Topic:"Fuel Cost Adjustment" in M12914

Date Filed: June 25, 2026 Page 11 of 28 6 Although suppliers are resistant to lock in early, there is potential that NSPML could find a supplier willing to commit further in advance but that commitment is likely to come with a risk premium...

AI summary The text discusses NSPML's commitment to file the Contracted Marine Survey cost and related documentation after the procurement decision, along with an assessment adjustment and WACC implications. The company requests an updated Board Order and a subsequent procurement review, drawing an analogy to fuel cost recovery mechanisms.

15 Key considerations include: 16 17 NSPML's borrowing rates are higher than NS Power's due to the absence of a credit 18 rating and the pledging of all assets under FLG and FLG2. 19 Based on NSPML's understanding of the traditional applic...

AI summary NSPML faces higher borrowing rates due to the absence of a credit rating and asset pledging under FLG and FLG2. Smoothing mechanisms may lead to adverse WACC impacts for customers, and NSPML lacks a balancing mechanism like FAM, complicating debt-to-equity ratio management. NSPML would comply with smoothing if directed by the Board but requests flexibility to adjust DER impacts and revisit the approach if needed.

REDACTED 1 Respo nse 1R-06: 2 3 a) The Placeholder Marine Survey cost, as defined in footnote 1 of the Application, 4 5 . Footnote 7 6 provided the approach: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 This amount, and is not intended to be a representation of anti...

AI summary The response discusses the Placeholder Marine Survey cost, its confidentiality, and its comparison to the Fuel Adjustment Mechanism (FAM). It highlights that both involve estimates that are trued up later, with the FAM being used for fuel costs. The confidentiality of the Placeholder Marine Survey cost is emphasized.

end, customers pay only for the actual costs incurred and approved, although the structure difference in the process suggested in this Application is that customers pay the contracted amount of the survey, not the actual cost, unlike in th...

AI summary The text discusses a difference in payment structures between the current Fuel Adjustment Mechanism (FAM) and a proposed process, where customers would pay a contracted amount for a survey rather than the actual cost incurred.

NSPML Responses to Industrial Group Information Requests 2 determine an alternative path to resolution. 3 1-Dec-43 169,900,534 3,438,787 8,942,133.37 12,380,920.18 160,958,401 1-Jun-44 160,958,401 3,257,798 8,942,133.37 12,199,931.40 152,0...

AI summary The document presents a table with dates and numerical data, likely related to financial or operational metrics, and includes a request for confirmation regarding the status of LTAMP negotiations. The context involves NSPML responding to an inquiry from an industrial group.

- 26 (a) Please explain the basis on which the Placeholder amount was 27 determined, including all assumptions. 1 2 (b) Please provide the underlying referenced in footnote 7 on p.11. 3 (c) The Application draws an analogy between this pro...

AI summary The text outlines several questions and requests related to the determination of a Placeholder amount, the analogy with NSPI's fuel cost treatment, and the risk allocation for Contracted Marine Survey costs. It also addresses the potential for intervenor input and the impact of delayed cost recovery on ratepayers.

23 Request IR-15: - 24 Reference: Section 3.0, Federal Loan Guarantee 2 (p. 20). - 25 Preamble: The Application seeks recovery of $38.8 million in FLG2 financing costs in - 26 2027 and $38.0 million in 2028, comprising coupon interest, pri...

AI summary The document references a request for information regarding the FLG2 bonds, including the outstanding principal balance and an amortization schedule for the bonds through to maturity, consistent with previously provided information.