N-1Application
4 passages
2.0 SINGLE-YEAR ASSESSMENT NSPML has completed its evaluation of the practicality of filing a multi-year assessment at this time. While NSPML's financing costs are relatively straight-forward and can be forecasted with high certainty, some...
AI summary NSPML evaluated the feasibility of a multi-year assessment, noting that while financing costs are predictable, operating and maintenance (O&M) costs are difficult to forecast due to market complexity and uncertainty, particularly given NSPML's small operating budget.
Transmission Line Inspections As referenced in the 2025 Assessment, NSPML used drones in 2024 for transmission inspection in substitution for some of the more resource-intensive physical inspection by internal and external resources. The d...
AI summary NSPML used drones in 2024 for transmission line inspections, replacing some physical inspections. This improved efficiency and safety but increased inspection costs by $0.5 million in 2026 compared to the 2025 Assessment.
Labour & Administration The Labour and Administration cost category is composed of costs related to regulatory and legal, consulting, and labour and incentive. Of the $0.9 million increase, $0.5 million is attributed to consulting relating...
AI summary The Labour and Administration cost category includes regulatory, legal, consulting, and labour and incentive costs. The $0.9 million increase is attributed to consulting related to NSPML and NLH, administrative fees for FLG2, and inflationary pressures.
Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) is a remote sensing method used for a variety of reasons. 1 Insurance 2 3 Actual insurance costs for 2025 are expected to be $4.4 million, slightly lower than the 4 2025 approved Assessment of $4.6 milli...
AI summary The document discusses insurance and depreciation costs for NSPML, noting a slight decrease in 2025 insurance costs and a projected increase in 2026 O&M costs due to operational activities and inflation. The depreciation policy is based on a 35-year asset depreciation timeline tied to the NS Block transfer agreement.
N-5NSPML (CA) RIR 1 to 5 - Redacted
5 passages
NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 vegetation management) nor larger one-off type expenses (e.g., marine survey), the truly variable 2 expenses (mainly legal, regulatory, and consulting) are anticipated to be approximately $2 million, 3 or approximately 1...
AI summary NSPML discusses the challenges in projecting multi-year expenses due to variable and unpredictable costs, including legal, regulatory, and consulting fees, as well as one-off expenses like marine surveys. These uncertainties could impact NSPML's financial performance and earnings range.
13 2027 2026 2025 20 Z 4 20 DZZ 021 )Z0 019 D18 Description Estimated Assessment Approved Approved Approved Actual Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Labour and Administration 9.8 9.5 8.6 8.6 7.2 7.5 7.4 6.9 8.3 6,8 6.9 2.4 2.9 2...
AI summary The text presents a detailed table of cost estimates, assessments, and approvals across various categories such as Labour and Administration, Maintenance and Inspection, Insurance, and others, spanning multiple years. It includes figures for 2027, 2026, 2025, and earlier years, with some entries having inconsistencies or missing data. NSPML has applied a 3% escalation rate for 2027 forecasting purposes.
15 2026 Assessment cost. Maintenance and Inspection costs were adjusted by NSPML has not profiled or estimated any - 17 specific maintenance and inspection activities in the 2027 forecast (including the 2027 Marine - 18 Survey); the 2027 f...
AI summary NSPML has not estimated specific maintenance and inspection activities in the 2027 forecast, including the 2027 Marine Survey, and the forecast is subject to change.
REDACTED 1 Request IR-04: 2 3 In Exhibit N-4, Matter No. M11791, RIR-4, NSPML discussed savings associated with the 4 changes in (i) vegetation management process, (ii) transmission inspection methods, and (iii) 5 HVDC Converter long-term...
AI summary The text outlines a request (IR-04) to NSPML for information regarding cost forecasts and changes in vegetation management, transmission inspection methods, and engineering services procurement. The request includes specific questions about cost data, changes in approach, and outcomes from these changes.
REDACTED 1 in the converter and related stations in the current period is approximately 2 costs will ramp up and down in accordance with the maintenance requirements and changes 3 in the contracts from period to period. 4 5 NSPML has not a...
AI summary The text discusses the fluctuation of costs related to the converter and related stations, which are influenced by maintenance requirements and contract changes. NSPML has not yet assessed the next contracting period and will continue evaluating the LTSA scope and costs based on operational risks and resourcing.
N-7NSPML (IG) RIR 1 to 22 - Redacted
4 passages
CONFIDENTIAL (ATTACHMENTS ONLY) 1 Request IR-01: 2 3 Reference: Section 2.1 Asset Management Cost Uncertainties (p.7). 4 (a) For each of the identified uncertainties, please discuss when the 5 uncertainty is anticipated to resolve, and wha...
AI summary The document contains a series of information requests related to asset management cost uncertainties, marine surveys, converter station agreements, and transmission line maintenance costs. It also asks for an assessment of the costs associated with these activities and the reasons for any delays in completing the assessment.
b) Please see table below: 202 ı 202 2 202 3 202 2024 2025 Description Approved Actual Approved Actual Approved Actual Approved Actual Approved Actuals to July 31, 2025 Remaining forecast Maintenance & Inspection 8.6 9.5 8.4 8.9 6.8 6.6 8....
AI summary The text discusses variances in approved and actual costs for various categories from 2021 to 2025, with notable differences in 2021 and 2024 due to factors like pandemic restrictions and cost reductions. It also includes details about NSPML's drone program for transmission line inspections, highlighting operational efficiency and safety improvements.
