N-1Application
16 passages
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.
2.0 BACKGROUND In 2010, Emera and Nalcor (now Newfoundland & Labrador Hydro) announced the Term Sheet for development of the Lower Churchill Project Phase 1 and the Maritime Link. In 2013 NS Power applied to the Board for approval of const...
AI summary The Maritime Link project, developed by NSPML, was completed on time and on budget, with the NSEB approving its capital costs as prudent. The Board highlighted the project's significance as a renewable energy source and NSPML's effective project management despite challenges with the NS Block.
1 NSPML acknowledges that the pattern and amounts of energy and capacity availability 2 from NLH during the months immediately following the Acceleration Agreement were not 3 consistent with what customers would have reasonably expected wh...
AI summary NSPML acknowledges that NLH's energy and capacity availability during the months following the Acceleration Agreement did not meet customer expectations. This led to significant financial penalties and disallowances, which are currently under appeal. NSPML states that NLH's performance has improved since the commissioning of the LIL.
13 1 Specifically: 3 Adjusted Forced Outage Rate (DAFOR) of NS Power's thermal generation fleet in 2022 4 14 and 2023. 5 6 Furthermore, the Maritime Link Benefit Reports show material financial benefits to Nova 7 15 Scotians, materially ex...
AI summary The document discusses the Adjusted Forced Outage Rate (DAFOR) of NS Power's thermal generation fleet in 2022 and 2023, and highlights the financial benefits of the Maritime Link project to Nova Scotians, exceeding NSPML annual costs. It also outlines the conditions for ending the Holdback mechanism, as established by the Board's Decision of January 31, 2024.
4.2 Relief for Planned and Unplanned Outages As noted in Concentric's evidence, planned as well as unplanned outages are expected and necessary for maintaining complex assets in accordance with Good Utility Practice. The Board's Decision r...
AI summary NSPML seeks relief for planned outages in 2023-2024 and an April 2024 shortfall, citing Good Utility Practice and exceptional circumstances. The NSEB may grant relief if conditions are met, terminating the monthly holdback mechanism. Outages relate to LIL infrastructure.
After giving the matter careful consideration, if the Board determines that a Holdback should remain in place, NSPML proposes a separate process be created to assess what changes should be made to the existing holdback mitigation mechanism...
AI summary NSPML proposes a separate process to assess changes to the existing holdback mitigation mechanism if the Board determines a Holdback should remain. NSPML also requests the Energy Board consider factors such as planned outages and their impact on holdback disallowance when designing a continuing mechanism.
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.
1 Q11. WHAT ARE YOUR OVERALL CONCLUSIONS? 2 A11. Good utility practice is critical to ensure that the bulk power system is able to generate and 3 deliver energy to customers and should be encouraged. NSPML should not be penalized 4 for pla...
AI summary NSPML qualifies for relief from the holdback mechanism as conditions for termination are met, with Nova Scotians receiving 140% of contractual energy volumes. The Maritime Link delivered $495MM in renewable energy, exceeding NSPML's costs. The Board's traditional oversight mechanisms are deemed sufficient for asset management and energy procurement.
25 Q12. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE HOLDBACK MECHANISM. 26 A12. The holdback mechanism was implemented by the Board in a September 11, 2017, decision 27 regarding the application of NSPML for approval of an interim cost assessment and 1 approval t...
AI summary The holdback mechanism, established in 2017 by the Board, ensures ratepayer protection by withholding funds from NSPML/NS Power until 90% of energy delivery targets are met. Adjusted in 2022 to $2 million monthly, it funds replacement energy costs if targets are unmet, with a review planned for 2023. This mechanism addresses uncertainty in energy deliveries from the Labrador-Island Link.
13 Q13. DID THE BOARD PROVIDE A STATED PURPOSE FOR THE HOLDBACK 14 MECHANISM? 15 A13. Yes. In 2019, the Board noted that the holdback was put in place "to provide an incentive 16 to ensure that NSPML and NS Power achieved the promised bene...
AI summary The Board established the holdback mechanism in 2019 to incentivize NSPML and NS Power to deliver promised benefits of the Maritime Link before the NS Block. Subsequent 2022-2023 proceedings emphasized addressing imbalances between NSPML and ratepayers, who faced replacement energy costs due to poor deliveries, while addressing intergenerational equity concerns.
itment to 17 maintaining its assets in a proactive and preventative manner in accordance with good 18 utility practice. In fact, the Maritime Link has exceeded 99% monopole availability since 19 2020. 20 Without an allowance for planned ou...
AI summary The Maritime Link has achieved over 99% monopole availability since 2020. NSPML argues that without accounting for planned outages, it cannot meet termination criteria for the Holdback Mechanism, leading to ongoing under-recovery of prudently incurred costs, while customers receive energy on time under the ECA terms.
5 Q19. WAS THE HOLDBACK MECHANISM DESIGNED AS A HOLD HARMLESS 6 PROVISION? 7 A19. No, that is not my understanding. The Board never referred to the holdback mechanism as 8 a hold harmless provision. In its Decision in M10206 in February of...
AI summary The answer states that the holdback mechanism was not designed as a hold harmless provision. The Board's decision in M10206 mentioned it might ameliorate customer concerns regarding the Maritime Link's benefits.
6 Q21. DO THE CONDITIONS THAT EXISTED AT THE TIME THAT THE 7 HOLDBACK MECHANISM WAS ESTABLISHED STILL EXIST? 8 A21. No. As stated above, delivery levels of the NS Block are high, and shortfalls are being redelivered on a timely basis.13 9...
AI summary The conditions that justified the holdback mechanism no longer exist due to sustained operational performance, high delivery levels of the NS Block, and timely redelivery of shortfalls. The emphasis on infrastructure maintenance supports eliminating the mechanism to encourage good utility practices.
10 A24. Yes. The definition of good utility practice is contained in the JOA as follows: "Good Utility Practice" means those project management, design, procurement, construction, operation, maintenance, repair, removal and disposal practi...
AI summary The definition of Good Utility Practice is outlined in the JOA, encompassing accepted industry practices for utility operations, aligned with FERC's standards. It emphasizes reasonable cost, reliability, and safety, with specific international standards for subsea HVdc cables.
15 Q41. HAS NSPML PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED RECOGNITION OF THE 16 REASONABLENESS OF THESE RECENT OUTAGES? 17 A41. Yes. In a Compliance Filing in Matter M11009, NSPML requested that the Board issue an 18 order confirming planned outage relief fo...
AI summary NSPML previously requested the Board to recognize the reasonableness of recent outages through a Compliance Filing in Matter M11009, seeking relief for outages in March, July, and September 2023. The Board's decision on the March outage has led NSPML to no longer seek relief for that specific event.
