The mainstream media likes to report the “Sunshine
List”. That’s the one covering public servants earning $100,000 or more
and who are employed with core government departments, agencies, boards and
commissions including Crown Corporations. Some
people believe the List serves a purpose beyond simply providing access to public information; that it gives transparency to decisions
over which self-interested bureaucrats have too much influence.
List”. That’s the one covering public servants earning $100,000 or more
and who are employed with core government departments, agencies, boards and
commissions including Crown Corporations. Some
people believe the List serves a purpose beyond simply providing access to public information; that it gives transparency to decisions
over which self-interested bureaucrats have too much influence.
This Blog is also concerned about transparency. I suggest
that public commentators who are paid consultants of the government should be added to the list or distinguished in a separate one. Therefore, I am proposing the “Moonshine” List. Why “Moonshine”? The liquid
version often lacks clarity – like the consulting industry. “Moonlight” List was also a convincing option because “moonlight” is harder to catch than “sunshine”, but like “moonshine” offers the assurance of an occasional glow.
that public commentators who are paid consultants of the government should be added to the list or distinguished in a separate one. Therefore, I am proposing the “Moonshine” List. Why “Moonshine”? The liquid
version often lacks clarity – like the consulting industry. “Moonlight” List was also a convincing option because “moonlight” is harder to catch than “sunshine”, but like “moonshine” offers the assurance of an occasional glow.
All researchers and analysts have a right to influence
public policy and public opinion including those hired by government. But the risk of a potential conflict of
interest by the latter group is diminished when the public is aware that they have something more
than what philosopher John Locke described as a “social contract”
relationship with the state. Consultants typically have a paid one.
public policy and public opinion including those hired by government. But the risk of a potential conflict of
interest by the latter group is diminished when the public is aware that they have something more
than what philosopher John Locke described as a “social contract”
relationship with the state. Consultants typically have a paid one.
Because he is one of the most frequently consulted by
mainstream media and the government – and the government pays for his services – I propose
to begin with Economics Professor, Dr. Wade Locke of Memorial University. He is a paid tenured Professor at that institution.
mainstream media and the government – and the government pays for his services – I propose
to begin with Economics Professor, Dr. Wade Locke of Memorial University. He is a paid tenured Professor at that institution.
The information relevant
to his consulting work (provided below) was obtained through applications under ATIPPA by a researcher who makes frequent contributions to items posted on this Blog.
to his consulting work (provided below) was obtained through applications under ATIPPA by a researcher who makes frequent contributions to items posted on this Blog.
Payments to Memorial University’s Collaborative Applied
Research in Economics (CARE) – administered through the Department of Economics
(where Dr. Locke is described as an Investigator) – are excluded. Government
agencies, other than Nalcor, were not submitted an ATIPPA request.
Research in Economics (CARE) – administered through the Department of Economics
(where Dr. Locke is described as an Investigator) – are excluded. Government
agencies, other than Nalcor, were not submitted an ATIPPA request.
Hopefully the “Moonshine” List constitutes one more tool that shines light on the pathways leading to greater transparency in our public policy and governance systems.
In January 2012 Wade Locke gave a presentation to the public on Muskrat Falls. In that presentation he stated " For the record, I am not being paid by anyone to undertake this research and I do not represent
anyone, but myself, on this issue. I am not under contract to NALCOR or the provincial government for anything pertaining to Muskrat Falls."
He did go on to say that he was paid for some work as part of the EIA.
Wade Locke then gave presentation that wholeheartedly supported Muskrat Falls. People believe Wade, as he was a trusted voice.
Jim Feehan tore apart Locke's analysis. He seems to forget the cost of transmission.
Wade Locke … one of the cheerleaders who should be asked to sit in front of the inquiry.
This is long overdue. It is not possible to have a democratic society without an informed public and publishing the names and payments of contractors and contractual employees is a start. One thing you notice is that most of his collections are for the PC's time in government. His criticism of government policy has changed since the Liberals were elected especially his analysis of Health Care.
And who said we were living in a democratic society?
It is worth reviewing the Wade Lockke presentation from Janaury again
http://www.mun.ca/harriscentre/policy/memorialpresents/2012a/Index.php
Watch it all. then go to the 38 minute mark and listen to when he attempts to counter Jim Feehans theroy on time of day pricing.
Locke noted at that point in time "If prices go up 80% we done need to worry, as we wont need Muskrat".
Wade was right.
Wade was right….imagine that….are you bragging or complaining….just asking…
I was more identifying the irony in the situation. Back in 2010 locke mentioned that if rates went up 80% that demand would decrease to the point that we dont need Muskrat. He laughed at the suggestion, mocking the demand side management theory. Yet 8 years later we can only hope for a 80% increase, meanwhile Nalcor still predict future growth. They are putting their heads in the sand.
