N-1Application
6 passages
2 3 NSP Maritime Link Inc. (NSPML) brings this Application to request the end of the 4 holdback mechanism (Holdback) in accordance with the parameters set by the Nova Scotia Energy Board (Energy Board or NSEB) in Matter 11009. [1](#page-2-...
AI summary NSP Maritime Link Inc. (NSPML) is requesting the end of the holdback mechanism, citing that it has met the conditions set by the Nova Scotia Energy Board. These conditions include achieving 90% delivery of the NS Block and reducing the undelivered energy balance to below 10% of the annual contracted amount.
Date Filed: February 3 , 2026 Page 3 of 37 1 percentages for comparison to the Board-directed conditions for the applicable period is 2 included as Appendix A. 1 NSPML submits that the concerns that warranted the Board's implementing the H...
AI summary NSPML argues that the concerns that led to the implementation of the Holdback have been resolved. The Board previously stated that the Holdback was necessary to protect ratepayers and address intergenerational equity concerns related to the Maritime Link project. At the time of the November 2021 hearing, NLH had delivered only 19% of the contracted NS Block amount.
NSPML therefore requests that: • the Board deem the Holdback to have ended effective May 1, 2024; and • the Board order that all Holdback amounts retained after May 1, 2024, be distributed to NSPML as set out in Appendix B and with updated...
AI summary NSPML requests the Board to end the Holdback effective May 1, 2024, and distribute the retained amounts with updated WACC consideration. NSPML believes it is the Company's obligation to apply for termination of the mechanism.
Date Filed: February 3 , 2026 Page 27 of 37 1 7.0 REQUEST FOR SEPARATE PROCESS IF HOLDBACK IS MAINTAINED NSPML refers to a letter sent to the Board on June 28, 2024, in which it submitted that the existing mitigation mechanism is no longer...
AI summary NSPML references a letter sent to the Board in June 2024, stating that the existing mitigation mechanism is no longer applicable due to the elimination of the Undelivered Energy balance and suggests proposing an alternate mitigation mechanism if the Board decides to maintain a Holdback.
Date Filed: February 3 , 2026 Page 30 of 37 1 8.0 REQUEST FOR RELIEF 2 3 When the Board first implemented the Holdback, the Board found that "NS ratepayers 4 [were] not getting what they bargained for" and that it was "appropriate, and jus...
AI summary The document discusses the implementation and adjustment of a Holdback mechanism by the Board to ensure that ratepayers receive the promised benefits from the Maritime Link Project. The Holdback was initially set at $10 million per year and later increased to $2 million and then $4 million per month, depending on the achievement of certain energy contract targets.
APPENDIX B Holdback Amounts Since Compliance Period Month Holdback Retained WACC 24-May - - 24-Jun - - 24-Jul 1,092,306 6,117 24-Aug 4,000,000 28,517 24-Sep 3,791,208 49,748 24-Oct 1,324,945 57,167 24-Nov - 57,167 24-Dec - 57,167 25-Jan 1,...
AI summary Appendix B presents holdback amounts and WACC values from May 2024 to December 2025, with notable figures in specific months. Appendix C outlines delivery details from an acceleration agreement, including energy delivery thresholds, contract amounts, and percentages of energy delivered.
N-5NSPML (NSEB) RIRs 1-19 - Redacted
4 passages
NSPML Responses to NSEB Information Requests 1 Request IR-01: 2 3 On page 6 of the application, NSPML requests an end to the holdback mechanism and that holdback 4 amounts retained after May 1, 2024, be distributed with updated WACC to the...
AI summary NSPML is requesting the end of the holdback mechanism and the distribution of retained amounts after May 1, 2024, with updated WACC. The NSEB is asking for clarification on how these balances have been treated in accounting, the delay in filing the application, and the use of NS Power's WACC rates.
NSPML Application to Review the Holdback Mechanism (NSEB M12696) NSPML Responses to NSEB Information Requests 1 Request IR-03: 5 6 Response IR-04: 7 8 Deferred Energy is defined on page 3 of the Application in footnote 2, as follows: 9 10...
AI summary The document provides definitions related to energy terms such as 'Deferred Energy,' 'Make-up Energy,' and 'Supplemental Energy' as outlined in the Energy & Capacity Agreement. These definitions are part of NSPML's responses to NSEB information requests regarding the Holdback Mechanism application.
