N-8NSPML (NSEB) RIR 1 to 44 - Redacted
87 passages
REDACTED 1 2 3 4 The history of cable inspection surveys for Maritime Link has been provided in the Application, 5 indicating that the last submarine cable and protection inspection survey over the full length of the 6 cables was performed...
AI summary The document discusses NSPML's plan for cable inspection surveys for Maritime Link, highlighting the last full survey in 2024 and the intent to perform partial surveys in 2025 and 2026. A full survey is planned for 2027 to monitor risks and assess the performance of recently placed cable protection, aligning with CIGRE TB825 guidance.
NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-26: 2 3 IR-2 to IR-31 Reference Exhibit N-1 Pages 4 -29 4 5 Page 23 6 NSPML states: "Another complexity that separates NSPML from more traditional 7 transmission owner/operators is the responsibility for manag...
AI summary The Nova Scotia Energy Board requests NSPML to provide current versions of key agreements with NLH and clarify NSPML's role in managing these agreements, comparing it to NS Power and the NS Power System Operator. The Board also asks whether the higher risk associated with these agreements would be borne by ratepayers.
" Applicable Regulator " means: - (a) in respect of the Labrador Transmission Assets and the Labrador-Island Link, the PUB; and - (b) in respect of the Maritime Link, the UARB; " Approved by the JOC " means approved by a decision of the JO...
AI summary The text defines key regulatory terms, including 'Applicable Regulator,' 'Authorized Authority,' and 'CEO Override Costs,' as part of a legal or regulatory framework. It outlines the roles of the PUB, UARB, and JOC in approvals and decision-making processes.
transmission system; " Representatives " means the directors, officers, employees, agents, lawyers, engineers, accountants, consultants and financial advisers of a Party and Affiliates of a Party; " Required Condition " means, with respect...
AI summary The text defines key terms related to intellectual property rights and transmission systems, including 'Representatives,' 'Required Condition,' and 'Sanction.' It outlines the conditions for the Maritime Link and references agreements and standards related to the MFP and NL Transmission Assets.
1.3 Conflicts between Parts of Agreement If there is any conflict or inconsistency between a provision of the body of this Agreement and that of a Schedule or any document delivered pursuant to this Agreement, the provision of the body of...
AI summary The agreement states that in case of any conflict or inconsistency between the main body of the agreement and a schedule or any document delivered under the agreement, the provisions in the main body of the agreement will take precedence.
1.4 Applicable Law and Submission to Jurisdiction This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of NL and the Federal laws of Canada applicable therein, but excluding all choice-of-law provisions. Subject to...
AI summary The agreement is governed by the laws of Newfoundland and Labrador and federal Canadian laws, with the exclusive jurisdiction of NL courts. Parties waive objections to venue and inconvenience of forum, except as specified in Article 17.
2.2 Relationship with System Operators - (a) Consultation with JOC Prior to entering into each Transmission Operating Agreement, each Manager shall consult with the JOC with respect to the proposed terms and conditions thereof. The JOC sha...
AI summary The text outlines the relationship between Managers and System Operators regarding Transmission Operating Agreements, including consultation with the JOC, transfer of operational control, and release from liability for compliance with System Operator instructions.
3.4 JOC Decision Making - (a) Decision by Consensus The Nalcor representatives and Emera representatives shall cooperate and share all relevant information so as to reach consensus on issues. - (b) Resolution of Financial Matters Where No...
AI summary This section outlines the decision-making process of the Joint Operations Committee (JOC) regarding financial matters. If consensus cannot be reached, parties may make separate representations to the Applicable Regulator, and the regulator's final determination will be binding on both parties.
4.5 Regulatory Approvals Each Manager, with respect to the Transmission Assets for which the Manager is responsible, shall be responsible for making all regulatory applications to, in the case of the Maritime Link, the UARB, and in the cas...
AI summary The document outlines the responsibility of each Manager to submit regulatory applications for Transmission Assets, including Operating and Maintenance Costs, to the appropriate regulatory bodies such as the UARB and PUB. It also mentions the process for addressing Financial Matters when consensus is not reached.
5.2 In-Service LTAMPs and LTAMP Cost Estimates - (a) Nalcor In-Service LTAMPs Not more than 30 days before or 60 days after the date of First Commercial Power, as defined in the NLDA, as regards the last of the Defined Assets to achieve Fi...
AI summary The text outlines procedures for preparing and submitting In-Service LTAMPs and LTAMP Cost Estimates by Nalcor and Emera, along with dispute resolution mechanisms if disagreements arise. Disputes are to be resolved through arbitration as per the Dispute Resolution Procedure.
6.4 Reporting Obligations - (a) O&M Activities Within 90 days after the end of each Operating Year, each Manager, in respect of the Transmission Assets for which it is responsible, shall provide the JOC with a report with respect to that M...
AI summary This section outlines the reporting obligations for managers of Transmission Assets, including O&M activities, communication with authorized authorities, and reliability incident reports. Managers must submit detailed reports to the JOC within 90 days of the end of each operating year and promptly report reliability incidents.
7.1 Emera Obligation to Transfer at End of Term - (a) Transfer to Nalcor On or as soon as reasonably possible after the Expiry Date, Nalcor shall acquire and purchase from Emera and Emera shall, or shall cause its Affiliates to, sell and t...
AI summary This section outlines Emera's obligation to transfer ownership of the Maritime Link to Nalcor upon the expiry of the agreement. The transfer includes the Maritime Link and related agreements, and involves regulatory approvals, the timing of the transfer closing, and the allocation of operational and maintenance responsibilities and costs.
14.1 Nalcor Representations and Warranties Nalcor represents and warrants to Emera that, as of the A&R Effective Date: - (a) it is duly organized and validly existing under the Applicable Law of the jurisdiction of its formation and is qua...
AI summary Nalcor provides various representations and warranties to Emera, including its legal status, compliance with laws, absence of insolvency events, and no pending legal proceedings that could affect its obligations under the agreement.
14.2 Emera Representations and Warranties Emera represents and warrants to Nalcor that, as of the A&R Effective Date: - (a) it is duly organized and validly existing under the Applicable Law of the jurisdiction of its formation and is qual...
AI summary Emera provides various representations and warranties to Nalcor, confirming its legal status, compliance with laws, absence of insolvency events, and lack of pending legal proceedings that could affect its ability to perform under the agreement. It also confirms that no additional consents are required except for those already obtained or those that would not have a material adverse effect.
g after the earlier of: - (i) termination of this Agreement; and - (ii) the date of Nalcor's acquisition of ownership of the Maritime Link pursuant to this Agreement or any other Formal Agreement.
AI summary The text outlines the conditions under which the agreement remains in effect, specifically after the earlier of the agreement's termination or Nalcor's acquisition of ownership of the Maritime Link.
16.3 No Sale of Maritime Link Emera shall not sell or otherwise transfer or dispose of the Maritime Link or any part thereof or any interest of Emera therein without the prior written consent of Nalcor, which consent may be arbitrarily wit...
AI summary This section prohibits Emera from selling or transferring the Maritime Link without Nalcor's prior written consent, which can be withheld arbitrarily.
18.2 Prior Agreements Except for the Assignment of Joint Operations Agreement dated January 28, 2013 among Emera, NSP Maritime Link Incorporated and Nalcor, this Agreement supersedes all prior communications, understandings, negotiations a...
AI summary This section outlines that the current agreement supersedes all prior agreements between the parties, except for the Assignment of Joint Operations Agreement dated January 28, 2013. It emphasizes that no other representations, warranties, or conditions affect the agreement beyond what is explicitly stated.