NSPML Responses to Industrial Group Information Requests 1 Request IR-06: 2 3 Reference: Page 12, lines 23-26. 4 Of the $0.9 million increase, $0.5 million is attributed to consulting relating to 5 ongoing commercial matters, primarily bet...
AI summary NSPML responds to an information request regarding a $0.9 million increase, with $0.5 million attributed to consulting and administrative fees related to FLG2, and $0.4 million linked to inflationary pressures. The response includes a 3% escalation rate for inflationary impacts on labour, office expenses, travel, and administrative costs.
REDACTED 1 costs should be recovered, now or in the future. NSPML also acknowledges that the 2 Board's decision in this matter will likely be restricted in application to the 2026 3 Assessment (although the Board can make determinations th...
AI summary NSPML acknowledges that the Board's decision on cost recovery will apply primarily to the 2026 Assessment and notes significant cost uncertainty ahead. NSPML discusses the use of WACC and FAM accounts for cost recovery, emphasizing the importance of balancing cost-effectiveness and operational efficiency, especially given NSPML's lack of a credit rating.
N-8NSPML (NSEB) RIR 1 to 44 - Redacted
11 passages
NSPML Responses to Nova Scotia Energy Board Information Requests 1 Request IR-03: 14 already embedded in NSPML's operating costs, to the new LTSA is considered 15 "material". 16 c) Please explain why NSPML is unable to estimate the costs f...
AI summary NSPML responds to Nova Scotia Energy Board information requests regarding the renewed LTSA, explaining that the contract is significant to NSPML due to its relationship with Hitachi and its impact on cost containment and stability. NSPML notes that the contract's costs are not considered material in an accounting sense but are important for operational and financial planning.
NON-CONFIDENTIAL Generally good cost history for previous VM approach but history may not be indicative of the future. Uses contractors to execute vegetation management activities. The contractor pool for Newfoundland work scope is small w...
AI summary The text discusses the vegetation management approach by NSPML, noting that while past costs were generally good, future costs may vary due to limited contractor competition. It also highlights a small backlog of minor corrective maintenance items and the need for a new contract starting in 2026.
REDACTED 1 Request IR-08: 2 3 IR-2 to IR-31 Reference Exhibit N-1 Pages 4 -29 4 5 Page 9 6 NSPML states: "The above items include material undertakings with potential for large 7 uncertainty relative to the relatively small variable portio...
AI summary NSPML explains that while the variable portion of its 2026 Assessment is relatively small, it is driven by OM&G costs, which include material contracts that are uncertain due to procurement timing and unpredictable demand, such as the Marine Survey contract. This uncertainty poses significant risk despite the small proportion of the overall Assessment.
NSPML 2026 Assessment Application (NSEB M12394) NSPML Responses to Nova Scotia Energy Board Information Requests 1 cost variances on these larger contracts could have on NSPML (either positive or negative). Please 2 also see CA IR-01. NSPM...
AI summary The NSPML is responding to information requests from the Nova Scotia Energy Board regarding its 2026 Assessment Application. The discussion includes the complexity of O&M costs, differences in NSPML's and NS Power's ability to propose multi-year assessments, and requests for cost data and explanations.
NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-11: 2 3 IR-2 to IR-31 Reference Exhibit N-1 Pages 4 -29 4 - 5 Page 10 (lines 10-15) and Page 20 (lines 17-24) - 6 Please set out in table format, the proposed invoicing to NS Power throughout 2026, - 7 includi...
AI summary The request (IR-11) asks for a table format detailing proposed invoicing to NS Power in 2026, including monthly assessments for the 2026 cost assessment and semi-annual assessments for FLG2. The response indicates a table will be provided.
12 2025 2025 Description 2026 approved (as at July 31) 2024 Actual Maintenance & Inspection 7.7 6.8 1.6 6.9 Labour & Administration 9.5 8.6 5.3 7.8 Insurance 4.5 4.6 2.3 4.2 Independent Engineer 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 Environmental Assessment - 0...
AI summary The table outlines various costs related to maintenance, labour, insurance, and environmental assessments for 2025 and 2026, with figures showing approved amounts, actuals, and forecasts. Notably, maintenance and inspection are expected to occur in Q3 and Q4 2025.
a-c) Please see table below: 2025 2025 Description 2026 Assessment Approved (as at July 31) 2024 Actual Labour 4.4 4.3 2.3 3.7 Legal, regulatory, and compliance 1.9 1.6 1.3 1.4 Consultants 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 Office, travel, and other 3.0 2.6...
AI summary The text discusses a cost increase of $0.9 million, with $0.5 million attributed to consulting related to ongoing commercial matters between NSPML and NLH and higher administrative fees from FLG2, and $0.4 million due to inflationary pressures. Questions are raised regarding the FLG2 administrative fees, their nature, and their inclusion in the application's cost table.
REDACTED 1 h) Confirmed, it is referring to the same matter. 2 i. The $0.4m attributed to inflationary pressures relate to labour, office expenses, travel, 3 and administrative costs including shared services. The escalation rate used was...
AI summary The text discusses a $0.4m increase attributed to inflationary pressures, including labour, office expenses, travel, and administrative costs, with an escalation rate of approximately 3%.
12.3 Own Property Damage For the avoidance of doubt, it is the Parties' intent that, subject to any right a Party may have to seek compensation from a third party who caused the Loss or from insurance, each Party shall be responsible for a...
AI summary The Parties agree that each is responsible for Losses to its own property, including facilities, equipment, and materials on the site of Defined Assets, regardless of the cause, including O&M Activities or the actions of the other Party or its affiliates. This applies unless compensation from a third party or insurance is available.
