From: "MinFinance / FinanceMin (FIN)" fin.minfinance-financemin.fin@canada.ca
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2017 08:23:40 +0000
Subject: RE: Methinks NB's Mindless Energy Minister Rick Doucet and your evil buddies David Coon, Andre Faust, Mark D'Arcy and CBC should enjoy the June 15 and Sept 21, 2017 transcripts of the EUB hearings N'esy Pas Chucky Leblanc?
To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
The Department of Finance acknowledges receipt of your electronic correspondence. Please be assured that we appreciate receiving your comments.
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2017 04:20:50 -0400
Subject: Methinks NB's Mindless Energy Minister Rick Doucet and your evil buddies David Coon, Andre Faust, Mark D'Arcy and CBC should enjoy the June 15 and Sept 21, 2017 transcripts of the EUB hearings N'esy Pas Chucky Leblanc?
To: Rick.Doucet@gnb.ca, oldmaison@yahoo.com, Shawn.Berry@gnb.ca, livesey@rogers.com, tglynn@stu.ca, markandcaroline@gmail.com, ht.lacroix@cbc.ca, Jim.Carr@parl.gc.ca, Robert.Jones@cbc.ca, andre andre@jafaust.com, David.Coon@gnb.ca, blaine.higgs@gnb.ca, Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca, kelly kelly@lamrockslaw.com
Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, daniel.mchardie@cbc.ca, Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca, steve.murphy@ctv.ca, nmoore@bellmedia.ca, David.Akin@globalnews.ca, atlantic@canadians.org, dpenner@canadians.org, mhayes
http://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/contacts/dept_renderer.604.605.html#structure
http://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/contacts/dept_renderer.604.4584.201875.html#employees
SHAWN BERRY
Director of Communications
Energy and Resource Development
Phone : (506) 444-2915
Email : Shawn.Berry@gnb.ca
https://canadians.org/blog/don-ferguson-too-close-premier-brian-gallant-be-neb-panel-member-energy-east
"The words of New Brunswick's Energy Minister Rick Doucet are
appropriate, "It's got to be a fair process, people have got to be
impartial, it's got to be evidence-based." (CBC News, September 13,
2016 in reaction to when the original NEB Panel members stepped down)
Mark D'Arcy's blog
For all media requests
dpenner@canadians.org
Dylan Penner
Cell: (613) 795-8685
(613) 233-2773 ext. 249
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Doucet, Rick (LEG)"
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 01:07:58 +0000
Subject: RE: Final Docs
To: David Amos
Will get right on this.
Always look forward to your brilliant thoughts.
R
Hon.Rick Doucet
Legislative member for Charlotte-the isles
28 Mt.Pleasant Rd.
St.George, N.B. E5C 3K4
Phone / Téléphone : 506-755-4200
Fax / Télécopieur : 506-755-4207
E-mail / Courriel : rick.doucet@gnb.ca
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Suzanne Ross SueR1941@msn.com
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 21:06:35 +0000
Subject: Sept 21, 2017 transcript
To: gphlaw@nb.aibn.com, gphlaw2@nb.aibn.com, bob@managesim.com, david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, david.sollows@gnb.ca, Gilles.volpe@enbridge.com, Paul.Volpe@enbridge.com, dave.lavigne@enbridge.com, len.hoyt@mcinnescooper.com, KissPartyofNB@gmail.com, cstewart@stewartmckelvey.com, hanrahan.dion@jdirving.com, lcozzarini@nbpower.com, jfurey@nbpower.com, srussell@nbpower.com, wharrison@nbpower.com, NBPRegulatory@nbpower.com, NConnellyBosse@nbpower.com, general@nbeub.ca, ecdesmond@nbeub.ca, Michael.Dickie@nbeub.ca, John.Lawton@nbeub.ca, Dave.Young@nbeub.ca, Kathleen.Mitchell@nbeub.ca, heather.black@gnb.ca, rdk@indecon.com, sussexsharingclub@nb.aibn.com, jeff.garrett@sjenergy.com, dan.dionne@perth-andover.com, pierreroy@edmundston.ca, ray.robinson@sjenergy.com, marta.kelly@sjenergy.com, sstoll@airdberlis.com, pzarnett@bdrenergy.com, leducjr@nb.sympatico.ca
Hello,
Attached is the transcript from today's proceedings.
Thank you!
---------- Original message ----------
From: Scott Stoll sstoll@airdberlis.com
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 21:14:36 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Sept 21, 2017 transcript
To: David Amos david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
I will be out of the province in a hearing returning Friday, September 22nd, 2017. During this time, I will have very limited access to email and voicemail. I will endeavour to respond to emails during the evening. If you require immediate assistance please contact my assistant Alison Reynolds at (416) 863-1500 and she will direct you to the appropriate lawyer.
New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board
Commission de L'Energie et des Services Publics N.-B.
Matter 357
IN THE MATTER OF an application by New Brunswick Power Corporation with respect to proposed changes to its rate structure, rate classes and rate design.
held at Board Premises, Saint John, N.B., on September 21st 2017.
Henneberry Reporting Service
New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board
Commission de L'Energie et des Services Publics N.-B.
Matter 357
IN THE MATTER OF an application by New Brunswick Power Corporation with respect to proposed changes to its rate structure, rate classes and rate design.
held at Board Premises, Saint John, N.B., on September 21st 2017.
BEFORE: Raymond Gorman, Q.C. - Chairman
Francois Beaulieu - Vice-Chairman
Michael Costello - Member
New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board
Counsel - Ms. Ellen Desmond, Q.C.
Board Staff - John Lawton
- David Young
............................................................
CHAIRMAN: Good morning, everyone. This is a hearing with respect to Matter 357, to consider a motion filed by NB Power seeking an order from the Board adjourning Matter 357 sine die effective November 1st 2017. I will start with the appearances. NB Power Corporation?
MR. FUREY: Good morning, Mr. Chair. John Furey accompanied this morning by Stephen Russell, Wanda Harrison and Natasha Connelly Bosse.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Furey. David Amos?
MR. AMOS: Yes, sir, I am here.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Enbridge Gas New Brunswick?
MR. VOLPE: Good morning, Mr. Chair. Paul Volpe, Enbridge Gas.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Volpe. Gerald Bourque?
MR. BOURQUE: Gerald Bourque here.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bourque. JD Irving, Limited?
MR. STEWART: Christopher Stewart and Dion Hanrahan, Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Stewart. Sussex Sharing Club?
MR. SMITH: Alfred Smith here.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Smith. Utilities Municipal?
MR. STOLL: Good morning, Mr. Chair. Scott Stoll and I am with Mr. Garrett and Ms. Kelly.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Stoll. North York Veneer Products? Not represented this morning. Public Intervenor?
MS. BLACK: Good morning, Mr. Chair. Heather Black.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Black. New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board?
