Topic:"Hearing Procedures" in M08888

EfficiencyOne IN THE MATTER OF The Public Utilities Act , R.S.N.S. 1989, c.380, as amended.

AI summary This document pertains to a regulatory proceeding under the Public Utilities Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c.380, as amended. The proceeding is related to EfficiencyOne, though no specific details about the case or arguments are provided in the text.

Non-Energy Benefits: An Application for Approval of the use of Non-Energy Benefits within Cost-Effectiveness Testing FILED September 19, 2018

AI summary An application seeks approval to incorporate Non-Energy Benefits into cost-effectiveness testing within a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding. Filed on September 19, 2018, the document outlines the rationale for including non-energy benefits in regulatory evaluations, though specific entities or detailed arguments are not explicitly mentioned in the provided text.

3. PROPOSED APPLICATION The work completed by VEIC fits into a broader strategy for the inclusion of NEBs, as described below. Should the inclusion of NEBs in future cost- effectiveness testing be approved, ongoing management and updates t...

AI summary VEIC's work on NEBs aligns with a strategy for their inclusion in future cost-effectiveness testing, requiring ongoing management. Section 3.3 outlines requests submitted to UARB for determination.

Attachment 1: EfficiencyOne Response to Comments – December 18, 2017 Date Filed: September 19, 2018

AI summary EfficiencyOne submitted a response to comments dated December 18, 2017, as part of a regulatory proceeding. The document was filed on September 19, 2018, but no substantive content or arguments are provided in the text.

g to the use of NEBs for low-income programs in Massachusetts. Please note that VEIC did not include NEBs relating to exclusive low-income benefits for the market-rate programs examined in this study. VEIC has also provided additional tabl...

AI summary Synapse Energy Economics advocates for including low-income Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) in Nova Scotia's regulatory framework, citing their significance in other jurisdictions. VEIC notes their study excluded exclusive low-income NEBs for market-rate programs and modified tables to clarify NEB treatments. EfficiencyOne and the DSMAG are suggested to prioritize research needs, as VEIC was not tasked with assessing historical or strategic measure importance.

Attachment 2: EfficiencyOne Special DSMAG Meeting Action Items – March 12, 2018 Date Filed: September 19, 2018 To: DSM Advisory Group From: Cheryl Jenkins, Asa Parker, Vermont Energy Investment Corporation Date: March 12, 2018 Re: Response...

AI summary EfficiencyOne and VEIC respond to DSMAG action items regarding the Massachusetts TRC test, confirming it includes non-energy benefits (NEB) like rate discounts and utility benefits beyond avoided costs. Appendix C of the 2016-2018 Massachusetts TRM lists these benefits. The Massachusetts Energy Efficiency Guidelines define non-electric benefits for Program Participants.

(1) The Department should reexamine the TRC test's reliance on non-energy impacts in its costeffectiveness analysis

AI summary The Department of Public Utilities (D.P.U.) is urged to reassess the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test's inclusion of non-energy impacts in cost-effectiveness analyses. This recommendation stems from concerns that such reliance may not align with regulatory best practices or stakeholder expectations.

(2) Whether the non-energy impacts should be treated uniformly across programs

AI summary The proceeding examines whether non-energy impacts (NEIs) should be uniformly evaluated across demand-side management programs. Key considerations include TRC methodology, program administrator costs (PAC), and the role of NEB in IRP frameworks.

(4) That non-energy impacts for three individual benefits do not accrue specifically to program participants

AI summary The document argues that non-energy impacts (NEIs) for three specific benefits do not exclusively benefit program participants. This challenges the assumption that these impacts are directly tied to participants in efficiency programs, potentially affecting the evaluation of program effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses.

Action Item #3: VEIC and EfficiencyOne to respond to questions posed by Synapse Energy Economics. Please find the questions posed, as well as responses (in italics) below.

AI summary VEIC and EfficiencyOne are required to respond to questions raised by Synapse Energy Economics within a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding. The text outlines the action item, though specific questions or responses are not detailed in the provided excerpt.

Non-Energy Benefits: DSMAG Feedback and Next Steps Presentation to DSMAG June 27, 2018

AI summary The document outlines a presentation to the DSMAG on June 27, 2018, focusing on non-energy benefits (NEBs) and next steps in the regulatory proceeding. It highlights the importance of NEBs in the evaluation process and the role of DSMAG in providing feedback.

Pro-rata Inclusion of Low-Income NEBs - Synapse recommended exploring the inclusion of low-income (LI) NEBs within market-rate programs, based on proportional participation - At the February DSMAG meeting regarding NEBs, VEIC indicated tha...

AI summary Synapse recommended proportionally including low-income NEBs in market-rate programs. VEIC argued additional NEBs would be minimal and not justify effort. Synapse requested data on LI customer participation in ENS programs. Other members had mixed support, with some conditional approval.

Double Counting The Small Business Advocate requested clarification on how double counting was incorporated in the Mass studies, both with respect to interactions between measures, and different categories of NEBs

AI summary The Small Business Advocate requested clarification on how double counting was addressed in Mass studies, focusing on interactions between measures and categories of Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs). The proceeding involves Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS) and the Department of Public Utilities (DPU).

Attachment 4: Final VEIC NEBs Report with Appendices – July 12, 2018 Date Filed: September 19, 2018

AI summary Attachment 4 presents the Final VEIC NEBs Report with Appendices dated July 12, 2018, submitted on September 19, 2018. It outlines non-energy benefits (NEBs) analysis for regulatory proceedings, involving entities like Efficiency Nova Scotia (ENS) and the Utilities and Ratepayers Board (UARB).

rs were slowly beginning to implement these guidelines through the identification and inclusion of NEBs in their cost benefit testing. Figure 2 illustrates a timeline of a sample of research (purple), National Standard Practice Manual for...

AI summary The text discusses the gradual integration of Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) into cost-benefit analyses by utilities, supported by research timelines, regulatory decisions, and best practices. Key references include the National Standard Practice Manual (NSPM), California's Standard Practice Manual, and EPA reports, highlighting historical progress in energy efficiency program evaluations.

Section 3.0 Methodology of NEBs Application and Adaptation VEIC was commissioned by EfficiencyOne to conduct an analysis of a full suite of non-energy benefits to be quantified for Efficiency Nova Scotia's portfolio of measures. VEIC condu...

AI summary VEIC analyzed non-energy benefits (NEBs) for Efficiency Nova Scotia's programs, using Massachusetts' research as the primary resource. Deliverables include a report, presentation to the DSM Advisory Group, and an Excel tool for future use. Massachusetts' MA TRM provides adaptable measure-level NEB values for Nova Scotia's measures.

3.1 Local Adjustments to MA TRM Values In some cases, the adaptation of NEBs directly from the MA TRM was not feasible – for example, if a measure in Nova Scotia was similar but not the same as a measure in Massachusetts. In this case, we...

AI summary The document outlines challenges in directly applying Massachusetts TRM NEB values to Nova Scotia measures due to differences in program design. When measures differ, primary research was used to assign NEB values based on technology type (e.g., commercial end-use categories). The process is categorized into six groups, emphasizing technology-based NEB allocation where direct alignment was not possible.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL d) Please identify any measures that fail the TRC without this NEB, but would pass the TRC with this NEB. i) If there are no such measures, please explain why it is important to include this NEB. Response IR-02: The follow...

AI summary The document references a regulatory proceeding inquiry about measures failing the TRC without NEB but passing with it. The response directs to EfficiencyOne's prior IR response to Multeese IR-16, with Vermont Energy Investment Corporation (VEIC) providing the reply. No direct arguments are stated in the text.

Request IR-11: Table 1 (page 5 of 64) of the VEIC Report (Attachment 4) lists NEBs "Recommended for Inclusion in the ENS Market Rate Programs". a) Please identify which of these E1 believes are currently accounted for by customers who cons...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) communicates all Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) listed in the VEIC Report to customers through DSM marketing and direct communication, though the extent varies. Benefits are shared generally to raise awareness, not as specific dollar savings estimates, per E1's response to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (UARB).

Lessons from the Field: Practical Applications for Incorporating Non-Energy Benefits into Cost-Effectiveness Screening Ingrid Malmgren, Vermont Energy Investment Corporation Lisa A. Skumatz, Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. (SERA)

AI summary The document discusses practical applications for integrating non-energy benefits into cost-effectiveness screening in regulatory proceedings. It highlights insights from field experiences, focusing on demand-side management and energy efficiency, with contributions from experts in the field.

programs, to full-fledged estimation work of scores of categories of NEBs for literally hundreds of programs across the nation. The key steps in this progress are (Skumatz 2013, Skumatz et al. 2009):

AI summary The text outlines advancements in NEBs over two decades, referencing key steps from Skumatz (2013) and Skumatz et al. (2009), highlighting progress in program estimation across various categories.

sed technology development. It cited NYSERDA as a source for quantifying such non-energy benefits and factoring into DSM cost-effectiveness analysis (Docket 07A-420E Decision No. C0-0560 pages 24-25). Colorado revisited its cost-effectiven...

AI summary Colorado's regulatory proceedings on DSM and NEBs involved NYSERDA as a research source, increased NEB adders for low-income programs to 25%, and interveners advocating for higher adders and revised cost-effectiveness tests. The Colorado PUC mandated updates to NEB quantification, with ongoing reassessments in 2013.

