Full 8.9% rate increase not required, N.B. Power hearing told
Updated budget numbers wrestled from the utility give rate opponents hope increase can be trimmed
But a deterioration in N.B. Power's overall financial health revealed by the same updated numbers, which even experts call shocking, is complicating that argument.
On Tuesday, N.B. Power supplied new estimates for what it expects to spend on fuel and purchased power in the coming year and what it believes it will earn on export sales of electricity.
The figures showed a $106.4 million overall improvement over estimates N.B. Power has in its official budget document at the rate hearing, which was mostly generated last spring and never updated.
Robert
Knecht, a senior consultant at Industrial Economics Inc. in Cambridge,
Mass., has testified in multiple N.B. Power hearings and correctly
predicted years of two per cent rate increases risked getting the
utility into financial trouble. (Ed Hunter/CBC)
J.D. Irving Ltd. requested more up-to-date numbers last week, and its lead lawyer, Nancy Rubin, pounced on what they revealed.
Because the 8.9 per cent increase is meant to raise an additional $135.8 million in revenue for N.B. Power in the coming year, Rubin elicited evidence to suggest a $106.4 million improvement in budget costs and revenues shows most of the increase is not required.
"If we applied this, what would that do to the requested rate increase?" she asked utility expert Robert Knecht during cross-examination.
"Taking out $106 million from that would leave roughly $29 million, or a rate increase of somewhere between one and a half and two per cent," Knecht said.
N.B. Power lawyer John Furey said using partially updated numbers to
decide on its rate application would be unfair. (Ed Hunter/CBC)
But those same updated numbers also showed N.B. Power's current financial year has deteriorated by more than $200 million from its budget, and Knecht said this is a problem that may trump the good news about next year.
On Tuesday, Knecht said he "did not believe it" when he first saw evidence of how poorly N.B. Power's finances have deteriorated this year following a series of generating station troubles and commodity price increases.
Under new accounting systems put in place by the Higgs government, those heavy losses have to be placed in a "variance" account and billed to N.B. Power customers over multiple years until they are paid in full, with interest.
Knecht estimated that the variance account will likely reach a $300 million balance by the end of the year and that will trigger a three per cent surcharge on all N.B. Power bills starting in April 2024 until the amount is fully recovered.
U.S.-based
utility expert Vincent Musco was the final witness at N.B. Power's rate
hearing. He criticized the utility for not providing fresher budget
numbers from the start in its rate application. (Ed Hunter/CBC)
Knecht made the point that if N.B. Power makes $106 million more than expected next year because of the 8.9 per cent rate increase, it will lessen the variance account balance, so leaving it alone has a benefit.
"The variance account is starting in a terrible place," said Knecht.
"If you reduce the rates now they [customers] are going to face those costs again in the future with interest."
N.B. Power lawyer John Furey has been arguing against using the updated budget numbers to set rates for next year, in part because they involve only some of what has changed for the utility.
He noted, for example, that N.B. Power is facing $30 million in higher interest costs than it included in the original budget because of rising interest rates and new debt caused by this year's poor results.
Dustin
Madsen, a consultant from Calgary hired by the EUB, recommended a lower
increase than 8.9 per cent. He admitted being alarmed at a recent
downward turn in N.B. Power's financial situation. (Ed Hunter/CBC)
Vincent Musco, an expert witness from Washington hired by the Energy and Utilities Board, has been critical of N.B. Power for not supplying fresher budget numbers for the rate hearing. He agreed with Furey, however, that everything, good and bad, should be updated if possible.
"If there's an update where you can get it more accurate, it makes sense to do it," said Musco.
A second expert hired by the board who criticized N.B. Power's rate increase as too high also conceded to Furey he has concerns about the financial problems at the utility that were revealed during the hearing.
Dustin Madsen of Calgary recommended a rate increase for N.B. Power of "no more than 5.06 per cent" based on his review of its application but admitted he, too, was stunned by numbers showing how poorly N.B. Power is doing this year.
"You sat through this proceeding. Would you agree that N.B. Power's financial condition has deteriorated? Furey asked.
"Yes, I am as surprised as Mr. Knecht," said Madsen. "I agree the position is deteriorating.
"It is alarming if that is the case."
Testimony at the hearing concluded on Wednesday afternoon. The hearing reconvenes Friday for final arguments from all parties.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
51 Comments
David Amos
Welcome back to the Circus
David Amos
Reply to David Amos
Once I noticed that the notice about his expert
which we all got from the Public Intervener on February 6th and my
immediate response were never filed in the Public Record of the EUB I
knew for certain it was gonna be another circus that they did not want
me to attend
David Amos
Oh My My 3 strikes out of the gate EH?
David Amos
Reply to David Amos
Methinks Mr Jones and Jesse Baby are gonna enjoy my next email N'esy Pas?
David Amos
Methinks the EUB Hearing slated for June 7th is gonna be quite a hoedown N'esy Pas?
David Amos
The plot thickens rather nicely
David Amos
Reply to David Amos
"Under new accounting systems put in place by the Higgs
government, those heavy losses have to be placed in a "variance" account
and billed to N.B. Power customers over multiple years until they are
paid in full, with interest.
Knecht estimated that the variance account will likely
reach a $300 million balance by the end of the year and that will
trigger a three per cent surcharge on all N.B. Power bills starting in
April 2024 until the amount is fully recovered."
Samual Johnston
It is 'funny' the NB Power's lawyer is using
the revelation that NB Power basically provided false data to the board
as an excuse to move forward with the 8.9% increase.
David Amos
Reply to Samual Johnston Why is it that I am not laughing?
Marcel Belanger
Yes NB Power needs to raise it rates, it also
needs to stop the give away of its revenue to those 6 pulp & paper
mills. It must be separate and at arms length from our provincial
governments, i.e. SJE is owned by the City of Saint-John, the council
has no say in its operations [arms length] and it’s well run &
profitable. Ot really needs a complete overhaul by people who know how
to operate a utility and not by the continuing appointments of political
favorites to plum positions. Back in the Graham government I was really
hopeful that QH was looking into buying our utility, but the hate of
Québec was stronger that good sense and now the skinny chicken is come
home to roost.
David Amos
Reply to Marcel Belanger It should be small wonder to anyone why I was conferring with Hydro Quebec this week.
Its not rocket science
David Amos
Reply to Marcel Belanger FYI The City of Saint-John reports to Higgy
David Amos
Reply to David Amos
Quebec premier to visit Newfoundland and Labrador for talks on Churchill Falls deal
Agreement signed in 1969 due to expire in 2041
The Canadian Press · Posted in CBC: Feb 21, 2023 6:43 PM AST
"Quebec Premier François Legault will travel to Newfoundland and Labrador on Thursday for two days of talks on a new Churchill Falls hydroelectricity deal.
Legault made the announcement Tuesday during question period at the Quebec legislature."
G. Timothy Walton
Reply to David Amos
I suppose "Will Kiss Them First" doesn't really belong in a headline.
David Amos
Reply to G. Timothy Walton I just got off the phone with Hydro Quebec again after I
sent them the email they requested yesterday. It was pretty comical
when mentioned their boss being over on the Rock while they tried hard
to play dumb.
FYI I am not a member of the KISS Party but I certainly helped create it
David Amos
Reply to G. Timothy Walton FYI I dealt with François Legault a former
auditor for Ernst & Young before he ever won a seat in the Quebec
Legislature. If anybody understands my concerns about Hydro Quebec and
NB Power it has to be him
Marcel Belanger
Wonder why the Irving lawyers are not
recommending that the subsidized power deal at 3 of their pulp &
paper mills be terminated. I mean… it’s the right thing to do to help
ordinary citizens…right.
David Amos
Reply to Marcel Belanger Surely you jest
Marcel Belanger
Reply to David Amos
When one reads about the highly self indulging
comments made by representatives of these entities, who suck out the
life blood of our province on a regular basis [with the aid if our
governments I will add]. Jesting is possibly the only thing remaining to
anyone who wants to retain their mental stability.
David Amos
Reply to Marcel Belanger I Wholeheartedly Agree Sir
Methinks everybody knows that why I call it a circus N'esy Pas?
A.R. Bungay
NB Power could save even more for rate payers
by trimming down over paid mangers and bonuses to said managers along
with bonuses to the CEO for doing nothing. In privately held
corporations CEO’s and upper level mangers get nothing for doing
nothing..
Joe Banff
Reply to A.R. Bungay
Not really.
Rosco holt
Reply to A.R. Bungay Sadly that's not what happening, how many time
have we seen CEOs getting bonuses even when they bankrupt the business
they are in charge of.
David Amos
Reply to Rosco holt Have you read my blog?
John Montgomery
David Amos
Reply to John Montgomery They already have them parked south of the 49th
Greg Miller
There was a news clip on BNN tonight that indicated the
windfall that Quebec Power made last year selling electricity for
something like 8.3 cents/kwh south of the border. They indicated that
in 2023 they don't expect to make as much at 5 cents/kwh.
Wow wouldn't it be nice New Brunswick?
David Amos
Reply to Greg Miller Trust that Hydro Quebec called me today and we discussed this hearing
Harvey York
Reply to David Amos
Nah, I don't believe you. Hydro Quebec has way better things to do than talk to you
David Amos
Reply to Harvey York You dudes know where to find the number
correct? 514 289 2316 Why don't you or one of your cop pals grow a couple and call
them yourselves in order to ask them if what I stated is true or false?
Trust that I will call your boss on Friday and talk about you for
obvious reasons.
Harvey York
Reply to David Amos Rosco holt
Reply to Harvey York
HQ is visiting NfLds and try to screw them over again, over Churchill falls.
David Amos
Reply to Rosco holt They also have an email from me that they requested yesterday.
I got a voicemail saying to send an email to accueil@hydroquebec.com and call 514 385 7252
David Amos<david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> | Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 1:14 PM |
| To: accueil@hydroquebec.com | |
| Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com> | |
https://davidraymondamos3. Thursday, 23 February 2023 Full 8.9% rate increase not required, N.B. Power hearing told https://www.cbc.ca/news/ Full 8.9% rate increase not required, N.B. Power hearing told Updated budget numbers wrestled from the utility give rate opponents hope increase can be trimmed Robert Jones · CBC News · Posted: Feb 22, 2023 8:00 PM AST ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail. Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 03:34:55 -0400 Subject: YO Higgy Methinks the Yankee Mr Knecht, Mr Jones of CBC, Hydro-Québec and Manitoba Hydro understand why I enjoyed it when your buddy Gary Lawson his experts stepped up to the plate oN'esy Pas??? To: "blaine.higgs" <blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>, "Lawson, Gerald" <glawson@lawsoncreamer.com>, "Alex.Vass" <Alex.Vass@gnb.ca>, "martin.gaudet" <martin.gaudet@fredericton.ca> <Mark.Blakely@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Brenda.Lucki" <Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, rel.inv@hydro.qc.ca, accueil@hydro.qc.ca, "rob.moore" <rob.moore@parl.gc.ca>, "John.Williamson" <John.Williamson@parl.gc.ca>, "Ross.Wetmore" <Ross.Wetmore@gnb.ca>, "Holland, Mike (LEG)" <mike.holland@gnb.ca>, minjus@leg.gov.mb.ca, premier <premier@leg.gov.mb.ca>, minfin@leg.gov.mb.ca, dmfin@leg.gov.mb.ca, kelvin@kelvingoertzen.com, Michael.Kerzner@pc.ola.org, "kris.austin" <kris.austin@gnb.ca>, "Yves-Francois.Blanchet" <Yves-Francois.Blanchet@parl. "jake.stewart" <jake.stewart@parl.gc.ca>, PREMIER <PREMIER@gov.ns.ca> Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, "Robert. Jones" <Robert.Jones@cbc.ca>, jesse <jesse@viafoura.com>, rdk <rdk@indecon.com>, John Furey <JohnFurey@fureylegal.com>, "fin.minfinance-financemin. <fin.minfinance-financemin. Trust that I talked to both of these Offices while the Hearing of 541 Matter was in process this week and they are expecting this email just like Mr Knecht, Mr Jones and his buddy Jesse are From Document Number 60078 in the 430 Matter Hydro‑Québec Annual Report Auditors’ fees and independence KPMG LLP, Ernst & Young LLP and the Auditor General of Québec are Hydro‑Québec’s independent auditors for 2017. The professional fees billed by KPMG LLP and by Ernst & Young LLP in 2017 for services other than auditing and certification amounted to 13.8% of the total $4.9 million in fees billed. Hydro‑Québec uses various mechanisms to enable the Audit Committee to ensure that independent auditors remain independent, including a process whereby any audit engagement is analyzed beforehand. No professional service engagement may be assigned to the Auditor General of Québec, since that office serves the National Assembly exclusively. Ethics Hydro‑Québec attaches great importance to ethics in all aspects of its activities. As a government-owned corporation, Hydro‑Québec must demonstrate exemplary probity, and it can do so only with the consistent support of its employees, who must meet the highest standards with respect to ethics and irreproachable conduct. Loyalty, integrity, respect, discretion and fairness are ethical principles reflecting Hydro‑Québec’s social commitment to its customers and the community. Ethical rules resulting from these principles are set out in the Code of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct for Directors, Executives and Controllers of Hydro‑Québec and in the employee Code of Conduct, which was updated in 2017. The latter document, available (in French only) at www.hydroquebec. com/data/a-propos/pdf/code- all employees fulfill their duties with integrity and loyalty, in accordance with Hydro‑Québec’s ethical principles. The company’s ethics training activities include a mandatory self-training program on these principles, for all employees. hydroquebec.com HYDRO-QUÉBEC Édifice Jean-Lesage 75, boulevard René-Lévesque Ouest 20e étage Montréal (Québec) H2Z 1A4 CANADA Telephone: 514 289-2211, ext. 2316 E-mail: accueil@hydro.qc.ca INVESTOR RELATIONS Édifice Jean-Lesage 75, boulevard René-Lévesque Ouest 5e étage Montréal (Québec) H2Z 1A4 CANADA Telephone: 514 289-2518 E-mail: rel.inv@hydro.qc.ca Hydro‑Québec wishes to thank all the employees and suppliers whose photos appear in this Annual Report. © Hydro-Québec Affaires corporatives et secrétariat général Reproduction authorized with reference to source Legal Deposit – 1st quarter 2018 Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec ISBN 978-2-550-80381-2 2017G300A This is a translation of the original French text. The French version shall prevail. Ce document est également diffusé en français. I got a voicemail saying to send an email to accueil@hydroquebec.com and call 514 385 7252 | |
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 10:33:58 -0400
Subject: YO Mr O'Neil I just called Correct?
To: "Conor R. O'Neil" <coneil@stewartmckelvey.com>
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Automatic reply: Matter 541 YO Mr Furey the Yankee experts should recall this email of yours Correct?
Conor R. O'Neil<coneil@stewartmckelvey.com> | Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 9:26 AM |
| To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> | |
Thank you for your message. I am out of the office until February 24, with limited access to email. I will return your message as soon as I am able. If your matter is urgent please contact our reception at (506) 632-1970.
| |
Thank you for your email
Premier<PREMIER@novascotia.ca> | Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 3:41 AM |
| To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> | |
Thank you for your email to Premier Houston. This is an automatic confirmation your message has been received. | |
Réponse automatique : YO Higgy Methinks the Yankee Mr Knecht, Mr Jones of CBC, Hydro-Québec and Manitoba Hydro understand why I enjoyed it when your buddy Gary Lawson his experts stepped up to the plate oN'esy Pas???
Blanchet, Yves-François - Député<Yves-Francois.Blanchet@parl.gc.ca> | Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 3:38 AM |
| To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> | |
(Ceci est une réponse automatique) (English follows) Bonjour, Nous avons bien reçu votre courriel et nous vous remercions d'avoir écrit à M. Yves-François Blanchet, député de Beloeil-Chambly et chef du Bloc Québécois. Comme nous avons un volume important de courriels, il nous est impossible de répondre à tous individuellement. Soyez assuré(e) que votre courriel recevra toute l'attention nécessaire. L'équipe du député Yves-François Blanchet Chef du Bloc Québécois Thank you for your email. We will read it as soon as we can. | |
YO Higgy Methinks the Yankee Mr Knecht, Mr Jones of CBC, Hydro-Québec and Manitoba Hydro understand why I enjoyed it when your buddy Gary Lawson his experts stepped up to the plate oN'esy Pas???