PARTIALLY CONFIDENTIAL 1 Energy (aside from a small amount of Supplemental Energy) since the Acceleration Agreement 2 was initiated in 2021 was redelivered as Make-up Energy. Throughout 2025, energy delivered 3 was virtually the same as th...
AI summary The document discusses the delivery of energy through the Maritime Link project, noting that Make-up Energy has been redelivered promptly since LIL commissioning. It also references the NSEB Decision (M11009) regarding the disposition of a holdback for 2022 and 2023, highlighting the Board's explanation on Market-priced Energy and its relationship to the original bargain of the Maritime Link project.
NSPML 2026 Holdback Mechanism NSEB IR-18 Attachment 1 Page 3 of 67
AI summary The document discusses the 2026 Holdback Mechanism related to NSPML, as part of NSEB IR-18 Attachment 1, on page 3 of 67. It outlines a regulatory proceeding involving Nova Scotia Power Marketing Limited and the Nova Scotia Energy Board.
N-7Evidence - BW
7 passages
February 2022 Decision, page 5 paragraph 1. February 2022 Decision, page 5 paragraph 3. February 2022 Decision, page 6 paragraph 4. 1 2 3 4 million per month. Any portion of the $2 million not utilized to pay for replacement cost energy wo...
AI summary The document discusses the conditions set by the Board for ending the Holdback mechanism, which was retained in an October 2023 Decision. NSPML claims that the conditions have been met as of May 1, 2024, based on compliance during the 12-month period between May 2023 and April 2024.
NSPML Application, pages 13-16 section 4.1. - all outstanding Base Block had been redelivered by June 22, 2024. [31](#page-7-0) Thus, NSPML requests the - end of the Holdback and that all Holdback amounts retained after May 1, 2024, be dis...
AI summary NSPML requests the end of the Holdback and distribution of retained amounts after May 1, 2024, citing evidence from Concentric Energy Advisors, Inc. All outstanding Base Block had been redelivered by June 22, 2024.
Q. Did NSPML appropriately determine these variables in its Application? - A. Yes. NSPML initially provided details of its delivered energy, makeup energy, and - calculations in Appendix A and Appendix C of its Application. Those appendice...
AI summary NSPML provided calculations for delivered energy and makeup energy in its Application, though initial details were insufficient. NSPI provided a more detailed ledger in response to a data request, which was reviewed and agreed upon. NSPML also demonstrated compliance with the Board's requirement that the net outstanding balance of undelivered energy is less than 10% of the contracted annual amount of the NS Block.
- 5 Block, as well as the makeup delivery volumes of the same. These volumes are appropriately - 6 combined (Base Block plus Supplemental Block), since the Board's requirement applies to the - 7 combined total NS Block volumes. NSPML also...
AI summary The text discusses the calculation and netting of NS Block volumes by NSPML, including Base and Supplemental Blocks, and references tables that detail these calculations. The data in the tables is as of the end of the referenced month.
Table 2. Calculation of undelivered and makeup volumes of Base Block (2021-2025) (MWh)[37](#page-12-1) 1 Month/Year Contract Net Undelivered Net Undelivered Volume Delivered Undelivered Makeup (Month) (Cumulative) Aug-21 45,923 6,131 39,79...
AI summary The table presents the calculation of undelivered and makeup volumes of the Base Block from 2021 to 2025, detailing monthly and cumulative figures across various months and years. It includes data on net undelivered volumes, makeup volumes, and delivered volumes.
- computation is satisfied: October 2023 Decision, page 43 paragraph 94. October 2023 Decision, page 43 paragraphs 94 to 95. 1 BBdelivered + SBdelivered > 90% (BBMonthly + SBMonthly) 2 Where: 3 BBdelivered = Total monthly delivered Base Bl...
AI summary The text discusses NSPML's requirement to deliver at least 90% of its contracted NS Block volumes over twelve consecutive months, with the option to justify shortfalls due to 'good utility practice' or 'exceptional circumstances.' The Board did not formally define these terms, referring instead to evidence or argument in NSPML's application to end the holdback.
