EUB Halloween Transcript

1
2 New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board
3 Commission de L'Energie et des Services Publics N.-B.
5 PARTICIPANTS - Matter 375
8 IN THE MATTER OF an application by New Brunswick Power
9 Corporation for approval of the schedules of the rates for the
10 fiscal year commencing April 1, 2018.
11
12 held at the Delta Hotel Saint John, New Brunswick, on October
13 31, 2017.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 Henneberry Reporting Service

2
1 INDEX
2 NBP
3 1.01 - Notice of Application
4 1.02 - Avis de Requete
5 1.03 - Evidence
6 1.04 - Elements Probants
7 1.05 - Attachment 1 - 2018-19 Budget vs 2017-18 Forecast
8 Variance 2
9 1.06 - Pieces jointes 1 - 2018-19 Budget vs 2017-18 F Var2
10 1.07 - Attachment 2 - 2016-17 Actuals vs 2016-17 EUB Approved
11 Budget Variance 3
12 1.08 - Pieces jointes 2 - Analyse de l'ecart 3 - Revenus pour
13 2016-17 par rapport au budget approuve par la
14 Commission pour 2016-2017
15 1.09 - Appendix A i. NB Power Proposed Rates and Schedules
16 (sections N and O)
17 1.10 - Annexe A ii. Baremes et politiques des tariffs (N et O)
18 1.11 - Appendix C 1. NB Power 10-Year Plan 2019-2028
19 1.12 - Appendix C ii. 2018-18 10 Year Plan Tables
20 1.13 - Appendix C iii. Plan decennal d'Energie NB 2010-2028
21 1.14 - Appendix C iv. Plan decennal - Tableaux pour les
22 exercises 2017 et 2028
23 1.15 - Appendix D i. NB Power Strategic Plan 2011-2040
24 1.16 - Appendix D ii. Plan stratgique d'Energie NB 2011-2040

3
1 1.17 - Appendix E - Mandate Letter 2015
2 NBP
3 1.18 - Appendix F i. 2016-17 NB Power Audited Financial
4 Statements
5 1.19 - Annex F ii. tats financiers consolides 2016-2017
6 1.20 - Appendix G - 2018-19 NB Power Budgeted Financial
7 Statements
8 1.21 - Appendix H - Detailed Financial Statements Redacted
9 1.22 - Appendix I - Continuous Improvement and Continuity
10 Schedule of Process
11 1.23 - Appendix J - Human Resources Overview
12 1.24 - Appendix J ii. Ressources Humaines D'Entreprise
13 1.25 - Appendix K - Continuity Schedule of Regular and
14 Succession Positions
15 1.26 - Appendix L - Organizational Charts
16 1.27 - Appendix M - Nuclear Depreciation Detail
17 1.28 - Appendix N i. PLNGS Regulatory Deferral Continuity
18 Schedule
19 1.29 - Appendix N ii. PDVSA Regulatory Deferral Continuity
20 Schedule
21 1.30 - Appendix N iii. AFUDC Continuity Schedule
22 1.31 - Appendix N iv. AMI Regulatory Deferral Continuity
23 Schedule
24 1.32 - Appendix O - 2018-19 PROMOD Input Output Report

4
1 1.33 - Appendix P - Generation Reliability Statistics March
2 2016
3 NBP
4 1.34 - Appendix Q - Generation Reliability Statistics March
5 2017
6 1.35 - Appendix R - Generation Reliability Statistics May 2017
7 1.36 - Appendix S i. 2018-2027 Load Forecast Update
8 1.37 - Annexe S ii. Mise jour sue la prvision des charges
9 de 2018-2027
10 1.38 - Appendix T - Load Forecast Model (if you have
11 difficulty opening this file, please contact the Board
12 at (506) 658-2504 or by email at general@nbeub.ca
13 / Si vous avez de la difficult a ouvrir ce fichier,
14 veuillez communiquer avec la Commission au (506) 658-
15 2504 ou par courriel general@cespnb.ca)
16 1.39 - Appendix U - 2018-19 Revenue Forecast Model
17 1.40 - Appendix V - 2018-19 NB Power Capital Projects
18 1.41 - Appendix W - Baseline and Solar Lease Study
19 1.42 - Appendix X i. AMI Project Investment Rationale
20 1.43 - Appendix X ii. Infrastructure de mesure avance (IMA)
21 1.44 - Appendix Y i. AMI project Investment Rationale Appendix
22 G Part i
23 1.45 - Appendix Y ii. AMI Project Investment Rationale
24 Appendix G Part ii
5
1 1.46 - Appendix Y ii. AMI Project Investment Rationale
2 Appendix G Part iii
4 NBP
5 1.47 - Appendix Y iv. AMI Project Investment Rationale
6 Appendix G Part iv
7 1.48 - Appendix Z - AMI Capital Project Investment Rationale
8 Model
9 1.49 - Annexe AA ii. Plan de GAD 2018-2019- 2020-2021
10 1.50 - Appendix AA i. Three Year Demand Side Management (DSM)
11 Plan 2019-2021
12 1.51 - Appendix AB - DSM EMV Plan 2019-2021
13 1.52 - Appendix AC - DSM Plan 2019-2021 Technical Reference
14 Manual
15 1.53 - Appendix AD-DSM 2019-2021 Model
16 1.54 - Appendix AE - DSM Program Evaluations 2016-16
17 1.55 - Appendix AF - DSM Program Evaluations 2016-17
18 1.56 - Appendix AG i. DSM Plan 2016-17 Actuals
19 1.57 - Annexe AG ii. Plan de gestion de la demande - Mise a
20 jour sur les initiatives 2016-2017
21 1.58 - Appendix AH - NB Power DSM Long-term Forecast
22 Methodology
23 1.59 - Appendix AI i. F-03 Commodity Price FX Risk Policy
24 1.60 - Annexe AI ii. F-03 Politique de risque des prix de la

6
1 marchandise
2 1.61 - Appendix AI iii. NBEMC 02 - Market Risk Policy
3 1.62 - Appendix AI iv. NBEMC 03 - Commodity Price FX Risk
4 Policy
5 NBP
6 1.63 - Appendix AJ - Financial Risk Policies Compliance Audit
7 report for NB Power 2017
8 1.64 - Appendix AK - Financial Risk Policies Compliance Audit
9 report for NB Energy Marketing 2017
10 1.65 - Appendix AL i EUB Approved 2017-18 CCAS-NBP Exhibit
11 5.11 updated with Board Approved 2017-18 Revenue
12 Requirement
13 1.66 - Appendix AL ii 2018-19 CCAS for the Test Year at 2017-
14 18 Rates-Based on Board Approved 2017-18 Cost
15 Allocation
16 Methodology
17 1.67 - Appendix AL iii 2018-19 CCAS for the Test Year at
18 Proposed 2018-19 Diff Rates-Based on Board Approved
19 2017-18 CA Method
20 1.68 - Appendix AL iv 2018-19 CCAS for the Test year at 2
21 Percent Uniform Rates-Based on Board Approved 2017-18
22 CA Methodology
23 1.69 - Appendix AL v 2018-19 CCAS for the Test Year at 2017-18
24 Rates-Based on proposed 2018-19 CA Methodology

7
1 1.70 - Appendix AL vi 2018-19 CCAS for the Test Year at
2 Proposed 2018-19 Diff Rated-Based on proposed 2018-19
3 CA Methodology
4 1.71 - Appendix AM - NB Power CCAS Update for the 2018-19 GRA
5 by Elenchus Research Associates
7 NBP
8 1.72 - Appendix AM i 2018-19 CCAS 3.3 Reference Model (RR at
9 Uniform Rates)
10 1.73 - Appendix AM ii 2018-19 CCAS 3.4.3 LIREPP Energy and
11 Demand
12 1.74 - Appendix AM iii 2018-19 CCAS 3.4.4 LIREPP 1 No-LIREPP
13 1.75 - Appendix AM iv 2018-19 CCAS 3.4.4 LIREPP 2 Adjustment
14 Removed
15 1.76 - Appendix AM ix 2018-19 CCAS 3.7 Baseline Model
16 1.77 - Appendix AM v 2018-19 CCAS 3.4.4 LIREPP 3 With
17 Adjustment
18 1.78 - Appendix AM vi 2018-19 CCAS 3.4.4 LIREPP 4 Recommended
19 1.79 - Appendix AM vii 2018-19 CCAS 3.5 Edmundston Adj
20 1.80 - Appendix AM vii 2018-19 CCAS 3.6 CP Change
21 1.81 - Appendix AM x 2018-19 CCAS Regulatory Deferrals
22 1.82 - Appendix AM xi 2018-19 CCAS 4.2 Taxes
23 1.83 - Appendix AM xii 2018-19 CCAS 4.3 Sub-Func of Dist O and
24 M
8
1 1.84 - Appendix AM xiii 2018-19 CCAS 4.4 Class of Dist O and M
2 1.85 - Appendix AM xiv 2018-19 CCAS 4.5 Class of Poles-
3 Conductors Depr
4 1.86 - Appendix AM xv 2018-19 CCAS 4.6 EE to Customer
5 1.87 - Appendix AM xvi 2018-19 CCAS 4.7 EE removed from
6 Wholesale
7 1.88 - Appendix AM xvii 2018-19 CCAS 4.8 Recommended Model
8 NBP
9 1.89 - Appendix AN Class Cost Allocation Study Methodology
10 Description
11 1.90 - Appendix AO - Rate design Model
12 1.91 - Appendix AP - Proof of Revenue
13 1.92 - Appendix AQ i. NB Power Rates Schedules and Prices
14 Manual (6 July 2017)
15 1.93 - Appendix AQ ii. Baremes et politiques des tarifs de
16 l'Energie Nouveau-Brunswick (6 juillet 2017)
17 1.94 - Appendix AR i. Draft GRA Minimum Filing Requirements
18 Reference Table
19 1.95 - Appendix AR ii. Tableau de reference de l'ebauche des
20 exigences minimales des elements de preuve
21 1.96 - Appendix AS i. NB Power Regulatory Compliance Filings
22 (MFR 3)
23 1.97 - Appendix AS ii. Dclarations de Conformit en cours
24 1.98 - Appendix AT Goals and Objectives

9
1 1.99 - Appendix AU i. NB Power Annual Report 2016-17
2 2.01 - Annexe AU ii. Rapport annuel d'Energie NB 2016-17
3 2.02C - Appendix CONF A - Detailed Financial Statements -
4 Confidential
5 2.03C - Appendix CONF B - 2018-19 PROMOD Input Output Report -
6 Confidential
7 2.04C - Appendix CONF C - 2018-19 PROMOD Input Output Report -
8 Confidential
9 NBP
10 2.05C - Appendix CONF D - Kent Hills Wind LP Wind Power PPA
11 Amending Agreement - 2007 07 03 - Confidential
12 2.06C - Appendix CONF E - Kent Hills Wind LP Assignment and
13 Novation Agreement - 2013 10 31 Confidential
14 2.07C - Appendix CONF F - Kent Hills Wind LP Purchase of Wind
15 Project Output - 2017 06 01 Confidential
16 2.08C - Appendix CONF G - Kent Hills Wind LP Right of First
17 Offer - 2017 06 01 Confidential
18 2.09C - Appendix CONF H Kent Hills Wind LP PPA Amending
19 Agreement - 2017 06 01 Confidential
20 2.10C - Appendix CONF I - Kent Hills Wind LP Assignment and
21 Novation Agreement - 2017 10 02 Confidential
22 2.11C - Appendix CONF J - Chaleur Regional Services Commission
23 PPA - 2017 07 29 Confidential
24 2.12C - Appendix CONF K - South East Regional Services

10
1 Commission PPA - 2017 07 29 Confidential
2 2.13C - Appendix CONF L - WKB Community Wind Farms PPA - 2017
3 08 07 Confidential
4 3.01 - Affidavit of Publishing
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
11
1 New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board
2 Commission de L'Energie et des Services Publics N.-B.
4 PARTICIPANTS - Matter 375
7 IN THE MATTER OF an application by New Brunswick Power
8 Corporation for approval of the schedules of the rates for the
9 fiscal year commencing April 1, 2018.
10
11 held at the Delta Hotel Saint John, New Brunswick, on October
12 31, 2017.
13
14
15 BEFORE: Raymond Gorman, Q.C. - Chairman
16 Francois Beaulieu - Vice-Chairman
17 Michael Costello - Member
18
19 NB Energy and Utilities Board
20 - Counsel - Ms. Ellen Desmond, Q.C.
21 - Staff - John Lawton
22 ..............................................................
23 CHAIRMAN: Good morning, everyone. This is a pre-hearing
24 conference of the New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board

