Trust that I talked to both of these Offices while the Hearing of 541
Matter was in process this week and they are expecting this email just
like Mr Knecht, Mr Jones and his buddy Jesse are

From Document Number 60078 in the 430 Matter

Hydro‑Québec Annual Report

Auditors’ fees and independence
KPMG LLP, Ernst & Young LLP and the Auditor General of Québec
are Hydro‑Québec’s independent auditors for 2017. The professional
fees billed by KPMG LLP and by Ernst & Young LLP in 2017 for services
other than auditing and certification amounted to 13.8% of the total
$4.9 million in fees billed. Hydro‑Québec uses various mechanisms
to enable the Audit Committee to ensure that independent auditors
remain independent, including a process whereby any audit engagement
is analyzed beforehand. No professional service engagement
may be assigned to the Auditor General of Québec, since that office
serves the National Assembly exclusively.


Ethics
Hydro‑Québec attaches great importance to ethics in all aspects of its
activities. As a government-owned corporation, Hydro‑Québec must
demonstrate exemplary probity, and it can do so only with the consistent
support of its employees, who must meet the highest standards with
respect to ethics and irreproachable conduct. Loyalty, integrity, respect,
discretion and fairness are ethical principles reflecting Hydro‑Québec’s
social commitment to its customers and the community. Ethical rules
resulting from these principles are set out in the Code of Ethics and
Rules of Professional Conduct for Directors, Executives and Controllers of
Hydro‑Québec and in the employee Code of Conduct, which was updated
in 2017. The latter document, available (in French only) at www.hydroquebec.
com/data/a-propos/pdf/code-conduite.pdf, is intended to help
all employees fulfill their duties with integrity and loyalty, in accordance
with Hydro‑Québec’s ethical principles. The company’s ethics training
activities include a mandatory self-training program on these principles,
for all employees.

hydroquebec.com

HYDRO-QUÉBEC
Édifice Jean-Lesage
75, boulevard René-Lévesque Ouest
20e étage
Montréal (Québec) H2Z 1A4
CANADA
Telephone: 514 289-2211, ext. 2316
E-mail: accueil@hydro.qc.ca

INVESTOR RELATIONS
Édifice Jean-Lesage
75, boulevard René-Lévesque Ouest
5e étage
Montréal (Québec) H2Z 1A4
CANADA
Telephone: 514 289-2518
E-mail: rel.inv@hydro.qc.ca
Hydro‑Québec wishes to thank all
the employees and suppliers whose photos
appear in this Annual Report.

© Hydro-Québec
Affaires corporatives et secrétariat général
Reproduction authorized with reference to source
Legal Deposit – 1st quarter 2018
Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec
ISBN 978-2-550-80381-2
2017G300A
This is a translation of the original French text.
The French version shall prevail.
Ce document est également diffusé en français.



https://www.gov.mb.ca/minister/min_finance.html

 
 

 

Cliff Cullen   

    Deputy Premier
    Minister of Finance
    Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro

 Minister's Office
Phone: 204-945-3952
Fax: 204-945-6057
Email minfin@leg.gov.mb.ca

103 Legislative Building
450 Broadway
Winnipeg, MB R3C 0V8

Deputy Minister's Office
Richard Groen
Phone: 204-945-5343
Email dmfin@leg.gov.mb.ca

109 Legislative Building
450 Broadway
Winnipeg, MB R3C 0V8



NEW BRUNSWICK ENERGY and UTILITIES BOARD
COMMISSION DE L’ENERGIE ET DES SERVICES PUBLICS N.-B.
Matter 541
    Relating to an application by New Brunswick Power Corporation
pursuant to subsection 103(1) of the Electricity Act for approval of
the Schedule of Rates for the fiscal year commencing April 1st 2023.

    Held at the Fredericton Convention Centre, Fredericton, N.B. on
February 22, 2023.
Members of the Board:
                  Mr. Francois Beaulieu - Chairperson
                  Ms. Heather Black     - Member
                  Ms. Stephanie Wilson  - Member
Counsel to Board Staff - Mr. Gary Lawson, Q.C.
-       Ms. Abigail Herrington


Page 1343

Q. - Is that the test that you use in terms of providing information
to the Board, that if it doesn’t alter your evidence, doesn’t change
your view, you don’t think you should provide it to the Board?  Recall
that you said to me yesterday that in your role as an expert, you
accepted that it is your obligation to point out evidence that is both
supportive of your opinion and not supportive of your opinion?
        A.  And I agree, sir.  It wasn’t me trying to hide it.  It is
nothing nefarious.  It is difficult to consistently and continuously
find ways to update evidence for all new evidence.  It would be -- I
am not entirely sure how I would have even gone about doing it.   I
mean, it would have been some change.  It was, again, a 5 percent
reduction from where the level was.  And in my opinion, given the
nature of the reduction, it wouldn’t have changed my recommendation
given the statement that I made.  I am not recommending that the
benchmarking analysis be used as the specific reduction to the
capitalized costs.
Q. - Okay.
        A.  Had I been and had I said in my evidence 35.9 percent from
Manitoba Hydro is the key test and the key point upon which to base
the capitalization ratio on and I had developed evidence to suggest
that the two entities were -- that being Manitoba Hydro and NB Power
-- very much alike, which I didn’t do, then I would have updated it.
But in this case it just didn’t -- it is a lot of information to track
and update and I mean it goes to materiality I would say, sir.  I am
not suggesting that a change of 35.9 to 31 percent isn’t necessarily
material.  It wouldn’t be material to my recommendation.
Q. - And it would have been a pretty easy update to make, right?  It
is just saying Manitoba Hydro’s actual is down to 31 percent in 21/22.




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: NBEUB/CESPNB <General@nbeub.ca>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2023 17:04:49 +0000
Subject: RE: Matter 541 - Response to Undertaking #32
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>


Thank you for your email to the New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board.

Confidentiality Notice
This message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. It must not be forwarded unless permission has been
received from the sender. Disclosure to anyone other than the intended
recipient does not constitute a waiver of privilege. If you have
received this message inadvertently, please notify the sender, delete
the message and then delete your response. Thank you.
Avis de confidentialité
Ce message ainsi que tout fichier qui pourrait l’accompagner sont
confidentiels et destinés uniquement à l'usage de la personne ou de
l'entité à laquelle ils sont adressés. Il ne doit pas être réacheminé
sans la permission de l'expéditeur. La divulgation à toute personne
autre que le destinataire prévu ne constitue pas une renonciation au
privilège. Si vous avez reçu ce message par inadvertance, veuillez en
informer l'expéditeur, supprimer le message, puis votre réponse.
Merci.


-----Original Message-----
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 12:13 PM
To: Abigail J. Herrington <Aherrington@lawsoncreamer.com>;
dmadsen.consulting@gmail.com
Cc: NBP Regulatory <NBPRegulatory@nbpower.com>; Mitchell, Kathleen
<Kathleen.Mitchell@nbeub.ca>; louis-philippe.gauthier@cfib.ca;
frederic.gionet@cfib.ca; david.sollows@gnb.ca; Daly, Gerard
<daly@nbnet.nb.ca>; hanrahan.dion@jdirving.com;
nrubin@stewartmckelvey.com; coneil@stewartmckelvey.com;
lmclements@stewartmckelvey.com; brudderham@stewartmckelvey.com;
Brandy.Gellner@libertyutilities.com;
dave.lavigne@libertyutilities.com; Gilles.volpe@libertyutilities.com;
JohnFurey@fureylegal.com; Petrie, Jamie <JPetrie@nbpower.com>; Murphy,
Darren <DaMurphy@nbpower.com>; Crawford, Brad <BCrawford@nbpower.com>;
Gordon, Laura <LGordon@nbpower.com>; NBEUB/CESPNB <General@nbeub.ca>;
Young, Dave <Dave.Young@nbeub.ca>; Dickie, Michael
<Michael.Dickie@nbeub.ca>; Veronique Otis <Veronique.Otis@nbeub.ca>;
Colwell, Susan <Susan.Colwell@nbeub.ca>; dustin@emrydia.com; Melissa
Curran <Melissa.Curran@nbeub.ca>; Vincent.musco@bateswhite.com;
richard.williams@gnb.ca; rdk@indecon.com;
tyler.rajeski@twinriverspaper.com;
darcy.ouellette@twinriverspaper.com; Hoyt, Len
<len.hoyt@mcinnescooper.com>; paul.black@twinriverspaper.com;
tammy.grieve@mcinnescooper.com; jeff.garrett@sjenergy.com;
shelley.wood@sjenergy.com; dan.dionne@perth-andover.com;
pierreroy@edmundston.ca; pzarnett@bdrenergy.com;
sstoll@stollprofcorp.com; Waycott, Stephen <SWaycott@nbpower.com>
Subject: Re: Matter 541 - Response to Undertaking #32

Why didn't you and Mr. Madsen ever respond to my calls and email?



On 2/22/23, Abigail J. Herrington <Aherrington@lawsoncreamer.com> wrote:
> Good morning,
>
> Please find attached a marked up copy of Mr. Madsen's evidence
> denoting the corrections Mr. Madsen made to his evidence during his
> oral testimony yesterday. Unless others have an objection, we propose
> that it be marked for identification.
>
> Sincerely,
> Abigail
>
> Abigail J. Herrington | Associate (she/her)
>
> Direct: 506 633 3532  Fax: 506 633 0465  Web: lawsoncreamer.com
> Address: 133 Prince William Street Suite 801, Saint John New Brunswick
> E2L
> 2B5
>
> [cid:image001.png@01D94699.16FEFAD0][cid:image002.png@01D94699.16FEFAD
> 0]
>
> From: Abigail J. Herrington
> Sent: February 22, 2023 8:33 AM
> To: NBP Regulatory <NBPRegulatory@nbpower.com>; Mitchell, Kathleen
> <Kathleen.Mitchell@nbeub.ca>; louis-philippe.gauthier@cfib.ca;
> frederic.gionet@cfib.ca; David.Raymond.Amos333@gmail.com;
> david.sollows@gnb.ca; Daly, Gerard <daly@nbnet.nb.ca>;
> hanrahan.dion@jdirving.com; nrubin@stewartmckelvey.com;
> coneil@stewartmckelvey.com; lmclements@stewartmckelvey.com;
> brudderham@stewartmckelvey.com; Brandy.Gellner@libertyutilities.com;
> dave.lavigne@libertyutilities.com; Gilles.volpe@libertyutilities.com;
> JohnFurey@fureylegal.com; Petrie, Jamie <JPetrie@nbpower.com>; Murphy,
> Darren <DaMurphy@nbpower.com>; Crawford, Brad <BCrawford@nbpower.com>;
> Gordon, Laura <LGordon@nbpower.com>; NBEUB/CESPNB <General@nbeub.ca>;
> Young, Dave <Dave.Young@nbeub.ca>; Dickie, Michael
> <Michael.Dickie@nbeub.ca>; Veronique Otis <Veronique.Otis@nbeub.ca>;
> Colwell, Susan <Susan.Colwell@nbeub.ca>; dustin@emrydia.com; Melissa
> Curran <Melissa.Curran@nbeub.ca>; Vincent.musco@bateswhite.com;
> richard.williams@gnb.ca; rdk@indecon.com;
> tyler.rajeski@twinriverspaper.com;
> darcy.ouellette@twinriverspaper.com; Hoyt, Len
> <len.hoyt@mcinnescooper.com>; paul.black@twinriverspaper.com;
> tammy.grieve@mcinnescooper.com; jeff.garrett@sjenergy.com;
> shelley.wood@sjenergy.com; dan.dionne@perth-andover.com;
> pierreroy@edmundston.ca; pzarnett@bdrenergy.com;
> sstoll@stollprofcorp.com; Waycott, Stephen <SWaycott@nbpower.com>
> Subject: RE: Matter 541 - Response to Undertaking #32
>
> Good morning,
>
> Please see attached response to Undertaking Number 32.
>
> Thank you,
> Abigail
>
> Abigail J. Herrington | Associate (she/her)
>
> Direct: 506 633 3532  Fax: 506 633 0465  Web: lawsoncreamer.com
> Address: 133 Prince William Street Suite 801, Saint John New Brunswick
> E2L
> 2B5
>
> [cid:image001.png@01D94699.16FEFAD0][cid:image002.png@01D94699.16FEFAD
> 0]
>


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Roger Richard <rrichard@nb.aibn.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 12:00:09 -0300
Subject: Matter 458 - NB Power 2020-2021 General Rate Application /
Instance no 458 - Énergie NB Demande générale de tarifs pour 2020-2021
To: "Mitchell, Kathleen"<Kathleen.Mitchell@nbeub.ca>
Cc: "david.sollows@gnb.ca"<david.sollows@gnb.ca>,
"cstewart@stewartmckelvey.com"<cstewart@stewartmckelvey.com>,
"hanrahan.dion@jdirving.com"<hanrahan.dion@jdirving.com>,
"Paul.Volpe@libertyutilities.com"<Paul.Volpe@libertyutilities.com>,
"Gilles.volpe@libertyutilities.com"
<Gilles.volpe@libertyutilities.com>,
"dave.lavigne@libertyutilities.com"
<dave.lavigne@libertyutilities.com>,
"jeffery.callaghan@mcinnescooper.com"
<jeffery.callaghan@mcinnescooper.com>, "Romain.Viel@mcinnescooper.com"
<Romain.Viel@mcinnescooper.com>, "NBPRegulatory@nbpower.com"
<NBPRegulatory@nbpower.com>, "lcozzarini@nbpower.com"
<lcozzarini@nbpower.com>, "jfurey@nbpower.com"<jfurey@nbpower.com>,
"SWaycott@nbpower.com"<SWaycott@nbpower.com>, "bcrawford@nbpower.com"
<bcrawford@nbpower.com>, "wharrison@nbpower.com"
<wharrison@nbpower.com>, "JGagnon@nbpower.com"<JGagnon@nbpower.com>,
NBEUB/CESPNB <General@nbeub.ca>, "Lawton, John"
<John.Lawton@nbeub.ca>, "Dickie, Michael"<Michael.Dickie@nbeub.ca>,
"Young, Dave"<Dave.Young@nbeub.ca>, "Mitchell, Kathleen"
<Kathleen.Mitchell@nbeub.ca>, "dmadsen.consulting@gmail.com"
<dmadsen.consulting@gmail.com>, "Lawson, Gerald"
<glawson@lawsoncreamer.com>, "mletson@lawsoncreamer.com"
<mletson@lawsoncreamer.com>, "heather.black@gnb.ca"
<heather.black@gnb.ca>, "rdk@indecon.com"<rdk@indecon.com>,
"rrichard@nb.aibn.com"<rrichard@nb.aibn.com>, "sstoll@airdberlis.com"
<sstoll@airdberlis.com>, "jeff.garrett@sjenergy.com"
<jeff.garrett@sjenergy.com>, "dan.dionne@perth-andover.com"
<dan.dionne@perth-andover.com>, "pierreroy@edmundston.ca"
<pierreroy@edmundston.ca>, "ray.robinson@sjenergy.com"
<ray.robinson@sjenergy.com>, "pzarnett@bdrenergy.com"
<pzarnett@bdrenergy.com>

Bonjour Mme. Mitchell,

Voici une motion pour l’instance #458.

Merci,

Roger Richard


NEW BRUNSWICK ENERGY and UTILITIES BOARD
COMMISSION DE L’ENERGIE ET DES SERVICES PUBLICS N.-B.
Matter 541
    Relating to an application by New Brunswick Power Corporation
pursuant to subsection 103(1) of the Electricity Act for approval of
the Schedule of Rates for the fiscal year commencing April 1st 2023.

    Held at the Fredericton Convention Centre, Fredericton, N.B. on
February 22, 2023.
Members of the Board:
                  Mr. Francois Beaulieu - Chairperson
                  Ms. Heather Black     - Member
                  Ms. Stephanie Wilson  - Member
Counsel to Board Staff - Mr. Gary Lawson, Q.C.
-       Ms. Abigail Herrington