- A. I conclude that NSPML satisfied the "Reduction in Undelivered Volumes" condition for - ending the Holdback. Specifically, by the end of March 2024, the net outstanding balance of - undelivered energy was 9% of the contracted annual am...
AI summary The analysis concludes that NSPML met the 'Reduction in Undelivered Volumes' condition for ending the Holdback, but there is ambiguity in assessing the 'Consistent Deliveries' threshold due to reliance on exceptions and external factors like winter weather and LIL design concerns. Future performance is considered risky based on NLH's filings and planning assumptions.
N-11Rebuttal Evidence - NSPML
7 passages
1 I. INTRODUCTION - 2 Q1. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS. - 3 A1. My name is Danielle S. Powers. My business address is 293 Boston Post Road West, Suite - 4 500, Marlborough, Massachusetts 01752. - 5 Q2. BY WHOM ARE YOU EMPLOY...
AI summary Danielle S. Powers, CEO of Concentric Energy Advisors, Inc., provides rebuttal evidence in the Nova Scotia Energy Board proceeding regarding the NSPML Holdback Mechanism. She responds to Bates White Economic Consulting's Direct Evidence and confirms that NSPML has met the 'Reduction in Undelivered Volumes' threshold, with the net undelivered energy balance reduced to 9% by March 2024.
9 Q8. PLEASE SUMMARIZE THE BOARD'S "CONSISTENT DELIVERIES" 10 REQUIREMENT? - 11 A8. The Board's Consistent Deliveries requirement, states that "at least 90% of the NS Block, - 12 measured in MWh (excluding Make-up Energy), is received duri...
AI summary The Board's 'Consistent Deliveries' requirement mandates that at least 90% of the NS Block, measured in MWh (excluding Make-up Energy), is received during each of 12 consecutive months. Relief may be granted if good utility practice or exceptional circumstances prevent compliance.
19 Q9. WHAT IS BATES WHITE'S DETERMINATION OF THE CONSISTENT 20 DELIVERIES" REQUIREMENT? - 21 A9. Bates White offers no definitive determination as to whether NSPML has met this - 22 requirement. Rather than apply the standard, Bates White...
AI summary Bates White does not definitively determine if NSPML met the 'consistent deliveries' requirement, arguing it is subjective due to the undefined term 'exceptional circumstances.' The response disagrees, stating that 'good utility practice' is defined in the JOA and that the lack of a formal definition does not make the inquiry subjective.
19 Q19. DO YOU AGREE WITH HIS ASSESSMENT? 20 A19. I agree with Mr. Musco's observation regarding the data presented in Attachment 1 to IR-21 03. The attachment shows that Maritime Link availability was 500 MW during much of 22 the Septembe...
AI summary The respondent agrees with Mr. Musco's observation about the data in Attachment 1 to IR-21 03, which shows Maritime Link availability during a specific period. However, they disagree with the conclusion that the Maritime Link and LIL outages did not overlap or were not coordinated, stating that Mr. Musco drew the wrong conclusion.
15 Q49. IN YOUR OPINION, HAS THE PURPOSE OF THE HOLDBACK BEEN 16 ACHIEVED? 17 A49. Yes. The Holdback Mechanism was implemented because customers were paying 18 Maritime Link costs while receiving materially less energy than anticipated due...
AI summary The Holdback Mechanism was implemented to address delays and operational challenges with the Labrador Isthmus Link (LIL), which caused customers to pay for Maritime Link costs without receiving the expected energy benefits. The purpose of the Holdback has been achieved as deferred energy has been eliminated, and the facilities are now performing as intended.
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 The reduction in undelivered volumes threshold is undisputed. The outage events 2 at issue were either consistent with good utility practice or resulted from exceptional 3 circumstances. Most importantly, the purpose of the Holdback has...
AI summary The document discusses the reduction in undelivered volumes threshold and the termination of the Holdback Mechanism, noting that outage events were consistent with good utility practice or due to exceptional circumstances, and that the purpose of the Holdback has been achieved.
102698Submission - NSPML
3 passages
• October 2023 • November 2023 • December 2023 • January 2024 • February 2024 In each of July and September 2023 and March and April 2024, deliveries were under 90% of the contracted NS Block amounts, ranging from 60% to 87%[4](#page-4-0)...
