“AT THE MERCY OF THE WEATHER”: HYDRO NOT READY FOR WINTER, SAYS PUB CONSULTANT

I read the report, but what it means remains a mystery to me.
Further elucidation please, in lay terms, without acronyms.

Nalcor has been "running on an edge" for years. The next few winters are going to be ugly as the gang that can't shoot straight tries to integrate the LIL and the new assets.

Their incompetence will be in full display the next 36 months so get ready!

Good morning Winston!

What would be the costs of your "prudent customer Energy Efficient program" again? (the actual payout and its administration)

Would that program be footed by the taxpayers?

(I know, I'm a pain in the…;-) )

Prudent: a word used by Liberty, or imprudent used often by Liberty to describe Nalcor or Nfld Hydro, and also to permit the PUB to disallow costs to power companies.So for MFs imprudent is 12.7 billion, no small feat to achieve by world class people.
Now for NS prudent EE was about 40 million a year, with a goal to reduce the grid peak by almost 500 MW over some years. They are very successful. Costs in not a cost to government or the tax payer but the ratepayer, but a small add on percentage to rates, may be 1/4 to 3/4 cents, so 2 -7 percent range. Administration now by Take Charge, a failed program by design, sucks about 1/3 of the ratepayers contribution away, and poor EE measures sucks another 1/3 away, so not prudent. I would think prudent administration would be less than 20 percent of the program budget. Also the size of the program now likely would be smaller than what was prudent prior to MF sanction, maybe. That depends on what we accept as the definition of reliability of our power for winter time, and possible adverse impact of no MFs power, little or no Holyrood Power , and little or no backfeed power from the Maritime link, and also on reduced water capacity for our island hydro, which is a factor some dry years.
So prudent covers a lot of factors that influence a prudent EE program, do you agree?
My background in relaying and protection for the power grid,leads me to assess reliability as very important for an essential item, electricity, that feeds our hospitals,and our homes for heat schools and businesses etc. For the AJs , reliability is taken for granted, it should be there as the flick of a switch or a thermostat contact, all of the time. But as Liberty shows and Planet NL shows, reliability is no small issue, and which, sometime, Leblanc should hear about, who messed up on reliability? Certainly not Danny Williams!
Winston

EX, off the top of my head, lack of HQ infeed to NS.
If NS had surplus reliable cost effective firm capacity, it would not want to be part of MFs boondoggle.
So, you cannot get blood from a turnip, so no firm capacity from NS to Nfld.(maybe a little dirty coal power at times that is not dependable, and if we import , we can't export at the same time to NS
WA

My understanding was that NS wanted to replace coal generation with MF (and then some).

Is the current NS generating capacity (including coal) have some firm capacity room (this winter) the help Nalcor achieve better reliability? How about from other utilities, what's the interconnections spare capacity (NB) in winter?

But I agree, that would not come cheap. While there would be some savings from operating Holyrood a little less, but still…

All depends on how much you value "reliability", and lowering the risks of rotating outages.

Well said Anon

Ok, thanks. I was not aware of the lack of peak interconnection capacity (past the ML) with the NA grid. (Winston did not cover that particular point – via my french eyes anyways).

If that lack of winter reliability has indeed reached a critical level, an urgent (and temporary) winter rate "surtax" should be implemented (and publicized/ explained widely to alter power usage paterns).

That could alleviate peak demand in a short order (faster & cheaper than via an EE program).

Such a surtax would also reflect the actual "cost savings" of the resulting improved grid reliability.

I used "temporary" as the LIL reliability should improve next year…

You mean we should employ price signals to mitigate demand?? Our politicians threw out that logic decades ago and Ball now wants us to use all we can – he's foolish enough to risk another DarkNL than to acknowledge any caution about present-day risk. We live in dangerous and confusing times. Less confusing though when you realize Nalcor and NL Gov are always saying the opposite of whatever is sensible.

Reliability. I think for here is 2.8 hrs of no power for a year. So if off for 6, 12 or 24 hrs or for days in winter, is a crisis.
Rotating outages as a strategy to deal with insufficient supply, I think liberty previously stated is seldom used in North America, but more so in third world countries. So here with large resource potential, and actually wasting much energy, and using rotating outages: Liberty engineers must be shaking their heads, and so we should be even more concerned at this approach, as we suffer from such a strategy. Few in the USA or Canada would put up with such a culture as to power reliability.
Winston

Anon at 15:32; you very well summarized this notion of winter peak surtax: "employ price signals to mitigate demand".

That should be an effective strategy to employ – if we intend to expedite better reliability this coming peak winter, at no costs to Nalcor or the taxpayers. (Conversely, a steep rate discount could be offered during summer months)

NL politicians may save face easily by holding the line of a "punctual", "one-off" (sic) reliability problem – due to the LIL not being quite ready yet.

EX, a temporary surtax to reduce demand, say 50% increase to 18 cents for Jan feb, Mar, would help, if 650 MW of heat, then maybe you reduce 100MW, but convince many to concert permanently to miinisplits, wood etc. While Ball sats elecrtify everything and trying t increase peak demand, we say we must decrease temporarily. Who will believe this approach is a one time event?
WA

If we are to believe the LIL will actually be functional the following year, then this "one-time" winter surtax is the right approach for a "one-time" critical winter reliability problem.

As a consumer, I would indeed understand that "exceptional" surtax and alter with power consumption accordingly.

And I would still think twice before investing a bundle of $ (in EE) if rates are to be set low enough in the future…

And EX, if you believe anything that Nalcor or the govn here says, then you believe in the tooth fairy too. such a suggestion makes one wonder if you are a agent of Nalcor? I don't think so, but to say trust Nalcor? Liberty don't trust them must, thank God.
But is shows you lack knowledge of the terrain and other risks to reliability of that line. HQ surely knows. Being functional is different than being reliable.I won't be selling my portable generator, but installing minisplits in my main residence, even if rates do not go up.And no incentive required.This blog piece helps cement that decision, and I do trust Liberty. In Liberty we trust, not Nalcor, not Ball, not Stan Marshall, and Leblanc, questionable.
Winston

If this LIL is not to be reliable anytime soon, your minisplits won't be of any help during those rotating outages… 😉

Wood stove or propane maybe, for back up. (There's about 33% of irony here)

Ex, in the short run no, as not enough can be installed. But 150,000 houses or so, and 2.5 kw reduction each gives 375 MW reduction , which is a little more than the average winter output of Holyrood. Then there is basement insulation to be done.
So you might say this was fine to start in 2012, but why now? So you take the risk that LIL will be reliable some day, maybe never. So we have lost 6 years for no EE, and NS now doing this since 2008, so 10 years. So any EE reduces the impact of rotating outages.Yes woodstoves even better, but mankind likes convenience, and a bit lazy, and St John's doesn't have woodlots in the back yard as do rural areas. Even Montreal now now limits on ash and smoke discharge from wood burning, did you know?
Seems funny you and Heracles and Etienne so oppose EE for Nfld,and you try to help us, even after this Liberty report. You prefer rotating outages, surely not. Bombardier would hire me before you Quebec engineers, I wonder? But for my very poor French. Take care Eric.
Oh, Still waiting for you to ask Heracles to say sorry as to me profiting from minisplts.
Winston

My opposition is more about wasting taxpayer's $ to sustain an EE program.

I would rather set the rates (temporary surtax) to lower demand during this coming winter peak.

If the LIL ends up being reliable afterward, then great, we may lower the rates permanently.

If not, re-apply that surcharge again until that LIL works properly. (Or until we find alternate winter power capacity).

I agree the longer winter peak rates remains high (as in LIL never transmitting reliably), the more EE will start to kick in. So be it then. But it will be market driven.

Of course EE in not usually taxpayer funded but ratepayer for incentives, if desirable to reduce the system peak. But too, a 100Mw reduction from temporary surcharge does little if 800 MW not available from the LIL or 600MW of thermal not available, so the risk is very high and a crisis if that happens. The less the peak winter load the better as to avoiding a crisis. So it goes back to our baseboard heater load, the rationale for MF in the first place. Good system management required reducing winter load which is out of whack as to summer load. That is not done overnight and should be a steady long range plan, to reduce the backup generation capacity. So we now use 3 times more energy than needed for heat and hot water. Seems stupid to me, and such stupidity led to MFs, which not very reliable , as back t square one, with a big debt. And that we might consider rotating outages with a partial poor solution, not a pretty picture. Even a surtax cause EE to happen, market driven or ratepayer ? NB use incentives just to get people to upgrade to cold climate models, an extra 500.00. Those reduce peak demand when cold , otherwise not much benefit to reduce the peak demand. Of course EE consultants know that, for jurisdictions who are serious about those issues, and a proper analysis is done including the jobs created etc. Basically we are 20 years behind progressive jurisdictions, if you research EE programs Eric.
I need not preach HPs much, as Feehan as finally stated what was known a decade ago, so maybe it takes an economist to get paid for already long known information. So, Nfld… we have a problem.
Winston

FWIW, as of now, this winter peak reliability problem is “temporary” – until that LIL works properly.

For a “temporary” problem, let’s have a “temporary” winter peak surtax. That’s the most effective way to expedite an URGENT need to lower this coming winter peak demand.