"If prices go up…….muskrat", what does that mean. A silly statement by a supposedly intelligent person, but think that's the kind of gubblegoop that lock uses. Won't need to worry, does that mean muskrat just dissaperas from the universe, or we won't have to pay for muskrat, we won't have to repay the 15$ billion…..omg….??? Or if it is a supposedly warning, why recommend you leave the barn door open, and when the horse is gone, you say, I told you so. Silly comment, you can't have it both ways lock….
Lol, lock will have a two line defence for every question asked at the inquiry, " I don't recall". And "it was based on the information available at the time". These two phrases should be deleted from the inquire and rendered inadmissible at the inquiry. As I suspect lock will not be the only person wanting to use these phrases as the sum total in their own defence.
A quick addition puts the total figure at just over $1,000,000 incl. HST. A tidy sum for "moonlighting". Information like this should not be kept in the dark.
That $1,000,000 could pay for a base salary of 12 nurses or 12 teachers. A tidy sum indeed.
Consulting Wade Locke for economic advice on matters is a perfect example of the failures of privatizing the Civil Workforce and contracting out services. Like Muskrat Falls itself, Wade Locke is a P3 setup-Private financing-the bond markets supplied the money for MF's with a hefty price Tag in a partnership with private contractors who did poor quality work with little or no oversight, the Public will have to pay for it with either their tax money or through rate increases-pick your choice. Wade Locke's consultations are a similar arrangement except the public has to pay up front for advice from private interests on how to spend public money.
There is no reason for the government to have a staff economist. In fact, there are very good reasons for the government to get outside advice. There are also very good reasons for government to not keep going to the same guy for said advice.
Did you NOT read UG's post? There is every reason for the provincial government to have an economist on staff and they are listed there in his post. It is not government employees that need questioning but Wade Locke who's advice many people based their decision on. But in a sense you are right. We should be going outside of the province for advice on economic matters. Had the Williams administration listened to Manitoba Hydro's advice, we might not be in the mess we are in today.
"Did you NOT read UG's post? There is every reason for the provincial government to have an economist on staff and they are listed there in his post. "
There's good reason to have economic analysts on staff. Economic ADVICE, on the other hand, should be external and not dominated by one tit-sucking voice.
Two errors or omissions.
1. Per this ATI release, there was a $16,100 project to do an "analysis" for Finance:
http://atipp-search.gov.nl.ca/public/atipp/requestdownload?id=2841
Note: "However, please note that this analysis is not in the
custody or under the control of the Department of Finance."
That's odd.
2. Under the "Natural Resources" table, the "Analysis of Industrial Benefits" project is given as being a $5,085 project. However, this ATI release gives the value as $50,850:
http://atipp-search.gov.nl.ca/public/atipp/requestdownload?id=2825
Change Orders on contracts do add up. The "Forensic" Grant Thornton add on to the Inquiry is the same sort of thing. Where is the public disclosure of the Inquiry project accounts? Looks like a change order to me. Who approved the Grant Thornton contract, and for how much?
Robert G. Holmes, that's not a change, those are errors and omissions in the ATI release packages.
On seeing this info, an associate of mine said: " Did you see this information on Wade Locke on Uncle Gnarley? See that's the kind of stuff the Telegram should be reporting, with the headlines on the front page. People should know that stuff. Locke , and he a paid professor in economics, at Memorial University, and getting all this money on the side, working for Nalcor and government"
And Leblanc has ordered a forensic audit of Nalcor and MF!
We have Leblanc's inquiry and the Shadow Inquiry here on this blog. So far, the Shadow Inquiry seem more effective, and is certainly LEAST COST.
Why haven't the business lobby groups not called for a sunshine list of the "embedded contractors" at Muskrat Falls? Why haven't you also not called for this list either? The salaries for these guys are a hell of a lot higher than those of the public service! Moreover in case you didn't realize the salaries for these 2000 – 3000 embedded contractors are all being paid from the public purse.
The wage packages paid to the recruiting companies have already been released—the info released included the number of positions, the high/low daily rate and which recruiting company is employing how many 'contractors' by positions. This info was released 6-8months ago (2 releases on Nalcors website, 377 and 420 from 2016 and 2017).
The info released in much more detailed than a simple yearly salary.
Granted your assertion that they are getting 'paid' more than the public service (and probably private service too) is probable, but they cost less as an employee than a comparable positions in either the public or private sector when factoring in indirect benefits (usually a nominal a 50% of salary premium to an employer).
