Topic/Matter Intersection

Topic:"Cost Considerations" in M11927

Matter: Nova Scotia Power Inc. - CI 50518 – HYD Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment – $15,445,508 (ATO)
158 passages 31 documents

Cost Considerations across all matters →

N-1Application - Redacted - Refiled November 29th, 2024 2 passages
CI 50518 Page 3 of 10 REDACTED (CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION REMOVED)
CI 50518 Page 3 of 10 REDACTED (CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION REMOVED) additional requests for information from DFO that had not been requested as part of previous incomplete letters. The additional requests, and any work associated with them,...

AI summary The Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment Project has experienced cost increases due to additional studies, design work, and environmental offsetting required by DFO, as well as extended timelines and increased material and labor costs. The project remains justified due to structural deficiencies and the need to meet CDA Guidelines.

r n a os
r n a os CI # 50518 - HYD Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment Mi'kmaw Engagement - Continued Mi'kmaq engagement costs associated with the extended project schedule. Addition of the member of the Mi'Kmaq community observe the drawdown and arc...

AI summary The document outlines costs associated with the Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment project, including continued Mi'kmaw engagement costs, additional contingency expenses due to uncertainty with DFO, and increased administrative overhead due to changes in AO rates and internal labour costs.

N-3NSPI (CA) RIR-1 to 18 - Redacted 13 passages
NON-CONFIDENTIAL p. p. 13
NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-2: 2 3 Reference: NS Power indicates that "Option 4" was the preferred option from the five 4 options initially considered, for the following reason: "Option 4 is approximately $500,000 5 less costly than the...

AI summary The document discusses a request (IR-2) regarding the continued viability of 'Option 4' as the most economical choice for a project, based on its lower cost and operational suitability. The response directs the reader to refer to NSUARB IR-7 for further details.

3 # Indicators Condition Choices p. p. 26
CI 50518 CA IR-5 Attachment 19 Page 174 of 423 REDACTED (CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION REMOVED) 3 # Indicators Condition Choices Data Definitions/Explanations Protection and off road vehicles appear to effectively exclude or divert visitors and...

AI summary The text outlines various indicators and condition choices related to environmental protection, consumptive uses, domestic wells, and calcareous fen within a specific area. It includes data on wildlife disturbance, sustainable consumptive uses, proximity of domestic wells, and calcareous fen identification.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL p. p. 38
NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-7: 2 3 Reference: "As a result of the additional work required to address environmental permitting 4 requirements, the construction timeline was extended leading to increased project costs of 5 approximately $...

AI summary The document discusses a request regarding the extended construction timeline and increased costs for a project, attributing the delay to environmental permitting requirements. NS Power asserts that the delay was directly caused by the environmental regulatory process and that obtaining permits more timely would have kept the project on budget.

Section 5965 p. p. 38
- 3 Reference: NS Power states that regular labour costs will increase by $444,441, with term - 4 labour increasing by $94,851, plus associated overtime, all due to additional "project - 5 management support & environmental services labour...

AI summary NS Power has reported an increase in internal labour costs of $444,441, attributed to expanded project management support and environmental services labour due to an extended project timeline and scope. The costs are related to securing environmental permits for construction.

20 Yearly breakdown: p. p. 38
20 Yearly breakdown: Year Increase in costs (in Thousands) Description 2017-2020 ($19) 2021 $85 Managing permitting (DFO, NSECC, and DNRR), Contract LNTP activities 2022 $124 Managing permitting (DFO, NSECC, and DNRR), Controls Building co...

AI summary The yearly breakdown outlines cost increases from 2017 to 2023, detailing activities such as managing permitting with DFO, NSECC, and DNRR, as well as fish passage upgrades and building construction. Costs range from a decrease of $19 thousand to an increase of $124 thousand.

Section 5969 p. p. 38
2 A variance of $94,851 on term labour costs is attributed to Environmental Services labour 3 required for providing monitoring support for the 9 months drawdown period in during 4 construction, assisting with post-construction monitoring...

AI summary A variance of $94,851 in term labour costs is attributed to Environmental Services labour required for monitoring support during the 9-month drawdown period in construction, post-construction monitoring, environmental studies, engagement meetings, and an offsetting project on West River as mandated by environmental permits.

8 Yearly breakdown: p. p. 38
8 Yearly breakdown: Year Increase in costs (in Thousands) Description 2017-2020 $3 Managing site work pertaining to obtaining permits 2021 $0 Managing site work pertaining to obtaining permits 2022 $1 Managing site work pertaining to obtai...

AI summary The yearly breakdown shows incremental costs related to managing site work for obtaining permits, with a significant increase from 2025 to 2026, reflecting the costs of managing permit conditions execution.

CI 50518 - HYD - Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment ATO (NSUARB M11927) NSPI Responses to The Consumer Advocate Information Requests p. p. 38
CI 50518 - HYD - Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment ATO (NSUARB M11927) NSPI Responses to The Consumer Advocate Information Requests 1 (b) Cost minimization will be realized by using internal labour rather than contracted labour 2 at a mark...

AI summary NS Power is responding to information requests regarding cost minimization efforts for the Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment project. They mention using internal labor instead of contracted labor and employing competitive procurement to reduce material costs by approximately $780,000.

REDACTED p. p. 38
REDACTED 1 Request IR-12: 2 - 3 Reference: NS Power states that costs for consulting have increased by approximately $1.6M. - 4 (ATO, p. 5) 5 6 (a) Please provide a full breakdown of these costs. 7 8 (b) Please elaborate upon any cost mini...

AI summary The document requests a detailed breakdown of consulting costs that have increased by approximately $1.6M, as stated by NS Power, and asks for explanations regarding cost minimization efforts and offsetting programs related to these costs.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL p. p. 38
NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-15: 2 3 Reference: NS Power states that costs for Administrative Overhead will increase by 4 $341,503, compared to an original budget of $72,085. 5 6 (a) Please provide a full breakdown of these costs. 7 8 (b)...

AI summary NS Power has requested an increase in administrative overhead costs for a project, citing a significant increase from the original budget. The response indicates that administrative overhead is calculated based on NSUARB-approved accounting policies and includes regular and overtime labour costs.

23 p. p. 38
23 Year Total Regular, Term and Overtime Labour Administrative Overhead Rate Applied Total Administrative Overhead 1 2017 0F $16,312 51.90% $8,141 2018 $21,446 42.69% $9,155 1 Prior to August 2017, AO was calculated based on individual emp...

AI summary The table presents data on total regular, term, and overtime labour costs and administrative overhead rates and costs for 2017 and 2018. The administrative overhead rate decreased from 51.90% in 2017 to 42.69% in 2018, with corresponding changes in total administrative overhead costs.

Preamble p. p. 38
2 (b) Please refer to CA IR-09 (b). 3 4 (c) The increase in administrative overhead (AO) is due to the increase in labour spend and an 5 increase in rates. Please refer to part (a) for a breakdown of labour spend and rates used in 6 the AO...

AI summary The text discusses an increase in administrative overhead due to higher labour costs and increased AO rates, referencing prior and current filings. It also mentions the inclusion of overtime labour in the AO calculation and refers to a specific project (CI 50518 - HYD - Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment ATO) and a regulatory matter (NSUARB M11927).

Section 5994 p. p. 38
2 (b) The cost minimization efforts related to Contract costs, as described in CA IR-11 (b), 3 would have a direct impact on the minimization of contract AO, as every dollar of Contact 4 investment attracts Contract AO. 1 2024 includes act...

AI summary The text discusses how cost minimization efforts related to contract costs, as outlined in CA IR-11 (b), directly impact the minimization of contract asset obligations (AO), noting that each dollar invested in contracts attracts contract AO. It also mentions that 2024 data includes actual costs up to August 31, 2024, and forecasted costs for the remainder of the year.

N-4NSPI (IG) RIR-1 to 10 - Redacted 1 passage
NON-CONFIDENTIAL
NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-1: 2 3 Reference: Page 2. 4 5 Option 4 was selected as the preferred alternative as it is the most cost 6 effective. Option 4 is approximately $500,000 less costly than the next closest 7 option. Option 4 also...

AI summary The document discusses a request to confirm whether NSPI has re-evaluated cost-effective options for a project that exceeded the original budget. It references NSUARB IR-7 for further details.

N-5NSPI (Midgard) RIR-1 to 6 - Redacted 5 passages
REDACTED p. p. 42
REDACTED 1 Request IR-2: 2 3 With reference to Page 3 & 5-6 of the Application: 4 5 (a) Please provide the original estimated costs for archaeological investigation and 6 Mi'kmaq engagement prior to the additional $400,000 noted on Page 3....

AI summary The document contains a request for clarification regarding additional costs for archaeological investigation and Mi'kmaq engagement, specifically asking for breakdowns of original and additional costs, and the distribution of the additional funds.

Account approved Submission Variance Reason for variance p. p. 42
Account approved Submission Variance Reason for variance Contracts $2,256 $7,966 $5,710 Additional costs to complete shovel testing based on the results of the archaeological screening and reconnaissance Date Filed: December 3, 2024 NSPI (...

AI summary The document shows a variance of $5,710 in the Contracts account due to additional costs for shovel testing based on archaeological screening and reconnaissance results. The submission was made by NSPI on December 3, 2024.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL p. p. 42
NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-4: 2 3 With reference to Page 6 of the Application: 4 5 (a) Please confirm that the additional $499,999 contingency is exclusively allocated to 6 address uncertainty around DFO offsetting costs. 7 8 (i) If not...

AI summary The response to Request IR-4 confirms that the additional contingency is solely for DFO offsetting costs and refers to a table for a detailed breakdown of AFUDC interest increase factors, including accrued interest, project scope changes, and interest rates.

11 p. p. 42
11 Factor Total Change Due to Stated Factor Change in Interest Rates ($42,691) Increase in total scope/project timeline $654,906 CI 50518 - HYD - Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment ATO (NSUARB M11927) NSPI Responses to Midgard Consulting In...

AI summary The text presents a table showing the financial impact of changes in interest rates and project timelines for the Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment ATO (NSUARB M11927), with NSPI responding to information requests from Midgard Consulting.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL p. p. 42
NON-CONFIDENTIAL WITH RESPECT TO ATTACHMENT 1 OF THE APPLICATION: With reference to Pages 1-3 of Attachment 1 of the Application: Please provide copies each of the seven DFO communications to NS Power listed in Attachment 1 of the Applicat...

