Topic:"Intervenor Participation" in M13133

to seek - input on that or if they have a sense of what they want to - do, but we have no preconceived notion of what that - regulatory process would like. - We understand that there are likely to - be questions and that customer represent...

AI summary The discussion centers on the regulatory process and the submission of evidence by intervenors. It highlights the need for customer representatives to provide input and evidence, and clarifies that the current Board order does not allow intervenor evidence filing, but such a request could be made if needed.

the intervenor's expert - evidence related to allocation and the rider, can we - safely assume we don't need to make the request to file - evidence because there will be a supplementary process for - that, or should we assume we need to fi...

AI summary The intervenor's expert is discussing the process for filing evidence related to a rider and whether a supplementary process is needed. They mention a past example involving the 500 FLG and a similar process for the NSPML application, with a timeline and deadlines for intervenors to seek leave to file evidence.

ber. And then it had a deadline for intervenors or - Board counsel to seek leave to file evidence. - So I think what I would suggest is a - process like that where there is also another opportunity - to ask IRs, and that's the same as the...

AI summary The discussion revolves around the need for a more efficient process for handling intervenor requests related to the cost-of-service aspects of a filing. The speaker suggests adopting a process similar to the one used with the FLG application, which included multiple stages for intervenor input and written submissions to avoid delays.

Opportunity to File Evidence Under the Current Schedule The Hearing Order provides for evidence from Board Counsel's consultants on November 9, 2026, written submissions from interested parties on November 18, 2026, and NSPI's written repl...

AI summary The Hearing Order outlines a timeline for evidence submission in the proceeding, excluding intervenors. The IG raises concerns about procedural fairness, noting that the need for intervenor consultant evidence depends on the scope of the Phase 1 application and NSPI's responses to IRs. The IG respects the timeline but highlights the need for clarification.

Please refer to: David Roberts Email: [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]) Assistant: Heidi Day Assistant's email: [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]) October 16, 2026 VIA WEB PORTAL & EMAIL Crystal Henwo...

AI summary The Consumer Advocate, represented by David Roberts of Pink Larkin, is seeking clarification from the Nova Scotia Energy Board regarding the two-stage process for NSPI's application to securitize $1 billion in costs. They request confirmation on what matters the Board will address in each phase and whether intervenors can submit evidence in the second phase.

Opportunity to file Intervenor evidence As previously noted, the Board remains mindful that the Regulations provide for the issuance of the Board's Order within 60 days of the filing of the application. The timeline contained in the Hearin...

AI summary The Board is revising the timeline for filing intervenor evidence in response to procedural concerns, ensuring that intervenors can submit evidence concurrently with Board Counsel Consultants, with NS Power having a short window to file rebuttal evidence before final submissions.

NOTICE OF INTERVENTION TO: The Nova Scotia Energy Board ("Board") AND TO: Nova Scotia Power Inc. ("NSPI") - 1. PORT HAWKESBURY PAPER LP ("PHP") conducts its business in Nova Scotia, and is engaged in the manufacture of paper at its Port Ha...

AI summary Port Hawkesbury Paper LP (PHP) seeks intervenor status in a regulatory proceeding before the Nova Scotia Energy Board, as it purchases significant power from NS Power under the ELIADC Tariff and has a vested interest in the matter.