Not sure why you would begrudge an employee—the BoT, Employers Council etc realizes your claim to be nonsense and thus haven't made a big deal of it.
The real sinkhole of money here is the local business groups in areas of nearby construction that 2x or 3x their usual rates to milk the purse—or made 'hay as the sun shone' so to speak….
About a year ago, I think it was Ed Hollett reported that Wade Locke was providing consulting services on the side and if memory serves, reported a figure of over 700,000 dollars in income. It seemed obvious much of that must be coming from Nalcor or government. Why did the Telegram not pick up on that and dig deeper, as UG is now doing?
Media, part of the problem? Lots of MF talk but no investigative journalism. And worse, treated Locke as a true world class professional, and still seeks his opinion.
Take the statementby Locke: If MF costs 80 percent more,not a problem as there will be no need for the power. As an economist, the expenditure of 10 -15 billion would not be a problem for Nfld public? Or not a problem for him and his buddies who also profited form this boondoggle?
The critically important question the inquiry needs to answer is why the Anglo-Saxon route became feasible, the remaining outcomes of the inquiry will go down as media fodder—none of the tech items like DSM, conservation, environment, power need etc lead to the real why MF happened.
At the end of the day, there will be $15B added to NLs debt with no recourse—inquiries in Canada do not recommend followup court action (nor should they), that is a result of Greenspan and Gomery. Other inquiries of comparable scope have been allotted longer timeframes–so the 'political' timing claim is BS, research shows that.
I said in November, that the ToR were sufficiently broad allowing LeBlanc freedom to do what was necessary—much to the dismay and slander/derision by several naysayers. To date, I have been proven correct—I wont pass and judgement on LeBlanc, I have no first hand knowledge of him but to date he seems to be doing a decent job for the task at hand.
PENG2
PENG2, agree that tech issues that were ignored or not properly assessed , such as DSM(demand side management) conservation, environment and power needs are the critical issues as to why the boondoggle happened………as if they were, the Anglo -Saxon route would have not seen the light of day.
As you have faith in LeBlanc, do you expect these technical issues addressed?
I think LeBlanc is in part responding to public pressure , like this blog, as to the forensic audit, and perhaps he will take your views serious to expose why the least cost option was a fabrication, that the technical issues, properly exposed, will show that.
You have more faith in Leblanc and this inquiry that I do, but may later change on that……..as he seems to be moving in the right direction…….but I hold off on praising him , yet.
No sure if you feel I, as a naysayer, am subject to slander /derision on Leblanc, but my knowledge of his past written public judgements gives me pause for concern………not sure if you fell his written judgements are first hand knowledge, but in the public domain.
PF
PF:
I don't know LeBlanc first hand—like you I have seen some of his decisions and his CV, but I wont pass any decision on him other than he is experienced as a jurist and I would expect him to take on this task as he would any other. To that end, I doubt he is asking for interpretations on the ToR, forensic audits etc because the public are clamouring for it—he and his staff are much more qualified to determine if it is necessary that 95% of the populace.
As I have said before, provided the ToR is sufficiently braod (and I think it is) we need to allow a jurist to do his job.
I am not sure the inquiry is the right forum to analyze various technical issues—I would suggest that a recommendation from the inquiry to address specific technical issues would be prudent.
PENG2
If the technical issues you mention is not addressed, it seems the inquiry will be a failure by your own reasoning.
What do you mean " a recommendation to address specific technical issues"? A recommendation to who? It would seem that the like the forensic audit, they would identify the issues, and you list some, and have experts to address it. Perhaps you you will submit in writing to the Inquiry the technical issues? That would be prudent I suggest, as you have considerable knowledge in these matters.
PF
PF:
What I want from the inquiry is how we got to where are are—the rest is fodder, in my opinion.
I am just not sure the inquiry is the right place to address specific technical issues—to me, until completed and in operation we wont know the entirety of the issues requiring ongoing care.
I think Hydro will need to be directed to undertake an operation/preservation activity greater than anything they have ever done before and greater than what they think will be required—not sure anyone at hydro has the experience to keep MF and it associated assets up, assuming it is infact operated.
As said before, my notes and logs are secure.
PENG2
I agree that how we got were we are is the main issue, and that depends on the quality of examination of the false assumptions made on technical points you mention and other risk factors.
These reasonably should have been known to be false at pre sanction, and now can be shown to have been false.
If this not shown at the Inquiry, then where, and to what effect? And if not shown at the Inquiry, the main purpose is ignored, so a failure, do you admit?