Input Source (all to equal the amounts contained in the Application) amount of annual energy to be delivered 0.986 TWh transmission losses The then most current estimate of transmission losses as determined pursuant to Schedule 3 of this A...
AI summary The document outlines inputs required for an application, specifying how various financial and operational parameters are determined based on current estimates and agreements. It details the calculation of energy delivery, transmission losses, capital costs, AFUDC rates, operating and maintenance costs, tax rates, and capital cost allowance classes. The process involves Emera preparing a draft for Nalcor's review.
NSPML Responses to Nova Scotia Energy Board Information Requests 1 Concentric agrees that many electric transmission companies recover their revenue 10 economic growth in the first quarter was stronger than expected and short-term business...
AI summary NSPML responds to Nova Scotia Energy Board information requests regarding economic growth and model assumptions. The response indicates that the July Monetary Policy Report does not significantly alter assumptions in Concentric's models, which are more influenced by long-term government bond yields than short-term economic data. Inflation remains a concern, with CPI Trim-mean at 3.0% in July 2025.
N-17Alberta Utilities Commission
Decision 27084-D02-2023
5 passages
the costs of other parties (such as the UCA) who do not submit cost claims to the Commission, nor the costs of the Commission itself and its processes (costs which are ultimately borne by customers). 61. The record in this proceeding is cl...
AI summary The document discusses the need for a formulaic approach to setting the rate of return on equity (ROE) in regulatory proceedings, citing Ontario's experience as evidence. It highlights the benefits of this approach, including reduced regulatory burden and cost, compared to the current practice of litigated cases every two to three years.
- 166. The government bond risk premium approach estimates the ROE as the sum of the ERP and the yield on the 30-year U.S. Treasury bond. The ERP was calculated as the difference between authorized returns from U.S. electric and gas utilit...
AI summary The text discusses different risk premium models for estimating Return on Equity (ROE), including the government bond risk premium approach and the utility bond risk premium approach. The Commission rejects the use of authorized ROEs from other jurisdictions as market-based data and criticizes the subjective nature of Dr. Cleary's recommended risk premium and the methodology used by D. D'Ascendis.
6.5 Other variables of the formulaic approach 183. The approved notional ROE of 9.0 per cent will serve as a base ROE to which the approved formulaic approach will be applied each year: $$ROE_t = 9.0\% + 0.5 \times (YLD_t - 3.10\%) + 0.5 \...
AI summary This section outlines the formulaic approach used to calculate the return on equity (ROE) based on the approved notional ROE of 9.0%, incorporating adjustments for changes in GoC bond yield and utility bond yield spread. It explains how the Commission determined the variables for long GoC bond yields and utility bond yield spreads.
ns over approved ROE. ERP) do not change one-for-one with the change in risk-free rate and bond yield spread; rather, they change to some lesser degree in response to fluctuations in those variables.
AI summary The text discusses how changes in the Government of Canada (GoC) bond yield and utility bond yield spread affect adjustment factors, noting that the equity risk premium (ERP) does not change proportionally with these changes but rather to a lesser extent.
7.4.1 Equity ratios associated with credit metrics 234. In the 2018 GCOC decision (tables 11-14), the Commission provided a sensitivity analysis to illustrate the effect of a range of equity ratios on the three principal credit metrics for...
AI summary The document discusses equity ratios associated with credit metrics, referencing the 2018 GCOC decision and the Commission's sensitivity analysis on the impact of equity ratios on credit metrics for distribution and transmission utilities. It outlines parameter values used by the Commission in the 2018 GCOC decision and in the current proceeding.
N-21UARB APPROVAL SHEET Replace L6513/Upgrade Line Terminals
16 passages
Parent CI Number : - Asset Location : 1455 - 1455 Transmission Plant General Budget Version UARB Submissions Engineering construction support was intended to be outsourced but was performed inhouse which resulted in a reduction of consulti...
AI summary The document details financial and project management changes related to a transmission plant project. Engineering construction support was performed in-house, reducing consulting costs, while administrative overheads were adjusted due to changes in contract and labour costs. The timing of the project was revised, impacting AFUDC calculations.
Reason for Variance The final costs of $2,982,714 for the project were $767,760 lower than the original submission of $3,750,474, primarily due to the use of internal versus external labour. At the time of the original submission, the Proj...
AI summary The final project cost was significantly lower than the original budget due to the use of internal labor instead of external resources. This shift led to cost savings across multiple categories, eliminated the need for contingency funds, and reduced AFUDC costs, although some increases were offset by market and unforeseen conditions.
67N Onslow 345 kV Node Swap Title: Description Unit Quantity Unit Estimate Total Estimate Cost Support Reference Completed Similar Projects (FP#'s) Overtime Labour - 51,817 51,817 There was very little ability for the Transmission Outage S...
AI summary The document details the 67N Onslow 345 kV Node Swap project, highlighting overtime labour costs due to scheduling constraints and adjustments in term labour and travel expenses as the project plan evolved. The project required adjustments in staffing and travel arrangements due to changes in construction supervision.
Dr. Marshall Blume was among the first to study beta. Specifically, he studied four groups of betas, ranging from a very low beta group (averaging 0.50, and similar to the utility industry) to a very high beta group. Dr. Blume found that h...
AI summary This text discusses Dr. Marshall Blume's research on beta migration, showing that betas tend to move toward the grand mean of 1.0 over time. The findings are relevant to the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) and the forward-looking estimation of the cost of capital, as highlighted in studies cited and referenced in a cost of capital report for Nova Scotia Power Inc.