12
1 in connection with Matter 375, which is a general rate
2 application by New Brunswick Power Corporation pursuant to
3 section 1.03 of the Electricity Act and a request for
4 approval of a capital project consisting of the
5 procurement and deployment of advanced metering
6 infrastructure, usually known as AMI, in the amount of
7 $122.7 million. We have simultaneous translation
8 available today. I believe the translation devices have
9 been placed at all of your seats and I am told that
10 channel 1 will provide English and channel 2 will provide
11 French.
12 VICE-CHAIRMAN: Essentiellement ce que le prsident

13
14 Indiquait cest on est ici relativement en confrence
15
16 pralable et puis vous avez accs une traduction
17
18 simultane. La frquence numro 1 est pour les
19
20 anglophones e la frquence numro 2 est
21
22 pour les francophones. Et pus si vous dsirez adresse le
23
24 tribunal dans la langue franaise, on vous demande de le
25
26 faire.
27
28 Merci.
29
30 CHAIRMAN: So at this time I will take the appearances from
31 the people who have indicated they wish to participate in
32 this pre-hearing conference. So first of all, the
33 applicant, N.B. Power Corporation?
34 MR. FUREY: Good morning, Mr. Chair, John Furey for New
13
1 Brunswick Power Corporation. I am accompanied this
2 morning at counsel table by Stephen Russell.
3 CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Furey. David Amos? Mr. Amos, did
4 you put your microphone on?
5 MR. AMOS: Here.
6 CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Enbridge Gas New Brunswick?
7 MR. VOLPE: Good morning, Mr. Chair. Paul Volpe, Enbridge
8 Gas New Brunswick.
9 CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Volpe. Gerald Bourque?
10 MR. BOURQUE: Gerald Bourque is here.
11 CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bourque. J.D. Irving, Limited?
12 MR. STEWART: Christopher Stewart, Mr. Chairman.
13 CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Stewart. New Clear Free
14 Solutions?
15 MR. ROUSE: Good morning, Mr. Chair. Chris Rouse, for the
16 record.
17 CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Rouse. Roger Richard?
18 MR. RICHARD: Oui, je suis Richard.
19 CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Sussex Sharing Club? Not here today.
20 Utilities Municipal?
21 MR. STOLL: Good morning, Mr. Chair. It is Mr. Stoll. With
22 me is Mr. Garrett and Ms. Kelly.
23 CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Stoll. Utilities Municipal?
24 Sorry, Public Intervenor?

14
1 MS. BLACK: Good morning, Mr. Chair, Heather Black.
2 CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Black. New Brunswick Energy and
3 Utilities Board?
4 MS. DESMOND: Good morning, Mr. Chair. Ellen Desmond and
5 from Board Staff, John Lawton.
6 CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Desmond. So today's pre-hearing
7 conference will deal with the normal issues that we deal
8 with at pre-hearing conferences, generally is the hearing
9 schedule and process. But as well we have requests for
10 intervenor status from eight different entities and we
11 have an objection to one of those requests for intervenor
12 status and that is the status of Mr. Amos. So I think
13 that before we get into the schedule, I think it would be
14 useful to go through the requests for intervenor status.
15 I am just going to wait here a moment.
16 All right, i guess the sound system has been fixed. So we
17 are on the request for intervenor status. The Public
18 Intervenor of course is deemed to be a party pursuant to
19 Section 49.3 of the EUB Act. And then we have requests
20 for intervenor status from David Amos, Enbridge Gas New
21 Brunswick, Gerald Bourque, J.D. Irving, Limited, New Clear
22 Free Solutions, Roger Richard, Sussex Sharing Club and
23 Utilities Municipal. And as I had indicated, the Board
24 received a written objection to the intervention of Mr.

15
1 Amos.
2 So, Mr. Furey, do you have any issue with any of the other
3 registered participants today?
4 MR. FUREY: No, we don't, Mr. Chair, and the only additional
5 comment I would make around that is that we recognize that
6 not every proposed intervenor has necessarily complied
7 perfectly with the provisions of Rule 3.2.4, but those
8 that have not that we don't object to, we have a general
9 understanding already of the issues that they would bring
10 to the proceeding.
11 CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The Board has in fact reviewed the
12 requests that we have received for intervenor status. One
13 of the -- one of the issues that you raise with respect to
14 Mr. Amos is that he has not indicated in his form -- in
15 his registration form the reason for his intervention.
16 And in reviewing them, I note that the only other form
17 where I see that is the form filled out by Mr. Bourque.
18 So at this stage I just want -- Mr. Bourque perhaps -- you
19 know, you may not have understood that on these intervenor
20 requests that it's intended that you would indicate why
21 you want intervenor status, what issues you would be
22 raising at the hearing. Would you be able to provide that
23 information at this time? I appreciate it's not on your
24 form.
16
1 MR. BOURQUE: Well I'm not very versed in all these
2 procedures and I was coming to learn what was going on,
3 and I was -- if there is issues that come up that I don't
4 agree with, I certainly will speak on it, but I don't have
5 anything prepared ahead of time.
6 CHAIRMAN: So are you a customer of NB Power and what rate
7 class -- if so, what rate class would you, you know,
8 purport to represent at this hearing?
9 MR. BOURQUE: I'm a customer of NB Power and I'm just a
10 resident and -- yes.
11 CHAIRMAN: So is your intervention with respect to
12 residential customers or is it broader than that?
13 MR. BOURQUE: I'm basically representing myself and -- yes.
14 CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.
15 MR. BOURQUE: Thank you.
16 CHAIRMAN: So, Mr. Amos, before we get into the discussion
17 with respect to your status as intervenor, because there
18 has been an objection filed, again your intervenor request
19 does not set out the reasons for your request to be an
20 intervenor. So just like I have put those questions to
21 Mr. Bourque, could you perhaps just expand upon the rate
22 class that perhaps you are a customer in and what
23 perspective you would bring to this hearing?
24 MR. AMOS: Mr. Gorman, I just became aware of this motion as

17
1 I entered this room. I'm just starting to read it now. I
2 request time to study it before I argue it. With that
3 said, as I said in the last hearing, residential class
4 ratepayer, the reason I'm intervening in this matter is
5 because of my two friends here. Both have concerns with
6 these rate increases. My friend Roger in particular has
7 to do with the smart meters and Gerald with the expenses
8 and the debts incurred by NB Power. Both of these fellows
9 are not familiar with how court processes work and they
10 asked me to help them with this matter. I was done with
11 you -- 357 and preparing to sue you, sir. I said I will
12 help them intervene because of his concerns about smart
13 meters, his concerns about the debts involving site meters
14 and other things, and my concerns about the severe lack of
15 ethics of all the officers of the court in this room. Mr.
16 Furey is familiar with me when he worked for the attorney
17 General.
18 Now in the last hearing that I was at I was invited to a
19 meeting in a boardroom of Stewart McKelvey, the very
20 people that appear to have filed this motion, saying I
21 don't know my business. At this meeting I wasn't allowed
22 to share what was said, although all the intervenors,
23 including Hugh Segal's associate, listened in --
24 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Amos, if I could just interrupt for a moment

18
1 --
2 MR. AMOS: It has to do with ratepayers --
3 CHAIRMAN: No, no. Excuse me, please.
4 MR. AMOS: -- and site --
5 CHAIRMAN: Please, Mr. Amos --
6 MR. AMOS: Your question is site meters, sir.
7 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Amos, could you just hold back your remarks
8 for a moment.
9 MR. AMOS: I'm reading this motion. I'm much offended.
10 CHAIRMAN: Look, before we get to the motion, all I have
11 asked you is for you --
12 MR. AMOS: Site meters, sir.
13 CHAIRMAN: Sorry?
14 MR. AMOS: Site meters. $122 million and then the write-off
15 of the existing meters. I believe that's in the mandate
16 of this, correct?
17 CHAIRMAN: Okay. So you are saying that you are intending
18 to intervene in this proceeding because of the --
19 MR. AMOS: I'm watching you, sir. You are at the end of
20 your term February 1st. Jack Keir appointed you ten years
21 ago February 1st. I wonder --
22 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Amos, I'm --
23 MR. AMOS: -- who the next Chair is going to be.
24 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Amos, could you try to stay on topic here.

19
1 The question --
2 MR. AMOS: I'm checking your integrity in helping my friends
3 with their concerns about the expenses of NB Power in site
4 meters.
5 CHAIRMAN: Okay. So, Mr. Amos, are you telling me that your
6 intervention would be around the advanced meter
7 infrastructure? Is that the reason that you want to
8 intervene?
9 MR. AMOS: And the rate increase in and of itself is
10 unnecessary.
11 CHAIRMAN: Okay.
12 MR. AMOS: I have many reasons --
13 CHAIRMAN: Okay. Could I --
14 MR. AMOS: -- but I think it's a matter for another court
15 after reading this motion. They mentioned the Federal
16 Court of Appeal. You must be aware of me in the Federal
17 Court, right?
18 CHAIRMAN: Sir, that's the matter --
19 MR. AMOS: Have you read this motion?
20 CHAIRMAN: -- that we are now discussing. Sir, that's not
21 what we are talking about right now.
22 MR. AMOS: Well that's what I'm talking about.
23 CHAIRMAN: I want to know the reason for your intervention
24 and you have said --

20
1 MR. AMOS: Site meters and this rate increase and the write
2 down of the current meters.
3 CHAIRMAN: Okay. So you have indicated that you are here
4 because you want to assist --
5 MR. AMOS: Are you double-talking? That's exactly what I
6 said. It's on the record. I'm here because I take
7 offence to the deal with -- what is it, Siemens -- for 122
8 million and then the cost of installing these meters so
9 that the ratepayers will have to pay more during certain
10 times of the day when they use a dryer when Mr. Furey
11 decides it's not proper.
12 CHAIRMAN: Okay. So --
13 MR. AMOS: He forgets who owns NB Power. We do. You too.
14 We are the ratepayers. As I said in the last hearing, you
15 should protect your own interest, Mr. Gorman.
16 CHAIRMAN: So, Mr. Amos, we are going to set aside the issue
17 of whether or not you will be an intervenor to give you an
18 opportunity to read that material. I understand that it
19 would have been served electronically on all parties, at
20 least that's the rule. Mr. Furey, can you --
21 MR. AMOS: I never saw it until this morning.
22 CHAIRMAN: Can you confirm that it would have been sent to
23 an email address provided by Mr. Amos?
24 MR. FUREY: That's correct, Mr. Chair. It was sent

21
1 yesterday morning to the distribution list in this
2 proceeding including Mr. Amos' email that he had provided.
3 CHAIRMAN: Okay.
4 MR. AMOS: I need to remind Mr. Furey that he used to work
5 for the Attorney General when I served NB Power in 2006.
6 He and I spoke personally in 2005.
7 CHAIRMAN: So, Mr. Amos, we are not going to hear that
8 immediately. The documentation -- I think most of it is
9 documentation that you previously filed, so I'm assuming
10 that you are --
11 MR. AMOS: I'm glad to argue every single word that I filed
12 in 357.
13 CHAIRMAN: So I'm assuming that you are familiar with that.
14 It's the --
15 MR. AMOS: I'm very familiar with every word that I filed.
16 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Amos, if I gave you 20 minutes to read that,
17 is that enough time?
18 MR. AMOS: 20 minutes? Could you argue that document in 20
19 minutes? Let me take 20 minutes to study it but I don't
20 know what you guys are talking about in the meantime I
21 should pay attention to.
22 CHAIRMAN: So I think what we will do is we will set that
23 aside for a moment and we will move on to scheduling and
24 we will come back to that.

