N.B. Power being forced to offer larger rate discounts to forestry mills
Provincial rules require utility to pay 35 per cent increase in mill subsidies, despite its own financial woes
A New Brunswick government regulation, written to protect pulp and paper mills from high electricity prices, is forcing N.B. Power to increase the rate subsidies it offers mills this year by 35 per cent, despite a deterioration in the utility's own financial condition.
The mill subsidies, which have been mandated by the New Brunswick government every year since 2012, have been set by the Department of Energy for the current fiscal year at $28.04 per megawatt hour, an increase of $7.29 over last year.
The utility had not originally budgeted to finance a subsidy that large and said it has revised the expected cost of the program for this year to $16.6 million — up by $2.9 million.
New Brunswick Green Party Leader David Coon has been a long time opponent of N.B. Power being made to finance the subsidy.
N.B.
Power's financial condition deteriorated significantly in 2024 with its
net debt soaring to $5.8 billion by the end of the year. It was a
$470-million increase in just 12 months as ongoing problems at the Point
Lepreau generating stations dragged on its results. (Michael Heenan/CBC)
He said if the New Brunswick government wants to subsidise energy costs for forestry mills, it should take financial responsibility for the program itself and not make consumers of electricity and the financially struggling utility pay its rising costs.
"N.B. Power's money doesn't come out of thin air, it comes out of what people pay on their power bills," said Coon in an interview.
"It's just more pain for consumers."
In hearings last summer N.B. Power confirmed that all New Brunswick electricity customers bear the cost of the support program. A $16.6-million subsidy would cost the average residential customer about $20 for the year.
N.B. Power gets the bill for major new bump in pulp and paper power-rate discountsThe subsidy, first introduced by the former Progressive Conservative government of David Alward, has cost N.B. Power more than $135 million, to date.
It is meant to offer mills a rate for the purchase of firm amounts of electricity equal to an average rate paid by similar mills operating in other provinces.
Under a scheme devised by the province, the subsidies are not paid directly but delivered through transactions where N.B. Power buys renewable electricity — generated by the mills at inflated prices — and instantly sells it back to the mills at a discount.
No electricity actually changes hands, but the process of buying electricity at high prices and reselling at low prices is carried on until N.B. Power loses enough money to the mills to equal a pre-determined subsidy amount established by the province.
New
Brunswick Premier Susan Holt and Finance Minister René Legacy, who is
also the Minister of Energy, announced last week an independent
three-person panel will be appointed to recommend changes at N.B. Power.
Legacy says the group will be asked to evaluate whether the utility
should be paying the cost of subsidizing industry. (Chad Ingraham/CBC)
This year the province calculated the target power rate for mills buying firm amounts of electricity to be $74.27 per megawatt hour, well below the large industrial rate of $102.31 per megawatt hour approved for N.B. Power by New Brunswick's Energy and Utilities Board.
Subsidising the difference between the two is N.B. Power's responsibility.
Finance and Energy Minister René Legacy said there was no discussion inside the Holt government about changing or ending the subsidy for this year.
However, he said whether N.B. Power and its customers should be paying for an industrial subsidy mandated by the government will be reviewed in detail by an independent panel being set up by the province to evaluate N.B. Power's future direction.
Forestry
company J.D. Irving Ltd. operates three New Brunswick pulp and paper
mills and in the past has called N.B. Power rate subsidies 'critical' to
the financial viability of the large manufacturing facilities. (Robert Jones/CBC)
"That's a great question," said Legacy in an interview.
"That's one of the questions we're proposing to have in the review of what's N.B. Power's role."
Pulp and paper companies have defended the program in the past as critical to their long-term viability. But since the program began, N.B. Power's own financial viability has become an issue.
Earlier this year N.B. Power reported that ongoing operational problems, including trouble at the Point Lepreau nuclear generating station, had pushed its net debt above $5.8 billion at the end of 2024, $470 million higher than a year earlier.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
From: Comeau, Mike (JPS/JSP) <Mike.Comeau@gnb.ca>
Date: Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 11:36 AM
Subject: Automatic reply: WOW The N.B. Power Board of Directors is still pretending that KPMG is ethical
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
I will return to the office May 5. In the meatime, Andrew Easton (andrew.easton@gnb.ca) April 25-27 Chris O'Connell (chris.oconnell@gnb.ca) April 27-May 4 are acting Deputy Minister of Justice and Public Safety and Diane Audet (diane.audet@gnb.ca) is acting Deputy Attorney General.
Je reviendrai au bureau le 5 mai. Le 25-27 avril, Andrew Easton (andrew.easton@gnb.ca) et est sous-ministre par intérim de la Justice et de la Sécurité publique, et c'est Chris O'Connell (chris.oconnell@gnb.ca) le 28 avril-4 mai. Diane Audet (diane.audet@gnb.ca) est sous-procureure générale par interim.
From: Weir, Rob (LEG) <Rob.Weir@gnb.ca>
Date: Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 11:26 AM
Subject: RE: WOW The N.B. Power Board of Directors is still pretending that KPMG is ethical
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Hello,
I listen carefully to your words to me, I was courteous and interested. You asked me a question, as I tried to respond your kept interrupting me. I asked that you stop, and you said, “fuck you”. I don’t necessarily have a problem with the cursing, but I do require our discourse be one of mutual respect. Without that there is little to be gained other than argument.
I am willing to try again after a cooling off period should you choose to do so.
Thank you,
Rob
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: WOW The N.B. Power Board of Directors is still pretending that KPMG is ethical
To: Weir, Rob (LEG) <Rob.Weir@gnb.ca>, robert.mckee <robert.mckee@gnb.ca>, Mike.Comeau <Mike.Comeau@gnb.ca>
Cc: <Don.Monahan@gnb.ca>, <ian.lee@gnb.ca>
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
To: davidmylesforfredericton@
Cc: premier <premier@ontario.ca>; premier <premier@gnb.ca>; premier <premier@gov.yk.ca>; premier <premier@leg.gov.mb.ca>; premier <premier@gov.nt.ca>; PREMIER <premier@gov.ns.ca>; premier <premier@gov.nl.ca>; premier <premier@gov.bc.ca>; premier <premier@gov.ab.ca>; premier <premier@gov.pe.ca>; Office of the Premier <scott.moe@gov.sk.ca>; "leader@lpnb.ca" <leader@lpnb.ca>; leader <leader@greenparty.ca>; leader@ourcanadianfuture.com <leader@ourcanadianfuture.com>
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2025 at 10:56:04 AM ADT
Subject: Fwd: I wonder if the lawyer Jagmeet Singh recalls this email
---------- Original message ---------
From: Minister of Finance / Ministre des Finances <minister-ministre@fin.gc.ca>
Date: Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 10:33 AM
Subject: Automatic reply: I wonder if the lawyer Jagmeet Singh recalls this email
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
The Department of Finance acknowledges receipt of your electronic correspondence. Please be assured that we appreciate receiving your comments.Le ministère des Finances Canada accuse réception de votre courriel. Nous vous assurons que vos commentaires sont les bienvenus.
---------- Original message ---------
From: Ministerial Correspondence Unit - Justice Canada <mcu@justice.gc.ca>
Date: Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 10:26 AM
Subject: Automatic Reply
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Thank you for writing to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.
Due to the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister, please note that there may be a delay in processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed.
We do not respond to correspondence that contains offensive language.
-------------------
Merci d'avoir écrit au ministre de la Justice et procureur général du Canada.
En raison du volume de correspondance adressée au ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Nous tenons à vous assurer que votre message sera lu avec soin.
Nous ne répondons pas à la correspondance contenant un langage offensant.
---------- Original message ---------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Date: Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 10:26 AM
Subject: I wonder if the lawyer Jagmeet Singh recalls this email
To: pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, <president@ndp.ca>, <lucy.watson@ndp.ca>, <lisa.roberts@ndp.ca>, <serge.landry@ndp.ca>, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>, fin.minfinance-financemin.fin <fin.minfinance-financemin.