David Amos<david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> | Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 3:34 AM |
| To: "blaine.higgs" <blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>, "Lawson, Gerald" <glawson@lawsoncreamer.com>, "Alex.Vass" <Alex.Vass@gnb.ca>, "martin.gaudet" <martin.gaudet@fredericton.ca>, "Mark.Blakely" <Mark.Blakely@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Brenda.Lucki" <Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, rel.inv@hydro.qc.ca, accueil@hydro.qc.ca, "rob.moore" <rob.moore@parl.gc.ca>, "John.Williamson" <John.Williamson@parl.gc.ca>, "Ross.Wetmore" <Ross.Wetmore@gnb.ca>, "Holland, Mike (LEG)" <mike.holland@gnb.ca>, minjus@leg.gov.mb.ca, premier <premier@leg.gov.mb.ca>, minfin@leg.gov.mb.ca, dmfin@leg.gov.mb.ca, kelvin@kelvingoertzen.com, Michael.Kerzner@pc.ola.org, "kris.austin" <kris.austin@gnb.ca>, "Yves-Francois.Blanchet" <Yves-Francois.Blanchet@parl.gc.ca>, "jake.stewart" <jake.stewart@parl.gc.ca>, PREMIER <PREMIER@gov.ns.ca> | |
| Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, "Robert. Jones" <Robert.Jones@cbc.ca>, jesse <jesse@viafoura.com>, rdk <rdk@indecon.com>, John Furey <JohnFurey@fureylegal.com>, "fin.minfinance-financemin.fin" <fin.minfinance-financemin.fin@canada.ca> | |
Trust that I talked to both of these Offices while the Hearing of 541 Matter was in process this week and they are expecting this email just like Mr Knecht, Mr Jones and his buddy Jesse are From Document Number 60078 in the 430 Matter Hydro‑Québec Annual Report Auditors’ fees and independence KPMG LLP, Ernst & Young LLP and the Auditor General of Québec are Hydro‑Québec’s independent auditors for 2017. The professional fees billed by KPMG LLP and by Ernst & Young LLP in 2017 for services other than auditing and certification amounted to 13.8% of the total $4.9 million in fees billed. Hydro‑Québec uses various mechanisms to enable the Audit Committee to ensure that independent auditors remain independent, including a process whereby any audit engagement is analyzed beforehand. No professional service engagement may be assigned to the Auditor General of Québec, since that office serves the National Assembly exclusively. Ethics Hydro‑Québec attaches great importance to ethics in all aspects of its activities. As a government-owned corporation, Hydro‑Québec must demonstrate exemplary probity, and it can do so only with the consistent support of its employees, who must meet the highest standards with respect to ethics and irreproachable conduct. Loyalty, integrity, respect, discretion and fairness are ethical principles reflecting Hydro‑Québec’s social commitment to its customers and the community. Ethical rules resulting from these principles are set out in the Code of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct for Directors, Executives and Controllers of Hydro‑Québec and in the employee Code of Conduct, which was updated in 2017. The latter document, available (in French only) at www.hydroquebec. com/data/a-propos/pdf/code- all employees fulfill their duties with integrity and loyalty, in accordance with Hydro‑Québec’s ethical principles. The company’s ethics training activities include a mandatory self-training program on these principles, for all employees. hydroquebec.com HYDRO-QUÉBEC Édifice Jean-Lesage 75, boulevard René-Lévesque Ouest 20e étage Montréal (Québec) H2Z 1A4 CANADA Telephone: 514 289-2211, ext. 2316 E-mail: accueil@hydro.qc.ca INVESTOR RELATIONS Édifice Jean-Lesage 75, boulevard René-Lévesque Ouest 5e étage Montréal (Québec) H2Z 1A4 CANADA Telephone: 514 289-2518 E-mail: rel.inv@hydro.qc.ca Hydro‑Québec wishes to thank all the employees and suppliers whose photos appear in this Annual Report. © Hydro-Québec Affaires corporatives et secrétariat général Reproduction authorized with reference to source Legal Deposit – 1st quarter 2018 Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec ISBN 978-2-550-80381-2 2017G300A This is a translation of the original French text. The French version shall prevail. Ce document est également diffusé en français. https://www.gov.mb.ca/  Cliff Cullen Deputy Premier Minister of Finance Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro Minister's Office Phone: 204-945-3952 Fax: 204-945-6057 Email minfin@leg.gov.mb.ca 103 Legislative Building 450 Broadway Winnipeg, MB R3C 0V8 Deputy Minister's Office Richard Groen Phone: 204-945-5343 Email dmfin@leg.gov.mb.ca 109 Legislative Building 450 Broadway Winnipeg, MB R3C 0V8 NEW BRUNSWICK ENERGY and UTILITIES BOARD COMMISSION DE L’ENERGIE ET DES SERVICES PUBLICS N.-B. Matter 541 Relating to an application by New Brunswick Power Corporation pursuant to subsection 103(1) of the Electricity Act for approval of the Schedule of Rates for the fiscal year commencing April 1st 2023. Held at the Fredericton Convention Centre, Fredericton, N.B. on February 22, 2023. Members of the Board: Mr. Francois Beaulieu - Chairperson Ms. Heather Black - Member Ms. Stephanie Wilson - Member Counsel to Board Staff - Mr. Gary Lawson, Q.C. - Ms. Abigail Herrington Page 1343 Q. - Is that the test that you use in terms of providing information to the Board, that if it doesn’t alter your evidence, doesn’t change your view, you don’t think you should provide it to the Board? Recall that you said to me yesterday that in your role as an expert, you accepted that it is your obligation to point out evidence that is both supportive of your opinion and not supportive of your opinion? A. And I agree, sir. It wasn’t me trying to hide it. It is nothing nefarious. It is difficult to consistently and continuously find ways to update evidence for all new evidence. It would be -- I am not entirely sure how I would have even gone about doing it. I mean, it would have been some change. It was, again, a 5 percent reduction from where the level was. And in my opinion, given the nature of the reduction, it wouldn’t have changed my recommendation given the statement that I made. I am not recommending that the benchmarking analysis be used as the specific reduction to the capitalized costs. Q. - Okay. A. Had I been and had I said in my evidence 35.9 percent from Manitoba Hydro is the key test and the key point upon which to base the capitalization ratio on and I had developed evidence to suggest that the two entities were -- that being Manitoba Hydro and NB Power -- very much alike, which I didn’t do, then I would have updated it. But in this case it just didn’t -- it is a lot of information to track and update and I mean it goes to materiality I would say, sir. I am not suggesting that a change of 35.9 to 31 percent isn’t necessarily material. It wouldn’t be material to my recommendation. Q. - And it would have been a pretty easy update to make, right? It is just saying Manitoba Hydro’s actual is down to 31 percent in 21/22. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: NBEUB/CESPNB <General@nbeub.ca> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2023 17:04:49 +0000 Subject: RE: Matter 541 - Response to Undertaking #32 To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail. Thank you for your email to the New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board. Confidentiality Notice This message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. It must not be forwarded unless permission has been received from the sender. Disclosure to anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a waiver of privilege. If you have received this message inadvertently, please notify the sender, delete the message and then delete your response. Thank you. Avis de confidentialité Ce message ainsi que tout fichier qui pourrait l’accompagner sont confidentiels et destinés uniquement à l'usage de la personne ou de l'entité à laquelle ils sont adressés. Il ne doit pas être réacheminé sans la permission de l'expéditeur. La divulgation à toute personne autre que le destinataire prévu ne constitue pas une renonciation au privilège. Si vous avez reçu ce message par inadvertance, veuillez en informer l'expéditeur, supprimer le message, puis votre réponse. Merci. -----Original Message----- From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail. Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 12:13 PM To: Abigail J. Herrington <Aherrington@lawsoncreamer.com dmadsen.consulting@gmail.com Cc: NBP Regulatory <NBPRegulatory@nbpower.com>; Mitchell, Kathleen <Kathleen.Mitchell@nbeub.ca>; louis-philippe.gauthier@cfib. frederic.gionet@cfib.ca; david.sollows@gnb.ca; Daly, Gerard <daly@nbnet.nb.ca>; hanrahan.dion@jdirving.com; nrubin@stewartmckelvey.com; coneil@stewartmckelvey.com; lmclements@stewartmckelvey.com Brandy.Gellner@ dave.lavigne@libertyutilities. JohnFurey@fureylegal.com; Petrie, Jamie <JPetrie@nbpower.com>; Murphy, Darren <DaMurphy@nbpower.com>; Crawford, Brad <BCrawford@nbpower.com>; Gordon, Laura <LGordon@nbpower.com>; NBEUB/CESPNB <General@nbeub.ca>; Young, Dave <Dave.Young@nbeub.ca>; Dickie, Michael <Michael.Dickie@nbeub.ca>; Veronique Otis <Veronique.Otis@nbeub.ca>; Colwell, Susan <Susan.Colwell@nbeub.ca>; dustin@emrydia.com; Melissa Curran <Melissa.Curran@nbeub.ca>; Vincent.musco@bateswhite.com; richard.williams@gnb.ca; rdk@indecon.com; tyler.rajeski@twinriverspaper. darcy.ouellette@ <len.hoyt@mcinnescooper.com>; paul.black@twinriverspaper.com tammy.grieve@mcinnescooper.com shelley.wood@sjenergy.com; dan.dionne@perth-andover.com; pierreroy@edmundston.ca; pzarnett@bdrenergy.com; sstoll@stollprofcorp.com; Waycott, Stephen <SWaycott@nbpower.com> Subject: Re: Matter 541 - Response to Undertaking #32 Why didn't you and Mr. Madsen ever respond to my calls and email? On 2/22/23, Abigail J. Herrington <Aherrington@lawsoncreamer.com > Good morning, > > Please find attached a marked up copy of Mr. Madsen's evidence > denoting the corrections Mr. Madsen made to his evidence during his > oral testimony yesterday. Unless others have an objection, we propose > that it be marked for identification. > > Sincerely, > Abigail > > Abigail J. Herrington | Associate (she/her) > > Direct: 506 633 3532 Fax: 506 633 0465 Web: lawsoncreamer.com > Address: 133 Prince William Street Suite 801, Saint John New Brunswick > E2L > 2B5 > > [cid:image001.png@01D94699. > 0] > > From: Abigail J. Herrington > Sent: February 22, 2023 8:33 AM > To: NBP Regulatory <NBPRegulatory@nbpower.com>; Mitchell, Kathleen > <Kathleen.Mitchell@nbeub.ca>; louis-philippe.gauthier@cfib. > frederic.gionet@cfib.ca; David.Raymond.Amos333@gmail. > david.sollows@gnb.ca; Daly, Gerard <daly@nbnet.nb.ca>; > hanrahan.dion@jdirving.com; nrubin@stewartmckelvey.com; > coneil@stewartmckelvey.com; lmclements@stewartmckelvey.com > brudderham@stewartmckelvey.com > dave.lavigne@libertyutilities. > JohnFurey@fureylegal.com; Petrie, Jamie <JPetrie@nbpower.com>; Murphy, > Darren <DaMurphy@nbpower.com>; Crawford, Brad <BCrawford@nbpower.com>; > Gordon, Laura <LGordon@nbpower.com>; NBEUB/CESPNB <General@nbeub.ca>; > Young, Dave <Dave.Young@nbeub.ca>; Dickie, Michael > <Michael.Dickie@nbeub.ca>; Veronique Otis <Veronique.Otis@nbeub.ca>; > Colwell, Susan <Susan.Colwell@nbeub.ca>; dustin@emrydia.com; Melissa > Curran <Melissa.Curran@nbeub.ca>; Vincent.musco@bateswhite.com; > richard.williams@gnb.ca; rdk@indecon.com; > tyler.rajeski@twinriverspaper. > darcy.ouellette@ > <len.hoyt@mcinnescooper.com>; paul.black@twinriverspaper.com > tammy.grieve@mcinnescooper.com > shelley.wood@sjenergy.com; dan.dionne@perth-andover.com; > pierreroy@edmundston.ca; pzarnett@bdrenergy.com; > sstoll@stollprofcorp.com; Waycott, Stephen <SWaycott@nbpower.com> > Subject: RE: Matter 541 - Response to Undertaking #32 > > Good morning, > > Please see attached response to Undertaking Number 32. > > Thank you, > Abigail > > Abigail J. Herrington | Associate (she/her) > > Direct: 506 633 3532 Fax: 506 633 0465 Web: lawsoncreamer.com > Address: 133 Prince William Street Suite 801, Saint John New Brunswick > E2L > 2B5 > > [cid:image001.png@01D94699. > 0] > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Roger Richard <rrichard@nb.aibn.com> Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 12:00:09 -0300 Subject: Matter 458 - NB Power 2020-2021 General Rate Application / Instance no 458 - Énergie NB Demande générale de tarifs pour 2020-2021 To: "Mitchell, Kathleen" <Kathleen.Mitchell@nbeub.ca> Cc: "david.sollows@gnb.ca" <david.sollows@gnb.ca>, "cstewart@stewartmckelvey.com" <cstewart@stewartmckelvey.com> "hanrahan.dion@jdirving.com" <hanrahan.dion@jdirving.com>, "Paul.Volpe@libertyutilities. "Gilles.volpe@ <Gilles.volpe@ "dave.lavigne@ <dave.lavigne@ "jeffery.callaghan@ <jeffery.callaghan@ <Romain.Viel@mcinnescooper.com <NBPRegulatory@nbpower.com>, "lcozzarini@nbpower.com" <lcozzarini@nbpower.com>, "jfurey@nbpower.com" <jfurey@nbpower.com>, "SWaycott@nbpower.com" <SWaycott@nbpower.com>, "bcrawford@nbpower.com" <bcrawford@nbpower.com>, "wharrison@nbpower.com" <wharrison@nbpower.com>, "JGagnon@nbpower.com" <JGagnon@nbpower.com>, NBEUB/CESPNB <General@nbeub.ca>, "Lawton, John" <John.Lawton@nbeub.ca>, "Dickie, Michael" <Michael.Dickie@nbeub.ca>, "Young, Dave" <Dave.Young@nbeub.ca>, "Mitchell, Kathleen" <Kathleen.Mitchell@nbeub.ca>, "dmadsen.consulting@gmail.com" <dmadsen.consulting@gmail.com> <glawson@lawsoncreamer.com>, "mletson@lawsoncreamer.com" <mletson@lawsoncreamer.com>, "heather.black@gnb.ca" <heather.black@gnb.ca>, "rdk@indecon.com" <rdk@indecon.com>, "rrichard@nb.aibn.com" <rrichard@nb.aibn.com>, "sstoll@airdberlis.com" <sstoll@airdberlis.com>, "jeff.garrett@sjenergy.com" <jeff.garrett@sjenergy.com>, "dan.dionne@perth-andover.com" <dan.dionne@perth-andover.com> <pierreroy@edmundston.ca>, "ray.robinson@sjenergy.com" <ray.robinson@sjenergy.com>, "pzarnett@bdrenergy.com" <pzarnett@bdrenergy.com> Bonjour Mme. Mitchell, Voici une motion pour l’instance #458. Merci, Roger Richard NEW BRUNSWICK ENERGY and UTILITIES BOARD COMMISSION DE L’ENERGIE ET DES SERVICES PUBLICS N.-B. Matter 541 Relating to an application by New Brunswick Power Corporation pursuant to subsection 103(1) of the Electricity Act for approval of the Schedule of Rates for the fiscal year commencing April 1st 2023. Held at the Fredericton Convention Centre, Fredericton, N.B. on February 22, 2023. Members of the Board: Mr. Francois Beaulieu - Chairperson Ms. Heather Black - Member Ms. Stephanie Wilson - Member Counsel to Board Staff - Mr. Gary Lawson, Q.C. - Ms. Abigail Herrington Page 1352 Q. - Okay. And if we could go back to page 68 of Mr. Madsen’s -- CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Furey, would this be a good time just to take our recess? MR. FUREY: At your convenience, Mr. Chair. CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you. So we are going to break for 15 minutes. Thank you. (Recess) CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Furey, just before you continue, the two documents that I marked on behalf of the NBEUB, I think I have probably -- I have put the wrong number. So it should read NBEUB 4.01, and I was just looking at the screen a few minutes ago when you were making reference to that document, so that should -- it should not read 5.01, it should be 4.01. MR. FUREY: Sorry, 4.01? CHAIRPERSON: 4.01. MR. FUREY: So the response to undertaking 32 is 4.01? CHAIRPERSON: 4.01. And the errata should read NBEUB 4.02. MR. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Q. - Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Mr. Madsen, I have just got two areas left to cover. A. Excuse me, sir. Sorry, if you wouldn’t mind, I just have -- just before we get into that, just a clarification on the subject to check I provided you yesterday. Q. - Yes, yes. A. At transcript page 1251 in yesterday’s transcript, it says subject to check as to the date that I commenced work for the NBEUB Staff, and I said around October 28th or 29th. Just to confirm, it was October 27th. Q. - Thank you, Mr. Madsen. Ms. Curran, could we go to Mr. Madsen’s evidence NBEUB 1.01 at page 28. And if you need to go back a little bit, Mr. Madsen, this is the section where you are talking about capitalization rates generally. I am going to ask you a couple of questions on figure 2 on page 28. It appears to me what you have done is that you have taken a high level view of the labour capitalization rates of a number of Canadian utilities and compared them. Is that an accurate summary? A. That is an accurate summary, sir. Q. - And would you agree with me that this is effectively benchmarking at an entity level? A. Yeah, it is a benchmarking exercise attempting to identify whether or not there is any need to further explore numbers within NB Power. It is in an entity level. That is a fair characterization. Q. - And isn’t this the same -- exactly the same kind of exercise that you cautioned against in your evidence in Matter 458? And we can go back to that, if you would like. A. No need. The caution I provided in Matter 458 was that drawing any conclusion from an entity level type of benchmarking assessment without getting into the detailed assessment is problematic. And I believe in my evidence down below, and you may be taking me there, sir, but I believe I make that statement in my evidence. So at PDF page 29, lines 14 to 17 I say, in conclusion, the above evidence suggests NB Power may be capitalizing a lower percentage of permissible costs relative to NB Power’s peers in the Canadian utility industry. But further analysis of NB Power’s actual practices and accounting policies are required. So certainly if you were to rely solely on a benchmarking analysis to recommend an adjustment or a reduction, that would be inappropriate. Q. - I am glad -- okay. That has been a helpful clarification. So I just want to make sure that I understand this then. You are not -- on the basis of the analysis that you have done then, you are not actually recommending that the Board adjust NB Power’s labour capitalization rate to 30 percent in this proceeding? A. Let me find a reference that might be helpful to bridge this. So in exhibit zero -- NBEUB -- sorry, 03.12 which were my interrogatory responses to J.D. Irving, Limited, and specifically PDF page 15 at the bottom when you get there, Ms. Curran. Scroll down, if you could, please. So I was asked a question by J.D. Irving, is it your opinion that capitalization of the OM&A salaries as outlined is reasonable and recommended? I responded no, the analysis I prepared is largely a benchmarking analysis, which is insufficient to support a specific change in capitalization. So the analysis I performed is intended to provide context for an apparent issue in relation to capitalization that may exist with NB Power. I identified in my evidence some other specific examples where that may be supported by the actual accounting policies with NB Power. And I appreciate in the rebuttal evidence provided by NB Power that additional clarification was provided as to what their capitalization policies were. Despite that additional clarification, I think my core recommendation remains, which is that it is the lower level of capitalization with NB Power still generally remains unexplained relative to where the capitalization rates are of the peers. So I do continue to recommend that further analysis be performed. And I think that Mr. Knecht in his evidence agreed it provides a more fulsome understanding of why the difference exists. And why that is important is if there are costs that do have a longer term benefit for ratepayers that NB Power is expensing, I consider this Board should know that in a transparent manner so that it can confirm that that practice is reasonable and accepted. Because if that practice is occurring, then there are intergenerational equity considerations that need to come into play. The intent is to get a transparent understanding of what is occurring. Hopefully that is helpful. Q. - Okay. That is very helpful. Thank you. Okay. So I just have a few follow-up questions on that. If we could go back to Mr. Madsen’s evidence, Ms. Curran, at page 30, I believe. So in the first paragraph on this page you do a calculation and you do say, in fairness, to illustrate this point, which is consistent with the point you just made about capitalization rates, if NB Power capitalized on average 30 percent of its total labour costs, then you do a calculation that would lead to a difference of $32.8 million, correct? A. That is correct, sir. Q. - And Ms. Curran, if we could go to table 1 on page 6. And so the line item that reads, potential reduction related to capitalization of costs, negative 32.8 million. Can we take that out in terms of being a recommendation for this proceeding? You are not actually recommending that the Board adjust capitalization in this proceeding any longer? A. It is included in the table as a potential reduction. I continue to consider it to be an important consideration because if there is an under capitalization occurring, it should be adjusted for sooner rather than later. However, you are right, Mr. Furey, I am not specifically recommending in this proceeding that the adjustment be made to the rates. I am suggesting that if the Board considers that based on the evidence provided, there is adequate evidence to make an adjustment, that would be an adjustment that is potentially available. I am not specifically recommending that that adjustment be made. My preference would be to adjust the capitalization based on a more detailed study. Q. - So is it fair to say then that your recommendation is that there be some additional benchmarking -- more detailed study -- I don’t like to use the term benchmarking in this context, given our discussion about its limitations, but your recommendation is that there be a more detailed study produced by NB Power with respect to its level of capitalization of labour? A. Yes, that would be helpful. Q. - Okay. A. Going back to the previous capitalized overhead study that was performed, I had questions -- we don’t have to go back to those -- that I had flagged in my evidence around the level of costs that are being capitalized. I think more understanding as to what is actually being done would be helpful certainly, and I think I have expanded on that in several information responses to several parties as well. Q. - Okay. And I just -- I am going to continue. Let’s go back to page 28, Ms. Curran. So if we could go down to the bottom of that page. So that table that we just looked at that included a grouping -- I am sorry, Ms. Curran, maybe we should go back up to the top of the page. That table includes utilities that are not integrated utilities. There are some transmission only, some distribution only utilities, correct? A. That is correct. I included them in the table because I do have, fortunately for NB Power, division level information for transmission distribution generation and PLNGS, so it was to provide another benchmark. Q. - Okay. Thank you. And at the bottom of the page, if we could go back down, you do refer to two utilities. You say at the very last lines 15 to 17, you say when NB Power’s totals compared to remaining integrated regulated government owned utilities, the following are the results, and we are going to go on to see that on the next page in a second. But the two we are talking about are Manitoba Hydro and BC Hydro, correct? A. That is correct, sir. Q. - And at the top of the next page, we will see those two and you show a level of capitalization. So I guess my first question is specific to Manitoba Hydro, when -- what years would this represent? When -- what did you look at to analyze the Manitoba Hydro capitalization rate? A. So when I conducted this analysis, it was drawn from Manitoba Hydro’s 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 interim rate application, which would have been specifically the 2021 to 2022 budgeted amount. Q. - And would you agree with me generally that capitalization rates will -- one of the significant factors that could affect capitalization rates is whether or not a utility is building large projects versus a utility that has not been building large projects? A. Yes, all else being equal, if the utility is utilizing internal resources at an increased level through a large capital build, there would be a larger level of capitalization of resources. One consideration that needs to be made in that case too is as the entity exits the large capital build, the redeployment of staff is an important consideration, because if the staff was built up to perform capital work, and that is no longer required, confirming that they are properly aligned to actual day-to-day O&M -- OM&A work in the future is an important consideration. But yes, it is a variable that can happen, particularly where an entity does not rely heavily on hired services to perform the capital work, that is kind of at peak level. Q. - And Ms. Curran, could we go back to NBP 25.03 for a moment? It is undertaking 19. And if we can go to the table on the second page. So if we look at the Mactaquac project, all the spending to date, you can -- would you agree with me that approximately almost 99 percent of the life achievement project costs are being capitalized? A. Yes, sir. Q. - And would that be typical in a very large construction endeavour like the Mactaquac project? A. Certainly the majority of the costs are going to be capital in nature. I would assume that the OM&A costs that are listed here would be -- I don’t have a characterization as to what they would be, but they probably be just some one-off cost that would be ordinary in nature that would continue, maybe just incremental as a result of this effort. Q. - Okay. And