WHEN NL NEEDS A HEAVYWEIGHT THERE’S ONLY SEAMUS O’REGAN

The problem is quite simple. As the SC said a deal is a deal and all this rhetoric including UG should have been directed at Danny Williams when he concieved this boondoggle. I can just see DW now if Harper had refused to give the loan guarantee. It would have been Meech Lake ten times over and the airwaves would have exploded with the great patriot's words.
Some men are born into greatness, others have greatness installed upon them. Newfoundland leaders demand that greatness be handed out from Ottawa

At 08:19 —- what a pile of crap.

A Prime Minister and a real leader has the duty and will do what he thinks is right.

The federal government did not do its due diligence and ignored/overruled the Joint Review Panel.

There was (and to date there has been) no greatness, no leadership, coning from Ottawa, from our federal representatives, and none from the province.

MA:

What is the argument to hold NS, the feds and Emera accountable? My memory tells me that DW said we would do it alone even if there was no FLG. We must also remember the mechanics of a FLG – ie it only allows us to access the feds lower interest rate, so how big of an influence would no FLG really be if the interest was 1-2% higher ( 1% only makes a difference of a couple million per year – not a game changer in my opinion)?

The feds time to act would have be negotiating a RoW through Quebec for us to pass a line back in the 1980s. As for NS and Emera, they simply took a risk like we did – their gamble paid off, ours didn't.

A deal is a deal – we are going to be looking like sooks again if we continue this. Yes the feds could have interjected harder, but granting the FLG wasn't the deciding factor – maybe they could have withheld equalization but we all remember how that turned-out before.

We need to elect better quality people in this province – our provincial electorate allows pandering to decide our leaders, we are doomed. We are not unlike the rest of the country in that respect.

PENG2

The mechanics of the FLG puts the people of Canada on the hook for repayment should NL and NS default on their obligations.

Didn't the feds collude with NS and Emera and NL ended up squeezed (not with the original 20 for 20 deal) but with an 'offer that they couldn't refuse'?

All three became the principal beneficiaries and NL was screwed (albeit NL's lack of leadership also played its FAIR share of the fault).

Anon 12:47

Slight correction here, if you read the (Nalcor) default clause of the FLG contract, my understanding was that all Nalcor assets are on the hook first (Nalcor is also forbidden to sell, "mortgaged" etc any of those assets without Feds prior approval)

Can somewhat double check that? (My poor english might fool me sometime)

Ex-Military Engr:

You are correct – also there is no cross-default effect if Emera failed(though a moot point now).

From my reading, it is not a typical co-signer agreement that most are accustomed to, the effects of default mean to me that MF was committed to once the 1st contract was signed. I also don't see that Fed gov has any true liability-if we default it isn't only MF that gets taken, rather it is provincial assets to the whole value of the FLG; in other words the federal government carried no risk financially or otherwise.

MA: I will have to look deeper into that, possibly but I don't know.

PENG2

Also, if Nalcor decides to not complete MF, the FLG default clause kicks in.

With those kind of default clauses, Nalcor/NL is better finding win – win solutions before insolvency or the Feds will be the ones negociating Nalcor's assets with the highest bidder.

Unless those negociations are the facto going on now. (Under Feds supervision – aiming to safeguard those collaterals)

Ex-Military Engr:

Among the other technical issues, it was primarily the potential effects of a default that lead me to suggest complete and not operate might have been the best course of action once the work was started and stopping was never a possibility.

Default on the FLG is significantly worse than defaulting on a car loan – and from what I can see, the feds have no investment, only allowing us to borrow at their preferred interest rate.

PENG2

PENG2 – two things:

First, at 10:06 you state that the FLG interest reduction is insignificant and that you think 1% is only a couple of million. A correction is in order. On the original FLG $5 Billion – that's $5000 Million – borrowed, 1% interest is $50M per year, every year. 2% may be more realistic and that would be $100M per year. This is a huge amount to consider. Even the crazed NL leaders of the day must really have had cold feet about going it alone and bearing that cost for 50 years. By itself that would be equal to increasing project cost by about 50%. Perhaps the Inquiry will tackle this very question and demand to see the financial models showing that the go-it-alone cost was deserving of sanction.

Second, your (and Ex-Mil) tunnel vision on the FLG is far too finite and literal. The reality is the project was a multi-lateral political creation and politics is a dynamic and never-ending thing. The same type of political necessity is capable of amending the project in wild and unimaginable ways. That's not to say it's guaranteed but it is always possible. It is only under those terms that a positive conclusion will be achieved. If the federal government is as against us as you suggest, then we need to give serious consideration to the unthinkable: let's just default and let chaos reign.

Anony @ 19:24:
For your 2nd point, here is a link to the FLG terms:
https://muskratfalls.nalcorenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Terms-and-Conditions-of-the-Federal-Loan-Guarantee.pdf
Granted, there may have been some revisions, but the terms are clear and not in our favor for default.

For your 1st point, you are forgetting that the interest savings is sliding downwards over the payback period – I also understand that (can someone verify?) interest terms on a guarantee like this are simple, not compounded, so divide your $100M by about 50yrs to get the averaged annual interest savings. Also causing some confusion for most is the difference between present value vs future value of money – and the markets ROI effect on the actual debt. Even the federal and provincial governments don’t claim anymore than $1B savings by the FLG over the term, so your savings of $100M annually is very optimistic.

PENG2

PENG2 you don't get a nickname like Danny Chavez and expect financial institutions to sign a multi billion 57 year loan with such an unstable leader. Nalcor would have to prove their business case and without the Federal Gov guaranteeing the loan MF is a high risk project with little return. Nalcors numbers and projections would've faced far harsher investigation without the FLG. COS 30c kWh, tiny shrinking population, ever increasing debt financing costs, no longer term PPAs signed – no legitimate bank would ever sign a loan with the NL Gov under these conditions. Go it alone was a Trumpian buzzword used by someone with far too many personality similarities with Trump himself, 100% bluff and bluster by a Gov that ran on a cult of personality. Playing up the Quebec bigotry hurt LCs only realistic and fiscally responsible joint offer from HQ-Ont-SNC back in the early 2000s, no transmission/WMA issues with HQ a partner in Gull Island – Fed Gov could build/pay for the required 3 province transmission infrastructure under the guise of Canadian unity. HQ would never have hired an Italian firm and NL would have benefited from their hydro expertise. Gull would've been finished a decade ago and the LIL long since operational, HRT would use 10s of millions less bbls of oil with the LIL from 2008-2018, savings could pay for most of the LIL.