1 the Board should welcome planned maintenance outages. As stated above and consistent 2 with Nova Scotia's Independent System Operator's outage coordination procedures, 3 planned outages are part of normal operation and good utility pract...
AI summary The text discusses the importance of recognizing planned maintenance outages in the context of the holdback mechanism. It argues that planned outages are normal and necessary, and without allowances for them, the Maritime Link cannot meet the requirements for terminating the holdback mechanism, despite customers receiving the agreed-upon service under the ECA.
N-2NSPML (BW) RIRs 1-22 - Redacted
22 passages
CONFIDENTIAL (ATTACHMENTS ONLY) 1 Request IR-04 2 3 Please refer to Exhibit N-1, page 5 lines 31-32, page 11 lines 24 to page 12 line 2, and Board 4 Matter M05419. 5 6 a) Please provide the actual annual availability (%) of the LIL for 202...
AI summary The document contains a series of information requests related to the availability and performance of the Labrador Intermediate Line (LIL) and Muskrat Falls Generating Station, including annual availability, forced outage rates, transfer capability, and flow data. It also requests the CIGRE Report and assumptions used in a regulatory proceeding (M05419).
NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 NSPML is not aware of any evidence that the original transmission design process was 2 flawed and/or did not take into account relevant considerations. In fact, to the contrary, it 3 was very detailed and supported by ex...
AI summary NSPML asserts the original transmission design process was thorough and supported by external experts, with no evidence of flaws. Post-construction issues, such as environmental changes and design adjustments (e.g., HVDC tower icing damage, subsea cable burial), were addressed through corrective actions, not imprudence. Both NSPML and NLH projects are deemed free of imprudence findings.
NSPML Responses to Bates White Information Requests 1 g) 1 Request IR-06 2 3 a) Please explain why NSPML waited nearly two years after the end of the "Compliance 4 Period" to request cessation of the Holdback Mechanism. 5 b) NSPML identifi...
AI summary NSPML responds to information requests regarding the Holdback Mechanism and LIL outages. It references prior proceedings and explains its position on the relevance of asset design to Good Utility Practice.
3 The obligation pursuant to the Energy Access Agreement is for NLH to offer an average 4 of 1.2 TWh per year (September through August) until 2041 for potential purchase by NS 5 Power. As circumstances (e.g., load, other system attributes...
AI summary The Energy Access Agreement (EAA) obligates NLH to offer an average of 1.2 TWh of energy per year to NSP for potential purchase until 2041. NSPML argues that NLH has met or exceeded this average based on deliveries to date and that the EAA includes remedies for shortfalls. The EAA does not guarantee annual minimums, only an average over the term.
Regulatory policy continues to evolve with several significant changes in recent years. - » In October 2017, FERC announced a revised policy on license terms (for both original licenses and relicenses) in which the default term became 40 y...
AI summary Regulatory policy changes include FERC's 2017 revised license terms (default 40-year term) and the American Water Infrastructure Act of 2018, which mandated a 2-year expedited licensing process for non-powered dams and closed-loop pumped storage projects.
Table ES-1. Summary of updated and new content by chapter Chapter New content 1 • Relicensing hydropower and PSH activity in the United States 3 • International comparison of hydropower permitting processes • International comparison of hy...
AI summary Table ES-1 summarizes updated and new content by chapter, focusing on topics such as relicensing hydropower, international permitting comparisons, revenue data for PSH plants, hourly ramping data, and new FERC policies influencing hydropower.
FERC RELICENSING ACTIVITY SET TO MORE THAN DOUBLE IN THE COMING DECADE — In the past decade, FERC issued 80 relicenses that extended the authorization to operate an additional 30 to 50 years to projects accounting for 17% (6.9 GW) of FERC-...
AI summary FERC relicensing activity is set to more than double in the coming decade, with 281 licenses expiring between 2020-2029, affecting 12% of hydropower and 50% of PSH capacity. The Northeast region hosts the majority of expiring licenses, including small hydropower plants and one PSH facility. Economic factors drive license surrenders, with median project capacity at 0.5 MW.
RELICENSES AFFECT THE OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY OF THE U.S. HYDROPOWER FLEET A relicense extends the authorization to operate a hydropower project, subject to compliance with a set of terms and conditions agreed among the licensee and projec...
AI summary Relicensing hydropower projects can alter operational flexibility, with some requiring run-of-river operations (e.g., Claytor, Waterbury, Scotland) or turbine upgrades. While some relicenses restrict flexibility (e.g., ramping rate limits), others enhance it (e.g., Yards Creek PSH). Construction requirements often focus on environmental measures or recreational facilities.
Chapter 7 — Overview of New Policies Influencing the U.S. Hydropower Market In October 2017, FERC announced a revised policy on license terms (for both original licenses and relicenses) in which the default term became 40 years. Neverthele...
AI summary In October 2017, FERC revised its license term policy to a default of 40 years, with flexibility for longer or shorter terms. The American Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 (AWIA) introduced an expedited licensing process for NPDs and PSH projects and mandated equal consideration of past and future investments in relicensing. States are increasing renewable and energy storage targets, which may boost investment in hydropower and PSH.
10 In that project, the licensee combines the switch to run-of-river operations with installation of an additional turbine resulting in a net increase in estimated annual electricity generation. 11 Mode of operation information, obtained f...
AI summary The text discusses relicensing trends for hydropower and PSH plants in the US, noting that 36 licenses expired in 2020–2021, with 29 applications submitted by 2019. FERC automatically grants annual extensions for licenses not renewed before expiration. 73 licenses were in renewal processes by 2019, with many applications submitted years in advance.
ess, projects that have obtained a FERC preliminary permit, and projects with an expired preliminary permit but that have submitted a Notice of Intent to file a license or a draft license application. \ \ Pending License includes projects...
AI summary The text categorizes U.S. hydropower projects by license status (pending, issued) and discusses regional distribution, noting that 87% of conduit projects are in the Northwest/Southwest, while 92% of NPD projects are in other regions. Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Louisiana lead in proposed capacity, with Alaska hosting most NSD projects.
ve adopted energy storage targets of at least 1,000 MW (see Chapter 7 for additional details). PSH is eligible to meet those targets although, in the case of California, there is a size limit (50 MW). Figure 10 contains both proposed new P...
AI summary The U.S. PSH development pipeline includes 67 new projects and 3 capacity upgrades, with Pennsylvania, Arizona, and California hosting 42% of sites. Closed-loop PSH projects, which have lower environmental impacts, can use FERC’s expedited two-year licensing process under AWIA, while open-loop projects require longer licensing.
3.2.3 Global Comparison of Hydropower Permitting Process Multiyear hydropower permitting processes that require coordination from multiple agencies at various levels of government are standard in regions across the world. The permitting ti...