MS. DESMOND: Ellen Desmond. And from Board Staff, John Lawton and David Young.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Desmond. So as I had indicated at the opening, this hearing this morning is to consider a motion for adjournment filed by NB Power. The grounds relied upon are set out in the notice of motion which was dated September the 12th of this year and in the affidavit of Stephen Russell, which was sworn to on September 12th. No other party has filed an affidavit in response but there have been requests to cross-examine Mr. Russell from the Utilities Municipal, Mr. Amos and the Public Intervenor. Just for the record, Mr. Stoll, on behalf of Utilities Municipal, requested clarification about certain aspects of the motion and the Board directed NB Power to provide the required information. NB Power did provide a response on September the 19th stating that -- and I am just going to quote from the response. "It is NB Power's intent to respond to interrogatories recently filed by a number of parties to this matter in accordance with the approved schedule and to file the additional evidence contemplated by the schedule on November 1st 2017. NB Power's request for an adjournment is subject to the conditions that those filings take place in accordance with the approved schedule as well as any other terms that the Board may consider appropriate. This was the intent behind the request that the matter be adjourned sine die effective November 1st 2017."
So the request here is for an adjournment sine die, which is an adjournment without setting a fixed date. In Matter 271, which is the cost of service, we had a very similar motion brought by NB Power, Mr. Furey, I am sure that you will recall that. And you probably will recall a discussion that occurred between you and I with respect to the concept of a sine die adjournment and that it would be the preference of the Board that in fact it not -- that in that particular case at least, we not proceed to adjourn sine die but we in fact adjourned it to a fixed date. I think the fact that this room is full today speaks to me at least to the fact that probably we are going to hear some submissions with respect to the request for a sine die adjournment as opposed to -- I don't know if there is any difference between an adjournment and a postponement but I think in law there may not be, but in my mind perhaps there is. That what we may hear may be some submissions that in fact a sine die adjournment may put this off indefinitely and as you know, this matter exists because the Board ordered NB Power to file this matter and it is obviously something that the Board thinks it is necessary to proceed with.
So having said that and before we get into the requests for cross-examination, I am just wondering, Mr. Furey, if you have put your mind to when you believe NB Power would be in a position to have a hearing with respect to this matter that you have put forward certain reasons and you know, that will be discussed, I am sure, by all of the parties today. But you put forward the reasons in the affidavit of Mr. Russell as to why you think this adjournment is necessary but what I think is missing and I think would probably be very helpful for the discussion we are going to have this morning, would be some indication from you as to when NB Power would see this matter going forward, when a hearing might take place, in the event that you are granted an adjournment.
MR. FUREY: Certainly, Mr. Chair, I can address that. So I don't know that I have in my mind a specific hearing date. The date that I had pegged was the date that the schedule would resume from where we are leaving off, which is by our request the November 1st 2017 date. And looking at the schedule that is set out I think in paragraph 8 of Mr. Russell's affidavit of the various proceedings that NB Power sees coming up, we see the -- one opportunity to resume the schedule being after the 19/20 GRA hearing, which our -- the schedule in paragraph 8 sets out as being in February of 2019. So we think that is the right time, at this stage, to recommence the proceedings. So that would then take us back to the schedule and then we would move forward from there. So that would put a hearing date, if I start to look at the schedule in this matter, leaving off on November 1st, we still have a further two rounds of interrogatories. Frankly, I haven't tracked that commencement to what the hearing date would be but that is the date that we identified as the appropriate time to resume the process.
CHAIRMAN: So that would be approximately -- does that sound right -- about five and a half months from the time of the commencement of the -- from the November 1st date, I think the hearing was scheduled for --
MR. FUREY: April 9th.
CHAIRMAN: -- April the 9th so --
MR. FUREY: Yes, so a little over five months, that's correct, so that would put us in the summer of '19.
CHAIRMAN: At the earliest or summer or fall of next year is what you are looking at?
MR. FUREY: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN: And you haven't put your mind to how a schedule might look or --
MR. FUREY: No. At this stage I think we are contemplating the schedule would not look considerably different than what is set out in the balance of the schedule today. But that -- you know, that may need to be reassessed as we move forward.
CHAIRMAN: Just to clarify then, Mr. Costello has indicated to me he thinks you are talking about 2019. I think you are talking about 2018. You are talking about next year, in the summer or fall of next year, not the following year, am I correct?
MR. FUREY: No. We -- sorry, Mr. Chair, we are contemplating -- we see the opportunity as being -- following the conclusion of the hearing for the 19/20 GRA. So that -- by Mr. Russell's affidavit, the anticipation is that hearing would take place in February of 2019 and that is when the schedule would recommence again. That is our view of the appropriate time for it to come forward for a number of reasons that you will see in argument. One of which is issues around AMI but we will get into that in more detail in fulsome argument. I can address that now, if you would like, Mr. Chair. I am happy to talk about that now.
CHAIRMAN: Yes. I somewhat anticipated that your adjournment might have been the request if we had got into a timing, might have been for a matter of a few months so that this may have led to a hearing -- your request may have contemplated a hearing not being held in April but in fact in October or November of next year. But you are really saying probably the summer of the following year, is what you would be looking at. If it was adjourned sine die and you had to bring it back, that would be the timeframe you would be considering?
MR. FUREY: That would be our preference and I think part of the reason behind that, Mr. Chair, is when we look at the schedule, the one -- not the one -- but one of the significant issues is the appearance of the requirement for the OATT requirement, revenue requirement. And that is of course every three years under the statute and our anticipation is that we will be filing that in May of '18 and there will be a hearing in October of 2018. So that is -- that when we then consider that we have to file the GRA for 19/20 in September 2018, we are not certain that simply adjourning to sometime in '18, starting the process, we are not certain that puts us in a materially better position in terms of a regulatory compression issue. It is only when we go out into '19 that where the OATT has been dealt with, that we have a little bit more flexibility because we don't anticipate the Mactaquac prudence hearing application being filed until June of '19. So we see some opportunity. We see a gap there that provides the necessary opportunity.
CHAIRMAN: All right.
MR. FUREY: So that is our perfect world assessment, Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN: So essentially this adjournment would postpone, if granted, and if the schedule you talk about were allowed, it would postpone this matter for approximately a year, a little bit better than a year?
MR. FUREY: That's correct, Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN: All right. The request for sine die, however, is that something that you are sort of locked into or did you come here today to talk about adjourning this essentially to a fixed date?
MR. FUREY: We are willing to talk about either, Mr. Chair. One of the -- I know you and I have a little bit of a maybe philosophical difference on --
CHAIRMAN: Maybe more than a little, Mr. Furey.
MR. FUREY: -- on the appropriateness of sine die adjournments. I see the sine die adjournment as being advantageous in the sense that the Board still retains jurisdiction and on its own motion or the motion of any other party for reasons that might be appropriate, including NB Power, there could be a motion brought to the Board to restart the schedule. So that was my thought process, is that it provides flexibility. But we are certainly not -- we are not resistant to discussing a fixed date resumption.
