NEEDLES IN HAYSTACKS AN ON-GOING ACCOUNTABILITY PROBLEM

100% agree.
Danny himself continued to flog them in the media room at the end of the day as reported by CBC online, demonstrating just what a petty vindictive little man he is. Doesn't he realize by now that he was wrong to promote this project and Dave and Ron were right to oppose it? Cementing his legacy alright.

By the fall of 2011, I had written several letters to The Telegram and had been invited to meet with Nalcor on 17 November 2011.

By then I had also become aware that Peat Resources Ltd. was a reported clean energy company with rights to hundreds of thousands of hectares of peat lands in Newfoundland.

Below is a relevant portion of my contemporaneous 18 November, 2011 email summary of that meeting (which was also attended by Mr. Vardy and MUN's Mike Clair):–

QUOTE:–

"…my discussions with Nalcor Energy yesterday concerning the Muskrat Falls hydro-power project centred mostly on Nalcor's load and demand forecasting methodology, I raised the issue of peat not having been assessed as a possible low cost option for domestic power generation.

I pointed out that while Nalcor's Final Submission states that its mandate is derived from the province's Electrical Power Control Act (EPCA) as well as the province's Energy Plan, and that since the Energy Plan lists peat as one of the province's key undeveloped energy resources (1.4 billion cubic metres), why wasn't peat fuel assessed to see if it would be (as the EPCA requires) the 'lowest possible cost' power option.

In summary, Nalcor made a number of arguments —- that peat is not biomass, not really renewable, then Nalcor took the position that they did indeed review peat, and that provincial studies dating back to the 1990's did not show peat as being viable.

Of course, I countered each of these positions based on my own somewhat limited knowledge (I referenced your success with Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, pointed out that their screening out of biomass as a possible source for domestic power generation only included 'forest' biomass and not peat, that Peat Resources has produced power in Ontario for 8 cents/KWh, that peat is renewable, and that 1990's peat studies is not an appropriate basis on which to bypass the need for a more thorough and recent assessment of the technical and economic feasibility of using peat fuel for domestic power generation." UNQUOTE

As a result of a recent internet search, below is a Peat Resources Ltd.'s Winter 2011 Update —- published March 1, 2011:–

"The Company continues to be active mainly in two provinces, Ontario and Newfoundland, where it holds rights to large fuel-grade peat deposits. In recent months, the Company has made important progress in its relations with governments and potential customers in these regions of Canada. In 2010, Company representatives met with then-Premier Danny Williams and other senior members of the Newfoundland government to review our proposals for development of a peat fuel industry. The Newfoundland Minister of Business and his senior staff also visited our Stephenville peat harvesting and processing facility. It was recommended that, in order to fully explore financial and other support from provincial and federal-provincial agencies, the Company should prepare a comprehensive business plan. Accordingly, a business plan (based on initial establishment of a 200,000 tonne per year peat fuel production facility in western Newfoundland) was submitted to the Newfoundland Department of Business on February 3, 2011."

Notwithstanding the above, I could find no reference in Nalcor's final PUB submission (nor any reference in the Grant Thornton forensic audit report) to the word "peat", even though a business plan for a peat fuel production facility was apparently submitted “on February 3, 2011”, and in May, 2011 Peat Resources advised that "Newfoundland has very large peat resources and this was recognized in the provincial government's 2007 Energy Plan. We believe that the resources are large enough to support production of up to 5 million tonnes of peat fuel pellets per year".

Where is the review and analyses for 1.4 billion cubic meters of peat resources identified as "proposed" in the 2007 Energy Plan?

I thought the whole performance by Tommy Williams loosely paraphrased "why isn't Des Sullivan on the stand with David and Ron" because I want to throw rocks at him was pathetic, as well as the useless line of questioning about whether Andy Wells and Dave were a couple, shared numbers or hooked up for dinner. I have no idea where that line of question was headed. The judge fortunately had no use for this cr_p and cut Tom off after several minutes of cringe worthy badgering.

Hear, Hear.
Keith

Well said Tor. The words of Margaret Mead about " a few good people", come to mind. All the more important that the public and electors understand what is the "common good", and how in a democracy it is our civic right and duty to be heard. Despite the clumsy personal attacks of those in power. "Truth to power".

