Guest Post by PlanetNL

Exploding NL Transmission Costs A Terrible Blunder
While Muskrat Falls “the dam” is the object of much
well-deserved scorn, the transmission line parts of the project may not be receiving
all the critical attention they deserve. 
This post examines cost recovery for the transmission assets on A C/kWh
basis to demonstrate just how uneconomic they are.

Along the way, transmission costs in other jurisdictions are
compared and the economics for importing or exporting energy over the Maritime
Link are examined.  The conclusion is
that Muskrat and the Maritime Link will do only thing well: deliver benefits to
Nova Scotia.

Cost of Transmission
For a long time, the high voltage (66kV and higher)
transmission aspect of NL Hydro has been less than one-tenth of annual overall
costs.  That ratio will go way when cost
recovery begins on the Muskrat project transmission assets. 

Within the latest General Rate Application documents, Hydro
calculates the 2019 cost of transmission on the Island Interconnected System at
0.895 c/kWh.  The calculation is quite
simple as shown in the table copied below: just divide the annual revenue
requirement (ie. cost) of the in-service transmission assets by the annual
energy that it carries.

Source: GRA Rev. 5, Vol. III, schedule 1.7

This pre-Muskrat cost is comparable to that of other utilities.  Hydro Quebec’s transmission fee is 1.25 c/kWh
while Manitoba’s is under 0.5 c/kWh.  In
fact, NL Hydro’s transmission rate was only about 0.4 c/kWh until the recent
completion of TL267, the new 188km transmission line from Bay D’Espoir to the
Western Avalon completed at a capital cost of about $300M in late 2017.  TL267 added only a fraction to the existing transmission
system yet it doubled annual Island transmission costs.  

The TL267 example highlights the tremendous value delivered
by old legacy assets and the huge rate impact of new projects.  This is an effect well understood by virtually
all regulated utility jurisdictions that leads them to approve major new construction
projects often as a last resort.  Conservation
and demand management (CDM) programs are typically the first step and best
value for ratepayers in slowing or reducing capacity and energy requirements
and preventing the build of rate-escalating new assets. 
Transmission Costs in 2021
If the $300M TL267 project was a warning sign, then what is
the rate impact of Muskrat transmission assets with capital costs about 20
times greater?  We can estimate that
reasonably by examining the two subprojects and adding that to the 2019 cost
projection shown above.  

The biggest charge coming is for the 1100km Labrador Island
Link.  Nalcor’s 2017 estimate for the LIL
Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) cost is $417M. 
The LIL PPA slowly declines in price every year but this will be more
than offset by the next item.

The PPA for the Labrador Transmission Asset, the new 250km transmission
system between Churchill Falls and Muskrat Falls, will initially add $67M.  The combined LIL plus LTA costs $484M in 2021 and
will steadily increase (by 2070, combined costs will be over 50% higher).  Adding LIL plus LTA costs to the existing
Island transmission costs will total $550M, about a 20-fold increase over what
it was in 2016.  

To complete the calculation, 2021 energy requirements must
be estimated.  As explained in recent
posts, the anticipated declining two-rate system may result in a mild
elasticity response: a 5-10% reduction from Hydro’s 2019 figure above is
probable.  The resulting calculation of
2021 transmission fees is therefore in the range of 8 to 9 c/kWh.

To the average consumer on the Island, this means that about
8 c/kWh of future rate increases is attributable solely to the transmission
costs and not to the Muskrat generating station itself.  The Muskrat generation PPA will begin at $325M
in 2021 for a potential rate impact of about 4.5 c/kWh, barely half that of the
transmission side of the project. 

the two threaten to more than double electricity costs, notwithstanding
Government’s pre-election rate mitigation promises.  

The key point most people may not know is that transmission
costs dominate the cost impacts in the early years after cost recovery
Without Muskrat Generation?
The massive rate escalation of transmission costs puts in a very
dim light any notion that connecting the Island to Churchill Falls without the
Muskrat generating station might have been an attractive option.  Additional energy costs would be applicable
given that the available surplus Recapture energy and capacity available fall
far short of Island winter peak heating needs.  

Had Nalcor imagined to develop a Conservations and Demand Management program (CDM) as the first measure to
decrease the winter peak requirements, recapture energy might fill the
remaining gap.  Further imagination would
have also deduced that far more viable alternatives would exist to fill the
energy and capacity gap than a $7B transmission development.

Setting aside such imagination of CDM actions and
alternative solutions, Nalcor would need to purchase firm energy from Hydro
Quebec for the winter season only, the period when HQ values its energy the
most.  The cost might easily have been in
the 4-6 c/kWh range had they bothered to ask. 
 With all costs in, the
transmission-only project would double Island rates just as the existing
Muskrat project will do.  

The only consolation of this very undesirable project
concept is that the ratepayers would be spared the near 6-times growth of
backloaded Muskrat generation cost recovery in the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA).
Costs to Import Power via Maritime Link
As part of the GRA hearings, Hydro had to develop a response
to the Consumer Advocate to demonstrate the costs associated with delivering
100MW of energy from the New England NE-ISO market.  

In summary, the cost of energy is about 5.5 c/kWh while the transmission
costs (also known as wheeling fees) through New England, New Brunswick and Nova
Scotia add 5 c/kWh.  It is simply
inconceivable that Hydro would pay 10.5 c/kWh for externally sourced power when
they anticipate a massive surplus of hydro power available within their own

Besides that, there are known capacity constraints throughout
the network, especially NS-NB transmission, that would make a large import,
such as for emergency to replace Muskrat in winter, virtually impossible to
deliver.  Throughout the GRA process, Hydro
has had to admit many times over that they cannot contract firm energy deliveries
via the Maritime Link presumably for this reason.

Would third parties pursue import power?  Firstly, all the same transmission constraints
exist plus a third party would have to pay the 8-9 c/kWh Hydro fee.  There is also a Maritime Link fee (which
couldn’t be found for this post but is likely to be at least 1-2 c/kWh).  For Newfoundland Power or any Industrial Customer
looking at importing from New England, probable costs surpass 20 c/kWh.  Hydro will certainly be offering those
customers far lower wholesale pricing.  

Import of energy over the ML in any useful quantity at an
economic price will not be possible.
US Export
Via Maritime Link
Using Hydro’s GRA example again, the flow can be reversed to
assess export profit potential: “the gravy” as often said by proponents
including former Nalcor CEO Ed Martin and former Premier Danny Williams as
recently as his testimony before the Commission of Inquiry earlier this month.  

The day-ahead market price in NE-ISO averages about 5.5
c/kWh indicates the revenue opportunity but the transmission fees of 5 c/kWh incurred
to get energy into the New England market eat up nearly all the sale.  Nalcor’s gross margin would be a mere 0.5
c/kWh.  When other selling and
administrative costs are deducted, there would be nothing left.  

Will it get better?  Likely

New England-ISO electricity prices have been closely linked to
natural gas, the primary generation fuel in the area.  While industry forecasts show gas prices should
rebound slightly in the years ahead, the NE-ISO website clues readers to the
fact that wind energy providers have already started to outcompete gas in setting
a lower market price 15% of the time.  We
may surmise that as the wind sector is set to grow substantially in that region,
there will be further downward pressure on electricity prices.  

