Topic:"Compliance Legislation" in M12696

1 Q18. HAS NSPML MET BOTH CONDITIONS OVER THE COMPLIANCE PERIOD? - 2 A18. If the Board provides relief for planned outages and the extreme weather outage in March - 3 2024/April 2024 (explained in more detail below), Concentric is confiden...

AI summary The document addresses whether NSPML met compliance conditions, noting that Concentric believes NSPML satisfied termination criteria for the holdback mechanism if the Board provides relief for planned outages and an extreme weather outage in March/April 2024.

NSPML Responses to Bates White Information Requests 1 g) 1 Request IR-06 2 3 a) Please explain why NSPML waited nearly two years after the end of the "Compliance 4 Period" to request cessation of the Holdback Mechanism. 5 b) NSPML identifi...

AI summary NSPML responds to information requests regarding the Holdback Mechanism and LIL outages. It references prior proceedings and explains its position on the relevance of asset design to Good Utility Practice.

y the author, a NP review report (Ghannoum, 2016) and subsequent report submitted by EFLA (2020) noted that LIL design and subsequent review analysis did not meet the following criteria (paraphrased): • terrain roughness for LIL was consid...

AI summary The LIL design review identified multiple issues, including incorrect terrain classification (Type C vs. Type B), failure to follow CSA standards for load cases, underestimation of OPGW icing, and insufficient consideration of topographical effects. NLH was advised to validate designs for higher ice/wind return periods and address serviceability criteria.

4 b) The information supporting NSPML's compliance with provision (1) can be found 5 throughout NSPML's Application, with an emphasis on the information contained in 6 Section 4 of the Application. 7 8 To summarize, provision (1) was satis...

AI summary NSPML demonstrated compliance with provision (1) during the Compliance Period (May 2023–April 2024), delivering at least 90% of Nova Scotia Block Energy in 8 months. In the remaining 4 months, planned outages and exceptional circumstances (e.g., icing from extreme weather) reduced delivery rates, and NSPML requested relief as allowed by the Energy Board.

NSPML Responses to Consumer Advocate Information Requests 1 month that resulted in excessive icing). Additional details to support the request for relief 26 electric utility industry in Canada. Not completing this planned work could have r...

AI summary NSPML provides responses to information requests from the Consumer Advocate, addressing issues such as excessive icing, planned maintenance, and under delivery reasons, including references to maintenance work and compliance with Energy Board requirements.

NSPML Responses to Industrial Group Information Requests 1 Request IR-01: 25 purposes of the relief available for the 12-month Compliance Period? 26 If not, identify the threshold that NSPML proposes the Board apply in 27 distinguishing qu...

AI summary NSPML responds to information requests regarding the definition of 'Good Utility Practice' and outage terminology, referencing the Lower Churchill Project Commercial Agreements, the Federal Loan Guarantee, and CIGRE TB 956. NSPML confirms it uses definitions from these sources in its commercial agreements.

5.17 Taxes. - 5.17.1 Interconnection Customer Payments Not Taxable. The Parties intend that all payments or property transfers made by Interconnection Customer to Transmission Provider for the installation of Transmission Provider's Interc...

AI summary The section outlines that payments by Interconnection Customer to Transmission Provider for interconnection facilities and network upgrades are non-taxable under IRS guidelines. It references IRS Notices 2001-82 and 88-129, requiring capitalization of costs as intangible assets over 20 years and limiting dual-use intertie power flows to 5% in the direction of the Large Generating Facility.

5.19 Modification. 5.19.1 General. Either Party may undertake modifications to its facilities. If a Party plans to undertake a modification that reasonably may be expected to affect the other Party's facilities, that Party shall provide to...

AI summary Section 5.19 outlines procedures for facility modifications under a JOA, requiring advance notice, confidentiality, and cost allocation rules. Modifications must comply with LGIA and Good Utility Practice. Interconnection Customer is not liable for Transmission Provider's modification costs but must cover their own necessary upgrades.

Article 9. Operations - 9.1 General. Each Party shall comply with the Electric Reliability Organization requirements. Each Party shall provide to the other Party all information that may reasonably be required by the other Party to comply...