=> We must tackle this coming winter peak demand now, not in a few years. <=

Once that reliability problem is solved, winter peak rates should be lowered back to Nalcor’s marginal production costs (Holyrood's costs by example).

If utter stupidity prevails and that LIL ends up never able to transmit reliably anything (no MF/no UC recall power); we now have a permanent winter peak reliability problem. Then that winter peak surtax should also become permanent. (Macro-economically speaking, those steep winter peak rates should represent the incremental costs of adding peak power capacity, or conversely, by the economic damage created by possible rotating outages)

Obviously now a beneficial shift toward EE solutions (including your indeed effective cold climate minisplits Winston!) would start kicking in big time, strictly induced by those steep winter peak rates. And that's great as indeed EE must be part of an efficient "permanent" solution to solve a costly permanent winter peak problem.

But again, no need for a “subsidized” EE program (and its adm costs), whether footed by NL taxpayers, by Nalcor, (or by a universal “flat” grab from ratepayers that would penalise those who have minisplits/are EE already). NL or Nalcor just don’t have any spare capital to waste at the moment.

We are close to agreeing Ex, that much indeed depends on whether MF power is reliable and sufficient quantity. If not then EE is very important to reduce winter peaks, and the cold climate models do that.You do your research.
But many buy the cheap models and save 500 dollars that operate poorly at low temperature, and contribute little to peak demand reduction. But little cost difference for the good unit and no extra cost to install. So, to beat that obstacle, in NB they just give an incentive of 500.00, so a quality unit, you save more energy, but more important, it reduced grid peak load.(NS gives about 1500, now reduced maybe to 700) And if funded by the ratepayers and not tax payers, is that not best, for a govn with no money? As to timing of EE? Depends Whether the LIL is reliable, and how long the surtax, as people will convert if always a surtax. Now as units last up to 20 years, the more cheap units are installed the harder, and longer to bring down the peak load. So a gamble to wait for EE.(Our previous Consumer Advocate could see thatin 2015, and recommended EE, but was ignored). NS now 10 years ahead of us for good EE. And if rotating outages here, all will cry "why no EE program already"? And I will say Ex said to wait and see. Is that fair comment?
Winston .

Maurice @ 16:24:

Not sure what you mean – granted I wasn't able to watch the entire broadcast, but I didn't where it was stated that this or other info was presented to certain parties at the exclusion of others. Though I do expect that will happen – its not unusual in quasi-legal hearings.

Also, considering Prof F was giving historical backgrounder to like works, I am not sure who could or why you would want to dissect his offerings since he said it is endemic with hydro developments run amok costing and schedule wise.

PENG2

All kinds of reports were available to the general public at the other 'quasi-judicial' PUB reviews.

Surely, it is even more crucial in this case.

Can't see why even one citizen would not want to dissect any and all things related in any way to this mega billion dollar MF fiasco.

But why should we?

If you have to ask that PENG2, then as they say —- "If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem".

Rather a closed mind Peng2, to question who could or why would want to the report of an expert. And you wonder why so few Nflders questioned Nalcor and their expert reports that led to the boondoggle! What in your wallet Peng2?
AG

Maurice / AG:

You have demonstrated exactly why NL ends up in the same situation time after time.

First, neither of you addressed the prime question in my first sentence: where was it stated today that there was info being provided exclusively to some parties and not others. This was an allegation Maurice made, I never seen anything to suggest the same.

Secondly, from what I watched, Prof F has substantiated most of the claims as to why MF went of the rails. Considering he is providing backgrounder info not specific to MF and there will be the chance to cross him (though I am not sure of where a similarly qualified opinion will come from, please check his CV for his qualification); I really don't know why either of you are being so negative at this point except to have a opportunity at the end to say 'I told you so'.

Maybe give the process a chance to develop – or at least recommend a reason as to why it is off the rails, no good being poor mouth all the time.

PENG2

You should learn how to read PENG2.

You have totally misrepresented what I said in that first paragraph.

I did not say that the parties with standing did not get the report.

But since the expert report was not posted on the internet or otherwise made avail through the parties to "THE PUBLIC", then that is a problem —- and not even on par with the transparency followed by the PUB.

This citizen wants the information so that I can assess, make judgements and take action/contribute as I see fit.

Anything otherwise is an abrogation of one's duty not only to one's self but to our children and grand children.

And for the record, I think (and what little I saw of it) and based on his testimony, he is indeed an expert that we need to pay considerable attention to.

Maurice:

The standard is – did anyone have access to the report or witness before this AM, or did a selective group have access? If nobody had access, then its a fair playing field – and that's all anyone can expect. I am not sure of your experience in quasi legal proceedings, but this seems normal at this point – parties often present reports/evidence with others often asking leave to cross at a later time, and there are often documents/evidence held from public record for any number of reasons. In cases of redacted info, the why is usually more important, not the what – that is how you assess how effective your hearing is. And who offered Prof F?

I am not quite sure why you would think any panel would informally issue a report to the public via the internet before presentation and admission into a hearing – this is a leak and a sure reason to get the info excluded. If you want prelim access to evidence/presentations, you wont get it.

Agreed, Prof F is globally renown – I doubt there is anyone that can refute his opinions/offerings.

PENG2

As one who has presented to the PUB,the process was that my presentation was sent to them say a day or two in advance ( I expect many are sent long in advance, some do not see the daylight). They asked me for copies for others parties, who were reading this as I presented ( I recall Bennett reading my presentation on energy and peak demand reductions) as I presented. The transcript was likey posted later that day, and the actual presentation document maybe posted days later.
As to Nfld Power report on Minisplits, in 2015, it took them about 3 years to do it, then after finished , held back, and with prodding from me via the Consumer Advocate, was filed and posted very late in the Rate application process. So while the hearing were on, few if any of the public would be aware of it's existence, and the media were not in attendance the day the Nfld Power report was actually discussed ( and admitted by Nfld Power to be not authoratative, )
So, I think generally parties do hold back reports that are unfavourable, and the PUB was was slack in that approach. Further, generally such reports may not even get discussed at the PUB, as many things were agreed upon by the parties,that is the Consumer Advocate just behind the scenes, says these things arenotin dispute, and rubber stamps for Nfld Power. So the PUB has no discussion whatsoever. Such is how our Conservation Plan has worked for a decade. The public is shut out, and the media makes no waves .
Winston Adams

As to a leak of a report of presentation, maybe depends. I would make my presentation available to anyone if they showed interest, but the PUB has the right, I assume to not permit a presentation.I was told mine was borderline on language being critical of the power companies, but they allowed it, but with no media, why worry? Here, the media, I suggest, would refuse a leak, as Breaking News or investigative journalism is lacking here, and might interfere with ad revenue (think Take Charge and the endless scallywags, and save 10 dollars ads,). It's a game at the ratepayers expense.
Winston

WA:

Both the report and the CV of Prof F were online by 1200pm, now from what I can see we got 17 exhibits posted from todays hearing.

Personally, I'd offer this is pretty good – though I have not watch the entire hearing, so I cant comment on if something was missed.

The interesting thing about the hearings is the scheduling and ordering of presenters – will be interesting to see how it is dealt with.

PENG2

Where is the report online?

The expert today on mega projects said: that you need an economic case, proper forecasts, expertise in such projects, much transparency, minimum bias.
All of that was what this project lacked. So end the Inquiry there, as it explains the boondoggle.
Now we are yet to spend millions more on entertainment to watch Danny Williams and Ed Martin, Dunderdale etc, say the opposite, and flap their gums for days, and that they went with the best advise and assumptions available, and from third party consultants, and such BS. Maybe a few red faces, and a few shoulder twitches from DW, but hey, "we were held ransom by Quebec, and what choice did we have"? Even Heracles can't counter that, by a master politician.
So big question, is there criminal activity? That's where 20 million more must be spent to prove nothing to be seen there. No crooks in Nfld, just NY and Jersey. Now write the report. And cut our firewood. Nflders too green to burn Morine said a century ago. He was on the take from the Reids, while an MHA
WA

Further PENG2 — this is not a 'party' presenting evidence, this is the commission itself hiring an expert to advise/enlighten/prepare a report for the commission itself (not unlike the Liberty Report herein) — which was posted within a week after it was written.

The Inquiry expert report was dated August, nothing such as commercial sensitivity that would exclude its public release as early as possible. In fact it would have advanced transparency and confidence in the inquiry and given the public an opportunity to contact their consumer advocate and/or MFCCC and to have input into their questioning before the commission.

Furthermore, during the PUB hearing numerous such reports were made publicly available. Nalcor itself provided dozens and dozens of reports, studies etc and answered hundreds and thousands of questions from the general public, directly through email.

Leblanc has the authority to conduct this 'inquiry' pretty much as he sees fit. And transparency has not been part of the criteria.

ExMil,
The process is flawed and deserves criticism. The "public" is largely excluded by the onerous process to participate. Those that qualify are told what they can and CANNOT comment on and discuss. Is this what is standard in quasi legal inquiries Ex?? Not in any I have taken part in! As well you need to learn the difference between equality and fairness with regard to information in said inquiries.