3.1 Negotiation of Dispute All Disputes shall be first referred in writing to appropriate representatives of the Parties, as designated by each Party, or in the absence of a Party's specific designation, to the CEO of that Party. Reference...
AI summary This section outlines the process for resolving disputes between parties through negotiation. Disputes are first referred to designated representatives or the CEO if no representatives are designated. Both parties must present relevant information and negotiate in good faith, with negotiations expected to conclude within 15 business days unless extended in writing.
5.5 Procedure - (a) Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, the place of the arbitration will be St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador. - (b) The arbitration shall be conducted in the English language and the Arbitrators must be fluent in...
AI summary Section 5.5 outlines the procedure for arbitration, specifying the location, language, consolidation of related proceedings, conduct of the arbitration, and the Tribunal's jurisdiction. It ensures that arbitration is conducted efficiently and in accordance with the Code, while allowing for court intervention if necessary.
6.3 Selection of the Independent Expert - (a) Within 10 Business Days after delivery of the Referral Notice, each Party shall deliver to the other Party, in a simultaneous exchange, a list of the names of five Persons (ranked 1 - 5 in orde...
AI summary This section outlines the process for selecting an Independent Expert to resolve a Specified Dispute. Each party must submit a list of five potential experts, and the selection is determined based on rankings and, if tied, by lot. If no agreement is reached, the Delegate of ADR Chambers may be requested to appoint the expert.
6.5 Information Provided to Independent Expert For the purpose of the Expert Determination Procedure, the Parties shall provide to the Independent Expert the following within five Business Days after the Appointment Date: - (a) a copy of t...
AI summary The Parties must provide specific information to the Independent Expert within five Business Days of the Appointment Date, including the Agreement, relevant documents, and other data mutually agreed upon.
6.10 Independent Expert Clarifications - (a) Following receipt of the Submissions and Responses, the Independent Expert may, at its discretion, seek any number of clarifications with respect to any aspect of either Party's Submission or Re...
AI summary Section 6.10 outlines the process for an Independent Expert to request clarifications from either party regarding their submissions and responses. The expert may seek written clarifications, and parties must provide them in writing. The process is designed to ensure the expert fully understands the technical and financial basis of each party's submission, with no right for cross-examination.
6.14 Effect of Determination - (a) The Independent Expert's determination pursuant to this Section 6 will be final and binding upon the Parties and not reviewable by a court for any reason whatsoever. - (b) The Independent Expert is not an...
AI summary This section establishes that the Independent Expert's determination is final and binding on all parties involved, and explicitly states that the expert is not acting as an arbitrator under any arbitration legislation.
5.14 Waiver of Sovereign Immunity A Party that now or hereafter has a right to claim sovereign immunity for itself or any of its assets hereby waives any such immunity to the fullest extent permitted by Applicable Law. This waiver includes...
AI summary This section waives sovereign immunity for parties involved, allowing for dispute resolution proceedings, judicial actions, and enforcement of decisions or settlements. The parties acknowledge their commercial nature under the agreement.
Schedule 1 - Scheduling Protocol Schedule 2 - Nalcor Master Agreement Schedule 3 - Nalcor Master Agreement Modifications Schedule 4 - Description of Nalcor Progress Report Schedule 5 - Form of Balancing Service Agreement Schedule 6 - Form...
AI summary This document outlines the schedules and key components of an Energy Access Agreement, effective April 13, 2015. It includes protocols, master agreements, progress reports, service agreements, and dispute resolution procedures.
WHEREAS: - A. NSPML filed an application with the UARB on January 28, 2013, under the Maritime Link Act , S.N.S. 2012, c. 9 and the Maritime Link Cost Recovery Process Regulations (N.S. Reg. 189/2012); - B. the UARB's decision dated July 2...
AI summary NSPML filed an application with the UARB in 2013 under the Maritime Link Act and related regulations. The UARB approved the Maritime Link with conditions, including access to market-priced Energy from Nalcor. A supplemental decision confirmed that the Initial EAA met these conditions, and the Parties now agree to finalize a definitive Energy Access Agreement.
liable operation of any plant or facility or that results from the automatic operation of power system protection and control devices, but the following shall not be considered a Force Majeure event: - (i) lack of finances or changes in ec...
AI summary The text defines 'Force Majeure' and 'Forced Outage,' excluding certain events such as financial difficulties, breaches of Good Utility Practice, and non-compliance with NERC or NPCC standards. It also clarifies that Emera and NSPI are not considered affiliates for the purposes of this definition.
ase within 30 days of the commencement of such proceeding or application; or - (e) such Party has ceased paying its current obligations in the ordinary course of business as they generally become due; " Island Interconnected System " means...
AI summary The text defines key terms related to legal and operational aspects of energy transmission and regulatory proceedings, including definitions of 'Island Interconnected System,' 'Labrador-Island Link,' 'Legal Proceedings,' and other relevant terms within the context of regulatory and contractual frameworks.
1.4 Applicable Law and Submission to Jurisdiction This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of NL and the Federal laws of Canada applicable therein, but excluding all choice-of-law provisions. Subject to...
AI summary The agreement is governed by the laws of Newfoundland and Labrador and federal Canadian law, with the exclusive jurisdiction of NL courts for any matters related to the agreement, subject to the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
5.1 Nalcor Progress Report By no later than 90 days following the end of each Contract Year other than the last Contract Year, Nalcor shall provide a progress report to NSPI and Emera on Nalcor's ability to fulfil the Commitment (each a "...
AI summary Nalcor is required to provide progress reports to NSPI and Emera regarding its ability to fulfill commitments, with specific information outlined in Schedule 4. Disagreements on the reports may lead to a Specified Dispute, resolved under Section 6 of the Dispute Resolution Procedure, resulting in a Settled Forecast.
5.3 Negotiated Solution Within 20 days following a determination of a Variance, Nalcor and Emera shall each appoint a senior executive, who shall together work cooperatively and in good faith over a period not to exceed three months to det...
AI summary A negotiated solution is outlined where Nalcor and Emera must appoint senior executives to resolve a Variance within three months. If no agreement is reached, the parties will proceed to specified sections of the agreement.
5.8 Nalcor Balancing In the event that one or both of Emera and NSPI exercise the options to construct or contract wind generation in accordance with Section [5.7(a)](#page-30-1) or [5.7(b)](#page-30-2) , the following will apply: - (a) Na...
AI summary This section outlines the terms under which Nalcor Energy will provide balancing services if Emera or Nova Scotia Power Incorporated (NSPI) construct or contract wind generation. It specifies the obligations, timelines, and limitations regarding the provision of these services.
10.1 Nalcor Events of Default Except to the extent excused by a Forgivable Event, the occurrence of one or more of the following events shall constitute a default by Nalcor under this Agreement (a " Nalcor Default "): - (a) Nalcor fails to...
AI summary This section outlines the conditions under which Nalcor would be in default under the agreement, including failure to pay, breach of terms, false representations, cessation of business, and insolvency events.
12.6 Insurer Approval In the event that any Claim arising hereunder is, or could potentially be determined to be, an insured Claim, neither the Indemnified Party nor the Indemnitor, as the case may be, shall negotiate, settle, retain couns...
AI summary The section outlines the requirement for prior insurer approval before any party can negotiate, settle, or retain counsel to defend an insured claim, ensuring compliance with insurance coverage terms.
disclosure, support Emera or NSPI, as applicable, in any submission concerning such Party's entitlement to be represented, and make arguments in support of non-disclosure at each step in this process.
AI summary The text outlines the requirement for disclosure and the support of Emera or NSPI in submissions regarding their entitlement to be represented, including making arguments for non-disclosure at each step of the process.