AI summary Global hydropower permitting processes are complex and multiyear, requiring coordination across national, regional, and local agencies. Administrative challenges arise from waterway public domain status and reservoir multifunctionality, compounded by mandatory studies and stakeholder consultations that extend timelines for larger projects.
7. Overview of New Policies Influencing the U.S. Hydropower Market This chapter discusses policy changes that occurred in the past three years (2017 – 2019 ) that modified the permitting processes for hydropower or / and the incentives ava...
AI summary This section outlines U.S. policy changes (2017–2019) impacting hydropower, including FERC's 40-year license term policy, the AWIA 2018, EPA's Section 401 rules, FERC's PURPA modernization proposal, and state renewable mandates. These aim to streamline permitting, enhance PSH investment, and align with clean energy goals.
Some legislation and other state-level initiatives focus on PSH. Virginia enacted HB 1760 in 2017, which encourages PSH development in its coalfield region by authorizing utilities to obtain a rate adjustment clause for cost recovery if th...
AI summary The text discusses state-level initiatives and legislation in Virginia, Oregon, and California related to pumped storage hydropower (PSH). Virginia enacted laws to encourage PSH development and support research. Oregon passed a resolution to promote closed-loop PSH. California approved a reference system portfolio requiring significant PSH and battery storage by 2026, with specific projects highlighted.
4.0 Additional Considerations - 5 The Haldar & Associates Assessment identified additional considerations related to the as-built design of - 6 the LIL which are suggested for further investigation. These recommendations were identified as...
AI summary Hydro is evaluating additional design considerations for the Labrador-Island Link (LIL) identified by Haldar & Associates, including icing effects and wind factors. Further engineering assessments are needed to validate adjustments, with Hydro consulting Nalcor Energy and reporting to the Board.
NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-20: 2 3 Please refer to Exhibit N-1, Attachment 1, A39 4 a) Please define the length of the "initial period," in a range months, to which the 5 Witness refers. 6 b) Is it the Witness's testimony that the "hurd...
AI summary The response to Request IR-20 defines the 'initial operation period' as 24 to 36 months following commercial in-service and clarifies that the Board's review of the Maritime Link proceeding did not anticipate the extent of delays and operational issues faced by the Labrador Island Transmission Link (LIL).
1 Assumptions Used in Hydro's Assessment of System 2 Reliability and Resource Adequacy - 3 Hydro continually assesses the reliability of its system and its ability to meet customer requirements, - filing both near- and long-term assessment...
AI summary Hydro assesses system reliability and resource adequacy, filing reports with the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities. As part of the Reliability and Resource Adequacy Study Review proceeding, Hydro outlines the process for determining forced outage rates for near-term reliability assessments and long-term resource adequacy analysis. These assumptions are reviewed annually.
Summary of all Failure Investigation Recommendations Document Number Report Title Recommendation Status Comments II K-EG-ED-6200-TI -H15-0010-01 L3501/2 Failure Investigation - Ice Storm III REGED COOLTI H15,001-01 Control Jahrador , Janua...
AI summary The document summarizes failure investigation recommendations, including an ongoing investigation into thermal and mechanical methods for a failure related to the Ice Storm III REGED COOLTI H15,001-01 Control Jahrador incident in January 2025. The mechanical method is known and procedures are in place, while thermal options are being explored but may not be feasible.
1.1 900 MW Test and Software All software functionality required for operation up to 900 MW was proven and accepted as satisfactory during pole overload tests in winter 2023 prior to April 2023 commissioning; however, as committed, 1 "Newf...
AI summary The document outlines the status of 900 MW pole overload tests for the Labrador-Island Link (LIL), including completed winter 2023 testing, planned fall 2024 tests, and prerequisites like system conditions and risk mitigation. It also addresses software upgrades, grounding studies, and equipment replacement timelines.
NSPML Application to Review the Holdback Mechanism (NSEB M12696)
AI summary NSPML is applying to review the Holdback Mechanism under matter NSEB M12696, seeking regulatory oversight to reassess its application and implications within Nova Scotia's energy sector.
NSPML Responses to Bates White Information Requests
AI summary NSPML is responding to information requests from Bates White, a consulting firm, as part of a regulatory proceeding. The document outlines technical and operational details related to energy generation, grid reliability, and regulatory compliance in Nova Scotia.
N-4NSPML (IG) RIRs 1-26 - Redacted
16 passages
NSPML Responses to Industrial Group Information Requests 1 Request IR-01: 2 3 Reference: N-01 Application, pages 3 and 13 of 37; Appendix D (Concentric Expert 4 Evidence of Danielle S. Powers); 2023 NSUARB 175, para. 95; Decision M11009 (2...
AI summary The document discusses NSPML's response to an information request regarding the definition of 'Good Utility Practice' as outlined in the Board's October 2023 Decision. It references the Joint Operations Agreement (JOA) and Concentric's interpretation, and notes that the Board intentionally left the scope of 'good utility practice or exceptional circumstances' undefined, to be addressed in evidence or argument.
PARTIALLY CONFIDENTIAL traditional oversight of holding NSPML and NS Power responsible for management of its assets and the associated agreements with NLH. NSPML believes it is important to acknowledge that 100 percent of the holdback disa...
AI summary NSPML argues that holdback disallowances stem from counterparty performance, not their own, and emphasizes alignment with the Lower Churchill Project's goals, including renewable energy offsetting fossil fuels and capacity enabling plant closures. They assert the Board did not expect perfectly level energy deliveries.
PARTIALLY CONFIDENTIAL 1 Request IR-14: 2 3 Reference: N-01 Application, p. 28, lines 23–26. 4 Preamble: The Application states that any planned outage near the end of a calendar 5 month is likely to result in a holdback disallowance despi...
AI summary The document discusses a regulatory inquiry regarding planned outages near the end of a calendar month and their potential impact on holdback disallowance under the ECA. It requests detailed explanations and quantitative support for the assertion that such outages may increase the risk of breaching the 90% delivery threshold.
generators or from interchanges with higher voltage transmission networks which transport bulk power over longer distances. The voltage levels at which distribution systems operate differ among areas. Distribution Upgrades shall mean the a...
AI summary The text defines key terms related to electricity distribution and interconnection, including 'Distribution Upgrades,' 'Effective Date,' and 'Electric Reliability Organization.' It references the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) in defining regulatory and reliability frameworks for generator interconnection agreements.
Article 2. Effective Date, Term, and Termination 2.1 Effective Date. This LGIA shall become effective upon execution by the Parties subject to acceptance by FERC (if applicable), or if filed unexecuted, upon the date specified by FERC. Tra...