Maurice:

There was nothing to release in Aug (either the 1st or 31st)- until the report was tabled to the Commission yesterday AM, it was presented to all parties the same time and the public 3-4hrs later; unless you have actual evidence to suggest otherwise. There is no functional difference in a party presenting evidence or the Commission getting an external expert to set the industry standard (same as for LeBlanc ordering a Forensic Audit) – should a party later disagree with Prof F, they will need to establish a dissenting opinion and that will be difficult/impossible considering his CV.

The rules for submission of opinions to a PUB hearing are significantly different that evidence to an Inquiry- you cant compare the 2 hearing types.

End of the day, give the process a chance – your opinion on what LeBlanc can and cant do are showing tunnel vision. An example of this is that most (including you) said in November that he couldn't have a forensic Audit because of the ToR – I said the terms allowed it and LeBlanc has a report forth coming. Don't read what the ToR said must be done, rather what it says cant be done – you are exactly right in that he can do what he sees fit because there is very little precluded by the ToR, and that's exactly how it needs to be executed.

PENG2

PENG2 —- you are out to lunch on so many points.

1. The Commission had the report some time BEFORE the commencement of the hearing (yesterday). He could have released it publicly at any time and he must have released it to the parties with standing for some time period before its 'existence' (not its public release) was released at the commencement of the hearing yesterday. How else could the lawyers have prepared pages and pages of questions in advance? Release to the parties (and only partial references by way of the expert's presentation, oral evidence and internet 'portions' of the report does not constitute public release.

2. Certainly, one can compare the two. The rules may not be identical, but many are and the principles are largely the same.

3. You should make false statement PENG2. I have never siad that the commissioner "couldn't have a forensic audit" — PERIOD. Show the proof. What I did do was point out that Leblanc would have had to have interpreted the TOR in a way that would have allowed him to do that and that he would have then made that interpretation before the date that he advised the public to submit their views on how the TOR should be interpreted and that he himself would do his own interpretation before reviewing that public input. —– He disregarded his own instructions to the public.

4. Instead of giving "transparency" the priority that it and the public deserves, Leblanc has chosen to HOLD ON TO the expert report and the forensic audit reports so that he can make a 'splash' on the opening week of the inquiry.

This is not supposed to be a popularity/media marketing exercise, it is supposed to be a critically important investigation into this multi-billion dollar fiasco — with a key component being 'public' involvement, 'public' trust, 'public' participation, 'public' education —- etc., etc., etc.

That should read "You should not make false statements"

And "that he himself would not do his own interpretation ……"

Maurice @ 10:19:

1) not sure why you say this – even if the Justice did have it, it would likely have remained sealed and presented to all parties at the Inquiry yesterday AM, that is how Inquiries work. The report was complete sometime in August and we were provided a public copy 3-4wks later at the same time it was tabled for the Inquiry – just why do you have a problem with that?

2) wrong, a PUB hearing and an Inquiry have vastly different rules of evidence, you cannot compare the 2 as closely as you state

3) there is no interpretation necessary, only items the ToR prohibit are outside his purview, the clauses of the ToR provide the minimums and prohibit almost nothing. Just because it isn't specifically stated doesn't mean the Justice cant do it. Perhaps you didn't say directly he couldnt, but you have been on record saying the ToR is limiting – the ToR doesn't limit the Justice, only politics and a timeline will limit the scope.

4) the audit report isn't completed yet, the Grant Thorton CARE submissions only closed 31-Aug-2018 – see 1 above, a report will be tabled to all parties simultaneously, nothing is being hidden.

I agree that it is critical to get this right (you are 100% right in last paragraph), it speaks volumes of typical NL political failures, though I disagree with your points 1-4 and how you interpret the recent events.

I do think because of political drive to satisfy the public that there will be issues missed in the Inquiry – I have stated before we should have waited for substantial completion as more issues will arise and we should have expected something more along the lines of Berger that what we will get. A current example of an issue being missed is the LIL not being ready for this winter – this is an issue most probably out of the practical analysis of the inquiry because some wanted to rush before all issues were known. We have started an inquiry before all construction issues are known – poor planning by the Liberals and just vote pandering.

PENG2

"likely to have remained sealed"? —- Not likely! Sealed to the Commission itself? That does not make sense (and where is your evidence of that?).

"we were provided a copy 3-4 wks later" —- who is the "we"?

It is not possible for the parties to be provided copies of the report on the same morning as the commencement of the hearing, for the lawyers to have read/digested the 30, 40, 50 or so pages and have pages and pages of prepared questions (and referenced to the sections of the report) by 9:00 AM that same morning.

Even if that were so, that is very problematic (reminds me of my years as a federal public servant when one would arrive in Ottawa for a critical meeting concerning issues affecting NL and our Ottawa/HQ counterparts would table a 3-inch think report and place in front of you and expect informed dialogue. Maybe that's the way you work PENG2 (and Leblanc) but not reasonable/rational, fair, just, respectful —- and dozens of other words I can think of.

Rule differences – yes, incomparable in fact and principle — no.

"the TOR doesn't limit the justice" — patently incorrect. Just read Leblanc's statements themselves, his interpretation, and his references to other justices findings on that point and you will see that it is the TOR itself that is binding.

being released to "all parties simultaneously" is not the same as being released to the public. Until it is released to the public it "IS being hidden".

What is "CARE"? And how do u know these submissions "only closed 31-Aug-2018"?

Maurice:

Sorry, but you are being irrational – the listing of exhibits and the received dates are on the MF Inquiry website, the witness listing was available and is how lawyers would have had notes prior to a report tabling. Also, the CARE reporting system was announced publicly last April, also described on the Inquiry's website.

The report was released to the public yesterday at 12:00, along with Prof F contract of service among other exhibits (and about 18 from today are also released already) – the 'we' is the public of NL, it is available.

Please check on the difference between a PUB hearing and a Commission – nowhere near comparable in evidentiary proceeding or reach of effect, though possibly similar in findings for those that read only the Exec Summary. I remember many here claiming they wanted a Audit because that was all they understood, a Commission has a much broader reach and hence deeper rules.

PENG2

"the listing of exhibits" is just that — a "list", a name, the name of the exhibit — not the exhibits themselves. Not the report itself.

An "exhibit list" provides no information that would enable lawyers to review "content", to digest the report, to prepare questions, etc.

An exhibit list does not explain how lawyers were able to prepare themselves.

"The report was released to the public yesterday at 12:00" —- where is it PENG2? —- "show me the money". And where are the "other" exhibits — the exhibits themselves —- not just a list of them?

Show me the money PENG2.

Maurice@ 13:34:

You should be researching your topic more – in same area as webcast links, previous submissions etc, all available for the public. The lawyers were preparing questions as Prof F provided commentary – nothing unusual about that, even in trials lawyers have to prepare questions as the presentations occur – that's the point in reserving right of recall.

Please see here, exhibits in entirety:
https://www.muskratfallsinquiry.ca/transcripts-and-exhibits/

PENG2

Peng2, not to quibble, and I know little of the law, but for trials there is such a thing as DISCLOSURE, that one has a fair chance toward justice. And often still they attempt not to disclose if they can avoid it. And to listen and formulate questions at the same time, and no information in advance? Seems a travesty?
AG

AG:

Disclosure only applies to crown held evidence, not evidence or backup held by defense. My analogy wasn't exactly on point but close – we are not deal with a trial, but an Inquiry has evidentiary rules close to a trial.

PENG2

Got it PENG2.

I checked that site several times yesterday and I did not see it there (may have been posted later yesterday or today).

In either case, that would not have been the first time that parties had access to those documents (they could not have reviewed them and prepared their questions while the hearing was ongoing (but certainly, could have prepared/amended their earlier prepared questions and added some during the presentation and while others were asking questions).

Yes, it is good that that is now available to the public, but the expert report should have been made available much earlier (in principle, similar to what AG mentions — DISCLOSURE.)

Maurice:

Available yesterday shortly after tabling – I had it then, well before my first comment on this. I disagree on being available earlier – not possible, practical or proper.

Also, might be of interest – Gomery on Inquires and I have cited before, also should check Greenspan and the Inquires Act; very few actually understand what an Inquiry is and it isn't. Would answer a lot of questions on evidence, charges etc.
http://lawjournal.mcgill.ca/userfiles/other/1400485-1224865000_Gomery.pdf

PENG2

Peng2, what is your day job, and with who?

AG

Martin is still colossally arrogant of a project he remains convinced NL can handle and as proof that NL can stand on their own two feet.

It is an arrogance born of unbounded confidence in a political coverup headed by an unchallenged strongman and an inquiry avoiding the truth by DESIGN!

Good to see you reengage at this critical time , Bruno. Seems maybe you keep your powder dry, and sharpened your wit.
And Maurice too makes a good challenge against the anon PENG2, so I await Peng2 reply, (I do think we need to give this a chance, so I try to open minded yet, and not serious to say shut her down already.
So UG is really the Shadow inquiry as Robert Holmes dubbed it.
Winston

Hi Winston,

As for me, I can not watch it live and unfortunately, there is no archive on the website to view it offline.

Until they put the recordings on the web site, I can not view or appreciate what is happening…

Some public inquiry Heracles. They archive public hearings for sundry issues. This shameful excuse for public inquiry and access to information won't air the laundry and expose the sop to the local strongman by a single political appointee.