Appendix 13A – Non-standard Meter Service (AMI) Opt-out Fee 1 Proposed Fee for Non-standard Meter Service 3 2 Findings included in the Board's Decision under M10431 5 2.1 Options for Minimization or Elimination of Opt-Out Fees 6 2.1.1 Opt-...
AI summary The document discusses the proposed fee for non-standard meter service (AMI) opt-out, including findings from the Board's decision under M10431, options for minimizing or eliminating the fee, economic comparisons of in-house versus outsourced meter readings, and the justification for the proposed fee based on actual experience and cost considerations.
In this Application, NS Power proposes a monthly opt-out charge according to the schedule outlined in [Table 1](#page-116-1) . Table 1 – Proposed Schedule of AMI Opt-out Fee Monthly Charges for 2026 and 2027 Standard Customer Meter Propose...
AI summary NS Power proposes a monthly opt-out charge for customers who do not use AMI meters, with varying rates depending on meter read frequency. The proposal includes reduced read frequencies for certain customer classes to lower costs, estimated to save $1.2 million over 2026 and 2027.
NS Power's financial model for the opt-out charges is attached in PR-02 Attachment 1 . The model includes the estimated incremental costs that will be incurred as a result of providing customers the option to retain non-standard meter serv...
AI summary NS Power has updated its financial model for AMI opt-out charges, incorporating changes such as a 33% supervisor oversight factor and updated assumptions, to ensure actual costs are recovered from opt-out customers.
Non-standard Meter Service (AMI) Opt-out Fee 2026-2027 GRA Direct Evidence Appendix 13A Page 7 of 14 In addition, approximately 41.5 percent of the total AMI project costs were for the AMI meters themselves.[6](#page-120-2) Parsing project...
AI summary The document discusses the allocation of AMI project costs, emphasizing that 41.5% of costs are for AMI meters. It argues that charging only opt-out customers unfairly increases their costs, suggesting all customers should contribute to ensure fairness and operational efficiency.
2.1.2 Economic Comparison of In-house versus Outsourced Meter Readings In its Order dated December 6, 2018, the Board directed NS Power to explore the option of providing opt-out meter reading services by external contractor resources, inc...
AI summary The NS Power evaluated the economic feasibility of outsourcing opt-out meter reading services versus in-house provision. The analysis, conducted as part of the 2023-2024 GRA, concluded that outsourcing would result in a 25% increase in costs compared to maintaining in-house services, thus finding no cost savings for customers.
Non-standard Meter Service (AMI) Opt-out Fee 2026-2027 GRA Direct Evidence Appendix 13A Page 9 of 14 The concept of non-participant[11](#page-122-0) contributions to the AMI capital project costs, as these costs are embedded in rates, is b...
AI summary The document discusses the rationale for non-participant contributions to the AMI capital project costs, emphasizing shared infrastructure costs and equitable distribution. It explains that even opt-out customers benefit from AMI infrastructure, and their costs are passed through to them, ensuring no over-recovery. The AMI project is deemed in the public interest, offering cost savings and operational benefits.
Non-standard Meter Service (AMI) Opt-out Fee 2026-2027 GRA Direct Evidence Appendix 13A Page 10 of 14 NS Power has increasingly been asked by stakeholders to leverage its AMI data for various justifications and analyses. AMI data helps NS...
AI summary NS Power highlights additional benefits of AMI data, including improved outage management, reduced field work, and better integration of new electric loads, which support the approval of the ATO application. These benefits were not included in the original NPV analysis.
2.3 The Company has Acquired Actual Experience with Opt-out Costs and Flexible Customer Options As part of the approval process for NS Power's AMI roll-out, the NSEB required NS Power to track its costs and report annually on the customers...
AI summary NS Power has been tracking and reporting the costs associated with customers opting out of AMI installation since 2021. In 2024, the total opt-out costs amounted to approximately $1.11 million, with cumulative costs from 2019/2020 to 2024 totaling $4.24 million.
Cost Category 2019/2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Grand Total Internal Labour 0.15 0.07 – – – 0.22 Consulting 0.18 0.00 – – – 0.18 13 M11003 – NSEB Decision, 308688, pages 9-10. November 3, 2023. 14 M08349, NS Power CI 47124 – AMI Project, Suppl...
AI summary The document presents a cost breakdown for various categories, including Internal Labour, Consulting, Total Labour, Customer Care Expenses, and Meter Services Expenses, over the years 2019/2020 to 2024. It references specific decisions and filings related to the AMI Project and provides a grand total for each category.
Re: M08349 – CI 47124 – Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Project – Costs Associated with Opt-Out Services The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB, Board) approved Nova Scotia Power Incorporated's (NS Power, Company) applicat...
AI summary The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB) approved Nova Scotia Power's AMI project in 2018 and directed the company to explore cost-effective opt-out meter reading services and track associated costs. NS Power has installed over 531,000 smart meters and migrated most to OTA billing, with the Board approving the discontinuation of monthly updates due to compliance with the Electricity Act.
Costs Associated with Opt-Out Services Up to December 31, 2024, NS Power has incurred costs in relation to opt-out services in three areas: - (1) Capital investment - (2) Customer care expenses for program roll out - (3) Meter reading cost...
AI summary NS Power has incurred costs related to opt-out services up to December 31, 2024, in three areas: capital investment, customer care expenses for program roll out, and meter reading costs for reading opt-out meters.
Opt-out customers in OTA-enabled areas require manual meter reading and receive nonstandard meter service. In 2024, NS Power continued to read these opt-out customers per standard read frequency in accordance with current regulations. Goin...