AI summary Article 2 outlines the effective date of the LGIA, contingent on FERC acceptance, and establishes a 10-year term with automatic annual renewal. The Transmission Provider must file the agreement with FERC upon execution.
2.3 Termination Procedures. - 2.3.1 Written Notice. This LGIA may be terminated by Interconnection Customer after giving Transmission Provider ninety (90) Calendar Days advance written notice, or by Transmission Provider notifying FERC aft...
AI summary The section outlines termination procedures under the Large Generator Interconnection Agreement (LGIA), requiring 90 days' notice for customer-initiated termination or FERC notification upon facility shutdown. Termination must comply with laws and FERC filing requirements. Costs incurred due to termination are to be shared, with parties using reasonable efforts to mitigate expenses.
4.1.2.2 Transmission Delivery Service Implications. Network Resource Interconnection Service allows Interconnection Customer's Large Generating Facility to be designated by any Network Customer under the Tariff on Transmission Provider's T...
AI summary Network Resource Interconnection Service enables Large Generating Facilities to be designated as Network Resources, allowing energy delivery under the same terms as existing resources. Ancillary Services require technical studies, and cost responsibilities for upgrades align with FERC guidelines. Undesignated facilities are not obligated to provide Ancillary Services unless requirements apply broadly.
5.10 Interconnection Customer's Interconnection Facilities ('ICIF'). Interconnection Customer shall, at its expense, design, procure, construct, own and install the ICIF, as set forth in Appendix A, Interconnection Facilities, Network Upgr...
AI summary The Interconnection Customer is responsible for designing, constructing, and installing ICIF, with specific timelines for submitting specifications and delivering as-built drawings. Transmission Provider reviews specifications for compatibility but does not endorse the design. All specifications are confidential, and ICIF must comply with Good Utility Practice.
iate drawings and relay diagrams]. Transmission Provider will obtain control of Transmission Provider's Interconnection Facilities and Stand Alone Network Upgrades upon completion of such facilities. 5.12 Access Rights. Upon reasonable not...
AI summary The Transmission Provider gains control of interconnection facilities and standalone network upgrades upon completion. Access Rights provisions allow parties, under regulatory approval, to use lands for constructing/maintaining facilities, with obligations to avoid disrupting operations and adhere to safety rules.
), and (ii) the Present Value Depreciation Amount shall be computed by discounting Transmission Provider's anticipated tax depreciation deductions as a result of such payments or property transfers by Transmission Provider's current weight...
AI summary The text outlines a formula for calculating Interconnection Customer's tax liability related to depreciation deductions, using the current tax rate and weighted average cost of capital. It also mandates a process for requesting IRS private letter rulings on tax implications of property transfers or payments under the LGIA.
5.19 Modification. 5.19.1 General. Either Party may undertake modifications to its facilities. If a Party plans to undertake a modification that reasonably may be expected to affect the other Party's facilities, that Party shall provide to...
AI summary Section 5.19 outlines procedures for facility modifications under a JOA, requiring advance notice, confidentiality, and cost allocation rules. Modifications must comply with LGIA and Good Utility Practice. Interconnection Customer is not liable for Transmission Provider's modification costs but must cover their own necessary upgrades.
ssion System. - 9.6 Reactive Power and Primary Frequency Response. - 9.6.1 Power Factor Design Criteria. - 9.6.1.1 Synchronous Generation. Interconnection Customer shall design the Large Generating Facility to maintain a composite power de...
AI summary The text outlines power factor design criteria for synchronous and non-synchronous generation facilities. Synchronous generators must maintain a power factor between 0.95 leading and lagging, unless the Transmission Provider sets different requirements. Non-synchronous generators face similar standards, with dynamic compliance options like power electronics or capacitors. The requirement applies to new generators without prior Facilities Study Agreements as of Order No. 827.
parties to use Transmission Provider's Interconnection Facilities, or any part thereof, Interconnection Customer will be entitled to compensation for the capital expenses it incurred in connection with the Interconnection Facilities based...
AI summary The text outlines compensation and cost allocation rules for interconnection facilities, requiring pro rata distribution based on usage by Transmission Provider, third parties, and Interconnection Customer. Disputes are to be resolved by FERC. It also mandates cooperation between parties in disturbance analysis using data like oscillography and relay records, per Good Utility Practice.
Article 28. Representations, Warranties, and Covenants - 28.1 General. Each Party makes the following representations, warranties and covenants: - 28.1.1 Good Standing. Such Party is duly organized, validly existing and in good standing un...
AI summary Article 28 outlines legal obligations for parties entering a Large Generator Interconnection Agreement (LGIA), including compliance with organizational laws, absence of conflicts with existing agreements, and securing necessary governmental approvals. It emphasizes enforceability and adherence to regulatory requirements.
- 30.9 Amendment. The Parties may by mutual agreement amend this LGIA by a written instrument duly executed by the Parties. - 30.10 Modification by the Parties. The Parties may by mutual agreement amend the Appendices to this LGIA by a wri...
AI summary The article outlines procedures for amending the Large Generator Interconnection Agreement (LGIA), including mutual agreements, unilateral filings with FERC under sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act, and clarification that the agreement does not create a partnership. Both parties retain rights to protest each other's filings with FERC.
Interconnection Details
AI summary The document section titled 'Interconnection Details' outlines technical and procedural aspects of connecting energy systems, referencing entities like NSPML and NSUARB, and discussing standards, transmission lines, and interconnection agreements relevant to Nova Scotia's energy infrastructure.
N-7Evidence - BW
9 passages
o.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Hydro-Labrador-Island-Link.pdf)[content/uploads/2024/08/Hydro-Labrador-Island-Link.pdf.](https://nlhydro.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Hydro-Labrador-Island-Link.pdf) - affiliate of NSPI, would develop and...
AI summary The Maritime Link project, developed by NSPML (an NSPI affiliate), was approved by the NSEB in 2013 with a 35-year contract for 153 MW of on-peak renewable energy and supplemental off-peak energy. The approval required an additional non-firm energy contract from Muskrat Falls, fulfilled via the Energy Access Agreement between NSPI, NLH, and Emera.
Q. When did NSPML receive approval for recovery of the Maritime Link costs? - A. On December 16, 2016, NSPML applied to the Board for approval of an "interim cost - assessment and approval to commence recovery" of those interim costs from...
AI summary NSPML applied for interim cost recovery approval on December 16, 2016, which the Board granted in September 2017 (M07718). The Board approved recovery but imposed a $10M annual holdback until 2018–2019 benefits were proven. The Maritime Link was commissioned in January 2018, with further cost recovery requests in 2019 due to delays in NLH projects.
Q. Please summarize your evidence with respect to NSPI's application. - A. NSPML clearly satisfied one of the conditions for ending the Holdback. Specifically, by the - end of March 2024, the net outstanding balance of undelivered energy w...
