N-1Application
7 passages
1.0 INTRODUCTION NSP Maritime Link Inc. ("NSPML") makes this Application for approval of an assessment from Nova Scotia Power Inc. ("NS Power") for recovery by NSPML of its 2026 revenue requirement. Pursuant to the Maritime Link Cost Recov...
AI summary NSPML seeks approval to recover its 2026 revenue requirement from NS Power under the Maritime Link Cost Recovery Regulations. The Maritime Link has performed well, delivering significant GHG-free energy and cost savings. The Nova Scotia Energy Board approved the 2025 Assessment and provided guidance for the 2026 filing.
3 3.1 Overview 4 5 The components of NSPML's forecast 2026 revenue requirement are outlined in Table 6 1 below: 7
AI summary The document provides an overview of NSPML's forecast 2026 revenue requirement, which is outlined in Table 6 1. This section introduces the context for the revenue requirement analysis.
10 As has been the case since 2018, NSPML will continue to invoice NS Power for 11 recovery of its approved 2026 assessment in equal monthly instalments ($13.25 million 12 per month), apart from FLG2 costs that will be collected in the mon...
AI summary NSPML will invoice NS Power for the recovery of its approved 2026 assessment in equal monthly instalments of $13.25 million, excluding FLG2 costs, which will be collected in the month prior to payments being due. Invoices will be issued on the first day of each month starting January 1, 2026.
5.0 FEDERAL LOAN GUARANTEE 2 ("FLG2") In 2024, NSPML completed a $500 million federally guaranteed ("FLG2") bond offering. The FLG2 was provided to assist in management of a large negative balance in the Fuel Adjustment Mechanism (FAM) acc...
AI summary In 2024, NSPML issued a $500 million FLG2 bond to address a large negative balance in the FAM account, caused by delayed NS Block deliveries and increased fuel costs due to the war in Ukraine. A refund of $485.9 million was transferred to NS Power's FAM account, with the remainder refunded in May 2025. NSPML excludes the loan from its regulated capital structure and has requested a $39.7 million recovery for 2026, including interest, principal, and guarantee fees.
6.1 NSPML's Return on Equity NSPML's authorized ROE is currently tied to NS Power's ROE and has been 9 percent since the Maritime Link was commissioned in 2018. In the Board's Decision approving the Maritime Link in July 201320F 21 , the B...
AI summary NSPML's authorized Return on Equity (ROE) has been 9 percent since 2018, tied to NS Power's ROE. The NSEB requested a separate ROE for NSPML in the 2026 Assessment Application. NSPML argues for maintaining the 9 percent ROE, citing affordability concerns and the complexity of its operations, despite expert evidence suggesting a higher ROE range of 10.1 to 10.35 percent.
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, enabling them to earn a return equivalent to investments of comparable risk, thus encouraging continued investment and operational maintenance.
3 3. Growth Rate Estimates 4 In considering the appropriate growth rate for the DCF model, the most relied upon indicator of 5 investors' expectations is analysts' estimates of future earnings growth. We have relied on 6 earnings growth es...
AI summary The document discusses the use of earnings growth estimates from multiple sources in determining the appropriate growth rate for the DCF model. It highlights that investors typically rely on earnings growth rather than dividend growth, and notes concerns from Canadian utility regulators about potential optimism bias in analysts' forecasts.
N-8NSPML (NSEB) RIR 1 to 44 - Redacted
9 passages
NON-CONFIDENTIAL 1 d) Please confirm that costs associated with managing these complex commercial 2 agreements (as asserted by NSPML) are accounted for in NSPML's O&M cost 3 projections. 4 i. If not confirmed, please explain. 5 e) Please d...
AI summary The document includes information requests and responses from NSPML regarding the management of complex commercial agreements, risks associated with managing these agreements, and the performance of the Maritime Link project. The responses outline the nature of these agreements and NSPML's role in managing them.
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.
12.3 Own Property Damage For the avoidance of doubt, it is the Parties' intent that, subject to any right a Party may have to seek compensation from a third party who caused the Loss or from insurance, each Party shall be responsible for a...
AI summary The Parties agree that each is responsible for Losses to its own property, including facilities, equipment, and materials on the site of Defined Assets, regardless of the cause, including O&M Activities or the actions of the other Party or its affiliates. This applies unless compensation from a third party or insurance is available.
