N-42026-2027 GRA PR 01-03 - Proposed Rates (Tariffs)
3 passages
Interpretation and Definitions Page 2 of 6 "Distribution System Access" The services provided by the Company under the Distribution Tariff to provide for the connection of the RtR Customer to the Company's distribution system, but does not...
AI summary The document defines key terms related to distribution system access, metering, retail supplier licensing, and load measurement. It clarifies that the Company provides connection services but not electricity delivery, establishes definitions for estimated meter reads and farming/fishing units, and outlines requirements for Licenced Retail Suppliers (LRS) and their participation agreements.
Interpretation and Definitions Page 4 of 6 "Permanent Service" "permanent service" is one terminated on a permanent structure and which can be expected to remain in place without alteration for the useful life of the service. It may serve...
AI summary The document defines key terms related to electricity services and regulatory proceedings in Nova Scotia, including 'permanent service,' 'power factor,' 'premises,' and 'primary metering.' These definitions establish criteria for service termination, electrical measurements, and billing contexts within the regulatory framework.
Interpretation and Definitions Page 6 of 6 "Unmetered" "unmetered" means a supply of electricity for which no metering device is employed to record either the power or energy supplied. "Wholesale "Wholesale Customer" has the same meaning a...
AI summary The document defines key terms such as 'Unmetered' and 'Wholesale Customer,' with the latter referencing the Electricity Act, S.N.S. 2004, c. 25. It includes a meter reading page and legal definitions relevant to Nova Scotia's energy regulatory framework.
101354Board Decision
10 passages
return on and of its invested capital. To find otherwise could have significant negative financial implications for NS Power in the form of increased costs, leading to higher rates for its customers. [15] NS Power's proposed return on equi...
AI summary The document discusses NS Power's proposed return on equity (ROE) of 9.0%, challenged by expert testimony. Concentric Energy Advisors recommended 9.4%, while Dr. Sean Cleary's analysis suggested 7.6%. The Board found neither extreme met the 'fair return standard' and concluded the appropriate ROE lies between the two. NS Power's request to maintain its current ROE with an earnings band was supported by customer classes in the settlement agreement.
Amount utility entitled to earn annually - 45 (1) Every public utility shall be entitled to earn annually such return as the Board deems just and reasonable on the rate base as fixed and determined by the Board for each type or kind of ser...
AI summary The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB) determines annual returns for utilities, deducting required amortization reserves. The Public Utilities Act (PUA) mandates 'just and reasonable' returns, with the Board's discretion tempered by statutory purposes. Legal precedents, including the 2019 NSCA 66 case, emphasize the Board's public interest obligations and statutory limits.
3.1.1 Findings [41] As noted above, the NSUARB has considered settlement agreements in past matters. The Board appreciates the efforts of parties to resolve contested issues in matters coming before it and encourages such initiatives to co...
AI summary The NSUARB emphasizes that while settlement agreements are valuable, they must be just, reasonable, and in the public interest. It notes that the current settlement was reached before the application was filed, affecting its weight. The Board approves some terms but requires amendments to ensure fair rates.
hearing testimony: BY MEMBER MURPHY: … this is the curve that I walked through with Mr. Wiedmayer the other day, and this is for account 355. And Nova Scotia Power is recommending using the Iowa 45-R1.5 curve, and I think you were recommen...
AI summary Member Murphy discusses discrepancies between simulated and actual retirement data for Nova Scotia Power's account 355 (poles and fixtures). Madsen argues that the Iowa 50-R2.5 curve is a worse fit for simulated data compared to the Iowa 45-R1.5 curve, but recommends a 41-R1 curve based on actual aged data from Newfoundland Power, which shows different trends than simulated data.
3.6.2 Maritime Link Capital Projects [371] NS Power has four Maritime Link transmission capital projects that, by Board Order, have historically been excluded from rate base. The original intent of these projects was primarily to facilitat...
AI summary NS Power seeks to include four Maritime Link transmission projects in its rate base, arguing they now benefit Nova Scotia by retaining surplus energy rather than exporting it. The Board previously rejected inclusion but set a test requiring four consecutive quarters of revenue/cost balance. NS Power claims to meet this via undertakings U-24 and U-25, citing surplus energy purchases under the Energy Access Agreement and bilateral sales.
- [57] Ms. Runge supports NS Power's recovery of its prudently incurred investments in its coal generation assets: - 75. The no hindsight principle should always be applied in the assessment of the return of capital to a utility. If the in...
AI summary Ms. Runge argues that NS Power should recover prudently incurred coal generation costs using the 'no hindsight' principle, ensuring fairness to both utilities and rate payers. She emphasizes that investments were prudent at the time, and consistent application of this principle reduces utility risk and potentially lowers the cost of debt over the long term.
allowed return. Capital attraction means that returns must be adequate to attract necessary capital on reasonable terms to build required utility infrastructure. [Energy Law and Policy, pp. 188-189] [451] Similar principles are considered...