15.1 Nalcor Assignment Rights - (a) General - Nalcor shall not be entitled to assign all or any portion of its interest in this Agreement, any Claim or any other agreement relating to any of the foregoing (collectively, the " Nalcor Rights...
AI summary This section outlines the rules governing the assignment of Nalcor's rights under the agreement, requiring consent from Emera and NSPI for assignments to non-affiliates, while allowing assignments to affiliates under certain conditions. A change in control of a Nalcor Affiliate Assignee is also treated as an assignment requiring consent.
15.2 Emera Assignment Rights - (a) General - Emera shall not be entitled to assign all or any portion of its interest in this Agreement, any Claim or any other agreement relating to any of the foregoing (collectively, the " Emera Rights ")...
AI summary This section outlines the conditions under which Emera can assign its rights under the agreement, requiring the consent of Nalcor and NSPI except when assigning to an affiliate. It also addresses the consequences of a change in control and prohibits non-permitted assignments.
16.2 Procedure for Inter-Party Claims (a) Notice of Claims - Subject to and without restricting the effect of any specific Notice requirement in this Agreement, a Party (the " Claiming Party ") intending to assert a Claim against another P...
AI summary The procedure for inter-party claims outlines the steps for notifying and resolving claims between parties. A claiming party must provide prompt notice to the recipient party, detailing the claim and its estimated financial impact. The recipient party has 20 business days to investigate and resolve the claim, either by paying the agreed amount or escalating it to a dispute resolution process.
17.1 Nalcor Representations and Warranties Nalcor represents and warrants to Emera and NSPI that as of the Effective Date: - (a) it is duly organized and validly existing under the Applicable Law of the jurisdiction of its formation and is...
AI summary Nalcor provides representations and warranties to Emera and NSPI regarding its legal status, compliance with laws, absence of insolvency, and enforceability of the agreement. It also confirms that it has no outstanding obligations to brokers or agents and will deliver Energy free of encumbrances.
17.2 Emera Representations and Warranties Emera represents and warrants to Nalcor and NSPI that as of the Effective Date: - (a) it is duly organized and validly existing under the Applicable Law of the jurisdiction of its formation and is...
AI summary Emera provides various representations and warranties to Nalcor and NSPI, including its legal status, compliance with laws, absence of insolvency events, and good title to energy delivered under the agreement.
17.3 NSPI Representations and Warranties NSPI represents and warrants to Nalcor and Emera that as of the Effective Date: - (a) it is duly organized and validly existing under the Applicable Law of the jurisdiction of its formation and is q...
AI summary Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI) provides various representations and warranties to Nalcor and Emera, including its legal status, compliance with laws, absence of insolvency events, and lack of pending legal proceedings that could affect its obligations under the agreement.
18.6 Announcements No announcement with respect to this Agreement shall be made by any Party without the prior approval of the other Parties. The foregoing shall not apply to any announcement by a Party required in order to comply with App...
AI summary The agreement prohibits any party from making announcements without prior approval from the other parties, except when required by law, in which case consultation with the other parties is required.
18.15 Waiver of Sovereign Immunity A Party that now or hereafter has a right to claim sovereign immunity for itself or any of its assets hereby waives any such immunity to the fullest extent permitted by Applicable Law. This waiver include...
AI summary This section waives sovereign immunity for parties involved, allowing for dispute resolution and enforcement of decisions without immunity claims. It clarifies that the rights and obligations under the agreement are commercial, not governmental.
D. The Parties agree to add the following sections to Article Three: Section 3.4 Public Power System's Deliveries. On the Effective Date and as a condition to the obligations of the other Party under this Agreement, Governmental Entity or...
AI summary The Parties agree to add new sections to Article Three of the Master Agreement, including provisions related to the Public Power System's deliveries, waiver of immunity claims, and security arrangements. These additions aim to ensure compliance, enforceability, and financial responsibility in the execution of the agreement.
NSPML 2026 Assessment Application NSEB IR-26 Attachment 2 Page 144 of 246 ENERGY ACCESS AGREEMENT
AI summary The document introduces the 'Energy Access Agreement,' which appears to be a significant component of the NSPML 2026 Assessment Application. This agreement likely outlines terms related to energy access and may be relevant to regulatory proceedings involving energy provision and customer access.
14.1 Nalcor Representations and Warranties Nalcor represents and warrants to Emera that, as of the Effective Date: - (a) it is duly organized and validly existing under the Applicable Law of the jurisdiction of its formation and is qualifi...
AI summary Nalcor provides various representations and warranties to Emera under the agreement, including its legal status, compliance with laws, absence of insolvency events, and lack of legal proceedings that could impact its performance under the agreement.
14.2 Emera Representations and Warranties Emera represents and warrants to Nalcor that, as of the Effective Date: - (a) it is duly organized and validly existing under the Applicable Law of the jurisdiction of its formation and is qualifie...
AI summary Emera provides various representations and warranties to Nalcor, including its legal status, authorization to perform obligations, absence of insolvency events, and no pending legal proceedings that could affect its performance under the agreement.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE NSPML 2026 Assessment Application NSEB IR-26 Attachment 2 Page 202 of 246 [Prior to finalization, the Dispute Resolution Procedure will be attached, in the form of the version that is attached to the Energy Acc...
AI summary The document outlines a Dispute Resolution Procedure that is to be attached to the Energy Access Agreement as Schedule 7. It also references the NSPML 2026 Assessment Application and NSEB IR-26 Attachment 2, indicating the procedural context and documentation involved.
2.2 Assumption of Liabilities The Assignee hereby accepts the within assignment of the Assigned Agreement as of the Effective Date and covenants and agrees with the Assignor and each of the Consenting Parties to assume the covenants and ob...
AI summary The Assignee agrees to assume all liabilities and obligations of the Assignor under the Assigned Agreement from the Effective Date onward, including the proper payment and fulfillment of all covenants and obligations related to matters occurring after the Effective Date.
2.5 Assignor to Remain Liable Notwithstanding the foregoing, [Nalcor/Emera/NSPI] expressly acknowledges and agrees that it shall remain liable to each of the Consenting Parties as a primary obligor under the Assigned Agreement to observe a...
AI summary This section states that despite any transfers or assignments, Nalcor, Emera, and NSPI remain primarily liable to the Consenting Parties for fulfilling the obligations under the Assigned Agreement.
5.14 Waiver of Sovereign Immunity A Party that now or hereafter has a right to claim sovereign immunity for itself or any of its assets hereby waives any such immunity to the fullest extent permitted by Applicable Law. This waiver includes...
AI summary This section waives sovereign immunity for parties involved in the agreement, allowing for dispute resolution proceedings and enforcement of decisions or settlements. The parties acknowledge their obligations are commercial, not governmental.
3.1 Negotiation of Dispute All Disputes shall be first referred in writing to appropriate representatives of the Parties, as designated by each Party, or in the absence of a Party's specific designation, to the CEO of that Party. Reference...
AI summary This section outlines the process for resolving disputes between parties through negotiation. Disputes are first referred to designated representatives or the CEO if no representatives are designated. Both parties must present relevant information and negotiate in good faith, with negotiations expected to conclude within 15 business days unless extended in writing.
5.1 Submission to Binding Arbitration - (a) If the Parties are unable to resolve a General Dispute through the Negotiation Procedure or the Mediation Procedure, then following termination of the mediation, or, if no Mediation Notice is giv...
AI summary This section outlines the process for submitting a General Dispute to binding arbitration when negotiation or mediation fails. It details the procedures for notifying the other party, the timeframes for consent, and the conditions under which arbitration is deemed agreed upon.