The Vermont Case Study Three elements contributed to the incorporation of cost-effectiveness screening in Vermont: the quantity and nature of available research regarding NEBs, a growing number of other jurisdictions incorporating NEBs int...

AI summary Vermont integrated Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) into cost-effectiveness screening due to research, stakeholder collaboration, and jurisdictional trends. Since 2000, Vermont operated a statewide efficiency program. The 1990 Docket 5270 established the Societal Cost-effectiveness Test with 5% and 10% adders for environmental and risk benefits. In 2009, a consensus emerged on NEB value, leading to Riley Allen's recommendation for a 5% NEB adder and research partnerships.

Re: Heating and Process Fuel Cost-Effectiveness Screening Dear Ms. Hudson, Pursuant to the September 30, 2011 Vermont Public Service Board Memorandum, Vermont Energy Investment Corporation (VEIC), serving as the entity Efficiency Vermont,...

AI summary VEIC (Efficiency Vermont) submits comments to the NSUARB regarding cost-effectiveness screening for heating and process-fuel efficiency measures, referencing a 2011 Vermont Public Service Board Memorandum. The submission supplements prior recommendations and acknowledges Ms. Bishop's directive to rely on the current record if new issues are unaddressed.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL - (1.6) For greater certainty, if the commission determines under subsection (1.5) that a demand- - side measure that is part of an expenditure portfolio is not cost effective, the commission must - exclude that demand-sid...

AI summary Regulatory provisions outline criteria for evaluating demand-side measures' cost-effectiveness, including exceptions for charity programs and public awareness initiatives. The commission may exclude non-cost-effective measures and adjust evaluation methods based on timelines (pre/post 2015).

8.1 Submission Deadline Proposals MUST be submitted via email t[o [email protected],](mailto:[email protected]) and received in full on or before 4:00 pm AT, May 19th, 2017 . Proposals can be submitted in MS Word, MS Ex...

AI summary Proposals for RFQ 2017-0077 – NEB Study must be submitted via email to [email protected] by 4:00 pm AT on May 19th, 2017, in MS Word, Excel, or PDF format with the specified subject line.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-05: 2 3 Regarding the Measure-level NEB Study conducted by VEIC (NEB Application, Attachment 4 4: Final VEIC NEBs Report with Appendices – July 12, 2018), please provide responses to 5 following statements: 6...

AI summary VEIC responded to information requests regarding their Measure-level NEB Study, disclosing 238 total measures considered, 153 with non-zero NEBs, and 27 measures with less than 10% TRC increases after NEB inclusion. The response addresses regulatory inquiries about NEB impacts on resource costs.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL Request IR-17: - If EfficiencyOne expects, as indicated in Section 3.2.3, page 12, of the Application that - "…new data may change the relevance of existing data", please explain why NEBs should be - heavily relied upon at...

AI summary EfficiencyOne responds to a request regarding the reliance on Net Energy Benefits (NEBs) for achieving a cost-effectiveness (CE) value of 1.00, clarifying that NEBs are not heavily relied upon and referencing their prior response to UARB IR-07.

7 BNI - CUSTOM INCENTIVES

AI summary The section discusses custom incentives under BNI, referencing programs like Business Energy Rebates and Efficiency Nova Scotia, along with acronyms for Non-Energy Benefits and Overall Prevalence. Key entities and incentives are outlined for regulatory consideration.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL Request IR-09: Please refer to the workbook titled "Attachment 4 – Appendix C", cell CK27. For this measure, does a negative NEB signify an additional cost to the customer? Response IR-09: The following response has been p...

AI summary The response to Request IR-09 clarifies that a negative NEB does not indicate an additional customer cost but reflects lower estimates by VEIC compared to EfficiencyOne, driven by differences in water savings calculations.

EFFICIENCYONE SUBMISSIONS ON THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE OF JURISDICTION

AI summary EfficiencyOne submits on the preliminary jurisdiction issue in a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding, arguing over the board's authority to address energy efficiency programs. The submission focuses on legal interpretations of jurisdictional boundaries.

equests (IRs) to EfficiencyOne were filed by Intervenors on - October 24, 2018. EfficiencyOne responded to these IRs on November 14, 2018 (with a correction to - Multeese IRs filed November 15, 2018).

AI summary Intervenors filed requests (IRs) to EfficiencyOne on October 24, 2018. EfficiencyOne responded on November 14, 2018, with a correction to Multeese IRs filed on November 15, 2018.

- On November 22, 2018, after responding to the Information Requests of the Intervenors, and having - regard to the upcoming regulatory proceedings in 2019 with respect to the 2020-22 DSM Plan - Application, EfficiencyOne requested the NEB...

AI summary EfficiencyOne requested deferral of the NEB Application in 2018, leading to the NSUARB adjourning proceedings until 2019. The NSUARB raised jurisdictional authority concerns under the Public Utilities Act, prompting EfficiencyOne to engage stakeholders and seek clarification on the Board's jurisdiction to consider Non-Energy Benefits. Stakeholders including Synapse, NSPI, and advocates raised similar concerns.

st account for it. Therefore, the Board has an implicit Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. S&D Smith Central Supplies Limited, 2019 NSCA 22 Public Utilities Act, RSNS 1989, c. 380, s 79L(9). Supra

AI summary The text references a legal case (Nova Scotia v. S&D Smith) and cites the Public Utilities Act, RSNS 1989, c. 380, s 79L(9). It includes a legal citation ('Supra') indicating a prior reference. The context relates to regulatory proceedings under Nova Scotia's utility legislation.

EFFICIENCYONE BOOK OF AUTHORITIES

AI summary The document titled 'EFFICIENCYONE BOOK OF AUTHORITIES' appears to be part of a regulatory proceeding in Nova Scotia, though no further content or context is provided in the text. It likely contains references to EfficiencyOne's programs, policies, or legal arguments related to energy efficiency initiatives.

SECONDARY SOURCES - 9. Hansard, Sixty First General Assembly, First Session: October 27, 2009, pp. 1807-1816 - 10. Nova Scotia Utility & Review Board Order M08604, Re: EfficiencyOne Application for Approval of 2019 DSM Plan - 11. Public Se...

AI summary The document lists secondary sources relevant to a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding, including a 2009 Hansard excerpt, an NSUARB order approving EfficiencyOne's 2019 DSM plan, and a 2015 Maryland Public Service Commission order. These sources provide context for the proceeding's analysis.

3.0 EVALUATION AND VERIFICATION OF 2010 DSM PLAN

AI summary This section outlines the evaluation and verification process of the 2010 Demand-Side Management (DSM) Plan by the Nova Scotia Utility & Review Board (NSUARB), involving entities such as Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI) and Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation (ENS). Key stakeholders include the Nova Scotia Department of Energy (NSDOE) and the Consumer Advocate (CA).

3.1.1 Findings [38] As pointed out by the CA in examination of both the ENSC panel and Dr. Peach, the evaluation and verification of the DSM program and results are of critical importance to ratepayers. It is the means by which ratepayers...

AI summary The Board emphasizes the importance of evaluating DSM programs to ensure ratepayer investments are prudent. It accepts the 2010 DSM Plan evaluation with a 10% reduction for the Efficient Products-Direct Install program. The Province endorses SVS recommendations, and ENSC must respond by July 31, 2011. An audit is deferred until the 2013 DSM Plan application.

4.0 PROPOSED 2012 DSM PLAN

AI summary The document outlines the proposed 2012 Demand-Side Management (DSM) plan, involving regulatory entities and stakeholders in Nova Scotia. Key organizations and legal references are listed, though specific plan details are not provided in the excerpt.

of the plans seem to have the same economics; TRC of about two, PAC of about three. The corporation has not said that 158.5 is not achievable, so I don't see a good reason for not going to the 158.5. MR. FOREMAN: In fairness the evidence t...

AI summary The text discusses recommendations to maintain or increase 2012 DSM savings targets, citing 2011 achievements and the need for momentum. Efficiency Nova Scotia and Board Counsel Tim Woolf support aligning 2012 goals with 2011 levels, emphasizing flexibility and long-term IRP alignment. TRC and PAC figures are referenced as economic indicators.

ty revenue and demand. While some Intervenors and consultants may argue for higher spending levels, the 2012 DSM Plan as filed, exceeds the savings targets which were included in the 2009 IRP update. While the thrust of the questions by th...

AI summary ENSC's 2012 DSM Plan meets and exceeds IRP energy savings targets. NPB opposes increasing the budget, arguing it is already among North America's highest in terms of utility revenue and demand percentages. Avon Group supports the current budget, while EAC's consultant agrees non-program savings should be included. ENSC claims the plan balances aggressive savings targets with budget levels.

4.4 Bill Impacts [79] In his direct evidence on behalf of Board Counsel, Mr. Woolf discussed the need to establish key principles regarding how to quantify bill and rate impacts due to increasing DSM budgets in order that these rate and bi...

AI summary The document outlines principles for quantifying bill and rate impacts from increased DSM budgets, emphasizing analysis of program participant and non-participant effects, long-term impacts, and cost-benefit considerations. The Province recommends ENSC collaborate with NSPI and PWDG to refine DSM plan filings, which ENSC agrees to.

4.4.1 Findings [81] The Board is persuaded that there is a need to have better information on rate and bill impacts in future proceedings and directs ENSC to undertake the necessary consultation with a view to providing enhanced informatio...

AI summary The Board mandates ENSC to improve transparency on rate and bill impacts through consultation, aligning with Mr. Woolf's recommendations for the 2013 DSM Plan. This emphasizes the need for enhanced data in future regulatory proceedings.

