Topic:"Prudency Reviews" in M13007

Response IR - 11 Date Filed: September 22, 2026 IESO Nova Scotia (IG) IR - 11 a) Under True-up Option 2, a compliance filing would be made shortly after NSEB decision issuance on FY2 Revenue Requirement, Proposed Expenditures, and Fees app...

AI summary IESO Nova Scotia proposes that under True-up Option 2, a compliance filing would be made shortly after the NSEB decision on FY2 Revenue Requirement, including adjustments based on FY1 actuals. It argues that no separate NSEB process for reviewing the variance would be needed, as prudency review would occur in FY3.

vig ; Byers, Conleigh ; John Esaiw Subject: [External]RE: Jurisdictional Scan Workshop \ \ \ Exercise Caution - This is an external email - Beware of links or attachments from external sources. If you are unsure, click 'Report Phishing/Rep...

AI summary The email contains six questions posed to FTI Consulting regarding the jurisdictional scan, covering topics such as cost recovery, rate design, stakeholder engagement, and the treatment of core costs by the IESO-NS. The questions focus on prudence, cost allocation, and regulatory processes.

6 Concluding remarks LEI has assessed IESO Nova Scotia's fee recovery mechanism application against the rate design principles set out in Section [3,](#page-7-0) and in light of IESO Nova Scotia's current Phase 1 mandate described in Secti...

AI summary LEI evaluates IESO Nova Scotia's fee recovery mechanism and finds it reasonable as an interim measure. It recommends a granular cost allocation and a billing determinant based on MW or MWh once IESO Nova Scotia's Phase 2 mandate is implemented. LEI also suggests incorporating variances into the revenue requirement application and recommends Option 1 for true-up due to regulatory efficiency.

I. Identification & Qualifications - Q: Mr. Wilson, please state your name, occupation, and business address. - A: I am John D. Wilson. I am the Vice President of Grid Strategies LLC, Bethesda, MD. - Q: Summarize your professional educatio...

AI summary John D. Wilson, Vice President of Grid Strategies LLC, provides his background, including education and experience in energy and environmental policy, regulatory work with utilities, and expertise in cost-effectiveness, prudency review, and ratemaking.

Q: Do you agree that Option 2 will achieve a full true-up? A: No. While I agree that IESO NS's recommended Option 2 is preferable to Option 1, it will not fully true-up cost recovery because it relies on unvetted data. In Option 2, after t...

AI summary The respondent disagrees with Option 2 achieving a full true-up due to reliance on unvetted data. While Option 2 is preferable to Option 1, it would defer prudence review of FY1 actual costs to FY3, potentially leading to cost recovery adjustments in future rates.

Q: Is this schedule feasible? A: I believe so. As a model, I considered the June 30, 2026 hearing order for the 2027/2028 NSPML revenue requirement and cost assessment application (M12914). That application has information requests due on...

AI summary The schedule is deemed feasible based on the June 30, 2026 hearing order for the 2027/2028 NSPML revenue requirement and cost assessment application (M12914). The timeline assumes no oral hearing and includes deadlines for information requests and reply submissions, allowing for an order prior to January 1. Adjustments may be necessary if prudency issues are complex.

l Electric Vehicle Day-Ahead Hourly Real Time Pricing Pilot on behalf of the Small Business Utility Advocates. Rate design for real time pricing tariff. Marketing to small businesses. Evaluation plan. California PUC Docket R.20-08-020, dir...

AI summary The text outlines various regulatory proceedings and expert testimony related to rate design, cost analysis, and project evaluation, including matters involving Nova Scotia Power and the California PUC. It highlights advocacy efforts by the Small Business Utility Advocates and the Nova Scotia Consumer Advocate in different regulatory cases.