HomeProgram EvaluationM11927Evidence
Topic/Matter Intersection

Topic:"Program Evaluation" in M11927

Matter: Nova Scotia Power Inc. - CI 50518 – HYD Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment – $15,445,508 (ATO)
3 passages 3 documents

Program Evaluation across all matters →

N-8Midgard Evidence - Redacted 1 passage
P R O F E S S I O N A L E X P E R I E N C E – H Y D R O E L E C T R I C p. p. 38
racts, PPA, major maintenance and operating budgets and financial pro forma in support of project credit agreement. Monitored construction progress and QA/QC in support of periodic draw certification. SMITH CREEK (2014 to 2015) - A 38 MW r...

AI summary The text outlines various hydroelectric projects and the professional experience of an individual involved in their development, including due diligence, project assessments, and management of operations. Projects such as Smith Creek, Franklin River, and McNair Creek are highlighted, along with roles in financial analysis and project evaluations.

N-11Midgard (IG) RIR – 1 to 33 1 passage
CI 50518 – HYD Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment - $15,445,508 (ATO) (NSUARB M10632) Midgard Consulting Inc. Responses to Industrial Group Information Requests p. p. 2
CI 50518 – HYD Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment - $15,445,508 (ATO) (NSUARB M10632) Midgard Consulting Inc. Responses to Industrial Group Information Requests 1 Request IR-1: 6 Preamble: At the beginning of Midgard's report, it lists the...

AI summary The text discusses a request for information regarding scope changes in the Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment project as noted in Midgard Consulting Inc.'s report. It asks for a table detailing scope changes compared to the original 2019 ACE proceeding, clarification on which changes were not related to DFO requirements, and whether cost increases due to scope changes would be considered reasonable if NSPI knew an FAA would be required.

97079Closing Submission - IG 1 passage
(2) There is insufficient evidence the Project remains in the best interest of ratepayers p. p. 5
ptions and costs, estimated that Option 4 was only $250,000 less than the next closest option.[22](#page-5-14) There is no explanation on the evidence which explains this discrepancy.[23](#page-5-16) NSPI has failed to complete any updated...

AI summary The document highlights that NSPI has not provided updated economic analysis for the project, despite questions from multiple intervenors. It also notes a discrepancy in cost estimates for Option 4, with no explanation provided, and criticizes the lack of evidence supporting the claim that the project remains in the best interest of ratepayers.

Disclaimer: These summaries were generated by AI from the filings they describe. We take care to make them accurate, but errors are possible - and they aren't advice. Only the filings themselves are the record: if you're relying on something here, confirm it against the source documents or the Nova Scotia Energy Board's own record. Full disclaimer →