AI summary NSPML met the 'Reduction in Undelivered Volumes' threshold (9% undelivered energy) but faced ambiguity in meeting the 'Consistent Deliveries' threshold due to reliance on exceptions and factors like winter weather and LIL design issues. Future LIL performance is deemed risky based on NLH's filings and resource planning.
III. Assessment of the "Consistent Deliveries" threshold 3 Q. What is the second threshold for ending the Holdback do you assess? - A. I next assess the Board's "Consistent Deliveries" requirement that "at least 90% of the
AI summary The text discusses the assessment of the 'Consistent Deliveries' threshold, which requires at least 90% of the Board's deliverables to be met in order to end the Holdback. This is part of an ongoing regulatory proceeding.
- NS Block, measured in MWh (excluding Make-up Energy), is received during each of 12 - consecutive months."[41](#page-18-1) In introducing this requirement, the Board also stated: - NSPML/NS Power may apply to the Board for relief if it c...
AI summary The requirement mandates NSPML to receive twelve consecutive months of NS Block volumes (excluding Make-up Energy) at least 90% of the total monthly volumes called for under the Energy and Capacity Agreement. This prevents over-reliance on Make-up volumes and ensures consistency and predictability in volume delivery.
11 - 13 Q. For the four months in which deliveries were below threshold, did NSPML claim - 14 that the deficiencies were explained by "good utility practice" and/or "exceptional - 15 circumstances?" 48 NSPML Application, page 10 lines 12 t...
AI summary NSPML claims that deficiencies in NS Block volumes during four months were due to 'good utility practice' and 'exceptional circumstances,' specifically citing a planned LIL outage in July 2023 and other factors related to the LIL's performance, not Muskrat Falls or the Maritime Link.
- matters in this proceeding is NSPML's. In other words, if NLH failed to act according to good - utility practice associated with the outages in the four shortfall months in the Compliance Period, - NSPML could still claim that it followe...
AI summary The proceeding discusses NSPML's position that it followed good utility practice despite NLH's failure to act during outages, and highlights NSPML's focus on NLH's actions related to outages on the LIL, including data requests.
continued? Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, "Reliability and Resource Adequacy Review – Reliability and Resource Adequacy Study – 2022 Update," October 3, 2022, Volume III, page 27 line 23 to page 28 line 3. Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro...
AI summary The text references Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's reliability studies, NSPML's capital expenditure application for Bay d'Espoir Unit 8 and Avalon Combustion Turbine, and debates over maintaining the Holdback mechanism for the Maritime Link project. Concerns are raised about the project's long-term value and compliance with regulatory thresholds.
- 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-8Evidence - CA
6 passages
NOVA SCOTIA ENERGY BOARD IN THE MATTER OF: The Public Utilities Act and the Maritime Link Act and the Maritime Link Cost Recovery Process Regulations - and – IN THE MATTER OF: An application by NSP Maritime Link Inc. to end the holdback me...
AI summary The Nova Scotia Energy Board is considering an application by NSP Maritime Link Inc. to terminate a holdback mechanism under the Public Utilities Act and Maritime Link Cost Recovery Process Regulations. John D. Wilson, representing the Consumer Advocate, provided evidence on behalf of Grid Strategies, LLC, in Matter M11009.
II. Introduction and Summary - Q: Please summarize the scope of your evidence. - A: My evidence reviews NSPML's application for release of the Holdback effective April 2024 and recovery of carrying costs associated with Holdback that has o...
AI summary The evidence reviews NSPML's application to release a Holdback effective April 2024 and recover carrying costs. The applicant's request is justified due to outage events meeting the Board's relief criteria, but the Board may need to adjust the carrying charge from full WACC to debt-only charges, reducing the proposed amount from $1,148,502 to $878,573.
III. Holdback Release - Q: Has NSPML met the Board's two conditions for meeting the monthly Holdback conditions? - A: No, not directly. In the 2023 Holdback proceeding, the Board set two quantified conditions for ending the Holdback. - The...
AI summary NSPML did not meet the Board's two conditions for ending the Holdback, including 90% energy delivery over 12 months and a 10% net outstanding balance. The Board allows relief for exceptional circumstances like maintenance or hydrological issues.
Q: What is your recommendation to the Board? A: I recommend the Board accept NSPML's request to end the Holdback effective April 2024. The Board may also wish to direct NSPML to undertake some action in response to the two icing events. Ex...
AI summary The respondent recommends ending NSPML's Holdback effective April 2024 and suggests NSPML address icing events. References include NLH's analysis of Labrador-Island Link incidents and Haldar reports on icing from 2021.
Q: Are you aware of any precedents from other jurisdictions? - A: Yes, this issue has been extensively litigated before the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). In a recent series of rate cases, the CPUC decided that Southern Cal...
AI summary The respondent cites precedents from California, North Carolina, Texas, Oklahoma, and Florida where utilities recovered deferred costs at reduced rates (e.g., short-term commercial paper or debt-only rates). The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) rejected Southern California Edison's (SCE) argument for full weighted average cost of capital (WACC) recovery, citing lower risk profiles of deferral accounts.
Integrated Resource Plan," prepared for the Nova Scotia Consumer Advocate, NSUARB Matter No. M08059, with Paul Chernick, January 2021. - "Implementing All-Source Procurement in the Carolinas," prepared for Natural Resources Defense Council...
AI summary The text lists multiple energy-related reports and studies prepared for regulatory bodies and advocacy groups, covering topics like integrated resource planning, generator interconnection processes, and all-source procurement. These documents were submitted to various regulatory docket matters across North America, including Nova Scotia, California, and Mississippi.
N-11Rebuttal Evidence - NSPML
13 passages
20 Q26. WHAT EFFECT DID THE OUTAGE HAVE ON NS BLOCK DELIVERIES? 21 A26. Based on the evidence filed by NSPML, the two-day planned outage reduced NS Block 22 deliveries during March 2024. However, NSPML demonstrated that absent the planned...
AI summary The two-day planned outage reduced NS Block deliveries during March 2024, but NSPML argued that deliveries would have exceeded the 90% threshold without the outage. The shortfall was attributed to temporary planned maintenance rather than operational limitations.
5 Q27. HOW IS THAT FACT SIGNIFICANT? 6 A27. In my opinion, it is significant because it demonstrates that the March 2024 delivery results 7 were affected by a discrete, planned maintenance outage rather than any fundamental 8 limitation in...
AI summary The significance of the March 2024 delivery results is attributed to a planned maintenance outage rather than a fundamental limitation in the LIL or Maritime Link, and these results are consistent with the benefits expected under the Board's holdback framework.