AI summary The document requests copies of seven DFO communications to NS Power and asks for a description of alternatives considered when modifying the project in response to DFO requirements, including whether a cost-benefit analysis was conducted. NS Power evaluated options to avoid a lake level decrease, considering a cofferdam or bulkhead system.

N-6NSPI (NSUARB) RIR-1 to 13 - Redacted 10 passages
Preamble p. p. 27
- 1. OWNER ADMINISTRATION AND OVERHEAD COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED. - 2. COSTS FOR HYDRO UNIT DOWN TIME RESULTING FROM INSTALLATION ARE NOT INCLUDED. - 3. COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH SALES TAX, HST, AND INSURANCE ARE NOT INCLUDED. - 4. MOBILIZATION A...

AI summary The text lists exclusions from the cost calculation, including owner administration, hydro unit downtime, sales tax, insurance, mobilization, and indirect costs such as permitting and engineering. The total direct construction cost is reported as CAD 9,709,000.

ASSUMES (2) 7 MONTH CONSTRUCTION SEASONS CONCEPTUAL LEVEL - OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST (COST IN $2017) p. p. 27
ASSUMES (2) 7 MONTH CONSTRUCTION SEASONS CONCEPTUAL LEVEL - OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST (COST IN $2017) ITEM# ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE ($) UNIT TOTAL ($) TOTAL ($) A. GENERAL $ 1,065,000 1 MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION 1 LS $ 20...

AI summary The document provides an estimate of construction costs for a project involving modifications to a dam and spillway, including mobilization, environmental protections, dewatering, gate installations, and concrete work. The total estimated cost, including a 20% contingency, is approximately $12.5 million in 2017 dollars.

CONCEPTUAL LEVEL - OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST ASSUMES (2) 7 MONTH CONSTRUCTION SEASONS (COST IN $2017) p. p. 27
CONCEPTUAL LEVEL - OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST ASSUMES (2) 7 MONTH CONSTRUCTION SEASONS (COST IN $2017) ITEM# ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE ($) UNIT TOTAL ($) TOTAL ($) WALKWAY MOUNTING CONNECTIONS 1 LS $ 24,000 $ 24,000 C...

AI summary The text presents a conceptual-level opinion of probable construction costs for a project, assuming a 7-month construction season with costs estimated in 2017 dollars. The table outlines various construction items, including walkway mounting connections, concrete disposal, and fish passage modifications, along with associated costs and a 20% contingency.

REDACTED p. p. 42
REDACTED 1 Request IR-10: 2 3 Regarding the Account Variance Sheet on pages 5 and 6 of the current Application: 4 5 (a) For the "Materials" Line Item: 6 7 (i) Please identify the percentage increase in materials cost that NS Power has 8 al...

AI summary The text outlines an information request (IR-10) directed at NS Power concerning cost variances in the Account Variance Sheet related to the 2019 ACE Plan Application, specifically focusing on materials, contracts, and additional costs such as archaeological site security and pumping expenses.

REDACTED p. p. 42
REDACTED Description Increase in costs (in Thousands) ADDITIONAL SCOPE: NEW PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS Fish Passage upgrades $1,630 Engineering support for environmental permit $15 application Barn Swallow nest removal $11 Pre-tree clearing n...

AI summary The text outlines various cost increases associated with a project, including fish passage upgrades, archaeological engagement, and extended construction timelines. The table details specific line items with associated costs, such as engineering support, environmental permits, and construction-related expenses.

REDACTED p. p. 42
REDACTED 1 month and total cost included in the original NSUARB submission were 2 $133,000. However, more recent hydro projects saw site supervision costs 3 of approximately $30,000 per month. The increase in site supervision costs 4 is at...

AI summary The text discusses increased site supervision costs for a hydro project, including inflation-related increases and additional costs from project timeline changes. Freight costs for materials sourced overseas are also mentioned, which were not included in the original ACE Plan Application due to a change in manufacturing assumptions.

Section 95 p. p. 42
7 (d) Materials costs associated with "Supply of Gates and Actuators" and "Supply of Rubber 8 Dams" are lower than the costs shown in the 2019 ACE Plan Application because the costs 9 used in the ACE submission were based on estimates from...

AI summary The document discusses lower material costs for gates, actuators, and rubber dams due to a competitive RFP process, and mentions the need for a backup generator for construction during winter months, recommended by the electrical designer engineer.

11.14 PERFORMANCE SECURITY p. p. 119
11.14 PERFORMANCE SECURITY Please note that the cost for Performance Security as outlined in the RFP is not currently in our price. The cost for this security is $ per $ of the project value plus HST.

AI summary The text discusses the cost of Performance Security as outlined in the RFP, noting that it is not included in the current price and is calculated as a fee per dollar of project value plus HST.

Year 1 p. p. 164
Year 1 Category Description Amount Salaries and Wages (The CMM) Project Manager (35 hrs @ $80/hr = $ 2,800) Project Lead (105 hrs @ $70/hr = $7,350) $10,150.00 Salaries and Wages (Millbrook) Amount to reimburse Millbrook community members...

AI summary The document outlines the costs associated with a project involving the CMM, Millbrook, and NSSA, including salaries, travel, and administrative expenses, totaling approximately $36,442.50.

Pre – Offset p. p. 134
Pre – Offset Table 2 Year 1 (2022) Budget Category Description Amount Salaries and Wages (the CMM) Project Manager (70 hrs @ $80/hr = $ 5,600) Field technicians (3 x technicians for 21 hrs @ $45/hr = $2,835) $8,435.00 Training Environmenta...

AI summary The document outlines the Year 1 (2022) budget for a project managed by the Community Management Corporation (CMM), including expenses for salaries, training, travel, professional services, and administrative costs, totaling approximately $21,520.59.

N-7NSPI (SBA) RIR-1 to 4 - Redacted 3 passages
REDACTED
REDACTED Request IR-3: Refer to N-1 ATO page 3 of 10, para 2. Extended Construction Timeline, in which the Company concluded that the extended timeline led to increased project costs, associated with Contracts and Consulting detailed on pa...

AI summary The document contains a request (IR-3) and response from Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI) regarding increased project costs due to an extended timeline, delays in work, and additional work scope. NSPI refers to NSUARB IR-10 (b) (i) for details on contract cost variances and provides a table outlining consulting cost variances, including environmental permitting requirements.

Section 7
2 (b) Please refer to the details in the tables provided in (a) for the work description. 3 4 (c) NS Power attributes the increases to the delayed construction in 2025 combined with the 5 substantial permitting requirements posed by the re...

AI summary NS Power attributes cost increases to delayed construction in 2025, regulatory permitting requirements, and progressive pricing shifts in construction materials. The details are provided in tables referenced in the text.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL
NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-4: 2 3 Refer to N-1 ATO, page 3 of 10, para 2. Extended Construction Timeline, in which the 4 Company concluded that the extended timeline led to increased project costs, including 5 increased material costs,...

AI summary The response to Request IR-4 explains that increased material costs were driven by changes in steel and other commodity prices since 2018, as well as the need to meet environmental regulatory requirements. A scope change was necessary to improve fish passage at Ruth Falls dam, which added additional costs not included in the original ACE 2019 filing.

N-8Midgard Evidence - Redacted 13 passages
Section 47 p. pp. 17-18
- 13 indirectly affect material costs. However, while the CPI provides a benchmark for inflation, it does not 28 M11927, Exhibit N-3, CA RIR-9(a), p. 3 of 3. 29 Statistics Canada, CPI, Monthly, Not Seasonally Adjusted [. Link.](https://www...

AI summary The text discusses the impact of the CPI on material costs, noting that while CPI serves as an inflation benchmark, it does not directly affect material costs. It references statistical data and exhibits from a regulatory proceeding.

Section 49 p. p. 18
- 1 capture the unique price dynamics of materials like concrete and steel, which are influenced by global - 2 markets, supply chain issues, and local factors. - 3 The Industrial Product Price Index (" IPPI ") measures the price changes of...

AI summary The text discusses the use of the Industrial Product Price Index (IPPI) to capture material cost increases relevant to NS Power's projects, highlighting categories such as fabricated metal products, construction materials, and cement. It notes that these categories align with the material cost increases reported by NS Power and provides a reference to Table 5 for trend analysis.

Preamble p. pp. 18-19
- The IPPI data suggests that an increase for inflationary reasons on the order of 25.4% across all sectors is in - line with general economic trends. However, more specific categories, such as fabricated metal products and - construction...

AI summary The text discusses the impact of inflation on material costs for a construction project, noting a 25.4% overall increase, with higher increases in specific sectors like fabricated metal and construction materials. A 47% increase in material costs is attributed to an extended construction timeframe, though savings in certain line items reduced the overall increase to 85% of the original budget, with concrete costs alone contributing $689,000 of the increase.

3.1.3 Conclusion p. p. 19
3.1.3 Conclusion - In general Midgard concludes that NS Power did face an environment of dramatically increasing costs from - the time of its original submission to the time of the ATO Application. Inflationary pressures, as seen in both -...

AI summary Midgard concludes that NS Power faced significant cost increases due to inflation and other factors between the original submission and the ATO Application. Inflationary pressures, as seen in CPI and IPPI data, contributed to a 35-40% increase in certain categories, though the 85% increase in some line items may also be due to localized impacts or scope changes.

3.2.1 NS Power Submission p. pp. 19-20
3.2.1 NS Power Submission - In response to IRs, NS Power indicated that $698,000 of the cost increases being applied for in the ATO are - the result of scope changes. [Table 6](#page-20-0) provides a detailed breakdown of the $698,000 incr...

AI summary NS Power explains that $698,000 of the cost increases in the ATO application are due to scope changes, with a detailed breakdown provided in Table 6.

3.3.2 Analysis p. pp. 22-23
3.3.2 Analysis Given the updated environmental permit requirements and the need for additional regulatory oversight, the increased labour and material costs reflect actions taken to address these challenges. The four staff types associated...

AI summary The analysis discusses increased labour and material costs due to updated environmental permit requirements and regulatory oversight. NS Power explained cost minimization efforts, including the use of internal labour and reducing regulatory delays, to maintain economic efficiency while meeting project requirements.