PENG2, your math is very wrong. Borrow 5 billion and you owe 50 million per year for every 1% interest. You deny the accuracy of this most basic calculation. Why? Your positions are often twofaced but this one is unambiguous.

As for the FLG terms, I know what they say. I'm also quite comfortable in expecting that political expediency is sure to eventually amend those terms. The question is to what extent and what material and useful assistance is ultimately delivered by the Feds. Anyone who refuses to recognize the potential for political actions in the next couple of years is a fool. That fools wish to say there is no way out of this because a contract is signed is quite annoying.

All UG is doing in this post is redirecting anger from the PC party and onto Ottawa. and the Liberal party. It has been a favorite tactic of the PC party in NL since Frank Moores. After all there is a bi-election soon and another provincial election in 2019 and UG is an avant PC supporter. What is interesting is now that we have come to realize we are faced with these massive payouts everyone is scrambling towards a solution that probably involves another bailout from Ottawa or a redirecting of scarce offshore royalties to pay for this fiasco.

My question is "When is this ridiculous theory that we can solve our problems with Mega project spending going to end?" This is not the only "waste" of money that has been instilled on us as one only has to drive down Kenmount Road and see taxpayers money being paved away on the Team Gushue extension. It is not needed, not now or in the foreseeable future and would have been better spent on a new Mental hospital or a new jail or not being spent at all. There is an endless list of these make work projects that politicians refuse to kill at the planning stage because they are catering to the construction industry so much.

Anony @10:23:

If you reread what I wrote 2x above, interest will be sliding downwards during the payback period – at the end of the term there will be $0 interest saved by the FLG. Being a simple interest calculation(ie not compounded) and dividing by the total term is how I arrived at a couple $M annual savings over the term of the FLG. Also, since the interest rate is only 2-3.5% for the FLG, it would likely be more advantageous for the provincial government to make minimum paybacks because the investment market generally pays higher returns, so the interest paid will be partially offset by those gains also.

What is your basis that the federal government will step in and fix this? I don't remember that happening with UC, WMA for LC, the oil downturn, (or Keeysak and Site C yet) etc. Granted they did acknowledge some liability for mismanagement of the fishery(s) – but still not to the extent they should of and that was a revenue source external to our national economy when considering foreign sales. I am not sure the federal government will act to unbalance the economies between provinces since it doesn't affect our national economy externally and they would also risk annoying QC which they traditionally have not done.

Nothing 2faced about anything I have said – just being a realist.

PENG2

To Anonymous (3 September 2018 at 19:24)

My daily work is about reviewing my Department activities and programs to ensure their efficiency, effectiveness and economy. I also ensure that laws, policies, regulations are adhered to.

All this work (ensuring taxpayer’s money is accounted for and is properly spent) relies on clear assigned responsibilities, where executives are accountable for their acts and decisions.

So don’t expect my comments / ethics to deviate much from the above. You might call it tunnel vision; I call it responsible thinking and accountability.

Now I agree sometime politicians disregard those principles / bypasses controls and end up dilapidating taxpayer’s money. But most often than not (like after an OAG audit by example), the political costs just end up to be superior to the original “gain”.

Particularly with this FLG (which contract/clauses are available to the public); any “free” bailouts would be making headlines / front page across the country. An immediate field day for national Medias, big time. Worst, that would also be perceived as the Feds commending irresponsible provincial government spending’s.

So I would not be too optimistic here, the political costs would just be too high on the federal level.

Except,EX, when they can blame the other Party, in this case the Harper Tories who enabled the boondoggle. Just as locally Ball blames the DW Tories for the boondooggle. Is not the Pipline mess something like that?
PF

And as to making media headlines, think of headlines"NL declares bankruptcy" or NL'ers deserting the rock at the rate of 10,000 per month. Or "Nfld in talks with Trump as the 52 nd state, good terms expected due to its stategic importnace and vast natural resources". Headlines of a fed bailout would be minor in comparison. And of course, "Free Trade deal between the US and Nfld while Canada us isolated by Trump"
So i think the Art of the Deal may be possible within Canada.
PF

About becoming the 52nd state, not sure I would trust any promises from those bullies, really… (Look at how they treat Puerto Rico) I would consider UK, France or an independent Quebec first – just joking here.
Obviously, above is my personal opinion/sense of humour, definitely not my employer's – well I guess.

About that BC pipeline; BC's quasi illegal obstruction was such that it would definitely have attracted a legal claim from its US owner – under NAFTA rules .

So the Feds had to enforce its laws in BC, or face litigations under NAFTA. That should have been the Feds analysis at the time. They instead decided to buy the pipeline and get that extension built (which will happen much later we now know).

Finally, I don't see how a default on this FLG can eventually cause "NL to declares bankruptcy" when we consider Nalcor's other assets…

Which,to use Peckfords words "they sold the shop" to put CFs and Nfld Hydro and God knows what else,offshore oil royalities?
May as well be bankrupt,if the Feds don't have any liability. And maybe joining an independent Quebec might not be so bad, EX, as long as you help us avoid future boondoggles.
PF

Hi PF,

As for Qc helping you to avoid boondoggles… We offered you to develop GI and MF when it was time to do so, in the 70s, 80s and 90s. I think that even early 2000s we offered you some opportunities for that. Newfoundland rejected everything.

When you asked for a transmission line over Qc for the actual MF, we gave you the right price : a price that was way too high for any economic plan. Newfoundland rejected everything.

As for the Federal, we expressed how a bad idea MF was. It just added to the anti-Qc position at the time. Again, Newfoundland rejected our statements and claimed the opposite.

So really, I doubt there is anything more that Qc can do to help you avoid your boondoggles. The only way would be to loose you your sovereignty : loose sovereignty over Labrador and the Churchill river, loose sovereignty on the water and under sea resources around the Rock.