AI summary Opt-out customers in OTA-enabled areas require manual meter reading, which NS Power conducted in 2024 at a cost of approximately $1.1 million for 100,000 reads. NS Power continues to explore cost-reduction strategies and flexible customer options, as detailed in Appendix 13A of the 2026-2027 GRA.
N-22Decision Ontario Energy Board EB-2024-0063
11 passages
This is a Decision and Order of the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) regarding a generic proceeding initiated on its own motion to consider the cost of capital and other matters for electricity transmitters, electricity distributors, natural gas...
AI summary The Ontario Energy Board (OEB) has issued a decision and order revising the methodology for determining cost of capital parameters for electricity and gas utilities, effective January 1, 2025. The new parameters include a return on equity of 9.00%, deemed long-term and short-term debt rates, and an annual ROE adjustment formula for future rate applications. The capital structure remains unchanged, and the new framework will be reviewed in five years.
Submissions There was general consensus that the key risk factors that need to be considered when determining the cost of capital parameters and capital structure include business risks and financial risks. With respect to energy transitio...
AI summary The document discusses the consensus on key risk factors for determining cost of capital parameters and capital structure, noting that energy transition risks do not significantly impact timing or recovery for regulated utilities in the 2025-2029 period. OEB staff recommend addressing energy transition uncertainties through regular rate cases or the Non-Wires Solutions (NWS) Guidelines.
Findings Under Issue 11, the OEB asked about the perspectives of debt and equity investors related to cost of capital parameters and capital structure. There is little debate that the perspectives of debt and equity investors in the utilit...
AI summary The OEB inquired about the perspectives of debt and equity investors regarding cost of capital parameters and capital structure. Both investor groups are seen as critical in determining the balance of risk and return, which influences the cost of capital and capital structure of regulated utilities.
Expert Report Proposals LEI recommended that transaction costs be considered as operating expenses, as this approach is more suitable for the nature of the expense, which may fluctuate from year to year. LEI also noted the irregularity in...
AI summary LEI recommends treating transaction costs as operating expenses due to their fluctuating nature, while Concentric, Nexus, and Dr. Cleary argue that these costs should be recovered through the embedded cost of long-term debt, as per OEB's current practice, and that LEI's approach may not comply with IFRS.
Specific Items Monitored OEB staff agreed with LEI and Dr. Cleary that consistent with the OEB's existing policy, the OEB should continue to monitor the cost of capital parameters and test their reasonableness in the context of prevailing...
AI summary The OEB staff agrees with LEI and Dr. Cleary on the need to monitor cost of capital parameters annually but disagrees with quarterly reporting. Ratepayer groups and SEC support public disclosure of reports. The OEA and others debate the need for tracking debt and equity issuances and credit rating reports, with differing views on administrative burden and utility transparency.
Submissions OEB staff agreed with LEI's proposal. The OEA recommended the OEB should continue to update its cost of capital parameters in October, using data as of September 30, except where forecasts are utilized and recommended trailing...
AI summary OEB staff agreed with LEI's proposal, while the OEA recommended updating cost of capital parameters in October using September 30 data. CCMBC suggested using October data instead of September data for the annual ROE adjustment formula. CCC and Pollution Probe recommended maintaining the current timing for annual cost of capital parameter updates.
Submissions OEB staff and a number of ratepayer groups agreed with LEI and Dr. Cleary that consistent with the OEB's existing policy, the OEB should continue to implement changes in the cost of capital parameters and capital structure upon...
AI summary The OEB staff and ratepayer groups support aligning cost of capital changes with rebasing, while SEC and VECC recommend updating base rates to avoid variance account imbalances. CCC and SEC caution against mid-Price Cap incentive rate-setting mechanism (IRM) term changes, emphasizing that cost of capital should be treated like other cost components.
THE ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD ORDERS THAT: - 1. The following cost of capital parameters are approved on a final basis, effective January 1, 2025. Please refer to the Decision for details regarding implementation and applicability. - a. The Dee...
AI summary The Ontario Energy Board (OEB) has finalized cost of capital parameters effective January 1, 2025, including a Deemed Return on Equity of 9.00%, Deemed Long-Term Debt Rate of 4.51%, and Deemed Short-Term Debt Rate of 3.91%. Prescribed interest rates for deferral and variance accounts and construction work in progress are also set, with updates to occur annually and quarterly. Utilities must report new long-term debt over $50 million annually.
A. General Issues - 1. Should the approach to setting cost of capital parameters and capital structure differ depending on: - a) The source of the capital (i.e., whether a utility finances its business through the capital markets or throug...
AI summary This section of the proceeding explores whether the approach to setting cost of capital parameters and capital structure should vary based on the source of capital and ownership type, considers risk factors related to the energy transition and macroeconomic conditions, and examines how regulatory and rate-setting mechanisms influence utility risk.
Table 2 – Summary of Revised Methodology – Cost of Capital Electricity Natural Gas Distributors Long-term debt rate Weighted average of embedded (actual) debt plus forecasted debt rate(s) of new debt in the test period. A deemed long-term...
AI summary This table outlines the revised methodology for calculating the cost of capital, focusing on long-term debt rates for electricity and natural gas distributors. It details how weighted averages of actual and forecasted debt rates are used, with specific considerations for affiliated debt and the application of deemed long-term debt rates as a ceiling in certain scenarios.
Equity Transaction/Flotation Costs The current base ROE methodology includes 50 basis points for transaction costs (i.e., the base ROE of 9.75% includes 0.50% of transaction costs), as noted in the 2009 Report.[105](#page-137-4)
AI summary The current base ROE methodology includes 50 basis points for transaction costs, as noted in the 2009 Report. This accounts for 0.50% of transaction costs within the base ROE of 9.75%.
