$0.09904
$0.07006
$927.60
$1,980.80
$1,751.50
100
20,000
25,000
$9.27600
$0.09904
$0.07006
$927.60
$1,980.80
$1,751.50
kWh
kWh
45,000
45,000
$0.00756
$0.00457
$340.20
$205.65
$5,205.75
$780.86
45,000
45,000
$0.00756
$0.00575
$340.20
$258.95
$5,259.05
$788.86
$53.30
$53.30
$7.99
25.9%
1.0%
1.0%
$6,047.90
$61.29
1.0%
$5,986.61
Metric
kWh
Volume
45,000
2013 BILL
Rate
$0.00575
Charge
$258.95
$5,259.05
$788.86
Volume
45,000
2014 BILL
Rate
$0.00551
$6,047.90
2014 BILL
Rate
Metric Volume
45,000
$0.00551
DSM Cost Recovery
kWh
Sub Total
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
1 Source: Nova Scotia Power Inc. Tariffs & Regulations Effective January 1, 2012
$6,035.28
Volume
45,000
Rate
$0.00548
%
CHANGE IMPACT
Charge
$247.97
$5,248.07
$787.21
$
($10.98)
($10.98)
($1.65)
%
(4.2%)
(0.2%)
(0.2%)
$6,035.28
($12.62)
(0.2%)
CHANGE IMPACT
2015 BILL
Charge
$247.97
$5,248.07
$787.21
$
Charge
$246.45
$5,246.55
$786.98
$
($1.52)
($1.52)
($0.23)
%
(0.6%)
(0.0%)
(0.0%)
$6,033.53
($1.75)
(0.0%)
CUMULATIVE
CHANGE IMPACT
$
%
$40.80
19.8%
$40.80
0.8%
$6.12
0.8%
$46.92
0.8%
Attachment 3-5
E-ENSC-R-12
Date Revised: April 18, 2012
Appendix C
Line #
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
Table 3.6: Large General Bill Impacts
Volume
2012 BILL
Rate
kVA
kWh
2,500
1,125,000
kWh
kWh
1,125,000
1,125,000
Metric
Monthly Service Charge1
Demand Rate1
Energy Rate 11
Energy Rate 21
Energy Rate 31
FAM1
DSM Cost Recovery
Sub Total
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
DSM Cost Recovery
Sub Total
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
2013 BILL
Rate
Charge
$11.70200
$0.07040
$29,255.00
2,500
$79,200.00 1,125,000
$11.70200
$0.07040
$29,255.00
$79,200.00
$0.00702
($0.00202)
$7,897.50 1,125,000
($2,272.50) 1,125,000
$114,080.00
$17,112.00
$0.00702
$0.00243
$7,897.50
$2,736.68
$119,089.18
$17,863.38
$5,009.18
$5,009.18
$751.38
220.4%
4.4%
4.4%
$136,952.56
$5,760.56
4.4%
$131,192.00
Metric Volume
kWh 1,125,000
CHANGE IMPACT
Volume
Charge
2013 BILL
Rate
$0.00243
Charge
Volume
$2,736.68 1,125,000
$119,089.18
$17,863.38
2014 BILL
Rate
$0.00243
$136,952.56
2014 BILL
Rate
Charge
Volume
Metric Volume
$0.00243
$2,730.86 1,125,000
DSM Cost Recovery
kWh 1,125,000
$119,083.36
Sub Total
$17,862.50
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
$136,945.87
1 Source: Nova Scotia Power Inc. Tariffs & Regulations Effective January 1, 2012
%
CHANGE IMPACT
Charge
$2,730.86
$119,083.36
$17,862.50
$
($5.82)
($5.82)
($0.87)
%
(0.2%)
(0.0%)
(0.0%)
$136,945.87
($6.69)
(0.0%)
CHANGE IMPACT
2015 BILL
Rate
$0.00252
$
CUMULATIVE
CHANGE IMPACT
Charge
$2,839.08
$119,191.58
$17,878.74
$
$108.22
$108.22
$16.23
%
4.0%
0.1%
0.1%
$
$5,111.58
$5,111.58
$766.74
%
224.9%
4.5%
4.5%
$137,070.32
$124.45
0.1%
$5,878.32
4.5%
Attachment 3-6
E-ENSC-R-12
Date Revised: April 18, 2012
Appendix C
Line #
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
Table 3.7: Small Industrial Bill Impacts
Monthly Service Charge1
Demand Rate1
Energy Rate 11
Energy Rate 21
Energy Rate 31
FAM1
DSM Cost Recovery
Sub Total
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
DSM Cost Recovery
Sub Total
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
CHANGE IMPACT
Volume
2012 BILL
Rate
Charge
Volume
2013 BILL
Rate
Charge
kVA
kWh
kWh
8
1,520
1,016
$6.85400
$0.08650
$0.06848
$52.09
$131.48
$69.58
8
1,520
1,016
$6.85400
$0.08650
$0.06848
$52.09
$131.48
$69.58
kWh
kWh
2,536
2,536
$0.00664
$0.00506
$16.84
$12.83
$282.82
$42.42
2,536
2,536
$0.00664
$0.00359
$16.84
$9.11
$279.10
$41.86
($3.72)
($3.72)
($0.56)
(29.0%)
(1.3%)
(1.3%)
$320.96
($4.28)
(1.3%)
Metric
$325.24
Metric
kWh
Volume
2,536
2013 BILL
Rate
$0.00359
Charge
$9.11
$279.10
$41.86
Volume
2,536
2014 BILL
Rate
$0.00334
$320.96
2014 BILL
Rate
Metric Volume
2,536
$0.00334
DSM Cost Recovery
kWh
Sub Total
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
1 Source: Nova Scotia Power Inc. Tariffs & Regulations Effective January 1, 2012
$320.24
Volume
2,536
Rate
$0.00322
%
CHANGE IMPACT
Charge
$8.48
$278.47
$41.77
$
($0.63)
($0.63)
($0.09)
%
(6.9%)
(0.2%)
(0.2%)
$320.24
($0.73)
(0.2%)
CHANGE IMPACT
2015 BILL
Charge
$8.48
$278.47
$41.77
$
CUMULATIVE
CHANGE IMPACT
Charge
$8.18
$278.16
$41.72
$
($0.31)
($0.31)
($0.05)
%
(3.6%)
(0.1%)
(0.1%)
$
%
($4.66) (36.3%)
($4.66) (1.6%)
($0.70) (1.6%)
$319.89
($0.35)
(0.1%)
($5.35)
(1.6%)
Attachment 3-7
E-ENSC-R-12
Date Revised: April 18, 2012
Appendix C
Line #
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
Table 3.8: Medium Industrial Bill Impacts
Monthly Service Charge1
Demand Rate1
Energy Rate 11
Energy Rate 21
Energy Rate 31
FAM1
DSM Cost Recovery
Sub Total
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
DSM Cost Recovery
Sub Total
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
CHANGE IMPACT
Metric
Volume
2012 BILL
Rate
Charge
Volume
2013 BILL
Rate
Charge
kVA
kWh
100
45,000
$11.03200
$0.06390
$1,103.20
$2,875.50
100
45,000
$11.03200
$0.06390
$1,103.20
$2,875.50
kWh
kWh
45,000
45,000
$0.00638
$0.00448
$287.10
$201.60
$4,467.40
$670.11
45,000
45,000
$0.00638
$0.00230
$287.10
$103.60
$4,369.40
$655.41
($98.00)
($98.00)
($14.70)
(48.6%)
(2.2%)
(2.2%)
$5,024.81
($112.70)
(2.2%)
$5,137.51
Metric
kWh
Volume
45,000
2013 BILL
Rate
$0.00230
Charge
$103.60
$4,369.40
$655.41
Volume
45,000
2014 BILL
Rate
$0.00230
$5,024.81
2014 BILL
Rate
Metric Volume
45,000
$0.00230
DSM Cost Recovery
kWh
Sub Total
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
1 Source: Nova Scotia Power Inc. Tariffs & Regulations Effective January 1, 2012
$5,024.58
Volume
45,000
Rate
$0.00238
%
CHANGE IMPACT
Charge
$103.40
$4,369.20
$655.38
$
($0.20)
($0.20)
($0.03)
%
(0.2%)
(0.0%)
(0.0%)
$5,024.58
($0.23)
(0.0%)
CHANGE IMPACT
2015 BILL
Charge
$103.40
$4,369.20
$655.38
$
Charge
$106.91
$4,372.71
$655.91
$
$3.51
$3.51
$0.53
%
3.4%
0.1%
0.1%
$5,028.62
$4.04
0.1%
CUMULATIVE
CHANGE IMPACT
$
%
($94.69) (47.0%)
($94.69) (2.1%)
($14.20) (2.1%)
($108.89)
(2.1%)
Attachment 3-8
E-ENSC-R-12
Date Revised: April 18, 2012
Appendix C
Line #
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
Table 3.9: Large Industrial Bill Impacts
Volume
2012 BILL
Rate
kVA
kWh
2,500
1,125,000
kWh
kWh
1,125,000
1,125,000
Metric
Monthly Service Charge1
Demand Rate1
Energy Rate 11
Energy Rate 21
Energy Rate 31
FAM1
DSM Cost Recovery
Sub Total
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
DSM Cost Recovery
Sub Total
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
2013 BILL
Rate
Charge
$10.46900
$0.06369
$26,172.50
2,500
$71,651.25 1,125,000
$10.46900
$0.06369
$26,172.50
$71,651.25
$0.00646
$0.00185
$7,267.50 1,125,000
$2,081.25 1,125,000
$107,172.50
$16,075.88
$0.00646
$0.00148
$7,267.50
$1,669.98
$106,761.23
$16,014.18
($411.27)
($411.27)
($61.69)
(19.8%)
(0.4%)
(0.4%)
$122,775.41
($472.96)
(0.4%)
$123,248.38
Metric Volume
kWh 1,125,000
CHANGE IMPACT
Volume
Charge
2013 BILL
Rate
$0.00148
Charge
Volume
$1,669.98 1,125,000
$106,761.23
$16,014.18
2014 BILL
Rate
$0.00150
$122,775.41
2014 BILL
Rate
Charge
Volume
Metric Volume
$0.00150
$1,692.74 1,125,000
DSM Cost Recovery
kWh 1,125,000
$106,783.99
Sub Total
$16,017.60
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
$122,801.58
1 Source: Nova Scotia Power Inc. Tariffs & Regulations Effective January 1, 2012
%
CHANGE IMPACT
Charge
$1,692.74
$106,783.99
$16,017.60
$
$22.76
$22.76
$3.41
%
1.4%
0.0%
0.0%
$122,801.58
$26.17
0.0%
CHANGE IMPACT
2015 BILL
Rate
$0.00156
$
Charge
$1,759.95
$106,851.20
$16,027.68
$
$67.22
$67.22
$10.08
%
4.0%
0.1%
0.1%
$122,878.88
$77.30
0.1%
CUMULATIVE
CHANGE IMPACT
$
%
($321.30) (15.4%)
($321.30) (0.3%)
($48.19) (0.3%)
($369.49)
(0.3%)
Attachment 3-9
E-ENSC-R-12
Date Revised: April 18, 2012
Appendix C
Line #
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
Table 3.10: ELI 2P-RTP Bill Impacts
Metric
Monthly Service Charge1
Demand Rate1
Energy Rate 11
Energy Rate 21
Energy Rate 31
FAM1
DSM Cost Recovery
Sub Total
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
DSM Cost Recovery
Sub Total
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
kVA
kWh
kWh
kWh
kWh
kWh
Volume
1
2012 BILL
Rate
$20,700.00
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
2013 BILL
Rate
$20,700.00
Charge
$20,700.00
$0.06737
$101,055.00 1,500,000
$0.06737
$101,055.00
$0.00702
$0.00069
$10,530.00 1,500,000
$1,035.00 1,500,000
$133,320.00
$19,998.00
$0.00702
$0.00000
$10,530.00
$0.00
$132,285.00
$19,842.75
($1,035.00) (100.0%)
($1,035.00)
(0.8%)
($155.25)
(0.8%)
$152,127.75
($1,190.25)
$153,318.00
Metric Volume
kWh 1,500,000
CHANGE IMPACT
Volume
1
Charge
$20,700.00
2013 BILL
Rate
$0.00000
Charge
Volume
$0.00 1,500,000
$132,285.00
$19,842.75
2014 BILL
Rate
$0.00000
$152,127.75
2014 BILL
Rate
Charge
Volume
Metric Volume
$0.00000
$0.00 1,500,000
DSM Cost Recovery
kWh 1,500,000
$132,285.00
Sub Total
$19,842.75
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
$152,127.75
1 Source: Nova Scotia Power Inc. Tariffs & Regulations Effective January 1, 2012
%
(0.8%)
CHANGE IMPACT
Charge
$0.00
$132,285.00
$19,842.75
$
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
$152,127.75
$0.00
0.0%
Charge
$0.00
$132,285.00
$19,842.75
$
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
CUMULATIVE
CHANGE IMPACT
%
$
%
0.0% ($1,035.00) (100.0%)
0.0% ($1,035.00) (0.8%)
0.0%
($155.25) (0.8%)
$152,127.75
$0.00
0.0% ($1,190.25)
CHANGE IMPACT
2015 BILL
Rate
$0.00000
$
(0.8%)
Attachment 3-10
E-ENSC-R-12
Date Revised: April 18, 2012
Appendix C
Line #
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
Table 3.11: Municipal Bill Impacts
Volume
2012 BILL
Rate
kVA
kWh
2,500
1,125,000
kWh
kWh
1,125,000
1,125,000
Metric
Monthly Service Charge1
Demand Rate1
Energy Rate 11
Energy Rate 21
Energy Rate 31
FAM1
DSM Cost Recovery
Sub Total
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
DSM Cost Recovery
Sub Total
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
2013 BILL
Rate
Charge
$10.91000
$0.06369
$27,275.00
2,500
$71,651.25 1,125,000
$10.91000
$0.06369
$27,275.00
$71,651.25
$0.00652
$0.00490
$7,335.00 1,125,000
$5,512.50 1,125,000
$111,773.75
$16,766.06
$0.00652
$0.00518
$7,335.00
$5,828.62
$112,089.87
$16,813.48
$316.12
$316.12
$47.42
5.7%
0.3%
0.3%
$128,903.35
$363.54
0.3%
$128,539.81
Metric Volume
kWh 1,125,000
CHANGE IMPACT
Volume
Charge
2013 BILL
Rate
$0.00518
Charge
Volume
$5,828.62 1,125,000
$112,089.87
$16,813.48
2014 BILL
Rate
$0.00529
$128,903.35
2014 BILL
Rate
Charge
Volume
Metric Volume
$0.00529
$5,946.99 1,125,000
DSM Cost Recovery
kWh 1,125,000
$112,208.24
Sub Total
$16,831.24
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
$129,039.47
1 Source: Nova Scotia Power Inc. Tariffs & Regulations Effective January 1, 2012
%
CHANGE IMPACT
Charge
$5,946.99
$112,208.24
$16,831.24
$
$118.37
$118.37
$17.75
%
2.0%
0.1%
0.1%
$129,039.47
$136.12
0.1%
CHANGE IMPACT
2015 BILL
Rate
$0.00554
$
CUMULATIVE
CHANGE IMPACT
Charge
$6,227.84
$112,489.09
$16,873.36
$
$280.85
$280.85
$42.13
%
4.7%
0.3%
0.3%
$
$715.34
$715.34
$107.30
%
13.0%
0.6%
0.6%
$129,362.45
$322.98
0.3%
$822.64
0.6%
Attachment 3-11
E-ENSC-R-12
Date Revised: April 18, 2012
Appendix C
Line #
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
Table 3.12: Unmetered Bill Impacts
Metric
Monthly Service Charge1
Demand Rate1
Energy Rate 11
Energy Rate 21
Energy Rate 31
FAM1
DSM Cost Recovery
Sub Total
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
DSM Cost Recovery
Sub Total
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
Volume
CHANGE IMPACT
2012 BILL
Rate
Charge
Volume
2013 BILL
Rate
Charge
$
%
kW
kWh
kWh
0.250
100
$9.33900
$0.10680
$0.07091
$2.33
$10.68
$0.00
0
100
0
$9.33900
$0.10680
$0.07091
$2.33
$10.68
$0.00
kWh
kWh
100
100
$0.00710
($0.00201)
$0.71
($0.20)
$13.52
$2.03
100
100
$0.00710
$0.01433
$0.71
$1.43
$15.16
$2.27
$1.63
$1.63
$0.25
813.0%
12.1%
12.1%
$17.43
$1.88
12.1%
$15.55
Metric
kWh
Volume
100
2013 BILL
Rate
$0.01433
Charge
$1.43
$15.16
$2.27
Volume
100
2014 BILL
Rate
$0.01415
$17.43
2014 BILL
Rate
Metric Volume
100
$0.01415
DSM Cost Recovery
kWh
Sub Total
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
1 Source: Nova Scotia Power Inc. Tariffs & Regulations Effective January 1, 2012
CHANGE IMPACT
Charge
$1.42
$15.14
$2.27
$
($0.02)
($0.02)
($0.00)
%
(1.2%)
(0.1%)
(0.1%)
$17.41
($0.02)
(0.1%)
CHANGE IMPACT
2015 BILL
Charge
$1.42
$15.14
$2.27
$17.41
Volume
100
Rate
$0.01391
Charge
$1.39
$15.12
$2.27
$
($0.02)
($0.02)
($0.00)
%
(1.7%)
(0.2%)
(0.2%)
$17.38
($0.03)
(0.2%)
CUMULATIVE
CHANGE IMPACT
$
%
$1.59 792.3%
$1.59
11.8%
$0.24
11.8%
$1.83
11.8%
Attachment 3-12
E-ENSC-R-12
Date Revised: April 18, 2012
Appendix C
Line #
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
Table 3.13: Bowater Mersey (AE only) Bill Impacts
Monthly Service Charge1
Demand Rate1
Energy Rate 11
Energy Rate 21
Energy Rate 31
FAM1
DSM Cost Recovery
Sub Total
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
DSM Cost Recovery
Sub Total
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
CHANGE IMPACT
Metric
Volume
2012 BILL
Rate
Charge
Volume
2013 BILL
Rate
Charge
kW
Costs
10,000
100,000
$5.50000
$0.45000
$55,000.00
$45,000.00
10,000
100,000
$5.50000
$0.45000
$55,000.00
$45,000.00
kWh
1,000,000
$0.00066
$660.00 1,000,000
$100,660.00
$15,099.00
$0.00094
$938.70
$100,938.70
$15,140.80
$278.70
$278.70
$41.80
42.2%
0.3%
0.3%
$116,079.50
$320.50
0.3%
$115,759.00
Metric Volume
kWh 1,000,000
2013 BILL
Rate
$0.00094
Charge
Volume
$938.70 1,000,000
$100,938.70
$15,140.80
2014 BILL
Rate
$0.00097
$116,079.50
2014 BILL
Rate
Charge
Volume
Metric Volume
$0.00097
$969.18 1,000,000
DSM Cost Recovery
kWh 1,000,000
$100,969.18
Sub Total
$15,145.38
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
$116,114.56
1 Source: Nova Scotia Power Inc. Tariffs & Regulations Effective January 1, 2012
%
CHANGE IMPACT
Charge
$969.18
$100,969.18
$15,145.38
$
$30.48
$30.48
$4.57
%
3.2%
0.0%
0.0%
$116,114.56
$35.06
0.0%
CHANGE IMPACT
2015 BILL
Rate
$0.00102
$
CUMULATIVE
CHANGE IMPACT
Charge
$1,022.33
$101,022.33
$15,153.35
$
$53.15
$53.15
$7.97
%
5.5%
0.1%
0.1%
$
$362.33
$362.33
$54.35
%
54.9%
0.4%
0.4%
$116,175.68
$61.12
0.1%
$416.68
0.4%
Attachment 3-13
E-ENSC-R-12
Date Revised: April 18, 2012
Appendix C
Line #
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
Table 3.14: Gen. Repl. / Load Foll. Bill Impacts
Monthly Service Charge1
Demand Rate1
Energy Rate 11
Energy Rate 21
Energy Rate 31
FAM1
DSM Cost Recovery
Sub Total
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
DSM Cost Recovery
Sub Total
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
CHANGE IMPACT
Metric
Volume
2012 BILL
Rate
Charge
Volume
2013 BILL
Rate
Charge
kWh
50,000
$0.05332
$2,666.00
50,000
$0.05332
$2,666.00
kWh
50,000
$0.00021
$10.50
$2,676.50
$401.48
50,000
$0.00088
$43.96
$2,709.96
$406.49
$33.46
$33.46
$5.02
318.6%
1.3%
1.3%
$3,116.45
$38.48
1.3%
$3,077.98
Metric
kWh
Volume
50,000
2013 BILL
Rate
$0.00088
Charge
$43.96
$2,709.96
$406.49
Volume
50,000
2014 BILL
Rate
$0.00091
$3,116.45
2014 BILL
Rate
Metric Volume
50,000
$0.00091
DSM Cost Recovery
kWh
Sub Total
HST
Provincial Rebate
TOTAL BILL
1 Source: Nova Scotia Power Inc. Tariffs & Regulations Effective January 1, 2012
$3,118.09
Volume
50,000
Rate
$0.00096
%
CHANGE IMPACT
Charge
$45.38
$2,711.38
$406.71
$
$1.43
$1.43
$0.21
%
3.2%
0.1%
0.1%
$3,118.09
$1.64
0.1%
CHANGE IMPACT
2015 BILL
Charge
$45.38
$2,711.38
$406.71
$
CUMULATIVE
CHANGE IMPACT
Charge
$47.87
$2,713.87
$407.08
$
$2.49
$2.49
$0.37
%
5.5%
0.1%
0.1%
$
$37.37
$37.37
$5.61
%
355.9%
1.4%
1.4%
$3,120.95
$2.86
0.1%
$42.98
1.4%
Attachment 3-14
E-ENSC-R-12
Date Revised: April 18, 2012
Appendix D
EPS
Detailed Review of completed energy
efficiency projects at New Page, Port
Hawkesbury
for Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation
October 17, 2011
Energy Performance Services (EPS/Canada) Inc.