Heracles. this afternoon Quebec Innu leader a witness. Very touching and emotional to watch and hear of how these people have suffered under colonialism, and French / English borders and obstructions to their way of life. They wanting to separate children from parents in late 40s early 50s,and put them on reservations, reminds me of what Trump does to people who cross the Mexico USA border, taking children from parents.
So I ask Heracles, has First Nations in Quebec better treated than in Nfld? And how much of the 27 billion in CFs profits were plowed back into Quebec Innu aid and development?
And why can't you watch live?
Winston

Hi Winston,

Indeed, the First Nations received better treatment in Qc. You can do a search on "La paix des braves", an agreement with the crees about the James Bay project. Obviously, most of what you will find will be in French, but online translator are pretty good now.

Of course, there is always people complaining about any change, but overall, the crees acknowledged that the agreement is good for them.

Winston, you seem to enjoy repeating this "27B in CFs profits" thing.

But somehow, you also perfectly know that comparable Hydro projects completed before the late 1970's are also enjoying similar or better profit ratios (versus their original costs). Like Beauharnois, Manic/Outardes, Bersimis, and Carillon to name a few.

James Bay would also have enjoyed similar profit ratios if it would have been built before CF – by totally escaping the steep construction inflation years of late 70's/early 80s.

So what's your (not so subliminal) message exactly???

I would add that to forget about the 20 billions value CFLCo got as the owner of the asset is another aspect that many like to forget about…

EX and Heracles: the 27 billion popped up by a piece of one of the MFs critics recently, and as no one refuted it, I go with it, and so about 10 to 1 as to little Nfld benefit, IF we exclude the asset value, where Nfld has 2/3 and PQ 1/3. So yes, include the asset value,otherwise it is misleading of me, and a little devious maybe to provoke a response, maybe from Ex. But don't shoot me.
Part of my reason : what benefit to First Nations? Did they get a fair shake form CFs, either province? Third point, whether PQ should redress the contract to better benefit Nfld? I think maybe so because I thought that French civil law permitted it, and such law, dating from Napoleon, was better than English common law or whatever, that a contract is a contract? But what do I know? That just a belief. And if the French is not so generous, I accept that, so a contract is a contract to prevail.
And if all those HQ projects were also so profitable, which I did not know, all the more reason to be generous to Nfld. No need for Heracles to repeat the things turned down for win win. That never happened. So rather sad that Nfld now to, maybe, use delay of CF 2/3 ownership for another 20 years past 2041.Global warning will get us all, or wipe out the hydro resource before we get significant benefit.
So my message, you , me and Heracles , and Innu and Inuit elders get together and settle this mess, and justice for all.Maybe we invite Dave Vardy, maybe not. Etienne is out maybe,Wanting to hurt NL much more,until they shout UNCLE so not really sure on Heracles, which leaves only you Eric from PQ.
Winston

WA:

I am not really so sure the UC deal is lopsided in the long run – off course annually right now it looks bad, but doesn't DW, EM et all tell us to look to the future? Annual revenues and the plant needs to be considered – and as you say, closer than many want to realize.

In any event, I am not so sure that we should continue to challenge the legality of the UC – if we are 'successful', I would offer that might give a basis for the QC claim regarding the Labrador peninsula and the 1927 Privy Council settlement.

Also, have you looked over section 4.13 of the FLG I mentioned several weeks ago?

PENG2

Winston,

How can we redress what is already straight ? The contract was designed to achieve Win – Win no matter what and it did. The moment you start denying your benefits, there is nothing we can do to fix that.

Did not MF proved to you how risky a mega hydro project can be ? Know that HQ took all the risks in CF and that risks and benefits go together.

Do you understand how a power plant on UC is 100% useless without the proper transmission system over a thousand kilometers distance ? Do you know that HQ just created the 735 Kv technology and that UC was its first major line using it ? Should that technology have failed, than there would be no value to take out of UC because it would have be impossible to deliver that power anywhere. Still, HQ would had to pay it all and not getting any value out of it.

On how Brinco and Newfoundland did to First Nations in Labrador, how would it be up to HQ to do or fix anything there ?

On how Newfoundland bought back what is only 65% of UC, do you know that Qc, recommended Newfoundland to buy it all back before the 1969 contract and that Newfoundland refused ?

On the fact that the buy back was for only 65% was perfectly known at the time.

So really, there is nothing to redress here.
Newfoundland has been paid over 2 billions in cash to receive a power plant built at no cost and no risk and still you complain for more ?

UC is and has always be a perfectly fair deal.

Without the flooded land which is 100% owned by NL, CF would never have been built anyway. That asset alone must be worth mega millions so to say NL contributed nothing is false.

Indeed Wayne, NL contributed big time when it gave (for peanuts) Brinco all the Churchill river hydraulic rights for 99 years (+ a renewal clause). Guess what, among other things those ceded rights included the flooded land…

Well, I was expecting a little kickback, but very surprised at the comments. UG might delete Etienne, but I beg he does not. Heracles was a bit long, but we expect that. PENG2, maybe he works for HQ as a day or night job? But all interesting and deserving a better reply that this acknowledgement. But no Eric yet. I await for Eric, who with me will settle this mess of no justice.
WA

Oka, 1990, the last of the Mohawk burial grounds turns into a golf course. That tells a different story.

Anonymous 19:22: Ah yes, the Oka crisis. A crisis wherein the only person killed (by natives) was a white Quebec policeman (corporal Marcel Lemay), thereby demonstrating that Quebec is…uniquely anti-native.

Wow. This is "1984"-type doublethink here. Quite impressive, in its way…

Let's say the Canadian military saved the day.

Etienne, I am not at 19:22, someone who is anon, and suggests you think it me. I forgot Oka. For me that no First Nation people were killed, yes good outcome.
Winston

One fatality on either side, including one Mohawk elder. 75 wounded on First Nations side, lesser number on other side.

The Mohawks (many of the them Americans) had all sorts of weapons, including .50" HMG and 7.62 mm GPMG.

The SQ was obviously was under armed and under protected, being strictly a police force.

Still, the politicians in Ottawa were in no rush to intervene despite, numerous help request from Qc…

Eventually, when authorised, the Canadian Forces took that operation very seriously & professionally indeed.

I would have a few good stories to tell you about a Major that almost got hit by a 7.62 round shot by a Mohawk named "Lasagne". It was followed by a late night commando type of raid into the trench "Lasagne" was supposed to be. That poor Mohawk in that trench (in the middle of the Mohawks defensive position) got the message.
No further offensive moves were ever attempted by the Mohawks afterward.

But things almost got REALLY serious not in OKA, but on the shore of Montreal (Kahnawake) when the St-Laurence Seaway and a rail road bridge were at risk of being shut. (Fed's jurisdictions, go figure).

You have no idea how we came close to an intervention there. (OKA would have been a piece of cake in comparison).

———————–

Anything said above is not restricted information; I obtained this from friends who participated.

I read Ex that by 1990 of the 165 square kilometers of Mohawk land, all but 6 had been taken, started when land was granted from way over in Paris to priests in New France then, Mohawk territory. During the standoff, the Mohawk was called savages, and people complained that they could not speak French. And that the police beat up this guy Lasagne, while in custody. Lasagne died a few year late from a heart attack, Not much consquence to the police office that did the beating.This 28 years ago. Here for the Beothic, they did not fight back much, never had a gun, but retreated, and most starved to death,some killed, that finally now 200 years ago. But a sad affair and unjust, as at MFs now too.
Maybe Etienne missed some of the Oka story, and a colored version of history there. But he may be right on some points, maybe.So I forgot much of Oka, but recall the standoff between the Warrior and the military guy, face to face. But overall a victory for the Mohawk, against such odds, police, Mounties, Canadian army, even you as a military guy, and me too a bit ex military must admit. I forgot much of that from 1990 as then I had my own Oka with the Mounties, jailed , stripped , searched, charged, read no charter of rights, prosecuted for 2 years, but jailed only 4 hours. 3 big Mounties to take me down, with a choke hold and nearly went out with that. They saw me as a big threat Ex. So maybe I have sympathy for the Mohawk, and all First Nations, often victims of Mounties. But some are good no doubt, and try to bring justice, against abuse within too, I see. But we make progress slowly.
Winston
Winston

"…was granted from way over in Paris to priests in New France then, Mohawk territory."

About Mohawk territory: When the first French settlers arrived (Quebec 1608, Montreal 1642), the Mohawks (including the Iroquois confederacy) were located in what is now upper New-York state – so definitely not in present day Quebec. (They used to extend further north, but were later defeated by native wars – prior to the French settlers arrival)

In the 1700s, Mohawks were being butchered and pushed back by the British (later the Americans) from their "ancestral" land – current upper NY state and the Hudson river Valley.

Only after the above didthe French Jesuits offered those Mohawks a safe heaven in OKA and Kahnawake, aiming to convert them into French Catholicism. FWIW, they are indeed mostly catholic now, but they somehow skipped the French part altogether…

So Winston, the bad guys here are not the ones you originally believed 😉

(Etienne should know way more than me on that subject, I would appreciate any corrections…)

Ex-military Engr: Your statement above is historically quite correct. All I would add is that French, not English, was the dominant second language among the Mohawk until the late nineteenth century or so.

