HomePrudency ReviewsM03413Evidence
Topic/Matter Intersection

Topic:"Prudency Reviews" in M03413

Matter: CI# 39323; CI# 39626; CI# 39627; & CI# 39628 - P-128.10 - NSPI WO - (Digby Wind Project) Application for approval of capital work orders  in the amount of $82.8 million for the acquisition, construction and interconnection of the Digby Wind Farm Project
2 passages 2 documents

Prudency Reviews across all matters →

N-3-(b)Redacted NSPI Response to UARB IR-12 (att 7-10) to IR-17 1 passage
4.6.6 Acoustic Environment p. pp. 47-70
4.6.6 Acoustic Environment The existing acoustic environment within the Study Area was determined by performing baseline sound pressure level monitoring at three sites. The noise monitoring sites selected represent some of the nearest resi...

AI summary Baseline acoustic monitoring was conducted at three residential sites near the proposed Project site using sound pressure level meters to measure noise levels over 24 hours. The data collected reflects existing noise conditions, including contributions from traffic and natural sources such as wind, birds, and animals.

06180Rebuttal Submission - NSPI 1 passage
29 contract.
29 contract. 1 2. The P50 assumption is appropriate. 2 3 3. The regulatory process includes a final costing. 4 5 1. NSPI acted in the best interest of customers in taking assignment of the EUS 6 contract. 7 8 The all-in price for the EPC c...

AI summary The document discusses the assignment of the EUS contract by NSPI, arguing that it was in the best interest of customers. It highlights that the contract price was not adjusted upwards and that EUS bore the risk of late completion. NSPI also asserts that the EUS contract was the best available option, despite being lower than other estimates.

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 →