Next, consider what was demonstrated above about the costs
of transmission dramatically increasing as new assets are built or refurbished.  Eventually all jurisdictions, including those
on the route to New England, must invest new money for upkeep of their aging
assets.  Their transmission fees are sure
to increase.

US exports of Nalcor energy via the ML will be squeezed by
both falling revenues and increasing costs – American gravy won’t be on the
Maritime Link is for Nova Scotia
The technical constraints and economic analysis point to one
conclusion only.  The Maritime Link appears
to strictly be a feeder to deliver NL power to Nova Scotia and the Muskrat
generating station is primarily necessary to meet Nova Scotia demand.

Let’s close by revisiting the pre-sanction 20-80 Term Sheet
that was based on Emera and Nova Scotia committing 20% of the cost for 20% of
the power.  We already know their cost
share has decreased as Nalcor has had to bear nearly all the Muskrat overruns, but that isn’t the big issue. That one is the energy allocation that the project is likely
to end up with.

The Emera agreements already require Nalcor to offer at
least 2200 GWh annually and as shown in this post, as it is the only practical market
for surplus energy, therefore the number might be significantly higher.  Notwithstanding other concerns (water
management, North Spur, general reliability), deliveries exceeding 3000 GWh are

For local Island ratepayers, Muskrat is simply a Holyrood
replacement.  While Holyrood has delivered
about 1500 GWh in recent years, after rate impacts are considered, this amount could
easily be cut in half meaning only 750 GWh of Muskrat energy might be used here.  Longer-term, it’s hard to think that total
Island demand has anywhere to go but down.

The 20-80 Term Sheet is set to do an embarrassing flip where
Nova Scotia may receive about 80% of the power for less than 20% of the cost.  Nova Scotia did a solid job of minimizing
their risks and maximizing their opportunity. 
The gravy is theirs.


Bill left public life shortly after the signing of the Atlantic Accord and became a member of the Court of Appeal until his retirement in 2003. During his time on the court he was involved in a number of successful appeals which overturned wrongful convictions, for which he was recognized by Innocence Canada. Bill had a special place in his heart for the underdog.

Churchill Falls Explainer (Coles Notes version)

If CFLCo is required to maximize its profit, then CFLCo should sell its electricity to the highest bidder(s) on the most advantageous terms available.


This is the most important set of negotiations we have engaged in since the Atlantic Accord and Hibernia. Despite being a small jurisdiction we proved to be smart and nimble enough to negotiate good deals on both. They have stood the test of time and have resulted in billions of dollars in royalties and created an industry which represents over a quarter of our economy. Will we prove to be smart and nimble enough to do the same with the Upper Churchill?


  1. KD was willing to sell her soul, much less the shop and all its contents, to satisfy NS and Emera, to get Harper to give her the FLG. Notice the pictures of her signing the FLG and muskrat falls sanction. Just like Trumpie, holding up the pen for some one to grab as a souvenir, and her defiance of the naysayers of muskrat. She showed the same defiance to Andy, take your PUB and stick it. She will show the same defiance on the stand. She will tell the judge and the inquiry the same thing. She is a defiant person says Joe blow.

  2. Several things jump out at me about this UG analysis.

    The most striking is the belief that NL exists in isolation of the global economic and environmental matrix. A scheme that encourages wasteful consumption in a time of the virulent climate change, that keeps being demonstrated to no effect in NL it seems. Wasting energy to mop up oversupply is obscene, nothing less.

    Your accounting on cost calculates the best case scenario. MHI has warned to build to a 1 in 500 year standard for much of the Long Range Mountains. Nalcor has ignored this advice from its own consultant and built to only a 1 in 200 year standard. How much time down and money will the protracted and remote lines cost to repair when they fail?

    It has long been apparent, and I have evangelized for years that the age of remote generation and transmission is long gone. The cost of both wind and solar energy have dropped o below the cost of remote generation of any kind. MF will become the classic example of this optimism bias political blunder.

    You have also come to the only correct conclusion for the fate of MF energy. Yes only NS can be a viable market for the power. You missed only that the ML does not have the capacity to carry more than the NS commitment and when NL takes ownership in 30 years the asset will be worth $1. In other words it will be time for a new ML.

    It will be quite the legacy for the "Anglo Saxon Route"!!

    • Bruno, define remote transmission? Is power to st john's from Bay d' Espoir remote transmission? What of wind energy from West Texas to east Texas, including 7 billion for transmission upgrades? They have developed more wind energy than the next 3 states combined.
      But if you mean 700 or 1000 or more miles away, transmission losses are a big factor, and your point is taken. So, as to long distance , what does long mean? HQ made it economic with 735 KV. Not much of that around.
      But EE for DSM can utilize energy savings 6 inches outside the walls of your house, or 10 to 200 ft below the surface near your building, or often new supply of wind a few miles away , or where suitable solar PV etc. The latter were ignored in favor of long distance unreliable MFs.

    • It is not only line losses but cost to construct. Transmission less than 200 miles for wind and sun hookups make it less than 5 cents delivered to market. Wheeling fees from NL for example total more than that. Add the line losses and you see the issue I hope.

    • From west to east texas is about the same distance from CFs to Montreal or Halifax to Mtl, as the crow flies or a straight line. I would think 600 to 700 miles. And Texas is the leader in NA for wind uptake. So Texas does less than 5 cents. And solar for BC is like 23 cent power for retail. and likely worse for Nfld. , but some jurisdictions with lots of sun is less than 5 cents. So we can't generalize, but certainly wind was a very big asset for the Avalon that was ignored, which we agree?

  3. Question; What is the expected capital recovery period, (yrs), for the transmission line as built?

    eg. Long ago when I worked on joint use power/communications line work, revenue requirements were based on a 10 year capital recovery economic goal.

  4. God Bless Andy Wells!!! The first time we have had anyone to tell it like it was and is. And muskrat would have been turned down flat by the PUB, and saved us from the boondoggles, and would have put the strangle hold on the monster NalFrankenstein. But the govt. of the day breathed new life into the mortal, and he still reigns supreme from Cape Chidley in the north to cape Race in the south and all points in between says Joe blow. Now round two, let's see the dimwits with their first class lawyers try and tear him down.

    • Whether on UG, or the Telegram comments or CBC online comments or just my recollections of my impressions at the time, back around 2012, I seem to remember Dunderdale's during speeches on TV, her mannerisms reminded me of Hitler and his fiery speeches, and combined with his arm and hand movements.
      I used to believe that women were morally superior to men, a belief that I now doubt ( because so many white women voted for Trump), so I was surprised by Dunderdale's mannerisms.
      That Wells describes her as a bully, and him thinking we were close to having jackboots marching in the streets, is in line with my impressions also. Recall too how I was summoned to appear in court after continuing to be critical of our CDM program at the PUB , and suggesting that the power companies and the CA were in bed, so to speak, part of my presentation to the PUB.
      Prior to Well's testimony I wondered : Andy Wells , will he snarl at the lawyers? Soon into the proceeding my opinion was that he was blunt and honest, a rare display of integrity seen in Nfld. And he did not fail to cause a smile and a chuckle. The few visitors could be seen to be attentive and entertained. The 14 lawyers, on the public nickle, representing the enablers of MF, made no substantial point to discredit him.
      So why didn't the Telegram or the CBC break this story, as Wells tells it, before now, as part of investigative journalism. And why no more that 4 or 5 in the building to hear Wells give his testimony? 12.7 billion for a useless project, and even now, so little concern by the public!
      Winston Adams

    • I'd like to buy Andy Wells a beer if I ever get the chance.

