Topic:"Energy Efficiency Budgets" in M12696

approximately 19% of NS Power load requirements with total delivery levels 1 The month of April 2024 fell short due to extreme weather conditions (specifically 22 continue for the complete term of the ECA, notwithstanding customers receivi...

AI summary The document discusses NS Power's performance in meeting contractual delivery obligations under the NS Block, highlighting strong delivery levels exceeding 170% of contracted amounts, with shortfalls addressed promptly. NSPML claims to have met the threshold requirements to end the Holdback as of May 1, 2024, which was implemented to address imbalances related to the Maritime Link.

Although all monthly shortfalls since the Compliance period were redelivered in a timely manner and in accordance with the ECA, the lack of a functional holdback mitigation mechanism (as referenced in NSPML's June 2024 letter to the Board...

AI summary NSPML reports that all monthly shortfalls since the Compliance period were redelivered in accordance with the ECA, but the lack of a functional holdback mitigation mechanism has led to $15.3M in holdback amounts. NSPML argues that these funds should be returned despite the anticipated termination of the Holdback, citing compliance and additional information in their filing.

After giving the matter careful consideration, if the Board determines that a Holdback should remain in place, NSPML proposes a separate process be created to assess what changes should be made to the existing holdback mitigation mechanism...

AI summary NSPML proposes a separate process to assess changes to the existing holdback mitigation mechanism if the Board determines a Holdback should remain. NSPML also requests the Energy Board consider factors such as planned outages and their impact on holdback disallowance when designing a continuing mechanism.

Date Filed: February 3 , 2026 Page 30 of 37 1 8.0 REQUEST FOR RELIEF 26 In setting out the conditions for terminating the Holdback, the Board stated: 27 The Board concludes that the recent short-term NS Block and Make 28 29 up Energy deliv...

AI summary The Board has outlined conditions for terminating the Holdback mechanism, requiring consistent energy delivery performance over 12 consecutive months and a reduction in under-deliveries to reasonable levels. Since the commissioning of the LIL in April 2023, NSPML has been delivering promised benefits, and performance has improved significantly.

7 A37. Yes. NLH reported that the outages were successful. Furthermore, any deferred energy that 8 accumulated during these outages has been entirely redelivered and customers have 9 received 100% of the annual NS Block Contract Amount, pl...

AI summary NLH confirmed that planned outages were successful, with all deferred energy redelivered to customers. Customers received 100% of the annual NS Block Contract Amount plus make-up energy. Planned outages occur during lower seasonal loads, and make-up energy is delivered shortly after accumulation as per commercial agreements.

NSPML Responses to Bates White Information Requests 1 g) 2 i) The software attempted to be loaded during this timeframe was the version of 3 software intended to correct all remaining non-critical punch list items as identified 4 through c...

AI summary The document outlines NSPML's responses to information requests regarding software updates and maintenance activities. It details the purpose of the software update, the deficiencies corrected, and the nature of routine maintenance performed on various electrical components.

PARTIALLY CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-07: 2 3 Please refer to Exhibit N-1, page 28 line 27 to page 29 line 12. 4 a) What is NSPML's understanding of "the collective contractual bargain" that 5 "customers" were due? 6 b) Are there costs to "c...

AI summary The document outlines a response by NSPML to an information request regarding the 'collective contractual bargain' related to NS Block. NSPML explains that the contractual pillars include dispatchable renewable energy, access to market energy, and support for system integration. The response also addresses potential customer costs associated with delays and interruptions in NS Block deliveries.

Date Filed: April 21, 2026 NSPML (BW) IR-07 Page 4 of 8 5 An estimate of the amount of energy that was offered and not purchased by NS Power could be derived from the confidential transmission tariff revenue information contained in NS Pow...

AI summary The document references an estimate of energy not purchased by NS Power, derived from confidential transmission tariff revenue information in NS Power's Maritime Link Benefits Reports. It also mentions NSPML's responses to Bates White Information Requests.

6 NSPML notes there is no flexibility in the Energy & Capacity Agreement in terms of the capacity product, as that product is required during higher load periods in order to support the closure (or avoidance) of a fossil fuel unit. Specifi...

AI summary NSPML emphasizes that the Energy & Capacity Agreement lacks flexibility regarding the capacity product, which is crucial during high-load periods to support the closure of fossil fuel units. NS Power requires the right to access NS Block energy amounts as needed for system requirements.

NSPML Responses to Consumer Advocate Information Requests 1 2 3 4 5 accordance with the 30-day outage coordination period previously established by the system operators for outages affecting the delivery of the NS Block, including planned...

AI summary The document outlines NSPML's responses to consumer advocate information requests, including data on energy delivery outages and holdback calculations based on undelivered energy thresholds. It references the 30-day outage coordination period and specific dates and figures related to energy delivery and financial adjustments.