Cc: dominic.leblanc <dominic.leblanc@parl.gc.ca>, <shyam.shukla@ndp.ca>, <cindy.andrie@ndp.ca>, <kimberly.losier@ndp.ca>, <alex.gagne@ndp.ca>
https://www.ndp.ca/jagmeet
Jagmeet is a lawyer, a human rights activist and the Leader of Canada’s New Democratic Party.
Jagmeet Singh grew up in Scarborough, St. John’s, and Windsor, and served as an Ontario MPP from 2011 until 2017. On October 1st, 2017, he became leader of Canada’s NDP – guided by values rooted in his experiences growing up, Jagmeet is building a fairer, more just Canada where everyone can realize their dreams.
---------- Original message ----------
From: "Singh - QP, Jagmeet" JSingh-QP@ndp.on.ca
Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 16:39:35 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Re Federal Court File # T-1557-15 and the
upcoming hearing on May 24th I called a lot of your people before High
Noon today Correct Ralph Goodale and Deputy Minister Malcolm Brown?
To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
For immediate assistance please contact our Brampton office at
905-799-3939 or jsingh-co@ndp.on.ca
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 12:37:08 -0400
Subject: Re Federal Court File # T-1557-15 and the upcoming hearing on
May 24th I called a lot of your people before High Noon today Correct
Ralph Goodale and Deputy Minister Malcolm Brown?
To: hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca, rona.ambrose@parl.gc.ca,
communications@ps.gc.ca, Malcolm.Brown@ps-sp.gc.ca,
Heather.DeSantis@ps-sp.gc.ca,
ps.publicsafetymcu-
stephen.greene@sen.parl.gc.ca, pm@pm.gc.ca, maxime.bernier@parl.gc.ca,
Michael.Duheme@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, michael.chong@parl.gc.ca
Cc: David Amos david.raymond.amos@gmail.com,
marc.giroux@fja-cmf.gc.ca, andrew.baumberg@fct-cf.gc.ca,
mcu@justice.gc.ca, jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca, intcomm@mk.gov.hu,
washington.field@ic.fbi.gov, econdept@ceu.edu,
j.Russell.George@tigta.treas.
George.Soros@
Norman.Sabourin@cjc-ccm.gc.ca, john.kulik@mcinnescooper.com,
btgnaff@gmail.com, jsingh-qp@ndp.on.ca, Heather.DeSantis@canada.ca,
Malcolm.Brown@canada.ca
Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Deputy Minister Malcolm Brown
269 Laurier Avenue West,
19th Floor, Room 1919
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0P8
Telephone: 613-991-2895
Interesting news about the NDP N'esy Pas?
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/
Jagmeet Singh Would Shatter Historic Barrier By Capturing NDP Leadership
CP | By Kristy Kirkup, The Canadian Press
Posted: 05/15/2017 10:23 am EDT
http://www.nationalpost.com/m/
NDP leadership hopeful Brian Graff takes party to court after they
block his candidacy
Maura Forrest Tuesday, May 16, 2017
---------- Original message ----------
From: "Kulik, John" john.kulik@mcinnescooper.com
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 18:29:07 +0000
Subject: McInnes Cooper
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com, david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
Dear Mr. Amos:
I have tried to call you back a number of times at 902-800-0369 but
each time I get a busy signal.
John Kulik
[McInnes Cooper]<http://www.
John Kulik Q.C.
Partner & General Counsel
McInnes Cooper
tel +1 (902) 444 8571 | fax +1 (902) 425 6350
1969 Upper Water Street
Suite 1300
Purdy's Wharf Tower II Halifax, NS, B3J 2V1
asst Cathy Ohlhausen | +1 (902) 455 8215
---------- Original message ----------
From: "Kulik, John" john.kulik@mcinnescooper.com
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 17:37:49 +0000
Subject: McInnes Cooper
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com, david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
Dear Mr. Amos:
I am General Counsel for McInnes Cooper. If you need to communicate
with our firm, please do so through me.
Thank you.
John Kulik
[McInnes Cooper] http://www.mcinnescooper.com/
John Kulik Q.C.
Partner & General Counsel
McInnes Cooper
tel +1 (902) 444 8571 | fax +1 (902) 425 6350
1969 Upper Water Street
Suite 1300
Purdy's Wharf Tower II Halifax, NS, B3J 2V1
asst Cathy Ohlhausen | +1 (902) 455 8215
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.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Public Safety MCU / Sécurité publique UCM (PS/SP)"
ps.publicsafetymcu-
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 15:57:24 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Re the CBA, the RCMP, Federal Court File #
T-1557-15 and the Hearing before the Federal Court of Appeal on May
24th 2017
To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
Merci d’avoir écrit à l’honorable Ralph Goodale, ministre de la
Sécurité publique et de la Protection civile.
En raison d’une augmentation importante du volume de la correspondance
adressée au ministre, veuillez prendre note qu’il pourrait y avoir un
retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Soyez assuré que votre
message sera examiné avec soin.
*********
Thank you for writing to the Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister of
Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence
addressed to the Minister, please note that there may be a delay
processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be
carefully reviewed.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ministerial Correspondence Unit - Justice Canada mcu@justice.gc.ca
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 15:56:02 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Re the CBA, the RCMP, Federal Court File #
T-1557-15 and the Hearing before the Federal Court of Appeal on May
24th 2017
To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
Thank you for writing to the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, Minister
of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.
Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence
addressed to the Minister, please note that there may be a delay in
processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be
carefully reviewed.
-------------------
Merci d'avoir écrit à l'honorable Jody Wilson-Raybould, ministre de la
justice et procureur général du Canada.
En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de la correspondance
adressée à la ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir
un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Nous tenons à vous
assurer que votre message sera lu avec soin.
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 11:55:57 -0400
Subject: Re the CBA, the RCMP, Federal Court File # T-1557-15 and the
Hearing before the Federal Court of Appeal on May 24th 2017
To: ray.adlington@mcinnescooper.
bob.paulson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca,
Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.
jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca
Cc: David Amos david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, Mordaith@gmail.com,
leanne.murray@mcinnescooper.
Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca, nick.moore@bellmedia.ca,
jeremy.keefe@globalnews.ca, steve.murphy@ctv.ca,
Gilles.Blinn@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, Gilles.Moreau@forces.gc.ca,
sallybrooks25@yahoo.ca, oldmaison@yahoo.com, andre@jafaust.com,
jbosnitch@gmail.com, serge.rousselle@gnb.ca, premier@gnb.ca,
brian.gallant@gnb.ca, Larry.Tremblay@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
luc.labonte@gnb.ca
As I told the RCMP who called me last month the proper time and place
to discuss the CBA and your former partner Judge Richard Bell is the
Federal Court of Canada
Raymond G. Adlington Partner
McInnes Cooper
1300-1969 Upper Water St., Purdy's Wharf Tower II PO Box 730, Stn. Central
Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 2V1
Phone: (902) 444-8470
Fax: (902) 425-6350
E: ray.adlington@mcinnescooper.
http://www.mcinnescooper.com/
Ray Adlington named to CBA Board of Directors
May 2, 2017
Halifax partner Ray Adlington was recently named to the CBA Board of Directors.
In their announcement yesterday the CBA advised that the board would
come into effect September 1st, 2017.
After collecting extensive input over the past two years, we know
that CBA members believe it’s important for the organization to have a
Board of Directors that reflects the diversity of the legal
profession, including a mix of practice types, experience, skills,
geography and more.
Our new Board of Directors exemplifies this principle.
The board is composed from one member from each province as well as
the CBA President.
Congratulations Ray on this well deserved appointment.