I have never seen a pettier human being, let alone a public figure, than that one.

Never.

Actual quote;

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.

Thank you David, Ron and Des. The MFCCC is but one good example of Margaret's wise counsel.

Yes and so ironic that those who can afford mini-splits are the same folks govNL will tax the be-jesus out of by pillaging their left pocket while "going easy" on their right pocket with the above scheme.

It depends on what the meaning of WASTE means.
My minisplit now installed almost 8 years is paid off already and heats 1000 sq ft for 313.00 + tax at rates of 10 cents. If rates go to 5 cents, my heating reduces further by more than 100 dollar more saving. Have I wasted my money?
But it does make the case for new units less economic. But some buy them for summer air conditioning also, which baseboard heat cannot do.Then there is environmental issues and that favours using less energy even if cheap.
So what is your definition of waste?
Winston

Winston, only a very few early adopters like you can make the claim of payback earned. I got some minisplits already and might now only see only half my investment recouped. Think of the average folks who simply see it as a strategic investment to save on their power bills. That is the only benefit that matters. They have no idea how the 2 rate system will hit them. Levy Payer got it right. The middle class who are jumping in on this before the big rate jump are going to lose their minds over this if they end up losing thousands on a bad investment because the government wouldn't be up front about what they are going to do. I know it now and I'm pissed. People putting these in right now need to know this. Surely there are CBC, Vocm, Telegram reporters who read this blog that need to jump on this issue now and make government and nalcor start telling us the real plan so thousands of people don't blow their precious savings on something they'll regret.

Not only that, but I suspect there's a local heat pump cartel already well-established in NL and ripping off the unwary. I know personally of a business-person in the Moncton NB area who had two… that's TWO… MSHP units installed for the same price that the local heat pump cartels are charging for the price of one unit installed.

Caveat emptor…

Anon, @ 13;41, 20;29, you bore with he same words. Read my reply below at 17:59
Get your friends in NB to set up here and give the bargain to people here. I suspect there is monsters in your closet too.
And I know where you can get 3 for the price of 1, and in China a car load for peanuts.
WA

Why all the hostility Winston?

It's simply the reality of the situation.

Your self-denial changes nothing.

As mentioned before, you can buy a cheap car or a high quality one.
If you don't define the make and capacity and if Cold Climate type for operating at -15C with about COP of 3, then your comment is meaningless, and show your ignorance to minisplits.
It shows how easily how some may be duped to buying poor quality. Some may overcharge, it is possible, but your story means nothing. Take Charge don't promote Cold Climate units so poor quality and inferior energy savings. Research some and make sensible statements. If 20,000 Btu rated nominal and COP of close to 3 at -15 C, then you are not likely to get one installed less than 4000.00 and may be more. If much more then shop around. And get references for their work if high quality, as not all installers are good. Ask for charts showing performance at -15 C, if not available , don't use it.
What Am I denying, that there are HP cartels price fixing? If so report them to the police. I don't supply or install so no axe to grind, and best advise; avoid low quality units or installers.
If you know cartel ripping off , name the companies and what they charge, and models etc.,
WA

Go way with ya and your tiresome pedantics for chrissakes…. this individual is a business-person who researches his/her investments.

You think this business-person might've wasted his/her money on a piece of junk not up to the requirements of functioning in a northern climate like the snow-belts of NB?

Don't be so naive… I still say there's a bloody heat pump cartel at play here in NL, just like everything else in this godforsaken shithole.

Yep , the HP cartel here just like the business people running Nalcor, and Nfld power with captive markets.
So where is your data I asked about?
Guess we take your word. Your Anon word.
WA

Don't forget that a heat pump also provides air cooling and dehumidification in the summer. Even if the savings are small (50% reduction in the use of dirt cheap power) it is a nice luxury. In past years, installers didn't get busy until the first heat wave of the summer.

I know one residence that has 3 units , 6 heads, one in the garage. But now wants to add one more unit to serve the main upstairs bedroom, as the missus gets hot flashes and too warm to sleep in the summer. Maybe a minor issue for men, but not for women. And it adds adds to summer loads which is good

"Shithole", last time I heard that, was trump calling all African nations. Can't be trump because he is proud to take credit for all his tweets and comments. So why don't you get out of this shithole, lots of room elsewhere for you.

