103607Complainant Response re NSPI Extension Request (redacted)
11 passages
ld not simply enter another person's property and exercise them myself. After the matter was discussed with a supervisor, NSP corrected that position and said its crew would take care of the branches. More importantly, after NSP's contract...
AI summary The individual describes a dispute with a neighbor regarding NSP's work on their property. NSP initially instructed the individual to resolve the matter directly with the neighbor, and the individual made efforts to facilitate the process, including sharing the neighbor's objections with NSP as a courtesy.
t change the fact that I acquired the property after the easement had been put in place, rather than participating in whatever alleged impropriety the neighbouring property owners now claim occurred. The practical question for this complai...
AI summary The text discusses a 2023 easement and transaction involving NSP, addressing concerns about the validity of the easement and NSP's responsibility in exercising rights granted to it. The author emphasizes the need for NSP to act on its legal position and avoid delays, while offering to provide transaction documents if needed.
5. The July 24 work stoppage NSP cannot have it both ways about what happened on July 24. NSP's September 8 submission relies on two explanations that need to be separated. At several points, NSP treated the neighbours' legal objections as...
AI summary NSP is criticized for inconsistent explanations regarding the July 24 work stoppage. The document argues that NSP must clarify whether the stoppage was due to legal uncertainty or actual safety threats, and that it should have addressed the situation appropriately rather than delaying the project for weeks.
6. July 24 as the turning point July 24 should have triggered concrete action. On July 24, NSP's contractor was actually stopped from completing the pole work. At that point there was no longer a hypothetical concern: NSP had firsthand kno...
AI summary The text discusses the significance of July 24 as a turning point in a project involving NSP, where a landowner's objection to pole work led to a delay. The author questions why NSP did not pursue legal action at that time and why the customer faced additional delays due to a late change in strategy.
9. NSP's August 24 position On August 24 NSP told the Board that the plan was external security. The clearest evidence of NSP's change in strategy is its own August 24 submission to the Board. NSP wrote: "Mr. Crabtree and NS Power are work...
AI summary NSP initially proposed an external security plan for a project on August 24 but later changed its position by September 8, requesting a court order for law enforcement involvement and asking the complaint be held in abeyance. NSP did not provide the Board with details on what caused this change in strategy.
10. Why both tracks can proceed together These solutions are not mutually exclusive. I am not asking NSP to abandon its proposed court application. If NSP now believes a court order would provide useful additional protection or legal certa...
AI summary The text argues that NSP should not delay installation efforts while pursuing a court application, as both actions can proceed concurrently. It emphasizes the importance of safety precautions and legal measures being taken simultaneously to resolve service issues and ensure timely service delivery.
11. What the court order would actually change It is not clear that the proposed order changes the practical police response. NSP should explain what it expects the proposed court order to accomplish operationally. The RCMP has told me tha...
AI summary The proposed court order may not significantly alter the RCMP's operational response to disturbances during NSP's service. The RCMP prefers to respond only when a disturbance occurs, not to wait for NSP crews. The Board is urged to determine whether NSP has secured any changes in RCMP attendance models through the court order.
On NSP's reliance on the correspondence I provided - 1. Why does NSP rely, in its September 8 submission, on correspondence that I voluntarily provided to help NSP and its planned security personnel prepare for another installation attempt...
AI summary The text questions NSP's reliance on provided correspondence in its September 8 submission, particularly in light of prior knowledge of neighbor objections and the apparent contradiction between NSP's previous instructions to resolve matters directly with the neighbor and its current reliance on an 'acrimonious dispute' as a reason not to proceed.
On NSP's shifting position since July 24 - 12. If a court order became necessary because of the July 24 work stoppage, why did NSP not instruct counsel to seek one promptly after July 24? Has NSP now actually instructed counsel, prepared a...
AI summary The questions raised focus on NSP's actions and decisions following a July 24 work stoppage, including their failure to seek a court order promptly, continued advancement of a work order, and changes in their plan for completing work safely with external security.
15. Requested Board action I respectfully ask the Board to keep the requested relief focused and practical. The most important relief is concurrent action, not another period of waiting. I ask that the Board: - decline NSP's request for an...
AI summary The requestor urges the Board to take focused and practical relief measures, including rejecting an open-ended abeyance, requiring NSP to make a second installation attempt with security, and to expedite legal actions. The requestor also asks for detailed explanations and regular updates on progress.
Conclusion Nearly four months after NSP accepted payment, no poles or line have been installed. NSP knew by June 15 that interference with its easement was likely, and it experienced the problem firsthand on July 24. It did not seek a cour...
AI summary The applicant criticizes NSP for delaying the installation of poles and lines for over four months despite knowing about potential interference with its easement. The applicant argues that NSP should not be allowed to continue delaying the project and requests the Board to keep M13034 active and require NSP to proceed on both legal and installation tracks within five business days.
103651Complainant Reply to NSPIs Response d. September 21, 2026 (redacted)
4 passages
From: Jefferson Crabtree Sent: September 21, 2026 1:05 PM To: Carley Freeman Cc: Wallace, Lisa ; Penney, Nicole ; Ross, Jennifer ; Reiner, Sofia ; Forsey, Lisa ; Murray, Kathleen Subject: Re: M13034 - Jefferson Crabtree Customer Complaint...
AI summary Jefferson Crabtree is communicating with Carley Freeman and several other individuals regarding a customer complaint matter (M13034). The email is part of an ongoing regulatory process involving customer complaints and communication procedures.