CHAIRMAN: And you are right, philosophically I guess we are in a different spot. I think if we have a fixed date, there is lots of motivation to move towards that target and if circumstances prevent you from reaching or from meeting that target, there is always the opportunity to come back on a motion such as today and make your case and see how you do in terms of getting a further adjournment. So all right, thank you, that was helpful. So there are -- before I get into having you make your arguments on your motion, there have been, as I have indicated, three requests for cross-examination of Mr. Russell. Cross-examination, I think as everybody here understands, on a motion is discretionary and none of the parties essentially laid much groundwork for that so I am going to want to hear from the parties as to why we should hear or have cross-examination. But before I get to that point, I wonder is there any appetite in the room for the parties to talk about if in fact there were an adjournment, whether or not there might be any agreement as to when that should be. I always think that it is worthwhile for parties to talk about issues, you know, such as timing. Now I understand that there may be parties that are just saying any adjournment, we are totally opposed to it. And so if that is the position of a party, then I think, you know, we are not going to get anywhere with that exercise. But you know, if in fact parties are willing to talk about a fixed date -- because that is not what you asked for so I can understand the large participation that we have here today and the concern that the intervenors would have. So Mr. Furey, you have kind of indicated that, you know, you are certainly willing to talk about a date. So if I just go through the parties and see whether or not you believe there would be some benefit to taking 20 minutes or half an hour -- I don't want to waste the day on discussions and then find that we don't get to the motion. So it is not my intention. We are talking about a date and if you can't come to some agreement on something like that, on the idea of an adjournment being agreed to and on a date, then we will do the hearing. So I am thinking 20 minutes or half an hour and that would be it. And I could canvass the parties but I think what I am going to do is just recess for 20 minutes and somebody can come back and get us if in fact -- if you know in five minutes that it is going nowhere, then let's get on with hearing the motion. But if there is an ability of the parties to talk about if an adjournment were granted, what an appropriate date would be, I believe that would be helpful. So we will just recess for about 20 minutes or sooner if somebody comes and tells us that this is going nowhere. Thank you.
(Recess)
CHAIRMAN: So Mr. Furey, I gave the parties an opportunity to talk about potential dates in the event that an adjournment or a postponement was granted. Anything come from those discussions?
MR. FUREY: Nothing final, Mr. Chair. There are certainly parties who I understand object to any adjournment so there is no opportunity for us to tell the Board that there is an agreement on a date in the event there was an adjournment. There was certainly a suggestion raised that NB Power is agreeable to. I can't speak for all other parties. We certainly don't -- I can't say that there is consensus on it. But the suggestion was that much like we have AMI deployment approval as a component of this GRA that is upcoming and much like we had pole attachments as a component a few years ago, that rate design could be similarly dealt with in the 19/20 GRA. And that is a proposal that NB Power is agreeable to. I am not sure if the Board felt there was a requirement for a separate -- fully separate proceeding but we think it could work along the same lines as the pole attachments did a few years ago. But there is no consensus on that.
CHAIRMAN: If in fact that is how this matter was dealt with, that would be approximately six or seven months sooner than what you had talked about in the earlier part of this motion?
MR. FUREY: It is, Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. So if there is, however, no consensus in the room that an adjournment be granted, then we will have to go on with hearing the motion. And I think perhaps, Mr. Furey, before I would hear your submission, I think that we have to deal with the requests for cross-examination. And I guess I will just take them -- three people have asked for the right to cross-examine on this. Mr. Amos, I think you had made that request? And can you --
MR. AMOS: Yes, sir, I did.
CHAIRMAN: Okay. So you didn't file any affidavit in support of that and there was no information in your filing as to why you think that we should allow you to cross-examine on this issue today. Perhaps could you just address that issue for me?
MR. AMOS: Well out of the gate I thank the Board for allowing me to be an intervenor at the last pre-hearing. But before the pre-hearing, I sent NB Power and the Board an email, not expecting that I would ever be an intervenor. But you folks allowed me and I am grateful. Before this hearing, I submitted, as the other lawyers did, that I would like to cross-examine Mr. Russell and the nature of it has to do with -- I am sure the Board is aware that I was invited to a meeting with Mr. Todd and NB Power that I can't share what was said at the meeting. And Mr. Furey wanted me to sign a non-disclosure agreement for Mr. Todd's report. I refused to sign it and I only want to know what the public is entitled to know and I as a member of the public, if Mr. Todd and NB Power have secrets, so be it. But as far as this hearing goes, this Board has a mandate. It is your hearing. You scheduled the parts of the hearing that suited NB Power and it has to do with plans for rate increases and shifting from residential and industrial and upping and has to do with meters and all kinds of things. It appears to me that as soon as Mr. Hyslop withdrew, weeks before the first motion day, which was October the 3rd, NB Power wants this matter adjourned. That is my understanding of sine die. Well before that happens, I had questions for Mr. Russell and Mr. Todd. They wouldn't answer and said it is a matter for the hearing. And I said fine, I will ask the questions at the hearing. And now it appears that Mr. Furey does not want me to ask questions of Mr. Russell before the hearing so this is my only opportunity to do so.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Amos, Mr. Furey hasn't actually expressed any view as to whether or not cross-examination should or should not be allowed. But I am inquiring because on motions -- this is not a hearing on the merits of the rate design case, we don't even have most of the evidence. Today's hearing, as you know, is confined solely to the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to grant an adjournment or not. And if we grant one, then for what period of time. So we have Mr. Russell's affidavit and you have talked about some things that you feel are necessary for you to address. But today the only thing we can address are the merits of whether or not an adjournment should be granted. So that would be the only element of the cross-examination that you would be allowed, would be confined entirely to the affidavit and it would be solely on the issue of adjournment.
MR. AMOS: I understand that. That was Ms. Harrison's motion wanted this hearing to be addressed only within the parameters of Mr. Russell's affidavit. I understood that. They defined the lines. But it is you that has final say. It is you that scheduled this hearing, accommodates NB Power to have it adjourned. But since Mr. Russell wrote the affidavit and signed it before this hearing is dismissed or adjourned down the road till some two years later, I believe the public, and I am one of them and a residential, has the right to ask Mr. Russell why he is too busy to bother with this. And furthermore, whatever decision the Board makes, I have the right to have a judicial review.
CHAIRMAN: All right. So anything else that you want to say on your request to cross-examine?
MR. AMOS: I would appreciate if I could ask Mr. Russell a few questions as per his affidavit.
CHAIRMAN: Okay. We will deal with your request shortly. Mr. Stoll, I think your request was the first one that we received.
MR. STOLL: Yes. And I didn't mean to go too far off track and I will keep my comments fairly short. Our concern is really around some of the -- I guess what would be the terms and conditions of the adjournment and the interplay with the GRA. And in particular in paragraph 10, Mr. Russell talked about a couple items that would be dealt with in GRA or could be dealt with in GRA and also the impending AMI and we wanted to probe a little bit on the -- what elements of this proceeding may benefit from a decision on AMI and/or the implementation of AMI so that we could understand and be able to talk to what we believe is a comprehensive regulatory calendar that would deal with the issues in a practical order so that we would have policy set -- being set first, but policy being set on a basis of good information and wholesome information that would be available to the Board. So our plan was to explore around paragraphs 10 -- paragraphs 8 and beyond in the affidavit.
CHAIRMAN: And based on some of the discussion that has occurred here this morning and I am not really referring to the discussion that would have occurred off the record when the panel wasn't here but the discussion on the record, does that answer your questions or do you still feel the need to cross-examine to a certain extent on the issues you have just set forth?
MR. STOLL: It has probably narrowed it a little bit, sir. I think having the come back dates -- or possible come back dates have been discussed, that is some comfort. There are a couple of things that I think would probably help us and probably yourself in understanding the precise nature of the scheduling of events and the expectations in this proceeding and the GRAs coming up.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Ms. Black, you also had indicated that you wanted to cross-examine.
