Thank you. My -- I have $80 million in my head on, like, a general kind of subsidy. I don't know if it wraps up everything in that, but that's my recollection from perhaps the main estimates. But does that number sound accurate at all? Thank you.

Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sorry, so, Mr. Chair, I heard subsidies directed to the consumer, so that's the numbers I was sort of running through. There's also, of course, supports that the government provides to keep the cost of energy infrastructure reduced. So, for example, the Inuvik wind project, wind and battery project, and the Taltson upgrade project collectively were also -- came in at around $80 million and by subsidizing -- so, yes, we're subsidizing in that case the infrastructure by doing so, otherwise that would then have to be paid by the ratepayers according to the public utilities principles. So by avoiding having that cost passed down, I suppose that's also indirectly subsidizing consumers.

Similarly, there was the cost of diesel over the last couple of years, which I believe was at around $30 million. That should be in the mains. It may be, indeed, what was recently seen that is part of sort of every nine to ten years or so when there's a low water cycle, we do find that the territorial government does tend to step in and provide supports. Again, otherwise that higher cost of burning diesel does get passed down to the ratepayers on the user pay principle. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Range Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So how much -- is there a calculation for -- this $12 million, like how much we're saving taxpayers from the general -- or consumers -- sorry, consumers, not taxpayers because we're not saving taxpayers. We're spending their money. But how -- and I'm okay with that if we're getting to a public good and, in this case, we're taking the pain off the utility bills. So how much are we saving the average household with this? Thank you.

Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Mr. Chair -- and it is -- it's ratepayers. I often get it wrong, but -- so the ratepayers who often are the same taxpayers -- and I mentioned this yesterday in saying that you are taking tax dollars then essentially turning it back over so that people are keeping their costs lower.

The $12 million that we are proposing will be -- would go towards the cost of power. Now, the final amount that it's going to be depends upon what the public utilities board decides to do. They're the ones that actually set the rates, and the requirement for a GRA was issued somewhat earlier than what the Northwest Territories Power Corporation was anticipating. So that process had to happen fairly quickly. We -- they went in -- NTPC went in proposing a rate increase to energy costs at 24.8 percent. Energy costs are only one part of your utilities bill. There's a fixed cost portion as well. So it's not the entirety of the utility bill that would be proposed to go up, only the portion that is the energy portion. The 24.8 percent, also there is a reduction there because there was already a rate increase back in July. That would come off of that proposal and -- but this -- with another $12 million brings down -- brings from 24.8 down to 15 but, again, it actually comes down a little further when we consider that there was a 7 percent rate increase already in July.

That's a very long answer. But, yes, it does bring it down several percentages, percentage points from that 24.8. Again, I can't give a final number in terms of the dollar because I won't necessarily know until the PUB comes out with their decision. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll go to the Member from Range Lake.

Thank you. So has the rate application been modified with the advent of this $12 million? Thank you.

Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.

Yes, Mr. Chair. And I say that only in that I haven't actually -- I don't know if it's been updated. I know the documents were all filed publicly but if it hasn't been, it will. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Range Lake.

Thank you. So for clarification, so the new rate application in front of the PUB will be a 15 percent increase? Thank you.

Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.

Mr. Chair, I think the new rate application will reflect a subsidy of $12 million over four years, and I -- again, I don't -- I believe it will say that it's then going from 24.8 down to 15. It's from the perspective of the public is where I want to add again that that's only their energy side of their bill, not the total bill, and it doesn't necessarily yet take into account that there was the increase in July. So the GRA reflects that total rate increase but from the perspective of the public, they've already seen a small increase in July, and it is not the whole bill that goes up 25 percent. It's only the energy costs that they pay. We all pay fixed costs on our bills too. I hope that both answers the question and is clear too more broadly. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll go to the Member from Range Lake.

Thank you. I appreciate this is complicated because there's, like, the 7 percent increase that happened has already happened and then that's being compounded into the GRA. But I guess my concern is if it's not -- if it's still like the same, you know, 25 increase but we're doing all these things to lower it but the increase in front of the PUB is still there, that doesn't -- and it doesn't reflect a subsidy, then NTPC is asking for more than it needs, and I would like that not to be the case. So can -- does the Minister confirm that, like what the PUB will be considering is the -- or the rate increase the PUB is considering will fully reflect the $12 million because if it's not inclusive of this new subsidy, then we're -- you know, we're -- we're -- it's unnecessary because we're already covering the cost in this supplementary appropriation. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, yes, it absolutely will be fully reflected in what goes to the PUB. Again, I just wasn't sure if it's been filed or on the public register or not. And, you know, yeah, I want to let folks know, because I do think it came out that everyone's power rates are going up 25 percent, and that's just not -- that's not going to be the case. That's not even the worst case scenario. That's just simply not how it's going to go down. But I don't know the final dollar value. This $12 million and the proposed $12 million over four that's being put forward by the government will have a very direct impact on what the final decision of rates needs to be. The PUB does a proposal -- or looks at rates from the perspective of reasonableness, so they may well say that there's too much sticker shock on this and they don't want to raise it. They may say that there's something in the filing or submissions that doesn't qualify or is not -- that they don't think should be on ratepayers. But beyond all that, I'm quite confident that there would be an increase and that this $12 million will have a direct impact on keeping people's power rates down below whatever that final value is and will have therefore a direct impact on people's rates, the rates that everyone pays, because if it's -- this is for an average rate across the territory. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Range Lake.

What would be the cost to eliminate the -- like, to mitigate the rate increase? Like, what -- what's the dollar amount of that subsidy that would not -- would kind of not require this rate increase? Thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I could certainly run that number for the House and for the Member. I don't have that here. It would -- it may, again, bit of me having to sort of tea leaf what the PUB's final rate increase would necessarily be. I don't know that. I can certainly -- once that's done, we could certainly consider coming back. Obviously, that's the rule of the House. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to go back to the Member from Range Lake.