5.5 Procedure - (a) Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, the place of the arbitration will be St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador. - (b) The arbitration shall be conducted in the English language and the Arbitrators must be fluent in...
AI summary Section 5.5 outlines the procedure for arbitration, specifying the location, language, consolidation of related proceedings, conduct of the arbitration, and the Tribunal's jurisdiction. It ensures that arbitration is conducted efficiently and in accordance with the Code, while allowing for court intervention if necessary.
6.3 Selection of the Independent Expert - (a) Within 10 Business Days after delivery of the Referral Notice, each Party shall deliver to the other Party, in a simultaneous exchange, a list of the names of five Persons (ranked 1 - 5 in orde...
AI summary This section outlines the process for selecting an Independent Expert to resolve a Specified Dispute. Each party must submit a list of five potential experts, and the selection is determined based on rankings and, if tied, by lot. If no agreement is reached, the Delegate of ADR Chambers may be requested to appoint the expert.
6.5 Information Provided to Independent Expert For the purpose of the Expert Determination Procedure, the Parties shall provide to the Independent Expert the following within five Business Days after the Appointment Date: - (a) a copy of t...
AI summary The Parties must provide specific information to the Independent Expert within five Business Days of the Appointment Date, including the Agreement, relevant documents, and other data mutually agreed upon.
6.10 Independent Expert Clarifications - (a) Following receipt of the Submissions and Responses, the Independent Expert may, at its discretion, seek any number of clarifications with respect to any aspect of either Party's Submission or Re...
AI summary Section 6.10 outlines the process for an Independent Expert to request clarifications from either party regarding their submissions and responses. The expert may seek written clarifications, and parties must provide them in writing. The process is designed to ensure the expert fully understands the technical and financial basis of each party's submission, with no right for cross-examination.
6.14 Effect of Determination - (a) The Independent Expert's determination pursuant to this Section 6 will be final and binding upon the Parties and not reviewable by a court for any reason whatsoever. - (b) The Independent Expert is not an...
AI summary This section establishes that the Independent Expert's determination is final and binding on all parties involved, and explicitly states that the expert is not acting as an arbitrator under any arbitration legislation.
ARTICLE 3 RECEIPT OF WRmEN COMMUNICATIONS - (1) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties: - (a) any written communication is deemed to have been received if it is delivered to the addressee personally Qf if it is delivered his p!;"e Qf b~ ss...
AI summary This article outlines the rules for determining when written communications are deemed received, specifying delivery methods and default addresses if the recipient cannot be located. It excludes communications in court proceedings.
ARTICLE 4 WAIVER OF RIGHT TO OBJECT A party who knows that any provision of this Code from which the parties may derogate or any req uirement under the arbitration agreemen t has not been complied with a nd yet proceeds with the arbitratio...
AI summary This article outlines the waiver of the right to object in the context of arbitration, stating that a party who proceeds with arbitration despite non-compliance with provisions of the Code or arbitration agreement without timely objection is deemed to have waived their right to object.
ARTICLE 13 CHALLENGE PROCEDURE - (1) The parties are free to agree on a procedure for challenging an arbitrator, subject to the provisions of paragraph (3) of this article. - (2) Failing such agreement, a party who intends to challenge an...
AI summary Article 13 outlines the procedure for challenging an arbitrator in a regulatory proceeding. Parties may agree on a challenge procedure, or follow a default process where a challenge must be submitted within 15 days. If unsuccessful, the challenging party may request a court or other authority to decide the challenge, with the arbitral tribunal continuing proceedings during the review.
ARTICLE 15 APPOINTMENT OF SUBSTITUTE ARBITRATOR Where the mandate of an arbitrator terminates under article 13 or 14 or because of his withdrawal from office for any other reason or because of the revocation of his mandate by agreement of...
AI summary This article outlines the process for appointing a substitute arbitrator when the current arbitrator's mandate ends due to various reasons, such as withdrawal, revocation, or termination, and specifies that the rules applicable to the original appointment will govern the selection of the substitute.
reement to which Emera is not a party unless it also meets the definition of "Curtailment" or "event of Force Majeure" in the NS OATT, but the following shall not be considered a Force Majeure event: - (i) lack of finances or changes in ec...
AI summary The text defines key terms related to contractual obligations and operational standards, including Force Majeure exclusions, Forecast Notice, Forgivable Events, Formal Agreements, and GHG Credits. It outlines conditions under which certain events are not considered Force Majeure, such as financial difficulties or failure to meet regulatory standards.
nt to ensure full operation of the ML during its Service Life; " Reference Day-Ahead Price " means the Day-Ahead Price (as that term is defined in the ISO-NE Tariff) in respect of the Pricing Node; " Regular Business Hours " means 8:30 a.m...
AI summary This text defines various terms related to the Maritime Link (ML) project, including regulatory approvals, reliability coordination, and definitions of key operations and processes. It highlights the importance of compliance with regulations, safety events, and agreements between Nalcor and Emera.
5.7 Effect of Failure to Insure Notwithstanding Section 5.6 , none of the obligations of Nalcor in this Agreement shall be reduced, or in any way affected, or diminished in any respect, by a failure of Nalcor to obtain insurance or to obta...
AI summary This section clarifies that Nalcor's obligations under the agreement are not affected by its failure to obtain insurance or adequate coverage, and Nalcor cannot claim indemnity or contribution as a result of such failure.
5.8 Site Visits Emera shall provide to Nalcor evidence of liability insurance and automobile liability insurance in anticipation of any visits to any Nalcor facility including the MFP.
AI summary Emera is required to provide liability insurance evidence to Nalcor for visits to Nalcor facilities, including the Muskrat Falls Plant, as part of site visit preparations.
6.3 Extended Force Majeure - (a) Termination of Agreement If: - (i) a Party has given Notice under Section 10.1 of a Force Majeure event which prevents Nalcor from delivering all of the remaining undelivered Nova Scotia Block; - (ii) despi...
AI summary This section outlines the conditions under which the agreement may be terminated due to an Extended Force Majeure event, including the requirement that no commercially reasonable means exist to rectify the event within 36 months, and the option for either party to terminate the agreement under certain conditions.
ave been incurred by Emera had the Compensation Event not occurred. Any costs incurred by Emera in minimizing the Actual Capital Costs shall be included in the Actual Capital Costs, and related AFUDC. - (d) Payment of Compensation Damages...
AI summary This section outlines the financial and legal remedies available to Emera in the event of a Compensation Event, including the full payment of damages by Nalcor or NL, termination of the agreement, and transfer of the Maritime Link for $1.00. It also specifies that these remedies are Emera's sole and exclusive recourse.
10.4 No New Firm Sales during a Curtailment Nalcor shall not change any delivery schedule or enter into any contractual arrangements for firm sales of Energy, and Emera shall not change the delivery schedule of the Nova Scotia Block during...
AI summary During a curtailment period, Nalcor is prohibited from altering delivery schedules or entering into firm sales contracts for energy, and Emera must not change the delivery schedule of the Nova Scotia Block if such actions could impact curtailment priority and the delivery of energy to the Delivery Point.
11.1 Nalcor Assignment Rights - (a) General Nalcor shall not be entitled to assign all or any portion of its interest in this Agreement, any Claim or any other agreement relating to any of the foregoing (collectively, the " Nalcor Rights "...
AI summary This section outlines the rules regarding Nalcor's assignment rights under the agreement, specifying that Nalcor cannot assign its interests without Emera's prior written consent, except to affiliates under certain conditions. A change in control of an affiliate may also require Emera's consent, and any unauthorized assignment is void.
15.1 Nalcor Representations and Warranties Nalcor represents and warrants to Emera that as of the A&R Effective Date: - (a) it is duly organized and validly existing under the Applicable Law of the jurisdiction of its formation and is qual...