Appendix D
EPS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 1
1.
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 3
2.
Mill configuration with key process units .............................................................. 4
2.1
TMP plant flowsheets ....................................................................................... 6
3.
Projects considered ............................................................................................... 11
4.
Evaluation protocol & methodology..................................................................... 12
4.1
Measurement Boundaries............................................................................ 14
4.2
Analysis Procedure ..................................................................................... 14
4.3
Data analyzed .............................................................................................. 17
4.4
Period of Analysis, Energy & Conditions................................................... 18
4.5
Baseline Period ........................................................................................... 20
4.6
Reporting Period ......................................................................................... 20
4.7
Basis for Adjustments ................................................................................. 20
4.8
Energy Prices .............................................................................................. 21
4.9
Adherence to IPMVP analysis and reporting principles ............................. 21
5.
Whole of mill (top-down) electricity savings estimate ......................................... 22
6.
Analysis of project results ..................................................................................... 25
6.1
TMP plant projects .................................................................................. 25
6.2
PM2 Vacuum Blower Power Reduction Project ..................................... 32
7.
Aggregated project results .................................................................................... 34
8.
Conclusions & recommendations ......................................................................... 35
Appendices
Appendix 1 – Preliminary Review of Energy Efficiency Projects at NPPH (Feb. 2011)
Appendix 2 – “Draft” Superior Energy Performance, Plant Measurement & Verification
Protocol Note to Auditor: This protocol is being provided solely for the purposes of verification
of energy efficiency projects at New Page Port Hawkesbury. Reproduction and re-use for any
other purpose is strictly forbidden.
Appendix 3 – Excel files with regression analyses (for verification entity):
п‚· NPPH mill regressions Rev4 TR
п‚· NPPH PM2 regressions TR
Energy Performance Services (EPS/Canada) Inc.
Appendix D
EPS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
During the period of January to March, 2011 Energy Performance Services (EPS/Canada)
Inc. (“EPS) carried out a preliminary review of energy efficiency projects undertaken at
the New Page Port Hawkesbury (“NPPH”) and Abitibi Bowater Liverpool (“ABL”)
facilities. EPS issued a report on March 21, 2011 summarizing its findings at that time.
In July 2011, EPS was contracted by Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation (“ENSC”) to
complete a detailed Measurement & Verification (M&V) of energy and demand savings
from energy efficiency projects at NPPH and to conduct a preliminary analysis of the
savings from both recently completed and potential projects at ABL. This report provides
a summary of the detailed M&V of the completed energy efficiency projects at the NPPH
facility only.
Our approach to verification has been primarily based on application of the Superior
Energy Performance, Plant Measurement & Verification Protocol (SEP M&V Protocol)
found in Appendix-2. We find that this protocol is excellent for verification of energy
savings in a large industrial facility. We have also referenced the key requirements of the
International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) by the
Efficiency Valuation Organization (EVO).
A summary of the results presented in this Report is found on in Table 1. Using the TopDown method defined under the SEP M&V Protocol, which is consistent with the “whole
facility” method defined under IPMVP, we estimate the energy savings from energy
efficiency projects implemented at NPPH to be 154.2 GWh per year and the average
electricity demand savings to be 17.8 MW.
Energy Performance Services (EPS/Canada) Inc.
1
Appendix D
EPS
Table 1 - Summary of Results
#
Project Title
Project
Start
Adjusted
INITIAL REPORT
estimate
GWh
MW
1
Upgrade Line 1
Refiner*
2010
63.9
7.3
2
Optimize Line 3
Production**
Mid
2008
9.8
1.1
Sep 09
16.8
2.0
Sep
2011
11.30
Late
2009
3
4
5
Optimize Rejects
Screening**
Bypass Noss
Cleaners (Not
completed)***
PM2 Vacuum
Blower Power
Reduction
TOTAL (incl.
project 4)
TOTAL (excl.
project 4)
Bottom-up estimate
based on statistical
energy analysis
GWh
MW
53.4
6.1
59.6
6.8
1.35
N/A
N/A
12.60
1.5
9.04
1.03
114.4
13.25
103.1
11.9
122.0
13.9
Energy Performance Services (EPS/Canada) Inc.
Top-down
Estimate
GWh
MW
154.2
17.8
2
Appendix D
EPS
1.
INTRODUCTION
In February 2011, Energy Performance Services (EPS) was contracted by Efficiency
Nova Scotia Corporation (ENSC) to perform a preliminary review of the energy
consumption and demand savings from energy efficiency projects undertaken at the two
largest pulp & paper mills in Nova Scotia, namely New Page Port Hawkesbury (“NPPH”)
and Abitibi Bowater Liverpool (“ABL”). In March, 2011 a report was issued by EPS to
ENSC summarizing the results of its preliminary investigation (“the INITIAL
REPORT”).
In July of 2011, ENSC contracted EPS to carry out a detailed M&V (Measurement &
Verification) of energy and demand savings from the energy efficiency projects at NPPH
identified in the INITIAL REPORT and to carry out a preliminary evaluation of energy
efficiency projects at ABL. The main purpose of our work has been to check the validity
of the preliminary estimates that were provided in the INITIAL REPORT which were
based on self-reported energy performance numbers from NPPH, but not independently
audited at the time of the report. We have concluded that the energy efficiency project
savings at NPPH are substantial and therefore this October 2011 report (“M&V
REPORT”) focuses exclusively on the energy efficiency projects implemented at NPPH.
A summary of the results of our evaluation at ABL will be provided in a separate report.
Peter Bassett & sub-consultant Tom Ryan .ing of SyENERGY Integrated Energy
Solutions Inc. are the key individuals who have worked on this assignment on behalf of
EPS.
In order to carry out this mandate, our team has worked closely with NPPH to obtain
historical operating and energy data and interpret this data in light of the energy
efficiency projects that were completed during the period of (July 2008 to August 2011).
Our evaluation has attempted to ensure that important changes to production patterns or
operating practices that occurred during the period of our evaluation are accounted for
and do not mask or distort the energy savings picture. In order to evaluate the energy
savings results from the energy efficiency projects, we have built multi-variable
regression models so that we can normalize data and evaluate energy savings across
operating periods when different production activity and operating practices were
occurring. In carrying out this analysis, we have worked closely with NPPH in order to
ensure that we have reasonably understood the differences in patterns and activity
occurring before, during and after the time when the energy efficiency projects were
implemented. We are grateful for the cooperation provided by NPPH in facilitating this
level of investigation.
The reader will find project-specific energy savings estimates and a description of the
methodology used in deriving these estimates for each of the projects indentified in the
INITIAL REPORT. This M&V REPORT provides an energy performance evaluation for
the whole of the mill based on an analysis of the historical energy and production data
over a 4 year period starting in June 2007 and running to present. TMP and Paper mills
Energy Performance Services (EPS/Canada) Inc.
3
Appendix D
EPS
are complex and dynamic operations. Our assessment has therefore required the
construction of models in order to account for these factors so that at the end of the day
we can compare “apples to apples” when looking at different periods. The result is an
energy savings estimate which takes account of variations in a large number of
independent variables over the analysis period. Some of the critical variables that we
have had to take account of include:
п‚·
п‚·
п‚·
Variations in paper production
Variations in TMP pulp production
Variations in the % of TMP pulp used in the finished paper vs. purchased Kraft pulp
and clay
It is important to stress that, as per the guidance of the SEP and IMPVP protocols, the
savings estimates quantify avoided energy use under a set of normalized operating
conditions due to efficiency improvements, not absolute energy savings.
2.
MILL CONFIGURATION WITH KEY PROCESS UNITS
Figure 1 below shows the NPPH mill schematic with the main operating units (the
“FACILITY”). From a production point of view, the key operating units are: (a) the TMP
plant (includes the bleach plant and heat recovery unit) and; (b) Paper Machines 1 and 2.
Important service units include: (c) the power boilers (PB3 & PB4) (Power Boiler 4
(PB4) is only used for standby purposes and rarely runs); (d) the effluent treatment plant
and; (e) the wood yard (not shown).
Energy Performance Services (EPS/Canada) Inc.
4
Appendix D
EPS
Waste Steam
~
~
~~
Wood
Steam
Electricity
to NSPI
NPPH Mill
Steam
Power
Boiler 4
~
Pulp
~
Biogen Project
(PB3)
Now Owned by
NSPI
~
~
Hog Fuel
TMP Plant
PM1
Electricity
Chemicals
Fillers
Kraft Pulp
Water
Newsprint
SC Paper
PM2
Effluent
treatment
Treated effluent
Primary & Secondary Sludge
Figure 1- NPPH Mill Schematic Showing Main Operational Units
The power boilers PB3 & PB4 are located in a plant where electric power can be
generated through a steam turbine. Any electric power generated by the steam turbine is
100% exported to the provincial grid and therefore does not factor into the electricity
purchases of NPPH. PB3 has very recently (summer 2011) been sold to Nova Scotia
Power Inc. (NSPI). Despite the uncertainties currently surrounding the mill’s future,
NSPI is modernising PB3 to upgrade its generating capacity and the project is still active,
with an expected completion date of December 2012. Upon completion, this $80 M
capital investment project, referred to as the “Biogen Project” by NSPI is expected to
produce 60 MW of electricity for the provincial grid. It will provide some of the steam
requirements for the NPPH mill, but it will also be coupled with an initiative by NPPH to
significantly reduce the waste TMP steam that is currently vented to atmosphere. Prior to
the current shutdown, 35-50% (≈8.0-11.4 kg/s) of TMP steam was being vented to
atmosphere as waste heat.
An approximate breakdown of the electricity consumption of the FACILITY according to
the process units shown in figure 1 is found in Table 2 below. This breakdown is based
on Standard Conditions of 1400 tonnes/d of paper average, 365 days/year, 10В°C. These
Standard Conditions have been chosen because they are very close to the median and
Energy Performance Services (EPS/Canada) Inc.
5
Appendix D
EPS
average paper production conditions that occur throughout the year. (See section 4 for the
definition of the term standard conditions under the SEP M&V Protocol).
Table 2 – Approximate breakdown of electricity consumption by operational units for
standard conditions (1400 tonnes/d of paper average, 365 days/year, 10В°C)
Operational unit
% consumption
MW*
TMP (mainline & rejects refiners only)
67.4%
118.7
TMP (non-refining)
8.9%
15.6**
TMP total
76.3%
134.4
PM1
11.9%
21 (20)
PM2
6.0%
10.5 (10)
Power Boiler 3 (before sale to NSPI)
2.3%
4.0
Auxiliary Services (water treatment, compressed air,
3.6%
6.3 (5.5)
woodyard, lighting)
Total
100%
176.2
*: All data other than TMP refining energy, which is recorded continuously, has been supplied by Mark Frith, TMP plant manager.
When a number in brackets appears, adjustments have been made to M. Frith’s PM1, PM2 & services estimates to match predicted
and total mill consumption at standard conditions.
**: TMP Line 1 & 2 aux. equipment: approx. 6.0 MW, TMP line 3 & rejects refiners aux. equipment + bleach plant: approx 9.6 MW.
2.1 TMP plant flowsheets
As the TMP plant is the largest electricity consuming operating unit at the FACILITY,
we have included simplified process diagrams of the TMP plant in figures 2 through 5
below:
п‚· Figure 2 shows line 1 & 2 chip handling and refining
п‚· Figure 3 shows line 3 chip handling and refining
п‚· Figure 4 shows the bleaching system (note pulp from line 3 is not bleached)
п‚· Figure 5 shows the pulp screening, cleaning and rejects refining systems
Energy Performance Services (EPS/Canada) Inc.
6
Appendix D
EPS
Figure 2
Energy Performance Services (EPS/Canada) Inc.
7
Appendix D
EPS
Figure 3
Energy Performance Services (EPS/Canada) Inc.
8
Appendix D
EPS
Figure 4
Energy Performance Services (EPS/Canada) Inc.
9
Appendix D
EPS
Figure 5
Energy Performance Services (EPS/Canada) Inc.
10
Appendix D
EPS
3.
PROJECTS CONSIDERED
While NPPH is always in the process of continuous improvement with respect to energy and
other raw materials consumption, only a limited number of projects were considered as part of
the INITIAL REPORT. These were estimated in the INITIAL REPORT and are summarized in
Table 3. Projects that were not found to produce savings in the INITIAL REPORT have been
dropped from Table-3 entirely. The scope of energy efficiency projects considered in the M&V
REPORT is summarized below.
Table 3– Projects found to significantly affect energy consumption, INITIAL REPORT
Feb 2011
estimate based
Year
#
Project Title
Comments
on preliminary
started
projects review
GWh
MW
Start-up June 30, 2010. Because of
Upgrade Line 1
capacity increase and specific energy
1
2010
74.00
8.5
Refiner
decrease, production mix from 3 lines is
affected.
Reduced since there is an overlap with
Optimize Line
Mid
2
9.80
1.1
Line 1 refiner upgrade project. Savings
3 Production
2008*
shown are from mid 2009 to end of 2010.
Optimize
Sep 09Savings come from reduced recirculation
3
Rejects
16.80
2.0
Jun 11
to reject refiners.
Screening
Initial trials done with the support of
Paprican show the cleaners can be
Bypass Noss
Feb-Sep
4
11.30
1.35 bypassed while maintaining paper quality.
Cleaners**
2011
Expected number is discounted by 25%
due to some uncertainty.
5
PM2 Vacuum
Blower Power
Reduction+
other PM2
improvements
TOTAL
Late
2009
12.60
1.5
124.50
14.45
Conservative estimate. Blower alone
produced at least 1.2 MW in savings.
Overall PM2 load reduction at
transformer from late 2009 to end of
2010 is 1.5-2.0 MW
* This date had been listed as Mid 2009 in the INITIAL REPORT. See section 4.4 for a detailed explanation of why the date was
changed to Mid 2008.
** Though the mill had done much work on this project prior to the September 2011 shutdown, it was not yet operational, and
therefore the estimate is only valid in that it shows the potential savings, not actual ones.
Energy Performance Services (EPS/Canada) Inc.
11
Appendix D
EPS
The first 4 projects listed above, or Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) in the IPMVP jargon,
are all fully within the TMP plant. The fifth and final project took place outside of the TMP
plant, in the PM2 section of the mill.
4.
EVALUATION PROTOCOL & METHODOLOGY
We have principally relied on the Superior Energy Performance (SEP) measurement &
verification protocol found in Appendix-1 in conducting the M&V evaluation. We have relied on
this document as it is very instructional in specifically approaching M&V for industrial facilities,
especially large complex industrial process facilities. We have also used elements of the
International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) developed by the
Efficiency Valuation Organization (EVO)1 when it provides complementary guidance.
It is very useful to adapt the methodology of the SEP and IPMVP protocols to deliver a high level
and high-quality assessment of the energy performance improvements made by NPPH. The main
purpose of our work has been to check the validity of the preliminary estimates that were
provided in the INITIAL REPORT which were based on self-reported energy performance
numbers from NPPH, but not independently audited at the time of the report.
In the SEP approach to energy performance evaluation, two different components are required for
the analysis:
п‚·
The first component is top-down energy performance assessment, which is facility-level (or subfacility level) performance calculated from energy consumption data at the whole facility level. If
detailed metered energy data was available for the TMP plant alone (the sub-facility in NPPH’s
case), we would be able to do the analysis on the TMP plant alone, but unfortunately we only
have metered data at the whole facility level, so we have done the top-down analysis for the whole
mill. The Top-down analysis is found in Section-5 of the M&V REPORT.
п‚·
The second component is bottom-up energy performance assessment, which is facility-level
performance calculated by analysis of individual changes made at the facility. The SEP M&V
protocol does not require detailed bottom-up analysis, but does require a high-level bottom-up
“sanity check” of the top-down result.2 In NPPH’s case, we will look at the aggregate of three
TMP energy improvement projects from the bottom up, plus one project that took place within the
PM2 plant. The bottom-up analysis is found in Section-6 of the M&V REPORT.
It may be useful to note that we have used what is referred to in section 3.1.3 of the SEP protocol
as the “standard conditions” approach to comparing the energy performance after project
improvements with the baseline period. To cite the SEP protocol, this method “compare(s) the
1
Concepts and Options for Determining Energy and Water Savings, Volume 1, Efficiency Valuation Organization,
www.evo-world.org, September 2010, EVO 10000 – 1:2010
2
Superior Energy Performance, Plant Measurement and Verification Protocol (Draft) February 25, 2011 , p.1-1
The Regents of the University of California
Energy Performance Services (EPS/Canada) Inc.
12
Appendix D
EPS
adjusted reporting-period consumption to the adjusted baseline-period
consumption. The adjusted consumption for each period is the estimated energy
consumption that would have been expected at a standard set of production levels
and external factors, if the operating equipment and practices of each period were
in place. Each estimate is the result of a model of energy consumption fit to
consumption data for the period, and applied at standard conditions.”
All data collected and analysed for this report used daily time weighted averages for each 24 hour
data point. Based on our analysis of the data and key efficiency project milestones, we have
broken the reporting period into 3 distinct segments. The 3 periods are defined below in Table-4.
The baseline period is 13 months long, the middle period is almost exactly 2 years long and the
latest period is a little over 13 months long. The detailed rationale behind this breakdown will be
discussed later in the report. For brevity’s sake, we refer to these periods as Year 1 (baseline),
Years 2-3 and Year 4. Table 4 shows the three periods with adjusted production averages based
on actual data. Note that the daily averages are for days where good data was available. Since a
limited number of data points were unusable because of reporting errors or suspect data, these
were eliminated from the data set to avoid skewing the mathematical models. Annualized
production numbers were adjusted to compensate for the eliminated data points.
Table 4 – Reporting periods and standard conditions
Year
Period Start
Period End
Paper actual avg.
Tonnes/ yr & day
Yr 1
Jun 1, 2007
Jun 30, 2008
515,842 1,413.3
Yr 2-3
Jul 1, 2008
Jun 29, 2010
489,283 1,340.5
Yr 4
Jun 30, 2010
Aug 9, 2011
526,940 1,443.7
Standard conditions
511,000 1,400
TMP actual avg.
ADMT/ yr & day
435,250
1,193.5
434,658
1,191.7
478,650
1,311.4
451,797
1,237.8
Both the top-down and bottom-up components of the evaluation rely heavily on statistical
analysis of historical energy consumption and other key performance data. In the IPMVP
framework, the top-down approach is referred to as the “whole facility” evaluation method,
whereas the bottom-up approach is closest to the “retrofit isolation” method. For this report, we
have analyzed historical energy consumption and the key variables that affect it, such as paper
production, final pulp freeness, outdoor temperature, etc, and constructed mathematical models in
order to derive equations that match the actual data as closely as possible. These models are
constructed using a multi-variable linear regression analysis program built to be used within the
Microsoft Excel 2007 environment.
If we try to construct a mathematical model for a period of about 2 years where no major process
changes are implemented, it is generally possible to get very good agreement between the actual
data and the mathematically predicted data. If on the other hand, we try to model performance
for a similar period which contained major process changes, the model will have some difficulty
accurately predicting energy consumption. We may also see a major step change in energy
consumption around the time the process changes were implemented. It therefore becomes
more accurate to construct two mathematical models: one for the period before the
process changes (the “before” model) and one for the period after the changes (the
“after” model). Once these two models have been constructed, we use the before
Energy Performance Services (EPS/Canada) Inc.
13
Appendix D
EPS
model to predict what the energy consumption would have been had the process
changes not been implemented (often referred to as the baseline) and we compare
this to both the actual energy consumption after the project was implemented and
the energy consumption predicted by the after model. We refer to this analysis
approach as Top-Down evaluation.
In the final step of our analysis, we compare the top-down to both the individual projects bottomup numbers and the estimates that were provided in the INITIAL REPORT. The purpose of this
comparison is to provide a “sanity check” as per the requirements of the SEP M&V protocol.
Only the top-down analysis provides an all-inclusive estimate of energy performance
improvement for the whole FACILITY. Even though some energy efficiency projects that were
considered in the INITIAL REPORT have been dropped from the analysis, any small
improvements that they may have contributed (or negative effects they may have had on energy
performance) have been captured in the top-down analysis. This component of the analysis
aggregates all facility changes over the reporting period and provides a true picture of
performance because it is based on actual metered energy consumption data from the period.
4.1Measurement Boundaries
The measurement boundary for all projects is the whole mill. Note that the reported refining
energy consumption does not include electrical consumption of any auxiliary equipment located
within the TMP plant. The reason for this is that the aggregate TMP plant consumption including
auxiliary equipment is not metered. The mill does continuously record refining energy
consumption for all mainline & rejects refiners and the rejects post refiner, with typical recording
intervals of between 1 and 10 seconds. It is therefore easy to obtain highly accurate time
weighted data for tracking refiner electricity consumption.
As seen in table 2, it is estimated that the TMP plant auxiliary equipment, including the bleach
plant, consumes 15.6 MW, or on average 11.5% of the TMP plant’s electrical consumption. We
estimate the typical variability of this portion of the TMP plant’s consumption is of the order of
±20% or 3.1 MW. Because this represents approximately 2.3% of the TMP plant’s average load,
it can be ignored, as per the IPMVP guidelines which set 5% as the threshold for required
inclusion.
The measurement boundary for the top-down analysis is the whole of the NPPH mill facility,
including PB3. In future, the mill boundary will probably exclude PB3, since it has recently been
transferred to NSPI ownership.
4.2Analysis Procedure
For the purposes of the various analyses required to carry out our mandate, we have built a data
model using daily time weighted average numbers for a large number of process parameters at
the NPPH mill. The data set spans over 4 years, beginning on June 1, 2007 and ending on August
8, 2011. We have used a multi-variable linear regression analysis tool that allows us to efficiently
Energy Performance Services (EPS/Canada) Inc.
