Topic:"Project Schedule" in M12619

Not Applicable (NA) NR NR E. Technology Selection Process Technology Not Applicable (NA) F. Strategy Contracting/Sourcing Preliminary (P) NR P Escalation Not Applicable (NA) NR G. Planning Logistics Plan Preliminary (P) P P P Integrated Pr...

AI summary The document outlines various project planning and management components, including logistics, integrated project plans, project codes of accounts, schedules, regulatory approvals, risk registers, stakeholder management plans, work breakdown structures, and start-up plans. Environmental impact assessments are noted as not applicable.

m Not Applicable (NA) NR/P LEED Certification Level Not Applicable (NA) NR/P Codes and/or Standards Not Applicable (NA) NR Communication Systems Not Applicable (NA) NR Exterior Closure Description Not Applicable (NA) NR Finishes Descriptio...

AI summary The document outlines preliminary and defined stages for various project components, including contracting, project scheduling, and regulatory approvals. Certain aspects such as LEED certification, communication systems, and environmental monitoring are marked as not applicable. The project code of accounts and project schedule are defined, while logistics and integrated project plans are not applicable.

D Escalation Not Applicable (NA) NR G. Planning Logistics Plan Not Applicable (NA) Integrated Project Plan Not Applicable (NA) NR Project Code of Accounts Not Applicable (NA) NR Project Schedule Defined (D) NR P D D D Regulatory Approval &...

AI summary The text outlines project planning and documentation status for a regulatory proceeding, indicating that several planning and study components are not applicable (NA), while others such as the project schedule and start-up plan are defined or complete.

2026 Annual Capital Expenditure (ACE) Plan (NSEB M12619) NSPI Responses to Consumer Advocate Information Requests 2 3 With respect to Appendix I, CIs for transmission replacement and upgrade projects 4 C0080110 and C0080109, and 2024 ACE P...

AI summary The text discusses responses from Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI) to information requests regarding the 2026 Annual Capital Expenditure (ACE) Plan, including questions about risk registers, cost accountability mechanisms, and the impact of increased structure replacements on project schedules.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Response IR-31: 2 3 No post-project reviews can be provided at this time, for two reasons. Due to the cyber incident, 4 all post-project reviews that were completed since the filing of the 2025 ACE Plan and April 2025 5...

AI summary The response to IR-31 explains that post-project reviews could not be conducted due to a cyber incident, which caused data loss and system unavailability. These reviews were temporarily paused, but have since resumed in 2026 with PowerPlan restored.

Response IR-9: (a) A high level review of 200 filings over the last 5 years (including projects filed in ACE Plans and filed individually) indicates that 70-80 projects would have been expected to require a scope change if changes in deliv...

AI summary A review of 200 filings over the past five years suggests that 70-80 projects would require scope changes due to changes in deliverables, boundaries, or detailed tasks. This is based on NS Power's experience managing projects with high quantities of assets being replaced or refurbished, where changes in these quantities are highly likely.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 • IT - Managed Detect & Respond: The purpose of this project was to replace and 2 enhance the Security Information Event Monitoring (SIEM) technology and the 3 security detection and response service. The SIEM and monito...

AI summary This document discusses the deferral of several IT projects by NS Power, including the replacement of SIEM technology and enhancements to cybersecurity risk management. These projects have been postponed, with compensating measures in place to manage cybersecurity risks until long-term solutions are implemented. The request also asks for an explanation of the variance in forecasted expenses between the 2025 and 2026 ACE Plans for specific IT projects.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 (i) Given the amount of subsequent spending on this project, what is the revised 2 Final Date for this project? 3 4 (ii) Please discuss the delay in this project that was started 2024/08. 5 6 Response IR-16: 7 8 Yes. Pro...

AI summary The response discusses the revised final date for a project and the reasons for delays, including budget variances and project progress updates. Specific projects like the Tusket Falls Main Dam and HYD WRC Tailrace Rock Bolting Phase 2 are mentioned with their current status and estimated costs.

Project Health & Safety Plan 15.8 Emergency Equipment 63 15.9 Communication 64 15.10 Emergency Contact 64 15.11 Evacuation 65 16.0 Incident Notification, Reporting & Investigation 66 16.1 Incident Notification and Reporting 66 16.2 Near Mi...

