Topic:"Rate Design" in M12778

- detail as described in the final report: • Define two categories of Class 2 projects (small and large) for the purpose of cost allocation for distribution network upgrade costs. All direct interconnection costs remain the responsibility...

AI summary The text recommends splitting distribution network upgrade costs between interconnection customers (ICs) and Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI) using a 50/50 model. It suggests defining Class 2 projects and establishing a proportional contribution from smaller projects to fund upgrades, while NSPI covers the remaining costs through rate-based investments. The approach should be reviewed periodically to assess its impact on small-scale renewable energy development.

1 Figure 6: Illustrative Example 3: Advancement Charge for a Planned Upgrade

AI summary Figure 6 illustrates an example of an advancement charge for a planned upgrade in a Nova Scotia regulatory proceeding, highlighting the methodology for calculating such charges within the context of energy system planning and regulatory oversight.

Refund Regulation Regarding the refund regulation, Synapse initially recommended a cost allocation straw proposal which defined two categories of projects. For small projects, 50% of the total network upgrade cost would be treated as a rat...

AI summary The text discusses the refund regulation for network upgrade costs, with Synapse recommending a 50% rate base investment for small projects and 25% for large ones. NSPSO later proposed a 50% refund over 20 years, but NS Power revised this to require full funding by interconnection customers. Synapse disagreed, while NS Power argued against rate-basing without clear benefits. The SBA raised concerns about impacts on small businesses and requested a stakeholder review.