N-24Compliance Filing - NSPML
4 passages
1 2.0 REVISIONS TO 2026 COST ASSESSMENT AND REVENUE REQUIREMENT 2
AI summary This section outlines revisions to the 2026 cost assessment and revenue requirement, focusing on adjustments to financial and regulatory frameworks for utility operations in Nova Scotia.
17 Table 2 Category (in $millions) Original Assessment 60/40 Compliance Filing 70/30 Variance Rate Base 40.2 40.2 0.0 Sustaining Capital 0.5 0.4 0.1 Total ROE 40.7 40.6 0.1 18
AI summary Table 2 presents financial data related to rate base and sustaining capital under different assessment ratios, showing minimal variance between the original assessment (60/40) and the compliance filing (70/30). The total return on equity (ROE) also shows a slight difference of 0.1 million dollars.
3 TABLE 3 2026 Description (Amounts in $millions) Original Assessment Compliance Filing O&M 22.0 22.0 Depreciation 57.2 57.2 Debt Financing Costs (Net)1 • Interest 37.7 37.8 • Amortization of Deferred Financing Costs 1.4 1.4 Equity Financi...
AI summary Table 3 provides a comparison of original assessment and compliance filing figures for various cost categories in 2026, including O&M, depreciation, debt and equity financing costs, and total costs, with minor variations between the two columns.
in $millions Average Rate Base Sustaining Capital 2026 $ 1,487.17 $ 15.10 9.0% to 8.75% ROE Impact Original 2026 Assessment Compliance Filing 2026 Assessment Category ROE 9% ROE 8.75% Variance Rate Base $ 40.2 $ 39.0 $ 1.2 Sustaining Capex...
AI summary The text presents financial data related to the 2026 compliance filing, including rate base, sustaining capital, and return on equity (ROE) impacts under different scenarios. It details changes in sustaining capital, depreciation, and equity financing, along with a variance of 1.3 million dollars in total costs.
N-25Compliance Filing - NSPML - REFILE
4 passages
1 2.0 REVISIONS TO 2026 COST ASSESSMENT AND REVENUE REQUIREMENT 2
AI summary This section introduces revisions to the 2026 cost assessment and revenue requirement, indicating a focus on updating financial and operational parameters for regulatory review.
17 Table 2 Category (in $millions) Original Assessment 60/40 Compliance Filing 70/30 Variance Rate Base 40.2 40.2 0.0 Sustaining Capital 0.5 0.4 0.1 Total ROE 40.7 40.6 0.1 18
AI summary Table 2 presents financial data related to rate base and sustaining capital under different assessment methods. The original assessment (60/40) and compliance filing (70/30) show minimal variance in both rate base and sustaining capital, with the total return on equity (ROE) also showing a slight difference.
3 TABLE 3 2026 Description (Amounts in $millions) Original Assessment Compliance Filing O&M 22.0 22.0 Depreciation 57.2 57.2 Debt Financing Costs (Net)1 • Interest 37.7 37.8 • Amortization of Deferred Financing Costs 1.4 1.4 Equity Financi...
AI summary Table 3 presents a comparison of original assessment and compliance filing figures for various financial categories in 2026, including operating and maintenance costs, depreciation, debt and equity financing costs, and total costs, with minor variations between the two assessments.
in $millions Average Rate Base Sustaining Capital 2026 $ 1,487.2 $ 15.5 9.0% to 8.75% ROE Impact Original 2026 Assessment Compliance Filing 2026 Assessment Category ROE 9% ROE 8.75% Variance Rate Base $ 40.2 $ 39.0 $ 1.2 Sustaining Capex 0...
AI summary The document presents financial data and analysis related to the 2026 compliance filing, including rate base, sustaining capital, and ROE impacts under different scenarios. It details the effects of varying ROE and DER on cost components such as rate base, sustaining capex, and total costs, highlighting variances between original and compliance filing assessments.
101936Board Decision
6 passages
[2] NSPML requested approval to: - set the 2026 annual cost assessment, effective January 1, 2026, at $198.7 million, which is lower than the total 2025 annual assessment of $200.6 million set by the Board, and includes $39.7 million for r...
AI summary NSPML requested approval to set the 2026 annual cost assessment at $198.7 million, maintain a 9% return on equity, revise the regulated capital structure to 60% debt and 40% equity, and allow flexibility in equity thickness for original project capital costs.
2.1 Findings - [9] NSPML said it would address the rate base treatment of any 2026 sustaining capital expenditures when it files its rate base reconciliation for outstanding insurance, warranty, expropriation and contract claims. It said t...
AI summary NSPML has committed to addressing the rate base treatment of 2026 sustaining capital expenditures in its rate base reconciliation. The Board emphasizes the need to monitor sustaining capital expenses to avoid undue rate pressures and intergenerational equity issues, and reiterates the requirement for NSPML to provide a rate base continuity schedule in future applications.
- [15] Over the past several years, NSPML's actual O&M costs have fluctuated, but have consistently been below forecast: Year Actual O&M Costs Approved O&M Costs Variance 2020 $18.3 million $20.6 million $(2.3) million 2021 $19.7 million $...
AI summary Over the past several years, NSPML's actual O&M costs have been consistently below forecast. In 2024, the underspend was due to not entering into an agreement for cable contingency support, and the funds were returned to customers. This approach was repeated in 2025.