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 the Consenting Party to assume the covenants and obligations...
AI summary The Assignee accepts the assignment of the Assigned Agreement and agrees to assume all liabilities and obligations of the Assignor under the Agreement from the Effective Date onwards, including the payment and fulfillment of all covenants and obligations arising after that date.
s the Transmission, Markets and Services Tariff issued by the ISO-NE, as it may be amended, restated, reissued or replaced from time to time; " Income Tax Act " means the Income Tax Act (Canada); " Incremental Cost Rate " means the rate in...
AI summary The document defines key terms related to energy tariffs, cost calculations, and legal provisions. It includes definitions for the Transmission, Markets and Services Tariff issued by ISO-NE, the Income Tax Act, Incremental Cost Rate, Indemnified Party, Indemnitor, and Initial EAA. These terms are relevant to energy generation, cost recovery, and legal obligations.
(a) Nalcor and Emera Variance Amounts (i) Subject to Section [5.5(a)(ii)](#page-27-2) , in each Contract Year following a Variance Trigger Date, Emera shall make available to NSPI, in accordance with this Agreement, an amount of Energy tha...
AI summary This section outlines the Emera Variance Amount, which is the amount of Energy Emera must make available to NSPI in a Contract Year following a Variance Trigger Date, subject to a maximum of 300 GWh.
5.4 Lender Requirements Emera shall cooperate fully with Nalcor and shall assist Nalcor in complying with obligations imposed by lenders relating to the insurance coverage provided pursuant to this Article 5 .
AI summary Emera is required to cooperate with Nalcor to ensure compliance with lender obligations related to insurance coverage under Article 5.
or the suspension of MFP Development Activities pursuant to Section 2.10 of the NLDA, which discontinuance or cessation shall constitute a Compensation Event to which this Section 8.6 shall apply. With respect to a Compensation Event, Emer...
AI summary This section outlines the conditions under which Nalcor must compensate Emera in the event of a Compensation Event, such as the suspension of MFP Development Activities. Emera may claim compensation, including the Compensation Value and reasonable out-of-pocket costs, provided it is in compliance with its obligations.
NSPML Responses to Nova Scotia Energy Board Information Requests 1 Concentric agrees that many electric transmission companies recover their revenue 2 requirement from a small number of customers that make equal monthly payments. This 3 me...
AI summary NSPML responds to Nova Scotia Energy Board information requests, addressing revenue recovery methods and the justification for a 10.1% ROE recommendation, citing North American electric T&D proxy group averages and added risk premiums.
N-11Evidence - Sean Cleary BCC
4 passages
NOVA SCOTIA ENERGY BOARD (M12394) 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 INCORPORATED for a...
AI summary This proceeding involves NSP Maritime Link Incorporated's application for approval of its 2026 revenue requirement and cost assessment under the Public Utilities Act and the Maritime Link Cost Recovery Process Regulations.
5.3.2 Market DCF Estimates Table 1 showed that real GDP growth has averaged 2.3% over the 1992 to 2024 period, which provides one potential estimate of long-term growth that could be used in the single-stage model, since one might expect l...
AI summary The text discusses market DCF estimates, including real and nominal GDP growth rates and their implications for long-term growth assumptions. It references the Bank of Canada's inflation target and uses the S&P/TSX Composite Index dividend yield to estimate implied equity returns for 2024.
us target for regulated utilities that operate virtual monopolies in mature markets, with little opportunity for dramatic growth, as also acknowledged previously by the AUC, in the 2013 GCOC Decision: However, the Commission is also mindfu...
AI summary The text discusses the use of GDP growth rates in DCF models for regulated utilities, noting that growth estimates exceeding GDP should not be used. It highlights that analyst forecasts used by Concentric (5.53%) exceed GDP growth estimates (4.04% in Canada and 4.24% in the U.S.), and thus, the constant-growth DCF estimate should be disregarded.
the expected nominal GDP growth rate and make intuitive sense for the low-risk nature of regulated operating utilities operating in well-defined markets with limited growth potential.[60](#page-87-0) It is also worth extending the current...
AI summary The text discusses the use of multi-stage DCF models in regulatory proceedings, highlighting how Concentric used high short-term growth rates followed by long-term GDP growth rates, which the author argues leads to unrealistic assumptions about future growth for mature regulated utilities.