MS. BLACK: Yes, thank you. My request was focused on paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the affidavit. I had wanted to explore a little further issues around the prejudice to the public interest and rate classes and Mr. Russell's affidavit was limited to a discussion of how differential rate increases and would continue to be dealt with through the GRAs. And he noted, I think here in paragraph 11 and 12, that seasonal cost allocation would have a minimal impact on differential rates so it wasn't an urgent matter for rate classes or the public interest for most classes. So my intention in requesting cross-examination was just to explore that a little further and to allow Mr. Russell to perhaps expand on some of the seasonal rate implications or other rate design implications and how that wouldn't prejudice the public interest now. Because we have had discussions now about a fixed date instead of adjourning sine die, I have less concern about those issues because we are talking about maybe a more realistic adjournment schedule. So as I am talking here, I am trying to go through my questions in my mind and think if they have been addressed satisfactorily and I think they have.
CHAIRMAN: So you don't feel that you need to cross-examine?
MS. BLACK: No, I think that the discussion this morning between yourself and Mr. Furey and after we have come back from our off the record discussion has been very helpful.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Furey, do you have any comments on the request to cross-examine?
MR. FUREY: I do, Mr. Chair. I think, as a starting point, because as the Chair has pointed out, whether to permit cross-examination on the affidavit is a discretionary decision of the Board, my submission would be that the factors to be considered in exercising that discretion are whether the proposed cross-examination would provide additional relevant information to the Board in order to make a decision on the narrow issue before it, which is whether an adjournment should be granted. Certainly in the case of Mr. Amos, I heard nothing in what he said that would so assist the Board. And with respect to Mr. Stoll, I think he has raised a legitimate issue with respect to what can be done pending decisions on deployment of AMI. I think those are answered, from NB Power's perspective, in the evidence that has been filed to date and in particular, in exhibit 2.03, pages 14 to 18, where Mr. Todd talks about a number of principles and he says, starting at about page 14 -- it might be a different number on the pdf. Ms. Mitchell, might be 15 on the pdf, I am not sure. So he talks about -- he has got four or five pages where he talks about the corresponding rate design strategy to seasonal cost allocation and he says a number of things. One, he says it is not practical -- and I am reading from line 7 here. It is not practical to introduce seasonal rates for NB Power's distribution connected classes at this time since the current metering technology that is used for virtually all customers in these classes, is not capable of reading seasonal consumption. What he is saying is he doesn't think it is practical to introduce seasonal rates in the absence of AMI. Later he says he doesn't think it is possible to introduce time of use rates in the absence of AMI. And I am not going to go in any more detail than that. So I think, if I understood Mr. Stoll correctly, in terms of his desire to cross-examine on what this means for us, what can be done with or without AMI, I think NB Power's position has already been set out in the evidence that it has filed so I don't see any additional cross-examination that would be of assistance to the Board. But again, it is a discretionary decision and I will leave it with the Board.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Furey. And Mr. Stoll, I am going to go back to you. And on the basis of the earlier discussions about the potential for an adjournment to a fixed date rather than a sine die adjournment and on the basis of the comments that Mr. Furey has just made, do you still think it is necessary to cross-examine?
MR. STOLL: I think it is a limited issue. With respect to the recommendations that Mr. Todd has made or the statements that he has made around seasonality and time of use, yes, I think we are in agreement that there is benefit to waiting. I think some of the discussions around the changes to the rate classes that are contemplated, some of those issues may benefit from data provided by AMI and if we are going to redesign rate classes, which I would think we would want to do it once based on where we think the industry is going and there were a couple other things that may influence that as far as we have seen some things in the industry around localized storage for customers, distributed energy, those types of things. And I think those may also impact some of the rate considerations that evolve in this hearing. If we look at a purely policy issue, like Mr. Smith has raised with the interaction of social policy and energy policy, I think some of those things can proceed on their own in the absence of better load information. But some of these other decisions, I think we run the risk, and these would be my submissions later on, that we are going to run a risk that we are going to be stepping in the wrong direction without the additional data that AMI, and quite frankly, we need a decision on whether AMI is actually going to proceed, so --
CHAIRMAN: So if -- we probably shouldn't be trying to push you into this corner but with that comment it strikes me that you see the benefit of an AMI decision preceding a rate design hearing?
MR. STOLL: I believe that the AMI decision is a necessary precedent to making final decisions in certain elements of rate design, yes. Because if -- certainly if we don't have -- if the Board turned down AMI or deferred AMI, saying not at this time, you have other matters to deal with NB Power, then it would take some of the options off the table. If we allow AMI, the question will become how extensive is AMI and what options does it put on the table and at what costs.
CHAIRMAN: All right. So I guess I have one last question for you then. Are you still requesting the right to cross-examine?
MR. STOLL: I think based on the discussion we have been having, Mr. Chair, we can forgo the cross and deal with the submissions.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. So I am going to go back to you, Mr. Amos. I see your hand there. So the other two parties who had requested cross-examination on this issue has, as you have heard, don't see the need for it because of the information that has been provided. So I just want to go back to the information that you provided this morning as to why you felt cross-examination was necessary. And as I understand it, I believe it was on the narrow issue as to why NB Power felt that the regulatory schedule that currently is before us was too overwhelming, if you will, to do this on the schedule that was originally set. Is that essentially what you were looking to question on?
MR. AMOS: Yes, your honour. I heard what Mr. Furey said of what I said prior, but the Board wasn't privy to the private conversation before you come back in the room but two lawyers that are employed by the Board heard all that was said. And I will rely on their integrity as officers of the court, to verify that I am not hostile. However, the first two statements of Mr. Russell's affidavit says he is the -- I am the Director of Regulatory Affairs for NB Power and as such I have personal knowledge of all the facts herein deposed except where otherwise stated to be based upon information and belief. Paragraph 2 is the important part. By letter dated August the 2nd 2016, NB Power was directed by NB Energy and Utilities Board as follows: A stakeholder meeting similar to the one used at the cost allocation proceeding shall be scheduled as soon as possible in order to delineate the rate design issues. Following that process, NB Power is to file rate design application with the Board on or before May the 1st. You folks accommodated NB Power's schedule up until today. Now it may end sine die adjourned. I don't think that is fair to all stakeholders.
CHAIRMAN: Okay. Mr Amos, what -- it strikes me from what I am hearing from you, what I heard from you earlier this morning and again what I am hearing now, is that you are making arguments as to why the Board should not grant the adjournment. And there will be an opportunity for you to do that. But you don't seem to be making a case for why you should cross-examine because if you feel that you are not going to get an opportunity to have your say on whether or not the adjournment is granted, you will. You are a registered intervenor. Mr. Furey will have an opportunity to outline his case as to why he should get the relief that he has requested, that is an adjournment of this matter, and the other parties, including yourself, will all get an opportunity to talk about the merits. But it seems to me that is what -- when we talk about why you should cross-examine, it always comes back to the reasons why we shouldn't grant it. So unless you have some other comments on that request, I think we can move forward to the argument phase, and after Mr. Furey, you would actually be first to put forward your argument. And I think the things that you have been saying are obviously things that we need to take into consideration, but I don't see that it -- at least from what you have said so far, I don't see any need for cross-examination.