But as long as you keep your sovereignty, really, I doubt Qc can do anything more. We already try to help you in each and every way we can…

We needed transmission to the island from Labrador for upper CF power later on. So why put money into the Quebec system to carry it to market in the maritime provinces and New England and then into NL and be held to ransom by that route, when we could open up another route through transmission to the island. Quebec has done enough for us already, don't you think and thank you much for that?

Anon@16;53….. we 6 lines like the present one to carry CF power,so your comment is one of gross incompetence. You should ask Wade Locke for a job. We do not need Heracles to correct your opinion.
PF

Not a problem.

Anon, 6 DC lines, 2 conductor each is not a problem? Say another 25 billion. And the right of ways , how much space. And as we have no load on the island for that, another 10 billion to get that to NS. And as NS don't need that much power, billion more to feed beyond NS. NO problem you say.
Maybe you mean no problem, you can get a job advising Wade Locke?
PF

Minor time out; With rising interest in this background information by general public, please communicate your important views in more readable terminology. Technical Report writing principles would be desired and be useful. Acronyms tend to confuse and mislead us. Be kind to the less informed reader. Thank you all.

Waldo as usual you're full of it; how's the dog by the way?
Seamus answered the question and provided the Fed's view of the boondoggle. The loan guarantee simply chopped $1 billion off the costs that NL would have assumed if it went to banks on its own. There is no Federal obligation beyond that they said we were good for it as part of Canada, and WE would pay it back somehow. The NL government of the day was so fixated on Daniel "L'il Trump" William's legacy thingie they would have financed MF with money from loan sharks in Toronto if they had to. So at least with the federal loan gaurentee we can still get down on our knees when we go begging for money from Ottawa; with the loan sharks, our knee caps would probably be shattered by now.

AJ:

Here is a MF timeline, maybe time for a refresher:
http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1538595-muskrat%E2%80%99s-tale-a-project-timeline

The Emera terms and a significant amount of work was done well before the FLG. You also misunderstand what the loan guarantee is – it only allows NL to borrow at the federal governments 'lower' interest rate, the federal government didn't offer any collateral (or financial power) as would happen in a typical co-signor agreement. The FLG collateral is a NL asset – if you want to call Nalcor that.

I never claimed DW et all could 'go-it alone', just that was the rhetoric; though considering that the financing for MF isn't like anything most have seen when getting a mortgage or a car loan from a bank; I don't necessarily think it is out of the realm of possibilities either.

Also, it is interesting to note that in 2016 the liberal government on its own took out $3B worth of long term debt for between 3-3.8%, so even though some above don't want to believe that the FLG (interest rates between 2.5 – 3.5% I believe) isn't really a huge savings.

As for the federal government helping out now, I still claim wishful thinking and no one has offered a valid fact based argument yet to my points above. We are 500k people (less than Halifax), the countries smallest economy and realistically must accept that considering equalization, government services etc already get a good share from Ottawa. I am NLer through and through – but I do say we have made our own bed over the years.

By all means, if you want to challenge me fine – but at least review the facts.

PENG2

PENG2 – we may actually agree on a lot of the hard facts. The issue is I contest that you hold out interpretation and consequence as facts when they are only your conjecture. I trust that many readers may hopefully be able to distinguish this. I can put my peashooters away (if you will) and say let's see what the Inquiry determines. My conjecture is this was a political farce with non-NL participants contributed immensely to the sham that tricked the public. Your conjecture is to blame the NL public only. I also disagree with your lowball potential cost analysis and importance of the FLG but it just isn't worth the space to address it any further – I've said my bit. If this can be the last word, I encourage you to separate fact from conjecture going forward. If you want to speculate, make it clearer what is speculation, perhaps by adding just a couple of words.

Not AJ. Your other critic from above.

Thanks PEng2 for the refresher on muskrat, but I am quite aware what the FLG guarantee is, and was, a chance for Harper to put the screws to us. I read enough at the time that Dunderdale signed it and it made me puke, right there and then. Think Robert said it was like keeping us in the "kitchen barefooted…." It sure as hell kept us barefooted, as every person has to be down to no shoe leather before the Feds kick in to make any payments, that we fail to make. As Danny said one time, referring to health science people, she should be shot for signinging that loan guarantee. (I don't mean with a gun) And don't anyone give me that 1 percent interest rate, or that one billion as the Feds contribution, as UG pointed that was gone to Nova Scotia, by the time they made their second round of demands. Yes, I am mad as hell at Dunderdale and all her sheep in the legislature at the time for signing it without a whimper. And that's why she rushed to sign the MPR fish processing agreement at the time, to not up set Harper, and make sure he gave her the loan guarantee. But I am totally disgusted with Harper and the Feds that they would present such a document to us, except to screw us royally. Some people here knew it was a dud, if the financiers looked closely enough they knew it was a dud, the fed/prove joint committee knew it was a dud, our Qc. friends here tell us they knew it was a dud, so how come Harper and the Feds did not know it was a dud. They knew, that bugger Harper, and the only benificers if there are any will be Nova Scotia. Harper saw his chance, and socked it to us, including Danny and ABC. And you know as well as I do that KD stood the same chance as a snowball in hell, to get the 8$ billion in the bond or fincincial markets, as oil took a nose dive. Sure I knew that they had spend a billion or two on muskrat before sanction, that bugger Eddie, our oil and mineral money. So my main point, which you have to agree with, is if the Feds had not given the loan guarantee, or at least should have done their due diligence, then muskrat would have died on the vine, yes after we had spent our couple of billion, and that would have been ok, to teach the buggers a lesson, but Harper wanted to teach the entire population of a province a lesson. Well I can't find the words to describe the Prime Minister of this nation, who would be willing to do that to a people, not even Putin to the people of the Ukraine. Harper's sweet revenge. I may have been a late comer to UG blog, just over a year ago, but not a new comer on the muskrat shannigans says Joe blow. So, Peng, if I understand you correctly, you still think that KD could have raised the 8$ billion??? Who is in a dream world, you or me, or maybe Cathy???

Harper was a genius. Text book politics 101. Only wish he was back sticking it to Trump and squatting Ball like a grape just for kicks. And if we really needed the bailout the funds would be there. RE: From the Globe (2010)..