AI summary Article 9 outlines operational compliance requirements, including adherence to Electric Reliability Organization standards and procedures for notifying the Balancing Authority Area for Large Generating Facilities. Parties must share necessary information and execute agreements prior to facility synchronization.

14.2 Governing Law. - 14.2.1 The validity, interpretation and performance of this LGIA and each of its provisions shall be governed by the laws of the state where the Point of Interconnection is located, without regard to its conflicts of...

AI summary Section 14.2 of the LGIA establishes that the agreement is governed by the laws of the state where the Point of Interconnection is located, subject to applicable laws and regulations. Parties retain the right to contest or appeal governmental laws, orders, or regulations.

- NS Block, measured in MWh (excluding Make-up Energy), is received during each of 12 - consecutive months."[41](#page-18-1) In introducing this requirement, the Board also stated: - NSPML/NS Power may apply to the Board for relief if it c...

AI summary The requirement mandates NSPML to receive twelve consecutive months of NS Block volumes (excluding Make-up Energy) at least 90% of the total monthly volumes called for under the Energy and Capacity Agreement. This prevents over-reliance on Make-up volumes and ensures consistency and predictability in volume delivery.

Q. Are there specific examples of this phenomenon in NSPML's Application? - A. Yes. There are multiple instances of good utility practice actions. NLH, for example, - scheduled the 2023 annual outage of the LIL in a lower load "shoulder" m...

AI summary NSPML's Application includes examples of good utility practices, such as NLH scheduling outages during low-demand periods and coordinating with reliability authorities. However, software issues on the LIL caused prolonged performance problems, with critical software installation delayed until August 2024, post-NSPML's Compliance Period.

- matters in this proceeding is NSPML's. In other words, if NLH failed to act according to good - utility practice associated with the outages in the four shortfall months in the Compliance Period, - NSPML could still claim that it followe...

AI summary The proceeding discusses NSPML's position that it followed good utility practice despite NLH's failure to act during outages, and highlights NSPML's focus on NLH's actions related to outages on the LIL, including data requests.

Date Filed: June 11, 2026 CA (IG) Page 1 of 5 1 M12696 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 (c) As noted above, Mr. Wilson does not adopt any particular definition of an exceptional circumstances standard. Mr. Wilson's subjective review would consider the...

AI summary The text discusses Mr. Wilson's subjective review of an ice-accumulation event in March-April 2024 that caused damage to the LIL and exceeded design standards. It requests evidence supporting his conclusion and asks if he agrees with Bates White's assessment from December 2022.

8 Q45. HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THOSE CONCERNS? 9 A45. In my opinion, Bates White's concerns regarding future performance are not relevant to the 10 Board's test for termination of the Holdback Mechanism. The Board established specific 11 cri...

AI summary The response argues that Bates White's concerns about future performance are not relevant to the Board's criteria for terminating the Holdback Mechanism. The Board's evaluation is based on actual performance during the Compliance Period, not speculative future conditions, and acknowledges that ongoing reliability assessments and improvements are evidence of prudent utility management.

21 Q47. WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER THE OVERALL PERFORMANCE OF 22 THE MARITIME LINK AND LIL DURING THE COMPLIANCE PERIOD? 23 A47. The purpose of the Holdback Mechanism was to protect customers during a period when 24 the anticipated be...

AI summary The Holdback Mechanism was implemented to protect customers during the compliance period when the anticipated benefits of the Maritime Link and LIL were not yet realized. The Board's focus was on ensuring customers received the energy benefits of the project, emphasizing overall performance rather than isolated outages.

5 A48. The record demonstrates that the concerns that gave rise to the Holdback Mechanism have 6 been addressed. 7 Following commissioning of the LIL, deferred energy was reduced below the 8 Board's ten percent threshold and subsequently e...

AI summary The record shows that concerns leading to the Holdback Mechanism have been resolved. Deferred energy levels fell below the Board's 10% threshold and were eliminated. Customers received energy from the NS Block via direct deliveries and make-up energy. Without limited outages, monthly deliveries would have exceeded the threshold during the Compliance Period.