You may recall my prior reference to Davy Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier, and the Alamo.
Barbara is also from Tennessee, as was Crockett. I was very impressed with her testimony and knowledge and passion for Labrador and it's people and culture, and concern of damage already done and high risks that exist. Hearing her speak of paddling the Grand River,and coming from Tennessee, I thought of her as maybe Queen of the Wild Frontier. Very impressive and sobering testimony of the mockery of justice this whole Muskrat project has been.
Winston Adams

Let there be no doubt that colonial attitudes and governance, (which brought about Muskrat and other related actions), will remain intact in Canada, for years to come;

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tasker-indigenous-rights-consultation-parliament-1.4858321

Winston you have a most venomous anger going on here in this thread. Maybe you can't see it but your better wisdom should tell you to cool it down.

I suggest you try to see the issue from a less sophisticated ordinary person's perspective. People should be rightfully frustrated by a policy act that is purely designed to frustrate them. Does it really help matters to insult them?

You are right anon, I display some anger , maybe, but it was aimed at anon at Oct 11 @ 14:31 , who suggested the media warn to average folks to avoid HPs, and I took the reference as average Joes, and as I have said our usual AJ here on this blog is a cut above the average joes. Maybe most average joes, small j should get better informed and be AJs, with a capital J.
That anon repeated refers to NB and th elow cost units there and fails to give any credible info.
I can tell you , NB Power intended to sell minisplits directly to their customers and the HP installers objected , that it was unfair competition , and NB Power backed off. So if anywhere there was a cartel of HP installers, it was there, not not really a cartel, just protecting their turf. But power companies could buy in buy in bulk and undersell 10 -20 %. So much for his loony story. Probably a scallywag power company employee.
WA

Don't forget to factor a 10 % property tax increase into your 2019 Budget.
The new 2019 assessments are out and it appears there has been a 10 % increase in assessed property values.
A backhanded way to take what little is left of our disposable incomes.

My colleagues in the confederations building all thought there were going to be major cutbacks after the last election but nothing happened. I can only assume that they rapidly realized that spending = votes and cutbacks <> votes. So, the sociopaths choose personal gain and increased probability of re-election over the good of society and the people they pretend to represent. We need to find a way to get good people elected.

I believe nobody will fix the mess until we become insolvent and the federal government steps in and sets the conditions for a bail out.

Have heard rumours, that bearing on large rotating equipment, possibly the condensers. Were not maintain properly while sittings in a building for an extended period of time awaiting commissioning. Witch would lead to serious issues and lengthy repairs.

How close are we from start up and trial run? What is the status of substantial performance certification? What is current Cost to Complete, including commissioning? Stan? Dwight? Anyone?

Let's keep the Shadow Inquiry up to date.

First para. should have read "…agree that the MF PPA method or the cost of service method USED to determine…" etc.

It seems that the Commission co-counsel, and the consumer and citizens's advocates took little if any advantage of their opportunity to relate Philip Raphaels' evidence (the importance and potential application of integrated resource management to Nalcor's linear/top-down project planning and island options analyses).

It seems to me that this issue relates in no small part to the inquiry’s determination or standard of "reasonableness" and to whether it was available, "known" or not "known at the time".

For example, the principle underlying the more horizontal/rational/bottom-up 'integrated resource management' approach (as opposed to a linear/top-down planning methodology) has been around for a long time (I recall first outlining/proposing a rational/integrated project planning approach to Coast Guard's 1984 Capital Investment Strategy/Plan, approx. a $1 million study for its national vessel traffic services directorate).

In 1995, I expanded on that 'rational/integrated' approach when Coast Guard was seeking to develop a new management structure for its multi-disciplined regional operations centre in St. John’s (and such an integrated structure was whole-heartedly adopted).

And around 2011 I argued with Gilbert Bennett for Nalcor to utilize such an approach, and in 2012 I generally outlined on my vision2041.com website (DEMAND page – graphics, a little more than half way down) such a similar, integrated planning approach, an approach that should have been used for Nalcor's project planning (real/collaborative options analyses instead of its linear, top-down, single-minded approach).