N-13Rebuttal Evidence - NSPML
3 passages
NSPML 2026 Assessment Application – Rebuttal Evidence 1 Ontario (Enbridge) and utilities in Alberta have tended to earn above their approved ROE 3 2 but fails to note that this is not the recent trend in Nova Scotia. 3 4 As stated in NSPML...
AI summary NSPML argues that Dr. Cleary's recommended return on equity (ROE) is too low, considering NSPML's unique operational and financial risks, including its complex assets, high debt ratio, and the need for cooperation with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. NSPML also highlights that the recommended ROE is significantly below the average for North American T&D utilities.
NSPML 2026 Assessment Application - Appendix A - Concentric Rebuttal Evidence - Page 23 of 49 JAMES M. COYNE AND JOHN P. TROGONOSKI REBUTTAL EVIDENCE PREPARED FOR NSP MARITIME LINK INC. 1 which is a separate entity from NS Power, and which...
AI summary The rebuttal evidence prepared by James M. Coyne and John P. Trogonoski for NSPML highlights the unique business and operational risks of the Maritime Link, emphasizing that Dr. Cleary did not adequately compare NSPML's risks to those of companies in his Canadian proxy group. Concentric has provided additional market data on authorized returns for other electric transmission companies, especially subsea cable operators.
1 Figure 5: Percentage of Canadian and U.S. Revenue - 2024 Canadian U.S. Algonquin Power and Utilities14 2% 82% Canadian Utilities Ltd.15 93% 0% Emera, Inc.16 27% 65% Fortis, Inc.17 38% 57% Hydro One, Ltd. 100% 0% 2
AI summary Figure 5 presents the percentage of Canadian and U.S. revenue for various utility companies in 2024, highlighting the geographic distribution of their revenue sources.
N-15Resume - John Trogonoski - NSPML
3 passages
Utility Consulting - Testifying expert on cost of capital matters and the assessment of business and financial risk for regulated electric, gas and water utilities in both Canada and the U.S. - Prepare expert testimony and exhibits for ret...
AI summary The text describes the activities of a testifying expert in utility consulting, including work on cost of capital, mergers and acquisitions, regulatory due diligence, and conservation programs. The expert has prepared testimony and exhibits for various utility clients and has analyzed service outages and internal policies for gas distribution companies.
REGULATORY COMMISSION EXPERIENCE • Supervised financial analysts and accountants in the energy and telecommunications units of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission from 2004 to 2008. In this capacity, he was responsible for the financi...
AI summary The individual supervised financial analysts and accountants at the Colorado Public Utilities Commission from 2004 to 2008, handling financial analysis, audits, and expert testimony in rate cases and regulatory proceedings. They led investigations into regulatory violations and administered a high-cost support mechanism for rural telecommunications.
SPONSOR DATE CASE/APPLICANT DOCKET SUBJECT Alberta Utilities Commission ENMAX Power Corp. 2022 ENMAX Power Corp. Application No. 27084 Generic Cost of Capital (electric and gas) Beverage Container Management Board (Alberta) Beverage Contai...
AI summary The document lists various regulatory proceedings related to cost of capital, rate adjustments, and other utility-related matters across different jurisdictions, including Alberta and Colorado. It includes information on applicants, dates, docket numbers, and subjects under review.
N-17Alberta Utilities Commission
Decision 27084-D02-2023
10 passages
6.4 Notional ROE - 115. In this section, the Commission determines the notional ROE of 9.0 per cent using current market data and considering results of well-known and widely accepted empirical models to estimate the required return such a...
AI summary The Commission establishes a notional ROE of 9.0% using current market data and empirical models like CAPM and DCF. This ROE is calculated as the sum of the base forecast long-term GoC bond yield and the base forecast ERP, serving as a benchmark for future adjustments.
- 117. Parties recommended a notional ROE and estimated the ERP based on their respective risk-free-rate submissions. Table 2 sets out the notional ROE and ERP recommendations by party. Table 2. Notional ROE and ERP recommendations by part...
AI summary Parties submitted recommendations for notional ROE and ERP based on their risk-free-rate submissions. Table 2 outlines these recommendations, including the notional ROE, ERP, empirical approaches used, and comments from various witnesses.