NSPML Responses to Industrial Group Information Requests 1 Request IR-02: 24 opinion, doing so provides a more accurate representation of operating costs applicable to 25 those years to compare to benefits in those same years. 26 27 c) 28...

AI summary NSPML provided responses to Industrial Group Information Requests, including sourcing data from NS Power's Q4 2023 and Q4 2024 Maritime Link Benefits Reports to represent operating costs and benefits accurately.

PARTIALLY CONFIDENTIAL 1 disallowance than an outage taken at a different time in the month. 2 (d) If NSPML's position is that the holdback mechanism structurally 3 creates perverse incentives regarding outage timing, explain how that 4 co...

AI summary The response discusses the holdback mechanism and its implications on outage timing, referencing the Energy and Capacity Agreement and the Labrador-Island Link (LIL) operations. It explains how historical energy shortfalls influenced the threshold for ending the holdback mechanism and how the elimination of these shortfalls affects the mitigation of outages.

where D o is the outer diameter of the insulation screen and Di the diameter of the conductor. Although the semicon layers of the screens and the insulation have completely different electric properties they have similar thermal properties...

AI summary The text discusses the calculation of thermal resistance in cables, focusing on the thermal specific resistivity of insulation materials and the formula for determining thermal resistance in cylindrical layers of a cable.

NSPML Application to Review the Holdback Mechanism (NSEB M12696) NSPML Responses to NSEB Information Requests 1 Request IR-03: 2 3 Please confirm, or explain otherwise, that there is no make-up energy outstanding as of February 3, 4 2026....

AI summary NSPML responds to NSEB information requests regarding energy balances and definitions. As of February 3, 2026, there was a 49 MWh credit balance for Base Block energy and a 211 MWh debit balance for Supplemental Energy. NSPML explains that Deferred Energy differs from Make-up and Supplemental Energy, and that energy deliveries have been stable since the LIL was commissioned in April 2023.

NSPML Responses to NSEB Information Requests 1 Request IR-09: 2 3 In its application, NSPML expressed its view that customers are receiving the full benefits of 4 the Maritime Link investment. It also noted the "disappointing early energy...

AI summary NSPML states that customers have received the full benefits of the Maritime Link investment, despite early energy delivery issues. It claims that the financial impact of replacement energy purchases has been minimal, even though customers also paid NSPML's assessments during the period.

PARTIALLY CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-10: 2 3 Reference: Exhibit N-1, p. 10: 4 • NSPML states that, "With the LIL's strong performance since its commissioning in 5 April 2023 and the continuing strong availability of the Maritime Link, custo...

AI summary The response to IR-10 discusses the performance of the Maritime Link and the NS Block Energy, noting that customers are receiving the full benefits of the investment. The NS Block Energy is defined as comprising both Base and Supplemental Energy delivered during peak and off-peak hours, respectively, over a specified period.

PARTIALLY CONFIDENTIAL 1 Demonstration of the receipt of the full benefits of the NS Block can be found in the data in 2 Appendix C of the Application, which provides details on the volumes of MWh received. The 3 table shows the original c...

AI summary The text discusses the delivery of energy under the NS Block and Make-up Energy, highlighting that the delivered volumes often exceeded the contracted amounts. NSPML argues that Make-up Energy should be considered as it provided value to customers by offsetting other energy purchases.

NSPML Responses to Small Business Advocate Information Requests 1 Request IR-01: 2 3 Refer to M12696, Exhibit N-1, Application to Review the Holdback Mechanism, submitted 4 by NSPML on February 3, 2026 (the "Application"), Section 1. Intro...

AI summary NSPML responds to information requests regarding the Holdback Mechanism, citing the energy delivered via the Maritime Link and its benefits, including renewable energy and financial value. The response also addresses potential disallowances and remedies for unplanned outages.

Q. Did NSPML appropriately determine these variables in its Application? - A. Yes. NSPML initially provided details of its delivered energy, makeup energy, and - calculations in Appendix A and Appendix C of its Application. Those appendice...

AI summary NSPML provided calculations for delivered energy and makeup energy in its Application, though initial details were insufficient. NSPI provided a more detailed ledger in response to a data request, which was reviewed and agreed upon. NSPML also demonstrated compliance with the Board's requirement that the net outstanding balance of undelivered energy is less than 10% of the contracted annual amount of the NS Block.

- NS Block, measured in MWh (excluding Make-up Energy), is received during each of 12 - consecutive months."[41](#page-18-1) In introducing this requirement, the Board also stated: - NSPML/NS Power may apply to the Board for relief if it c...

AI summary The requirement mandates NSPML to receive twelve consecutive months of NS Block volumes (excluding Make-up Energy) at least 90% of the total monthly volumes called for under the Energy and Capacity Agreement. This prevents over-reliance on Make-up volumes and ensures consistency and predictability in volume delivery.

11 - 13 Q. For the four months in which deliveries were below threshold, did NSPML claim - 14 that the deficiencies were explained by "good utility practice" and/or "exceptional - 15 circumstances?" 48 NSPML Application, page 10 lines 12 t...