22
1 MR. AMOS: Because I want to pay attention to every word you
2 are saying this morning.
3 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Amos, we are going to set this issue aside
4 for now, then we are going to have a break and I'm going
5 to give you an opportunity to have a look at it. But my
6 point is that the vast majority of the material that was
7 filed was material that came from you. So I assume you
8 are familiar with that part of it.
9 MR. AMOS: Let me back up. When I first introduced myself
10 on a pre-hearing for 357, I was opposing a former public
11 intervenor wanting to get on the gravy train again. I
12 explained myself when I introduced myself at that, that
13 every lawyer in the room should know who I was, including
14 you. I sent you emails where I sent you emails ten years
15 ago. That said, I know who I am. I was there to oppose a
16 former public intervenor wanting to get paid by his own
17 assistant. I opposed that. I can speak on my behalf,
18 Gerald can speak on his behalf, Roger can speak on his
19 behalf. Why should anybody be paid?
20 After that I was invited by NB Power, Mr. Furey, to a
21 secret meeting to discuss this. They wanted to pick my
22 brains to see what my issues were. And we couldn't
23 disclose what was said in the room.
24 I clearly stated what my issues were, conflict of interest

23
1 by law firms. Good example. The people that filed this
2 motion today, JDI, Stewart McKelvey, are also employed by
3 NB Power to litigate to collect for Lepreau. That's
4 conflict of interest. And then we have McInnes and Cooper
5 and then we have and then we have and then we have.
6 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Amos --
7 MR. AMOS: So I asked all these questions in confidence.
8 They said it's a matter for the hearing. So then we go to
9 have a hearing and you cancel the hearing so I can't ask
10 the questions. I said fine, we will see you in another
11 court. Then my friends asked me for my assistance over
12 this rate increase and site meters in particular and the
13 rate increase in general. I said fine, I will let you
14 guys do the talking and I will advise you because you are
15 not familiar. Any time that I decide to speak I will
16 because I have a right to. But since you people want to
17 attack me, I'm all for it, but I need to study what you
18 are up to first.
19 CHAIRMAN: Okay. Mr. Amos, I'm going to cut you off there.
20 So on the request for intervenor status we are going to
21 grant intervenor status to Enbridge Gas New Brunswick,
22 Gerald Bourque, J.D. Irving, Limited, New Clear Free
23 Solutions, Roger Richard, Sussex Sharing Club and
24 Utilities Municipal were the PIs already indicated as

24
1 deemed to be a party pursuant to Section 49.3 of the EUB
2 Act. And, Mr. Amos, we will set aside your request to be
3 an intervenor until we have dealt with other matters and
4 we will come back to that a little bit later and I will
5 give you an opportunity to review the material that you
6 would not be familiar with.
7 MR. AMOS: I thank you for that.
8 CHAIRMAN: So before I get to the schedule, are there any
9 other matters that need to be dealt with prior to
10 schedule? Mr. Furey?
11 MR. FUREY: The only other issue -- we don't have to deal
12 with it now, Mr. Chair -- is that we did file as well
13 yesterday -- I filed later in the afternoon a draft
14 proposed confidentiality undertaking for this proceeding,
15 and the parties may not have had a full opportunity to
16 review it, but I pointed out the only changes that have
17 been made from that that was approved in Matter 336. And
18 so if we were able to, before the end of the day, have an
19 understanding as to whether parties accept that or if
20 there is any objection to the changes that would be
21 helpful.
22 CHAIRMAN: And that was circulated to all parties?
23 MR. FUREY: Yes, it was.
24 CHAIRMAN: Okay. Just remind me of that before I adjourn

25
1 this for the day if we don't -- if I don't end up coming
2 back to it.
3 All right. So that would leave the other issue to deal
4 with this morning to be the schedule, and we in fact have
5 seen two proposed schedules, one which was proposed by the
6 applicant and it would commence on February 5th and it
7 would involve a hearing of ten days duration, and secondly
8 we have a proposed schedule from the EUB staff, it would
9 commence a week later on February 12th, and the -- that
10 particular schedule has a proposal to run for three weeks.
11 That would virtually take us I guess to the end of
12 February.
13 I have not -- at least I'm not aware of any preferences or
14 comments from other parties. I don't believe anybody has
15 filed anything. But I certainly, you know, will hear from
16 parties. I don't think there is sort of a vast difference
17 here and I could adjourn and ask the parties to try to
18 come up with something that's agreeable, but I sense today
19 it may be more useful simply to canvass the parties here
20 in an open hearing to discuss these issues.
21 So, Mr. Furey, I'm just -- I'm going to go to you first.
22 You have commenced -- sorry, you have proposed a
23 commencement date of February 5th for ten days, and given
24 the hearing schedules that we have done in the past, that

26
1 does seem like a fairly aggressive schedule. And as you
2 are aware, this particular hearing has a lot more
3 complexity to it than some of the more recent ones have
4 had. Therein I think lies the concern first of all for
5 the commencement that early in February and for the length
6 of the hearing. So I just would ask you to address, you
7 know, your proposal.
8 MR. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I will focus first on
9 the length of the hearing, and the Chair is correct that
10 there is more to this year's hearing than the typical
11 hearing in the sense that we have the proposal for the
12 capital project being the AMI project, and as well an
13 enhanced level of evidence around the Energy Smart New
14 Brunswick, formerly referred to as Reduce and Shift
15 Demand.
16 But the only year in my recollection, Mr. Chair, where we
17 exceeded a single week for the GRA was the year that we
18 had the separate pole attachments hearing, and my
19 recollection is that we did five days of a GRA. We might
20 have done argument on the Monday morning for the GRA. We
21 might have. I -- so if we exceeded five days for the GRA,
22 it was only barely. And typically we finished at least in
23 five days and in some instances in four days.
24 So the question I think is do we need two additional weeks

27
1 to deal with AMI and the enhanced level of evidence around
2 the Energy Smart NB spending. And I don't see how we need
3 two weeks to do those two matters, Mr. Chair. I can't
4 imagine -- I mean, first of all I think there is a strong
5 link between AMI and the Energy Smart NB evidence. It
6 makes sense to do them together as opposed to setting
7 aside separate weeks for them. And we can't imagine that
8 it would take more than a week to deal with those two
9 issues in a combined way. So we think two weeks is more
10 than sufficient.
11 We do have some logistical problems in terms of timing as
12 we get toward the end of February. I am not available
13 after February 23rd. I understand -- but I will let her
14 speak for herself -- I understand that the public
15 intervenor is not available after February 28th. And we
16 have some witnesses who are similarly unavailable starting
17 around February 25th. So we are dealing with some
18 constraints at that end of the hearing.
19 So I think we can get ourselves to a position where a
20 start of February 12th works for us as long as we -- as
21 long as we set two weeks.
22 The only other thing that causes me just a small bit of
23 apprehension is that February 19th is a new statutory
24 holiday this year. So in the two weeks that we would be

28
1 talking about, that Monday, February 19th, would be a
2 holiday. So maybe pushing it to February 12th is -- is --
3 maybe we should be considering a day early, starting on a
4 Friday. And I know logistically that's a little bit of a
5 problem but to make sure that we have two full weeks
6 available it may be worthwhile doing that.
7 So I think we are not stuck on February 5th, Mr. Chair, we
8 are prepared to go to the following week, but we do have
9 that constraint at the end. And I think we have to be
10 cognizant of the fact that in those two weeks we would
11 only have nine business days.
12 Mr. Chair, the other point that I wanted to raise -- and
13 this may change the Chair's view as to whether or not it
14 would be worthwhile for the parties to have an opportunity
15 to discuss -- up until this point it had been NB Power's
16 anticipation that the IRP would be approved and filed with
17 the Board -- I can't remember precisely the date that we
18 thought it would be available, but that has turned out to
19 be an incorrect assumption, and we are now in a
20 circumstance where the Executive Council which is required
21 to approve the IRP has 90 days to do so, and that 90 days
22 does not expire until January 16th. So that presents an
23 issue in terms of ensuring that parties have an
24 opportunity to pose interrogatories around that document.

29
1 What we are proposing is that we set the schedule on -- I
2 won't say the assumption but the hope that we would an
3 approved IRP by early December. And while that would mean
4 that the first round of IRs would not be able to focus on
5 the IRP, it would allow for the second round of IRs to do
6 so. If it turns out that Executive Council does not
7 approve the document before the Motions Day following the
8 first round of IRs, which would be some time in the first
9 week of December, then I think we have an issue, and I
10 think we will have to deal with that at the Motions Day
11 and provide the parties and the Board with an opportunity
12 to set the process for IRs around that document. I would
13 suggest that maybe parties might not need IRs, but I think
14 Mr. Rouse would strongly disagree with that. I think Mr.
15 Rouse will certainly want IRs around the IRP. If I'm
16 wrong then maybe this is not as much of an issue as I
17 think, but -- but I wanted to make the Board and parties
18 aware of that because I think that is an issue that we
19 will have to deal with in the scheduling.
20 CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Furey. I would be surprised if
21 Mr. Rouse was the only party that wanted IRs on the IRP
22 and that is definitely an issue.
23 I raised this issue with you with at the rate design pre-
24 hearing I believe with respect to the AMI application as

30
1 to whether or not it could be severed, and it wasn't my
2 intention to raise that again today, but just after
3 hearing from you this morning about restrictions in terms
4 of expert witnesses, counsel for the applicant and other
5 logistical issues, the public intervenor's schedule that I
6 believe you said it was maybe the 28th or 29th of -- 28th
7 of February, maybe that she wasn't available after that.
8 So I think, you know, in June when we talked about this,
9 you may have said something like, well maybe I will go
10 back and look at this and see how we might be able to
11 handle the fact that the GRA has embedded in it costs that
12 would be related to that infrastructure and to see how --
13 if there was a way in which, you know, as I say, these
14 could be severed. So that for example, you know, the GRA
15 could go in February and there would be no question, there
16 would be plenty of time, and perhaps the AMI in March.
17 But if it impacts on the GRA on the revenue requirement,
18 I'm not sure I see a path to severing them but I want to
19 know if you have given that some thought.
20 MR. FUREY: I have, Mr. Chair, and when it comes to the
21 specific line items in the -- when it comes to specific
22 line items in the GRA and now sub-line items, so there is
23 some OM&A in the 18/19 year that relates to AMI. The
24 capital doesn't come until later. So there is a direct

31
1 link.
2 The only -- I have no better answer in terms of solving
3 that problem on a line item basis. The only -- so I don't
4 have a better answer today because the two are linked. So
5 approval of -- I mean, we would be arguing the merits of
6 it. I mean, one argument I could make at the hearing is
7 to say, well look, the request for 2 percent is based on
8 an earnings level and a total revenue requirement and the
9 fact that there might be -- and I don't know the exact
10 dollars -- but say $5 million of OM&A or $10 million of
11 OM&A shouldn't affect the rate increase granted for the
12 particular year because it's more about meeting the debt
13 to equity targets and those kinds of things. But that
14 goes to the merits, and so I can't really -- I can't
15 assume that the Board would go that direction. So in
16 terms of the specific line items, I don't have a better
17 answer today.
18 I also have some concern -- I don't think a March hearing
19 around AMI would present a problem, but I would have
20 concern about any further delay because operationally
21 there are plans in place to move forward based on assumed
22 approvals obviously that would stop if it wasn't approved,
23 but delay will cost money in the sense that if the AMI
24 project were to be delayed by several months, then there

32
1 would have to be a stop and start that would cause
2 additional expense.
3 CHAIRMAN: And the other option of course is this will take
4 whatever amount of time it takes but it certainly -- if it
5 turns out that the Board finds that NB Power is entitled
6 to the applied for increase or some increase, it could
7 amount to a delay in the commencement of that increase and
8 that has been an issue that the Board certainly has been
9 attempting to diminish that possibility. But it strikes
10 me that that possibility looms in this matter every bit as
11 much as it perhaps did in others if we don't get all of
12 the hearing days in in February.
13 MR. FUREY: I agree with that 100 percent. That is a real
14 risk, Mr. Chair.
15 CHAIRMAN: So just before I move on and hear from other
16 parties, and we did talk about the month of March, I
17 believe that this information may have been in an
18 affidavit in terms of the proposed schedule going forward,
19 and my recollection is that NB Power was talking about
20 filing something on Lepreau in November with a possible
21 hearing in March, and this was a process hearing. Perhaps
22 you could tell me where we are with that because that
23 would give us an idea as to what time might be available.
24 MR. FUREY: So, Mr. Chair, I think practical realities have

33
1 led us to revisit that as well, and we wouldn't anticipate
2 filing of the Mactaquac procedural application until the
3 conclusion of this GRA. So I think we can remove that
4 from the equation in terms of concerns about timing during
5 the course of the hearing process.
6 CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Amos, do you have a preference on
7 a start date between the 5th or the 12th of February?
8 MR. AMOS: No preference at all. Whatever suits NB Power.
9 CHAIRMAN: Okay. And in terms of the length of the hearing,
10 do you have a -- you have to turn your microphone on --
11 any preference or any comment on the --
12 MR. AMOS: No. Whatever suits the Board and NB Power and
13 the other intervenors suits me.
14 CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Volpe?
15 MR. VOLPE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We don't have any
16 preference between the start dates. The only thing I
17 would add regarding the schedule is it seems that there is
18 very little time allowed between the rebuttal evidence and
19 the start of the hearing considering the amount of
20 intervenors involved.
21 CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bourque, any comments on the
22 start date or the schedule?
23 MR. BOURQUE: No. Whatever date set up we will try to
24 accommodate. Thank you.

34
1 CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Stewart?
2 MR. STEWART: I'm not sure particularly which, you know, the
3 12th or the 5th and obviously we want to make sure that
4 everybody has a fair opportunity to make whatever
5 presentation they wish to make during the course of the
6 hearing. And like Mr. Furey, I'm mindful of the holiday
7 that kind of fits in there as well, and that kind of cuts
8 both ways in terms of it also gives you another day
9 potentially in the middle of the hearing to help, you
10 know, move things forward which sometimes can be helpful.
11 I guess my only concern I would have about setting a three
12 week time frame is that sometimes we tend to expand to
13 fill the container, and, you know, this is -- the whole
14 process is not inexpensive. And so certainly I guess --
15 I'm not sure there is anything profound about this, but we
16 need enough time to complete the hearing but not any
17 longer than we need to. And frankly, certainly our -- we
18 would make the commitment to, you know, go a little later,
19 start a little earlier if that's necessary in order to get
20 it done in a shorter time frame.
21 CHAIRMAN: That's helpful, Mr. Stewart. Have you looked at
22 the sort of time frames that are set out in both of those
23 options and are you okay with the time frames that lead up
24 to the February 5th commencement?