I would add that it was quite generous of French Jesuits to offer the Mohawk a safe Haven in the Montreal Area, since after all the Iroquois Confederacy, of which the Mohawks were a part, had traditionally been a bitter foe: indeed, in the seventeenth century the Iroquois Confederacy came very close to annihilating New France (despite this, no plan aiming at the complete annihilation of the Iroquois was ever proposed in New France, whereas wars of extermination were planned and executed by the English colonies), and the Iroquois succeeded in annihilating the Huron of Southern Ontario, traditional allies of France after all (The Huron reservation now found in the vicinity of Quebec City was likewise created as a Haven for Huron refugees).

The movie "Black Robe" is probably the most historically accurate piece of fiction I know of in depicting this era (it's a first-rate movie too). For those who wish to examine Iroquois history more deeply, the work of Léo-Paul Desrosiers (basically his four-volume work IROQUOISIE), is a must.

Just a warning: anyone who expects the above historical work to depict the Iroquois as some poor powerless group of passive victims of French imperialism is going to be VERY disappointed.

Winston, are you saying that we have one wire carrying power to the island, and that the return path is the earth – so if there are ground electrode problems we might be power limited by the return path and if there is a break in the only wire then we have no power at all?

Also, once the second wire is strung on the towers, will this be two incoming power lines with a shared earth return, or is one of the lines the return path with the earth as a backup?

Yes, we have 2 wires now, but one not active, so the earth for the return path, and if electrodes problems it can reduce power flow via the earth.
Yes if the one good conductor now breaks we have no power at all from labrador
Yes with 2 conductors operating, they carry the power, and the earth is the back up if one incoming conductor fails
I welcome comments from Power engineers if my opinions are in error.
Winston

I suspect that 1) we were lucky last year 2) Holyrood and Bay d'Espoir are more decrepit than ever. Therefore, the risks of a darknl are higher than ever.

We may also be diverting some of our power to Nova Scotia. I guess if the LIL fails then power to Nova Scotia would be cut off quickly.

I find it confusing too. There is a master list of documents here: https://www.muskratfallsinquiry.ca/files/Master-List.pdf and under each day, there is a list with links: https://www.muskratfallsinquiry.ca/files/Master-List.pdf

We would need a bulletin board system with each document being a Topic and comments / discussion underneath. That way we could crowd source the analysis.

Here is a quote from a paper in the first days exhibit:

"Mega-projects are manifest, garner attention, and lend an air of pro-activeness to their promoters; moreover, they are media magnets, which appeals to politicians who seem to enjoy few things better than the visibility they get from starting megaprojects, except, perhaps, the ceremonious ribbon-cutting during the opening of one in the company of royals or presidents, who are likely to be present,lured by the unique monumentality and historical import of many mega projects. This is the type of public exposure that helps get politicians re-elected; so, therefore, they actively seek it out."

Correction, the second link was wrong, here is the first day:

https://www.muskratfallsinquiry.ca/transcripts-and-exhibits/exhibits/september-17-2018/

Yes I read that as well

It should be the masthead of the movement
I suppose no one has the resources to digest the, Ron Penny said billions or millions, of documents that will assemble on the inquiry site.

Yet that is what the public needs

We all know it was the political reasoning that led us to the quagmire and we know no political reasoning can get us out

Oops

I like your crowd source idea but again individual resources cannot keep up

MFCCC wants us to pose questions based on the testimony and the documents

Keep reading

Thanks Winston, because I now know all about poles, I now have four meanings. They carry the wires, and we need two poles to get all the power from muskrat, and there are companies that may a fortune on conducting poles to tell us who will be elected, and a former PM way back in '50's told us that poles were only good for dogs to pee on. So all quite simple, and all very enlightening, especially as DC power takes the Mother Earth route back to muskrat with no-poles. Enlightening as I was wondering if that might cause more lightening during a thunderstorm. So Winston the part I am now pondering is that power that takes the route via Mother Earth back to muskrat, is there any way I can hook into that and get my power free as nalcor can't charge me for that, since I am not using their poles or as some might say their Hugh Towers. Guess should ice bring down some towers during a winter storm, we still get power because if it can go back to muskrat via Mother Earth then why not come down to Soldiers pond station via Mother Earth. It's a two way street, or highway. Thanks again Winston, it's never too late to learn says Joe blow. Now I must tune into Judge Leblanc and get some more education on how you can double your money when you start a mega project and the first piece of information you need, is after you figure out how much it might cost, you just double it and use cost plus contracts to add up the total cost plus interest.

Welcome back Joe. As to your questions
Using mother earth is the second best,as conductivity is poor, but as the cross section is large compared to a small conductor, it works, how good we wait and see, as Nfld has very high resistance in mother earth. So as to more lightning issues, not off the wall.
Can you hook in to that to get free power like Nova Scotia. Well there is a wire going from Soldiers Pond to a grounding grid in the ocean, maybe 10 miles away. You could try to hook into that i suppose, but you would be toast, so not recommended. And you could trigger a massive blackout to your fellow citizens. But a good question, for those who are faced with heat poverty.
As to ice bringing down towers, then that's a bummer, as then both conductors go with it, and no circuit. Now if ice takes down one conductor, we are still good to go, one conductor and mother earth.
So why not mother earth for both conductors, and bypass the DC line and towers altogether? Well, the conductors are insulated, so not to short circuit. If you ever misconnect on a car 12 v battery, you see what happens , the sparks flying. So a short circuit on 345,000 volts, stand back.
So mother earth to use two such paths would just short circuit, and maybe an explosion, and puff goes our generators, you would see smoke rising at the powerhouse where Stan and the CBC cameras
was yesterday. But a good question, as few know how we depend on mother earth for so much. And for 1 pole , we can maybe get about 600MW of the 900MW that way, if the other pole goes down. Perhaps PENG3 can confirm if we get that much?
Cheers Joe
Winston

At the GRA, Hydro officials advised that single pole capacity is limited to 225MW. This was the highest level they might have been able to transmit this winter although there wouldn't often be that much spare capacity available from the Recall block from which the firm capacity estimate was 110MW. Some extra power might be available from time to time to the extent that the labrador loads are below peak. 225MW from recall might be possible next July when it isn't really needed. The real maximum range might be 110-170MW when it runs. I think Stan is now telling us to prepare for less though.

Most interesting, and indeed, as noted below the Shawmont study showed 850 MW of small hydro systems (many larger than the Nfld Power hydro plants on the Avalon).The blog has links to the study. This study commissioned by George Sturge of Nfld Hydro.In comparison MF is 824MW not that reliable,and loses about 8 % in transmission.
The blog is a template also for Conservation and Energy Efficiency, and includes info on the saving of heat pumps and other measures.What faculty, MUN? So nobody disagreed, but nobody was willing to be associated with it either! That says a lot. The writer of this blog understands power systems, he mentions synchronous condenser, which Stan Marshall pointed to today now installed at Soldiers Pond. Except this blog mentions running the Holyrood generator as synchronous condenser, which they will be.
Stan likely made an error, or maybe a deception, saying 3 such units at Soldiers Pond, but only 2 ,I think, with another at Holyrood. Why would he miss that? Maybe not wanting to admit that some Holyrood equipments must stay operating even after MFs is complete.
Guess this blogger (likely an engineer) has fear of his job to remain anonymous? So who are all the brave faculty that feared to be associated with this and helped enable the boondoggle? Will Leblanc be hearing from this blogger and why this never saw the light as to alternatives?
Winston Adams

Some may recall my request to PENG2 to review my research and performance data for minisplits. He suggested he would but never did, but indicated he trusts my data stated on this blog.
I have mentioned that 2 mechanical enginers at MUN showed no interest in doing a peer review of this data. Dave Vardy suggested to me to contact MUN for this. One described minisplit high performance as a MYTH (he does work at times for the power companies). Recently James Feehan cites minisplits as a major risk to power demand, because they are so efficient and cost effective and more so as rates rise.
So why was this blogger, probably from MUN, discouraged, and Wade Locke getting vast payments for reports enabling the boondoggle? MUN should be accountable, right up to the president, MUN has let down this province and people. The Inquiry should not let MUN off on this 12.7 billion boondoggle.
Winston Adams

MUN engineering faculty are well aware that publishing or speaking anything that upsets powerful people will get you harassed. This harassment might consist of the department suddenly challenging your tenure application, being yelled at in the Dean's office, having the board of trade cancel your speaking engagements, and all sorts of petty things. If you aren't tenured, speaking out could terminate your career in this province.

Fortunately Dr. Bruneau is brave and he has entered it into the inquiry record. Have a look. I was intrigued by "bogus study of natural gas" and "only tenured professors and retired employees can afford the risk to call them out".

https://www.muskratfallsinquiry.ca/files/20180212-TOR-Stephen-Bruneau.pdf

Indeed, it shows the complicity of cronyism in the operations of MUN. Yes, Bruneau makes many valid points in his piece, and gas, while not as green as EE, is much better than oil burning it is considered as a bridge energy source to allow uptake of greener options. He has a little discussion on wind as well. A lot of work into his analysis, 75 pages in March 2012, as to my 8 pages on HPs, and a few in the Telegram in 2012. So, how many good technical people were silenced, and as Dave Vardy wonders too.
WA

I would ask the younger M. Bruneau to conduct some Cost Engineering studies of the Muskrat fiasco. Campbell, Andrews, Ahuja, Hattenhouer, (? sp) ,and the like, did real important critiques of 70's and 80's public projects, bringing to light genuine "lessons learned" analysis. This seems sadly lacking at this time. Somewhere and sometime soon the General Inquiry will hopefully scratch the surface of project data, (contract files), getting a little sunlight on forensics.