6.1 Findings [140] The Board recognizes the valuable contributions made by the PDWG while NSPI served as the interim DSM Administrator and also during the transition process from NSPI to ENSC as the new DSM Administrator. The Board accepts...

AI summary The NSUARB acknowledges PDWG's contributions during NSPI's interim DSM administration and the transition to ENSC. The Board accepts ENSC's proposal to retain PDWG's role while engaging broader stakeholders for potential changes, requiring ENSC to file results in its 2013 DSM Plan.

8.0 ECOLOGY ACTION CENTRE REQUEST FOR COSTS [149] In its Final Submission, EAC stated: - 1. It is submitted that the EAC acted responsibly and prudently as an intervener in these hearings. The interventions have been novel and brought a di...

AI summary The Ecology Action Centre (EAC) requests costs incurred during intervenor participation in hearings related to the 2012 DSM plan. EAC argues its interventions were responsible and necessary, citing expert testimony by Glenn Reed. ENSC requested a proposed Bill of Costs post-hearing, with the Board reserving jurisdiction if agreement cannot be reached.

e CA, the SBA, the Industrial Group, the EAC, and the AEC. The Quantum Agreement provided that the Consensus Agreement, which is attached as Appendix D to this Decision, was incorporated by reference.

AI summary The Quantum Agreement incorporates the Consensus Agreement (Appendix D) involving the CA, SBA, Industrial Group, EAC, and AEC. The agreement is referenced in the regulatory proceeding context.

3.3 Status of 2013 and 2014 Verification and Evaluation Recommendations [49] In Appendix C, attached to its application, E1 included Table 1 - Update on Implementation of 2013 Verification Recommendations, and Table 2 - Update on Implement...

AI summary E1 provided updates on the implementation status of 2013 and 2014 verification and evaluation recommendations, with most completed. No intervenors raised concerns, though evaluation reports noted issues with Home Energy Report savings. E1 will update the Board on 2014 recommendations in its Q2 report.

3.3.1 Findings [52] In his evidence, Dr. Peach commented on the status of the 2013 evaluation and verification recommendations:

AI summary Dr. Peach provided testimony regarding the status of the 2013 evaluation and verification recommendations, highlighting their relevance to ongoing regulatory proceedings in Nova Scotia.

3.9 HST Status [116] E1 noted that its predecessor, ENSC, sought a ruling from the Canada Revenue Agency ("CRA") as to whether or not the company is making a taxable supply to NSPI and if it is entitled to claim full input tax credits for...

AI summary E1's predecessor, ENSC, sought CRA approval for HST input tax credits but was denied. E1 now appeals to Canada's Tax Court while negotiating with NSPI over funding. Legal advice allows E1 to claim 2015 credits, excluding HST from DSM cost estimates.

3.10 Agreed form of Supply Agreement [120] E1 included an Agreed Form of Supply Agreement as Appendix J of its application, effective January 2016. The Supply Agreement generally outlines the terms and conditions which each party is expect...

AI summary E1 included an Agreed Form of Supply Agreement as Appendix J of its application, effective January 2016, outlining terms under the PUA. Attached schedules were left blank pending the Board's decision and Compliance Filing.

1) IMPORTATION OF AGREEMENT a) The parties agree to incorporate by reference all of the terms of agreement reached in the partial settlement agreement among EfficiencyOne, Nova Scotia Power, the Consumer Advocate, the Small Business Advoca...

AI summary Parties agree to incorporate terms from a partial settlement agreement in Matter M06733, involving EfficiencyOne, Nova Scotia Power, the Consumer Advocate, and other stakeholders before the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board.

II BACKGROUND - [8] On June 12, 2017, E1 filed the Application seeking a Board Order compelling NSPI to provide the Customer Usage Data and the Names and Emails. - [9] The Board determined the Application should proceed by a paper hearing,...

AI summary E1 filed an application in 2017 seeking customer data from NSPI, leading to a paper hearing. The Board set a timeline, with interventions from CA, SBA, IG, and NSDOE. NSPI submitted evidence, and E1 rebutted. The text outlines legislative changes transferring DSM responsibilities from NSPI to ENSC and later to E1 under the PUA and ENSCA.

iii) Are the Names and Email necessary to enable E1 to provide NSPI with reasonably available cost-effective energy efficiency and conservation activities? [75] NSPI's position on the necessity of the Names and Emails is summarized at p. 1...

AI summary NSPI argues E1 has not proven the necessity of customer Names and Emails for cost-effective DSM activities, emphasizing existing data availability and privacy concerns. The CA found E1's evidence insufficient and requested further comments. Privacy balancing is emphasized over E1's cost pressures.

IX SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION [136] E1 applied to the Board for an Order requiring NSPI to disclose Names and Emails, and Customer Usage Data, pursuant to s. 79K(1) of the PUA . [137] The Board has determined that the Names and Emails, and the...

AI summary E1 requested the Board to order NSPI to disclose customer data (names, emails, usage) under the PUA. The Board ruled this information is necessary for E1 to develop cost-effective DSM programs, citing its relevance to customer electricity usage and load analysis.

's employees up to the date on avaient et´ e gagn ´ es par les employ ´ es de Rizzo jus- ´ which the receiving order was made. qu'a la date a laquelle l'ordonnance de sequestre a ´ et´ e rendue. ´

AI summary The text references Rizzo's employees and a sequestration order issued up to the date of the order. However, the context is unclear due to fragmented and multilingual text.

7. — (5) Every contract of employment shall be deemed to include the following provision: All severance pay and termination pay become payable and shall be paid by the employer to the employee in two weekly instalments beginning with the f...

AI summary The text outlines employment contract provisions for severance pay under the Employment Standards Act and details legal proceedings involving the Nova Scotia Department of Energy, a trustee, and former employees of Rizzo. Key issues include severance payment timelines, termination notice requirements, and a court order allowing former employees to appeal a withdrawn appeal.

vement. Assent. meaning and spirit. sens, intention et esprit veritables. ´ previous state of the law. sur l'´etat anterieur du droit. ´ O.R. (3d) 441 (1991), 6 O.R. (3d) 441 [TRADUCTION] ... ... employer who became a bankrupt or an insolv...

AI summary The text references legal proceedings involving the Bankruptcy Act (Canada) and its application to insolvent employers, citing a 1991 Ontario Reports case (O.R. (3d) 441). It discusses the distribution of assets to creditors and the acceptance of proposals under bankruptcy law, with cross-references to the Bankruptcy Act and related legal frameworks.

B. Ontario Court of Appeal (1995), 22 O.R. (3d) B. La Cour d'appel de l'Ontario (1995), 22 O.R. 385 (3d) 385 Austin J.A., writing for a unanimous court, 13 Au nom d'une cour unanime, le juge Austin a In support of his conclusion, Austin J....

AI summary The Ontario Court of Appeal (1995) case, 22 O.R. (3d) 385, involves a unanimous decision by Austin J.A. The text outlines the court's reasoning and legal analysis, though the full arguments and context are truncated in the provided excerpt.

2. . . . 2. . . . employer who became a bankrupt or an insolvent ployeur qui a fait faillite ou est devenu insolvable au person within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Act sens de la Loi sur la faillite (Canada) et dont les (Canada) and whose...

AI summary The text discusses legal interpretations of severance pay obligations under the Bankruptcy Act (Canada) and the Loi sur la faillite , focusing on whether bankrupt employers are subject to these obligations. The Court of Appeal concluded that the legislature's intent in enacting the provision implies such obligations apply to bankrupt employers, despite ambiguity in the text.

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. S&D Smith Central Supplies Limited , 2019 NSCA 22 Date: 20190326 Docket: CA 467211 Registry: Halifax

AI summary The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal case Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. S&D Smith Central Supplies Limited (2019 NSCA 22) involves legal proceedings between the provincial government and S&D Smith Central Supplies Limited, with the docket number CA 467211 and registry in Halifax.

Between: The Attorney General of Nova Scotia, representing Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of the Province of Nova Scotia Appellant (Cross-respondent) v. S&D Smith Central Supplies Limited Respondent (Cross-appellant) v. Nova Scotia Uti...

AI summary The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board's decision in a regulatory proceeding involving S&D Smith Central Supplies Limited was upheld, with the appeal and cross-appeal dismissed. The case was heard by Fichaud, Saunders, and Beveridge JJ.A., with Beveridge dissenting. Costs were awarded to the respondent S&D Smith.

- [46] … Mr. Smith said he would not have needed the second site if it were not for the expropriation. He saw clear benefits from being on one site. - [20] From 2006 to early 2012, Mr. Smith discussed options for highway routing and config...

AI summary The document details the expropriation of Central's land by the Province of Nova Scotia, leading to compensation claims for market value, business disturbance, and injurious affection. The expropriation bisected Central's property, rendering part of it 'almost worthless,' and the case was heard by the Nova Scotia Utility & Review Board.

Effect of judgement of court on pending matter - 23(1) In determining a question of fact, the Board is not bound by the finding or judgment of a court in a proceeding involved in the determination of the fact, but such finding or judgment...

AI summary The NSUARB is not bound by court findings on factual questions but may use them as prima facie evidence. The Board retains jurisdiction to determine factual issues even if a court proceeding on the same matter is pending.