"The federal government is taking a $130-million hit to compensate forestry giant AbitibiBowater Inc. for Newfoundland and Labrador's expropriation of its assets in the province.

The settlement is believed to be one of the largest of its kind under the terms of the North American free-trade agreement's Chapter 11.

"It's extremely significant," Riyaz Dattu, a partner at Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP in Toronto, said Tuesday.

"This was an action of the government of Newfoundland and Labrador and it's the federal government that had to step up and pay the damages," he said."

Well, it seems the squabble between Danny with ABC and Harper with the FLG, Harper had the last laugh. Harper an economist, world class like our local Locke. And Harper had his pals in NS.
Harper gave us enough rope to hang ourselves. Also, Danny took the flag to half mast remember, in disrespect of Canada, and many applauded him. Danny , the fighting Nflder, who says MFs is our legacy project! Some project. Some legacy.
AJ, you hit it on the head. Peng2 says the average Nflder should have understood the complexities of MFs and should have known that all those wonderful assumption made to justify were just wild assumptions,if Peng2 knew the difference and MA knew the difference, than everyone should have. But even MA has some engineering and technical background, and other critics well read or informed. The average ratepayers does not know the difference between Nfld Power and Nfld Hydro, I would say over 90 percent does not, so how could they understand elasticity of electricity, demand forecasts, compound interest costs, Water Management agreements,and all the other fake assumptions that Crosbie now wants us to believe was just errors or mistakes based on the best information at the time. Baloney. But Peng2 has a point that we have a long history of being suckers for such mega projects. Is Peng2 two faced as some say? I suggest he has a face that changes some, and of course , he wears a mask.
PF

so PF is really Waldo/Average Joe blowhard
Peng2 wears a mask, I'm masquerading..
Harper was a world-class politician? he persuaded Daniel "Li'l Trump" Williams to invent the whole idea of a legacy, goaded Li'l Trump into bashing Quebec, convinced the little guy to subvert the PUB, and then whispered in his ear that he could be King of the Rivers?

Anon@00:02
DW, the messiah, didn't need anyone whispering in his ear, he was just full of himself, used anti Quebec rhetoric, but also a thorn in the side of Harper. The rest is history, and the making of a boondoggle. And DW now pleased saying Stan the Man confirms it to be a good project in the long run, what a laugh. The long run we are all dead and maybe all in the poorhouse. Of course Danny won't die, he will just rise into the heavens.
PF

Anony @ 00:02 and others:

Like others, maybe a history lesson is in order….

DW announced NL would do MF before Harper was elected, probably about the time the federals liberals and provincial PCs were on the outs – also do you remember the Canadian flag coming down? DW was out of politics before Trump was elected so, 'Lil Trump'?? Though, I do know you weren't the first to state that here and I doubt 10k people calling him Chavez makes a dent anywhere.

To the others that want to ostrich and take digs when someone states an unpopular opinion – that exact behavior is what has gotten NL into having the reputation of jumping the bandwagon at the start, bailing when it goes awry and then blaming everybody else and never looking in the mirror for the real culprit.

Bottom line, over 70% voted DW in when he openly stated doing the LC was his goal, we continued to vote his party in with same idealogy and until 2yrs ago or so MF was still being polled as being a good thing. So, who is really to blame when we nearly exiled someone who had a bad word about MF in the early days, and just why with our history is the federal government going to help us when our total population is barely as big as Halifax?

On point with the original story, we don't have the population weight and cry over our own mistakes far too often without trying to help ourselves to carry weight in Ottawa, we are our own worse enemy.

Just wonder Peng2, you say reports show you opposed MFs in the early days, so that on the record of existing documents, with Nalcor I assume. Has Peng2 brought that to the attention of the Inquiry?

It's a task to get two MPs/MHAs to agree that the sky is blue, so I imagine government would come to a grinding halt with a consensus style government on the provincial or federal level. The party system isn't perfect, but it shouldn't be scrapped – party leader power needs to be scaled back to a reasonable level so government can still get things accomplished but members can still stick to their principles at the same time. I'd recommend reading the book "The Unbroken Machine", very interesting read regarding the mechanisms of government and the party system.

Another DW????

…Danny is no Alpha. He is a bully among other non-alpha traits. Please feel free to add to this list…

People of NL with a sense of history and back rooms may recall that the 1933 decision to throw away Responsible Government was probably hatched in a kitchen cabinet kind of way. Believe it, your future, whether on power rates, and related financial matters, transfer of non productive assets, etc. is similarly being decided upon. This will not end well.

NLers and the culprits and dimwits they incessantly elect… are simply not capable of "responsible government"… this functionality is just not constituent in their genes.

This has been demonstrated time after time after time immemorial… they're just like a bunch of naive little children in need of adult supervision…. their own worst enemies.

Anon: perhaps you "doth protest too much" on Mr Browne. The CBC piece quotes him saying; "A team of rate design experts and economists will be assembled to investigate addressing the situation. Solutions will be multifaceted and will require research and innovation". Could one ask for more?
As you know Minisplits can either be a Godsend for those with heat poverty, or a thorn as to elasticity. As the local expert on HPs (being the only one to do research for our climate, and especially as to our high humidity impact, as to ability to shut down Holyrood and MFs also), Mr Browne calls me for advice almost every week. Unlike Tom Johnson, who told me that he would seek no expert advise as to efficiency consultants, Mr Browne is leading the charge. NL Efficiency legislation is on the horizon, to assure Ball's promise to electrify everything in Nfld, but in an energy efficient way.
Then again, I could be pulling your leg, and be spouting fake news. You decide.
Winston

Ha! Yeah,right… "doth protest too much" indeed.. Please, spare us the mis-applied Shakespearean cliches there, bud. They grate something awful.

On another note. it does indeed sound like that partisan shill has succeeded in making you feel important… there you are nearly tripping over yourself running to his defense.

Regardless, notwithstanding the too-late irrelevancy of the incessant and quite tiresome prattle on this blog about heat pumps and what-not in the face of the "take-or-pay" contract of the MRF fiasco, anything and everything one might be inclined to learn about any such Carnot cycle contraptions can easily be googled, like everything else these days.