Date: 20151223
Docket: T-1557-15
Fredericton, New Brunswick, December 23, 2015
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Bell
BETWEEN:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
Plaintiff
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
ORDER
(Delivered orally from the Bench in Fredericton, New Brunswick, on
December 14, 2015)
The Plaintiff seeks an appeal de novo, by way of motion pursuant to
the Federal Courts Rules (SOR/98-106), from an Order made on November
12, 2015, in which Prothonotary Morneau struck the Statement of Claim
in its entirety.
At the outset of the hearing, the Plaintiff brought to my attention a
letter dated September 10, 2004, which he sent to me, in my then
capacity as Past President of the New Brunswick Branch of the Canadian
Bar Association, and the then President of the Branch, Kathleen Quigg,
(now a Justice of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal). In that letter
he stated:
As for your past President, Mr. Bell, may I suggest that you check the
work of Frank McKenna before I sue your entire law firm including you.
You are your brother’s keeper.
Frank McKenna is the former Premier of New Brunswick and a former
colleague of mine at the law firm of McInnes Cooper. In addition to
expressing an intention to sue me, the Plaintiff refers to a number of
people in his Motion Record who he appears to contend may be witnesses
or potential parties to be added. Those individuals who are known to
me personally, include, but are not limited to the former Prime
Minister of Canada, The Right Honourable Stephen Harper; former
Attorney General of Canada and now a Justice of the Manitoba Court of
Queen’s Bench, Vic Toews; former member of Parliament Rob Moore;
former Director of Policing Services, the late Grant Garneau; former
Chief of the Fredericton Police Force, Barry McKnight; former Staff
Sergeant Danny Copp; my former colleagues on the New Brunswick Court
of Appeal, Justices Bradley V. Green and Kathleen Quigg, and, retired
Assistant Commissioner Wayne Lang of the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police.
In the circumstances, given the threat in 2004 to sue me in my
personal capacity and my past and present relationship with many
potential witnesses and/or potential parties to the litigation, I am
of the view there would be a reasonable apprehension of bias should I
hear this motion. See Justice de Grandpré’s dissenting judgment in
Committee for Justice and Liberty et al v National Energy Board et al,
[1978] 1 SCR 369 at p 394 for the applicable test regarding
allegations of bias. In the circumstances, although neither party has
requested I recuse myself, I consider it appropriate that I do so.
AS A RESULT OF MY RECUSAL, THIS COURT ORDERS that the Administrator of
the Court schedule another date for the hearing of the motion. There
is no order as to costs.
“B. Richard Bell”
Judge
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 19:12:04 -0400
Subject: Attn Bob Paulson and Jan Jensen et al Re A call from Cst
Woodman (506 851 7878) today As I said to him I look forward to
meeting you RCMP dudes in Federal Court
To: bob.paulson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, cathyc@ccca-cba.org,
Larry.Tremblay@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, dwayne.woodman@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca
Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.
hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca
Friday, 18 September 2015
David Raymond Amos Versus The Crown T-1557-15
153Alvin Avenue
From: "Murphy, Michael B. \(DH/MS\)" MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca
To: motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
January 30, 2007
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Mr. David Amos
Dear Mr. Amos:
This will acknowledge receipt of a copy of your e-mail of December
Sincerely,
Honourable Michael B. Murphy
Minister of Health”
To: motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com,
Subject: Fredericton Police Force
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:21:13 -0300
Fredericton Police Force
311 Queen St.
Fredericton, NB
506-460-2332
“IS ELVY ROBICHAID SEEING THE LIGHT????
by Charles LeBlanc Friday, Jun. 25, 2004 at 10:56 AM
Fredericton updates from Charles
Little David Amos’ “True History Of War” Canadian Airstrikes And
Stupid Justin Trudeau
Canada’s and Canadians free ride is over. Canada can no longer hide
behind Amerka’s and NATO’s skirts.
Prime Minister Harper will not permit this country to do so now
From: dnd_mdn@forces.gc.ca
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 14:17:17 -0400
Subject: RE: Re Greg Weston, The CBC , Wikileaks, USSOCOM, Canada and the War in Iraq (I just called SOCOM and let them know I was still alive
To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
This is to confirm that the Minister of National Defence has received
your email and it will be reviewed in due course. Please do not reply
to this message: it is an automatic acknowledgement.
>>>>
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 13:55:30 -0300
Subject: Re Greg Weston, The CBC , Wikileaks, USSOCOM, Canada and the War in Iraq (I just called SOCOM and let them know I was still alive
To: DECPR@forces.gc.ca, Public.Affairs@socom.mil, Raymonde.Cleroux@mpcc-cppm.gc.
william.elliott@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
dnd_mdn@forces.gc.ca, media@drdc-rddc.gc.ca, information@forces.gc.ca, milner@unb.ca, charters@unb.ca, lwindsor@unb.ca, sarah.weir@mpcc-cppm.gc.ca, birgir <birgir@althingi.is>, smari <smari@immi.is>, greg.weston@cbc.ca, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>,
susan@blueskystrategygroup.com
eugene@blueskystrategygroup.
Cc: "Edith. Cody-Rice" <Edith.Cody-Rice@cbc.ca>, "terry.seguin"
<terry.seguin@cbc.ca>, acampbell <acampbell@ctv.ca>, whistleblower <whistleblower@ctv.ca>
http://www.
Anyone can call me back and stress test my integrity after they read
this simple pdf file. BTW what you Blue Sky dudes pubished about
Potash Corp and BHP is truly funny. Perhaps Stevey Boy Harper or Brad Wall will fill ya in if you are to shy to call mean old me.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/
The Governor General, the PMO and the PCO offices know that I am not a shy political animal
Veritas Vincit
David Raymond Amos
902 800 0369
Enjoy Mr Weston
http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/
"But Lang, defence minister McCallum's chief of staff, says military
brass were not entirely forthcoming on the issue. For instance, he
says, even McCallum initially didn't know those soldiers were helping
to plan the invasion of Iraq up to the highest levels of command,
including a Canadian general.
That general is Walt Natynczyk, now Canada's chief of defence staff,
who eight months after the invasion became deputy commander of 35,000 U.S. soldiers and other allied forces in Iraq. Lang says Natynczyk was also part of the team of mainly senior U.S. military brass that helped prepare for the invasion from a mobile command in Kuwait."
"I remember years ago when the debate was on in Canada, about there being weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Our American 'friends" demanded that Canada join into "the Coalition of the Willing. American "veterans" and sportscasters loudly denounced Canada for NOT buying into the US policy.
At the time I was serving as a planner at NDHQ and with 24 other of my colleagues we went to Tampa SOUCOM HQ to be involved in the planning in the planning stages of the op....and to report to NDHQ, that would report to the PMO upon the merits of the proposed operation. There was never at anytime an existing target list of verified sites where there were deployed WMD.
Coalition assets were more than sufficient for the initial strike and invasion phase but even at that point in the planning, we were concerned about the number of "boots on the ground" for the occupation (and end game) stage of an operation in Iraq. We were also concerned about the American plans for occupation plans of Iraq because they at that stage included no contingency for a handing over of civil authority to a vetted Iraqi government and bureaucracy.
There was no detailed plan for Iraq being "liberated" and returned to its people...nor a thought to an eventual exit plan. This was contrary to the lessons of Vietnam but also to current military thought, that folks like Colin Powell and "Stuffy" Leighton and others elucidated upon. "What's the mission" how long is the mission, what conditions are to met before US troop can redeploy? Prime Minister Jean Chretien and the PMO were even at the very preliminary planning stages wary of Canadian involvement in an Iraq operation....History would prove them correct. The political pressure being applied on the PMO from the George W Bush administration was onerous
American military assets were extremely overstretched, and Canadian military assets even more so It was proposed by the PMO that Canadian naval platforms would deploy to assist in naval quarantine operations in the Gulf and that Canadian army assets would deploy in Afghanistan thus permitting US army assets to redeploy for an Iraqi operation....The PMO thought that "compromise would save Canadian lives and liberal political capital.. and the priority of which ....not necessarily in that order. "
You can bet that I called these sneaky Yankees again today EH John
Adams? of the CSE within the DND?