True not all faults are currently known, but enough to expose the rot. And if not operated, then some flaws will never be known.
We need more than your preserved notes and logs…we need your recommendations to the inquiry to investigate why this ever got off the ground in the first place……based on flawed engineering, and also flawed financial risks ……….as per Dr Locke……….his flawed assessments on energy demands, or dismissing the damage to our province if costs jumped 80 percent!
Make your recommendation direct or through UG? The ethical thing to do. You do your part and hope Leblanc does his honourably.
PF
One of the invoices went to the Dept of Justice dealing with "Moose Collision Class Action suit" Most know this was a case brought by Ches Crosbie on behalf of damages to people from such incidents, which Ches lost, maybe because the government had better, or better connected "experts".
The Max value of the contract says 45,200.00
The billing is for "research, meeting with officials, and preparing for discovery"
Someone has handwritten the words "moose expert"
Seems Dr (doctor of what?) Wade is an all around expert, not just on mega projects such as Muskrat.
Now a more sober assessment might be that Dr Locke is a BS expert.
Which could make one ponder, if the bullshit expertise is limited to bull moose, or any variety of bull?
I suppose his expertise could have been to the cost of fencing etc to keep moose away, which would make him a fence expert too. His company is Wade Lock Economic Consulting.
Ryan Snoddon would do well to set up his own company for mitigation on climate change,by using his spare time at CBC as to weather impacts, and make an extra 250,000 a year for reports to say no connection between oil extraction and bad weather. Just send the bill to our Climate Change Dept, as a "climate change expert". Same thing, right?
Now if more can get in on this game, our economic problems is solved, full employment with world class experts, just like Silicon Valley.
PF
I am not familiar with rates typically charged by consultants in the public sector, but I do work as an engineer in the heavy industry sector and I was quite surprised to see Mr. Locke is able to charge $250/hr. I've rarely heard of engineering consultants charging that kind of money (lawyers are in a different category). If his expertise is indeed exceptional it might be justifiable, but I'm dumbfounded that our government goes along with such fees…
Anony @ 17:29:
The reason being is that engineers typically work for large engineering labour houses—you can bet if you are making $75/hr that your company is charging you out to a client at $175-$225, typically the charge multiplier is 2-3x of the employees salary in consulting houses. The difference in salary and what is charged to the client is to cover indirects and overheads.
The difference in engineers and lawyers is that lawyers typically work in partnerships or private corporations and the public see their charge direct charge rates more frequently.
By and large, there is little difference is charge rates between equally experiences engineers, lawyers, accountants, geologists etc—from what I have seen when each are in comparable employment situations.
PENG2
PENG2, I understand that building contractors typically charge 10 and 10 percent for overhead and profits, so say a change order for 1000 from a subtrade, the general would add 10 percent overhead to that and another 10 percent for profit and pass this to the owner.
But you suggest that if a junio engineer is getting paid 74.oo an hour, an intermediate company is charging 175-225 per hr.
Seems like highway robery in driving up costs. I have heard that some hiring companies are making a fortunate, and some are well connected , but I assume maybe a 30 percent markup.but 200 to 300 percent for indirects and overheads? To mafia bosses? Just seems crazy to me.
PF
PF:
My 2-3x markup is not related to MF—just typical of what an engineering company (AMEC, Stantec, Anderson, NDA etc) charge ontop of their employees hourly rates when billing out to clients.
An engineer with 5-10yrs experience at an engineering warehouse might be getting $35-40/hr but would be invoiced to the client at about $115/hr—this markup is separate from the 10% + 10% you talk of.
The arrangement at MF is such that the engineer(or other professional) is working through a recruiting company, so more of the 2-3x markup is typically going to the engineer—he makes more personally, but Nalcor is getting charged less than if they sourced via an engineering warehouse.
PENG2
To all:
The only other comment that I would make is that I don't necessarily believe that there is a value to me knowing what my neighbor or my co-worker makes as a salary package. Also, if the details of an employees benefits package (AL, employer pension contributions, bonus etc) are not included than the comparison is pretty irrelevant.
I am not 100% in agreement in the way 'Sunshine Lists' etc are compiled and released–I am more interested in classifications vs salaries than I am concerned in the annual salary my neighbor makes. I see a value in salary vs classification, but to me the name vs salary setup causes more trouble than it is worth and fodder for gossip.
PENG2
Consulting companies ….lucrative indeed. The poor engineer, not seeing much of the charge out rate. Wade Locke has no intermediate, and likely do much on the dime of MUN.
