Topic:"Cost To Customer" in M13133

Maintenance Charge (if applicable) Cost of normal fixture maintenance and bulb replacement on the basis of current cost levels shall be used to calculate the monthly maintenance charge. This portion of the rate does not include any provisi...

AI summary The maintenance charge is calculated based on the current cost of normal fixture maintenance and bulb replacement. It does not cover globe washing or cleaning, and repairs due to vandalism are the customer's responsibility.

DEMAND CHARGE per month per kilowatt of maximum demand Effective upon the date of the Board's Order $9.809 Effective January 1, 2027 $10.697 32 cents per kilowatt reduction in demand charge where the transformer was owned by the customer p...

AI summary The document outlines the demand charge rates effective upon the Board's Order and for January 1, 2027, along with a reduction credit for customers with transformers owned prior to February 1, 1974, or under Special Condition (2).

n't have a slide for it, but - the last item I'll discuss is oh, there's another - question. Rebekah? - MS. POWELL: Thanks, Mike. I have - just a quick question on the last slide because it - connects with Attachment Appendix H, where ELID...

AI summary The discussion centers on the classification of ELID as a below-the-line customer until an approved above-the-line tariff is in place, as well as the approval of securitization riders on an interim basis with potential revisions later. The application includes cost-of-service information and tariff details for future review.

Issues we intend to address: - The already high and rising energy costs for Nova Scotians. - The valuation of the securitized assets, including whether they should be written down before they are securitized, at shareholder expense. - The...

AI summary The issues addressed include rising energy costs, valuation of securitized assets, potential overinvestment by utilities, allocation of climate policy risks, and the role of the Department of Energy and Governor-in-Council in authorizing the application via Order in Council 2026-349.

1 Request IR-14: - 2 On p. 17 of its application, NS Power noted that, if not securitized, the September 2026 FAM - 3 balance would need to be collected through the existing FAM process resulting in an increase of - 4 about 7 8%. - 5 a) Wh...

AI summary The document outlines a series of questions regarding the securitization of the Fuel Adjustment Mechanism (FAM) balance by NS Power, including potential rate increases, customer impact, deferral of balances, and comparisons with other jurisdictions. It also asks about the scope of securitization and future rate adjustments.

12 Request IR-38: - 13 When NS Power places its bond on the market is there a possibility that NS Power will need to 14 adjust the interest rate based on the response of the market/investors? - 15 a) If so, what strategies does NS Power pl...

AI summary The document raises questions about Nova Scotia Power's ability to adjust bond interest rates based on market response and strategies to ensure fair pricing for ratepayers.

18 Request IR-39: 19 Please provide the total cost of securitization that customers will incur over the 30-year period. 20

AI summary The request seeks the total cost of securitization that customers will incur over a 30-year period, highlighting a focus on financial implications for customers related to securitization.

As noted in NSPI's Application: At the time of the 2026-2027 GRA, NS Power proposed to securitize a forecast amount of $704 million of the unrecovered net book value of thermal assets within the scope of the DDA ($500 million in 2025 and $...

AI summary NS Power proposes to securitize $1 billion of thermal asset liabilities, expecting $265.6 million in customer savings over 30 years. This change from the original $704 million proposal is due to ongoing analysis and discussions with financial advisors, suggesting a single bond issuance is feasible. Questions are raised about the NPV calculation and the pros and cons of single versus multiple bond issuances.

Request IR-3: Refer to Exhibit N-1 the Application, Section 3.1, Figure 3 Estimate of Upfront Financing Costs, page 20 of 51, line 13, which includes $825,000 for Rating Agency Fees, and Figure 4. Estimate of Ongoing Financing Costs, page...

AI summary The document requests explanations regarding financing costs related to securitization, including the calculation of cost reductions, the breakdown of rating agency fees, the services provided for these fees, regulatory limits on such fees, the selection of financial advisors, and whether other Canadian utilities have incurred similar fees.

24 Request IR-9: 25 Reference: N-1, Application, page 13, line 17. "The inclusion of the additional $23.2 million prepayment…provides a buffer against fuel cost volatility…The application of this additional balance to the FAM will assist i...

AI summary The text discusses a request for clarification regarding NSPI's use of a $23.2 million prepayment as a buffer against fuel cost volatility, asking about its impact on customers, financial benefits, and its role in reconciling forecast-to-actual variances from multiple sources.

8 Request IR-18: - 9 Reference: N-1, Application, page 31, Figure 7: Securitization Rider for Below the Line 10 (BTL) customer class in 2027. - 11 Preamble: Figure 7, lists the Extra Large Industrial Dispatchable ("ELID") rate class as 12...

AI summary The text requests an explanation of why the ELID rate class is classified as Below-the-Line for the 2027 Securitization Rider, why it lacks a Fuel & Purchased Power rider despite future costs, and why certain costs should not be charged to the ELID class if incurred while it is taking service.

Request IR-4: - Nova Scotia Power has previously made arrangements to (effectively) securitize FAM balances - with external parties. $500 Million of FAM balances were previously securitized with the - assistance of a Government of Canada l...

AI summary Nova Scotia Power previously securitized $500 million and $117 million of FAM balances over 28 and 10 years, respectively. The request asks for the reasoning behind these terms, the choice of a 30-year term in the current proposal, and the impact of even-annual versus mortgage-style repayment on ratepayers and debt costs.