Dividend growth rate - 150. Several of the experts relied on analysts' forecasts of company-specific dividend and earnings per share (EPS) growth rates. 160 D. Madsen also considered data from other sources and both he and Dr. Cleary 161 c...
AI summary The document discusses debates around the use of dividend growth rates in discounted cash flow analysis, with experts like D. Madsen and D. D'Ascendis disagreeing on whether these rates can exceed GDP growth. The Commission has historically rejected rates above GDP but acknowledges that utility earnings growth can sometimes exceed it, though factors like market barriers may limit this.
6.4.5 Notional ROE and base forecast ERP - 170. In this proceeding, the Commission was presented with a wide range of notional ROE and base ERP recommendations that were based on a variety of approaches, models and directional indices. The...
AI summary The Commission evaluated various notional ROE and base forecast ERP recommendations submitted in the proceeding. It rejected many approaches and instead relied on established models like CAPM and DCF. The Commission set the notional ROE at 9.00% and the base forecast ERP at 5.90%.
oncentric evidence, PDF page 109. Exhibit 27084-X0743, Concentric reply evidence, PDF page 51. 199 Exhibit 27084_X0678, EDTI-AML-CCA-2023FEB21-003 Attachment (OEB Report), PDF page 3. 191. The Commission approves a 0.5 adjustment factor fo...
AI summary The Commission has approved a 0.5 adjustment factor for both changes in the 30-year GoC bond yield and changes in the utility bond yield spread in the formula.
hat the deemed equity ratio applicable to AltaLink and EPCOR should be 40 per cent, which he submitted reflects the substantial increase in market risk since the 2018 GCOC proceeding, and increased business risk faced by AltaLink and EPCOR...
AI summary The document discusses recommendations to increase the deemed equity ratio for Alberta utilities, including AltaLink and EPCOR, to 40 per cent, citing increased market and business risks. J. Coyne argues that this aligns with Canadian and U.S. standards and is conservative for non-taxable entities like ENMAX.
7.4 Credit metrics - 222. Dr. Villadsen, 227 D. D'Ascendis, 228 D. Madsen 229 and Dr. Cleary 230 each took the position that their respective recommended deemed equity ratios either considered credit metrics, or were supported by a credit...
AI summary The section discusses credit metrics used by the Commission in past GCOC decisions, including EBIT coverage, FFO coverage, and FFO/debt ratios. These metrics are important for credit rating agencies when assessing company risk and assigning credit ratings.
Depreciation as a percentage of invested capital - 244. The amount of depreciation collected through rates is included in the calculation of the FFO component of the FFO/debt and FFO coverage ratios. - 245. The weighted average depreciatio...
AI summary The text discusses depreciation rates as a percentage of invested capital for distribution and transmission utilities, noting that these rates are used in credit metric calculations by the Commission. The weighted average depreciation rate for distribution utilities is 5.88%, and for transmission utilities, it is 4.11%, based on the 2023 Rule 005 reports.
7.6.1 Determination of Commission-approved deemed equity ratio for Fortis - 267. Fortis requested a 300 bps premium above the generic deemed equity ratio for an Alberta utility on the basis that it faces increased business and regulatory r...
AI summary Fortis requested a 300 bps premium above the generic deemed equity ratio due to increased business and regulatory risks, including competition from REAs and a $10 million annual reduction in revenue. The Commission rejected the request, citing negligible threat from REAs and noting that increasing equity thickness would raise rates for customers and place Fortis at a competitive disadvantage.
compelling evidence that these risks have increased or will increase, or that a 39 per cent equity thickness undermines Apex's ability respond to these contingencies. - 281. In the Etzikom decision 271 referred to by Apex as an example of...
AI summary The Commission determines that Apex's risks have not significantly changed since 2018, and thus maintains a 39% equity thickness, citing its financial integrity and ability to attract capital. The decision references the Etzikom case, where the Commission denied cost recovery under the PBR framework, emphasizing that distribution utilities can manage capital programs flexibly.
N-21UARB APPROVAL SHEET Replace L6513/Upgrade Line Terminals
5 passages
- 8 a) Maintain credit ratings of at least BBB+ from S&P or Baa1 from Moody's; - 9 b) Consistently pay quarterly cash dividends, and have not reduced or eliminated those 10 dividends in the past two years; - 11 c) Have positive earnings gr...
