FEI-FEVI 2010 EEC Report filed March 31, 2011 - FortisBC

Terasen states in reply that it is not proposing that economic performance be judged only at the
portfolio level and that Mr. Plunkett has mischaracterized its proposal.
Terasen states that “[t]he energy efficiency and fuel switching programs would be planned and
evaluated on the TRC, the RIM test, the Utility Cost (“UC”) test and the Participant test, and the
32
overall portfolio TRC test results would have to be greater than 1.0 to proceed.” (Exhibit B‐1, p. 83)
However, Terasen also states that it is “not proposing any thresholds with respect to the RIM test,
the UC test and the Participant test. In the absence of such thresholds, [it is] not comfortable
stating that an activity would proceed or not based on RIM, UC and Participant test results.”
Rather, Terasen proposes that “the overall portfolio level TRC must be maintained at 1.0 or
greater.” (Exhibit B‐4, BCUC 2.19.1)
Commission Determination
The Commission Panel accepts the portfolio level approach based on achieving a portfolio TRC
level, discussed below, of 1.0 or greater provided that program areas, initiatives or measures with
an individual TRC of less than 1.0 are proactively designed and sufficiently support social or
environmental objectives. Consequently, it is important for the components of any portfolio to be
capable of analysis on an individual basis. The Commission Panel directs that Terasen include in its
annual EEC Report to the Commission the results of the RIM, UC, TRC and Participant tests for each
proposed DSM in its portfolio, and provide justification for continuing with any measures or groups
of measures which have a TRC of less than 1.0.