Page 1352


Q. - Okay.  And if we could go back to page 68 of Mr. Madsen’s --
  CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. Furey, would this be a good time just to take our recess?
  MR. FUREY:  At your convenience, Mr. Chair.
  CHAIRPERSON:  Okay.  Thank you.  So we are going to break for 15
minutes.  Thank you.
    (Recess)
  CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. Furey, just before you continue, the two documents
that I marked on behalf of the NBEUB, I think I have probably -- I
have put the wrong number.  So it should read NBEUB 4.01, and I was
just looking at the screen a few minutes ago when you were making
reference to that document, so that should -- it should not read 5.01,
it should be 4.01.
  MR. FUREY:  Sorry, 4.01?
  CHAIRPERSON:  4.01.
  MR. FUREY:  So the response to undertaking 32 is 4.01?
  CHAIRPERSON:  4.01.  And the errata should read NBEUB 4.02.
  MR. FUREY:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.
Q. - Thank you, Mr. Chair.  So, Mr. Madsen, I have just got two areas
left to cover.
        A.  Excuse me, sir.  Sorry, if you wouldn’t mind, I just have
-- just before we get into that, just a clarification on the subject
to check I provided you yesterday.
Q. - Yes, yes.
        A.  At transcript page 1251 in yesterday’s transcript, it says
subject to check as to the date that I commenced work for the NBEUB
Staff, and I said around October 28th or 29th.  Just to confirm, it
was October 27th.
Q. - Thank you, Mr. Madsen.  Ms. Curran, could we go to Mr. Madsen’s
evidence NBEUB 1.01 at page 28.  And if you need to go back a little
bit, Mr. Madsen, this is the section where you are talking about
capitalization rates generally.  I am going to ask you a couple of
questions on figure 2 on page 28.  It appears to me what you have done
is that you have taken a high level view of the labour capitalization
rates of a number of Canadian utilities and compared them.  Is that an
accurate summary?
        A.  That is an accurate summary, sir.
Q. - And would you agree with me that this is effectively benchmarking
at an entity level?
        A.  Yeah, it is a benchmarking exercise attempting to identify
whether or not there is any need to further explore numbers within NB
Power.  It is in an entity level.  That is a fair characterization.
Q. - And isn’t this the same -- exactly the same kind of exercise that
you cautioned against in your evidence in Matter 458?  And we can go
back to that, if you would like.
        A.  No need.  The caution I provided in Matter 458 was that
drawing any conclusion from an entity level type of benchmarking
assessment without getting into the detailed assessment is
problematic.  And I believe in my evidence down below, and you may be
taking me there, sir, but I believe I make that statement in my
evidence.   So at PDF page 29, lines 14 to 17 I say, in conclusion,
the above evidence suggests NB Power may be capitalizing a lower
percentage of permissible costs relative to NB Power’s peers in the
Canadian utility industry.  But further analysis of NB Power’s actual
practices and accounting policies are required.  So certainly if you
were to rely solely on a benchmarking analysis to recommend an
adjustment or a reduction, that would be inappropriate.
Q. - I am glad -- okay.  That has been a helpful clarification.  So I
just want to make sure that I understand this then.  You are not -- on
the basis of the analysis that you have done then, you are not
actually recommending that the Board adjust NB Power’s labour
capitalization rate to 30 percent in this proceeding?
        A.  Let me find a reference that might be helpful to bridge
this.  So in exhibit zero -- NBEUB -- sorry, 03.12 which were my
interrogatory responses to J.D. Irving, Limited, and specifically PDF
page 15 at the bottom when you get there, Ms. Curran.  Scroll down, if
you could, please.
        So I was asked a question by J.D. Irving, is it your opinion that
capitalization of the OM&A salaries as outlined is reasonable and
recommended?  I responded no, the analysis I prepared is largely a
benchmarking analysis, which is insufficient to support a specific
change in capitalization.
    So the analysis I performed is intended to provide context for an
apparent issue in relation to capitalization that may exist with NB
Power.   I identified in my evidence some other specific examples
where that may be supported by the actual accounting policies with NB
Power.  And I appreciate in the rebuttal evidence provided by NB Power
that additional clarification was provided as to what their
capitalization policies were.
        Despite that additional clarification, I think my core recommendation
remains, which is that it is the lower level of capitalization with NB
Power still generally remains unexplained relative to where the
capitalization rates are of the peers.
        So I do continue to recommend that further analysis be performed.
And I think that Mr. Knecht in his evidence agreed it provides a more
fulsome understanding of why the difference exists.  And why that is
important is if there are costs that do have a longer term benefit for
ratepayers that NB Power is expensing, I consider this Board should
know that in a transparent manner so that it can confirm that that
practice is reasonable and accepted.  Because if that practice is
occurring, then there are intergenerational equity considerations that
need to come into play.  The intent is to get a transparent
understanding of what is occurring. Hopefully that is helpful.
Q. - Okay.  That is very helpful.  Thank you.  Okay.  So I just have a
few follow-up questions on that.  If we could go back to Mr. Madsen’s
evidence, Ms. Curran, at page 30, I believe.
        So in the first paragraph on this page you do a calculation and you
do say, in fairness, to illustrate this point, which is consistent
with the point you just made about capitalization rates, if NB Power
capitalized on average 30 percent of its total labour costs, then you
do a calculation that would lead to a difference of $32.8 million,
correct?
        A.  That is correct, sir.
Q. - And Ms. Curran, if we could go to table 1 on page 6.   And so the
line item that reads, potential reduction related to capitalization of
costs, negative 32.8 million.  Can we take that out in terms of being
a recommendation for this proceeding?  You are not actually
recommending that the Board adjust capitalization in this proceeding
any longer?
        A.  It is included in the table as a potential reduction.  I
continue to consider it to be an important consideration because if
there is an under capitalization occurring, it should be adjusted for
sooner rather than later.  However, you are right, Mr. Furey, I am not
specifically recommending in this proceeding that the adjustment be
made to the rates.  I am suggesting that if the Board considers that
based on the evidence provided, there is adequate evidence to make an
adjustment, that would be an adjustment that is potentially available.
I am not specifically recommending that that adjustment be made.  My
preference would be to adjust the capitalization based on a more
detailed study.
Q. - So is it fair to say then that your recommendation is that there
be some additional benchmarking -- more detailed study -- I don’t like
to use the term benchmarking in this context, given our discussion
about its limitations, but your recommendation is that there be a more
detailed study produced by NB Power with respect to its level of
capitalization of labour?
        A.  Yes, that would be helpful.
Q. - Okay.
        A.  Going back to the previous capitalized overhead study that
was performed, I had questions -- we don’t have to go back to those --
that I had flagged in my evidence around the level of costs that are
being capitalized.  I think more understanding as to what is actually
being done would be helpful certainly, and I think I have expanded on
that in several information responses to several parties as well.
Q. - Okay.  And I just -- I am going to continue.  Let’s go back to
page 28, Ms. Curran.  So if we could go down to the bottom of that
page.  So that table that we just looked at that included a grouping
-- I am sorry, Ms. Curran, maybe we should go back up to the top of
the page.  That table includes utilities that are not integrated
utilities.  There are some transmission only, some distribution only
utilities, correct?
        A.  That is correct.  I included them in the table because I
do have, fortunately for NB Power, division level information for
transmission distribution generation and PLNGS, so it was to provide
another benchmark.
Q. - Okay.  Thank you.  And at the bottom of the page, if we could go
back down, you do refer to two utilities.  You say at the very last
lines 15 to 17, you say when NB Power’s totals compared to remaining
integrated regulated government owned utilities, the following are the
results, and we are going to go on to see that on the next page in a
second.  But the two we are talking about are Manitoba Hydro and BC
Hydro, correct?
        A.  That is correct, sir.
Q. - And at the top of the next page, we will see those two and you
show a level of capitalization.  So I guess my first question is
specific to Manitoba Hydro, when -- what years would this represent?
When -- what did you look at to analyze the Manitoba Hydro
capitalization rate?
        A.  So when I conducted this analysis, it was drawn from
Manitoba Hydro’s 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 interim rate application,
which would have been specifically the 2021 to 2022 budgeted amount.
Q. - And would you agree with me generally that capitalization rates
will -- one of the significant factors that could affect
capitalization rates is whether or not a utility is building large
projects versus a utility that has not been building large projects?
        A.  Yes, all else being equal, if the utility is utilizing
internal resources at an increased level through a large capital
build, there would be a larger level of capitalization of resources.
One consideration that needs to be made in that case too is as the
entity exits the large capital build, the redeployment of staff is an
important consideration, because if the staff was built up to perform
capital work, and that is no longer required, confirming that they are
properly aligned to actual day-to-day O&M -- OM&A work in the future
is an important consideration.  But yes, it is a variable that can
happen, particularly where an entity does not rely heavily on hired
services to perform the capital work, that is kind of at peak level.
 Q. - And Ms. Curran, could we go back to NBP 25.03 for a moment?  It
is undertaking 19.  And if we can go to the table on the second page.
        So if we look at the Mactaquac project, all the spending to date, you
can -- would you agree with me that approximately almost 99 percent of
the life achievement project costs are being capitalized?
        A.  Yes, sir.
Q. - And would that be typical in a very large construction endeavour
like the Mactaquac project?
        A.  Certainly the majority of the costs are going to be
capital in nature.  I would assume that the OM&A costs that are listed
here would be -- I don’t have a characterization as to what they would
be, but they probably be just some one-off cost that would be ordinary
in nature that would continue, maybe just incremental as a result of
this effort.
Q. - Okay.  And so you are based out of Calgary.  Presumably you have
a fair bit of knowledge about the utility sector in Western Canada, is
that generally correct?
        A.  Yes, Sir.
Q. - Would you agree with me that with respect to Manitoba Hydro, they
have just come out of a very significant period of capital expansion
related to the Bipole III and Keeyask  projects?
        A.  Yes, sir.
Q. - And generally the same as -- well, not the same for BC Hydro.  BC
Hydro is still in a process of large capital builds, are they not?
        A.  Yeah, there is some transmission Site C out in BC.
Q. - And Site C is a $16 billion project?
        A.  Yes, it is a very expensive asset.
Q. - So you would expect their capitalization rates to be higher
during that period of time?
        A.  Again, subject to my caveat, depending upon how they are
staffing up for those costs.  So I will give you an example, AltaLink
in Alberta added many billions of dollars in transmission
infrastructure to its assets over a very short period of time, but
relied entirely upon external contractors to do all of its
engineering, procurement and construction management work throughout
that period of time.  It had a consistent -- relatively consistent
level of internal capitalization of resources through that time as a
result.  So that didn’t change significantly.  So it can depend
greatly upon how much internal staff are utilized.
        Another example would be ATCO Electric.  They used internal staff --
subject -- during the same period of time when they had a large build.
At the conclusion of the build they terminated, I believe, 35 percent
of their workforce and incurred the severance costs related to that as
well, millions and millions of dollars.  So there is different
judgments that need to be made, but yes, certainly if you are
utilizing internal labour, you will have a higher level of
capitalization of internal resources.
Q. - Right.  And this is just all the more reason to have a more
granular understanding of the operational characteristics of any
benchmarking analysis.  So you -- to properly compare, you need to
understand whether the organization you are comparing to is in a
capital mode or a status quo mode.  You need to understand if they are
in a capital building phase, what is their approach?  Are they heavily
reliant on hired services?   Are they relying relatively more on
internal labour? Those are all things you need to understand, correct?
        A.  Correct.  And is why I recommend the more detailed study
be performed.
Q. - Okay.  And just one last question on this area.  Ms. Curran,
could you bring up the aid to cross that was circulated this morning?
  CHAIRPERSON:  Do you want it marked, Mr. Furey?
  MR. FUREY:  Yes, please, Mr. Chair.
  CHAIRPERSON:  So that will become ID -- I think we are at 11.  Yeah,
ID number 11.
Q. - So just a couple of questions on this, Mr. Madsen.  Could we go
down to the table figure 6.23 that appears on that page.  So two
questions.  So one, generally, would you agree that in the case of
Manitoba Hydro -- and by the way, this is an excerpt from their 23/24
24/25 GRA.  The date on it is November 15th 2022.   So would you agree
with me generally that the experience of Manitoba Hydro was generally
kind of as I described, the -- during the period of capital activity
associated with Bipole III and Keeyask, their capitalization rates
went up, and it peaked.  There was another project that was offsetting
the Bipole III wind down and then when all of it wound down, the
capitalization rates began to decrease fairly significantly.  Is that
a general -- generally accurate description of what is going on there?
        A.  Yes, sir, it is.  And it might be helpful context.  So I
am not sure if you are aware of this, sir, but I am retained in this
proceeding for a client in Manitoba Hydro.  So this is an important
issue that is being addressed in Manitoba.  As you see that wind down
from 34 percent in 20/21 -- 2020/21 down to kind of a more flat level
of 31 percent to 30 percent.  That is occurring at the same time as
operating costs are increasing significantly at Manitoba Hydro.  The
staff are not terminated.  They are being repurposed to OM&A costs.
As they were previously doing capital, they are now being repurposed
to other efforts.  So that is certainly an issue that is being
considered.
        I agree, broadly, the direction of how they have utilized their staff
is to use internal staff based on this figure to perform a significant
amount of the work related to these projects and that that has wound
down.   So for this specific utility, that is the case.
Q. - Right.  And it will vary according to how the work is done.  I
accept all that.  But in the case of Manitoba Hydro, that statement is
generally true, capitalization rates went up when they were in capital
build mode, and they came down as those projects finished?
        A.  Yes.
Q. - Okay.  When were you retained in that matter?
        A.  That is a great question.  Do you want a specific day, sir?
Q. - Well, was it before you filed your evidence in this matter?
        A.  It would have been.  Yes, yes.
Q. - Yes.  Okay.
        A.  So I was aware of this table -- this figure in preparing
my evidence.  The more detailed calculations that I would have relied
upon to perform the 35.9, I believe is the calculation I used for
Manitoba Hydro, I think came out through the interrogatory phase of
the proceeding.  I had comfort though that when I was looking at my
analysis at 30 percent, that is generally the level at which I did my
initial estimate and potential calculation when I estimated what would
be a revised amount.  So I didn’t feel that there was any need to
adjust it.  As we have discussed, the levels have changed.  My number
was 35 point -- subject to check, 35.9, which is relatively consistent
with the level during the 2020/2021 period.  And hopefully that is
helpful.  I was aware of it but didn’t have the detailed information
to update the graph in time to include it in my evidence.
Q. - So you told me a little earlier that your analysis with respect
to calculating these rates was based on, I think you said, 2019/20 and
2020/21 interim rate application, correct?
        A.  No, my apologies.  There was a number in the budget, and I
believe I filed these tables in response to an information request
from NB Power.  But it was the 2021 to 2022 budget number.
Q. - Okay.  Well the record will tell us that.  But in any event, when
you filed the table -- or your evidence, the table that appears at
page 29 of your evidence which shows, as you say, Manitoba Hydro
capitalizing at approximately 36 percent, you were aware of this table
that is up on the screen now that showed actual capitalization from
Manitoba Hydro to be 31 percent in 2021/22, correct?
        A.  So I prepared the table, this initial table, in work
related to the information request that was put to NB Power.  And sir,
maybe you could refresh for me when the interrogatories were
submitted, it was some time in November, I believe?  I prepared this
table in advance -- this figure in advance of the information request
to NB Power because we cited some information from this table in --
Q. - Yeah, you put this evidence in the interrogatory request.
        A.  That is correct, sir.
Q. - But you weren’t relying on NB Power -- NB Power didn’t give you
this number to come to 35.9 percent?
        A.  No, sir, no.  So again, this table that was put into my
evidence was created in advance to assist with the information request
process.  Following from that, I believe we asked interrogatories in
this case.  It would have been right after, I think, I filed evidence
in this matter for Manitoba when I would have become more aware of the
number for 31 to 30 percent.  Certainly wouldn’t have been aware of it
on the date that the application was filed on November 15th.  I,
unfortunately, cannot read that fast.
Q. - Right.  But your evidence -- you indicated earlier that you were
retained in this -- in the Manitoba matter before you filed your
evidence in this matter?
        A.  Yes.
Q. - And so you would have been aware of this table.  And I guess I am
wondering why you would not have updated your table figure 3 on page
29 to account for a relatively significant decline in the
capitalization -- actual capitalization rates from Manitoba Hydro and
the budgeted capitalization rates in the Manitoba Hydro application.
I mean, that is a drop of 5 percent, isn’t it?
        A.  Closer to 6 -- Yeah, about 5 percent depending on which
number you are you are tracking to, sir.  I suppose the answer is it
wouldn’t have changed my recommendation had I even used a -- had I put
in 30 percent, it wouldn’t have altered my evidence in any way, shape
or form.  NB Power is still well below that number.
Q. - Is that the test that you use in terms of providing information
to the Board, that if it doesn’t alter your evidence, doesn’t change
your view, you don’t think you should provide it to the Board?  Recall
that you said to me yesterday that in your role as an expert, you
accepted that it is your obligation to point out evidence that is both
supportive of your opinion and not supportive of your opinion?
        A.  And I agree, sir.  It wasn’t me trying to hide it.  It is
nothing nefarious.  It is difficult to consistently and continuously
find ways to update evidence for all new evidence.  It would be -- I
am not entirely sure how I would have even gone about doing it.   I
mean, it would have been some change.  It was, again, a 5 percent
reduction from where the level was.  And in my opinion, given the
nature of the reduction, it wouldn’t have changed my recommendation
given the statement that I made.  I am not recommending that the
benchmarking analysis be used as the specific reduction to the
capitalized costs.
Q. - Okay.
        A.  Had I been and had I said in my evidence 35.9 percent from
Manitoba Hydro is the key test and the key point upon which to base
the capitalization ratio on and I had developed evidence to suggest
that the two entities were -- that being Manitoba Hydro and NB Power
-- very much alike, which I didn’t do, then I would have updated it.
But in this case it just didn’t -- it is a lot of information to track
and update and I mean it goes to materiality I would say, sir.  I am
not suggesting that a change of 35.9 to 31 percent isn’t necessarily
material.  It wouldn’t be material to my recommendation.
Q. - And it would have been a pretty easy update to make, right?  It
is just saying Manitoba Hydro’s actual is down to 31 percent in 21/22.
        A.  Yes, then I also would have had to update the information
for AltaLink, ATCO Electric, Hydro One, BC Hydro from more current
information.  I am looking at -- so why I did the analysis, was this
information is not always presented in the form it is.  The entities
that I was able to isolate all had consistent information from 2021 to
2022 based on the data at that period of time.  If I update one party
to 2023 or more current information, I would have to update them all
or start excluding parties from the list and adding new parties that
have new information.  It would have been a not as simple of an
exercise to update one single number, sir.
Q. - Well, I am glad that you agree that it is inappropriate to update
one single number.  Thanks for that.  One last area, Mr. Madsen.  Ms.
Curran, could we go back to NBEUB 4.01.  It’s the response the
undertaking number 32.   Sorry.  Maybe we are -- maybe I have
misunderstood.  Oh no.  I have made the wrong reference.  Ident 10,
please.  Identification number 10.
        So before we refer to this document, Mr. Madsen, you were not asked
to make any or give any opinion in this matter with respect to NB
Power’s net earnings, is that correct?
        A.  Sorry, sir.  I’m just going to bring up the engagement
letter here really quick.
  MR. LAWSON:  Just for clarity, are we talking about this current
matter or the Matter 458?
  MR. FUREY:  This current matter.
  MR. LAWSON:  Thank you.
        A.  So the scope of work was to provide findings and
recommendations regarding the following issues.  Operation and
maintenance costs -- I’m sorry.  I’m referring -- I’m at exhibit NBEUB
03.02, PDF page 13.  And I will restart.  Provide findings and
recommendations regarding the following issues.  Operation and
maintenance costs, information technology costs, storm contingency
costs, interest costs, revenues and net earnings and capital
expenditures.  So net earnings was subject to the review, yes.
Q. - I don’t see it.  Where were you reading from?
        A.  The scope of work from the engagement letter at PDF page
13 under item 1.  Towards the end there, sir.
Q. - And can you point me to anything in your report where you address
the issue of net earnings?
        A.  I do not.  The -- in Matter 458 I had commented that to
some extent on the nature of the net earnings and the potential
methodology for smoothing out or coming up to a more concrete
calculation for net earnings.  In this matter I had noted the majority
of the applied for increases and costs were outside of net earnings.
The amount applied for for net earnings is quite small.  So I did not
specifically address that cost.
Q. - So you were asked to but did not?
        A.  No, I did.  I reviewed the calculation of net earnings,
how it was derived.  It is -- continues to be a -- for lack of a
better word -- a plug, an amount that gets to an overall revenue
number at the end based on all other elements of the revenue
requirement application as applied for.
Q. - Okay.  But as I read scope of work in item number I here, if we
just read around all the other stuff, it says, Emrydia will review the
application and provide findings and recommendations regarding
revenues and net earnings.  You didn’t provide any finding or
recommendation regarding net earnings?
        A.  Yes, sir.  And the main reason is is because after a
review of the application, I wouldn’t have recommended in the context
of an 8.9 percent increase, even after factoring in the recommended
reductions, much of a further increase in net earnings at that point.
I didn’t think it was necessary.
Q. - I’m sorry.  Could you repeat that?
        A.  After looking through and in the context of an 8.9 percent
application for a rate increase, which is what NB Power is seeking,
when I looked at the applied for net earnings, I did not consider it
would be appropriate to recommend an increase in net earnings.
Q. - Okay.  So could we go back to identification number 10, Ms.
Curran.  And if we go to page 2 of the PDF.
        So you have titled this as -- it’s section 4 of your evidence in
Matter 458, NB Power’s Approach to Achieving the Legislated Equity
Ratio.  But what you are really talking about here is the level of net
earnings designed to achieve that, correct?
        A.  That’s correct, sir.
Q. - And if we could go to page 17 of the document, Ms. Curran.  It’s
probably PDF 5 or 6.  Yes.  Paragraph 66.  That’s right.  Thank you.
        And so at that time in the context of that application, you agree
with me that you expressed the opinion that it was important that NB
Power achieve the equity ratio of 20 percent by 2027, correct?
        A.  That is correct, sir.
Q. - And you have sat through this proceeding.  Would you agree that
NB Power’s financial condition has deteriorated since the time of that
application?
        A.  Yes, sir.  And I’m as surprised as Mr. Knecht.  I have
heard statements to the effect that there is an additional $30 million
of interest expense being incurred above the forecast, if I understand
that correctly, which by my math, at a 4 percent rate, implies that
there was an additional $750 million of interest -- or debt, pardon me
-- issued, which is significant.  Very significant.
        I agree that there appears to be a position, the position is
deteriorating.  And I agree that the current target remains to be 2027
for achieving the equity ratio, and it’s certainly becoming more
difficult.
Q. - Okay.  So let’s just take a step back on your calculation of $750
million in new debt.  You would agree with me that Mr. Good’s evidence
indicated that that $30 million increase was a combination of the
increase in rates today over forecast and an increase in debt.  So
it’s not all related to an increase in debt, you would agree with
that?
        A.  Certainly.  But if it’s still a $30 million increase over
what is applied for in 2023/2024, whether you are -- if you are simply
replacing debt at a lower rate with debt at a higher rate, then you
would be actually increasing the amount of debt that you would overall
be issuing.
Q. - Right.  But if half of the $30 million increase arises because
short-term interest rates have gone up from the forecast of 3.1
percent to 4.75 percent, that’s not an increase in debt.  That’s just
an increase in the rate of existing debt.
        A.  And so I think that’s the point of clarification.  Is it a
$30 million increase in interest costs based on what is assumed in the
existing forecast, or is it a $30 million increase in interest based
on a change from a previous point in time?
    It could be helpful to bring up exhibit 07.03 to see the trend in
interest expenses, if you want to go there, sir.  But I wasn’t clear
as to whether or not NB Power is asking for what would in effect -- or
suggesting what is in effect an increase of interest costs from
ballpark $200 million to $230 million, and that’s from a forecast
number.  If that is the case, that is a very significant material
change in interest expense in the test period.  And I don’t think it’s
understood, to be clear.  And it is alarming for sure if that is the
case.
Q. - Okay.  So we agree that hitting 20 percent by 2027 is important,
and if we go to page 19 -- so two more pages in, Ms. Curran, at
paragraph -- the top of that page.  Right.
        So now, Mr. Madsen, I’m not going to make this out to be more than it
is because you go on later in this to say you are not sure whether you
are actually recommending at that time a $71 million -- a $78 million
income level, but you do agree with me that at that time in this table
for estimate of reasonable net earnings, you were recommending to the
Board that an estimate of reasonable net earnings for NB Power to
achieve $499 million improvement by 2027 was in the range of 78 to 88
million dollars over that six year period?
        A.  Yes, sir.
Q. - And you were here when Mr. Knecht testified yesterday?
        A.  Yes, sir.
Q. - And that’s roughly -- maybe at the low end, but certainly roughly
where Mr. Knecht was as well.  He was indicating somewhere in the 80
to hundred million dollar range, correct?
        A.  Well in order to close the gap, so to say, yes, you would
need to have a pretty significant increase in net earnings, which was
why I was somewhat surprised at NB Power’s applying for a lesser
amount than that, although obviously in the context of the applied for
increase, right.  As I think Mr. Knecht said, if you were to apply for
an $80 million increase above the increase already applied for, you
are in the order of magnitude of something around 14 percent, subject
to check.
  MR. FUREY:  Thank you, Mr. Madsen.  I appreciate your time this
morning.  Those are all my questions, Mr. Chair.
  CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you, Mr. Furey.  So just looking at the time, I
think we are going to break for lunch.  And Mr. Daly, are you going to
have any questions for this witness?
  MR. DALY:  No, Chair.
  CHAIRPERSON:  Okay.  Thank you.  And Ms. Rubin, any questions for
this witness?
  MS. RUBIN:  Yes, I will.
  CHAIRPERSON:  Okay.  So we will resume at 1:00 with your questions.
Thank you.
    (Recess  -  12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m.)