AI summary Nalcor provides various representations and warranties to Emera under the agreement, ensuring its legal standing, compliance with laws, absence of insolvency events, and good title to energy and GHG credits delivered under the agreement.
15.2 Emera Representations and Warranties Emera represents and warrants to Nalcor that as of the A&R Effective Date: - (a) it is duly organized and validly existing under the Applicable Law of the jurisdiction of its formation and is quali...
AI summary Emera provides various representations and warranties to Nalcor under the agreement, ensuring its legal standing, compliance with laws, absence of insolvency or legal proceedings, and adherence to good utility practices in its bulk energy transmission system.
16.2 Disclosure of Agreement Each Party hereby agrees to the other Party making this Agreement public at any time and from time to time after the Effective Date.
AI summary The parties agree to allow the disclosure of the agreement to the public at any time after the Effective Date.
17.14 Waiver of Sovereign Immunity A Party that now or hereafter has a right to claim sovereign immunity for itself or any of its assets hereby waives any such immunity to the fullest extent permitted by Applicable Law. This waiver include...
AI summary This section waives sovereign immunity for parties involved in the agreement, allowing for dispute resolution proceedings and enforcement of decisions resulting from them. The waiver applies to all related legal processes and is acknowledged as a commercial, not governmental, obligation.
2. Scheduling and Deliveries - (a) The time periods referred to in this Section 2 shall apply notwithstanding the provisions of Section 1.2(j) of the Agreement. - (b) Scheduling and delivery provisions are subject to the NS System Operator...
AI summary This section outlines the scheduling and delivery obligations for the Nova Scotia Block and Supplemental Energy, specifying delivery periods, daily schedule requirements, and procedures for cooperation between Nalcor and Emera, with specific reference to peak and off-peak hours and potential disputes.
3. Regulation Service Within 120 days after the A&R Effective Date, the Parties will negotiate to enter into an agreement whereby Nalcor will provide Regulation Service with respect to the Nova Scotia Block to Emera for the Initial Term. T...
AI summary The text outlines the terms for the Regulation Service agreement between Nalcor and Emera, specifying the scope of service, conditions for capacity use, fee structures, and liability limitations. It also addresses the process for approval by the NL Public Utilities Board and the handling of disputes.
The deliveries will be made by Nalcor and accepted by Emera only when consistent with the safe operation of the NL and NS Bulk Energy Systems. - (iv) Within two days or as soon as is reasonably practicable after receiving a Late Energy Opt...
AI summary This section outlines the procedure for late energy deliveries between Nalcor and Emera, ensuring they align with the safe operation of the NL and NS Bulk Energy Systems. Emera must select delivery options from a Late Energy Options Chart and notify Nalcor, who will then deliver energy accordingly. If options are unsatisfactory, the parties may negotiate or submit the dispute for resolution.
4.1 Request for Mediation - (a) If the Parties are unable to resolve a Dispute through the Negotiation Procedure, a Party (the " Requesting Party "), by Notice to the other Party given within five Business Days after expiry of the period s...
AI summary Section 4.1 outlines the process for requesting mediation in the event of a dispute between parties. It specifies the conditions under which a party may initiate mediation, the requirements for mediators, and the circumstances under which mediation may terminate.
4.3 Mediation Process - (a) The Parties shall participate in good faith and in a timely and responsive manner in the Mediation Procedure. A copy of the Mediation Notice and the Mediation Response shall be delivered to the Mediator within t...
AI summary The mediation process outlines the obligations of the parties to participate in good faith, the timeline for the mediation, the location and language, the sharing of costs, and the conditions under which the mediation may be terminated if it fails to resolve the dispute within the specified timeframe.
6.3 Selection of the Independent Expert - (a) Within 10 Business Days after delivery of the Referral Notice, each Party shall deliver to the other Party, in a simultaneous exchange, a list of the names of five Persons (ranked 1 - 5 in orde...
AI summary This section outlines the process for selecting an Independent Expert to resolve a Specified Dispute. Each party must submit a list of five potential experts, and the selection is determined based on rankings and, if tied, by lot. If no agreement is reached, the Delegate of ADR Chambers may be requested to appoint the expert.
6.5 Information Provided to Independent Expert For the purpose of the Expert Determination Procedure, the Parties shall provide to the Independent Expert the following within five Business Days after the Appointment Date: - (a) a copy of t...
AI summary The Parties must provide specific information to the Independent Expert within five Business Days of the Appointment Date, including the Agreement, relevant documents, and other data mutually agreed upon.
6.7 No ex parte Communication No communication between the Independent Expert and either of the Parties shall be permitted from the Appointment Date until after delivery of the Independent Expert's final decision except: - (a) with the app...
AI summary Section 6.7 prohibits ex parte communication between the Independent Expert and the Parties during the proceedings, except with both Parties' approval, as provided in Section 6, or for strictly administrative matters. All communications must be in writing and copied to the other Party.
6.10 Independent Expert Clarifications - (a) Following receipt of the Submissions and Responses, the Independent Expert may, at its discretion, seek any number of clarifications with respect to any aspect of either Party's Submission or Re...
AI summary This section outlines the process by which the Independent Expert may request clarifications from the Parties regarding their submissions and responses. The clarifications are intended to ensure the Expert fully understands the technical and financial basis of each submission. The process is exclusive to the Independent Expert, and neither Party may cross-examine the other.
B. Nalcor and Emera entered into a Agreement on , 2012 (the "Assigned Agreement") [NTD: Need to add any required references to other assigned rights]; NOW THEREFORE this Agreement witnesses that in consideration of the mutual covenants and...
AI summary This document outlines an agreement between Nalcor and Emera dated 2012, referred to as the 'Assigned Agreement.' The agreement is part of a larger set of legal and operational arrangements, with references to other assigned rights and considerations.
5.14 Waiver of Sovereign Immunity A Party that now or hereafter has a right to claim sovereign immunity for itself or any of its assets hereby waives any such immunity to the fullest extent permitted by Applicable Law. This waiver includes...
AI summary This section waives sovereign immunity for parties involved in the agreement, allowing for dispute resolution proceedings and enforcement of decisions or settlements. The parties acknowledge their obligations are commercial, not governmental.
REDACTED 1 Request IR-31: 2 3 IR-2 to IR-31 Reference Exhibit N-1 Pages 4 -29 4 5 Page 28 6 NSPML states: "In the 2025 Assessment Decision, the Board directed NSPML to file its Asset 7 Management Plan as part of its 2026 Assessment Applica...
AI summary The Nova Scotia Energy Board is questioning NSPML about its submission of an Asset Management Outlook, asking whether it constitutes the required Long-Term Asset Management Plan (LTAMP) and why it was not filed earlier. The Board also inquires about the naming difference and the focus on a 10-year outlook rather than the full 35-year term of the Maritime Link.
NSPML Responses to Nova Scotia Energy Board Information Requests 1 Request IR-41: 1 Request IR-42: 2 3 IR-32 to IR-44 Reference Exhibit N-1, Appendix A, Concentric Expert Evidence (refer to 4 Appendix page numbers at the bottom of each pag...
AI summary The document discusses NSPML's inability to achieve its approved return on equity (ROE) due to factors such as the NS Block holdback mechanism. It also references the potential impact of disallowing a portion of the 2024 holdback on NSPML's ROE.
N-21UARB APPROVAL SHEET Replace L6513/Upgrade Line Terminals
19 passages
This project was originally submitted to the NSUARB on April 24, 2015. The UARB provided its Decision on September 24, 2015 and did not approve it at that time. NS Power is resubmitting this project for the Board's approval as part of the...
