Topic:"Debt Service Coverage Ratio" in M11927

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 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.

- 4 Table 14 shows the AFUDC increase stems primarily from expanded project scope and extended timeline, - 5 which contributed $654,906 to costs. Interest rate fluctuations (6.33% to 7.01%) reduced costs by $42,691, - 6 indicating that mar...

AI summary The AFUDC increase is mainly due to expanded project scope and extended timelines, contributing $654,906 to costs. Interest rate fluctuations had a minimal impact, reducing costs by $42,691. The steady balance increase from 2017 to 2022 highlights the financial impact of prolonged timelines and sustained capital investment.

increased project costs of approximately $2 million. [Exhibit N-1, p. 3] The cost increase associated with the extended construction timeline includes both increased labour and materials expenses. - [15] The final reason noted by NS Power...

AI summary NS Power's ATO application includes a cost increase of approximately $2 million, attributed to extended construction timelines, increased archaeological and Mi'kmaq engagement costs, and additional contingency funds for habitat offsetting costs. These factors are cited as the primary reasons for the variance from the original ACE Plan.

s and external stakeholders. While the Board is encouraged by these efforts, it acknowledges that the Utility has little control over the actions and requirements of those regulators and stakeholders. [69] Additionally, NS Power has alloca...

AI summary NS Power has allocated $500,000 for habitat offsetting costs based on a rate suggested by DFO, but not its own higher estimate. The project faces potential cost increases if the higher rate or larger offset area is required. The FAA status remains unclear, with further consultation needed with the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia, leaving the project exposed to cost escalations.

10 Request IR-23: 11 Reference: N-9, page 44 lines 8-14. With respect to the Mi'kmaq observer costs, as noted in Section 4.1 above Midgard considers that NS Power could have known at the time of its ACE submission that its archaeological c...

AI summary Midgard concludes that the increased Mi'kmaw engagement costs associated with NSPI's ACE submission are reasonable. The question focuses on whether NSPI should have known these costs would be higher and the basis for Midgard's assumption, particularly in relation to the Fisheries Act amendments and archaeological costs.

- 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 7 8 (d) If there are additional delays in receiving the FAA, would this furt...

AI summary The text includes questions about offsetting measurements on hydro projects, concerns from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), potential delays in receiving the Federal Assessment Agreement (FAA), and the reasonableness of refurbishment costs. It also references a request for information (IR-32) and a specific page reference.

CONCLUSION The Company would like to reiterate, as indicated in its letter dated July 4, 2025, that the construction schedule for the Ruth Falls project is confined by the dates as set forth in the Company's FAA. This requires all in strea...

AI summary The Company reiterates that the Ruth Falls project's construction is constrained by the FAA's timeline, with in-stream work required between July 21, 2025, and March 31, 2026. Deferring construction would lead to cost escalations, and the Company maintains that refurbishing the Ruth Falls Main Dam is the lowest-cost option. The Company requests expedited approval of the ATO with an amended cost of $14,839,116.