so you are based out of Calgary. Presumably you have a fair bit of knowledge about the utility sector in Western Canada, is that generally correct? A. Yes, Sir. Q. - Would you agree with me that with respect to Manitoba Hydro, they have just come out of a very significant period of capital expansion related to the Bipole III and Keeyask projects? A. Yes, sir. Q. - And generally the same as -- well, not the same for BC Hydro. BC Hydro is still in a process of large capital builds, are they not? A. Yeah, there is some transmission Site C out in BC. Q. - And Site C is a $16 billion project? A. Yes, it is a very expensive asset. Q. - So you would expect their capitalization rates to be higher during that period of time? A. Again, subject to my caveat, depending upon how they are staffing up for those costs. So I will give you an example, AltaLink in Alberta added many billions of dollars in transmission infrastructure to its assets over a very short period of time, but relied entirely upon external contractors to do all of its engineering, procurement and construction management work throughout that period of time. It had a consistent -- relatively consistent level of internal capitalization of resources through that time as a result. So that didn’t change significantly. So it can depend greatly upon how much internal staff are utilized. Another example would be ATCO Electric. They used internal staff -- subject -- during the same period of time when they had a large build. At the conclusion of the build they terminated, I believe, 35 percent of their workforce and incurred the severance costs related to that as well, millions and millions of dollars. So there is different judgments that need to be made, but yes, certainly if you are utilizing internal labour, you will have a higher level of capitalization of internal resources. Q. - Right. And this is just all the more reason to have a more granular understanding of the operational characteristics of any benchmarking analysis. So you -- to properly compare, you need to understand whether the organization you are comparing to is in a capital mode or a status quo mode. You need to understand if they are in a capital building phase, what is their approach? Are they heavily reliant on hired services? Are they relying relatively more on internal labour? Those are all things you need to understand, correct? A. Correct. And is why I recommend the more detailed study be performed. Q. - Okay. And just one last question on this area. Ms. Curran, could you bring up the aid to cross that was circulated this morning? CHAIRPERSON: Do you want it marked, Mr. Furey? MR. FUREY: Yes, please, Mr. Chair. CHAIRPERSON: So that will become ID -- I think we are at 11. Yeah, ID number 11. Q. - So just a couple of questions on this, Mr. Madsen. Could we go down to the table figure 6.23 that appears on that page. So two questions. So one, generally, would you agree that in the case of Manitoba Hydro -- and by the way, this is an excerpt from their 23/24 24/25 GRA. The date on it is November 15th 2022. So would you agree with me generally that the experience of Manitoba Hydro was generally kind of as I described, the -- during the period of capital activity associated with Bipole III and Keeyask, their capitalization rates went up, and it peaked. There was another project that was offsetting the Bipole III wind down and then when all of it wound down, the capitalization rates began to decrease fairly significantly. Is that a general -- generally accurate description of what is going on there? A. Yes, sir, it is. And it might be helpful context. So I am not sure if you are aware of this, sir, but I am retained in this proceeding for a client in Manitoba Hydro. So this is an important issue that is being addressed in Manitoba. As you see that wind down from 34 percent in 20/21 -- 2020/21 down to kind of a more flat level of 31 percent to 30 percent. That is occurring at the same time as operating costs are increasing significantly at Manitoba Hydro. The staff are not terminated. They are being repurposed to OM&A costs. As they were previously doing capital, they are now being repurposed to other efforts. So that is certainly an issue that is being considered. I agree, broadly, the direction of how they have utilized their staff is to use internal staff based on this figure to perform a significant amount of the work related to these projects and that that has wound down. So for this specific utility, that is the case. Q. - Right. And it will vary according to how the work is done. I accept all that. But in the case of Manitoba Hydro, that statement is generally true, capitalization rates went up when they were in capital build mode, and they came down as those projects finished? A. Yes. Q. - Okay. When were you retained in that matter? A. That is a great question. Do you want a specific day, sir? Q. - Well, was it before you filed your evidence in this matter? A. It would have been. Yes, yes. Q. - Yes. Okay. A. So I was aware of this table -- this figure in preparing my evidence. The more detailed calculations that I would have relied upon to perform the 35.9, I believe is the calculation I used for Manitoba Hydro, I think came out through the interrogatory phase of the proceeding. I had comfort though that when I was looking at my analysis at 30 percent, that is generally the level at which I did my initial estimate and potential calculation when I estimated what would be a revised amount. So I didn’t feel that there was any need to adjust it. As we have discussed, the levels have changed. My number was 35 point -- subject to check, 35.9, which is relatively consistent with the level during the 2020/2021 period. And hopefully that is helpful. I was aware of it but didn’t have the detailed information to update the graph in time to include it in my evidence. Q. - So you told me a little earlier that your analysis with respect to calculating these rates was based on, I think you said, 2019/20 and 2020/21 interim rate application, correct? A. No, my apologies. There was a number in the budget, and I believe I filed these tables in response to an information request from NB Power. But it was the 2021 to 2022 budget number. Q. - Okay. Well the record will tell us that. But in any event, when you filed the table -- or your evidence, the table that appears at page 29 of your evidence which shows, as you say, Manitoba Hydro capitalizing at approximately 36 percent, you were aware of this table that is up on the screen now that showed actual capitalization from Manitoba Hydro to be 31 percent in 2021/22, correct? A. So I prepared the table, this initial table, in work related to the information request that was put to NB Power. And sir, maybe you could refresh for me when the interrogatories were submitted, it was some time in November, I believe? I prepared this table in advance -- this figure in advance of the information request to NB Power because we cited some information from this table in -- Q. - Yeah, you put this evidence in the interrogatory request. A. That is correct, sir. Q. - But you weren’t relying on NB Power -- NB Power didn’t give you this number to come to 35.9 percent? A. No, sir, no. So again, this table that was put into my evidence was created in advance to assist with the information request process. Following from that, I believe we asked interrogatories in this case. It would have been right after, I think, I filed evidence in this matter for Manitoba when I would have become more aware of the number for 31 to 30 percent. Certainly wouldn’t have been aware of it on the date that the application was filed on November 15th. I, unfortunately, cannot read that fast. Q. - Right. But your evidence -- you indicated earlier that you were retained in this -- in the Manitoba matter before you filed your evidence in this matter? A. Yes. Q. - And so you would have been aware of this table. And I guess I am wondering why you would not have updated your table figure 3 on page 29 to account for a relatively significant decline in the capitalization -- actual capitalization rates from Manitoba Hydro and the budgeted capitalization rates in the Manitoba Hydro application. I mean, that is a drop of 5 percent, isn’t it? A. Closer to 6 -- Yeah, about 5 percent depending on which number you are you are tracking to, sir. I suppose the answer is it wouldn’t have changed my recommendation had I even used a -- had I put in 30 percent, it wouldn’t have altered my evidence in any way, shape or form. NB Power is still well below that number. Q. - Is that the test that you use in terms of providing information to the Board, that if it doesn’t alter your evidence, doesn’t change your view, you don’t think you should provide it to the Board? Recall that you said to me yesterday that in your role as an expert, you accepted that it is your obligation to point out evidence that is both supportive of your opinion and not supportive of your opinion? A. And I agree, sir. It wasn’t me trying to hide it. It is nothing nefarious. It is difficult to consistently and continuously find ways to update evidence for all new evidence. It would be -- I am not entirely sure how I would have even gone about doing it. I mean, it would have been some change. It was, again, a 5 percent reduction from where the level was. And in my opinion, given the nature of the reduction, it wouldn’t have changed my recommendation given the statement that I made. I am not recommending that the benchmarking analysis be used as the specific reduction to the capitalized costs. Q. - Okay. A. Had I been and had I said in my evidence 35.9 percent from Manitoba Hydro is the key test and the key point upon which to base the capitalization ratio on and I had developed evidence to suggest that the two entities were -- that being Manitoba Hydro and NB Power -- very much alike, which I didn’t do, then I would have updated it. But in this case it just didn’t -- it is a lot of information to track and update and I mean it goes to materiality I would say, sir. I am not suggesting that a change of 35.9 to 31 percent isn’t necessarily material. It wouldn’t be material to my recommendation. Q. - And it would have been a pretty easy update to make, right? It is just saying Manitoba Hydro’s actual is down to 31 percent in 21/22. A. Yes, then I also would have had to update the information for AltaLink, ATCO Electric, Hydro One, BC Hydro from more current information. I am looking at -- so why I did the analysis, was this information is not always presented in the form it is. The entities that I was able to isolate all had consistent information from 2021 to 2022 based on the data at that period of time. If I update one party to 2023 or more current information, I would have to update them all or start excluding parties from the list and adding new parties that have new information. It would have been a not as simple of an exercise to update one single number, sir. Q. - Well, I am glad that you agree that it is inappropriate to update one single number. Thanks for that. One last area, Mr. Madsen. Ms. Curran, could we go back to NBEUB 4.01. It’s the response the undertaking number 32. Sorry. Maybe we are -- maybe I have misunderstood. Oh no. I have made the wrong reference. Ident 10, please. Identification number 10. So before we refer to this document, Mr. Madsen, you were not asked to make any or give any opinion in this matter with respect to NB Power’s net earnings, is that correct? A. Sorry, sir. I’m just going to bring up the engagement letter here really quick. MR. LAWSON: Just for clarity, are we talking about this current matter or the Matter 458? MR. FUREY: This current matter. MR. LAWSON: Thank you. A. So the scope of work was to provide findings and recommendations regarding the following issues. Operation and maintenance costs -- I’m sorry. I’m referring -- I’m at exhibit NBEUB 03.02, PDF page 13. And I will restart. Provide findings and recommendations regarding the following issues. Operation and maintenance costs, information technology costs, storm contingency costs, interest costs, revenues and net earnings and capital expenditures. So net earnings was subject to the review, yes. Q. - I don’t see it. Where were you reading from? A. The scope of work from the engagement letter at PDF page 13 under item 1. Towards the end there, sir. Q. - And can you point me to anything in your report where you address the issue of net earnings? A. I do not. The -- in Matter 458 I had commented that to some extent on the nature of the net earnings and the potential methodology for smoothing out or coming up to a more concrete calculation for net earnings. In this matter I had noted the majority of the applied for increases and costs were outside of net earnings. The amount applied for for net earnings is quite small. So I did not specifically address that cost. Q. - So you were asked to but did not? A. No, I did. I reviewed the calculation of net earnings, how it was derived. It is -- continues to be a -- for lack of a better word -- a plug, an amount that gets to an overall revenue number at the end based on all other elements of the revenue requirement application as applied for. Q. - Okay. But as I read scope of work in item number I here, if we just read around all the other stuff, it says, Emrydia will review the application and provide findings and recommendations regarding revenues and net earnings. You didn’t provide any finding or recommendation regarding net earnings? A. Yes, sir. And the main reason is is because after a review of the application, I wouldn’t have recommended in the context of an 8.9 percent increase, even after factoring in the recommended reductions, much of a further increase in net earnings at that point. I didn’t think it was necessary. Q. - I’m sorry. Could you repeat that? A. After looking through and in the context of an 8.9 percent application for a rate increase, which is what NB Power is seeking, when I looked at the applied for net earnings, I did not consider it would be appropriate to recommend an increase in net earnings. Q. - Okay. So could we go back to identification number 10, Ms. Curran. And if we go to page 2 of the PDF. So you have titled this as -- it’s section 4 of your evidence in Matter 458, NB Power’s Approach to Achieving the Legislated Equity Ratio. But what you are really talking about here is the level of net earnings designed to achieve that, correct? A. That’s correct, sir. Q. - And if we could go to page 17 of the document, Ms. Curran. It’s probably PDF 5 or 6. Yes. Paragraph 66. That’s right. Thank you. And so at that time in the context of that application, you agree with me that you expressed the opinion that it was important that NB Power achieve the equity ratio of 20 percent by 2027, correct? A. That is correct, sir. Q. - And you have sat through this proceeding. Would you agree that NB Power’s financial condition has deteriorated since the time of that application? A. Yes, sir. And I’m as surprised as Mr. Knecht. I have heard statements to the effect that there is an additional $30 million of interest expense being incurred above the forecast, if I understand that correctly, which by my math, at a 4 percent rate, implies that there was an additional $750 million of interest -- or debt, pardon me -- issued, which is significant. Very significant. I agree that there appears to be a position, the position is deteriorating. And I agree that the current target remains to be 2027 for achieving the equity ratio, and it’s certainly becoming more difficult. Q. - Okay. So let’s just take a step back on your calculation of $750 million in new debt. You would agree with me that Mr. Good’s evidence indicated that that $30 million increase was a combination of the increase in rates today over forecast and an increase in debt. So it’s not all related to an increase in debt, you would agree with that? A. Certainly. But if it’s still a $30 million increase over what is applied for in 2023/2024, whether you are -- if you are simply replacing debt at a lower rate with debt at a higher rate, then you would be actually increasing the amount of debt that you would overall be issuing. Q. - Right. But if half of the $30 million increase arises because short-term interest rates have gone up from the forecast of 3.1 percent to 4.75 percent, that’s not an increase in debt. That’s just an increase in the rate of existing debt. A. And so I think that’s the point of clarification. Is it a $30 million increase in interest costs based on what is assumed in the existing forecast, or is it a $30 million increase in interest based on a change from a previous point in time? It could be helpful to bring up exhibit 07.03 to see the trend in interest expenses, if you want to go there, sir. But I wasn’t clear as to whether or not NB Power is asking for what would in effect -- or suggesting what is in effect an increase of interest costs from ballpark $200 million to $230 million, and that’s from a forecast number. If that is the case, that is a very significant material change in interest expense in the test period. And I don’t think it’s understood, to be clear. And it is alarming for sure if that is the case. Q. - Okay. So we agree that hitting 20 percent by 2027 is important, and if we go to page 19 -- so two more pages in, Ms. Curran, at paragraph -- the top of that page. Right. So now, Mr. Madsen, I’m not going to make this out to be more than it is because you go on later in this to say you are not sure whether you are actually recommending at that time a $71 million -- a $78 million income level, but you do agree with me that at that time in this table for estimate of reasonable net earnings, you were recommending to the Board that an estimate of reasonable net earnings for NB Power to achieve $499 million improvement by 2027 was in the range of 78 to 88 million dollars over that six year period? A. Yes, sir. Q. - And you were here when Mr. Knecht testified yesterday? A. Yes, sir. Q. - And that’s roughly -- maybe at the low end, but certainly roughly where Mr. Knecht was as well. He was indicating somewhere in the 80 to hundred million dollar range, correct? A. Well in order to close the gap, so to say, yes, you would need to have a pretty significant increase in net earnings, which was why I was somewhat surprised at NB Power’s applying for a lesser amount than that, although obviously in the context of the applied for increase, right. As I think Mr. Knecht said, if you were to apply for an $80 million increase above the increase already applied for, you are in the order of magnitude of something around 14 percent, subject to check. MR. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Madsen. I appreciate your time this morning. Those are all my questions, Mr. Chair. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Furey. So just looking at the time, I think we are going to break for lunch. And Mr. Daly, are you going to have any questions for this witness? MR. DALY: No, Chair. CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you. And Ms. Rubin, any questions for this witness? MS. RUBIN: Yes, I will. CHAIRPERSON: Okay. So we will resume at 1:00 with your questions. Thank you. (Recess - 12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m.) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail. Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 14:26:12 -0300 Subject: YO Higgy Methinks I should remind Minister Mikey Holland , your Attorney General, the EUB and NB Power's lawyers what the EUB said to Lori Clark long ago N'esy Pas??? To: blaine.higgs@gnb.ca, heather.black@gnb.ca, SWaycott@nbpower.com, John.Lawton@nbeub.ca, Dave.Young@nbeub.ca, mike.holland@gnb.ca, glawson@lawsoncreamer.com, mletson@lawsoncreamer.com, david.sollows@gnb.ca, Heather.Quinn@gnb.ca, hanrahan.dion@jdirving.com, cstewart@stewartmckelvey.com, sstoll@airdberlis.com Cc: ross.wetmore@gnb.ca, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, jeveritt@unb.ca, trampersaud@townofriverview.ca andrea.johnson@pcnb.org, slmaceachern@gmail.com, kathy.bockus@pcnb.org, Tammy.Scott-Wallace@pcnb.org, dunnstheone@btss.ca, Arlene.Dunn66@gmail.com, jill.green.fton@gmail.com, info@forestsinternational.org, dana@forestsinternational.org, dorothy.shephard@gnb.ca, Kevin.Price@gnb.ca, info@onbcanada.ca, dale.morgan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, "Mark.Blakely" <Mark.Blakely@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Roger.Brown" <Roger.Brown@fredericton.ca>, "martin.gaudet" <martin.gaudet@fredericton.ca> <Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "barbara.massey" <barbara.massey@rcmp-grc.gc.ca <barb.whitenect@gnb.ca>, "Robert. Jones" <Robert.Jones@cbc.ca>, lclark@nbpower.com, colleen.dentremont@ "Bill.Morneau" <Bill.Morneau@canada.ca>, premier <premier@ontario.ca>, Office of the Premier <scott.moe@gov.sk.ca>, premier <premier@gov.ab.ca>, wharrison <wharrison@nbpower.com>, gthomas <gthomas@nbpower.com>, Andrea.AndersonMason@gnb.ca, jesse <jesse@viafoura.com>, news <news@dailygleaner.com>, nben@nben.ca, premier <premier@gnb.ca>, "dominic.leblanc.c1" <dominic.leblanc.c1@parl.gc.ca <Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca>, "jeff.carr" <jeff.carr@gnb.ca>, oldmaison@yahoo.com, andre <andre@jafaust.com>, "Ginette.PetitpasTaylor" <Ginette.PetitpasTaylor@parl. "Sherry.Wilson" <Sherry.Wilson@gnb.ca>, megan.mitton@gnb.ca, "David.Coon" <David.Coon@gnb.ca>, "Arseneau, Kevin (LEG)" <Kevin.A.Arseneau@gnb.ca>, Newsroom <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, Nathalie Sturgeon <sturgeon.nathalie@ <mary.wilson@gnb.ca>, "steve.murphy" <steve.murphy@ctv.ca>, "nick.brown" <nick.brown@gnb.ca>, "robert.mckee" <robert.mckee@gnb.ca>, "Kevin.Vickers" <Kevin.Vickers@gnb.ca>, "Tim.RICHARDSON" <Tim.RICHARDSON@gnb.ca>, "Trevor.Holder" <Trevor.Holder@gnb.ca>, "rick.desaulniers" <rick.desaulniers@gnb.ca>, "michelle.conroy" <michelle.conroy@gnb.ca>, "Mike.Comeau" <Mike.Comeau@gnb.ca>, "carl. davies" <carl.davies@gnb.ca>, "carl.urquhart" <carl.urquhart@gnb.ca>, "Cathy.Rogers" <Cathy.Rogers@gnb.ca>, "robert.gauvin" <robert.gauvin@gnb.ca>, "Roger.L.Melanson" <roger.l.melanson@gnb.ca>, "ron.tremblay2" <ron.tremblay2@gmail.com>, philippe@dunsky.com, Steven_Reid3@carleton.ca, "darrow.macintyre" <darrow.macintyre@cbc.ca>, "Chuck.Thompson" <Chuck.Thompson@cbc.ca>, "sylvie.gadoury" <sylvie.gadoury@radio-canada. jefferson@ufoparty.ca, cfta@eastlink.ca, votemaxime@gmail.com, heather.collins.panb@gmail.com .andre@jafaust.com, Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca, mckeen.randy@gmail.com, atlanticnews@ctv.ca, gregory.craig@skadden.com, Patrick.Fitzgerald@skadden.com ron.klain@revolution.com, Jason.Hoyt@gnb.ca, news <news@hilltimes.com>, "andrea.anderson-mason" <andrea.anderson-mason@gnb.ca> <Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>, "Jody.Wilson-Raybould" <Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc. <David.Lametti@parl.gc.ca>, "Jane.Philpott" <Jane.Philpott@parl.gc.ca>, "hugh.flemming" <hugh.flemming@gnb.ca>, tolson@gibsondunn.com, bginsberg@pattonboggs.com, mark.vespucci@ci.irs.gov, pm@pm.gc.ca, Office@tigta.treas.gov, Juanita.Peddle@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, police@fredericton.ca, Frank.McKenna@td.com, Kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, terry.seguin@cbc.ca, Charles.Murray@gnb.ca, aip-aivp@gnb.ca, mark@huddle.today, perry.brad@radioabl.ca ---------- Original message ---------- From: "Anderson-Mason, Andrea Hon. (JAG/JPG)" <Andrea.AndersonMason@gnb.ca> Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 16:54:11 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: YO Higgy Methinks whereas there is no transcript available that supports the EUB decision about "Not So Smart" Meters folks are entitled to know what my friend Roger Richard before the election N'esy Pas??? To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> Thank you for your email. Your thoughts, comments and input are greatly valued. You can be assured that all emails and letters are carefully read, reviewed and taken into consideration. Thank you. Merci pour votre courriel. Nous vous sommes très reconnaissants de nous avoir fait part de vos idées, commentaires et observations. Nous tenons à vous assurer que nous lisons attentivement et prenons en considération tous les courriels et lettres que nous recevons. Merci. Andrea Anderson-Mason, Q.C. / c.r. ---------- Original message ---------- From: NBEUB/CESPNB <General@nbeub.ca> Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2020 16:35:06 +0000 Subject: RE: YO Minister Mikey Holland RE The Not So Smart Meter Games I trust that your lawyer or Ellen Desmond can explain what the EUB has acknowledged before I take you people to a REAL COURT To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail. Thank you for your email to the Energy and Utilities Board. *** La Commission de l'énergie et des services publics du Nouveau-Brunswick vous remercie pour votre courriel. N.B. Energy and Utilities Board Commission de l’énergie et des services publics du N.-B. 15 Market Square – Suite 1400 P.O. Box 5001/C.P. 5001 Saint John, NB E2L 4Y9 Telephone : 506-658-2504 Fax/Télécopieur : 506-643-7300 Email : general@nbeub.ca / Courriel : general@cespnb.ca Website: www.nbeub.ca / Site Web : www.cespnb.ca Confidentiality Notice This private message (and any attachments) is for the exclusive use of the individual for whom, or entity for which, it is intended. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure by law. Its author does not waive the protection afforded to it under applicable law. Disclosure to anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute waiver of privilege. Its possession or usage, by any person other than the one for whom it is intended, is not authorized by its author and is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, at our expense, by telephone at (506) 658-2504. Also, if you received this email in error, delete it and any attachments from your computer system and records. Thank you. Avis de confidentialité Ce message privé (et toutes les pièces jointes) est à l'usage exclusif de la personne pour laquelle ou entité pour laquelle, il est destiné. Il peut contenir des informations qui sont personnelles, confidentielles ou exemptées de la divulgation par la loi. Son auteur ne renonce pas à la protection accordée en vertu de la loi applicable. Sa divulgation à toute personne autre que son destinataire ne constitue pas une renonciation de privilège. Sa possession ou l'utilisation, par une personne autre que celle pour laquelle il est destiné, n'est pas autorisée par son auteur et est strictement interdite. Si vous recevez cette communication par erreur, veuillez nous appeler dans les plus brefs délais, à frais virés, au (506) 658-2504. Aussi, si vous avez reçu ce courriel par erreur, veuillez effacer ce courriel, ainsi que les pièces jointes, de votre système informatique et de vos dossiers. Merci. -----Original Message----- From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail. Sent: August 6, 2020 12:29 PM To: Holland, Mike (LEG) <mike.holland@gnb.ca>; blaine.higgs <blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>; Kevin.Vickers <Kevin.Vickers@gnb.ca>; kris.austin <kris.austin@gnb.ca>; rick.desaulniers@gnb.ca; michelle.conroy@gnb.ca; briangallant10 <briangallant10@gmail.com>; Davidc.Coon <Davidc.Coon@gmail.com>; louis-philippe.gauthier@cfib. david.russell@gnb.ca; Gilles.volpe@libertyutilities. Paul.Volpe@libertyutilities. Hoyt, Len <len.hoyt@mcinnescooper.com>; jeffery.callaghan@ gerald@kissnb.com; cstewart@stewartmckelvey.com; hanrahan.dion@jdirving.com; lcozzarini@nbpower.com; jfurey@nbpower.com; srussell@nbpower.com; wharrison@nbpower.com; NBPRegulatory@nbpower.com; SWaycott@nbpower.com; bcrawford@nbpower.com; George.Porter@nbpower.com; NBEUB/CESPNB <General@nbeub.ca>; Dickie, Michael <Michael.Dickie@nbeub.ca>; Lawton, John <John.Lawton@nbeub.ca>; Young, Dave <Dave.Young@nbeub.ca>; Ahmad.Faruqui@brattle.com; Cecile.Bourbonnais@brattle.com leducjr@nb.sympatico.ca; Colleen.Mitchell@ david.sollows@gnb.ca; NbdotCa@hotmail.com; Clark, Lori <LClark@nbpower.com>; Gagnon, Jessica Lynn <JGagnon@nbpower.com>; Desmond, Ellen <ecdesmond@nbeub.ca>; anapoleon@synapse-energy.com; bhavumaki@synapse-energy.com; mikemckinley@rogers.com; heather.black@gnb.ca; kkelly@daymarkea.com; jathas@daymarkea.com; pdidomenico@daymarkea.com; rrichard@nb.aibn.com; geoff.flood@t4g.com; sstoll@airdberlis.com; jeff.garrett@sjenergy.com; dan.dionne@perth-andover.com; pierreroy@edmundston.ca; ray.robinson@sjenergy.com; pzarnett@bdrenergy.com; Dominic.Cardy <Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca>; bruce.northrup <bruce.northrup@gnb.ca>; jake.stewart <jake.stewart@gnb.ca>; Jody.Wilson-Raybould <Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc. <Bill.Morneau@canada.ca>; fin.minfinance-financemin.fin@ oldmaison@yahoo.com; ron.tremblay2@gmail.com; aadnc.minister.aandc@canada.ca <David.Coon@gnb.ca>; elizabeth.may@parl.gc.ca; Mitton, Megan (LEG) <megan.mitton@gnb.ca>; Arseneau, Kevin (LEG) <kevin.a.arseneau@gnb.ca>; Kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca; Dale.Morgan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca; dan. bussieres <dan.bussieres@gnb.ca>; serge.rousselle <serge.rousselle@gnb.ca>; greg.byrne <greg.byrne@gnb.ca>; Jack.Keir <Jack.Keir@gnb.ca>; tyler.campbell <tyler.campbell@gnb.ca>; jeff.carr <jeff.carr@gnb.ca>; bob.atwin@nb.aibn.com; jjatwin@gmail.com; markandcaroline <markandcaroline@gmail.com>; sheppardmargo@gmail.com; jordan.gill@cbc.ca; steve.murphy <steve.murphy@ctv.ca>; David.Akin <David.Akin@globalnews.ca> Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>; robert.gauvin <robert.gauvin@gnb.ca>; Ross.Wetmore <Ross.Wetmore@gnb.ca>; newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.ca>; Robert. Jones <Robert.Jones@cbc.ca> Subject: YO Minister Mikey Holland RE The Not So Smart Meter Games I trust that your lawyer or Ellen Desmond can explain what the EUB has acknowledged before I take you people to a REAL COURT These are the EUB published words not mine CORRECT? These documents can be sourced from the records of the 375 Matter http://www.nbeub.ca/opt/M/ 02/07/2018 Hearing - Day 1 / Audience - 1ier jour Page 295 VICE-CHAIRMAN: Thank you. So there is the two interveners or two participants in the proceeding that have no legal counsel. One is Mr. Richard and the other one is Mr. Bourque. So I just want to provide -- yes, Mr. Rouse? MR. ROUSE: I guess I don't have legal counsel either. VICE-CHAIRMAN: True. So you are -- NCFS doesn't have legal counsel? MR. ROUSE: That's correct. VICE-CHAIRMAN: So I will address the three of you then. So Mr. Bourque and Mr. Rouse -- I think, Mr. Rouse, you know how the proceeding proceeds. So Mr. Bourque, essentially when it comes and you have a panel, they are subject to cross-examination. And if you do have any questions specifically to the panel, you will be asked to come in front and ask your question to whomever your questions you want to ask to. Now if there is an objection to your questioning I would ask you to stop and at that point what I will do is I will hear the person who was objecting to your question and afterwards I will hear if you have any other comments to make regarding the objection and we will deal with those -- with the objection as it comes. So do you understand that? MR. BOURQUE: Yes, I do and thanks for explaining it. VICE-CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. Monsieur Richard, essentiellement qu’est ce qui va arriver, pis quoi je mentionnais en anglais, c’est que vous êtes non-représenté par un avocat donc vous – peut-être que vous connaissez pas toute la façon que les procédures fonctionnent. Donc, l’Énergie Nouveau-Brunswick a différent panel qui – qui vont introduire pour – pour – pour contre-interrogatoire, donc si vous avez des questions a demandé aux personnes, donc, vous allez poser vos questions à ces personnes-là. Et puis si y’a une partie qui s’objecte à votre question, j’vous demanderais juste d’arrêter. Et puis quoi ce que la Commission va faire c’est qu’elle va entendre la partie qui s’objecte. Et puis à ce moment-là j’vas vous demandez si vous avez aucun commentaire à regarder l’objection et puis on – on va – on va rendre une décision à ce point-là relativement à l’objection. Est-ce que vous comprenez ceci. DR. RICHARD: Oui. Oui, Monsieur Vice-président. VICE-CHAIRMAN : Pis je comprends aussi que, Monsieur Richard, que vous êtes un professionnel, donc durant la procédure vous serez pas ici à tous les jours. J’pense que vous avez autorisé un Monsieur LeBlanc de – d’être ici à – pour vous représenter lorsque vous serez dans votre clinique. Je ne sais pas où votre clinique est, donc ce que je comprends bien que cette personne-là va vous représentez lorsque vous serez pas disponible. DR. RICHARD : Oui c’est bien ça Page 322 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BOURQUE: Q. - Mr. Murphy, as Chief Financial Officer, do you agree with 13 the accounting of KPMG? MR. MURPHY: Sorry, do I understand the question, do I agree with the accounting of KPMG? Q. - Yes. MR. MURPHY: Yes, I do. Q. - Do you know the account -- the KPMG auditor, and if so who are they? MR. MURPHY: Sorry, I am having a little difficult time 21 hearing up here, did you say the owner or the author? Q. - The auditors, sorry about that. MR. MURPHY: Yes, I do. I know the primary partner on our particular audit file. Q. - Do you have a name for them? MR. MURPHY: Our primary audit partner is Jamie O'Neil. Q. - Jamie O'Neil. And I was a bit surprised that when I asked the question earlier and there was -- the audit was not signed and any business I have ever been involved with before, the auditors always came and made the presentation of the audit and this didn't appear to happen. Is there a reason for that? MR. MURPHY: So I am not exactly sure of the reference that's being made, but our audit statements are signed every year. As described, we have a very traditional process in terms of the auditors coming in and making a final presentation to the boards of directors. It's at that time that we do sign off on the audited statements and they are available online for anybody to go in and view them. Q. - Mr. Murphy, are you familiar with David Amos and Greg Hickey and their concerns about the payout to pulp mills by the NB Power Large Industrial Renewable Energy Purchase programs and the fact that the U.S. Department of Commerce consider it corporate welfare affecting the American interest and with trade with Canada? MR. FUREY: Mr. Chair, we have been down this road before in previous hearings. Mr. Hickey addressed this in at least one, and if I am not mistaken, two hearings. And I believe where we objected to certain questions of Mr. Hickey in the past like this, the Board concluded that relevant questioning -- that it would be a relevant question to ask questions related to compliance by NB Power with provisions of the Electricity Act and the LIREPP regulation, the renewable regulation, which includes the LIREPP program, but debate about policy, as to whether or not LIREPP is a desirable policy is not a matter for this Board and I think we have had that resolved in previous hearings. VICE-CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bourque, Mr. Furey is right. We did have -- when Mr. Hickey was here last year, and I think at other hearings, we had that debate and so it's a policy issue. If you have questions regarding LIREPP, regarding compliance, I think you are permitted to ask those questions, but if it's questions regarding policy, regarding the LIREPP program, it's not relevant and it's in the legislation so -- MR. BOURQUE: I wasn't aware of what took place last year. Q. - Mr. Murphy, are you aware of my friend, David Amos and the concerns with the NB Power since 2006? MR. MURPHY: I would not say that I am aware of any detailed concerns that Mr. Amos has expressed. Q. - Have you read the filings that NB Power filed into the record of this matter since -- on October 30th of 2017? MR. MURPHY: Yes, generally I have read all the documents. Q. - Have you read the transcript of the hearing on October 2 31st? MR. MURPHY: I did not read the transcript. Q. - And have you read the emails that Mr. Amos sent since then? MR. MURPHY: I did not read the emails. If there is something in particular that's filed on evidence that you would like to bring up on the screen for me to review, I am happy to review it and answer questions on it, but I have not read the emails. Q. - Ms. Clark, why does NB Power consider the smart meter it wished to attach to my home a federal matter? If I get sick, or because of an injury to my home or property, do I sue the federal or do I sue NB Power? MS. CLARK: So with respect to the smart meters, the AMI installation, we would be complying with all of Health Canada's Guidelines with respect to the meter installation. Q. - So if there is a problem NB Power is responsible for it or the federal, if you are complying by the federal regulations? MR. FUREY: Mr. Vice-Chair, I don't think that's a fair question to address to this panel. VICE-CHAIRMAN: Is there going to be another panel that can address his question, Mr. Furey? MR. FUREY: Well to be asked to comment in advance on circumstances in which liability might arise, you know, certainly if there is a specific fact circumstance presented, maybe the question could be answered, but this is very broad. VICE-CHAIRMAN: So are you suggesting that if he rephrases his question that this panel could answer the question? MR. FUREY: I guess I would have to hear the question, but I -- what I am saying is the question as framed is I think impossible to answer. And it's unfair to ask any witness to commit to liability around a question as broad as if something goes wrong. VICE-CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bourque, can you reframe your question? Q. - Well my -- my concern is the spending of a lot of money for the smart meters. And as we heard earlier this morning, the temperature has a big temp' -- a big effect on the use of power. Well do we need to spend millions of dollars to tell us when the temperature gets colder and that? NB Power knows that. When the temperature goes down, they are going to have to start producing, you know, more power to supply the demand. And I think it's really -- wonder if it's worth sending that. The other thing is I have received some videos off the internet of smart meters where they literally caught the side of the house on fire. There was pictures of just around the meter and that. So if that happens to my house, who is responsible? VICE-CHAIRMAN: Panel? MS. CLARK: I will address your question in two parts. The first part of it is with respect to the installation of smart meters or the AMI project. The example that was given would be a perfect reason for NB Power to install advanced metering infrastructure. During the times when the utility or when the province is facing very cold temperatures, having the advanced metering infrastructure in place would allow customers to have more information readily available during the month. So when we are dealing with high bill complaints, like we have been this last month due to the extremely cold temperatures, customers would actually be able to see their usage throughout the month and not be subject to receiving a final bill at the end of the month and being surprised by their consumption because of the cold weather. So this would be a perfect example of why the advanced metering infrastructure would be in the -- it would be in the benefit of our customers. The second piece, I think with reference to the safety of meters, we will be following Measurement Canada safety standards, Health Canada safety standards. All of our meters will be tested. And during the install, we will actually be able to look at customers' premises to see if there are any issues related to safety that we should be addressing at the time. There are specific incidents where there have been some issues with meters being installed, but those are very specific to either the geographical location where they were being installed or the customers' equipment itself. But again when we are actually installing the meters, as we are installing 355,000 meters across the province, we will actually be able to visually inspect each one of those locations to see if there is any issues with respect to the meter itself or the installation that's on the customers' premises. But it would depend on what exactly it is we find as to how it would be handled. Q. - I got one final question. If a customer decides he doesn't want a smart meter at his place, can he opt out? MS. CLARK: Yes, absolutely. We will have an opt out policy. MR. BOURQUE: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is that all your questions, Mr. 20 Bourque? MR. BOURQUE: Yes. VICE-CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. MR. BOURQUE: Thank you. 02/09/2018 Hearing - Day 3/ Audience - 3ième jour Page 590 MR. CRONKHITE: That is a pretty broad statement. If you could be a little bit more specific on restrictions you are referring to. Q. - Well for an example, Mr. Cronkhite, would be the LIREPP program restricts how your generation assets are used. Would you agree with that? MR. CRONKHITE: The LIREPP program is simply a input of renewable resources into the system. It does not, in my opinion, for the size of the contribution, restrict our operations in any way. Q. - Okay. You have purchase power agreements. Do they mot also dictate or indicate how your generation assets can be used? MR. CRONKHITE: Certainly we do have power purchase arrangements when energy would be an example where we need to incorporate that wind when it's generated. As a result of that, we do position, so I think maybe Ms. Desmond may be asking this that we do need to position our remaining fleet to accommodate or adjust and follow that wind variation as it operates today. Not unlike that we would have with embedded generation assets, and to a much smaller degree obviously, home generation around solar and different items such as that. Q. - If we were to maximize the benefits of AMI in our smart grid, isn't it also true that we should maximize the use of our generation supply assets that we currently have, and wouldn't that mean revisiting some of these existing constraints? MR. CRONKHITE: We are always mindful of the existing commitments that we have on our system today. When we look forward with respect to the time frames, and as I mentioned earlier, that this is a managed transition not over five years, but over 15, 20 and 25 years, we are always mindful and that's why we have looked at power purchase arrangements that are coming due in the mid-20s and beyond that we allow the freedom and flexibility for us to make the correct adjustments, as we move towards those particular milestones. With respect to new generation coming on line, that's why we do the modelling, that's why we do sensitivities around various scenarios to ensure that we are optimizing to the best of our ability. One of the foundational items around our Energy Smart NB plan is being able to connect with customers to connect to intermittent generation that we know is coming onto the system in the near term and medium term and having more visibility on that. So that exactly we can optimize our generation fleet more effectively today through visibility on this distributed generation resources so that we can synchronize it much more effectively with the system moving forward. Q. - I wasn't specifically asking about new generation. It really was the existing constraints that you have to work around and deal with in terms of generation dispatch. MS. DESMOND: Okay. I think those are all of our questions though. Thank you very much. BY THE BOARD: VICE-CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Desmond. So I think we do have -- as Board members we do have a couple of questions to ask. So I will start. I am looking at your current business case that you have before us with your total project contribution of minus $1.3 million. And from the evidence that we have heard the last couple of days, is that you consider this as a breakeven number, and I think that that's what you were telling us, Ms. Clark. So the normal individual, your rate customer, would you not think that he would not perceive your $1.3 million as a breakeven number? MS. CLARK: I guess in the context in which I was using breakeven is it is an investment rationale document and it's intended to cover the life cycle costs of the program, and those are assumptions and it's hovering very close to zero when you look at it over the life cycle. I think in the last few days of the hearing, we have indicated that it's more than breakeven and would even say that if we were to incorporate the adjustments, and the undertaking we just took from Ms. Desmond to provide the adjustments that were recommended in the Synapse report, we are looking at an investment rationale that is leaning closer to probably $10 million or 8 or $9 million. And if we were to quantify some of those non-quantifiable benefits and be less conservative in some of the estimates that we put in the investment rationale document, I think we could easily get to a $10 million improvement. Again, and I know you have heard this before, the intention was to come in as conservative as possible, and know that we had all the potential upside. In hindsight, perhaps we should have taken a different approach, but I do believe that we can demonstrate that we have a positive investment rationale as well. VICE-CHAIRMAN: So there was discussion around -- and I think it was brought forward by Mr. Bourque and Dr. Richard, all about -- and Ms. Desmond regarding the option of option in and option out. Have you surveyed your current residential customers to see who will opt in and who will opt out before making $123 million investment? MS. CLARK: Customer engagement is a big part of this project, and we are as concerned as you would be about making that sort of an investment. So we will be doing, as part of our customer engagement, but part of it is the focus group that we did early on is people don't understand what the smart meter is, so part of it would be around education of what the smart meter is and the benefits it can provide to customers. So we need to educate our customers first and then allow them to make an informed decision. So that will be part of the roll-out plan and we will check and adjust along the way. If there are issues concerning the social engagement or a customer's uptake, you know, this is very similar to what has been done in other jurisdictions and they haven't had those challenges, but if we did, we certainly wouldn't be looking at making an investment of this size without having the customer with us. VICE-CHAIRMAN: Well don't you think, Ms. Clark, that you should have your educational piece before the Board approves $123 million spend? MS. CLARK: I recognize the challenge. The commitment the utility would make is, as part of the project itself, we would be doing -- undertaking the engagement process with our customers again starting with the education piece. Assuming that was positive, we would proceed and we are prepared to give the Board updates, as we come forward, either through the general rate application or through any other process including the quarterly updates we are providing at this point in time on our infrastructure, so that can be done and conditional with the approval of the project. VICE-CHAIRMAN: So I am trying to understand the objective of the AMI, and there was discussion, so can -- and I am having a little bit of difficulty understanding what is the objective or objectives that you are trying to do with AMI? Page 601 VICE-CHAIRMAN: I was a bit surprised when I heard this morning and yesterday that you are entering into a contract at the end of February and is that with respect to the purchase of the smart meters? MS. CLARK: That's correct. VICE-CHAIRMAN: So how can you enter into a contract without the firm approval of this Board, if we are going to approve or not the AMI? How prudent is that? MS. CLARK: So we are at the end stages of the contract in terms of just the final terms and conditions, but we have been very clear that we -- with the vendor -- and they recognize that, because we also have Nova Scotia Power, who is part of our consortium, who also needs Board approval. So should we not get -- this is conditional on EUB approval. So should we not get EUB approval, the contract would not proceed. VICE-CHAIRMAN: Now there was discussion yesterday, I think it was with Mr. Stoll regarding time of use and time based pricing, and so I went through the evidence this morning, and in your main evidence, and I think one of the objective of having the AMI going forward to a time of use price structure -- rate structure. So am I understanding that correctly? MS. CLARK: That is correct. And in the evidence, we did answer an interrogatory on that and you will see that AMI is an enabler for time varying rates in the Energy Smart NB Plan. And we did have time varying rates included in our investment rationale. We took it out, because we couldn't -- we couldn't pinpoint without more detail as to what those time varying rates may be and the benefit of those, so we took them out of the investment rationale at this point in time, but certainly it's something that we are looking at in the future. VICE-CHAIRMAN: So the fundamental question here is that the Board should heard -- or hear Matter 357 before approving the AMI? So if we don't approve time of use, that basically what will happen with your AMI, I mean it's -- if we don't approve the time of use, which we are going to hear next year, how can we proceed in approving the AMI before we look at the rate structure? MS. CLARK: As we have talked about in our investment rationale, there are a number of other benefits to both the customer and to the utility over and above time varying rates that we believe are important for the utility and for the movement forward of our Energy Smart New Brunswick plan. Many of those benefits accrue to the customer. And many of those benefits accrue to the utility and ultimately the customer. So even if we were not to move in the direction of time varying rates, we believe that the investment rationale supports the AMI installation based on the other investment -- or based on the other benefits that it provides. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: NBEUB/CESPNB <General@nbeub.ca> Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2020 11:00:12 +0000 Subject: RE: YO Minister Mikey Holland RE EUB Matter 452 and NB Power's VERY sneaky Application for Approval of an Advanced Metering Infrastructure Capital Project To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail. Thank you for your email to the Energy and Utilities Board. *** La Commission de l'énergie et des services publics du Nouveau-Brunswick vous remercie pour votre courriel. N.B. Energy and Utilities Board Commission de l’énergie et des services publics du N.