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 14:26:12 -0300
Subject: YO Higgy Methinks I should remind Minister Mikey Holland ,
your Attorney General, the EUB and NB Power's lawyers what the EUB
said to Lori Clark long ago N'esy Pas???
To: blaine.higgs@gnb.ca, heather.black@gnb.ca, SWaycott@nbpower.com,
John.Lawton@nbeub.ca, Dave.Young@nbeub.ca, mike.holland@gnb.ca,
glawson@lawsoncreamer.com, mletson@lawsoncreamer.com,
david.sollows@gnb.ca, Heather.Quinn@gnb.ca,
hanrahan.dion@jdirving.com, cstewart@stewartmckelvey.com,
sstoll@airdberlis.com
Cc: ross.wetmore@gnb.ca, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>,
jeveritt@unb.ca, trampersaud@townofriverview.ca,
andrea.johnson@pcnb.org, slmaceachern@gmail.com,
kathy.bockus@pcnb.org, Tammy.Scott-Wallace@pcnb.org,
dunnstheone@btss.ca, Arlene.Dunn66@gmail.com,
jill.green.fton@gmail.com, info@forestsinternational.org,
dana@forestsinternational.org, dorothy.shephard@gnb.ca,
Kevin.Price@gnb.ca, info@onbcanada.ca, dale.morgan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
"Mark.Blakely"<Mark.Blakely@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Roger.Brown"
<Roger.Brown@fredericton.ca>, "martin.gaudet"
<martin.gaudet@fredericton.ca>, "Brenda.Lucki"
<Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "barbara.massey"
<barbara.massey@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "barb.whitenect"
<barb.whitenect@gnb.ca>, "Robert. Jones"<Robert.Jones@cbc.ca>,
lclark@nbpower.com, colleen.dentremont@atlanticaenergy.org,
"Bill.Morneau"<Bill.Morneau@canada.ca>, premier <premier@ontario.ca>,
Office of the Premier <scott.moe@gov.sk.ca>, premier
<premier@gov.ab.ca>, wharrison <wharrison@nbpower.com>, gthomas
<gthomas@nbpower.com>, Andrea.AndersonMason@gnb.ca, jesse
<jesse@viafoura.com>, news <news@dailygleaner.com>, nben@nben.ca,
premier <premier@gnb.ca>, "dominic.leblanc.c1"
<dominic.leblanc.c1@parl.gc.ca>, wendy.brewer@gnb.ca, "Dominic.Cardy"
<Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca>, "jeff.carr"<jeff.carr@gnb.ca>,
oldmaison@yahoo.com, andre <andre@jafaust.com>,
"Ginette.PetitpasTaylor"<Ginette.PetitpasTaylor@parl.gc.ca>,
"Sherry.Wilson"<Sherry.Wilson@gnb.ca>, megan.mitton@gnb.ca,
"David.Coon"<David.Coon@gnb.ca>, "Arseneau, Kevin (LEG)"
<Kevin.A.Arseneau@gnb.ca>, Newsroom <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>,
Nathalie Sturgeon <sturgeon.nathalie@brunswicknews.com>, "mary.wilson"
<mary.wilson@gnb.ca>, "steve.murphy"<steve.murphy@ctv.ca>,
"nick.brown"<nick.brown@gnb.ca>, "robert.mckee"
<robert.mckee@gnb.ca>, "Kevin.Vickers"<Kevin.Vickers@gnb.ca>,
"Tim.RICHARDSON"<Tim.RICHARDSON@gnb.ca>, "Trevor.Holder"
<Trevor.Holder@gnb.ca>, "rick.desaulniers"<rick.desaulniers@gnb.ca>,
"michelle.conroy"<michelle.conroy@gnb.ca>, "Mike.Comeau"
<Mike.Comeau@gnb.ca>, "carl. davies"<carl.davies@gnb.ca>,
"carl.urquhart"<carl.urquhart@gnb.ca>, "Cathy.Rogers"
<Cathy.Rogers@gnb.ca>, "robert.gauvin"<robert.gauvin@gnb.ca>,
"Roger.L.Melanson"<roger.l.melanson@gnb.ca>, "ron.tremblay2"
<ron.tremblay2@gmail.com>, philippe@dunsky.com,
Steven_Reid3@carleton.ca, "darrow.macintyre"
<darrow.macintyre@cbc.ca>, "Chuck.Thompson"<Chuck.Thompson@cbc.ca>,
"sylvie.gadoury"<sylvie.gadoury@radio-canada.ca>,
jefferson@ufoparty.ca, cfta@eastlink.ca, votemaxime@gmail.com,
heather.collins.panb@gmail.com, lglemieux@rogers.com, nobyrne@unb.ca,
.andre@jafaust.com, Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca, mckeen.randy@gmail.com,
atlanticnews@ctv.ca, gregory.craig@skadden.com,
Patrick.Fitzgerald@skadden.com, ed.pilkington@guardian.co.uk,
ron.klain@revolution.com, Jason.Hoyt@gnb.ca, news
<news@hilltimes.com>, "andrea.anderson-mason"
<andrea.anderson-mason@gnb.ca>, claude.poirier@snb.ca, "Katie.Telford"
<Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>, "Jody.Wilson-Raybould"
<Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca>, "David.Lametti"
<David.Lametti@parl.gc.ca>, "Jane.Philpott"
<Jane.Philpott@parl.gc.ca>, "hugh.flemming"<hugh.flemming@gnb.ca>,
tolson@gibsondunn.com, bginsberg@pattonboggs.com,
mark.vespucci@ci.irs.gov, pm@pm.gc.ca, Office@tigta.treas.gov,
Juanita.Peddle@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, police@fredericton.ca,
Frank.McKenna@td.com, Kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, terry.seguin@cbc.ca,
Charles.Murray@gnb.ca, aip-aivp@gnb.ca, mark@huddle.today,
perry.brad@radioabl.ca

---------- Original message ----------
From: "Anderson-Mason, Andrea Hon. (JAG/JPG)"<Andrea.AndersonMason@gnb.ca>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 16:54:11 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: YO Higgy Methinks whereas there is no
transcript available that supports the EUB decision about "Not So
Smart" Meters folks are entitled to know what my friend Roger Richard
before the election N'esy Pas???
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Thank you for your email. Your thoughts, comments and input are
greatly valued.  You can be assured that all emails and letters are
carefully read, reviewed and taken into consideration.
Thank you.


Merci pour votre courriel. Nous vous sommes très reconnaissants de
nous avoir fait part de vos idées, commentaires et observations. Nous
tenons à vous assurer que nous lisons attentivement et prenons en
considération tous les courriels et lettres que nous recevons.
Merci.

Andrea Anderson-Mason, Q.C. / c.r.



---------- Original message ----------
From: NBEUB/CESPNB <General@nbeub.ca>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2020 16:35:06 +0000
Subject: RE: YO Minister Mikey Holland RE The Not So Smart Meter Games
I trust that your lawyer or Ellen Desmond can explain what the EUB has
acknowledged before I take you people to a REAL COURT
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>


Thank you for your email to the Energy and Utilities Board.


 ***

 La Commission de l'énergie et des services publics du
Nouveau-Brunswick vous remercie pour votre courriel.



N.B. Energy and Utilities Board
Commission de l’énergie et des services publics du N.-B.
15 Market Square – Suite 1400
P.O. Box 5001/C.P. 5001
Saint John, NB  E2L 4Y9
Telephone :  506-658-2504
Fax/Télécopieur :  506-643-7300
Email : general@nbeub.ca / Courriel : general@cespnb.ca
Website: www.nbeub.ca / Site Web : www.cespnb.ca
Confidentiality Notice
This private message (and any attachments) is for the exclusive use of
the individual for whom, or entity for which, it is intended.  It may
contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from
disclosure by law.  Its author does not waive the protection afforded
to it under applicable law. Disclosure to anyone other than the
intended recipient does not constitute waiver of privilege.  Its
possession or usage, by any person other than the one for whom it is
intended, is not authorized by its author and is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
immediately, at our expense, by telephone at (506) 658-2504.  Also, if
you received this email in error, delete it and any attachments from
your computer system and records. Thank you.
Avis de confidentialité
Ce message privé (et toutes les pièces jointes) est à l'usage exclusif
de la personne pour laquelle ou entité pour laquelle, il est destiné.
Il peut contenir des informations qui sont personnelles,
confidentielles ou exemptées de la divulgation par la loi.  Son auteur
ne renonce pas à la protection accordée en vertu de la loi applicable.
Sa divulgation à toute personne autre que son destinataire ne
constitue pas une renonciation de privilège. Sa possession ou
l'utilisation, par une personne autre que celle pour laquelle il est
destiné, n'est pas autorisée par son auteur et est strictement
interdite.  Si vous recevez cette communication par erreur, veuillez
nous appeler dans les plus brefs délais, à frais virés, au (506)
658-2504.  Aussi, si vous avez reçu ce courriel par erreur, veuillez
effacer ce courriel, ainsi que les pièces jointes, de votre système
informatique et de vos dossiers.  Merci.





-----Original Message-----
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Sent: August 6, 2020 12:29 PM
To: Holland, Mike (LEG) <mike.holland@gnb.ca>; blaine.higgs
<blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>; Kevin.Vickers <Kevin.Vickers@gnb.ca>;
kris.austin <kris.austin@gnb.ca>; rick.desaulniers@gnb.ca;
michelle.conroy@gnb.ca; briangallant10 <briangallant10@gmail.com>;
Davidc.Coon <Davidc.Coon@gmail.com>; louis-philippe.gauthier@cfib.ca;
david.russell@gnb.ca; Gilles.volpe@libertyutilities.com;
Paul.Volpe@libertyutilities.com; dave.lavigne@libertyutilities.com;
Hoyt, Len <len.hoyt@mcinnescooper.com>;
jeffery.callaghan@mcinnescooper.com; rzarumba@ceadvisors.com;
gerald@kissnb.com; cstewart@stewartmckelvey.com;
hanrahan.dion@jdirving.com; lcozzarini@nbpower.com;
jfurey@nbpower.com; srussell@nbpower.com; wharrison@nbpower.com;
NBPRegulatory@nbpower.com; SWaycott@nbpower.com;
bcrawford@nbpower.com; George.Porter@nbpower.com; NBEUB/CESPNB
<General@nbeub.ca>; Dickie, Michael <Michael.Dickie@nbeub.ca>; Lawton,
John <John.Lawton@nbeub.ca>; Young, Dave <Dave.Young@nbeub.ca>;
Ahmad.Faruqui@brattle.com; Cecile.Bourbonnais@brattle.com;
leducjr@nb.sympatico.ca; Colleen.Mitchell@AtlanticaEnergy.org;
david.sollows@gnb.ca; NbdotCa@hotmail.com; Clark, Lori
<LClark@nbpower.com>; Gagnon, Jessica Lynn <JGagnon@nbpower.com>;
Desmond, Ellen <ecdesmond@nbeub.ca>; anapoleon@synapse-energy.com;
bhavumaki@synapse-energy.com; mikemckinley@rogers.com;
heather.black@gnb.ca; kkelly@daymarkea.com; jathas@daymarkea.com;
pdidomenico@daymarkea.com; rrichard@nb.aibn.com; geoff.flood@t4g.com;
sstoll@airdberlis.com; jeff.garrett@sjenergy.com;
dan.dionne@perth-andover.com; pierreroy@edmundston.ca;
ray.robinson@sjenergy.com; pzarnett@bdrenergy.com; Dominic.Cardy
<Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca>; bruce.northrup <bruce.northrup@gnb.ca>;
jake.stewart <jake.stewart@gnb.ca>; Jody.Wilson-Raybould
<Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca>; Bill.Morneau
<Bill.Morneau@canada.ca>; fin.minfinance-financemin.fin@canada.ca;
oldmaison@yahoo.com; ron.tremblay2@gmail.com;
aadnc.minister.aandc@canada.ca; andre@jafaust.com; David.Coon
<David.Coon@gnb.ca>; elizabeth.may@parl.gc.ca; Mitton, Megan (LEG)
<megan.mitton@gnb.ca>; Arseneau, Kevin (LEG)
<kevin.a.arseneau@gnb.ca>; Kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca;
Dale.Morgan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca; dan. bussieres <dan.bussieres@gnb.ca>;
serge.rousselle <serge.rousselle@gnb.ca>; greg.byrne
<greg.byrne@gnb.ca>; Jack.Keir <Jack.Keir@gnb.ca>; tyler.campbell
<tyler.campbell@gnb.ca>; jeff.carr <jeff.carr@gnb.ca>;
bob.atwin@nb.aibn.com; jjatwin@gmail.com; markandcaroline
<markandcaroline@gmail.com>; sheppardmargo@gmail.com;
jordan.gill@cbc.ca; steve.murphy <steve.murphy@ctv.ca>; David.Akin
<David.Akin@globalnews.ca>
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>; robert.gauvin
<robert.gauvin@gnb.ca>; Ross.Wetmore <Ross.Wetmore@gnb.ca>; newsroom
<newsroom@globeandmail.ca>; Robert. Jones <Robert.Jones@cbc.ca>
Subject: YO Minister Mikey Holland RE The Not So Smart Meter Games I
trust that your lawyer or Ellen Desmond can explain what the EUB has
acknowledged before I take you people to a REAL COURT

These are the EUB published words not mine CORRECT?

These documents can be sourced from the records of the 375 Matter

http://www.nbeub.ca/opt/M/browserecord.php?-action=browse&-recid=560

02/07/2018    Hearing - Day 1 / Audience - 1ier jour

Page 295

VICE-CHAIRMAN: Thank you. So there is the two interveners or two
participants in the proceeding that have no legal  counsel. One is Mr.
Richard and the other one is Mr. Bourque. So I just want to provide --
yes, Mr. Rouse?

MR. ROUSE: I guess I don't have legal counsel either.

VICE-CHAIRMAN: True. So you are -- NCFS doesn't have legal counsel?

MR. ROUSE: That's correct.

VICE-CHAIRMAN: So I will address the three of you then. So Mr. Bourque
and Mr. Rouse -- I think, Mr. Rouse, you know how the proceeding
proceeds. So Mr. Bourque, essentially when it comes and you have a
panel, they are subject to cross-examination. And if you do have any
questions specifically to the panel, you will be asked to come in
front and ask your question to whomever your questions you want to ask
to. Now if there is an objection to your questioning I would ask you
to stop and at that point what  I will do is I will hear the person
who was objecting to your question and afterwards I will hear if you
have any other comments to make regarding the objection and we will
deal with those -- with the objection as it comes. So do you
understand that?

MR. BOURQUE: Yes, I do and thanks for explaining it.

VICE-CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. Monsieur Richard, essentiellement
qu’est ce qui va arriver, pis quoi je mentionnais en anglais, c’est
que vous êtes non-représenté par un avocat donc vous – peut-être que
vous connaissez pas toute la façon que les procédures fonctionnent.
Donc, l’Énergie Nouveau-Brunswick a différent panel qui – qui vont
introduire pour – pour – pour contre-interrogatoire, donc si vous avez
des questions a demandé aux personnes, donc, vous allez poser vos
questions à ces personnes-là. Et puis si y’a une partie qui s’objecte
à votre question, j’vous demanderais juste d’arrêter. Et puis quoi ce
que la Commission va faire c’est qu’elle va entendre la partie qui
s’objecte. Et puis à ce moment-là j’vas vous demandez si vous avez
aucun commentaire à regarder l’objection et puis on – on va – on va
rendre une décision à ce point-là  relativement à l’objection. Est-ce
que vous comprenez  ceci.

DR. RICHARD: Oui. Oui, Monsieur Vice-président.

VICE-CHAIRMAN : Pis je comprends aussi que, Monsieur Richard, que vous
êtes un professionnel, donc durant la procédure  vous serez pas ici à
tous les jours. J’pense que vous avez  autorisé un Monsieur LeBlanc de
– d’être ici à – pour vous  représenter lorsque vous serez dans votre
clinique. Je ne  sais pas où votre clinique est, donc ce que je
comprends  bien que cette personne-là va vous représentez lorsque vous
serez pas disponible.

DR. RICHARD : Oui c’est bien ça

Page 322

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BOURQUE:

Q. - Mr. Murphy, as Chief Financial Officer, do you agree with 13 the
accounting of KPMG?

MR. MURPHY: Sorry, do I understand the question, do I agree with the
accounting of KPMG?

Q. - Yes.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, I do.

Q. - Do you know the account -- the KPMG auditor, and if so who are they?

MR. MURPHY: Sorry, I am having a little difficult time 21 hearing up
here, did you say the owner or the author?

Q. - The auditors, sorry about that.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, I do. I know the primary partner on our  particular audit file.

Q. - Do you have a name for them?

MR. MURPHY: Our primary audit partner is Jamie O'Neil.

Q. - Jamie O'Neil. And I was a bit surprised that when I asked the
question earlier and there was -- the audit was not signed and any
business I have ever been involved with before, the auditors always
came and made the presentation of the audit and this didn't appear to
happen. Is there a reason for that?

MR. MURPHY: So I am not exactly sure of the reference that's being
made, but our audit statements are signed every year. As described, we
have a very traditional process in terms of the auditors coming in and
making a final presentation to the boards of directors. It's at that
time that we do sign off on the audited statements  and they are
available online for anybody to go in and view them.

Q. - Mr. Murphy, are you familiar with David Amos and Greg Hickey and
their concerns about the payout to pulp mills by the NB Power Large
Industrial Renewable Energy Purchase programs and the fact that the
U.S. Department of Commerce consider it corporate welfare affecting
the American interest and with trade with Canada?

MR. FUREY: Mr. Chair, we have been down this road before in previous
hearings. Mr. Hickey addressed this in at least one, and if I am not
mistaken, two hearings. And I
believe where we objected to certain questions of Mr. Hickey in the
past like this, the Board concluded that relevant questioning -- that
it would be a relevant question to ask questions related to compliance
by NB Power with provisions of the Electricity Act and the LIREPP
regulation, the renewable regulation, which includes the LIREPP
program, but debate about policy, as to whether or not LIREPP is a
desirable policy is not a matter for this Board and I think we have
had that resolved in previous hearings.

VICE-CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bourque, Mr. Furey is right. We did have -- when
Mr. Hickey was here last year, and I think at other hearings, we had
that debate and so it's a policy issue. If you have questions
regarding LIREPP, regarding compliance, I think you are permitted to
ask those questions, but if it's questions regarding policy, regarding
the LIREPP program, it's not relevant and it's in the legislation so
--

MR. BOURQUE: I wasn't aware of what took place last year.

Q. - Mr. Murphy, are you aware of my friend, David Amos and the
concerns with the NB Power since 2006?

MR. MURPHY: I would not say that I am aware of any detailed concerns
that Mr. Amos has expressed.

Q. - Have you read the filings that NB Power filed into the record of
this matter since -- on October 30th of 2017?

MR. MURPHY: Yes, generally I have read all the documents.

Q. - Have you read the transcript of the hearing on October 2 31st?

MR. MURPHY: I did not read the transcript.

Q. - And have you read the emails that Mr. Amos sent since then?

MR. MURPHY: I did not read the emails. If there is something in
particular that's filed on evidence that you would like to bring up on
the screen for me to review, I am happy to review it and answer
questions on it, but I have not read the emails.

Q. - Ms. Clark, why does NB Power consider the smart meter it  wished
to attach to my home a federal matter? If I get  sick, or because of
an injury to my home or property, do I  sue the federal or do I sue NB
Power?

MS. CLARK: So with respect to the smart meters, the AMI installation,
we would be complying with all of Health  Canada's Guidelines with
respect to the meter installation.

Q. - So if there is a problem NB Power is responsible for it or the
federal, if you are complying by the federal regulations?

MR. FUREY: Mr. Vice-Chair, I don't think that's a fair question to
address to this panel.

VICE-CHAIRMAN: Is there going to be another panel that can address his
question, Mr. Furey?

MR. FUREY: Well to be asked to comment in advance on circumstances in
which liability might arise, you know, certainly if there is a
specific fact circumstance presented, maybe the question could be
answered, but this is very broad.

VICE-CHAIRMAN: So are you suggesting that if he rephrases  his
question that this panel could answer the question?

MR. FUREY: I guess I would have to hear the question, but I -- what I
am saying is the question as framed is I think impossible to answer.
And it's unfair to ask any witness to commit to liability around a
question as broad as if something goes wrong.

VICE-CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bourque, can you reframe your question?

Q. - Well my -- my concern is the spending of a lot of money for the
smart meters. And as we heard earlier this morning, the temperature
has a big temp' -- a big effect on the use of power. Well do we need
to spend millions of dollars to tell us when the temperature gets
colder and that? NB Power knows that. When the temperature goes down,
they are going to have to start producing, you know, more power to
supply the demand. And I think it's really -- wonder if it's worth
sending that. The other thing is I have received some videos off the
internet of smart meters where they literally caught the side of the
house  on fire. There was pictures of just around the meter and that.
So if that happens to my house, who is responsible?