Due to circumstances,sometimes my memory, or perhaps my reasoning may get fuzzy. So it was that it was not until this morning that Stan's comments resonates some more.
"I apologise to electrical engineers out there" Stan must have said at least 3 times. Yet who would not think that he was an electrical engineer? A rather masterful performance describing this massive electrical project. But then he has had along career in the electrical power business, and learned a lot.
Yet i was puzzles from the start why he describes household voltages as 110 volt, and indicating the other as 220v (used for baseboard heaters say). On reflection now , that was a giveaway.
My toaster and kettle labels say 120 v, not 110. During a break yesterday, I measures the voltage at an outlet and got 122.5v.
The nominal voltage for households in neither 110 nor 120 but 115 volt. So the nominal baseboard heater voltage is twice 115, which is 230, not 220. The actual heater voltage would be twice 122.5, so 145 v, not 220 as Stan says.
Stan is a chemical engineer not an electrical, but he could almost pass as one. So do I quibble on this small point? Well motors especially, such as in your fridge or washer are designed for 115 v plus or minus 10 percent. If the voltage is too high or too low it shortens the life of your appliance. Ideally 115 v would be desirable. So 122.5 v is about 7% higher than ideal, but 3 % lower than the maximum. So yes, Nfld power deliberately operates at higher than the ideal voltage for your appliance long life. But it is good for the company and reduces their costs. Remember Stan saying you can get more intensity at high voltage, well yes, and too much can impair the life of your appliances and power tools.
Why is that not a quibble? Because it was by such distortions, with much more negative affect, in input assumptions that the whole of MFs has been fabricated as a good project.
So no Stan, I do not accept your apology, due to omissions and not the whole truth, but you did a masterful job overall.
Winston Adams

Yes Winston yes
A masterful look at Stan.

Stan needs to open the contract files to public purview. Tell us what imbedded contract services have been performed by individuals being remitted in excess of $10,000/month and such. Where did all the money go?

It should not be Leblanc's aim "to lay a good foundation from which the inquiry can … show the project in the best possible light".

That is not what is needed, not what inquiries are supposed to do, not what our tax dollars should be used for — but may indeed be, and there seems to be, what is happening — another marketing effort. Hardly what citizens/ratepayers need.

When a judge is supposed to be assessing the need, the affordability, the economic viability, the risks etc. of a project/expenditure, should he encourage and allow the proponents/enablers of the project/expenditure to tour and see the magnificence of their engineering feat?

Will they be given a tour and be shown the quick clay layers in the North Spur? The slope of the downstream steep underwater deep hole? Explained the implications of the problems with reliable energy transmission — etc, etc, etc, etc.? Not likely.

This quasi-judicial process should not be used to allow the subject of the inquiry to continue the 'optimism bias' the Oxford expert as already shown to be a key reason for mega-project problems.

The project of MFs is like building the Titanic to go haul a gill net, such is the cost and complexity as to the needs.
If Leblanc is to show the project in the best possible light, instead of exposing the skullduggery, then the Inquiry is a farce.
The CBC did a fluff piece this week, right in time for Stan's much bigger fluff piece at the Inquiry. Recall the awe inspiring choppers with the towers being fixes in place, going from still picture to moving picture,for effect, and the men like ants in comparison. Gil Bennett compared the rock excavation as greater than the pyramids of Egypt. Gil, an actual electrical engineer, but still a cable guy with no mega project experience, would have exceeded Stan's ability at such a presentation, had he not been put under the cone of silence by Stan.
WA

Stan and synchronous condensers:
Stan used the analogy of a flywheel on an engine, to smooth the vibration, something I have used on this blog, comparing it to he fly wheel on a old Acadia putt putt engine.
But these SCc, no ordinary flywheel!. Maybe 50 million cost each, 2 at Soldier's pond and already 2 at Holyrood as soon as the plant there is decommissioned for generation. These are as big and pretty identical to the large generators at Holyrood, in fact the Holyrood generators and SCs are one and the same.That long DC line presents some problem for grid reliability and stability, so the need for SCs, (our flywheels). And they require maintenance, and enclosures,both at Holyrood and Soldiers Pond. Over 100 million a year for operating and maintencance of the MFs system.Now the cast iron flywheel on the Acadia, and on your car engine, is maintenance free, and low cost to make. Some flywheel, indeed. But the Telegram and CBC and other media were impressed with the size and weight,a few months ago, at Soldiers Pond tour.
A few months ago Bruno confused SCers with converters, that convert from AC to DC. Technobabble Bruno calls it anyway, so no big deal. Yes, these SCs are a big deal, and a costly add on to try to make this work. Liberty did not warn of potential operating problems for no reason.

WA

STAN AND SMALL HYDRO:
Stan largely left out Nfld Power's 100 MW of hydro power mostly on the Avalon, when explaining our overall grid power. Yet these are jewels, many operating now 100 years and at costs of about 3 cents compared to over 60 cents for MFs delivered to the Avalon.
Jewels because when the mighty complex DC line fails, and it will, and when there is no Holyrood backup except 123 MW newer gas turbine, and when NS has no power to give us, and they won't, then we are in shit, our capital city. And if the lines of our island supply near Sunnyside goes down with ice, as they can,then deeper shit, then what is our salvation? The little jewels of Nfld Power small hydro scattered here and there , at Seal Cove, at Witless Bay, at Petty Hr etc, but all connected to the capital. Yet this can only serve about 10 % of our needs , and the gas turbine another 10-15 %. Then the shit really hits the fan, 75 % power loss, and enough for emergency uses mostly. So they are jewels, otherwise, in winter here, we are like Porta Rico in hardship.
So Stan omits the old but profitable and good still founding plants of Nfld Power, the basis of Fortis history. Does he intend to omit reference to the potential 850 MW identified by Shawmont in 1985, of other small Nfld hydro, most off the Avalon, but better than 1100km away. Were they considered by Nalcor as a component of least cost supply? Will Leblanc overlook that? Nalcor considered only 78 MW of additional island hydro, not worth while says Nalcor, go for 824 MFs, with no markets. So Stan glazes over small hydro, and shows off the Titanic.
WA

What do I not understand,you said climate has always been changing for thousands of years, from natural causes. You admit nothing of the great contribution of mankind fossil fuel burning. So agin here you mention deforestation and inability of forests to absorb CO2. You are a climate change denier in the real sense, and try to play tricks wit other readers here. Maybe other readers understand you better?
AG

To admit human activity altered the environment to the point of having an impact real enough to eventually destroyed the system we are dependent of is being a denier for you.

You make me think that maybe people from Newfoundland should end up under the supervision of an overlord because everything quickly goes out of their capacity…

Yes Heracles, as , last time I checked it was somethng like 97% of scientists who are experts in this field, agree that there is 95 % certainity that humans have altered the system to risk severe consequences to climate and weather patterns and destructive forces. So 95 % is not 100 %. So to deny that means you are a denier, period. So you side with the 3% that deny that. Does that mean most of Quebec agree with you? Or most of Nfld people agree with you? I cannot speak for them ,only myself and I agree with the 97 % of scientists. Maybe you have special insight that you can enlighten us believers that we are wrong? Maybe Pope Francis needs an overlord as well, as he has written on the dangers of man made climate change.
AG

AG, you are just too —bad words— to understand anything.

As for others, despite what AG is saying, I agree that humankind damaged the environment to the point of affecting badly the system it is dependent to survive. Should that keeps going, men will end up destroying that system, so destroying themselves. Nature and environment are to be protected and preserved and I consider measures like the surface of forests or plastic polution in the ocean are more relevant than degrees on the thermometer.

So Heracles, the fable man, who talks of the Frog and the OX, says forests and plastic straws are bad, but not 100 million barrels of oil a day into the atmosphere, that is not bad. So we go back to coal as well, like Trumpie, and here , we float and refit the Kyle, as we will be poor anyway, form MFs.
So Heracles does not agree with AG, as he is –bad words–, but he agrees with other readers, who I see none yet.Maybe some Quebec friends come to his rescue , maybe not?
AG

Last time I checked , UG seeks better governance for NL. The inquiry is exclusively about MFs, Etienne.
And, Heracles and some others suggest a swap of CFs for Mfs debt. however DW says long term better to use oil revenue. Now if ramped up oil production is of no issue as to climate change,as Heracles says, then DW is a genius,a saviour again. But if that too is a disaster to climate change, then the CFs swap may be better, and Heracles the genius. I thought that was plain to see.
AG

Hi Etienne,

AG lost his mind when I told him that every model used to measure human polution by the mean of the thermometer were speculative. The reason is that such an exercise requires to make the difference between what is measured as of today (a real metric) and what the speculative model said it should have been. The consequence is that what people think is a measurement is in fact speculation.