3.3.3 Conclusion p. pp. 23-24
3.3.3 Conclusion The increased labour and material costs reported by NS Power stem from updated environmental permitting requirements and an extended timeline to meet regulatory conditions. The allocation of costs across regular labour cat...

AI summary NS Power attributes increased labour and material costs to updated environmental permitting requirements and extended timelines. The allocation of costs across various labour categories reflects the complexity of the project and efforts to ensure compliance. Midgard concludes that these cost increases are reasonable.

13 4.2.3 Conclusion p. pp. 27-29
13 4.2.3 Conclusion - 14 Midgard concludes that the "Additional KMKNO Capacity Payments" increased costs are reasonable, as NS - 15 Power was required to continue consultation with KMKNO as the Project changed. 43 M11927, Exhibit N-3(C), C...

AI summary Midgard concludes that the Additional KMKNO Capacity Payments are reasonable due to ongoing consultation with KMKNO as the Project changed. It also notes that while NS Power may have underestimated archaeological costs, including Mi'kmaq observer costs, these were unlikely to have significantly impacted the original decision.

5.1.1 NS Power Submission p. pp. 29-30
5.1.1 NS Power Submission - The Project involves the refurbishment of the Ruth Falls Main Dam's water-retaining structures, with five - alternatives reviewed during the conceptual design phase: [45](#page-29-1) - 1. Option 1: Replace the e...

AI summary NS Power submitted a proposal for the refurbishment of the Ruth Falls Main Dam, presenting five design alternatives. Option 4 was selected due to its cost-effectiveness. NS Power argues that re-evaluation of the options was unnecessary because all would be similarly impacted by delays in the Fisheries Act Authorization and environmental permitting.

5.2.4 Analysis – Geotechnical Issues p. p. 33
5.2.4 Analysis – Geotechnical Issues - Geotechnical issues have only been explored in limited fashion thus far on the project. NS Power has not yet - completed a detailed geotechnical investigation at the Project site: - "NS Power has not...

AI summary Geotechnical issues at the Project site have not been thoroughly investigated, raising concerns about potential cost overruns similar to those experienced on the Tusket Falls project. NS Power proceeded with detailed design based on conceptual reviews, but this remains a risk area.

5.2.5 Conclusion p. pp. 33-34
5.2.5 Conclusion - Midgard is concerned that the Project remains exposed to several risk areas (environmental compensation - costs, archaeological costs, and geotechnical risks) that have the potential to cause additional overages to - Pro...

AI summary Midgard is concerned that the Project faces risks such as environmental compensation, archaeological, and geotechnical costs, which may lead to overages beyond current contingency allowances. Midgard suggests that if NS Power had analyzed a decommissioning option, it might have clarified the extent of potential cost overruns and their impact on the economic analysis favoring reinvestment.

6.2.1 Material Cost Increases p. p. 35
6.2.1 Material Cost Increases - In general Midgard concludes that NS Power did face an environment of dramatically increasing costs from - the time of its original submission to the time of the ATO Application. On its face the available in...

AI summary Midgard concludes that NS Power faced significant material cost increases from the time of its original submission to the ATO Application, which may not be fully explained by general inflation data. The analysis suggests that localized impacts and potential scope increases may have contributed to the overspending.

6.4.2 Potential Additional Cost Increases p. pp. 36-37
6.4.2 Potential Additional Cost Increases - Midgard is concerned that the Project remains exposed to several risk areas (environmental compensation - costs, archaeological costs, and geotechnical risks) that have the potential to cause add...

AI summary Midgard is concerned that the Project is exposed to risks such as environmental compensation, archaeological, and geotechnical costs, which could lead to additional overages beyond current contingency allowances. The lack of a decommissioning analysis makes it unclear how much Project costs could exceed the ATO estimate.

N-9Amended Evidence - Midgard - Redacted 42 passages
p. pp. 4-5
Table 3: Nova Scotia CPI Trend19 Table 4: Canada IPPI Trend20 Table 5: Ruth Falls Archaeological Costs24 Table 6: Comparison of Recent Project Archaeological Costs25 Table 7: Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment Variance Summary28 Table 8: 20...

AI summary The document presents a series of tables detailing various cost-related data, including archaeological costs, labour costs, materials costs, administrative overhead, and other expenses associated with projects such as the Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment and the 2019 ACE and ATO applications.

2.1.4 Conclusion p. p. 14
2.1.4 Conclusion - While the Project was initially developed in accordance with earlier frameworks and included mitigation and - offsetting proposals, the 2019 amendments to the Fisheries Act introduced new requirements that triggered - th...

AI summary The conclusion discusses how the 2019 amendments to the Fisheries Act required NS Power to submit more detailed proposals to DFO, leading to delays and increased costs. Midgard acknowledges these costs as necessary for compliance and views NS Power's actions as prudent in responding to evolving regulatory requirements.

2.2.3 Conclusion p. p. 16
2.2.3 Conclusion - In Midgard's opinion NS Power was acting reasonably in its interactions with NSECC. The delays associated - with the watercourse alteration permit issuance appear to stem from issues that originally initiated with the -...

AI summary Midgard concludes that NS Power acted reasonably in its interactions with NSECC, with delays in watercourse permits attributed to DFO's FAA process. The cost overages of $4.4 million are primarily linked to DFO delays, and this is considered a valid reason for the variance.

3.1.1 Analysis p. p. 18
3.1.1 Analysis - Midgard has referenced additional metrics to provide context to NS Power's claim that an extended - construction timeline contributed significantly to the $2 million cost variance. The Consumer Price Index - (" CPI ") is a...

AI summary Midgard has referenced the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to provide context for NS Power's claim that an extended construction timeline caused a $2 million cost variance. The CPI measures inflation and is used to track price trends in Nova Scotia from May 2019 to October 2024.

Section 50 p. pp. 18-19
- indirectly affect material costs. However, while the CPI provides a benchmark for inflation, it does not - capture the unique price dynamics of materials like concrete and steel, which are influenced by global - markets, supply chain iss...

AI summary The text discusses the limitations of the CPI in capturing material cost dynamics and highlights the IPPI as a more relevant indicator for tracking material costs, particularly for construction and machinery, relevant to NS Power's projects.

3.1.2 Conclusion p. pp. 19-20
3.1.2 Conclusion - In general Midgard concludes that NS Power did face an environment of dramatically increasing costs from - the time of its original submission to the time of the ATO Application. Inflationary pressures, as seen in both -...

AI summary Midgard concludes that NS Power faced significantly increased costs due to inflation, as reflected in CPI and IPPI data, particularly in categories like concrete and fabricated metal products, which saw increases of 35-40% between the original submission and the ATO Application.

3.2.1 Analysis p. p. 20
3.2.1 Analysis In the ATO Application states: "… there have also been increases in the amount of project support labour, technical support labour, and term environmental support labour as a result of the extended construction timeline. " [...

AI summary The ATO Application highlights increased labour and material costs due to extended construction timelines and updated environmental permit requirements. NS Power explained cost minimization strategies, such as using internal labour and applying lessons learned from previous regulatory processes.

3.2.2 Conclusion p. pp. 20-22
3.2.2 Conclusion - Faced with the increased regulatory requirements that emerged as NS Power progressed the Project, it is - Midgard's view that NS Power had little choice but to increase the amount of effort that its internal resources -...

AI summary NS Power faced increased regulatory requirements during the Project, leading to higher internal resource allocation and additional costs. Midgard acknowledges these efforts as part of NS Power's commitment to due diligence and economic efficiency. This is considered a valid reason for variance in costs.

4.1.3 Conclusion p. p. 25
4.1.3 Conclusion - Midgard considers that the archaeological costs estimated in the Ruth Falls ATO are not overstated, and are - in line with previously estimated amounts for Tusket and Gaspereau. Furthermore, in the context of this ATO -...

AI summary Midgard concludes that the archaeological costs estimated in the Ruth Falls ATO are reasonable and in line with previous dam refurbishment projects. It suspects that a failure to account for $248,105 in the original ACE application would not have significantly affected the decision on the capital expenditure. However, Midgard believes NS Power underestimated archaeological costs at the time of the ACE submission.

5 4.2.3 Conclusion p. pp. 26-27
5 4.2.3 Conclusion - 6 Midgard concludes that this is a valid reason for variance, which will inform Midgard's comments on the - 7 quantity of the cost increases, as discussed in Sectio[n 5.](#page-27-1)

AI summary Midgard concludes that the reason for variance is valid and will influence their comments on the quantity of cost increases, as discussed in Section 5.

7 5.1.1 NS Power Submission p. pp. 27-28
7 5.1.1 NS Power Submission 3 8 NS Power reported labour cost increases from the 2019 ACE to the ATO Application as detailed in [Table 8](#page-28-0) and 9 [Table 9](#page-28-1) which resulted in labour expense overspending of $545,477. co...

AI summary NS Power reported labour cost increases from the 2019 ACE to the ATO Application, resulting in a labour expense overspending of $545,477. The details are outlined in Table 8 and Table 9.

Section 74 p. p. 28
1 - 3 [Table 10](#page-28-2) summarizes NS Power's detailed yearly breakdown of the labor cost variances resulting from the

AI summary The text refers to a table summarizing NS Power's detailed yearly breakdown of labor cost variances, indicating a focus on labor cost analysis within the regulatory proceeding.

5.1.3 Conclusion p. p. 29
5.1.3 Conclusion - The increased labour and material costs reported by NS Power stem from updated environmental permitting - requirements and an extended timeline to meet regulatory conditions. The allocation of costs across regular - labo...

AI summary NS Power's increased labour and material costs are attributed to updated environmental permitting requirements and extended timelines. Midgard concludes that these cost increases are reasonable, given the need to manage project complexity and ensure compliance with regulatory conditions.

5.2.1 NS Power Submission p. pp. 29-30
5.2.1 NS Power Submission - NS Power reported material cost increases from the 2019 ACE to the ATO Application as detailed in [Table 11](#page-30-0) - an[d Table 12,](#page-30-1) which resulted in labour expense overspending of $1,408,689....

AI summary NS Power submitted a report detailing material cost increases from the 2019 ACE to the ATO Application, resulting in a labour expense overspending of $1,408,689, as outlined in Table 11 and Table 12.