AI summary The fair return requirement ensures returns are adequate to attract capital for utility infrastructure. U.S. cases like Bluefield and Hope are referenced as legal precedents. In Re Nova Scotia Power Inc. , the NSUARB cited these cases. The current case involved limited expert evidence due to a pre-existing consensus between NS Power and customer representatives.
eeding the allowed ROE in 8 of 12 canvassed years. [Department of Energy Closing Submissions, p. 5] [510] In its reply submissions, NS Power addressed the Department of Energy's comments as follows: The DOE has offered no justification for...
AI summary NS Power argues that the Department of Energy (DOE) lacks justification for setting its return on equity (ROE) at 7.6%, citing Dr. Cleary's evidence and customer support for 9%. NS Power claims Dr. Cleary's evidence was rebutted by Mr. Coyne's testimony and closing submissions, while the DOE did not address Coyne's evidence.
tors, including the BCUC, the OEB, and the AUC, have acknowledged the need to use multiple methodologies in determining a fair return on equity. [Footnotes omitted] [Exhibit N-8, Appendix 10A, p. 33] [518] In addition to the inherent weakn...
AI summary Regulatory bodies (BCUC, OEB, AUC) acknowledge the need for multiple methodologies in determining return on equity (ROE). The Board evaluates conflicting expert models: Dr. Cleary's 6.8-7.9% (avg 7.6%) vs. Concentric's 9.0-10.0% (avg 9.4%). Neither meets the fair return standard; the Board concludes an appropriate ROE lies between these estimates, noting significant differences in U.S. data usage.
w they receive service from the utility. Other differences, such as a customer's ability to pay, cannot be used to establish rates in Nova Scotia (based on the legislation as it is currently written): - [23] DLA's factum said that low inco...
AI summary The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (Board) interprets section 67(1) of the Public Utilities Act (PUA), stating that rate differences cannot be based on income but must relate to service differences. DLA argued income disparities justify rate variations, but the Board rejected this, emphasizing that NSP provides similar service to all domestic customers regardless of income.
99702Board Letter re: Final Issues List
2 passages
[2008 NSUARB 140] - [58] The GRA Settlement Agreement in this proceeding was reached by the parties after the hearing was finished. This matter had a full evidentiary record containing over 30,000 pages of information and spreadsheets, inc...
AI summary The GRA Settlement Agreement was reached after a hearing with extensive evidence, including 30,000 pages of documents, expert reports, and public comments. The NSUARB emphasizes its duty to ensure the agreement's terms are just, reasonable, and in the public interest, aligning with prior decisions and ongoing proceedings.
Addressed in Application or Evidence from Consultants NS Power submitted that certain issues were addressed in evidence from consultants filed with its application. In particular, evidence filed by Concentric Energy Advisors supporting NS...
AI summary NS Power argues that consultant evidence (from Concentric Energy Advisors and ScottMadden) addresses key issues impacting proposed rates, including capital structure, financing costs, and working capital. It also claims Maritime Link Transmission Projects meet rate base eligibility criteria. NS Power contends other parties should not submit evidence on these matters, but the text deems this position unreasonable.
99706ECC (NSPI) IR-1 to IR-41
5 passages
NOVA SCOTIA ENERGY BOARD IN THE MATTER OF: THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT - and - IN THE MATTER OF: A GENERAL RATE APPLICATION by NOVA SCOTIA POWER INCORPORATED for approval of certain revisions to its Rates, Charges and Regulations INFORMATION...
AI summary The Nova Scotia Energy Board is processing a general rate application by Nova Scotia Power Inc. under the Public Utilities Act. An information request, due November 5, 2025, was sent to Blake Williams of Nova Scotia Power, with responses to be provided to Emrydia Consulting Corporation. Depreciation-related inquiries are directed to Gannett Fleming.
Request IR-3: - Please revise Table 1 included in the Gannett Fleming Study to include the following additional - information and provide the same information in a working Excel spreadsheet. To the extent the - data is generated from a pro...
AI summary Request IR-3 asks to revise Table 1 from the Gannett Fleming Study by separating book reserves into life and net salvage components, adding columns for accumulated depreciation reserves, calculating book vs. calculated reserve differences, and applying the remaining life technique for reserve recovery. Data should be provided in Excel, avoiding proprietary formulas if necessary.
Request IR-9: - Please confirm that the retirement data relied upon by Gannett Fleming in its study includes - simulated survivor data used to determine aged retirements. If not confirmed, please explain. If - confirmed, please provide cop...
