Topic:"Revenue Requirement" in M12696

rity is also a federal hydropower owner, but it became self-financing in 1959 and functions like a vertically integrated utility that sells energy to its customers directly, rather than through a PMA. Each year, the PMAs determine their co...

AI summary Federal hydropower owners (PMAs) set cost-based energy rates annually, balancing Treasury obligations and fleet operations. Surpluses and deficits from hydrologic variability impact customer prices, creating price risk in dry years and potential cost reductions in wet years. Figure 23 compares PMA revenues to wholesale prices.

or multipurpose constraints. Figure 29. Annual revenue streams for selected PSH plants (energy + capacity + ancillary services) Source: FERC Electric Quarterly Reports Note: The plot shows gross revenue (i.e., the cost of pumping is not ne...

AI summary The figure illustrates annual revenue streams for selected pumped storage hydropower (PSH) plants, including energy, capacity, and ancillary services. Data sources include FERC Electric Quarterly Reports, with exclusions noted for partial-year data and unmatched transactions. Specific plants like Taum Sauk, Seneca, Northfield Mountain, and Bear Swamp are referenced, along with ISO-NE and EIA Form 860 data.

NSPML Responses to Consumer Advocate Information Requests 1 Request IR-01: 2 3 With respect to Exhibit N-1, p. 10 and Appendices A and C, please provide an excel 4 workbook with the data included in the graphs and tables, for the period Au...

AI summary The document outlines responses from NSPML to information requests from the Consumer Advocate. It includes requests for data in Excel format and clarification on compliance with a Board decision regarding energy delivery metrics. NSPML refers to an attachment for data and clarifies that a statement on energy delivery is for context, not direct compliance with a specific provision.

PARTIALLY CONFIDENTIAL 1 Since LIL commissioning (and absent the impact of Make-up Energy deliveries relating to 2 the prior period), the only period where multiple months were taken for delivery of Make 3 up Energy primarily relates to th...

AI summary The text discusses NLH planned outages in July through October 2024 and their impact on Make-up Energy deliveries, with NSPML understanding the work undertaken and not pushing for accelerated efforts. The financial impact of these outages and the Holdback mechanism is addressed, showing a benefit to customers and potential disallowances for NSPML.

PARTIALLY CONFIDENTIAL 1 Demonstration of the receipt of the full benefits of the NS Block can be found in the data in 2 Appendix C of the Application, which provides details on the volumes of MWh received. The 3 table shows the original c...

AI summary The text discusses the delivery of energy under the NS Block and Make-up Energy, highlighting that the delivered volumes often exceeded the contracted amounts. NSPML argues that Make-up Energy should be considered as it provided value to customers by offsetting other energy purchases.

PARTIALLY CONFIDENTIAL 1 Energy (aside from a small amount of Supplemental Energy) since the Acceleration Agreement 2 was initiated in 2021 was redelivered as Make-up Energy. Throughout 2025, energy delivered 3 was virtually the same as th...

AI summary The document discusses the delivery of energy through the Maritime Link project, noting that Make-up Energy has been redelivered promptly since LIL commissioning. It also references the NSEB Decision (M11009) regarding the disposition of a holdback for 2022 and 2023, highlighting the Board's explanation on Market-priced Energy and its relationship to the original bargain of the Maritime Link project.

NSPML Responses to Small Business Advocate Information Requests 1 Request IR-01: 20 13-19, 2025, NSPML stated, on page 26, lines 1-2, that "Redeliveries of shortfalls 21 relating to this outage were completed in early February." 22 1. What...

AI summary The document outlines responses from NSPML to information requests regarding an unplanned outage in January 2025. NSPML clarifies that most outages were planned, and only one was unplanned due to exceptional icing. Repairs were completed the same day, and redeliveries of shortfalls were made in February 2025. The response does not address the cost of repairs or responsibility for the outage.

y of Colorado's 2021 general rate case (phase 1) on behalf of Energy Outreach Colorado. Reasonableness of capital project costs, choice of test year, adjustment to load to reflect effects of pandemic. 2022 California PUC Docket A.21-05-017...

AI summary Expert testimony details regulatory proceedings across Nova Scotia, California, and Massachusetts, focusing on capital expenditures, rate design, load forecasting, and cost controls. Testimonies were provided by the Nova Scotia Consumer Advocate and Small Business Utility Advocates in matters involving NSP's plans, EV programs, and distribution rate cases.

HEARING ORDER In Matter M11009, the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board outlined conditions to be met to end the holdback mechanism originally ordered in 2022 to account for the continuing delivery delays receiving Muskrat Falls energy ov...

AI summary In Matter M11009, NSP Maritime Link Inc. (NSPML) asserts that conditions to end the holdback mechanism, initially ordered in 2022 for Muskrat Falls energy delivery delays, were met by April 2024. NSPML seeks release of $15.4 million in holdback funds and $1.1 million in financing costs. The Board directs a paper hearing, reserving the right to convert to an oral hearing.

ths NSPML has met the requirements in provision (2) and provide a workbook with the data included in the graph shown in Exhibit N-1, p. 14. Request IR-3: With respect to Exhibit N-1, Appendix B, 1. Please explain the reason(s) for under de...