PF
Guess the learned judge has a lot of catching up, a steep learning curve, to sort the industry standard here and elsewhere to sort out the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. And not be bamboozled by a lot of fast talk, and I know it all type of attitude, or what we do, and if nalcor and the public is better off with a warehouse engineer, a recruiting company engineer. He will be told a lot of baloney as well as reasonable stuff, and good stuff as well. So his job to sorts it all out and let the chips fall where they may. You might tell me where to go, but if the judge does his job well, no one will be telling him where to go. Or be at your own Peril, says the average Joe.
PENG2, not to be argumentative but your comments on the sunshine list seem disingenuous. You say you do not want to know the salaries of others….what I am hearing is you do not want anyone knowing "YOUR" salary.
Whether there is "value" in knowing what someone makes is debatable.
One thing is for sure, the fact that those who make "absurd for the job class" salaries do not want anyone knowing is kind of curious to me.
If some good, service or salary is paid out of the public purse and looks to be, by all industry comparisons, out of the norm then it needs to be addressed and also not politicized.
Do we need to know names?…..in the case above identifying Wade Locke's charge out? absolutely. Hiding that information under some vague department line is not transparent and only serves those who wish to conduct these kinds of transactions in the dark and away from scrutiny.
Anony @ 7:41:
Considering Engineers, if you check 2 Atippa requests, what is there is:
1) 39 engineers with day rates ranging from $432 and $1599; this is from request 320
2) the number of engineers employed by each recruiting company, eg 13 engineers by NSB with total daily charge rate of $13063; this is from request 477
The only info you don't have is exactly where my salary is to in the day rate charge-out range. The info though is not really comparable to 9-5 jobs since you dont have the info to tie an employees name to his working hours, granted the majority are working a 10hr day.
Getting to averages—those 39 engineers have an average charge rate of $96/hr to Nalcor out of which the cut for the recruiting company, benefits, taxes etc all comes out. So, based on this example for engineers, I would say MF isn't the honey pot some suggest it is; a similar exercise can be done for all persons under recruiting companies at MF.
FYI, these requests were released about 18 months ago, so yes the info is available.
On point with UG article and considering Wade Lockes charge rate—do we know if he has employees, overheads etc that get paid off the top? It is a big stretch to say WL got paid $250/hr for this work–in offering this, I am not passing any judgement on if his reports have any value since I have not reviewed them.
To be fair, I have no issue with someone knowing the full dollar value of a contract for work I execute for Government, but I do have an issue with people knowing my salary.
PENG2
So Peng2, you do not agree with the provincial sunshine list. Is that what I am hearing you say?? What about the learned judge, do you have an issue with him knowing your salary. Omg 10 hour days, imagine that. Lol. I think the judge is quite capable of taking that into account.
Anony @ 13:47:
Either you never read or understood my posts entirely—its not a Sunshine list I have an issue with, its incomplete datasets or datasets that are not comparable such that they are irrelevant. Would be worth your while to check out the 2 Nalcor information requests I previously referenced, I would suggest there is more than enough salary data there for 'embedded contractors' without invading privacy or giving a jealous neighbor fodder.
What I said with respect to the Sunshine List is that there is no value to knowing John Q makes $102,976 and Jim G made $109547 in 2017. I am all for publishing classifications and pay ranges, just not identifying a person by name and his salary.
The 10 hr/day is an example—there are any number of different shift schedules (21-7, 14-14 etc) and employment benefits that could be provided by a recruiter (health benefits, AL etc) and coming off the daily charge rate. Without having details of everyones contract, it is impossible to pick a salary from the daily charge rate and do a comparison.
The problem arises is that many of the recruiting companies are not governed by NL law and many of the professional services contracts are not subject to NL labour law—getting those released will be next to impossible as the parties to the contracts may or may not both be covered under NL law. Some 1-of contracted services (ie people brought in for term employment) for the public services are similar.
PENG2
Seems your greatest concern with the sunshine list is, " giving a jealous neighbour fodder…", if you are so concerned about that petty stuff, you may not be a good neighbour and probably have double high fences, or a Great Wall between you. I am not a great defender of sunshine list either, but it doesn't bother me, if the have it here or in ns or elsewhere, guess it serves some purpose. As for a special event in our history, a boondoggle that may bunkrupt the province, then it should be wide open for the inquiry, and fodder for the jealous neighbour, doesn't not even register on the scale of public opinion and a need to see what went wrong, and why the boondoggle, and possible bankruptcy. You have to be able to see the forest from the trees or visa versa. Yes, of course, two weeks on, two weeks off, etc. Not a big deal very common in today's society or work environment. Always wondered about companies from out side the province like astuldia, the Italian company, working here under their cultural and work environment, and not pay taxes here, get paid at home and we get nothing. If nalcor and the government did us justice they would not have selected a non Canadian company, that was ill prepared for our climate to begin with, and have been a dismal failure, cost us hundreds of millions, and should have been the agreement, that they would get paid here in Canada, and pay Canadian taxes, and of course nl taxes. All part of the boondoggle. Who selected that company, guys like Eddie and Gil I guess, and maybe board of directors, or over, and under sight committees. It's not all about you buddy.