VICE-CHAIRMAN: Panel?

MS. CLARK: I will address your question in two parts. The first part
of it is with respect to the installation of smart meters or the AMI
project. The example that was given would be a perfect reason for NB
Power to install advanced metering infrastructure. During the times
when the utility or when the province is facing very cold
temperatures, having the advanced metering infrastructure in place
would allow customers to have more information readily available
during the month. So when we are dealing with high bill complaints,
like we have been this last month due to the extremely cold
temperatures, customers would actually be able to see their usage
throughout the month and not be subject to receiving a final bill at
the end of the month and being surprised by their consumption because
of the cold weather. So this would be a perfect example of why the
advanced metering infrastructure would be in the -- it would be in the
benefit of our customers.
The second piece, I think with reference to the safety of meters, we
will be following Measurement Canada safety standards, Health Canada
safety standards. All of our meters will be tested. And during the
install, we will actually be able to look at customers' premises to
see if there are any issues related to safety that we should be
addressing at the time. There are specific incidents where there have
been some issues with meters being installed, but those are very
specific to either the geographical location where they were being
installed or the customers' equipment itself. But again when we are
actually installing the meters, as we are installing 355,000 meters
across the province, we will actually be  able to visually inspect
each one of those locations to see if there is any issues with respect
to the meter itself or the installation that's on the customers'
premises. But it would depend on what exactly it is we find as to how
it would be handled.

Q. - I got one final question. If a customer decides he doesn't want a
smart meter at his place, can he opt out?

MS. CLARK: Yes, absolutely. We will have an opt out policy.

MR. BOURQUE: Thank you.

VICE-CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is that all your questions, Mr. 20 Bourque?

MR. BOURQUE: Yes.

VICE-CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.

MR. BOURQUE: Thank you.


02/09/2018      Hearing - Day 3/ Audience - 3ième jour


Page 590

MR. CRONKHITE: That is a pretty broad statement. If you could be a
little bit more specific on restrictions you  are referring to.

Q. - Well for an example, Mr. Cronkhite, would be the LIREPP program
restricts how your generation assets are used. Would you agree with
that?

MR. CRONKHITE: The LIREPP program is simply a input of renewable
resources into the system. It does not, in my opinion, for the size of
the contribution, restrict our operations in any way.

Q. - Okay. You have purchase power agreements. Do they mot also
dictate or indicate how your generation assets can be used?

MR. CRONKHITE: Certainly we do have power purchase arrangements when
energy would be an example where we need to incorporate that wind when
it's generated. As a result of that, we do position, so I think maybe
Ms. Desmond may be asking this that we do need to position our
remaining fleet to accommodate or adjust and follow that wind
variation as it operates today. Not unlike that we would have with
embedded generation assets, and to a much smaller degree obviously,
home generation around solar and different items such as that.

Q. - If we were to maximize the benefits of AMI in our smart grid,
isn't it also true that we should maximize the use of our generation
supply assets that we currently have, and wouldn't that mean
revisiting some of these existing constraints?

MR. CRONKHITE: We are always mindful of the existing commitments that
we have on our system today. When we look forward with respect to the
time frames, and as I mentioned earlier, that this is a managed
transition not over five years, but over 15, 20 and 25 years, we are
always mindful and that's why we have looked at power purchase
arrangements that are coming due in the mid-20s and beyond that we
allow the freedom and flexibility for us to make the correct
adjustments, as we move towards those particular milestones.
With respect to new generation coming on line, that's why we do the
modelling, that's why we do sensitivities around various scenarios to
ensure that we are optimizing to the best of our ability. One of the
foundational items around our Energy Smart NB plan is being able to
connect with customers to connect to intermittent generation that we
know is coming onto the system in the near term and medium term and
having more visibility on that. So that exactly we can optimize our
generation fleet more effectively today through visibility on this
distributed generation resources so that we can synchronize it much
more effectively with the system moving forward.

Q. - I wasn't specifically asking about new generation. It really was
the existing constraints that you have to work around and deal with in
terms of generation dispatch.

MS. DESMOND: Okay. I think those are all of our questions  though.
Thank you very much.


BY THE BOARD:

  VICE-CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Ms. Desmond.  So I think we do have -- as
Board members we do have a couple of questions to ask.  So I will
start.  I am looking at your current business case that you have
before us with your total project contribution of minus $1.3 million.
And from the evidence that we have heard the last couple of days, is
that you consider this as a breakeven number, and I think that that's
what you were telling us, Ms. Clark.
        So the normal individual, your rate customer, would you not think
that he would not perceive your $1.3 million as a breakeven number?

  MS. CLARK:  I guess in the context in which I was using breakeven is
it is an investment rationale document and it's intended to cover the
life cycle costs of the program, and those are assumptions and it's
hovering very close to zero when you look at it over the life cycle.
I think in the last few days of the hearing, we have indicated that
it's more than breakeven and would even say that if we were to
incorporate the adjustments, and the undertaking we just took from Ms.
Desmond to provide the adjustments that were recommended in the
Synapse report, we are looking at an investment rationale that is
leaning closer to probably $10 million or 8 or $9 million.  And if we
were to quantify some of those non-quantifiable benefits and be less
conservative in some of the estimates that we put in the investment
rationale document, I think we could easily get to a $10 million
improvement.
        Again, and I know you have heard this before, the intention was to
come in as conservative as possible, and know that we had all the
potential upside.  In hindsight, perhaps we should have taken a
different approach, but I do believe that we can demonstrate that we
have a positive investment rationale as well.

  VICE-CHAIRMAN:  So there was discussion around -- and I think it was
brought forward by Mr. Bourque and Dr. Richard, all about -- and Ms.
Desmond regarding the option of option in and option out.  Have you
surveyed your current residential customers to see who will opt in and
who will opt out before making $123 million investment?

  MS. CLARK:  Customer engagement is a big part of this project, and
we are as concerned as you would be about making that sort of an
investment.  So we will be doing, as part of our customer engagement,
but part of it is the focus group that we did early on is people don't
understand what the smart meter is, so part of it would be around
education of what the smart meter is and the benefits it can provide
to customers.  So we need to educate our customers first and then
allow them to make an informed decision.  So that will be part of the
roll-out plan and we will check and adjust along the way.  If there
are issues concerning the social engagement or a customer's uptake,
you know, this is very similar to what has been done in other
jurisdictions and they haven't had those challenges, but if we did, we
certainly wouldn't be looking at making an investment of this size
without having the customer with us.

  VICE-CHAIRMAN:  Well don't you think, Ms. Clark, that you should
have your educational piece before the Board approves $123 million
spend?

MS. CLARK:  I recognize the challenge.  The commitment the utility
would make is, as part of the project itself, we would be doing --
undertaking the engagement process with our customers again starting
with the education piece.
       Assuming that was positive, we would proceed and we are prepared
to give the Board updates, as we come forward, either through the general
rate application or through any other process including the quarterly
updates we are providing at this point in time on our infrastructure, so that
can be done and conditional with the approval of the project.

  VICE-CHAIRMAN:  So I am trying to understand the objective of the
AMI, and there was discussion, so can -- and I am having a little bit
of difficulty understanding what is the objective or objectives that
you are trying to do with AMI?


Page 601

VICE-CHAIRMAN:  I was a bit surprised when I heard this morning and
yesterday that you are entering into a contract at the end of February
and is that with respect to the purchase of the smart meters?

  MS. CLARK:  That's correct.

  VICE-CHAIRMAN:  So how can you enter into a contract without the
firm approval of this Board, if we are going to approve or not the
AMI?  How prudent is that?

  MS. CLARK:  So we are at the end stages of the contract in terms of
just the final terms and conditions, but we have been very clear that
we -- with the vendor -- and they recognize that, because we also have
Nova Scotia Power, who is part of our consortium, who also needs Board
approval.  So should we not get -- this is conditional on EUB
approval.  So should we not get EUB approval, the contract would not
proceed.

  VICE-CHAIRMAN:  Now there was discussion yesterday, I think it was
with Mr. Stoll regarding time of use and time based pricing, and so I
went through the evidence this morning, and in your main evidence, and
I think one of the objective of having the AMI going forward to a time
of use price structure -- rate structure.  So am I understanding that
correctly?

  MS. CLARK:  That is correct.  And in the evidence, we did answer an
interrogatory on that and you will see that AMI is an enabler for time
varying rates in the Energy Smart NB Plan.  And we did have time
varying rates included in our investment rationale.  We took it out,
because we couldn't -- we couldn't pinpoint without more detail as to
what those time varying rates may be and the benefit of those, so we
took them out of the investment rationale at this point in time, but
certainly it's something that we are looking at in the future.


  VICE-CHAIRMAN:  So the fundamental question here is that the Board
should heard -- or hear Matter 357 before approving the AMI?  So if we
don't approve time of use, that basically what will happen with your
AMI, I mean it's -- if we don't approve the time of use, which we are
going to hear next year, how can we proceed in approving the AMI
before we look at the rate structure?

  MS. CLARK:  As we have talked about in our investment rationale,
there are a number of other benefits to both the customer and to the
utility over and above time varying rates that we believe are
important for the utility and for the movement forward of our Energy
Smart New Brunswick plan.  Many of those benefits accrue to the
customer.  And many of those benefits accrue to the utility and
ultimately the customer.  So even if we were not to move in the
direction of time varying rates, we believe that the investment
rationale supports the AMI installation based on the other investment
-- or based on the other benefits that it provides.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: NBEUB/CESPNB <General@nbeub.ca>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2020 11:00:12 +0000
Subject: RE: YO Minister Mikey Holland RE EUB Matter 452 and NB
Power's VERY sneaky Application for Approval of an Advanced Metering
Infrastructure Capital Project
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>



Thank you for your email to the Energy and Utilities Board.



 ***

 La Commission de l'énergie et des services publics du
Nouveau-Brunswick vous remercie pour votre courriel.




N.B. Energy and Utilities Board
Commission de l’énergie et des services publics du N.-B.
15 Market Square – Suite 1400
P.O. Box 5001/C.P. 5001
Saint John, NB  E2L 4Y9
Telephone :  506-658-2504
Fax/Télécopieur :  506-643-7300
Email : general@nbeub.ca / Courriel : general@cespnb.ca
Website: www.nbeub.ca / Site Web : www.cespnb.ca
Confidentiality Notice
This private message (and any attachments) is for the exclusive use of
the individual for whom, or entity for which, it is intended.  It may
contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from
disclosure by law.  Its author does not waive the protection afforded
to it under applicable law. Disclosure to anyone other than the
intended recipient does not constitute waiver of privilege.  Its
possession or usage, by any person other than the one for whom it is
intended, is not authorized by its author and is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
immediately, at our expense, by telephone at (506) 658-2504.  Also, if
you received this email in error, delete it and any attachments from
your computer system and records. Thank you.
Avis de confidentialité
Ce message privé (et toutes les pièces jointes) est à l'usage exclusif
de la personne pour laquelle ou entité pour laquelle, il est destiné.
Il peut contenir des informations qui sont personnelles,
confidentielles ou exemptées de la divulgation par la loi.  Son auteur
ne renonce pas à la protection accordée en vertu de la loi applicable.
Sa divulgation à toute personne autre que son destinataire ne
constitue pas une renonciation de privilège. Sa possession ou
l'utilisation, par une personne autre que celle pour laquelle il est
destiné, n'est pas autorisée par son auteur et est strictement
interdite.  Si vous recevez cette communication par erreur, veuillez
nous appeler dans les plus brefs délais, à frais virés, au (506)
658-2504.  Aussi, si vous avez reçu ce courriel par erreur, veuillez
effacer ce courriel, ainsi que les pièces jointes, de votre système
informatique et de vos dossiers.  Merci.



-----Original Message-----
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Sent: August 6, 2020 2:12 AM
To: Holland, Mike (LEG) <mike.holland@gnb.ca>; blaine.higgs
<blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>; Kevin.Vickers <Kevin.Vickers@gnb.ca>;
kris.austin <kris.austin@gnb.ca>; rick.desaulniers@gnb.ca;
michelle.conroy@gnb.ca; briangallant10 <briangallant10@gmail.com>;
Davidc.Coon <Davidc.Coon@gmail.com>; louis-philippe.gauthier@cfib.ca;
david.russell@gnb.ca; Gilles.volpe@libertyutilities.com;
Paul.Volpe@libertyutilities.com; dave.lavigne@libertyutilities.com;
Hoyt, Len <len.hoyt@mcinnescooper.com>;
jeffery.callaghan@mcinnescooper.com; rzarumba@ceadvisors.com;
gerald@kissnb.com; cstewart@stewartmckelvey.com;
hanrahan.dion@jdirving.com; lcozzarini@nbpower.com;
jfurey@nbpower.com; srussell@nbpower.com; wharrison@nbpower.com;
NBPRegulatory@nbpower.com; SWaycott@nbpower.com;
bcrawford@nbpower.com; George.Porter@nbpower.com; NBEUB/CESPNB
<General@nbeub.ca>; Dickie, Michael <Michael.Dickie@nbeub.ca>; Lawton,
John <John.Lawton@nbeub.ca>; Young, Dave <Dave.Young@nbeub.ca>;
Ahmad.Faruqui@brattle.com; Cecile.Bourbonnais@brattle.com;
leducjr@nb.sympatico.ca; Colleen.Mitchell@AtlanticaEnergy.org;
david.sollows@gnb.ca; NbdotCa@hotmail.com; Clark, Lori
<LClark@nbpower.com>; Gagnon, Jessica Lynn <JGagnon@nbpower.com>;
Desmond, Ellen <ecdesmond@nbeub.ca>; anapoleon@synapse-energy.com;
bhavumaki@synapse-energy.com; mikemckinley@rogers.com;
heather.black@gnb.ca; kkelly@daymarkea.com; jathas@daymarkea.com;
pdidomenico@daymarkea.com; rrichard@nb.aibn.com; geoff.flood@t4g.com;
sstoll@airdberlis.com; jeff.garrett@sjenergy.com;
dan.dionne@perth-andover.com; pierreroy@edmundston.ca;
ray.robinson@sjenergy.com; pzarnett@bdrenergy.com; Dominic.Cardy
<Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca>; bruce.northrup <bruce.northrup@gnb.ca>;
jake.stewart <jake.stewart@gnb.ca>; Jody.Wilson-Raybould
<Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca>; Bill.Morneau
<Bill.Morneau@canada.ca>; fin.minfinance-financemin.fin@canada.ca;
oldmaison@yahoo.com; ron.tremblay2@gmail.com;
aadnc.minister.aandc@canada.ca; andre@jafaust.com; David.Coon
<David.Coon@gnb.ca>; elizabeth.may@parl.gc.ca; Mitton, Megan (LEG)
<megan.mitton@gnb.ca>; Arseneau, Kevin (LEG)
<kevin.a.arseneau@gnb.ca>; Kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca;
Dale.Morgan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca; dan. bussieres <dan.bussieres@gnb.ca>;
serge.rousselle <serge.rousselle@gnb.ca>; greg.byrne
<greg.byrne@gnb.ca>; Jack.Keir <Jack.Keir@gnb.ca>; tyler.campbell
<tyler.campbell@gnb.ca>; jeff.carr <jeff.carr@gnb.ca>;
bob.atwin@nb.aibn.com; jjatwin@gmail.com; markandcaroline
<markandcaroline@gmail.com>; sheppardmargo@gmail.com;
jordan.gill@cbc.ca; steve.murphy <steve.murphy@ctv.ca>; David.Akin
<David.Akin@globalnews.ca>
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>; robert.gauvin
<robert.gauvin@gnb.ca>; Ross.Wetmore <Ross.Wetmore@gnb.ca>; newsroom
<newsroom@globeandmail.ca>; Robert. Jones <Robert.Jones@cbc.ca>
Subject: YO Minister Mikey Holland RE EUB Matter 452 and NB Power's
VERY sneaky Application for Approval of an Advanced Metering
Infrastructure Capital Project

Methinks questionable lawyer Mr Furey wishes to forget many rather
important emails I sent him and his bosses over the years but one I
sent on the 12th of February of 2018 should be of great importance to
mon ami Roger Richard today N'esy Pas?

Vertias Vincit
David Raymmod Amos


P.S.Trust that I published the emails found beloe on the Internet just
like I always do

http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2018/01/re-matter-375-nb-power-2018-2019.html


Tuesday, 30 January 2018
RE: Matter 375 - NB Power 2018-2019 General Rate Application This
should prove the sneaky Yankees such as Wilbur Ross that I know how to
read N'esy Pas Premier Gallant and and Bill Morneau?




---------- Original message ----------
From: NBEUB/CESPNB <General@nbeub.ca>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 17:40:39 +0000
Subject: RE: Matter 375 - NB Power 2018-2019 General Rate Application
This should prove the sneaky Yankees such as Wilbur Ross that I know
how to read N'esy Pas Premier Gallant and and Bill Morneau?
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Thank you for your email to the Energy and Utilities Board.

This is to acknowledge receipt of the document you have filed with the Board.


***

La Commission de l’énergie et des services publics vous remercie pour
votre courriel.

Nous accusons réception du document que vous avez déposé auprès de la
Commission.



N.B. Energy and Utilities Board
Commission de l’énergie et des services publics du N.-B.
15 Market Square – Suite 1400
P.O. Box 5001/C.P. 5001
Saint John, NB  E2L 4Y9
Telephone :  506-658-2504
Fax/Télécopieur :  506-643-7300
Email : general@nbeub.ca / Courriel : general@cespnb.ca
Website: www.nbeub.ca / Site Web : www.cespnb.ca Confidentiality
Notice This private message (and any attachments) is for the exclusive
use of the individual for whom, or entity for which, it is intended.
It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt
from disclosure by law.  Its author does not waive the protection
afforded to it under applicable law. Disclosure to anyone other than
the intended recipient does not constitute waiver of privilege.  Its
possession or usage, by any person other than the one for whom it is
intended, is not authorized by its author and is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
immediately, at our expense, by telephone at (506) 658-2504.  Also, if
you received this email in error, delete it and any attachments from
your computer system and records. Thank you.
Avis de confidentialité
Ce message privé (et toutes les pièces jointes) est à l'usage exclusif
de la personne pour laquelle ou entité pour laquelle, il est destiné.
Il peut contenir des informations qui sont personnelles,
confidentielles ou exemptées de la divulgation par la loi.  Son auteur
ne renonce pas à la protection accordée en vertu de la loi applicable.
Sa divulgation à toute personne autre que son destinataire ne
constitue pas une renonciation de privilège. Sa possession ou
l'utilisation, par une personne autre que celle pour laquelle il est
destiné, n'est pas autorisée par son auteur et est strictement
interdite.  Si vous recevez cette communication par erreur, veuillez
nous appeler dans les plus brefs délais, à frais virés, au (506)
658-2504.  Aussi, si vous avez reçu ce courriel par erreur, veuillez
effacer ce courriel, ainsi que les pièces jointes, de votre système
informatique et de vos dossiers.  Merci.




Début du message réexpédié :

De: "Furey, John"<JFurey@nbpower.com>
Objet: RE: Matter 452 - NB Power Application for Approval of an
Advanced Metering Infrastructure Capital Project /
Date: 5 août 2020 14:59:11 UTC−3
À: "Mitchell, Kathleen"<Kathleen.Mitchell@nbeub.ca>,
"Colleen.Mitchell@AtlanticaEnergy.org"
<Colleen.Mitchell@AtlanticaEnergy.org>, "david.sollows@gnb.ca"
<david.sollows@gnb.ca>, "Heather.Quinn@gnb.ca"<Heather.Quinn@gnb.ca>,
"gerald@kissnb.com"<gerald@kissnb.com>, "hanrahan.dion@jdirving.com"
<hanrahan.dion@jdirving.com>, "cstewart@stewartmckelvey.com"
<cstewart@stewartmckelvey.com>, "NbdotCa@hotmail.com"
<NbdotCa@hotmail.com>, "Paul.Volpe@libertyutilities.com"
<Paul.Volpe@libertyutilities.com>, "Gilles.volpe@libertyutilities.com"
<Gilles.volpe@libertyutilities.com>,
"dave.lavigne@libertyutilities.com"
<dave.lavigne@libertyutilities.com>, "Cozzarini, Lilia"
<LCozzarini@nbpower.com>, "Waycott, Stephen"<SWaycott@nbpower.com>,
"Crawford, Brad"<BCrawford@nbpower.com>, "Clark, Lori"
<LClark@nbpower.com>, NBP Regulatory <NBPRegulatory@nbpower.com>,
"Gagnon, Jessica Lynn"<JGagnon@nbpower.com>, NBEUB/CESPNB
<General@nbeub.ca>, "Lawton, John"<John.Lawton@nbeub.ca>, "Desmond,
Ellen"<ecdesmond@nbeub.ca>, "Dickie, Michael"
<Michael.Dickie@nbeub.ca>, "Young, Dave"<Dave.Young@nbeub.ca>,
"anapoleon@synapse-energy.com"<anapoleon@synapse-energy.com>,
"bhavumaki@synapse-energy.com"<bhavumaki@synapse-energy.com>,
"mikemckinley@rogers.com"<mikemckinley@rogers.com>,
"heather.black@gnb.ca"<heather.black@gnb.ca>, "kkelly@daymarkea.com"
<kkelly@daymarkea.com>, "jathas@daymarkea.com"<jathas@daymarkea.com>,
"pdidomenico@daymarkea.com"<pdidomenico@daymarkea.com>,
"rrichard@nb.aibn.com"<rrichard@nb.aibn.com>, "geoff.flood@t4g.com"
<geoff.flood@t4g.com>, "sstoll@airdberlis.com"
<sstoll@airdberlis.com>, "jeff.garrett@sjenergy.com"
<jeff.garrett@sjenergy.com>, "dan.dionne@perth-andover.com"
<dan.dionne@perth-andover.com>, "pierreroy@edmundston.ca"
<pierreroy@edmundston.ca>, "ray.robinson@sjenergy.com"
<ray.robinson@sjenergy.com>, "pzarnett@bdrenergy.com"
<pzarnett@bdrenergy.com>

Dear Ms. Mitchell,

In relation to the above noted Matter, please find attached a Notice
of Motion and supporting documentation.