AI summary The text outlines sections of a Project Health & Safety Plan, including emergency equipment, communication protocols, incident reporting, and health and safety records. It also references the 2026 Annual Capital Expenditure (ACE) Plan and an attachment to a regulatory information request (IR-71) from the Nova Scotia Energy Board (NSEB).

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 • Insulator Replacements: 11 Structures 2 3 • Bond and Guy Wire Replacements: 6 Structures 4 5 • Other Deteriorated Assets: 3 Structures 6 7 By following industry, or PMBOK, definitions of scope and scope change, NS Powe...

AI summary The text discusses NS Power's approach to defining project scope in transmission projects, suggesting that minor changes in the number of structures affected (e.g., 11 to 10 insulator replacements) should not require a formal scope change application, as they do not significantly alter project objectives.

12 the application as "The scope of this project includes the replacement of deteriorated assets on 13 L6539". In the event that a significant change in quantity were to occur, the thresholds for ATO / 14 FIN requirements will capture that...

AI summary NS Power argues that applying the strict PMBOK definition for project scope could lead to regulatory inefficiencies and increased costs. They believe the proposed definition strikes an appropriate balance and complements existing regulatory processes like ATO and FIN filings.

Request IR-4: 1 Request IR-2: 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Review this document against the Project Description, including the contingency statement to ensure that all risks are properly considered when applying a contingency percentage. Discuss wi...

AI summary The document includes a request to review projects in the Application against the Project Description and contingency statement, ensuring risks are properly considered. It asks for examples of projects with risks handled via contingency, projects with high-risk occurrences, projects affected by NS Power's PDM changes, excluded projects, and past ACE Plans with non-compliant projects.

(3) Spending on projects started prior to 2025, not in the 2025 ACE Plan: Top 10 projects that were included in prior ACE Plans or approved prior to 2025 CI Project Title Functional Class 2025 Approved Transmission 52328 56N-T1 Transformer...

AI summary The text presents a list of top 10 projects initiated prior to 2025 that are not included in the 2025 ACE Plan. These projects span various functional classes, including Transmission, Distribution, and Generation, with details on their approval status, funding, and timelines.

Note 2: This report has been amended to reflect the new Board approval threshold of $1,000,000, effective October 30, 2019. Spend as at December 31, Project # Project Status as at December 31, 2025 Spend as at December 31, 2024 2025 Commen...

AI summary This document outlines various projects with their statuses and spending details as of December 31, 2024 and 2025. It notes that several projects initially forecasted to cost less than $1M have exceeded this threshold during construction but are expected to remain under $1M overall. This is in line with the new Board approval threshold of $1,000,000 effective October 30, 2019.

DATE FILED: April 8, 2026 Page 4 of 19 1 2.0 RESPONSE TO CA (WILSON) EVIDENCE 13 understood, a risk matrix may be developed to support discussions with the project team and to 14 inform how those risks would be addressed if they materializ...

AI summary The document discusses NS Power's approach to risk management using the Project Development Methodology (PDM) and highlights a recommendation regarding the Five-Year Reliability Plan review, including the effectiveness of New Distribution Right of Way projects and addressing outages caused by tree contacts.

Chris Milligan ([email protected]) 1 Undertaking U-5: 2 3 Re Matter M12012, Exhibit N-8, IR-1, Attachment 1: to provide an update to the 2025 4 projects that were completed with the totals spent on each project, the total spent in...

AI summary The response to Undertaking U-5 provides an update on 2025 projects completed under the Five-Year Reliability Plan, including actual spending, budget comparisons, and 2026 forecasts. It includes details on specific projects such as the replacement of deteriorated equipment at the New Bridgewater Substation.

Request IR-157: - Page 634 states that active project work on the Mersey redevelopment remains paused. - a) Please explain why the work has been paused. - i. Please explain why NS Power is not currently working on preliminary engineering,...

AI summary Page 634 of the document indicates that active project work on the Mersey redevelopment is paused. The request seeks an explanation for the pause and why NS Power is not conducting preliminary engineering, stakeholder engagement, and environmental studies to confirm project needs and ensure it remains on schedule.

1 2 3 4 3. Whether or not NS Power has identified any new alternatives to the proposed project as a result of the information which led to the identified change; and, if so, a brief description of the alternative and a general statement as...