AI summary The text outlines several criteria that must be met, including maintaining credit ratings, consistently paying dividends, positive earnings growth projections, and deriving a significant portion of operating income from regulated operations.
rid and the Lower Business Risk (LBR) Grid. In our view, the different types of utility entities covered under this methodology have different levels of business risk. 16 70 FortisBC, Annual Information Form for the Year Ended December 31,...
AI summary The text discusses the business risk associated with generation ownership in utilities, noting that generation utilities and vertically integrated utilities have higher business risk due to the costs and risks involved in power generation. It contrasts this with transmission and distribution-only utilities, and references differences in average authorized ROE and common equity ratios between U.S. integrated electric utilities and T&D-only utilities.
b. Recovery of Fuel and Purchased Power Costs NSPI is the only Canadian investor-owned electric utility that owns significant regulated generation, and the Company has an annual FAM. While the FAM includes an incentive component whereby NS...
AI summary NSPI is the only Canadian investor-owned electric utility with significant regulated generation and an annual FAM. The FAM includes an incentive component that was suspended during the 2017-2019 period and again under the 2020-2022 fuel stability plan. The provincial government has purchased a $117 million receivable to reduce deferred fuel costs. Other Canadian utilities, such as FortisBC and Maritime Electric, have different mechanisms for recovering fuel and purchased power costs.
9 c. Volume/Demand Risk NSPI does not have a mechanism to mitigate volume/demand risk due to changes in volume attributable to weather, economic conditions, or energy efficiency and conservation programs. The significance of this risk has...
AI summary NSPI lacks mechanisms to mitigate volume/demand risk due to factors like weather, economic conditions, and energy efficiency programs. As more residential customers switch to electric heating, this risk has increased. Other Canadian utilities have mechanisms like revenue stabilization plans, weather-related variance accounts, and performance-based regulation to manage volumetric risk.
a. Regulated Electric Utility Operations NSPI derives 100 percent of its operating income and revenues from regulated electric utility service. As shown in Exhibit CEA-11, the companies in the U.S. Electric utility proxy group derive appro...
AI summary NSPI generates all its operating income and revenues from regulated electric utility service, similar to U.S. electric utility companies in the North American Electric proxy group, which are more representative of NSPI's operations than Canadian proxy group companies.
N-22Decision Ontario Energy Board EB-2024-0063
6 passages
e impact or downgrade(s) to a company's credit rating will also result in additional ratepayer costs, as the downgraded company's access to and cost of funding is also negatively impacted as a result. The OEA concluded that Dr. Cleary's re...
AI summary The OEA argues that Dr. Cleary's ROE recommendations fail the FRS and could negatively impact Ontario utilities' growth and funding access. It emphasizes that the current OEB formula aligns with Canadian utility returns but lags behind U.S. counterparts. The OEA supports evolving the 2009 Report's approach to meet FRS while maintaining foundational principles and ensuring fair returns amid significant capital investments.
ir specific operational and financial circumstances. Further, maintaining the deemed capital structure safeguards ratepayers from distortions that could arise from excessive equity or debt financing. Implications of variances from the deem...
AI summary The OEB maintains the use of a deemed capital structure to prevent distortions from excessive equity or debt financing, ensuring fair returns for ratepayers and utilities. Using actual capital structures could lead to inefficiencies, and the current approach of applying actual weighted average cost of debt remains appropriate and aligned with regulatory best practices.
Findings The DLTDR will continue to be applicable to all electricity distributors and transmitters, as well as EPCOR Natural Gas (both Aylmer and South Bruce), rebasing rates in 2025 and beyond, in prescribed circumstances, unless some oth...
AI summary The OEB concludes that the DLTDR will continue to be used for rate rebasing, with modifications to its calculation and clarity on applicability. Actual market-based debt will be prioritized, and the DLTDR will be set annually, with the 2025 rate at 4.51%. The OEB will assess prudence in debt management for OPG and Enbridge Gas.
Submissions Several ratepayer groups and OEB staff disagreed with LEI and submitted that the current approach of recording the actual transaction cost as an interest expense and amortizing the transaction cost over the term of the debt ins...