5 5.2.3 Analysis – Extended Construction Timelines p. pp. 31-32
5 5.2.3 Analysis – Extended Construction Timelines - 6 The extended project timeline, resulting from delays in securing environmental permitting approvals, - 7 contributed to fluctuations in the costs of key construction materials, includi...

AI summary Extended construction timelines caused delays in environmental permitting, leading to increased material costs for NS Power. The cost increase of $741k is attributed to factors beyond inflation, with some line items showing savings. The original 2019 ACE application had limited material categories, raising questions about the scope of additional costs.

5.2.4 Conclusion p. pp. 32-33
5.2.4 Conclusion - As Midgard noted in Section [3.1.2,](#page-19-2) NS Power was facing an environment of dramatically increasing costs - between its Original Application and the ATO Application. On its face this would not appear to fully...

AI summary Midgard highlights an 87% increase in material costs for NS Power between the 2019 ACE Application and the ATO Application, attributing it to inflation and potential misclassification of costs. The increase is in line with the overall project cost increase, but clarity is needed to determine the reasonableness of the material costs.

4 5.3.1 NS Power Submission p. p. 33
4 5.3.1 NS Power Submission - 5 NS Power reported contract cost increases from the 2019 ACE to the ATO Application as detailed in [Table 14](#page-33-0) - 6 an[d Table 15,](#page-34-0) which resulted in contract expense overspending of $2,...

AI summary NS Power reported increased contract costs from the 2019 ACE to the ATO Application, leading to an overspending of $2,595,802 as detailed in Table 14 and Table 15.

Table 16: Contractor Administrative Overhead Cost Increase p. p. 35
Table 16: Contractor Administrative Overhead Cost Increase Category NSUARB Approved ($) ATO Submission ($) Variance ($) Contractor $438,973 $724,985 $286,012 Administrative Overhead 2 5.3.2 Analysis - Contracts

AI summary Table 16 presents a variance between the NSUARB-approved amount and the ATO submission for contractor administrative overhead costs, highlighting a significant increase of $286,012. The analysis section discusses contracts in detail.

p. p. 36
2 1. Fish Passage Upgrades ($1,630,000): Updated environmental permit requirements, including design, 3 construction, and installation 4 2. Construction Supervision ($241,000): Extended timeline and project execution delays 5 3. Security S...

AI summary The document outlines increased contracting costs for a project due to expanded scope items, including fish passage upgrades, construction supervision, and security services. These increases are attributed to changes in design, environmental permit requirements, and compliance with regulations. NS Power attempted to minimize costs through a Limited Notice to Proceed (LNTP), but this resulted in additional expenses.

5.3.3 Analysis – Contractor Administrative Overhead p. pp. 37-38
5.3.3 Analysis – Contractor Administrative Overhead - NS Power attributes the $286,012 increase in Contractor AO costs to the expanded project scope and - extended timeline driven by environmental permitting requirements. These factors inc...

AI summary NS Power attributes an increase in Contractor Administrative Overhead costs to expanded project scope and extended timelines caused by environmental permitting requirements. The increased complexity of contractor coordination and administrative support needed for the delayed project is detailed in Table 18.

Table 18: Contractor Administrative Overhead Cost Increase[61](#page-38-1) p. p. 38
Table 18: Contractor Administrative Overhead Cost Increase[61](#page-38-1) Year Total Contract Costs Contractor Administrative Overhead Rate Applied Total Contractor Administrative Overhead 2017 $2,256 10.76% $243 2018 $8,028 9.71% $780 20...

AI summary Table 18 presents the contractor administrative overhead costs from 2017 to 2026, showing fluctuations in both total contract costs and the applied overhead rate. NS Power attributes the increase in contractor administrative overhead costs to higher contract costs and an extended project timeline.

Preamble p. pp. 38-47
- 1. Increased Contract Costs: AO charges are directly proportional to total contract costs. These costs rose significantly due to new scope items, higher commodity prices, and additional work required to meet regulatory demands. - 2. Exte...

AI summary The text discusses increased administrative overhead (AO) charges due to rising contract costs, driven by new scope items, higher commodity prices, and regulatory demands. Delays in environmental permits extended the project timeline, increasing AO costs. NS Power highlighted that cost minimization efforts helped control AO variance.

5.3.4 Analysis – Archaeology p. p. 39
5.3.4 Analysis – Archaeology - As discussed in Section [4.1,](#page-22-2) Midgard is of the opinion NS Power should have been aware that archaeological - costs for the Project would be several orders of magnitude higher than its estimate i...

AI summary Midgard argues that NS Power underestimated archaeological costs for the Project, which were several orders of magnitude higher than estimated in the 2019 ACE. These costs are not categorized as first-level costs in the ACE or ATO Application, but are listed under 'Contracts' as 'Archaeology Related Costs', raising questions about their alignment with NS Power's stated costs.

5.3.5 Conclusion p. p. 39
5.3.5 Conclusion - 1. Contracts: The $2,689,000 increase in contract costs reflects the expanded project scope and evolving requirements, including fish passage upgrades, construction supervision, and archaeological mitigation. While the $...

AI summary The conclusion discusses the reasons for increased contract and contractor administrative overhead (AO) costs, attributing them to expanded project scope, regulatory delays, and environmental permitting. Midgard concludes that these cost increases are reasonable, except for archaeological costs, which may not be a valid reason for variance.

5.4.1 NS Power Submission p. pp. 39-40
5.4.1 NS Power Submission - NS Power reported consulting cost increases from the 2019 ACE to the ATO Application as detailed in [Table](#page-40-0) - [19](#page-40-0) an[d Table 20,](#page-40-1) which resulted in consulting expense overspe...

AI summary NS Power reported consulting cost increases from the 2019 ACE to the ATO Application, resulting in an overspending of $1,630,672 as detailed in tables referenced in the submission.

5.4.4 Conclusion p. pp. 41-42
5.4.4 Conclusion - From the information provided, the vast majority of the consulting cost increases are directly linked to - increased Project requirements associated with environmental protection and with fish. As previously - discussed,...

AI summary Midgard concludes that most consulting cost increases are reasonable, linked to environmental protection and fish-related project requirements. However, archaeological reconnaissance costs are not considered a valid reason for variance, and associated cost overages are deemed unreasonable.

5.6.2 Analysis p. p. 44
5.6.2 Analysis - NS Power attributes $341,503 of its cost increases to Labour AO, driven by increased internal labor and - changes in AO rates. The increase is a result of the original filing's estimation using 2020 AO rates, while the - A...

AI summary NS Power attributes a $341,503 increase in costs to Labour AO, citing changes in AO rates from 2020 to 2024. The original filing used outdated rates, while the ATO filing reflects actual and updated rates. Table 25 provides a detailed breakdown of these costs.

Table 25: Cost Increase – Administrative Overhead[71](#page-44-1) p. p. 44
Table 25: Cost Increase – Administrative Overhead[71](#page-44-1) Year Total Regular, Term and Overtime Labour AO Rate Applied Total AO 201772 $16,312 51.90% $8,141 2018 $21,446 42.69% $9,155 2019 $36,107 39.29% $14,186 2020 $71,116 37.16%...

AI summary Table 25 outlines the increase in administrative overhead costs from 2017 to 2025, showing rising labour costs and applied AO rates. NS Power explained the increase in AO costs over the past five years and the steps taken to minimize these.

Power states: p. p. 45
Power states: "Cost minimization will be realized by using internal labour rather than contracted labour at a marked-up rate during the upcoming monitoring during the nine months drawdown of Ruth Falls reservoir. NS Power also sought to mi...

AI summary NS Power implemented cost-saving measures by using internal labor, leveraging regulatory experience, and assigning familiar staff to the Sheet Harbour Hydro Project. The AO variance of $341,503 is justified by project complexities and extended timelines. Midgard concludes that the increased administrative overhead is reasonable.

5.7 AFUDC p. pp. 45-46
5.7 AFUDC - 5.7.1 NS Power Submission - NS Power reported Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (" AFUDC ") cost increases from the 2019 - ACE to the ATO Application as detailed i[n Table 26](#page-46-0) an[d Table 27,](#page-46-1)...

AI summary NS Power submitted an increase in AFUDC costs from the 2019 ACE to the ATO Application, citing a labour expense overspending of $612,215 as detailed in Table 26 and Table 27.

p. p. 46
Description Total Estimate ($) AFUDC $272,553 Table 27: ATO Application AFUDC Costs[78](#page-46-4) Description Total Estimate ($) AFUDC $884,768 2 5.7.2 Analysis

AI summary The document provides an analysis of AFUDC costs associated with the ATO application, including estimates of approximately $272,553 and $884,768 for AFUDC. These figures are presented in tables and referenced in the analysis section.

Section 124 p. p. 46
- 3 NS Power attributes the increase in AFUDC interest, totaling $612,215, to higher project costs, an expanded - project scope, and an extended project timeline.[79](#page-46-5) 4 This is reflected in the year-over-year growth of AFUDC -...

AI summary NS Power attributes the increase in AFUDC interest, totaling $612,215, to higher project costs, an expanded project scope, and an extended project timeline. This is reflected in the year-over-year growth of AFUDC interest balances, as shown in Table 28, which also highlights the applicable rates used during the project timeline.

10 5.7.3 Conclusion p. pp. 47-48
10 5.7.3 Conclusion - 11 The AFUDC increase reflects extended project duration, expanded scope, and increased costs, all of which - 12 required sustained capital investment. This growth, evidenced by steady AFUDC balance increases from 201...

AI summary The AFUDC increase is attributed to extended project duration, expanded scope, and increased costs, which required sustained capital investment. Midgard concludes that these cost increases are reasonable, citing scope increases and extended timelines as valid reasons for variance.

5.8.1 NS Power Submission p. p. 48
5.8.1 NS Power Submission - NS Power attributes various cost increases to additional travel, freight, legal, and meal expenses, driven by - the sequenced construction approach, environmental compliance requirements, delivery of critical ma...

AI summary NS Power attributes cost increases to factors such as sequenced construction, environmental compliance, material delivery, and legal reviews, with a detailed breakdown provided in Table 30.

Table 30: Cost Increase – Other Expenses[85](#page-48-1) p. p. 48
Table 30: Cost Increase – Other Expenses[85](#page-48-1) Description NSUARB Approved ($) ATO Submission ($) Variance ($) Travel Expenses $17,074 $28,819 $11,745 Freight/Postage/Delivery $0 $17,440 $17,440 Legal $0 $141 $141 Meals $5,378 $8...