      His testimony at the CIMFP today can only be described as magnificent.

      If only he'd run for provincial politics we might get some solid, no-nonsense common-sense leaderships without the silly bullshit politics.

      Look at the current state of affairs under this half-witted imbeciles and culprits… the bloody Kirby/Joyce reality TV show… nothing but a sordid, ridiculous carnival of the inept and dimwitted… all funded by taxpayers.

      Andy Wells wouldn't indulge that childish bullshit, no doubt about that.


      Way to go Andy!!!

    • Now this is the kind of outrageous cronyism going on in this basket case of a province, and once again, all funded by taxpayers… this Carla Foote individual, the daughter of Judy Foote, ensconced onto the provincial sunshine list without even having to go through a job competition..


      You bloody arse Mitchelmore, you're insulting the intelligence of taxpayers with your bullshit blather.


    • Conveniently, the Lieut-Gov cannot, (will not) be called to the General Inquiry, to explain why she as Trudeau's outstanding cabinet minister, supported the continuance of Muskrat by the CDN taxpayer known to be held at high risks. Seamus, brought into cabinet for "balance" helped concoct the carbon tax no deal to +- the polluters at home and on the dangerous highways, so that the Osborn finance guy can take credit for Muskrat fiasco contributing to NL consumers not getting double dipped on cost of living on the Rock.

      Time for getting rid of First Past the Post. Or do we just want Ches to take over and "get the Gov. out of people's pockets". Even Ball had a saying; "Doesn't meet the smell test"

  5. Nov 22. Dr. Bruneau is recalled. The only fact based witness so far to be so. Prior to sanction, Bruneau was doing a public service by drawing attention to natural gas (gas to wire) as one of several options that were not thoroughly and fairly studied as part of isolated island options. He is a fact based witness like most others. He has no Counsel representing him. We must trust that the CIMFP will ensure that 1. Counsel for GovNL does not unfairly discredit this witness and 2. If Pan Maritime, Navigant, Ziff and Macdonald Wood are referenced or called for testimony that it will not malign the facts and stay within the period of phase 1 leading to sanction on Dec 17,2012. FLW

  6. I can’t let this pass. In 1971, I started doing load flows for the island system as part of transmission planning. That was in the days the only computer in NL that could do a load flow was an IBM360, initially at MUN. Bay d’espoir to Sunnyside: lines 202 and 206, etc. As time progressed, yes, without Holyrood on, SIL loading for power east from BDE was stressed. However, synchronous condensers and static var compensation was a added east to support the voltage to allow larger flows. My opinion: today, the only reason to have added a third line all the way from BDE to western Avalon ( Chapel’s Arm) is in support of considerations only to do with “Maritime Link” . Put another way, if we were back to a cost of service study through PUB to determine allocation of rates, that transmission cost could be largely attributed exclusively to the Maritime Link. Without a Maritime Link and a relatively static load forecast, together with a modest combined cycle gas turbine plant (150 MW) on the isthmus or Avalon peninsula, there would not have been necessity to overlayer the grid above what was already in place. FLW

  7. Fred, great points that had CDM been properly pursued then TL267 capacity seems redundant. The issue is that Nalcor chose to maintain high Avalon winter loads and remove the local generators ar Holyrood. As a result, anytime the LIL goes out of service, enormous capacity is needed from Bay D'Espoir and west. TL267 should be on the books as a Muskrat asset therefore $300M in project cost has been improperly allocated to Hydro. Not sure it can be seen as serving much useful purpose for the Maritime Link though.

    • Point taken, 0822, re TL267and cost allocation to Maritime Link (ML). It would come into play if LIL is out and power relief to Avalon would have to pull through BDE. For most of time after LIL is in service, BDE power will flow west including new lines that way as well recently built; all to largely enable NL power to ML and to NS. So, virtually new on island 230 kv transmission in past few years serve to flow power both east on contingency basis and primarily west across the Gulf. Allocations in a cost of service study will be interesting to review. Power flows, I do believe, may have stability limitations (in both directions) on the ML. FLW

    • Fred, the new third 230 kv line to the Avalon terminates at Western Avalon, does it not? So, it helps with the Vale Long Hr 80 MW load. We had 3 AC lines feeding St John's, going east of Holyrood. But even now only 2 lines from western Avalon as far as Holyrood. So if Holyrood is down we are still limited to only 2 230kv AC lines feeding St John's . In 2013, one of those went down and the line losses on the single line increased to about 35 MW, part of DARK NL . Now from Western to Eastern Avalon, about 40-50 miles more and 3 lines would have been all the way. Does it make sense?
      So why was the 3rd line not extended from Western to Eastern Avalon

  8. The Liberals did get a couple of dumb politicians (Mitchelmore & Kirby) right
    from the bottom of the barrel of the NDP party. great for the NDP but not for the Liberals. Good luck in the next general election.

    • I'm impressed the lack of excitement following Heracles's announcement here. I guess we all figured out the probable result by now.
      (Completely off topic: When I read "Good Faith", a far right activist's name comes to my mind. She somehow finished 3rd in Toronto's mayor election. Where are we going…)

    • These incessant court challenged to the UC contract are yet just another distraction used by cynical NL politicians to gull naive NLers into a victimization complex… reinforcing their childish belief that the entire world is out to get them, and their never-ending quest to blame anyone but themselves for their wretched plight.

      When they see beyond that, and finally realize that a contract's a contract and that it's time to move on and hopefully form constructive partnerships with their neighbors… and that the ones they're being victimized by is their own skulduggerous leaders… they'll have taken a quantum leap towards the capability of competent, responsible self-governance.

    • Dunderdale's henchman let out a mocking, cackling laugh and exclaimed "The cost of this project to NLers??? We don't care about 'costs'… we only care about OPTICS!"

      I'll never, EVER, forget Andy Wells' testimony at the CIMFP regarding that deplorable incident from his meeting with Dunderdale's henchmen… EVER.

      That summed up to a T the disdain that these effers have for the welfare of the people of this province.

      Andy said he was appalled… that's putting it mildly… it's outrageous, infuriating.

      These vile buggers should be exiled…

  9. Hercules has given us an FYI that on November 2, the SCC will release it's ruling one the "good faith" clause on the Churchill Falls contract. I also have a question, as I am not in the know, is this also the same court case as the WMA before the SCC? If it is then then the ruling is coming down at a very timely manner for the Leblanc inquiry. Any discussion on the WMA has been taboo before the inquiry because it is before the SCC. So this will allow the Leblanc inquiry to deal with questioning those traitors appearing before the inquiry in the coming days. That can only be a good thing. As for the ruling itself, well guess we will be able to see it in a few days, but don't think anyone here is holding their breath, but you never know says Joe blow.