35
1 MR. STEWART: The short answer is yes.
2 CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Rouse?
3 MR. ROUSE: Good morning, Mr. Chair. As far as the start
4 date, I don't really have any preference. I think I would
5 side with Mr. Stewart regarding the length of the -- the
6 length of the hearings. For him it's an expense, for me
7 it's my personal vacation time. So if we can keep it
8 shorter, I would rather work later, start earlier type of
9 process.
10 Would now be a good time to -- I have a couple of comments
11 about the submission of the IRP as well, so speak now or
12 later?
13 CHAIRMAN: Certainly. This would be a good time.
14 MR. ROUSE: I'm just wondering if a draft of the IRP could
15 be submitted at least -- it's a big document, a lot of
16 time to digest, and it will either be approved or not
17 approved or deemed approved, you know, by the date it is,
18 but if we could have a draft now, maybe not allow IRs on
19 it or maybe allow IRs, I'm not sure, but at least to have
20 the draft document to be able to digest -- the time to
21 digest it, I guess is the issue. It's a pretty
22 comprehensive document, usually in the range of three or
23 400 pages.
24 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Furey, can you comment on that?

36
1 MR. FUREY: Mr. Chair, there is no IRP until it's approved
2 by Executive Council. There is nothing to provide. I
3 mean, there is a document that has been submitted but
4 that's not what the Board is called upon to consider when
5 setting rates. So until Executive Council approves the
6 document, we do not have an IRP.
7 CHAIRMAN: So again, short answer is no.
8 MR. FUREY: I mean, I guess if the Board ordered us to, we
9 would have to do that, but I don't see the point to it.
10 It doesn't exist yet.
11 CHAIRMAN: All right. Anything else, Mr. Rouse?
12 MR. ROUSE: No. That's it.
13 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Richard?
14 MR. RICHARD: Oui. Monsieur prsident. Tandis que les lois
15 et rglements pour intervenir auprs dune commission sont
16 devenu trs compliquer pour les gens qui ne sont pas
17 familiers. Attendu que infrastructure de messagerie
18 avance et diffres aspects complexes donc beaucoup de
19 documents et beaucoup de prparation pour prparer des
20 questions et supporter un plaidoirie. Cette instance 375
21 IMA est trs important pour le Nouveau Brunswick pour deux
22 raisons, compte dautres. Nous sommes au bord dune
23 gaffe conomique. Nous sommes au bord dune gaffe
24 environnementale. Cest deux gaffes commencent dj

37
1 tre ressenti par la population. Il est dit attendu que
2 cest difficile pour un particulier non macier de trouver
3 le moyen financier et le temps pour participer complment
4 dans tout le processus. Je propose donc que lhoraire et
5 laudience de dpt soit modifi pour tenir compte de ces
6 raisons. Par exemple, peut-tre que le 6 et 16 novembre
7 pour les demandes de renseignements est correct mais, pour
8 le 17 janvier je vois que a serait un peu vite a dpos
9 les preuves des intervenants. Merci.
10 CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Richard. Mr. Stoll?
11 MR. STOLL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. As far as the 5th or the
12 12th, we can start either day. We are caught in the same
13 dilemma I think Mr. Stewart raised as far as we need
14 adequate time but we don't want too much time allotted and
15 just fill the void.
16 One of the I guess comments I would make on the schedule,
17 which goes to kind of the first thing out of the gate, is
18 when the first set of interrogatories would be due. And I
19 think under the original or the earlier schedule, we have
20 one week to file interrogatories as opposed to potentially
21 two weeks. We haven't gone through the confidentiality
22 undertaking, et cetera, which would probably take a day or
23 two by the time we get information out to even study it.
24 So to the extent that there can be some relief from that

38
1 first October 8th date or -- that would be appreciated, to
2 give us a little bit more chance to make better use of the
3 first round of IRs.
4 As far as whether it's -- at the end of the day, whether
5 it's going to be ten days or 14 days, kind of hard to tell
6 right now until we get through some of the interrogatory
7 processes and we see who is filing intervenor evidence.
8 So my inclination is we start on the 5th and go as long as
9 we need to to get it done to accommodate some of the other
10 schedules.
11 CHAIRMAN: So, Mr. Stoll, essentially you would be okay with
12 the 5th. It's that first IR date that you find that to be
13 a little early, so if somehow we were to push that out a
14 little bit, that November 8th date, the rest of the
15 schedule --
16 MR. STOLL: No, no --
17 CHAIRMAN: -- the rest of that schedule would work for you?
18 MR. STOLL: That's correct, sir.
19 CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Ms. Black?
20 MS. BLACK: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will just start with a
21 comment about the first IR deadline. I agree with Mr.
22 Stoll. My consultants were all lined up to be ready to
23 submit IRs on the 8th but because of the timing of the
24 pre-hearing and the necessity of sort of withholding the

39
1 confidentiality agreement until now, we would certainly
2 appreciate at least a few extra days in order to digest
3 the confidential information once we sign the undertaking.
4 That said, that's the only specific issue that we have
5 with either one of the proposed schedules. I think
6 ideally we would start on the 5th for all the reasons that
7 everyone has talked about so far. We are okay with the
8 12th as well. I get concerned about heading towards the
9 end of February for the reason you brought up earlier,
10 pushing closer to that April 1st date, and I will confirm
11 that I am unavailable starting March 1st. So with all
12 that said, we are generally flexible and happy with either
13 schedule as far as the start date of the hearing but would
14 appreciate a few extra days on round 1 interrogatories.
15 Thank you.
16 CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Black. You have been to a number
17 of hearings now and I would like your view on whether or
18 not you think 10 days would be adequate given really the
19 added complexity to what we have to deal with at this
20 hearing, do you think that's a reasonable ask?
21 MS. BLACK: I think the reality is it's difficult to tell. I
22 think it's possible that 10 days is sufficient. I liked
23 Mr. Stewart's suggestion of perhaps early starts and late
24 finishes, especially for the first few days until we get

40
1 our feet under us. You know, there is -- that can really
2 make a difference as far as saving even a day or two of
3 hearing. And I think what Mr. Furey said about hearing
4 the DSM portion and the AMI portion together makes sense.
5 And I also agree with Mr. Stoll and Mr. Stewart's
6 concerns about, you know, the goldfish fitting the size of
7 the bowl kind of thing. The hearing being too long and
8 not being -- not being any improved effectiveness just
9 because it's longer.
10 So I think we are all struggling to be comfortable with
11 the 10 days, but I don't think it's unreasonable.
12 CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Ms. Desmond?
13 MS. DESMOND: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I will start first
14 by making a couple of introductory comments. I do want to
15 make the parties aware that Board Staff have just recently
16 retained an expert, Synapse Energy Economics Inc. And so
17 they have just recently come on board to assist Board
18 Staff. And, of course, we are trying to be mindful of
19 their schedule.
20 Secondly, I do want to raise the fact that this is the
21 first major capital hearing the EUB has held. So this
22 will be a new process for the Board and we do want to
23 approach this with the appropriate degree of prudence and
24 caution to make sure that we are tackling this major

41
1 filing in a way that's proper.
2 I will speak now to the dates that have been proposed.
3 When we looked at NB Power's schedule -- I think certainly
4 speaking for myself and I think for Board Staff, there are
5 two major concerns. The first is around the filing of the
6 first round of IRs. Mr. Stoll and Ms. Black have
7 commented on that date and it does concern Board Staff as
8 well for a number of reasons. It's only now another eight
9 days away for the filing of the IRs. There is a bulk of
10 material. Many parties have not had access to the full
11 filing. So that likely is not very realistic that parties
12 can file IRs on the materials that have been made
13 available in that short time frame.
14 The second major problem I see with the NB Power filing is
15 around when intervenor evidence is due. Looking at the NB
16 Power schedule, the second round of IRs, the responses
17 come in on December 20th, which is just shortly before
18 Christmas, as we know. And then intervenor evidence is
19 filed January 9th. That puts the expectation on
20 intervenors and their experts to essentially review all of
21 those responses and prepare their intervenor evidence over
22 the Christmas holiday. I don't think that's very
23 reasonable or fair to the intervenors. And keeping in
24 mind that for Board Staff that evidence will need to be

42
1 translated. So that -- if we make any exception at all
2 for the Christmas holidays, that only gives intervenors
3 essentially a week -- maybe a little better than a week to
4 get their evidence filed and translated if they are to
5 look at the complete package of the IR responses.
6 So those are fairly critical milestones, which I think
7 just simply don't work, they are not realistic. If we
8 wanted to move the IR responses such that they were
9 provided sooner, then maybe that would give extra window
10 of time for the intervenor evidence to be filed. So that
11 still will put a lot of pressure on our experts, but you
12 know, if there was an opportunity that those responses
13 were coming in sooner and the experts had more time, maybe
14 that's a date that could be discussed.
15 The second -- so that speaks to the existing dates that
16 are circulating on the NB Power schedule. So we had
17 provided a little more window of opportunity for the
18 experts and for the filing of IRs.
19 Turning now to the length of the hearing, last year we did
20 have a five day hearing, but I am sure many of the parties
21 here, who did participate, would agree that those days
22 were quite long and difficult. And we did end up, even
23 over those five days just on a revenue requirement filing,
24 having extended hearing days. So we will probably with

43
1 all -- if experience is useful to us, we will probably use
2 those five days for the revenue requirement hearing. If
3 we are to at least save one day for argument, that only
4 gives us four days to deal with a major request on a
5 capital filing, plus energy efficiency. So I think we --
6 again, we have got to be really careful that we are not
7 trying to jam this into a schedule without giving it
8 careful consideration.
9 When Board Staff put their schedule together, I guess we
10 looked at the dates we had. We -- I think we had been
11 advised that the PI would likely be unavailable after the
12 28th. So our thinking was that we would start on the
13 12th, which would give us five days. The next week there
14 is a public holiday, so we would have four days. And then
15 the following week, assuming the PI was unavailable after
16 the 28th, there would be three days. So in total we would
17 have 12 days. It looks like three weeks, but recognizing
18 everybodys' availability, it gave us in essence 12 days
19 of hearing time. Again, if we consider closing arguments,
20 and we take at least a day for that, that gives us 11 days
21 of full hearing with evidence and cross-examination.
22 Recognizing we have an expert, likely other people --
23 other intervenors will have experts. I would submit that
24 that's a more realistic schedule to work with and allow

44
1 parties to fully vet and understand the information.
2 My final comment is around the IRP. That is a critical
3 document. My initial review of the information that has
4 been filed to date, there is many references to the IRP
5 and our experts have asked to see that document. They
6 have identified it as a critical piece of evidence that
7 they will need to see. I think Mr. Furey indicated that
8 January 16th might be the date on which it could
9 potentially be available, but based on the NB Power
10 schedule, intervenor evidence would need to be filed in
11 advance of even seeing the IRP. So I just don't know how
12 that could possibly work. So I would ask the Board to
13 proceed with caution. This is the first major capital
14 filing we have had and I think it requires a careful
15 review and due process. Those are our comments. Thank
16 you.
17 CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
18 MR. ROUSE: Excuse me, Chair?
19 CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. Rouse?
20 MR. ROUSE: May I just add something to what the Board Staff
21 mentioned about the IRP. Mr. Furey indicated that there
22 was no IRP, but they have referenced it in their evidence.
23 And the IRP, according to the legislation, is something
24 that the Board must -- must consider in their

45
1 deliberations. So there is a bit of a -- you -- the Board
2 has to consider an IRP and we need to figure out which IRP
3 you are going to be considering. I think this was a bit
4 of an issue at the last hearing of which IRP we should be
5 looking at. So I think the fact that one doesn't exist,
6 according to Mr. Furey, but they have referenced it in
7 their evidence.
8 CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Rouse. So, Mr. Furey, having
9 canvassed the room, it strikes me that the November 8th
10 date seems to be of concern to more than one participant,
11 that that seems to be just too early on in the process.
12 The second issue seems to be the timing of filing of
13 intervenor evidence. It follows that Christmas season so
14 closely as to perhaps create some difficulties. So I
15 wonder if there might be an opportunity here to do a
16 couple of things that might help. So if the November 8th
17 date was pushed out by a few more days, you know, that
18 would obviously make it appear that the hearing would
19 automatically go to the 12th. I don't think that's
20 necessary. I think if it's possible to squeeze some time
21 in other areas, it may be that although not -- we wouldn't
22 commence on the 5th, I wonder if it's possible that we
23 would use even the Thursday and Friday of that week? And
24 one of the items that I see in the proposed schedule that