AI summary Table 30 outlines the approved and submitted costs for various other expenses, highlighting significant variances, including travel, freight, legal, meals, and equipment costs. The table shows a notable increase in expenses submitted by ATO compared to what was approved by NSUARB.

5.8.2 Analysis p. pp. 48-49
5.8.2 Analysis - The increase in the additional travel, legal, and meal expenses can be attributed to the extended construction - timeline and associated environmental permitting requirements. Specific comments on each of expense is as - f...

AI summary The analysis discusses increased travel, legal, meal, and equipment costs due to project delays, environmental permitting, and expanded project scope. These costs are attributed to extended timelines, regulatory requirements, and unexpected vendor selections. NS Power explains these variances as necessary for project compliance and cost efficiency.

Table 31: Cost Increase – Other Goods & Services (Contingency)[89](#page-50-1) p. p. 50
Table 31: Cost Increase – Other Goods & Services (Contingency)[89](#page-50-1) Description NSUARB Approved ($) ATO Submission ($) Variance ($) Other Goods & Services (Contingency) $842,715 $1,342,714 $499,999 5.9.2 Analysis

AI summary Table 31 shows a significant variance between the NSUARB-approved amount and the ATO submission for Other Goods & Services (Contingency), with the ATO requesting an additional $499,999.

5.9.3 Conclusion p. pp. 51-52
5.9.3 Conclusion - Based on the factors discussed above, Midgard concludes that the overspending associated with additional - contingency is reasonable. M11927, Exhibit N-3, CA RIR-14(a), p. 1 of 2. M11927, Exhibit N-3, CA RIR-14(b), pp. 1...

AI summary Midgard concludes that the overspending related to additional contingency is reasonable, based on the factors discussed.

6.2.1 NS Power Submission p. p. 54
6.2.1 NS Power Submission - In the ATO Application and in response to IRs, NS Power has asserted that its currently estimated cost - estimate is a Class 1 estimate (as per AACE Standard 69R-12), with an expected accuracy range of -10% and...

AI summary NS Power submitted an ATO Application, asserting that its current cost estimate of $15.4 M for the project is reliable, based on quotes from contractors and consultants. The estimate is a Class 1 estimate with an accuracy range of -10% to +15%. NS Power expects no further delays and is awaiting FAA from DFO, contingent on additional information.

6.2.5 Conclusion p. pp. 56-57
6.2.5 Conclusion - Midgard is concerned that the Project remains exposed to several risk areas (environmental compensation - costs, archaeological costs, and geotechnical risks) that have the potential to cause additional overages to - Pro...

AI summary Midgard expresses concern that the Project is exposed to environmental, archaeological, and geotechnical risks that may lead to cost overruns beyond current estimates. It suggests that an analysis of a decommissioning option could provide more clarity on potential cost increases and the economic viability of reinvestment in the Project.

Table 32: Summary of Overspending Amount Conclusions p. pp. 57-58
Table 32: Summary of Overspending Amount Conclusions Cost Category Midgard Conclusion Labour Reasonable Materials Recommend that NS Power provide additional clarity on the source of the material cost overspending. Contracts Reasonable, wit...

AI summary Table 32 summarizes conclusions regarding cost category overspending. Most categories are deemed reasonable, but additional clarity is requested for material costs, and archaeology-related costs are questioned as valid reasons for variance.

7.3.2 Potential Additional Cost Increases p. pp. 58-59
7.3.2 Potential Additional Cost Increases - Midgard is concerned that the Project remains exposed to several risk areas (environmental compensation - costs, archaeological costs, and geotechnical risks) that have the potential to cause add...

AI summary Midgard is concerned that the Project may face additional cost increases due to environmental compensation, archaeological, and geotechnical risks. These risks could lead to cost overages beyond current contingency allowances and Class 1 error bounds. Midgard suggests that an analysis of a decommissioning option could provide more clarity on potential cost overruns.

N-11Midgard (IG) RIR – 1 to 33 6 passages
CI 50518 – HYD Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment - $15,445,508 (ATO) (NSUARB M10632) Midgard Consulting Inc. Responses to Industrial Group Information Requests p. pp. 6-27
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-4: 20 represent the "lowest reasonable cost to customers." Midgard...

AI summary Midgard Consulting Inc. responded to information requests regarding the Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment project, emphasizing that the project was determined to be the lowest reasonable cost to customers based on industry best practices. The site visit by Midgard staff was conducted to better understand the project and was appreciated by Midgard.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL p. pp. 19-37
NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 2 3 4 5 b) Midgard cannot determine whether NS Power's approach changed during discussions with DFO, as the details of those conversations are not available. Midgard's assessment is that the phased approach was not impos...

AI summary Midgard assesses that NS Power's phased approach to addressing evolving Fisheries Act requirements was not imposed by DFO but was NS Power's method of mitigating project impacts. While these changes imposed significant costs on NS Power and ratepayers, Midgard considers them a necessary response to regulatory changes and views NS Power's actions as generally prudent.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL p. pp. 24-56
NON-CONFIDENTIAL - a) As stated in the quoted passage, Midgard has not made any assumptions regarding how much of the - b) See IR Response 14(b). Response IR-15: - c) Yes. Regardless of whether the costs were incurred in responding to DFO...

AI summary Midgard acknowledges that the $4.4 million in cost overages is attributed to interactions with DFO or NSECC, primarily due to delays caused by DFO requirements. These delays were exacerbated by NS Power's inability to provide finalized design drawings and contractor documentation, resulting from shifting project designs and schedules.

Section 60 p. p. 37
- Request IR-20: - Reference: N-9, Revised Report, page 34, Table 14: 2019 ACE Costs – Contracts. - Please clarify why the contract amounts estimated for the 2019 ACE application (M08984), are - considered confidential, as compared to the...

AI summary The document requests clarification on why certain contract amounts in the 2019 ACE application are considered confidential, while others in the ATO are not. Midgard Consulting explains that it followed the confidentiality treatment of the source materials, but notes that it is unaware of the reason for the discrepancy.

Response IR-23: p. pp. 37-44
Response IR-23: - a) Inasmuch as Mi'kmaq observer costs can be considered to be a part of "archaeological costs" more - generally, yes, since Midgard has concluded in its report that archaeological costs were underestimated - in the 2019 A...

AI summary Midgard Consulting Inc. responds to information requests regarding the Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment project. It addresses Mi'kmaq observer costs, stating they are part of archaeological costs but not directly linked to the Fisheries Act. Midgard also explains that the increase in AO rate from 39.29% to 77.70% is based on NS Power's adherence to NSUARB-approved accounting policies.

Section 90 p. p. 61
- Midgard is therefore not in a position to comment on whether the current situation and potential (as - opposed to realized) risks faced by this Project represent an analog, procedurally speaking, to the - situation with the Tusket Main d...

AI summary Midgard cannot compare the current project's procedural situation to the Tusket Main dam ATO in M10197 and is not an expert on NSUARB processes. Midgard also notes that costs have already accrued due to the project being on hold, including inflation and storage costs, and expects these to continue if the project is paused.

N-12Reply Evidence - Redacted 2 passages
CI 50518 – HYD – Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment ATO – Reply Evidence Redacted
CI 50518 – HYD – Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment ATO – Reply Evidence Redacted 1 2.0 MATERIAL COSTS 2 3 Midgard's analysis supports the assertion that there was significant inflationary escalation that 4 contributed to the increase in co...

AI summary Midgard's analysis highlights significant inflationary escalation in material costs for the Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment project, but notes discrepancies between NS Power's 2019 ACE Application and the ATO Application. It also points out inconsistencies in cost categorization and suggests that some cost increases may be due to changes in scope rather than extended timelines.

1 3.0 ARCHAEOLOGY COSTS
1 3.0 ARCHAEOLOGY COSTS 2 - 3 Midgard is of the opinion that the Company's 2019 ACE estimate for archaeology was too low - 4 and states that NS Power should have been aware that archaeological costs for the Project would - 5 be several ord...

AI summary Midgard argues that NS Power's 2019 ACE estimate for archaeology costs was too low, citing its direct experience with similar projects and providing a table comparing archaeological costs across comparable projects.

N-13Compliance Filing / amendment to ATO amount - Redacted 4 passages
H792 p. p. 20
H792 After Tax PV of Revenue PV of EVA / Alternative WACC Requirement NPV Rank IRR Disc Pay A Dam Refurbishment 5.81% -21,926,086 12,516,533 1 12.36% 10.2 years B Partial Decommissioning 5.81% 49,632,167 -37,924,730 2 #NUM! 0.0 years 0 NA...

AI summary The text presents financial and economic analysis of two alternatives—Dam Refurbishment and Partial Decommissioning—evaluated based on metrics such as NPV, IRR, and Discount Payback. The analysis includes variations in capital spend, avoided expenses, and revenue requirements, with a focus on the Dam Refurbishment project showing more favorable outcomes.

3-Jul-25 50518 H792 p. p. 21
3-Jul-25 50518 H792 Dam Refurbishment Avoided Replacement Energy Costs Avoided Unplanned Repair Costs Total Annual Avoided Costs Year Replacement Energy Cost ($/MWh) 2025 2026 2025 2026 2025 2026 Repair Cost ($) 0 0 Events/Outages (#) 0 1...

AI summary The document presents a detailed cost analysis of dam refurbishment and partial decommissioning alternatives, focusing on avoided replacement energy costs and unplanned repair costs for the years 2025 and 2026. It includes probability of occurrence, capacity factors, and total capital costs for each option.

Dam Refurbishment p. p. 21
Dam Refurbishment Avoided Applicable Year Total Revenue Operating Costs Expenses Capital CCA UCC CFBT Taxes CFAT PV of CF Discount Factor CNPV 2024 - - - (3,866,380.3) - - (3,866,380.3) - (3,866,380.3) (3,866,380.3) 1.00 (3,866,380.3) 2025...

AI summary The document presents a financial analysis table for a dam refurbishment project from 2024 to 2033, including revenue, operating costs, capital expenditures, and net present value (NPV) calculations. It outlines the financial implications of the project over time.