1 Q31. WHAT DOES THE HALDAR REPORT ACTUALLY FIND? 2 A31. The Haldar Report evaluates the reliability of the LIL as designed and constructed and 3 identifies potential future enhancements that could improve resilience under certain 4 operat...
AI summary The Haldar Report assesses the reliability of the Labrador Isthmus Link (LIL) as designed and constructed, noting that it meets original engineering standards. It does not find the design to be deficient, but identifies areas where future reliability could be enhanced. The report emphasizes that design decisions involve engineering judgment and that some areas may benefit from additional reinforcement.
7 Q33. WHAT CONCLUSION DO YOU DRAW FROM THAT EVIDENCE? 8 A33. In my opinion, the February 4, 2022 filing provides important context for interpreting the 9 Haldar Report's assessment. While Haldar identified certain areas for additional 10...
AI summary The witness concludes that the Haldar Report's findings do not indicate a widespread reliability issue with the Labrador Isthmus Link (LIL), but rather highlight a limited number of structures requiring further monitoring based on extreme loading assumptions.
15 Q34. DOES THE FACT THAT THE HALDAR REPORT IDENTIFIES POTENTIAL 16 IMPROVEMENTS ESTABLISH THAT THE ORIGINAL DESIGN WAS 17 DEFICIENT? 18 A34. No. Utilities routinely evaluate opportunities to improve reliability after significant 19 weath...
AI summary The response to Q34 states that identifying potential improvements in the Haldar Report does not establish that the original design was deficient. Utilities regularly evaluate reliability improvements after major weather events and with more operating experience. The existence of future enhancements does not imply that the original design failed to meet engineering standards.
14 Q36. DOES THE OCCURRENCE OF DAMAGE ESTABLISH THAT THE LIL WAS 15 IMPROPERLY DESIGNED OR OPERATED? 16 A36. No. The occurrence of damage during a severe weather event does not, by itself, establish 17 imprudence, deficient design, or poor...
AI summary The occurrence of damage during a severe weather event does not automatically indicate that the Labrador Isthmus Link (LIL) was improperly designed or operated. The LIL is a long transmission facility that must balance reliability, resiliency, and affordability. It is not economically feasible to design every segment to withstand all possible weather events.
10 Q39. DOES BATES WHITE CONCLUDE THAT NSPML FAILED TO SATISFY THE 11 BOARD'S CONSISTENT DELIVERIES THRESHOLD? 12 A39. No. This is an important point. Bates White does not conclude that NSPML failed the 13 Board's Consistent Deliveries req...
AI summary Bates White does not conclude that NSPML failed the Board's Consistent Deliveries threshold. Instead, it acknowledges that the framework includes subjective elements like good utility practice and exceptional circumstances, which prevent a definitive conclusion. The evidence supports the view that NSPML met the requirement through the application of relief provisions.
1 Q40. WHY IS THAT DISTINCTION IMPORTANT? 2 A40. It is important because Bates White frequently identifies questions, concerns, or 3 observations regarding outage events without ultimately demonstrating that NSPML failed 4 the Board's test...
AI summary The distinction is important because the Board's framework does not consider the mere occurrence of an outage as sufficient to deny relief. Instead, it focuses on whether the outage resulted from imprudent conduct or exceptional circumstances beyond the utility's control. Bates White's testimony emphasizes outages without sufficient evidence of imprudent actions.
18 Q41. DOES BATES WHITE IDENTIFY A SPECIFIC ACTION THAT VIOLATED 19 GOOD UTILITY PRACTICE? 20 A41. No. Although Bates White raises questions regarding several planned and forced outages 21 that occurred during the Compliance Period, Bates...
AI summary Bates White does not identify a specific action that violated good utility practice, despite raising questions about outages. The response emphasizes that good utility practice does not require perfection and that utilities are expected to manage outages through proper planning and maintenance.
1 Q43. HOW SHOULD THE BOARD EVALUATE THE GOOD UTILITY PRACTICE 2 QUESTION? - 3 A43. In my opinion, the Board should focus on whether the evidence demonstrates that NSPML, 4 failed to act in a manner consistent with accepted utility practic...
AI summary The Board should evaluate whether NSPML failed to act in accordance with accepted utility practice by examining factors such as maintenance, reliability risks, and operational decisions. The record shows that NSPML engaged in planned maintenance, coordinated outages, and prudent operations, supporting a finding of good utility practice.
8 Q45. HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THOSE CONCERNS? 9 A45. In my opinion, Bates White's concerns regarding future performance are not relevant to the 10 Board's test for termination of the Holdback Mechanism. The Board established specific 11 cri...
AI summary The response argues that Bates White's concerns about future performance are not relevant to the Board's criteria for terminating the Holdback Mechanism. The Board's evaluation is based on actual performance during the Compliance Period, not speculative future conditions, and acknowledges that ongoing reliability assessments and improvements are evidence of prudent utility management.
10 Q46. WHY IS THAT IMPORTANT? 11 A46. It is important because every transmission facility faces some degree of future reliability 12 risk. If the possibility of future outages or future reliability concerns were sufficient to 13 prevent t...
AI summary The importance of the Holdback Mechanism's termination lies in the fact that transmission facilities face future reliability risks. However, the Board established objective termination criteria, and NSPML has met the required thresholds. Outage events were consistent with good utility practice or due to exceptional circumstances, so future reliability concerns do not justify continuing the Holdback.
1 relevant to whether the circumstances that originally justified continuation of the Holdback 2 still exist. 3 Q48. WHAT DOES THE RECORD SHOW REGARDING THE PERFORMANCE OF 4 THE FACILITIES?
AI summary The text discusses the performance of facilities in the context of whether the circumstances that originally justified the continuation of the Holdback still exist.
101312IG (NSPML) IR 1 to 26 - Redacted
7 passages
1 2025 M12696 2 3 NOVA SCOTIA ENERGY BOARD 4 5 IN THE MATTER OF: The Public Utilities Act and the Maritime Link Act and the Maritime Link Cost Recovery Process Regulations 6 7 8 IN THE MATTER OF: An Application by NSP Maritime Link Inc. to...
AI summary The document outlines an application by NSP Maritime Link Inc. to end the holdback mechanism as per the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board's parameters. The Board's October 2023 decision set conditions for termination, including the possibility of relief if 'good utility practice or exceptional circumstances' caused failure to meet the consecutive 12-month requirement.
29 was essentially eliminated in June 2024. 1 2 highlight any planned or unplanned outages from May 2023 to present that would not meet that definition. 10 (e) Footnote 15 refers to "Chart 3" in Appendix A for a comparison of the 9 benefit...
AI summary The text discusses the elimination of a certain item in June 2024, references a Board decision from 2023 regarding a holdback condition tied to energy delivery thresholds, and requests clarification on terms like 'Deferred Energy' and how the 10% undelivered energy condition applies.