[75] For the risk-free rate of return, Concentric used Consensus Economics forecasted 10-year government bond yield plus the average 10-year historical spread between the 10-year and 30-year government bonds (Canada, 3.60%; U.S., 4.49%). I...
AI summary Concentric and Dr. Cleary presented differing approaches to estimating the risk-free rate for the CAPM model. Concentric used forecasted 10-year government bond yields with historical spreads, while Dr. Cleary used actual long-term government bond yields. Concentric criticized the use of spot yields as volatile, suggesting an average over multiple days instead.
8.0 MULTI-YEAR ASSESSMENTS [217] In the 2025 assessment decision, the NSUARB stated: [85] The Board notes that multi-year assessment applications could be more efficient and reduce regulatory costs for both NSPML and intervenors. The Board...
AI summary The NSUARB discusses the efficiency and regulatory costs of multi-year assessments, noting that NSPML's single-year approach is due to uncertainties in O&M costs. The Board encourages multi-year assessments and suggests that expensing marine survey costs over several years could reduce forecasting risks. The Small Business Advocate and Industrial Group highlight the need for balance between forecast accuracy and regulatory efficiency.
8.1 Findings [223] As the Board has previously noted, it is important that NSPML reduce costs, including regulatory costs, wherever possible. The Board is not convinced that the level of uncertainty surrounding NSPML's cost forecasts is en...
AI summary The Board emphasizes the importance of NSPML reducing costs, including regulatory costs, and is not convinced that uncertainty in cost forecasts justifies avoiding a multi-year assessment application. NSPML is directed to engage with interested parties and report on these discussions in its next cost assessment application.
99008NSEB (NSPML) IR 1 to 44
6 passages
NOVA SCOTIA ENERGY BOARD IN THE MATTER OF: THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT and the MARITIME LINK ACT and the MARITIME LINK COST RECOVERY PROCESS REGULATIONS - and - IN THE MATTER OF: AN APPLICATION by NSP MARITIME LINK INCORPORATED for approval o...
AI summary The document outlines a regulatory proceeding involving the approval of NSP Maritime Link Incorporated's 2026 revenue requirement and cost assessment under the Public Utilities Act and the Maritime Link Act.
Request IR-14: - Page 11 - NSPML states: "As anticipated in the 2025 Assessment Application, a larger scope of vegetation - management activities is forecasted to be required in 2026 as compared to 2025, increasing the - cost in 2026 by ap...
AI summary NSPML anticipates an increase in vegetation management costs by $0.5 million in 2026 compared to 2025 due to a larger scope of work. The request asks for an explanation of the increased workload, the expected scope of work, and the methodology used to estimate the cost increase.
Request IR-16: - Page 12 - NSPML states: "As expected, more drone inspection work is now planned for 2026 as compared - to the 2025 Assessment, which increases Transmission Line inspection costs by $0.5 million." - a) Please explain why mo...
AI summary NSPML indicates that increased drone inspection work in 2026 will raise Transmission Line inspection costs by $0.5 million. The request asks for an explanation of the increased need for drone inspections and how the cost increase was estimated.
Request IR-17: - Page 12 - NSPML states: "The Labour and Administration cost category is composed of costs related to regulatory and legal, consulting, and labour and incentive." - a) Please provide a breakdown of the projected 2026 Labour...
AI summary NSPML is requested to provide detailed breakdowns of Labour and Administration costs for 2024, 2025, and projected 2026, separating legal, consulting, labour, and incentive costs. This is part of Request IR-17.
Request IR-18: - Page 12 - NSPML states: "Of the $0.9 million increase, $0.5 million is attributed to consulting relating to - ongoing commercial matters, primarily between NSPML and NLH, and higher administrative fees - associated with FL...
AI summary The text outlines a series of questions related to NSPML's $0.9 million increase, with $0.5 million attributed to consulting for ongoing commercial matters with NLH and administrative fees from FLG2, and $0.4 million due to inflation. Questions focus on costs, reasons for increased fees, administrative duties, and inflation assumptions.
Request IR-40: Page 45 to 46: Flotation Costs and Financing Flexibility - a) Mr. Coyne states that seven of ten jurisdictions in Canada have historically granted a 50- basis point adjustment for flotation costs. Please confirm that Mr. Coy...
AI summary The document contains a series of questions regarding flotation costs and financing flexibility, particularly focusing on Nova Scotia Power Marketing Limited (NSPML). It asks for confirmation on flotation cost adjustments, investor behavior, the nature of flotation costs, financial implications, and historical cost data.
99011SBA (NSPML) IR 1 to 6
3 passages
Refer to M12394, Exhibit N-1, NSPML's application for approval of its 2026 revenue requirement and cost assessment, (the "Application"), page 10 of 29 and respond to the following: a) Please provide a detailed calculation and reconciliatio...
AI summary The document requests detailed calculations and comparisons related to NSPML's 2026 revenue requirement and cost assessment, including reconciliation of components, comparison with previous years, model documentation, and the impact of cost recovery on small business rate classes.
Request IR-5: Refer to the Application, Exhibit N-1, page 20 of 29 and respond to the following: a) Please provide the full amortization schedule for FLG2 principal and interest from 2025 onward, including guarantee fees, and show how the...
AI summary The text requests an amortization schedule for FLG2 principal and interest from 2025 onward, including guarantee fees, and asks for an explanation of how the $39.7M cost for 2026 is calculated.
Request IR-6: Refer to the Application, Exhibit N-1, pages 25-27 and respond to the following: - a) Please provide all calculations and supporting workpapers used to determine the proposed 60/40 debt-to-equity ratio, and quantify its proje...