The prior existence and application of an integrated planning approach speaks to "what" was knowable to Nalcor 'at the time', and the very description of such an approach as a "rational" project planning approach speaks to what the Commissioner might judge and determine as "reasonable".

Regrettably, it seems that the availability/suitability/benefits, potential use of a more rational planning approach was not well inquired into during yesterday's and today's hearings.

And I cannot understand why.

I was also impressed with his emphasis on "maintaining your options", when choosing options in changing energy technologies. There appears to have been at the outset an urgency towards "build it, and trust to the chance that the long term forecast , (guess) may turn out". This has not turned out well. Best option today? Restore the natural river, preserve the generation plant for possible long term needs, go to best Avalon renewable and conservation options.

I couldn't watch everything but I thought Raphals demonstrated his arguments so concisely, including with the Nalcor lawyer, that the extra info you wish to have had covered might be simply too repetitive.

I think this was a tremendous week for all us naysayers and the Commissioner will be hard pressed to ignore the many criticisms that were so clearly made pre sanction. Danny and Tommy doing their arrogant BS act was just the icing on the cake. I suggest we raise a beer this evening to some excellent efforts made by some very credible witnesses!

The fact that Simmons (Nalcor's lawyer) was the one who (it seems) brought out an understanding and the importance of IRP, kind of proves my point. NO?

What no one did was to link what was brought out to the availability, therefore the "reasonableness"/knowability of IRP.

Counsels other than Simmons had the opportunity and I would suggest should have taken advantage of Simmons's work and built on it, especially explaining even further and linking it to the commission's standard of what was or was not 'reasonable' and 'knowable'.

Those effectively are 'get out of jail free' cards that counsel had the opportunity (and should have) closed the gate on.

Maurice you are vindicated. Very good analysis. Thanks and keep us informed.

Yes, have to say seems nalcor has the best or maticulous and professional lawyer there, so far. Have to call them as I see them. Not sure if it is always to Nalcor's advantage. Of course we can't go back in time, but certainly the kind of discussions that should have occurred before sanction. And no doubt that's what MA is saying. But the political masters of the day, and others did not want to hear it, or allow it. As others have said, full speed ahead, and dam the torpedoes, or don't confuse me with the facts, I have already made up my mind. Cheers, Joe blow.

Could comment on many other parts of the evidence, examination and and cross examination, but difficult to do so without missing parts of what is being said (and not said).

All in all, much good evidence being put forth that will be hard for the inquiry to dismiss or devalue.

Much is, indeed, what the naysayers/bottom feeders have known for years and years, but is now being validated and more clearly expounded on and helpful to the general public.

Still, I would expect, more to come.