    • You are by far too cleaver, and not a student of Greek mythology. I have always used the Ancient Greek spelling as "Hercules" rather than the more modern Roman spelling of "Heracles". But when you are as advanced in years as I you may be blessed with more than dyslexia!! And as I gave said to others you are under no obligation to read any thing I write, just pass right by me. As for our friend Hearacles31, I have corresponded with him many times, and nary a time has he objected. If it were his proper or given name I would be more specific and careful with the spelling. And feel free to call me Joe blow, or average Joe, or AJ, as I aim not normally addressed as Mr.

    • Well, Mr. Anonymous, perhaps you should not critique Mr. Blow for his reading ability until you consult with Webster on how to spell "Gentleman's" correctly yourself. No grammar grading allowed on this blog, so find another if that is your mission. I appreciate Joe Blow for all the value he contributes to this blog. Good work Joe!

    • Hey Joe Blow,

      A lot of points to correct…

      First, Hercules is the Roman version of Heracles and not the opposite. Often, we see Hercules presented as the son of Zeus. That is non-sense because Hercules is Roman and Zeus is Greek. It is true that I never objected you calling me Hercules because I am aware this confusion is so present. Still, indeed, I would prefer you use the proper name.

      Second, there is no clause in the Power Contract contract about good faith. CFLCo claimed that the re-negotiation was required by general conduct despite not being required by a clause.

      Third, the Water Management is part of the Block Theory legal case, not the Good Faith. That one is still at the level of the Court of Appeal in Quebec and is scheduled for this December.

      It can not make it to the Supreme Court before the decision from the Court of Appeal. Even after the Court of Appeal, CFLCo will need to ask permission before going to the Supreme Court because all cases must do so before the SCC. So unfortunately, No, the decision will not let the inquiry talk about WMA.

      The only thing I see in the fact that the judgement will be released is that CFLCo / Government of Newfoundland is still unrealistic about the situation, still want to fight HQ instead of working with them, do not realize how deep they are in, … Not a good thing at all for the ones who are supposed to be in command…

    • Perhaps you're unaware, but it is simply good manners to address one, or to refer to one, using one's chosen label… otherwise you risk showing one disrespect, either intentionally or unintentionally (notwithstanding inadvertently neglecting to do so as a result of a disability or similar).

      For example, during Danny Williams' testimony at the CIMFP, he referred to Uncle Gnarley as Uncle "Nobby" or "Nutty". This misuse of the proper label demonstrated a degree of disrespect, indeed… scorn, on Mr. Williams' part.

      In the same vein, referring to Heracles31 as "Hercules" unfortunately smacks of a similar disrespect for that person.

      Just sayin'…

    • Just one brief note on dyslexia, vision and spelling etc. My vision is not exactly what it use to be, as in recent years, I have had eye operations to fix a macular hole in one of my eyes, and diagnosed with AMD in the other. So I struggle a little at times with fine print, and blurred vision, but I am not looking for pity or special privileges on this blog by any means. So I will continue to express my opinion, until the blog adm. advises me otherwise or deletes my comments. And don't worry I can give as well as receive any comments sent my way, most in jest. And I always say if you don't like my spelling, just past me by. However, I do sometimes intentionally miss spell some names or words, especially of people in the public of political domain, for added emphasis. But most times the mis- spelling is not intentional. But what is important is communication, and as long as the reader gets my point, then what more can I say, except as annoy mentioned there is no spelling or reading test required to participate on this blog. Cheers, average Joe.

  10. What have I learned this week as to the PUB and the MFs Reference.
    1. Andy Wells realized part way through that it was a sham, done for OPTICS, as they wanted no proper review.
    2 Maureen Greene, the lawyer, concluded that if you accept the Nalcor inputs as correct and reliable, then the MFs option was correct, but if doubt the inputs, MFs was not likely the least cost and reliable power. Her opinion was that she doubted the inputs.
    3 Fred Martin, a very experienced engineer in many fields of power systems (except for forecasting): a) felt all the engineers with Nalcor and MHI were competent and professional, yet he did not like the way they wrote reports, b) he acknowledged the difficulty and slow pace of getting proper documentation from Nalcor, c) he says a technical conference would have been of value, but that if there was one, the PUB would not be present? d) he found no fault with the inputs or MHI's review of the inputs nor MHI's report on technical matters, (except how they wrote the report); e) that as to what went wrong with MFs, he has heard mention this or that, which he pays no attention to, but says there was probably a dozen things that went wrong (but he stated none). Fred seemed out of sync with others, taking a neutral stance, so I thought.
    4 Fred was not questioned on specific engineering aspects that seem obvious as important to the Inquiry. Given that co-counsel, Kate O'Brien is an electrical engineer, with experience in the power systems, her skill set was not utilized at all to question Fred Martin as to technical aspects, or also where a technical conference would have been of value.
    6. Sam Banfield, an ex Hydro engineer, was identified by Fred martin has having forecasting experience, with Nfld Hydro. Banfield was a consultant also with the PUB. Forecasting was identified by an expert witness at the Inquiry as a critical factor for the analysis and review. So, why is Banfield not a witness to the Inquiry to be questioned on that?
    Winston Adams

  11. Winston:I am not all in tune with your latest dispatch regarding PUB and witnesses including fellow classmates regarding their disposition regarding PUB hearings, etc. in 2011-12. I respect your outlay regarding lack of consideration for CDM (efficiency, load forecast, mini-splits, etc.) during that “reference” to the PUB then. But. You and I were classmates of 71. So were Martin and Banfield. We all did well through our time with NL Hydro, etc. including later Mallam, Haynes, Henderson among others. We helped build the initial isolated hydro system (into the late 80’s for me). We have reason to be all proud. So, energy policy and individual considerations changed our paths as to where we ended up. Facts are the facts in CIMFP. Many key factors have become obvious in my opinion in the Inquiry. One is that the PUB referral was only intended to be an appeasement as to what was already decided. I am not sure if any of us could have individually altered that path. Love ya all. FLW.

    • FLW, Agreed, all of us made good contributions to have helped build the "Isolated" grid for Nfld. Isolated now seemed a negative term,and perhaps intentionally so by Nalcor. Hawaii, and many large jurisdictions Have isolated grids. The Texas grid is essentially isolated from the other few interconnected grids in the USA. Isolated can be an advantage to prevent cascading of power outages, but lacks ability of getting power from neighbours. So NS benefits from interconnected, but we do not.So that was a bill of goods sold to the public. The island of Nfld was well interconnected, so maybe it should have been referenced Island Interconnected vs Mainland Interconnected.
      I was impressed with Fred Marin's wide experience. We overlapped some in the 1970s on controls and protections and 230KV terminal station commissioning. I was impressed even more with his interest and contribution, for little compensation, to assist with power issues in remote isolated power systems in Northern Canada.
      You say Facts are Facts in the Inquiry. I am seeing few technical facts, which can show where they went wrong, and much on other issues.
      What are key facts that you see? That the referral to the PUB was appeasement….. likely so, but seems subjective, but maybe not evidence based?
      Perhaps to say Fred martin was neutral is incorrect, in that the PUB decision was that they had insufficient information to make a decision. So likely that reflected Martin's position as well. So what information was insufficient? This is where the Inquiry is not going , so far. And, as I see it, the problem was that Martin was not sufficiently questioned on what more information was required, and what areas would a technical conference be of assistance, etc. An opportunity missed that Martin could shed light on. The Inquiry and MFCCC lacks technical experts to explore this area, to assist the Commissioner, and so will conclude that the decisions made in 2012 was the best they could do with the information available at the time. And that, respectfully, is a crock, or a croc, would you agree?
      Pleased to see you engaged here Fred.