AI summary The text outlines regulatory questions regarding NS Power's identification of new project alternatives, potential revised applications, and the proposed two-step process for scope change notifications. It also seeks clarification on trigger thresholds and the uniform application of the process.

2.2.3 Tusket Main Dam Refurbishment Project The IG effectively suggests that the Tusket Main Dam Refurbishment Project ATO proceeding proves that NS Power can materially change how a project is built without calling it a scope change, whic...

AI summary The Tusket Main Dam Refurbishment Project highlights the regulatory process and oversight by the NSEB regarding cost overruns and the use of contingency funds. NS Power argues that the ATO framework provides sufficient oversight without requiring a scope change application, as the Board reviews cost increases triggered by unforeseen circumstances.

9.1 Findings [219] The Board recognizes the broader concern raised by the CA: whether projects are being properly scoped and whether the associated risks used to estimate contingency are understood before a budget is submitted, in accordan...

AI summary The Board acknowledges concerns about proper project scoping and risk-based contingency estimation. It finds that fixed contingency does not ensure clear project scopes or risk-based estimates. NS Power is urged to align project scoping with budget-estimation classes and base contingency on identified risks.

NS POWER PANEL 65 Cr-ex, (Murphy) 1 yes. 2 might as well scroll down; that's at page 8 of the PDF. 3 Nova Scotia Power describes the Basis 4 of Schedule as follows: 5 6 7 8 9 This element is to build the project schedule to help ensure tha...

AI summary The document discusses Nova Scotia Power's response to a recommendation regarding the use of a Basis of Schedule approach for non-reactive distribution routines. Nova Scotia Power disagrees with the recommendation, stating that the Basis of Schedule is not additive to the management of such routines.

NS POWER PANEL 211 Cr-ex, (Rudderham) 1 Q. And then the second one or the 2 third one down is the Suzy Lake Substation addition. See 3 that there? 4 (MacMullin) Yes. A. 5 Q. And then the next one down is the 6 Stellarton Substation; correc...

AI summary The text discusses a proceeding related to NS Power's substation projects, including the Suzy Lake Substation addition, Stellarton Substation, and the new Bridgewater Substation, with references to budget figures and their inclusion in the Reliability Plan.

NS POWER PANEL 217 Cr-ex, (Rudderham) appropriately for approval. Q. Thanks for that explanation. I take your point that what we're seeing here is that there were preliminary assessments, you've now done more work, and the numbers are upda...

AI summary The discussion focuses on the Reliability Plan and the reasons behind not updating investment amounts as more information becomes available. The response highlights that project timelines and costs can change due to variability, which may affect the initial estimates.

NS POWER PANEL 407 Questions, (Murphy) 1 criteria, it being the lowest cost and it being a simple 2 design that can be executed in the window that it needs to 3 be executed in, having the minimal impact on Tufts 3 4 returning to service. 5...

AI summary A concern is raised about the selected project option's cost now being outside the accuracy range of the initial estimate, which was -50% to +100%. This discrepancy may affect the decision's validity, and the need to reassess options with new information is emphasized.

NS POWER PANEL 411 Questions, (Murphy) 1 MEMBER MURPHY: Rob, can you call up 2 Exhibit N-3? That's Response to CA IRs, PDF page 21. And 3 it's response to 11(a). Right there. 4 BY MEMBER MURPHY: 5 It says: Q. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Manu...

AI summary Member Murphy is questioning the timeline for the delivery of replacement blades for a project, citing discrepancies between the response to 11(a) and the ACE Plan Application. The response indicates that blades were ordered in May 2025 and delivered in time for work to start, though the exact delivery date is not specified.

NS POWER PANEL 497 Questions, (Murphy) 1 Q. Okay. Thank you. 16 Station is decommissioned, is that project still required? 17 (Drover) Yes, that project would A. 18 still be required. The decommissioning is associated with 19 the powerhous...

AI summary The text discusses questions raised during a regulatory proceeding involving NS Power, focusing on the decommissioning of a station, the continued requirement of a dam project, and the exclusion of a Wreck Cove Tunnel T-2 remediation project from the current five-year projection. The response highlights updated strategies and inspections influencing project decisions.