I have been side tracked from the Inquiry due to cancer treatment analysis : whether chemo would be successful….. now 1 year into this challenge.
A year ago we were told that chemo would have a 75 % chance of reducing a tumor, tp permit surgery , which was the cure. But later a oncologist said this may be less tan 50 % change that chemo would even work. But with stage 4 colon cancer and only 10-15 % chance of a cure, even 50 % chance that chemo would work was not that bad. For this infusion chemo, with toxic drugs going direct to my wife's blood stream over 48 hrs, every 2 weeks, it was rather stressful. I was trained to put on a full protective suit and face mask , like you see in Africa with ebola outbreaks. That was in case of a spill of the bottle strapped to her side holding this liquid drug. That was to protect me while doing a clean up if the plastic tube leaked, or the tape holding the tube to the artery came loose causing a spill. Bed closes was to be washed separately, due to toxins from sweat. The toilet after use was to be flushed twice , due to toxins in the pee. Most of this to protect me, so what of her , with this going direct to her blood stream? Side effects can be harsh , and they were. Of 8 rounds of chemo planned , after 3 rounds of chemo a blood clot and hospitalized for 10 days. Then a change of chemo, 2 rounds, hospitalized again with bowel blockage and emergency operation. Cancer removed from the bowel , and 6 lymph nodes. The main problen, a 2 inch cancer tumor in the liver remained. The chemo had worked earlier for significant reduction of that tumor from over 2 in to 1.4 inch, but all in vain, due to those complications. Eventually in early June a successful operation and that tumor, now enlarged to 3 inch size was removed, along with 60 % of the liver, by the skilled Dr Hogan, who had successfully removed the other cancer tumors. It seems 99% sure that all cancer was removed. But after a CT scan 6 weeks later,it showed another new 3/4 inch cancer tumor in the liver in the remaining left lobe.
More chemo was started 8 weeks ago, 4 rounds now completed, being necessary to not only reduce the tumor, but shrink it from the main left portal vein to permit surgery. 2 weeks ago we found that DNA testing showed this little sucker had a mutation,and had turned more aggressive. So would chemo even work, and to what extent?
The scan as done Wed Oct 10, and the result obtained yesterday afternoon. Needless to say , missed some of the Inquiry testimony, communicating with the Cancer care Navigator here, Corrine , assisting me to get the results, likely before the doctor saw them.
I made a prediction to her via email: the tumor, I predicted, would reduce from 1 in diameter to o.5 inch. I opened the sealed envelope with dread and hope.
The report gave the new measurement : 1.6 CM x 1. 2 cm.
I mentally averaged these as 1.4 CM , to see it was about half the previous diameter. I knew the area and volume would show even better.
Later at home I calculated the reduction was down to 0.55 inch, a 45 % reduction, but a 70 % reduction in area, and the volume, if a sphere , would be even better, down by 83 %.
I have learned a little about cancer and tumor reduction this past year. This the best news for success in some time, and can and let me do some catch up on the Inquiry. I have never doubted a successful outcome for defeating this stage 4 colon cancer, and seems success is around the corner. My wife walks the road of Logy bay Middle Cove, 1.5 hrs typical, so far from bedridden. But not all over yet.
Winston Adams

Maurice it was apparent by 2011 hat Gil had his marching orders, ignore the facts Friday, MF is the least cost option. No logic, industry best practices, or threat of spur failure would deter Nalcor.

Those that looked at the facts soon saw the truth, there was no need for power to do until 2041 with modest conservation and competent maintenance that Manitoba Hydro had repeatedly advised (and were ignored).

MF was clearly driven by the politics, not any urgent need for energy.

Hi Winston,

No one is perfect and no one should be called by any other name than his own. You are not a pedantic, nor a newfie and even if you are member of a professional order like myself where members are designated as engineers, you are Winston Adam more and before anything else.

As one of the most active members on the blog, you must be aware that that makes you one of the leaders in the community. So as a leader, you have to be fully aware of the consequences of your words and actions on the ones following you.

You repeated for so long to everyone that they should go for some sort of heat pump well after it was clear that Newfoundlanders would end up paying in any way. You were unable or unwilling to understand the difference between higher efficiency, investment and socio-economic reality. Despite many tried to tell you, you rejected all naysayers and kept heading head down to your goal. And now, with the 2 stages decreasing rate, your idea is defeated.

What is the difference between your situation and Danny Williams's obsession for MF ? Both of you ended up in positions of leaders. He was elected and you were not, but still two leaders. He designed a complete strategy based on his limited understanding of the complete situation. So you did. He followed his idea despite all the naysayers. So you did.

He actually spent every Newfoundlanders' money while you only wish the government would do so / that others would do it themselves based on your words. But should you have been in a position to sign the ultimate check, few here doubt that you would have.

Your had a better sense then him and your plan would not have ended above 12 billions in debt, but other than the scale, just realize that you did basically the same as him.

I will finish by repeating you something I told you a million time already : efficiency would have been a great way to answer Newfoundland's needs before MF. Once the Take-Or-Pay contract is neutralized by a bailout / bankruptcy or similar, efficiency will return to a great plan. But until that time, efficiency is not and can not be the solution to MF.

Nice to talk with you,

You do a good job as a reporter too, Winston. Much better than the brave fearless media. And if you could get access to the judges notes, I suspect they would be very similar to yours. Yes no doubt the MRF (MuskRat Fodder) has attacked the real nl experts, those that have exposed the silly lagecy gone all wrong. But wants to salvage as much as he can. He says our power rates won't double, so why doesn't he tell us how we are going to pay for it. The oil revenues is our bread and butter, can't spend that same dollar twice. But no doubt that was his plan from the beginning, take the oil money at 200 $ a barrel and pay for muskrat, regardless of the cost. Another silly, gamblers dream, that oil will go to 200$ a barel in today's dollars. Fewer of the real average joes and janes will be fooled this time. Everyone will turn on him, when the judge's report finally comes out. Cheers, Joe blow.