\ \ EXTERNAL EMAIL / COURRIEL EXTERNE \ \ Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking on links / Faites preuve de prudence si vous ouvrez une pièce jointe ou cliquez sur un lien Good afternoon, This is now the third different exp...
AI summary Nova Scotia Power has provided a third explanation to the Energy Board regarding its failure to complete an installation. This is the first time NSP has requested building permit documentation, which was not previously identified as a requirement.
3. The Board should examine the timing and justification for this latest requirement. I ask the Board to consider why NSP is now devoting time and resources to investigating a building permit requirement for a structure that appears to be...
AI summary The complainant questions the timing and justification for NSP's latest requirement, arguing that the building permit requirement is exempt under provincial and municipal regulations. They criticize NSP for the delayed response and poor research, noting that relevant information was accessible and the service location was selected in May.
4. NSP should now provide a firm installation date. NSP's September 21 letter states that it does not presently anticipate interference from the adjacent property owner. I have now identified the applicable building permit exemption and pr...
AI summary The applicant requests the Board to direct NSP to provide a firm installation date for electrical infrastructure, citing delays and administrative confusion despite having completed necessary permits in May. NSP has not identified interference from the adjacent property owner and is arranging for a planner to attend the property.
103755Email from Complainant with Attachments
4 passages
\ \ EXTERNAL EMAIL / COURRIEL EXTERNE \ \ Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking on links / Faites preuve de prudence si vous ouvrez une pièce jointe ou cliquez sur un lien Good afternoon Ms. Wallace, Attached is the complet...
AI summary The sender discusses a communication with NSP regarding the installation of a structure, noting that NSP requested a building permit exemption form late in the process. The sender claims no such form is required by provincial or municipal regulations and expresses disappointment with how the project has been administered.
connection; - 6. explain why this written exemption requirement was not communicated during the May 1 building-permit discussion, when payment was accepted, or during the subsequent months of planning - 7. confirm whether this documentatio...
AI summary The text outlines a series of questions and requests related to NSP's written exemption requirements for connecting service to a permit-exempt accessory storage building, the routine nature of such documentation, and the abandonment of a previous court order requirement. It also requests detailed documentation for 'rock breaking' charges and delays, emphasizing transparency and cooperation for service completion.
On Wed, Sep 23, 2026, 4:26 p.m. Penney, Nicole wrote: Good afternoon, This will acknowledge receipt of correspondence received by the Board today. It has been directed to the Board and staff and posted under the External Tab in Matter No....
AI summary Nicole Penney of the Nova Scotia Energy Board acknowledges receipt of a customer complaint filed by NS Power in Matter No. M13034. Carley Freeman from NS Power submitted the complaint on behalf of Jefferson Crabtree. The email includes standard disclaimers and confidentiality notices.
Jefferson Crabtree Fri, Sep 25, 2026 at 10:01 a.m. To: Tammy Hamm < [email protected] > Cc: Jared Stevens < [email protected] > Good morning, Thank you for providing this context. I understand from your response that the Municipality deve...
AI summary Jefferson Crabtree is seeking clarification from Tammy Hamm regarding the requirement for an exemption form to confirm no building permit is needed before NSP connects electrical service. He highlights a discrepancy between the Municipality's and NSP's descriptions of the process and emphasizes the importance of understanding whether the requirement stems from municipal law or NSP's connection process.
103880Crabtree Response to NSPI Update - Redacted
4 passages
Re: M13034 - Crabtree NSPI Complaint - Service Completed; Complaint Not Fully Resolved Dear Ms. Wallace: I confirm that Nova Scotia Power completed the electrical-service installation at on October 7, 2026. I appreciate the work performed...
AI summary Nova Scotia Power completed an electrical installation, but the complainant requests the Board not to close the proceeding due to unresolved issues, including a $2,000 rock-breaking deposit and administrative delays. The complainant highlights discrepancies between NSP's public statements and internal records regarding easement issues and internal handling of the case.
Significance of NSP's internal records The disclosed internal records also materially clarify the later chronology. On July 24, NSP's records described an August 1 installation as tentatively scheduled. On August 11, NSP issued a quote for...
AI summary The internal records from NSP show a timeline of events regarding a service installation, including changes in requirements and delays due to weather. The records indicate that NSP initially scheduled the work without requiring a court order or building permit, but later introduced these requirements after a weather-related delay. The installation was eventually completed without these additional prerequisites.
Requested action I respectfully ask the Board to: - 1. keep M13034 open pending a substantive written response from NSP; - 2. request that NSP respond individually to each of the nine issues and corresponding questions identified in Exhibi...
AI summary Jefferson Crabtree requests the Board to keep M13034 open pending a response from NSP, address nine issues in Exhibit A, confirm a $2,000 refund, keep unanswered questions in his submission in the record, allow him to reply to NSP's response, and consider project-management and customer-service issues in NSP's performance evaluation.
Abridged chronology of material events Date Documented event Source 11 Aug NSP issues a $7,980 quote, including HST, for rock breaking in all seven proposed pole holes. NSP rock-breaking quote 12–13 Aug After discussion, NSP reduces the re...
AI summary NSP provided a quote for rock breaking, processed a deposit, and faced delays due to weather and emergencies. NSP later informed the Board of plans to use external security and sought a court order for law-enforcement attendance. The installation was completed without rock breaking, and NSP addressed building-permit and exemption-form requirements.