“I was not informed that the RCMP had provided inaccurate information to the U.S.,” Easter told the MPs.”
Number please.
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2025 1:43:19 PM
To: Weir, Rob (LEG) <Rob.Weir@gnb.ca>
Subject: Re: WOW The N.B. Power Board of Directors is still pretending that KPMG is ethical
com. Learn why this is important
On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 12:00 PM Weir, Rob (LEG) <Rob.Weir@gnb.ca> wrote:
I heard your recent phone message.
I saw you email when it was sent. I am sorry that I misunderstood, I thought it was a mass email for an informative message. I did not understand that you were looking for a response.
How can I help you?
Rob.
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2025 2:31:33 PM
To: Scott-Wallace, Tammy (LEG) <Tammy.Scott-Wallace@gnb.ca>; Doucet, Alexandre Cédric (LEG) <AlexandreCedric.Doucet@gnb.ca>; Johnston, Sam (LEG) <Sam.Johnston@gnb.ca>; LeBlanc, Jacques (LEG) <Jacques.J.LeBlanc@gnb.ca>; LeBlanc, Marco (LEG) <Marco.LeBlanc@gnb.ca>; Lee, Ian (LEG) <Ian.Lee@gnb.ca>; Mallet, Eric <Eric.Mallet@gnb.ca>; Mitton, Megan (LEG) <Megan.Mitton@gnb.ca>; Robichaud, Luc (LEG) <Luc.Robichaud@gnb.ca>; Vautour, Natacha (LEG) <Natacha.Vautour@gnb.ca>; Weir, Rob (LEG) <Rob.Weir@gnb.ca>
Cc: Clark, Lori <lclark@nbpower.com>; John Furey <JohnFurey@fureylegal.com>; Legacy, René Hon (FTB/FCT) <Rene.Legacy@gnb.ca>; Coon, David (LEG) <David.Coon@gnb.ca>; Robert. Jones <Robert.Jones@cbc.ca>; Diane.Lebouthillier <Diane.Lebouthillier@parl.gc.ca>; pierre.poilievre <pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca>; fin.minfinance-financemin.fin <fin.minfinance-financemin. fin@canada.ca>; Holt, Susan Premier (PO/CPM) <Susan.Holt@gnb.ca>; jennifer.sweet@cbc.ca <jennifer.sweet@cbc.ca>; Williamson, John <john.williamson@parl.gc.ca>; rob.moore <rob.moore@parl.gc.ca>; Herron, John Hon. (DNRED/MRNDE) <John.Herron@gnb.ca>; Monahan, Don (LEG) <Don.Monahan@gnb.ca>; Oliver, Bill (LEG) <Bill.Oliver@gnb.ca>; Wayne.Long <Wayne.Long@parl.gc.ca>; Ginette.PetitpasTaylor <Ginette.PetitpasTaylor@parl. gc.ca>; Savoie, Glen (LEG) <Glen.Savoie@gnb.ca>; Beaulieu, Eric (DH/MS) <Eric.Beaulieu@gnb.ca>; mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>
Subject: Re: WOW The N.B. Power Board of Directors is still pretending that KPMG is ethicalATTENTION! External email / courriel externe.
Matter No. 375
NEW BRUNSWICK ENERGY AND UTILITIES BOARD
INTERROGATORIES
(Rule 4.3)
In Relation to an Application by: New Brunswick Power Corporation
In Accordance with: Section 103(1) of the Electricity Act, S.N.B. 2013 c.7
TO: New Brunswick Power Corporation (NBP)
FROM: Gerald Bourque (GB)
NBP (GB) IR-1 November 16, 2017
Reference: NBP1.18 Appendix F i. 2016-17 NB Power Audited Financial Statements
Page 2
Questions:
a. If not already provided, please provide the names and resumes of the authors of
Independent Auditors Report offered to the Honourable Jocelyne Roy-Vienneau,
Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick.
b. If the information has been provided please identify where the names and
resumes can be found.
NBP (GB) IR-2 November 16, 2017
References: Transcript Pre-Hearing / Conférence préalable à l'audience 10/31/2017
Page 68 Line 14 Page 81 Lines 3- 8
NBP4.09 NBP Appendix AM ii 018-19 CCAS 3.4.3R LIREPP Energy and Demand -
Revision of NBP 1.73 - Nov 7 2017
NBP4.10 NBP Appendix AM iii 2018-19 CCAS 3.4.4R LIREPP 1 No-LIREPP - Revision
of NBP 1.74 - Nov 7 2017NBP4.11 NBP Appendix AM iv 2018-19 CCAS 3.4.4R LIREPP 2 Adjustment Removed -
Revision of NBP 1.76 - Nov 7 2017
NBP4.12 NBP Appendix AM ix 2018-19 CCAS 3.7R Baseline Model - Revision of NBP
1.76 - Nov 7 2017
NBP4.13 NBP Appendix AM v 2018-19 CCAS 3.4.4R LIREPP 3 With Adjustment -
Revision of NBP 1.77 - Nov 7 2017
NBP4.14 NBP Appendix AM vi 018-19 CCAS 3.4.4R LIREPP 4 Recommended -
Revision of NBP 1.78 -Nov 7 2017
Question:
Is NB Power aware of the communications between David Raymond Amos and
Gregory A. Hickey and their concerns about NB Power, the NBEUB and of the
U.S .Commerce Department's concerns about NB Power's Large Industrial
Renewable Energy Purchase Program (LIREPP)?
NBP (GB) IR-3 November 16, 2017
Reference: Transcript Pre-Hearing / Conférence préalable à l'audience 10/31/2017
Question:
Has NB Power responded to the concerns of David Raymond Amos regarding
the allegations made against him during the public hearing on October 31, 2017?
On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 1:48 PM David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> wrote:
"In an emailed reply to CBC News on Friday, N.B. Power said its board of directors had asked the accounting firm KPMG to conduct the audit requested by the government, "with a view to identifying the root cause(s) of the increases."
KPMG will observe testing of some old-style power meters as well as some smart meters and will review "a sampling" of high bill complaints received by N.B. Power customer service agents, said utility spokesperson Dominique Couture.
It wouldn't be possible to review all of the complaints within the allotted timeframe, she said."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/
canada/new-brunswick/nb-power- rate-increase-final-arguments- 1.6758622
Final arguments set to begin over request for an 8.9% power rate increase
N.B. Power's largest customer J.D. Irving Ltd. has led the charge against the proposed increase
Robert Jones · CBC News · Posted: Feb 24, 2023 7:00 AM AST | Last Updated: 2 hours ago
N.B. Power's acting president Lori Clark laid out the utility's case for an 8.9 per cent rate increase during the first day of hearings. (Jonathan Collicott/CBC)
N.B. Power's request for an 8.9 per cent rate increase enters its final phase in Fredericton today with closing arguments in front of the New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board. Stiff opposition, led principally by J.D. Irving Ltd., has left the outcome in some doubt.
Three lawyers acting for the forestry, manufacturing and transportation company dominated questioning of witnesses over seven days of hearings and are likely to lead calls for the increase to be reduced, if not scuttled outright, even if the utility's growing financial problems will require customers to pay more in future years.
JDI's lead lawyer in the case, Nancy Rubin, a partner with Stewart McKelvey in Halifax, has been building a case the increase is not specifically needed for the coming year, even if that means putting off dealing with N.B. Power's growing debt troubles to future years.
Stiff opposition led principally by J.D. Irving Ltd has left the outcome of the hearings in some doubt. (Robert Jones/CBC)
"As an individual residential customer, or a business operating in New Brunswick, do you believe that those customers would prefer to have that cash in hand now for their own capital, an investment, or their daily expenses versus pre-paying it against a future debt?," Rubin asked utility expert Robert Knecht on Tuesday, previewing what is likely to be the company's core message to the board today.