AI summary Request IR-9 seeks confirmation whether Gannett Fleming's retirement data analysis includes simulated survivor data for aged retirements. It also requests copies of Iowa curves studied against actual retirement data, along with residual measures or conformance indices for each curve.
Request IR-24: - The following request is directed at NS Power. Please describe and provide copies of all - management plans, including but not limited to any future replacement, reinforcement, - refurbishment, or similar project that may...
AI summary Request IR-24 directs NS Power to provide management plans for future projects impacting the expected life of each account. If no information exists for a specific account, NS Power must state that fact.
Request IR-34: - Please provide a detailed calculation of the supporting net book value of the Annapolis Tidal plant - as of January 1, 2027, including but not limited to all historically recovered depreciation and net - salvage related to...
AI summary Request IR-34 seeks a detailed calculation of the Annapolis Tidal plant's net book value as of January 1, 2027, including historically recovered depreciation, net salvage, and supporting documentation in an Excel file with intact formulas.
100770Closing Statement - CA
3 passages
10 The Board Should Accept the Settlement Agreement 11 12 The GRA and the Settlement Agreement on which it is based are the product of months of 13 consultation among Nova Scotia Power and its Customer Representatives, supported by expert...
AI summary The Settlement Agreement and GRA resulted from extensive consultations between Nova Scotia Power, Customer Representatives, and expert consultants. All parties made concessions, and the Agreement received support from customer groups and expert reviews, which did not recommend its rejection. The Board is urged to accept the Agreement as just, reasonable, and in the public interest.
- 5 [12] The Board's Regulatory Rules facilitate settlement discussions. 6 The Board welcomes and appreciates the efforts of parties to, in good faith, 7 settle issues, even where, as sometimes happens, a settlement cannot be 8 ultimately...
AI summary The NSUARB supports settlement agreements in the public interest, especially when all customer classes agree. The process involves extensive pre-hearing evidence and information requests, ensuring thorough review. Settlements are common in litigation but newer in regulatory matters.
28 B. Depreciation 19 27 29 34 41 46 30 In the negotiation of the Settlement Agreement, Nova Scotia Power agreed to measures that 31 reduced its depreciation and accretion expenses by approximately $20 million dollars a year in 32 each of...
AI summary Nova Scotia Power reduced depreciation expenses by $20M annually via the Settlement Agreement. The Board Counsel's expert, Dustin Madsen, recommended replacing Nova Scotia Power's ELG method with ALG to avoid overcollection. Nova Scotia Power defended ELG, citing long-term revenue benefits. The Consumer Advocate urged a stakeholder review before future GRA submissions.
101354Board Decision
12 passages
return on and of its invested capital. To find otherwise could have significant negative financial implications for NS Power in the form of increased costs, leading to higher rates for its customers. [15] NS Power's proposed return on equi...
AI summary NS Power's proposed return on equity of 9.0% faces scrutiny as expert models suggest 9.4% (Concentric Energy Advisors) and 7.6% (Dr. Sean Cleary). The Board deems both extremes inappropriate, favoring a midpoint. NS Power seeks to maintain its current rate with an 8.75%-9.25% earnings band, supported by customer classes in the settlement agreement.
Amount utility entitled to earn annually - 45 (1) Every public utility shall be entitled to earn annually such return as the Board deems just and reasonable on the rate base as fixed and determined by the Board for each type or kind of ser...
AI summary Regulatory framework dictates public utilities' annual earnings based on the Board's determination of a 'just and reasonable' return on the rate base. The Board may require amortization fund contributions, reducing allowable earnings. Legal references emphasize the Board's discretion under the Public Utilities Act (PUA) and its public interest mandate, citing court cases like Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v NSUARB (2019 NSCA 66) and Nova Scotia (Public Utilities Board) v Nova Scotia Power Corporation (1976).
percent. A higher return in this analysis is going to dramatically quite dramatically overstate the revenue requirement related to this difference that you're seeing in the difference on rate base. The starting point of the analysis again...
AI summary The analysis is criticized for using incorrect data points, including an outdated rate base, low depreciation rates (2% vs. NSP's 3.37%), and inaccurate composite remaining life, leading to overstatement of revenue requirements. The growth rate and depreciation assumptions are deemed inconsistent with Nova Scotia Power's actual figures, making the analysis misleading and not NSP-focused.
hearing testimony: BY MEMBER MURPHY: … this is the curve that I walked through with Mr. Wiedmayer the other day, and this is for account 355. And Nova Scotia Power is recommending using the Iowa 45-R1.5 curve, and I think you were recommen...