Partial Decommissioning p. p. 21
Partial Decommissioning Avoided Applicable Year Total Revenue Operating Costs Expenses Capital CCA UCC CFBT Taxes CFAT PV of CF Discount Factor CNPV 2024 - - - (176,166.0) - - (176,166.0) - (176,166.0) (176,166.0) 1.00 (176,166.0) 2025 - -...

AI summary The document presents a financial analysis of partial decommissioning over several years, detailing capital expenditures, capital cost allowances (CCA), undepreciated capital cost (UCC), cash flow before tax (CFBT), taxes, cash flow after tax (CFAT), present value of cash flows (PV of CF), discount factors, and cumulative net present value (CNPV) for each year from 2024 to 2034.

98138Board Decision 4 passages
2.0 EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS p. p. 4
E application. As such, the Company asserts that the need for an FAA, driven by the 2019 amendments to the Fisheries Act and changing regulatory expectations, added substantial costs to the project. [14] Another reason cited by NS Power in...

AI summary NS Power attributes the need for an Authorization to Overspend (FAA) to changes in the Fisheries Act and extended construction timelines due to additional environmental permitting requirements, resulting in increased project costs of approximately $2 million.

[45] The Industrial Group stated that p. p. 4
[45] The Industrial Group stated that Viewing the evidence as a whole, NSPI acted imprudently by not including the costs of the FAA within its initial application. Either it made a deliberate decision to not include those costs thereby und...

AI summary The Industrial Group argues that NSPI acted imprudently by not including the costs of the FAA in its initial application. They also dispute NS Power's claim that environmental permitting affected all refurbishment options equally and emphasize the need for updated economic assessments due to potential increases in archaeological costs.

3.3 Approval of Refurbishment Project Costs p. pp. 23-24
3.3 Approval of Refurbishment Project Costs [67] The Board recognizes that the current ATO application represents a significant cost increase compared to the original Board-approved project cost. However, Midgard concluded that project cos...

AI summary The Board acknowledges a significant cost increase in the ATO application for the refurbishment project but finds that increases related to environmental permitting and the FAA are reasonable. However, Midgard highlights ongoing risks related to environmental, archaeological, and geotechnical costs that could exceed the contingency allocation.

3.4 Decommissioning Cost p. p. 27
the Board for consideration going forward. In light of this, NS Power will commit to providing decommissioning costs in future hydro applications, as applicable. [NS Power Reply Submissions, pp. 2-3] [80] In other Matters before the Board...

AI summary The document discusses concerns raised by the Board regarding NS Power's evaluation of decommissioning options for hydro projects. NS Power provided a decommissioning cost estimate of $84.5 million but did not offer a comparative NPV analysis or details on when capital expenditures would occur over the decommissioning period, limiting the ability to test the estimate.

98620Board Decision Letter 4 passages
M11927 – Nova Scotia Power Incorporated – CI 50518 – HYD Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment – $14,839,116 (Amended ATO) p. p. 0
M11927 – Nova Scotia Power Incorporated – CI 50518 – HYD Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment – $14,839,116 (Amended ATO) On June 18, 2025, the Nova Scotia Energy Board (Board) issued a decision in Matter M11927 Nova Scotia Power Incorporated...

AI summary The Nova Scotia Energy Board has approved an amended Authorization to Overspend (ATO) for the Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment Project following receipt of the Fisheries Act Authorization. The amended ATO reduces the requested amount by $606,392 to $14,839,116. A Net Present Value analysis shows the refurbishment option is more favorable compared to decommissioning. Intervenors and consultants have submitted comments on the application.

Submissions/Comments p. p. 0
that the reasons for the exact amount of the decrease are unclear, Midgard recommended that NS Power provide additional detail in its reply submissions on how it estimated the updated offsetting cost. Midgard expressed concerns about the s...

AI summary Midgard raised concerns about the unclear reasons for a cost decrease and the project's timeline risks due to winter months and FAA requirements. They recommended NS Power provide more details on cost estimation and construction progress in its reply submissions.

Board Findings p. p. 4
$25/m2 cost NS Power had estimated in its original ATO application. In this case, the Board finds that it is not necessary to hold NS Power to the $25/m2 , as was recommended by the Industrial Group. As it relates to NS Power's EAM compari...

AI summary The Board finds that NS Power does not need to adhere to the $25/m² cost estimate from its original ATO application. While the EAM shows that refurbishment of the Ruth Falls main dam is preferred over decommissioning based on NPV analysis, the Board acknowledges limited supporting cost information for the decommissioning option. Sensitivity analysis supports the refurbishment decision despite increased project costs.

CI Number: 50518 Date: July 8, 2025 p. p. 8
CI Number: 50518 Date: July 8, 2025 Expenditure Profile Type of Filing Year Budget Amount Project Estimate Capital Project Authorization 2017 125,191 125,191 Unforeseen and Unbudgeted (U&U) 2018 201,467 86,643 Planned & Advanced (P&A) 2019...

AI summary The document presents an expenditure profile for Nova Scotia Power Incorporated, detailing budget amounts, project estimates, and types of filings from 2017 to 2026. It includes a total budget of $7,244,422 and a current submission of $14,839,116, with an ATO variance of $7,594,694. The submission was approved by the Nova Scotia Energy Board.

95870BCC Migard (NSPI) IR-1 to 6 - Redacted (Refiled Nov. 29) 3 passages
Request IR-3:
Request IR-3: - With reference to Page 5 of the Application: - a) Please provide a detailed breakdown of the approximate $1.4 million increase in materials costs, specifying how much is attributable to the additional scope (modifications t...

AI summary The request asks for a detailed breakdown of a $1.4 million increase in materials costs, specifying the portions attributable to additional scope modifications, inflation, market fluctuations, and other factors.

Request IR-4:
Request IR-4: - With reference to Page 6 of the Application: - a) Please confirm that the additional $499,999 contingency is exclusively allocated to address uncertainty around DFO offsetting costs. - i. If not, please specify which other...

AI summary The request seeks clarification on the allocation of a contingency fund and the breakdown of an increase in AFUDC Interest, questioning whether the contingency is solely for DFO offsetting costs and requesting details on factors contributing to the AFUDC Interest increase.

Request IR-5:
Request IR-5: - With reference to Page 9 of the Application: - With reference to AACE Recommended Practice No. 69R-12, "Cost Estimate Classification - System As Applied in Engineering, Procurement, and Construction for the Hydropower - Ind...

AI summary The text refers to a request for clarification regarding the maturity level and accuracy of a project cost estimate submitted by NS Power, referencing AACE Recommended Practice No. 69R-12. The request asks whether the estimate aligns with Class 1 classification criteria and whether firm bids or price commitments support the estimate.

95871NSUARB (NSPI) IR-1 to 13 1 passage
Request IR-11:
Request IR-11: - Regarding the Capital Project Detailed Cost Estimate on pages 7 and 8 of the current Application: - a) Has construction of the project been tendered? - i. If so, please provide a copy of each tender submission. - ii. If no...

AI summary The text outlines a series of requests related to the Capital Project Detailed Cost Estimate in the current Application, focusing on tendering processes, cost breakdowns, and explanations for discrepancies compared to the 2019 ACE Plan Application.

95875IG (NSPI) IR-1 to 10 1 passage
Section 4
Although the costs of the Project have increased since receiving Board approval, the primary justification of the Project remains the same: refurbishment of the Ruth Falls Main Dam water-retaining structures (embankments, spillway and slui...

AI summary The text discusses the increased costs of a dam refurbishment project and requests clarification on the justification for the project, the consideration of alternative options such as selling or decommissioning the asset, and the calculation of additional contingency costs related to potential offsetting costs from DFO.

95878CA (NSPI) IR-1 to 18 - Redacted (Refiled Nov. 29) 5 passages
15 Request IR-2:
15 Request IR-2: 16 17 Reference: NS Power indicates that "Option 4" was the preferred option from the five options 18 initially considered, for the following reason: "Option 4 is approximately $500,000 less costly than 19 the next closest...

AI summary The document references 'Option 4' as the preferred option for a project, citing it as being approximately $500,000 less costly than the next closest option and meeting operational requirements. It then asks whether Option 4 remains the most economical and if any previously considered options are still viable.

Date Filed: November 12, 2024 CA (NSPI) Page 4 of 7
Date Filed: November 12, 2024 CA (NSPI) Page 4 of 7 1 associated with the lowering of the Ruth Falls Reservoir 18 feet below the minimum operating 2 level. This has led to additional costs of approximately $400,000." (ATO, p. 3) 3 (a) 4 Pl...

AI summary The document outlines several requests for information regarding additional costs incurred by NS Power, including engagement with the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia, cost increases due to labor, materials, contracts, and consulting, as well as cost minimization efforts.

Preamble
4 - 2 (b) Please elaborate upon any cost minimization efforts NS Power has made with respect to 3 these costs. - 5 (c) If not otherwise addressed in part (a), please provide details of the required offsetting 6 programs and explain why off...

AI summary The text includes two questions directed at NS Power regarding cost minimization efforts and offsetting programs, particularly consulting costs. The questions are part of a regulatory proceeding and seek detailed information from NS Power.

20 Request IR-14:
20 Request IR-14: 22 Reference: "The original contingency amount remains unchanged, however additional 23 contingency has been added to cover uncertainty around the amount of offsetting costs required 24 by DFO, which has yet to be confirm...

AI summary The document requests clarification from NS Power on the basis for their claim that the offsetting costs required by DFO may vary significantly, and asks for their best estimates of the potential variance.

31 Request IR-15:
31 Request IR-15: 33 Reference: NS Power states that costs for Administrative Overhead will increase by $341,503, 34 compared to an original budget of $72,085. - 36 (a) Please provide a full breakdown of these costs. - 38 (b) Please elabor...

AI summary NS Power has requested an increase in Administrative Overhead costs from $72,085 to $341,503. The request includes a request for a detailed breakdown of these costs and an explanation of any cost minimization efforts undertaken.

95879SBA (NSPI) IR-1 to 4 2 passages
Request IR-3:
Request IR-3: Refer to N-1 ATO page 3 of 10, para 2. Extended Construction Timeline, in which the Company concluded that the extended timeline led to increased project costs, associated with Contracts and Consulting detailed on page 5 of 1...

AI summary The text requests Nova Scotia Power Inc. to explain how variance amounts in Contracts and Consulting are allocated between extended timeline, delay in work, and additional work scope, and to describe the nature of the work and reasons for the cost increases.

