Topic:"Prudency Reviews" in M11927

Data Report 7716: Ruth Falls Watershed, NS Page 22 of 22 # recs CITATION 1 1 McKendry, Karen. 2016. Rare species observations, 2016. Nova Scotia Nature Trust, 19 recs. NatureServe Canada. 2018. iNaturalist Butterfly Data Export . iNaturali...

AI summary The document presents a list of citations related to biodiversity observations and specimen data in the Ruth Falls Watershed, Nova Scotia. It includes records from various researchers, institutions, and personal communications, focusing on rare species and ecological data.

1.3 Report Structure - To organize its report, Midgard reviewed a previously stated requirement for an ATO justification noted by - NS Power in its 2012 General Rate Application proceeding: - "In requesting an ATO, Nova Scotia Power must s...

AI summary Midgard's report evaluates NS Power's ATO application by analyzing whether the cost increases are due to prudent actions and if the project remains in the best economic interest of ratepayers. It focuses on environmental permitting, construction timelines, and Mi'kmaq engagement.

5.1.1 NS Power Submission - The Project involves the refurbishment of the Ruth Falls Main Dam's water-retaining structures, with five - alternatives reviewed during the conceptual design phase: [45](#page-29-1) - 1. Option 1: Replace the e...

AI summary NS Power submitted a proposal for the refurbishment of the Ruth Falls Main Dam, presenting five design alternatives. Option 4 was selected due to its cost-effectiveness. NS Power argues that re-evaluation of the options was unnecessary because all would be similarly impacted by delays in the Fisheries Act Authorization and environmental permitting.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS - Midgard has structured this review report to address the following questions: - 1. Are the cost increases being sought in the ATO the result of prudent actions by NS Power? To answer this question, Midgard analyze...

AI summary Midgard's review report addresses two key questions regarding NS Power's ATO application: whether cost increases are due to prudent actions and if the project remains in ratepayers' best economic interest after accounting for overspending. The analysis considers environmental permitting, construction timelines, and Mi'kmaq engagement.

6.1.1 Fisheries Act Authorization - Midgard's opinion is that despite its best efforts, NS Power had little choice but to invest significant time and - effort in attempting to meet a series of changing and increasingly detailed requests fo...

AI summary Midgard's opinion is that NS Power faced significant challenges in meeting evolving and detailed requests from DFO, which drove the costs of the ATO Application. Midgard believes NS Power acted prudently in responding to these requests despite the challenges.

1.3 Report Structure - To organize its report, Midgard reviewed a previously stated requirement for an ATO justification noted by - NS Power in its 2012 General Rate Application proceeding: - "In requesting an ATO, Nova Scotia Power must s...

AI summary Midgard's report structure is based on NS Power's 2012 General Rate Application proceeding, focusing on whether the ATO cost increases are due to prudent actions and whether the project remains economically justified for ratepayers. The report reviews reasons for variance, including environmental permitting, construction timelines, and Mi'kmaq engagement.

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: 2 Reference: N/A 3 (a) Midgard has now filed a second version o...

AI summary Midgard Consulting Inc. revised its report on the Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment ATO after realizing it did not fully address overspending issues. The revision included additional cost analyses and clarifications to assist the Board in its consideration of the ATO. Discrepancies were noted between the 2019 ACE and the ATO application's scope line items.

NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 2 3 4 5 b) Midgard cannot determine whether NS Power's approach changed during discussions with DFO, as the details of those conversations are not available. Midgard's assessment is that the phased approach was not impos...

AI summary Midgard concludes that evolving requirements from the DFO have significantly increased costs for NS Power, affecting ratepayers. The phased approach was not imposed by DFO but was NS Power's method to address these evolving requirements. Midgard acknowledges NS Power's prudent response to these challenges.

ver additional contingency has been added to cover uncertainty around the amount of habitat offsetting costs required by DFO, which has yet to be confirmed and has the potential to vary significantly. [19] Midgard evaluated NS Power's ATO...

AI summary Midgard evaluated NS Power's ATO application, noting that increased costs due to environmental permitting, extended timelines, and Mi'kmaq engagement are reasonable. The analysis concluded that the project's cost increases are appropriate for compliance with the amended Fisheries Act and that material cost increases align with overall project costs.

[45] The Industrial Group stated that Viewing the evidence as a whole, NSPI acted imprudently by not including the costs of the FAA within its initial application. Either it made a deliberate decision to not include those costs thereby und...

