Islanders could pay $6M more as Maritime Electric appeals IRAC ruling on Fiona costs

Thinh Nguyen · CBC News

· Posted: Aug 20, 2026 12:20 PM EDT | Last Updated: August 20

Maritime Electric is asking the P.E.I. Court of Appeal to overturn a decision that prevents the utility from recovering all of the costs it incurred restoring power after post-tropical storm Fiona.

If the utility wins, Islanders could potentially pay about $6 million more than they would under the current ruling.

The appeal challenges a June decision by the Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission, which allowed Maritime Electric to recover about 90 per cent of its roughly $41.2-million Fiona restoration costs through electricity rates.

IRAC disallowed about $4.12 million, saying the utility had not done enough tree trimming before the storm. The commission also blocked the utility from earning a profit on part of what it spent.

Maritime Electric is asking the court to set aside those disallowances and declare that it is entitled to recover its Fiona-related costs in full.

• Islanders may face higher power bills as IRAC rules Maritime Electric can recoup Fiona costs

• Maritime Electric makes final arguments in application to recoup $41.2M in Fiona costs

If the court does not do that, the company is asking for the case to be sent back to IRAC for a new decision.

The P.E.I. government says it plans to intervene in the appeal.

“I’ve directed the Department of Transportation, Infrastructure and Energy to intervene in the appeal by Maritime Electric at the Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal,” P.E.I. Premier Rob Lantz was quoted as saying in a statement to CBC News.

“My government will continue moving forward with work to modernize P.E.I.’s electricity regulatory framework, with a focus on greater accountability and better protecting the interests of Island ratepayers.”

Trees and missing data

The dispute centres in part on how prepared Maritime Electric was for Fiona.

In a rate application submitted to IRAC three months before the storm, Maritime Electric told the commission that it was not spending enough on vegetation management and that most of its utility lines were in urgent need of tree trimming.

• Island's power grid needed 'urgent' vegetation management, even before Fiona

Then Fiona struck, causing an almost Island-wide blackout as trees fell onto power lines.

Under P.E.I.'s Electric Power Act, Maritime Electric can recover costs from customers only when those costs are considered to have been “prudently incurred.”

In its June ruling, IRAC concluded that some of the costs could have been avoided had Maritime Electric been better prepared.

WATCH | Customers could be on the hook for 90% of Maritime Electric's Fiona restoration costs:

Maritime Electric disagrees, arguing that there is no rationale to withhold 10 per cent of its costs.

“The commission further erred in law by selecting a disallowance of 10 per cent of the total restoration costs in the complete absence of any evidence establishing that specific quantum,” the utility said in its filing.

Maritime Electric has also argued that about 99 per cent of the damage caused by Fiona came from trees outside provincial rights of way. Those are areas where the utility needs permission from property owners before it can trim trees.

However, it has not provided data to substantiate the 99 per cent figure. The lack of data was one of the issues considered by IRAC when it decided not to allow the utility to recover all of its costs.

IRAC, though, said in its June decision that crews were focused on restoring power safely and quickly in the days after Fiona, and “a downstream effect of this may be a lack of data.”

Maritime Electric argues that IRAC acknowledged the circumstances surrounding the lack of data but still held the missing information against the company.

What the Fiona costs include

Maritime Electric said restoring power after Fiona cost the company:

• $19.3 million in capital spending to fix and replace destroyed infrastructure like lines, transformers and other equipment.
• $15.3 million in operating costs (staffing, overtime etc.).
• $6.6 million in interest as a result of borrowing the cash required to pay for the cleanup costs.

IRAC ruled Maritime Electric could earn a return on the approved capital costs, but not on the $15.3 million in operating costs or the $6.6 million in interest costs.

The utility is asking the court to overturn that decision as well.

If Maritime Electric succeeds, it could recover the roughly $4.12 million that IRAC disallowed.

It could also be allowed to earn a return on the operating and interest costs that IRAC excluded from its approved recovery. Based on Maritime Electric’s regulated return on equity of 9.35 to 9.7 per cent, that additional return could amount to about $2.1 million.

Combined, that could put the potential additional amount recovered from customers at more than $6 million.