HomeAffordabilityM12768Evidence
Topic/Matter Intersection

Topic:"Affordability" in M12768

Matter: Nova Scotia Power Inc. - Extra Large Industrial Active Demand Control Tariff (ELIADC) - 2025 Annual Report
9 passages 6 documents

Affordability across all matters →

N-1Annual Report - Redacted 2 passages
Year PHP Load (GWh) ADC Load Shifting Differential ($M) Benefit to Other Customers ($M) p. p. 2
Year PHP Load (GWh) ADC Load Shifting Differential ($M) Benefit to Other Customers ($M) 2020 875 6.6 7.3 2021 966 (16.7) 3.9 2022 957 (48.9) 3.8 2023 670 (33.6) 2.7 2024 766 (0.8) 3.1 2025 691 1.5 4.4 In response to Recommendation XIV-1 in...

AI summary The table presents annual data on PHP Load (GWh), ADC Load Shifting Differential ($M), and Benefit to Other Customers ($M) from 2020 to 2025. The data shows fluctuating values, with a notable negative differential in 2021 and 2022. The text references a recommendation from the 2020-2021 FAM Audit Report (M10416) and indicates additional context will be provided.

Preamble p. pp. 4-7
S Power accepted all of Bates Whites' 2022- 2023 FAM Audit recommendations. The 2022-2023 FAM Audit Oral Hearing was held from March 17-20, 2025, and the Board issued its Decision on October 16, 2025. On March 3, 2025, the Company submitte...

AI summary NS Power accepted all recommendations from the 2022-2023 FAM Audit and submitted its 2024 ELIADC Annual Report. The Board requested improvements to the ELIADC tariff and annual report, emphasizing the need for NS Power to demonstrate the tariff's value to customers and provide more detailed reporting.

N-3NSPI (IG) RIR 1 to 15 - Redacted 2 passages
Extra Large Industrial Active Demand Control (ELIADC) Tariff 2025 Annual Report (NSEB M12768) NSPI Responses to IG Information Requests p. p. 13
Extra Large Industrial Active Demand Control (ELIADC) Tariff 2025 Annual Report (NSEB M12768) NSPI Responses to IG Information Requests 1 Request IR-6: 9 explanation for each variance. 10 11 (b) Please explain the notations for accrual boo...

AI summary NSPI explains that the 2025 actual ELIADC Tariff recorded revenue of $64.7 million is consistent across monthly and annual reports, with no variances. Accruals and accrual reversals are used to align billing periods with calendar months, as PHP is billed weekly.

REDACTED p. p. 13
REDACTED 1 incentive for PHP to follow dispatch and retain its 25 percent share of the ADC Load 2 Shifting Differential. In 2021-2024, the ADC Load Shifting Differential was negative, and 3 therefore no Off-Schedule Charges were applied. 4...

AI summary The document discusses the ADC Load Shifting Differential and Cause Code tracking issues in 2025. It includes financial details related to PHP and requests for information regarding incomplete Cause Code tracking and normalization of data for accurate year-over-year comparisons.

101622IG (NSPI) IR-1 to IR-15 1 passage
1 2 3 4 2026
(b) Please provide a copy of any FAM SWG presentation materials and 1 2 3 4 2026 M12768 NOVA SCOTIA ENERGY BOARD 11 (c) Does NSPI expect similar inter-year adjustments to persist under the 2026 12 ELIADC tariff? Please explain. 13 Request...

AI summary The document includes several requests related to financial and operational data, including FAM SWG presentations, ELIADC tariff adjustments, and methodology for calculating system costs from schedule deviations. It also asks for explanations of financial notations and whether certain costs represent harms to customers or forgone benefits.

102242Submission - IG 2 passages
8. Inter-Year Adjustments — Transparency and Comparability p. pp. 3-4
8. Inter-Year Adjustments — Transparency and Comparability The ELIADC Revenue Table for 2025 (Att.1, p.1/3) records a 2024 ADC Adjustment of −$1,221,077 and a 2024 VOM Adjustment of +$52,067 within the 2025 annual figures. 6 Matter M12123,...

AI summary The document discusses inter-year adjustments in the ELIADC Revenue Table for 2025, highlighting a $1.22M prior-year adjustment and the need for transparency in annual reporting. The Investigator General (IG) requests standardized tables to enable like-for-like year-over-year comparisons, while NSPI confirms adjustments will continue under US GAAP.

9. Monthly Cost-to-Serve vs. CBL Energy Charge — Month-by-Month Cross-Subsidy p. p. 4
9. Monthly Cost-to-Serve vs. CBL Energy Charge — Month-by-Month Cross-Subsidy The ELIADC Report Table (Att.1, p. 1) shows that in January 2025, the incremental cost to serve PHP was $7,662,264 against a total billed charge of $5,494,114, a...

AI summary The ELIADC Report highlights monthly shortfalls between PHP's incremental cost-to-serve and billed charges, particularly in winter months, creating cross-subsidies. While annual netting shows a positive differential, monthly data reveals ratepayer shortfalls. The IG requests NSPI to clarify monthly reporting (M-8) with detailed cost-to-serve vs. billed charge comparisons and accrual explanations.

102306Reply Submission - NSPI 1 passage
Table 1 – Allocation of Off-Schedule Charges to PHP before and after ADC Benefit Allocation p. p. 5
Table 1 – Allocation of Off-Schedule Charges to PHP before and after ADC Benefit Allocation Off-schedule Charges applied before ADC Benefit is Allocated Off-schedule Charges applied after ADC Benefit is Allocated (A) Initial ADC Benefit $1...

AI summary The table illustrates the allocation of off-schedule charges to PHP before and after ADC benefit allocation, showing changes in payments between NS Power and PHP. The structure is assessed annually, and in 2025, the ADC benefit resulted in a net payment from PHP to customers, indicating the tariff functioned as intended.

103394Decision letter 1 passage
Submissions
addition, the Industrial Group viewed the $5/MWh minimum fixed cost contribution under the ELIADC tariff as providing insufficient protection for other ratepayers against continued under-performance. Other issues raised for consideration i...

AI summary The Industrial Group expressed concerns about the ELIADC tariff's $5/MWh minimum fixed cost contribution, arguing it does not adequately protect other ratepayers from the under-performance of Port Hawkesbury Paper. They also raised issues regarding load forecast revisions, carrying costs, and reporting transparency, requesting changes to improve accountability and fairness.

Disclaimer: These summaries were generated by AI from the filings they describe. We take care to make them accurate, but errors are possible - and they aren't advice. Only the filings themselves are the record: if you're relying on something here, confirm it against the source documents or the Nova Scotia Energy Board's own record. Full disclaimer →