MR. AMOS: Well it is the Board's prerogative to decide what they will. If you don't want to hear my questions put to Mr. Russell, I can't stop you from making that decision. But if you recall when I first met you folks June 15th, and you asked me why I wanted to intervene, I explained it to you. Before I even met the Board, I emailed NB Power and the Board and introduced myself. Those submissions in that email are now in the public record. Then when I said that I wanted to cross-examine Mr. Russell, I supplied more documentation. Now if you recall in the pre-hearing, even you folks were mentioning decisions regarding the National Energy Board. The counsel for NB Power was mentioning decisions pertaining to the National Energy Board. I provided all kinds of documentation about how familiar I am with McInnes and Cooper, Stewart McKelvey, more importantly a member of this Board is John Herron, who I ran against. There is conflict interest everywhere I look in this matter.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Amos, the comments that you are making unfortunately don't go to the issue that we are talking about now, which is the question of whether or not we should exercise our discretion to allow you to cross-examine Mr. Russell in this matter. You haven't filed an affidavit or any evidence in advance of this hearing to indicate the purpose of your cross-examination and I have given you a couple of opportunities this morning to address that issue and really what you have been addressing is essentially your argument as to why we should not grant it. So you haven't really made a case for us exercising our discretion in favour of cross-examination so we are going to deny the request for cross-examination and we are going to move on to argument. So Mr. Furey, this is your motion so --
MR. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN: -- please proceed.
MR. FUREY: So Mr. Chair, the starting point in terms of the decision to grant an adjournment is obviously the statutory framework. And our statutory framework doesn't contain any specific rules, either in the Act or in the Board's Rules of Procedure, around when -- or under what circumstances an adjournment will be granted. We are left with the general statements in section 38 of the EUB Act, subsection (a), that contemplates the Board is master of its own procedures. And subsection (c) which states that in doing so, the Board shall ensure procedural fairness to all parties. And in my submission, that is a relatively concise statement of what the common law is with respect to procedure before administrative tribunals, even absent that provision of the statute. With respect to adjournment specifically, when we apply those general principles, Mr. Stoll has been kind enough to file a few cases that I think do a nice job of setting out a number of principles. Firstly, that adjournments are a matter of discretion for the Board and that like all discretionary decisions, a body making a discretionary decision must act judicially and that means that relevant factors have to be considered. So the question always fact driven is what are the relevant factors. And we submit that the relevant factors, and I will go through each of them individually, demonstrate two things. On the one hand, they demonstrate that if the adjournment is not granted, there is prejudice in the form of a lack of efficacy in the hearing process and that on the other hand, if an adjournment is granted, it will not cause any prejudice to any party or any rate class or to the public interest. So I am going to go through the factors with those two general points in mind. So dealing first with the -- you know, our submission is a lack of adjournment would lead to some prejudice and that comes from two sources. And the first is what I will call regulatory compression and the second is the timing of rate design in light of the timing of decisions of the Board with respect to deployment of AMI. Now with respect to regulatory compression, I am not going to spend a lot more time on this. We have talked about it a little bit already. But at paragraph 8 of Mr. Russell's affidavit, essentially what that filing schedule discloses is that we are about to embark, as we file the 18/18 GRA, we are about to embark on a period of time leading to hearings in front of the Board in February of 2018 with respect to the GRA. At least that is NB Power's intention at this point and that is consistent with previous years. A hearing with respect to the Mactaquac procedural application the following month in March and a hearing in this matter, rate design in April of 2018, followed by a requirement by NB Power to file its OATT application in May of 2018. So I am not going to go through what that means in detail, but just as an example of what it means, if Ms. Mitchell could pull up the current schedule in this matter. So if we go to the second page of that current schedule and I can tell the Board that today NB Power's intention would be to ask the Board in the GRA for a hearing date commencing on February 5th. I mean, that could move as a result of pre-hearing conference a little bit one way or the other, but if we overlay that with the schedule in this matter that contemplates round three interrogatories coming in in the middle of January, interrogatory responses due literally days before our intended commencement of the GRA and the notice of motion and motions day procedure actually would be within the hearing time that we contemplate as would -- and from an intervenor perspective, with a requirement of intervenors filing evidence on February 21st, then they would have to be doing that simultaneous to their participation in the GRA. So I think there is demonstrated difficulty with this hearing schedule when we start to overlay it with other matters that are statutorily required to be filed. And that leads to, from an NB Power perspective only, that leads to concerns about our ability to effectively respond to interrogatories, present evidence, prepare for hearings, to provide the Board with the best evidence that we can in order to make decisions. And so I will leave it at that. I think that is well laid out in Mr. Russell's affidavit. With respect to issues surrounding AMI, assuming a February general rate application hearing, and assuming that AMI is dealt with in the second week of that hearing, and again, that is NB Power's intention today. It is not approved by the Board. We see the earliest decision with respect to AMI deployment that would be possible for the Board would be April of 2018. The Board, in the past, has been successful in giving oral decisions -- given the timing of our hearings, has been successful in giving oral decisions with respect to rates, with reasons to follow. I don't think it is realistic to expect that the Board would be able to give a decision on the deployment of AMI in advance of April 1st of 2018. So maybe it is later, I don't know, but I am highly confident that it is not earlier than April 1st of 2018. And so that is important because based on the current schedule in this matter, all interrogatories in this matter, all responses to interrogatories in this matter, intervenor evidence in this matter and the interrogatory process around that, would all be completed before the parties would have the benefit of the Board's decision on the whether AMI would be deployed, the nature of that deployment, whether it is full, partial or some other option, or -- and the timing of that deployment. And that is highly important because, as I have already pointed out a little earlier, there is already evidence before the Board that demonstrates that AMI is necessary for time of use rates to be considered and is probably necessary -- Mr. Todd uses the term it is not practical to implement seasonal rates in the absence of AMI -- so if the parties don't know what the AMI deployment is to look like, I don't see how we can have a meaningful process around evidence and interrogatories because we don't know what rate design options are available or might be precluded in the event the AMI decision is not to deploy or to deploy in a different way than NB Power contemplates. And so in that sense, it is NB Power's submission that the rate design proceeding is now actually a little premature because it does contemplate discussion of rate design options that might not be available depending on the decision on AMI deployment. So that is the circumstance we suggest if the matter is not adjourned. And we think there is some prejudice there as a result of what we see as a lack of efficacy in the hearing process. On the other hand, we see no prejudice associated with an adjournment and particularly now that -- and I should have clarified this at the outset -- our application I think realistically has to be modified. We are no longer asking for an adjournment sine die based on the discussions as I outlined when we first came back, NB Power is amenable to an adjournment that would see the rate design application dealt with in the context of the 19/20 GRA. And as I said when we first came back in the room, in a similar fashion to how we have dealt with pole attachments in the past and how we are proposing to deal with AMI in the 18/19 application. So we see no prejudice because in the 18/19 application, Mr. Russell states very clearly in his affidavit that NB Power will be bringing forward a proposal for differential rate increases so those rate classes that are outside the range of reasonableness today, and the Board is well aware of who those are, the residential and the general service class, there will be progress made on that front in the 18/19 GRA. There is evidence before the Board in exhibit 1.03, which is NB Power's pre-filed evidence dated May 1st, there is a table at page 19, probably page 20 of the pdf, that outlines -- and I want to emphasize this is just a plan -- it outlines NB Power's plan to bring both residential -- the residential class and a merged GS1 and GS2 class to within the range of reasonableness over a ten year period. Now I emphasize that is a plan because of course we are not asking the Board to approve that, we are saying that is how we intend to proceed and the Board of course deals with that annually in the context of the GRA and differential rate increases that might be granted. So the adjournment of the rate design hearing has no impact on that plan, because in the 18/19 GRA there will be consideration of differential rate increases required to continue to move parties toward the range of reasonableness previously established by the Board. That's the only prejudice that we have identified that someone could argue, Mr. Chair, so we don't see any prejudice and I think I will stop there. If other parties identify prejudice, then I guess we will respond to it, but those are our submissions subject to the Board's questions.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Furey. Mr. Beaulieu?