All parties to Matter 452 are being served with this documentation.

Regards,

John

John G. Furey
Senior Legal Counsel
New Brunswick Power Corporation
P.O. Box 2000
515 King Street
Fredericton, N.B.
E3B 4X1
Direct Line - 506-458-6970
Facsimile - 506-458-4319
JFurey@nbpower.com




This e-mail communication (including any or all attachments) is
intended only for the use of the person or entity to which it is
addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If
you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, any use, review,
retransmission, distribution, dissemination, copying, printing, or
other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this e-mail, is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
contact the sender and delete the original and any copy of this e-mail
and any printout thereof, immediately. Your co-operation is
appreciated.
Le présent courriel (y compris toute pièce jointe) s'adresse
uniquement à son destinataire, qu'il soit une personne ou un
organisme, et pourrait comporter des renseignements privilégiés ou
confidentiels. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire du courriel, il est
interdit d'utiliser, de revoir, de retransmettre, de distribuer, de
disséminer, de copier ou d'imprimer ce courriel, d'agir en vous y
fiant ou de vous en servir de toute autre façon. Si vous avez reçu le
présent courriel par erreur, prière de communiquer avec l'expéditeur
et d'éliminer l'original du courriel, ainsi que toute copie
électronique ou imprimée de celui-ci, immédiatement. Nous sommes
reconnaissants de votre collaboration.








---------- Original message ----------
From: "Greg H."
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 10:36:10 -0400
Subject: Re: Hey Greg say Hey to two good friends whom I call the
other two stooges Curly and Moe
To: David Amos , rrichard , Gerald Bourque
Cc: David Amos

I hear this morning that Canada has made application to take the
US/Cdn softwood lumber dispute before the NAFTA Chapter 19 dispute
resolution panel. They interviewed some trade expert from Queens
University(if my memory has not failed me here) on the CBC NB morning
show...he thought it would be a "touchy situation" regards outcome
this time around.
We know the NB saw-mills are being hit with countervailing and dumping
duties but I am asking myself about the pulp-mills which are receiving
the fraudulent LIREPP subsidy...*we are even subsidizing a US based
pulp-mill with NB Pwr ratepayers $s !*...that being the one on the US
side(Madawaska) being fed from the Edmundston pulp-mill switch-yard as
they feed its electrical supply for that US operation from the
Canadian Edmundston mill side...all supplied via NB Pwr at
multi-million $ discounts each year. There is no "renewable energy"
received onto the NB Pwr electrical grid...the whole thing is a
fraudulent subsidy scam!
**G.*
*

On 16/11/2017 10:00 AM, David Amos wrote:
> Methinks Mr Furey is gonna regret having an ethical computer N'esy Pas Moe?
>
> Enjoy your day fellas. If don't wake up tommorrow please know it is
> because I died laughing in my sleep.
>
> Best Regards
> Dave



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Furey, John"
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 12:51:03 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: EXT -  Attn Hon.Rick Doucet Are you aware of
what transpired at eh NBEUB on Oct, 31, 2017 and these documents with
regards the U.S .Commerce Dept concerns about NB Power and its Large
Industrial Renewable Energy Purchase Program (LIREPP)?
To: David Amos

I am away from my office and unable to access my email.  I will
respond to your message on my return to the office. If your message is
urgent, please contact my assistant, Janet Campbell, at
JCampbell@nbpower.com.

________________________________
This e-mail communication (including any or all attachments) is
intended only for the use of the person or entity to which it is
addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If
you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, any use, review,
retransmission, distribution, dissemination, copying, printing, or
other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this e-mail, is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
contact the sender and delete the original and any copy of this e-mail
and any printout thereof, immediately. Your co-operation is
appreciated.
Le présent courriel (y compris toute pièce jointe) s'adresse
uniquement à son destinataire, qu'il soit une personne ou un
organisme, et pourrait comporter des renseignements privilégiés ou
confidentiels. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire du courriel, il est
interdit d'utiliser, de revoir, de retransmettre, de distribuer, de
disséminer, de copier ou d'imprimer ce courriel, d'agir en vous y
fiant ou de vous en servir de toute autre façon. Si vous avez reçu le
présent courriel par erreur, prière de communiquer avec l'expéditeur
et d'éliminer l'original du courriel, ainsi que toute copie
électronique ou imprimée de celui-ci, immédiatement. Nous sommes
reconnaissants de votre collaboration.


---------- Original message ----------
From: "Furey, John"
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 12:11:59 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: EXT -  Re The news NB Power payola and a
little Deja Vu about my indignation towards Gaëtan Thomas and Ed
Barrett and their meeting with Kris Austin and PANB seven years ago
To: David Amos


I will be out of the office until Monday, November 13, 2017, and will
not have access to my email during my absence.  I will respond to your
message on my return to the office. If your message is urgent, please
contact my assistant, Janet Campbell, at JCampbell@nbpower.com.

________________________________
This e-mail communication (including any or all attachments) is
intended only for the use of the person or entity to which it is
addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If
you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, any use, review,
retransmission, distribution, dissemination, copying, printing, or
other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this e-mail, is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
contact the sender and delete the original and any copy of this e-mail
and any printout thereof, immediately. Your co-operation is
appreciated.
Le présent courriel (y compris toute pièce jointe) s'adresse
uniquement à son destinataire, qu'il soit une personne ou un
organisme, et pourrait comporter des renseignements privilégiés ou
confidentiels. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire du courriel, il est
interdit d'utiliser, de revoir, de retransmettre, de distribuer, de
disséminer, de copier ou d'imprimer ce courriel, d'agir en vous y
fiant ou de vous en servir de toute autre façon. Si vous avez reçu le
présent courriel par erreur, prière de communiquer avec l'expéditeur
et d'éliminer l'original du courriel, ainsi que toute copie
électronique ou imprimée de celui-ci, immédiatement. Nous sommes
reconnaissants de votre collaboration.



http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2018/01/re-matter-375-nb-power-2018-2019.html

Tuesday, 30 January 2018

RE: Matter 375 - NB Power 2018-2019 General Rate Application This
should prove the sneaky Yankees such as Wilbur Ross that I know how to
read N'esy Pas Premier Gallant and and Bill Morneau?




---------- Original message ----------
From: Newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 21:03:59 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Re Round 2 of the NB Power 2018-2019 General
Rate Application This weekend after I read the Transcript of the
Hearing - Day 3 I opted to attend Day 4
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Thank you for contacting The Globe and Mail.

If your matter pertains to newspaper delivery or you require technical
support, please contact our Customer Service department at
1-800-387-5400 or send an email to customerservice@globeandmail.com

If you are reporting a factual error please forward your email to
publiceditor@globeandmail.com< mailto:publiceditor@globeandmail.com>

Letters to the Editor can be sent to letters@globeandmail.com

This is the correct email address for requests for news coverage and
press releases.


---------- Original message ----------
From: Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 21:04:12 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Re Round 2 of the NB Power 2018-2019 General
Rate Application This weekend after I read the Transcript of the
Hearing - Day 3 I opted to attend Day 4
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com

Thank you for writing to the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, Member
of Parliament for Vancouver Granville.

This message is to acknowledge that we are in receipt of your email.
Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence, there
may be a delay in processing your email. Rest assured that your
message will be carefully reviewed.

To help us address your concerns more quickly, please include within
the body of your email your full name, address, and postal code.

Please note that your message will be forwarded to the Department of
Justice if it concerns topics pertaining to the member's role as the
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. For all future
correspondence addressed to the Minister of Justice, please write
directly to the Department of Justice at
mcu@justice.gc.camcu@justice.gc.ca
> or call 613-957-4222.

Thank you

-------------------

Merci d'?crire ? l'honorable Jody Wilson-Raybould, d?put?e de
Vancouver Granville.

Le pr?sent message vise ? vous informer que nous avons re?u votre
courriel. En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de
correspondance, il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de
votre courriel. Sachez que votre message sera examin? attentivement.

Pour nous aider ? r?pondre ? vos pr?occupations plus rapidement,
veuillez inclure dans le corps de votre courriel votre nom complet,
votre adresse et votre code postal.

Veuillez prendre note que votre message sera transmis au minist?re de
la Justice s'il porte sur des sujets qui rel?vent du r?le de la
d?put?e en tant que ministre de la Justice et procureure g?n?rale du
Canada. Pour toute correspondance future adress?e ? la ministre de la
Justice, veuillez ?crire directement au minist?re de la Justice ?
mcu@justice.gc.ca ou appelez au 613-957-4222.

Merci


---------- Original message ----------
From: "MinFinance / FinanceMin (FIN)"<fin.minfinance-financemin.fin@canada.ca>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 21:05:13 +0000
Subject: RE: Re Round 2 of the NB Power 2018-2019 General Rate
Application This weekend after I read the Transcript of the Hearing -
Day 3 I opted to attend Day 4
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

The Department of Finance acknowledges receipt of your electronic
correspondence. Please be assured that we appreciate receiving your
comments.

Le ministère des Finances accuse réception de votre correspondance
électronique. Soyez assuré(e) que nous apprécions recevoir vos
commentaires.


---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:03:28 -0400
Subject: Re Round 2 of the NB Power 2018-2019 General Rate Application
This weekend after I read the Transcript of the Hearing - Day 3 I
opted to attend Day 4
To: dhebert@npcc.org, charles.berardescof@nerc.net,
mpopowich@nbpower.com, ecdesmond@nbeub.ca, newsroom
<newsroom@globeandmail.ca>, "Robert. Jones"<Robert.Jones@cbc.ca>,
publicaffairs@doc.gov, "Furey, John"<jfurey@nbpower.com>, wharrison
<wharrison@nbpower.com>, nmoore <nmoore@bellmedia.ca>, news
<news@kingscorecord.com>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, "David.Coon"
<David.Coon@gnb.ca>, BrianThomasMacdonald
<BrianThomasMacdonald@gmail.com>, "jody.carr"<jody.carr@gnb.ca>,
"Jody.Wilson-Raybould"<Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca>,
"Bill.Morneau"<Bill.Morneau@canada.ca>, "brian.gallant"<brian.gallant@gnb.ca>

Tuesday, 30 January 2018

RE: Matter 375 - NB Power 2018-2019 General Rate Application This
should prove the sneaky Yankees such as Wilbur Ross that I know how to
read N'esy Pas Premier Gallant and and Bill Morneau?


Hey

Clearly I have some serious issues to dispute with Darren Murphy the
CFO of NB POWER and the rest of his cohorts within a Crown
Corporation. This is as brief as I can make an argument in support of
the need of my testimony in the 375 Matter about what occured within
it and the 357 Matter etc. In a nutshell I have every right to be an
Intervenor and to testify as a witness under oath. NB POWER and its
cohorts in NBEUB failed to prove why I have no right to do so. However
they certainly proved to anyone who knows how to read what has been
published why they should be prosecuted libel ASAP. Section 300 of the
Canadian Criminal Code applies to lawyers too. If you don't think I
was libeled then introduce me to your lawyer.

 The public shows that NBEUB did bar me for malicious reasons on
October 31st yet permitted me to attend the public hearings this month
in order to advise my friends Gerald Bourque and Roger Richard. On
February 7th Gerald Bourque did manage to ask Darren Murphy and his
associates on NB Power's 1st panel of witnesses a few questions that I
had asked him to. Need I say that I enjoyed their responses?  The
NBEUB also allowed me to speak for 21 minutes during the Public
Session that evening but the transcript of the aforesaid session has
not been filed in the NBEUB records as of yet.

My friends Gerald Bourque and Roger Richard as Intervenors in this
matter have every right to say and do what they wish which also
includes paying heed to my advice or ignoring it altogether. The
filings of Roger Richard in this matter easily attest to the fact that
initially he wished for me to testify on his behalf in this matter.
However after Daniel Leblanc appeared in the matter in order to speak
on my friend's behalf I was removed as a witness. So be it. The NBEUB
and all the other Intervenors know the truth of my concerns anyway
byway of many filings within the 357 and 375 Matters. More importantly
I stated my opinion of this fancy little circus in no uncertain terms
of the evening of February 7th and I look for to reviewing what I said
in the heat of the moment.

This weekend after I read the transcript of the 3rd day of the hearing
I ried to convince my friend Roger Richard to ignore Leblanc's advice
and put me in his witness list again. However he did not wish to, so I
respectfully backed away again and will not interfere with my friend's
plan to stop smart meters going to NB. Methinks the key to it will be
the media N'esy Pas Mr Jones?




These documents can be sourced from the records of the 375 Matter

http://www.nbeub.ca/opt/M/browserecord.php?-action=browse&-recid=560

02/07/2018    Hearing - Day 1 / Audience - 1ier jour

Page 295

VICE-CHAIRMAN: Thank you. So there is the two interveners 6 or two
participants in the proceeding that have no legal  counsel. One is Mr.
Richard and the other one is Mr. Bourque. So I just want to provide --
yes, Mr. Rouse?

MR. ROUSE: I guess I don't have legal counsel either.

VICE-CHAIRMAN: True. So you are -- NCFS doesn't have legal counsel?

MR. ROUSE: That's correct.

VICE-CHAIRMAN: So I will address the three of you then. So Mr. Bourque
and Mr. Rouse -- I think, Mr. Rouse, you know how the proceeding
proceeds. So Mr. Bourque, essentially when it comes and you have a
panel, they are subject to cross-examination. And if you do have any
questions specifically to the panel, you will be asked to come in
front and ask your question to whomever your questions you want to ask
to. Now if there is an objection to your questioning I would ask you
to stop and at that point what  I will do is I will hear the person
who was objecting to your question and afterwards I will hear if you
have any other comments to make regarding the objection and we will
deal with those -- with the objection as it comes. So do you
understand that?

MR. BOURQUE: Yes, I do and thanks for explaining it.

VICE-CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. Monsieur Richard, essentiellement
qu’est ce qui va arriver, pis quoi je mentionnais en anglais, c’est
que vous êtes non-représenté par un avocat donc vous – peut-être que
vous connaissez pas toute la façon que les procédures fonctionnent.
Donc, l’Énergie Nouveau-Brunswick a différent panel qui – qui vont
introduire pour – pour – pour contre-interrogatoire, donc si vous avez
des questions a demandé aux personnes, donc, vous allez poser vos
questions à ces personnes-là. Et puis si y’a une partie qui s’objecte
à votre question, j’vous demanderais juste d’arrêter. Et puis quoi ce
que la Commission va faire c’est qu’elle va entendre la partie qui
s’objecte. Et puis à ce moment-là j’vas vous demandez si vous avez
aucun commentaire à regarder l’objection et puis on – on va – on va
rendre une décision à ce point-là  relativement à l’objection. Est-ce
que vous comprenez  ceci.

DR. RICHARD: Oui. Oui, Monsieur Vice-président.

VICE-CHAIRMAN : Pis je comprends aussi que, Monsieur Richard, que vous
êtes un professionnel, donc durant la procédure  vous serez pas ici à
tous les jours. J’pense que vous avez  autorisé un Monsieur LeBlanc de
– d’être ici à – pour vous  représenter lorsque vous serez dans votre
clinique. Je ne  sais pas où votre clinique est, donc ce que je
comprends  bien que cette personne-là va vous représentez lorsque vous
serez pas disponible.

DR. RICHARD : Oui c’est bien ça

Page 322

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BOURQUE:

Q. - Mr. Murphy, as Chief Financial Officer, do you agree with 13 the
accounting of KPMG?

MR. MURPHY: Sorry, do I understand the question, do I agree with the
accounting of KPMG?

Q. - Yes.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, I do.

Q. - Do you know the account -- the KPMG auditor, and if so who are they?

MR. MURPHY: Sorry, I am having a little difficult time 21 hearing up
here, did you say the owner or the author?

Q. - The auditors, sorry about that.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, I do. I know the primary partner on our  particular audit file.

Q. - Do you have a name for them?

MR. MURPHY: Our primary audit partner is Jamie O'Neil.

Q. - Jamie O'Neil. And I was a bit surprised that when I asked the
question earlier and there was -- the audit was not signed and any
business I have ever been involved with before, the auditors always
came and made the presentation of the audit and this didn't appear to
happen. Is there a reason for that?

MR. MURPHY: So I am not exactly sure of the reference that's being
made, but our audit statements are signed every year. As described, we
have a very traditional process in terms of the auditors coming in and
making a final presentation to the boards of directors. It's at that
time that we do sign off on the audited statements  and they are
available online for anybody to go in and view them.

Q. - Mr. Murphy, are you familiar with David Amos and Greg Hickey and
their concerns about the payout to pulp mills by the NB Power Large
Industrial Renewable Energy Purchase programs and the fact that the
U.S. Department of Commerce consider it corporate welfare affecting
the American interest and with trade with Canada?

MR. FUREY: Mr. Chair, we have been down this road before in previous
hearings. Mr. Hickey addressed this in at least one, and if I am not
mistaken, two hearings. And I believe where we objected to certain
questions of Mr. Hickey in the past like this, the Board concluded
that relevant questioning -- that it would be a relevant question to
ask questions related to compliance by NB Power with provisions of the
Electricity Act and the LIREPP regulation, the renewable regulation,
which includes the LIREPP program, but debate about policy, as to
whether or not LIREPP is a desirable policy is not a matter for this
Board and I think we have had that resolved in previous hearings.

VICE-CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bourque, Mr. Furey is right. We did have -- when
Mr. Hickey was here last year, and I think at other hearings, we had
that debate and so it's a policy issue. If you have questions
regarding LIREPP, regarding compliance, I think you are permitted to
ask those questions, but if it's questions regarding policy, regarding
the LIREPP program, it's not relevant and it's in the legislation so
--

MR. BOURQUE: I wasn't aware of what took place last year.

Q. - Mr. Murphy, are you aware of my friend, David Amos and the
concerns with the NB Power since 2006?

MR. MURPHY: I would not say that I am aware of any detailed concerns
that Mr. Amos has expressed.

Q. - Have you read the filings that NB Power filed into the record of
this matter since -- on October 30th of 2017?

MR. MURPHY: Yes, generally I have read all the documents.

Q. - Have you read the transcript of the hearing on October 2 31st?

MR. MURPHY: I did not read the transcript.

Q. - And have you read the emails that Mr. Amos sent since then?

MR. MURPHY: I did not read the emails. If there is something in
particular that's filed on evidence that you would like to bring up on
the screen for me to review, I am happy to review it and answer
questions on it, but I have not read the emails.

Q. - Ms. Clark, why does NB Power consider the smart meter it  wished
to attach to my home a federal matter? If I get  sick, or because of
an injury to my home or property, do I  sue the federal or do I sue NB
Power?

MS. CLARK: So with respect to the smart meters, the AMI installation,
we would be complying with all of Health  Canada's Guidelines with
respect to the meter installation.

Q. - So if there is a problem NB Power is responsible for it or the
federal, if you are complying by the federal regulations?

MR. FUREY: Mr. Vice-Chair, I don't think that's a fair question to
address to this panel.

VICE-CHAIRMAN: Is there going to be another panel that can address his
question, Mr. Furey?

MR. FUREY: Well to be asked to comment in advance on circumstances in
which liability might arise, you know, certainly if there is a
specific fact circumstance presented, maybe the question could be
answered, but this is very broad.

VICE-CHAIRMAN: So are you suggesting that if he rephrases  his
question that this panel could answer the question?

MR. FUREY: I guess I would have to hear the question, but I -- what I
am saying is the question as framed is I think impossible to answer.
And it's unfair to ask any witness to commit to liability around a
question as broad as if something goes wrong.

VICE-CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bourque, can you reframe your question?

Q. - Well my -- my concern is the spending of a lot of money for the
smart meters. And as we heard earlier this morning, the temperature
has a big temp' -- a big effect on the use of power. Well do we need
to spend millions of dollars to tell us when the temperature gets
colder and that? NB Power knows that. When the temperature goes down,
they are going to have to start producing, you know, more power to
supply the demand. And I think it's really -- wonder if it's worth
sending that. The other thing is I have received some videos off the
internet of smart meters where they literally caught the side of the
house  on fire. There was pictures of just around the meter and that.
So if that happens to my house, who is responsible?