Still tho, Browne bothers to call you up for "advice". Sounds like he's just trying to butter up the UG blog regulars to me. Another strategic directive from his Liberal handlers no doubt.

With reagrds to the bile Browne spouts in the CBC article, one need only note the zeal with which that obsequious partisan flack touts in the past-tense how his Liberal handlers saved the day by bringing the PUB back into the picture to clue in that that's exactly what the truth-challenged Ball and the rest of those goddamed skeets expect him to say.

"Consumer advocate" indeed. What a bloody crock of shit.

Wow!!! These fighten' or frighten words. The man has arrived says blow Joe…lol hoops. Average Joe.

Anon@20:25, Actually I was pulling your leg and so it was fake news that I thought for sure you would realise. I threw in the "local expert" bit for good measure. However as to local humidity effects, if not actually monitored, then what you goggle is estimated, not evidence based.
Feel sorry you fell for the pro Browne bit. Generally I wonder how much Browne is a real advocate.
UG allows "funny" for comments, and you made it more funny. And I'm not much a fan of Shakespeare either,but the few words had effect. I take it you might be something other than Liberal of the Ball variety. I should stick to technical issues and not try to compete with AJ as to funny.
I have had no discussions with Browne on HPs.
Winston

Anon @ 20:25
What was serious in my comment @ 18:44 was the question "as to the ability (of HPs) to shut down Holyrood or MFs?
Feehan says yes that alternatives to baseboard, including minisplits can do that. Browne has run with that and also Vardy, and I do not dispute it, and even stated so in 2012.
However, not so the power companies, they dispute and deny that.
Both Nfld Power and Nfld Hydro use the assumption that ALL MINISPLITS will shut down in our adverse weather conditions, therefore needing Holyrood or MFs to meet the load of baseboards.
This is , I suggest a false assumptions as of the date 2015 when adopted, and they are still sticking to it.
Residential baseboard is about 650 MW.
Now I would suggest about 5 % may shut down in adverse conditions. A conservative assumption, maybe use 20 % will shut down (assuming CCMSHPs are used). If 20% shuts down, this could mean perhaps equivalent to the new gas turbine to handle that, 123 MW say, not the 490 MW of Holyrood nor the 824 MW of MFs.
Feehan nor Browne has considered that, but it is a key question: what is a reasonable assumption of the percentage of minisplits that will fail in adverse conditins, kicking in baseboard loads?
Let me know where you Google to tfind that answer?
Perhaps the other engineers on this blog, PENG2 etc can comment?
Winston Adams

Winston, can we clarify "failure"? I don't think it means the units cut out or blow up but simply that their effectiveness drops and people start turning on their old electric heaters to keep the house warm enough. I'm a mshp user and last winter, I'd occasionally turn on the propane fireplace to give things a boost in those conditions.

Some engineers like me and you know what coincident peak means but most people don't. They would just reach for their electric thermostats and then the grid would soon exceed available capacity. Every winter storm would have the potential for a widespread blackout needing a long time to get service restored.

Getting by without MF or Holyrood is not immediately simple. One solution might be smartmeters that measure individual loads and warn people to cut their load or be automatically disconnected – I don't think the meters that have rolled out in the last few years have this capability though. That would cost a lot of money. It could be compared in a cost-benefit analysis to building new diesel turbine peaking plants that run only during the hours they are needed. There may be other alternatives but nothing is free. Electric hot water tank controls could be a part of it too. I've thought about but there is no cheap solution.

Given the sunk cost in MF, are we condemned to find it is the least cost alternative going forward? Is this what Ball wants the PUB to tell us?

BTW – I'm not the commenter from above but I too think the CA is a Liberal shill. I thought he performed adequately during the GRA hearing but this type of gladmouthing causes him to lose immense credibility and he shouldn't be the guy having input into the PUB MF hearings or the Inquiry (not sure whether he got standing or not).

ICF report for our power companies, addressed that issue of failure in a foot note, and so showed no grid peak load reduction.
Nfld Power report on minisplits, which was discredited by themselves during a PUB hearing, suggested no worthwhile demand reduction, which is false.
In reality: some units would automatically shut off if ambient temperature was lower than required by that model,(often -5F or lower), some would have reduced performance due to low temperatures of high humidity and moderate temperature ( but this is a modest decline), and keep operating, so do mot fail, that is do not shut down.
Such failure, a shut down, is not a permanent failure of the unit, just temporary until the adversee condition improves. I would estimate 10-15 days per year when units are vulnerable. My unit has operated 7 years without any failure, just modest reduction in performance, which most would encounter.
NB promotes Cold Climate models with the explicit rationale that these keep operating and do indeed reduce peak load on the grid ( so they disagree with our power companies). And NB temperatures are colder than Nfld, especially the Avalon.
Agree getting by without Holyrood or MFs is not simple, and requires reasonable engineering analysis, not just wild guesses, like used to justify MFs.
Winston

I would add that sizing the units for full load at -15 C or a bit lower, would avoid using propane or baseboard backup. Many contractors size for partial loads, and so this leads to more fossil fuel burned at Holyrood. Homeowners and most contractors are not aware of the effect on grid peak load, and not made aware by Take Charge. TO the contrary, Take Charge, they do not even promote Cold Climate Models for residential, so contribute to higher peak loads. And do so additionally by set back thermostats, where HPs generally should not be setback, for best efficiency and least impact on grid peak load.
As I write this an ad on the radio about the Scallywags (take Charge).LOL.
WA

WA / Anony:

Personally, I would say failure from an reliability engineering sense would be when operational efficiency of the unit dropped such that a user had to use other sources with such frequency that his word of mouth deterred others from using/investing in a heat pump. If I were doing the analysis, I would be conservative in considering the failure rate – but I don't have a good idea as to a number.

I am not sure we can count on MF to displace Holyrood – now or ever.

What I will offer on the MF cost recovery, we will pay to the tune of $500/yr for each of the 500k persons in NL for 50-60yrs:
1) management wise – I don't think it really matters if we pay it in rates (ie use electricity to the hilt) or in taxes other than if government set a budget and rate recovery amounts drastically fall off it causes some issues
2) engineering standpoint – it is always responsible to consider a conservative and eco friendly lifestyle

To my mind, the only way to avoid a reduction in present services because of MF repayment is to find a revenue source external to the Canadian economy, otherwise it is simply paying Peter by robbing Paul. No easy way out.