Still, this is no reason to keep destroying the environment. There are real measurement that can be used ot evaluate the damage we did, to avoid doing more, to repair what we did etc. Such measures include but are not limited to the amount of plastic in ocean or deforestation. Yes humankind damaged the environment bad enough to have measurable effects. Should that keep going, we will destroy the environment we are dependent from to survive. But because my opinion on the need to protect the environment is not based in the thermometer, AG calls me a climate change denier. That started in a previous tread. Because he repeated his blame here, I re-posted my position so people reading only this section would know that it is not true.

As for Newfoundland politician planing to capitalize on a second DarkNL, I doubt it. I believe more in the idea of MF having been planned to steal power from UC. Because such an action would be illegal, they had to keep that much secrecy. Also, because the action would bring more benefit, it would help the business case but they could not reveal it. At the end, it will not work because they can not steal enough to pay back such a fiasco, but I really think the original idea is there.

Now Heracles, if AG lost his mind, surely help him to find it again, as a Good Samaritan would do. And as people here believe you that you are not a climate change denier,as to fossil fuel being a cause. Which ever way you measure by temperature, by ice cores, by tree rings, by Florence 30 inch of rain, or Harvey 52 inch, or glaciers disappearing, or permafrost melting, or cod and capelin in short supply, or rising ocean, or a hundred other ways, all these changes are not connected to fossil fuel use, you say. So you agree climate is changing, but due to plastics and deforestation only. And HQ and CF should return and empty their reservoirs and grow more trees, and we drill baby drill off Nfld and be wealthy again.
Perhaps AG will never find his mind again,as he agrees with simple lost minds like Stephen Hawkings and Pope Francis, so a lost cause. Yes, maybe a lost mind for sure, so different from Heracles mind of fables. AG a frog, with a tiny mind, wanting a big mind like the ox. Maybe Nfld is full of frogs?
Maybe some UG readers will help AG?
AG

AG,

If you are serious about listening and trying to understand, I can give it another shot.

To make a difference, you need two measures. That is mathematic.

There is only one reality that is happening at any time. That is physic.

To measure the difference between two realities can be achieved in lab conditions because you can recreate the same starting point twice (actually, you should do more than twice) and do your experiment.

About the environment, that is not possible because the environment can not be untouched and affected by humankind at the same time.

So to compensate, you must speculate on a model that will guess what an untouched environment would be.

Because that part is speculation, it is not factual and can be as much over-estimate as it can be under estimate.

Peckford Pickle Palace is actually an example of that. The model they used to evaluate that the project would be economic in Newfoundland weather proved itself wrong, but this was detected only once it was too late.

I think hard facts are better than speculation, so I use hard facts to make my own opinion.

Deforestation and plastic accumulation in the water are two things that are hard facts because they are 100% man made. Nature would not have do any clear cutting itself, nor produce any plastic. As such, the clean reference is not based on speculation and is a hard 0. Knowing that we are not at 0 anymore (and actually very far from that 0), here we have a hard evidence that can be relied on.

I do not deny fossil fuel as harmful to environment. What I say is that it is not possible to know how bad it is. The speculative model used by so many can as well under estimate the numbers as it can over estimate them.

It is the same for all example you gave (Florence and its rain, tree rings, etc.). All of them are related to degrees of temperature.

Because we know climate always changed since the earth started to exist, we know that to avoid climate change would be impossible. As such, how much of the change is natural and how much is artifical ? That is speculation.

How much forest is needed to absord the CO2 of X barrels of fossil fuel ? That can be measured. Once measured, we can see that we are badly unbalanced. So much that to re-balance would probably not be possible just by growing back forests. So indeed, to re-balance, we need to reduce the production of CO2. But again, I would not measure the reduction objectives with the thermometer.

As for what so many parrots repeat, I gave you an example with Operation Neptune. I thought of another example since: breast cancer. In the 1960s, a study said that systematic testing reduced the risks by 30% (or something like that). That idea survived over 40 years of scientific approval and expert advice, until one re-do the maths and found that they did not work. He investigaed the original study and found that the guy who did it sorted the test subjects in a very unbalanced way and for good reason, he had shares in an entreprise involved in the production of the test material.

I stopped listening the mass long time ago and the number of parrots (read here experts) is not an argument as for me.

Hope you understood with that one…

Heracles, you think like how a computer works with yes or no, and if the software is programmed wrong, it gets the wrong result, so garbage in and garbage out.
Peckfords Pickle Palace: could easily be modeled and know in advance of the big heat loss in green houses and little sunlight,and economics known without building. No need to have build if to find out.
Florence was accurately predicted to have record rainfalls, not just from temperature, but also the storm stopping to only 2 MPH for a long time, and how it would turn on land. About 20 different models predicted it correct.
Many examples so not necessary to test as in a labratory, but look at the data and models that have high reliability and keep improving.
That some studies results to be false is true,and especially when there is bias. But most are not false.
You now say fossil fuel is bad but we not know how bad.High atmosphere CO2 is now absorbed into the ocean causing acid, and damage to species, so that is real bad. Forests cannot repair, CO2 has to be removed and again stored underground or stop burning fossil fuel.
But you deny that is very bad, just a little bad. And soon we get runaway climate change from feedback loops, then we can do nothing.
So you want to be certain, 100%, not 95 % as to fossil fuel induced climate change. Now if you are 95% a lion will charge after you, and you know a way to escape, you do that. You do not say wait for 100%, as that is foolish. So too it is foolish to deny fossil fuel contribution to climate change is invalid as you do. So too with MFs, as HQ knew it was not economic, it was not necessary to build it and find out. And most on this blog know that. Ed Martin still says it will give us some of the lowest power rates in Canada. He too used false assumptions as inputs: garbage in and garbage out, and this is your type of logic.
So that is my mind, it works maybe like others that accept overwhelming evidence, though not 100% proof. When 100% it will be too late. Now at 95 % maybe it is too late, or very late.
So I do not deny fossil fuel as the main driver for climate change,as historical now for 100 year trend, and worse each year
AG.

Heracle, please google "List of countries by oil consumption'and see what you think. USA is 20 million barrels a day, Canada per person is worse than the USA, worldwide it is 100 million barrels a day, into our air, and now too we learn that even light smog makes us stupid, less intelligent, especially men over 65. How old are you Heracles, and do you have smog in your enviroment? Here in Nfld we have little smog , but much hot air from politicians, which is even worse that kind of air, and now we have Ches crosbie, another millionaire lawyer, as is Stan Marshall and Danny Williams, so maybe Ches makes for a better climate, who knows. He is dull, not so pretty, not overly witty, yet he is a millionaire, so not in misery. So Ball better be on the ball now, as to MFs, Perhaps in 2 years Ches will make a deal with HQ, that is a win win, but as Etienne knows ,he is Townie merchant class. So maybe still we are a lost cause. Time will tell.
AG

Heracles, I see that neither Etienne nor Ex Military have supported your view, yet you use a lot of ink to argue. As for me, I think, yes fossil fuel burning is the major threat causing climate change at a rapid rate. So they call it global warming too which is temperature related as you refer to it, but much more than just temperature or warming. Also, HQ promote their hydro power as relative clean and green and helps counter GHG emissions relative to thermal fossil fuel power. So HQ believes in climate change that a big factor is fossil fuel and they promote hydro and wind too. Maybe EX (Eric) agrees with me?
AG explained to Etienne the rationale as to fossil fuel/ climate change/ Mfs, so what is his position, does he agree with you or AG
Winston

Hi Winston,

Ex-mil and Etienne are free to have their opinion and I do not need to be endorsed by anyone to have mine.

Mine is that environment must be protected and preserved, that hard facts are better than speculation, that humankind already damaged the system it is dependent of for its survival and that should we keep going that way, we may well destroy it. The only difference is that I am more interested by measurements like surface of forestation that readings on a thermometer.

OK Heracles, you bring climate change to just 2 factors as your input, plastic and forest, and discard 50 or more other factors, especially where does all smoke and gases go from fossil fuel and their impact. You block out that reality and science. Your mind and mine is different, I do not call you stupid or imply it, but that your mind works different.
You can be 1 in 7 billion and still be right. But the odds are much against it. So we agree to disagree? So do you have bias from the fossil fuel industry, that aids your income, just curious why your mind is different.
AG

In this particular subject , my opinion is definitely not better than anyone else here.

Heracles basically share the same concerns than you guys, and wants to enforce the same protection solutions than you all.

He only says that current rising temperature/global warming may OR may not be the result of human factors. I'm not 100% sure of that either, as there were similar temperature variations before mankind.

However I take this global warming very seriously and I still believe we may alter somewhat its outcome and I'm willing to make considerable actions to minimise it.

Carbon trading is a very effective way to minimise CO2 production & encourage caption at a minimal cost. I would also look into minimise (even more) forest fires etc.

But hey, this is just my personal opinion and I don't possess any particular expertise in this domain.

Well, the SCOC will tell (hopefully soon) how accurate is Jason Churchill's (a disguised DW???) picture of the problem.

It "seems" he's only using a carefully chosen "political" declaration by Jean Lesage in 1965 to support his usual victim theory, spanning over a 60 years period.

Luckily the SCOC is using actual negotiation minutes, memos, letter, draft contracts, meeting minutes etc. to support its decisions.