] The Board finds, on a balance of probabilities, that Central did have expansion plans. - [142] On the appeal, the Province submits the evidence did not support the Board's findings. Its factum says:

AI summary The Board concluded Central had expansion plans, but the Province appeals, arguing insufficient evidence. The Province's factum challenges the Board's findings, asserting the evidence does not support the conclusion. The proceeding examines causation and business plan validity under Nova Scotia regulatory frameworks.

[149] The Board accepted Mr. Smith's testimony: [759] The Board accepts Mr. Smith's evidence regarding his conversation with Graydon Bushell at the May 1998 meeting. Mr. Bushell acknowledged that Mr. Smith's recollection could be clearer t...

AI summary The Board accepted Mr. Smith's testimony regarding his 1998 conversation with Graydon Bushell, acknowledging Smith's recollection was clearer. The Board also accepted Smith's decision to abandon plans for the Lower South River site to focus on other business aspects.

ate what would have happened but for the delay. [172] PwC's Report, pp. 16-21, accompanied by the testimony of Mr. Bradley and Ms. Rodenhiser, explained the quantification of Central's loss. Briefly:

AI summary PwC's report (pages 16-21) and testimony from Mr. Bradley and Ms. Rodenhiser detail the quantification of Central's loss as part of a regulatory proceeding.

Interest on outstanding compensation - 53 (1) Subject to Sections 13 and 15, the owner of lands expropriated is entitled to be paid interest on the portion of the market value of his interest in the land and on the portion of any allowance...

AI summary The Nova Scotia Utility & Review Board awarded 10% interest on expropriated land compensation due to the Province's delay in determining compensation. The Province challenges this, arguing delays only after the notice of expropriation matter. The Board rejected this, citing delays before the notice and inconsistent appraisal timelines.

n the Board's view, to an unacceptable degree of speculation. Further, the Board considers that there is merit in the submissions of the Province that these costs are too remote to be compensable in the circumstances of this matter. Accord...

AI summary The Board denied Central's claim for future losses, deeming them too speculative and remote. It adjusted the loss period determined by PwC, ending it one year earlier. Central's cross-appeal challenges the disallowance of future costs, arguing their reliability.

icipality was required to withhold approval until the Authority decided which lands to expropriate. - [311] The award of disturbance damages was reversed on appeal to the Divisional Court and the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court...

AI summary The Supreme Court reinstated the Board's award of disturbance damages, endorsing the correctness standard of review despite differing statutory provisions. The decision referenced the Privy Council's ruling in Director of Buildings and Lands v. Shun Fung Ironworks Ltd. , affirming that disturbance damages are recoverable even pre-expropriation. Prior courts had reversed the award, but the Supreme Court's reinstatement emphasized the expropriation process's legal framework.

ve earned had it gone ahead with its expansion plans in 2001. This is what the Province argued before the Board, but it failed to understand this point. Some further details will assist to illustrate.

AI summary The Province argued before the Board that certain expansion plans in 2001 would have yielded financial benefits, but the Board rejected this claim, emphasizing a misunderstanding of the underlying point. Further details are provided to clarify the context.

Interpretation Act CHAPTER 235 OF THE REVISED STATUTES, 1989 as amended by 1990, c. 31; 1995-96, c. 21; 1995-96, c. 13, s. 81; 2002, c. 10, s. 4; 2003, c.7, s. 2; 2005, c. 34; 2013, c. 35, s. 3 © 2016 Her Majesty the Queen in right of the...

AI summary The Interpretation Act (Chapter 235 of the Revised Statutes, 1989) outlines legislative amendments and definitions, with updates from 1990 to 2013. It is published by the Nova Scotia government and involves the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board.

RULES OF CONSTRUCTION

AI summary The document outlines rules of construction, including definitions and interpretations of terms used in regulatory proceedings involving Nova Scotia utility and energy efficiency programs, with extensive acronym listings for organizations, legislation, and programs.

Powers prior to commencement of enactment - 8 Where an enactment is not to come into force or operation immediately on its being passed and it confers power to - (a) make appointments; - (b) make regulations; - (c) hold elections; - (d) ma...

AI summary The provision outlines that powers conferred by an enactment not effective immediately may be exercised post-enactment passage, but pre-enactment regulations only take effect upon enactment commencement, except for necessary parts to ensure effectiveness. This is under R.S., c. 235, s. 8.

Implied provisions in enactment - 19 In an enactment, - (a) where anything is directed to be done by or before a public officer, it shall be done by or before one whose jurisdiction or power extends to the place where such thing is to be d...

AI summary The text outlines implied provisions in legislation, including jurisdictional requirements, power delegation, majority rule, and statutory interpretation principles. It addresses enforcement mechanisms, definitions, and procedural rules for enactments in Nova Scotia, citing specific statutory references.

(The table of contents is not part of the statute) Section Domestic rate or charge in certain cases 73 Approval for issue of certain securities 74 75 Location of office and books 76 Use of equipment by another utility 77 Consent for erecti...

AI summary The text outlines various sections and regulations related to public utilities, including domestic rate regulations, franchise agreements, board supervision, and procedures for complaints and hearings. It includes sections on electricity efficiency, demand-side management, and the process for handling disputes and regulatory actions.

Payment and recovery of amount assessed 16 (1) The amount so assessed on a public utility shall be paid by it within one month after it has been notified by the Board of such amount, and in default of payment the Board may sue for and reco...

AI summary The section outlines that public utilities must pay assessed amounts within one month of notification by the NSUARB. Non-payment allows the Board to sue in court, with proceedings unaffected by Board membership changes. Costs related to proceedings are treated as Board expenses.

Blank forms from Board 28 The Board may cause to be prepared suitable blank forms for carrying out the purposes of this Act and shall, when necessary, furnish such blank forms to each public utility. R.S., c. 380, s. 28.

AI summary The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (UARB) is authorized to prepare and distribute blank forms for public utilities under the Act, as outlined in R.S., c. 380, s. 28. This provision ensures compliance with statutory requirements for utility operations.

Independent savings review of N.S. Power Inc. - 34A (1) The Board may order and thereupon Nova Scotia Power Incorporated shall furnish to the Board an independent savings review of Nova Scotia Power Incorporated to identify potential savin...

AI summary The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board may mandate an independent savings review of Nova Scotia Power Inc., assessing operations, fiscal management, and value-for-money. The review's terms are determined by the Board, as outlined in 2012, c. 41, s. 2.

Retroactive effect of Sections 35B and 35D 35F Sections 35B and 35D apply retroactively, as if the Board orders referred to in subsections 35C(1) and 35E(1) had been valid since they were issued by the Board, except to the extent that they...

AI summary Sections 35B and 35D apply retroactively, as if Board orders were valid since issuance, except where inconsistent with their express requirements, per 2015, c. 31, s. 29.

Rescission or amendment of order of Board 72 The Board may, at any time, upon notice to the public utility and after hearing as provided in this Act, rescind, alter or amend any order fixing any rate or rates, tolls, charges or schedules,...

AI summary The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board may rescind, alter, or amend any order at any time upon public notice and hearing, as stipulated in R.S., c. 380, s. 72. Certified copies of amended orders carry the same effect as original orders.

ELECTRICITY EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION

AI summary The document pertains to regulatory proceedings concerning electricity efficiency and conservation in Nova Scotia, involving entities like Efficiency Nova Scotia, Nova Scotia Power, and regulatory bodies such as the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board. Key topics include demand-side management, integrated resource planning, and legislative frameworks like the Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Restructuring Act.

Right of inspection and examination by Board - 80 (1) The Board or any member thereof, or any person or persons employed by the Board for that purpose, shall, upon demand, have the right to inspect the books, accounts, papers, records and...

AI summary The Board has the right to inspect public utility records and examine employees under oath. Section 81 was repealed by 1992, c. 11, s. 43.

Appointee to investigate safety or adequacy of service 82 The Board may, either with or without notice to a public utility, make an order appointing a person to make at any time or from time to time any examinations, investigations or test...

AI summary The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (UARB) has the authority to appoint investigators to assess the safety and adequacy of public utility services. The Board may set remuneration for appointees, which public utilities must pay upon certification. This power is codified in R.S., c. 380, s. 82.

Where formal hearing warranted - 88 (1) If after making any summary investigation, the Board becomes satisfied that sufficient grounds exist to warrant a formal hearing being ordered as to the matters so investigated, it shall furnish such...

AI summary The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB) may order a formal hearing if a summary investigation identifies sufficient grounds. The Board must notify the public utility and schedule a hearing within ten days, as outlined in R.S., c. 380, s. 88.

Notice of formal hearing 89 Notice of the time and place for such hearing shall be given to the public utility and to such other interested persons as the Board shall deem necessary, as provided in this Act, and thereafter proceedings shal...

AI summary The notice outlines procedures for formal hearings, requiring notification to the public utility and interested parties, with proceedings conducted as if a complaint had been filed, referencing R.S., c. 380, s. 89.

Consumer advocate - 91 (1) Where the Governor in Council directs or the Board on its own motion decides, the Board shall appoint a person to act as a consumer advocate in a hearing before the Board. - (2) A consumer advocate appointed purs...

AI summary The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (UARB) may appoint a consumer advocate to represent residential consumers in hearings. The advocate acts as a full intervenor, with authority to negotiate settlements and access legal/technical expertise. Fees and expenses are paid by applicants, and the Governor in Council may regulate qualifications.

Recovery of penalty - 115 (1) The penalties prescribed by this Act may be recovered or enforced - (a) by civil action or proceeding at the suit of the Attorney General, or of a private party with the consent of the Attorney General, in any...