Between customers paying now or paying later for N.B. Power's significant financial problems - JDI's position appears to be that later is better.
Not surprisingly, N.B. Power is leading the charge for the increase to be granted in full.
On the hearing's opening day, the utility's acting president Lori Clark delivered its argument for needing the 8.9 per cent increase, citing inflation, rising interest rates and operational troubles.
"In a single year, the cost of fuel and purchased power necessary to supply customers in New Brunswick has increased by $102.8 million," Clark told the hearing.
"This has occurred largely due to market price increases for natural gas, heavy fuel oil and electricity."
But the utility has struggled to defend the trustworthiness of those numbers, given they had been put together several months ago, in early June.
In a Perry Mason moment during cross examination last Thursday, JDI lawyer Conor O'Neil won an admission from the utility that at least two internal updates of those projections had been put together by the utility since, but not shared with the hearing.
J.D. Irving Ltd. lawyer Conor O'Neil successfully wrestled updated financial information from N.B. Power about its rate increase during the hearing. (Ed Hunter/CBC)
O'Neil convinced the board the updates should be turned over despite objections from N.B. Power lawyer John Furey, a decision that has taken the hearing in unexpected directions.
The updated projections were released by N.B. Power on Tuesday this week, but cut both ways.
They confirmed JDI's suspicions that N.B. Power's budget numbers were stale and the company's revenues and expenses for next year are better than it has been claiming.
But they also showed N.B. Power's current year has involved significant losses that have unexpectedly ballooned its net debt by $380 million to $5.3 billion as of December 31.
Independent utility experts Robert Knecht and Dustin Madsen both expressed shock at the rapid deterioration in N.B. Power's financial health in just the last few months revealed by the financial updates.
"When I first saw it, I did not believe it," said Knecht.
"I'm as surprised as Mr. Knecht," said Madsen
"I agree the position is deteriorating."
Energy and Utilities Board Chair Francois Beaulieu ordered the release of updated financial information from N.B. Power mid-hearing, but asked all parties to give an opinion during final arguments about whether it should be used to decide on a rate increase. (Jonathan Collicott/CBC)
EUB Chairman Francois Beaulieu has said the board is not sure how it will treat all of the new information and asked all sides "to make submissions on this issue during the closing arguments,"
Those begin this morning at 9:00 am.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Reporter
Robert Jones has been a reporter and producer with CBC New Brunswick since 1990. His investigative reports on petroleum pricing in New Brunswick won several regional and national awards and led to the adoption of price regulation in 2006.
CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices
2 Comments
David Amos
Methinks Mr Jones is reading the same documents I am today N'esy Pas?
Fred Dee
NB has been starving NBpower for years!! It is time to allow it to look after its self while not destroying the population with mass power increases. Inflation last year was close to 7%, the cost of power production is way above that and the taxes charger to NB Power for carbon tax alone are going to jump yet again!! NS is doing 2 big jumps, NB needs to do the same. We need to look after the infrastructure that we have, prepare it for more wind/winter damage so power outages do not continue to go up!
Closing Submissions
February 24, 2023
Page 1 of 13
NEW BRUNSWICK ENERGY AND UTILITIES BOARD
In Relation to an Application by: New Brunswick Power Corporation
In Accordance with: Section 103(1) of the Electricity Act, SNB 2013 c. E‐7, to the New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board (the "Board") for approval of the rates it proposes to charge for its services for each fiscal year.
TO: The New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board (the “NBEUB” or the “Board”)
Closing Submissions of Utilities Municipal
Introduction
Good morning panel. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in Matter 541 and it has been good to
be back in the same room for the hearing.
This is a difficult time for ratepayers – COVID has not yet been relegated to history, inflation is the highest it has been in decades and a recession lurks on the horizon – and may already be here for some. The last thing any ratepayer wants to see is the prospect of an 8.9% increase in electricity rates. We see this sentiment in the numerous comments from the public.
Unfortunately, we don’t have a financially healthy NB Power (the “Applicant”) that can cushion the impact of inflation for ratepayers. Net income is forecast to be less than $14 million and debt is forecast to grow.
The Company’s debt represents 93% of its capital structure.1
Even with such a significant increase, NB Power’s net income is forecasted to be only $13.9 million and net
debt is forecasted to increase by $39.6 million.2
Clearly, this situation is not sustainable. In this Application, NB Power included the goal of $50 million in
savings to reduce the amount of the increase to 8.9%. To achieve this, it embarked on an employee
buyout plan, it engaged PWC to find additional savings, it reviewed its spending and reduced its spend
and was making commitments to find further savings. Through this proceeding, UM acknowledges there
have been savings, and potential savings, identified by NB Power and Interveners that will meet or exceed this forecasted $50 million in savings necessary to achieve the revenue requirement. There have also been increases in costs.3 We encourage NB Power to relentlessly pursue cost control and savings.
However, safety and reliability cannot be sacrificed.
To the extent the identified savings herein are accepted by this Board, we leave it to the Board’s discretion to determine the balance between reducing the revenue requirement and ensuring NB Power is in a position to meet its net income objective. Reluctantly, we view the risk of further deterioration of NB Power’s financial state, and the consequences thereof, larger future increases and the potential sacrifice of reliability, too great to be able to recommend any reduction in the requested increase.
In addition to our comments on the revenue requirement, UM have comments regarding the interaction
of the new variance accounts and future general rate application and the process for future general rate
applications.
Setting the Stage for the Ask by NB Power
We are in an era with significant inflation, fuel price volatility, a COVID‐19 Pandemic and the supply chain disruptions, a significant unplanned outage at Point LePreau Nuclear Generating Station (“PLNGS”) and a premature replacement of the Bayside Generating Station have all restricted NB Power’s ability to meet its financial targets. As this Board will recall, NB Power had a series of General Rate Applications with sub‐ 2% rate increases pursuing the objective of “low and stable rates”.4 This has come at the expense of making progress on achieving a 20% equity ratio – in fact, the 93:7 debt:equity ratio is the same percentage as it was in 2015/16 fiscal year. However, now there is a mandate letter from the Minister setting a date for NB Power to achieve the 20% equity thickness in 2027.5 The impending need to replace several generation facilities beginning in 2027 makes achieving 20% equity all the more urgent!
It is in the midst of these circumstances that NB Power seeks an 8.9% increase in the rates. This increase
is proposed to be reduced through the clearance of the recently established Variance Accounts.6 Ms.
Clarke, the first President of NB Power to come before this Board in years, spoke of the need to balance
the financial objectives with ratepayer impact. UM agree such a balancing of interests must occur. Ms.
Clarke spoke of the commitment of the executive to achieving the forecasted results in the Test Year. In
her opening statement she said:
Second, we have taken steps to reduce the level of increase in operating costs. Over 18 million of cost savings were identified and acted upon through NB Power’s budgeting process. Another 27.5 million reduction has been applied to the budget and NB Power is committed to ensuring these additional cost savings are found.
We have engaged the assistance of external expertise to assist us in finding these savings and have started the process with the elimination of almost 150 positions through a staff optimization program that will save approximately 13 to $15 million in the upcoming fiscal year alone.
All of these elements led us to ask the Board for a one year rate increase of 8.9 percent. When we first started looking at this increase, we were in double digits. We dug deep to cut costs where we could, so we could reduce the ask for this increase.7
In addition, a new strategic plan is being developed. It is imperative that this plan provide a new approach to achieve concrete, aggressive gains provided in the Three Year Business Plan.8
The UM is encouraged NB Power is undertaking these initiatives. We know the management and staff of
the utility are good people. We are not questioning their sincerity, their commitment nor their work ethic.
However, history would indicate there remains an impediment to the successful execution in delivering
the forecasted results.