AI summary The Industrial Group argues that NSPI acted imprudently by not including the costs of the FAA in its initial application. They also dispute NS Power's claim that environmental permitting affected all refurbishment options equally and emphasize the need for updated economic assessments due to potential increases in archaeological costs.

ncrease in project cost over the cost approved by the Board in NS Power's 2019 ACE Plan, refurbishment of the Ruth Falls main dam is the preferred option over decommissioning of the Ruth Falls assets. Given the above findings, the Board ap...

AI summary The Board approves an ATO for the Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment project at a cost of $14,839,116, finding that refurbishment is the preferred option over decommissioning. The Board disagrees with the Industrial Group's recommendation to manage costs before accounting for AFUDC, citing significant differences in NPV compared to the Lower Water Street Matter.

29 they did not answer affirmatively? Please explain. 1 (c) Has Midgard done an independent analysis of the cost savings in relation 2 to internal labour on this project (i.e. comparing costs of the internal labour 3 to the cost of outside...

AI summary The text presents a question regarding whether Midgard has conducted an independent analysis of cost savings from using internal labour compared to external contractors, and if not, how they justified the prudence of this approach.

Test for ATOs In reviewing an application for an ATO, the Board is asked to consider whether the overspend claimed is necessary and prudent. In doing so, the Board must analyze whether the capital project continues to be economically justi...

AI summary The Board reviews ATO applications to ensure overspending is necessary, reasonable, and prudent, emphasizing NSPI's burden to prove economic justification and ratepayer benefit. The 2010 Tufts Cove 6 decision is referenced as a guide for evaluating such applications.

has transformed this project into a significantly more expensive refurbishment, it should have alerted the Board and intervenors of that possibility in the original application and assessed the risk. As articulated by the Board in its Lett...

AI summary The text discusses how NSPI failed to disclose critical information about increased project costs and amendments to the Fisheries Act during the original application for an ATO. It references the Board's decision in Matter M11003 regarding the evaluation of imprudence in granting an ATO and highlights evidence from another related application, Matter M10197.

Burden of Proof The IG refers to the applicable burden of proof in this proceeding and states its position that "it is NSPI that must produce sufficient evidence that it has acted prudently in its application and execution of the capital p...

AI summary The Industrial Group (IG) argues that Nova Scotia Power (NSPI) must prove prudence in its capital project and refurbishment proposal. However, the IG's position overlooks the base assumption of prudency and the ability of intervenors to challenge it with evidence, shifting the burden back to NSPI in the rebuttal phase. The text emphasizes that stakeholders should raise concerns early in the process to ensure regulatory efficiency.

Foreseeability of Impacts of Changing FAA Requirements The IG further submits that NS Power should have anticipated and considered the change in DFO requirements when making its application. However, as noted by the IG, the relevant legisl...

AI summary The Industrial Group (IG) argues that NS Power should have anticipated changes in DFO requirements but notes that the legislation was not finalized until after NS Power's application was submitted and approved. NS Power acted prudently based on available information and safety concerns.

ver additional contingency has been added to cover uncertainty around the amount of habitat offsetting costs required by DFO, which has yet to be confirmed and has the potential to vary significantly. [19] Midgard evaluated NS Power's ATO...

AI summary Midgard evaluated NS Power's ATO application, noting that increased costs due to environmental permitting, extended timelines, and Mi'kmaq engagement are justified. The analysis concluded that project cost increases are appropriate for compliance with the amended Fisheries Act and that material cost increases are in line with overall project costs.

[45] The Industrial Group stated that Viewing the evidence as a whole, NSPI acted imprudently by not including the costs of the FAA within its initial application. Either it made a deliberate decision to not include those costs thereby und...

AI summary The Industrial Group argues that NSPI acted imprudently by not including the costs of the Fisheries Act in its initial application and failed to complete an updated economic analysis of the project, particularly for Option 4. It also highlights the risk of significant future increases in archaeological costs and calls for a more cost-effective alternative.

Project Budget Approval Amount NS Power respectfully disagrees with the Industrial Group's recommendation for the Company to be required to manage the project expenses within the envelope approved by the Board, before accounting for any al...

AI summary NS Power disagrees with the Industrial Group's recommendation to manage the Ruth Falls Main Dam project expenses within the approved budget before accounting for AFUDC. It argues that all prudently incurred costs should be recoverable through the rate base, unlike the Lower Water Street project, which had viable alternatives and higher risks.

, as per all NS Power capital projects, the Board expects NS Power to effectively and efficiently manage the Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment project to minimize all prudently incurred capital costs. The Board notes the tight timeline imp...

AI summary The Board emphasizes the importance of NS Power managing the Ruth Falls Main Dam Refurbishment project efficiently to meet the FAA-imposed deadline of March 31, 2026. The Board will not approve additional costs related to delays caused by the ATO approval process.