VICE-CHAIRMAN: Panel?

MS. CLARK: I will address your question in two parts. The first part
of it is with respect to the installation of smart meters or the AMI
project. The example that was given would be a perfect reason for NB
Power to install advanced metering infrastructure. During the times
when the utility or when the province is facing very cold
temperatures, having the advanced metering infrastructure in place
would allow customers to have more information readily available
during the month. So when we are dealing with high bill complaints,
like we have been this last month due to the extremely cold
temperatures, customers would actually be able to see their usage
throughout the month and not be subject to receiving a final bill at
the end of the month and being surprised by their consumption because
of the cold weather. So this would be a perfect example of why the
advanced metering infrastructure would be in the -- it would be in the
benefit of our customers.
The second piece, I think with reference to the safety of meters, we
will be following Measurement Canada safety standards, Health Canada
safety standards. All of our meters will be tested. And during the
install, we will actually be able to look at customers' premises to
see if there are any issues related to safety that we should be
addressing at the time. There are specific incidents where there have
been some issues with meters being installed, but those are very
specific to either the geographical location where they were being
installed or the customers' equipment itself. But again when we are
actually installing the meters, as we are installing 355,000 meters
across the province, we will actually be  able to visually inspect
each one of those locations to see if there is any issues with respect
to the meter itself or the installation that's on the customers'
premises. But it would depend on what exactly it is we find as to how
it would be handled.

Q. - I got one final question. If a customer decides he doesn't want a
smart meter at his place, can he opt out?

MS. CLARK: Yes, absolutely. We will have an opt out policy.

MR. BOURQUE: Thank you.

VICE-CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is that all your questions, Mr. 20 Bourque?

MR. BOURQUE: Yes.

VICE-CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.

MR. BOURQUE: Thank you.


02/09/2018      Hearing - Day 3/ Audience - 3ième jour


Page 590

MR. CRONKHITE: That is a pretty broad statement. If you could be a
little bit more specific on restrictions you  are referring to.

Q. - Well for an example, Mr. Cronkhite, would be the LIREPP program
restricts how your generation assets are used. Would you agree with
that?

MR. CRONKHITE: The LIREPP program is simply a input of renewable
resources into the system. It does not, in my opinion, for the size of
the contribution, restrict our operations in any way.

Q. - Okay. You have purchase power agreements. Do they mot also
dictate or indicate how your generation assets can be used?

MR. CRONKHITE: Certainly we do have power purchase arrangements when
energy would be an example where we need to incorporate that wind when
it's generated. As a result of that, we do position, so I think maybe
Ms. Desmond may be asking this that we do need to position our
remaining fleet to accommodate or adjust and follow that wind
variation as it operates today. Not unlike that we would have with
embedded generation assets, and to a much smaller degree obviously,
home generation around solar and different items such as that.

Q. - If we were to maximize the benefits of AMI in our smart grid,
isn't it also true that we should maximize the use of our generation
supply assets that we currently have, and wouldn't that mean
revisiting some of these existing constraints?

MR. CRONKHITE: We are always mindful of the existing commitments that
we have on our system today. When we look forward with respect to the
time frames, and as I mentioned earlier, that this is a managed
transition not over five years, but over 15, 20 and 25 years, we are
always mindful and that's why we have looked at power purchase
arrangements that are coming due in the mid-20s and beyond that we
allow the freedom and flexibility for us to make the correct
adjustments, as we move towards those particular milestones.
With respect to new generation coming on line, that's why we do the
modelling, that's why we do sensitivities around various scenarios to
ensure that we are optimizing to the best of our ability. One of the
foundational items around our Energy Smart NB plan is being able to
connect with customers to connect to intermittent generation that we
know is coming onto the system in the near term and medium term and
having more visibility on that. So that exactly we can optimize our
generation fleet more effectively today through visibility on this
distributed generation resources so that we can synchronize it much
more effectively with the system moving forward.

Q. - I wasn't specifically asking about new generation. It really was
the existing constraints that you have to work around and deal with in
terms of generation dispatch.

MS. DESMOND: Okay. I think those are all of our questions  though.
Thank you very much.


BY THE BOARD:

  VICE-CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Ms. Desmond.  So I think we do have -- as
Board members we do have a couple of questions to ask.  So I will
start.  I am looking at your current business case that you have
before us with your total project contribution of minus $1.3 million.
And from the evidence that we have heard the last couple of days, is
that you consider this as a breakeven number, and I think that that's
what you were telling us, Ms. Clark.
        So the normal individual, your rate customer, would you not
think that he would not perceive your $1.3 million as a breakeven
number?

  MS. CLARK:  I guess in the context in which I was using breakeven is
it is an investment rationale document and it's intended to cover the
life cycle costs of the program, and those are assumptions and it's
hovering very close to zero when you look at it over the life cycle.
I think in the last few days of the hearing, we have indicated that
it's more than breakeven and would even say that if we were to
incorporate the adjustments, and the undertaking we just took from Ms.
Desmond to provide the adjustments that were recommended in the
Synapse report, we are looking at an investment rationale that is
leaning closer to probably $10 million or 8 or $9 million.  And if we
were to quantify some of those non-quantifiable benefits and be less
conservative in some of the estimates that we put in the investment
rationale document, I think we could easily get to a $10 million
improvement.
        Again, and I know you have heard this before, the intention
was to come in as conservative as possible, and know that we had all
the potential upside.  In hindsight, perhaps we should have taken a
different approach, but I do believe that we can demonstrate that we
have a positive investment rationale as well.

  VICE-CHAIRMAN:  So there was discussion around -- and I think it was
brought forward by Mr. Bourque and Dr. Richard, all about -- and Ms.
Desmond regarding the option of option in and option out.  Have you
surveyed your current residential customers to see who will opt in and
who will opt out before making $123 million investment?

  MS. CLARK:  Customer engagement is a big part of this project, and
we are as concerned as you would be about making that sort of an
investment.  So we will be doing, as part of our customer engagement,
but part of it is the focus group that we did early on is people don't
understand what the smart meter is, so part of it would be around
education of what the smart meter is and the benefits it can provide
to customers.  So we need to educate our customers first and then
allow them to make an informed decision.  So that will be part of the
roll-out plan and we will check and adjust along the way.  If there
are issues concerning the social engagement or a customer's uptake,
you know, this is very similar to what has been done in other
jurisdictions and they haven't had those challenges, but if we did, we
certainly wouldn't be looking at making an investment of this size
without having the customer with us.

  VICE-CHAIRMAN:  Well don't you think, Ms. Clark, that you should
have your educational piece before the Board approves $123 million
spend?

MS. CLARK:  I recognize the challenge.  The commitment the utility
would make is, as part of the project itself, we would be doing --
undertaking the engagement process with our customers again starting
with the education piece.
       Assuming that was positive, we would proceed and we are
prepared to give the Board updates, as we come forward, either through
the general rate application or through any other process including
the quarterly updates we are providing at this point in time on our
infrastructure, so that can be done and conditional with the approval
of the project.

  VICE-CHAIRMAN:  So I am trying to understand the objective of the
AMI, and there was discussion, so can -- and I am having a little bit
of difficulty understanding what is the objective or objectives that
you are trying to do with AMI?


Page 601

VICE-CHAIRMAN:  I was a bit surprised when I heard this morning and
yesterday that you are entering into a contract at the end of February
and is that with respect to the purchase of the smart meters?

  MS. CLARK:  That's correct.

  VICE-CHAIRMAN:  So how can you enter into a contract without the
firm approval of this Board, if we are going to approve or not the
AMI?  How prudent is that?

  MS. CLARK:  So we are at the end stages of the contract in terms of
just the final terms and conditions, but we have been very clear that
we -- with the vendor -- and they recognize that, because we also have
Nova Scotia Power, who is part of our consortium, who also needs Board
approval.  So should we not get -- this is conditional on EUB
approval.  So should we not get EUB approval, the contract would not
proceed.

  VICE-CHAIRMAN:  Now there was discussion yesterday, I think it was
with Mr. Stoll regarding time of use and time based pricing, and so I
went through the evidence this morning, and in your main evidence, and
I think one of the objective of having the AMI going forward to a time
of use price structure -- rate structure.  So am I understanding that
correctly?

  MS. CLARK:  That is correct.  And in the evidence, we did answer an
interrogatory on that and you will see that AMI is an enabler for time
varying rates in the Energy Smart NB Plan.  And we did have time
varying rates included in our investment rationale.  We took it out,
because we couldn't -- we couldn't pinpoint without more detail as to
what those time varying rates may be and the benefit of those, so we
took them out of the investment rationale at this point in time, but
certainly it's something that we are looking at in the future.


  VICE-CHAIRMAN:  So the fundamental question here is that the Board
should heard -- or hear Matter 357 before approving the AMI?  So if we
don't approve time of use, that basically what will happen with your
AMI, I mean it's -- if we don't approve the time of use, which we are
going to hear next year, how can we proceed in approving the AMI
before we look at the rate structure?

  MS. CLARK:  As we have talked about in our investment rationale,
there are a number of other benefits to both the customer and to the
utility over and above time varying rates that we believe are
important for the utility and for the movement forward of our Energy
Smart New Brunswick plan.  Many of those benefits accrue to the
customer.  And many of those benefits accrue to the utility and
ultimately the customer.  So even if we were not to move in the
direction of time varying rates, we believe that the investment
rationale supports the AMI installation based on the other investment
-- or based on the other benefits that it provides.


10/31/2017      Pre-Hearing / Conférence préalable à l'audience


Page 84

CHAIRMAN: All right. I will now give the decision of the Board on this matter.

Mr. Amos seeks intervenor status in Matter 375. NB Power objects to
his intervention claiming his conduct during the hearing of a motion
in Matter 357 was confrontational  and that his arguments lacked any
connection to the issues  before the Board. The Board agrees with that
assessment.

In the present matter, Mr. Amos was given ample  opportunity to put
forward a case that would support a respectful and responsible
intervention. He failed to do so, rolling forward issues raised in
Matter 357 and not addressing the issue before us today.

Mr. Amos states that the interests he would bring before  the Board
are those raised by Mr. Bourque and Mr. Richard. The Board is
satisfied that those two intervenors can  adequately represent those
issues. In addition, those  issues will undoubtedly be addressed by
the Public Intervenor and others.

Page 85

The Board finds on a balance of probability that Mr. Amos will not
participate in this matter in a respectful and  responsible manner. As
a result, the Board will exercise  its discretion and refuse
intervenor status to Mr. Amos. Intervention is encouraged but it must
be responsible.

Mr. Amos may participate in the public session which date  will be
announced shortly. But again he is reminded that  any presentation
must be done in a respectful and  responsible manner.

Finally, Mr. Amos had indicated that he wished to assist  his two
colleagues that are sitting with him today. And  certainly the Board
has no issue with that at all. But Mr. Amos will have no status at the
hearing in terms of  cross-examination or making any argument.
So that is the decision of this Panel with respect to the status of Mr. Amos.

Are there any other issues to deal with today? There being no other
issues, then we will adjourn.


This exhbit was filed by NB Power along with many others to support my
barring from the 375 Matter

NB  Power  Notice  of  Objection  -  Appendix  I        10/30/2017

For the benefit of my fellow stakeholders I wish to explain all of the
transcript found above of under oath



Début du message réexpédié :

De: "Furey, John"<john.furey@mcinnescooper.com>
Objet: Application to Vary Board Decision Dated July 16, 2019 (Matter 430)
Date: 7 septembre 2021 16:19:50 UTC−3
 À: "Kathleen.Mitchell@nbeub.ca"<Kathleen.Mitchell@nbeub.ca>,
"david.sollows@gnb.ca"<david.sollows@gnb.ca>,
"cstewart@stewartmckelvey.com"<cstewart@stewartmckelvey.com>,
"hanrahan.dion@jdirving.com"<hanrahan.dion@jdirving.com>,
"Paul.Volpe@libertyutilities.com"<Paul.Volpe@libertyutilities.com>,
"Gilles.volpe@libertyutilities.com"
<Gilles.volpe@libertyutilities.com>,
"dave.lavigne@libertyutilities.com"
<dave.lavigne@libertyutilities.com>, "NBPRegulatory@nbpower.com"
<NBPRegulatory@nbpower.com>, "SWaycott@nbpower.com"
<SWaycott@nbpower.com>, "BCrawford@nbpower.com"
<BCrawford@nbpower.com>, "JGagnon@nbpower.com"<JGagnon@nbpower.com>,
"General@nbeub.ca"<General@nbeub.ca>, "John.Lawton@nbeub.ca"
<John.Lawton@nbeub.ca>, "Michael.Dickie@nbeub.ca"
<Michael.Dickie@nbeub.ca>, "Dave.Young@nbeub.ca"
<Dave.Young@nbeub.ca>, "dmadsen.consulting@gmail.com"
<dmadsen.consulting@gmail.com>, "heather.black@gnb.ca"
<heather.black@gnb.ca>, "rdk@indecon.com"<rdk@indecon.com>,
"rrichard@nb.aibn.com"<rrichard@nb.aibn.com>, "sstoll@airdberlis.com"
<sstoll@airdberlis.com>, "jeff.garrett@sjenergy.com"
<jeff.garrett@sjenergy.com>, "dan.dionne@perth-andover.com"
<dan.dionne@perth-andover.com>, "pierreroy@edmundston.ca"
<pierreroy@edmundston.ca>, "ray.robinson@sjenergy.com"
<ray.robinson@sjenergy.com>, "pzarnett@bdrenergy.com"
<pzarnett@bdrenergy.com>, "gerald@kissnb.com"<gerald@kissnb.com>,
"mletson@lawsoncreamer.com"<mletson@lawsoncreamer.com>, Katherine
McBrearty <Katherine.McBrearty@nbeub.ca>

Dear Ms. Mitchell,

 Please find attached:
1.       Letter to NBEUB dated September 7, 2021;
2.       Application in the above noted Matter, in redacted form;
3.       Affidavit of Darren Murphy in support of the Application; and
4.       Claim for Confidentiality.

As noted in the enclosed correspondence, a copy of the redacted
Application is provided to parties in each of Matter 430 and Matter
458.

By separate email, I will provide the Confidential version of the
Application.  I will also confirm when the Public Intervener has been
provided with the Confidential version.

Regards,

John

John Furey
Counsel
McInnes Cooper

tel +1 (506) 458 1628 | fax +1 (506) 458 9903 | mobile +1 (506) 282 0380

Barker House, Suite 600
570 Queen Street
PO Box 610 Fredericton, NB, E3B 5A6

asst Nanette Phillips | +1 (506) 458 1629


NOTICE The health, safety and welfare of our people, our clients and
our communities, as well as our commitment to continued service, is
our top priority. Please visit our COVID‐19 Resource Centre to learn
more about how we can support you on the path forward.
AVIS La santé, la sécurité et le bien‐être de nos gens, de nos clients
et de nos communautés sont notre priorité au même titre que notre
engagement envers un service continu. Nous vous invitons à consulter
notre Centre de ressources COVID‐19 pour savoir ce que nous pouvons
faire pour vous soutenir sur la voie à suivre.

Notice This communication, including any attachments, is confidential
and may be protected by solicitor/client privilege. It is intended
only for the person or persons to whom it is addressed. If you have
received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by e-mail or
telephone at McInnes Cooper's expense.
Avis Les informations contenues dans ce courriel, y compris toute(s)
pièce(s) jointe(s), sont confidentielles et peuvent faire l'objet d'un
privilège avocat-client.  Les informations sont dirigées au(x)
destinataire(s) seulement. Si vous avez reçu ce courriel par erreur,
veuillez en aviser l'expéditeur par courriel ou par téléphone, aux
frais de McInnes Cooper.



---------- Original message ----------
From: "Gallant, Brian (LEG)"<Brian.Gallant@gnb.ca>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 13:26:33 +0000
Subject: RE: February 6, 2019 EUB 430 Matter transcript
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>

Thank you for writing to the Leader of the Official Opposition of New
Brunswick. Please be assured that your e-mail will be reviewed.

If this is a media request, please forward your e-mail to
ashley.beaudin@gnb.ca<mailto:media-medias@gnb.ca>. Thank you!

---

Nous vous remercions d’avoir communiqué avec le chef de l’opposition
officielle du Nouveau-Brunswick.  Soyez assuré(e) que votre courriel
sera examiné.

Si ceci est une demande médiatique, prière de la transmettre à
ashley.beaudin@gnb.ca<mailto:media-medias@gnb.ca>.  Merci!


---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 09:26:25 -0400
Subject: Fwd: February 6, 2019 EUB 430 Matter transcript
To: Mike.Holland@gnb.ca, David.Coon@gnb.ca, kris.austin@gnb.ca,
brian.gallant@gnb.ca, blaine.higgs@gnb.ca, premier@gnb.ca,
andrea.anderson-mason@gnb.ca, Nathalie.Drouin@justice.gc.ca,
jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca, Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca, washington.field@ic.fbi.gov,
Boston.Mail@ic.fbi.gov
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Suzanne Ross <SueR1941@msn.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 12:41:05 +0000
Subject: February 6, 2019 transcript
To: "David.Raymond.Amos333@gmail.com"
<David.Raymond.Amos333@gmail.com>, "david.sollows@gnb.ca"
<david.sollows@gnb.ca>, "Paul.Volpe@enbridge.com"
<Paul.Volpe@enbridge.com>, "dave.lavigne@enbridge.com"
<dave.lavigne@enbridge.com>, "Gilles.volpe@enbridge.com"
<Gilles.volpe@enbridge.com>, "jeffery.callaghan@mcinnescooper.com"
<jeffery.callaghan@mcinnescooper.com>, "gerald@kissnb.com"
<gerald@kissnb.com>, "cstewart@stewartmckelvey.com"
<cstewart@stewartmckelvey.com>, "hanrahan.dion@jdirving.com"
<hanrahan.dion@jdirving.com>, "lcozzarini@nbpower.com"
<lcozzarini@nbpower.com>, "jfurey@nbpower.com"<jfurey@nbpower.com>,
"SWaycott@nbpower.com"<SWaycott@nbpower.com>,
"NBPRegulatory@nbpower.com"<NBPRegulatory@nbpower.com>,
"wharrison@nbpower.com"<wharrison@nbpower.com>,
"bcrawford@nbpower.com"<bcrawford@nbpower.com>,
"John.Lawton@nbeub.ca"<John.Lawton@nbeub.ca>, "ecdesmond@nbeub.ca"
<ecdesmond@nbeub.ca>, "Michael.Dickie@nbeub.ca"
<Michael.Dickie@nbeub.ca>, "dave.young@nbeub.ca"
<dave.young@nbeub.ca>, "Kathleen.Mitchell@nbeub.ca"
<Kathleen.Mitchell@nbeub.ca>, "general@nbeub.ca"<general@nbeub.ca>,
"heather.black@gnb.ca"<heather.black@gnb.ca>, "rdk@indecon.com"
<rdk@indecon.com>, "rrichard@nb.aibn.com"<rrichard@nb.aibn.com>,
"jeff.garrett@sjenergy.com"<jeff.garrett@sjenergy.com>,
"dan.dionne@perth-andover.com"<dan.dionne@perth-andover.com>,
"pierreroy@edmundston.ca"<pierreroy@edmundston.ca>,
"ray.robinson@sjenergy.com"<ray.robinson@sjenergy.com>,
"sstoll@airdberlis.com"<sstoll@airdberlis.com>,
"pzarnett@bdrenergy.com"<pzarnett@bdrenergy.com>

Hello,
Attached is yesterday’s transcript.
Thank you!


New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board
Commission de L’Energie et des Services Publics N.-B.

Matter 430

    IN THE MATTER OF an application by New Brunswick Power Corporation
for approval of the schedules of the rates for the fiscal year
commencing April 1, 2019, and other relief as outlined in NB Power’s
application

    Held at the Delta Hotel, Saint John, N.B., on February 6, 2019.

                         Henneberry Reporting Service

New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board
Commission de L’Energie et des Services Publics N.-B.

Matter 430

    IN THE MATTER OF an application by New Brunswick Power Corporation
for approval of the schedules of the rates for the fiscal year
commencing April 1, 2019, and other relief as outlined in NB Power’s
application

    Held at the Delta Hotel, Saint John, N.B., on February 6, 2019.