11 Request IR-6: - 12 Reference: N-01 Application, Sections 3.0 and 4.0; and Appendix A. - 13 Preamble: The Application relies on the 12-month period from May 2023 to April 2024 - 14 as the "Compliance Period", during which NSPML asserts t...

AI summary Request IR-6 examines NSPML's compliance with the 90% Base Block energy threshold during May 2023–April 2024, noting deferred energy balance reductions by June 2024 and post-compliance period redelivery by December 2024. The request questions whether subsequent periods (May 2024–April 2025 and May 2025–March 2026) meet termination conditions, citing data gaps and non-compliance in five months (July–December 2024).

- 1 Request IR-15: - 2 Reference: N-01 Application, Section 6.0; and Appendix B. - 3 And Reference: Matter M11773, N-01 NSPML Holdback Mechanism Letter (June 28, - 4 2024). - 5 Preamble: Appendix B sets out holdback amounts since the Compl...

AI summary NSPML requests interest on deferred holdback funds, verification of financial figures, and a separate proceeding to design a continuing holdback mechanism. The Board questions NSPML's entitlement to interest, data sources, and calculation details, citing prior compliance period data and WACC rates.

28 was considered; 1 (iii) The nature of the work scope performed during the outage 28 affected equipment that were outstanding at the time of the 29 failure, including any items documented in commissioning 30 punch lists, failure investig...

AI summary The text discusses the evaluation of an unplanned outage, focusing on the nature of the work scope, design standards, compliance with CSA standards, and protective actions taken. It also requests documentation to support the determination of whether the outage falls within Good Utility Practice.

- h) Please provide the actual annual availability (%) of the Muskrat Falls Generating Station for 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025. - i) Please provide the forced outage rate (%) of the Muskrat Falls Generating Station for 2021, 2022, 202...

AI summary The text requests detailed operational data on the Muskrat Falls Generating Station (availability, forced outage rates, capacity, output) and clarifications on NSPML's stance regarding the Labrador Island Link (LIL) and Good Utility Practice. It also references Exhibit N-1 and matter M05419 for compliance and modeling assumptions.

Request IR-6: Please refer to Exhibit N-1, section 5.0 - a) Please explain why NSPML waited nearly two years after the end of the "Compliance Period" to request cessation of the Holdback Mechanism. - b) NSPML identifies several additional...

AI summary NSPML questions delays in ending the Holdback Mechanism, evaluates outages for Good Utility Practice compliance, and challenges accountability for third-party transmission outages. It also seeks clarification on contractual obligations tied to NS Block deliveries and the relevance of design flaws to utility performance standards.

Delav in Filing Application NSPML is claiming the 12 months between May 2023 and April 2024 as the time period in which it achieved the requirements set out by the Board in order to terminate the Holdback. Despite the threshold allegedly b...

AI summary NSPML applied to terminate the Holdback 21 months after the Compliance Period ended, citing employee availability and third-party information as reasons. The SBA raises concerns about the accrued WACC on Holdback amounts and a decline in Maritime Link deliveries post-Compliance Period, suggesting the Board should consider these issues in its assessment.

nce, Exhibit N-11 6 Evidence of John Wilson (Grid Strategies), Exhibit N-8, p. 4; see also Evidence of Vincent Musco (Bates White), Exhibit N-7, p. 10-18 and 37 requiring 90% delivery of the NS Block in each of 12 consecutive months has be...

AI summary The document discusses NSPML's compliance with the requirement to deliver 90% of the NS Block over 12 consecutive months. While NSPML did not meet the requirement directly, the Board allowed for relief based on 'good utility practice' or 'exceptional circumstances.' John Wilson noted that NSPML's performance after the Compliance Period was below expectations but supported ending the Holdback based on its performance during the Compliance Period.

1 was provided by Concentric in their rebuttal to show that these outages were indeed 2 scheduled at the same time). 3 4 For purposes of "good utility practice" the question is: Were the actions taken consistent 5 with a reasonable utility...

AI summary NSPML argues that outages during the Compliance Period were due to extreme weather conditions and that its actions were consistent with good utility practice. It emphasizes that severe weather is not unusual and that the utility promptly addressed the outages.