14
Appendix D
EPS
process large volumes of time dependent data to develop statistically rigorous linear regression
models to derive mathematical equations based on key variables that drive energy consumption.
A copy of the excel file with modelling results is provided as Appendix-3 of the M&V REPORT.
An overview of the contents of the modelling file is as follows:
Table 5 – Contents of regression analysis modelling files
Tab
Content
Purpose
Appendix 3a) NPPH Mill Regressions (Rev 4) – All modeling work except PM2 blower project
Tab-1
PI system vs NSPI bills
Check accuracy & validity of energy data
in PI system
Tab-2
NSPI bill for month of January 2010
Provide actual billing data for
Verification Entity
Tab-3
NSPI bill for month of January 2011
Provide actual billing data for
Verification Entity
Tab-4
First Total Energy Regression
First iteration to identify key parameters
Tab-5
Zero-Intercept Total Energy Regression
Study the impact of forcing regression
equation through Zero Y-Axis intercept
Tab-6
CSF Impact
Analyse regression equations to see if
freeness is statistically significant
Tab-7
First Refining Energy Regression
Produce a model over the 4+ year data set
to identify periods where energy
performance transitions occur
Tab-8
Second Refining Energy Regression
Improve quality of regressions by
removing data points with obvious errors
Tab-9
Second Total Energy Regression (with See if including refining energy in
refining energy as a part of equation)
equation
improves
the
model
significantly, and provides relevant info
Tab-10
Refining energy regression for year 1 Derive refining energy model for baseline
(including ambient temperature as factor) period
Tab-11
Refining energy regression for year 1 Evaluate if ambient temperature affects
(excluding ambient temperature as factor) refining energy
Tab-12
Total energy regression for year 1
Derive total mill electrical energy model
for year 1
Tab-13
Refining energy regression for years 2-3 Derive refining energy model for year 2-3
(including ambient temperature as factor) period
Tab-14
Refining energy regression for years 2-3 Evaluate if ambient temperature affects
(excluding ambient temperature as factor) refining energy
Tab-15
Refining energy regression for years 2-3 Investigate if removing the data points
with removal of data points with highest furthest from the model improves the
residuals (extra data cleaning)
model accuracy
Tab-16
Total energy regression for years 2-3
Derive total mill electrical energy model
for years 2-3
Tab-17
Refining energy regression for year 4 Derive refining energy model for year 4
(including ambient temperature as factor) period
Tab-18
Refining energy regression for year 4 Evaluate if ambient temperature affects
(excluding ambient temperature as factor) refining energy
Energy Performance Services (EPS/Canada) Inc.
15
Appendix D
EPS
Tab
Tab-19
Content
Total energy regression for year 4
Tab-20
Tab-21
Tab-22
Base
Deletions
Inputs
Tab-23
Model Plots
Tab-24
Raw Data
Appendix 3b) NPPH PM2 Regressions
Tab-1
Baseline regression, 4 blowers
Tab-2
Year 4 regression, 3 or 4 blowers
Tab-3
Inputs
Tab-4
Tab-5
Tab-6
Base
Deletions
Raw Data
Purpose
Derive total mill electrical energy model
for year 4
Tab required by software to run models
Tab required by software to run models
Where raw data is filtered and
manipulated, providing a template for the
regression analysis
Produce graphs of several energy models
over a range of production conditions, so
they can be compared
Location where raw data from the mill
was imported
Obtain blower energy regression equation
in baseline period
Obtain blower energy regression equation
in reporting period (year 4)
Where raw data is filtered and
manipulated, providing a template for the
regression analysis
Tab required by software to run models
Tab required by software to run models
Location where raw data from the mill
was imported
Depending on a number of factors, such as data accuracy, process consistency and parameter
relevance as drivers of energy consumption, the mathematical model will match the actual data to
a degree which may range from excellent to very poor. Part of the modeling exercise involves
studying the data sets and eliminating clearly erroneous data which would otherwise skew the
mathematical model. In some cases, it is easy to spot wrong data. One example of this occurs
when production units that are clearly not in operation show non-zero production or energy
consumption. In some instances erroneous data that is not easy to identify can be picked up by
the model. For example, data points for which the result predicted by the model is more than 3
standard deviations away from the actual measured parameter are typically fairly suspect in
nature.
A second part of the exercise involves testing whether certain independent variables such as
outdoor temperature are relevant to the model. If the parameters have a significant effect on
energy performance, the model should include those variables in its equations. If they are found
not to have a significant effect, they should not be included.
A number of parameters, such as the standard deviation, R squared and P-value provide an
indication of the quality of the model in predicting energy consumption. The graphical display of
the CUmulative SUM of deviations (CUSUM) over a period of time can provide very useful
Energy Performance Services (EPS/Canada) Inc.
16
Appendix D
EPS
indications of whether a facility’s energy performance is improving or deteriorating over time
and how rapidly these changes are occurring. With all of these tools, some experience is required
in order to properly interpret the energy data and draw conclusions about the facility’s energy
performance.
4.3Data analyzed
As discussed, EPS obtained daily averages for key operating and energy consumption variables
for at least one full year prior to the start of each energy efficiency project studied and one year
following the implementation date. All data was sourced from the mill’s process information
(PI) historian and collated by NPPH’s Alexander Allen, Financial Analyst. Once collated, the
data was reviewed with Mark Frith, TMP Plant Manager. The mill’s total daily electrical
consumption was cross referenced with detailed monthly billing data for two months (January
2010 and January 2011) of the 4 year data set to ensure that the numbers from the data historian
matched those from NSPI’s power bill. As seen in figure 6, generally these two sets of data are
virtually identical, but there are occasional days where there are discrepancies. It is difficult to
identify the source of these discrepancies. Based on the generally good agreement between the
two data sets, we have accepted the data set provided by NPPH’s PI system.
PI Data
NSPI bill
PI Data
NSPI bill
Figure 6 – Comparison of electricity consumption from NPPH PI system and NSPI Invoices
Other plant level aggregate information/data that we have used in our analysis includes:
п‚· Daily production of paper (tonnes/d)
п‚· TMP plant time weighted average electrical load (MW), the sum of all TMP refiner loads
п‚· Mean outdoor temperature (В°C), converted into absolute temperature (В°K) for regression
analyses
Energy Performance Services (EPS/Canada) Inc.
17
30/01/2011
25/01/2011
0
20/01/2011
0
15/01/2011
50
10/01/2011
50
06/02/2010
100
01/02/2010
100
27/01/2010
150
22/01/2010
150
17/01/2010
200
12/01/2010
200
07/01/2010
250
02/01/2010
250
05/01/2011
Daily Mill Load Time Weighted Average (MW)
January 2011 PI data vs NSPI bill
31/12/2010
Daily Mill Load Time Weighted Average (MW)
January 2010 PI data vs NSPI bill
Appendix D
EPS
Project specific data (the key process variables tracked for each project are listed below):
Line 1 Primary Refiner Replacement Project
п‚· Daily production for each of line 1, 2 & 3 (ADMT/d)
п‚· Time weighted average motor load for each mainline & rejects refiner motor (MW)
п‚· Pulp freeness at each latency chest, and at TMP plant outlets to PM1 & PM2 (ml CSF)
Line 3 Optimization (freeness increase/production increase/specific energy reduction) Project
п‚· Data from the Line 1 Primary Refiner Replacement Project are used for this analysis
Refined Rejects Screening (& Rejects Refining) Optimization Project
п‚· Data from the Line 1 Primary Refiner Replacement Project are used for this analysis
Noss Cleaners Bypass Project
п‚· No data was collected, as the project is not yet operational.
PM2 Vacuum Blower Power Reduction Project
п‚· Motor load for each of the four PM2 vacuum blowers (kW)
п‚· Net paper production (NOTE that we do not have PM2 production data prior to the
implementation of this project, but combined PM1 and PM2 production data, which poses
an evaluation challenge, limiting the accuracy of the savings estimate).
4.4Period of Analysis, Energy & Conditions
Since TMP refining energy (electricity) consumption represents a full two-thirds of the NPPH
mill’s electric consumption a first analysis was done on TMP refining energy. Because of its
relative importance as a cost driver and determinant of pulp quality, NPPH has very detailed
records of refining energy for each of its refiners which make it easy to use in statistical analysis.
These measurements are collected from power transmitters at each refiner. We initially requested
that NPPH provide data going back to mid 2007 because we wanted to have two years of data to
produce a baseline prior to the energy efficiency project implementation dates we had notionally
listed as starting in mid 2009. In order to initially understand the data provided to us by NPPH,
we constructed a model of this data. In this model, we derived mathematical relationships
between refining energy and TMP plant production. From these relationships, we were able to
construct a CUSUM chart shown in Figure 7 (next page)..
CUSUM is defined as the cumulative sum of deviations between the real data and the linear
regression model. For each period of time in the data set, the value predicted by the model minus
the actual value of the parameter (in our case refining energy) is calculated. The statistical
analysis software calculates the standard deviation as a measure of how far away from the actual
energy consumption, the value predicted by the model will typically be for a given time period
(in our case one day). If the model predicts a value higher than the actual measured value for the
day, the deviation value for the day will be positive. If it predicts a value lower than actual
consumption, the deviation will be negative. When we sum all deviations for the full period over
which the model is derived the net result should be zero. In other words, on an average basis the
model is as likely to predict a value above the actual consumption as below it. Graphing the
Energy Performance Services (EPS/Canada) Inc.
18
Appendix D
EPS
CUSUM function over the period gives an indication of how the energy performance changed
over time.
CUSUM
500
Savings = Positive
-500
-1000
01/06/2007
19/07/2007
05/09/2007
23/10/2007
10/12/2007
04/02/2008
23/03/2008
10/05/2008
27/06/2008
22/08/2008
09/10/2008
26/11/2008
13/01/2009
02/03/2009
19/04/2009
07/06/2009
25/07/2009
11/09/2009
29/10/2009
16/12/2009
08/02/2010
28/03/2010
15/05/2010
02/07/2010
19/08/2010
06/10/2010
23/11/2010
10/01/2011
27/02/2011
16/04/2011
03/06/2011
21/07/2011
0
-1500
-2000
-2500
-3000
-3500
-4000
Figure 7 – Cumulative sum of deviations in the relationship between refining energy and TMP
plant production at NPPH, 4+ year model
What we were able to observe as a result of having constructed the model, was that a period of
sustained continuous improvement began near the mid-point of 2008. In fact, there are really 3
distinct periods that come out of this analysis, namely: (a) the initial period (yellow) prior to any
improvements; (b) a period when energy efficiency operating improvements were being made
resulting in a decrease in energy consumption (blue) and; (c) a period when energy efficiency
projects were implemented (green).
It should be noted that a fair bit of experience is required to properly interpret CUSUM charts. In
a large process facility like NPPH that is operating under steady state conditions, it is typical for
CUSUM charts to be relatively flat. On the other hand if the plant is in the middle of a long term
and sustained effort to improve its energy efficiency, the chart may tend to fall at first when gains
are still small and reverse itself when efficiency gains are becoming increasingly significant. If
the period of charting begins before the start of implementation of efficiency measures, the
beginning of the chart will show a steep decline. This is because the energy performance prior to
the implementation of the energy efficiency measures is worse than the average calculated by the
model. The above model provides an excellent overview of different periods of relative energy
efficiency performance across a multi-year period.
Nonetheless, it is more accurate to break the modelling periods into subsets, where each modeled
subset matches actual conditions more closely. We have therefore adopted this approach in our
analysis.
Energy Performance Services (EPS/Canada) Inc.
19
Appendix D
EPS
Despite the problems with a model that does not fit actual conditions well, using the CUSUM
function over a range of varying conditions can be useful in detecting patterns. In the above case,
one can see three very distinct zones in the graph. The first zone, indicated in yellow shows a
very steep decline in actual performance compared to the average model which fits the whole of
the period, which in this case spans more than 4 years. The second zone (in blue) is relatively flat
indicating that the model is pretty close to fitting the actual data. The third part of the graph
shows a steep rise in performance over the last year of the period, indicating that performance is
improving significantly compared to the average model that fits the whole of the period.
Now if we look at the actual TMP refining data, what we observe over this 4+ year period is that
the performance was actually quite stable in the yellow period, it was improving continuously
throughout the blue period, with the gains in year 3 more significant that those of year 2 and there
was a very rapid improvement at the beginning of the green period that did not deteriorate over
year 4. This concurs well with our knowledge of the facts about the timing of the Line 1
modernization project, which started up on June 30, 2010. It is clear that the average model for
the whole of the 4+ year period does not fit either the yellow zone or the green zone very well.
4.5Baseline Period
Based on the above analysis, we have chosen a baseline period of June 1 2007 to June 30 2008,
where we have observed fairly stable operating conditions prior to energy efficiency
improvements. This represents the period before improvements were made.
4.6Reporting Period
The reporting period has been set from July 1, 2008 to August 8, 2011. This period is further
broken down into two distinct sub-periods, the first being from July 1, 2008 to June 29, 2010,
which corresponds to the yellow part of the CUSUM graph and the period before commissioning
the Line 1 modernization project. The second sub-period for reporting is from June 30 2010, the
day the Line 1 modernization started up, to August 8, 2011.
4.7Basis for Adjustments
We have used the standard conditions method (SEP framework) or normalized savings method
(IPMVP framework). The table below, which is repeated from page 11 of this report shows the
standard conditions used. See section 4.4 of this report for details of how and why these
conditions were chosen.
Table 4 (repeated) – Reporting periods and standard conditions for production.
Year
Period Start
Period End
Paper actual avg.
Tonnes/ yr & day
Yr 1
Jun 1, 2007
Jun 30, 2008
515,842 1,413.3
Yr 2-3
Jul 1, 2008
Jun 29, 2010
489,283 1,340.5
Yr 4
Jun 30, 2010
Aug 9, 2011
526,940 1,443.7
Standard conditions
511,000 1,400
Energy Performance Services (EPS/Canada) Inc.
TMP actual avg.
ADMT/ yr & day
435,250
1,193.5
434,658
1,191.7
478,650
1,311.4
451,797
1,237.8
20
Appendix D
EPS
In addition to the paper and TMP production standard conditions, we also use a standard
condition of 10В°C when we produce total mill electrical consumption regressions (a standard
condition for temperature is not required for refining energy because it is independent of
temperature). We have also fixed the Paper/TMP ratio at 1.131 for all regressions. After much
consideration, we have decided that keeping a fixed Paper/TMP ratio is the best way to ensure
that we are quantifying avoided energy use as opposed to absolute energy savings.
The Paper/TMP ratio is simply the daily average of the net paper produced divided by the TMP
produced over a given period. This parameter is very different on PM1, which uses essentially
100% TMP in the production of newsprint than it is on PM2, where significant quantities of
purchased kraft pulp and various fillers such as kaolin clay are blended with TMP to produce
coated papers. The average Paper/TMP ratio used in our report is a blended average of the ratios
of each of the paper machines. For the first two years of data that were used, we only have the
combined production of the two paper machines, while we have individual production data from
each machine for the third and fourth years.
Note that we assumed a fixed Paper/TMP ratio of 0.97 in our INITIAL REPORT, and this
number, while very close to being right for the newsprint machine, was clearly too low as a
blended average. We have made adjustments to our INITIAL REPORT estimates now that we
have a better basis for the calculation as illustrated in Table 6.
Table 6 – Adjusted INITIAL REPORT project estimates to compensate for error in INITIAL
REPORT paper/TMP ratio assumption
Adjusted Feb 2011
Original Feb 2011
#
Project Title
estimate
estimate
GWh
MW
GWh
MW
1
Upgrade Line 1 Refiner
63.9
7.3
74.00
8.5
2
Optimize Line 3 Production
9.8
1.1
9.80
1.1
3
Optimize Rejects Screening
16.8
2.0
16.80
2.0
TOTAL
90.5
10.4
100.6
11.6
4.8Energy Prices
NPPH believes the electricity prices it is paying put it at a significant disadvantage compared to
many of its competitors. Energy price issues have not been addressed, as this is beyond the scope
of the mandate given by ENSC.
4.9Adherence to IPMVP analysis and reporting principles
Accuracy
The electricity data reported at the whole of mill level is very accurate and has been checked
against billing records from NSPI. TMP refining data is taken from motor loads and is time
weighted. Paper production data is accurate because it is cross checked by mill staff against sales
records. There can be significant day to day differences between net saleable paper and total
Energy Performance Services (EPS/Canada) Inc.
21
Appendix D
EPS
production off the paper machines, some of which may not meet quality requirements and get
reprocessed. As discussed in section 6, TMP production data may have В±10% error because of
chip bulk density variability.
Completeness
Because we are working at the full facility level in the top-down analysis, the data we are using
capture all electrical use. Because the mill is continuously producing more steam than it can use,
and because any electricity generated by its turbine is directly exported to the Nova Scotia grid, it
is a reasonable approach to assume that electricity consumption is not affected by steam
production. Note that the opposite of this statement (that steam production is not affected by
electricity consumption) is not true.
Conservativeness
Bottom-up estimates tend to be quite conservative, notably because they don’t capture all the
small efficiency projects that we know have been occurring at NPPH. Top-down estimates tend
to be close to reality because they are based on real operating data, and they are therefore less
conservative that the bottom-up estimates. We reiterate the need for the reader to be fully aware
of the fact that the estimates represent avoided energy costs over time based on improving energy
performance and normalized conditions. They are not necessarily a good measure of absolute
energy savings.
Consistency
In each step of our analysis we have endeavoured to maintain a high level of consistency. For
example, when we generate regression equations for three different time periods, we make sure
all three periods are based on the same factors, even if importance factors and P-values show that
a factor may not be highly significant in one of the equations, but significant in the others.
Relevance
The statistical analysis methodology allows us to quickly evaluate which factors are the most
relevant, and to eliminate factors which are not relevant. A substantial amount of work goes into
this part of the exercise to ensure maximum relevancy.
Transparency
EPS has worked in direct and open collaboration with NPPH in compiling all data for this report.
This data is fully available in Excel format as part of the appendices of this report.
5.
WHOLE OF MILL (TOP-DOWN) ELECTRICITY SAVINGS ESTIMATE
After collecting and “cleaning” the data of errors, we ran a regression analysis on total mill
electrical consumption to determine what parameters or factors are statistically significant as
drivers of energy consumption. The regression had an R2 of .959, which means that the quality of
the fit of the mathematical model to the actual data was very good. An R2 of above .9 denotes a
Energy Performance Services (EPS/Canada) Inc.
22
Appendix D
EPS
very good fit, R2 between 0.6 and 0.9 is reasonably good, while an R2 below 0.6 is very poor. The
importance of factors results are presented in Table 5. The main parameters considered were:
п‚· TMP plant production (ADMT/d)
п‚· Total refining load time weighted average (MW) - the aggregate of all individual refiners
п‚· Paper production (tonnes/d)
п‚· Ambient temperature (В°C, converted to В°K)
 TMP plant outlet Freeness (ml CSF), 2 values – CSF to PM1 & CSF to PM2
Table 5 – Output from Importance of Factors Analysis
Intercept
Avg. refining load (MW)
Total paper production (tonnes/d)
TMP plant production (ADMT/d)
Absolute temp (В°K)
L3 MCP (to PM1) CSF (ml)
MC6 (to PM2) CSF (ml)
Coefficient
-20.064
1.265
0.013
-0.015
0.183
0.005
-0.064
Factor
1499
180938
2077764
1836216
422141
150653
52851
Product
-30076
228846
27123
-27660
77052
824
-3401
Percent
-11%
84%
10%
-10%
8%
0%
-1%
A first conclusion from this analysis is that TMP plant outlet freeness is not a statistically
significant predictor of mill energy consumption, as indicated by the very low importance
percentages in table 5. In subsequent work, freeness was dropped from the analysis. Another
very obvious and unsurprising conclusion is that refining load (production rate) is by far the most
statistically significant predictor of mill electricity consumption.
As discussed earlier, we have used standard conditions of 1,400 t/d and 10В°C for 365 days/yr.
Converting this to an annual basis produces 511,000 t/of paper.
The top-down total mill electricity linear regression equations developed for the baseline period
and the two reporting periods are as follows. NPPH Total electric load (MW) =
Yr 1
Paper Production (tonnes/d) * 0.039 + TMP production (admt/d) * 0.097 + Temp (В°K) * 0.068
Yr 2-3
Paper Production (tonnes/d) * 0.048 + TMP production (admt/d) * 0.090 + Temp (В°K) * 0.022
Yr 4
Paper Production (MT/d) * 0.049 + TMP production (admt/d) * 0.059 + Temp (В°K) * 0.122
The quality of the statistical fit of each model to the data is extremely good, as seen in Table 7.
All three R2 (coefficient of determination) values are above .99, meaning the model is a reliable
predictor of energy consumption. In all three cases the standard deviation is less than 10% of the
mill electric load at standard conditions of 1,400 tonnes/day of paper. This is still quite high
variability, but indicative of the real world complexity of a pulp & paper mill.
Table 7 – Multi-variable Regression Statistical Fit Indicators and Importance Factors for
NPPH’s Total Electrical Consumption
Period R2
Standard
Importance factor / P-Value
Deviation
Paper Production
TMP production
Temperature
(MW)
(tonnes/day)
(ADMT/d)
(В°K)
Yr 1
.995
13.87
29% / 4.2E-36
61% / 3.8E-57
10% / 2.0 E-4
Energy Performance Services (EPS/Canada) Inc.
23
Appendix D
EPS
Yr 2-3
Yr 4
.991
.996
17.00
16.49
36% / 3.7E-69
39% / 2.8E-41
60% / 9.2E-96
42% / 1.3E-34
4% / 5.9E-2
19% / 1.5E-10
While ideally it would be desirable to have lower standard deviation numbers, we must recognize
that there is always significant variability in mill energy consumption, as shown by the fact that
standard deviation is in the range of 13.87-17.00 MW, which is 7-10% of the average total mill
load.