Jason Churchill also seems to be a firm supporter of the LIL (and the Anglo Saxon route?). We got news for him, pertaining to the LIL costs, and its reliability…

Jason, yes, blame Quebec, perhaps more than necessary. But if political suicide to let free pass of electricity through Quebec in the 1960 to what 2005,it changed because USA rules demanded it due to deregulation there, and if PQ did not comply, it would hinder HQ exports to USA. Is that right? If so, then our neighbour seeks profits as priority over being a really good neighbour? NO NO NO, you reply , we did so much already, and never appreciated.
Well Ex, you have not lately attacked us as you did it to the Mohawk villages in the 1700s. So that is nice, so we make some progress, we all are less savage. Maybe the SC will make peace ,and we smoke the peace pipe or weed now. Inside we are the same, you and I, humans with faults, and biases.But maybe we English are worse, maybe so, do you think so? Maybe yes. I say Yes, we are worse, would you agree?
AG

Hi Ex-mil,

As for the SCOC releasing the judgement anytime soon, I do not know but I think that it can still take long. The reason is how can Qc – HQ support Newfoundland in managing their fiasco if Newfoundland keeps its way of fighting their contractual obligations. I guess one requirement to obtain help from Qc – HQ would be to waive off all actual and future claims about the existing contract and whatever agreement there will be to provide support.

AG,

For power to be transported from UC to anywhere over Qc, it requires a power line.
In the 1960, there was no power line technologies capable of carrying that much power over such a long distance.
Once HQ invented that technology, the cost of the power line itself was estimates to above 50% of the cost of the power plant itself.
HQ paid it all for that line.
So instead of building the line ourselves, should we had let you build it, you would not have be able to do it because
A-You did not had the technology
B-You did not had the money to pay for it
C-All potential customers surrounding Qc already said NO to power from UC

So keep blaming Qc for refusing to let you built that power line yourself. After all, a Newfoundlanders can not survive without an oppressor responsible for all of its reality and justifying why he is so miserable.

You're half-right there Heracles31… it's NL politicians through either ignorant naivety/incompetence/corruption who screw it all up, then blame it on outsiders such as HQ/QC, the feds, DFO, whoever happens to be the convenient scapegoat du jour.

And NLers in their own blind, un-informed blissful ignorance, naivty and outright xenophobia… fall for it hook, line and sinker… time after time after time. Always have, always will… just like a bunch of naive little children.

P.T Barnum once said "There's a sucker born every minute."

Most of'em are NLers.

(There was no Mohawks in NL…)

No, Ex, but the French brought Indians from some 700 miles away to attack fishing villages in Nfld. Rough times then.
AG

In those attacks, the French did not bring Mohawks for sure – those were British allies until about 1699. (FWIW, Mohawks became "neutral" after a peace treaty around 1999)

Meant around 1699

No not Mohawks, but they arrived on Frech sailing vessels for the attack, and the French encourage a bit of Indian scalping of the English here, to good effect.
Now our Beothic were always neutral, but that did not save them, as the English, our forefathers too, wanted everything, still to day, they (we) want the waters of Muskrat Falls.
AG

"French encourage a bit of Indian scalping of the English here, to good effect"

AG, I'm kind of intrigued here, particularly with the word "encourage". Would you mind providing me some reading material of this?

FWIW (in a different theater of war and much later than the events you are referring to) Montcalm got into trouble with his native allies when he strictly prohibited them from scalping any of the (very numerous) British prisoners. (Montcalm had a series of victories at Fort Oswego, Fort William Henry and Fort Carillon – all that prior to the Plains of Abraham).

Again, Etienne would know way more than me on this.

Yes Ex, now personally I don't approve of scalping whether encouraged by the French, the English or Indians, (and not only Indians did the scalping, that is movie stuff) but it part of our early history in North America. The last I recall was 1883 when 3 Apache were tracked down and scalped, if memory serves, down around where John McCain lived.
But I get back to you more, as much happening here on the Inquiry today, just hope no scalping results.
AG

I certainly hope no one would approve this!!! 😉

But if we really have to, we would have a few names to provide you…

Do you mean approve scalping as to the boondoggle, Ex, or as to who might have have approved scalping in Nfld with French presence during the attack here? Your comment can be taken 2 ways
AG
AG

Haha! Hopefully no one gets scalped. Not the British soldiers for sure 😉 (I'm an Ex Mil, remember)

Anyways, I'm still intrigue me with those French "encouraging" their native allies to scalp British prisoners.

My understanding was the opposite behavior from from the French.

Do you have any references I can learn more about it?

Now we will get to see Ches's plan. What will rate payers and tax payers pay, and who will pay the take or pay contract. Don't think Ches has a magic wand.

Those that were afraid of being harmed should contact Ron Penny, as there are likely many.
So DW the bully here with his lawsuit, Trump like to imtimidate.

You are spot on again Winston. What more can I say. Just that when those Vaugbonds get on the stand they will be made to squirm with their silly decisions about we don't have wind, or the right kind. And the treasonous actions of giving to NS our cheap, realiable, paid for island power in lieu of the boondoggle power. Just wanted to add that now chess is a leader, that he will present his plan. Will he adopt, stan's plan, or have his own plan, or no plan or hold it so close to his chest that we don't know what it is. But now the people has given him their confidence we need to know it well before the next election, as well as balls too. So we can elect a government with the best or right plan or policy. Now, as some have commented on the SCC decision again, I will add my 2 cents worth. Thee SCC decision on the UC is still before the courts, and guessing as to why it is being held up . I would just like to add, that for the first time ever we have a judge on the bench from here. Judge Rowe was appointed in 2016 and brings to the highest court in the land his CV mentiones specifically constitutional law and boundary disputes. Not saying that the previously appointed judges did not have similar CV's, including those from the 3 maratime provinces that represented us on the bench. But maybe they did not have such an indepth concern for our interest as judge Rowe might have. Maybe there will be a miniority report from the ruling, and I don't necessarily mean one judge decenting but maybe be two or three. Of course all guesses on my part in what the rulings might be, or as some say, the hold up in releasing their judgement. My thoughts for today, before tuning into the Thornton report on muskrat, says Joe blow.

A LITTLE MORE ON STAN ON WIND
Down the southern shore one can see the wind turbines. With wind on a good windy cold winter day, it's 54 MW capacity can supply just 3% of our island power, so not much, yet it helps reduce oil burning at Holyrood. If we lost all power coming across the Avalon,and Holyrood decommissioned, we have Nfld Power small hydro, less than 100 MW and the gas turbine at Holyrood at 123 MW, which might quickly run out of fuel.
Even with fuel we have about 200MW. We have an old gas turbine at Hardwoods, 50 MW, unreliable says Liberty, and that is so.
In such a crisis our 54 MW of wind, if power stability allows them to operate, it would add another 54 MW to Nfld Power small hydro and the gas turbine.So the wind could offer, not 3 % but 27 %
A piece in the Telegram this week titled "Petty Harbour flumes" notes the Reids built the small hydro generating facility at Petty Horbour in the 1890s. By the year 1900 Petty Harbour was producing enough electricity to ligtt most all of St John's. So that is now operating 118 years and still going strong, and a jewel in a crisis. Nfld has many other cost effective small hydro sites identified by the Shawmont study of 1985. This was largely ignored by Nalcor as to least cost alternatives. Why?
For the Avalon, in a crisis, our wind and small hydro is our salvation for emergency needs. All ignored by Stan as to the big picture. Our power companies have an obligation to provide reliable power. We are risking on these UNRELIABLE assets: MFs, Holyrood 1970 vintage oil fired thermal, one gas turbine at Hardwoods basically obsolete and low reliability. These supply more than 75 % of the needs of the Avalon. That is part of the big picture that Stan ignored. 12.7 billion on the boondoggle, and this is our situation. Borders on being criminal, I suggest.
Maybe all at the inquiry will be awe struct after getting the tour of MFs yesterday. Trust reality will kick in.
Winston

JB; There is a Grant Thornton cost review document? Please respond.

Think of it this way; There never was any need for CF power brought at significant cost to keep the lights on, on the Avalon. Power politics, greed etc. (Town centred), created the whole mess. Winston and others should have been listened to, and low income earned needs properly addressed.

Hi Levy,

The problem would have been transportation. For sure HQ would have be very happy to sell you power at a much much lower price than the 23 cents price tag of MF. Considering that has of now, there are moment where HQ sells at a price as low as 4 cents because of our surplus, that the deal with Massachussets will start around 6 cents US and that even in the highest peaks of winter the price is 15, 16 cents, for sure HQ would have be much cheaper than the 23 cents expected from MF. The option would also have be risk free for a large part of the project.

The problem is that before MF, there was no power lines going from UC to the Rock. Past studies showed that building such power lines for the amount of power needed on the Rock was not justified. That was the case already in the 70s, – 80s when, during the recall case for the 800MW Justice Goodridge of Superior Court of Newfoundland stated that it would not be economic for Newfoundland to build such a line for the power it would take from UC. It was one of few the reasons for his judgement against Newfoundland in that case.

I think I just got my answer from the Public Inquiry. The purchasing of Upper Churchill option was not considered by NALCOR and they didn't initiate any discussions with HQ. WOW!!

Hold on. We need to track and expose the contract admin data for possible corrupt deals, errors and omissions, disputes and claims. When does Grant Thornton report?