Request IR-4:
Request IR-4: Refer to N-1 ATO, page 3 of 10, para 2. Extended Construction Timeline, in which the Company concluded that the extended timeline led to increased project costs, including increased material costs, and answer the following: -...

AI summary The text refers to an extended construction timeline leading to increased project costs, including material costs, and requests an explanation of the drivers behind the material cost increase and which changes corresponded to a change in scope since 2018.

96572IG (Midgard - BCC) IR - 1 to 33 10 passages
1 Please elaborate, and explain how this may or may not have impacted the
33 is related to interactions with the DFO, rather than the NSECC? 1 Please elaborate, and explain how this may or may not have impacted the 8 Midgard agree that the delays in obtaining the Watercourse Alteration 9 Approval were at least i...

AI summary The text discusses delays in obtaining Watercourse Alteration Approval, potentially linked to NSPI's delays in providing detailed design drawings and access road plans, as well as the impact of increasing costs on project variances. It also references Midgard's conclusions and the context of the ATO process.

Preamble
4156-4407-7910 v3 32 to managing expenses. - 1 (a) Please elaborate on the "allocation of costs across regular labour 2 categories", as listed, within the ATO, and why that allocation is viewed as 3 reasonable? Please specifically address...

AI summary The text contains a series of questions regarding the allocation of costs across regular labour categories in an ATO, the consideration of inflation rates, and the impact of overtime labour on project timelines and progress.

9 Request IR-18:
9 Request IR-18: - 10 Reference: N-8, Original Report, page 22, lines 3-8. - 11 2. The insulated storage containers were required because the rubber dams 12 were acquired early, and have had to be stored on site for the intervening 13 year...

AI summary Midgard's original report attributed an additional cost of $16,000 to the early acquisition of rubber dams requiring insulated storage. The report also noted that early acquisition saved $300,000. The request asks if Midgard still believes this cost is due to early acquisition and whether additional expenses like inspection and freight costs were considered.

1 2 page 50, line 17)? If not, why not? If so, how do these other cost increases impact the analysis?
1 2 page 50, line 17)? If not, why not? If so, how do these other cost increases impact the analysis? 3 (c) Are there additional cost implications in relation to the four-year storage of 4 these rubber dams outside prior to their installat...

AI summary The text discusses questions raised regarding cost implications of storing rubber dams for four years before installation, the savings from early acquisition of these dams, and the reasonableness of storage and inspection costs if NSPI caused project delays. It also addresses archaeological cost estimates for the Ruth Falls project and whether they were appropriately estimated.

1 2 reasonable; what is Midgard's recommendation to the Board on how to proceed?
1 2 reasonable; what is Midgard's recommendation to the Board on how to proceed? 3 4 (g) Does Midgard have any recommendation on how cost estimates for archeological costs can be improved on future hydro projects? 5 Request IR-20: 6 Refere...

AI summary The document contains requests for clarification regarding cost estimates, confidentiality of contract amounts, and the reasonableness of increased contract costs in a 2019 ACE application. Midgard concludes that the increased costs are reasonable, citing expanded project scope and regulatory delays.

- 33 (d) On what basis has Midgard concluded this would not have "materially 34 affected the outcome" of the original approval of this project?
- 33 (d) On what basis has Midgard concluded this would not have "materially 34 affected the outcome" of the original approval of this project? 1 (e) Does Midgard view the estimated engagement costs included in the ATO 2 to be reasonable?...

AI summary The text raises questions about Midgard's reasoning regarding the impact of a project on prior approvals, the reasonableness of engagement costs in an ATO, and the increase in the AO rate. It also references cost management practices by NS Power and asks about lessons learned from previous regulatory applications.

29 they did not answer affirmatively? Please explain.
29 they did not answer affirmatively? Please explain. 1 (c) Has Midgard done an independent analysis of the cost savings in relation 2 to internal labour on this project (i.e. comparing costs of the internal labour 3 to the cost of outside...

AI summary The text presents a question regarding whether Midgard has conducted an independent analysis of cost savings from using internal labour compared to external contractors, and if not, how they justified the prudence of this approach.

Section 35
- Reference: N-9, page 51, lines 14-20. - 9 Midgard quotes NSPI with respect to how it determined the contingency amount. Please confirm - 10 the source of this statement. - Request IR-27: - Reference: N-9, Revised Report, page 52, lines 1...

AI summary NS Power and Midgard discuss the contingency budget for offsetting requirements in a project. NS Power uses a 20,000 m² estimate at $25/m², resulting in a $500,000 contingency. Midgard supports this as a prudent measure, but questions the rationale behind NS Power's unit rate selection.

Section 37
- 1 Preamble: In Midgard's Original Report (section 5.2.2), which is identical to that in the second - 2 excerpt, Midgard expressed confusion with the calculation of the offsetting costs outlined by NSPI. - 3 In the Revised Report, Midgard...

AI summary The text discusses discrepancies in Midgard's reports regarding the calculation of offsetting costs and contingency amounts related to a project. It requests clarification on the reasonableness of these calculations, the basis for certain assumptions, and whether additional communications have occurred with NSPI.

- 28 (f) How are offsetting measurements usually determined on hydro projects 29 such as this?
- 28 (f) How are offsetting measurements usually determined on hydro projects 29 such as this? (g) Has Midgard considered the DFO's concerns with respect to "high 14 opinion that the Board requires this information on decommissioning of 15...

AI summary The text discusses questions raised about offsetting measurements on hydro projects, decommissioning considerations, and the reliability of cost estimates for a project. It references Midgard's response and NS Power's implication that the estimated cost of $15.4 M is reliable and unlikely to increase further.

97078Closing Submission - CA 2 passages
Costs Appear Reasonable p. p. 0
Costs Appear Reasonable The Consumer Advocate sees no reason to disagree with the conclusions reached by the Board Counsel Consultant. Although the amount of the requested overspend exceeds the original budget for the project, Nova Scofia...

AI summary The Consumer Advocate agrees with the Board Counsel Consultant's conclusion that the project costs are reasonable, despite the overspend. The increase was due to new federal permitting requirements and engagement with Indigenous communities. The Advocate recommends a review of budgeting processes for archaeological work and Indigenous consultation.

Possible Decommissioning p. p. 0
Possible Decommissioning Nova Scofia Power states in its original applicafion that it considered five different opfions for carrying out the refurbishment that was required to the dam, spillway and sluiceway and chose the opfion that was m...

AI summary Nova Scotia Power considered refurbishment as the most cost-effective option for the Ruth Falls dam but did not reassess this decision or evaluate decommissioning costs in its application. Midgard Consulting suggested decommissioning might not be economic, but the Consumer Advocate recommends including decommissioning as an option in future applications.

97079Closing Submission - IG 3 passages
Delivered by E-mail p. pp. 0-1
Delivered by E-mail Crystal Henwood Regulatory Affairs Officer/Clerk Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board 3rd Floor, 1601 Lower Water Street PO Box 1692, Unit "M" Halifax NS B3J 3S3 Dear Ms. Henwood: Re: M11927 - NSPI - CI 50518 – HYD Ruth...

AI summary The Industrial Group opposes the approval of NSPI's ATO for the Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment, citing a significant cost increase due to delays in environmental permitting and a lack of diligence in the original application. They argue that NSPI should resubmit with a more thorough analysis of alternatives or have the application placed in abeyance.

(2) There is insufficient evidence the Project remains in the best interest of ratepayers p. pp. 5-6
is $84.5 million but there are limited details on how this was calculated, and the data used is outdated. There is further reference to the Depreciation Study, which is not yet available for review. The Industrial Group further submits tha...

AI summary The Industrial Group argues that there is insufficient evidence to support that the project remains in the best interest of ratepayers, citing outdated cost data and a lack of updated cost comparisons. NSPI claims that re-evaluation was unnecessary due to uniform cost increases from environmental permitting, but the Industrial Group and Board staff have requested this information, which remains unanswered.

(4) The Amounts applied for are not the lowest reasonable cost to ratepayers p. p. 14
ed on the justification from the original application "which was outside of Midgard's review scope". However, as outlined, this justification and cost analysis as between options has not been updated. Beyond the comparison of the possible...

AI summary The document highlights concerns about the significant cost increases in a refurbishment project, with NSPI attributing the increases to an extended construction timeline and inflation. However, the explanation provided does not fully account for the reported 87% increase in material costs or the additional $2.6M increase in contract costs.

97080Closing Submission - SBA 1 passage
Section 2 p. p. 0
been in a position to provide any type of reasoned estimate of the additional cost as a result of those potential changes, but that docs not mean that they should not have identified it as a concern. The uncertainty as to the future approv...

AI summary The SBA argues that NS Power should provide regular updates to the Board regarding project delays and costs related to fisheries infrastructure and archaeological expenses. Concerns include uncertainty about DFO approval and past overspending on archaeological work.

97234Reply to Closing Submissions NSPI 2 passages
Economic Justification: Considering Alternative Refurbishment Options p. p. 0
on this, it is reasonable to determine that similar increases would have been seen amongst the other options considered by NS Power and the Board at the time of the original application.8F 9 The IG referenced Midgard not having independent...

AI summary The Industrial Group (IG) questioned Midgard's lack of independent verification of updated cost comparisons for five refurbishment options, but Midgard found NS Power's explanation of similar cost escalations reasonable and did not believe the Board needed a detailed updated analysis.

Economic Justification: Considering Decommissioning p. p. 0
Economic Justification: Considering Decommissioning The increased environmental regulatory requirements from DFO relating to Fisheries Act Authorization (FAA) permits do not apply exclusively to refurbishment projects. Decommissioning hydr...

AI summary The text discusses the economic justification for decommissioning hydroelectric sites, noting that decommissioning is more costly than refurbishment and has significant environmental and water management impacts. NS Power provided an estimate of decommissioning costs, but the IG criticized the lack of detailed explanation for these figures.

98138Board Decision 4 passages
2.0 EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS p. p. 4
s the project was still in the preliminary design phase. This approach is not uncommon, as these permits are typically obtained after preliminary engineering is complete for a selected project option. [11] In December 2019, NS Power submit...

AI summary NS Power submitted a request for a Fish Habitat Assessment (FAA) for the Ruth Falls main dam refurbishment project in 2020, following new requirements under the modernized Fisheries Act. NS Power faced multiple requests for additional information from DFO, leading to delays and unforeseen costs not accounted for in the original 2019 ACE plan.