AI summary Request IR-6 asks for calculations and supporting workpapers related to the proposed 60/40 debt-to-equity ratio, including its impact on WACC, debt service coverage, financing costs, revenue requirements, and credit ratings, as well as benchmarking studies used to justify the ratio.
101936Board Decision
10 passages
PORT HAWKESBURY PAPER LP James MacDuff, Counsel David MacDougall, Counsel BOARD COUNSEL: William L. Mahody, K.C. HEARING DATES: December 15 and 16, 2025 ORAL SUBMISSIONS: December 18, 2025 DECISION DATE: May 11, 2026 DECISION: The Board ap...
AI summary The Board approved NSPML's 2026 revenue requirement and cost assessment with a reduced return on equity from 9.0% to 8.75%. A compliance filing is required, and the $4 million monthly holdback remains in effect pending further orders.
[3] NSPML's cost assessment request is broken down as follows: Description $M Operating & Maintenance 22.0 Depreciation 57.2 Debt Financing Costs • Interest (Net) 37.7 Amortization of Deferred Financing Costs 1.4 Equity Financing Costs 40....
AI summary NSPML's cost assessment request includes operating and maintenance costs, depreciation, debt and equity financing costs, and a federal loan guarantee. The total requested costs amount to $198.7 million.
- [15] Over the past several years, NSPML's actual O&M costs have fluctuated, but have consistently been below forecast: Year Actual O&M Costs Approved O&M Costs Variance 2020 $18.3 million $20.6 million $(2.3) million 2021 $19.7 million $...
AI summary NSPML's actual O&M costs have been consistently below forecasted amounts over the past several years. The President of NSPML, Norm Dimmell, explained that the underspend in 2024 was due to not entering into a cable contingency support agreement, and the funds were returned to customers as it exceeded the earnings band. This approach was repeated in 2025.
o file the LTAMP once complete. The LTAMP was not filed with the Board in 2022. - [34] On September 6, 2023, in response to NSUARB IR-4 in the 2024 NSPML cost assessment matter (M11285), NSPML stated: The Lower Churchill Project Commercial...
AI summary The LTAMP was not filed with the Board in 2022 or 2023 due to ongoing discussions between NSPML and Nalcor. NSPML anticipates completing the LTAMP in 2024, but the timeline may extend into 2025 due to the complexity of the process and the need for alignment with NLH.
4.1 Findings - [28] The significance of the LTAMP was reviewed by the NSUARB in its 2025 NSPML cost assessment decision: - [37] Beyond the LTAMP's importance to establishing expected NSPML capital needs, the LTAMP can also be used to estab...
AI summary The NSUARB reviewed the significance of the LTAMP in its 2025 NSPML cost assessment decision. The Board emphasized the importance of the LTAMP for establishing NSPML's capital needs and for multi-year cost assessments. NSPML responded to the CA's inquiry by explaining that single-year assessments continued due to uncertainties in operational matters, including the LTAMP. The Board's oversight role under the Public Utilities Act is highlighted, along with the need for certainty in operational and capital matters before considering multi-year assessments.
5.2 Return on Equity [53] The assessment of an appropriate return on equity typically relies on the application of several established financial models, including, but not limited to, the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Model; Capital Asset Pri...
AI summary The assessment of return on equity for NSPML involves multiple financial models like DCF, CAPM, and Risk Premium. Concentric analyzed market conditions and selected proxy companies to estimate an appropriate return on equity, adjusting for NSPML's specific risks. A final range of 10.10% to 10.35% was proposed, though adjustments were cautioned against due to potential over-conservatism.
s required. However, during Phase 4, the operating phase, the Board does not approve any payout of earnings in excess of the approved [return on equity] with a 30% equity thickness. [2013 NSUARB 154] [140] The Industrial Group said no evid...
AI summary The Industrial Group argues that NSPML's request for flexibility in payout of earnings is not warranted, citing past disallowances and performance issues. They suggest alternative solutions and question the timing of NSPML's concerns regarding borrowing costs. NSPML has yet to provide a formal reply.
5.5.1.2 Capital Asset Pricing Model [158] Overall, the Board observes that the CAPM produced lower return on equity results for each expert than the other models they used. [159] Notwithstanding the statistical analysis Dr. Cleary provided...
AI summary The Board notes that the CAPM produced lower return on equity results compared to other models. It remains unconvinced about the accuracy of the Consensus Economics forecasts and the use of a single day's 30-year bond yield data, citing potential anomalies and insufficient demonstration of systematic bias.
8.0 MULTI-YEAR ASSESSMENTS [217] In the 2025 assessment decision, the NSUARB stated: [85] The Board notes that multi-year assessment applications could be more efficient and reduce regulatory costs for both NSPML and intervenors. The Board...
AI summary The NSUARB discusses the efficiency and cost implications of multi-year assessments for NSPML. While NSPML prefers single-year assessments due to uncertainties in O&M costs, the Board encourages multi-year assessments to reduce regulatory costs. NSPML acknowledges the tradeoff between certainty and efficiency and commits to exploring simplified approaches with stakeholders.
8.1 Findings [223] As the Board has previously noted, it is important that NSPML reduce costs, including regulatory costs, wherever possible. The Board is not convinced that the level of uncertainty surrounding NSPML's cost forecasts is en...
AI summary The Board emphasizes the importance of NSPML reducing costs, including regulatory costs, and does not find the level of uncertainty in NSPML's cost forecasts sufficient to avoid a multi-year assessment application. NSPML is directed to engage with interested parties and report on these discussions in its next cost assessment application.