VICE-CHAIRMAN: So, Mr. Furey, I have got a couple of questions. You would agree with me that adjournments that are granted in these types of proceeding, that's not an absolute right of a party in a case, that's quite clear, regarding that?
MR. FUREY: I think it's a discretionary decision of the Board, Mr. Vice-Chair.
VICE-CHAIRMAN: And as I was reviewing the case law yesterday, there is case law that suggests that adjournments should be granted in exceptional circumstances. And so I just wanted to hear you if the Board should rely on that principle that has been established by certain courts regarding these types of motions and is this an exceptional circumstance?
MR. FUREY: So I -- if you are referring to the cases submitted by Mr. Stoll, I didn't see any requirement that adjournment only be granted in exceptional circumstances. I see those cases as standing for the proposition that adjournments are in the discretion of the tribunal and that discretion is to be exercised by considering all relevant factors for and against the adjournment. And I think Mr. Justice Richard -- I can't remember the case, but Mr. Justice Richard talks about how that is to be balanced. That the Board simultaneously has to do -- you know comply with the general rule of securing the just, least costly and most expeditious determination of the matter before it, but also has to consider issues of scarce resources in the judicial system, he was talking about there. So to answer your question, Mr. Vice-Chair, I wouldn't agree with the proposition that an adjournment should only be granted in exceptional circumstances. To the contrary, I thought I saw something in one of the cases submitted by Mr. Stoll that suggested that as a general rule, adjournments would be granted unless there was some prejudice that could be shown. I can't find that reference right now and I won't bog us down with it but -- so I wouldn't agree with that as a statement of law, that adjournments will only be granted in exceptional circumstances. I think the Board has an obligation to act judicially and balance relevant factors on both sides of the equation.
VICE-CHAIRMAN: So coming back to your argument regarding regulatory compression, I am not sure I am buying into that argument at all, for the following reasons, I mean I am looking at the paragraph 8 that was submitted by Mr. Russell in his affidavit and one of the -- the third line which talks about Mactaquac. I mean, we have been talking about Mactaquac now for about a year. And my recollection is that I think the application was supposed to come at the beginning of this year and it has been postponed since then. So as we are masters of our own procedure, I think you are also masters of your own process. And when I am looking at this, I think you are responsible to where you are at right now based on you having filed the application in the necessary time.
MR. FUREY: Which application, the Mactaquac application?
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Well I mean, if you look at the Mactaquac application, I mean, you are -- basically you are saying well there is a compression -- there is a regulatory compression, but you are responsible for that specific regulatory compression.
MR. FUREY: Well we are certainly responsible for bringing forward applications in a timely fashion, you will never hear me dispute that. But again balanced against that is the equal obligation to bring forward an application that would be meaningful to the Board that would allow the Board to properly make decisions. And in that application at that time frame, and I can't remember if this was disclosed, because there have been letters to the Board informing the Board of the status of various applications, but with respect to that one in particular, the difficulty was that a final decision -- you know, the life extension option decision has been taken and the Board has been informed of that, but within that there was further costing to be done between -- I wouldn't call them two different options, but the best way to go about achieving the life of the facility. And yes, we clearly have an obligation to bring forward that application in a timely way, but it wouldn't make a lot of sense, from my perspective, to bring it forward in a circumstance where that evidence was not available to the Board, because we anticipated that there would be questions in the procedural application around what type of evidence would be available, what would the process look like and we wouldn't be in a position to answer those questions until that issue was resolved. My recollection, Mr. Vice-Chair, though it may be faulty, is that that issue was raised in correspondence to the Board. So absolutely we have that responsibility, but we have a responsibility to do it in an appropriate fashion. The driver behind the Mactaquac procedural application is, of course, we have really three stages, in NB Power's view, that hasn't been approved by the Board either, but we have a Mactaquac procedural application, a prudence application and then a final approval of costs that we call the Mactaquac capital project. And in order to have all of that done in time for commencement of construction to meet the necessary operational deadlines, there are limits to how far we can go out with the Mactaquac procedural application. I am not saying -- I don't know, because I am not an engineer and I haven't consulted on this issue. I don't know if we are up against that. So could that be moved? Possibly. Possibly. So I -- I don't know if that has helped you, Mr. Vice-Chair, but that's --
VICE-CHAIRMAN: No, it helps. The other -- the other concern that I have is that when we did the pre-hearing conference in June and we came to an agreement regarding the schedule of the rate design in this matter, to my recollection I don't think that there was any issues regarding any adjournment and there was -- I think NB Power was in agreement and now you are making the argument well, you know what, there is going to be some rounds of IRs that will probably be once we are going to be in the hearing, in a GRA hearing. So my concern as a member is why wasn't that raised in June?
MR. FUREY: Yes, I agree with you in this sense. In hindsight, I would have applied for a stay of the Board's two orders -- or the direction, the letter and the order in the -- in the cost allocation proceeding that compelled the filings on May 1st and June 1st.
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. FUREY: In hindsight I would have asked the Board to defer those dates. So, yes, that's -- I think that is a legitimate point that that is something perhaps NB Power should have done. I don't think it changes the merits of what we are asking the Board for today. It -- and that is in part why we wanted to demonstrate to parties that, you know, we are not seeking to halt this today. That, you know, we didn't want parties to feel that they had wasted their efforts on the first round of IRs and we were going to go away. That in fact we are and will answer those. And, you know, we have invested substantial effort in progressing the additional filing that's due on November 1st. And that will also be done. So, yes, I take your point. But I don't think that it changes the substance of the issue for the Board to consider, whether it considered it in June or whether -- or prior to June or today, I think the test is still the same. But it's a fair point.
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Two last questions. I mean, when you started your submissions an hour ago, you stated at this stage we are anticipating that the rate design would be -- should be heard in November. I am a bit concerned when you said at this stage. Are we talking about that you mean that there might be a possibility that NB Power brings another motion in order to adjourn the rate design if -- later on in 2019?