AI summary The project was initially submitted to the NSUARB in 2015 but was not approved. NS Power is now resubmitting the project as part of its General Rate Application for the Board's approval.
This project was originally submitted to the NSUARB on November 14, 2014. The NSUARB provided its Decision on April 27, 2015 and did not approve the Project at that time. NS Power is resubmitting this project for the Board's approval as pa...
AI summary This project was initially submitted to the NSUARB in 2014 but was not approved. NS Power is now resubmitting it as part of its General Rate Application for the Board's approval.
DESCRIPTION: This project included the change (swap) of the node locations of Line L8003 and Transformer 67N-T82 on Bus 67N-B82, the addition of a new 345kV breaker, and the addition of two new isolation switches at the 67N-Onslow Substati...
AI summary This project involves changes to electrical infrastructure at the 67N-Onslow Substation, including node location swaps, new equipment additions, and a new node. It was initially submitted to the NSUARB in 2014 but was not approved. NS Power is now resubmitting it as part of a General Rate Application.
5 D. Report Organization 6 The remainder of the report is organized as follows: Section II discusses the legal requirements 7 and regulatory precedents for the determination of a fair rate of return. Section III provides an 8 overview of e...
AI summary This section outlines the organization of the report, detailing the structure and content of subsequent sections, including legal requirements, market conditions, proxy group selection, estimation methods, capital structure assessment, and overall conclusions.
A. The Fair Return Standard 5 The principles surrounding the concept of a "fair return" for a regulated company (Fair Return 6 Standard) were established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Northwestern Utilities v. City of Edmonton (1929) S...
AI summary The Fair Return Standard, established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Northwestern Utilities v. City of Edmonton and reaffirmed in Ontario (Energy Board) v. Ontario Power Generation Inc. , ensures that regulated utilities can recover their operating and capital costs through rates, allowing them to earn a return equivalent to what investors could earn from comparable investments.
B. The Stand-Alone Principle The Stand-Alone Principle provides that the utility must be regulated as if it were a stand-alone entity, raising capital on the merits of its own business and financial characteristics. In this way, capital is...
AI summary The Stand-Alone Principle requires utilities to be regulated independently, ensuring they raise capital based on their own financial and risk profiles. NSPI, part of the Emera corporate structure, must compete for capital with other subsidiaries like Tampa Electric Company, which has different authorized ROE and equity ratios. This principle ensures fair returns based on individual risk profiles.
1 Canadian regulators have adopted a pragmatic view of the use of U.S. data and proxy groups to 2 estimate the allowed ROE for Canadian regulated utilities. The development of a proxy group 3 comprised entirely of Canadian electric utiliti...
AI summary Canadian regulators, including the BCUC and AUC, use a North American proxy group of utility companies, including both Canadian and U.S. firms, to determine the allowed return on equity (ROE) for regulated utilities. This approach is driven by the limited number of publicly traded Canadian utilities and the integration of financial markets across North America.
METHODS FOR ESTIMATING THE RETURN ON EQUITY Analysts use multiple approaches to estimate the cost of common equity. The required ROE can be estimated using one or more analytical techniques that rely on market-based data to quantify invest...
AI summary The text discusses methods for estimating the return on equity (ROE), emphasizing the use of multiple analytical techniques to reflect investor expectations. It highlights the importance of informed judgment in assessing results and notes that other Canadian utility regulators also advocate for using multiple methodologies to determine a fair ROE.
10 Year System Outlook. 73 Third Session of the 63rd General Assembly of the Nova Scotia Legislature, March 9, 2021, Speech from the Throne. it did not specifically address the phase-out of coal for energy use.[74](#page-92-0) 1 However, B...
AI summary The document discusses Nova Scotia's 2030 Clean Power Plan, which aims for 80% renewable electricity and a phase-out of coal by 2030. It also notes that DBRS Morningstar acknowledges the plan but expects significant provincial and federal funding support. The plan includes investments in wind, solar, battery storage, and a new transmission line to New Brunswick.
ebruary 2023, at para. 332. 88 Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board, 2007 NSUARB 174, NSUARB-P-887, Decision issued December 10, 2007, at para. 76 & 92. Ibid, at para. 51. NSEB IR-102, pdf pg. 477: DBRS says: "There were several positive d...
AI summary The document discusses the recovery of fuel and purchased power costs through the Fuel Adjustment Mechanism (FAM), including recent regulatory actions such as the sale of FAM assets and a federal loan guarantee. These actions aim to reduce debt, regulatory lag, and rate pressure on customers. The analysis by Concentric is questioned in relation to these developments.
h. Regulatory Risk 2 There have been decisions by the UARB where operating and capital costs have been disallowed. 3 Cost disallowances are always within the scope of utility regulation, but in Concentric's 4 experience, significant disall...
AI summary The text discusses regulatory risks faced by Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI), including past instances where the UARB disallowed certain operating and capital costs. These disallowances affect NSPI's return on equity and include examples such as the treatment of executive compensation, Hurricane Fiona-related costs, and compliance with annual performance standards under the Public Utilities Act.
i. Political Risk NSPI is also subject to significant political risk, as evidenced by the legislation that was passed following the hearing in the previous GRA but prior to the UARB's order, when the Provincial government placed a cap on t...
AI summary NSPI faces significant political risk due to provincial legislation capping its authorized ROE and equity ratio, which has raised concerns among investors about cost recovery and ROE. This intervention is uncommon and increases NSPI's cost of capital, negatively impacting both customers and the utility.
5 d. Regulatory Environment 6 UBS ranks regulatory jurisdictions in the U.S. and Canada for purposes of determining whether 7 to apply valuation discounts or premiums to the utility stocks it covers. Specifically, UBS places 8 regulatory j...
AI summary Nova Scotia's regulatory environment is ranked in tier three by UBS, with low credit supportiveness according to S&P Global and DBRS Morningstar. The regulatory environment is considered less supportive of credit, with declines in ratings for Political Interference and Rate Freeze since 2020.
c. Comparison to U.S. Electric Utility Proxy Group As a preliminary matter, Concentric notes that from investors' perspective, both short-term and long-term risk are important. Regulation generally is better at addressing short-term risk,...
AI summary This section compares Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI) to the U.S. Electric Utility Proxy Group in terms of business risk and ratemaking mechanisms. NSPI has significant coal-fired generation assets, unlike most U.S. companies, and has fewer risk-insulating ratemaking mechanisms available compared to the proxy group.
5. Risk Analysis Conclusions 4 Based on the results of the financial and business risk analyses discussed throughout this report, 5 Concentric concludes that: - NSPI's generation ownership distinguishes the Company from other investor-owne...
AI summary Concentric concludes that NSPI's business risk remains elevated, particularly due to environmental compliance requirements and regulatory challenges. NSPI faces higher risks compared to other Canadian and U.S. utilities, including regulatory lag and lack of protection against volumetric risk. The company also failed to achieve its authorized ROE in recent years.
1 2027. Absent approval of this proposal, NSPI has higher risk relative to the proxy groups 2 on this factor. why would this make NSP risk higher relative to other Utilities (check above)? 3 • The financial risk of NSPI is greater than tha...
AI summary Concentric concludes that increasing NSPI's deemed common equity ratio to 45.0 percent would be reasonable, aligning it with Newfoundland Power and reflecting its risk profile. However, NSPI prefers maintaining its current 40.0 percent ratio. A supportive regulatory environment is crucial for NSPI to access capital during its transition toward meeting environmental goals.