AI summary Ratepayer groups and OEB staff disagree with LEI's approach to recording debt transaction costs, supporting the current method of amortizing costs over the term of the debt instrument. CCC and OEA support the existing approach, while CCMBC agrees with LEI that transaction costs should be included as OM&A costs in the revenue requirement.
Submissions OEB staff and a number of ratepayer groups agreed with LEI and Dr. Cleary that consistent with the OEB's existing policy, the OEB should continue to implement changes in the cost of capital parameters and capital structure upon...
AI summary The OEB staff and ratepayer groups support aligning cost of capital changes with rebasing, while SEC and VECC recommend updating base rates to avoid variance account imbalances. CCC and SEC caution against mid-Price Cap incentive rate-setting mechanism (IRM) term changes, emphasizing that cost of capital should be treated like other cost components.
Findings The cost of capital parameters of ROE, DSTDR, and DLTDR are applicable to utilities rebasing rates for 2025 (if cost of capital is in scope). For other utilities, the new cost of capital parameters will be implemented on a one-tim...
AI summary The OEB outlines the application of new cost of capital parameters (ROE, DSTDR, DLTDR) for 2025 rate rebasing, emphasizing that they should be implemented alongside other cost of service reviews. Variance accounts are granted for utilities using interim parameters, and adjustments to base rates will be based on final revenue requirements. Prescribed interest rates for DVAs and CWIP are effective April 1, 2025.
101936Board Decision
11 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 INCORPORATED for approval of...
AI summary This document outlines a regulatory proceeding before the Nova Scotia Energy Board regarding the approval of NSP Maritime Link Incorporated's 2026 revenue requirement and cost assessment under the Public Utilities Act and Maritime Link Cost Recovery Process Regulations. Multiple parties, including intervenors and counsel, are involved in the proceeding.
PORT HAWKESBURY PAPER LP James MacDuff, Counsel David MacDougall, Counsel BOARD COUNSEL: William L. Mahody, K.C. HEARING DATES: December 15 and 16, 2025 ORAL SUBMISSIONS: December 18, 2025 DECISION DATE: May 11, 2026 DECISION: The Board ap...
AI summary The Board has approved NSPML's 2026 revenue requirement and cost assessment, reducing the return on equity from 9.0% to 8.75%. A compliance filing is required, and the $4 million monthly holdback remains in place until further order.
[1] On July 18, 2025, NSP Maritime Link Incorporated (NSPML) applied to the Nova Scotia Energy Board under s. 64 of the Public Utilities Act and s. 8 of the Maritime Link Cost Recovery Process Regulations for approval of its 2026 revenue r...
AI summary NSP Maritime Link Incorporated (NSPML) applied to the Nova Scotia Energy Board for approval of its 2026 revenue requirement, seeking recovery through a cost assessment against Nova Scotia Power Inc. The cost assessment includes financing for the Maritime Link project and 2026 depreciation, sustaining capital costs, and operating and maintenance expenses.
2.1 Findings - [9] NSPML said it would address the rate base treatment of any 2026 sustaining capital expenditures when it files its rate base reconciliation for outstanding insurance, warranty, expropriation and contract claims. It said t...
AI summary NSPML has committed to addressing the rate base treatment of 2026 sustaining capital expenditures in its rate base reconciliation. The Board emphasizes the need to monitor sustaining capital expenses to avoid undue rate pressures and intergenerational equity issues, and reiterates the requirement for NSPML to provide a rate base continuity schedule in future applications.
4.1 Findings - [28] The significance of the LTAMP was reviewed by the NSUARB in its 2025 NSPML cost assessment decision: - [37] Beyond the LTAMP's importance to establishing expected NSPML capital needs, the LTAMP can also be used to estab...
AI summary The NSUARB reviewed the significance of the LTAMP in its 2025 NSPML cost assessment decision. The Board emphasized the importance of the LTAMP for establishing capital needs and multi-year cost assessments for the Maritime Link. NSPML filed a single-year assessment due to ongoing matters and the need for operational certainty.
- [44] This test was more recently accepted by the Supreme Court of Canada in Ontario (Energy Board) v Ontario Power Generation Inc. , 2015 SCC 44: - [15] This Court has had the occasion to consider the meaning of similar statutory languag...