Further, while it may be tempting to just reject the request as too much, we must understand the fragile
financial state the utility is in. During a 3 month period from September to December 20229 the debt to
equity ratio deteriorated by 3% as result, in part, of the unplanned outage at PLNGS and Bayside
Generating Station. Inflation is forecasted to be “stickier” than forecast when this Application was filed.10
A further unforeseen circumstance could be disastrous. New Brunswickers need a financially stable,
efficient NB Power.
Finally, the Regulatory Variance Accounts and Deferral Account Regulation – Electricity Act11 provides a new element to this GRA. While the impact of the new variance accounts is proposed to mitigate the impact of the rate increase requested in this proceeding, the evidence suggests that mitigation will be reversed in the future year.12 On the positive side, customers and NB Power can be assured that forecast revenues/costs and actual revenues/costs balance will balance over time. It appears though that any forecasted gain cannot be used to increase net income and reduce debt. As such, it appears a tool to address the debt issue seems to have been removed from the NB Power tool box. It also reinforces the need to forecast better as only forecast net income from energy and fuel and purchased power will be available to pay down debt.
Cost Control, Context and History
To properly understand UM’s comments, we feel it is helpful to recall what happened in prior hearings
and what we have heard in this proceeding.
UM has been present at each General Rate Application since the revisions to the Electricity Act that
restored NB Power to a vertically integrated utility. In Matter 272, NB Power was forecasting to meet the 80:20 debt equity ratio in 6 years. In the Board’s Decision in Matter 272, UM notes that JDI had thought that time was too aggressive and that a 10 year horizon would be more appropriate. The Board stated in that decision the following:
[116] The Board recognizes the current state of NB Power’s capital structure as a significant
factor. Based on the 10‐Year Plan, the forecast for the fiscal year 2015/16 is 93% debt and 7%
equity. The declared Government policy in section 68 of the Act is that rates should provide
sufficient revenue to earn a return to achieve a capital structure of at least 20% equity. The
capital structure goal must in turn be considered by the Board in the context of all of the other
factors listed in subsection 103(7) of the Act, including the 10‐Year Plan and the IRP.13
In response to an undertaking in this proceeding,14 NB Power stated the debt:equity level was 93:7. UM
has in prior proceedings recognized the debt level as a problem and wanted greater emphasis on debtrepayment.15 Unfortunately, it turns out UM’s fears are being realized, that NB Power is spending more than planned and making no progress towards building equity despite its prior forecasts of having
Further, while it may be tempting to just reject the request as too much, we must understand the fragile
financial state the utility is in. During a 3 month period from September to December 20229 the debt to
equity ratio deteriorated by 3% as result, in part, of the unplanned outage at PLNGS and Bayside
Generating Station. Inflation is forecasted to be “stickier” than forecast when this Application was filed.10
A further unforeseen circumstance could be disastrous. New Brunswickers need a financially stable,
efficient NB Power.
Finally, the Regulatory Variance Accounts and Deferral Account Regulation – Electricity Act11 provides a new element to this GRA. While the impact of the new variance accounts is proposed to mitigate the impact of the rate increase requested in this proceeding, the evidence suggests that mitigation will be reversed in the future year.12 On the positive side, customers and NB Power can be assured that forecast revenues/costs and actual revenues/costs balance will balance over time. It appears though that any forecasted gain cannot be used to increase net income and reduce debt. As such, it appears a tool to address the debt issue seems to have been removed from the NB Power tool box. It also reinforces the need to forecast better as only forecast net income from energy and fuel and purchased power will be available to pay down debt.
Cost Control, Context and History
To properly understand UM’s comments, we feel it is helpful to recall what happened in prior hearings
and what we have heard in this proceeding.
UM has been present at each General Rate Application since the revisions to the Electricity Act that
restored NB Power to a vertically integrated utility. In Matter 272, NB Power was forecasting to meet the 80:20 debt equity ratio in 6 years. In the Board’s Decision in Matter 272, UM notes that JDI had thought that time was too aggressive and that a 10 year horizon would be more appropriate. The Board stated in that decision the following:
[116] The Board recognizes the current state of NB Power’s capital structure as a significant
factor. Based on the 10‐Year Plan, the forecast for the fiscal year 2015/16 is 93% debt and 7%
equity. The declared Government policy in section 68 of the Act is that rates should provide
sufficient revenue to earn a return to achieve a capital structure of at least 20% equity. The
capital structure goal must in turn be considered by the Board in the context of all of the other
factors listed in subsection 103(7) of the Act, including the 10‐Year Plan and the IRP.13
In response to an undertaking in this proceeding,14 NB Power stated the debt:equity level was 93:7. UM
has in prior proceedings recognized the debt level as a problem and wanted greater emphasis on debt achieved such 20% equity.
In subsequent general rate applications, UM has made submissions regarding disallowing specific costs.
However, UM’s position also sought to emphasize the need to control costs and build equity to have a
healthy NB Power in the long‐term. UM has been taking the long view, sacrificing small short‐term gains
for what it considered the better long‐term result. For example, in Matter 336,
[47] The 10‐Year Plan decreased the continuous improvement target in the period 2018 to 2027
by $211 million, compared to the previous plan. Ms. Clark testified that savings are taking longer
to materialize than what was originally anticipated.
[48] Mr. Stewart, counsel for J.D. Irving, Limited, argued that NB Power has an obligation to its
ratepayers to control its costs. Mr. Stoll, counsel for Utilities Municipal, supported and
encouraged NB Power to find efficiencies and to continue to improve its operations. However,
he noted that “any approach to cost cutting should seriously be reviewed so that short‐term
improvements in the debt to equity ratio are not given preeminence over having a healthy
company in the long term.”[10]
[49] The Board agrees that NB Power must continue to focus on continuous improvement
initiatives to increase productivity and reduce costs.16
In that proceeding, the company acknowledged cost control and savings were taking longer than
thought. Interveners were and continued to be legitimately concerned about costs, cost control and the
overall financial position of the company. For New Brunswick to fully succeed, NB Power needs to be
financially stable and efficient.
Once again in Matter 458, just three years ago, the last time the utility was before this Board for a
General Rate Application, cost control was again a focal point of concern. In the Board’s Decision, it
stated:
[112] Mr. Madsen, in his written evidence, made several recommendations where, in his
view, efficiencies may be found. Many of these recommendations are very valuable on a go
forward basis.
[113] Mr. Stoll, when commenting on the mandate letter, states that this directive now
“…requires extra focus on cost control” and that “…it doesn’t appear there has been any
meaningful change taken by NB Power in its approach.”
[114] In his closing argument, Mr. Christopher Stewart, counsel for J. D. Irving, Limited,
acknowledged that controlling and reducing costs is complex and “excruciatingly difficult.”
He submitted that, although not all of NB Power’s costs are directly within its control, difficult choices need to be made. He submitted that choices are not being made to the extent
that is required in the current environment.
[115] Mr. Stewart also argued that NB Power must do its part and control its costs submitting
that: “…if they are doing good, then they must be great. And if they are doing great, then
they must be excellent.” He recommends that the
… Board direct NB Power to begin focusing on its costs first before revenues. By
costs, I am referring to both operating and capital costs. Rate increases should only be
approved after all reasonable efforts to mitigate costs have been exhausted by NB
Power. A renewed focus on cost control and restraint is required.
[116] The Board agrees. NB Power must find a way to stay within its budget and reduce its
costs. The utility must stop overspending on items within its revenue requirements that are
within its control. It does not appear there has been any meaningful changes taken by NB
Power in its approach to control costs or reduce debt. Only modest improvements have been
seen on debt repayment.17
In Matter 513, just a few months ago, UM cross‐examined witnesses regarding the progress on
improving the debt:equity ratio and cost control. During Matter 513, UM again sought information to
understand what has changed at NB Power that would give this Board, ratepayers and interveners some
confidence that control was a priority at NB Power and that NB Power could better manage its spending.