AI summary The testimony discusses the selection of retirement curves for account 355 (poles and fixtures), with Nova Scotia Power recommending the Iowa 45-R1.5 curve. The expert (Madsen) advocates for the Iowa 50-R2.5 curve, acknowledging its worse fit to simulated retirement data but emphasizing its alignment with actual aged data from other reports, such as Newfoundland Power. Madsen argues that a longer-life curve (e.g., 41-R1) better reflects realistic retirements for this asset class.
ttlement agreement. It said that there was no proposed PHP successor tariff at the time the settlement agreement was negotiated, so that the GRA's cost-of-service study made various assumptions about: … certain load and demand characterist...
AI summary The Industrial Group challenges the prudency of costs transferred to the PHP deferral account, citing delays in NS Power's successor tariff application and expanded risk mitigation parameters in the ELID application (M12661). The GRA's cost-of-service study assumed an ATL rate structure but did not quantify ADC benefits, which were to be negotiated separately.
3.6.2 Maritime Link Capital Projects [371] NS Power has four Maritime Link transmission capital projects that, by Board Order, have historically been excluded from rate base. The original intent of these projects was primarily to facilitat...
AI summary NS Power seeks to include four Maritime Link transmission projects in its rate base, arguing benefits outweigh costs. The Board previously rejected inclusion but set a test requiring revenue from wheeling tariffs or economic value of surplus energy purchases to meet depreciation, financing, and operating costs. NS Power claims to meet this test using 'surplus energy' and 'bilateral sales' in its 2023-2024 GRA, supported by undertakings U-24 and U-25.
d be followed to establish the DDA. As with the "black box" settlement in 2011 this had the effect of mitigating the rate impact for customers at the time by avoiding the acceleration of depreciation. [392] In its reply submissions in this...
AI summary NS Power argues that the UAD decisions and principles from Alberta's 'Stores Block' case do not apply outside Alberta, citing the 2023 Alberta Court of Appeal decision. It also contends that the Smyth v Ames case is irrelevant to current proceedings, as it pertains to U.S. railroad rate regulation. NS Power asserts its coal assets are not stranded and remain in use, challenging the Department's reliance on UAD and DDA frameworks.
t those costs approved and added to rate base. Continued testing of costs to ensure prudence of investments is, therefore, required in order to ensure just and reasonable rates. [Exhibit N-10, p. 24] [59] Ms. Runge recommends that NS Power...
AI summary The Board requires continued testing of costs to ensure prudence for just rates. Ms. Runge recommends allowing NS Power to recover unamortized coal asset retirement costs if prudently incurred, but emphasizes the need for prior Board evaluation before transferring such costs to the DDA. [Exhibit N-10, p. 24; 2024 NSUARB 67]
allowed return. Capital attraction means that returns must be adequate to attract necessary capital on reasonable terms to build required utility infrastructure. [Energy Law and Policy, pp. 188-189] [451] Similar principles are considered...
AI summary The fair return requirement ensures utility returns are adequate to attract capital for infrastructure. Legal precedents like Bluefield and Hope are referenced, with the NSUARB citing them in Re Nova Scotia Power Inc. (2019 NSUARB 165). The current case involved limited expert evidence due to a pre-application consensus between NS Power and customer representatives.
eeding the allowed ROE in 8 of 12 canvassed years. [Department of Energy Closing Submissions, p. 5] [510] In its reply submissions, NS Power addressed the Department of Energy's comments as follows: The DOE has offered no justification for...
AI summary NS Power argues that the Department of Energy (DOE) lacks justification for setting its return on equity (ROE) at 7.6%, citing rebuttals to Dr. Cleary's evidence by Mr. Coyne and customer representatives supporting 9% ROE. NS Power asserts the DOE did not address Coyne's evidence or rebut Cleary's claims, while relying on its submissions and customer support for the 9% ROE.
tors, including the BCUC, the OEB, and the AUC, have acknowledged the need to use multiple methodologies in determining a fair return on equity. [Footnotes omitted] [Exhibit N-8, Appendix 10A, p. 33] [518] In addition to the inherent weakn...
AI summary Regulatory bodies (BCUC, OEB, AUC) acknowledge using multiple methodologies for return on equity. Dr. Cleary's models suggest 6.8-7.9% (avg 7.6%), while Concentric's (Undertaking U-14) models suggest 9.0-10.0% (avg 9.4%). The Board finds both extremes too low/high and suggests a middle ground. Use of U.S. data is a key difference between models.
3.8.2 Minimum System v. Basic Customer Methods [586] NS Power's cost-of-service study classifies portions of its distribution system as customer-related using the minimum system method. Under this approach, a minimum system study estimates...
AI summary NS Power classifies distribution system costs using the minimum system method, deeming costs of a hypothetical minimum-specification system as customer-related. Remaining costs are demand-related. NS Power cites jurisdictional scans and evidence from Concentric Energy Advisors to support the use of this method in Canadian regulatory practices.