2.2 Both AMI Project Capital Costs and Savings are Embedded in Rates 9 Regulation 5.1 Meter Reading, "Estimated Meter Reading," page 40. January 1, 2017. 10 Regulation 5.1 Meter Reading, "Estimated Meter Readings in Rural Areas," page 41.
AI summary This section discusses how the capital costs and savings associated with the AMI (Advanced Metering Infrastructure) project are already included in current rates. It references specific regulations related to estimated meter readings and their application in rural areas.
The Board also reviewed and assessed utility meter opt-out fees in the Halifax Regional Water Commission (HRWC, Halifax Water) 2016 AMI capital project (M07473). In its 2016 Application, HRWC proposed the introduction of meter reading char...
AI summary The document discusses the review of utility meter opt-out fees by the Board in the context of the Halifax Regional Water Commission's 2016 AMI capital project. It contrasts HRWC's 2016 proposed fee with NS Power's more experience-based opt-out cost models submitted in subsequent filings. The Board approved HRWC's fee for new customers in 2016 and extended it to all customers in 2020.
Opt-Out Meter Reading via External Contractor Resources NS Power provided a full update on the RFP as part of its General Rate Application (GRA) M10431, [4](#page-131-0) and has provided further details to address each of the findings outl...
AI summary NS Power provided an update on its RFP as part of its GRA M10431 and addressed findings from the Board's M10431 Decision in Appendix 13A of its Direct Evidence in the 2026-2027 GRA.
N-22Decision Ontario Energy Board EB-2024-0063
28 passages
DECISION AND ORDER EB-2024-0063 A generic proceeding commenced by the Ontario Energy Board on its own motion to consider the cost of capital parameters and deemed capital structure to be used to set rates BEFORE: Michael Janigan Presiding...
AI summary The Ontario Energy Board has initiated a proceeding to review the cost of capital parameters and deemed capital structure for setting rates. The proceeding is presided over by Michael Janigan, with Lynne Anderson and Pankaj Sardana as commissioners.
2 CONTEXT AND PROCESS When the OEB reviews a cost-based rates application by a rate-regulated utility, many costs are included in that review. The cost of capital is one of those costs. In any given year, about 10-20% of Ontario's rate-reg...
AI summary The Ontario Energy Board (OEB) reviews cost-based rates applications, including the cost of capital, which is a significant factor. The OEB last updated its cost of capital methodology in 2009 and reaffirmed it in a 2016 staff report. In 2024, the OEB initiated a generic proceeding to reassess the methodology for determining cost of capital parameters and capital structures for various utilities.
Expert Report Proposals LEI stated that the term energy transition refers to a shift from an energy system that primarily relies on fossil fuel-based energy sources (e.g., natural gas, coal and oil) to net zero-emitting renewable energy so...
AI summary The text discusses the concept of energy transition and its implications for regulated utilities, particularly in the electricity and gas sectors. It outlines differing views on how business and financial risks, including energy transition, should be addressed in regulatory proceedings, with some entities arguing that current mechanisms are sufficient while others believe additional measures are needed.
Regulatory and Rate-Setting Mechanisms LEI stated that as the perceived stability of future cash flows is a key consideration for investors, a regulated utility's ability to recover its capital and operating costs profoundly relies on avai...
AI summary LEI emphasized the importance of regulatory mechanisms in ensuring cost recovery for utilities, while Dr. Cleary supported retaining current risk assessment policies. Concentric suggested comparing Ontario's mechanisms to peer companies when assessing cost of equity. Nexus argued that Ontario's regulatory environment does not significantly reduce risk and warned against approving a lower ROE for electricity distributors due to systematic underearnings.
Submissions There was general consensus that the key risk factors that need to be considered when determining the cost of capital parameters and capital structure include business risks and financial risks. With respect to energy transitio...
AI summary The document discusses the consensus on key risk factors for determining cost of capital parameters and capital structure, noting that energy transition risks do not significantly impact timing or recovery for regulated utilities in the 2025-2029 period. OEB staff recommend addressing energy transition uncertainties through regular rate cases or the Non-Wires Solutions (NWS) Guidelines.
Regulatory and Rate-Setting Mechanisms OEB staff agreed with LEI and Dr. Cleary that any regulatory mechanism that can significantly impact the stability of future cash flows must be considered part of regulatory risks. OEB staff concluded...
AI summary The OEB staff, LEI, and Dr. Cleary agree that regulatory mechanisms significantly impacting cash flow stability are part of regulatory risk. The OEB's mechanisms since 2009 have moderately reduced utility risk. The OEA acknowledges this but cautions that business risk remains unchanged due to new risks like climate change. CCC and others emphasize that regulatory policies have substantially decreased risk and should influence the current ROE setting.
rsely, setting the ROE too high could lead to unnecessarily high rates for consumers and potentially increase regulatory scrutiny by requiring adjustments to mitigate concerns about excessive returns. While Nexus correctly notes that some...
AI summary The text discusses the potential consequences of setting the Return on Equity (ROE) too high, including increased consumer rates and regulatory scrutiny. It also references data from the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) showing that some electricity distributors underachieve their allowed ROEs, while others exceed them.
Submissions OEB staff submitted that the approach to setting the cost of capital parameters and capital structure should not depend on a utility's ownership and the source of funds. OEB staff noted that its view is consistent with the view...
AI summary The OEB staff and various organizations argue that the cost of capital parameters and capital structure should not be based on a utility's ownership type. However, CCMBC and Energy Probe argue that the source of funds and ownership should matter, as government-owned utilities have different financial protections compared to private ones. Energy Probe also criticizes the lack of benchmarking against U.S. municipally owned utilities.
including Enbridge Gas) and electricity transmitters, the following base ROEs would be appropriate and within the range of reasonableness, as proposed by: - CCC of 7.1% - SEC of 7.58% - VECC of 7.73% AMPCO/IGUA stated that this was premise...
AI summary The document outlines recommended base ROEs for Ontario energy utilities, with CCC, SEC, and VECC proposing specific rates. AMPCO/IGUA advocates for a 'common sense' approach to determining ROEs, while Pollution Probe suggests a range between 7.05% and 8.95%. CCC and SEC emphasize the need to move away from proxy group-based models and recommend separate ROE determinations for Enbridge Gas and OPG.
utilities, CME submitted that the OEB should exercise "significant judgement" and adjust the ROE and/or the equity thickness downwards to achieve comparable returns between Ontario and U.S. utilities. SEC acknowledged the need to use U.S....
AI summary The discussion centers on the use of U.S. utilities as comparators for determining the return on equity (ROE) and equity thickness for Ontario utilities. While some argue that U.S. companies can be included to create a larger proxy group, others caution that differences in risk profiles must be accounted for to ensure appropriate cost of capital parameters for Ontario's regulated utilities.
Findings The OEB affirms that in setting this important component of the determination of the cost of capital for regulated utilities it adopts the requirements of the FRS, as set out in the 2009 Report. These requirements mandate a regula...
AI summary The OEB affirms the use of the FRS in determining the cost of capital for regulated utilities, setting a deemed ROE of 9.00% for 2025. It considers multiple methodologies, such as CAPM and DCF, but finds no single gold standard. The OEB chooses to assess the ROE against the FRS rather than averaging methodologies with known weaknesses.
derably above current levels of ROE for Ontario regulated utilities. [29](#page-37-0) Financial integrity and the ability to raise capital are not impaired by the current cost of capital framework. In the current proceeding, the OEB had th...
AI summary The document discusses the use of U.S. utility data in the 2009 Cost of Capital Framework, noting that Canadian investors prefer Canadian utilities. It highlights that the current ROE for Ontario utilities is above current levels and that financial integrity and capital-raising abilities are not impaired. The OEB emphasizes the differences between Canadian and U.S. utilities, including regulatory oversight and business structures.
concerned that Ontario equity thicknesses, by being lower across the board than their U.S. peers, do not meet the FRS, but acknowledged that an immediate move to parity with the U.S. would be abrupt. Concentric found that Ontario's regulat...