"Projects completed by ——–". The statement above is falsely drawing on the Project Management Institute process to vet solicited jobber work. PMI would have a dim view of the skewed distortion of PM process. Was there an RFP process to call the pre-qualified professionals to quote? Who acted as project certifier? Who was Project Manager? Director? This is a very unprofessional way to do business, and is fraud with public funds involved.
Is Bruno vexed? Vexed with both Winston and the editor? I miss your your raw comment Bruno…..come back.
Yes Bruno, the Blog needs your valued comments.
The jagged censorship allowing some a free hand at bashing me while my factual pointed contributions are banned.
The editor is passive aggressive. If I can quote the "MOOCH" I prefer front stabbers to back stabbers
Good to see you back Bruno. Do you refer to me as bashing you?
Come on, some points I am serious, and others are light hearted. Readers here know you are handsome, and humble and quick to admit if you err, and seldom bash others.
Any editor that allow you to call him passive aggressive,and a back stabber, and not sensor that…..must want you back……so kiss and make up. I miss you here. I am just critical of some of your views……..not all. And facts are different from opinions. Perhaps it is just Tom Adams you feel has a free hand, and not me, as it is not clear. I have read just a bit of Tom's stuff, but cannot comment on his character. But he seems to have have sized up flaws with Muskrat early on, but so did you.
Winston
PENG2,
Listed in wade Locke's invoices is one called final invoice for analysis of Nfld'and Lab Energy Model, sent to the dept of Natural resources, in 2012, and obviously related to Muskrat Falls. The amount is 40,000.00, but as this is the final invoice , it suggests the total invoice may be more.
The services relates to "evaluation of NL's econmetric energy forecasting model"
Now those following the boondoggle closely will know that Nalcor (apparently with Wade's expertise,(or lack thereof) wrongly forecast short term demand growth on our power grid at about 2 percent and long term at about 0.8 percent. These are outrageous figures long term, with demand having already turned negative, and with power rate hikes set to increase, demand will decline more.
But the econometric model is an outdated model, abandoned by progressive power companies. More accurate models include end-use or a combination of economic indicators plus end-use.
Over 20 years ago some utilities overestimated demand and build generation that was not needed, that follow up inquiries showed resulted from not using end-use data. Any researcher worth his salt would have known that to avoid end-use data exposes high risk for long term forecasting power needs.
Even Manitoba Hydro pointed out the advantage of using end-use data, which neither Nfld Hydro nor Nfld Power used ,and still refuse to use.
One serious error is that electric heating via heat pumps, typical of 300 percent efficiency,and offering large reductions on peak demand on the grid is not captured in Dr Locke's preferred econometric model.
As PENG2 notes, the importance of Demand Reduction not being a serious part of our energy analysis, helped lead us to the path to Muskrat,and this type of analysis leads right back to the office of Dr Locke.
Accordingly, such technical review and investigation by the Inquiry is essential, as suggested by PENG2.
It seems many of the false assumptions of the boondoggle leads to the Doctors doorstep.
Did he even consider end-use models, or know it existed? Can his analysis be posted online?
Winston Adams
WA:
Correct. The technical review of any professional service needs to be primarily focused on why a given model was employed and its inputs—the analysis of the model output usually becomes secondary as that is the prevue of the professional service provider. Reviewing technical details of a model output (or a design for built infrastructure) becomes an exercise in ongoing maintenance and mitigation.
The questions I would ask are:
1) was WL given the model
2) were the input variables limited
3) was he restricted in alternative thinking
The answers for 1-3 will give more than required.
PENG2
Whatever the inquiry and forensic audit does, it is crucial that those responsible for this shameful purge of the public treasury ( and yours and my pocketbook 0 be identified and lead to appropriate charges. For those who say "what will it accomplish? lets move forward and make the best of it" I say to you–If someone broke into your home and robbed you of your worldly possessions, would you not want to see them caught,identified,and given the punishment they were due? We have the same thing here with MF. We, our children and grandchildren were robbed by those responsible for the travesty committed. Those being indifferent and oblivious of what has transpired–wait until you get your power bills and see what extra taxes you are going to have to pay. I also say don't be surprised if food is not the next thing on their tax list.
