Topic:"Indigenous Communities" in M12394

s. - 24 Thank you. - MR. RICHLER: Mr. Chair, sorry. Did we want to mark - 26 that EDA compendium as an exhibit? - MS. STOTHART: Sure, thank you. - MR. RICHLER: So I am looking at the compendium on the - 1 screen with eight tabs, and that w...

AI summary The cross-examination focuses on the extent to which Indigenous matters were considered in the expert reports, the rationale for the approach taken, and recommendations on capital structure, cost recovery, and construction work in progress, with an emphasis on Indigenous Peoples.

Expert Report Proposals LEI noted that the OEB regulates indigenous owned utilities (e.g., Attawapiskat Power Corporation), as well as other utilities with Indigenous stakeholders (e.g., utilities structured as partnerships between Indigen...

AI summary The OEB regulates indigenous-owned utilities and those with Indigenous stakeholders, such as partnerships between Indigenous communities and private companies. Concentric, Nexus, and Dr. Cleary did not address this issue in their reports.

Submissions Submissions were made by the Three Fires Group Inc. and Minogi Corp. (TFG/Minogi), as well as the Caldwell First Nation (CFN) and Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation (CFN/MCFN). Three proposals were made by TFG/Minogi, whic...

AI summary The Three Fires Group Inc. and Minogi Corp. (TFG/Minogi), along with the Caldwell First Nation (CFN) and Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation (CFN/MCFN), submitted proposals to the OEB. These included a risk premium for Indigenous equity participation, adjustments to WACC for CWIP balances, and concurrent cost recovery for large projects. CFN/MCFN emphasized the need to address First Nations' unique challenges and the importance of engaging them in the proceeding.

Submissions OEB staff agreed with LEI that the current approach of allowing the same equity thickness to all electricity transmitters (and distributors) should be maintained, even if it is a single-asset transmitter. OEB staff submitted th...

AI summary The OEB staff and various stakeholders discuss whether single-asset electricity transmitters should be treated differently from multi-asset transmitters in terms of allowed ROE, equity ratios, and risk premiums. Most parties argue against differentiating based on asset count, while Minogi/TFG and CFN/MCFN advocate for a risk premium in cases of Indigenous equity participation in single-asset transmitters.

Findings The OEB has considered whether a different approach to setting capital structure is warranted for single-asset electricity transmitters versus multiple-asset transmitters (i.e., whether a risk premium should be applied to the equi...

AI summary The OEB concludes that no distinction is needed in the capital structure approach for single-asset and multiple-asset electricity transmitters, as current mechanisms like DVAs sufficiently mitigate financial risks. While acknowledging concerns about Indigenous equity participation, the OEB finds no evidence of heightened risk for single-asset transmitters and reaffirms the current 2009 Cost of Capital Framework as appropriate.

ucture Investment Report, the OEB emphasized that the conventional mechanisms for cost recovery should be the OEB's core approach, but also described two alternative mechanisms that could be proposed: - Accelerated cost recovery mechanisms...

AI summary The OEB emphasizes conventional cost recovery mechanisms but acknowledges alternative methods like accelerated recovery and incentive-based approaches for specific cases. These alternatives may be suitable for Indigenous business ventures in the transmission sector. The OEB does not plan to initiate a new generic proceeding for financing matters related to First Nations.