PENG2

PENG2, not sure if you read the Nfld Power MSHP report: the people using them rate them high as to reliability and other criteria. I believe some 65 % installed them from word of mouth from relatives and friends and 5 percent from information from the power company. That goes far to answer your question. So that bodes well for uptake that could be countered by low power rates that will deter many. I think any rate increase over the present will continue the uptake at a significant rate. And many will doubt Ball's promise to keep rates from increasing.
As to a conservative number , much depends on the quality (whether Cold Climate) and sizing, that can impact a need to switch to baseboard or propane under adverse conditions……so a need to follow best practices. As to performance,I measures a COP of 2.7 at -17C, which is better that at +2 to -2C under high humidity conditions, which gives a COP of about 2, due to more defrosting. But at the milder conditions, our grid peak load is less than when cold. Generally a COP in winter of 2.5 seems reasonable, but not if many units are inferior quality and undersized: hence why NS and NB promotes CC models good to -15C. So here Take Charge is not following best practices.
Your 500.00 per year is probably close to 1800.00 per family.
In comparison, per family, we now pay a subsidy to MUN about 2400.00 per year, and our health care, 24,000 ( with poor results).
As a outside revenue source, as a suggestion, that we import less processed oil and gas if we electrify car transportation (Ball wanting to electrify everything, but makes no such recommendation). Plus the reduction in GHG.Norway now 40 % of all cars are electric. The goal there is for all new cars to be electric by 2025.
WA

WA:

I would say any effort to keep rates lower corresponds to a resultant rise in taxes/fees – not much we can do there. I would also say, if we are committed to operating MF (and I don't agree with operation/transmission), we should also be ready to sell MF power at a loss, even less than QC does so we can at least recover some revenue – once we commit to operation and transmission fixed costs, the variable costs by full transmission/generation are minimal. I doubt most will understand this cost recovery concept and it will be poorly received – it will costs the same to generate/transmit 50Mw as at will 500Mw.

Considering the individual cost of MF, I was actually figuring it would cost about $7-8k for those that have medium-high incomes. I cant figure any reasonable explanation for executing MF – even if the costs came in at originally projected $6.2B it still doesn't make sense….

I have seen the report among others you quote, as you say our region cant even get recommending units right.

PENG2

PENG2 assumes the NL population will remain constant over the next 50-60 years.

However, most population projections by StatsCan over the next 20 years predict decreases in the NL population, in one model down to as low as 426K by 2038.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/91-520-x/2014001/section03-eng.htm#a3

So the $500/year per person over the next 50-60 years to pay for the Williams/Dunderdale "World-Class" Fiscal Catastrophe is actually unrealistically optimistic, and significantly so.

Note also that the StatsCan models do not take into account the demographic impacts of the MRF Fiscal Catastophe which can only serve to accelerate the already negative NL population trend as hordes of MRF refugees flee the province in droves, heat pumps be damned.

Anony @ 14:13:

Maybe actually read a bit closer – as I said considering probably closer to $7-8K for those with med-higher incomes, for such reasons as workforce variations, tax regime changes etc.

Not sure why you think I through out $500/yr as a firm fixed number?

PENG2

Because you didn't take into account NL's quite evident decreasing population trend.

Anony @ 14:39:

Potential population decline is included in my calcs – hence the $7-8k estimate I gave for higher incomes. Obviously as I stated $500/yr based on 500k people, it is inferred that the number would go up or down based on population somewhat, but more so on workforce.

Since you like math and $s, if we give a decline of net population of 50k people every 10yrs for the next 60yrs (ie from 500k to 250k people), the average MF payment is then about $600/person/yr for the same 57yrs, still within my estimated $7-8k annually for med-higher income persons.

Considering what will likely happen to our population (ie we are an upside down triangle) it is a wild estimate at best and no models are setup to accurately figure it out.

PENG2

Your initial calculation made no mention whatsoever of NL's decreasing population trends, the significance of which cannot be relegated to mere "inference".

With regards to your latest calculations, it sounds like you're attempting to apply basic arithmetic to a related rates problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Related_rates

As per the Wikipedia entry, these types of equations require application of the differential calculus in order to obtain any semblance of a reliable estimate.

So you'll only get half-marks from me because you didn't show your workings.

I can't make sense of PENG2's $500/yr per person either which would only be $200 million + vs a PPA several times that. Need to see his bold assumptions. Maybe he's been talking to Seamus!

I am more astounded by our health care costs,(3 billion a year) which if 24,000.00 per year per average family, means over $50,000 for higher income families. Is not that the elephant in the room as to the big picture, for sound fiscal management, as UG says. Those are unbelievable numbers, so should be assessed if about right or not. Remember the 600 million a year savings from efficiencies talked about last year on UG piece, then reduced to 200 million, which got the nurses union all upset against John Abbott, was it, that Ball then silenced!
Winston

Anony @ 15:54:

Applying any sort of continuous integral function is probably the type foolishness that got us in this MF fiasco in the first place – a group of chair warmers that couldn't see the forest for the trees and didn't realize that an estimation models with garbage inputs gave garbage output. A problem with 2 variables with opposite trends isn't a related rates, it requires a growth modelling solution (ie predator vs prey) but realizing the projected data is only +/-20% at best, it makes no sense to go beyond a basic math calc(or effectively an integral with a wide step).

This is exactly the issue at Nalcor – trying to apply data without the right knowledge or experience.

My statement(even if you didn't read or understand it) of ~$500/yr/person at 500k population base is clear by definition – if you want to productively contribute to the conservation, forget about the decimal portion and produce a calculation that shows I am out be an order of magnitude.

PENG2

Anony @ 16:12:

$500/yr/person is pretty simple: $500 * 57yrs * 500000people ~ $14B

MF payback annually is about $225B, you forgot the ~60yrs period….

PENG2

And off course the MF payback is ~$225M annually, not $225B and I mistyped…

WA @ 16:23:
the issue is that most people don't really realize just how big of a business government is – most of our population dont see beyond paying credit card bills and cant conceptualize projections for 50-100yrs out.