Shame on those responsible for the conception, sanctioning and diliberate swindling which has gone on. Your fate hopefully will soon be known
PENG2, Lawyers like short , to the point questions as you suggest as to how forecasting power needs was arrived at, to justify Muskrat and the Anglo Saxon Route.
Not sure if just 3 questions gives the full story.
My file includes correspondence with Wade Locke. I had presented to the PUB on energy efficient heating as alternate to baseboard heaters, and reduction on energy use and peak demand reductions…..about 8 pages.
As Wad Locke was in the public eye and much commentary on the need and least cost for Muskrat, I contacted him for opinion on my analysis. I tried several times as to whether he had read my analysis, as if suggested a serious risk to energy use and peak demand.
I finally got his reply.
Not sure if it is of value to the Inquiry, or answers your question 3, but his reply was brief, and if memory serves was but 3 words……"haven't read it".
My analysis stated some 600 MW potential reduction on our peak load, much of which would be economic. Obvious this was not in agreement with Lock's analysis or Nalcors (Nfld Hydro or Nfld Power), and seems to infer that his thinking was restricted as to Demand Side Management, Efficiency, and Conservation.
So doubtful he researched much in this direction, or ignored inputs, or maybe was instructed to ignore this component of a Isolated Island option?
Winston Adams
WA:
I only list those 3 questions because I am not sure WL would be privy to further info or have 1st hand knowledge deeper than that—I would suggest further questions on the model utilized would be better suited to Nalcor or the government of the time.
WLs answer that he never read your info tells me he took a model, ran it and never did an analysis—I would suggest analyzing the model was never part of his mandate, the mandate being to simply provide a 2nd to Nalcor/governments opinion.
PENG2
PENG2, I agree that Locke likely did no analysis, and didn't want to consider anything to counter their mindset for MF. And the power companies likewise, content with their long standing forecasting model and resisting better models, even now.
Further, the Nalcor documents stated words to the effect that energy efficiency for existing houses were already at saturation levels……….so little or nothing to be gained looking at that.
Such is the way one false assumption adds to another, and soon you have muskrat at 'least cost", based on many false assumptions that are added to each other.
Each by them self seems not a big deal, but accumulative, you say… wow, 2 billion cheaper, and off to the races, contract profits dancing in their heads, and Locke into the gravy early on. Not a good advertisement for MUN expertise, and he head of the Economic dept……oh my. God save thee Nfld .
Winston Adams
I suspect lock was given model output by nalcor. Back up our decision that muskrat is going ahead, because it is the least cost option and we need the power. No need to get any more technical or seficated than that. How many hours a day would lock have to work, in addition to his university work load, to make a million bucks. Maybe 20 or 22 hours a day????
ade's page at MUN states "Wade Locke is a Full Professor of Economics at Memorial University of Newfoundland. He specializes in the Newfoundland and Labrador economy, resource economics, public finance, public policy, innovation indicators, productivity, economic impact assessment and cost-benefit analysis."
This man is nothing more than a highly paid lobbyist who uses is position at MUN for credibility. With the hundreds of thousands of dollars in extras coming in from government, he can hardly be expected to bite the hand that feeds him. He cannot be expected to be impartial.
We need to understand that MUN is just crooked as Nalcor. All our institutions are rotten and need a purge.
Lobbyist?
I wish I could find the idiot who introduced the word "lobby" and its relatives to Newfoundland. No one uses it correctly, ever.
Does anyone have access to the contract terms of the Grant Thornton scope of forensic investigation? Hopefully it includes a peer review of related studies, reports, advices given during feasibility, and implementation of Muskrat. Who is doing the Technical forensics? Same parallel work scope.
Do you want your old "lobby" washed down, the British song is it. Lol love the song. Is this the same guy with another pet pieve, first it was, "I beg the question", was very irate about the editor usinging it incorrectly . Another song, "I beg your pardon, I never promised you a rose garden", yup, reminds me of another one, "you gotta get use to it……" Lol All about lobbyist, highly paid lock lobbyist at MUN. Worth about a million.
It is seriously time to start looking at privatizing electrical generation in Newfoundland and Labrador. Handing over such a vital proponent of our modern day lifestyle to a monopoly no longer suits us and has become a drain on this provinces financing. As an economic development arm of government, Nalcor is a dud and a failure to say the least. It has employed engineers and others who-like many people who grew up and were educated here-without Nalco would have been forced to work at much lower wages or leave the province to find work. It was poorly conceived and based on the Norwegian model of Statoil which had ten times the resources at its disposal. As usual NL politicians created a failed project before it could even be conceived.