The importance factor, expressed as a percentage (either positive or negative), is the relative
weight that a factor has in the regression equation. Regardless of the sign, an importance factor
which is less than 1% is indicative that a factor is not statistically significant. In all instances, the
importance factor for the equation’s variables is greater than 1%. While it is not important for the
purposes of this discussion to understand the precise definition of the P-Value, it suffices to say
that this value should be smaller than 0.05 to ensure that a factor is significant. In the year 2-3
equation, the P-value for ambient temperature is marginally greater than .05, thus it is
questionable whether or not temperature is not a significant factor. We will keep temperature in
the equation to be consistent with the baseline and Year 4 data sets.
If we derive the total mill electrical consumption estimates from these regression equations above
at standard conditions of 1,400 tonnes/day of paper production and 10В°C, the results are as in
Table 10.
Table 8 – Top-down savings estimate, standard conditions: 1,400 t/d of paper, 10°C, 365 days/yr
Mill annual
#
Projects that came on-line during period (with start date)
Avg. MW
GWh
Yr 1
Yr 2-3
Yr 4
Total
Baseline
Optimize Line 3 (Summer 2008)*
Rejects Screening (Sept 2009)
PM2 Blower Reduction (28/09/2009)
Upgrade Line 1 Refiner (30/06/2010)
Top-down savings estimate
(Year 1 minus Year 4 Consumption)
1,697.7
193.9
1732.7
197.8
1543.5
176.2
154.2
17.8
*: Start date adjusted based on data evidence & verification with mill
When plotted graphically for a range of production rates, the results appear as in Figure 8. It is
interesting to note that the total mill energy performance for the Year 2-3 period is slightly poorer
than for the baseline period (Year 1), even though (as seen earlier) the TMP plant’s performance
was better in the year 2-3 period than during the baseline period. Several factors could explain
this, but because of gaps in the data, there is no way of knowing definitively.
Despite the above observation, in the year 4 period after the line 1 modernization project, total
energy savings are very significant. It is worth noting that the performance figures are based on
the actual data collected from the mill and that the methodology is designed to correct for a host
of factors that can vary through time, such as production rates, ambient temperature, etc.
Energy Performance Services (EPS/Canada) Inc.
24
Appendix D
EPS
Figure 8– Statistical model for top-down total mill electricity consumption as a function of paper
production at 10В°C
6.
ANALYSIS OF PROJECT RESULTS
One of the key requirements of the SEP M&V protocol is that top-down energy performance for
facilities be calculated and then “sanity-checked” against aggregated bottom-up calculations of
individual Energy Conservation Measures. This section reviews each of the main energy
efficiency projects for this “bottom-up” sanity check.
6.1TMP plant projects
As discussed earlier, the refiners in the TMP plant represent two thirds of the NPPH mill’s total
electrical consumption. For all three projects with measurable results, we looked exclusively at
the changes to refiner electricity consumption, which tend to dwarf smaller changes at the process
auxiliary equipment level. For example a new screw press with a 150 kW motor is almost
impossible to pick up statistically at the mill aggregate level which is in the order of 175 MW,
but the refining energy changes which result from its installation and which could be in the range
from 0.5-5.0 MW would be very easy to identify in the statistical analysis.
Energy Performance Services (EPS/Canada) Inc.
25
Appendix D
EPS
Because projects 2 & 3 were done concurrently and the energy data available is for the whole of
the TMP plant, it is impossible to disaggregate the savings into distinct projects when doing the
statistical analysis. The reported start date for project 2 is notional. In fact, this was part of a long
term effort to increase final pulp freeness, run refiners at high throughput because of known
energy efficiency benefits, etc. that began much earlier than mid 2009. Statistical analysis shows
that there were definite & sustained incremental improvements starting in mid 2008.
Based on this definitive trend in the data, we moved the beginning of the reporting period to July
1, 2008. It should be noted that the INITIAL REPORT made no attempt to set a baseline date. It
just looked at project-specific savings and was based on observed changes that were self-reported
by NPPH.
Once we had selected the baseline and two reporting periods, we then ran a series of regression
analyses on TMP refining energy. This work showed that weather conditions (as represented by
ambient outdoor temperature) do not affect refining energy in a statistically significant way. We
have therefore only reported TMP project results that did not factor in temperature in the
analysis. Table 9 shows a summary of the quality of the regression fit to the data for each period
with the first series factoring in temperature, and the second series removing temperature from
the analysis.
Table 9 - Summary of key statistical factors, TMP energy regressions
Series
Period R2 Standard
Importance factor / P-value
Deviation
Intercept
Paper
TMP
(MW)
production Prodcution
Yr 1
.745
11.4
-7%/.664
28%/9E-25
83%/1E-68
With
Yr 2-3 .839
11.9
-2%/.850
31%/3E-48 83%/2E-135
Temp
Yr 4
.705
12.3
23%/.154
35%/1E-29
63%/5E-53
Yr 1
.745
11.4
-11%/9.8E-04 28%/2E-25
83%/9E-96
Without
Yr 2-3 .839
11.9
-13%/1.8E-11 31%/1E-48 83%/2E-138
Temp
Yr 4
.705
12.3
-2%/.447
35%/2E-29
63%/9E-53
Temp (В°K)
-5%/.755
-11%/.363
-21%/.193
N/A
Table 9 clearly shows that removing temperature from the regression analysis has no effect on the
quality of the mathematical fit to the data as shown by the fact that the R 2 (the coefficient of
determination) and standard deviation are completely unaffected when we remove temperature
from the equation. While ideally it would be desirable to have higher R 2 and lower standard
deviation numbers, we must recognize that there is always significant variability in refining
energy, as shown by the fact that standard deviation is in the range of 11.4-12.3 MW, or
approximately 10% of the average refining load.
The importance factor, expressed as a percentage (either positive or negative), is the relative
weight that a factor has in the regression equation. Regardless of the sign, an importance factor
which is less than 1% is indicative that a factor is not statistically significant. In all instances, the
importance factor for the equation’s variables is greater than 1%. While it is not important for the
purposes of this discussion to understand the precise definition of the P-Value, it suffices to say
that this value should be smaller than 0.05 to ensure that a factor is significant. In the first series
of equations, the P-value for ambient temperature is greater than .05, thus temperature is not a
Energy Performance Services (EPS/Canada) Inc.
26
Appendix D
EPS
significant factor. In the case of the Year 4 intercept, the P-value is greater than .05, but we will
keep intercept in the equation to be consistent with the baseline and Year 2-3 data sets.
One interesting observation is that the refining energy variability actually increased in the Year 4
reporting period. There are several reasons for this. One of these is that each of the three main
refining lines now has very different specific energy consumption. The bigger the capacity of the
line and the higher its throughput, the more efficiently it operates. Despite the compromises
required, it is therefore more efficient to run TMP lines as hard as possible and shut them down
when they are not required than to reduce production over a longer period to meet a specified
paper machine requirement.
Coupled with the observation that the importance factor for paper production has increased in the
Year 4 period, this is indicative of the fact that the mill now has more flexibility to vary its
production levels in response to variations of paper machine production because of the increase
of TMP plant capacity provided by the Line 1 modernization project. It also means that the plant
can better take advantage of load shedding opportunities when power prices are high. It is now
also in a much better position to actively manage its electric demand than it was prior to the
project.
The TMP refining energy linear regression equations developed for the baseline period and the
two reporting periods are as follows. TMP refining load (MW) =
Yr 1
Yr 2-3
Yr 4
-14.281 + Paper production (tonnes/d) * 0.025 + TMP production (admt/d) * 0.088
-15.47 + Paper production (tonnes/d) * 0.027 + TMP production (admt/d) * 0.081
2.973 + Paper production (tonnes/d) * 0.030 + TMP production (admt/d) * 0.058
The first term of each equation is the Y-axis intercept, the second and third terms are the terms
proportional to Paper and TMP production respectively. The multipliers in each of these terms
are called the paper production and TMP production coefficients. Figure 7 illustrates what most
typical linear regressions look like. The Y-Axis intercept may be interpreted as approximately
equivalent to a facility’s fixed load. This is the load which would be required to run the facility
at zero production. Things like lighting and other services typically are part of this base load.
Unlike figure 9, the Year 1 and Year 2-3 functions have negative Y-axis intercepts. This is partly
due to inherent limitations of using linear regression as opposed to second or third order
regressions. A linear regression forces the model to produce a function which is a straight line
when plotted on a graph. We have already seen that the TMP plant is less efficient at low
throughput than at high production levels so a straight line does not accurately represent the
relationship between power and production. The line which is calculated by the model may
actually intercept the negative part of the Y-axis. If the plant runs more often at decreased
throughput, it is more likely that the intercept part of the equation will be negative. Despite the
Year 4 model’s low R2 value, it probably does a better job of representing reality than the models
for the other two periods because of this non-linearity. It is important to recognize that all of the
models are imperfect attempts at fitting highly complex data to a relatively simplistic straight
line.
Energy Performance Services (EPS/Canada) Inc.
27
Appendix D
EPS
Figure 9 – Energy Regression Function
Energy Performance Services (EPS/Canada) Inc.
28
Appendix D
EPS
Figure 10 shows the residual or scatter plots of actual data vs. linear regression model functions
for the baseline period (Year 1) and the two reporting periods (Year 2-3 and Year 4). While these
graphs show significant process variability, they do show the regression function reasonably
approximates the actual real world situation.
Year 1 - Actual TMP MW vs Fn(x,z)
200
150
100
50
0
ADMT/d
Year 2-3 - Actual TMP MW vs Fn(x,z)
200
150
100
50
0
ADMT/d
Year 4 - Actual TMP MW vs Fn(x,z)
200
150
100
50
0
ADMT/d
Figure 10 – Scatter plots of actual data vs linear regression model baselines, 3 reporting periods
Energy Performance Services (EPS/Canada) Inc.
29
Appendix D
EPS
Figure 11 shows the actual reported values vs. those predicted by the model for Year 4, as well as
the control chart with a band between +1 and -1 standard deviations. In both cases the Y axis
values are in TMP refining MW. The top chart shows that there is good agreement between the
data and the model. The bottom chart shows that the model more often overestimates
consumption than underestimates it. This is a sign that mill operations staff were doing a good
job managing their energy performance over the Year 4 reporting period.
Year 4 - Actual and Predicted Energy consumption
180
Regression
Actual
160
140
Refining Energy
120
100
80
60
40
20
30/06/2010
14/07/2010
28/07/2010
11/08/2010
25/08/2010
08/09/2010
22/09/2010
07/10/2010
21/10/2010
04/11/2010
18/11/2010
02/12/2010
16/12/2010
30/12/2010
14/01/2011
28/01/2011
11/02/2011
25/02/2011
11/03/2011
25/03/2011
08/04/2011
22/04/2011
06/05/2011
20/05/2011
03/06/2011
17/06/2011
01/07/2011
15/07/2011
29/07/2011
0
Year 4 Control Chart
Act - Regr
+1 SE
-1 SE
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
30/06/2010
14/07/2010
28/07/2010
11/08/2010
25/08/2010
08/09/2010
22/09/2010
07/10/2010
21/10/2010
04/11/2010
18/11/2010
02/12/2010
16/12/2010
30/12/2010
14/01/2011
28/01/2011
11/02/2011
25/02/2011
11/03/2011
25/03/2011
08/04/2011
22/04/2011
06/05/2011
20/05/2011
03/06/2011
17/06/2011
01/07/2011
15/07/2011
29/07/2011
Standard deviation between actual and
regression function (MW)
40
-40
-50
-60
Figure 11 - Actual data values vs those predicted by the model (top), Control chart with a band
between +1 and -1 standard deviations (bottom) – Year 4 period
Energy Performance Services (EPS/Canada) Inc.
30
Appendix D
EPS
Now that we have shown a number of examples of the charts that are obtainable using the
regression analysis software, we can plot in Figure 12 the graph with the linear regression
functions for the baseline period (Year 1) and the two reporting periods (Year 2-3 and Year 4).
For the sake of completeness, we have also included a plot of the model which spans the full 4+
year data set. The blue boxes on the right side of Figure 12 show the usual operating range where
the TMP plant operates most of the time designated by the darker blue area, as well as the
frequent operating range, which covers an even wider set of conditions. The TMP plant operates
at the two extremities of this range less often than it does in the usual operating range, but it is
not unusual to be running under these conditions. Anything out of these ranges would be rather
uncommon operating conditions.
Figure 12 – Graphical representation of the statistical models
TMP plant refining energy vs production – at a fixed Paper/TMP ratio of 1.131
Energy Performance Services (EPS/Canada) Inc.
31
Appendix D
EPS
Table 10- Bottom-up savings estimate, standard conditions: 1,237.8 ADMT/d of TMP, 365
days/yr fixed Paper/TMP ratio of 1.131
Bottom-up savings estimate
Project Title
Year started
at fixed Paper/TMP ratio
#
GWh/yr
MW
1
Upgrade Line 1 Refiner*
2
3
Optimize Line 3 Production**
Optimize Rejects Screening**
TOTAL
2010
53.4
6.1
Mid 2009
Sep 09- Jun 11
59.6
6.8
115.6
12.9
It is important to note that while paper net production estimates are quite accurate because paper
is the mill’s final product, pulp production estimates tend to be much more prone to error. The
reason for this is that the TMP production estimates are derived from primary refiner feed screw
speed conversions (ADMT/RPM or air dry metric tons per revolution per minute = ADMT/min *
60 min/h * 60 h/day = ADMT/d). These are notoriously difficult to calibrate because chip bulk
density can vary by about В±10% and there is no reliable and inexpensive way to track bulk
density variations.
6.2PM2 Vacuum Blower Power Reduction Project
According to the INITIAL REPORT, one of 4 blowers was shut down on PM2 vacuum system in
the fall of 2010 and significant changes were made to the suction system. In fact this project took
place earlier. Though PM2 occasionally ran with 3 blowers when short term blower maintenance
was required prior to the project, it was only once the project was completed that the mill went to
a sustainable 3-blower operation. This took place on July 28, 2009. The mill continues to have
all 4 blowers available but most of the time, only three of them are in operation. Photos of the #3
vacuum pump and its motor nameplate are shown in figures 13 & 14.
Energy Performance Services (EPS/Canada) Inc.
32
Appendix D
EPS
Figure 13 – PM2 Vacuum pump #3. Of 4 pumps available, only 3 are now required at a time
Figure 14 – PM2 Vacuum pump #3 motor nameplate (Rated at 2007 HP/ 1497 kW)
Table 11- Regression equations for combined load of 4 PM2 Blowers
Standard Conditions, 1400 tonnes/day, 365 days/year
Period
Electrical load (kW) =
Yr 1
Paper Production (tonnes/d) * 3.362
Yr 2-3
Not calculated (variable conditions)
Yr 4
Paper Production (tonnes/d) * 2.625
Savings
Load at 1,400 tonnes/d
(kW)
4,707
GWh
MW
3,675
9.04
1.03
Though it would be useful to have aggregate electrical consumption data for the PM2 plant in
isolation, unfortunately this is not available. Despite this constraint, we were able to derive linear
regression equations from the daily time weighted averages for PM2 blower power consumption.
Table 9 shows these equations and the blower load at 1,400 tonnes/day of mill paper production
(PM1 & PM2). Unfortunately we were not able to obtain PM2 production data for the baseline
period, so we were constrained to using the combined data from both paper machines.
Regardless of these data limitations, these equations provide a reasonable basis for a savings
estimate.
A number of claims have been made about secondary energy efficiency benefits due to the PM2
vacuum blower power reduction project, such as reduced PM 2 drive loads. Unfortunately there
is no way of verifying these claims at the project level because the mill does not have the
metering data to verify these claims. In future, this metering equipment could be added if it is
deemed useful.
Energy Performance Services (EPS/Canada) Inc.
33
Appendix D
EPS
7.
AGGREGATED PROJECT RESULTS
Finally, as per the suggested procedure within the SEP M&V protocol, we have tallied all the
bottom-up energy saving estimates in order to compare them to the top-down estimate derived
from the mill aggregated consumption data. Table 10 summarizes the bottom-up calculations. It
should be noted that project 4 does not contribute to the savings that can be validated by
statistical analysis, as it has not yet been commissioned. We have therefore done totals with this
project included, as well as without it.
Table 11 – Comparison of results of bottom-up statistical analysis to adjusted INITIAL REPORT
estimates, standard conditions basis, 1,250 ADMT/d for TMP, 1400 tonnes/yr and 10В°C for PM2
project, 365 days/yr
Bottom Up estimate
Adjusted INITIAL
Year
based on statistical
#
Project Title
REPORT estimate
started
energy analysis
GWh
MW
GWh
MW
1
2
3
4
5
Upgrade Line 1 Refiner*
2010
Optimize Line 3
Production**
Optimize Rejects
Screening**
Bypass Noss Cleaners
(Not completed)***
PM2 Vacuum Blower
Power Reduction
TOTAL (incl. project 4)
TOTAL (excl. project 4)
Mid
2009
Sep 09Jun 11
Feb-Sep
2011
Late
2009
53.4
6.1
59.6
6.8
63.9
7.3
9.8
1.1
16.8
2.0
N/A
N/A
11.30
1.35
9.04
1.03
12.60
1.5
122.0
122.0
13.9
13.9
114.4
103.1
13.25
11.90
* Line 1 refiner upgrade savings reported in bottom-up estimate consolidates and reinforces the savings from projects 2 & 3.
** Because projects 2 & 3 were done concurrently and energy data is for the whole of the TMP plant, it is impossible to
disaggregate the savings into distinct projects when doing the statistical analysis.
*** Though NPPH had done much work on this project prior to the September 2011 shutdown, it was not yet operational, and
therefore the Feb 2011 estimate is only valid in that it shows potential savings, not actual ones.
Energy Performance Services (EPS/Canada) Inc.
34
Appendix D
EPS
8.
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
The top-down electricity savings estimate for the whole mill described in Section-5 of this Report
is consistent with the M&V requirements defined in the SEP M&V Protocol and meets all the
IPMVP criteria (accuracy, completeness, conservativeness, consistency, relevance and
transparency) and therefore it can be considered to be an excellent representation of the true
electrical energy performance of the NPPH mill in the Year 4 reporting period (June 30, 2010 to
August 8, 2011). It also comes fairly close to the adjusted INITIAL REPORT estimate, which is
an indication that the numbers reported at the time were a reasonable representation of NPPH’s
actual energy performance but were likely highly conservative as a result of a lack of supporting
information. It is also reasonable to expect that the top-down analysis figures are higher than the
bottom-up numbers due to the fact that the availability of data to support the bottom-up analysis
is limited and hence we may not be capturing all of the savings achieved by those energy
efficiency projects. We believe that the Top Down estimate is a reasonable representation of the
actual energy savings achieved by this facility.
#
1
2
3
4
5
Project Title
Year
started
Upgrade Line 1 Refiner*
2010
Optimize Line 3
Production**
Optimize Rejects
Screening**
Bypass Noss Cleaners
(Not completed)***
PM2 Vacuum Blower
Power Reduction
TOTAL (incl. project 4)
TOTAL (excl. project 4)
Mid
2008
Sep 09Jun 11
Feb-Sep
2011
Late
2009
Adjusted INITIAL
REPORT estimate
GWh
MW
63.9
7.3
9.8
1.1
Bottom Up
estimate based on
statistical energy
analysis
GWh
MW
53.4
6.1
59.6
6.8
16.8
2.0
11.30
1.35
N/A
N/A
12.60
1.5
9.04
1.03
114.4
103.1
13.25
11.9
122.0
13.9
Top Down
Estimate
GWh
MW
154.2
17.8
In NPPH’s case, electricity consumption is essentially independent of the thermal balance of the
mill because of a large and continuous venting of steam to atmosphere. It is therefore very
reasonable to apply the methodology as we have done to the electrical portion of the mill’s
energy supply, without being required to factor in the steam balance. In the future, however, it
may be useful to consider the steam balance and its effect on exported electricity. The mill’s
thermal energy balance is very directly affected by the use of electricity, since most of the refiner
electric load is converted into steam within the refiners. In fact, up until the current mill
shutdown, the mill has been venting 35-50% (≈8.0-11.4 kg/s) of TMP steam to atmosphere as
waste heat. For the sake of completeness, we would recommend factoring steam into future
energy analyses.
Energy Performance Services (EPS/Canada) Inc.
35
Appendix E
GREEN HEATING SYSTEMS INITIATIVE
OVERVIEW FOR ENSC’S 2013-2015 DSM PLAN
Prepared by
PHILIPPE DUNSKY, PRESIDENT
FRANÇOIS BOULANGER, SENIOR CONSULTANT
DUNSKY ENERGY CONSULTING
Submitted to:
EFFICIENCY NOVA SCOTIA CORPORATION
January 31th, 2012
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
i
Appendix E
ABOUT DUNSKY ENERGY CONSULTING
Dunsky Energy Consulting is a Montreal-based firm specialized in the design, analysis and
implementation of successful energy efficiency and renewable energy programs and policies. Our clients
include leading utilities, government agencies, private firms and non-profit organizations throughout
Canada and the U.S.
To learn more, please visit us at www.dunsky.ca.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In preparing this overview, we benefitted from the collaboration, insights and experience of ENSC’s
Senior Management, including notably Allan Crandlemire, John Aguinaga and Chuck Faulkner. We
remain solely responsible for any errors or omissions.