Our HC bill is huge and only going to grow because of our 'upside down triangle' population I mentioned earlier. I am more upset with the fact that if a department can 'find' $10M savings tomorrow, why didn't they find it yesterday?

PENG2

No, what appears to have gotten us into this mess in the first place was that an apparent cabal of scammers were effectively enabled to perpetrate a massive fraud on a naive province by indulging the selfish legacy-whims of a northern banana republic megalomaniac and his boot-licking minions… "just like taking candy from a baby".

With regards to contributing productively to your conversation… unfortunately I cannot produce a calculation showing you're "out by an order of magnitude" because you still haven't shown workings as to how you've arrived at your sum.

So from my perspective, the numbers you're bandying about may as well have been pulled from a hat.

PENG2, your numbers are a simple payback formula ignoring all cost of capital and debt and operations and maintenance? Oh my… If you can sell it, I'm with you, but I wouldn't give you a dime myself.

You should take the PPA which you like to stress is a rock solid contract and talk about what costs might be deducted. I'm not doing it for you though because I really appreciate the entertainment you are offering here.

RE: PENG2'S calculation… $500/yr/person is pretty simple: $500 * 57yrs * 500000people ~ $14B

This simplistically arithmetic approach is not realistic because for one thing it does not take inflation over the 57-period into account.

Neither does it take interest charges over the period into account.

And as I'd pointed out before, neither does it take decreasing populations trends into account.

So the number you've generated is overly-simplistic and pretty-much meaningless.

Talk about "productively contributing to the conservation"…

Various Anony:

If neither of you like my number, fine – at least offer something else up that shows I am out by orders, instead of wasting the space UG is providing.

I have several times stated my calc is capital only(its a qualified number I have thrown around for several months), based on 500k population – with a data input +/-20% and no ongoing ops/maintenance number which is a different issue, I'd suggest you try to provide a better number, otherwise I am prepared to standby mine with the limitations I have noted. So you know, its not a simple arithmetic like you think, quite bit more involved than that – see above when I discuss FV vs PV of money.

Considering my background, verses your demonstrated abilities – I am confident in my number. Otherwise try to prove me wrong.

PENG2

The way you are going about your calculations, only you can understand.

Why not follow the PPA cost method as Nalcor and government intend to? That's over 800 million due in 2021. You don't want to operate MFs so some small cost savings may be possible but a drop in the bucket and no Holyrood fuel savings. The PPA amount stands unmitigated.
So how do you knock off 600 million off it? Still waiting to be enlightened. If you can do it I'll sing your praises.

At nominal 5% interest rate over 60 years, the $14B MRF principle loan amount will in fact cost on average $1500 per person per year.

NOT the $500/person/yr as your simplistically unrealistic linear calculation would imply.

This assumes a static population of 500K… decreasing population trends would in fact put upward pressure on the overall amount.

Nor does this calculation take into account inflationary pressure that erodes currency buying power over longer fiscal periods. This factor will most certainly impact the actual yearly cost per person to pay off MRF principle plus interest over a 60 year amortization period in that the buying power of $1500 in 2078 will only be about $170 in today's dollars (assuming nominal inflation rates).

So I would proffer that adequately proves you're wrong in that your $500 is 300% lower than even this rudimentary calculation indicates.

In fact it's actually much worse than you're suggesting.

Anony @ 19:50:

Now we are getting somewhere, though check the amount of principle and interest rate you are using.

Take your $1500ea/yr number and start to work backwards to what I suspected the med-high income earners would be paying (ie $7-8K annually).

I think your numbers and mine are closer than you want to admit – it only a best guess since there are too many variables, ball park is all we can do.

PENG2

Agreed, no doubt there are many variables that come into play thus making such calculations pretty-much "best guesses" at best..

PENG2, are you saying ratepayers will pay 250 million through rate increases and taxpayers about double that? Is that your proposed split?

Anony @ 08:16:

Not quite, the annual payback for MF is on the order of $250M – so how that amount will be apportioned between rate payers and tax payers is anybody's guess. Either way, approximately $250M annually is what the 500k people in NL are on the hook for.

I have said before, I don't believe there is a thing such as mitigation – unless we find an income source external to Canada, otherwise MF paybacks will results in less services, then the argument is why didn't we find that income source before etc, its never ending.

PENG2

PENG2, there is still a mystery here. The PPA begins at over 800 million and rises. How can you say only 250 million is due? You've allowed for massive writeoffs or a federal bailout? Please spell out where the other 550 million went.

To think: the Mueller investigation, now 1.5 years old, and a big team of investigators, many criminal charges and some convictions already laid,cost so far about 17 million and estimated to run 25 million. Our mini Mueller here, for a province that might go tits up, we budget 33 million, and can't even look at crimes. Does this itself border on being criminal?
WA

Good point Winston. And they are keeping and publishing a running account of the cost, 6.5 million in the first 4.5 months. Mainly in salaries, as expected. Can we demand the same thing, from Leblanc, or the minister of justice. How long now has the inquiry being working, time for an account of the costing so far, a breakdown and publish. If the inquiry wants credibleity, it at least needs to be transparent. We want actual cost, not just estimates thinks Joe blow.

WA:

I think your comparison to Mueller and LeBlanc is way off – our legal/governmental system is distinctly different and investigation vs inquiries have very different mechanics. Gomery (circa 2003) explains quite well why criminal charges cant come out of an inquiry in Canada, unfortunately most are going to be disappointed by the inquiry – because they don't really understand what an inquiry is meant to do.

Another thing most don't realize, is just what 'Good Utility Practice' as quoted in the FLG terms means and what its what its effect will be on any analysis.

PENG2

Agree. Social message marketing is totally different than it used to be. Old school rallies and petitions will never be what they used to be but they need to be done as part of a multi-pronged effort. These folks are truly giving it their all and god bless 'em.

It should be quite apparent to the key stakeholders that these are not fringe-interest protest issues either. Government's tediously slow strategy to dealing with the issues is proof they are trying to keep the movement on ice and they fear what it could become when (not if) government admits it has no answer but to raise rates. Government's only plan is to slow down on delivering the cold hard truths we already know until post-election.