Right on, agree with you totally, the ill conceived, holly roller, high spending, boondoggle nalcor that we just can't afford. Nalcor has to go, and hope the inquiry can include the future of our power needs and what to do with nalcor. Carve it up if necessary, and let one crown corporation be in charge of oil, and another in charge of hydro. We have one in charge of housing, and another in charge of liquor.
Locke invoices many government departments:Natural Resources, Justice, Nfld Hydro, Nalcor……….one shop source for all government, while also highly paid at MUN.One for impact on iron developments in Labrador…….and we know DW left as Premier and was appointed to the board of one iron ore promoter. This when their heads were giddy on billions expected to be spent.
You want the numbers to justify a boondoggle………go to Wade.
The old Palledin TV show had a gunslinger in San Fransisco, who always played poker, but was a hider gun , his calling card "Have Gun Will Travel", so the next seen was on horseback in the wilderness.
What does Wade's calling card say? Have Economics Degree, satisfaction Guaranteed. No project too big. Consultations for projects up to 15 billion.
PENG2, I get the feeling that you you question how the Anglo Saxon route ever got the green light, and so likely a political decision, that the Inquiry can show. But surely this was aided and abetted by engineering reports, suitably done for justification, false assumption and all.Surely these engineering issues need exposure at the Inquiry?
PF
I was a "brief" shareholder of Alderon. I say brief because after attending their 2012 AGM here in St. John's I had seen enough. The project was highly political with Mr. Williams as a member of the board and the Dunderdale administration very much on board with Muskrat in the background.
Check out whose name helped concoct the Economic Impact Assessment.
http://www.alderonironore.com/index.php/news-releases/2012/81-kami-to-generate-benefits-of-1-6b-in-income-and-2-0b-in-tax-revenues-for-newfoundland-and-labrador
What some of your readers might find interesting is the current "Minister of Natural Resources – Siobhan Coady was also in attendance and expressed an interest in purchasing more shares after hearing the shareholder presentation. I, on the other hand, sold my shares that day.
Keith
So, does conflict of interest mean anything in Nfld politics and government?
Ches Crosbie says he always wanted to look and be like James Bond. The early movies had Sean Connery, standing sideways, holding his hand gun, and the sound track says "Licenced to kill".And with the fancy cars and hot women. Who could blame Ches for such fantacnies.
Now picture Ches, with that Bond pose, but instead of a hand gun, one of those Elon Musk flame throwers. And Ches saying "Nfld politics and corruption…….I'm going to clean house". He takes the flame thrower to large photos of Danny Willims, Dunderdale, Ed Martin, Tom Marshall, Gil Bennett, Jerome Kennedy…..and maybe even Premier Ball.
Now Ches, that would really get attention, and maybe land you in the Premier's job.For the video, Would you use your angry face, or one of self satisfaction……….but whichever, you need to show you mean business.
Problem is…….these are all, save Ball, Tory accomplices to the boondoggle.
Does Crosbie have the guts to imitate James Bond?
Think you have named most of the main players in the muskrat madness, but don't forget the 30 plus MHA' s setting behind the premiers of the time that gave us muskrat. So don't forget Paul Davis, he was there the entire time supporting muskrat, as a cabinet minister, and then premier, and to this very day tries to tell us how great muskrat will be in our future. Guess Dannie's voice still haunts him. And I am not by any means a supporter of lock, but lock did not hire himself to write reports, he simply took the money to do their bidding, mainly Eddie, Gil and Cathie, I guess.
Anon 21:34. Great point. Locke was quite willing to back up Muskrat with any statistic that would put the project in superior light.
His role was to provide reassurance to the populace (on behalf of the government) that we should all be good with Muskrat.
However, he was but one of many who played their role quite willingly and well.
As Anon rightly stated "He simply took the money to do their bidding".
However, it was more than that…..Locke traded his reputation, credibility and ethics for what amounts to be a pittance really. At least Ed got +$6 million to turn on us.
Considering that the province is a financial basket case, teetering on the edge of bankruptcy… readers may draw their own conclusions as the quality of Wade Locke's services to government, as well as the value of which the province has derived.
As UG says, moonshine is harder to catch than sunshine.
I wonder how much of Wade's "research" might be done by MUN staff on the public dime? Or if he can back up all his costs separately for his private consulting? In the past I had knowledge of such happening with a MHA, so would not be a surprise if happening at MUN.
The NL government is running a survey to find out why people are leaving the province
The NL government need only to look at the royal screw-ups comprising it to find out the answer to that one..
http://vocm.com/news/one-newfoundlander-weighs-in-on-why-she-left/