Nb Power’s rate hike bid vs. EUB’s denial: what the comparison reveals
nb Power asked to raise electricity rates by 4. 75% on April 1 and, failing that, sought a way to recover delayed revenue later in its fiscal year. The New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board (EUB) rejected both requests as hearings begin on the broader rate application. Placing the utility’s argument beside the regulator’s reasoning answers a narrower question: was the delay an emergency requiring stopgap relief, or a foreseeable consequence of NB Power’s own scheduling choices?
NB Power’s 4. 75% interim request and the attempted backstop
NB Power’s immediate goal was an interim electricity rate increase of 4. 75% to begin April 1. It framed the money as necessary to avoid long-term financial risks, and it pursued the request as a temporary measure while a full hearing considered whether rates should rise later in 2026.
When the utility did not get the interim order, it also tried to protect itself from the costs of delay. In one version of the request, NB Power asked the EUB to let it recover lost revenue associated with implementing any new rates after April 1, spread over the remainder of the fiscal year once a decision is made on the general rate application. In another, the utility sought a special charge, or rate rider, that would apply to more than 400, 000 customers, both residential and commercial, dating back to April 1 if it eventually gets approval to raise prices later in 2026.
Underlying the push for interim relief was a timing problem. NB Power had asked the regulator to hear other matters first, including hearings tied to the Renewable Integration Grid Security (RIGS) project, which took place from Feb. 9 to 13. It also prioritized proceedings connected to a proposed Tantramar gas/diesel plant after failing to persuade the EUB last fall that it did not require approval for that facility.
EUB Chair Christopher Stewart’s denial and the “exceptional circumstances” test
EUB Chair Christopher Stewart delivered an oral ruling at the Fredericton Convention Centre at the start of Monday’s session, with a three-member panel considering NB Power’s broader application. “The motion is denied, ” Stewart said, explaining that the board exercises its discretion to grant such requests only in “exceptional circumstances. ”
The ruling rejected two pieces at once: the interim 4. 75% increase and the attempt to add a retroactive charge mechanism. Stewart described an interim rate order as an “extraordinary remedy, ” and he set a clear boundary on when it should be used. In his view, it is not intended to shield a utility from “known or reasonably foreseeable consequences of their own business decisions. ”
Stewart connected that standard directly to NB Power’s choices. He said the interim request was rooted in a business decision by NB Power to push the general rate application hearing to a later date in favor of hearings about the RIGS project. He also said NB Power had options to mitigate the risk of delay but did not use them.
nb Power vs. the EUB: a side-by-side look at timing, responsibility, and customer impact
Set side by side, nb Power and the EUB are talking about the same calendar problem but assigning responsibility differently. NB Power stressed the need to start collecting more revenue on April 1. The EUB focused on why the hearing schedule moved and whether that created an “exceptional” need for emergency relief.
| Comparable point | NB Power position | EUB position |
|---|---|---|
| Requested interim increase | 4. 75% starting April 1 | Denied at the start of Monday’s session |
| Fallback if April 1 increase denied | Recover delayed revenue over the remainder of the fiscal year; also sought a retroactive rate rider dating back to April 1 | Denied the interim measure and dismissed the rate rider request |
| Cause of delay | Scheduling priority for other hearings, including RIGS and the proposed gas/diesel plant | Delay viewed as foreseeable from NB Power’s business decisions |
| Standard for interim relief | Implied need to avoid long-term financial risks | Only for “exceptional circumstances”; “extraordinary remedy” not meant to insulate foreseeable outcomes |
| Effect on customers | Would have affected more than 400, 000 customers, residential and commercial, including potential retroactive billing | Decision offers a temporary reprieve; any changes now more likely in June or July |
The sharpest divergence sits in responsibility. Stewart tied the timing pressure to NB Power’s handling of competing regulatory matters, including its decision to sign a contract with the U. S. company PROENERGY to build and run the proposed gas/diesel facility with specific deadlines. The contract originally stated regulatory approval was needed by April 1 and that if approval did not happen, the company could walk away. Stewart pointed to the April 1 cutoff itself as part of a business decision, and he did not accept that this created the kind of emergency the board should remedy through interim rates.
For customers, the comparison also clarifies what the denial does and does not do. It blocks a specific April 1 increase and prevents a retroactive charge dating back to April 1. Yet, the EUB decision does not rule out higher prices later. With the hearing timing, any changes to bills for all customer classes are now more likely in June or July.
Finding: the EUB treated nb Power’s interim request as a problem of self-created timing, not a circumstance warranting extraordinary relief, even while leaving the door open to a later rate change. The next confirmed test of that finding is the continuation of hearings on NB Power’s general rate application, scheduled to run through March 20. If NB Power maintains that delayed implementation alone justifies special interim treatment, the comparison suggests the board will keep applying a responsibility-and-foreseeability standard before granting any stopgap rate tools.