RELIEF FROM THE THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS IS NOT WARRANTED The Board has allowed for a degree of flexibility for NSPML to meet the stated threshold obligations, to address the need for some margin of interruption that is " required due to goo...

AI summary The Board has not granted relief from threshold requirements for NSPML, emphasizing that relief is discretionary and must be justified by good utility practice or exceptional circumstances. The burden of proof was not met, and the evidence did not support the need for such relief.

July 2023 Outage NSPML seeks good utility practice relief for the five-day planned LIL bipole outage in July 2023, characterizing it as a post-commissioning software and SCADA update outage required to enhance reliability. Base NS Block de...

AI summary NSPML requests relief for a July 2023 outage, claiming it was necessary for post-commissioning software updates. The Industrial Group argues that the outage was not routine and did not meet good utility practice standards, as the work was deferred commissioning rather than routine maintenance. Software issues continued to affect the LIL's performance, and the final software was installed months after the compliance period.

CONCLUSION The Industrial Group respectfully requests that the Board: - 1. Reject NSPML's request to terminate the Holdback retroactively to May 2024 on the basis that: - (a) NSPML has not demonstrated full compliance with the Board's hold...

AI summary The Industrial Group requests the Board to reject NSPML's retroactive termination of the Holdback due to non-compliance with conditions and lack of justification for relief. Alternatively, if termination is granted, they argue that NSPML should not receive WACC on post-Compliance Period holdback amounts due to delays in the application.

Date Filed: July 23, 2026 Page 4 of 44 1 Evidence supports relief for the four months during the proposed Compliance Period that 21 second Submission after reviewing Bates White's evidence and IR responses, and 22 NSPML's Rebuttal evidence...

AI summary The Commissioner's Application (CA) supports the findings and recommendations made by Mr. Wilson based on evidence reviewed, and encourages the NSEB to strongly consider the Application. The Company responds by referencing previously filed evidence to assist the Board in its decision-making.

In my opinion, these four events meet the Board's standard for relief as they represent good utility practice (events 1-3) or exceptional circumstances (event 4).[7](#page-7-0) Again, NSPML encourages the Board to give strong weight to the...

AI summary The Company argues that four events meet the Board's standard for relief, representing good utility practice or exceptional circumstances. It also submits that customers were not harmed during the Compliance Period and that Make-up Energy deliveries exceeded contracted amounts, fulfilling the 'Consistent Deliveries' threshold.

Industrial Group Submission, filed July 9, 2026, pages 3, 7, 11,13 and 14. NSPML response to SBA IR-5 provides post-Compliance Period data. 1 2.0 ARGUMENT 2 3 2.1 Post-Compliance Period Performance 4 5 The Industrial Group argues that the...

AI summary The Industrial Group argues that the Holdback should not be ended due to NSPML's post-Compliance Period performance, with energy deliveries below 90% of contracted amounts in five of six months. The Board previously set a 12-month Compliance Period requirement in 2023, based on NSPML's short-term strong performance following the LIL commissioning.

15 SBA Submission, July 9, 2026, page 5. 16 NSEB Decision M11009, October 4, 2023, paragraph 93. In addition, in setting the criteria to end the Holdback, it was well known that, due to the period of under-delivery prior to commissioning o...

AI summary NSPML argues that it has met the conditions to end the Holdback, pointing to the delivery of 100% of contracted energy, including Make-up Energy, and strong performance during critical winter months. It emphasizes that the Commercial Agreements do not require fixed delivery commitments and that the Holdback is no longer necessary as the original terms of the agreement have been fulfilled.

To date, any under delivered energy has been offset by timely deliveries of Make-up Energy. This is proven in Table 2 above. While not in evidence, NSPML can conform that through May 2026, Undelivered Energy has continued to be at or near...

AI summary The document discusses the timing of NSPML's application filing, noting that it was driven by legitimate factors such as resource constraints and the need for complete information from the Compliance Period. The delay was attributed to competing operational and regulatory obligations and the need to ensure all necessary information was in place.