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
ii
Appendix E
TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE GREEN HEATING OPPORTUNITY...................................................................................................................... 1
BACKGROUND ...............................................................................................................................................................1
OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................................................................................1
TARGET HEATING SYSTEM TECHNOLOGIES ..........................................................................................................................2
TARGET MARKETS ...........................................................................................................................................................2
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA .................................................................................................................................................4
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................................................................................5
KEY PERFORMANCE ASSUMPTIONS....................................................................................................................... 6
KEY COMPONENTS................................................................................................................................................. 7
CHANNELS ....................................................................................................................................................................7
INCENTIVES ...................................................................................................................................................................7
MARKETING ..................................................................................................................................................................7
INFRASTRUCTURE ...........................................................................................................................................................7
BIRD’S EYE VIEW............................................................................................................................................................8
FORECAST RESULTS................................................................................................................................................ 9
SAVINGS .......................................................................................................................................................................9
COSTS ..........................................................................................................................................................................9
COST-EFFECTIVENESS ....................................................................................................................................................10
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
iii
Appendix E
Appendix E
THE GREEN HEATING OPPORTUNITY
BACKGROUND
In its 2012 DSM Plan filing, ENSC filed an Electricity Demand Side Management Review. Prepared by
Dunsky Energy Consulting, the report reviewed ENSC’s portfolio of programs, and made a number of
recommendations aimed at maximizing ENSC’s ability to help Nova Scotians achieve cost-effective
electricity savings. While the report addressed some regulatory changes, it was focused on a full review
of programs and, as such, made a series of recommendations including changes to existing programs,
and the addition of new strategies.
The report notably recommended six new strategies, including implementation of a “Renewable Heating
Industry Strategy” that was deemed to offer the opportunity for “very significant” long-term savings.
OBJECTIVES
Green Heating Systems, which we have defined to include systems that deliver all or most of their heat
directly from renewable resources, have the potential to deliver significant benefits to Nova Scotia,
including electricity savings, greenhouse gas emissions reductions, and positive economic benefits.
Although ENSC currently operates programs (EnerGuide for Houses, Performance Plus for new homes)
that address Green Heating Systems, these programs are aimed at more comprehensive improvements
and as a result, cannot capture all opportunities. For example, homeowners with serious air leakage or
insulation problems may turn to the EnerGuide for Houses program, but those whose homes are
adequately weatherized and only need to change their heating system at the end of its useful life are
unlikely to do so. Nor will homeowners with no serious comfort issues and who heat with electric
baseboard pay for, and take the time to go through, a program that involves full-scale home energy
audits. The Green Heating Systems initiative is therefore aimed at creating new channels for addressing
opportunities that are unlikely to go through the existing programs.
With the adoption of a Green Heating Systems initiative, ENSC will support the development of a
diverse, stable, and sustainable heating market with a flexible delivery infrastructure. It will notably
work on both “push” and “pull” strategies, including through the offer of incentives (and potentially
financing), as well as through training, marketing, relationship building and other added value offered to
HVAC installers, contractors and builders. Green Heating systems are expected to be promoted as part
of a seamless, all-fuels approach; however this report addresses only the costs and benefits that would
accrue from electricity savings; the other components will be paid for through non-DSM funds.
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
1
Appendix E
TARGET HEATING SYSTEM TECHNOLOGIES
Green Heating Systems are defined as those that produce all or a substantial share of their heat from
renewable energy, including the sun (e.g. solar thermal), heat in the air (premium air-source heat
pumps, including ducted and ductless models), the ground or groundwater (ground source heat pumps),
or biomass (wood or pellet stoves, furnaces and boilers). Table 1 presents the renewable source for each
of the heating systems included in this initiative, as well as the approximate portion of the delivered
heating energy which comes from that renewable source.
1 - Green Heating Systems
Heating System
Renewable Source
Renewable Heat
Loads served
Sun
100%
Part
Earth
~75%
Full
Ductless Air Source Heat Pumps (DHP)
Air
~60%
Part
Air Source Heat Pumps (ASHP)
Air
~60%
Full
Pellets
Biomass
100%
Part or Full
Cordwood
Biomass
100%
Part or Full
Solar Thermal
Ground Source Heat Pumps (GSHP)
TARGET MARKETS
The different green heating systems promoted through this initiative will target different markets. The
following chart presents the relative proportions of electrically heated homes in the province,
segmented by their participation or non-participation in one of ENSC’s comprehensive programs, and
further distinguished by the type of heat distribution system used in their home. Note that “EGH” refers
to the current EnerGuide for Houses program, while “PP” refers to the current Performance Plus
program for new homes.
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
2
Appendix E
1- Electric Space Heating Households - by channel and heat distribution systems
As can be seen, the vast majority of Nova Scotia’s electrically heated homes are not being reached by
the existing comprehensive energy efficiency programs, and a significant portion of those use a zoned
(baseboard) heating system. Table 2 presents our qualitative assessment of the market potential for
each technology based on the type of heat distribution system.
2 - Green Heating Systems Market Potential
Zoned Heating
(baseboard)
Central Heating
(furnaces, boilers)
Small
Small
marginal
Small
LARGE
marginal
Air Source Heat Pumps (ASHP)
marginal
Small
Pellets / Cordwood Stoves
Medium
Medium
Pellets / Cordwood Furnace/Boiler
marginal
Small
Target Technologies
Solar Thermal
Ground Source Heat Pumps (GSHP)
Ductless Air Source Heat Pumps (DHP)
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
3
Appendix E
Although most of the technologies (except for DHPs) individually represent only a small market
potential, the combination of the proposed technologies represents a considerable potential for both
electricity and GHG savings.
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
The Green Heating Systems initiative will strive to promote only the most efficient systems within each
technology area. To do so, it will adopt, where feasible, specific performance requirements based on
independent, third-party criteria. Where such criteria may not exist or may not be appropriate for Nova
Scotia, ENSC will work with industry, government and others to develop appropriate standards or adapt
standards used by other DSM program administrators. Table 3 outlines the existing requirements and
the requirements to be developed for each proposed system.
3 - Green Heating Systems Requirements
Technologies
Existing Requirements for
Eligibility
Requirements to be
Developed
Solar Thermal
None
TBD
Ground Source Heat Pumps (GHP)
Conforms to CAN/CSA-448.
Installation certified by CGC.*
Ductless Air Source Heat Pumps (DHP)
None
TBD; high-performance std.
under dev’t in Pacific NW.
Air Source Heat Pumps (ASHP)
None
TBD; high-performance std.
under dev’t in Pacific NW.
Pellets / Cordwood Stoves
CSA-B415.1-10, or
US EPA 40CFR Part 60 AAA
Pellets / Cordwood Furnace/Boiler
CSA-B415.1-10, or
US EPA 40CFR Part 60 AAA
* Canadian GeoExchange Coalition.
Eligible systems and requirements will be revised as appropriate based on market conditions,
technology development, evaluation and verification results, and implementation experience.
ENSC will develop or adapt specific requirements for air source heat pumps, targeting systems which
provide higher performance levels. This work, to be initiated in 2012 and likely pursued through 2013,
will involve collaboration with other leading DSM program administrators that are currently
investigating options for delineating premium efficiency systems.
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
4
Appendix E
ENSC recognizes that the performance of ducted air-based central heating systems is sensitive to the
quality of the distribution system itself, and will investigate approaches to address duct leakage.
However, this is unlikely to materially impact electricity savings, for which ductless heat pump models
are more appropriate in the vast majority of cases.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
While most of the targeted Green Heating Systems are readily available in Nova Scotia, this is not the
case of whole-house, fully-automated pellet boilers and furnaces. In keeping with the recommendations
of our previous report on fuel switching, this initiative would include an initial pilot project aimed
simultaneously at funding demonstration projects using whole-house systems, and at encouraging
development of a third-party pellet supply distribution service.
In addition to the promotion of Green Heating Systems, this initiative will provide considerable
opportunities to increase awareness of other related electricity and energy savings opportunities. These
include encouraging regular maintenance of heating systems, as well as the importance of increasing
home envelope performance through weatherization, and the value of a comprehensive whole-house
approach. To this end, program incentives will be designed to encourage participation in ENSC’s existing
whole-house program channels, without requiring it.
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
5
Appendix E
KEY PERFORMANCE ASSUMPTIONS
Our assessment of the likely costs, benefits and electricity savings associated with this program is built
upon hundreds of important inputs that address such issues as incremental costs, savings, baseline
technologies, free ridership, market penetration and others. Among these, assumptions around the
energy performance of heat pumps are particularly important.
The program’s intent is to support increased market penetration of the most efficient systems from the
categories presented. These systems include categories for which ENSC will develop performance
criteria. Of specific interest are air source heat pumps, both ducted and ductless systems, which already
have a strong market presence. However, the energy performance of those systems can vary
considerably, and there is a substantial opportunity for moving the market toward higher-performance,
premium systems.
As a result, for ducted air source heat pumps, we base the performance assumptions on the Energy
Trust of Oregon definition of premium efficiency heat pumps, requiring a Heating Seasonal Performance
Factor (HSPF) of 9.0 for region IV. This is equivalent to an HSPF of 7.8 for region V.1
For ductless heat pumps, we assume an HSPF of 8.7 for region V, representative of the best performing
systems available in the market. There is work currently underway in the Pacific Northwest to define
requirements for high performance ductless heat pumps, and ENSC will closely monitor this effort and
evaluate its appropriateness for Nova Scotia.
While providing a significant reduction in heating energy consumption, some of the systems proposed
also provide the opportunity for participants to add conditioned air to their homes. Our assessment
includes a provision for electricity saving penalties arising from this inadvertent load building.
1
The current Energy Star HSPF requirements for air-source heat pumps is 7.1 in Canada.
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
6
Appendix E
KEY COMPONENTS
CHANNELS
The Green Heating Systems initiative will focus primarily on existing HVAC channels, as well as on direct
marketing to homes heated with electric baseboard, to promote Green Heating Systems. In order to add
additional value, the initiative will also encourage participation in ENSC’s EnerGuide for Houses and
Performance Plus program wherever appropriate, including through the provision of higher incentives.
INCENTIVES
The initiative provides financial incentives for selected technologies, and also assumes the provision of
some form of financing (developed through the Innovative Financing Enabling Strategy). The program
administrator may choose to channel some of the incentive budget to buy down interest rates on the
financing offer. This will only be appropriate for certain technologies (e.g. ground source heat pumps,
solar thermal and automated whole-house pellet systems).
MARKETING
ENSC will conduct marketing and outreach activities to increase awareness and confidence in Green
Heating Systems. Marketing strategies would outline the key green heat systems being offered, their
characteristics, as well as the factors to consider when selecting a system for specific applications. Case
studies of the different systems could be made available highlighting the various benefits of green
heating systems. Marketing materials will always encourage customers to take a comprehensive view of
their home’s energy performance.
INFRASTRUCTURE
ENSC will leverage the Trade Ally Network developed through its Capacity Building Enabling Strategy to
increase the supply and installation quality of Green Heating Systems. This will be achieved by providing
specific training on advanced heating systems, increased visibility for Trade Ally Network members
through ENSC’s website, and potentially targeted cooperative marketing opportunities for members
that demonstrate a strong commitment to green heating systems. Recognizing the role of builders in
the selection of heating systems in the new construction market, ENSC will consider offering upstream
financial incentives to builders dedicated to Green Heating Systems or for increased installation of
selected technologies.
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
7
Appendix E
Increased penetration of automated whole-house pellet systems relies heavily on the successful
creation of a pellet delivery infrastructure. There is currently no bulk pellet delivery service for the
residential market in Nova Scotia. ENSC will endeavor to support the establishment of a delivery
infrastructure, possibly through a pilot project that would simultaneously support demonstration of fully
automated whole-house pellet systems.
BIRD’S EYE VIEW
The chart below illustrates the strategy and its key components.
This approach is meant as a guide rather than a prescriptive recipe. However, we believe the strategy it
represents is fundamental to achieving the goals herein.
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
8
Appendix E
FORECAST RESULTS
The following table presents the expected electricity-related costs, savings and benefits for the first
three years of the Green Heating Systems initiative, as included in ENSC’s 2013-2015 DSM Plan. The
reported numbers include participants to the whole-house and simple rebate channels in addition to the
new HVAC-only channel. They fully account for such factors as net-to-gross, interactive effects, and
allocation of costs as appropriate to other accounts including Enabling Strategies and non-DSM budgets.
SAVINGS
2013
2014
2015
Gross Savings (Incr. Ann.)
1st Yr Electricity Svgs (MWh)
Levelized-Lifetime (MWh)
20,330
230,543
25,391
290,735
30,816
358,749
Net Savings (Incr. Ann)
1st Yr Electricity Svgs (MWh)
Levelized-Lifetime (MWh)
10,150
125,741
12,768
159,177
15,664
196,517
2013
2014
2015
Program Costs
Non-Incentive Costs ('000$)
Incentive Costs ('000$)
Total ENSC costs ('000$)
$398
$4,209
$4,606
$424
$5,443
$5,868
$361
$6,873
$7,233
Other Costs
Participant Cost (net '000$)
$8,922
$10,983
$13,169
COSTS
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
9
Appendix E
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
Unit Costs
$/kWh 1st Year
$/kWh Lifetime Levelized
B/C Tests
Lifetime Benefits ('000$)
Program costs ('000$)
Total resource costs ('000$)
Program Administrator Cost (PAC) Test
Total Resource Cost (TRC) Test
2013
2014
2015
$0.45
$0.037
$0.46
$0.037
$0.46
$0.037
$13,260
$4,606
$13,528
2.88
0.98
$16,810
$5,868
$16,851
2.86
1.00
$20,769
$7,233
$20,403
2.87
1.02
On the whole, the Green Heating Systems initiative passes both the Total Resource Cost and Program
Administrator Cost tests, the latter suggesting somewhat less than $3 in savings for every dollar invested
by ENSC.
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
10
Appendix E
3575 Saint-Laurent Blvd., suite 201, Montreal, QuГ©bec, Canada H2X 2T7 | T. 514.504.9030 | F. 514.289.2665 | [email protected]
11
WWW.DUNSKY.CA
www. dunsky.ca
Appendix F
2011 Socket Study
Final Report
Confidential
Reproduction in whole or in part is not
permitted without the express permission of
Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation
ENS001-1004
Prepared for:
December 2011
www.cra.ca
1-888-414-1336
Appendix F
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 2
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 3
Detailed Analysis ................................................................................................................... 4
Light Bulb Count and Usage............................................................................................ 11
Intentions to Implement Energy Efficient Light Bulbs ...................................................... 19
In-Home Verification Visits............................................................................................. 21
Study Methodology ............................................................................................................. 23
Appendix A – Study Questionnaire
Appendix B – Tabular Results
Appendix F
2011 Socket Study
2
Introduction
This report presents the results of the 2011 Socket Study conducted by Corporate Research Associates
Inc. on behalf of Efficiency Nova Scotia. The overall goal of this study was to determine market
penetration of energy efficient lighting (CFL and LED bulbs) and identify the degree of market
transformation that has taken place in the efficiency sector. More specifically, this study sought to:
•
Provide information on the type of bulbs present in each socket on the respondent’s property;
•
Estimate the number of hours of use of each type of lighting; and
•
Probe intentions to implement energy efficient lighting.
A questionnaire was administered online between September 26 to 29, 2011. A total of 1,004 residents
of Nova Scotia completed the survey, drawn from an online panel owned by Research Now. Results
were weighted by region and by whether or not the respondent owns or rents his/her home, with the
results being weighted to match known population parameters.
A total of 50 in-home verification visits with survey respondents were conducted in October and
November 2011. These visits entailed CRA staff gaining compliance from respondents to enter their
households and count their light bulbs of various types. Respondents were given $50 as thanks for
granting this compliance. Results from this component of the research are presented near the end of
this report.
This report includes a detailed analysis of the data, a complete set of data tables, an executive summary,
and a methodology section. All numbers are rounded to the nearest full number and, as such, may not
always add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Where multiple responses are permitted, totals will
exceed 100 percent.
Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2011
Appendix F
2011 Socket Study
3
Executive Summary
The results of the 2011 Socket Study indicate that approximately one-half of all bulbs in Nova Scotia are
energy efficient CFL or LED. Overall, residents of Nova Scotia report having an average of 26 permanent light
fixture bulbs, 6 plug-in lamp bulbs, and 4 outdoor light bulbs. On average, residents have 19 energy efficient
bulbs installed in their home (either CFL or LED). Residents report that their permanent light fixture bulbs and
plug-in lamp bulbs are currently outfitted with a fairly even mix of regular bulbs (48% of permanent light
fixture bulbs are regular bulbs and 50% of plug-in lamp bulbs are regular bulbs), and CFL bulbs (48% of
permanent light fixture bulbs are CFL bulbs and 47% of plug-in lamp bulbs are CFL bulbs). LED bulbs are less
than four percent of all permanent light fixture bulbs and plug-in lamp bulbs. In contrast, regular bulbs
comprise approximately one-half of outdoor light bulbs, while four in ten outdoor light bulbs are CFL bulbs
and one in ten are LED bulbs.
Use of energy efficient CFL or LED permanent light fixture bulbs is more prominent among residence owners,
those who do not live in apartments, residents 35 years of age or older, households with annual incomes of
$50K or more, and among residents who use home heating energy sources other than oil or electricity.
Residents report having their permanent light fixture bulbs turned on for an average of 4.7 hours daily. The
usage of energy efficient plug-in lamp bulbs is more commonplace in households of middle-aged Nova Scotia
residents, and among those who heat their homes with alternative sources of energy (i.e., other than oil or
electricity). Results indicate that residents use their plug-in lamp bulbs an average of 3.6 hours per day. LED
bulbs are more common in outdoor light bulbs than in permanent light fixture bulbs or plug-in lamp bulbs.
Such energy efficient outdoor light bulbs are more common on the properties of homeowners, women, and
residents who heat their homes with alternative sources of energy. Nova Scotia residents report a large
variation in the length of time that their outdoor light bulbs are turned on during a typical day. Overall,
residents report turning on their outdoor light bulbs for an average of approximately four hours per day.
In order to assess their intentions to improve the energy efficiency of their homes, residents were asked to
indicate whether behavioural statements applied to their household in terms of replacing non-efficient bulbs
in the next year with energy efficient light bulbs. Overall, four in ten residents plan to replace at least one
light fixture with a light fixture that is more energy efficient. When asked about CFL light bulbs specifically,
one-half indicate their intention to improve the efficiency of their light bulbs by replacing at least one
regular bulb with a CFL light bulb. However, when it comes to LED light bulbs, residents appear to be more
uncertain than anything, as four in ten say that they don’t know whether they will replace at least one
regular bulb with a LED light bulb.
A verification component of the research indicated general concordance between the online survey results
and those collected via the in-home verification visits, although there was a marked discrepancy in terms of
the number of permanent regular light bulbs – the survey results being notably below those found via the inhome verification visits. A qualitative finding from the verification component of the study was that in many
instances the use of energy efficient light bulbs was skewed towards high use light fixtures, lamps, or outdoor
lights, that is, light bulbs that tend to be more heavily used.
Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2011
Appendix F
4
2011 Socket Study
Detailed Analysis
Data Collection Process
In completing this study, nine in ten residents (89%) indicate that they purposefully walked around their
home to count the number of light bulbs in place, rather than make an educated guess.
Walked Around Home to Count Number of Light Bulbs
Yes
No
10%
89%
Q.A12: Please confirm, did you actually walk around your home and count the number of light bulbs in place?
(n=1,004)
Energy Efficiency
Approximately one-half of all bulbs in Nova Scotia are energy efficient CFL or LED. LED bulbs are the
least common of all bulb types.
Overall, residents of Nova Scotia report having an average of 26 permanent light fixture bulbs, 6 plug-in
lamp bulbs, and 4 outdoor light bulbs. Residents report that their permanent light fixture bulbs and
plug-in lamp bulbs are currently outfitted with a fairly even mix of regular bulbs (48% of permanent light
fixture bulbs are regular bulbs and 50% of plug-in lamp bulbs are regular bulbs) and CFL bulbs (48% of
permanent light fixture bulbs are CFL bulbs and 47% of plug-in lamp bulbs are CFL bulbs), while LED
bulbs are less than four percent of all permanent light fixture bulbs and plug-in lamp bulbs. In contrast,
regular bulbs comprise approximately one-half of outdoor light bulbs (53%), while four in ten outdoor
light bulbs are CFL bulbs (37%) and one in ten are LED bulbs (10%).
Number* of bulbs found in ...
Permanent Light Fixture Bulbs
Plug-in Lamp Bulbs
Outdoor Light Bulbs
Overall
26
6
4
*NOTE: Figures rounded to nearest whole number
Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2011
Regular Bulbs
13
3
2
Energy Efficient
CFL Bulbs
LED Bulbs
12
1
3
0
1
1
Appendix F
5
2011 Socket Study
Energy Efficient Permanent Light Fixture Bulbs
Use of energy efficient CFL or LED permanent light fixture bulbs is more prominent among residence
owners, Nova Scotians who do not live in apartments, residents 35 years of age or older, households
with annual incomes of $50K or more, and among residents who use home heating energy sources
other than oil or electricity.
As previously indicated, a relatively equal mix of regular and CFL bulbs is currently evident in permanent
light fixtures, while LED light bulbs are considerably less popular. (Tables A3a-d)
Permanent Light Fixture Bulb Types
Mean
Permanent Light Fixture
Bulbs = 26.4
Light-Emitting
Diode (LED)
4%
Regular
Compact
Fluorescent
(CFL)
48%
48%
Q.A3a-d: Number of permanent light fixture bulbs? (A3a) How many are regular light bulbs? (A3b) How many are compact
fluorescent (CFL) light bulbs? (A3c) How many are light-emitting diode (LED) light bulbs? (A3d)
(n=999)
In identifying the market penetration of energy efficient lighting in Nova Scotia, it is notable that the use
of CFL bulbs is vastly more popular than the use of LED bulbs in permanent light fixtures. As previously
mentioned, approximately one-half of permanent lighting bulbs are CFL (48%), while LED bulbs comprise
a very small minority (4%). Energy efficient residents were identified as those most likely to use CFL
bulbs in most of their permanent light fixture bulbs, and/or those most likely to use any LED bulbs. (This
latter consideration regarding LED bulbs is due to the very small number of residents who utilize LED
bulbs.) Those who meet this definition include residents who own their residence as opposed to rent,
those who live in a single detached or duplex/townhouse dwelling, those between the ages of 35 and
54, those who heat their home with a source of energy other than electricity or oil (e.g., wood), and/or
those from households with an annual household income of $50K or more.