    • Fred, you were ahead of me to see the importance of the expert witness Holburn, and you mentioned it on this blog the day before.
      Holburn stated that CDM and as an input to forecasting could be critical, but when questioned to quantify it, he said that is outside his expertise , and for an energy efficiency consultant to answer, if memory serves. The Inquiry is seeking no such testimony to quantify as to what was knowable in 2012.
      Meanwhile tomorrow we have MHI trio. These guys endorsed MFs as least cost, based on Nalcors inputs, so they can try to blame Nalcor now if the inputs were wrong. And obviously, with no load growth now as forecast, they are wrong. And with massive load growth reduction if rates jump much, they were hugely wrong on forecasting.
      Lets look at forecasting and power supply options, and some questions come to mind:
      1. for forecasting, end use model was not used thought MHI said it was the best model, or that combined with econometric model
      2. A substitute "technology change factor" incorporated into the econometric is a poor substitute for actual end use modelling, to capture end use performance. There was some evidence to indicate this factor was very small, so extremely off base I suggest.
      3. Holburn , Ithink stated that forecasting for such a project should have been by an engineer, I think he said an electrical engineer, and maybe with knowledge in econmetric models also. Stratton is not an enginner, not alone not electrical. Could he personally oversee a end use plan to monitor and test for electrical performance for energy and demand use?
      4. End -use was stated to be more costly to do. But our elephant in the room for load problems was baseboard and other resistance electric space heat. So end-use modeling needed be primarily on space heat, not dozens of other low capacity loads.
      5. Stratton had no upgrade courses for forecasting for the prior 20 years, and never kept abreast of what other jurisdictions were doing.
      6. MHI are based out of Winnipeg, where the winters are so cold to make minisplits and air source much less attractive. So, did their experience insulate them from the benefits for our warmer winter climate.? And to what was happening in NS and NB. And the USA testing for performance for low temperatures, which would give excellent performance in our climate, all available before 21012.
      7. That Bob , I think said MHI guy came and spent 3 hour with him, and assured him all was fine. THREE HOURS? For a multi billion dollar project!. A $10,000 upgrade on a kitchen cupboard renovation would take more than 3 hours to plan.
      8. A statement that end-use does not guarantee better forecasting is a cop out, like saying that a P75 or P90 does not not guarantee risk reduction. End -use is best practice. To ignore that for our space heating especially is negligent I suggest.
      This a few items I hope our CA , or MFCCC counsel or Kate, examines them on.
      Winston Adams

    • We should really get to the Avalon power demand/supply problem. What study exists to appropriately forecast demand/supply relationship, isolated from the Island Grid?
      Why do we accept that the hydro engineers build an unsustainable island system, for the "benefit" of wasteful Avalon consumers? Why do we accept that Avalon can't seem to go it alone, with respect to sustainable power demand/supply?

    • As to MHI tomorrow:
      Dunderdale in 2011 announced their Energy Efficiency Plan, they showed the cover sheet of this almost 50 page Plan at the Inquiry.Recall that Dunderdale and the Maritome Provinces and the New England States were having yearly conferences , which included EE plans, that those jurisdictions, other than Nfld was going big with EE. So we got our plan in 2011.
      That Plan was a good first step, said Holburn at this Inquiry
      The Plan says Nfld was to reduced energy use by 20 % from 2011 to 2020. Lets look at the implications of that:
      In 2011 our peak load in winter was 1525 MW. Holyrood was then producing just 11% of our island generation, down considerably from prior years. Now a 20 % reduction would take it down to about 1220 MW, so a 305 MW reduction. This reduction rate of about 2 % a year is what other jurisdiction achieve. Now at 1220 MW we need very little from Holyrood. Currently we use on average about 350 MW from Holyrood in Jan to March, so a reduction of 305 MW suggests little thermal generation would be needed. If we add some island small hydro and some wind, the old plant of Holyroods was not needed, and just some new gas turbines for backup and rare occasions, for an ideal least cost Isolated optio.
      The Plan explained that these reduction in energy use was great because it would permit more export sales of MFs power! So, not an alternate plan to MFs, but a large EE Plan while still doing MFs, for energy not needed in Nfld.
      Now was this a sane approach? To spend billions on MFs while reducing demand here so not to need MFs! To use Andy Wells phrase: "There must be something wrong with you" he might say to Dunderdale as to these two plans at the same time in 2011. Her smiling face is in that document. That was her EE plan.
      The plan noted ground source heatpumps for institutional buildings, so they knew about 400% effeciencies for space heating. It omitted any reference to minisplits, though in NS , 20,000 were installed that year, then into their 3 rd years promoting them. And 305 MW reduction was only about 50 % of maximum potential reduction.
      Their plan was short on details or on targets or budgets to achieve anything. So as Holburn says, it was but a first start. And that is where it remain today, a near useless program, and nothing achieved on that.
      So that Plan too was for optics. Nothing intended. Should not MHI be questioned on how that plan jived with MFs as least cost?
      And also as to that Plan , why Is Nfld power hiding in th shadows at this inquiry, saying there were not invited by the PUB to have input! They are always partners in Take Charge , and have 90 5 of retain customers. And they were SILENT, AND NOW HIDE AT THIS INQUIRY AS A SPECIAL STANDING STATUS ; AN SSS


    • So too, MHI endorsed little energy saving to be had from old stock houses , saying we "were approaching saturation level" on our old stock housing with many upgrades already done" Maybe this is an example of what Fred Martin means when he has issues with how they wrote reports.
      Most houses in Nfld has had almost no significant improvements for air exchanges, they are very leaky, and we being one of the windiest places in the world . So power loads kick in big time with cold snaps combined with high winds driving peak grid loads.
      And too, standards are now promoting 18 inch insulation in houses instead of 10 in. And hardly any basements properly insulated . Not to mention triple glaze windows that exceed 100% increase in window efficiency . And the kicker, minisplits for old stock houses.
      Do these measures sound like saturation levels were being reached? Please MHI, explain this to our Commissioner, how you could endorse such crap in a engineering report.
      Winston Adams

    • Now too, what of Nalcos's and MHI's crystal ball as to new housing construction, give they saw fit to forecast with load growth for 57 years.
      1. No sooner was MFs sanctioned then the Feds bring in the new R2000 standard , updating fromcthe old one which was some 15 years old. The new one showed a requirement that brought 25 % reduction in energy needs, this mostly from construction improvements.
      2. That new standard did not yet require 300 % efficient heatpumps, so when that is added, space heat electric energy is reduced by both by 50%. And this often being done now, with MFs barely sanctioned, not 10, 20 , 30 or 40 years later.
      3. And what of Passive design houses for the future, would Nfld ever see those? A guy from Flatrock designed and just moved into one. Did Stratton, our forecaster of Nfld Hydro, of MHI see that coming?
      4. What of smaller, not bigger houses. Already in Stephenville they have approved for construction , and some built , houses just less than 400 sq feet. About size 10 X 18, so 2 level for about 360 Sq feet, not the monster houses of 4, 5 or 10,000 sq feet. Who saw that coming? Doubt if Galway will permit those. So imagine 57 years out, and we being told we have just 12 years to get climate change mitigation in high gear , or else. Is Stratton of MHI engineers climate change deniers, and envisage bigger and bigger and energy wasteful houses? Or did they too suffer from oil on the brain?
      Winston Adams