46
1 when I started doing this job, wasn't there, and it's now
2 there quite routinely and it's something called rebuttal
3 evidence. And I am not suggesting that rebuttal evidence
4 can't be filed, but by the very nature of rebuttal
5 evidence, you know, it seems to me that it -- you know,
6 you are not allowed to raise anything new. It has to deal
7 with -- you know, with new issues that have been raised by
8 the intervenors -- that I wonder why that's filed on the
9 1st of February and then the hearing is five days later.
10 I am not suggesting we take out of the schedule the right
11 to file rebuttal evidence, but I am not sure that I
12 completely understand why we would need, you know, four or
13 five days to consider it. Any rebuttal evidence we have
14 had in the past, has been short, to the point, very
15 succinct and often is covered almost by way of opening
16 statement.
17 MR. FUREY: So, Mr. Chairman, I am not sure I fully
18 understood. Are you suggesting that rebuttal evidence
19 could be filed at any time prior to the hearing or -- I
20 didn't understand if you wanted it early or later?
21 CHAIRMAN: Well I suppose in a perfect world, there wouldn't
22 be any need for rebuttal evidence so --
23 MR. FUREY: Oh, agreed.
24 CHAIRMAN: -- and as I said, the schedules, if you go back

47
1 into the hearings in 2004, 2005, I don't think the
2 schedules actually even provided for rebuttal evidence. I
3 think it's something that has kind of crept into the
4 system and it adds time, because if you look at the
5 additional responses for Motions Day on January 30th, you
6 know, then there is this period of time to allow for the
7 filing of rebuttal evidence, but it's actually -- well I
8 guess you are really -- the filing time is noon, so you
9 are really talking about a day and a half to file it. I
10 don't why the hearing couldn't start the next day. I am
11 not suggesting we push it back. But that, for example, is
12 a time lapse that isn't necessary, in my view. And if we
13 were to move the November 8th date forward, and maybe I
14 would have to canvass the parties, and maybe this might be
15 an opportunity to have a bit of a break so that -- because
16 I think if the November 8th date was moved by a week or
17 whatever, I mean I think the parties will give you very
18 quickly their view on where that needs to go to and where
19 the opportunity -- I have heard from several parties that
20 were concerned about the filing date for intervenor
21 evidence. I think at least three of them. So if that
22 could change and we could do something with the rebuttal
23 evidence, we may be able to come up with a schedule that's
24 a bit of a hybrid, you know, of all these -- the concern I

48
1 have, I understand and I appreciate the comments if we
2 book 15 days, we will use it. Hopefully, you know, that's
3 not the case. I am more concerned really about the other
4 side of this is that we book only 10 days. We really
5 needed 11 or 12 and parties just can't seem to find the
6 time to come back until March the 18th or something like
7 that, because their schedules have filled up. Nobody is
8 going to hold this time for this hearing just in case. So
9 I really wonder if, you know, we would be cutting it too
10 close. I think -- I mean, certainly the panel is willing
11 to work long days, you know, whatever is necessary, but
12 there is a point where you start to lose some
13 efficiencies. You know, if you are starting very early,
14 and you are going very late, I wonder if the people who
15 are participating late in the day about the third or
16 fourth day you are doing that, you know, are you getting
17 the same level of attention as somebody else who is
18 participating when you are fresh. So I mean, you can only
19 work those hearings, those long days so long until a
20 little bit of fatigue, you know, settles in and I don't
21 want any party to be disadvantaged by that.
22 So I am going to take a brief adjournment here, say 20
23 minutes or so, that will give Mr. Amos an opportunity to
24 read the material that was filed yesterday. And since Mr.
49
1 Amos has indicated that he is okay with whatever schedule
2 is set, then perhaps the parties that have been declared
3 to be intervenors in this matter can just provide their
4 input. I think this is very doable to work within those
5 constraints. I am -- I share Ms. Desmond's concern about
6 the AMI. I would very much liked to have seen AMI come as
7 a separate and distinct hearing, because it is the first
8 capital project this Board has been asked to approve, and
9 as everybody knows, we have a major capital project coming
10 in Mactaquac. And so in a sense, this would have been
11 very helpful to have us hone our skills on the capital
12 spend. So I am very mindful, and I am very much in
13 agreement, quite frankly, with what she said. With those
14 comments, I am going to adjourn for -- it's 10:35. We
15 will come back at 11:00 o'clock, unless the parties have -
16 - well I am going to give Mr. Amos at least 20 minutes
17 anyway. So we will come back at exactly 11:00 o'clock.
18 Hopefully, we will have a schedule that can work and then
19 we will hear argument with respect to Mr. Amos' status in
20 this matter. Thank you.
21 (Recess)
22 (Recess)
23 CHAIRMAN: All right, well that -- I guess that break took
24 more like an hour but we have given Mr. Amos a little more
50
1 time to review the documentation pertaining to him. So my
2 understanding is that perhaps the parties have come up
3 with a suggested schedule. Is that correct, Mr. Furey?
4 MR. FUREY: That is correct, Mr. Chair.
5 CHAIRMAN: And anybody here disagree with that? All right,
6 do you want to read into the record the schedule as it
7 would be proposed that it would be set?
8 MR. FUREY: Certainly. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will go
9 through the proposed schedule in its entirety, starting
10 with the application, the evidence being filed on
11 Thursday, October 5th. The board order 20 day notice,
12 Tuesday, October 10th, pre-hearing conference being today
13 Tuesday, October 31st. And then we start with what is to
14 come. Round 1 interrogatories to the applicant, Thursday,
15 November 16th. And I will just depart for one second, Mr.
16 Chair, to say that all of the times, with one exception,
17 will be the standard, noon filing dates, 9:30 for ADR and
18 Motions Day.
19 CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
20 MR. FUREY: So the round 1 interrogatory responses, Monday,
21 December 4th, the Notice of Motion, Wednesday, December
22 6th, the ADR and Motions Day, Thursday, December 8th.
23 Sorry, Thursday, December 7th. The round 1 additional
24 responses, Monday, December 11th, round 2 interrogatories,

51
1 Wednesday, December 13th, round 2 interrogatory responses,
2 Monday, January 8th, Notice of Motion, Wednesday, January
3 10th. The ADR Motions Day, Thursday, January 11th, round
4 2 additional responses, Friday, January 12th. And this is
5 the exception, Mr. Chair, because that is only a single
6 day, that time would be at 4:00 o'clock p.m. Then
7 carrying on, intervenor evidence Thursday, January 18th,
8 interrogatories on intervenor evidence due Tuesday,
9 January 23rd, interrogatory responses due Tuesday, January
10 30th. The Notice of Motion by Wednesday, January 31st,
11 the ADR and Motions Day, Thursday, February 1st,
12 additional responses, Monday, February 5th, rebuttal
13 evidence also Monday, February 5th. And the hearing would
14 then commence on Wednesday, February 7th. So the intent
15 would be we would have three days in the week, the 7th,
16 8th and 9th. We would have five days the following week,
17 and we would have four days in the final week starting
18 again on February 20th, for a total of 12 days.
19 CHAIRMAN: So the final day that we would set aside would be
20 the February the 25th?
21 MR. FUREY: 23rd.
22 CHAIRMAN: 23rd.
23 MR. FUREY: I think that is correct, Friday, the 23rd.
24 CHAIRMAN: Yes, sorry, yes, no, sorry, 23rd. Thank you.

52
1 And the only comment I will make is that I would hope that
2 12 days is more than adequate. If we run out of time and
3 knowing the time constraints of the participants, we may
4 get into a situation where we need to have written
5 argument or something like that. And most people don't
6 seem to like that. So hopefully the 12 days will be
7 enough. All right, so that will be the hearing schedule.
8 Now I understand there is one issue?
9 MR. FUREY: I am sorry, Mr. Chair.
10 CHAIRMAN: Okay, we are going to get to that.
11 MR. FUREY: I meant to address it at the end and --
12 CHAIRMAN: Yes, okay.
13 MR. FUREY: -- and then it just slipped my mind. So I think
14 the way that the parties would describe it is that the
15 schedule up until the -- up until the Motions Day on
16 Thursday, December 7th, is fine, but thereafter I think
17 the intervenors would regard it as conditional on
18 receiving the IRP by Monday, December 4th at 12:00
19 o'clock. And if the IRP is not in a position to be filed
20 at that time, then we would treat the Motions Day
21 scheduled for Thursday, December 7th also as a day to
22 revisit the schedule in light of the unavailability of the
23 IRP. I hope I have captured that accurately but that is
24 my understanding.
53
1 CHAIRMAN: All right. And with respect to that date of I
2 believe you said December the 4th would be the date the
3 IRP is to be filed by and if it isn't, there will in fact
4 be a motion to deal with potentially rescheduling
5 everything, you know that the hearing room in our Board
6 premises of course isn't large enough to conduct these
7 hearings so we are going to have to commit -- people are
8 always concerned about cost and expense so we are going to
9 have to commit to 12 days of hearing space from a
10 commercial vendor such as the hotel that we are in now and
11 that is very expensive. I know this is out of your
12 control, that it is now I believe with Cabinet, but I
13 would encourage you to at least make sure they are aware
14 that if in fact this document is not approved on or before
15 that date, you know, there could be quite a cost, you
16 know, that may be incurred if in fact the dates end up
17 being scrapped. You know, there will be hearing room
18 space that will have to be paid for. So I think that -- I
19 appreciate that is all you can do is make sure that they
20 are aware of that.
21 MR. FUREY: And that will -- those messages will be passed
22 along, Mr. Chair.
23 CHAIRMAN: All right. So the schedule as -- Ms. Desmond, I
24 think you were about to --

54
1 MS. DESMOND: Yes, if I could just make two additional
2 comments, Mr. Chair. Certainly those dates I think are
3 agreed to by the parties. But I just noticed Mr. Furey
4 did not comment on the public session which is the week of
5 December 11th. So I believe those dates are still in
6 play. And then secondly, there was some discussion, but
7 no agreement, on how the days would be used, whether AMI
8 and final arguments would take place before GRA or if the
9 final arguments would be at the end of those 12 days. So
10 I just kind of throw that up for consideration as well.
11 CHAIRMAN: Okay. With respect to the public day or days, it
12 is the intention of the Board to do this part of the
13 session. We have had some suggestions from many of the
14 participants that it would be very useful to hear from the
15 public perhaps not just on the day of -- on a hearing day
16 but perhaps in advance, and we are currently looking at
17 whether or not we may be able to do one or more than one,
18 and that seems to be the week that works the best. So we
19 will simply advise when it is. I know that the applicant,
20 for example, always wants to be present and it may or may
21 not work out for certain people within the organization
22 that feel it's important for them to be there, but this is
23 the week that we will be scheduling either one or two
24 sessions.
55
1 And at this point in time I'm not sure where it will be.
2 I can tell you that it will not be in Saint John. It will
3 be somewhere else in the province for sure.
4 The other thing is with respect to how we structure the
5 hearing, I don't think that we necessarily need to do that
6 today. I think we need to set the days aside. I think it
7 would be -- I am going to encourage the parties to see if
8 in fact they can attempt to come up with a schedule that
9 works best for all concerned. We know that there are
10 experts that have been retained by a couple of the
11 intervenors and perhaps it will be by more than a couple
12 of intervenors. And so to try to schedule it so that
13 again it minimizes costs I think would be useful. So
14 rather than establishing a date to do that, you know,
15 along the way, for example, there are motions days that
16 don't get used or just some other time, it doesn't need to
17 be formal, but I think it would be useful for parties to
18 talk about that. We -- the intention of the Board would
19 be that we would start with the GRA and move on to the
20 capital project, you know, second, but, you know, if
21 parties want to do it differently then, you know, we need
22 to hear that.
23 So just I guess going down the list of things that we need
24 to talk about, the confidentiality agreement has been

56
1 circulated. Also there was a three line explanation of
2 the changes in this confidentiality agreement from
3 previous confidentiality agreements. So I don't know if
4 the parties have had enough time to consider the form of
5 that agreement or not or have any comments. So I will
6 just go down through the list. Mr. Amos, have you looked
7 at the agreement?
8 MR. AMOS: Yes. I had just a -- I had a quick glance at it
9 and I had an issue with it in the 357 matter.
10 CHAIRMAN: Yes.
11 MR. AMOS: And I sent an email to Mr. Furey, et cetera, and
12 I said don't give me anything that's confidential, and
13 therefore I can't be accused of disclosing something I
14 shouldn't.
15 CHAIRMAN: Okay. So --
16 MR. AMOS: He never answered me.
17 CHAIRMAN: Okay. So your position really is you are not
18 signing it no matter what form it's in if it requires you
19 to keep information --
20 MR. AMOS: This is a public hearing. This is a publicly
21 owned corporation billing the public, and if you don't
22 want the public to know something, then I don't want to
23 know.
24 CHAIRMAN: I understand. So you don't have a position of