AI summary The document includes a request for NSPML to explain under delivery reasons, provide detailed calculations for holdback amounts, and clarify the causes of LIL outages. It also requests WACC calculations in a workbook format.

le switching” 3. July – October 2024 4. January 2025 5. April 2025 6. September 2025 6. Please provide the WACC calculations in a workbook, with formulas intact. Request IR-4: On p. 6 of Exhibit N-1, NSPML requests that in addition to dist...

AI summary The document requests clarification on NSPML's request for an additional $1.1 million in 'updated WACC consideration' and seeks justification for the delay in applying for a review of the holdback mechanism. It also asks for NSPML’s view on whether this accumulation affects intergenerational equity concerns.

1. NSPML states on page 24, lines 3-5, “Moreover, the Deferred Energy that accumulated during these outages was entirely redelivered by December 25, 2024.” 1. What was the replacement cost of Deferred Energy delivered in December 2024 vers...

AI summary The text raises questions about the replacement cost of Deferred Energy during and after outages, the definition of 'reasonable time' for redelivery, and the circumstances and responsibilities related to an unplanned outage in January 2025. It also inquires about NSPML's management of its relationship with NLH to prevent future incidents.

- 2 holdback. - 3 The Application's Appendix D introduces a capitalised, defined term "Good Utility - 4 Practice," sourced from Concentric's interpretation of the Joint Operations Agreement - 5 (JOA). In Section 1.0, Introduction, lines 7-...

AI summary The document discusses the continuation of a holdback mechanism by the Board until specific conditions are met, including the delivery of 90% of the NS Block and a net outstanding balance of undelivered energy below 10% of the annual contracted amount, with flexibility for outages and exceptional circumstances.

1. Please refer to Exhibit N-1, page 11 lines 15-16 and footnote 11, and Appendixes A and C. 2. Please confirm that NSPML has not included Supplemental Block volumes from the “Make-up Balance” and “Make-up Balance (%)” columns in Appendix...

AI summary The text consists of a series of requests for information related to the inclusion of Supplemental Block volumes in Appendix A and Appendix C, the availability and performance of the Maritime Link, and references to specific exhibits and board matters. These requests are part of a regulatory proceeding involving Nova Scotia Power (NSPML) and the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (NSUARB).

Summary The SBA respectfully submits that, while the first part of the test, namely the delivery of previously undelivered energy, appears to have been satisfied by March, 2023, whether NSPML has achieved the second requirement of the test...

AI summary The SBA argues that while NSPML may have met the first part of the test for releasing the Holdback Mechanism, it has not clearly met the second requirement of delivering 90% of energy in 12 consecutive months. The SBA also questions the justification for NSPML's request for WACC, suggesting it should be calculated based on NSPML's approved cost of debt.

threshold, instead requiring a longer period of consistent performance. Relief under the "good utility practice or exceptional circumstances" provision is a limited exception, not a broad exemption. Within the compliance filing provided in...

AI summary The Regulatory Board clarified that relief under the 'good utility practice or exceptional circumstances' provision applies only to the 12-month consecutive requirement, not the monthly 90% threshold. NSPML requested various forms of relief, including the release of holdback funds and relief during planned outages, but the Board's decision limited the scope of this relief.

CONSISTENT PERFORMANCE HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED OVER THE COMPLIANCE PERIOD The Industrial Group notes the importance of examining the full picture of the 12-month Compliance Period in determining whether the multiple failures in delivery, inc...

AI summary The Industrial Group argues that NSPML has not consistently met delivery performance thresholds over the 12-month Compliance Period, with significant underdeliveries, and that terminating the Holdback would be unreasonable given ongoing performance issues and the financial burden on ratepayers. They emphasize the need for continued compliance before removing protections.

- tower designs. The icing in March / April 2024 was approximately four times greater than prior icing in the same region. - That the Haldar Report does not question the prudence of the initial engineering design of the NLH transmission st...

AI summary NSPML submits that the conditions to end the Holdback have been met, citing that owed energy fell below the 10 percent threshold in March 2024 and that the Labrador Island Link was commissioned in April 2023. The company argues that post-commissioning work is standard practice and does not indicate poor performance. The Consumer Advocate and Bates White support ending the holdback, while the Small Business Advocate defers to the Board on relief for months below the 90 percent delivery threshold.

Table 1[9](#page-8-1) 4 Total MWh (excluding purchased energy) 2024 Compliance Period 2025 (May 23 - Apr 24) (Jan - Dec) (Jan - Dec) 2013 Application Commitment 1,228,447 1,226,000 1,226,000 Base NS Block Delivered 889,213 749,208 917,767...

AI summary Table 1 provides a comparison of energy delivery metrics across different time periods, showing total MWh delivered and percentages relative to application commitments for the years 2024 and 2025. The data highlights fluctuations in energy delivery and compliance with commitments.