Topic:"Cost To Customer" in M03097

Revised April/2010 - In-service Dec/2010 & Capital Cost $78M Capita I Cost $78M Year Operating Costs TUC 6 No Duct Firing In-Service Dec/2010 (K$) Operating Costs No TUC 6 (K$) Operating Costs Nominal $ (K$) Operating Cumulative PV Costs (...

AI summary The text presents a detailed table of operating and capital costs for a project in Nova Scotia from 2006 to 2014, with comparisons between scenarios involving TUC 6 No Duct Firing and No TUC 6. The table includes costs, benefits, and cumulative values over time, reflecting financial planning and evaluation for infrastructure.

Incremental NPV Benefit of TUC 6 Duct Fired - Operating Cost Benefits from Hatch Analysis (High Load Plan E with NPPH Biomass Project) Capital Cost = $93M Capital Cost = $78M Operating Operating High Load NPPH Biomass High Load NPPH Biomas...

AI summary This document presents a table analyzing the incremental Net Present Value (NPV) benefits of the TUC 6 Duct Fired project, comparing operating cost benefits and capital costs for two scenarios: with and without duct firing. The analysis spans from 2008 to 2032, showing operating cost savings and cumulative benefits over time.

SUBMISSIONS 5. Based upon its review of the application materials and NSPI's responses to information requests, NSDOE respectfully submits that NSPI's application for authority to overspend should be approved. 6. NSDOE is ofthe general vie...

AI summary NSDOE submits that NSPI's overspending application should be approved, emphasizing thorough cost estimates for capital projects and the need to manage costs within approved budgets. While acknowledging increased costs, NSDOE asserts they are not due to imprudence and that the project will benefit ratepayers.

3. Incorporation of Design or Equipment Specifications to Ensure Plant Optimization and Deliver a Long-Term Low Operating Cost Generating Facility

AI summary The section discusses incorporating design and equipment specifications to optimize plant performance and achieve long-term low operating costs for generating facilities.

General All of the decisions for this Project were made with the technical information available at the time and were considered by teams consisting of design engineers, operating engineers, maintenance staff, and suppliers' technical supp...

AI summary NSPI defended project decisions that preserved a 2010 in-service date, arguing they minimized delays, maintained customer savings, and ensured prudence in cost recovery. Avon challenged cost exceedances, but NSPI cited prudence and customer benefits. Fuel savings and operational cost reductions were central to the dispute.

nditure; the reasonableness and transparency of the costs involved; and the resulting benefit to customers of NSPI as a result of the proposed project." [Board Letter to NSPI, December 21,2007, p. 1] - [4] The amount approved by the Board...

AI summary The Board approved a capital expenditure of $55.5 million for the combined cycle component of the Tufts Cove 6 Waste Heat Recovery Project in 2007. In 2008, NSPI requested approval for a revised cost of $84.3 million, which the Board approved after public comment, emphasizing that the project must be completed at or below the approved cost.

the Company bears the responsibility of that diligence. Ratepayers should not be exposed to financial risk they cannot control, certainly never to the point where a project no longer has positive NPV. Scrutiny by Board staff, consultants a...

AI summary The Company is held responsible for ensuring project diligence and managing financial risks, particularly regarding capital work orders and cost overruns. Ratepayers should not bear uncontrolled financial risks, and the Company must ensure projects maintain positive NPV. Concerns were raised about increasing project costs and the adequacy of engineering design.