11 Request IR-6: - 12 Reference: N-01 Application, Sections 3.0 and 4.0; and Appendix A. - 13 Preamble: The Application relies on the 12-month period from May 2023 to April 2024 - 14 as the "Compliance Period", during which NSPML asserts t...
AI summary Request IR-6 examines NSPML's compliance with the 90% Base Block energy threshold during May 2023–April 2024, noting deferred energy balance reductions by June 2024 and post-compliance period redelivery by December 2024. The request questions whether subsequent periods (May 2024–April 2025 and May 2025–March 2026) meet termination conditions, citing data gaps and non-compliance in five months (July–December 2024).
- 21 relevant to the claimed Compliance Period, in which NSPML seeks relief from the - 22 compliance requirements. At pages 23-25, the Application summarizes the outages that - 23 followed the noted Compliance Period. - 24 (a) Please updat...
AI summary The text discusses an application by NSPML seeking relief from compliance requirements during a specific period, referencing outages that occurred during and after the Compliance Period. The application requests an updated summary of outages, including those from the LIL commissioning period to the present.
- 28 (ii) whether this entire outage period related solely to the icing 29 incident, and if not, what else caused and/or was completed 30 during this period; and 1 (iii) the quantified reduction in Base NS Block deliveries 11 12 13 14 15 1...
AI summary The text asks whether the outage period was solely due to an icing incident and if other factors were involved. It also requests confirmation of whether the DC current transformer replacement was part of a planned outage and the reasons for deferring it. Additionally, it inquires about NSPML's position on the relevance of the outage to the Board's consideration of the Application.
1 Request IR-14: 2 Reference: N-01 Application, p. 28, lines 23–26. Preamble: The Application states that any planned outage near the end of a calendar month is likely to result in a holdback disallowance despite the associated energy bein...
AI summary The application asserts that planned outages near month-ends risk holdback disallowance despite redelivery under the ECA. It requests explanations on the 90% delivery threshold, whether outage timing matters, quantitative evidence linking end-of-month outages to disallowance risks, and how perverse incentives in the holdback mechanism were addressed.
- 26 (b) Please explain why this evidence is characterized as "Rebuttal" evidence. 1 Request IR-20: 2 Reference: N-01, Application, Attachment 1, Concentric Evidence, page 3 (pdf page 42), 3 lines 9-14. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I provide my opinion...
AI summary The evidence is characterized as 'Rebuttal' because it challenges the current holdback mechanism for the Labrador Island Link (LIL) and argues that the period for assessing its performance should be from May 2023 to April 2024, considering recent outages and extreme weather events. The evidence also claims that the original rationale for the holdback mechanism no longer applies.
102698Submission - NSPML
6 passages
1 3.0 GOOD UTILITY PRACTICE AND EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES 2 3 3.1 Appropriate Standards 4 5 As set out above, NSPML submits that good utility practice and/or exceptional 6 circumstances necessitated or caused downtime resulting in NS Block...
AI summary NSPML argues that downtime leading to NS Block deliveries below 90% in specific periods was due to good utility practice or exceptional circumstances. The Board did not define these terms, allowing for argument and evidence. NSPML cites definitions from Nova Scotia's Wholesale Market Rules and Regulations, as well as a definition from the Joint Operating Agreement.
1 was provided by Concentric in their rebuttal to show that these outages were indeed 2 scheduled at the same time). 3 4 For purposes of "good utility practice" the question is: Were the actions taken consistent 5 with a reasonable utility...
AI summary NSPML argues that outages during the Compliance Period were due to extreme weather conditions and that its actions were consistent with good utility practice. It emphasizes that severe weather is not unusual and that the utility promptly addressed the outages.
7 3.3 Focus Should Remain on NSPML's Actions and Results for NS Customers 8 9 While NSPML submits that the evidence demonstrates good utility practice and 10 exceptional circumstances as discussed above, NSPML must also express concern ove...
AI summary NSPML argues that the focus should remain on its actions and results for NS customers, emphasizing its good utility practice and risk mitigation. It clarifies that it is not responsible for upstream assets or latent design deficiencies, and references the Board's previous decision (M12394) to support its position.
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.
1 this aspect of the calculations because the payment of WACC was not 2 explicit in the Board's prior holdback decisions. 3 4 [39] Where funds are owed but not yet paid, either between utilities, or 5 between a utility and its customers, t...
AI summary The document discusses the recovery of financing costs (WACC) for holdback funds owed to NSPML, emphasizing that the Board historically allowed for WACC recovery when funds were owed to customers. NSPML agrees with this approach, noting that the timing of the holdback filing did not prejudice the regulatory process.
f WACC 32 on customers is the same as if the funds were provided to NSPML in the first 33 place. 34 35 John Wilson proposed that holdback funds be released to NSPML since the end of the 36 Compliance Period, but with a carrying charge to b...
AI summary The document discusses the recommendation to release holdback funds to NSPML with a carrying charge calculated at NSPML's approved cost of debt, rather than using WACC. John Wilson suggests this approach, while NSPML agrees but prefers WACC. The discussion references past imbalances in Nova Scotia and cites a Board decision (M11009) supporting the use of WACC.
102699Submission - IG
9 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.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK The Maritime Link Act , SNS 2012, c 9 (the " ML Act "), and the Maritime Link Cost Recovery Process Regulations , NS Reg 189/2012 (the " ML Regulations "), establish an approval mechanism by which NSPML recovers its c...
AI summary The legislative framework outlines the Maritime Link Act and ML Regulations , establishing how NSPML recovers costs from NSPI and ratepayers. The Board has broad jurisdiction and imposed conditions on cost recovery to ensure fairness and consistency, including the Holdback as a customer-protection measure.
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.
Month Base Contract Delivery (%) Met 90% Threshold May 2024 62% No June 2024 99% Yes July 2024 86% No August 2024 0% No September 2024 44% No October 2024 83% No Consistent with the Post-Compliance Period delivery failures, the net outstan...
AI summary The document discusses the failure of NSPML to meet delivery thresholds in the Post-Compliance Period, leading to an increase in the net outstanding balance of undelivered energy. The delay in DCCT replacements and lack of documentation for this decision were highlighted as concerns. The Board warned against planning outages to circumvent holdback conditions, and the high outage rate since April 2024 is noted as concerning.
Exceptional Circumstances The meaning of "exceptional circumstances" for the purposes of this Application, should be informed by the same principles applicable in force majeure analysis, as has been suggested by Bates White.[38](#page-10-2...