57
1 the form itself. You are not going to sign a
2 confidentiality document.
3 MR. AMOS: I find the form offensive in and of itself.
4 CHAIRMAN: Okay. All right. Thank you. Mr. Volpe?
5 MR. VOLPE: No other comment, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
6 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bourque?
7 MR. BOURQUE: I understand that these are public hearings
8 and that why is this information being kept from the
9 public is my question.
10 CHAIRMAN: Well, Mr. Bourque, the issue here really is the
11 form of the confidentiality agreement. Legislation
12 provides for information that of a certain nature can be -
13 - there can be a claim for confidentiality. There can be
14 challenges to those claims. But there is a process. So
15 the issue really is the form. Do you have any issue with
16 the form?
17 MR. BOURQUE: I'm not really sure on that.
18 CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you. Mr. Stewart?
19 MR. STEWART: Mr. Chairman, to be honest, I haven't really
20 had much of an opportunity -- I know Mr. Furey sent that
21 yesterday afternoon -- to have a look. So I did note in
22 his email, you know, the difference, but I'm really not in
23 a position to say I'm fine with it at this particular
24 moment in time.
58
1 CHAIRMAN: So are you asking for some additional time to
2 provide comments to the Board or are you satisfied if the
3 Board makes a decision this morning?
4 MR. STEWART: I'm satisfied if the Board makes a decision.
5 CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Rouse?
6 MR. ROUSE: No comments.
7 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Richard?
8 MR. RICHARD: Oui monsieur prsident. Mais je pense que je
9 nai pas reu la formule moi aussi parce que jai tromp
10 en tre poursuivi.
11 CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Stoll?
12 MR. STOLL: We are satisfied if the Board just makes a
13 decision this morning.
14 CHAIRMAN: Ms. Black?
15 MR. BLACK: I have no issues with the form. Thank you.
16 CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Ms. Desmond, Board staff don't need
17 to sign it anyway, do they?
18 MS. DESMOND: We don't, no, Mr. Chair, although I will just
19 make one comment and that is I think under our Rules of
20 Procedure there is a confidentiality undertaking pursuant
21 to Rule 6.5. So I appreciate this is perhaps a document
22 we have used historically but it may be something going
23 forward the Board may want to turn its mind to whether or
24 not there is a standard undertaking that can be used for

59
1 all matters.
2 CHAIRMAN: That's an excellent idea and perhaps we might
3 even do a practice note or something with reference to
4 that. Okay.
5 Well having heard from the parties this morning, the
6 document that has been put forward as the proposed
7 confidentiality agreement in fact will be the one that
8 will be approved for use in this proceeding.
9 One other preliminary issue would be the exhibit list. We
10 typically mark the documents that have been filed up to
11 the present time as exhibits in this matter. Anybody have
12 any objection to that? All right. There being no
13 objection then, the exhibit list that has been circulated
14 and for the benefit of the court reporter, that is a five
15 page document entitled, Exhibit List, and it starts with
16 exhibit 1.01, Notice of Application, and it goes right
17 through to document 3.01, Affidavit of Publishing, and
18 each of those documents will become an exhibit in this
19 proceeding under the heading NBP 1.01, NBP 1.02, et
20 cetera. So I don't think, since nobody has any
21 objections, it's necessary to read out the entire list.
22 I also understand that -- I believe it's in the list here
23 -- that the affidavit -- just for the record, exhibit
24 3.01, the Affidavit of Publishing has been filed verifying

60
1 that in fact NB Power has complied with the Board Order
2 with respect to publishing a notification of this matter.
3 So other than the issue relating to Mr. Amos' status as an
4 intervenor, are there any other issues that we need to
5 deal with this morning?
6 MR. FUREY: I don't believe so, Mr. Chair.
7 CHAIRMAN: Okay. So turning then to the objection to Mr.
8 Amos being named as an intervenor or becoming an
9 intervenor in this matter -- all right. So, Mr. Furey, we
10 have looked at your notice of objection to the intervenor
11 request and if I may attempt to summarize it, it really
12 relies on two grounds, and I think the first three
13 paragraphs in your notice of objection deal with Rule
14 3.2.2 of the Rules of Procedure indicating the party must
15 demonstrate a substantial interest in the proceeding and
16 an intent to participate actively and responsibly. And so
17 there is a responsibility there to show what their
18 interest is. The second part of your objection here deals
19 with the requirement to participate responsibly.
20 With respect to the first part of your objection, Mr. Amos
21 this morning clarified, you know, the basis of what his
22 interest is in the proceeding and essentially how that
23 interest justified the granting of intervenor status. Do
24 you have anything further to say on that aspect of it or

61
1 is essentially most of the objection -- certainly by
2 volume here most of the objection seems to be on the
3 contention here that perhaps he may not participate
4 responsibly.
5 MR. FUREY: Yes. That would be the focus of my submissions
6 here this morning.
7 CHAIRMAN: And would you agree that Mr. Amos has in fact
8 essentially fulfilled the obligations of the first part of
9 what had been your objection?
10 MR. FUREY: I would.
11 CHAIRMAN: Okay. So with respect to the duty to participate
12 responsibly, you filed documentation which has been
13 provided to all the parties and the Board of course has
14 read it, as I'm sure others have. Do you -- I guess it's
15 your objection. So is there anything that you want to
16 highlight here or anything further you want to add?
17 MR. FUREY: Yes. If I might have a few minutes to do that,
18 I would appreciate it, Mr. Chair.
19 So I mean, I guess the starting point is what -- what is
20 the requirement -- what is the content of the requirement
21 to participate in a responsible fashion, and the rules
22 don't -- don't give us any further guidance on that. But
23 I would suggest that the content of that requirement is
24 that it is an obligation of an intervenor to raise issues

62
1 that are relevant to the jurisdiction of the Board in the
2 proceeding and not issues that are extraneous or
3 completely unrelated, and to do so -- while recognizing
4 that we are in an adversarial process, to do so in a
5 respectful and civil fashion. And our submission is that
6 the material on which we rely, which is all Mr. Amos' --
7 either all of Mr. Amos' documents or the transcript of a
8 motion that was argued on October 5th of this year
9 demonstrates I would say quite clearly that Mr. Amos is
10 not capable of that type of reasonable participation in
11 the process.
12 And generally, and I said this in paragraph 5 of the
13 notice of the objection -- generally a review of Mr. Amos'
14 documents discloses a pattern of behaviour that is
15 confrontational in nature and is characterized by
16 unsubstantiated allegations of unethical or illegal
17 behaviour by various political figures, judges, lawyers,
18 law enforcement officials.
19 I think it's worth noting that Mr. Amos' own documents
20 show that he has, on at least one occasion and perhaps
21 two, been banned or barred from the grounds of the New
22 Brunswick Legislative Assembly on the basis of harassment
23 of MLAs, officers and staff of the Legislative Assembly.
24 Having been so barred, he brought a complaint against the

63
1 members of the Fredericton City police force to the Police
2 Commission, that was subsequently dismissed, relating to
3 their involvement in barring him from the Legislative
4 Assembly.
5 I am going to spend a little time, Mr. Chair, with respect
6 to Mr. Amos' complaint against Judge Henrik Tonning to the
7 New Brunswick Judicial Council, and that appears at
8 appendix D of the objection. And in particular two pages
9 in, there is an affidavit that Mr. Amos submitted in a
10 provincial court case. And in that affidavit -- and I'm
11 going to very quickly move through this -- at paragraph 9
12 he first deals with Prosecutor James McAvity and he
13 indicates that Prosecutor McAvity should have been
14 questioned as to his malice and/or competence. So he is
15 questioning the malice and competence of the Crown
16 Prosecutor. He goes on to say he certainly would not wish
17 the likes of Ms. Gallagher defending his rights or
18 interests before the court. At paragraph 22 he states, it
19 appears to me that not only are the actions of David Lutz
20 malicious, but they are fraudulent as well. In my opinion
21 he has no right to practice law for a fee but in fact he
22 should be in jail. And at paragraph 31 he speaks of a
23 response he got from the RCMP External Review Committee
24 which he viewed was predictable and unsatisfactory.

64
1 And just to go back to the beginning of that appendix, the
2 initial complaint on the first page of that appendix, at
3 the end of the -- at the end of the first -- second full
4 paragraph, Mr. Amos makes it clear in his complaint that
5 he is referring to proceedings in order to cover up the
6 wrongful acts of the court and David Lutz. In the next
7 paragraph he points out that he is already complaining
8 about Brad Green and his conduct. Now at that time Brad
9 Green would have been Attorney General.
10 So I wanted to take a moment to point those out because
11 that is the pattern of Mr. Amos' involvement in legal
12 proceedings. It is to question the ethical or legal
13 behaviour of virtually every lawyer or decision maker
14 involved in the proceeding. That is his pattern. It
15 continues. If you go to the next exhibit, or next
16 appendix, Appendix F, is a direction obviously from a
17 judge of the Federal Court of Appeal to the Appeal
18 Registry. Please advise the parties that Mr. Amos has the
19 right to submit a brief summary not to exceed five pages,
20 to explain the exact conflict that in his view arises in
21 this matter with any of the judges assigned to this appeal
22 and to submit any additional documents that are relevant
23 to the issue.
24 So in an ongoing -- and this is dated June 8th 2017 -- in

65
1 an ongoing action or appeal in the Federal Court of
2 Appeal, Mr. Amos is alleging conflict of the judges
3 assigned to the appeal. And that pattern continues, I
4 would submit, in the present -- in his appearances before
5 this Board. The final appendix, Appendix I, to the notice
6 of objection is a copy of the transcript of the hearing of
7 Mr. Amos' motion in Matter 357. And I think it's useful
8 to remember that that motion was a motion to deal with the
9 timing of the hearing of Matter 357. The Board had
10 previously granted NB Power's application or motion to
11 adjourn the proceeding on terms and Mr. Amos essentially
12 wanted that reheard. So not something that you would
13 regard as a contentious matter being the timing of the
14 hearing.
15 But Mr. Amos' comments to the Board on that occasion again
16 can only be characterized as confrontational. I reviewed
17 the transcript several times before today. There is not
18 really an argument in there that was germane to the issue
19 of the timing of the hearing. There was a lot of
20 extraneous material. And at the conclusion of his
21 remarks, and I have specifically placed this in the notice
22 of objection, when the Board Chair asked Mr. Amos if he
23 had anything further to say, his reply was essentially to
24 suggest to the Board Chair, and I will read what he said.

66
1 Yes. Can you think of one good reason why I don't sue
2 you, Mr. Gorman? You have my documents. Do you
3 understand what are on file in your Board? Do you not see
4 where I am already in federal court suing the Queen? Did
5 I not properly introduce myself before you allowed me to
6 be an intervenor? Did I not explain my issues to this
7 Board in no uncertain terms on June 15th? And he is
8 referring to an email that he had sent to a number of
9 parties on June 15th.
10 I think we can expect, and we have seen it again here this
11 morning, we can expect more of the same, arguments
12 unrelated to the issue before the Board presented in a
13 confrontational manner, which will, I would suggest to
14 you, eventually turn to actions in other courts. The
15 pattern is that when Mr. Amos runs against a lawyer who
16 acts against him, runs against a decision-maker who
17 doesn't agree with him, then that issue is relitigated in
18 other courts. And while I think the standard here is
19 simply one of is Mr. Amos likely to participate in a
20 reasonable fashion, I do think it's useful to compare the
21 situation to situations where courts have dealt with so-
22 called vexatious litigants.
23 So I am not suggesting that that's the standard that be
24 applied here -- that's not the standard to be applied

67
1 here. But I did submit to the Board yesterday afternoon a
2 copy of a decision of Mr. Justice Morrison. It's a very
3 recent decision in which he dealt with an issue of
4 determination of a vexatious litigant. And at page -- the
5 page numbering is a little weird in this document. I am
6 looking at paragraph 34 of the decision. It's on what's
7 referred to as page 68, but it's paragraph 34 of the
8 decision. And Mr. Justice Morrison noted that counsel on
9 that hearing were unable to provide him with any New
10 Brunswick cases considering the concept of a vexatious
11 litigant, but they were able to refer him to an Ontario
12 decision in Lang Michener Lash Johnston v Fabian. And in
13 that case, there is an outlining of the factors to be
14 considered in determining whether or not a party meets the
15 threshold of a vexatious litigant. And I won't go through
16 all of them, there are seven principles set out there, but
17 (d) in my view is of particular application here.
18 And Justice Henry said, it is a general characteristic of
19 vexatious proceedings that grounds and issues raised tend
20 to be rolled forward into subsequent actions and repeated
21 and supplemented, often with actions brought against the
22 lawyers who have acted for or against the litigant in
23 earlier proceedings.
24 And that's precisely Mr. Amos' pattern in the documents