The Board referenced UM’s position at:
[102] Mr. Stoll submitted, however, that NB Power might continue to fail to achieve its 10 percent ROE. He stated that the approach to spending by the utility seems to be backward as there is inadequate control on some of the utility's costs. He submitted that the utility is not operating within a spending envelope to ensure the return is earned. He stated that if the utility cannot manage its spending within the amount available to ensure that an appropriate level of return is available in future test years, it is inconsistent with the objectives set out in section 68.
In his view, it seemed that ratepayers are an endless source of funds.18
Again, UM was urging cost control but not at the risk of depriving the utility of the necessary return. The
Board, also concerned about the cost control by NB Power, stated.
[105] The Board is also concerned about actual costs being higher than initially anticipated and
the impact higher costs will have on future net earnings and rates. Rates have been set based on
a revenue requirement designed to recover an ROE of $25 million. Going forward, the Board will
monitor NB Power's financial results on an annual basis to determine if this is occurring.19
The evidence is clear that NB Power has not made meaningful progress on controlling costs and building
equity in the past. It is this past performance that informs and supports the skepticism of Interveners.
In the present Application, NB Power has been very clear that this year’s return is insufficient to make
meaningful progress in paying down debt, as it was legitimately concerned about the level of impact on
ratepayers. It appears a utility of the size of NB Power should be targeting between $80 and $120
million per year in net income. Because of cost pressures, including fuel prices, NB Power has sacrificed
progress on debt repayment to mitigate what would have been a larger rate increase.
However, despite the re‐commitment of NB Power, given the history above UM remains very concerned
that NB Power has not made the difficult choices nor installed sufficiently improved cost control
management and oversight to give comfort that it will achieve the 80:20 debt:equity in 4 years as set
out in the Minister’s Mandate Letter.20
In cross‐examination, NB Power was asked about the transmission capital expenditures. It was
acknowledged the capital expenditures for the transmission facilities was established prior to the Board
issuing its decision in Matter 513. In that hearing, the Board denied certain revenue requirement.
When asked whether the company revisited the capital program in light of the Board’s decision, the
witness panel was not aware of any review. 21
In our submission, when a regulatory body has expressed concern about a utility’s spending and went so
far as to disallow revenue, it would be reasonable for the utility to review its forecast spending in light of
the Board’s Decision.
While we acknowledge the efforts of PWC to review NB Power’s operations and identify cost savings, NB
Power has yet to accept such recommendations as the report to the Board of Directors has not been
made. Nor do we know the implementation costs of such recommendations. We view these savings as
a beginning of a reinvigorated effort to control and save costs. An effort that must continue with the
aim to offset requirements for future increases.
Our concern is that to effectively manage the business, NB Power should understand both the customer
trends and the drivers of such trends. In response to Undertaking 26,22 NB Power actual Residential
customer count was approximately 1% higher than the forecast for the current year. It was
acknowledged by Mr. Clark that there had been an unusual increase in population. While he correctly
indicated that there is not a 1 for 1 relationship between population and customer growth, no
explanation for the variance between forecast and actual customer counts was provided.
Another knowledge gap was the dramatic departure from the prior trend for the GS I and GS II forecast.
GS I had shown 8 years of relatively steady growth of approximately 1%.23 However, for the current
year a small decrease was forecasted, and for the Test Year NB Power is forecasting a reduction of 8% in
20 NBP the number of GS I customers.24 GS II, a closed class, has historically seen a small reduction in the
number of customers. It was felt that many of these customers were migrating to the GS I class.
However, in the Test Year, the GS II reduction was even more significant ‐ an almost 18% reduction in
the forecast number of customers. With such a dramatic shift, UM would have expected some analysis
or investigation to understand what was transpiring. However, Panel G indicated that this was the result
of the econometric model and could not provide further explanation as to what was occurring in their
customer base.
It is for these reasons that our hope and optimism of improved performance is clouded with skepticism.
Specific Adjustments to the Revenue Requirement
Now, in that view, UM has considered the evidence presented and (i) accepts the listed components of
the $50 million in savings identified; and (ii) has identified certain concerns with the revenue
requirement below. These measures should ensure that NB Power can exceed the forecasted $50
million in savings.
Bayside and Section 107(1) of the Electricity Act
In this Application, NB Power described that Bayside Generating Station was shut down in January 2022
as the result of a gas turbine failure. It was stated in the evidence this project was originally scheduled
as part of a rebuild in 2023/24 but had to be advanced 1 year.25 During cross‐examination, NB Power
admitted the expenditures up to and including December 31, 2022, was no longer $48.5 million, but
rather, $54.5million and that additional costs were still be incurred.26 Additional evidence in crossexamination indicated that expenditures have not been closed off and it is expected this will only be done by March 31, 2023. NB Power acknowledged an application under section 107 would be
forthcoming.
The Electricity Act, section 107, requires NB Power to obtain approval from the NBEUB for projects
where the capital expenditure is greater than $50 million. NB Power has yet to make an application
under s. 107 of the Electricity Act. UM acknowledges that Section 107(4) permits NB Power to obtain
approval after the expenditure occurs and may give retroactive effect to such expenditures provided the
enumerated condition are met.
This gives rise to the legal issue: Can this Board include in the approved revenue requirement a project
that requires approval under s. 107(1) but for which no application has been commenced? In our view,
the answer to this question is “no”. These expenditures have not been found to be prudent and should
therefore not be included in the approved rate base of this utility.
While NB Power may eventually obtain approval under section 107, if the Board was to permit its
inclusion in the revenue requirement, it may appear to reasonable observers to bind the Board Panel that will actually consider the Bayside Generating Station section 107 Application. Further, granting
approval would not encourage pre‐approval applications.
We expect NB Power will raise the argument that this Project was originally budgeted at $48.5 million
and such amounts should be included in the revenue requirement. We have the following comments as
to why this Argument must fail:
Section 107(3) permits applications to be made for projects under $50 million and given the
estimate of $48.5 million, there should have been a real prospect about this project exceeding
the $50 million threshold. We note that NB Power has a history of over‐shooting its budgeted
costs. NB Power has further relied upon the volatility and inflation to justify its rate increase.
NB Power knew well before this oral hearing that it had spent more than $50 million and did not
lead evidence regarding this change or the need to obtain NBEUB approval.
Granting approval would have ratepayers pay for a project where NB Power has failed to come
into compliance with the requirements of the Electricity Act.
The variance accounts that are tracking fuel and energy will provide protection for the impact of
the outage of Bayside so the only risk to NB Power is the timing element related to the approval
of the capital expenditure.
As such, UM would submit the impact of the capital expenditure from 2022/23 should be removed from
the revenue requirement. Any related interest charges or incremental depreciation related to the
Bayside Generating Station from the Test Year should be removed. In response to Undertaking 1327, NB
Power confirmed that $3.3 million in depreciation related to the gas turbine project is included in the
Test Year. In addition, the incremental $0.42 million in depreciation related to the incremental $6.3
million in capital expenditures should not be recovered until the project is approved. This overspend
included $1.3 million in interest during construction. The original forecast amount of $48.5 million
would be subject to financing charges in the Test Year. While no amount of financing charges were
specified for this, a 3% interest charge on $48.5 million is approximately $1.5 million.
UM submits a recognized savings of $4.8 million should be attributed to the failure to have the project
approved. UM submits this should not be allowed until approval under s. 107(1) has occurred.
AMI Project
In support of our concern about cost control, we would also point to the cost over‐run in the AMI
project. In response to UM’s Interrogatory, NB Power admitted that it was expecting the AMI was going
to be $5.6 million more than the Board approved amount.28 Approximately $3.6 million is an increase in
OM&A. NB Power goes on to state that despite having a fixed price contract for the supply of meters,
the meter supply company has provided notice of a $2 million additional cost. In our view, without
better justification, approval of such monies by this Board would only serve to weaken NB Power’s bargaining position with the meter supply company. As such, UM submits this $2 million should be
removed from the revenue requirement.