AI summary The text outlines that penalties under the Act may be recovered via civil action or summary proceedings with the Attorney General's consent. Legal actions must be initiated within one year of the violation, as per R.S., c. 380, s. 115.

Form of order 25 It is not necessary that an order of the Board show upon its face that any proceedings or notice were had or given or circumstances existed necessary to give it jurisdiction to make the order. 1992, c. 11, s. 25.

AI summary The Board's order does not require explicit jurisdictional details. It references the Utility and Review Board Act, 1992, chapter 11, section 25, which outlines that orders need not show proceedings or notices on their face.

Effect of finding 26 The finding or determination of the Board upon a question of fact within its jurisdiction is binding and conclusive. 1992, c. 11, s. 26.

AI summary The Board's factual determinations are binding and conclusive under the Utility and Review Board Act, 1992, c. 11, s. 26. This establishes the legal authority of the Board's findings in regulatory proceedings.

Written decision with reasons - 27 (1) A final decision of the Board shall be in writing and shall set forth reasons for the decision. - (2) The reasons for the final decision shall include - (a) any agreed findings of facts; - (b) the fin...

AI summary The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB) must issue final decisions in writing with detailed reasons, including agreed findings, evidence-based findings, and legal conclusions. The Clerk certifies and distributes copies to all parties. This requirement is governed by the Utility and Review Board Act, 1992, c. 11, s. 27.

Regulations - 34 (1) The Governor in Council may make regulations - (a) prescribing the terms and conditions, including remuneration, for the Board engaging the services of professional persons, technical persons and experts to advise the...

AI summary Section 34 outlines the Governor in Council's authority to regulate the Board's operations, including terms for engaging experts, public notice requirements, participation rules, record-keeping, information release, and definitions. Regulations may apply generally or to specific classes of matters, with legislative supremacy over conflicting Acts. The power is governed by the Regulations Act, 1992.

Gasoline and Diesel Oil Tax Act amended 37 amendment

AI summary The Gasoline and Diesel Oil Tax Act has been amended as part of a regulatory proceeding in Nova Scotia. The amendment is referenced in a document labeled '37 amendment', though no further details are provided in the text.

School Boards Act amended 44 amendments

AI summary The School Boards Act in Nova Scotia has been amended, though specific details of the changes are not provided in the text. The amendment is noted in the context of regulatory proceedings, potentially involving utility and energy-related legislation.

Shopping Centre Development Act amended 45 amendment

AI summary The Shopping Centre Development Act has been amended as part of a regulatory proceeding in Nova Scotia. The text references a specific amendment numbered '45', though no further details on the nature of the amendment or stakeholders involved are provided in the excerpt.

Continuation of existing matter 49 For greater certainty, every matter before a predecessor board immediately before the coming into force of this Act shall be continued before the Board and, where any such matter has been heard, in whole...

AI summary The text ensures that matters before predecessor boards are continued under the new Board, with hearings by members who are part of the current Board. It references section 49 of the Utility and Review Board Act, 1992, c. 11.

- in that situation and, again, the bill is not clear on that and maybe it's just the staff that need the - clarity on that, because I'm not sure whether this was thrown in as an afterthought or not.

AI summary The speaker expresses concern about the lack of clarity in a bill, suggesting it may have been added as an afterthought, and questions whether staff require further clarification on its provisions.

IN THE MATTER OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT - and - IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION by EFFICIENCYONE for Approval of a Supply Agreement for Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Activities between EfficiencyOne and Nova Scotia Power Inc. a...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) seeks approval for a supply agreement with Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI) and its 2019 Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource Plan. The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (UARB) conducted a paper hearing, with intervenors including the Consumer Advocate, SBA, and Ecology Action Centre. Submissions and evidence were filed in June 2018.

Functions, powers and duties 4 (1) The Board has those functions, powers and duties that are, from time to time, conferred or imposed on it by (a) this Act, the Assessment Act, the Expropriation Act, the Gasoline and Diesel Oil Tax Act, th...

AI summary The NSUARB's functions, powers, and duties are conferred by various acts including the Assessment Act and Public Utilities Act. A NEB Application is referenced, with VEIC recommending EfficiencyOne withdraw property value-related NEBs due to developments in Massachusetts.

CASE LAW - Tab 1 ATCO Gas & Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta (Energy & Utilities Board), 2006 SCC 4 (CanLII) - Tab 2 National Energy Board Act (Can.) (Re), 1986 CanLII 4033 (FCA) (CanLII) - Tab 3 Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. Department of Agricultu...

AI summary The document lists case law references, including a 2006 Supreme Court of Canada case involving ATCO Gas & Pipelines Ltd. and Alberta's Energy and Utilities Board. The City of Calgary and ATCO Gas are involved in a cross-appeal, with interveners including Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc., and Union Gas Limited. The case is indexed as ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), with a neutral citation of 2006 SCC 4.

Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immi‑ gration) , [1998] 1 R.C.S. 982; United Taxi Drivers' Fellowship of Southern Alberta c. Calgary (Ville) , [2004] 1 R.C.S. 485, 2004 CSC 19; Consumers' Gas Co. c. Ontario (Energy Board) , [200...

AI summary A list of Canadian legal cases and regulatory decisions cited in a Nova Scotia proceeding, spanning jurisdictions like Alberta and Ontario, involving utility regulation, consumer rights, and legal precedents related to energy, telecommunications, and public services.

and Michael W. Lyle , for the intervener the Ontario Energy Board. Written submissions only by J. L. McDougall , Q.C. , and Michael D. Schafler , for the intervener Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. Written submissions only by Michael A. Penn...

AI summary The document outlines a regulatory proceeding involving interveners such as the Ontario Energy Board, Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc., and Union Gas Limited. It references legal citations, including a court appeal in Alberta, where the appeal was rejected, and the incident appeal was accepted, with some judges dissenting. Legal scholars and administrative law texts are cited, highlighting the regulatory and legal context of the case.

1.2.1 Alberta Energy and Utilities Board

AI summary The section introduces the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (AEUB), a regulatory body under Alberta's energy legislation. No specific proceedings, arguments, or citations are detailed in the provided text.

B. The Board's Decision 94 ATCO argues that the Board's decision should be seen as a stand-alone decision divorced from its rate-making responsibilities. However, I do not agree that the hearing under s. 26 of the GUA can be isolated in th...

AI summary ATCO argues the Board's decision under s. 26 of the GUA is separate from rate-making, but the Board disagrees, citing the TransAlta (1986) case as precedent. The case addresses asset disposal gains and the 'TransAlta Formula,' emphasizing the Board's regulatory authority over future rates and utility oversight.

B. La décision de la Commission ATCO soutient que la décision de la Commission doit être considérée isolément, sans égard aux attributions de l'organisme en matière de tarification. Toutefois, je ne crois pas que l'audience tenue pour l'ap...

AI summary ATCO argues that the Commission's decision under article 26 should be considered separately from tariff-setting responsibilities. The Commission disagrees, citing Alberta's TransAlta (1986) case, which established a formula for allocating profits from public asset sales. ATCO claims the process was unrelated to tariff approval, but the Commission links it to broader regulatory authority.

[TRADUCTION]

AI summary The document is a translation of a regulatory proceeding in Nova Scotia, involving energy and utility legislation, including references to Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec legal frameworks. Key entities include regulatory boards, utility companies, and legal reports.

Recettes excédentaires ou insuffisantes - 40 Pour fixer des tarifs, des taux ou des charges justes et raisonnables, ou leurs barèmes, opposables au propriétaire d'un service de gaz et applicables par lui, la Commission - a) peut tenir comp...

AI summary The Board may consider revenues and costs from specific periods when setting rates, tolls, or charges. It can apply excess or insufficient revenues to the relevant fiscal year, address delays in proceedings, and approve methods for managing such revenues. The Board must also approve the period for using these funds.

Enactments remedial 10 An enactment shall be construed as being remedial, and shall be given the fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation that best ensures the attainment of its objects. Appeal dismissed with costs and cross...

AI summary The text establishes that remedial enactments must be liberally interpreted to achieve their objectives. It details a court ruling dismissing an appeal and allowing a cross-appeal, with dissenting opinions. Solicitors for parties involved include McLennan Ross, Bennett Jones, and J. Richard McKee representing the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board.

Principe et interprétation 10 Tout texte est réputé apporter une solution de droit et s'interprète de la manière la plus équitable et la plus large qui soit compatible avec la réalisation de son objet. Pourvoi rejeté avec dépens et pourvoi...

AI summary The text outlines a legal principle of interpreting texts in the most equitable and broad manner compatible with their purpose. It references a rejected appeal with costs, an accepted incident appeal with costs, and dissenting judges McLachlin, Binnie, and Fish. Multiple interveners, including Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and Ontario Energy Board, are listed with their legal representatives.

Counsel: Ian Blue, Q.C., and Elizabeth E. May, for Flamborough Residents Against Propane Inc. and David L. Hitchcock H. Dahme, for Corporation of the Town of Flamborough and the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth. John A. Olah, fo...

AI summary A regulatory proceeding involving multiple stakeholders, including residents, municipalities, conservation authorities, industry groups, and legal representatives, with counsel listed for various parties. The proceeding likely pertains to energy or public utility matters, given the involvement of pipeline companies and regulatory bodies.