MR. FUREY: No. I don't recall the specific comment that you are referring to. We are suggesting that -- that we are asking now that this matter be adjourned and included in the 19/20 GRA, in the same fashion that we have introduced other matters, pole attachments and others in the context of past GRAs. No, there is no -- there is no hidden surprise waiting for the Board. This is no plan that we need a further adjournment. What I will say and I think Mr. Scott -- Mr. Stoll has heightened the issue in his comments earlier, is that the rate design proceeding will go forward if adjourned on that time frame and parties will have differing views as to what can and cannot be done, or should or should not be done in the absence of certain information. So today, we don't even have a decision on AMI. And you have heard my submissions on that. During the course of a rate design proceeding, you will hear parties make submissions that talk about there are certain things and Mr. Stoll talked about the issue raised by Mr. Smith around -- that that's a policy issue, should charitable institutions be classified differently. We don't need load research data for the Board to make that decision. That's probably a decision that is in the nature of a policy decision that could be made in the '18 -- in the 19/20 GRA, if this is adjourned into that. But there will be -- I am sure you will hear parties say that if the Board is considering implementing time of use rates, as an example, that full implementation of time of use rates probably requires a number of years of access to the load research data supplied by advanced metering infrastructure. So no, there is absolutely nothing hidden in my comment to suggest that we are now are thinking we are asking for a further adjournment. Absolutely no plan for that. But I think it's important the Board understand that we do see AMI, the decision being a significant limiting factor, as I have outlined. But also when we get to the hearing, there will be issues that parties will raise, NB Power certainly, around the timing of decisions around certain rate design decisions in the absence of the data that could be supplied by AMI. So I don't -- I want to put all of those cards on the table. We are not saying that in the 19/20 GRA the Board will be in a position to make every decision with respect to rate design. The application will go forward but there will be parties who will be saying, you need to delay a little further in making some decisions as they relate to the benefit of additional AMI data.
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Now my last question is to that point that you just made and the
process that was established in June regarding the rounds of interrogatories and the November 1st date to -- which is the study that I think you want to submit by Elenchus. In the event that the Board does grant an adjournment, should the process stop where we are at right now, where the parties are at?
MR. FUREY: It can. We are not asking for that. I think in a sense we are indifferent. But I think the reason that we asked for the November 1st is there was a certain amount of work that was well progressed. Intervenors had made effort to ask IRs and really we didn't want to be seen as -- I mean, I am sensitive to the issue you have raised that, gee, should have NB Power have raised this issue earlier. And I certainly didn't want the Board to perceive that we were doing it to escape the first round of IRs. We are -- so that's in the Board's discretion. But it's not something we are asking for.
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Furey. So the November 1st date would not -- we wouldn't just have the response to IRs. It would be the filing of the evidence?
MR. FUREY: That's correct, Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN: Okay. Good. Thank you. Mr. Amos?
MR. AMOS: A clarification here. Like first he wanted it sine die which I understood to be all over. And now he just wants it delayed to sometime down the road?
CHAIRMAN: That's correct.
MR. AMOS: He is after quite a bit down the road, after the next election. But in the meantime, if you were to grant his motion today as to down the road, would this action still be in play in the sense that -- you said I didn't file an affidavit. Could I file a motion in an affidavit in this matter and then we have a discussion another day as pertaining to my affidavit?
CHAIRMAN: Look -- and that is not a submission with respect to the matter before us.
MR. AMOS: Well --
CHAIRMAN: I want to hear your views on whether or not you believe the Board should grant what is now being requested, which is a postponement of this matter from a hearing that was scheduled to start in April of this year to now be included in the general rate application, not the upcoming one, but the one following that.
MR. AMOS: Well the Board is to make this decision. This is the Board's action, in the first place, from my understanding. And if just one party wants an adjournment while all the other parties don't, I think the Board has a tough decision. But just so I am clear, I am definitely against any delay.
CHAIRMAN: So essentially you are opposed to what is being asked for and you would like to see it proceed on the schedule that was set in June?
MR. AMOS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Amos. Mr. Volpe?
MR. VOLPE: We don't have an official position at this time. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Bourque?
MR. BOURQUE: I believe it should proceed on the schedule that has been set forth.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Stewart?
MR. STEWART: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A very, very brief comment. We don't have a position on the adjournment, per se. I will sort of -- Mr. Furey and I can agree to disagree upon, you know, the consequences of the nature and scope of the effect of AMI in all of this. But we will leave the -- the necessity for the adjournment in your capable hands. I guess I would say we had come with a concern with respect to the request for a sine die adjournment, and that seems to have been resolved. If you do see fit to grant an adjournment, then we would submit that it should be no later than at a minimum the 19/20 GRA in the way that Mr. Furey has described.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Stewart. Mr. Smith?
MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, what has been said here today in relation to what Mr. Furey has said, our application that was made on May 2016 for a rate for not for profit organizations and has been indicated to here today that it may not just be a rate design, but it might be a policy change. And if it is a policy change, I would like to see our non-profit organizations take that route. But as for delay, that is -- I really don't have an opinion on that. It is up to what the Board is going to do. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Smith. Mr. Stoll?
MR. STOLL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am not going to make many lengthy submissions. I think we had an earlier discussion which captured a number of our concerns with proceeding in advance. And I would basically request that the Board consider that. We agree with Mr. Furey this is within the Board's discretion to make this decision. That was the point of the case. And Mr. Furey summarized that. I am not going to go into that in any more detail. I don't think we have heard any real significant prejudice from any of the parties that would weigh against granting the adjournment. With respect to joining it to the GRA or having it proceed in a separate but parallel track consistent with the GRA for 2019 or 2020, I think that's maybe something the Board should consider. What we do -- we expect if certain of the issues that are somewhat rate design related but would benefit from this hearing are going to be topics for each of the GRAs, that it may expand the GRAs in the interim. And when we looked at the table Mr. Russell filed in respect to the -- some of the potential changes that we could see in revenue to cost ratios because of a reinterpretation or reapplication of the LIREPP calculation, it changes where people and rate classes end up. It may impact that proposed 10-year plan or the consequences of that 10-year plan and how people move and adjust. Therefore, like we -- in considering this, we focused on an element of the Electricity Act and the provincial policy around stable and predictable rates. And our concern is by continuing on in the absence of what should be the best information available, the AMI decision and the optionality that that provides, that we run a real risk of being inconsistent with the predictability and stability of rates over time. And therefore, we are urging caution. We are in support essentially with Mr. Furey. I think maybe in some ways we would see that certain of the issues -- very few of the issues should go in advance of the return of this whole matter. In the 18/19 GRA, as Mr. Russell had indicated, certain issues may be still dealt with in the 18/19 in his affidavit. Certainly we don't think he should be -- we should be precluded if those issues are on the table from arguing that they should not be dealt with at that point. That they should be pushed. So I think we are in a position of urging the Board to proceed cautiously with the overall -- with an overarching view to a do it once, do it right and don't risk making mistakes just -- just for the sake of making a decision. And those are my submissions.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Stoll, I think that is good advice, do it once, do it right. So in terms of setting a timing, the timing that has been suggested is to make this either parallel to or part of the 2019/2020 GRA. Does that -- in your view, is that timing appropriate?