-B. 15 Market Square – Suite 1400 P.O. Box 5001/C.P. 5001 Saint John, NB E2L 4Y9 Telephone : 506-658-2504 Fax/Télécopieur : 506-643-7300 Email : general@nbeub.ca / Courriel : general@cespnb.ca Website: www.nbeub.ca / Site Web : www.cespnb.ca Confidentiality Notice This private message (and any attachments) is for the exclusive use of the individual for whom, or entity for which, it is intended. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure by law. Its author does not waive the protection afforded to it under applicable law. Disclosure to anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute waiver of privilege. Its possession or usage, by any person other than the one for whom it is intended, is not authorized by its author and is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, at our expense, by telephone at (506) 658-2504. Also, if you received this email in error, delete it and any attachments from your computer system and records. Thank you. Avis de confidentialité Ce message privé (et toutes les pièces jointes) est à l'usage exclusif de la personne pour laquelle ou entité pour laquelle, il est destiné. Il peut contenir des informations qui sont personnelles, confidentielles ou exemptées de la divulgation par la loi. Son auteur ne renonce pas à la protection accordée en vertu de la loi applicable. Sa divulgation à toute personne autre que son destinataire ne constitue pas une renonciation de privilège. Sa possession ou l'utilisation, par une personne autre que celle pour laquelle il est destiné, n'est pas autorisée par son auteur et est strictement interdite. Si vous recevez cette communication par erreur, veuillez nous appeler dans les plus brefs délais, à frais virés, au (506) 658-2504. Aussi, si vous avez reçu ce courriel par erreur, veuillez effacer ce courriel, ainsi que les pièces jointes, de votre système informatique et de vos dossiers. Merci. -----Original Message----- From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail. Sent: August 6, 2020 2:12 AM To: Holland, Mike (LEG) <mike.holland@gnb.ca>; blaine.higgs <blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>; Kevin.Vickers <Kevin.Vickers@gnb.ca>; kris.austin <kris.austin@gnb.ca>; rick.desaulniers@gnb.ca; michelle.conroy@gnb.ca; briangallant10 <briangallant10@gmail.com>; Davidc.Coon <Davidc.Coon@gmail.com>; louis-philippe.gauthier@cfib. david.russell@gnb.ca; Gilles.volpe@libertyutilities. Paul.Volpe@libertyutilities. Hoyt, Len <len.hoyt@mcinnescooper.com>; jeffery.callaghan@ gerald@kissnb.com; cstewart@stewartmckelvey.com; hanrahan.dion@jdirving.com; lcozzarini@nbpower.com; jfurey@nbpower.com; srussell@nbpower.com; wharrison@nbpower.com; NBPRegulatory@nbpower.com; SWaycott@nbpower.com; bcrawford@nbpower.com; George.Porter@nbpower.com; NBEUB/CESPNB <General@nbeub.ca>; Dickie, Michael <Michael.Dickie@nbeub.ca>; Lawton, John <John.Lawton@nbeub.ca>; Young, Dave <Dave.Young@nbeub.ca>; Ahmad.Faruqui@brattle.com; Cecile.Bourbonnais@brattle.com leducjr@nb.sympatico.ca; Colleen.Mitchell@ david.sollows@gnb.ca; NbdotCa@hotmail.com; Clark, Lori <LClark@nbpower.com>; Gagnon, Jessica Lynn <JGagnon@nbpower.com>; Desmond, Ellen <ecdesmond@nbeub.ca>; anapoleon@synapse-energy.com; bhavumaki@synapse-energy.com; mikemckinley@rogers.com; heather.black@gnb.ca; kkelly@daymarkea.com; jathas@daymarkea.com; pdidomenico@daymarkea.com; rrichard@nb.aibn.com; geoff.flood@t4g.com; sstoll@airdberlis.com; jeff.garrett@sjenergy.com; dan.dionne@perth-andover.com; pierreroy@edmundston.ca; ray.robinson@sjenergy.com; pzarnett@bdrenergy.com; Dominic.Cardy <Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca>; bruce.northrup <bruce.northrup@gnb.ca>; jake.stewart <jake.stewart@gnb.ca>; Jody.Wilson-Raybould <Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc. <Bill.Morneau@canada.ca>; fin.minfinance-financemin.fin@ oldmaison@yahoo.com; ron.tremblay2@gmail.com; aadnc.minister.aandc@canada.ca <David.Coon@gnb.ca>; elizabeth.may@parl.gc.ca; Mitton, Megan (LEG) <megan.mitton@gnb.ca>; Arseneau, Kevin (LEG) <kevin.a.arseneau@gnb.ca>; Kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca; Dale.Morgan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca; dan. bussieres <dan.bussieres@gnb.ca>; serge.rousselle <serge.rousselle@gnb.ca>; greg.byrne <greg.byrne@gnb.ca>; Jack.Keir <Jack.Keir@gnb.ca>; tyler.campbell <tyler.campbell@gnb.ca>; jeff.carr <jeff.carr@gnb.ca>; bob.atwin@nb.aibn.com; jjatwin@gmail.com; markandcaroline <markandcaroline@gmail.com>; sheppardmargo@gmail.com; jordan.gill@cbc.ca; steve.murphy <steve.murphy@ctv.ca>; David.Akin <David.Akin@globalnews.ca> Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>; robert.gauvin <robert.gauvin@gnb.ca>; Ross.Wetmore <Ross.Wetmore@gnb.ca>; newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.ca>; Robert. Jones <Robert.Jones@cbc.ca> Subject: YO Minister Mikey Holland RE EUB Matter 452 and NB Power's VERY sneaky Application for Approval of an Advanced Metering Infrastructure Capital Project Methinks questionable lawyer Mr Furey wishes to forget many rather important emails I sent him and his bosses over the years but one I sent on the 12th of February of 2018 should be of great importance to mon ami Roger Richard today N'esy Pas? Vertias Vincit David Raymmod Amos P.S.Trust that I published the emails found beloe on the Internet just like I always do http://davidraymondamos3. Tuesday, 30 January 2018 RE: Matter 375 - NB Power 2018-2019 General Rate Application This should prove the sneaky Yankees such as Wilbur Ross that I know how to read N'esy Pas Premier Gallant and and Bill Morneau? ---------- Original message ---------- From: NBEUB/CESPNB <General@nbeub.ca> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 17:40:39 +0000 Subject: RE: Matter 375 - NB Power 2018-2019 General Rate Application This should prove the sneaky Yankees such as Wilbur Ross that I know how to read N'esy Pas Premier Gallant and and Bill Morneau? To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> Thank you for your email to the Energy and Utilities Board. This is to acknowledge receipt of the document you have filed with the Board. *** La Commission de l’énergie et des services publics vous remercie pour votre courriel. Nous accusons réception du document que vous avez déposé auprès de la Commission. N.B. Energy and Utilities Board Commission de l’énergie et des services publics du N.-B. 15 Market Square – Suite 1400 P.O. Box 5001/C.P. 5001 Saint John, NB E2L 4Y9 Telephone : 506-658-2504 Fax/Télécopieur : 506-643-7300 Email : general@nbeub.ca / Courriel : general@cespnb.ca Website: www.nbeub.ca / Site Web : www.cespnb.ca Confidentiality Notice This private message (and any attachments) is for the exclusive use of the individual for whom, or entity for which, it is intended. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure by law. Its author does not waive the protection afforded to it under applicable law. Disclosure to anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute waiver of privilege. Its possession or usage, by any person other than the one for whom it is intended, is not authorized by its author and is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, at our expense, by telephone at (506) 658-2504. Also, if you received this email in error, delete it and any attachments from your computer system and records. Thank you. Avis de confidentialité Ce message privé (et toutes les pièces jointes) est à l'usage exclusif de la personne pour laquelle ou entité pour laquelle, il est destiné. Il peut contenir des informations qui sont personnelles, confidentielles ou exemptées de la divulgation par la loi. Son auteur ne renonce pas à la protection accordée en vertu de la loi applicable. Sa divulgation à toute personne autre que son destinataire ne constitue pas une renonciation de privilège. Sa possession ou l'utilisation, par une personne autre que celle pour laquelle il est destiné, n'est pas autorisée par son auteur et est strictement interdite. Si vous recevez cette communication par erreur, veuillez nous appeler dans les plus brefs délais, à frais virés, au (506) 658-2504. Aussi, si vous avez reçu ce courriel par erreur, veuillez effacer ce courriel, ainsi que les pièces jointes, de votre système informatique et de vos dossiers. Merci. Début du message réexpédié : De: "Furey, John" <JFurey@nbpower.com> Objet: RE: Matter 452 - NB Power Application for Approval of an Advanced Metering Infrastructure Capital Project / Date: 5 août 2020 14:59:11 UTC−3 À: "Mitchell, Kathleen" <Kathleen.Mitchell@nbeub.ca>, "Colleen.Mitchell@ <Colleen.Mitchell@ <david.sollows@gnb.ca>, "Heather.Quinn@gnb.ca" <Heather.Quinn@gnb.ca>, "gerald@kissnb.com" <gerald@kissnb.com>, "hanrahan.dion@jdirving.com" <hanrahan.dion@jdirving.com>, "cstewart@stewartmckelvey.com" <cstewart@stewartmckelvey.com> <NbdotCa@hotmail.com>, "Paul.Volpe@libertyutilities. <Paul.Volpe@libertyutilities. <Gilles.volpe@ "dave.lavigne@ <dave.lavigne@ <LCozzarini@nbpower.com>, "Waycott, Stephen" <SWaycott@nbpower.com>, "Crawford, Brad" <BCrawford@nbpower.com>, "Clark, Lori" <LClark@nbpower.com>, NBP Regulatory <NBPRegulatory@nbpower.com>, "Gagnon, Jessica Lynn" <JGagnon@nbpower.com>, NBEUB/CESPNB <General@nbeub.ca>, "Lawton, John" <John.Lawton@nbeub.ca>, "Desmond, Ellen" <ecdesmond@nbeub.ca>, "Dickie, Michael" <Michael.Dickie@nbeub.ca>, "Young, Dave" <Dave.Young@nbeub.ca>, "anapoleon@synapse-energy.com" <anapoleon@synapse-energy.com> "bhavumaki@synapse-energy.com" <bhavumaki@synapse-energy.com> "mikemckinley@rogers.com" <mikemckinley@rogers.com>, "heather.black@gnb.ca" <heather.black@gnb.ca>, "kkelly@daymarkea.com" <kkelly@daymarkea.com>, "jathas@daymarkea.com" <jathas@daymarkea.com>, "pdidomenico@daymarkea.com" <pdidomenico@daymarkea.com>, "rrichard@nb.aibn.com" <rrichard@nb.aibn.com>, "geoff.flood@t4g.com" <geoff.flood@t4g.com>, "sstoll@airdberlis.com" <sstoll@airdberlis.com>, "jeff.garrett@sjenergy.com" <jeff.garrett@sjenergy.com>, "dan.dionne@perth-andover.com" <dan.dionne@perth-andover.com> <pierreroy@edmundston.ca>, "ray.robinson@sjenergy.com" <ray.robinson@sjenergy.com>, "pzarnett@bdrenergy.com" <pzarnett@bdrenergy.com> Dear Ms. Mitchell, In relation to the above noted Matter, please find attached a Notice of Motion and supporting documentation. All parties to Matter 452 are being served with this documentation. Regards, John John G. Furey Senior Legal Counsel New Brunswick Power Corporation P.O. Box 2000 515 King Street Fredericton, N.B. E3B 4X1 Direct Line - 506-458-6970 Facsimile - 506-458-4319 JFurey@nbpower.com This e-mail communication (including any or all attachments) is intended only for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, any use, review, retransmission, distribution, dissemination, copying, printing, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this e-mail, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender and delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout thereof, immediately. Your co-operation is appreciated. Le présent courriel (y compris toute pièce jointe) s'adresse uniquement à son destinataire, qu'il soit une personne ou un organisme, et pourrait comporter des renseignements privilégiés ou confidentiels. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire du courriel, il est interdit d'utiliser, de revoir, de retransmettre, de distribuer, de disséminer, de copier ou d'imprimer ce courriel, d'agir en vous y fiant ou de vous en servir de toute autre façon. Si vous avez reçu le présent courriel par erreur, prière de communiquer avec l'expéditeur et d'éliminer l'original du courriel, ainsi que toute copie électronique ou imprimée de celui-ci, immédiatement. Nous sommes reconnaissants de votre collaboration. ---------- Original message ---------- From: "Greg H." Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 10:36:10 -0400 Subject: Re: Hey Greg say Hey to two good friends whom I call the other two stooges Curly and Moe To: David Amos , rrichard , Gerald Bourque Cc: David Amos I hear this morning that Canada has made application to take the US/Cdn softwood lumber dispute before the NAFTA Chapter 19 dispute resolution panel. They interviewed some trade expert from Queens University(if my memory has not failed me here) on the CBC NB morning show...he thought it would be a "touchy situation" regards outcome this time around. We know the NB saw-mills are being hit with countervailing and dumping duties but I am asking myself about the pulp-mills which are receiving the fraudulent LIREPP subsidy...*we are even subsidizing a US based pulp-mill with NB Pwr ratepayers $s !*...that being the one on the US side(Madawaska) being fed from the Edmundston pulp-mill switch-yard as they feed its electrical supply for that US operation from the Canadian Edmundston mill side...all supplied via NB Pwr at multi-million $ discounts each year. There is no "renewable energy" received onto the NB Pwr electrical grid...the whole thing is a fraudulent subsidy scam! **G.* * On 16/11/2017 10:00 AM, David Amos wrote: > Methinks Mr Furey is gonna regret having an ethical computer N'esy Pas Moe? > > Enjoy your day fellas. If don't wake up tommorrow please know it is > because I died laughing in my sleep. > > Best Regards > Dave ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Furey, John" Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 12:51:03 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: EXT - Attn Hon.Rick Doucet Are you aware of what transpired at eh NBEUB on Oct, 31, 2017 and these documents with regards the U.S .Commerce Dept concerns about NB Power and its Large Industrial Renewable Energy Purchase Program (LIREPP)? To: David Amos I am away from my office and unable to access my email. I will respond to your message on my return to the office. If your message is urgent, please contact my assistant, Janet Campbell, at JCampbell@nbpower.com. ______________________________ This e-mail communication (including any or all attachments) is intended only for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, any use, review, retransmission, distribution, dissemination, copying, printing, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this e-mail, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender and delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout thereof, immediately. Your co-operation is appreciated. Le présent courriel (y compris toute pièce jointe) s'adresse uniquement à son destinataire, qu'il soit une personne ou un organisme, et pourrait comporter des renseignements privilégiés ou confidentiels. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire du courriel, il est interdit d'utiliser, de revoir, de retransmettre, de distribuer, de disséminer, de copier ou d'imprimer ce courriel, d'agir en vous y fiant ou de vous en servir de toute autre façon. Si vous avez reçu le présent courriel par erreur, prière de communiquer avec l'expéditeur et d'éliminer l'original du courriel, ainsi que toute copie électronique ou imprimée de celui-ci, immédiatement. Nous sommes reconnaissants de votre collaboration. ---------- Original message ---------- From: "Furey, John" Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 12:11:59 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: EXT - Re The news NB Power payola and a little Deja Vu about my indignation towards Gaëtan Thomas and Ed Barrett and their meeting with Kris Austin and PANB seven years ago To: David Amos I will be out of the office until Monday, November 13, 2017, and will not have access to my email during my absence. I will respond to your message on my return to the office. If your message is urgent, please contact my assistant, Janet Campbell, at JCampbell@nbpower.com. ______________________________ This e-mail communication (including any or all attachments) is intended only for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, any use, review, retransmission, distribution, dissemination, copying, printing, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this e-mail, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender and delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout thereof, immediately. Your co-operation is appreciated. Le présent courriel (y compris toute pièce jointe) s'adresse uniquement à son destinataire, qu'il soit une personne ou un organisme, et pourrait comporter des renseignements privilégiés ou confidentiels. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire du courriel, il est interdit d'utiliser, de revoir, de retransmettre, de distribuer, de disséminer, de copier ou d'imprimer ce courriel, d'agir en vous y fiant ou de vous en servir de toute autre façon. Si vous avez reçu le présent courriel par erreur, prière de communiquer avec l'expéditeur et d'éliminer l'original du courriel, ainsi que toute copie électronique ou imprimée de celui-ci, immédiatement. Nous sommes reconnaissants de votre collaboration. http://davidraymondamos3. Tuesday, 30 January 2018 RE: Matter 375 - NB Power 2018-2019 General Rate Application This should prove the sneaky Yankees such as Wilbur Ross that I know how to read N'esy Pas Premier Gallant and and Bill Morneau? ---------- Original message ---------- From: Newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.com> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 21:03:59 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: Re Round 2 of the NB Power 2018-2019 General Rate Application This weekend after I read the Transcript of the Hearing - Day 3 I opted to attend Day 4 To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> Thank you for contacting The Globe and Mail. If your matter pertains to newspaper delivery or you require technical support, please contact our Customer Service department at 1-800-387-5400 or send an email to customerservice@globeandmail. If you are reporting a factual error please forward your email to publiceditor@globeandmail.com< mailto:publiceditor@ Letters to the Editor can be sent to letters@globeandmail.com This is the correct email address for requests for news coverage and press releases. ---------- Original message ---------- From: Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc. Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 21:04:12 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: Re Round 2 of the NB Power 2018-2019 General Rate Application This weekend after I read the Transcript of the Hearing - Day 3 I opted to attend Day 4 To: motomaniac333@gmail.com Thank you for writing to the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, Member of Parliament for Vancouver Granville. This message is to acknowledge that we are in receipt of your email. Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence, there may be a delay in processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed. To help us address your concerns more quickly, please include within the body of your email your full name, address, and postal code. Please note that your message will be forwarded to the Department of Justice if it concerns topics pertaining to the member's role as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. For all future correspondence addressed to the Minister of Justice, please write directly to the Department of Justice at mcu@justice.gc.camcu@justice. > or call 613-957-4222. Thank you ------------------- Merci d'?crire ? l'honorable Jody Wilson-Raybould, d?put?e de Vancouver Granville. Le pr?sent message vise ? vous informer que nous avons re?u votre courriel. En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de correspondance, il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Sachez que votre message sera examin? attentivement. Pour nous aider ? r?pondre ? vos pr?occupations plus rapidement, veuillez inclure dans le corps de votre courriel votre nom complet, votre adresse et votre code postal. Veuillez prendre note que votre message sera transmis au minist?re de la Justice s'il porte sur des sujets qui rel?vent du r?le de la d?put?e en tant que ministre de la Justice et procureure g?n?rale du Canada. Pour toute correspondance future adress?e ? la ministre de la Justice, veuillez ?crire directement au minist?re de la Justice ? mcu@justice.gc.ca ou appelez au 613-957-4222. Merci ---------- Original message ---------- From: "MinFinance / FinanceMin (FIN)" <fin.minfinance-financemin. Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 21:05:13 +0000 Subject: RE: Re Round 2 of the NB Power 2018-2019 General Rate Application This weekend after I read the Transcript of the Hearing - Day 3 I opted to attend Day 4 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. Le ministère des Finances accuse réception de votre correspondance électronique. Soyez assuré(e) que nous apprécions recevoir vos commentaires. ---------- Original message ---------- From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:03:28 -0400 Subject: Re Round 2 of the NB Power 2018-2019 General Rate Application This weekend after I read the Transcript of the Hearing - Day 3 I opted to attend Day 4 To: dhebert@npcc.org, charles.berardescof@nerc.net, mpopowich@nbpower.com, ecdesmond@nbeub.ca, newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.ca>, "Robert. Jones" <Robert.Jones@cbc.ca>, publicaffairs@doc.gov, "Furey, John" <jfurey@nbpower.com>, wharrison <wharrison@nbpower.com>, nmoore <nmoore@bellmedia.ca>, news <news@kingscorecord.com> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com> <David.Coon@gnb.ca>, BrianThomasMacdonald <BrianThomasMacdonald@gmail. "Jody.Wilson-Raybould" <Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc. "Bill.Morneau" <Bill.Morneau@canada.ca>, "brian.gallant" <brian.gallant@gnb.ca> Tuesday, 30 January 2018 RE: Matter 375 - NB Power 2018-2019 General Rate Application This should prove the sneaky Yankees such as Wilbur Ross that I know how to read N'esy Pas Premier Gallant and and Bill Morneau? Hey Clearly I have some serious issues to dispute with Darren Murphy the CFO of NB POWER and the rest of his cohorts within a Crown Corporation. This is as brief as I can make an argument in support of the need of my testimony in the 375 Matter about what occured within it and the 357 Matter etc. In a nutshell I have every right to be an Intervenor and to testify as a witness under oath. NB POWER and its cohorts in NBEUB failed to prove why I have no right to do so. However they certainly proved to anyone who knows how to read what has been published why they should be prosecuted libel ASAP. Section 300 of the Canadian Criminal Code applies to lawyers too. If you don't think I was libeled then introduce me to your lawyer. The public shows that NBEUB did bar me for malicious reasons on October 31st yet permitted me to attend the public hearings this month in order to advise my friends Gerald Bourque and Roger Richard. On February 7th Gerald Bourque did manage to ask Darren Murphy and his associates on NB Power's 1st panel of witnesses a few questions that I had asked him to. Need I say that I enjoyed their responses? The NBEUB also allowed me to speak for 21 minutes during the Public Session that evening but the transcript of the aforesaid session has not been filed in the NBEUB records as of yet. My friends Gerald Bourque and Roger Richard as Intervenors in this matter have every right to say and do what they wish which also includes paying heed to my advice or ignoring it altogether. The filings of Roger Richard in this matter easily attest to the fact that initially he wished for me to testify on his behalf in this matter. However after Daniel Leblanc appeared in the matter in order to speak on my friend's behalf I was removed as a witness. So be it. The NBEUB and all the other Intervenors know the truth of my concerns anyway byway of many filings within the 357 and 375 Matters. More importantly I stated my opinion of this fancy little circus in no uncertain terms of the evening of February 7th and I look for to reviewing what I said in the heat of the moment. This weekend after I read the transcript of the 3rd day of the hearing I ried to convince my friend Roger Richard to ignore Leblanc's advice and put me in his witness list again. However he did not wish to, so I respectfully backed away again and will not interfere with my friend's plan to stop smart meters going to NB. Methinks the key to it will be the media N'esy Pas Mr Jones? These documents can be sourced from the records of the 375 Matter http://www.nbeub.ca/opt/M/ 02/07/2018 Hearing - Day 1 / Audience - 1ier jour Page 295 VICE-CHAIRMAN: Thank you. So there is the two interveners 6 or two participants in the proceeding that have no legal counsel. One is Mr. Richard and the other one is Mr. Bourque. So I just want to provide -- yes, Mr. Rouse? MR. ROUSE: I guess I don't have legal counsel either. VICE-CHAIRMAN: True. So you are -- NCFS doesn't have legal counsel? MR. ROUSE: That's correct. VICE-CHAIRMAN: So I will address the three of you then. So Mr. Bourque and Mr. Rouse -- I think, Mr. Rouse, you know how the proceeding proceeds. So Mr. Bourque, essentially when it comes and you have a panel, they are subject to cross-examination. And if you do have any questions specifically to the panel, you will be asked to come in front and ask your question to whomever your questions you want to ask to. Now if there is an objection to your questioning I would ask you to stop and at that point what I will do is I will hear the person who was objecting to your question and afterwards I will hear if you have any other comments to make regarding the objection and we will deal with those -- with the objection as it comes. So do you understand that? MR. BOURQUE: Yes, I do and thanks for explaining it. VICE-CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. Monsieur Richard, essentiellement qu’est ce qui va arriver, pis quoi je mentionnais en anglais, c’est que vous êtes non-représenté par un avocat donc vous – peut-être que vous connaissez pas toute la façon que les procédures fonctionnent. Donc, l’Énergie Nouveau-Brunswick a différent panel qui – qui vont introduire pour – pour – pour contre-interrogatoire, donc si vous avez des questions a demandé aux personnes, donc, vous allez poser vos questions à ces personnes-là. Et puis si y’a une partie qui s’objecte à votre question, j’vous demanderais juste d’arrêter. Et puis quoi ce que la Commission va faire c’est qu’elle va entendre la partie qui s’objecte. Et puis à ce moment-là j’vas vous demandez si vous avez aucun commentaire à regarder l’objection et puis on – on va – on va rendre une décision à ce point-là relativement à l’objection. Est-ce que vous comprenez ceci. DR. RICHARD: Oui. Oui, Monsieur Vice-président. VICE-CHAIRMAN : Pis je comprends aussi que, Monsieur Richard, que vous êtes un professionnel, donc durant la procédure vous serez pas ici à tous les jours. J’pense que vous avez autorisé un Monsieur LeBlanc de – d’être ici à – pour vous représenter lorsque vous serez dans votre clinique. Je ne sais pas où votre clinique est, donc ce que je comprends bien que cette personne-là va vous représentez lorsque vous serez pas disponible. DR. RICHARD : Oui c’est bien ça Page 322 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BOURQUE: Q. - Mr. Murphy, as Chief Financial Officer, do you agree with 13 the accounting of KPMG? MR. MURPHY: Sorry, do I understand the question, do I agree with the accounting of KPMG? Q. - Yes. MR. MURPHY: Yes, I do. Q. - Do you know the account -- the KPMG auditor, and if so who are they? MR. MURPHY: Sorry, I am having a little difficult time 21 hearing up here, did you say the owner or the author? Q. - The auditors, sorry about that. MR. MURPHY: Yes, I do. I know the primary partner on our particular audit file. Q. - Do you have a name for them? MR. MURPHY: Our primary audit partner is Jamie O'Neil. Q. - Jamie O'Neil. And I was a bit surprised that when I asked the question earlier and there was -- the audit was not signed and any business I have ever been involved with before, the auditors always came and made the presentation of the audit and this didn't appear to happen. Is there a reason for that? MR. MURPHY: So I am not exactly sure of the reference that's being made, but our audit statements are signed every year. As described, we have a very traditional process in terms of the auditors coming in and making a final presentation to the boards of directors. It's at that time that we do sign off on the audited statements and they are available online for anybody to go in and view them. Q. - Mr. Murphy, are you familiar with David Amos and Greg Hickey and their concerns about the payout to pulp mills by the NB Power Large Industrial Renewable Energy Purchase programs and the fact that the U.S. Department of Commerce consider it corporate welfare affecting the American interest and with trade with Canada? MR. FUREY: Mr. Chair, we have been down this road before in previous hearings. Mr. Hickey addressed this in at least one, and if I am not mistaken, two hearings. And I believe where we objected to certain questions of Mr. Hickey in the past like this, the Board concluded that relevant questioning -- that it would be a relevant question to ask questions related to compliance by NB Power with provisions of the Electricity Act and the LIREPP regulation, the renewable regulation, which includes the LIREPP program, but debate about policy, as to whether or not LIREPP is a desirable policy is not a matter for this Board and I think we have had that resolved in previous hearings. VICE-CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bourque, Mr. Furey is right. We did have -- when Mr. Hickey was here last year, and I think at other hearings, we had that debate and so it's a policy issue. If you have questions regarding LIREPP, regarding compliance, I think you are permitted to ask those questions, but if it's questions regarding policy, regarding the LIREPP program, it's not relevant and it's in the legislation so -- MR. BOURQUE: I wasn't aware of what took place last year. Q. - Mr. Murphy, are you aware of my friend, David Amos and the concerns with the NB Power since 2006? MR. MURPHY: I would not say that I am aware of any detailed concerns that Mr. Amos has expressed. Q. - Have you read the filings that NB Power filed into the record of this matter since -- on October 30th of 2017? MR. MURPHY: Yes, generally I have read all the documents. Q. - Have you read the transcript of the hearing on October 2 31st? MR. MURPHY: I did not read the transcript. Q. - And have you read the emails that Mr. Amos sent since then? MR. MURPHY: I did not read the emails. If there is something in particular that's filed on evidence that you would like to bring up on the screen for me to review, I am happy to review it and answer questions on it, but I have not read the emails. Q. - Ms. Clark, why does NB Power consider the smart meter it wished to attach to my home a federal matter? If I get sick, or because of an injury to my home or property, do I sue the federal or do I sue NB Power? MS. CLARK: So with respect to the smart meters, the AMI installation, we would be complying with all of Health Canada's Guidelines with respect to the meter installation. Q. - So if there is a problem NB Power is responsible for it or the federal, if you are complying by the federal regulations? MR. FUREY: Mr. Vice-Chair, I don't think that's a fair question to address to this panel. VICE-CHAIRMAN: Is there going to be another panel that can address his question, Mr. Furey? MR. FUREY: Well to be asked to comment in advance on circumstances in which liability might arise, you know, certainly if there is a specific fact circumstance presented, maybe the question could be answered, but this is very broad. VICE-CHAIRMAN: So are you suggesting that if he rephrases his question that this panel could answer the question? MR. FUREY: I guess I would have to hear the question, but I -- what I am saying is the question as framed is I think impossible to answer. And it's unfair to ask any witness to commit to liability around a question as broad as if something goes wrong. VICE-CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bourque, can you reframe your question? Q. - Well my -- my concern is the spending of a lot of money for the smart meters. And as we heard earlier this morning, the temperature has a big temp' -- a big effect on the use of power. Well do we need to spend millions of dollars to tell us when the temperature gets colder and that? NB Power knows that. When the temperature goes down, they are going to have to start producing, you know, more power to supply the demand. And I think it's really -- wonder if it's worth sending that. The other thing is I have received some videos off the internet of smart meters where they literally caught the side of the house on fire. There was pictures of just around the meter and that. So if that happens to my house, who is responsible? VICE-CHAIRMAN: Panel? MS. CLARK: I will address your question in two parts. The first part of it is with respect to the installation of smart meters or the AMI project. The example that was given would be a perfect reason for NB Power to install advanced metering infrastructure. During the times when the utility or when the province is facing very cold temperatures, having the advanced metering infrastructure in place would allow customers to have more information readily available during the month. So when we are dealing with high bill complaints, like we have been this last month due to the extremely cold temperatures, customers would actually be able to see their usage throughout the month and not be subject to receiving a final bill at the end of the month and being surprised by their consumption because of the cold weather. So this would be a perfect example of why the advanced metering infrastructure would be in the -- it would be in the benefit of our customers. The second piece, I think with reference to the safety of meters, we will be following Measurement Canada safety standards, Health Canada safety standards. All of our meters will be tested. And during the install, we will actually be able to look at customers' premises to see if there are any issues related to safety that we should be addressing at the time. There are specific incidents where there have been some issues with meters being installed, but those are very specific to either the geographical location where they were being installed or the customers' equipment itself. But again when we are actually installing the meters, as we are installing 355,000 meters across the province, we will actually be able to visually inspect each one of those locations to see if there is any issues with respect to the meter itself or the installation that's on the customers' premises. But it would depend on what exactly it is we find as to how it would be handled. Q. - I got one final question. If a customer decides he doesn't want a smart meter at his place, can he opt out? MS. CLARK: Yes, absolutely. We will have an opt out policy. MR. BOURQUE: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is that all your questions, Mr. 20 Bourque? MR. BOURQUE: Yes. VICE-CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. MR. BOURQUE: Thank you. 02/09/2018 Hearing - Day 3/ Audience - 3ième jour Page 590 MR. CRONKHITE: That is a pretty broad statement. If you could be a little bit more specific on restrictions you are referring to. Q. - Well for an example, Mr. Cronkhite, would be the LIREPP program restricts how your generation assets are used. Would you agree with that? MR. CRONKHITE: The LIREPP program is simply a input of renewable resources into the system. It does not, in my opinion, for the size of the contribution, restrict our operations in any way. Q. - Okay. You have purchase power agreements. Do they mot also dictate or indicate how your generation assets can be used? MR. CRONKHITE: Certainly we do have power purchase arrangements when energy would be an example where we need to incorporate that wind when it's generated. As a result of that, we do position, so I think maybe Ms. Desmond may be asking this that we do need to position our remaining fleet to accommodate or adjust and follow that wind variation as it operates today. Not unlike that we would have with embedded generation assets, and to a much smaller degree obviously, home generation around solar and different items such as that. Q. - If we were to maximize the benefits of AMI in our smart grid, isn't it also true that we should maximize the use of our generation supply assets that we currently have, and wouldn't that mean revisiting some of these existing constraints? MR. CRONKHITE: We are always mindful of the existing commitments that we have on our system today. When we look forward with respect to the time frames, and as I mentioned earlier, that this is a managed transition not over five years, but over 15, 20 and 25 years, we are always mindful and that's why we have looked at power purchase arrangements that are coming due in the mid-20s and beyond that we allow the freedom and flexibility for us to make the correct adjustments, as we move towards those particular milestones. With respect to new generation coming on line, that's why we do the modelling, that's why we do sensitivities around various scenarios to ensure that we are optimizing to the best of our ability. One of the foundational items around our Energy Smart NB plan is being able to connect with customers to connect to intermittent generation that we know is coming onto the system in the near term and medium term and having more visibility on that. So that exactly we can optimize our generation fleet more effectively today through visibility on this distributed generation resources so that we can synchronize it much more effectively with the system moving forward. Q. - I wasn't specifically asking about new generation. It really was the existing constraints that you have to work around and deal with in terms of generation dispatch. MS. DESMOND: Okay. I think those are all of our questions though. Thank you very much. BY THE BOARD: VICE-CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Desmond. So I think we do have -- as Board members we do have a couple of questions to ask. So I will start. I am looking at your current business case that you have before us with your total project contribution of minus $1.3 million. And from the evidence that we have heard the last couple of days, is that you consider this as a breakeven number, and I think that that's what you were telling us, Ms. Clark. So the normal individual, your rate customer, would you not think that he would not perceive your $1.3 million as a breakeven number? MS. CLARK: I guess in the context in which I was using breakeven is it is an investment rationale document and it's intended to cover the life cycle costs of the program, and those are assumptions and it's hovering very close to zero when you look at it over the life cycle. I think in the last few days of the hearing, we have indicated that it's more than breakeven and would even say that if we were to incorporate the adjustments, and the undertaking we just took from Ms. Desmond to provide the adjustments that were recommended in the Synapse report, we are looking at an investment rationale that is leaning closer to probably $10 million or 8 or $9 million. And if we were to quantify some of those non-quantifiable benefits and be less conservative in some of the estimates that we put in the investment rationale document, I think we could easily get to a $10 million improvement. Again, and I know you have heard this before, the intention was to come in as conservative as possible, and know that we had all the potential upside. In hindsight, perhaps we should have taken a different approach, but I do believe that we can demonstrate that we have a positive investment rationale as well. VICE-CHAIRMAN: So there was discussion around -- and I think it was brought forward by Mr. Bourque and Dr. Richard, all about -- and Ms. Desmond regarding the option of option in and option out. Have you surveyed your current residential customers to see who will opt in and who will opt out before making $123 million investment? MS. CLARK: Customer engagement is a big part of this project, and we are as concerned as you would be about making that sort of an investment. So we will be doing, as part of our customer engagement, but part of it is the focus group that we did early on is people don't understand what the smart meter is, so part of it would be around education of what the smart meter is and the benefits it can provide to customers. So we need to educate our customers first and then allow them to make an informed decision. So that will be part of the roll-out plan and we will check and adjust along the way. If there are issues concerning the social engagement or a customer's uptake, you know, this is very similar to what has been done in other jurisdictions and they haven't had those challenges, but if we did, we certainly wouldn't be looking at making an investment of this size without having the customer with us. VICE-CHAIRMAN: Well don't you think, Ms. Clark, that you should have your educational piece before the Board approves $123 million spend? MS. CLARK: I recognize the challenge. The commitment the utility would make is, as part of the project itself, we would be doing -- undertaking the engagement process with our customers again starting with the education piece. Assuming that was positive, we would proceed and we are prepared to give the Board updates, as we come forward, either through the general rate application or through any other process including the quarterly updates we are providing at this point in time on our infrastructure, so that can be done and conditional with the approval of the project. VICE-CHAIRMAN: So I am trying to understand the objective of the AMI, and there was discussion, so can -- and I am having a little bit of difficulty understanding what is the objective or objectives that you are trying to do with AMI? Page 601 VICE-CHAIRMAN: I was a bit surprised when I heard this morning and yesterday that you are entering into a contract at the end of February and is that with respect to the purchase of the smart meters? MS. CLARK: That's correct. VICE-CHAIRMAN: So how can you enter into a contract without the firm approval of this Board, if we are going to approve or not the AMI? How prudent is that? MS. CLARK: So we are at the end stages of the contract in terms of just the final terms and conditions, but we have been very clear that we -- with the vendor -- and they recognize that, because we also have Nova Scotia Power, who is part of our consortium, who also needs Board approval. So should we not get -- this is conditional on EUB approval. So should we not get EUB approval, the contract would not proceed. VICE-CHAIRMAN: Now there was discussion yesterday, I think it was with Mr. Stoll regarding time of use and time based pricing, and so I went through the evidence this morning, and in your main evidence, and I think one of the objective of having the AMI going forward to a time of use price structure -- rate structure. So am I understanding that correctly? MS. CLARK: That is correct. And in the evidence, we did answer an interrogatory on that and you will see that AMI is an enabler for time varying rates in the Energy Smart NB Plan. And we did have time varying rates included in our investment rationale. We took it out, because we couldn't -- we couldn't pinpoint without more detail as to what those time varying rates may be and the benefit of those, so we took them out of the investment rationale at this point in time, but certainly it's something that we are looking at in the future. VICE-CHAIRMAN: So the fundamental question here is that the Board should heard -- or hear Matter 357 before approving the AMI? So if we don't approve time of use, that basically what will happen with your AMI, I mean it's -- if we don't approve the time of use, which we are going to hear next year, how can we proceed in approving the AMI before we look at the rate structure? MS. CLARK: As we have talked about in our investment rationale, there are a number of other benefits to both the customer and to the utility over and above time varying rates that we believe are important for the utility and for the movement forward of our Energy Smart New Brunswick plan. Many of those benefits accrue to the customer. And many of those benefits accrue to the utility and ultimately the customer. So even if we were not to move in the direction of time varying rates, we believe that the investment rationale supports the AMI installation based on the other investment -- or based on the other benefits that it provides. 10/31/2017 Pre-Hearing / Conférence préalable à l'audience Page 84 CHAIRMAN: All right. I will now give the decision of the Board on this matter. Mr. Amos seeks intervenor status in Matter 375. NB Power objects to his intervention claiming his conduct during the hearing of a motion in Matter 357 was confrontational and that his arguments lacked any connection to the issues before the Board. The Board agrees with that assessment. In the present matter, Mr. Amos was given ample opportunity to put forward a case that would support a respectful and responsible intervention. He failed to do so, rolling forward issues raised in Matter 357 and not addressing the issue before us today. Mr. Amos states that the interests he would bring before the Board are those raised by Mr. Bourque and Mr. Richard. The Board is satisfied that those two intervenors can adequately represent those issues. In addition, those issues will undoubtedly be addressed by the Public Intervenor and others. Page 85 The Board finds on a balance of probability that Mr. Amos will not participate in this matter in a respectful and responsible manner. As a result, the Board will exercise its discretion and refuse intervenor status to Mr. Amos. Intervention is encouraged but it must be responsible. Mr. Amos may participate in the public session which date will be announced shortly. But again he is reminded that any presentation must be done in a respectful and responsible manner. Finally, Mr. Amos had indicated that he wished to assist his two colleagues that are sitting with him today. And certainly the Board has no issue with that at all. But Mr. Amos will have no status at the hearing in terms of cross-examination or making any argument. So that is the decision of this Panel with respect to the status of Mr. Amos. Are there any other issues to deal with today? There being no other issues, then we will adjourn. This exhbit was filed by NB Power along with many others to support my barring from the 375 Matter NB Power Notice of Objection - Appendix I 10/30/2017 For the benefit of my fellow stakeholders I wish to explain all of the transcript found above of under oath Début du message réexpédié : De: "Furey, John" <john.furey@mcinnescooper.com> Objet: Application to Vary Board Decision Dated July 16, 2019 (Matter 430) Date: 7 septembre 2021 16:19:50 UTC−3 À: "Kathleen.Mitchell@nbeub.ca" <Kathleen.Mitchell@nbeub.ca>, "david.sollows@gnb.ca" <david.sollows@gnb.ca>, "cstewart@stewartmckelvey.com" <cstewart@stewartmckelvey.com> "hanrahan.dion@jdirving.com" <hanrahan.dion@jdirving.com>, "Paul.Volpe@libertyutilities. "Gilles.volpe@ <Gilles.volpe@ "dave.lavigne@ <dave.lavigne@ <NBPRegulatory@nbpower.com>, "SWaycott@nbpower.com" <SWaycott@nbpower.com>, "BCrawford@nbpower.com" <BCrawford@nbpower.com>, "JGagnon@nbpower.com" <JGagnon@nbpower.com>, "General@nbeub.ca" <General@nbeub.ca>, "John.Lawton@nbeub.ca" <John.Lawton@nbeub.ca>, "Michael.Dickie@nbeub.ca" <Michael.Dickie@nbeub.ca>, "Dave.Young@nbeub.ca" <Dave.Young@nbeub.ca>, "dmadsen.consulting@gmail.com" <dmadsen.consulting@gmail.com> <heather.black@gnb.ca>, "rdk@indecon.com" <rdk@indecon.com>, "rrichard@nb.aibn.com" <rrichard@nb.aibn.com>, "sstoll@airdberlis.com" <sstoll@airdberlis.com>, "jeff.garrett@sjenergy.com" <jeff.garrett@sjenergy.com>, "dan.dionne@perth-andover.com" <dan.dionne@perth-andover.com> <pierreroy@edmundston.ca>, "ray.robinson@sjenergy.com" <ray.robinson@sjenergy.com>, "pzarnett@bdrenergy.com" <pzarnett@bdrenergy.com>, "gerald@kissnb.com" <gerald@kissnb.com>, "mletson@lawsoncreamer.com" <mletson@lawsoncreamer.com>, Katherine McBrearty <Katherine.McBrearty@nbeub.ca> Dear Ms. Mitchell, Please find attached: 1. Letter to NBEUB dated September 7, 2021; 2. Application in the above noted Matter, in redacted form; 3. Affidavit of Darren Murphy in support of the Application; and 4. Claim for Confidentiality. As noted in the enclosed correspondence, a copy of the redacted Application is provided to parties in each of Matter 430 and Matter 458. By separate email, I will provide the Confidential version of the Application. I will also confirm when the Public Intervener has been provided with the Confidential version. Regards, John John Furey Counsel McInnes Cooper tel +1 (506) 458 1628 | fax +1 (506) 458 9903 | mobile +1 (506) 282 0380 Barker House, Suite 600 570 Queen Street PO Box 610 Fredericton, NB, E3B 5A6 asst Nanette Phillips | +1 (506) 458 1629 NOTICE The health, safety and welfare of our people, our clients and our communities, as well as our commitment to continued service, is our top priority. Please visit our COVID‐19 Resource Centre to learn more about how we can support you on the path forward. AVIS La santé, la sécurité et le bien‐être de nos gens, de nos clients et de nos communautés sont notre priorité au même titre que notre engagement envers un service continu. Nous vous invitons à consulter notre Centre de ressources COVID‐19 pour savoir ce que nous pouvons faire pour vous soutenir sur la voie à suivre. Notice This communication, including any attachments, is confidential and may be protected by solicitor/client privilege. It is intended only for the person or persons to whom it is addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by e-mail or telephone at McInnes Cooper's expense. Avis Les informations contenues dans ce courriel, y compris toute(s) pièce(s) jointe(s), sont confidentielles et peuvent faire l'objet d'un privilège avocat-client. Les informations sont dirigées au(x) destinataire(s) seulement. Si vous avez reçu ce courriel par erreur, veuillez en aviser l'expéditeur par courriel ou par téléphone, aux frais de McInnes Cooper. ---------- Original message ---------- From: "Gallant, Brian (LEG)" <Brian.Gallant@gnb.ca> Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 13:26:33 +0000 Subject: RE: February 6, 2019 EUB 430 Matter transcript To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail. Thank you for writing to the Leader of the Official Opposition of New Brunswick. Please be assured that your e-mail will be reviewed. If this is a media request, please forward your e-mail to ashley.beaudin@gnb.ca<mailto:m --- Nous vous remercions d’avoir communiqué avec le chef de l’opposition officielle du Nouveau-Brunswick. Soyez assuré(e) que votre courriel sera examiné. Si ceci est une demande médiatique, prière de la transmettre à ashley.beaudin@gnb.ca<mailto:m ---------- Original message ---------- From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail. Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 09:26:25 -0400 Subject: Fwd: February 6, 2019 EUB 430 Matter transcript To: Mike.Holland@gnb.ca, David.Coon@gnb.ca, kris.austin@gnb.ca, brian.gallant@gnb.ca, blaine.higgs@gnb.ca, premier@gnb.ca, andrea.anderson-mason@gnb.ca, Nathalie.Drouin@justice.gc.ca, jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca, Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca, washington.field@ic.fbi.gov, Boston.Mail@ic.fbi.gov Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Suzanne Ross <SueR1941@msn.com> Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 12:41:05 +0000 Subject: February 6, 2019 transcript To: "David.Raymond.Amos333@gmail. <David.Raymond.Amos333@gmail. <david.sollows@gnb.ca>, "Paul.Volpe@enbridge.com" <Paul.Volpe@enbridge.com>, "dave.lavigne@enbridge.com" <dave.lavigne@enbridge.com>, "Gilles.volpe@enbridge.com" <Gilles.volpe@enbridge.com>, "jeffery.callaghan@ <jeffery.callaghan@ <gerald@kissnb.com>, "cstewart@stewartmckelvey.com" <cstewart@stewartmckelvey.com> <hanrahan.dion@jdirving.com>, "lcozzarini@nbpower.com" <lcozzarini@nbpower.com>, "jfurey@nbpower.com" <jfurey@nbpower.com>, "SWaycott@nbpower.com" <SWaycott@nbpower.com>, "NBPRegulatory@nbpower.com" <NBPRegulatory@nbpower.com>, "wharrison@nbpower.com" <wharrison@nbpower.com>, "bcrawford@nbpower.com" <bcrawford@nbpower.com>, "John.Lawton@nbeub.ca" <John.Lawton@nbeub.ca>, "ecdesmond@nbeub.ca" <ecdesmond@nbeub.ca>, "Michael.Dickie@nbeub.ca" <Michael.Dickie@nbeub.ca>, "dave.young@nbeub.ca" <dave.young@nbeub.ca>, "Kathleen.Mitchell@nbeub.ca" <Kathleen.Mitchell@nbeub.ca>, "general@nbeub.ca" <general@nbeub.ca>, "heather.black@gnb.ca" <heather.black@gnb.ca>, "rdk@indecon.com" <rdk@indecon.com>, "rrichard@nb.aibn.com" <rrichard@nb.aibn.com>, "jeff.garrett@sjenergy.com" <jeff.garrett@sjenergy.com>, "dan.dionne@perth-andover.com" <dan.dionne@perth-andover.com> "pierreroy@edmundston.ca" <pierreroy@edmundston.ca>, "ray.robinson@sjenergy.com" <ray.robinson@sjenergy.com>, "sstoll@airdberlis.com" <sstoll@airdberlis.com>, "pzarnett@bdrenergy.com" <pzarnett@bdrenergy.com> Hello, Attached is yesterday’s transcript. Thank you! New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board Commission de L’Energie et des Services Publics N.-B. Matter 430 IN THE MATTER OF an application by New Brunswick Power Corporation for approval of the schedules of the rates for the fiscal year commencing April 1, 2019, and other relief as outlined in NB Power’s application Held at the Delta Hotel, Saint John, N.B., on February 6, 2019. Henneberry Reporting Service New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board Commission de L’Energie et des Services Publics N.-B. Matter 430 IN THE MATTER OF an application by New Brunswick Power Corporation for approval of the schedules of the rates for the fiscal year commencing April 1, 2019, and other relief as outlined in NB Power’s application Held at the Delta Hotel, Saint John, N.B., on February 6, 2019. BEFORE: Raymond P Gorman, Q.C. - Chair John Patrick Herron - Panel Member Michael Costello - Panel Member NB Energy and Utilities Board - Counsel - Ms. Ellen Desmond, Q.C. - Staff - David Young John Lawton Michael Dickie Chief Clerk - Kathleen Mitchell CHAIRMAN: Good morning, everyone. This is a pre-hearing conference of the New Brunswick Energy & Utilities Board with respect to an application by New Brunswick Power Corporation for approval of the schedule of the rates for the fiscal year commencing April 1st 2019 and other relief that is outlined in the application. This is Matter 430. I will start by taking the appearances, firstly NB Power Corporation? MR. FUREY: Good morning, Mr. Chair. John Furey. I am accompanied this morning by Ms. Clark, Mr. Waycott and Ms. Cozzarini. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Furey. David Amos? MR. AMOS: Here. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Amos. Enbridge Gas New Brunswick? MR. CALLAGHAN: Good morning, Mr. Chair. Jeffrey Callaghan, with me is Paul Volpe. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Callaghan. Gerald Bourque? Is Mr. Bourque not here today? J.D. Irving, Limited? MR. STEWART: Christopher Stewart, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN: Where are you at, Mr. Stewart? Thank you. Roger Richard? DR. RICHARD: Yes, I am here. CHAIRMAN: Merci. Utilities Municipal? MR. STOLL: Good morning, Mr. Chair. Scott Stoll, with me is Mr. Garett. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Stoll. Public Intervener? MS. BLACK: Good morning. Mr. Chair. Heather Black. CHAIRMAN: And the New Brunswick Energy & Utilities Board? MS. DESMOND: good morning, it is Ellen Desmond. With me is John Lawton, David Young, Michael Dickie. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Desmond. So as I indicated when we opened this pre-hearing, it is relating to the 2019 general rate application. I want to make just a few general comments before we get going, because typically these pre-hearing conferences are all about setting a schedule and oftentimes there are no other issues. There is a very -- this is somewhat of a unique filing, in my experience, my 12 years as Chair of the Board, in that there is a very large volume of documents that have been filed in confidence. And that’s a little unusual but there are also many confidential items that are restricted from various parties. And again, that is a bit of a departure from my experience here. The redactions, to be quite frank, were very difficult to pick up because there was a light shading that got used in the evidence as opposed to a dark shading. And some of the confidential filings aren’t complete documents as they have been filed in the past. And some documents don’t have a redacted version. In other words, the full document is redacted so there is no -- nothing on the main record that would show the redacted version. So I don’t know -- I think one of the things that we are going to need to talk about today are the claims for confidentiality and whether or not there will be any challenge to them. But I did want to start with my general comments because this is a very difficult filing to read, to comprehend, because even the redacted documents, many of them only contain the redacted portions. And in the past, generally speaking, we would have had the full document. So it’s -- sometimes it’s a matter of having to shift back and forth between documents. So hopefully this is a one off and this wouldn’t be a typical filing going forward. It’s -- I am sure that the parties have experienced some of the same difficulties that I have had in attempting to review it. So we will get to the confidentiality issues. There is a confidentiality undertaking that has been proposed. And as well, at this point in time, there are no objections to the claim for confidentiality that have been filed yet. But in the notice of hearing was indicated that we would talk about a process to deal with that. So that will be one of the things we will have to deal with this morning. Of course, we will have to deal with the hearing dates and the schedule, the typical thing that is the only item of business at many pre-hearings. And just generally before we get started, I want to indicate to all of the parties here that I know that nobody was particularly happy with the length of last year’s hearing. It had an awful lot of issues, they certainly weren’t just GRA issues. It was almost like three hearings rolled into one. So we are certainly going to try a little bit of a new approach this year to try and stream-line it and try to expedite the hearing. But having said that, we are not going to do it in such a fashion as to prohibit anybody from asking legitimate questions, to inquire, you know, into the matters. But we are going to urge the parties to stick to the issues. You know, the issues really flow from the filing itself, what’s been asked for and so the information that would be required to assess that application. If an issue has been covered by somebody and somebody else is really just repeating the same questions, you should expect that we are going to interrupt you. And you shouldn’t take it personally. If an issue has been thoroughly covered, you know, sometimes it gets covered more than one time and that’s really not necessary. We do want to make the hearings more efficient, the same time not compromising party’s abilities to do their cross examination and their due diligence in assessing this application. And we will try to set more definite start and stop times each day. I think sometimes we are -- you know, we start a little late one day or we go later or we don’t -- I think it is probably helpful for parties to have that a little more predictable. So the Board will certainly do its part to try to create some efficiency in the process this year. And I am quite confident that the parties will cooperate in that endeavour. So having said that, we have a number of notices of intervention. And the intervener requests were from David Amos, Enbridge Gas New Brunswick, Gerald Bourque, J.D. Irving, Limited, Roger Richard and the Utilities Municipal. Our rules provide that any objection to a request for intervener status must be filed with the Board no later than the day prior to the pre-hearing. And the Board has received an objection from NB Power with respect to the participation of David Amos. So I will set that aside for just a moment. With respect to the other five interveners who have requested status, the Board has not received any objection. I just stop here for a second because, you know, it is possible we missed something. But, Mr. Furey, is that correct, there is no other objections? MR. FUREY: That’s correct, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN: All right. So we have reviewed the requests for intervener status by Enbridge Gas New Brunswick, Gerald Bourque, J.D. Irving. Limited, Roger Richard and the Utilities Municipal. And all of those parties will be granted intervener status in this proceeding. Mr. Costello thinks I might have missed Enbridge Gas New Brunswick when I said that. I thought I said them but in any event, the -- I will repeat it just to be sure. So we are granting intervener status to Enbridge Gas New Brunswick, Gerald Bourque, J.D. Irving, Limited, Roger Richard and Utilities Municipal. So I think before we get down to -- well maybe there is one other one we can deal with fairly quickly. The confidentiality undertaking form that has been provided has been reviewed and it appears to follow, if not, identically, very closely to the form that was used last year. Are there any parties that have any objection or any reason that they believe that that should not -- there is something in there that shouldn’t be there? All right. Hearing no objection, then the Board will approve the confidentiality undertaking form that has been proposed by NB Power. So I think the next order of business would be to deal with the one remaining request for intervener status, that being the request by David Amos. And the Board did receive a notice requesting that the Board disallow -- there was an objection filed by NB Power under our rule 3.2.7 and this objection was to Mr. Amos’ application for intervention. So, Mr. Furey, you filed that objection, so do you have anything to say about that? MR. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have a few additional comments. Our argument with respect to this has not changed substantially from the argument that we presented in Matter 375 in October of 2017. I would start by saying that this is not a position that NB Power enjoys taking. We are reluctant to ask the Board not to grant an intervener status. However, it is our view that Mr. Amos’ pattern of confrontational behaviour has continued since that time. And NB Power remains of the view that Mr. Amos is not capable of an intervention in a responsible, respectful manner. There are four instances that I am aware of that Mr. Amos has either appeared before the Board or had communication with the Board. There may be others but the four that I am aware of are the hearing of the -- or an attempt to re-hear a motion in Matter 357. There was the hearing of the objection to intervener status in Matter 375 on October 31st of 2017. There is the Public Session held by the Board in Matter 375 in February of last year. And then there is the intervention request that has been put forward on February 1st of this year by Mr. Amos. And to some extent the Board has already dealt with some of these issues. In Matter 357, the transcript of that particular motion is attached to attachment 1 of the documents we have filed today at appendix I. I am not going to go there. The Board has reviewed that in the past. And the Board has already reviewed on that and I -- or ruled on that. I am going to go to that. At attachment 2 of the objection that we filed at page 84 of that transcript -- I am simply going to read a little bit of the Board’s decision on that matter. In giving the decision the Chairman said, NB Power objects to his intervention claiming his conduct during the hearing of a motion in Matter 357 was confrontational and that his arguments lacked any connection to the issues before the Board. The Board agrees with that assessment. So when I say the Board has already dealt with the 357 issue that is what I mean, the Board has already ruled on that. In Matter 375 and the hearing of that original objection to status, again at page 84 of the transcript that appears at attachment 2 of our documents, the Board goes on to address that and says, in the present matter, Mr. Amos was given ample opportunity to put forward a case that would support a respectful and responsible intervention. He failed to do so, rolling forward issues raised in Matter 357 and not addressing the issue before us today. And that was the Board’s assessment of Mr. Amos’ arguments on that day. But it is useful to sort of revisit, because I think we forget these things. If we go back to page 81 of that transcript, after Mr. Amos had addressed what can only be described as extraneous issues for some time, the Chairman interjects and says, Mr. Amos, please hear me out. We have listened to you for 20 minutes or so, still haven’t heard your response to how you can participate in this proceeding in a respectful manner and stick to the issues. And at the end of that sentence the Chair says, everything else you have talked about is off topic. To which Mr. Amos responds, you just interrupted me, sir. And that carries on for a while. On page 83, the Chairman indicates, Mr. Amos, one last time I am going to give you an opportunity to address the issue of how you can participate in a respectful and responsible manner. If you don’t want to talk about that topic, we will take an adjournment and we will consider the request that Mr. Furey has made. And that goes on a little bit. And eventually the Board does recess and give its decision. So that was Matter 375 at that hearing. The next interaction that I am aware of is the Public Session in Matter 375 that took place on February 7th of 2018. And the transcript of that public session, at least the part that Mr. Amos presents at, is attached as attachment 3 to our notice of objection. And again for a period of time -- I should say at the outset, the Vice-Chairman indicated to Mr. Amos that he would have 21 minutes, more than the 15 minutes allotted because another presenter had been -- had gone over time. So after some period of time again of extraneous discussion, at page 36 of that transcript the Vice-Chairman interjects and says, so, Mr. Amos, I hate interrupting. To which Mr. Amos says, you are interrupting me, sir. And that goes on for a few minutes -- few moments, to the top of page 37 where there is a discussion about whether Mr. Amos is being shut down by the Vice-Chairman to which Mr. Amos then replies, do you want me to sue you, sir, then turn off your mic. And then the Vice-Chair it appears to me -- I am characterizing this a little bit. But it appears to me that the Vice-Chair then allows Mr. Amos to proceed until his time limit. And on page 43 the Vice-Chairman again interjects saying, Mr. Amos, I will intervene now. It is 7:06 so you have had your 21 minutes. Mr. Amos’ response, all right. I will see you in another court. And continues, that’s fine. I am suing you. It’s him I am concerned about. He might be dead before me. And finally, the fourth interaction. It is not an appearance but the intervener request that Mr. Amos has filed in this matter. And he appears to have a specific issue that he wants to bring forward. He indicates that -- he is referring back to his appearance at the open session on February 7th. And he indicates that he explained to the EUB in no uncertain terms that he is a whistle blower against NB Power’s auditor KPMG. And the attachments to his intervention appear to me -- I am going to characterize them as allegations of conflict of interest against KPMG with respect to individual taxpayer’s matters before the Canada Revenue Agency. All of which is extraneous to this hearing. So in our submission, the evidentiary basis for this objection is stronger this time than it was in Matter 375. The pattern of confrontational behaviour in which Mr. Amos is focused on allegations of conflict of interest, unethical behaviour, lawlessness against lawmakers, judges, lawyers, members of this Board continues with no sign of abatement. And so in that circumstance, again while emphasizing that this is not a typical position that NB Power would take, in this circumstance we feel compelled to ask the Board to deny Mr. Amos’ request for intervener status. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Furey. Mr. Amos? MR. AMOS: Good morning, Mr. Herron. Remember me? Yes or no? You must have recognized some of the documents that NB Power has filed in this matter, haven’t you? CHAIRMAN: Mr. Amos, do you have a presentation to make? MR. AMOS: Yes, I do. First off -- CHAIRMAN: Please make it. MR. AMOS: First off, I made the Board aware that I got no notice of this until my friend Roger notified me of it. NB Power didn’t email me. They knew my email address. They knew my new one. Sent it to my old one. My friend Roger notified me. I contacted the Board. Notified NB Power of my indignation. That said, after I read the documents served upon me yesterday, let’s look at Mr. Furey’s letter with respect to the timing of the hearing of the notice of objection to the intervener request, Mr. Amos, NB Power is prepared to argue this issue at the pre-hearing conference or at an alternate time set by the Board. Now fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Now Halloween of 2017, I had no notice. I had to buy this thing to get internet after that. He files exactly the same document filed by Wanda Harrison, October 30th. I have every right to have the same courtesy extended to me that was extended to Peter Hyslop. And Mr. Furey’s convenient memory, when I intervened and he was seeking to be paid by this Board, I filed those documents then after I was invited by Mr. Fury and his associates to a secret meeting in the law office of Stewart McKelvey. Then after Mr. Hyslop decides to withdraw, this Board decides to oblige Mr. Russell and stop the 357 hearing until after the election. When the 357 matter began again, I was surprised to see you, Mr. Gorman. I thought you were retired. But apparently you had been re-appointed by the former Liberal government. On October 12th, when we encountered each other, nobody minding me sitting there then. At the time, Mr. Gallant during the election, which Roger and I and Gerald all ran against in, during the election Premier Gallant said that he was going to block rate increases of NB Power for four years. On October 12th he was still Premier. You guys didn’t know what to do. You were going to get in a consultant or something. My friend Roger asked about this rate increase hearing as soon as Mr. Higgs becomes Premier. I said why waste our precious time? It’s not about smart meters. His issue is about smart meters. He said I am scared they are going to slip it in. I said, no, they are not, Roger. It’s a rate increase hearing. We had decided not to intervene until he got spooked on Friday. He relies on me to help him. He intervened, I intervened. This matter is about rate increases based on the opinion of KPMG and Mr. Gaetan and probably Mr Murphy but I can’t read the signature. As far as I know, NB Power has never, I repeat never been audited, ever. I don’t care about the opinion of KPMG. I caused hearings at the senate banking committee in Washington about them in November of 2003 before I ran against Mr. Herron for his seat in parliament. I served many of those documents upon Mr. Herron and his lawyer David Lutz, who is mentioned in these documents filed by Mr. Furey. That said, I have every right as a taxpayer and a citizen of this province and I just bought real estate in New Brunswick and need power to intervene because the Public Intervener can’t speak for anyone. My friend speaks for business. I speak for the ordinary ratepayer. The only person that doesn’t pay an NB Power bill in this room is Mr. Stoll and his new partner is a former Minister of Public Safety who had me arrested. All this is well known to Mr. Herron since 2004. Now you don’t want me to address him but if he is going to stand judgment on me, I see a huge conflict of interest. You are a lawyer, sir. You should have understood these documents I filed in the 357 Matter. You should have not allowed Mr. Furey to edit them. Now I have the right to respond -- CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, what editing are you talking about? MR. AMOS: The documents he edited. I told you in the last time. That said, I have the right to respond in writing to Ms. Harrison. She details many things. If any lawyer in this room had saw what she said about them and for EUB to publish those statements so the world could see, that is what is called libel. Five years in jail, section 300. He just libelled me some more. He just said just now on the record things I did not say. I asked Henneberry for a tape of the hearing. Ms. Desmond says not my job. Henneberry won’t return my calls. I did not say dead Bernie. I said Derrick Bernie. And I threaten no one. And then talks about -- about somebody being dead before me. And I said no such thing. I asked the lady for a copy of the tape. She says copyright. I said how can you copyright my words. And you shouldn’t twist my words. I said no such thing. Now his memory is convenient. If he recalls when I first introduced myself, it was a pre-conference hearing, 357 Matter. He got in a big argument with Mr. Hyslop. There was documents back and forth. The Board and I got along just fine. He invited me to a confidential hearing or meeting with Mr. Todd. Everything was just fine until the Board decides to accommodate Mr. Russell. I have every right to cross examine Mr. Russell. Mr. Stoll flies in, wants to cross examine him. They make a deal so I can’t cross examine him because Mr. Stoll is happy. No way. That wasn’t even a motion day. I asked you if I could make a motion. You wouldn’t answer. I made a motion. And then you put me on the telephone. How come I don’t get the same courtesy he does? All that said, yes, this is a matter for another court. As you notice in the email I sent you, I contacted the RCMP just as soon as I looked at his latest filing. I consider it libel, period. That said, I will answer Ms. Harrison in writing to every one of her accusations and then the Board should set a time, probably a couple of days, so we can argue every paragraph. You would do the same for Mr. Hyslop, I am entitled to the same courtesy, period. CHAIRMAN: Do you have anything further? MR. AMOS: Mr. Herron, I suggest you dig up everything that has been filed in this Matter. You were served these documents in 2004. I never got an answer from you or your lawyer. CHAIRMAN: So, Mr. Amos, I just have a couple of questions on your -- your submission. At the beginning you talked about collaborating with Mr. Richard about whether you would intervene or not. So I take it that the two of you work together on the presentations that you make here at the Board? MR. AMOS: With your blessings. CHAIRMAN: And I am not sure how this is relevant. You talked about buying real estate and you will need power. Are you telling me you are not a ratepayer now for NB Power? MR. AMOS: Ever since I run against Mr. Herron I have been homeless. People have kept me and they paid my power bill. Now I bought my own real estate and NB Power wants a deposit from me before I hook up power. I would like to see somebody ask for a deposit before they sell me the first cup of coffee. Furthermore, NB Power has never been audited. I do not care about the opinion of KPMG. I am a whistle blower against KPMG. KPMG is also a law firm. Everybody knows how many lawyers I have sued. KPMG audited the US Treasury Department when I caused the hearings at the senate banking committee in Washington about Putnam Investments, ringing any bells, Mr. Herron? CHAIRMAN: So, Mr. Amos, if I can go back to the question. Are you telling me that currently you are not a ratepayer? MR. AMOS: I am telling you I am David Amos and about to get a power bill and I have been kept since 2005 by other ratepayers and I earned it. CHAIRMAN: No, I understand that. But are you currently a ratepayer? MR. AMOS: Are you splitting hairs? CHAIRMAN: No, I am simply asking a question. MR. AMOS: Today I am not a ratepayer. I am the man that’s paying your wages. CHAIRMAN: Okay. You have brought up in your notice of intervention this issue that you are talking about KPMG. And how is that -- and then towards the end of this you said it’s an issue -- that’s a matter for another court. So -- MR. AMOS: KPMG is well aware of murder, as is Mr. Herron. CHAIRMAN: No. So -- MR. AMOS: Mr. Herron has had a copy of a wiretap tape of the mob since 2004. Would you like to discuss murder, sir? CHAIRMAN: So, Mr. Amos, are you suggesting these are matters that this Board -- MR. AMOS: I am suggesting there is a huge conflict of interest -- CHAIRMAN: Excuse me. MR. AMOS: -- and you are trying to save your butt. CHAIRMAN: Are you suggesting this is a matter that -- that this Board would -- MR. AMOS: It’s a matter for federal court. Just because of what he said now. I didn’t threaten to kill anyone, period. CHAIRMAN: Are you suggesting that this Board has the jurisdiction to deal with these issues -- MR. AMOS: This is not a court. CHAIRMAN: Or this Board. I know it’s a Board. MR. AMOS: You are overseen by a Minister of Energy, Mr. Holland. CHAIRMAN: So you are suggesting that this Board has that jurisdiction? MR. AMOS: You have no jurisdiction. None. You have no jurisdiction over me. I have jurisdiction over you. You work for me. I am the taxpayer here. And just because I don’t have a power bill today, I don’t care. I don’t care. I pay your wages. CHAIRMAN: So, Mr. Amos, just maybe one last question and that is really about your purpose for intervening, because your application seems to emphasize this issue that you are talking about with respect to KPMG. Is that what -- why you are intervening? Is that the issue you want to -- MR. AMOS: Let’s -- let’s go back. My friend Roger, when they come out with the rate increase after Mr. Gallant was no longer premier, he was asking me about intervening because he is concerned about smart meters. That’s his biggest concern, smart meters. I said, Roger, don’t worry about smart meters. Listen to the news. Mr. Thomas has to hustle people because you people denied him having smart meters. 