3. SECTIONS 29.6 AND 75.21 [15] Counsel for F.R.A.P. submits that ss. 29.6 and 75.21 are consistent with a full discretion over costs because they limit that discretion. It is his submission that Parliament intended that costs in the situa...

AI summary Counsel for F.R.A.P. argues that sections 29.6 and 75.21 of the National Energy Board Act limit the Board's discretion over costs but are consistent with its existence. These sections require specific cost awards in pipeline-related proceedings and landowner compensation cases, rather than granting unfettered discretion.

und that the leave of the judge was not asked for within sixty days from the date of the order of the Board was left open and was discussed in connection with the argument on the merits of the appeal. Chrysler K.C. for the appellants. The...

AI summary The case examines the Board's authority to compel a railway company to build a new station under the Railway Act. The Chief Justice opines the Board has such authority under Section 151, while appellants argue against it, citing precedents. The 60-day rule for leave to appeal is also discussed.

and by sub-section (p) from time to time discontinue such works or any other of them \ and substitute others in their stead. By section 158, sub-sec. 2, it is provided that the plan of the railway, which by that section the company is dire...

AI summary The text discusses railway regulations requiring companies to submit plans for station locations to the Board for approval. It clarifies that the Board cannot compel companies to establish stations outside approved sites unless under specific provisions like sub-section 5 of section 284. The case 1910 GRAND TRUNK RY. Co. v. TURE OF ONTARIO is referenced, with Duff J. interpreting the Act's limitations on the Board's authority.

Tribunal v. Schrenk , 2017 SCC 62, [2017] 2 S.C.R. 795; Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology v. Bhadauria , [1981] 2 S.C.R. 181; Housen v. Nikolaisen , 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; Québec (Procureure générale) v. Montréal (Vi...

AI summary The document lists numerous judicial decisions cited in a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding, including cases from the Supreme Court of Canada, provincial courts, and federal jurisdictions. These cases span legal, administrative, and regulatory issues, reflecting a broad range of legal precedents relevant to the proceeding.

CarswellNat 2791 (WL Can.), setting aside a decision of Bell J., 2015 FC 960, [2016] 2 F.C.R. 39, 38 Imm. L.R. (4th) 110, [2015] F.C.J. No. 981 (QL), 2015 CarswellNat 3740 (WL Can.). Appeal dismissed. Michael H. Morris , Marianne Zorić and...

AI summary An appeal case where the decision was dismissed, involving multiple interveners including provincial Attorneys General and various organizations. The case references prior decisions and legal citations, with detailed lists of counsel for all parties involved.

A. Procedural Fairness and Substantive Review [76] Before turning to a discussion of the proposed approach to reasonableness review, we pause to acknowledge that the requirements of the duty of procedural fairness in a given case — and in...

AI summary The text discusses the duty of procedural fairness in administrative law, emphasizing its variability and context-specific nature. It references cases like Baker v. Canada and Knight v. Indian Head School Division No. 19 , highlighting that written reasons are not always required for administrative decisions and that factors such as the decision's nature determine procedural requirements.

(e) Submissions of the Parties - [127] The principles of justification and transparency require that an administrative decision maker's reasons meaningfully account for the central issues and concerns raised by the parties. The principle t...

AI summary The text emphasizes that administrative decisions must meaningfully address central issues raised by parties to ensure procedural fairness and transparency. Courts recognize that decision-makers need not respond to every argument, but failing to engage with key concerns may undermine the decision's legitimacy. This is grounded in principles like the right to be heard and the importance of responsive reasoning.

F. Review in the Absence of Reasons [136] Where the duty of procedural fairness or the legislative scheme mandates that reasons be given to the affected party but none have been given, this failure will generally require the decision to be...

AI summary The text discusses judicial review in the absence of reasons, emphasizing that decisions without reasons are often set aside, but courts can still assess reasonableness by examining the record. Cases like Catalyst and Roncarelli are cited to illustrate scenarios where rationale can be inferred or where lack of reasons leads to invalidation.

of the Russian state, and were returned to Russia in a "spy swap" the following day. Mr. Vavilov has described the revelation as a traumatic event characterized by disbelief and a crisis of identity. [150] Just prior to his parents' deport...

AI summary Mr. Vavilov faced challenges obtaining a Canadian passport after his parents' deportation. He submitted DNA testing, changed his surname, and applied for a certificate of Canadian citizenship. Passport applications were denied initially, but he eventually obtained the certificate in 2013, leading to a mandamus process settled out of court, with the Minister agreeing to issue a travel document by July 2013.

v's birth: A.R., vol. I, at p. 13. The exception in s. 3(2)(a) of the Citizenship Act , as she interpreted it, therefore applied to Mr. Vavilov. As a result, the analyst recommended that the Canadian Registrar of Citizenship "recall" Mr. V...

AI summary The Registrar of Citizenship recommended recalling Mr. Vavilov's certificate under the Citizenship Act , citing section 3(2)(a), as he was never entitled to citizenship. The decision relied on an exception in the legislation, leading to the recommendation to revoke his certificate.

(2) Federal Court (Bell J.), 2015 FC 960, [2016] 2 F.C.R. 39 - [160] Mr. Vavilov sought and was granted leave to bring an application for judicial review of the Registrar's decision in the Federal Court pursuant to s. 22.1 of the Citizensh...

AI summary Mr. Vavilov's judicial review application against the Registrar's decision under the Citizenship Act was dismissed. The Federal Court found procedural fairness was met and upheld the Registrar's interpretation of s. 3(2)(a), which includes undercover foreign operatives as representatives of foreign governments.

istrative decision. A thorough evaluation by a reviewing court is not "disguised correctness review", as some have used the phrase. Deference, after all, stems from respect, not inattention to detail. [295] Bearing this in mind, we offer t...

AI summary The text emphasizes that reasonableness review of administrative decisions is not a disguised correctness review, stressing the importance of starting with the decision's reasons. It references Williams Lake and Baker v. Canada to highlight procedural fairness and deference in judicial oversight of specialized administrative decisions.

lov and his brother travelled to Russia. The American government subsequently revoked Mr. Vavilov's passport and citizenship. In December 2010, he was issued a Russian passport and birth certificate. - [319] From 2010 to 2013, Mr. Vavilov...

AI summary Mr. Vavilov, born in Canada, obtained a citizenship certificate in 2013 but faced revocation in 2014 due to his parents' status under s. 3(2) of the Citizenship Act. He argued the exception in s. 3(2) did not apply and that procedural fairness was violated. The Registrar revoked the certificate, citing statutory restrictions related to his parents' employment with Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service.

on of 'diplomatic and consular staff.'" Finally, the analyst stated that the phrase "other representative or employee in Canada of a foreign government" has not been previously interpreted by a court. - [331] Beyond the analyst's report, t...

AI summary The text discusses a legal dispute over the interpretation of a provision excluding children of foreign diplomats from certain regulations. Mr. Vavilov argues that the provision should align with Canadian and international law on diplomatic privileges, while the analyst focuses solely on textual interpretation. The Registrar's decision lacks prior guidance or policy, and Vavilov challenges its reasonableness.

tion de leur programmation . . .; - [98] Comme le régime proposé a été conçu pour sauver les stations locales en difficultés financières, il se rattache également au principe énoncé à l'al. 3(1) s ) :

AI summary The proposed regime aims to financially support struggling local stations, aligning with a principle outlined in section 3(1) s . This regulatory measure is part of a proceeding addressing financial sustainability and operational challenges faced by local stations.

antes Rogers Communications Inc. et TELUS Communications Company : Fasken Martineau DuMoulin, Ottawa. Procureurs de l'appelante Shaw Communications Inc. : Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg, Toronto. Solicitors for the respondents Bell Media...

AI summary The document lists parties and legal representatives in a regulatory proceeding involving telecommunications companies. Rogers Communications Inc., TELUS Communications Company, Shaw Communications Inc., Bell Media Inc., Canwest Television Limited Partnership, and the Canadian Radiotelevision and Telecommunications Commission are named, along with their respective solicitors.

SCC 9; Alberta Justice v. Roy (December 3, 1996), Docket 9603-16335; University of Alberta v. Pylypiuk , 2001 ABQB 22; Alberta (Attorney General) v. Krushell , 2003 ABQB 252; Shields v. Information and Privacy Commissioner , 2004 ABQB 353;...

AI summary The text lists legal cases and regulatory orders cited in a Nova Scotia proceeding, primarily involving Alberta courts, privacy commissions, and federal rulings. Cases span Alberta's Queen's Bench, Supreme Court of Canada, and other provincial courts, with references to privacy, information disclosure, and regulatory decisions.

shawa (City) , the Commissioner had decided to reconvene the inquiry as a written inquiry and gave the parties until September 7, 2007 to present written submissions on that decision. - [26] On July 30, 2007, this Court released its decisi...

AI summary The Commissioner extended deadlines for submissions in a regulatory inquiry, citing a 2007 court decision. Mr. Buryniuk's complaint review was prolonged until 2008, with the Commissioner issuing orders two years after the complaint. The application for judicial review was noticed, though Buryniuk did not formally appear despite attending hearings.

ther pawnbroker and then complained about the Bylaw; if it had not been admitted that this was a test case, the court could have come to that conclusion on its own. Here, the test case would be easy and cheap to replicate: were I to conclu...