68
1 that he, himself, has disclosed to the Board. While he
2 has here this morning indicated to the Board that his
3 interest revolves around issues of AMI in particular, and
4 the expenses and capital associated with the AMI, I submit
5 he is not capable of putting those positions forward in a
6 cogent, respectful, reasonable manner. His own history
7 demonstrates that and his conduct before this Board to
8 date confirms it.
9 And so while we are reluctant to make a request of this
10 nature -- I mean, we have had many lay participants in my
11 time before the Board. Mr. Rouse is here with us again
12 this year. I have never had any doubt about the issue
13 that Mr. Rouse wanted to talk about. He has always been
14 very clear. Mr. Hickey has been with us in the past. Mr.
15 Smith, on behalf of the Sussex Sharing Club is with us. I
16 have no doubt as to what the issue Mr. Smith wants to
17 raise. All have -- while there certainly have been some
18 adversarial proceedings around those interventions, all
19 have proceeded in a respectful fashion. And so while it
20 is not a step that we like to take, my submission is that
21 it is in the public interest not to permit Mr. Amos to
22 participate as an intervenor. He will delay and frustrate
23 this Board, and he will harass the participants -- other
24 participants in the proceeding. He will cause unnecessary

69
1 aggravation and probably expense. And so for those
2 reasons, Mr. Chair, we submit that he not be granted
3 intervenor status.
4 CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Furey. So, Mr. Amos, now you were
5 provided this morning with an hour to review Mr. Furey's
6 documents that he filed with the Board, and I think it was
7 three or four pages of documents. The balance of
8 documents were ones that you had filed in the past. So
9 you have had an opportunity to review his submission?
10 MR. AMOS: Absolutely.
11 CHAIRMAN: And you, of course, heard Mr. Furey's comments
12 that he has just concluded. So you know what the issue is
13 that he raises?
14 MR. AMOS: I heard every word he said.
15 CHAIRMAN: Okay. So do you have a -- do you have some
16 comments about what he is asking for?
17 MR. AMOS: Yes, Mr. Gorman, I do. First off, I am grateful
18 that he filed my documents in this matter. However, he
19 shouldn't cherry pick. If he is going to file my
20 documents, he should file all that he has received. But
21 dealing with the exhibits that he has filed, he has now
22 made a federal case out of a 2 percent rate hike. I
23 remind Mr. Furey that murder is a capital crime and when
24 he worked for the Attorney General of New Brunswick in

70
1 2004, who was Brad Green, his boss received evidence of
2 murder. Brad Green acknowledged it. He now sits on the
3 bench of the Court of Appeal.
4 Anyway, I had ran for Parliament in 2004, the 38th
5 Parliament against a member of your Board, John Herron.
6 That was when it was the Public Utilities Board. David
7 Young, who worked for another Crown Corporation, who is a
8 senior advisor to your Board now, I believe got fired
9 because I complained of him, because he wouldn't allow me
10 to speak on the radio and give me equal time as my
11 political opponents, just like Mr. Furey doesn't want me
12 to speak before the Board today, even though I am a
13 stakeholder in this hearing. He has no more standing here
14 than I do, other than he collects a big pay cheque that my
15 taxpayer funds are paying. But as an officer of the
16 court, he is obliged to uphold the law. He filed my
17 documents in this matter. I did not. He did. Then he
18 says I am vexatious. I am surprised he didn't call me
19 frivolous as well. The Crown usually calls me that. I
20 understand the term, vexatious. He is the man who is
21 vexatious.
22 In the 357 Matter, if we go first things first, there is a
23 transcript, which I have uploaded, you can review it or I
24 can read it to you. You asked me why I was intervening.

71
1 Exhibit A of his documents, I didn't know who Mr. Furey
2 was. I had no idea what lawyers or what was going on in
3 357, except on June 14th I heard on the radio Mr. Hyslop
4 had a motion before this Board in a pre-hearing to be paid
5 to help his assistant. I saw red. I remembered Mr.
6 Hyslop from the PUB. I remember Mr. Hyslop when I ran in
7 Saint John Harbour, while he run against Abe LeBlanc. I
8 remember I was intervening in an NEB hearing and arguing
9 Cedric Haines of NB Power while he worked for the Attorney
10 General. I remember talking to him about murdered
11 Indians. That said, all I had issues with was Mr. Hyslop
12 wanting paid again. I had checked from CBC and some years
13 he was paid like $700,000. I had issues with him in 2006.
14 David Young wouldn't let me speak before the PUB Board
15 even in a public hearing. So I had to send a farmer.
16 That said, I am asking Hyslop, you are the Public
17 Intervenor, what do you know of my concerns? I had
18 concerns about the refurbishment of Lepreau, Coleson Cove.
19 If you go on Charles LeBlanc's blog from April of 2006,
20 you can even see I was dealing with a lawyer named Richard
21 Costello -- same last name as you, sir -- who worked for
22 McInnes Cooper, who was hired by Venezuela to check with
23 the PUB as to when a pipeline went from the Irving
24 refinery to Coleson Cove. I wanted to know about that

72
1 too. So I talked to Mr. Costello. The email between Mr.
2 Costello and I is still in Charles LeBlanc's blog from
3 2006.
4 While I was running for Parliament in Fredericton, and I
5 doubt that Mr. Furey voted for me, I was running against
6 Andy Scott, Minister of Indian Affairs and he worked for
7 the Attorney General for Indian Affairs. Now I went to
8 high school with Andy Scott. Barb Baird used to be Brad
9 Green's boss. I went to high school with her too. Now I
10 don't know if you guys know who I am, but many people in
11 this neck of the woods do. My brother-in-law's law firm
12 partner helped Peter MacKay merge with Mr. Harper's party.
13 When I sued Americans over taxation and about improper tax
14 accountants like KPMG, Grant Thornton, ringing any bells?
15 That was in 2002. I am glad he brought up the Department
16 of Homeland Security. Those are the guys that tried to
17 take me to Cuba in 2003 after I started winning lawsuits.
18 You are right, I sue people that don't do their job.
19 Particularly, the people that are well paid to act in our
20 best interests. I file whistle-blower forms with the U.S.
21 tax man and they try to arrest me. You are right, I sue
22 them. A lawyer calls me a liar, well he better check my
23 work before he goes too far.
24 Anyway, NB Power, they have a mandate to uphold. It's a

73
1 Crown corporation. David Alward, 2013 comes out with a
2 new Act. Got to follow the Act, fellows. Now this
3 hearing 357 was supposed to be within three years. Now I
4 don't know -- I don't pretend to know something I don't.
5 All I heard was Hyslop wanted on the gravy train. I took
6 issue with that. I email the guy that speaks for the
7 Chairman of the Board. I have spoke personally to Ed
8 Barrett, personally. I have spoken to Mr. Scott, his
9 assistant. He has a very funny voice mail. Mr. Scott
10 loves hearing me speak on the radio and on television.
11 Mr. Scott was the guy I knew had the ear of the Chairman.
12 Now I served Derek Burney, who used to work with Mr.
13 Mulroney, just like his partner, Hugh Segal, right. I had
14 served Derek Burney my stuff after I ran for Parliament in
15 2006, got a signature. Why would I do that? Because NB
16 Power had hired Simpson Bartlett & Thatcher in New York to
17 sue Venezuela. Do you realize that Robert Mueller's
18 lawyer comes from Simpson Bartlett & Thatcher? Are you
19 realizing what's going on? Have you read the emails I
20 sent you? He talks about me in federal court on June 8th.
21 You are right I was in federal court, May 24th. Have you
22 reviewed the documents I filed in federal court since that
23 time?
24 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Amos, I am going to interrupt you for a

74
1 moment.
2 MR. AMOS: Murder is a capital crime, sir.
3 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Amos, the issue that Mr. Furey raises --
4 MR. AMOS: Is that I am vexatious.
5 CHAIRMAN: Well he says that he is reluctant to make this
6 objection, but he -- in his view, he says you are not
7 capable of putting positions forward in a cogent manner.
8 You are not --
9 MR. AMOS: Are you saying that?
10 CHAIRMAN: -- you are not speaking to the issue, which --
11 can I --
12 MR. AMOS: All right. Am I -- am I a person born and raised
13 in this province?
14 CHAIRMAN: The issue here --
15 MR. AMOS: Did I run for Parliament five times?
16 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Amos, it would be appreciated --
17 MR. AMOS: Are you aware of why I am barred? He brought it
18 up.
19 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Amos, it would be appreciated if you would
20 just listen for a moment. So the issue here is whether or
21 not you can stick to the issues that have to be dealt with
22 in this particular matter, which is a general rate
23 application. We are dealing with the spending --
24 MR. AMOS: Have you read the filings in this matter?

75
1 CHAIRMAN: Sir, would you just wait till I finish, please?
2 MR. AMOS: No, I am arguing him and you. You are on his
3 side clearly. Now your Vice-Chair will probably have the
4 job in February, used to work for City Hall. Do you
5 remember Mr. Nugent and I, sir?
6 CHAIRMAN: Sir, do you want to provide us with your --
7 MR. AMOS: You have many of my documents that he did not
8 file. I sent them to you by email. Do you remember
9 receiving the emails from me in 2007, sir?
10 CHAIRMAN: So one of the things that Mr. Furey says is --
11 MR. AMOS: Do you remember when Jack Keir appointed you? I
12 introduced myself to you then.
13 CHAIRMAN: Sir, excuse me, but one of the things he says is
14 you are not able to react in a --
15 MR. AMOS: You can't answer a question.
16 CHAIRMAN: -- in a respectful fashion and you are not paying
17 attention to the protocol here today.
18 MR. AMOS: All right. Let me ask you a question, sir?
19 CHAIRMAN: No, that's not what we are here for.
20 MR. AMOS: Have you understood one word I have said any time
21 we have met?
22 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Amos, do you have anything to add to the
23 record with respect to your respectful participation in
24 this matter, in this process? Mr. Furey says that you

76
1 don't have the ability to stay on topic.
2 MR. AMOS: Are you saying that?
3 CHAIRMAN: I am telling you what the argument is that has
4 been put forward.
5 MR. AMOS: I know what he said. I am asking you?
6 CHAIRMAN: And the argument that has been put forward is you
7 don't have the ability to --
8 MR. AMOS: I heard what he said. I told you that.
9 CHAIRMAN: -- stay on topic and to act in a respectful
10 manner.
11 MR. AMOS: All right.
12 CHAIRMAN: Can you give me any information on that issue?
13 CHAIRMAN: You are the Chairman of the Board. This is not
14 your decision solely. There is a Vice-Chair and another
15 man. One man is an accountant and the other a lawyer.
16 Now I don't know if the other two fellows read my
17 documents. I certainly hope that they did. The man who
18 is a chartered accountant should understand about Kevin
19 Dancy and I. He should certainly have understood what I
20 am doing in federal court. Now I thanked him for filing
21 documents, but one interesting document he brought up in
22 particular was the man I went to college with, Henrik
23 Tonning. He is a personal friend of mine.
24 Now if he had read that entire affidavit, I had been

77
1 summoned to the court by a lawyer to file an affidavit.
2 He failed to mention that. But Henrik Tonning and I were
3 once very good friends. That affidavit that he just put
4 in this matter no longer exists in provincial court.
5 That's fraud practiced against me by the court. Yes, I
6 have contempt against officers of the court that fail to
7 uphold the law. Yes, I do not hesitate in suing lawyers.
8 I have sued more lawyers, and law firms, and attorney
9 generals than probably anyone else on the planet. I am
10 before the federal court right now and you guys will be
11 mentioned in my next lawsuit that will be filed by
12 Christmas. Thank you for making it a federal matter.
13 That said my two friends have standing in this matter as
14 much as I do. You work for us.
15 I have my rights to my opinion and I don't have to suffer
16 insults. Ms. Harrison signed this document. I wonder if
17 she has even read it, but I consider it her insult. He is
18 merely her lawyer. Now his name is Furey. I served Brian
19 Furey in Newfoundland. He was President of the Law
20 Society in Newfoundland. I served George Furey, he is
21 Speaker of the Senate. He is from Newfoundland. I know
22 where this is going, federal court. As I told you, you
23 are not a court. And if you want to argue my documents,
24 we will argue before a judge that I do not have a conflict

78
1 of interest with.
2 Now I have a bone to pick with many judges in federal
3 court and a lot in the Court of Queen's Bench of New
4 Brunswick, but not all. And not every judge or every
5 lawyer is a crook. Some of them are actually friends of
6 mine. Only problem I have with them is they think I can't
7 pull this off. That the system is just too powerful.
8 Well could be. Call me crazy if you wish, I can be as
9 crazy as I want to be. How do you explain my having FBI
10 wiretap tapes of the mob and three weeks after he
11 mentioned about me being in federal court, the outgoing
12 Commissioner of the R.C.M.P. said beware of the mob. Bob
13 Paulson said that. And I am the guy with all the tapes.
14 You got a huge ethical dilemma, sir. You are an
15 accountant. You don't. You do. You are probably the
16 next Chair.
17 You can do with me what you will. I will still advise my
18 friends about their concerns about this 2 percent rate
19 hike and his concerns about meters we don't need. They
20 are ratepayers. They have the right to their opinion and
21 they have the right to have me for a friend and take my
22 counsel whether you want to argue me or not. Now he can
23 insult me. You haven't yet. I was grateful on the 14th
24 when I emailed Bob Scott. I didn't email Ms. Harrison. I