AI summary NSPML has applied for relief from a 90% delivery threshold due to low deliveries in several months, citing good utility practice and exceptional circumstances. Deliveries in most months exceeded 100% of contractual amounts, including make-up deliveries, and redelivered energy provided greater financial value to customers. No evidence has been filed to contest the application, though Bates White raised questions addressed in Concentric's rebuttal.
Date Filed: July 9, 2026 Page 16 of 20 1 4.0 TIMING AND WACC 2 3 As set out in NSPML's evidence, this Application has been brought subsequent to May 4 1, 2024 to ensure that all necessary information was in place for the Application, and i...
AI summary NSPML filed an application after May 1, 2024, due to staffing challenges and the need for complete information from third parties. NSPML seeks WACC on holdback amounts since May 1, 2024, as a standard rate for compensating funds owed, referencing Board Decision M11009.
Date Filed: July 9, 2026 Page 19 of 20 13 Evidence of John D. Wilson on Behalf of the Consumer Advocate, submitted May 7, 2026, page 10, lines 11-18. 1 5.0 CONCLUSION 2 3 As set out above, NSPML submits that it has met the conditions for e...
AI summary NSPML argues that the conditions for ending the Holdback have been met, as customers are receiving the 'original bargain' and the original context for the Holdback no longer applies. NSPML requests that the Holdback be ended as of May 1, 2024, and that all held-back funds be delivered to NSPML with WACC.
102699Submission - IG
5 passages
Delivered by E-mail Crystal Henwood Regulatory Affairs Officer/Clerk Nova Scotia Energy Board 3rd Floor, 1601 Lower Water Street PO Box 1692, Unit "M" Halifax NS B3J 3S3 Dear Ms. Henwood: Re: M12696 – NSPML – Application to Review Holdback...
AI summary The Industrial Group opposes NSPML's request to terminate the Holdback mechanism, arguing that NSPML did not meet the required delivery thresholds during the Compliance Period and the Post-Compliance Period. The Group also disputes the application for relief and the claim for carrying costs at WACC due to the delay in filing the application.
HISTORY OF HOLDBACK The Board approved the ML Project in its 2013 ML Project Approval Decision [1](#page-1-0) as the lowest longterm cost alternative for renewable electricity for Nova Scotia ratepayers. The approval was conditional, howev...
AI summary The Regulatory Board approved the Maritime Link Project in 2013 as the lowest long-term cost alternative for renewable electricity in Nova Scotia, conditional on NSPML securing access to Nalcor Market-priced Energy. In 2018, the Board established a Holdback mechanism, directing NSPI to hold back $10 million in 2018 and 2019 due to delays in the NS Block delivery and unmet projected benefits.
[Emphasis added] The $2 million holdback continued following the 2023 cost assessment proceeding.[5](#page-3-0) Separately, the Board initiated a proceeding, Matter M11009, to consider the disposition of the Holdback in all months during 2...
AI summary The document discusses the $2 million holdback following the 2023 cost assessment proceeding and the Board's initiation of Matter M11009 to address the disposition of the holdback. The Board directed the crediting of $12 million to ratepayers, increased the monthly holdback, and established conditions for termination, including consistent performance and relief provisions under exceptional circumstances.
NSPML HAS NOT MET THE THRESHOLD FOR TERMINATION OF THE HOLDBACK There are two Holdback termination conditions: (1) the 12-month delivery requirement of 90% basic NS Block and Supplemental Energy (referred to as the "Consistent Deliveries"...
AI summary NSPML has not met the threshold for termination of the Holdback due to failure to achieve the 90% monthly NS Block delivery threshold in multiple months of its chosen Compliance Period. The Board Counsel consultant and the Industrial Group agree that NSPML has not satisfied the evidentiary burden to end the Holdback.
April 2024 NSPML seeks relief for April 2024 deliveries on the grounds of "exceptional circumstances," arising from the forced LIL bipole outage caused by significant ice accumulation in late March that continued into April 2024. Ice accum...
AI summary NSPML is requesting relief for April 2024 deliveries due to an ice accumulation event on the LIL, which caused a forced outage. However, the Industrial Group argues that the event does not qualify as 'exceptional circumstances' because the LIL had known design vulnerabilities and prior icing events, indicating that the issue was foreseeable and not truly exceptional.