AI summary The text discusses a legal argument regarding a privacy challenge by Cash Converters, framed as a test case. The court considers whether the Commissioner lost jurisdiction due to delay. The argument emphasizes that even if Mr. Buryniuk would not re-initiate proceedings, Cash Converters might continue the challenge, leading to further delay and expense if jurisdiction is deemed lost.

uiry. - the complaint here initiated an inquiry. It was presumably in the best interests of all the parties that the Commissioner have sufficient time to make whatever inquiries he thought necessary. This is not a situation, like the one i...

AI summary The text discusses whether the Commissioner's delay in responding to a complaint was reasonable. It contrasts this case with Kellogg, Brown and Root , where prohibition relief was sought, noting that here, the complainant (Mr. Buryniuk) did not contest the delay. The legislation's time limits were intended to benefit the complainant, who had the greatest interest in prompt resolution. Despite a two-year delay, Mr. Buryniuk did not raise this during the judicial review.

8. Costs [107] If the parties are not agreed on costs, I may be spoken to within 30 days of the release of this decision. Heard from, the 21 day to the 23 days of October, 2008. st rd Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 8 day of Ja...

AI summary The document outlines procedures for resolving disputes over costs in a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding. If parties disagree, they may address the decision within 30 days. The hearing took place in Edmonton, Alberta, from October 21–23, 2008, with the decision dated January 8, 2009, signed by J.B. Veit.

Appearances: Cameron Ashmore, and Kismet Fong, City of Edmonton Law Branch for the City of Edmonton Katrina M. Haymond, and Anne L.G. Côté, Field LLP for the Edmonton Police Service Thomas W. Wakeling, Q.C. and Anna Loparco, Fraser Milner...

AI summary The document lists appearances in a regulatory proceeding with legal representatives for the City of Edmonton, Edmonton Police Service, Business Watch International Inc., and the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Counsel includes Cameron Ashmore, Katrina Haymond, Thomas Wakeling, and R.B. Drewry, among others.

Case File Number 3561

AI summary Case File Number 3561 from a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding includes a list of acronyms and legal references relevant to energy and utility regulation, including legislation, boards, and court decisions.

not find that an enactment of Alberta authorizes the City to disclose personal information obtained from pawnshop or second-hand store clients to EPS or to peace officers of other jurisdictions through the BWI database. - [para 56] I have...

AI summary The court finds no Alberta legislation authorizes the City of Edmonton to disclose personal information from pawnshop or second-hand store clients to the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) or other jurisdictions via the BWI database under section 40(1) of the FOIP Act. The bylaw and section 40 provisions do not permit such disclosure.

COUNSEL : J.R.W. Rath J.P. Tannahill For the Applicant S.C. McNaughtan For the Respondents ____________________________________________________

AI summary The document lists counsel for the Applicant and Respondents in a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding. J.R.W. Rath J.P. Tannahill represents the Applicant, while S.C. McNaughtan represents the Respondents. No further arguments or details are provided in the excerpt.

M08888 IN THE MATTER OF The Public Utilities Act , R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 380, as amended. - and - IN THE MATTER OF an Application by EfficiencyOne for Approval of the Use of Measure Level Non-Energy Benefits Within Cost Effectiveness Testing

AI summary The document outlines a regulatory proceeding under the Public Utilities Act, involving EfficiencyOne's application to incorporate non-energy benefits into cost-effectiveness testing for utility measures.

EFFICIENCYONE REPLY SUBMISSIONS ON THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE OF JURISDICTION

AI summary EfficiencyOne submits a reply addressing the preliminary jurisdiction issue, arguing over the board's authority to regulate energy efficiency programs in Nova Scotia.

Relevance of NEBs to EfficiencyOne's Statutory Mandate The Industrial Group submissions rely on a narrow characterization of the potential impact of including NEBs in cost-effectiveness testing, which is not supported by the materials prov...

AI summary The Industrial Group argues that NEBs should not be included in cost-effectiveness testing as they do not address electricity use, but the text counters that NEBs could reduce consumption and support EfficiencyOne's mandate. The NSUARB is urged to determine NEBs' relevance to EfficiencyOne's statutory role.

C02 Emissions The Industrial Group states "the benefit derived from the avoidance of CO2 emissions directly corresponds to energy reduction and cost effective delivery of electricity" and that "the same cannot be said for the presently pro...

AI summary The Industrial Group argues that CO2 emission avoidance is more directly tied to energy reduction and cost-effective electricity delivery than non-energy benefits (NEBs). EfficiencyOne counters that the Industrial Group's claim is unsupported by their submissions on the NEB Application, noting that NEBs' impact on energy consumption remains undetermined in the application.

HEARING ORDER WHEREAS by Application dated September 19, 2018, EfficiencyOne (E1) applied to the Board for approval for the use of measure-level Non-Energy Benefits within the context of Cost-Effectiveness testing associated with future DS...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) applied for approval to use Non-Energy Benefits in DSM planning. The Board ordered a public hearing with a detailed timetable, citing the Board Regulatory Rules. The Clerk of the Board was directed to notify participants in DSM proceedings.

Board Hearings are open to the public and you may participate as follows: - You may speak at the hearing. You must notify the Board by Thursday, January 3, 2019. - You may make written comments by sending a letter to the Clerk of the Board...

AI summary The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board outlines procedures for public participation in hearings, including speaking, submitting written comments, and requesting intervenor status by specific deadlines. Documents related to the proceeding are accessible at Board offices and online, with references to EfficiencyOne's offices and a document number provided.

ORDER WHEREAS by Application dated September 19, 2018, EfficiencyOne applied to the Board for approval for the use of measure-level Non-Energy Benefits within the context of Cost-Effectiveness testing associated with future DSM planning re...

AI summary EfficiencyOne requested deferral of its application to use Non-Energy Benefits in Cost-Effectiveness testing for further consultation. The Board adjourned the hearing and established a timetable for developing an issues list, stakeholder sessions, and filing updates by December 31, 2019.

2.3.1 EfficiencyOne - [12] EfficiencyOne argued that the Board has jurisdiction to decide what is in the best interests of customers and the appropriate factors to consider in that assessment, including how cost-effectiveness is determined...

AI summary EfficiencyOne argues that the NSUARB has broad jurisdiction under the Public Utilities Act to assess customer best interests, including non-energy benefits, and that cost-effectiveness of DSM programs falls within the Board's authority. It cites legislative intent and references Maryland's precedent, while NSP notes differences in Maryland's DSM legislation.

. 9-10. - [29] Ms. Sullivan's questions have been applied in several cases, including Keizer v. Slauenwhite, 2012 NSCA 20, and more recently, in Tibbetts. In summary, the Sullivan questions are:

AI summary The text references the application of Sullivan's questions in legal cases, including Keizer v. Slauenwhite (2012 NSCA 20) and Tibbetts , highlighting their use in regulatory proceedings. These questions are part of legal precedents relevant to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board's (NSUARB) interpretation of legislation.

ORDER WHEREAS by Application dated September 19, 2018, EfficiencyOne applied to the Board for approval for the use of measure-level Non-Energy Benefits within the context of Cost-Effectiveness testing associated with future DSM planning re...

AI summary EfficiencyOne sought approval to include non-energy benefits in cost-effectiveness testing for DSM planning. The Board adjourned proceedings multiple times, with EfficiencyOne requesting deferrals and jurisdiction clarification. After submissions from multiple parties, the Board ruled it lacks jurisdiction to consider non-energy benefits in cost-effectiveness testing.

isory Group's progress on this work. - c) The Parties acknowledge that specific measures and/or programs exclusively targeted toward low-income Nova Scotians may not pass a cost-effectiveness test. In its December 22, 2016, update to the B...

AI summary EfficiencyOne submitted recommendations on non-energy benefits (NEB) to the Board, noting that low-income measures may fail cost-effectiveness tests. The Board acknowledged EfficiencyOne's work on NEB methodology, pending future applications. EfficiencyOne requested to file only an electronic copy of a large attachment. The Breton Law Group is listed as counsel.

HEARING ORDER WHEREAS by Application dated September 19, 2018, EfficiencyOne (E1) applied to the Board for approval for the use of measure-level Non-Energy Benefits within the context of Cost-Effectiveness testing associated with future DS...

AI summary EfficiencyOne (E1) applied for approval to use measure-level Non-Energy Benefits in Cost-Effectiveness testing for future Demand Side Management (DSM) planning. The Board ordered a public hearing with a detailed timetable, including deadlines for interventions, evidence submissions, and a hearing from January 8-11, 2019. The Board Regulatory Rules, including Rule 7(3), apply to the proceeding.

Page 2 DATED at Bedford, Nova Scotia, this 1st day of October, 2018. E.A. Nelson Blackburn, Q.C. Small Business Advocate TO: Doreen Friis Clerk of the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board 3 rd Floor Summit Place 1601 Lower Water Street Hal...

AI summary A letter dated October 1, 2018, from E.A. Nelson Blackburn, Q.C., the Small Business Advocate, to Doreen Friis, Clerk of the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board, regarding a regulatory proceeding in Nova Scotia.

VIA EMAIL 28840 Ms. Doreen Friis Regulatory Affairs Officer/Clerk Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board 1601 Lower Water Street, 3rd Floor Halifax, NS B3J 3S3 Dear Ms. Friis: Re: M0888 - EfficiencyOne - Application for approval of the use o...

