Topic/Matter Intersection

Topic:"Capacity Market Participation" in M11927

Matter: Nova Scotia Power Inc. - CI 50518 – HYD Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment – $15,445,508 (ATO)
3 passages 3 documents

Capacity Market Participation across all matters →

N-9Amended Evidence - Midgard - Redacted 1 passage
Table 6: Comparison of Recent Project Archaeological Costs p. pp. 24-25
Table 6: Comparison of Recent Project Archaeological Costs Application Date Filed Archaeological Cost Gaspereau Dam Safety Remedial Works (Original) May 3, 2007 $150,00040 Wright's Dam Refurbishment 2015 $11,500 Tusket Falls Main Dam Refur...

AI summary Table 6 compares archaeological costs for various dam projects in Nova Scotia, including original applications and those under the 2019 ACE Plan. The table highlights varying costs over time, with some projects showing significant increases, such as the Tusket Falls Main Dam Refurbishment (ATO) which increased by $937,769.

N-11Midgard (IG) RIR – 1 to 33 1 passage
CI 50518 – HYD Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment - $15,445,508 (ATO) (NSUARB M10632) Midgard Consulting Inc. Responses to Industrial Group Information Requests p. p. 2
CI 50518 – HYD Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment - $15,445,508 (ATO) (NSUARB M10632) Midgard Consulting Inc. Responses to Industrial Group Information Requests 1 Request IR-1: 6 Preamble: At the beginning of Midgard's report, it lists the...

AI summary The text discusses a request for information regarding scope changes in the Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment project as noted in Midgard Consulting Inc.'s report. It asks for a table detailing scope changes compared to the original 2019 ACE proceeding, clarification on which changes were not related to DFO requirements, and whether cost increases due to scope changes would be considered reasonable if NSPI knew an FAA would be required.

98138Board Decision 1 passage
2.0 EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS p. p. 4
ning horizon. [29] Midgard analyzed NS Power's IR responses about why it did not re-evaluate the other refurbishment options as part of the ATO application. Midgard provided the following conclusion: NS Power's justification for not consid...

AI summary Midgard analyzed NS Power's reasons for not re-evaluating alternative refurbishment options and concluded that while NS Power's justification for not considering alternatives that avoid headpond drawdown is reasonable, it did not reevaluate decommissioning options despite significant cost increases. Midgard suggests that the NSUARB should have evaluated decommissioning as it may be in the best interest of ratepayers. Additional risks such as environmental, archaeological, and geotechnical factors could lead to further cost overruns.

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 →