06537Board Decision
4 passages
nning understanding that we needed that project in one form or another to comply with renewable energy standards. - Q: And when was that? - A: That was early fall of 2009. [Transcript, pp. 83-84] [39] Neither the Province nor Quetta made a...
AI summary The intervenor discusses the need for a project to comply with renewable energy standards, mentioning the early fall of 2009 as the timeframe. The Province and Quetta did not submit on the applicability of the Code, though Quetta suggested testing some of its wording.
Findings [40] The Board is not persuaded by NSPl's evidence referred to above that it can insulate itself from either the negotiation or execution of the EUS contract. The Board notes the evidence of Mr. Bennett, who testified that he has...
AI summary The Board determined that NSPI did not directly acquire DWP's assets due to 2011 RES compliance requirements, which prevented NSPI from self-supplying or owning a majority interest in the project. A shell company was used to facilitate the transaction, as confirmed by Mr. Bennett.
Submissions - NSPI [50] As described in paragraphs [33] and [34], NSPI took the position that 324 NSL and EUS were not subject to the Code. Consequently, NSPI said: ... 324 NSL was under no obligation to undertake a competitive solicitatio...
AI summary NSPI argues that 324 NSL and EUS were not required to follow the Code, as a competitive solicitation would delay construction and jeopardize federal incentives. NSPI claims that the low-cost contract with EUS was justified due to time constraints, the need to redesign the project, and the risk transfer to EUS. The contract price was reduced, with EUS bearing the risk of late completion.
his is lower than the 2008 PPA between NSPI and Skypower. [Exhibit N-1, p. 25] [125] NSPI summarized the advantages which, in its view, would result in benefits to ratepayers if the DWP is approved: NSPI's investment in the Project will co...
AI summary NSPI outlines benefits of the DWP project, including adding 30 MW of wind generation, achieving RES compliance, and cost savings for customers. The project's costs are lower than the original PPA, and revised estimates show a lower levelized energy cost and higher NPV due to reduced O&M and construction costs.