The following table outlines the characteristics of residents who are most likely to utilize more of each
specific type of light bulb in permanent light fixtures:
Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2011
Appendix F
6
2011 Socket Study
Permanent Light Fixture Bulbs
Light Bulb Type
Regular bulbs
(over 50% of
permanent light
fixture bulbs)
CFL
(over 50% of
permanent light
fixture bulbs)
LED
(at least one
permanent light
fixture bulb)
Residents Most Likely to Use More
•
•
•
•
Rent residence
Live in apartment
55 years or older
Heat home with oil or electricity
•
•
•
•
Own residence
35-54 years old
Heat home with �other’ energy source (e.g., wood)
Household income level of $50K-$75K
•
•
•
Own residence
Do not live in apartment
Household income level of more than $75K
CFL Bulb Use in Permanent Light Fixtures – Detailed Findings
Residents who are more likely to use CFL bulbs for more than one-half of their permanent light fixture
bulbs include those who own their place of residence. However, it is notable that those who do not own
their place of residence display a tendency to have either all of their permanent light fixture bulbs
outfitted with CFL bulbs, or none of them. Although residents from households with a higher yearly
income (more than $75K per year) are modestly more likely than lower-income residents (less than $50K
per year) to have at least one CFL bulb among their permanent light fixture bulbs (92% compared to
85%), middle income households ($50K-$75K per year) are the most likely to have CFL bulbs in all of
their permanent light fixture bulbs (17% compared to 7% among higher-income households and 13% in
lower-income households). Those who utilize wood or energy sources other than electricity or oil to
heat their homes are more likely to have CFLs as at least half their permanent light fixture bulbs (55%
compared to 43% of those who use electricity and 44% of those who use oil).
LED Bulb Use in Permanent Light Fixtures – Detailed Findings
As LED usage in permanent light fixture bulbs is not common practice across Nova Scotia, CRA’s analysis
was based solely on whether or not respondents use any LED bulbs in their permanent light fixtures. To
this end, residence owners (compared to renters) and house dwellers (compared to apartment
dwellers) are more likely to use at least one LED bulb. In addition, residents with annual household
incomes of more than $75K are the most likely to have at least one LED bulb (28%), compared to
residents from less affluent households (17%).
Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2011
Appendix F
7
2011 Socket Study
Energy Efficient Plug-in Lamp Bulbs
Plug-in lamp bulbs are less common than permanent light fixture bulbs. The usage of energy efficient
bulbs is more commonplace in households of middle-aged residents, and among those who heat their
homes with alternative sources of energy (i.e., other than oil or electricity).
Turning to the types of light bulbs found in plug-in lamps, as previously indicated, most plug-in lamp
bulbs contain a fairly even mix of regular and CFL bulbs, while LED bulbs once again are not as popular.
(Tables A6a-d)
Plug-in Lamp Bulb Types
Mean
Plug-in Lamp Bulbs = 6.0
Light-Emitting
Diode (LED)
3%
Regular
Compact
Fluorescent
(CFL)
47%
50%
Q.A6a-d: Number of plug-in lamp bulbs? (A6a) How many are regular light bulbs? (A6b) How many are compact fluorescent
(CFL) light bulbs? (A6c) How many are light-emitting diode (LED) light bulbs? (A6d)
(n=953)
The distribution of energy efficient bulbs in plug-in lamps is similar to that of energy efficient bulbs in
permanent lighting fixture bulbs that was discussed above, as about one-half of plug-in lamp bulbs are
CFL (47%), and considerably fewer are LED bulbs (3%). Generally speaking, those most likely to use
energy efficient light bulbs (CFL and/or LED) as their plug-in lamp bulbs include residents between the
ages of 35-54 years, and residents who heat their home via means other than oil or electricity, such as
through wood.
The following table outlines the characteristics of residents who are most likely to use more of each
specific type of plug-in lamp bulb:
Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2011
Appendix F
8
2011 Socket Study
Plug-in Lamp Bulbs
Light Bulb
Type
Regular bulbs
(over 50% of plugin lamp bulbs)
CFL
(over 50% of plugin lamp bulbs)
Residents Most Likely to Use More
•
•
•
Residents of Mainland Nova Scotia
Under the age of 35
Heat home with oil or electricity
•
•
Residents between 35-54 years old
Heat home with other energy source,
(e.g., wood)
LED
(at least one plugin lamp bulb)
No population subgroup differences
CFL Bulb Use in Plug-in Lamps – Detailed Findings
Higher proportions of residents who use at least one CFL bulb can be found in HRM (73%) compared to
the rest of the mainland (66%) and Cape Breton Island (59%). In fact, residents of Cape Breton are
statistically less likely to use CFL bulbs as compared to residents from elsewhere in Nova Scotia.
Interestingly, younger residents (aged 18-34) are less likely than older residents (aged 55 or older) to
have any CFL plug-in lamp bulbs (38% have none, compared to 29% of residents 55 or older). Middleaged residents (35-54 years of age) have a slightly higher average proportion of CFL plug-in lamp bulb
usage (50%) as compared to their younger counterparts (42%). These middle-aged residents are also
more likely to have CFLs for all their plug-in lamp bulbs (31%), as compared to older residents (21%).
Finally, residents who use alternative sources of energy (such as wood) to heat their homes are more
likely to have CFL plug-in lamp bulbs (55%), as compared to those who use oil (45%) or electricity (46%).
LED Bulb Use in Plug-in Lamps – Detailed Findings
Residents living in duplex/townhouse-style homes are more likely to have some LED plug-in lamp bulbs
(12%), compared to those living in �other’ types of dwellings (0%) such as retirement homes or student
dormitories. Apart from this small group difference, no other difference is evident across population
subgroups in terms of LED Bulb Use in Plug-in Lamps.
Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2011
Appendix F
9
2011 Socket Study
Energy Efficient Outdoor Light Bulbs
Approximately one-half of outdoor light bulbs are energy efficient CFLs or LEDs. Such energy efficient
outdoor light bulbs are more common on the properties of homeowners, women, and residents who
heat their homes with alternative sources of energy.
One-half of outdoor light bulbs are outfitted with regular bulbs (53%), with the other half being energy
efficient bulbs. Four in ten outdoor light bulbs are CFL (37%) and one in ten are LED (10%). As such, LED
bulbs are significantly more common in outdoor light bulbs than in permanent light fixture bulbs (4%) or
plug-in lamp bulbs (3%). (Tables A9a-d)
Outdoor Light Bulb Types
Mean
Outdoor Light Bulbs = 4.1
Light-Emitting
Diode (LED)
10%
Regular
Compact
Fluorescent
(CFL)
37%
53%
Q.A9a-d: Number of outdoor light bulbs? (A9a) How many are regular light bulbs? (A9b) How many are compact fluorescent
(CFL) light bulbs? (A9c) How many are light-emitting diode (LED) light bulbs? (A9d)
(n=906)
Energy efficient light bulbs are used more commonly by residents who own their dwelling (instead of
renting), and among Nova Scotians who use energy sources other than electricity or oil to heat their
homes.
The following table outlines the characteristics of residents who are most likely to use more of each
specific type of outdoor light bulb:
Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2011
Appendix F
10
2011 Socket Study
Outdoor Light Bulbs
Light Bulb Type
Regular bulbs
(over 50% of outdoor light
bulbs)
CFL
(over 50% of outdoor light
bulbs)
LED
(at least one outdoor light
bulb)
Residents Most Likely to Use More
•
•
•
Do not own residence
Use oil or electricity to heat home
Live in an apartment
•
•
Own residence
Use other energy sources (e.g., wood) to heat home
•
•
•
Own residence
Women
Part-time employment status
CFL Outdoor Light Bulb Usage – Detailed Findings
Those who own their residence are more likely to have at least one CFL outdoor light bulb (53%), as
compared to those who are not homeowners (38%). Interestingly, men are more likely than women to
have CFLs as up to half of their outdoor light bulbs (23% compared to 16%). Older residents (55+) are
also more likely to have CFL bulbs as up to half of their outdoor light bulbs (23%), as compared to
younger residents aged 18 to 34 (15%). Six in ten residents who heat their homes using other energy
sources have at least one CFL outdoor light bulb (62%), compared to one-half of oil or electricity users
(49%). Other energy source users are also more likely to have CFL bulbs as more than half of their
outdoor light bulbs (11%), as compared to oil (6%) or electricity (5%) users. Residents living in
apartments are likely to display a tendency to outfit “all or none” of their outdoor light bulbs with CFL
bulbs, as the majority do not own any outdoor CFL bulbs (71%), but those who do have outfitted all their
outdoor light bulbs with them (27%). Of note, the average number of outdoor light bulbs in apartments
is less than one (0.8). Residents living in detached or duplex houses are more likely than those in
apartments to have at least one CFL outdoor light bulb (54% and 50%, as compared to 29%). Similar to
apartment dwellers, residents with lower household incomes (i.e., less than $50K per year) also display
the tendency to outfit either all or none of their outdoor light bulbs with CFL bulbs, while residents from
higher-income households (i.e., over $75K per year) tend to have a mix of CFL and regular bulbs.
LED Outdoor Light Bulb Usage – Detailed Findings
Residents who are more likely to have at least one LED outdoor light bulb include homeowners (17%)
compared to those who do not own their residence (10%), women (19%) compared to men (12%), and
residents with a part-time employment status (27%) compared to any other employment status (i.e.,
13% of residents with full time employment and 17% of residents with other employment statuses).
Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2011
Appendix F
11
2011 Socket Study
Light Bulb Count and Usage
Permanent Light Fixture Bulbs
Permanent light fixture bulbs are the most common across Nova Scotia, with slightly more than onehalf being used on a typical day.
As noted above, Nova Scotia residents have an overall mean average of 26 permanent light fixture
bulbs. Approximately four in ten residents have fewer than 20 permanent light fixture bulbs (37%), while
three in ten have between 20 and 29 permanent light fixture bulbs (31%). One in three residents report
owning 30 or more permanent light fixture bulbs (33%).
Number of Permanent Light Fixture Bulbs
100%
Mean Bulbs Overall = 26.4
80%
60%
40%
36%
31%
33%
20-29
30+
20%
1%
0%
None
Q.A3a: Number of permanent light fixture bulbs?
1-19
(n=1,004)
The incidence of permanent light fixture bulbs increases with age and yearly household income. As may
be expected given that apartments often are comparatively smaller than houses, residents in
apartments report having the lowest number of permanent light fixture bulbs (13), duplex/townhouse
dwellers report having a number close to the overall average (23), and occupants of detached homes
report having the highest number of permanent light fixture bulbs (30). (Table A3a)
Residents report using an average of 14 permanent light fixture bulbs on a typical day. This amounts to
slightly more than one-half of their total permanent light fixture bulbs (56%) being typically used.
Another helpful representation of permanent light fixture bulb use would be to examine the proportion
of permanent light fixture bulbs used in relation to each resident’s total number of permanent light
fixture bulbs. Analysed from this perspective, one-half of residents indicate that on a typical day they
use less than half of the permanent light fixture bulbs in their home (46%). Four in ten use more than
half, but not all (41%), while one in ten residents indicate using all of the permanent light fixture bulbs in
their home on a daily basis (12%).
Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2011
Appendix F
12
2011 Socket Study
Still another manner of discussing the use of permanent light fixture bulbs on a typical day is presented
in the following graph. This graphic displays the number of permanent light fixture bulbs in use on a
typical day, as opposed to the previously-discussed proportions. (Table A4)
Number of Permanent Light Fixture Bulbs in Use on a
Typical Day
100%
Mean % Overall = 56%
Mean # Overall = 14.1
80%
60%
40%
34%
25%
17%
20%
13%
9%
2%
0%
None
1-4
5-9
10-19
20-29
Q.A4: [POSE A4 ONLY IF A3a IS ONE OR MORE] And, on average, approximately how many of these [INSERT A3a NUMBER
HERE] permanent light fixture light bulbs would be in use in your household, on a typical day?
30+
(n=998)
When considering the proportion of permanent light fixture bulbs used in a typical day relative to
residents’ total number of permanent light fixture bulbs, several differences across population
subgroups are evident. Compared to residents who own their home, those who do not own their own
home are more likely to use the majority of their permanent light fixture bulbs on a typical day. The
number of permanent light fixture bulbs in use on a typical day decreases among older residents, and
the likelihood of using all of one’s permanent light fixture bulbs on a typical day is lower among higher
household income Nova Scotians.
On average, residents report using their permanent light fixture bulbs for 4.7 hours on a typical day.
Relatively equal groups of three in ten residents report turning on their permanent light fixture bulbs for
two to three hours (28%), four to five hours (32%), or six hours or more (28%), while a combined one in
ten residents use their permanent light fixture bulbs for one hour or less on a typical day (9%). (Table
A5)
Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2011
Appendix F
13
2011 Socket Study
Number of Hours You Have Turned on Permanent Light Fixture
Bulbs on a Typical Day
100%
Mean Hours Overall = 4.7
80%
60%
40%
28%
32%
28%
20%
4%
5%
1 minute - less
than 1 hour
1 hour
2%
0%
2 - 3 hours
4 - 5 hours
6+ hours
Don't know/
Not sure
Q.A5: [POSE A5 ONLY IF RESPONSE TO A4 IS ONE OR MORE] Now we would like you to think of a typical day. About how many
hours, on average, do you have turned on each of these [INSERT RESPONSE FROM A4] permanent light fixture bulbs?
(n=981)
Although fewer permanent light fixture bulbs are present per capita among Cape Breton residents (22)
as compared to HRM (27), it is noteworthy that these bulbs are used for almost one hour longer on
average per day (i.e., 5.1 hours compared to 4.3 hours). Homeowners are less likely than those who do
not own their place of residence to have their permanent light fixture bulbs turned on for six hours or
more. Similarly, those residing in single, detached homes are less likely to have their permanent light
fixture bulbs turned on for six hours or more as compared to apartment dwellers, while young residents
(18-34) indicate that they are more likely than middle-aged residents (35-54) to have their permanent
light fixture bulbs turned on for six hours or more. (Table A5)
Plug-in Lamp Bulbs
Although there are considerably fewer plug-in lamp bulbs as compared to permanent light fixture
bulbs, usage of plug-in lamp bulbs on a typical day is similar to the permanent light fixture bulb use
pattern.
Across Nova Scotia, plug-in lamp bulbs are considerably less common as compared to permanent light
fixture bulbs. As previously reported, residents have an average of six plug-in lamp bulbs. Slightly less
than one-half of residents have fewer than five plug-in lamp bulbs (45%), while four in ten own between
five and nine plug-in lamp bulbs (39%). Just under one in five residents report having ten or more plugin lamp bulbs (16%).
Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2011
Appendix F
14
2011 Socket Study
Number of Plug-In Lamp Bulbs
100%
80%
Mean Bulbs Overall = 6.0
60%
39%
40%
39%
20%
13%
6%
3%
0%
None
1-4
Q.A6a: Number of plug-in lamp bulbs?
5-9
10-19
20+
(n=1,004)
The number of plug-in lamp bulbs in one’s home increases with age, as older residents (55+) are three
times more likely than younger residents (18-34), and twice as likely as middle-aged (35-54) residents, to
have more than ten plug-in lamp bulbs. Interestingly, residents with full-time or part-time employment
status are less likely to have more than ten plug-in lamp bulbs, as compared to those with some other
employment status. Residents with full-time or part-time status have one fewer plug-in lamp bulb, on
average, as compared to residents with some other employment status. (Table A6)
Given that the average resident owns six plug-in lamp bulbs, it is perhaps not surprising that the vast
majority of respondents indicate that they use fewer than five plug-in lamp bulbs on a typical day (83%).
Another helpful representation of the use of plug-in lamp bulbs would be to examine the proportion of
plug-in lamp bulbs used in relation to each resident’s total number of plug-in lamp bulbs. On average,
residents use approximately one-half of their plug-in lamp bulbs on a typical day (53%). Six in ten
indicate that they use less than half, or none, of their plug-in lamp bulbs on a typical day (58%), while
close to one-quarter indicate that they use more than half, but not all, of their plug-in lamp bulbs (23%).
An additional two in ten report that they use all their plug-in lamp bulbs on a typical day (19%). Still
another manner of discussing the use of plug-in lamp bulbs on a typical day is presented in the following
graph. This graphic displays the number of plug-in lamp bulbs in use on a typical day, as opposed to the
previously-discussed proportions.
Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2011
Appendix F
15
2011 Socket Study
Number of Plug-In Lamp Bulbs in Use on a Typical Day
100%
Mean % Overall = 53%
Mean # Overall = 2.9
77%
80%
60%
40%
20%
15%
6%
2%
0%
None
1-4
5-9
Q.A7: [POSE A7 ONLY IF A6a IS ONE OR MORE] And, on average, approximately how many of these [INSERT A5a NUMBER
HERE] plug-in lamp bulbs would be in use in your household, on a typical day?
10-19
(n=941)
Proportional differences in plug-in lamp bulb usage are evident across population subgroups. By region,
residents of Cape Breton who have plug-in lamp bulbs are slightly more likely than HRM residents to use
none of their plug-in lamp bulbs on a typical day (11% compared to 5%). Nova Scotians who do not own
their own place of residence are twice as likely as residence owners to use all their plug-in lamp bulbs on
a typical day (33% compared to 16%). Plug-in lamp bulb usage decreases noticeably as age increases,
and also is lower among those with greater annual household incomes.
Residents use their plug-in lamp bulbs an average of 3.6 hours per day. Across Nova Scotia, on a typical
day a small minority turn on their plug-in lamp bulbs either for less than one hour or not at all (8%),
while one in ten say their plug-in lamp bulbs are turned on for about an hour (12%). More than onethird of residents have their plug-in lamp bulbs turned on for two to three hours on a typical day (35%),
while one-quarter indicate that their plug-in lamp bulbs are on for four to five hours daily. A sizeable
minority indicate that their plug-in lamp bulbs are used for six hours or more per day (15%).
Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2011
Appendix F
16
2011 Socket Study
Number of Hours You Have Turned on Plug-In Lamp Bulbs on a
Typical Day
100%
Mean Hours Overall = 3.6
80%
60%
40%
35%
26%
20%
8%
15%
12%
3%
0%
1 minute - less
than 1 hour
1 hour
2 - 3 hours
4 - 5 hours
6+ hours
Q.A8: [POSE A8 ONLY IF RESPONSE TO A7 IS ONE OR MORE] Now we would like you to think of a typical day. About how
many hours, on average, do you have turned on each of these [INSERT RESPONSE FROM A7] plug-in lamp bulbs?
Don't know/
Not sure
(n=887)
Among those most likely to have their plug-in lamp bulbs turned on for six hours or more are Cape
Breton residents, Nova Scotians who do not own their residence, and residents with yearly household
incomes of less than $50K (compared to those with household incomes of $50K to $75K). Residents 55
years or older are more likely than their younger counterparts to have their plug-in lamp bulbs turned
on for more than four hours. (Table A8)
Outdoor Light Bulbs
Outdoor light bulbs are less common than permanent light bulbs and plug-in lamp bulbs.
Nova Scotia residents own an average of only four outdoor light bulbs. Three-quarters of the population
have fewer than five outdoor light bulbs (74%). Two in ten have five to nine outdoor light bulbs (20%),
while a small minority have either 10 to 19 (5%) or 20 or more (1%) outdoor light bulbs. (Table A9a)
Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2011
Appendix F
17
2011 Socket Study
Number of Outdoor Light Bulbs
100%
Mean Bulbs Overall = 4.1
80%
64%
60%
40%
20%
20%
10%
5%
1%
0%
None
1-4
Q.A9a: Number of outdoor light bulbs?
5-9
10-19
20+
(n=1,004)
The quantity of outdoor light bulbs on one’s property varies considerably according to different
characteristics across the population. By region, residents on mainland Nova Scotia beyond HRM are
slightly more likely (95%) than residents of HRM (86%) or Cape Breton (90%) to have at least one
outdoor light bulb, although residents of both Cape Breton (70%) and the rest of mainland Nova Scotia
(67%) are more likely than HRM residents (59%) to have between one and four outdoor light bulbs.
Almost all homeowners (96%) have at least one outdoor light bulb, compared to only two-thirds of
those who do not own their place of residence (66%). In fact, homeowners indicate owning an average
of approximately three times as many outdoor light bulbs (4.8) as compared to non-homeowners (1.5).
Similarly, one-half of apartment dwellers do not own an outdoor light bulbs at all (53%), compared to
fewer than one in twenty residents who live in a detached home (3%) or a duplex/townhouse (4%). On
average, residents of single, detached houses have the most outdoor light bulbs of any dwelling type
(5.1), followed by residents of duplex/townhouse (2.5), and apartment dwellers, who own the least (0.8)
Finally, the number of outdoor light bulbs tends to increase with yearly household income.
As the majority of residents own less than five outdoor light bulbs, it follows that the majority use less
than five outdoor light bulbs (76%) on a typical day. Another helpful representation of outdoor light
bulbs use would be to examine the proportion of outdoor light bulbs used in relation to each resident’s
total number of outdoor light bulbs. On average, residents use one-half of the outdoor light bulbs on
their property on a typical day (51%). As slightly less than one-half of residents use less than half (but at
least one) of their outdoor light bulbs (46%), and two in ten indicate using none of their outdoor light
bulbs (17%) despite having at least one, the majority of residents use less than half of the outdoor light
bulbs on their property on a typical day. One-quarter use all of their outdoor light bulbs (25%), while an
additional one in ten use more than half (but not all) of their outdoor light bulbs (12%). The following
graph displays the number of outdoor light bulbs in use on a typical day, as opposed to the previouslydiscussed proportions. (Table A10)
Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2011
Appendix F
18
2011 Socket Study
Number of Outdoor Light Bulbs in Use on a Typical Day
100%
Mean % Overall = 51%
Mean # Overall = 2.2
80%
76%
60%
40%
20%
17%
5%
1%
0%
None
1-4
5-9
10-19
Q.A10: [POSE A10 ONLY IF A9a IS ONE OR MORE] And, on average, approximately how many of these [INSERT A9a NUMBER
HERE] outdoor light bulbs would be in use in your household, on a typical day?