    • Perhaps this my last rant, and not on forecasting, but on MFs reliability, and how they write reports, to deceive.
      MHI stated that the overhead lines through the Great Northern Peninsula was NOT SUBJECT to salt contamination. No sir. Nothing to see there.
      That stuck out like a sore thumb to me, as I used to analyse the many outages on the GNP lies, many from salt contamination.
      Nalcor and MHI rationalized it by comparing it too our 230kv AC grid lines. Not a problem for the 230kw, they said, so not a problem for the DC line either. The problem was that was like comparing apples and oranges.
      The problem with wind driven salt from the ocean is that it causes flashovers. A flashover per se , while a short circuit, might last half a second, and not result in a power outage. But sometimes the salt can be heavier , and persist, and an outage results that can be hours duration.
      It so happens that our 230 kv island lines are most all inland , so salt is not much of a problem. So if we have a DC line that is also inland, the compariosn could be valid, and one might say salt is not a contaminant for the DC line.
      But the GNP area, the line is very exposed , from both sides that can see salt spray blown inland for miles and miles. Indeed the existing lines on the GBP are very subseptable to salt contamination that causes outages, that last s for hours. Perhaps outages there may be near number almost 10 times more often than for the inland 230KV lines.
      The GNP existing lines are 69 and 138 kv not 230kv. So, by trickery , they did a comparison of line voltage, rather than physical location , to assess risk for flashover induced outages.
      After Dark NL , and many questions posed to Nalco, I beliece they finally admitted that for the DC line, they are indeed subject to salt contamination. But this was long after sanction, so their trick worked to diffuse this issue pre sanction. Such is the the methods they uses.
      I eagerly await tomorrow to see if MHI questioned on that.
      Fred Martin had experience on control and protection, so I guess he had some of the same concerns, that more information was needed , or a technical conference even. So will these tricks escape expose by both the PUB and this Inquiry?
      Winston Adams

    • Great postings Winston. Not being a technical person, I cannot comment, except to say, your postings seem very logical and well thought out. And common scenes tells me you are 90 per cent correct. Would be great to see other hydro engineers, giving freely of their knowledge and experience. Let's hope they stand up too and be counted. Cheers, average Joe.

    • Hi Joe
      One more that is a bit amusing but sad also:
      A friend told me yesterday that he recently saw Stan Marshall at Costco with a cartload of programmable thermostats and LED light bulbs.
      Recall that Stan , early in the Inquiry, gave a long presentation of rationale for MF components, from the turbines to the converters to synchronous condensers , spill gates etc. Stan is not an electrical engineer, but a chemical engineer and lawyer, but I rated him an A for his explanations.
      Now those thermostats and Lights are the most promoted items by Take Charge, by Nfld Power, which is owned by Fortis , and Stan a major shareholder.
      Those thermostats set back your basebaord heaters at night and then come on full capacity in the morning. They may be on at full capacity for several hours to re-warm the house to comfort levels. If you look at the daily status reports posted on the PUB website, for cold winter days, you can see the grid peak load ramp up about 400 MW, 100 or more of that due to those thermostats brings on all those heater at full load. So that is supplied by burning a lot of oil at Holyrood. It is likely that Holyrood adds about 20-25 % to our yearly power bill, so without that 10 cent rates might be 8 cents. Over 100 million a year for fuels costs plus the cost of the plant.
      Here is what I monitored for a R2000 house, at -17C: with that type of thermostat, the heaters kick in the morning reading 17.5 kw.
      If the heat is kept steady with no setback , the heater load is 12.5 kw
      If baseboard heaters are turned off and a minisplit used instead, with no setback , so on steady, the heat load is 3.7 kw.
      So the combination of baseboard heaters and setback is beyond stupid as to prudent operation of a power system and for least cost to customers. Not just power savings, but grid load reduction must be considered.
      Now for LED lights:
      The "interactive effect" shows that when you reduce energy for a light bulb, it gives out less heat. This heat must be replaced by your baseboard heater. This is true and factual whenever you are in the heating season ( so different for Florida). For Nfld, consultants for our power companies say we have about 7.2 months of heating needs, so 0.6 % of the year. This means that 60 % of the energy you think you save on the light is lost to extra heat needed on the heaters. In fact we about 10 months of heating need in a year,and actually a little heat needed in July and Aug. So in reality about 85% of the year we need heat That says the factor is about 0.85 not 0.6. This means that about 85 % of the energy saved is not saved, just transferred to the heater load. Is this deceptive or what, We are not as consumers informed of that.
      And not only for lights, but for efficient fridges, TVs , computer , most household loads, this ineractive effect applies. And this is clearly stated in the ICF EE report to the power company dated 2015.That repot cost average Joes about $300,000.00 all paid from our power bills.
      So that is largely the scam of the century pulled on consumers here. So, are we too green to burn to put up with nonsense?
      That is the sad part.
      Now the rebates from Costco comes from all consumers from their power bills, not from Costco nor the power company.
      So poor Stan, worth hundred of millions, taking advantage of the average Joe who is paying the shot for that, yet keeping the demand and energy sales artificially higher than need be.
      Now maybe Stan bought them for himself ,or for a family member of a neighbour, or for Halaween for Trick or Treat.
      So funny and sad.
      Maybe a stocking stuffer. Stan has a smile, I think , like the Grinch that stole Christmas. Lets hope the Grid stays up this winter and Liberty is wrong as to that risk, or we black out with those thermostats.
      Now would Stan explain why I am wrong in this?
      Winston Adams

    • Those in the power companies that provide those rebates on light bulbs at rate payers expense should have hundreds shoved up where the sun doesn't shine, until they start spitting light bulbs. Or at lease tell the consumer that they are providing their own rebate, and not Costco or Kent and others that offer those prices that the consumers are paying for themselves. Is this for real. Where is the brave fearless media on this subject. They should be front and center, at least informing the public. Because, it is this type of deception that brought us the muskrat boondoggle says Joe blow.

    • Our CDM program is about 5 million a year, all from ratepayers money, from our power bills. Of this about 1/3 goes to NFld Power for administrations and and salaries, about 1/3 for programs , talks to kids in school to save the environment etc, 1/3 for incentives to save energy. Ratios may be a bit different, but roughly. Now of the incentives some like insulation rebates save real energy , others like LED lights and thermostats , I have commented on. Much spent on TV ads, both NTV and CBS and the Telegram, and then on making the videos like the guys with sweaters on, and playing music to keep warm, and then the Scallywag cartoons. So rebates whether from Kents for insulation or Costco for bulbs, all from average Joe"s pocketbook, If I am wrong , someone call me out on it. We are misled with our own money from light bills.
      Normally the deals are cooked before ever reaching the PUB. The power companies and the CA gets together , and agrees with no PUB present. Then they report to the PUB that these matters are settled, nothing for the PUB to rule on as to CDM, so Joe that how it works, cut and dried before hand. And most benefit is to the power companies to keep revenues high and conservation low . Think Russell of the Telegram or Ashley will state the facts on that?