MR. STOLL: I think it's appropriate for a lot of the issues. I don't know if we will be able to finally resolve certain things at the end of the day, as far as -- I suspect -- let's use time of use, for an example. Time of use certainly -- full implementation of time of use rates would use data from AMI. So would -- assume that we have a positive decision on AMI that provides the underlying data that -- and the analysis of that data. That's going to take some time. Therefore, we may -- the Board may come to a point let's say in 19 -- in the 19/20 GRA, we have approved AMI. We see some directional benefits to moving towards a time of use or the potentials of time of use. But you haven't necessarily settled on the implementation of that in either timing or in the -- the parsing of the various rate classes or the impacts on rate classes. That may depend on the -- that may depend on the information that is provided.
CHAIRMAN: So you do raise an interesting point about needing the data from the AMI. But on a practical basis, if one were to wait till that data was available, then this would be pushed out to a period of time I think that would be quite unacceptable for all of the other rate design issues, I think, that really are crying for attention?
MR. STOLL: Right. No, I think there are some other issues that can probably proceed in advance. But I think we have to be careful about which issues those are.
CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Black?
MS. BLACK: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I have only brief comments as well. As you, Mr. Chair, stated at the outset of this hearing this morning, the Board decided over a year ago it was in the public interest to explore these issues that are the subject of this matter now, over this time period. So as the Board recognized at that time, these issues are important. And we have talked about that today as well. And to give one example, Mr. Smith's long-standing concern about the classification of charities. And Mr. Smith has been in front of this Board and participating in stakeholder proceedings for a long time to get -- to get that concern addressed. And that is representative of a lot of these -- a lot of these issues. So I agree with Mr. Furey the Board has discretion to grant the adjournment. But in my view, since the Board was convinced in setting these issues to be explored a year ago that it was in the public interest to do so, then equally the Board must be convinced that it is in the public interest to adjourn this matter at this time. So in my view, it will be in the public interest to adjourn this matter if doing so will ultimately provide a fuller and better opportunity for these issues to be heard. And while it certainly is frustrating, some of the questions that were explored this morning in terms of the timing and what NB Power could have maybe done a better job of asking for perhaps a stay of these orders in June or before, it is frustrating to participate in these processes and feel like you are not getting any results. I think that we have to look beyond that to what ultimately is in the public interest in determining these issues. So this morning my primary concern was the adjournment without a date. And my concern about that was that some of these issues would be lost. There would be no management of how these would proceed over the coming months. So I am comforted by the notion of proceeding, exploring these issues on a parallel path or together with somehow the GRA in 19/20. Like Mr. Stewart, I -- it's my submission that that should be latest time that that occurs. If someone comes up with a better idea, we should certainly proceed based on that. The benefit of joining these issues with the '20 -- 19/20 GRA as opposed to waiting until the following summer, is that the issues could be baked into rates sooner. If we wait till summer we might not get to them even for the 20/21 GRA. So ultimately, it is my position that -- that these issues will be better explored if we do so on that schedule. You know, the decision on AMI deployment combined with having the report in November and -- and will allow some of the issues that are more dependent on AMI deployment to -- you can see the road ahead a little bit better by then. And other issues that may not require AMI deployment to explore can be explored on a speedier timetable through the 19/20 GRA. So in my view, that's the best way to proceed. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Black. Ms. Desmond, anything?
MS. DESMOND: Just a couple of comments, Mr. Chair. Mr. Furey has, as part of his argument, suggested that the issue is regulatory compression. And I just want to caution the Board that we want to make sure we are not in a position where we are dealing with regulatory compression again in 6 months or 8 months’ time. Mr. Russell, in his affidavit, has prepared a schedule with potential filing dates. In might be in the interest of all parties and the Board to have those dates confirmed so that we have assurance the filings will proceed as suggested. Mr. Furey has suggested now that the rate design filing could be tied to the 19/20 GRA. It might be prudent to have that filing date affirmed so we do know when is that 19/20 GRA going to filed so that the rate design process has a fixed date. Okay. Those are our submissions.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Desmond. Mr. Furey?
MR. FUREY: Two comments, Mr. Chair. With respect to Ms. Desmond's suggestion that perhaps now is the time to fix a date for the filing of the 19/20 GRA, I think that's premature. I mean, NB Power has a budgeting process that it has to go through. I would not be comfortable saying to the Board -- and those budgets have to be approved by the board of directors. I would not be comfortable saying today here is the specific date we are going to file the 19/20 GRA. I mean, here we are within a month of our intended -- well even less. I can't tell you the precise date today on which we are going to file the 18/19 GRA. So I think that's premature. I mean, we know we are going to file in the next few weeks but the precise date I can't tell you. So I think generally the Board has an understanding of our intended timing of filing and our intention to get to hearing dates for each GRA in the early February time frame. That's our intention. But I don't think it's appropriate to set it in stone. And finally, and maybe a little more light-hearted, I guess I will be very reluctant to bring an application for an adjournment sine die in the future. Perhaps I will finally get the message.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Furey. Look, on the -- on this issue raised by Ms. Desmond about us setting, you know, a date for the 19/20 application, I will make two comments. Firstly, that is a hearing that is established by statute so it needs to happen. It is not discretionary.
MR. FUREY: That's right.
CHAIRMAN: And NB Power doesn't have a choice as to whether or not to file. And secondly, you may or may not be aware that other jurisdictions -- and I won't say all other jurisdictions but some other jurisdictions, do set a regulatory calendar in advance essentially saying that in order to manage the regulatory load that they would have in a given year, various utilities need to know in advance. And I think it helps assist counsel for parties and all of the parties themselves to have a reasonably good idea as to when to anticipate a hearing. And of course, you know, the only way that one can establish a hearing date in advance is to say that you must file no later than a certain date. So we haven't gone down that road up until this point in time, but it is an option that we might look at, at some point in time. And a late filing -- I mean, the person who is prejudiced by a late filing quite frankly is NB Power. But it also impacts on, you know, potentially every single person in this room who has to deal with -- this isn't the only thing they have on the go as you, you know, are well aware. So that is something that we might look at sort of going forward. We certainly aren't going to make that part of any order that we might make today. But, you know, I just think it's something you should put your mind to.
MR. FUREY: And just to follow up on that, Mr. Chair. We are not averse to having that discussion. But I think it has to be a discussion.
CHAIRMAN: All right. So we will take a recess and hopefully come back with a decision on this motion this morning. Thank you.
(Short recess)
CHAIRMAN: All right. I will now give the decision of the panel with respect to the motion. Having heard submissions from all of the parties involved in this matter, and having reviewed the evidence filed in connection with the motion, the Board finds that it should exercise its discretion and grant an adjournment in this matter. The Board finds that the AMI application should precede the rate design hearing and therefore it is in the public interest to grant an adjournment. The Board will not grant the adjournment sine die, but orders the rate design hearing to be heard with the 2019/2020 GRA matter. The current schedule will continue up until November 1st 2017 with round one IRs being completed and evidence filed on November 1st as scheduled. The Board will set a procedural hearing at a later date to set a full regulatory schedule and to consider the issue of updating the evidence filed on November 1st 2017 if parties believe that that is necessary. Thank you. Anything else further today, Mr. Furey?
MR. FUREY: No. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We will adjourn.
(Adjourned)
Certified to be a true
transcript of the proceedings
of this hearing as recorded
by me, to the best of my ability.
Reporter
No comments:
Post a Comment