79
1 emailed David Young, who I knew, your senior advisor. And
2 I emailed Bob Scott, the guy who likes to make fun of me.
3 Ed Barrett's spokesperson. I did not think I could
4 intervene in 357. The nice lady acting as Clerk said
5 what, would you like to intervene? I said what, can I?
6 She said well the hearings haven't started yet. It's up
7 to the Board. It was a surprise to me. I wasn't looking
8 to intervene. And I said sure, I would love to. I love
9 to argue lawyers. It was Mr. Hyslop that was my target.
10 That said I come, I give the nice lady my intervenor form.
11 Mr. Furey sees no problem with me. He has a problem with
12 my friend, because he is a leader of a political party,
13 but you guys have no problem allowing David Coon to be an
14 intervenor and he is a seated MLA. That said, it is what
15 it is. You guys allowed me to intervene with exactly the
16 same information verbatim that I did this time. It was
17 the same document. That said, you allowed me. I was
18 grateful. When I introduced myself, he more or less
19 quoted me. Anyway I can -- you can review the transcript
20 or I can read it into the record in this matter, but I was
21 grateful and I said -- well let me read it, I should put
22 it in the record then.
23 This is from the transcript of the 15th after you were
24 done with my friend, Mr. Bourque. Chairman -- this is

80
1 page 7, line 21 of the transcript, June 15th. Chairman.
2 Thank you. I don't see anything similar on Mr. Amos'
3 intervenor request. So Mr. Amos, just to clarify you --
4 clarify, you are also requesting to intervene personally
5 on behalf of an organization? That was your question.
6 Page 8, line 1. I am here in my own name, speaking on my
7 own interests in this matter. And most of the other
8 intervenors and their lawyers know exactly who I am and
9 why I am here. And I emailed them -- I emailed Mr. Toner,
10 Mr. Hyslop. I emailed Bob Scott. I didn't know who Mr.
11 Furey was from a hole in the wall, right. Well, Mr. Amos,
12 are you a ratepayer of NB Power? Mr. Amos: I was born
13 and raised in this province. I have paid my share of
14 power bills and taxes that support this Board and NB
15 Power. I have issues with NB Power and this Board.
16 And I was speaking mainly of John Herron, the guy I ran
17 against in 2004, and David Young, your senior advisor. I
18 didn't know you. Didn't know the rest of you.
19 So your intervention though is in relation to the rate
20 design application? My interest in this matter, I stand
21 and speak only for myself. No Public Intervenor appointed
22 by the Province or this Board speaks for me. I speak for
23 myself. Now the lady is the Public Intervenor, she is
24 with McInnes Cooper, same law firm as Richard Costello.

81
1 The same law firm as Len Hoyt, the guy that picked the
2 Cabinet. He is also the lawyer for Enbridge. I see a
3 little conflict of interest going there. I see NB Power
4 hires Stewart McKelvey to litigate over Lepreau problems
5 and yet the same law firm is hired by J.D. Irving to
6 muscle this Board to get Mr. Irving wants. He brought up
7 Mr. Hickey. I have talked to Mr. Hickey for hours. Mr.
8 Hickey has some pretty serious issues.
9 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Amos, please hear me out. We have listened
10 to you now for 20 minutes or so, still haven't heard your
11 response to how you can participate in this proceeding in
12 a respectful manner and stick to the issues. The issue
13 here really is whether or not you will stick to the issues
14 if you are granted intervenor status and whether or not
15 you will act in a respectful manner. I need to have your
16 response to that issue. Everything else you have talked
17 about is off topic.
18 MR. AMOS: You just interrupted me, sir. Now I was
19 respectful the whole time any matter in this. Mr. Hyslop,
20 you asked for submissions, I gave submissions. You guys
21 made the decision. Mr. Hyslop wasn't allowed his pay
22 cheque. Then I thought I was done. He and Mr. Russell
23 invited me to a hearing at a Stewart McKelvey boardroom to
24 talk to Mr. Todd about his report --

82
1 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Amos, I am sorry, I am going to have to
2 interrupt again. You are not talking --
3 MR. AMOS: You are interrupting me because you don't want
4 me on -- to put this on the record.
5 CHAIRMAN: -- you are not talking about --
6 MR. AMOS: I am trying to address your question.
7 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Amos, I am directing you to talk about this -
8 - the issue before us --
9 MR. AMOS: I am telling you my answer.
10 CHAIRMAN: -- in this matter?
11 MR. AMOS: I am telling you my answer. I was invited to a
12 hearing, Chatham House Rule, so to speak, nothing leaves
13 the room. Mr. Furey and Mr. Russell -- Mr. Furey wanted
14 me to talk to him before this meeting. I saw NB Power on
15 my websites downloading my documents. I go to this
16 hearing. I am saying to Mr. Russell, where is Mr. Furey?
17 He don't call. He don't write. I am not going to sign
18 any disclosure document, right. Don't allow me in the
19 room if there is something you think I am going to spill
20 the beans on. I talked to Mr. Todd before he came from
21 Toronto. That said, they picked my brain at the hearing.
22 I say conflict of interest, McInnes Cooper, Stewart
23 McKelvey, et cetera, et cetera. I want to know things
24 having to do with 20 percent equity, where they arrived at

83
1 that number, what the equity was? Now I had many
2 questions in confidence. Mr. Todd -- I am asking Mr.
3 Russell these questions -- Mr. Todd keeps interrupting me
4 and says that's a matter for a hearing. I said fine, I
5 will ask the hearing -- I will ask before a hearing. So
6 then after that, Mr. Furey files a motion kill the
7 hearing.
8 CHAIRMAN: So, Mr. Amos, one --
9 MR. AMOS: Kill the hearing.
10 CHAIRMAN: -- Mr. Amos --
11 MR. AMOS: You are the guy who killed the hearing.
12 CHAIRMAN: -- Mr. Amos, one last time I am going to give you
13 an opportunity to address the issue of how you can
14 participate in a respectful and responsible manner. If
15 you don't want to talk about that topic, then we will take
16 an adjournment and we will consider the request that Mr.
17 Furey has made.
18 MR. AMOS: Have I been disrespectful to this Board?
19 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Amos, can you stick to --
20 MR. AMOS: Have I been disrespectful to this Board?
21 CHAIRMAN: -- sir -- sir, can -- sir, would you -- you have
22 interrupted constantly and I would like you to --
23 MR. AMOS: All right.
24 CHAIRMAN: -- do you --
84
1 MR. AMOS: I will leave it in your hands.
2 CHAIRMAN: -- do you have anything --
3 MR. AMOS: You decide.
4 CHAIRMAN: Thank you. All right. We will take a brief
5 recess.
6 (Recess)
7 CHAIRMAN: All right. I will now give the decision of the
8 Board on this matter.
9 Mr. Amos seeks intervenor status in Matter 375. NB Power
10 objects to his intervention claiming his conduct during
11 the hearing of a motion in Matter 357 was confrontational
12 and that his arguments lacked any connection to the issues
13 before the Board. The Board agrees with that assessment.
14 In the present matter, Mr. Amos was given ample
15 opportunity to put forward a case that would support a
16 respectful and responsible intervention. He failed to do
17 so, rolling forward issues raised in Matter 357 and not
18 addressing the issue before us today.
19 Mr. Amos states that the interests he would bring before
20 the Board are those raised by Mr. Bourque and Mr. Richard.
21 The Board is satisfied that those two intervenors can
22 adequately represent those issues. In addition, those
23 issues will undoubtedly be addressed by the Public
24 Intervenor and others.

85
1 The Board finds on a balance of probability that Mr. Amos
2 will not participate in this matter in a respectful and
3 responsible manner. As a result, the Board will exercise
4 its discretion and refuse intervenor status to Mr. Amos.
5 Intervention is encouraged but it must be responsible.
6 Mr. Amos may participate in the public session which date
7 will be announced shortly. But again he is reminded that
8 any presentation must be done in a respectful and
9 responsible manner.
10 Finally, Mr. Amos had indicated that he wished to assist
11 his two colleagues that are sitting with him today. And
12 certainly the Board has no issue with that at all. But
13 Mr. Amos will have no status at the hearing in terms of
14 cross-examination or making any argument.
15 So that is the decision of this Panel with respect to the
16 status of Mr. Amos.
17 Are there any other issues to deal with today? There
18 being no other issues, then we will adjourn.
19 (Adjourned)
20
21 Certified to be a true
22 transcript of the proceedings
23 of this hearing as recorded
24 by me, to the best of my ability.

EUB Halloween Transcript

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

EUB Halloween Transcript

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1

2 New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board

3 Commission de L'Energie et des Services Publics N.-B.

5 PARTICIPANTS - Matter 375

8 IN THE MATTER OF an application by New Brunswick Power

9 Corporation for approval of the schedules of the rates for the

10 fiscal year commencing April 1, 2018.

12 held at the Delta Hotel Saint John, New Brunswick, on October

24 Henneberry Reporting Service

3 1.01 - Notice of Application

4 1.02 - Avis de Requete

6 1.04 - Elements Probants

7 1.05 - Attachment 1 - 2018-19 Budget vs 2017-18 Forecast

9 1.06 - Pieces jointes 1 - 2018-19 Budget vs 2017-18 F Var2

10 1.07 - Attachment 2 - 2016-17 Actuals vs 2016-17 EUB Approved

12 1.08 - Pieces jointes 2 - Analyse de l'ecart 3 - Revenus pour

13 2016-17 par rapport au budget approuve par la

14 Commission pour 2016-2017

15 1.09 - Appendix A i. NB Power Proposed Rates and Schedules

17 1.10 - Annexe A ii. Baremes et politiques des tariffs (N et O)

18 1.11 - Appendix C 1. NB Power 10-Year Plan 2019-2028

19 1.12 - Appendix C ii. 2018-18 10 Year Plan Tables

20 1.13 - Appendix C iii. Plan decennal d'Energie NB 2010-2028

21 1.14 - Appendix C iv. Plan decennal - Tableaux pour les

22 exercises 2017 et 2028

23 1.15 - Appendix D i. NB Power Strategic Plan 2011-2040

24 1.16 - Appendix D ii. Plan stratgique d'Energie NB 2011-2040

1 1.17 - Appendix E - Mandate Letter 2015

3 1.18 - Appendix F i. 2016-17 NB Power Audited Financial

5 1.19 - Annex F ii. tats financiers consolides 2016-2017

6 1.20 - Appendix G - 2018-19 NB Power Budgeted Financial

8 1.21 - Appendix H - Detailed Financial Statements Redacted

9 1.22 - Appendix I - Continuous Improvement and Continuity

11 1.23 - Appendix J - Human Resources Overview

12 1.24 - Appendix J ii. Ressources Humaines D'Entreprise

13 1.25 - Appendix K - Continuity Schedule of Regular and

15 1.26 - Appendix L - Organizational Charts

16 1.27 - Appendix M - Nuclear Depreciation Detail

17 1.28 - Appendix N i. PLNGS Regulatory Deferral Continuity

19 1.29 - Appendix N ii. PDVSA Regulatory Deferral Continuity

21 1.30 - Appendix N iii. AFUDC Continuity Schedule

22 1.31 - Appendix N iv. AMI Regulatory Deferral Continuity

24 1.32 - Appendix O - 2018-19 PROMOD Input Output Report

1 1.33 - Appendix P - Generation Reliability Statistics March

4 1.34 - Appendix Q - Generation Reliability Statistics March

6 1.35 - Appendix R - Generation Reliability Statistics May 2017

7 1.36 - Appendix S i. 2018-2027 Load Forecast Update

8 1.37 - Annexe S ii. Mise jour sue la prvision des charges

10 1.38 - Appendix T - Load Forecast Model (if you have

11 difficulty opening this file, please contact the Board

12 at (506) 658-2504 or by email at general@nbeub.ca

13 / Si vous avez de la difficult a ouvrir ce fichier,

14 veuillez communiquer avec la Commission au (506) 658-

15 2504 ou par courriel general@cespnb.ca)

16 1.39 - Appendix U - 2018-19 Revenue Forecast Model

17 1.40 - Appendix V - 2018-19 NB Power Capital Projects

18 1.41 - Appendix W - Baseline and Solar Lease Study

19 1.42 - Appendix X i. AMI Project Investment Rationale

20 1.43 - Appendix X ii. Infrastructure de mesure avance (IMA)

21 1.44 - Appendix Y i. AMI project Investment Rationale Appendix

23 1.45 - Appendix Y ii. AMI Project Investment Rationale

1 1.46 - Appendix Y ii. AMI Project Investment Rationale

2 Appendix G Part iii

5 1.47 - Appendix Y iv. AMI Project Investment Rationale