BEFORE:          Raymond P Gorman, Q.C. - Chair
                 John Patrick Herron   - Panel Member
                 Michael Costello      - Panel Member

NB Energy and Utilities Board
                        - Counsel - Ms. Ellen Desmond, Q.C.
                        - Staff   - David Young
                                     John Lawton
                                     Michael Dickie
                       Chief Clerk - Kathleen Mitchell
  CHAIRMAN:  Good morning, everyone.  This is a pre-hearing conference
of the New Brunswick Energy & Utilities Board with respect to an
application by New Brunswick Power Corporation for approval of the
schedule of the rates for the fiscal year commencing April 1st 2019
and other relief that is outlined in the application.  This is Matter
430.
    I will start by taking the appearances, firstly NB Power Corporation?
  MR. FUREY:  Good morning, Mr. Chair.  John Furey.  I am accompanied
this morning by Ms. Clark, Mr. Waycott and Ms. Cozzarini.
  CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Furey.  David Amos?
  MR. AMOS:  Here.
  CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Amos.  Enbridge Gas New Brunswick?
  MR. CALLAGHAN:  Good morning, Mr. Chair.  Jeffrey Callaghan, with me
is Paul Volpe.
  CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Callaghan.  Gerald Bourque?  Is Mr.
Bourque not here today?  J.D. Irving, Limited?
  MR. STEWART:  Christopher Stewart, Mr. Chair.
  CHAIRMAN:  Where are you at, Mr. Stewart?  Thank you.  Roger Richard?
  DR. RICHARD:  Yes, I am here.
  CHAIRMAN:  Merci.  Utilities Municipal?
  MR. STOLL:  Good morning, Mr. Chair.  Scott Stoll, with me is Mr. Garett.
  CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Stoll.  Public Intervener?
  MS. BLACK:  Good morning. Mr. Chair.  Heather Black.
  CHAIRMAN:  And the New Brunswick Energy & Utilities Board?
  MS. DESMOND:  good morning, it is Ellen Desmond.  With me is John
Lawton, David Young, Michael Dickie.
  CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Ms. Desmond.  So as I indicated when we opened
this pre-hearing, it is relating to the 2019 general rate application.
I want to make just a few general comments before we get going,
because typically these pre-hearing conferences are all about setting
a schedule and oftentimes there are no other issues.
    There is a very -- this is somewhat of a unique filing, in my
experience, my 12 years as Chair of the Board, in that there is a very
large volume of documents that have been filed in confidence.  And
that’s a little unusual but there are also many confidential items
that are restricted from various parties.  And again, that is a bit of
a departure from my experience here.
    The redactions, to be quite frank, were very difficult to pick up
because there was a light shading that got used in the evidence as
opposed to a dark shading.  And some of the confidential filings
aren’t complete documents as they have been filed in the past.  And
some documents don’t have a redacted version.  In other words, the
full document is redacted so there is no -- nothing on the main record
that would show the redacted version.  So I don’t know -- I think one
of the things that we are going to need to talk about today are the
claims for confidentiality and whether or not there will be any
challenge to them.  But I did want to start with my general comments
because this is a very difficult filing to read, to comprehend,
because even the redacted documents, many of them only contain the
redacted portions.  And in the past, generally speaking, we would have
had the full document.  So it’s -- sometimes it’s a matter of having
to shift back and forth between documents.  So hopefully this is a one
off and this wouldn’t be a typical filing going forward.  It’s -- I am
sure that the parties have experienced some of the same difficulties
that I have had in attempting to review it.
    So we will get to the confidentiality issues.  There is a
confidentiality undertaking that has been proposed.  And as well, at
this point in time, there are no objections to the claim for
confidentiality that have been filed yet.  But in the notice of
hearing was indicated that we would talk about a process to deal with
that.  So that will be one of the things we will have to deal with
this morning.
    Of course, we will have to deal with the hearing dates and the
schedule, the typical thing that is the only item of business at many
pre-hearings.
    And just generally before we get started, I want to indicate to
all of the parties here that I know that nobody was particularly happy
with the length of last year’s hearing.  It had an awful lot of
issues, they certainly weren’t just GRA issues.  It was almost like
three hearings rolled into one.  So we are certainly going to try a
little bit of a new approach this year to try and stream-line it and
try to expedite the hearing.  But having said that, we are not going
to do it in such a fashion as to prohibit anybody from asking
legitimate questions, to inquire, you know, into the matters.  But we
are going to urge the parties to stick to the issues.  You know, the
issues really flow from the filing itself, what’s been asked for and
so the information that would be required to assess that application.
If an issue has been covered by somebody and somebody else is really
just repeating the same questions, you should expect that we are going
to interrupt you.  And you shouldn’t take it personally.  If an issue
has been thoroughly covered, you know, sometimes it gets covered more
than one time and that’s really not necessary.
    We do want to make the hearings more efficient, the same time not
compromising party’s abilities to do their cross examination and their
due diligence in assessing this application.  And we will try to set
more definite start and stop times each day.  I think sometimes we are
-- you know, we start a little late one day or we go later or we don’t
-- I think it is probably helpful for parties to have that a little
more predictable.  So the Board will certainly do its part to try to
create some efficiency in the process this year.  And I am quite
confident that the parties will cooperate in that endeavour.
    So having said that, we have a number of notices of intervention.
And the intervener requests were from David Amos, Enbridge Gas New
Brunswick, Gerald Bourque, J.D. Irving, Limited, Roger Richard and the
Utilities Municipal.  Our rules provide that any objection to a
request for intervener status must be filed with the Board no later
than the day prior to the pre-hearing.  And the Board has received an
objection from NB Power with respect to the participation of David
Amos.  So I will set that aside for just a moment.  With respect to
the other five interveners who have requested status, the Board has
not received any objection.  I just stop here for a second because,
you know, it is possible we missed something.  But, Mr. Furey, is that
correct, there is no other objections?
  MR. FUREY:  That’s correct, Mr. Chair.
  CHAIRMAN:  All right.  So we have reviewed the requests for
intervener status by Enbridge Gas New Brunswick, Gerald Bourque, J.D.
Irving. Limited, Roger Richard and the Utilities Municipal.  And all
of those parties will be granted intervener status in this proceeding.
Mr. Costello thinks I might have missed Enbridge Gas New Brunswick
when I said that.  I thought I said them but in any event, the -- I
will repeat it just to be sure.  So we are granting intervener status
to Enbridge Gas New Brunswick, Gerald Bourque, J.D. Irving, Limited,
Roger Richard and Utilities Municipal.
    So I think before we get down to -- well maybe there is one other
one we can deal with fairly quickly.  The confidentiality undertaking
form that has been provided has been reviewed and it appears to
follow, if not, identically, very closely to the form that was used
last year.  Are there any parties that have any objection or any
reason that they believe that that should not -- there is something in
there that shouldn’t be there?  All right.  Hearing no objection, then
the Board will approve the confidentiality undertaking form that has
been proposed by NB Power.
    So I think the next order of business would be to deal with the
one remaining request for intervener status, that being the request by
David Amos.  And the Board did receive a notice requesting that the
Board disallow -- there was an objection filed by NB Power under our
rule 3.2.7 and this objection was to Mr. Amos’ application for
intervention.
    So, Mr. Furey, you filed that objection, so do you have anything
to say about that?
  MR. FUREY:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I do have a few additional comments.
    Our argument with respect to this has not changed substantially
from the argument that we presented in Matter 375 in October of 2017.
I would start by saying that this is not a position that NB Power
enjoys taking.  We are reluctant to ask the Board not to grant an
intervener status.  However, it is our view that Mr. Amos’ pattern of
confrontational behaviour has continued since that time.  And NB Power
remains of the view that Mr. Amos is not capable of an intervention in
a responsible, respectful manner.
    There are four instances that I am aware of that Mr. Amos has
either appeared before the Board or had communication with the Board.
There may be others but the four that I am aware of are the hearing of
the -- or an attempt to re-hear a motion in Matter 357.  There was the
hearing of the objection to intervener status in Matter 375 on October
31st of 2017.  There is the Public Session held by the Board in Matter
375 in February of last year.  And then there is the intervention
request that has been put forward on February 1st of this year by Mr.
Amos.
    And to some extent the Board has already dealt with some of these
issues.  In Matter 357, the transcript of that particular motion is
attached to attachment 1 of the documents we have filed today at
appendix I.  I am not going to go there.  The Board has reviewed that
in the past.  And the Board has already reviewed on that and I -- or
ruled on that.  I am going to go to that.  At attachment 2 of the
objection that we filed at page 84 of that transcript -- I am simply
going to read a little bit of the Board’s decision on that matter.
    In giving the decision the Chairman said, NB Power objects to his
intervention claiming his conduct during the hearing of a motion in
Matter 357 was confrontational and that his arguments lacked any
connection to the issues before the Board.  The Board agrees with that
assessment.
    So when I say the Board has already dealt with the 357 issue that
is what I mean, the Board has already ruled on that.
    In Matter 375 and the hearing of that original objection to
status, again at page 84 of the transcript that appears at attachment
2 of our documents, the Board goes on to address that and says, in the
present matter, Mr. Amos was given ample opportunity to put forward a
case that would support a respectful and responsible intervention.  He
failed to do so, rolling forward issues raised in Matter 357 and not
addressing the issue before us today.
    And that was the Board’s assessment of Mr. Amos’ arguments on that
day.  But it is useful to sort of revisit, because I think we forget
these things.
    If we go back to page 81 of that transcript, after Mr. Amos had
addressed what can only be described as extraneous issues for some
time, the Chairman interjects and says, Mr. Amos, please hear me out.
We have listened to you for 20 minutes or so, still haven’t heard your
response to how you can participate in this proceeding in a respectful
manner and stick to the issues.  And at the end of that sentence the
Chair says, everything else you have talked about is off topic.  To
which Mr. Amos responds, you just interrupted me, sir.  And that
carries on for a while.  On page 83, the Chairman indicates, Mr. Amos,
one last time I am going to give you an opportunity to address the
issue of how you can participate in a respectful and responsible
manner.  If you don’t want to talk about that topic, we will take an
adjournment and we will consider the request that Mr. Furey has made.
And that goes on a little bit.  And eventually the Board does recess
and give its decision.  So that was Matter 375 at that hearing.
    The next interaction that I am aware of is the Public Session in
Matter 375 that took place on February 7th of 2018.  And the
transcript of that public session, at least the part that Mr. Amos
presents at, is attached as attachment 3 to our notice of objection.
    And again for a period of time -- I should say at the outset, the
Vice-Chairman indicated to Mr. Amos that he would have 21 minutes,
more than the 15 minutes allotted because another presenter had been
-- had gone over time.  So after some period of time again of
extraneous discussion, at page 36 of that transcript the Vice-Chairman
interjects and says, so, Mr. Amos, I hate interrupting.  To which Mr.
Amos says, you are interrupting me, sir.  And that goes on for a few
minutes -- few moments, to the top of page 37 where there is a
discussion about whether Mr. Amos is being shut down by the
Vice-Chairman to which Mr. Amos then replies, do you want me to sue
you, sir, then turn off your mic.  And then the Vice-Chair it appears
to me -- I am characterizing this a little bit.  But it appears to me
that the Vice-Chair then allows Mr. Amos to proceed until his time
limit.  And on page 43 the Vice-Chairman again interjects saying, Mr.
Amos, I will intervene now.  It is 7:06 so you have had your 21
minutes.  Mr. Amos’ response, all right.  I will see you in another
court.  And continues, that’s fine.  I am suing you.  It’s him I am
concerned about.  He might be dead before me.
    And finally, the fourth interaction.  It is not an appearance but
the intervener request that Mr. Amos has filed in this matter.  And he
appears to have a specific issue that he wants to bring forward.  He
indicates that -- he is referring back to his appearance at the open
session on February 7th.  And he indicates that he explained to the
EUB in no uncertain terms that he is a whistle blower against NB
Power’s auditor KPMG.  And the attachments to his intervention appear
to me -- I am going to characterize them as allegations of conflict of
interest against KPMG with respect to individual taxpayer’s matters
before the Canada Revenue Agency.  All of which is extraneous to this
hearing.
    So in our submission, the evidentiary basis for this objection is
stronger this time than it was in Matter 375.  The pattern of
confrontational behaviour in which Mr. Amos is focused on allegations
of conflict of interest, unethical behaviour, lawlessness against
lawmakers, judges, lawyers, members of this Board continues with no
sign of abatement.  And so in that circumstance, again while
emphasizing that this is not a typical position that NB Power would
take, in this circumstance we feel compelled to ask the Board to deny
Mr. Amos’ request for intervener status.
  CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Furey.  Mr. Amos?
  MR. AMOS:  Good morning, Mr. Herron.  Remember me?  Yes or no?  You
must have recognized some of the documents that NB Power has filed in
this matter, haven’t you?
  CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Amos, do you have a presentation to make?
  MR. AMOS:  Yes, I do.  First off --
  CHAIRMAN:  Please make it.
  MR. AMOS:  First off, I made the Board aware that I got no notice of
this until my friend Roger notified me of it.  NB Power didn’t email
me.  They knew my email address.  They knew my new one.  Sent it to my
old one.  My friend Roger notified me.  I contacted the Board.
Notified NB Power of my indignation.  That said, after I read the
documents served upon me yesterday, let’s look at Mr. Furey’s letter
with respect to the timing of the hearing of the notice of objection
to the intervener request, Mr. Amos, NB Power is prepared to argue
this issue at the pre-hearing conference or at an alternate time set
by the Board.
    Now fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.  Now
Halloween of 2017, I had no notice.  I had to buy this thing to get
internet after that.  He files exactly the same document filed by
Wanda Harrison, October 30th.  I have every right to have the same
courtesy extended to me that was extended to Peter Hyslop.  And Mr.
Furey’s convenient memory, when I intervened and he was seeking to be
paid by this Board, I filed those documents then after I was invited
by Mr. Fury and his associates to a secret meeting in the law office
of Stewart McKelvey.  Then after Mr. Hyslop decides to withdraw, this
Board decides to oblige Mr. Russell and stop the 357 hearing until
after the election.  When the 357 matter began again, I was surprised
to see you, Mr. Gorman.  I thought you were retired.  But apparently
you had been re-appointed by the former Liberal government.
    On October 12th, when we encountered each other, nobody minding me
sitting there then.  At the time, Mr. Gallant during the election,
which Roger and I and Gerald all ran against in, during the election
Premier Gallant said that he was going to block rate increases of NB
Power for four years.  On October 12th he was still Premier.  You guys
didn’t know what to do.  You were going to get in a consultant or
something.  My friend Roger asked about this rate increase hearing as
soon as Mr. Higgs becomes Premier.  I said why waste our precious
time?  It’s not about smart meters.  His issue is about smart meters.
He said I am scared they are going to slip it in.  I said, no, they
are not, Roger.  It’s a rate increase hearing.
    We had decided not to intervene until he got spooked on Friday.
He relies on me to help him.  He intervened, I intervened.  This
matter is about rate increases based on the opinion of KPMG and Mr.
Gaetan and probably Mr Murphy but I can’t read the signature.  As far
as I know, NB Power has never, I repeat never been audited, ever.  I
don’t care about the opinion of KPMG.  I caused hearings at the senate
banking committee in Washington about them in November of 2003 before
I ran against Mr. Herron for his seat in parliament.  I served many of
those documents upon Mr. Herron and his lawyer David Lutz, who is
mentioned in these documents filed by Mr. Furey.  That said, I have
every right as a taxpayer and a citizen of this province and I just
bought real estate in New Brunswick and need power to intervene
because the Public Intervener can’t speak for anyone.  My friend
speaks for business.  I speak for the ordinary ratepayer.  The only
person that doesn’t pay an NB Power bill in this room is Mr. Stoll and
his new partner is a former Minister of Public Safety who had me
arrested.  All this is well known to Mr. Herron since 2004.  Now you
don’t want me to address him but if he is going to stand judgment on
me, I see a huge conflict of interest.  You are a lawyer, sir.  You
should have understood these documents I filed in the 357 Matter.  You
should have not allowed Mr. Furey to edit them.  Now I have the right
to respond --
  CHAIRMAN:  Excuse me, what editing are you talking about?
  MR. AMOS:  The documents he edited.  I told you in the last time.
That said, I have the right to respond in writing to Ms. Harrison.
She details many things.  If any lawyer in this room had saw what she
said about them and for EUB to publish those statements so the world
could see, that is what is called libel.  Five years in jail, section
300.  He just libelled me some more.  He just said just now on the
record things I did not say.  I asked Henneberry for a tape of the
hearing.  Ms. Desmond says not my job.  Henneberry won’t return my
calls.  I did not say dead Bernie.  I said Derrick Bernie.  And I
threaten no one.  And then talks about -- about somebody being dead
before me.  And I said no such thing.  I asked the lady for a copy of
the tape.  She says copyright.  I said how can you copyright my words.
And you shouldn’t twist my words.  I said no such thing.
    Now his memory is convenient.  If he recalls when I first
introduced myself, it was a pre-conference hearing, 357 Matter.  He
got in a big argument with Mr. Hyslop.  There was documents back and
forth.  The Board and I got along just fine.  He invited me to a
confidential hearing or meeting with Mr. Todd.  Everything was just
fine until the Board decides to accommodate Mr. Russell.  I have every
right to cross examine Mr. Russell.  Mr. Stoll flies in, wants to
cross examine him.  They make a deal so I can’t cross examine him
because Mr. Stoll is happy.  No way.  That wasn’t even a motion day.
I asked you if I could make a motion.  You wouldn’t answer.  I made a
motion.  And then you put me on the telephone.  How come I don’t get
the same courtesy he does?  All that said, yes, this is a matter for
another court.
    As you notice in the email I sent you, I contacted the RCMP just
as soon as I looked at his latest filing.  I consider it libel,
period.  That said, I will answer Ms. Harrison in writing to every one
of her accusations and then the Board should set a time, probably a
couple of days, so we can argue every paragraph.  You would do the
same for Mr. Hyslop, I am entitled to the same courtesy, period.
  CHAIRMAN:  Do you have anything further?
  MR. AMOS:  Mr. Herron, I suggest you dig up everything that has been
filed in this Matter.  You were served these documents in 2004.  I
never got an answer from you or your lawyer.
  CHAIRMAN:  So, Mr. Amos, I just have a couple of questions on your
-- your submission.  At the beginning you talked about collaborating
with Mr. Richard about whether you would intervene or not.  So I take
it that the two of you work together on the presentations that you
make here at the Board?
  MR. AMOS:  With your blessings.
  CHAIRMAN:  And I am not sure how this is relevant.  You talked about
buying real estate and you will need power.  Are you telling me you
are not a ratepayer now for NB Power?
  MR. AMOS:  Ever since I run against Mr. Herron I have been homeless.
People have kept me and they paid my power bill.  Now I bought my own
real estate and NB Power wants a deposit from me before I hook up
power.  I would like to see somebody ask for a deposit before they
sell me the first cup of coffee.  Furthermore, NB Power has never been
audited.  I do not care about the opinion of KPMG.  I am a whistle
blower against KPMG.  KPMG is also a law firm.  Everybody knows how
many lawyers I have sued.  KPMG audited the US Treasury Department
when I caused the hearings at the senate banking committee in
Washington about Putnam Investments, ringing any bells, Mr. Herron?
  CHAIRMAN:  So, Mr. Amos, if I can go back to the question.  Are you
telling me that currently you are not a ratepayer?
  MR. AMOS:  I am telling you I am David Amos and about to get a power
bill and I have been kept since 2005 by other ratepayers and I earned
it.
  CHAIRMAN:  No, I understand that.  But are you currently a ratepayer?
  MR. AMOS:  Are you splitting hairs?
  CHAIRMAN:  No, I am simply asking a question.
  MR. AMOS:  Today I am not a ratepayer.  I am the man that’s paying your wages.
  CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  You have brought up in your notice of intervention
this issue that you are talking about KPMG.  And how is that -- and
then towards the end of this you said it’s an issue -- that’s a matter
for another court.  So --
  MR. AMOS:  KPMG is well aware of murder, as is Mr. Herron.
  CHAIRMAN:  No.  So --
  MR. AMOS:  Mr. Herron has had a copy of a wiretap tape of the mob
since 2004.  Would you like to discuss murder, sir?
  CHAIRMAN:  So, Mr. Amos, are you suggesting these are matters that
this Board --
  MR. AMOS:  I am suggesting there is a huge conflict of interest --
  CHAIRMAN:  Excuse me.
  MR. AMOS:  -- and you are trying to save your butt.
  CHAIRMAN:  Are you suggesting this is a matter that -- that this
Board would --
  MR. AMOS:  It’s a matter for federal court.  Just because of what he
said now.  I didn’t threaten to kill anyone, period.
  CHAIRMAN:  Are you suggesting that this Board has the jurisdiction
to deal with these issues --
  MR. AMOS:  This is not a court.
  CHAIRMAN:  Or this Board.  I know it’s a Board.
  MR. AMOS:  You are overseen by a Minister of Energy, Mr. Holland.
  CHAIRMAN:  So you are suggesting that this Board has that jurisdiction?
  MR. AMOS:  You have no jurisdiction.  None.  You have no
jurisdiction over me.  I have jurisdiction over you.  You work for me.
I am the taxpayer here.  And just because I don’t have a power bill
today, I don’t care.  I don’t care.  I pay your wages.
  CHAIRMAN:  So, Mr. Amos, just maybe one last question and that is
really about your purpose for intervening, because your application
seems to emphasize this issue that you are talking about with respect
to KPMG.  Is that what -- why you are intervening?  Is that the issue
you want to --
  MR. AMOS:  Let’s -- let’s go back.  My friend Roger, when they come
out with the rate increase after Mr. Gallant was no longer premier, he
was asking me about intervening because he is concerned about smart
meters.  That’s his biggest concern, smart meters.  I said, Roger,
don’t worry about smart meters.  Listen to the news.  Mr. Thomas has
to hustle people because you people denied him having smart meters.
357 is about that issue.  I made sure he intervened much to the
chagrin of Mr. Furey.  Mr. Furey did not want Roger to intervene in
the hearing.  Now in my intervention, I provide an email that was
acknowledged by the Board on April 3rd.  Now by April 3rd of last
year, his issues of smart meter had gone by the wayside.  So there was
no longer -- it had been all heard.  You guys didn’t recognize the
professor from McGill as an expert.  Mr. Furey didn’t ask him the
first question.  He addressed all its concerns as best he could about
smart meters.  A month or so went by.
    April 3rd  -- it come out in late March that NB Power had reached
a settlement of the lawsuit.  However, I see no sign of any money
going into NB Power’s books this time.  So they must have slipped it
in after April 1st last year.  But they apparently received the
settlement in March.  Wanted to keep it a secret.  I told him it’s
important we go to the hearing.  You folks were somewhat surprised to
see my friend at the hearing.  I was sitting at his side.  I listened
very closely to the hearing.  When I heard Mr. Stewart mention the
Canada Revenue Service three times, I sent you an email.  Bingo.  His
client, the Irvings, use KPMG all the time as a law firm.  That said,
I sent you all the email.  It was acknowledged, right.  I sent it to
the Minister, sent it to the RCMP.  Then you asked my friend Roger
what he thought.  In the email I sent you this morning, which is a
transcript of April 3rd -- did you look at the email I sent you this
morning?
  CHAIRMAN:  We have a copy of that transcript, yes.
  MR. AMOS:  I beg your pardon?
  CHAIRMAN:  We have a copy of that transcript.
  MR. AMOS:  Yeah.  After Mr. Stewart did his big spiel about Revenue
Canada, et cetera, you asked my friend Roger what he thought.  Roger
voiced his opinion about freezing price rates months before Gallant
dreamed it up.  And then he said if he ran his business like NB Power
runs it, his would be flat lined.  That’s what Roger said.  Roger
voiced his opinion fairly articulately.  He asked, since they had this
big settlement and were looking to decrease their price rate, perhaps
you should adjourn the hearing and start 357 again.  That’s what he
said.  It’s in the transcript.  It’s in the email I sent you.  I also
published it on the internet.  I also sent it to the RCMP.  That said,
it is what it is.  I heard that.  I sent the email.  You responded.
The second part of my intervention that he considers nothing is even a
letter from the Ombudsman of KPMG not long after I ran against Mr.
Herron.  If the Ombudsman of KPMG is trying to make a deal with me and
I was introduced to him by the RCMP, you don’t think that has any
gravity?
  CHAIRMAN:  So, Mr. Amos, again I am going to go back to your
intervener request.  And when you talk about your interest in the
proceeding it says, David Raymond Amos, on the evening of February 7th
2018, explained to the EUB in no uncertain terms that he is a whistle
blower against NB Power’s auditor KPMG and that he has every right to
question their actions in support of NB Power or anyone else, for that
matter.
    And it goes on to talk about having made NB Power aware of many
communications, et cetera.  And then there are a number of pages that
have emails in some way or another relating to that topic.
    So is that the purpose that you are looking to intervene is to
deal with that issue?
  MR. Amos:  Mr. Gorman, if you recall before we had the hearing on
the phone about whether or not to cancel the 357 -- or adjourn the 357
Matter, I sent you emails going, do you remember me now, Mr. Gorman?
Because as soon as you were appointed, I sent you emails before the
economy collapsed.  I forwarded those emails to you.  Those would be
some of the filings I will file when I respond to his submission.  I
have every right to respond to Ms. Harrison’s documentation in
writing.
  CHAIRMAN:  So, Mr. Amos, you haven’t answered my question, however.
Is that your purpose for the intervention request?
  MR. AMOS:  I most definitely want to grill Mr. Murphy about his
opinions about the purported accounting of NB Power because I don’t
think NB Power has ever been audited ever.
    I don’t care about opinions.  I want to see an audit.  It’s my
money and yours.  I know that Hydro-Quebec is audited by the Auditor
General of Quebec.  Nobody audits NB Power.  The Auditor General of
New Brunswick was telling everybody in a report for the government to
stay out of NB Power’s business.  And yet they had a big committee
hearing yesterday inspired by David Coon.  Just who is -- the fox is
guarding the hen house.  NB Power, nobody oversees them, even you
don’t.  Nobody audits NB Power.  I don’t -- and then KPMG, you think I
am going to trust one word of KPMG when they have covered up murder.
  CHAIRMAN:  So, Mr. Amos, then you are not recognizing the audited
financial statements that --
  MR. AMOS:  They are not audited.  Number 1 it is signed KPMG.  I
know when I was in business and I had an auditor and I reported to the
taxman, he had to sign that on pains and penalties of perjury with the
CRA and lose his license.  I had an auditor.  I was in business.
Apparently I was more successful percentage-wise than NB Power ever
dreamed of.  I would love to have the nature of their business and not
-- and they don’t make any money.  I don’t believe it.  The -- the --
the Quebecers were willing to pay nearly $5 billion and then Mr.
Graham resolved the deal to 3.2 billion without the transmission
lines.  Well the Quebecers don’t pay $5 billion for debt.  There is no
need to raise rates.  They are way over 20 percent equity.  I don’t
care what KPMG purportedly claims.  I want to see an audit.  And in
order to see an audit, it must be audited.
  CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Thank you, Mr. Amos.  I appreciate that this is a
matter primarily between Mr. Amos, who has applied to be an
intervener, and NB Power, who has objected.  Our rules call for a copy
of that objection to be served on all of the parties.  I am not sure I
can -- why we have put that in the rules, but the fact that we have
done it, one might think -- look at it that parties might have an
opportunity to comment on this because of that requirement.  So on
that basis, I am going to see if anybody has any comments on this
issue.  So I will start with Enbridge Gas New Brunswick.  Mr.
Callaghan, do you have any comments on this matter?
  MR. CALLAGHAN:  No, comments, Mr. Chair.
  CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  Mr. Stewart?
  MR. STEWART:  No comment, Mr. Chair.
  CHAIRMAN:  Yes.  Mr. Richard?
  DR. RICHARD:  Yes, if you permit.  Mr. Amos is a very knowledgeable
person.  Mr. Amos only speaks the truth.  But he has difficulty to
verbalize it in a way we can understand.  If we let him speak, let him
enough time, we will all learn something.  I can assure you that it
will be worth the while.  Of all the citizens of New Brunswick, we are
only three independent interveners.  You accepted four Americans in
our Board of Directors last year.  And you are considering eliminating
a New Brunswicker as an intervener.  New Brunswickers come in various
forms.  Please get accustomed to varieties and accept them as they
come.  Mr. President, I know your ability to manage various groups of
people.  You are able to accommodate Mr. Amos’ mode of communication.
With the right attitude, we can all learn to understand the way Mr.
Amos communicates.  His message is very important for our province.
Because we are in financial and environmental difficulty, very, very
important.  His concern with KPMG is genuine.  We want to argue that
NB Power needs to be audited by our general auditor.  It is essential
that Mr. Amos be an intervener for our province, unless NBEUB is a
private club.  And thank you, Mr. President.
  CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Richard.  Mr. Stoll?
  MR. STOLL:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  We don’t see that Mr. Amos’
participation is going to be helpful to an efficient hearing.  So we
are supporting the NB Power motion.
  CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  Ms. Black?
  MS. BLACK:  No comment, Mr. Chair.
  CHAIRMAN:  Ms. Desmond, any comment?
  MS. DESMOND:  No comment.
  CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Thank you.  We are going to take a short
adjournment and when we come back -- I think before we actually get to
the schedule -- and I know that NB Power has produced and filed a
suggested schedule and I am not sure if others -- you know, if there
has been any discussion about that at all.  But I think before we can
really get into a scheduling discussion, I think we also need to talk
about the redactions of the confidential information.
  MR. FUREY:  Certainly, Mr. Chair.  If I could make one additional
comment that might be helpful.  It is not directed to Mr. Amos’
status.  But I think it’s important for Dr. Richard to understand, and
I am putting it on the record now, that NB Power is not seeking
approval of AMI capital expenditures in this hearing.  This is a rate
hearing.  And I want him to understand that AMI is not on the table in
this hearing.
  CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Thank you.  So we will take a brief adjournment.
    (Recess)
  CHAIRMAN:  All right.  So we will deal with the notice of objection
relating to Mr. Amos’ intervener request in this Matter.
    And first of all, I want to make a comment about the intervener
request.  It does not seem to, on the face of it, deal with the
matters that are going to be in issue in Matter 430.  I made some
general comments at the opening of the session today that the Board
intends to keep people on topic this year.  And this applies to
everybody.  I wouldn’t just be referring to Mr. Amos here.  That if
there are issues that are not pertinent to the rate application, then
this is not going to be the forum to air those issues.
    Me. Amos, in making his argument this morning, suggested two
things that the Board is going to take into consideration.  One is
that he got a fairly late notice yesterday with respect to the notice
of objection.  It is my understanding that he has changed his email
address and that the new one and the old one are somewhat similar.  I
understand, Mr. Amos, that somebody from our office did provide you
with a copy of the notice of objection but it would have been later on
in the day, I expect.
    And secondly, Mr. Amos says that he needs a little bit of time to
provide a written response to the written objection.  And our rules
don’t speak to that.  They simply say that we will set a time to deal
with the objection, which is this morning.
    The Board believes that Mr. Amos, in the circumstances of this
case, can be given an opportunity to provide written remarks.  And we
will give you one week.  So a week from today by noon, if we have your
comments, written comments with respect to this issue -- and I would
ask you to confine your remarks to the issue that we have today which
is whether or not you will be granted intervener status.  And the
Board will then issue a written decision on this matter just as
quickly as we can.
    So having said that, your intervener request is not granted today.
We haven’t declined it.  But it has not been granted today.  So for
purposes of today’s proceedings, you are not an intervener but we
will, before we determine for the hearing whether or not you will be
an intervener, we will consider your written remarks.  They are to be
filed no later than noon, one week from today.
    Mr. Furey, do you see any reason why you would need time or an
opportunity even to respond to any written comments from Mr. Amos?
  MR. FUREY:  I don’t anticipate at this time that we would require a
response.  It probably wouldn’t be unreasonable to say 24 hours later,
if the Board was inclined to give us that opportunity, it would be a
very short time frame.  I would think 24 hours would be more than
sufficient.
  CHAIRMAN:  All right.  Then we will provide you with a 24 hour
opportunity to respond to any remarks that Mr. Amos may provide to us.
So that would be Thursday of next week at noon.  And if we haven’t
received anything from NB Power -- if we have got Mr. Amos’ remarks
and we don’t have anything from you, then we will proceed to
deliberate on this matter and issue a written decision.  This is not a
decision that will take -- I don’t believe it will take a long time.
I would expect that we will have it out either at the end of next week
or the beginning of the following week.  Mr. Amos, did you have a
question?
  MR. AMOS:  Thank you for the time.  You are a Queen’s Counsel, it is
my understanding.  Do you understand the documents that Mr. Furey
filed of mine in this Matter and the documents I filed in the 357
Matter?
  CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Amos, rather than you putting questions to me, you
have made your argument this morning as to why you should be granted
intervener status.  I am giving you an opportunity to provide the
written response that you requested.  And any comments of that nature
-- anything about the nature of these documents or why they are or are
not relevant, why we should consider them, you can put those in your
remarks.
  MR. AMOS:  You are a lawyer.
  CHAIRMAN:  Sir, we are talking now about procedure.  And the
procedure that we have provided is we are giving you one week to
provide a written response.  Do you have any questions on what we have
decided?
  MR. AMOS:  Why won’t you answer me?
  CHAIRMAN:  Sir, do you have any questions on the decision that we
have made with respect to your request today?
  MR. AMOS:  No, I don’t.
  CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Thank you.  All right.  So the other issues that
we have before us today is we have to obviously look at the hearing
dates and the schedule.  And the question of the confidentiality
claims, whether or not there is going to be any challenge to those, I
think has to be sorted out and -- because I think that may impact on
the schedule as to whether or not some time has to be set aside for
that.
    So perhaps just dealing with the claims for confidentiality and
maybe even in the context of some of the general comments that I made
when we opened this morning.  So, Mr. Furey, do you have any sort of
general comments to make with respect to the claims for
confidentiality?  I mean, we are not here today to deal with them.
Nobody has actually filed any requests for us to review those.  I just
wonder in terms of a process that might be followed if it’s necessary
and any sort of general claim -- or any general comments on the issues
that I raised earlier?







