Nova Scotia Energy Board Declines to Fine Utility Over Missed 2025 Performance Standards
The Nova Scotia Energy Board chose not to impose an administrative penalty on Nova Scotia Power for failing to meet several 2025 performance standards, including targets for power outages and customer service complaints. The decision drew criticism from Premier Tim Houston's office, while a discrepancy emerged over the number of new customer-care representatives the utility hired.
The Nova Scotia Energy Board decided on Thursday not to impose an administrative penalty on Nova Scotia Power after the utility failed to meet certain performance standards in 2025. The board stated that such penalties are intended to promote compliance rather than serve a punitive purpose.
Despite overall performance improving compared to 2024, the utility missed benchmarks related to the number and duration of power outages as well as responding to consumer complaints. The number of planned outages rose to 1,749 in 2025, up from 1,666 in 2024. Both figures were significantly higher than the 467 planned outages recorded in 2022. According to the consumer advocate, 2025 marked the ninth consecutive year that Nova Scotia Power failed to meet one or more performance targets.
Nova Scotia Power attributed some of its difficulties in meeting benchmarks to a cyberattack suffered last year. Because recovery work from the hacking incident is still ongoing, the energy board deferred its decision on issues related to the attack until next year’s performance standards report.
A discrepancy also surfaced regarding the utility's staffing levels. Nova Scotia Power claimed it had hired 40 additional customer-care representatives. However, the small business advocate reported that information provided by the company indicated only four additional customer-service representatives were hired in 2025.
The decision not to fine the utility prompted criticism from the provincial government. Premier Tim Houston's office expressed deep concern and disappointment regarding the outcome, arguing that the board should have used its full powers to ensure greater accountability.