AI summary This section discusses the fair return standard for utilities, emphasizing that regulated utilities must be allowed to recover their operating and capital costs over the long run to ensure continued investment and operational maintenance. The Supreme Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Appeal have both affirmed this principle, highlighting the importance of cost recovery for both shareholders and customers.
5.5.2 Capital Structure [202] NSPML is a single purpose entity. It was created to secure lower cost financing under a federal loan guarantee for the development of the Maritime Link. This included constituting NSPML as a more highly levera...
AI summary NSPML is a highly leveraged entity established to secure lower cost financing for the Maritime Link project under a federal loan guarantee. The Board acknowledges the 30% equity ratio used in the 2013 approval but declines NSPML's request to increase it to 40% or allow a higher return on equity, citing insufficient evidence of changed circumstances and the need to maintain cost controls.
6.0 2026 SUSTAINING CAPITAL COSTS [208] NSPML expects to incur sustaining capital expenditures of about $33.5 million in 2026. This total amount is comprised of its Submarine Cable Protection Project of $32,962,333, which was approved by t...
AI summary NSPML expects to incur $33.5 million in sustaining capital expenditures in 2026, including the Submarine Cable Protection Project and routine capital projects. These costs will add depreciation expenses, and adjustments to the Maritime Link Project capital costs are expected but not expected to have a material impact on rate base or revenue requirement.
6.1 Findings [212] The Board finds that it is appropriate for NSPML to include the forecast sustaining capital expenses of $0.5 million for the smaller individual projects in its 2026 revenue requirement. As noted above, these capital asse...
AI summary The Board has determined that NSPML should include $0.5 million in forecast sustaining capital expenses for smaller individual projects in its 2026 revenue requirement. These expenses will be depreciated over the assets' depreciable life, with only the 2026 portion included in the current assessment. NSPML is directed to address the rate base treatment of 2026 sustaining capital expenditures in its rate base reconciliation for outstanding claims.
11.0 REPORTING [231] NSPML's quarterly reports and NS Power's ML Benefits Reports have been useful to the Board and all participants in these proceedings. The Board directs that these reports continue as outlined in paragraph 232 of the Fi...
AI summary NSPML's quarterly reports and NS Power's ML Benefits Reports have been valuable in the proceedings. The Board has directed that these reports continue as outlined in the Final Project Costs decision, including specific documentation requirements and quarterly reporting on the LTAMP status.
12.0 CONCLUSION [232] Taking into account all of the evidence and submissions, the Board is satisfied that NSPML's application for its 2026 revenue requirement and cost assessment is reasonable and appropriate, subject to the Board's findi...
AI summary The Board approves NSPML's 2026 revenue requirement and cost assessment, reducing the return on equity from 9.0% to 8.75%. The application to adjust equity thickness and the debt-to-equity ratio is denied. A compliance filing is required, and the $4 million monthly holdback continues into 2026. An interim order was issued on December 23, 2025, approving a $198.7 million cost assessment pending the final decision.
99011SBA (NSPML) IR 1 to 6
3 passages
1 M12394 2 3 NOVA SCOTIA ENERGY BOARD 4 5 IN THE MATTER OF: The Public Utilities Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c.380, as amended 6 7 - and - 8 9 IN THE MATTER OF: an application by NSP Maritime Link Incorporated (NSPML) for 10 approval of its 2026 r...
AI summary The Nova Scotia Energy Board is handling an application by NSP Maritime Link Incorporated (NSPML) for approval of its 2026 revenue requirement and cost assessment. The Small Business Advocate has issued an information request with responses due on September 9, 2025.
Refer to M12394, Exhibit N-1, NSPML's application for approval of its 2026 revenue requirement and cost assessment, (the "Application"), page 10 of 29 and respond to the following: a) Please provide a detailed calculation and reconciliatio...
AI summary The document requests detailed calculations and comparisons related to NSPML's 2026 revenue requirement and cost assessment, including reconciliation of components, comparison with previous years, model documentation, and the impact of cost recovery on small business rate classes.
Request IR-6: Refer to the Application, Exhibit N-1, pages 25-27 and respond to the following: - a) Please provide all calculations and supporting workpapers used to determine the proposed 60/40 debt-to-equity ratio, and quantify its proje...