03793

DECISION
REGARDING INTERVENER REQUEST
AND NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO
INTERVENER REQUEST

IN THE MATTER of an application by the
New Brunswick Power Corporation pursuant
to Section 103(1) of the Electricity Act,
S.N.B. 2013, c. 7, for approval of the
schedules of the rates for the fiscal year
commencing April 1, 2019.

(Matter No. 430)

February 25, 2019

NEW BRUNSWICK ENERGY AND UTILITIES BOARD
IN THE MATTER of an application by the New Brunswick Power Corporation
pursuant to Section 103(1) of the Electricity Act, S.N.B. 2013, c. 7,
for approval of the schedules of the rates for the fiscal year
commencing April 1, 2019.

(Matter No. 430)

NEW BRUNSWICK ENERGY AND UTILITIES BOARD:
Chairperson: Raymond Gorman, Q.C.
Members: Michael Costello
John Patrick Herron
Counsel: Ellen Desmond, Q.C.
Chief Clerk: Kathleen Mitchell
APPLICANT:
New Brunswick Power Corporation: John Furey
PUBLIC INTERVENER: Heather Black

PARTICIPANTS:
David Amos
Enbridge Gas New Brunswick: Jeffery Callaghan
Gerald Bourque
J.D. Irving Limited: Christopher J. Stewart
Roger Richard
Utilities Municipal: Scott Stoll

A. Introduction

[1] The New Brunswick Power Corporation (NB Power) filed a Notice of
Application with the New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board (Board)
on January 8, 2019, for approval of the rates it proposes to charge
for its services for the fiscal year commencing April 1, 2019. NB
Power is also seeking an Order approving the creation of a Regulatory
Deferral Account with respect to certain Demand Side Management
expenses.

[2] Notice of this Application (Matter 430) was provided to the public
and any person wishing to participate in the hearing was required to
register with the Board no later than February 1.

[3] Any person wishing to participate must file an Intervener Request
and demonstrate that they have a substantial interest in the
proceeding and that they intend to participate actively and
responsibly. This requirement is in keeping with the Board’s

Rules of Procedure (Rules). Rule 3 provides, in part, as follows:

3. Participation in Board Proceedings
3.2. Interveners
3.2.1. Except as otherwise provided in a Practice Directive, following
the issuance of a Hearing Order, a person (other than an applicant)
wishing to actively participate as a party to the proceeding shall
apply for intervener status by filing an Intervener Request with the
Board, and serving a copy of same on the applicant, if any, on or
before the date directed by the Board. This shall apply whether the
proceeding has been commenced by an application or otherwise.
3.2.2. A person filing an Intervener Request must have a substantial
interest in the
proceeding and intend to participate actively and responsibly.

[4] Several individuals did file an Intervener Request with the Board,
including Mr. David Amos, who indicated that he was a “whistleblower
against NB Power’s auditor KPMG and that he has every right to
question their actions”. Mr. Amos also attached several pages of
emails that had been exchanged with various individuals about his
concerns involving both KPMG and the Canada Revenue Agency.

[5] On February 5, 2019, NB Power filed a Notice of Objection to the
intervention of Mr. Amos pursuant to Rule 3.2.7. NB Power submits that
Mr. Amos has not met the criteria of Rule 3.2.2.

[6] The written objection states, in part, as follows:

… Mr. Amos does not demonstrate that he has a substantive interest in the
proceedings…as the nature of his proposed intervention appears to be based on an
allegation that KPMG is in a conflict of interest with respect to
taxation matters
administered by the Canada Revenue Agency, an issue which is not
relevant to this Proceeding.

NB Power further submits that the history of Mr. Amos’ appearances
before the Board in other proceedings demonstrates that he does not
meet the requirement of participation in a responsible manner. To the
contrary, NB Power submits that Mr. Amos is a vexatious litigant, and
should not be permitted to participate in this Proceeding.

[7] During the pre-hearing conference held on February 7, 2019, the
Board heard submissions from the parties as to whether Mr. Amos’
Intervener Request should be
allowed pursuant to Rule 3.2.9. Mr. Amos was also given the additional
opportunity to file written comments in support of his request.

B. Issue and Analysis

[8] The Board must determine if Mr. Amos should be granted intervener
status in Matter 430 and if he has met the requirements set out in
Rule 3.

[9] During the pre-hearing conference Mr. Amos was repeatedly asked
for the purpose of his intervention. Mr. Amos failed to answer
clearly, concluding “I most definitely want to grill Mr. Murphy about
his opinions about the purported accounting of NB Power
because I don’t think NB Power has ever been audited ever.”

[10] There was also concern about Mr. Amos’ ability to participate
responsibly. On this point, NB Power made extensive oral submissions
during the pre-hearing conference, including as follows:

… The pattern of confrontational behaviour in which Mr. Amos is
focused on allegations of conflict of interest, unethical behaviour,
lawlessness against lawmakers, judges, lawyers, members of this Board
continues with no sign of abatement. And so in that circumstance,
again while emphasizing that this is not a typical position that NB
Power would take, in this circumstance we feel compelled to ask the
Board to deny Mr. Amos’ request for intervener status.

[11] In his submission and during the course of his oral argument, Mr.
Amos talked about many issues from the past and many personalities,
but did not focus on the
current application. Allegations of lawlessness were made, none of
which are relevant to this matter.

[12] As indicated above, Mr. Amos was also given the opportunity to
make a written submission, after the pre-hearing conference was
concluded. This submission included a large volume of information,
dealing with a variety of matters raised by him in
various forums, (both in Canada and in the United States), which was
not related to the current Matter.

[13] Responsible intervention obligates intervenors to raise issues
and to file evidence that is relevant to the Matter. The Board must
focus on its legislative mandate and
consider just those issues that are within its jurisdiction. The
issues raised by Mr. Amos are extraneous and unrelated to the
application before the Board. Despite numerous opportunities to do so,
Mr. Amos failed to raise any issues of relevance in this Matter.

[14] The volume of irrelevant material filed by Mr. Amos, and his
submissions, not only fail to demonstrate that he has a substantial
interest in this matter, but also indicate that he would not be
intervening responsibly, as he would take a great deal of time raising
unrelated issues.

C. Conclusion

[15] Having considered the oral and written submissions of Mr. Amos,
NB Power and other parties, the Board finds that Mr. Amos has not
demonstrated that he has a
substantial interest in this proceeding. In addition, the Board finds
that, on a balance of
probabilities, Mr. Amos would not participate responsibly if he were
granted intervener status.

[16] As a result, the Board will exercise its discretion and will not
grant intervener status to Mr. Amos in this Matter.

Dated in Saint John, New Brunswick, this the 25th of February, 2019.

Raymond Gorman, Q.C.
Chairperson

Michael Costello
Member

John Patrick Herron
Member




Sent via email
May 21, 2019

Mr. Gaetan Thomas gathomas@nbpower.com
Members, Energy and Utilities Board general@nbeub.ca
Premier Blaine Higgs blaine.higgs@gnb.ca

Gentlemen:

On May 9th, 2019, the Fredericton Chapter of the Council of Canadians
hosted Mr. Chris Rouse, Systems Engineer and founder of New Clear Free
Solutions at a public presentation at Wilmot Church in Fredericton.
The event was attended by more than one-hundred people.

Chris addressed the very pressing need for our Province to reach a
goal of having 95% of our energy needs met by renewable energy as we
transition to a low-carbon economy. His presentation demonstrated that
reaching this goal is indeed technically possible, and can be done
using our own local renewable energy sources while lowering energy
costs. Chris’s report may be found here:

https://newclearfreesolutions.com/2019/03/05/a-sustainable-business-case-for-the-transition-to-a-low-carbon-economy-in-new-brunswick-2019-integrated-resource-plan/

Of course the backdrop to this work and our desire to engage the
public in a dialogue is the climate emergency and the need to get New
Brunswick’s carbon emissions to zero or negative in the very near
future. It is imperative that we all help with the global effort to
avert climate catastrophe.

At the conclusion of Chris’s presentation individuals were given the
option to sign a letter indicating their support for the proposal as
presented. Attached you will find a document containing forty-one such
scanned letters for your attention and response.

Sincerely,
Margo Sheppard (on behalf of Fredericton Chapter, Council of Canadians)