Topic:"Cost Deferral" in M12696

13 1 Specifically: 20 to this application, which is summarized in part as follows: 21 22 a) Outstanding Deferred Energy Below 10% Threshold: At the end of March 23 2024, the net outstanding Deferred Energy balance fell below the 10% thresh...

AI summary The text discusses the status of outstanding deferred energy, noting that by the end of March 2024, the net balance fell below the 10% threshold at approximately 111,000 MWh, with all outstanding base energy owed as of June 22, 2024.

Date Filed: February 3 , 2026 Page 23 of 37 1 All reports from NLH (and confirmed by NSPML) are that these outages were successful. 2 Deliveries during the months of November and December 2024—the first two months of 3 the critical winter...

AI summary The document discusses planned outages on the LIL and Maritime Link, emphasizing their successful execution and the delivery of Deferred Energy during lower load periods. NSPML highlights operational efficiency and reliability, but notes that it cannot guarantee the timing or value of Deferred Energy delivery due to external energy pricing factors.

NSPML Responses to Industrial Group Information Requests 1 Request IR-04: 2 data. 3 4 (c) Please confirm the percentage of "Make-up Balance" included at Appendix C 5 is the same as the percentage of Deferred Energy/undelivered energy. If n...

AI summary NSPML responds to a request regarding the 'Make-up Balance' and Deferred Energy/undelivered energy percentages. It confirms that the percentage of 'Make-up Balance' is the same as Deferred Energy/undelivered energy and explains that the second condition for the NS Block is independent of the first. It also notes that the Deferred Energy balance was below 10% of contracted volumes during the Compliance Period and was eliminated by June 2024.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 before the 12 months at 90 percent could start, NSPML believes the Board would have 2 stated that in the conditions. Also, if the Board had intended for the 12 months to start 3 after the 10 percent was achieved, they wo...

AI summary NSPML argues that the Deferred Energy balance declining to 9% of contracted energy by March 2024 satisfies the 10% threshold condition for abolishing the holdback mechanism, citing strong Make-up Energy deliveries from 2022–2024. NSPML asserts the Board should interpret this as fulfilling the requirement.

II. Introduction and Summary - Q: Please summarize the scope of your evidence. - A: My evidence reviews NSPML's application for release of the Holdback effective April 2024 and recovery of carrying costs associated with Holdback that has o...

AI summary The evidence reviews NSPML's application to release a Holdback effective April 2024 and recover carrying costs. The applicant's request is justified due to outage events meeting the Board's relief criteria, but the Board may need to adjust the carrying charge from full WACC to debt-only charges, reducing the proposed amount from $1,148,502 to $878,573.

Q: Are you aware of any precedents from other jurisdictions? - A: Yes, this issue has been extensively litigated before the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). In a recent series of rate cases, the CPUC decided that Southern Cal...

AI summary The respondent cites precedents from California, North Carolina, Texas, Oklahoma, and Florida where utilities recovered deferred costs at reduced rates (e.g., short-term commercial paper or debt-only rates). The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) rejected Southern California Edison's (SCE) argument for full weighted average cost of capital (WACC) recovery, citing lower risk profiles of deferral accounts.

Q: What is your recommendation? - A: I recommend that the Board direct release of the Holdback as discussed in Section III plus a carrying charge calculated at NSPML's approved cost of debt through the date of the Board Decision on this ma...

AI summary The respondent recommends releasing the Holdback with a carrying charge calculated at NSPML's approved cost of debt, reduced by $270,000 due to a 21-month delay. This adjustment aims to reflect the deferred costs associated with the delayed application.

HEARING ORDER In Matter M11009, the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board outlined conditions to be met to end the holdback mechanism originally ordered in 2022 to account for the continuing delivery delays receiving Muskrat Falls energy ov...

AI summary In Matter M11009, NSP Maritime Link Inc. (NSPML) asserts that conditions to end the holdback mechanism, initially ordered in 2022 for Muskrat Falls energy delivery delays, were met by April 2024. NSPML seeks release of $15.4 million in holdback funds and $1.1 million in financing costs. The Board directs a paper hearing, reserving the right to convert to an oral hearing.

HEARING ORDER In Matter M11009, the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board outlined conditions to be met to end the holdback mechanism originally ordered in 2022 to account for the continuing delivery delays receiving Muskrat Falls energy ov...

AI summary In Matter M11009, NSP Maritime Link Inc. (NSPML) argues that conditions to end the holdback mechanism, imposed in 2022 due to Muskrat Falls energy delivery delays, were met by April 2024. NSPML seeks to vacate the holdback and release accumulated funds. The Board orders a paper hearing but reserves the right to convert it to an oral hearing.