Topic:"Fuel Cost Adjustment" in M12696

3.0 NS BLOCK DELIVERIES FOLLOWING LIL COMMISSIONING 2 1 345678 9 1112 10 With the LIL's strong performance since its commissioning in April 2023 and the continuing strong availability of the Maritime Link, customers are receiving the full...

AI summary With the LIL's strong performance since commissioning in April 2023, NSPML proposes ending the Holdback as of May 1, 2024, and transitioning oversight to traditional regulatory tools like the Fuel Adjustment Mechanism (FAM) audit and cost assessment processes. Customers have received strong deliveries of the Base NS Block, with a consistent decline in the Deferred Energy balance.

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.

PARTIALLY CONFIDENTIAL 1 collective contractual bargain in relation to access to market energy during the relevant 2 period. 3 4 20 for 20 Principle 5 6 Although prior to the applicable period for this Application, another part of the coll...

AI summary NSPML discusses the management of the Maritime Link and the Lower Churchill Project (LCP), emphasizing that contractual terms protected customers from cost overruns. It highlights predictable NS Block deliveries post-LIL Commissioning and mentions the use of Make-up Energy for compensation, noting the absence of a financial make whole provision. A Similar Value Analysis is referenced in relation to the Fuel Adjustment Mechanism audit.

Chart 3: Thermal DAFOR - 1 For the current period, the weighted DAFOR for all thermal units of 26.86% is above the 20.00% near- - 2 term and resource planning analysis values. The individual unit DAFOR outcome for the current period - 3 of...

AI summary Chart 3 presents the weighted DAFOR for all thermal units at 26.86%, which is above the 20.00% near-term and resource planning analysis values. Unit 2 at the Holyrood TGS has a DAFOR of 10.70%, below the 20.00% analysis value, while Units 1 and 3 are discussed in Sections 6.1 and 6.2.

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: 26 for the Holdback and reconcile this with the Board's prior findings 1 regarding the realignment of benefits of the Maritime Link with costs 2 in connection with t...

AI summary NSPML responds to an information request regarding the Holdback and realignment of benefits from the Maritime Link with costs in connection with FLG2. NSPML provides a figure for 2025 and explains that FLGII refinancing costs are a reprofiling of previously incurred costs, influenced by the delayed start of the NS Block and the impact of the war in Ukraine.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 The words "will continue until" imply that once the two conditions have been satisfied the 2 holdback mechanism will cease to continue. The Boards words do not say that the 3 holdback mechanism will end when NSPML applie...

AI summary The text discusses the conditions under which the holdback mechanism will cease, emphasizing that it continues until two specific criteria are met. It also raises concerns that not releasing the accumulated holdback amounts could be seen as a penalty against NSPML if the conditions are deemed to have been met by the end of April 2024.

NSPML Responses to NSEB Information Requests 1 Request IR-01: 5 practice) for the weighted average cost of capital to be returned if the applicable holdback 6 funds are returned. 7 8 The holdback funds (by design) were withheld from NSPML'...

AI summary NSPML responds to NSEB information requests regarding the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) and NS Block Deliveries. It explains that holdback funds were withheld from assessment payments and that the impact of WACC on customers is unchanged if the funds are returned. It also provides a response regarding NS Block Deliveries, referencing a chart and appendix for further details.

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.

Contract Amount (MWh) NS Block Energy Delivered (MWh) Make-Up Energy Delivered (MWh) Difference (All energy delivered – Contract Amount) 2023 1,226,000 1,055,994 506,240 +336,234 2024 1,226,000 982,911 503,171 +260,082 2025 1,226,000 1,152...

AI summary The table presents energy delivery data for NS Block Energy and Make-Up Energy from 2023 to 2025, showing the difference between the contract amount and total energy delivered. In 2023, the difference was +336,234 MWh, decreasing to +260,082 MWh in 2024 and turning negative to -57 MWh in 2025.

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.

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.

Q: Are you aware of any precedents from other jurisdictions? - A: Yes, this issue has been extensively litigated before the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). In a recent series of rate cases, the CPUC decided that Southern Cal...

AI summary The respondent cites precedents from California, North Carolina, Texas, Oklahoma, and Florida where utilities recovered deferred costs at reduced rates (e.g., short-term commercial paper or debt-only rates). The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) rejected Southern California Edison's (SCE) argument for full weighted average cost of capital (WACC) recovery, citing lower risk profiles of deferral accounts.

hern California Edison's 2021 general rate case (track 2) on behalf of the Small Business Utility Advocates. Reasonableness of remedial software costs to be included in authorized revenue requirement. Georgia PSC Docket Nos. 4822, 16573 an...

AI summary Expert testimony details involvement in multiple regulatory cases, including fuel adjustment mechanism audits, rate design reviews, and compliance with Commission orders. Key topics include cost recovery, resource planning, and modifications to pricing programs in California and Nova Scotia proceedings.

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).

pan> 6 NSP Maritime Link Incorporated (Re), 2023 NSUARB 175 at para 94. 7 Ibid, at para 95. 9 Ibid at para 12. - 2. The 12-month period does not need to begin prospectively, and can begin no earlier than May 2023 (the month after LIL commi...

AI summary The document discusses the regulatory proceedings related to the Labrador Island Link (LIL) commissioning and its impact on the monthly holdback imposed on NSPML. The Board emphasized that planned outages should not be used to avoid holdback consequences and confirmed the use of WACC in such cases. NSPML filed a termination application in February 2026, seeking to end the holdback dating back to May 2023 and requesting accumulated WACC on the held-back funds.

NO INTEREST ON POST-COMPLIANCE PERIOD HOLDBACK AMOUNTS In the alternative, should the Board find that the evidence supports termination of the Holdback effective May 1, 2024, the Industrial Group submits that NSPML should not be entitled t...

AI summary The Industrial Group argues that NSPML should not recover interest on post-compliance holdback funds due to its delayed application. NSPML delayed filing its application for over 20 months, leading to over $15.3 million in withheld funds and over $1 million in accumulated interest. The Industrial Group claims this delay is unreasonable and should not be compensated by ratepayers.

y, NS Power recently confirmed to NSPML that the current FAM balance is largely (if not completely) driven by factors unrelated to deliveries from NLH. Date Filed: July 23, 2026 Page 39 of 44

AI summary NS Power has confirmed that the current FAM balance of over $120 million is not primarily due to deliveries from NLH, but rather driven by other factors. This clarification is relevant to the regulatory proceeding.