Joe, my attempt to get a Washington Post reporter here has failed. To be honest I don't have much clout with them right now, as they have bigger fish to fry. And they see us as an Arctic climate here, though I explained that our igloos are large and now heated with baseboard heat to respectable temperatures. I explained we tried to maintain at least 28 F in the past, but now aiming for 31 F, due to an expected 2 tier rate, with rates dropping to 5 cents to keep up the demand for MFs. I have to use F temperatures with these Yanks, as they still have not adopted Trudeau metric whim of the 1960s. They ask why we do not heat our igloos to 72 F, and so I have to explain the transformation of H2O from solid to liquid at 32F. On technical details they are really not that bright. But in the end, they were not impressed with the housing comfort levels here, and asking for 3 sweaters if they were to come.
But they are real diggers for truth in journalism, if you can get their attention.
They explained their attention now is on Vision 2030, so they though Vision 2041 here was small potatoes, despite my suggestion that Vision 2041 has high significance, and actually warms their butts is the USA north east.
So we may have to make do with our Telegram reporters, who seem to be sharpening their pencils these days, if you have noticed. I will keep you posted Joe.
Winston

MA @ 14:56:

Clause 4a(ii) of the ToR requires an assessment of whether other options were reasonably dismissed.

Even if 4a(ii) wasn't there, 4a(iii) is the defining clause – it requires an assessment of whether of not MF/interconnected being least cost was reasonable at the time.

Clause 4 of the ToR, along with Article 4.13 of the FLG will govern how MF is assessed. Articles 4.3 and 4.4 (among some others) then clearly define default consequences.

Not sure why many here haven't commented on these clauses – i have posted this multiple times.

PENG2

4a(ii) applies to whether:–

"Nalcor considered and reasonably dismissed options other than the Muskrat Falls Project and the Isolated Island Option"

and clearly, if they considered and reasonably dismissed more than one option (such as gas, biomass, etc. then that meets the "other than ….." requirement. There could be 6 or 10 variations of the 'isolated island' option that the commission would not be required to assess, for example.

section iii applies only to the interconnected option, and only then if it 'reasonable' with the knowledge available at the time.

There is no positive duty for the commission to assess —- even ALL "REASONABLE" OPTIONS.

There is a logical flaw in section 4 that Leblanc should have had changed (e.g. the premise ASSUMES that Nalcor recommended sanction because it was so "informed" by the options that it considered.

Where is the proof of that? That is an assumption based on an unproven proposition.

MA @ 18:05:

You need to read closer – subsections i, ii and iii are 'and' connected statements, so 4a(iii) is interpreted as was 'MF reasonable considering other options' (ie considering the effects of 4a (i) and 4a(ii)); the 'and' at the end of 4a(ii) is the positive connection you are ignoring.

Having said that, again 4a(iii) is all that is needed – it is a positive direction to assess whether MF sanction was reasonable with the knowledge at the time (and knowledge includes long-term financial affects of other options).

Your natural bias against MF is affecting your interpretation and making you believe it is more limiting that is written..

PENG2

You misquote and therefore misinterpret section 4a (iii).

You attribute too much to the "and", and

And 'reasonable' is a low bar to meet.

The term reasonable is a generic and relative one and applies to that which is appropriate for a particular situation.

In the law of Negligence, the reasonable person standard is the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would observe under a given set of circumstances. An individual who subscribes to such standards can avoid liability for negligence. Similarly a reasonable act is that which might fairly and properly be required of an individual.

MA @ 18:48:

No misquote or misinterpretation of 4a(iii), and my inference of what 'and' means is 100% correct – connection of sub-clauses, plain language in that interconnected (in any form) was assessed against other options.

Under legalese a 'reasonably prudent' person is interpreted as a reasonably competent person of a profession – ie Engineer, Lawyer, Accountant etc. In cases of Professional review, a panel of like qualified persons review the work to determine 'reasonableness' – and that is being done (see Clause 8 of the ToR and consider Grant Thorton, Helios among others to come as examples)

Noone will assess the sanction of MF at the Inquiry and expect 'a neighbour' to really understand the impacts. You need to look beyond the 1st Google definition.