[45] The Industrial Group stated that p. p. 4
[45] The Industrial Group stated that Viewing the evidence as a whole, NSPI acted imprudently by not including the costs of the FAA within its initial application. Either it made a deliberate decision to not include those costs thereby und...

AI summary The Industrial Group argues that NSPI acted imprudently by not including the costs of the Fisheries Act in its initial application and failed to complete an updated economic analysis of the project, particularly for Option 4. It also highlights the risk of significant future increases in archaeological costs and calls for a more cost-effective alternative.

3.3 Approval of Refurbishment Project Costs p. pp. 23-24
3.3 Approval of Refurbishment Project Costs [67] The Board recognizes that the current ATO application represents a significant cost increase compared to the original Board-approved project cost. However, Midgard concluded that project cos...

AI summary The Board acknowledges a significant cost increase in the ATO application for the refurbishment project but accepts that increases related to environmental permitting and the FAA are reasonable. However, risks such as environmental compensation, archaeological, and geotechnical costs remain, which could add millions to the project cost beyond the allocated contingency.

3.4 Decommissioning Cost p. p. 27
of when specific capital expenditures over the eleven-year timeframe of the decommissioning option would be made. The lack of this information also limits the ability to test NS Power's cost estimate. [82] Considering this, the Board is co...

AI summary The Board is concerned that the current ATO proceeding does not include a full comparison of the Ruth Falls decommissioning option. The Board has put the application on hold until NS Power receives the FAA from DFO and will require a detailed NPV analysis comparing decommissioning with refurbishment in the amended application.

98572Submissions - Midgard 6 passages
Preamble p. pp. 6-7
- NS Power has not provided additional detail on these cost adjustments. Previously NS Power had provided the following explanation of its cost estimates for offsetting projects: - "NS Power estimated that approximately 20,000 m 2 could be...

AI summary NS Power's estimated cost for offsetting the West River Project has decreased, but the exact reasons for the decrease are unclear. The original estimate was based on 20,000 m² at $25/m², with a $500,000 contingency for up to 40,000 m². The final offsetting area is 27,601 m², suggesting a lower cost per square metre than initially estimated.

5.1 Updated Information p. p. 9
5.1 Updated Information - In its June 18 decision, the NSEB requested that NS Power refile its application with a net present value - ( "NPV" ) analysis that compares the preferred refurbishment option to a decommissioning option. It its -...

AI summary The NSEB requested NS Power to refile its application with a net present value analysis comparing refurbishment and decommissioning options. NS Power provided the results of this analysis, which supported the refurbishment option.

5.2.1 Cost of Decommissioning Alternative p. pp. 9-10
5.2.1 Cost of Decommissioning Alternative - In the provided economic analysis, the capital cost requirement of the Partial Decommissioning alternative is - given as $74.4 M. This is spent over a period of 2025 through 2035, with the bulk o...

AI summary The economic analysis discusses the discrepancy in decommissioning costs for the Ruth Falls facility within the Sheet Harbour system. NS Power's estimate of $74.4 M for partial decommissioning over 2025–2035 is questioned, especially since a 2018 study estimated full system decommissioning at $55.46 M, which escalated to about $68.2 M by 2025. The higher cost for a smaller portion of the system raises concerns about decommissioning cost estimation practices.

5.2.2 Economic Analysis Results p. p. 10
5.2.2 Economic Analysis Results - Using NS Power's inputs, the economic analysis model concludes that the refurbishment alternative is - preferable to the decommissioning alternative by a significant margin ($50.4 M of NPV). Midgard's revi...

AI summary The economic analysis model, using NS Power's inputs, concludes that the refurbishment alternative is preferable to decommissioning by a significant margin of $50.4 M in NPV. The model's results are sensitive to the cost of decommissioning and the cost of replacement energy if the project is decommissioned. NS Power assigns a value of $176.9 M to the energy produced by Ruth Falls through 2064.

- alternative capital costs and the costs of replacement energy as follows: p. p. 10
- alternative capital costs and the costs of replacement energy as follows: Replacement Energy Cost Adjustment Decommissioning Alternative Capital Cost Adjustment No Change $50.4 M -50% No Change $30.6 M No Change -75% $22.0 M -50% -75% $2...

AI summary The text presents scenarios for alternative capital costs and replacement energy costs, including extreme decreases of 50% and 75%, with corresponding monetary impacts ranging from $2.2M to $50.4M. These scenarios are used to model potential changes in costs.

CONCLUSIONS p. p. 11
CONCLUSIONS 1 Based on its review, Midgard has arrived at the following overall conclusions: 2 3 • The issuance of an FAA to the Project removes a significant area of risk and has reduced the estimated cost to complete. 4 5 6 • The timelin...

AI summary Midgard concludes that obtaining an FAA reduces risk and cost for the Project, but timelines imposed by the FAA remain a risk. The economic analysis supports refurbishment, though NS Power's decommissioning cost estimate is significantly higher than previous estimates and lacks supporting information.

98573Submissions - IG 1 passage
1. Offsetting Costs p. pp. 1-2
1. Offsetting Costs In its October ATO application, NSPI used 20,000 m² at $25/m² plus an additional contingency of $500,000 which allowed for total offsetting of 40,000 m². In the FAA, it outlines the permanent and temporary destruction o...

AI summary NSPI's ATO application outlines offsetting costs for habitat destruction, using a unit rate of $25/m² and a contingency of $500,000. However, the Board questions the lack of justification for this rate and highlights uncertainty around potential cost increases if a higher rate is used. The Industrial Group recommends NSPI be held to the $25/m² rate without additional contingency.

98614Reply Submission - NS Power 3 passages
Offsetting p. p. 1
Offsetting In its submission, Midgard indicated that the decrease in offsetting costs, as outlined in the updated Detail Cost Estimate (DCE) would indicate a lower cost per square metre than had been estimated by the Company, as the final...

AI summary Midgard pointed out that the updated Detail Cost Estimate (DCE) shows a decrease in offsetting costs, which suggests a lower cost per square metre than previously estimated by the Company. Midgard requested more details from NS Power on how it is estimating the cost of offsetting. NS Power explained that the initial unit rate of $25/m2 was an estimate used for the project budget, and the updated costs reflect the unit rate from a proponent's proposal awarded after the ATO filing.

Project Progress Reporting: p. pp. 3-4
Project Progress Reporting: NS Power agrees to provide the detailed construction schedule and monthly progress reports as submitted to DFO to the Board and Interested Parties, should the Board deem it necessary. However, these reports do n...

AI summary NS Power agrees to provide detailed construction schedules and monthly progress reports to the Board and interested parties, but not financial information. The company argues that quarterly or bi-annual spending reports are unnecessary given the eight-month construction timeline and existing tools for monitoring spending against approved cost ranges.

Project Budget Approval Amount p. p. 4
Project Budget Approval Amount NS Power respectfully disagrees with the Industrial Group's recommendation for the Company to be required to manage the project expenses within the envelope approved by the Board, before accounting for any al...

AI summary NS Power disagrees with the Industrial Group's recommendation to manage the Ruth Falls Main Dam project expenses within the approved budget before accounting for AFUDC. It argues that all prudently incurred costs should be recoverable through the rate base, unlike the Lower Water Street project, which had viable alternatives and higher risks.

98620Board Decision Letter 2 passages
Submissions/Comments p. p. 0
that the reasons for the exact amount of the decrease are unclear, Midgard recommended that NS Power provide additional detail in its reply submissions on how it estimated the updated offsetting cost. Midgard expressed concerns about the s...

AI summary Midgard recommended that NS Power provide additional details on the updated offsetting cost and the status of construction work related to the FAA. Concerns were raised about the project's timeline and the risk of not meeting FAA conditions.

Board Findings p. p. 4
$25/m2 cost NS Power had estimated in its original ATO application. In this case, the Board finds that it is not necessary to hold NS Power to the $25/m2 , as was recommended by the Industrial Group. As it relates to NS Power's EAM compari...

AI summary The Board finds that NS Power does not need to adhere to the original $25/m2 cost estimate for the Ruth Falls main dam refurbishment. Despite Midgard's concerns about limited supporting cost information for the decommissioning option, the Board concludes that refurbishment remains the preferred option based on NPV analysis and sensitivity testing.

100928Contingency Report #1 - Redacted 1 passage
REDACTED Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment Contingency Report 1 Appendix A Page 1 of 2 REDACTED (CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION REMOVED) p. p. 0
REDACTED Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment Contingency Report 1 Appendix A Page 1 of 2 REDACTED (CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION REMOVED) NSEB Approved Contingency/ Unbudgeted Spend Additional travel costs incurred during community engagement ses...

AI summary The contingency report outlines additional costs for the Ruth Falls Main Dam refurbishment, including travel, materials, and contractor labour. These costs are due to community engagement, site visits, and adjustments needed for the rubber dam system. The report also mentions water supply challenges and deferral costs.

101837Contingency Report #2 - Redacted 1 passage
REDACTED Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment Contingency Report 2 Appendix A Page 1 of 1 REDACTED (CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION REMOVED) p. pp. 0-3
REDACTED Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment Contingency Report 2 Appendix A Page 1 of 1 REDACTED (CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION REMOVED) Account NSEB Approved Amount Spend-to-Date Contingency/ Unbudgeted Spend-to-Date Comments Freight/Postage/De...

AI summary The document outlines contingency and unbudgeted spending for the Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment project, including freight, consulting, legal, and meal expenses. It details additional costs incurred due to unforeseen circumstances and adjustments in cost codes.

103022Contingency Report #3 - Redacted 1 passage
REDACTED Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment Contingency Report 3 Appendix A Page 1 of 1 REDACTED (CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION REMOVED) p. p. 0
REDACTED Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment Contingency Report 3 Appendix A Page 1 of 1 REDACTED (CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION REMOVED) Account NSEB Approved Amount Spend-to-Date Contingency/ Unbudgeted Spend-to-Date Comments Regular Labour (53...

AI summary The contingency report outlines additional labour costs incurred during the Ruth Falls Main Dam refurbishment, including regular, overtime, and term labour expenses. These costs were due to activities such as trap and truck operations, monitoring barn swallows, and responding to trapped deer, all part of NSPI's commitment to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO).

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 →