      The principle is sound , that ratepayers have a fund for conservation. But it also requires cost effective measures, , administration not too high, and transparency, to overall save meaningful for the customer and reduce our overall power costs including lower peak demand.
      So when done right it can cut demand by about 2 % a year. here we went instead for MFs and a make beleive o.8% a year load growth for 57 years. And it is not happening …there is a little factor called elasticity (hoops , Nalcor forgot that one, just a small error), and woods stoves and other things as you know ( that suck heat from the outside cold air) that people reduce power use,
      What we have here is a farce. NS reduces their peak demand about 40 MW per year from CDM . So the Media here profits from this sham , partners in crime maybe, well maybe would be a crime if another jurisdiction. But if not a crime, surely for a class action, I would think, but I leave it to lawyers to comment on that, and most are already engaged at the Inquiry , sitting on their butts, getting their share of the 30 million allocated for the Inquiry.

    • You are not wrong Winston about heat reallocation from lights fridges etc. That fact is irrelevant however . Bulbs produce photons, fridges cool food etc.

      The efficiency they provide is apart and irrelevant to the heat transfer to heaters like mini splits or wood stoves or baseboard heaters.
      You are technically correct but you are lost in the weeds and miss the point.

    • We can always depend on Bruno for technical insights and any subject! That the interactive effect is irrelevant, and he says I miss the point. So what is the point Bruno?
      In Nfld with a long heating season, most of the energy savings are not actually realised because they cause the need for more heat energy to compensate. However in Florida, LEDs etc save more than the expected energy. Not only is the 75% energy saved on the bulb energy, but because it produces less heat, it save additional energy on reduced air conditioning loads.
      So effectiveness is climate based. Do you disagree?
      So bulbs produce photons, and fridges cool food you say. Is there something new in that? Both run off electricity and also both produce heat, even the fridge.
      If you have any special insight, please explain it. The interactive effect is not a hard concept. For our climate it produces an illusion of lots of savings when it gives very little.
      Lets hear form engineers or others with some technical skill or average Joes should understand it.
      Best you stick to methyl mercury Bruno.I don't think I am lost in the weeds and miss the point. But I am open to arguments why I am wrong. You have presented no argument.
      Winston Adams

    • Outdoor LED lighting can save a few pennies. Indoor LED saves me a few pennies because I use minisplit heating. I tend to agree with Winston that electric resistance heat users save even less with LED indoor lighting. Regardless, the consequence of LED lighting in this province is negligible. The real point of this exchange should be that CDM programs in this province were deliberately impotent.
      An engineer.

    • Engineer @ 15:12 is correct. LED outdoor light save energy but little on indoor use. Take Charge says a typical house would have say 25 indoor compared to one outdoor.
      Regardless of space heat source, LEDs and more efficient fridges and TVs cause an increase in space heating needs, so for electric heated houses this increases baseboard heat use. For wood or oil space heat, you save some extra on your light energy, but again you must burn some more wood or oil to compensate. For minisplits, also you must compensate, but with 300% efficiecny, the synergy of LEDs etc and minisplits allows some additional benefit compared to baseboard heat and LEDs.
      On the finer points one can also look at the method of heat transfer, and extra heat loss from baseboard heaters through the windows, and a high ceiling temperature, so that an accurate end-use testing should show that the interactive effect is actually worse then that calculated from the length of the heating season, when that is also considered. So,here the power companies avoid end -use analysis, even for MFs!(despite electric space heat was the rationale for the need for more power generation)
      As Anon says, "the real point should be that CDM programs in this province were DELIBERATELY ignored.
      CDM should not be a mugs game as Tor suggests in his comment below. Proper CDM should be evidence based as to cost effectiveness and measures used which are meaningful for customer savings. Most jurisdictions with arms length Efficincy Corporations that are well run and transparent produce good results and large reduction in energy use and grid peak demand reductions. When will we ever see EFFICIENCY NL , run like EFFICIENCY NS, EFFICIENCY VERMONT etc? If ever established here it must not be run by crony directors with no competence in energy efficiency.
      Winston Adams

    • You are lost in the tall grass again Winston.

      Efficient lights produce economic photons, heat pumps (fridges, mini splits) remove heat efficiently. The more efficient the less heat byproduct but that has nothing to do with photons or heat extracted etc. delivered. One uses led lights because they produce the most photons per watt. The heat issue is irrelevant.

      I also quibble on your 10 months of wasted surplus heat hypothesis. The "shoulder" 4 months either side of Dec-Mar the surplus heat is minimal.

    • You claim a 8 month heating season for Nfld. I have monitored and show not insignificant heat requirement for 9 months, and some heat for the other 3 months. Do you want the monthly figures? Have you lived in Nfld, if so for how long , or whether the Avalon in particular.
      You say more efficient the less heat by product, true for a light and for the motors for the heatpump.
      You also say the more efficient has nothing to do with the heat extracted or delivered by a heat pump? WRONG You say I must be lost in the tall grass. Better than smoking weed or grass. I tried it once for a pain issue, and I was off kilter for hours.
      Lets see. A COP (coefficient of performance of 2 for a HP means 1 watt of electricity energy in gives 2 watts of heat out.
      A more efficient unit with a COP of 3 means 1 watt in gives 3 watts of heat out.
      So how can you say efficiency has nothing to do with heat extraction or delivered?
      Yes LED light produce more photons per watt. So what?
      So they save energy on your light energy. But do they save significant energy on your power bill when using baseboard heat? That is the question. If you monitor each load individually you will see your light energy consumption go down , but your heat energy consumption go up.
      You can agree or disagree. If you agree , the question is to what extent does your heat energy load increase. If you say 8 months with significant heat load, then it suggests 67% of your expected saving is not there, it is just transferred to your heaters, even by your length of heating season.
      You say the heat issue is irrelevant. Maybe the power companies here will give you a job with Take Charge. They are rated second worst in the country for conservation, so you fit the profile?
      If there is no saving at all on the total power bill , which is also possible, so you get just as many photos from the old Edison bulb. But if you look at the length of life, the LED is much better, thought more expensive, but less replacements. So , I use them . But not for substantial energy savings on your power bill.
      And for outdoor use and for warm climates, as mentioned , they are a marvelous invention. So the saving on the monthly and yearly power bill IS very much climate related. Do you even disagree with that? If so, you are just disagreeable for the sake of it, or lack understanding.
      So grass in Nfld is generally not very long, and being 5ft in, never got loss yet. But with climate change , maybe we will get 6 ft grass, or they grow it now in the hothouses, where I do not go.

    • Like I said you are deep in the weeds!

      The point of a LED light is producing PHOTONS. Efficiency must be measured in how much light/watt produced not how much displaced heat is produced.

      Lift up your head and see the big picture.