357 is about that issue. I made sure he intervened much to the chagrin of Mr. Furey. Mr. Furey did not want Roger to intervene in the hearing. Now in my intervention, I provide an email that was acknowledged by the Board on April 3rd. Now by April 3rd of last year, his issues of smart meter had gone by the wayside. So there was no longer -- it had been all heard. You guys didn’t recognize the professor from McGill as an expert. Mr. Furey didn’t ask him the first question. He addressed all its concerns as best he could about smart meters. A month or so went by. April 3rd -- it come out in late March that NB Power had reached a settlement of the lawsuit. However, I see no sign of any money going into NB Power’s books this time. So they must have slipped it in after April 1st last year. But they apparently received the settlement in March. Wanted to keep it a secret. I told him it’s important we go to the hearing. You folks were somewhat surprised to see my friend at the hearing. I was sitting at his side. I listened very closely to the hearing. When I heard Mr. Stewart mention the Canada Revenue Service three times, I sent you an email. Bingo. His client, the Irvings, use KPMG all the time as a law firm. That said, I sent you all the email. It was acknowledged, right. I sent it to the Minister, sent it to the RCMP. Then you asked my friend Roger what he thought. In the email I sent you this morning, which is a transcript of April 3rd -- did you look at the email I sent you this morning? CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of that transcript, yes. MR. AMOS: I beg your pardon? CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of that transcript. MR. AMOS: Yeah. After Mr. Stewart did his big spiel about Revenue Canada, et cetera, you asked my friend Roger what he thought. Roger voiced his opinion about freezing price rates months before Gallant dreamed it up. And then he said if he ran his business like NB Power runs it, his would be flat lined. That’s what Roger said. Roger voiced his opinion fairly articulately. He asked, since they had this big settlement and were looking to decrease their price rate, perhaps you should adjourn the hearing and start 357 again. That’s what he said. It’s in the transcript. It’s in the email I sent you. I also published it on the internet. I also sent it to the RCMP. That said, it is what it is. I heard that. I sent the email. You responded. The second part of my intervention that he considers nothing is even a letter from the Ombudsman of KPMG not long after I ran against Mr. Herron. If the Ombudsman of KPMG is trying to make a deal with me and I was introduced to him by the RCMP, you don’t think that has any gravity? CHAIRMAN: So, Mr. Amos, again I am going to go back to your intervener request. And when you talk about your interest in the proceeding it says, David Raymond Amos, on the evening of February 7th 2018, explained to the EUB in no uncertain terms that he is a whistle blower against NB Power’s auditor KPMG and that he has every right to question their actions in support of NB Power or anyone else, for that matter. And it goes on to talk about having made NB Power aware of many communications, et cetera. And then there are a number of pages that have emails in some way or another relating to that topic. So is that the purpose that you are looking to intervene is to deal with that issue? MR. Amos: Mr. Gorman, if you recall before we had the hearing on the phone about whether or not to cancel the 357 -- or adjourn the 357 Matter, I sent you emails going, do you remember me now, Mr. Gorman? Because as soon as you were appointed, I sent you emails before the economy collapsed. I forwarded those emails to you. Those would be some of the filings I will file when I respond to his submission. I have every right to respond to Ms. Harrison’s documentation in writing. CHAIRMAN: So, Mr. Amos, you haven’t answered my question, however. Is that your purpose for the intervention request? MR. AMOS: I most definitely want to grill Mr. Murphy about his opinions about the purported accounting of NB Power because I don’t think NB Power has ever been audited ever. I don’t care about opinions. I want to see an audit. It’s my money and yours. I know that Hydro-Quebec is audited by the Auditor General of Quebec. Nobody audits NB Power. The Auditor General of New Brunswick was telling everybody in a report for the government to stay out of NB Power’s business. And yet they had a big committee hearing yesterday inspired by David Coon. Just who is -- the fox is guarding the hen house. NB Power, nobody oversees them, even you don’t. Nobody audits NB Power. I don’t -- and then KPMG, you think I am going to trust one word of KPMG when they have covered up murder. CHAIRMAN: So, Mr. Amos, then you are not recognizing the audited financial statements that -- MR. AMOS: They are not audited. Number 1 it is signed KPMG. I know when I was in business and I had an auditor and I reported to the taxman, he had to sign that on pains and penalties of perjury with the CRA and lose his license. I had an auditor. I was in business. Apparently I was more successful percentage-wise than NB Power ever dreamed of. I would love to have the nature of their business and not -- and they don’t make any money. I don’t believe it. The -- the -- the Quebecers were willing to pay nearly $5 billion and then Mr. Graham resolved the deal to 3.2 billion without the transmission lines. Well the Quebecers don’t pay $5 billion for debt. There is no need to raise rates. They are way over 20 percent equity. I don’t care what KPMG purportedly claims. I want to see an audit. And in order to see an audit, it must be audited. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Amos. I appreciate that this is a matter primarily between Mr. Amos, who has applied to be an intervener, and NB Power, who has objected. Our rules call for a copy of that objection to be served on all of the parties. I am not sure I can -- why we have put that in the rules, but the fact that we have done it, one might think -- look at it that parties might have an opportunity to comment on this because of that requirement. So on that basis, I am going to see if anybody has any comments on this issue. So I will start with Enbridge Gas New Brunswick. Mr. Callaghan, do you have any comments on this matter? MR. CALLAGHAN: No, comments, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Stewart? MR. STEWART: No comment, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Mr. Richard? DR. RICHARD: Yes, if you permit. Mr. Amos is a very knowledgeable person. Mr. Amos only speaks the truth. But he has difficulty to verbalize it in a way we can understand. If we let him speak, let him enough time, we will all learn something. I can assure you that it will be worth the while. Of all the citizens of New Brunswick, we are only three independent interveners. You accepted four Americans in our Board of Directors last year. And you are considering eliminating a New Brunswicker as an intervener. New Brunswickers come in various forms. Please get accustomed to varieties and accept them as they come. Mr. President, I know your ability to manage various groups of people. You are able to accommodate Mr. Amos’ mode of communication. With the right attitude, we can all learn to understand the way Mr. Amos communicates. His message is very important for our province. Because we are in financial and environmental difficulty, very, very important. His concern with KPMG is genuine. We want to argue that NB Power needs to be audited by our general auditor. It is essential that Mr. Amos be an intervener for our province, unless NBEUB is a private club. And thank you, Mr. President. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Richard. Mr. Stoll? MR. STOLL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We don’t see that Mr. Amos’ participation is going to be helpful to an efficient hearing. So we are supporting the NB Power motion. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Ms. Black? MS. BLACK: No comment, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Desmond, any comment? MS. DESMOND: No comment. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. We are going to take a short adjournment and when we come back -- I think before we actually get to the schedule -- and I know that NB Power has produced and filed a suggested schedule and I am not sure if others -- you know, if there has been any discussion about that at all. But I think before we can really get into a scheduling discussion, I think we also need to talk about the redactions of the confidential information. MR. FUREY: Certainly, Mr. Chair. If I could make one additional comment that might be helpful. It is not directed to Mr. Amos’ status. But I think it’s important for Dr. Richard to understand, and I am putting it on the record now, that NB Power is not seeking approval of AMI capital expenditures in this hearing. This is a rate hearing. And I want him to understand that AMI is not on the table in this hearing. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. So we will take a brief adjournment. (Recess) CHAIRMAN: All right. So we will deal with the notice of objection relating to Mr. Amos’ intervener request in this Matter. And first of all, I want to make a comment about the intervener request. It does not seem to, on the face of it, deal with the matters that are going to be in issue in Matter 430. I made some general comments at the opening of the session today that the Board intends to keep people on topic this year. And this applies to everybody. I wouldn’t just be referring to Mr. Amos here. That if there are issues that are not pertinent to the rate application, then this is not going to be the forum to air those issues. Me. Amos, in making his argument this morning, suggested two things that the Board is going to take into consideration. One is that he got a fairly late notice yesterday with respect to the notice of objection. It is my understanding that he has changed his email address and that the new one and the old one are somewhat similar. I understand, Mr. Amos, that somebody from our office did provide you with a copy of the notice of objection but it would have been later on in the day, I expect. And secondly, Mr. Amos says that he needs a little bit of time to provide a written response to the written objection. And our rules don’t speak to that. They simply say that we will set a time to deal with the objection, which is this morning. The Board believes that Mr. Amos, in the circumstances of this case, can be given an opportunity to provide written remarks. And we will give you one week. So a week from today by noon, if we have your comments, written comments with respect to this issue -- and I would ask you to confine your remarks to the issue that we have today which is whether or not you will be granted intervener status. And the Board will then issue a written decision on this matter just as quickly as we can. So having said that, your intervener request is not granted today. We haven’t declined it. But it has not been granted today. So for purposes of today’s proceedings, you are not an intervener but we will, before we determine for the hearing whether or not you will be an intervener, we will consider your written remarks. They are to be filed no later than noon, one week from today. Mr. Furey, do you see any reason why you would need time or an opportunity even to respond to any written comments from Mr. Amos? MR. FUREY: I don’t anticipate at this time that we would require a response. It probably wouldn’t be unreasonable to say 24 hours later, if the Board was inclined to give us that opportunity, it would be a very short time frame. I would think 24 hours would be more than sufficient. CHAIRMAN: All right. Then we will provide you with a 24 hour opportunity to respond to any remarks that Mr. Amos may provide to us. So that would be Thursday of next week at noon. And if we haven’t received anything from NB Power -- if we have got Mr. Amos’ remarks and we don’t have anything from you, then we will proceed to deliberate on this matter and issue a written decision. This is not a decision that will take -- I don’t believe it will take a long time. I would expect that we will have it out either at the end of next week or the beginning of the following week. Mr. Amos, did you have a question? MR. AMOS: Thank you for the time. You are a Queen’s Counsel, it is my understanding. Do you understand the documents that Mr. Furey filed of mine in this Matter and the documents I filed in the 357 Matter? CHAIRMAN: Mr. Amos, rather than you putting questions to me, you have made your argument this morning as to why you should be granted intervener status. I am giving you an opportunity to provide the written response that you requested. And any comments of that nature -- anything about the nature of these documents or why they are or are not relevant, why we should consider them, you can put those in your remarks. MR. AMOS: You are a lawyer. CHAIRMAN: Sir, we are talking now about procedure. And the procedure that we have provided is we are giving you one week to provide a written response. Do you have any questions on what we have decided? MR. AMOS: Why won’t you answer me? CHAIRMAN: Sir, do you have any questions on the decision that we have made with respect to your request today? MR. AMOS: No, I don’t. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. All right. So the other issues that we have before us today is we have to obviously look at the hearing dates and the schedule. And the question of the confidentiality claims, whether or not there is going to be any challenge to those, I think has to be sorted out and -- because I think that may impact on the schedule as to whether or not some time has to be set aside for that. So perhaps just dealing with the claims for confidentiality and maybe even in the context of some of the general comments that I made when we opened this morning. So, Mr. Furey, do you have any sort of general comments to make with respect to the claims for confidentiality? I mean, we are not here today to deal with them. Nobody has actually filed any requests for us to review those. I just wonder in terms of a process that might be followed if it’s necessary and any sort of general claim -- or any general comments on the issues that I raised earlier? 03793 DECISION REGARDING INTERVENER REQUEST AND NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO INTERVENER REQUEST IN THE MATTER of an application by the New Brunswick Power Corporation pursuant to Section 103(1) of the Electricity Act, S.N.B. 2013, c. 7, for approval of the schedules of the rates for the fiscal year commencing April 1, 2019. (Matter No. 430) February 25, 2019 NEW BRUNSWICK ENERGY AND UTILITIES BOARD IN THE MATTER of an application by the New Brunswick Power Corporation pursuant to Section 103(1) of the Electricity Act, S.N.B. 2013, c. 7, for approval of the schedules of the rates for the fiscal year commencing April 1, 2019. (Matter No. 430) NEW BRUNSWICK ENERGY AND UTILITIES BOARD: Chairperson: Raymond Gorman, Q.C. Members: Michael Costello John Patrick Herron Counsel: Ellen Desmond, Q.C. Chief Clerk: Kathleen Mitchell APPLICANT: New Brunswick Power Corporation: John Furey PUBLIC INTERVENER: Heather Black PARTICIPANTS: David Amos Enbridge Gas New Brunswick: Jeffery Callaghan Gerald Bourque J.D. Irving Limited: Christopher J. Stewart Roger Richard Utilities Municipal: Scott Stoll A. Introduction [1] The New Brunswick Power Corporation (NB Power) filed a Notice of Application with the New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board (Board) on January 8, 2019, for approval of the rates it proposes to charge for its services for the fiscal year commencing April 1, 2019. NB Power is also seeking an Order approving the creation of a Regulatory Deferral Account with respect to certain Demand Side Management expenses. [2] Notice of this Application (Matter 430) was provided to the public and any person wishing to participate in the hearing was required to register with the Board no later than February 1. [3] Any person wishing to participate must file an Intervener Request and demonstrate that they have a substantial interest in the proceeding and that they intend to participate actively and responsibly. This requirement is in keeping with the Board’s Rules of Procedure (Rules). Rule 3 provides, in part, as follows: 3. Participation in Board Proceedings 3.2. Interveners 3.2.1. Except as otherwise provided in a Practice Directive, following the issuance of a Hearing Order, a person (other than an applicant) wishing to actively participate as a party to the proceeding shall apply for intervener status by filing an Intervener Request with the Board, and serving a copy of same on the applicant, if any, on or before the date directed by the Board. This shall apply whether the proceeding has been commenced by an application or otherwise. 3.2.2. A person filing an Intervener Request must have a substantial interest in the proceeding and intend to participate actively and responsibly. [4] Several individuals did file an Intervener Request with the Board, including Mr. David Amos, who indicated that he was a “whistleblower against NB Power’s auditor KPMG and that he has every right to question their actions”. Mr. Amos also attached several pages of emails that had been exchanged with various individuals about his concerns involving both KPMG and the Canada Revenue Agency. [5] On February 5, 2019, NB Power filed a Notice of Objection to the intervention of Mr. Amos pursuant to Rule 3.2.7. NB Power submits that Mr. Amos has not met the criteria of Rule 3.2.2. [6] The written objection states, in part, as follows: … Mr. Amos does not demonstrate that he has a substantive interest in the proceedings…as the nature of his proposed intervention appears to be based on an allegation that KPMG is in a conflict of interest with respect to taxation matters administered by the Canada Revenue Agency, an issue which is not relevant to this Proceeding. NB Power further submits that the history of Mr. Amos’ appearances before the Board in other proceedings demonstrates that he does not meet the requirement of participation in a responsible manner. To the contrary, NB Power submits that Mr. Amos is a vexatious litigant, and should not be permitted to participate in this Proceeding. [7] During the pre-hearing conference held on February 7, 2019, the Board heard submissions from the parties as to whether Mr. Amos’ Intervener Request should be allowed pursuant to Rule 3.2.9. Mr. Amos was also given the additional opportunity to file written comments in support of his request. B. Issue and Analysis [8] The Board must determine if Mr. Amos should be granted intervener status in Matter 430 and if he has met the requirements set out in Rule 3. [9] During the pre-hearing conference Mr. Amos was repeatedly asked for the purpose of his intervention. Mr. Amos failed to answer clearly, concluding “I most definitely want to grill Mr. Murphy about his opinions about the purported accounting of NB Power because I don’t think NB Power has ever been audited ever.” [10] There was also concern about Mr. Amos’ ability to participate responsibly. On this point, NB Power made extensive oral submissions during the pre-hearing conference, including as follows: … The pattern of confrontational behaviour in which Mr. Amos is focused on allegations of conflict of interest, unethical behaviour, lawlessness against lawmakers, judges, lawyers, members of this Board continues with no sign of abatement. And so in that circumstance, again while emphasizing that this is not a typical position that NB Power would take, in this circumstance we feel compelled to ask the Board to deny Mr. Amos’ request for intervener status. [11] In his submission and during the course of his oral argument, Mr. Amos talked about many issues from the past and many personalities, but did not focus on the current application. Allegations of lawlessness were made, none of which are relevant to this matter. [12] As indicated above, Mr. Amos was also given the opportunity to make a written submission, after the pre-hearing conference was concluded. This submission included a large volume of information, dealing with a variety of matters raised by him in various forums, (both in Canada and in the United States), which was not related to the current Matter. [13] Responsible intervention obligates intervenors to raise issues and to file evidence that is relevant to the Matter. The Board must focus on its legislative mandate and consider just those issues that are within its jurisdiction. The issues raised by Mr. Amos are extraneous and unrelated to the application before the Board. Despite numerous opportunities to do so, Mr. Amos failed to raise any issues of relevance in this Matter. [14] The volume of irrelevant material filed by Mr. Amos, and his submissions, not only fail to demonstrate that he has a substantial interest in this matter, but also indicate that he would not be intervening responsibly, as he would take a great deal of time raising unrelated issues. C. Conclusion [15] Having considered the oral and written submissions of Mr. Amos, NB Power and other parties, the Board finds that Mr. Amos has not demonstrated that he has a substantial interest in this proceeding. In addition, the Board finds that, on a balance of probabilities, Mr. Amos would not participate responsibly if he were granted intervener status. [16] As a result, the Board will exercise its discretion and will not grant intervener status to Mr. Amos in this Matter. Dated in Saint John, New Brunswick, this the 25th of February, 2019. Raymond Gorman, Q.C. Chairperson Michael Costello Member John Patrick Herron Member Sent via email May 21, 2019 Mr. Gaetan Thomas gathomas@nbpower.com Members, Energy and Utilities Board general@nbeub.ca Premier Blaine Higgs blaine.higgs@gnb.ca Gentlemen: On May 9th, 2019, the Fredericton Chapter of the Council of Canadians hosted Mr. Chris Rouse, Systems Engineer and founder of New Clear Free Solutions at a public presentation at Wilmot Church in Fredericton. The event was attended by more than one-hundred people. Chris addressed the very pressing need for our Province to reach a goal of having 95% of our energy needs met by renewable energy as we transition to a low-carbon economy. His presentation demonstrated that reaching this goal is indeed technically possible, and can be done using our own local renewable energy sources while lowering energy costs. Chris’s report may be found here: https://newclearfreesolutions. Of course the backdrop to this work and our desire to engage the public in a dialogue is the climate emergency and the need to get New Brunswick’s carbon emissions to zero or negative in the very near future. It is imperative that we all help with the global effort to avert climate catastrophe. At the conclusion of Chris’s presentation individuals were given the option to sign a letter indicating their support for the proposal as presented. Attached you will find a document containing forty-one such scanned letters for your attention and response. Sincerely, Margo Sheppard (on behalf of Fredericton Chapter, Council of Canadians) | |
No comments:
Post a Comment