UM acknowledges, that as a capital expenditure, the impact on the Test Year will be the less than the $2
million.
Increase in Residential Customers and Gross Margin
In response to Undertaking 26,29 NB Power provided a revised forecast for the residential rate class
which showed approximately 4,000 additional actual customers as compared to the forecast number of
customers in the current year. As such, it is reasonable to conclude that such additional customers will
continue through the Test Year. NB Power stated the additional gross margin for such customers is $2.3
million.
Operations, Maintenance & Administration
In our review of the evidentiary record, much of NB Power’s evidence must be accepted.
Mr. Madsen identified a number of savings and recommendations. In our view, UM submits the Board
accept the savings of $12 million associated with the vacancy rates identified at Table 730. In crossexamination by JDI counsel, the calculations by Mr. Madsen seemed logical and were not adequately refuted.
In addition, UM notes that PWC has identified several potential cost savings in less than 12 months.
From our review of the Charters, it appears savings of between approximately $38 million and $72
million could be achieved in that time. However, we do not know the implementation costs or the
coordination or resources to achieve such savings. NB Power has indicated that it has already
commenced a couple of such opportunities. Accepting a fraction of the savings, along with the savings
discussed above, will permit NB Power to exceed its $50 million targeted cost reductions.
UM submits this results in a further potential savings which could be used to contribute to NB Power’s
net income and lower debt.
Uniform Rate Increase
NB Power requested a uniform rate increase for all rate classes (excluding water heater rentals). We
agree that is appropriate in the circumstances. NB Power described its rationale for the request in its
pre‐filed evidence to avoid undue rate increases for certain rate classes.
25 Deferring the use of differential rate increases will avoid subjecting customers to rate
26 increases that are higher than the proposed increases which are already substantial relative
27 to historic increases. Doing so will also allow time for a more effective consideration of
28 differential rates in a future proceeding based on the evidence filed in Matter 529 and
29 subject to consideration by the Board.
This was confirmed by Panel G during cross‐examination. We agree with NB Power in this regard.
Differential rates would raise the very real possibility of rate shock. Another concern, is the recent
variability in information arising from the “reinvigorated” load research gathered since the beginning of
COVID‐19 Pandemic. This data shows significant movement in allocation factors and it is unclear how
transient or permanent such changes may be.
In our submission, should differential rates be a consideration in a future application, then the notice of
such a hearing should include a reference to the potential that different rate classes may be subjected
to different increases.
UM supports the imposition of a uniform rate increase.
The New Variance Accounts, PROMOD and Updating the Evidence
The Variance Account Regulation prescribes a regime to track certain revenues and costs against the
approved forecast of such costs. This comparison occurs on a monthly basis. As mentioned above,
ratepayers are assured that over time, the difference between forecast and actuals should be
eliminated.
Mr. Musco testified that his recommendation for an update to fuel and purchase power was to provide
the Board with the best evidence. He was concerned that the 7 months since locking in the forecasts on
June 7, 2022 was a considerable time and that there had been significant changes in many variables. He
acknowledged that the NB Power hedging likely mitigated the result of any change but continued to
submit that the updated forecast would have value. We agree there is value in having such updated
information. He acknowledged in cross‐examination that Nova Scotia updates the fuel and purchased
power forecast approximately 30 days prior to the hearing.
In UM’s submission the need for the most accurate forecast takes on increased importance in light of
the variance accounts. It is clear that NB Power must have net income to pay debt and increase the
equity thickness. We don’t think anyone can dispute that. The variance accounts have the affect of
tracking any unforecasted margin and removing such from the utility’s net income.
To illustrate the situation, NB Power has identified that since its original forecast in this proceeding was
prepared, it was successful in winning new supply contracts.35 NB Power confirmed that upon winning
the contract it secured the supply to lock in a margin on the sale of such electricity. However, those
volumes, costs, revenues and margin will not appear in the approved forecast. Therefore, any gains,
gains that we now know will occur, will be captured in the variance accounts even though we know they
will occur. As such no amount of margin earned can be made available for debt repayment.
We are concerned that NB Power’s historical practice has been to underestimate the export margin.
Prior to the existence of the variance accounts such margins would enhance net income (or reduce net
losses). In subsequent years, the Board would be able to balance the allocation of that through
managing the increase in rates. That exercise of discretion has been eliminated. We are concerned that
this limits the progress that can be made in debt repayment.
NB Power has objected to providing such an update, and as we understand, if an update is required, NB
Power takes the position that it must be a holistic approach to updating costs and revenues.
Cherrypicking savings is not permitted. UM agrees that the process must be fair to both the utility and
ratepayers. In an update, material changes in the forecast should be considered in their totality.
However, we know that NB Power runs approximately 7 different PROMOD analysis a year. It runs a
new model every quarter. As such, providing an update on fuel and purchased power does not appear
to be an overly burdensome task but the current hearing process would need to be amended to
accommodate such a process.
However, we are not suggesting that such an update would be performed in this proceeding. This
position is a result of the current stage of the proceeding and the amount of work that would be
required to be completed to do a proper update of the evidence. However, in future proceedings we
would suggest the Board make provision for such an update in the schedule and also move the filing
date earlier in the year.
In our view, the presence of the variance accounts should incent NB Power to file the updates in the
future. NB Power requires achieving forecasted net income in order to pay down debt, fund capital and
build equity.
In an era of 8.9% rate increases, the delay of a month can have a significant impact on the ability of NB
Power to earn its annual revenue requirement. However, NB Power is in control of its activities and
should it wish to ensure that rates are in place for April 1 then it should take the necessary steps to
ensure sufficient time to have the evidence properly considered and a Board decision issued.
This hearing covered a significant amount of evidence in an extremely short timeframe. We would note
that future applications may include applications for multiple test years given the change to Section
103(1) of the Electricity Act. We note that significant increases in rates are likely in the future.36 As
such, we submit the Board should revisit the filing.
Summary of Requests for this Board:
In conclusion, we would request this Board:
Reiterate the need for additional cost reductions, demonstrated cost control and debt
repayment.
Require the filing of the new strategic plan with the Board in the next General Rate Application.
Reduce the approved capital in the rate base by:
o $2million in respect of the AMI project;
o $54.5 million in respect of Bayside until approval is granted under section 107 is granted
by another Board Panel including the $3.3 million related to the increase in depreciation
associated with the new gas turbine.
Accept the $2.3 million in additional revenue from the additional 4004 residential customers.
Accept the following cost reductions:
o $3.3million in depreciation related to Bayside GS turbine replacement.
o 1.5 million in interest charges related to Bayside GS turbine replacement.
o $12 million in costs related to the vacancy rate calculation.
o Up to possibly $72 million less implementation costs, related to the identified savings
from PWC’s Cost Optimization Charters.
Order an earlier filing date for future General Rate Applications to ensure an expeditious, fair
proceeding including an update of fuel and purchased power and other costs but still permit
rates to be in place by April 1.
Confirm that it is the Board’s expectation that a revised version of PROMOD, or the appropriate
optimization analysis, should be made available 30 days prior to the oral hearing, along with a
summary of whether such information would cause NB Power to update other evidence or
impact the rate increase. This of course will need to be considered by the panel considering the
schedule at that time.
SUBJECT TO ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE PANEL, THOSE ARE OUR SUBMISSIONS.
UTILITIES MUNICIPAL
By Its Legal Counsel
Scott Stoll, LSO #45822G
Cherrypicker in me must that you for mentioning the mandate letter from the Minister and the the upcoming 529 Matter
I hear CBC News on the radio talking about the submissions made to the hearing today. Need I say I enjoyed reading yours the most?
No comments:
Post a Comment