    • Bruno, The point of LED lights is better efficiency at producing photons, which results in less heat produced than the Edison light. So yes less watts needed.
      With less heat with these LEDs, this is a boon for warm climates where heat is a problem : makes a house too warm, and also makes a need for air conditioning to take away that heat. So the LED saves both ways.
      In a norhern climate, like Nfld, the Edison light produced photons but also a lot of heat. Lets say for a 100 w bulb , 25 watts for photons production, and 75 watts for excess heat, as the design is over 100 year old and inefficient.
      So if a room needs 1000 watts to meet the desired temperature, only 925 is needed from the baseboard heater, since the bulb gives 75 watts. But when you use the LED, you don't get that 75 watts of heat , so it must come from the heater.
      Now Bruno, a little arithmetic : if you replace 25 such bulbs in a house, 25 times 75 watts = 1875 watts of heat you transfer extra to your baseboard heater. That is not chicken feed, as energy goes. You claim that displaced heat is meaningless. Now for 8 month heating season, gives 67% of the expected saving from your LED is transferred to the baseboard heater. That is equal to 1256 watts on steady, so 1.256 kw. At 10 cent power rate, that is $3.01 a day, if for 24 hrs a day. If for light is on 6 hrs a day, the transfer is less, , so 1/4 of the time, so just 75 cents a day. For a year, 365 days, is $273.75 you thought you were saving on LED energy , but just transferred to to your heat load.
      As you live in Cape Breton., and burns wood , I think , you must use the equivalent in energy in extra wood burned. ( if you wish to make that case)
      Now that is a simple as I can make it for you. Why can you not see that?
      There is a saint, Christopher maybe, the one for lost causes, that might help you, but that is not your faith?
      The problem may be not that I am lost deep in the weeds, but you maybe with a foggy brain, from high on the WEED. I recall you were a John Lennon fan.
      Now if I am wrong, which may be possible, and someone with some knowledge calls me out on it here, then I am sorry if I so insult your intelligence. If you are wrong, for F… sake, cut back on that WEED, Bruno.

    • Dear Winston, What you are trying to produce is LIGHT not HEAT!

      Your gymnastics is to convince me of a point I conceded the first time you raised it but it remains irrelevant to the issue of efficiency in producing PHOTONS or ELECTRICAL ENERGY.

      It is as though you are a dog with a bone you will not let go of regardless how beside the point your heat transference even from dinosaur incandesants is, it seems. Because you can calculate it does not make it relevant.

      I don't know how many times I can say I get your point but it is irrelevant to efficient PHOTON production.

    • Photon production is your POINT Bruno, not mine
      Mine is that such measures for conservation in a northern climate saves very little energy. Incentives are being given (funded from our power bills) for this as a conservation measure here, and for power savings on your power bill.
      If it applied to only LEDs is bad enough, but such interactive effect which gives little meaningful savings in northern climates applie also to more efficient refrigerators, deep freezers, TVs , computers and other items. So incentives for these has the same poor result.
      However incentives for insulation, triple glaze windows , HPs , air sealing and other measures saves large amount of energy.
      So you twist the argument about photon production. That is your argument. Who goes to Costco inquiring about photons? They are there because the label says LEDs save 75 % on energy, which is true in southern climates, except in northern climates it transfers that energy to needing more heat, and so saves only 10-15%, or less , instead of 75 % expected.
      So you do well to promote the misuse of conservation funds to promote a myth as to energy saving here. And you twist the point of whether savings are real or imaginary on the power bill to your point efficient photon production.
      Too clever by half, your trick Bruno. I think most see what you try to do. You just can't acknowledge when you are wrong. Sad for someone who offers himself as an environmentalist, or concern for the environment.

    • Indeed Bruno, your trick aligns with that of Nalcor and MHI to make MFs least cost. They used many such tricks, with improper use of our good wind resource, false forecasting, P50, P1, no elasticity, the list goes on. So your trick fits the bill, so they can neuter meaningful CDM.

  12. "Muskrat Falls site workers will get paid": Premier Dwight Ball

    We all know what that means, don't we.

    It means the NL government is going to be reaching ever deeper into taxpayers' pockets to pay for that bloody fiasco in the Labrador wilds.

    It is beyond the capability of these imbeciles and their appointed cronies to deliver responsible government.

    This province desperately needs commission of government and these inept buggers and dodgy culprits purged from office…


    • Seamus/Ball run a re-election make work project, paid for by the voters. Nothing much new about this. Same as the Site C, TMX, LNG. …. Proportional Representation should be on your next ballot. Hold Tory/Libs in check. Avoid majority government.

    • That's exactly right, deprive these parasitic skeets of their taxpayer-funded pensions by voting ABI, ANYTHING BUT THE INCUMBENT.

      New Brunswick voters are on the right track, they're fed up with being victimized by these scammer politicians over there.

      Sam Clemens said it best… "Politicians are like diapers… they need to be changed often, and for the same reason."

  13. Let’s see now.
    If we try to save electricity use we are fooling ourselves.
    Damn, I spent a boodle on the new thermostats.
    I replaced the baseboard heaters with wall mounted heaters, another waste of money, but they look good.
    I got all LED bulbs, energy star appliances, and I turn off lights when not in a room, close doors obsessively to isolate rooms from one another, all because I figure it is worth it, not because the utility promotes it.
    Winston tells me I am in a mugs game.
    I study my consumption, not my cost for electricity. In my former home I could manage my month by month load easily and on target, some really cold winter months went maybe 20 percent over previous but overall annual usage was fairly consistent over forty years.

    If you are not cognizant of your consumption you are making serious errors, of course, when the rate changes, I too will be dinged, but I have some certainty that my use will be under control.

    I am now in a condo, no wood stoves, no heat pumps allowed, so my continued control over usage is even more important. Sweaters, socks, feathers on the bed, insulating curtains and blinds, and frugal management of electricity use are essential for everybody once the rates start to climb.

    We mostly came from oil and wood ranges, space heaters, and the odd fireplace houses, it was cold in the morning and cold at night. Welcome back to the 1950’s everyone!

    • Tor, see comment above whether a mugs game. And, we are only fooling ourselves to save on electricity if we ignore evidence based information on what saves significant energy and what saves little. Buyer Beware. Or "Trust but verify " the old Russian proverb applies. Can we trust our power compaies, Nalcor , nfld Hydro , Nfld Power , Fortis? The answer is NO. I have a family member with some shares in Fortis that I recommend to hold, but call them out when appropriate. Sad to see them mislead the public as they do.
      Here a suggestion. email them, ask about the interactive effect. Refer to my comment on UG. Ask them to respond whether it is true or false. Post the result on UG

    • Winston: Appeciate your responses. I am on side with most of them. Examples. I schooled my children to not pay attention in our northern climate to the business of LEDs instead of Edison’s electric light bulb. Why? I saw too many basement (below grade) level rooms in houses supplied by electric baseboard heaters where there was obvious evidence of mould. Not enough convection. No sufficient air and heat passing through static surfaces. Air flow ( as in mini-splits), together with efficiency, is what I saw widespread while searching for a new location in BC in 2015-16. It was either mini-splits or natural gas (largely available) on the Island as well as Interior BC that we saw. As a matter of fact, our standard spec while looking was no electric baseboard heat (the most expensive). From 2008-16, we had a sub- penthouse 1100+ sq. ft dwelling in metro Vancouver, for which our annual electric cost throughout those years were $600-700. Three baseboard electric heaters on the building envelop kept us warm. That was 20+ stories up. The condo (260 unit complex) was concrete and completed in 2008. I believe we think together on dwelling heat efficiency. My garage and lower levels have only incandescents to help drive the humidity out! FLW.