FreeNL and the UG blog are just about the only sources of truth and activism in this mess.

I too applaud these protesters. Too bad it never started years earlier and coordinated with the Labrador protesters, people charged and before the courts so to intimidate them.
These protesters started with a dozen , now 100, and growing, but they represent the 15,000 who signed a protest petition, and represent the hundreds of thousands of ratepayers. Why only 100? Because of apathy that nothing can change. A change of culture needed there in Nfld, and these protesters do not accept the status quo. The main media is following, not leading the charge for truth and facts, but showing a little more guts.
AG

Just wait and see what happens when the rabble starts receiving their horrendously expensive MRF bills… there'll be riots in the streets… government will probably have to look into mobilizing the reserves to maintain law and order…

should read 2018 Leaf
WA

WA:

I think the gap in your calcs is 2 fold:
1) do we really have 340k vehicles in NL? I am not sure, maybe but seems high to me.
2) I don't think all of the 340k drivers/vehicles you quote will be able to go electric (ie Bay d'Espoir highway, trans Lab Highway, towing trailers etc)

I don't have a feel for possible savings realized for electric vehicles – mostly because no one that I know has really considered it. Similar to the same lack of consideration for heat pumps, wind etc – NL did studies for what they wanted only.

PENG2

You better ask Ed Hollett if you can borrow the magic wand. How many electric cars do you think will realistically be added by 2021? It's silly daydreaming to talk about electric cars. Maybe only 10% of households could meaningfully consider one and maybe just 10% of those will buy an e-car in the next 10 years. They are a nothingburger!

I hate to say it but Winston, stick to minisplits which maybe 50% of households could use and 50% of those probably will get them by 2021 because our politicians are 100% certain to be lying about no rate increase.

See the difference in those numbers? Only one of these topics has any merits. Talking up e-cars only supports the Dwight Ball distraction show which is intended to screw us all in the end.

Granted, this was a 30 minute estimate, and with many families having 2 cars or a car and a truck, the 340 is likely too high. And many have trucks that don't need trucks. I just put it out there to invite discussion, that we are behind where especially Europe is heading with electrics, and they lack the renewable hydro as we have, and as Norway has ( should be an example to us).
I still use a 2005 Prius, gets about 60 miles to the gallon, and the Leaf, per EPA about 136MPG (Canadian gallon ).
For longer range , there is the Tesla, 60 and 80 Kwh batteries.
WA

Anon @ 17:11, last year during a walk at UIC, George Mercer, aged 69 asked me about heatpumps : What does it mean when they say a 1 ton unit"? Of course tonage has to do with cooling not heating, but most all contractors will talk about this in tons.
Yesterday 85 year old Will Sharpe says a lot of people are putting HPs in, and says his son is a Red Seal certified electrician, so he can do the installation for him. In the recent past, older people, even at 70, would say "I won't live long enough to pay it off". Much has changed even in one year.
So yes, basically electric cars are where minisplits were a decade ago in Nfld.
You suggest even in 10 years only 1 % of Nfldrs would buy electric cars, whereas in Norway, now 40% are and expecting 100 % of new cars to be electric there in 2025.
I expect 10 years for meaningful transition to HPs and 10 for electric cars. What would you wager on only 1% in the next 10 years?
Maybe some politician would be bold enough to see the future where it should be: few baseboard heaters and few gas or diesel cars.
Yesterday a rainbow for 5 minutes looking from Bishop's Cove across conception Bay.
This evening a double rainbow, now over 45 minutes and not gone yet. Good luck they say. But for what? John Smith used to compare HPs with rainbows and pipe dreams. Will Leblanc out the troll John Smith? I might take the rainbows as symbolic that the minisplit issue is essentially won. Double rainbows are fairly rare.
Of course I am a little superstitious,( that spirits may exist, even a Holy Ghost, who can prove otherwise, and can rationally explain the Nfld folklore of tokens, if you have heard of that?
Or I may pull your leg.
Winston

Etienne, Payback: at 10 cent power about 5.5years, and less than 3 years when rates double. A typical 1200 sq ft house, you pay off the unit and save an extra 15,000 (30,000 if the rates double).
Electric car, for most now getting about 40mpg to get say 120 mpg is one giant leap, and I expect many will jump. You have Victoria for an example and I use Norway. I have expectations that Nflders will not abandon the Rock in droves.
My time limit on this is exceeded, or I vex the moderator.
Look forward to tomorrow morning on a new piece from UG.
Cheers, enjoy the exchange with those that differ.
Winston

Good points Etienne, as always… many, many people will be better off financially in the long run by putting the funds they'd otherwise spend on heat pumps towards offsetting the cost of relocating to provinces that are competently governed.

Winston: Allow me to quote your words-

1-"You have Victoria for an example and I use Norway"

-and I will observe that in terms of taxation NL is much closer to Victoria/B.C. than it is to Norway: Indeed I would maintain that any provincial political party promising Norwegian-like levels of taxation to the inhabitants of NL would have about as much of a shot at getting elected as one pledging to make Swahili the only official language of the province. Hmm. The latter party might stand a better chance at getting elected than the former, come to think of it.

2- "I have expectations that Nflders will not abandon the Rock in droves."

Err, I hate to break this to you, but as I recently pointed out here, outmigration from NL is already accelerating (A net population loss of 0,3% during the first quarter of this year: I am sure you can figure out what this would mean over the next few decades). Are you seriously claiming that a doubling of their power bill, or tax increases to mitigate this rise in power costs, will have no effect upon Newfoundlanders' decision to stay or leave in the future? If you are, than not only do I disagree, but I think the reverse is likely: emigration will probably accelerate. If, in the near future, more and more young inhabitants of NL have a brother, a sister, a best friend or a former spouse leading a better life outside NL than would be possible within NL, emigration will increasingly be seen by the younger generation as a "default" option, and thus NL will need to become a *tangibly and demonstrably better place to live in* than alternatives elsewhere in Canada. Such will be the challenge that will have to be met if The Rock is to avoid total demographic collapse.

I must say that seeing the wall of denial among so many otherwise intelligent and perceptive commentators here (including yourself) does not make me at all optimistic about NL's future.