Topic:"Capital Expenditures" in M03508

An Emera Company UARB APPROVAL SHEET Project Title: L7004 Deteriorated Replacements CI Number: 38857 • Capital Project Authorization Head Office Use: D ATO Project Number: D Final Cost Date: July 30,2010 YEAR Budget Estimate Project Estima...

AI summary This document is an approval sheet for the L7004 Deteriorated Replacements project, managed by an Emera Company. It includes details such as the project title, CI number, budget estimates, project estimates, and key dates like the estimated start, in-service, and close dates for the project in 2010.

Parent CI Number Cost Centre 800 - 800-Services - Admin. Budget Version - 201006/06 Forecast Forecast Start 08/01/2010 Final Cost 12/31/2010 Operational 1 0/31/201 !l 2010 $2,467,027.50 Total: $2,467,027.50 Original Cost: $613,370.00 This...

AI summary The document outlines a capital investment project for 2010, focusing on increasing ground clearances and replacing deteriorated infrastructure on transmission line L-7004. The forecast budget is $2,467,027.50, with an original cost of $613,370.00.

Summary of Related Cl's +1- 2 years No other projects in 2008,2009,2010,2011 and 2012 2010 06/06 Forecast Variance 6,873 17,000 23,739 363,888 537,844 1,487,684 30,000 2,467,028 Project Number Approved Date Budget Version Amount 0 0 0 0 0...

AI summary The text provides a summary of related capital investment (CI) projects over a two-year period, with no other projects listed for the years 2008 through 2012. It includes a table with forecast amounts, variances, and cost breakdowns for a specific CI project (CI Number 38857).

Capital Item Justification Justification Criteria: TRANSMISSION PLANT Sub-Criteria: Name of Report : Document Location: Person Responsible:

AI summary The document section outlines a template for justifying a capital item under the 'TRANSMISSION PLANT' criteria, though no specific details or arguments are provided in the excerpt. Fields such as report name, location, and responsible person remain unfilled.

Why do this project this way? This project provides for raising the height of spans that do not meet the CSA standard requirement by installing a mid-span structure or changing out existing structures with higher structures. This work is b...

AI summary The project involves raising span heights to meet CSA standards via mid-span structures or replacements, executed by an affiliate. Expenditure increased by $226,954 due to higher contract costs and administrative overhead, with no scope changes. The cost variance stems from refined original estimates.

38857 - L7004 Deteriorated Replacements Account ACE 2010 Current Submission Variance T&D Regular Labour 001 - 30,000 30,000 095-COPS Regular Labour AO 23,739 23,739 095-COPS Contracts AO 317,054 363,888 46,833 Materials 012 - 533,034 537,8...

AI summary The document presents a table comparing capital investment (CI) account details for deteriorated replacements under matter 38857 - L7004, including labor, materials, and contract costs, as well as interest capitalized. Variance between the ACE 2010 and current submission is highlighted for several line items.

The following is a breakdown of costs associated with the L 7004 Deteriorated Replacements. • Administrative Overheads and Interest $411,500 • Labour $30,000 • Materials $537,844 • Contracts $1,487,684 • Total $2,467,028 The major project...

AI summary The text outlines the costs for the L 7004 Deteriorated Replacements project, detailing administrative, labour, material, and contract expenses. The major costs are attributed to materials and contracts, with materials including poles, crossarms, and insulators.

6 Account Total ($) Interest 33,158 Overhead 347,666 Materials 533,034 Contracts 1,296,216 Labour 30,000 Total 2,240,074 mendations m Reco m between str 1 and str 2 nip .15 move old Line install new aerial Line ID 7019 and re mber 7004 nu...

AI summary The text includes a table with various account details and associated costs, and a list of repair and installation activities, including line replacements and inspections. It also references specific individuals and dates related to these activities.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-1: 2 3 According to the information submitted with the approval request, $300,000 had been 4 spent as of application date. What is the current status of the project? 5 6 Response IR-1: 7 8 This project has bee...

AI summary The project, which received an approval request with $300,000 spent as of the application date, has been completed. Work was carried out between July and October, aligning with line availability provided by the System Operator.

Date Filed: November 16, 2010 NSPI (UARB) IR-2 Page 1 of 1 # of Units Unit cost Total L7004 50-63-2240 (,ASHER CURVED,3 1/4" X 3 1/8" X 1/4"13/16" HOLE CSA STD C83 ITEM t,-2 NSP 40 50 PER BOX 616 .71 .00 L7004 50-63-2300 WASHER CURVED 3 7/...

AI summary This document contains a table of items related to utility infrastructure, including washers, insulators, and poles, with details on quantities, unit costs, and total costs. The items are likely part of a procurement or inventory management process for a utility company.

1 Rows Processed # of Units Unit cost Total 1 203.50 203.50 66 ‐ ‐ 1 111.23 111.23 11 10.18 111.98 2 16.28 32.56 6 30.53 183.18 132 2.25 297.00 734 1.60 1,174.40 803 2.90 2,328.70 2 662.91 1,325.82 # of Units Unit cost Total 10 10.35 103.5...

AI summary The text presents a table of processed rows with details on units, unit costs, and totals, followed by a list of items with descriptions, quantities, and costs. These entries appear to be related to procurement or inventory management, possibly for utility infrastructure.

1 Rows Processed 1 Request IR-3: 2 3 On page 5 of the approval request NSPI states: 4 5 This capital item increased by $226,954 from ACE 2010 mainly due to an 6 increased contract cost and associated administrative overhead. The change 7 8...

AI summary The document discusses a request for clarification on a capital item increase due to a refinement of the original estimate and the outsourcing of work to an affiliate. NSPI explains that the increase was due to additional work identified during further scoping and that the decision to award the contract to an affiliate was in line with the Code of Conduct.