(n=893)
Outdoor light bulb usage also varies across several demographic characteristics. Residents of Cape
Breton are more likely to use the all of their outdoor light bulbs on a daily basis compared to the rest of
Nova Scotia, while HRM residents are more likely than Cape Breton residents to use none of their
outdoor light bulbs. Compared to homeowners, Nova Scotians who do not own their residence show a
stronger tendency to use either all (45% compared to 21%) or none (27% compared to 15%) of their
outdoor light bulbs on a daily basis. A similar finding is observed among those who reside in apartments,
who are about twice as likely to show an “all or nothing” pattern of usage of outdoor light bulbs
compared to those residing in single, detached houses or duplex/townhouses. Usage of outdoor light
bulbs appears to decrease with respondent age. Further, residents who use electricity to heat their
home are modestly less likely than those who use oil or other sources of energy to use any of their
outdoor light bulbs on a typical day (79% compared to 85%).
Residents report a large variation in the length of time that their outdoor light bulbs are turned on
during a typical day. Overall, residents report turning on their outdoor light bulbs for an average of
approximately four hours per day. One in five report leaving outdoor light bulbs on for six hours or more
(19%), while less than two in ten use their outdoor light bulbs for four to five hours on a typical day
(16%). Three in ten indicate they use these lights for two to three hours (27%), and slightly more than
one in ten indicate that they typically use their outdoor light bulbs for one hour (14%). Two in ten
residents report using their outdoor light bulbs for less than one hour on a typical day (17%). (Table A11)
Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2011
Appendix F
19
2011 Socket Study
Number of Hours You Have Turned on Outdoor Light Bulbs on
a Typical Day
100%
Mean Hours Overall = 3.7
80%
60%
40%
27%
20%
17%
16%
14%
19%
7%
0%
1 minute - less
than 1 hour
1 hour
2 - 3 hours
4 - 5 hours
6+ hours
Q.A11: [POSE A11 ONLY IF RESPONSE TO A10 IS ONE OR MORE] Now we would like you to think of a typical day. About how
many hours, on average, do you have turned on each of these [INSERT RESPONSE FROM A10] outdoor light bulbs?
Don't know/
Not sure
(n=730)
Across the population, residents in Cape Breton turn on their outdoor light bulbs for approximately one
hour longer (4.8 hours) as compared to HRM residents (3.7 hours) and those elsewhere on mainland
Nova Scotia (3.5 hours). There is a difference in the average length of time that younger residents aged
18 to 34 leave their outdoor light bulbs on (4.2 hours), as compared to older residents aged 55 years or
over (3.1 hours). Older residents are less likely than younger residents to leave their outdoor light bulbs
on for six hours or more.
Intentions to Implement Energy Efficient Light Bulbs
Up to one-half of residents intend to replace non-efficient bulbs in the next year with energy efficient
light bulbs.
In order to assess their intentions to improve the energy efficiency of their homes, residents were asked
to indicate whether behavioural statements applied to their household in terms of replacing nonefficient bulbs in the next year with energy efficient light bulbs. Overall, four in ten residents plan to
replace at least one light fixture with a light fixture that is more energy efficient (39%). Of note, onethird of residents answered that they are unsure whether they would do so (34%), while three in ten
said that they would not (27%). Interestingly, when asked about CFL light bulbs specifically, significantly
more residents indicate their intention to improve the efficiency of their light bulbs by replacing at least
one regular bulb with a CFL light bulb (50%). Another three in ten indicate that they are unsure (29%),
while only two in ten say that they will not do so (21%). However, when it comes to LED light bulbs,
residents appear to be more uncertain than anything, as four in ten say that they don’t know whether
they will replace at least one regular bulb with a LED light bulb (44%). One-quarter claim that they will
do so (26%), while three in ten say that they will not (30%). (Tables A13a-c)
Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2011
Appendix F
20
2011 Socket Study
Household Will Replace Light Bulb Types With…
(% Saying Yes, applies)
My household will replace at least
one regular light bulb with a CFL light
bulb
50%
My household will replace at least
one light fixture with a light fixture
that is more energy efficient
39%
My household will replace at least
one regular light bulb with an LED
light bulb
26%
0%
20%
40%
Q.A13a-c: Thinking ahead over the next year, please indicate which, if any, of the following statements apply to your
household.
60%
(n=1,004)
In terms of replacing one light fixture with one that is more energy efficient, the only population
difference that emerged was for residents who heat their home with oil (36%). These residents are less
likely than those who heat their homes with electricity (44%) to indicate that they will replace at least
one light fixture with one that is more energy efficient. As previously reported, residences heated with
alternative sources of energy, including wood, are more likely to have higher proportions of CFL bulbs as
compared to residences heated with oil or electricity. Thus from one perspective, residents who heat
their homes with alternative sources of energy are at the forefront of energy efficiency.
Turning to CFL bulbs specifically, residence owners are more likely than non-owners to indicate that
they intend over the next year to replace at least one regular bulb with a CFL bulb (52% compared to
43%). This is interesting given that (as previously reported) residence owners are already more likely to
have higher proportions of CFL bulbs than non-owners in their permanent light fixture bulbs as well as in
their outdoor lights. Similarly, apartment dwellers are less likely (39%) than those living in single,
detached houses (53%) or duplexes/ townhouses (53%) to indicate that they intend over the next year
to replace at least one regular bulb with a CFL bulb. Residents from households with higher annual
household incomes (over $75K) are more likely than those from households with lower incomes (less
than $50K) to state their intention to replace at least one regular bulb with a CFL bulb in the next year.
Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2011
Appendix F
21
2011 Socket Study
In-Home Verification Visits
As mentioned in the Introduction, a total of 50 in-home verification visits were made among survey
respondents, to count the actual number of bulbs within surveyed households. A comparison of survey
versus verification visit results is presented in this section of the report. A key overall finding, as evident
in the table immediately below, is that survey respondents notably understated on their survey
questionnaire responses the number of regular light bulbs in permanent light fixtures in their
households. Survey responses very closely match the verification visit results in terms of CFL bulbs, and
the results between the two groups are relatively close in terms of LED bulbs.
Panel vs. Site Visit Analysis
CFL
Regular
LED
Panel
Survey
Site
Visit
Difference
Panel
Survey
Site
Visit
Difference
Panel
Survey
Site
Visit
Difference
Permanent
14.3
14.8
↑0.5
13.2
24.1
↑10.9
1.5
.3
↓1.2
Plug-in
3.7
3.8
↑0.1
2.6
4.8
↑2.2
.3
.4
↑.1
Outdoor
1.6
1.5
↓0.1
2.2
4.4
↑2.2
.5
.1
↓.4
CFLs
Mean scores suggest that panel members accurately count the number of CFL bulbs in their home. That
said, 34 percent underestimated their number of permanent CFL bulbs by at least three bulbs, and 23
percent overestimated by the same amount. The majority of residents correctly estimates their number
of outdoor or plug in CFL bulbs.
Estimate of number of light
bulbs
Permanent
CFL
Plug-In
CFL
Outdoor
CFL
Underestimated by 11+
7%
2%
n/a
Underestimated by 3-10
27%
17%
9%
Correctly estimated within 2
43%
67%
82%
Overestimated by 3-10
19%
9%
8%
Overestimated by 11+
4%
5%
n/a
Regular Light Bulbs
The majority of residents underestimate the number of regular permanent light bulbs in their home
(72%). Four in ten underestimate the number of plug-in regular light bulbs (39%), while the majority
correctly estimates the number of regular outdoor light bulbs (78%).
Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2011
Appendix F
22
2011 Socket Study
Estimate of number of light
bulbs
Permanent
Regular
Plug-In
Regular
Outdoor
Regular
Underestimated by 11+
43%
2%
8%
Underestimated by 3-10
29%
37%
5%
Correctly estimated within 2
17%
50%
78%
Overestimated by 3-10
7%
8%
9%
Overestimated by 11+
2%
2%
n/a
LED Bulbs
Residents are generally correct when estimating the number of LED bulbs in their home, with at least
three-quarters of residents correctly estimating their permanent, plug-in and outdoor LED light bulbs.
Estimate of number of light
bulbs
Permanent
LED
Plug-In
LED
Outdoor
LED
Underestimated by 11+
n/a
n/a
n/a
Underestimated by 3-10
6%
7%
2%
Correctly estimated within 2
77%
91%
91%
Overestimated by 3-10
14%
2%
6%
Overestimated by 11+
2%
n/a
n/a
Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2011
Appendix F
2011 Socket Study
23
Study Methodology
Questionnaire Design and Survey Administration
The questionnaire used for this study was designed by CRA, in consultation with Efficiency Nova Scotia
staff members. Prior to being finalized, the survey was pre-tested on a small number of respondents to
ensure the appropriateness of the questions and response categories.
This survey of a general public online panel was conducted using an online panel from September 26 to
29, 2011, with adult residents in Nova Scotia aged 18 or older.
The survey was programmed by Nooro Online Research, and the general public panel members utilized
for sampling purposes were drawn from an online panel owned by Research Now. CRA on many
occasions has successfully called upon the professional services of Nooro Online Research as well as
Research Now.
The total number of completed surveys for the present study was 1,004.
The survey required an average of just over 9 minutes to complete.
A total of 50 in-home verification visits with survey respondents were conducted in October and
November 2011 (Christmas lights were recorded, but not included in the final tabulated results). These
visits entailed CRA staff gaining compliance from respondents to enter their households and count their
light bulbs of various types. Respondents were given $50 as thanks for granting this compliance. The
visits occurred across the province, with a distribution as follows:
-
Halifax Regional Municipality: 23 visits
South Shore: 4 visits
Annapolis Valley: 9 visits
Northern NS: 7 visits
Cape Breton Island: 7 visits
The collected data from the verification process was weighted to match the actual distribution of
residents within Nova Scotia.
Corporate Research Associates Inc., 2011
Appendix G - Page 1 of 10
Fuel Switching / Substitution
Pilot Program
Josh McLean
ENSC Program Manager
DSM Stakeholder Consultation Session
November 3, 2011
Appendix G - Page 2 of 10
Reasons to Change
Trend of Home Heating Costs in Nova Scotia (2007-2011)
45
40
35
30
Electricity
25
Natural Gas
20
Wood
15
Pellets
10
5
Feb-11
Dec-10
Oct-10
Aug-10
Jun-10
Apr-10
Feb-10
Dec-09
Oct-09
Aug-09
Jun-09
Apr-09
Feb-09
Dec-08
Oct-08
Aug-08
Jun-08
Apr-08
Feb-08
Dec-07
Oct-07
Aug-07
Jun-07
Apr-07
0
Feb-07
$ Cost per
MBTU of
heat
Appendix G - Page 3 of 10
Eligibility
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Existing Homes
Heat primarily with electric resistance heating
Must be pre-approved by ENSC
Minimum natural gas efficiency standards
Minimum wood/pellet emissions standards
Qualified installers
Complete by December 31, 2011
Appendix G - Page 4 of 10
How to take part
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Send pre-approval application form to ENSC
Receive approval
Purchase and install qualifying equipment
Send in rebate application form and supporting docs
Receive rebate cheque
Appendix G - Page 5 of 10
Rebates
Full Conversion
– Rebates for new central heating system and installation
• Natural gas = 30% rebate (with cap)
• Wood / Pellet = 40-60% rebate (with cap)
– Up to $6,500 in additional rebates to remove electric and install new
distribution system
– Rebates for new domestic water heating system
• Up to $750
Substitute
– Wood / Pellet stoves = 20% rebate, up to $900
Appendix G - Page 6 of 10
Marketing Initiatives
• Direct mail-out to all homes with access to natural gas
• Collaboration with Wood Energy Technology Transfer (WETT)
Nova Scotia
• Newspaper and radio advertising
– Cape Breton
– Remainder of the Province
• Online
– Facebook
– ViewPoint
– Efficiency Nova Scotia website
Appendix G - Page 7 of 10
Results to Date
350 Pre-approval applications
3% Natural Gas
1% Pellet Furnace
or Boiler
3% Wood
Furnace or Boiler
93% Wood or
Pellet Stove
Appendix G - Page 8 of 10
Results to Date
• 25% of installations completed
• Anticipate 400 installations
• Projected 2011 result = 1.8 GWh savings
Appendix G - Page 9 of 10
Key Learnings
•
•
•
•
Industry support
Wood / pellet stove popularity
Challenges with full natural gas conversions
Review additional options for conversions for next year
Appendix G - Page 10 of 10
Thank you
Josh McLean
902-470-3541
[email protected]
Appendix H - Page 1 of 5
Green Schools Nova Scotia
Laura Sinclair
ENSC Program Manager
DSM Stakeholder Consultation Session
November 3, 2011
Appendix H - Page 2 of 5
Overview:
• Goal: enhance sustainability initiatives in NS
schools and engage students through
education and participation.
• Step-by-step, long-term, whole school process
• Working with Clean NS to deliver the pilot
program in 2011
• 2011 Target: 10-15 schools province-wide
Appendix H - Page 3 of 5
• Support from NS Minister of Education
• 17 schools participating, 8 school boards
engaged
• Energy tracking system has been sourced and
is being installed
• Interactive website for students, teachers
Appendix H - Page 4 of 5
• Key Learnings:
– Awareness of inefficiencies and waste
– Sustainability
• Energy efficiency, food sources, grounds, operations,
procurement, transportation, water and waste
– Teamwork, leadership
– Stewardship, active citizenship
Appendix H - Page 5 of 5
• Next Steps:
– Continuing the program in 2012
– RFP to be released in November
– Program will expand to include more schools
– 2011 participants will move to next phase of
Sustainability Plans
– Building on existing relationships and school
resources
Appendix I - Page 1 of 22
Efficiency Nova Scotia
Demonstration Homes
Laura Sinclair
ENSC Program Manager
DSM Stakeholder Consultation Session
November 3, 2011
Appendix I - Page 2 of 22
• Overview:
– Formerly known as Advanced Houses and
EcoHome
– Goal: Educate the general public, residential
construction industry, government and special
interest groups on the importance of (and new
technologies in) energy efficiency in new home
construction
– Working with NS Home Builders’ Association
– Two Phases: Design Phase and Build Phase
Appendix I - Page 3 of 22
• Two homes: Completed on Oct. 1, 2011
• Builders: Denim Homes (Sackville) and
Whitestone Developments (Dartmouth)
• Most energy efficient homes in NS – EnerGuide
ratings of 96 and 94
• Great marketing campaign – raising awareness
–
–
–
–
Grand Opening, Open Houses, tours and other events
Political interest (provincial and municipal)
Print and broadcast media
Website and social media
Appendix I - Page 4 of 22
• Key Learnings:
– Latest technologies in energy efficient home
construction
– Realistic, affordable components to implement
into any new home
– Reduces owners’ carbon footprint while saving
them money
– Represents the future of the residential
construction industry
Appendix I - Page 5 of 22
• Program Wrap-up:
– Open Houses run until the end of November
– Will continue to promote energy efficient
technologies used in the Efficiency NS
Demonstration Homes program
– Website will continue to educate customers on
the learnings/features generated by this pilot
Appendix I - Page 6 of 22
This space was intentionally left blank.
Appendix I - Page 7 of 22
E F F I C I E N C Y
N O VA
S C O T I A
DEMONSTRATION
HOMES
BUILD SMART • LIVE RIGHT
The Future of housing in Nova Scotia.
demonstrationhomes.com
Appendix I - Page 8 of 22
Appendix I - Page 9 of 22
a message from
Allan Crandlemire
CEO, Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation
The Efficiency Nova Scotia Demonstration Homes are two
great projects that will help educate Nova Scotians on how
to use energy better. The remarkable design and construction
of these homes prove that energy efficiency is a realistic and
affordable component to implement into any new home
project. With this program we hope that someday homes
like the Efficiency Nova Scotia Demonstration Homes will be
the most viable option for homeowners in the province.
With the program incentives such as the Performance Plus
program, building energy efficient homes is now within reach.
We are constantly working to ensure that energy efficiency an
affordable reality in Nova Scotia and our mix of programs and
incentives are designed to encourage homeowners, builders
and architects to create homes that are efficient.
Building homes that generate savings for the homeowner
month after month and year after year simply makes sense.
The Efficiency Nova Scotia Demonstration Homes blend
nicely with other homes in their communities but the value
makes them stand out.
Changes for the better are achievable and within our reach
and the Efficiency Nova Scotia Demonstration Homes prove
that to us. These homes are truly a source of inspiration for
all Nova Scotians and I hope that one day they become a
norm in our communities.
Thank you for visiting these homes and enjoy your tour.
a message from
Paul Pettipas
CEO, Nova Scotia Home Builders’ Association
As the cost of energy rises, homeowners need to explore
different ways to conserve energy to lower their monthly
costs. Programs like the Efficiency Nova Scotia Demonstration
Homes are designed to educate Nova Scotian home builders
about the latest technology in energy efficient home
construction. These homes represent the future of the
residential construction industry and with them we hope to
start a new trend in environmental initiatives.
From an environmental perspective, these homes will greatly
reduce their owners’ carbon footprint while saving the
owners money. As a long-term investment, these homes will
continue to save their owners money as the cost of energy
continues to rise in the future.
While these homes are slightly more expensive to build, the
incremental savings incurred over time are well worth the
initial investment. The owners of these homes will notice a
substantial difference in energy costs from the first time they
receive their energy bill.
In conclusion, I invite you to look around homes and witness
the future of Nova Scotia home construction. Enjoy your visit
and I encourage you to strongly consider energy efficiency
when you are building or purchasing your next home.
Efficiency Nova Scotia Demonstration Homes • 2011
3
Appendix I - Page 10 of 22
E F F I C I E N C Y
N O VA
S C O T I A
DEMONSTRATION
HOMES
BUILD SMART • LIVE RIGHT
The Future of Housing in Nova Scotia
I
n the fall of 2010, Efficiency Nova Scotia and the Nova
to Nova Scotian homeowners. Again, submissions came in
Scotia Home Builders’ Association (NSHBA) issued a
from companies throughout the province that were inter-
challenge to Nova Scotian architects and home designers
ested in building this home.
to design an affordable energy efficient home with a
minimum EnerGuide rating of 92. Submissions came in
Denim Homes Inc. was successful in this competition as well
from companies all over the province who wanted the
by winning the contract to build the Sackville Home using
opportunity to be a part of this new program.
the slab on grade option. Whitestone Builders submitted the
winning contract to build the Dartmouth Home with the full
After the submissions were received, a panel of
foundation option. In addition to being recognized for their
experienced industry professionals with experience in the
achievements, both of these companies were given a unique
area of energy efficiency were tasked to review them and
opportunity to showcase their skills and work with the latest
choose a winner. Once the careful review process was
technology in energy efficient home construction.
complete they awarded the winning submission to Denim
Home Inc. from the Annapolis Valley region. Denim’s
Despite a damp start to the summer, construction of these
winning submission was unique because it was a versatile
homes began in early June and both teams have been
home that can be built on a slab on grade or with a full
diligently working on the program each and every day.
foundation. This impressed the judges so much they
Throughout the construction period, representatives from
decided to build both options for the Efficiency Nova
Efficiency Nova Scotia and the NSHBA were on hand to
Scotia Demonstration Homes project.
document each phase of the build and showcase it to the
public through a variety of marketing strategies.
Once the winning design was decided, another challenge
All progress has been updated on our dedicated website,
was issued to home builders in the province to submit a
www.demonstrationhomes.com, as well as Flickr, YouTube,
proposal to build these homes in a way that is affordable
Facebook, Twitter and through traditional media channels.
4
Efficiency Nova Scotia Demonstration Homes • 2011
Appendix I - Page 11 of 22
A rendering of the winning design for the Efficiency Nova Scotia Demonstration Homes, submitted by Denim Homes.
While construction was underway, the program attracted
During these eight weeks, industry professionals,
a great deal of publicity and high profile visitors. Mayor
construction students, current and potential home owners
Peter Kelly visited the Sackville Home in early July to
and the general public are invited to come view the homes
witness how the home was being constructed during its
or take a tour. By doing this, the program is designed to
early stages. In mid-August, a press conference was held at
educate Nova Scotians about the simplicity and affordability
the Dartmouth Home to officially launch the website and
of energy efficient home construction.
kick off the program. Since the beginning of the program,
the homes have appeared in the Chronicle Herald and
The Efficiency Nova Scotia Demonstration Homes is a
its weekly homes feature, Homes Etc., the Halifax Metro
program designed to serve as a benchmark of energy
News and it has been covered on the Global Maritimes
efficiency for all home builder and designers. These homes
evening news, as well as on allNovaScotia.com.
represent a new era for the residential construction. The
Efficiency Nova Scotia Demonstration Homes will be a
As part of the program, the builders were required the
benchmark for Nova Scotians to help show them how to
homes to be completed by October 1st so they can be
reduce the size of their carbon footprint while saving them
open to the public for an eight-week viewing period.
money on energy costs each and every month.
Efficiency Nova Scotia Demonstration Homes • 2011
5
Appendix I - Page 12 of 22
R-2000: Giving back
to Homeowners
Energy efficient homes constantly reduce their owner’s
carbon footprint and save them money from the day
they are complete. Not only do energy efficient homes
save money in energy costs through their lifespan but
some homes actually qualify for Performance Plus
rebates if they meet the required EnerGuide standard.
PerformancePlus Program
In Nova Scotia, based on the building code, a home
following the performance path must reach an
EnerGuide rating of 80. Made available to anyone
building a new home in the province, PerformancePlus
is Nova Scotia’s home energy efficiency program. While
only available for a limited time, this program provides
specific recommendations to help one make more
informed choices when building a new home. The
program’s goal is to encourage Nova Scotians to build
energy efficient homes. Rebate amounts increase based
on the home’s energy performance. The higher the
home’s EnerGuide rating, the more efficient the home.
