John Fury, representing NB Power, argued that the regulator had not adequately addressed the key issues during the rate hearing. He contended that the regulator allowed new evidence to be introduced in mid-January, which presented a more favorable financial outlook for NB Power, without considering the utility’s financial struggles in the previous year. Fury pointed to the government’s mandate letter, which emphasized the importance of NB Power reducing its debt by March 31, 2027. He highlighted that NB Power’s debt situation had worsened in the latter half of 2022, moving further away from the government’s debt reduction target. Throughout his presentation, he argued that the regulator had not properly considered all the evidence and the significant debt pressure faced by NB Power.

Abigail Herrington, the lawyer representing the New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board, countered Fury’s arguments by stating that the regulator had carefully examined NB Power’s estimated revenue requirements and considered various factors. She pointed out that NB Power had initially requested to make $16 million in net income, which could be directed towards debt repayment, but did not adjust that demand during the hearings. This raised questions about the utility’s commitment to addressing its debt problem. Herrington also emphasized that the regulator had multiple competing objectives to consider, not just debt repayment, with the goal of keeping rates low and stable.

Toronto lawyer Glenn Zacher represented J.D. Irving, whose factories and timber mills have a substantial electricity demand. He argued that NB Power had consistently failed to meet its debt reduction targets over the past decade due to an inability to control costs. He stressed the well-established precedent that public utilities should not be allowed to request rate increases to cover losses from previous years. Zacher urged the judges not to reward NB Power’s poor performance.

You can read more about the legal battle here.