102909Reply Submission - NSPML
8 passages
Industrial Group Submission, filed July 9, 2026, pages 3, 7, 11,13 and 14. NSPML response to SBA IR-5 provides post-Compliance Period data. 1 2.0 ARGUMENT 2 3 2.1 Post-Compliance Period Performance 4 5 The Industrial Group argues that the...
AI summary The Industrial Group argues that the Holdback should not be ended due to NSPML's post-Compliance Period performance, with energy deliveries below 90% of contracted amounts in five of six months. The Board previously set a 12-month Compliance Period requirement in 2023, based on NSPML's short-term strong performance following the LIL commissioning.
2.2 Good Utility Practice NSPML has cited several apt definitions of good utility practice that all point to a utility acting reasonably in the circumstances. There does not appear to be any substantive disagreement with these definitions....
AI summary NSPML argues that the work undertaken by NLH on the LIL during the Compliance Period was necessary and in line with good utility practice, supported by expert testimony and evidence. The evidence includes statements from Danielle Power and John Wilson, and NSPML asserts that the work was conducted during periods of lower load.
2.5 WACC NSPML maintains that WACC should be recovered on all holdback funds withheld since May 1, 2024, when the Holdback cessation conditions were satisfied. This reflects the true carrying cost of the capital and as already submitted, i...
AI summary NSPML argues that the Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) should be recovered on all holdback funds withheld since May 1, 2024, citing the true carrying cost of capital and established mechanisms. They also explain the delay in filing the Application due to resource constraints and the need for evidence from NLH and NS Power.
2.6 Alternative Mitigation Mechanism if Holdback Continued As set out in NSPML's Application, NSPML maintains that the Holdback should end as of March 1, 2024. If the Board is not prepared to end the Holdback, NSPML submits that an updated...
AI summary NSPML argues that the Holdback should end by March 1, 2024, and proposes an updated mitigation mechanism if it continues. It emphasizes that post-Compliance Period redeliveries are more valuable to customers and requests a refund of holdback amounts prior to redesigning a mitigation mechanism.
Date Filed: July 23, 2026 Page 31 of 44 1 3.0 CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS 2 3 Since Submissions from Intervenors are exhibits and may be referenced in future 4 proceedings, NSPML believes it is important to respond to or add additional...
AI summary NSPML is clarifying that the benefits projected in 2017 were approximately $15 million, not $120 million, and that Bates White did not recommend denying the request to end the Holdback, only that it did not recommend granting it. NSPML seeks to ensure the Board has accurate information for decision-making.
Q. What do you conclude regarding NSPML's requests in its Application? A. I conclude that NSPML satisfied the "Reduction in Undelivered Volumes" condition for ending the Holdback. Specifically, by the end of March 2024, the net outstanding...
AI summary The conclusion is that NSPML met the 'Reduction in Undelivered Volumes' condition for ending the Holdback, as the outstanding balance was below 10%. However, the 'Consistent Deliveries' threshold remains ambiguous due to reliance on exceptions and potential conflicting evidence, including LIL performance risks. The evidence aims to assist the Board in making a determination.
3.4 Ratepayers are Not Impacted by Delivery Shortfalls The IG Submission on page 7 stated: Ratepayers continue to absorb the impact of these delivery shortfalls. In this statement the IG is referencing the months following the Compliance P...
AI summary The IG's statement that ratepayers absorb the impact of delivery shortfalls is refuted, as Make-up Energy is delivered timely and customers received all energy in accordance with contractual rights during the Compliance Period and in 2024 and 2025. No harm to customers occurred.
3.11 The Current FAM Balance of Over $120 Million Is Not Attributable to Maritime Link Under deliveries The IG Submission on page 14 states: It would be unreasonable for ratepayers, who have carried the full burden of the ML assessment cos...
AI summary The current FAM balance of over $120 million is not attributable to Maritime Link under deliveries. The IG submission emphasizes that ratepayers have already borne the costs of ML underperformance and should not be required to compensate NSPML with interest on Holdback funds. NS Power confirmed that the FAM balance is largely driven by factors unrelated to NLH deliveries.