AI summary Request IR-6 asks for calculations and supporting workpapers related to the proposed 60/40 debt-to-equity ratio, including its impact on WACC, debt service coverage, financing costs, revenue requirements, and credit ratings, as well as benchmarking studies used to justify the ratio.
101936Board Decision
8 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 INCORPORATED for approval of...
AI summary This regulatory proceeding involves NSP Maritime Link Incorporated's application for approval of its 2026 revenue requirement and cost assessment under the Public Utilities Act and Maritime Link Cost Recovery Process Regulations. Various intervenors, including the Consumer Advocate, Small Business Advocate, Industrial Group, and Nova Scotia Power Inc., are participating in the proceeding.
PORT HAWKESBURY PAPER LP James MacDuff, Counsel David MacDougall, Counsel BOARD COUNSEL: William L. Mahody, K.C. HEARING DATES: December 15 and 16, 2025 ORAL SUBMISSIONS: December 18, 2025 DECISION DATE: May 11, 2026 DECISION: The Board ap...
AI summary The Board approved NSPML's 2026 revenue requirement and cost assessment with a reduced return on equity from 9.0% to 8.75%. A compliance filing is required, and the $4 million monthly holdback remains in effect pending further orders.
[1] On July 18, 2025, NSP Maritime Link Incorporated (NSPML) applied to the Nova Scotia Energy Board under s. 64 of the Public Utilities Act and s. 8 of the Maritime Link Cost Recovery Process Regulations for approval of its 2026 revenue r...
AI summary On July 18, 2025, NSP Maritime Link Incorporated applied to the Nova Scotia Energy Board for approval of its 2026 revenue requirement, seeking recovery through a cost assessment against Nova Scotia Power Inc. The cost assessment would cover financing the Maritime Link project and associated expenses.
2.1 Findings - [9] NSPML said it would address the rate base treatment of any 2026 sustaining capital expenditures when it files its rate base reconciliation for outstanding insurance, warranty, expropriation and contract claims. It said t...
AI summary NSPML has committed to addressing the rate base treatment of 2026 sustaining capital expenditures in its rate base reconciliation. The Board emphasizes the importance of monitoring sustaining capital expenses to prevent undue rate pressures and intergenerational equity issues, and reiterates the need for NSPML to provide a rate base continuity schedule in future applications.
where that court said: - [12] Even though cost of capital may be more difficult to estimate than some other costs, it is a real cost that the utility must be able to recover through its revenues. If the Board does not permit the utility to...
AI summary The text discusses the importance of allowing regulated utilities to recover their cost of capital to maintain operations and avoid going out of business, emphasizing the impact on customers and the need for a fair return standard. It references a court decision on the return on equity and its relevance to customers.
6.1 Findings [212] The Board finds that it is appropriate for NSPML to include the forecast sustaining capital expenses of $0.5 million for the smaller individual projects in its 2026 revenue requirement. As noted above, these capital asse...
AI summary The Board has approved the inclusion of $0.5 million in sustaining capital expenses for 2026 in NSPML's revenue requirement. These expenses, along with the Submarine Cable Protection Project, will be depreciated over the assets' depreciable life, with only the 2026 portion included in the assessment. NSPML is directed to address the rate base treatment of these expenditures in its rate base reconciliation.
11.0 REPORTING [231] NSPML's quarterly reports and NS Power's ML Benefits Reports have been useful to the Board and all participants in these proceedings. The Board directs that these reports continue as outlined in paragraph 232 of the Fi...
AI summary The Board acknowledges the usefulness of NSPML's quarterly reports and NS Power's ML Benefits Reports and directs their continuation as outlined in the Final Project Costs decision. The Board also mandates quarterly reporting on the status of the LTAMP.
12.0 CONCLUSION [232] Taking into account all of the evidence and submissions, the Board is satisfied that NSPML's application for its 2026 revenue requirement and cost assessment is reasonable and appropriate, subject to the Board's findi...
AI summary The Board approves NSPML's 2026 revenue requirement and cost assessment, but reduces the return on equity from 9.0% to 8.75%. The application to adjust equity thickness and revise the debt-to-equity ratio is denied. A compliance filing is required, and the $4 million monthly holdback continues until further order. An interim order approving a $198.7 million cost assessment was issued on December 23, 2025.