AI summary The report discusses concerns about Ontario's equity thicknesses being lower than U.S. peers, impacting the FRS. Concentric found that Ontario's utilities have similar financial risks to Canadian peers but higher than U.S. peers due to low deemed equity ratios. It recommended adjusting ROE and allowing utilities to retain or propose changes to their equity ratios.
Submissions OEB staff and several ratepayer groups submitted that no changes need to be made to the OEB's policy on capital structure in this proceeding and the default equity thickness should remain at 40% for electricity distributors and...
AI summary OEB staff and ratepayer groups argue that the default equity thickness of 40% should remain unchanged for electricity distributors and transmitters, as Concentric's case for increasing it to 45% was not persuasive. They also agree that OPG's equity ratio should be reviewed in a future proceeding. OEB staff emphasized that Ontario's equity ratios are in line with other provinces and that changes in risk have been reflected in ROE adjustments.
er 21, 2023, p. 67. 47 EB-2024-0130, Exhibit 5, Tab 1, Schedule 1, Page 8, July 18, 2024; EB-2024-0130, Decision and Order, January 14, 2025, Settlement Proposal, November 20, 2024, p. 25. SEC expressed concerns that it had expected that,...
AI summary The OEB has decided not to conduct a second phase of the proceeding regarding the capital structure of electricity distributors and transmitters, despite concerns raised by SEC. The OEB also finds that the energy transition has not significantly altered the overall risk levels for utilities compared to previous reports, but acknowledges potential opportunities from increased demand and infrastructure investment.
Findings The OEB has considered whether a different approach to setting capital structure is warranted for single-asset electricity transmitters versus multiple-asset transmitters (i.e., whether a risk premium should be applied to the equi...
AI summary The OEB concludes that no distinction is needed in the capital structure approach for single-asset and multiple-asset electricity transmitters, as current mechanisms like DVAs sufficiently mitigate financial risks. While acknowledging concerns about Indigenous equity participation, the OEB finds no evidence of heightened risk for single-asset transmitters and reaffirms the current 2009 Cost of Capital Framework as appropriate.
Expert Report Proposals LEI recommended that the status quo approach (considering deemed capital structure regardless of the actual capital structure) should be retained. In LEI's view, this ensures fairness to both utilities (flexibility...
AI summary LEI, Concentric, and Dr. Cleary recommend retaining the status quo approach for deemed capital structure, emphasizing fairness, administrative simplicity, and flexibility for utilities. The decision and order reference new transmitters in Ontario since 2009.
Specific Items Monitored LEI stated that consistent with the OEB's existing policy, OEB staff should continue to monitor the cost of capital parameters and test their reasonableness in the context of prevailing macroeconomic conditions on...
AI summary The Office of the Energy Board (OEB) is advised to monitor cost of capital parameters quarterly and consider including credit ratings and capital injection details in annual reporting. LEI, Dr. Cleary, and Nexus support this approach, while Concentric argues against it, suggesting annual benchmarking of ROEs and macroeconomic factors instead.
Specific Items Monitored OEB staff agreed with LEI and Dr. Cleary that consistent with the OEB's existing policy, the OEB should continue to monitor the cost of capital parameters and test their reasonableness in the context of prevailing...
AI summary The OEB staff agrees with LEI and Dr. Cleary on the need to monitor cost of capital parameters annually but disagrees with quarterly reporting. Ratepayer groups and SEC support public disclosure of reports. The OEA and others debate the need for tracking debt and equity issuances and credit rating reports, with differing views on administrative burden and utility transparency.
Expert Report Proposals LEI and Concentric recommended that consistent with the OEB's existing policy, the OEB should commit to reviewing the cost of capital policy every five years. Nexus recommended that the OEB limit LEI's proposed annu...
AI summary The text discusses recommendations for reviewing the cost of capital policy by the OEB, with varying intervals proposed by different entities. LEI and Concentric suggest five-year reviews, while Nexus advocates for a three-year cycle. Dr. Cleary supports reviews every three to five years and suggests triggering a review if Canadian A-rated utility yield spreads exceed 2%.
Findings The term of the new Cost of Capital Framework is five years. On that basis, the next review is expected to conclude in 2030, with the depth and breadth expected to be similar to the current exercise. Most parties agreed with this...
AI summary The new Cost of Capital Framework has a five-year term, with a review expected by 2030. Most parties support this, though some suggest a three-year term due to energy transition challenges. The OEB will monitor market conditions and may initiate reviews sooner if needed, using tools like DVAs and performance incentives. Stakeholders are encouraged to hold sessions before filing for an amended cost of capital.
4 COST AWARDS The following parties (collectively the Eligible Participants) applied for and were granted cost award eligibility: - Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario (AMPCO) - Association of Power Producers of Ontario (APPrO)...
AI summary The Office of the Energy Board (OEB) has approved interim cost awards for several Eligible Participants, including industry associations and consumer groups. These costs will be recovered from rate-regulated companies and allocated using the OEB's Cost Assessment Model. The OEB will conduct a full review of all cost claims at the conclusion of the proceeding.
SCHEDULE A TO DECISION AND ORDER EB-2024-0063 LIST OF PARTIES March 27, 2025
AI summary This document is a decision and order from the Energy Board (EB) under reference number EB-2024-0063, dated March 27, 2025. It includes a list of parties involved in the proceeding.
Schedule B – Issues List Schedule B provides the Issues List to this proceeding, as approved by the OEB on April 22, 2024.
AI summary Schedule B outlines the Issues List for the proceeding, which was approved by the Office of the Energy Board on April 22, 2024.
A. General Issues - 1. Should the approach to setting cost of capital parameters and capital structure differ depending on: - a) The source of the capital (i.e., whether a utility finances its business through the capital markets or throug...
AI summary This section of the proceeding explores whether the approach to setting cost of capital parameters and capital structure should vary based on the source of capital and ownership type, considers risk factors related to the energy transition and macroeconomic conditions, and examines how regulatory and rate-setting mechanisms influence utility risk.
E. Capital Structure - 12.How should the capital structure be set for electricity transmitters, electricity distributors, natural gas utilities, and OPG to reflect the FRS? - 13.Should the OEB take a different approach for setting the capi...
AI summary The document raises questions about setting the capital structure for electricity transmitters, distributors, natural gas utilities, and OPG in alignment with the FRS, and whether the OEB should apply different approaches for single versus multiple asset transmitters.
F. Mechanics of Implementation - 14.What on-going monitoring indicators to test the reasonableness of the results generated by its cost of capital methodology should the OEB consider, including the monitoring of market conditions? - 15.How...
AI summary The text outlines a series of questions regarding the ongoing monitoring and implementation of cost of capital methodologies by the Office of the Energy Board (OEB). It focuses on indicators for reasonableness, financial viability, timing of updates, review intervals, trigger mechanisms, and implementation methods for changes in cost of capital parameters.
page-142-3) No other comprehensive reviews of the formulaic cost of capital policy have been conducted by the OEB until the current proceeding. Schedule H – Current Cost of Capital Framework VII 130 OEB Letter, 2025 Cost of Capital Paramet...
AI summary The OEB has not conducted a comprehensive review of the formulaic cost of capital policy until the current proceeding. The current Cost of Capital Framework VII includes trigger mechanisms for potential adjustments, such as evidence filing by applicants or intervenors and off-ramp mechanisms for electricity distributors based on earnings deviations.