AI summary NSPML claims that deficiencies in NS Block volumes during four months were due to 'good utility practice' and 'exceptional circumstances,' specifically citing a planned LIL outage in July 2023 and other factors related to the LIL's performance, not Muskrat Falls or the Maritime Link.

rid Nova Scotia Project on behalf of the Nova Scotia Consumer Advocate. Cost classification, decommissioning costs, justification for software vendor selection, and suggested changes to project scope. Nova Scotia UARB Matter No. M09499, di...

AI summary Paul Chernick testified in multiple Nova Scotia and California regulatory matters, focusing on cost classification, decommissioning hydroelectric systems, software vendor selection, and project scope changes. Testimonies addressed capital expenditures, dam safety remediation, load forecasting impacts, and EV charging program compliance with state goals.

ths NSPML has met the requirements in provision (2) and provide a workbook with the data included in the graph shown in Exhibit N-1, p. 14. Request IR-3: With respect to Exhibit N-1, Appendix B, 1. Please explain the reason(s) for under de...

AI summary The document includes a request for NSPML to explain under delivery reasons, provide detailed calculations for holdback amounts, and clarify the causes of LIL outages. It also requests WACC calculations in a workbook format.

1. Please refer to Exhibit N-1, page 11 lines 15-16 and footnote 11, and Appendixes A and C. 2. Please confirm that NSPML has not included Supplemental Block volumes from the “Make-up Balance” and “Make-up Balance (%)” columns in Appendix...

AI summary The text consists of a series of requests for information related to the inclusion of Supplemental Block volumes in Appendix A and Appendix C, the availability and performance of the Maritime Link, and references to specific exhibits and board matters. These requests are part of a regulatory proceeding involving Nova Scotia Power (NSPML) and the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB).

CONSISTENT PERFORMANCE HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED OVER THE COMPLIANCE PERIOD The Industrial Group notes the importance of examining the full picture of the 12-month Compliance Period in determining whether the multiple failures in delivery, inc...

AI summary The Industrial Group argues that NSPML has not consistently met delivery performance thresholds over the 12-month Compliance Period, with significant underdeliveries, and that terminating the Holdback would be unreasonable given ongoing performance issues and the financial burden on ratepayers. They emphasize the need for continued compliance before removing protections.

Date Filed: July 23, 2026 Page 4 of 44 1 Evidence supports relief for the four months during the proposed Compliance Period that 13 First, there is no dispute that NSPML met the requirement to ensure that 14 the net outstanding balance of...

AI summary The text discusses evidence supporting relief for NSPML during a compliance period, noting that the net outstanding balance of undelivered energy was below 10% by March 2024. Bates White's analysis supports this, and the SBA did not challenge the Company's assertion regarding meeting the undelivered energy balance requirement.

Table 1[9](#page-8-1) 4 Total MWh (excluding purchased energy) 2024 Compliance Period 2025 (May 23 - Apr 24) (Jan - Dec) (Jan - Dec) 2013 Application Commitment 1,228,447 1,226,000 1,226,000 Base NS Block Delivered 889,213 749,208 917,767...

AI summary Table 1 provides a comparison of energy delivery metrics across different time periods, showing total MWh delivered and percentages relative to application commitments for the years 2024 and 2025. The data highlights fluctuations in energy delivery and compliance with commitments.

9 Table 1 data is from NSEB IR-006 Attachment 1. 10 Table 2 data is from NSEB IR-006 Attachment 1. 11 Deliveries in 2025 are at or very close to 100% since that is the first full year after the delivery of all Make-up Energy owed due to th...

AI summary The text discusses the delivery of Make-up Energy following shortfalls during the Compliance Period, noting that all contracted energy was ultimately delivered, either in the same month or shortly after. It argues that customers were not harmed as they received what was owed, even if not always within a calendar month. The value of Make-up Energy was higher due to delivery during colder months.

e-up Energy since LIL commissioning (generally delivered in colder, winter months) was materially higher than the value of the energy originally scheduled (generally in warmer months)[13](#page-9-1) . The sections that follow respond furth...

AI summary The text discusses energy costs from e-up Energy after the commissioning of the Labrador Island Link, noting that costs were higher during colder winter months compared to originally scheduled warmer months. It also mentions responses to Intervenor evidence and claims regarding the termination of a holdback by NSPML.

Date Filed: July 23, 2026 Page 34 of 44 1 Energy delivered during this period was worth more to customers than the Undelivered 20 21 22 23 However, the Application's footnote 25 suggests that the March 30–31 icing event, which NSPML separa...

AI summary The document discusses a period where energy delivery fell short of expectations, attributing the shortfall to an extreme weather event. The Application's footnote 25 suggests that this event was sufficient to cause the March 2024 shortfall. However, the argument is made that missing 10% of contracted deliveries would require three days of no energy delivery, and thus the IG's statement is incorrect.