AI summary The Consumer Advocate requests intervenor status in M0888 regarding EfficiencyOne's application to use Non-Energy Benefits in cost-effectiveness testing. They intend to appear at an oral hearing, represented by William L. Mahody, Q.C., of Merrick Jamieson Sterns Washington & Mahody.

and Paul Chernick Resource Insight, Inc. 5 Water Street, Unit 101 Arlington, MA 02476 USA Tel: 781-646-1505 Fax: 781-646-1506 [email protected] - iii. The application will have an impact on residential ratepayers and the Consum...

AI summary The Consumer Advocate will represent residential ratepayers in a regulatory proceeding, addressing issues raised by the UARB and any emerging concerns. The application's impact on residential ratepayers is acknowledged, with compliance confirmed under Rule 11(1).

NOTICE OF INTERVENTION OF: Canadian Salt Company Limited CKF Inc. Crown Fibre Tube Inc. Irving Shipbuilding Inc. Lafarge Canada Inc. Maritime Paper Products Ltd. Michelin North America (Canada) Inc. Oxford Frozen Foods Limited Compass Mine...

AI summary The Industrial Group, comprising multiple large and medium industrial companies, intervenes in a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding. Their costs are directly affected by the Application, and they address issues established by the Utility and Review Board. The notice provides contact details for communications related to the proceeding.

COUNSEL Stewart McKelvey Suite 900 - 1959 Upper Water Street P.O. Box 997 Halifax, NS B3J 2X2 Fax (902) 420-1417 Attention: Nancy G. Rubin, Q.C. Telephone (902) 420-3337 Email: [email protected] And a copy to: Attention: Leona Cle...

AI summary Stewart McKelvey represents the Industrial Group in a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding. The letter is dated October 3, 2018, and addressed to Doreen Friis, Clerk of the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board. Contact details for counsel, including Nancy G. Rubin, Q.C., and Leona Clements, are provided.

October 12, 2018 Matter M08888 NOVA SCOTIA UTILITY AND REVIEW BOARD IN THE MATTER OF: An application by Efficiency One for the use of measure level Non Energy Benefits in the context of Cost-Effectiveness testing associated with future Dem...

AI summary The Ecology Action Centre notifies its intention to intervene in Matter M08888 regarding Efficiency One's application to use Non-Energy Benefits in Cost-Effectiveness Testing for future Demand Side Management (DSM) planning. The application seeks approval for incorporating non-energy benefits into regulatory processes assessing DSM initiatives.

EFFICIENCYONE - Evaluation of DSM Programs - Application to allow inclusion of Non-Energy Benefits

AI summary EfficiencyOne is applying to include non-energy benefits in their Demand Side Management (DSM) programs as part of a regulatory proceeding in Nova Scotia. The application seeks to allow the evaluation of DSM programs to consider benefits beyond energy savings, such as environmental or economic impacts.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION REQUESTS To: James Gogan EfficiencyOne Counsel The Breton Law Group iim(S).bretonlawqroup.com From: Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board Board Counsel Consultant Responses Due: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 Copi...

AI summary Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board requests non-confidential information from EfficiencyOne, with responses due November 14, 2018. Contact details for Mel Whalen of Multeese Consulting Inc. and Derden Friis are provided. The Breton Law Group represents EfficiencyOne counsel.

Request IR-9: - Line 3 on page 13 of 15 describes the values in the VEIC report as a "living document" and Lines 5 16 on the same page discuss how the values will be updated. - a) Line 5 notes E1's plan to undertake a full review of the NE...

AI summary Request IR-9 seeks clarification on E1's plan to review NEBs, the role of the UARB and intervenors in reviews, differences between triennial/ad-hoc processes and full reviews, and Massachusetts' NEB update procedures. It questions why some reviews require Board input while others do not and requests details on approval mechanisms for NEBs.

James R. Gogan Direct Dial: (902) 563-5920 E-Mail: [email protected] File No. 41736-71 November 14, 2018 Nova Scotia Utility & Review Board PO Box 1692, Unit "M" Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3S3 Attention: Doreen Friis, Regulatory Affairs...

AI summary EfficiencyOne submits responses to information requests in regulatory proceeding M08888, addressing stakeholders including Nova Scotia Power Inc., the Consumer Advocate, and others. EfficiencyOne requests permission to file specific electronic attachments related to Multeese's submissions.

James R. Gogan Direct Dial: (902) 563-5920 E-Mail: [email protected] File No. 41736-71 November 15, 2018 Nova Scotia Utility & Review Board PO Box 1692, Unit "M" Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3S3 Attention: Doreen Friis, Regulatory Affairs...

AI summary Correction to EfficiencyOne's response to Multeese Information Requests (IRs) due to an attachment mislabeling error in the electronic filing. The corrected document replaces the previously submitted version, with paper copies to be filed. Matter number M08888.

James R. Gogan Direct Dial: (902) 563-5920 E-Mail: [email protected] File No. 41736-71 November 22, 2018 Nova Scotia Utility & Review Board PO Box 1692, Unit "M" Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3S3 Attention: Doreen Friis, Regulatory Affairs...

AI summary EfficiencyOne seeks approval to use non-energy benefits in cost-effectiveness testing. The Nova Scotia Utility & Review Board set a hearing for January 2019 after EfficiencyOne responded to intervenors' information requests. EfficiencyOne now requests deferral of further proceedings, citing ongoing engagement and preparation for 2019 proceedings.

hich is under current consideration. Deferral of this matter, for further consideration by the DSMAG in the fall of 2019, will serve to lessen the burden on stakeholders during the first half of 2019. EfficiencyOne intends to resume this r...

AI summary EfficiencyOne requests deferral of its regulatory process until fall 2019, proposing a timeline including stakeholder consultations, technical sessions, and filing updates by December 31, 2019. The company aims to update cost-effectiveness testing for future demand-side management (DSM) plans.

ORDER WHEREAS by Application dated September 19, 2018, EfficiencyOne applied to the Board for approval for the use of measure-level Non-Energy Benefits within the context of Cost-Effectiveness testing associated with future DSM planning re...

AI summary EfficiencyOne requested deferral of its application to use Non-Energy Benefits in DSM planning due to additional consultation needs. The Board adjourned the hearing and established a new timetable, including stakeholder consultations, technical sessions, and updates by December 31, 2019.

on Requests (IRs) to EfficiencyOne were filed by Intervenors on October 24, 2018. EfficiencyOne responded to these IRs on November 14, 2018 (with a correction to Multeese IRs filed November 15, 2018). On November 22, 2018, after responding...

AI summary EfficiencyOne requested deferral of the NEB Application in November 2018 due to intervenor information requests and jurisdictional concerns. The NSUARB adjourned proceedings, requiring updates by December 2019 and clarifying jurisdictional authority under the Public Utilities Act. EfficiencyOne engaged stakeholders in 2019 to address issues and develop a focused issues list for reconvened proceedings.

er 2019, including: Page 3 of 4 Doreen Friis, Regulatory Affairs Officer / Clerk November 28, 2019 - Consumer Advocate - Small Business Advocate - Industrial Group Representative - Nova Scotia Power The intention of the engagement was to u...

AI summary EfficiencyOne engaged stakeholders including the Consumer Advocate, Small Business Advocate, Industrial Group Representative, and Nova Scotia Power to discuss updates on regulatory deferral work and feedback on the NEB Application. Jurisdictional concerns about the NSUARB's authority to approve NEB inclusion in cost-effectiveness testing were raised by Synapse, the Small Business Advocate, and NS Power. EfficiencyOne sought support for a preliminary legal determination on NSUARB's jurisdiction.

rmination of the preliminary matter. EfficiencyOne, and key Stakeholders, believe that this preliminary matter can be adequately addressed through a paper process without the need for an oral hearing. Finally, and provided the NSUARB is ag...

AI summary EfficiencyOne and stakeholders request a paper process for the preliminary matter instead of an oral hearing. They seek a 60-day period post-NSUARB jurisdiction determination to finalize or amend their NEB Application before reconvening the regulatory process. The Breton Law Group represents EfficiencyOne in this request.

Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board Mealing address PO Box 1692, Unit \ M" Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3S3 [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]) http'J/nsiiarb.novascoti a.ca Office 3rd Floor, 1601 Lower Water Street Halifax, Nov...

AI summary A letter from the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board to James R. Gogan of The Breton Law Group, referencing EfficiencyOne. The communication appears to be part of a regulatory proceeding, though specific details of the case or arguments are not included in the provided text.

James R. Gogan Direct Dial: (902) 563-5920 E-M ail: [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]) File No. 41736-119 February 5, 2020 Nova Scotia Utility & Review Board PO Box 1692, Unit "M" Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3S3 Attention...

AI summary EfficiencyOne seeks approval to use measure-level non-energy benefits (NEB) in cost-effectiveness testing. The NSUARB's jurisdiction to grant this relief is in question, with EfficiencyOne proposing a preliminary legal determination via a paper process to avoid addressing substantive NEB application issues.

M08888 - EfficiencyOne - Approval for Use of Measure Level Non-Energy Benefits This is further to your letter dated February 5, 2020, requesting the Board establish a timeline to consider the question as to whether the Board has jurisdicti...

AI summary EfficiencyOne requests the NSUARB to consider non-energy impacts in cost-effectiveness testing. The Board establishes a timeline for submissions, with EfficiencyOne and other parties agreeing to the jurisdiction question. The panel includes specific members, and submissions are due on specified dates.

2.3 Positions of the Parties

AI summary The section outlines the positions of the parties involved in the regulatory proceeding. Key entities include DSM, NSUARB, and UARB. No specific arguments or cross-references are detailed in the provided text.