What is the EnerGuide Rating System?
EnerGuide is an energy scale used to measure the
efficiency of new homes and all R-2000 homes must have
a minimum rating of 80. New homeowners qualify for
monetary rebates with an EnerGuide rating above 83.
Other mechanical systems facilitate additional rebates.
In fact, monetary incentives are rebated for specific
mechanical systems that are energy efficient. From
having a heat pump to a programmable thermostat,
all of these systems not only enable the homeowner
to qualify for a rebate, but also save the homeowner
money in the long run due to the decrease in one’s
monthly energy bill.
Some of the mechanical systems that qualify for an
additional rebate include:
Mechanical System
Rebate
Heat pump
$900-1200
Drain water heat recovery $130
Solar domestic
hot water*
$1250
Programmable
thermostats
$15
Efficient Lighting
$100
* Typo corrected on January 14, 2012
The Performance Plus rebates pertaining to an
EnerGuide rating are as follows:
6
EnerGuide Rating
Rebate
83 and 84
$3000
85 to 87
$5000
88 and above
$7000
Efficiency Nova Scotia Demonstration Homes • 2011
Almost everyone cares about the environment and the
earth we are sharing with future generations and every
new home owners appreciate a few extra dollars in their
pocket. Building and purchasing energy efficient homes
is a valuable decision for now and the life of the home.
Appendix I - Page 13 of 22
EnerGuide 80
vs. EnerGuide 92+
The minimum standard for an R-2000 home is an EnerGuide
rating of 80. Many homeowners work to achieve this
minimum standard without considering the added benefit
in exceeding it with additional energy efficient technology.
The Efficiency Nova Scotia Demonstration Homes have
an EnerGuide rating of a minimum of 92. Those extra 12
points will make a substantial difference when it comes to
long-term savings.
A home’s EnerGuide rating determines its energy efficiency
which lowers the homeowner’s monthly energy costs.
The initial costs associated with building energy efficient
homes such as the Efficiency Nova Scotia Demonstration
Homes are higher than conventional homes but the savings
incurred make it worthwhile for the homeowner.
Even without considering the initial cost benefit, energy
efficient upgrades are a great way to allocate financial
resources because the extra costs associated with the
initial upgrades are outweighed by energy savings each
and every month.
A $10,000 energy efficient upgrade would typically add
about $30/month to the average mortgage payment. The
additional mortgage costs are easily outweighed by these
upgrades because if installed properly, a substantial energy
efficient upgrade will save the homeowner approximately
$50/month in energy costs. This theoretical upgrade will
save the homeowner approximately $20 each and every
month which equals an annual savings of $240. This
proves that energy efficient upgrades are a smart investment even though the initial cost can be substantial.
Homes similar to the Efficiency Nova Scotia Demonstration
Homes have multiple systems that are often complex and
expensive which deter homeowners from incorporating
them into their new home projects. While these systems
are costly to purchase and install, each one continuously
contributes to the overall energy savings of that home
which saves the owner money.
Anyone who has prepared a monthly or annual budget
will have an understanding that energy costs consume a
considerable amount of financial resources. Energy
efficient home construction is designed to minimize these
expenses. As energy costs continue to increase these
continuous savings will increase as time goes on.
While increased financial savings are enough to encourage
future homeowners to consider building energy efficient
homes, they must also consider the environment when
doing so. Energy efficient homes are designed to help the
environment by minimizing the amount of energy
consumption in the home. They also encourage greenliving by minimizing the homeowners’ carbon footprint.
By buying or building an energy efficient home like the
Efficiency Nova Scotia Demonstration Homes, you are
making a sound investment, both in a quality home with
long-term savings and in the environment’s future.
A blower door test measures the air exchange rate in a home, a key
component in testing the air-tightness of the structure and contributes
to determining a home’s EnerGuide rating.
Efficiency Nova Scotia Demonstration Homes • 2011
7
Appendix I - Page 14 of 22
Demonstration
Home Profile:
EnerGuide Rating:
94
Dartmouth
Location:
37 Viridian Drive
Willow Ridge Subdivision
Dartmouth, NS
Directions:
Woodland Ave off Hwy 111, to
Lancaster Drive, п¬Ѓrst right on
Cannon Terrace, right on Viridian.
Home Style:
2 Story with basement
Living Space: 3300 sq.ft
Bedrooms: 3 + 1
Bathrooms: 3 + 1/2
Built By
About the home...
The Efficiency Nova Scotia Demonstration Home in Dartmouth
is a single family detached home located on a corner lot on
Viridian Drive in the Willow Ridge subdivision. This fourbedroom, 3 1/2 bathroom R-2000 home has more than 3,300
square feet of living area on 3 finished levels.
This demonstration home is built on a foundation that is
complete with a basement and one-car garage. The extra
space in the home allows for an additional bedroom, bathroom and media or multi-purpose room. There is a natural
gas fireplace in the main living room to keep the owners
warm during the cold winter months. Additionally, a walk-in
pantry in the corner of the kitchen will provide additional
storage of food and other housewares.
The Dartmouth Home has all of the comforts of a conventional house with all the added benefits of an energy efficient
design, featuring:
Mechanical Systems:
• An air source heat pump with natural gas backup
• 16 photovoltaic (PV) solar panels
• 2 solar thermal panels for domestic hot water
8
Efficiency Nova Scotia Demonstration Homes • 2011
www.whitestonedevelopments.com
902.497.7858 • [email protected]
Insulation:
• Foundation: R24
• Exterior Walls: R35 - dry blown cellulose insulation over
10” walls with staggered 2”x4” vertical studs
• Attic: R60 - cellulose (recycled paper) insulation
Additional Features:
• Triple glazed windows (facing south)
• A drain water heat recovery (DWHR) system
• Comprehensive automated monitoring system
• Natural gas hookup for appliances and fireplace
• Cork flooring and SmartStrand carpet
• Mechanical shutters
• CFL and LED Lighting
• Instant hot water system in kitchen
Appendix I - Page 15 of 22
Demonstration
Home Profile:
EnerGuide Rating:
96
Sackville
Location:
111 Hanwell Drive
Sunset Ridge Subdivision,
Lower Sackville, NS
Directions:
Travel Hwy 101 to Margeson Drive
Exit 2A, turn right on Swindon Drive,
left on Hanwell.
Home Style:
2 Story on slab
Living Space: 2300 sq.ft
Bedrooms: 3
Bathrooms: 2 + 1/2
Built By
About the home...
Located in Lower Sackville, this Efficiency Nova Scotia
Demonstration Home is a two-level, single family dwelling
located on Hanwell Drive in the newly developed Sunset
Ridge subdivision. This elegant home is 2,304 square feet,
featuring an open concept layout with 3 bedrooms and 2 1/2
bathrooms.
The main floor is built on an 8” engineered slab featuring a
6” layer of foam beneath the slab with a modern acid-stained
finish on top. It also features four solar thermal panels heating water: two panels for domestic hot water and two for in
floor heating, where water flows through a series of heating
pipes installed in the concrete floor. 20 photovoltaic solar
panels are also installed on the roof to generate electricity.
Both homes are based on the award-winning design by
Denim Homes Inc. A few features of the Sackville Home are:
Mechanical Systems:
• An air source heat pump
• 20 photovoltaic (PV) solar panels
• 2 solar thermal panels for domestic hot water
• 2 solar thermal panels for in-floor heating
www.denimhomes.com
902.681.3776 • [email protected]
Insulation:
• Foundation: R25 - type 3 expanded foam under slab
• Exterior Walls: R42 - wet sprayed cellulose insulation
with 1” foil faced foam over 10” walls with staggered
2”x4” vertical studs
• Attic: R60 - cellulose (recycled paper) insulation
Additional Features:
• Triple glazed windows
• A drain water heat recovery (DWHR) system
• Recycled quartz countertops
• Comprehensive automated monitoring system
• Integrated/mobile lighting and electrical control
• CFL lighting
• Acid-stained concrete (slab) flooring on main level
Efficiency Nova Scotia Demonstration Homes • 2011
9
Appendix I - Page 16 of 22
Inside the Demonstration Homes...
Wall Design
Both Efficiency Nova Scotia Demonstration Homes are built
with a unique wall design that creates a complete thermal
break between the interior and exterior of the home. The
wall structure is built with 2”x10” top and bottom plates
and staggered 2”x4”vertical studs on the inside and outside
edges of the wall. As a result, the walls are thicker than
those used in conventionally-built homes.
By staggering the studs there is no place for heat to be
conducted to the outside of the home and likewise cold
air to the inside of the home, thus creating an envelope
that completely protects the inside of the home from the
elements. The additional area inside the wall cavity creates
more room for thermal insulation as well.
In addition to the fibrous or spray-foam insulation, boardstock insulation can still be applied either on the interior or
exterior surface, spanning across the framing. By providing
boardstock insulation, there is virtually no chance of
moisture condensing within the wall cavity. Moreover, large
window ledges have also been installed in the homes. These
large window ledges not only create connectivity to the outdoors but are also aesthetically appealing and a great spot to
grow plants and vegetables.
Windows
The windows installed in the Efficiency Nova Scotia
Demonstration Homes contribute to the overall R-value of
the home, in turn adding to the homes’ energy efficiency.
Most are triple glazed/paned, low-E argon windows. These
windows are installed on the north side of the home to
maintain an air tight envelope. They are only installed on
the north side of the home because they receive the least
amount of exposure to the sun. By installing triple glazed
windows the heat generated from the home’s internal
heating system is contained within the home.
Double glazed/paned, low-E argon windows are installed on
the south, east and west sides of both homes to maintain
the air-tight envelope while taking advantage of solar heat
entering the home through these windows. The south side
of the home receives the most exposure to the sun throughout the day, therefore it is always collecting and containing
heat from the sun. The outer edges are properly sealed
10
Efficiency Nova Scotia Demonstration Homes • 2011
with aerosol spray foam that expands inside the crevices to
ensure that the home maintains its air-tight envelope. Most
of the windows are tilt and turn style which have a superior
seal and dual function as they also have the ability to open
both fully or partially.
Appendix I - Page 17 of 22
Inside the Demonstration Homes...
Wall Insulation
The Efficiency Nova Scotia Demonstration Homes are
insulated with a fibrous material known as cellulose, made
completely out of recycled materials. Cellulose is mostly
comprised of recycled newsprint and fire retardant materials.
It is the same material used in most conventionally-built
homes to insulate the attic and roof, however, both
demonstration homes feature ways to use it to insulate
the walls. Read below to see how each home does this:
Wet-type cellulose insulation
Dry-type cellulose insulation
In the Sackville Home, wet-type cellulose insulation was
sprayed into all wall cavities. This type of insulation mixes
the cellulose with a liquid similar to glue as it is sprayed into
the wall. The binding agent dries and hardens cellulose in
the wall cavities to create an air-tight seal around all of the
exterior walls.
In the Dartmouth Home, a dry-type cellulose insulation was
used to insulate the wall cavities. For this application, a thin
sheathing is stapled to the interior of the wall structure to
contain the insulating material. The insulator then cuts two
small holes (top and bottom) in each wall cavity and the dry
cellulose is sprayed in. The sheathing effectively holds the
insulation in place, while allowing it to be properly blown
into all sections of the wall cavity.
Once the wet-type cellulose insulation dries, a one-inch thick
foil faced foam is attached to the interior wall before installing drywall. The foam provides added insulation (R7 value)
while sustaining a vapour barrier between the outside and
inside of the home.
Once the wall cavities are filled with dry-type insulation, a
thick plastic vapour barrier is attached to the interior wall
before installing drywall.
Efficiency Nova Scotia Demonstration Homes • 2011
11
Appendix I - Page 18 of 22
Inside the Demonstration Homes...
Drain Water
Heat Recovery
In the Efficiency Nova Scotia Demonstration Homes even the
drain water contributes to their energy efficiency. The heat
from all drain water is used to further heat the domestic water
supply in the home. This simple system is called a drain
water heat recovery system and it simply routes the drain
water from the showers, washer, sinks and dishwasher
through a 60-inch copper pipe that is wrapped by the
domestic water supply line. The heat from the drain water is
conducted through the exterior of the supply line to heat the
domestic water supply.
By using the drain water heat recovery system, the home
eliminates any added energy costs that would be required to
further heat the water. The drain water heat recovery system
is just one more system that works to reduce the amount
of energy used by the future home owners. In the Efficiency
Nova Scotia Demonstration Homes, the drain water doesn’t
stop working until it reaches the sewer.
Solar Hot Water
Another great feature of the Efficiency Nova Scotia
Demonstration Homes is the solar boiler domestic hot water
system, which uses solar energy to heat the potable water
used in the homes for showers, sinks, laundry, dishes and
other water needs.
Both homes are fitted with solar panels on the roof that have
exposed water pipes to them. As the water passes through
these pipes the sun’s energy heats the water before it is
stored in an insulated storage tank in the homes’ mechanical
room. Each set of panels is fitted with a small photovoltaic
(PV) panel. The solar energy generated by this panel powers
a pump that circulates the water to and from the panels on
the roof.
The system is also fitted with a standard hot water tank that
is used to supplement the solar boiler system. This traditional
system acts only as a back up to the solar boiler domestic
hot water system and is used on a minimal basis.
12
Efficiency Nova Scotia Demonstration Homes • 2011
The Sackville Home is fitted with piping in the floor that
serves as an in-floor radiant heat system. All of the excess
water that is heated by the system is sent into the floor to
provide added heating comfort to the homeowner.
Appendix I - Page 19 of 22
Inside the Demonstration Homes...
Air Source Heat Pump
The primary heating systems used in the Efficiency Nova
Scotia Demonstration Homes is an air source heat pump.
This versatile and energy efficient system will heat the
homes during the winter months and cool it during the
summer months.
It is closed system, meaning that fresh air is only circulated
through the home via the heat recovery ventilator, that
continuously recirculates air. This efficient system is comprised of a heat exchanger, a refrigeration compressor and a
ventilation system.
The system utilizes a refrigeration compressor to heat and
cool the heat exchanger because it has the ability to heat at
sub-zero temperatures. The heat exchanger sustains the
optimum operating temperature by an outdoor unit that
passes fresh air over the heating coil.In the winter, the warm
air is dispersed through the home to the desired temperature of the occupant. In the summer, the system runs in
reverse and the outside air is cooled by the heat exchanger.
Once the air is adjusted to the desired temperature it is
carried throughout the home using a high-efficiency
ventilation fan and a series of ventilation pipes. Throughout
the year, the temperature of the homes are controlled by a
digital programmable thermostat.
All fridge compressors are versatile in the sense that they
can heat and cool. Air source heat pumps take advantage
of this versatility to serve the homeowners’ needs in all
four seasons, making the air source heat pump the most
appropriate system to control the temperature in the
Efficiency Nova Scotia Demonstration Homes.
Energy Monitor
While the future owners of the Efficiency Nova Scotia
Demonstration Homes will see how efficient their homes are
by the size of their monthly energy bill, that will not be the
only way it will be observed. Both homes will have a digital
energy meters installed directly into the homes’ electrical
service that read how much power is being used by the
occupants and how much is being generated by the homes’
renewable energy systems.
Energy consumption and production works comparably to an
account balance of a bank account. Consumption is similar
to a withdraw transaction that is drawn from the residential
power grid. Production, on the other hand, is comparable to
a deposit or credit to the account that the home gives back
to the residential power grid.
The homes’ energy monitors keep track of the energy balance
sheet so the homeowner can observe how much power they
are generating or drawing, creating a visual representation of
their balance.
If the homeowner uses the homes’ energy efficient systems
responsibly, they could potentially produce more renewable
energy than what is required to operate the home. When
this happens the homeowners will receive a credit from
Nova Scotia Power Inc. While they are not entitled to
financial compensation, they are allowed to use that credit
at different times throughout the year.
Efficiency Nova Scotia Demonstration Homes • 2011
13
Appendix I - Page 20 of 22
Inside the Demonstration Homes...
PhotoVoltaics
by the PV panels. All of the PV panels are connected to the
homes’ electrical service.
To help mitigate the high cost of electricity, 16 photovoltaic
(PV) panels have been installed on each of Efficiency Nova
Scotia Demonstration Homes. The panels have been placed
as close to true south as possible to optimize solar gain.
In preparation for the added weight, the sloped roof trusses
of the homes were specially engineered to safely support
the PV panels
The PV panels are the homes’ primary renewable energy
system and they help reduce energy costs. These panels are
installed on the roof to collect solar energy that is converted
into electricity and sent back to the residential power grid.
The electricity that is drawn from the residential power grid
to operate these homes is subsidized by the energy collected
If the PV panels generate more energy than what is used to
operate the home the future owners will receive a credit
from Nova Scotia Power instead of an energy balance.
Depending on the number of occupants and power used in
the home, these PV panels could potentially eliminate all
monthly costs associated with electricity.
Aging-in-Place
As more homeowners from the baby boomer era are retiring
and choosing to stay in their homes well into their golden
years, many are opting to purchase or build retirement
homes instead of occupying assisted living facilities. While
this trend continues to grow amongst our aging population,
another trend is taking place in the residential construction
industry to help facilitate this shift in needs.
Presently, there is a rise in the number of homes that are
designed to grant all of the owners’ needs for the future.
Many designs are following open concept models with a
large open space and wider hallways. Some homes are built
to accommodate the homeowners’ needs on one singular
level, others have space for elevators and stair lift systems,
while some have more subtle features such as lever handles
on doors and push button light switches. While many of
these homes are designed to facilitate the needs of aging
Nova Scotians, some support systems can be quite costly if
14
Efficiency Nova Scotia Demonstration Homes • 2011
included after the construction phase. One of the most effective ways to make the best use of pension dollars is to invest
in energy efficient home construction.
Energy efficient homes, like both of the Efficiency Nova
Scotia Demonstration Homes, show that homes can accommodate our aging population while positively impacting the
environment. Both the Efficiency Nova Scotia Demonstration
Homes are designed and built with the future mobility needs
in mind. For instance, both of the homes feature wider
doorways and unique kitchen designs to make daily living
and cooking more accessible. Additionally, the home built
by Denim Homes has a room on the main floor that can be
easily transitioned into a bedroom to eliminate the difficulty
that stairs can bring in terms of accessibility.
With many choosing to live an active and healthy lifestyle at
home in their future, and with the increase in people choosing
to live in their homes longer, having options available at the
time of construction provides homeowners with new
opportunities.
Appendix I - Page 21 of 22
Inside the Demonstration Homes...
Water and power
conservation
It all starts with the
right Design
In addition to the major energy-efficient elements listed in
this booklet, there are various other upgrades that the
Demonstration homes feature.
There are many things to consider when designing and building an
energy-efficient home. The building site conditions and the overall design
have a huge bearing on the materials and assemblies used in construction.
Not one foundation type or wall is the right choice for every home.
To help the homeowners save electricity is an energy control
switch. With a touch of a button, the homeowners are able
to turn off any lights they may have forgotten to turn off,
thus benefiting both the homeowners and the environment.
To help the homeowner conserve water usage, low-flow
shower heads, toilets and faucets have been installed which in fact are the most effective for water conservation.
Recognizing that 28-percent of household water is used by
the toilet alone, it is easy to see how these products can
reduce water use by more than 30 percent.
By Denim Homes
Demonstration Home Designers
Energy efficient homes can be designed to look great and fit in any
urban setting. Improvements in building technology and construction
techniques allow most modern energy-saving ideas to be seamlessly
integrated into home designs, while improving comfort, health and
aesthetics. And it doesn’t have to be expensive or complicated.
While design costs, options, and styles vary, most energy-efficient
homes have some basic elements in common: a well constructed and
tightly sealed thermal envelope; controlled ventilation; properly sized,
high-efficiency heating and cooling systems; and energy-efficient doors,
windows, and appliances.
Come experience the future of
residential housing in Nova Scotia!
The Efficiency Nova Scotia Demonstration Homes are being hailed as the most
energy-efficient residential homes in the province! Come see for yourself the
construction techniques, products and components that combine to give these homes
the best energy rating currently on the market.
Dartmouth Home
Sackville Home
Willow Ridge Subdivision,
37 Viridian Dr., Dartmouth
Sunset Ridge Subdivision,
111 Hanwell Dr., Lower Sackville
take Woodland ave off Hwy 111,
to Lancaster Drive, п¬Ѓrst right on Cannon
Terrace, right on Viridian Drive
Travel Hwy 101 to Margeson
Drive Exit 2A, turn right on Swindon Drive,
left on Hanwell drive.
Open to the public on Saturdays & Sundays 1-4 pm
October 1 - December 11
For location maps and further information see our website
902-450-5554 • demonstrationhomes.com
Efficiency Nova Scotia Demonstration Homes • 2011
15
Appendix I - Page 22 of 22
Create a more Energy
Efficient Nova Scotia
Here are a few ways we can help
Appliance Retirement Program
Do you have an inefficient second fridge? Perhaps an old freezer, dehumidifier
or room air conditioner? We’ll pay you for your old, inefficient appliances.
Building a New Home?
We offer rebates for energy efficiency measures. Get access to valuable energy analysis
tools and rebates on your new home when you build with energy saving measures.
EnerGuide for Existing Houses
Are you a homeowner looking to save money on your heating and power bill?
If so, the EnerGuide for Existing Homes may be for you. You get access to
valuable energy analysis tools and can earn rebates worth up to $6500
when you make energy efficiency upgrades.
Fuel Substitution
This program has been extended to Dec. 31, 2011!
Apply now to help reduce your electricity bill. Whether you want to get
off electric heat altogether or just want to supplement it with another
energy source, earn rebates and save money by switching from
electric to wood burning and pellet burning heat or natural gas.
Efficiency Nova Scotia is committed to
providing energy saving to Nova Scotians.
Contact us to find out how we can help you save money
on your power bill. It’s easy. So why not do it now?
Like us on Facebook
w: efficiencyns.ca
e: [email protected]
tf: 1 877-999-6035
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement