Topic:"Rate Rider" in M12696

13 Q13. DID THE BOARD PROVIDE A STATED PURPOSE FOR THE HOLDBACK 14 MECHANISM? 15 A13. Yes. In 2019, the Board noted that the holdback was put in place "to provide an incentive 16 to ensure that NSPML and NS Power achieved the promised bene...

AI summary The Board established the holdback mechanism in 2019 to incentivize NSPML and NS Power to deliver promised benefits of the Maritime Link before the NS Block. Subsequent 2022-2023 proceedings emphasized addressing imbalances between NSPML and ratepayers, who faced replacement energy costs due to poor deliveries, while addressing intergenerational equity concerns.

Year NSP Sales [GWh] ML Energy [GWh] Percentage 2023 10,434.6 1,938.2 18.6 2024 10,580.6 1,926.3 18.2 2025 10,705.1 2,080.3 19.4 Total 31,720.3 5,944.8 18.7 - d) NSPML believes the Board adopted the present Holdback mechanism to protect ag...

AI summary NSPML argues that the Holdback mechanism was designed to address performance issues following the Acceleration Agreement and that FLG II does not affect operating performance. Therefore, NSPML does not see a need to consider FLG II in evaluating the Holdback mechanism's effectiveness.

NSPML Responses to Industrial Group Information Requests 1 exists for specific reasons, and those reasons no longer existed. NSPML submits that 25 holdback amounts (nor the actual ECA remedies), NSPML believes it is appropriate to end 26 t...

AI summary NSPML is responding to an information request regarding the return of previously held-back funds. The request includes detailed inquiries about financial reporting, revenue requirements, debt service coverage ratios, FAM reporting, and potential regulatory or accounting adjustments to mitigate customer impact.

Nova Scotia Energy Board IN THE MATTER OF an application by NSP Maritime Link, Inc. to end the holdback mechanism in accordance with the parameters set by the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board in Matter M11009 M12696 Evidence Filed By:...

AI summary The document refers to an application by NSP Maritime Link, Inc. to terminate a holdback mechanism under Matter M11009, with evidence submitted by Bates White Economic Consulting on behalf of the Nova Scotia Energy Board on May 7, 2026.

t No. 22-22, direct, surrebuttal and supplemental testimony on Eversource Energy's 2022 Base Distribution Rate Case on behalf of the Cape Light Compact. Allocation of distribution revenue requirement. Nova Scotia UARB Matter No. M10431, di...

AI summary Testimony details rate cases involving Nova Scotia Power and Eastward Energy, focusing on distribution revenue allocation, fuel cost adjustments, and impacts of maritime link projects. Discusses seasonal rates, income-graduated charges, and biomass fuel cost reasonableness. Involves Nova Scotia Consumer Advocate and regulatory bodies like NSUARB and CPUC.

2 MECHANISM? - 3 A7. Yes, this is significant because one of the two Board-established criteria for terminating - 4 the Holdback Mechanism is now resolved by all parties that submitted evidence. The only - 5 remaining issue is the applicat...

AI summary The text discusses the termination criteria for the Holdback Mechanism, noting that one of the two Board-established criteria has been resolved by all parties submitting evidence. The remaining issue involves the application of the Consistent Deliveries threshold and the Board's relief provisions for good utility practice and exceptional circumstances.

18 Q38. WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL RESPONSE TO BATES WHITE'S DISCUSSION OF 19 THE CONSISTENT DELIVERIES THRESHOLD? 20 A38. I disagree with any implication that the evidentiary record does not support termination of 21 the Holdback Mechanism. The...

AI summary The response to Bates White's discussion of the consistent deliveries threshold argues that the evidence supports the termination of the Holdback Mechanism, except for outages caused by exceptional circumstances. The outages in 2023 and 2024 are acknowledged, but the claim is that they were consistent with good utility practice.

24 Q50. WHAT IS YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD? 25 A50. In my opinion, NSPML has satisfied the requirements established by the Board for 26 termination of the Holdback Mechanism.

AI summary The respondent recommends that the Board terminate the Holdback Mechanism, stating that NSPML has met the requirements established by the Board for such termination.

1 M12696 2 3 4 NOVA SCOTIA UTILITY AND REVIEW BOARD 5 6 IN THE MATTER OF: The Public Utilities Act and the MARITIME LINK ACT and 7 8 the MARITIME LINK COST RECOVERY PROCESS REGULATIONS 9 10 11 – and – 12 13 IN THE MATTER OF: AN APPLICATION...

AI summary The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board is considering an application by NSP Maritime Link Inc. to end a holdback mechanism under the Public Utilities Act and Maritime Link Act. The Consumer Advocate has issued information requests to NSP Maritime Link, with responses due April 9, 2026, regarding the cost recovery process.

22 Request IR-4: 3 11 19 21 27 30 33 36 43 23 On p. 6 of Exhibit N-1, NSPML requests that in addition to distributing $15.4 million in retained 24 holdback (see Appendix B), the Board also require that NS Power distribute $1.1 Million in 2...

AI summary NSPML requests the Board to distribute $1.1 million in 'updated WACC consideration' alongside a $15.4 million holdback. However, Exhibit N-1 does not justify this request beyond Appendix B. The Board is asked to confirm the request, explain the delay in reviewing the holdback mechanism, and assess if the 'updated WACC consideration' impacts intergenerational equity, referencing a prior decision (M10206).

le switching” 3. July – October 2024 4. January 2025 5. April 2025 6. September 2025 6. Please provide the WACC calculations in a workbook, with formulas intact. Request IR-4: On p. 6 of Exhibit N-1, NSPML requests that in addition to dist...

AI summary The document requests clarification on NSPML's request for an additional $1.1 million in 'updated WACC consideration' and seeks justification for the delay in applying for a review of the holdback mechanism. It also asks for NSPML’s view on whether this accumulation affects intergenerational equity concerns.

1 Request IR-14: 2 Reference: N-01 Application, p. 28, lines 23–26. Preamble: The Application states that any planned outage near the end of a calendar month is likely to result in a holdback disallowance despite the associated energy bein...

AI summary The application asserts that planned outages near month-ends risk holdback disallowance despite redelivery under the ECA. It requests explanations on the 90% delivery threshold, whether outage timing matters, quantitative evidence linking end-of-month outages to disallowance risks, and how perverse incentives in the holdback mechanism were addressed.

From: [Henwood, Crystal D](mailto:[email protected]) To: [Shellie Woolham](mailto:[email protected]) Cc: [Alissa Whalen](mailto:[email protected]); [Bill Mahody](mailto:[email protected]); [Blake Williams](...

AI summary The email acknowledges NSPML's request for an extension to file IR responses and proposed changes to filing dates, noting that technical staff are unavailable. The Board seeks additional details and justification for the extension. The matter relates to reviewing the Holdback Mechanism.

ble, including the practicality of being specific as opposed to general," and "whether the event was beyond design standards."[11](#page-3-0) Mr. Wilson indicates that these factors are nonexhaustive. In the Rebuttal Evidence filed on beha...

AI summary The document discusses the Rebuttal Evidence filed by NSPML in response to concerns raised by Mr. Musco, including the termination of the Holdback Mechanism and the justification for updated WACC consideration. The Consumer Advocate acknowledges the evidence but notes potential conflicting evidence remains a concern. Mr. Wilson supports ending the Holdback but disagrees with updating WACC to the date of the Board's decision.

4.0 CONCLUSION NSPML has provided clear evidence that it has satisfied the test set by the Board to end the holdback mechanism. The Company's expert, Concentric, supports this position. Likewise, the CA and its expert support the Applicati...

AI summary NSPML has satisfied the conditions to end the holdback mechanism, supported by expert testimony and data showing energy delivery compliance. The company argues that future reliability concerns of the LIL should be addressed separately and that existing contracts with NLH are sufficient to manage potential issues. NSPML requests the Board to vacate the holdback and release accumulated amounts.