AI summary The document discusses the definition of 'exceptional circumstances' in the context of force majeure, referencing guidance from Bates White. It suggests that extreme weather may constitute exceptional circumstances, but only if it could not have been prevented through reasonable precautions and was outside the party's control. The Industrial Group supports this approach, emphasizing that prior design concerns and historical failures should raise the threshold for labeling an event as exceptional.
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.
y attributable to ML underperformance, to also be required to compensate NSPML with interest on Holdback funds that accumulated because of NSPML's self-inflicted inaction in bringing this Application. It is further worth noting that NSPML...
AI summary The document discusses NSPML's failure to act promptly on the Holdback application, resulting in the accumulation of Holdback funds. It notes that NSPML retained legal counsel in 2024, but the delay was attributed to other priorities. The Board previously allowed WACC on released Holdback funds, but this applies to regulatory delays, not those caused by the party's own inaction.
CONCLUSION The Industrial Group respectfully requests that the Board: - 1. Reject NSPML's request to terminate the Holdback retroactively to May 2024 on the basis that: - (a) NSPML has not demonstrated full compliance with the Board's hold...
AI summary The Industrial Group requests the Board to reject NSPML's retroactive termination of the Holdback due to non-compliance with conditions and lack of justification for relief. Alternatively, if termination is granted, they argue that NSPML should not receive WACC on post-Compliance Period holdback amounts due to delays in the application.
102909Reply Submission - NSPML
14 passages
NSPML Application to Review the Holdback Mechanism (M12696) Final Reply July 23, 2026
AI summary The Final Reply to the NSPML Application to Review the Holdback Mechanism (M12696) was submitted on July 23, 2026. The document outlines the application's request for a review of the holdback mechanism, a key component of the regulatory process.
Date Filed: July 23, 2026 Page 4 of 44 1 Evidence supports relief for the four months during the proposed Compliance Period that 21 second Submission after reviewing Bates White's evidence and IR responses, and 22 NSPML's Rebuttal evidence...
AI summary The Commissioner's Application (CA) supports the findings and recommendations made by Mr. Wilson based on evidence reviewed, and encourages the NSEB to strongly consider the Application. The Company responds by referencing previously filed evidence to assist the Board in its decision-making.
SBA Submission, July 9, 2026, page 3. 2024. In your view, does this mean that NSPML failed to meet the Board's "Reduction in Undelivered Volumes" threshold? A. No. My understanding of the Board's threshold is that once it is achieved – as...
AI summary The submission discusses NSPML's compliance with the Board's thresholds for ending the Holdback mechanism. It argues that NSPML met the 'Reduction in Undelivered Volumes' threshold and that the four months where the 90% NS Block delivery threshold was not met qualify for relief due to planned outages and maintenance.
In my opinion, these four events meet the Board's standard for relief as they represent good utility practice (events 1-3) or exceptional circumstances (event 4).[7](#page-7-0) Again, NSPML encourages the Board to give strong weight to the...
AI summary The Company argues that four events meet the Board's standard for relief, representing good utility practice or exceptional circumstances. It also submits that customers were not harmed during the Compliance Period and that Make-up Energy deliveries exceeded contracted amounts, fulfilling the 'Consistent Deliveries' threshold.
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.
15 SBA Submission, July 9, 2026, page 5. 16 NSEB Decision M11009, October 4, 2023, paragraph 93. In addition, in setting the criteria to end the Holdback, it was well known that, due to the period of under-delivery prior to commissioning o...
AI summary NSPML argues that it has met the conditions to end the Holdback, pointing to the delivery of 100% of contracted energy, including Make-up Energy, and strong performance during critical winter months. It emphasizes that the Commercial Agreements do not require fixed delivery commitments and that the Holdback is no longer necessary as the original terms of the agreement have been fulfilled.
Date Filed: July 23, 2026 Page 17 of 44 1 energy to Nova Scotia. Customers during this period were not impacted and planned 2 annual maintenance schedules for NSPML and NLH were coordinated. During this 3 period, the timing of the LIL bipo...
AI summary The text discusses planned maintenance outages for NSPML and NLH in September 2023, emphasizing that no party claimed the work was not good utility practice. The IG raised concerns about the lack of coordination between outages, but the explanation provided aims to alleviate these concerns.
The Haldar Report Does Not Serve to Counter Exceptional Circumstances The IG on pages 12 and 13 of their Submission tries to conclude that because NLH knew about prior icing events that caused damage and did not fully remediate the "vulner...
AI summary NSPML argues that the Haldar Report does not criticize the LIL's design but rather focuses on future reliability improvements. The IG claims that prior icing events should disqualify the March/April 2024 event as an extreme circumstance, but NSPML counters that the weather was unprecedented and that prior events were minor. NSPML emphasizes that the LIL's design is not in question and that the Haldar Report was not a critique of past vulnerabilities.
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.
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.
Date Filed: July 23, 2026 Page 34 of 44 1 Energy delivered during this period was worth more to customers than the Undelivered 2 Energy. 3 4 3.5 "In-Service" is Different than "Continuous Electrical Operation" 5 6 The IG Submission include...
AI summary The document discusses the discrepancy between the term 'In-Service' and 'Continuous Electrical Operation' regarding the Labrador Island Link (LIL) DCCT parts. It highlights that the transformers were installed before 2019 but were not in continuous electrical operation until April 2023, which challenges the claim that they were in service for six years.
3.10 The Delivery Shortfall in March 2024 Had No Economic Impact on Ratepayers The IG Submission page 11 states: The Industrial Group does not suggest that repairing damaged equipment, or taking corrective action to address reliability con...
AI summary The IG Submission argues that the delivery shortfall in March 2024 did not shift economic burdens to ratepayers, as customers received more energy than expected. It emphasizes that the Board's test for terminating the holdback does not consider economic impacts on customers, and the IG did not challenge whether the corrective work was in line with good utility practice.
To date, any under delivered energy has been offset by timely deliveries of Make-up Energy. This is proven in Table 2 above. While not in evidence, NSPML can conform that through May 2026, Undelivered Energy has continued to be at or near...
AI summary The document discusses the timing of NSPML's application filing, noting that it was driven by legitimate factors such as resource constraints and the need for complete information from the Compliance Period. The delay was attributed to competing operational and regulatory obligations and the need to ensure all necessary information was in place.
16 3.13 Post Compliance Period DCCT Work 17 18 NSPML wishes to offer clarity on outages related to DCCT work completed by NLH in 19 Newfoundland on the LIL. At page 7 of its Submission, the IG accused NSPML of 20 purposefully delaying an o...
AI summary NSPML clarifies that it was not responsible for scheduling DCCT work on NLH assets and that delays were due to supply chain issues, not intentional avoidance of holdback conditions. NSPML asserts that it did not influence outage planning to avoid financial impacts and that no evidence supports the IG's accusation of intentional delay.