At end of the day, DB gave a broad ToR because politically he wanted to pin this on the PCs – LeBlanc has lots of rope 'if' he decides to use it. it makes no sense to think that DB would limit the ToR such that the PCs could get a pass – and the crosses by TW show that.

PENG2

IMPRESSIONS ON THE TELEGRAM:
Pam quotes Dunderdale's speech from Oct , 2012:
"Tell us where our analysis is flawed; tell us where the gaps are; Tell us where Nalcor is wrong; Tell us where Dr Wade Locke is wrong; Show us something. One shred. One piece of evidence. One experts's analysis. One. Show us one".
Pan says the onus, the burden of proof is not on the critics but whether the authority did due diligence. Yet…… she refers to the Editorial of Oct 10 (obviously written by Russell) : Numbers Game.
Russell twice references the philosopher Socrates. But he correctly zeros in on MHI, who largely backed up Nalcor, but with this caveat: "With the assumptions and inputs provided by Nalcor"
He says the missing link was whether those numbers and assumptions were ever questioned? Whether that failure was a crucial misstep by government that had convinced itself the project was the right one? Russell says the process of crunching identical numbers through the same formula : garbage in, garbage out.
And that Socrates might have said it better.
Now recall that Russell recently wrote, after the testimony of Stratton, that this was boring, nothing to see there folks. Forecasting is all about numbers. And Russell generally dislikes numbers, he has said so. I commented on that before.
Now Russell says this is a NUMBERS GAME.
Russell is right, it is a numbers game, and if you fudge the numbers you get what you want.
So, HOW WERE THE NUMBERS FUDGED? THAT IS THE QUESTION, PENG2 and MA, and Heracles , and Eric? Has the evidence been laid bare yet, in whole or in part? Did we need the power? Well the forecast showed it, so how was the forecast so wrong? Without that forecast, there would be no sanction. If this is not exposed then they get out of jail free.
Winston

MA:

also, the bar to show that Nalcor et al inappropriately gained sanction approval is very low – all that needs to be shown is that only 1 option was dismissed prematurely without due consideration. There is no need for LeBlanc to consider 'all' options.

If 1, 2, 3 or 500 options were prematurely dismissed, the result is the same.

PENG2

WA @ 19:09:

Correct, and this is where Article 4.13 of the FLG comes into play. I have not yet seen much of the critique of forecasting, and I see that as an issue.

If sanction is OKed, then everything Inquiry related is a waste of time – construction overruns happen and potentially be explained if it is accepted that appropriate risk management methodology was used.

PENG2

Ahhhh. You are all over the place PENG2.

My initial post on this subject raised only one point, that Pam erred in saying that Leblanc was essentially asked to inquire into whether Nalcor considered all options.

I took the position that the TOR does not direct the commission to inquire into all options (but that it requires the commission to inquire into only the options 'considered' by Nalcor and that 'informed' Nalcor's recommendation to sanction.

Now you essentially agree with me that "There is no need for LeBlanc to consider 'all' options."

Therefore, it follows, that if you are correct in that statement, that there is no need for LeBlanc to consider "all" options, then the TOR (as I said) does not direct the commission to consider "all" options.

Enough said on that PENG2.

What will be will be.

PENG2, we are on the same wave length, it seems, as to forecasting:
1. if forecasting was right,needing +o.8% growth, then Steve Bruneau's option, at 2 Billion I think capital cost and for gas fuel, likely rates would not exceed 15 cents instead of 24 cent power. If actual loads were lower as now happening, then less gas burned so rates would drop some , maybe to 14 cents.

2. If forecast was intentionally high at 0.8% per year, and instead ,inputs showed it would remain flat as most of North America has, then Holyrood thermal stays about 350 MW in the winter,and rare peak to 500MW. This needing to be offset by additional island hydro, more wind, and conservation with EE, and a little gas turbine fuel. An optimum combination would be to address that 350MW and rare peak of 500 MW thermal.

3. If the forecast was to decline for future loads and winter peak, then Holyrood thermal would be less than 350 MW average, and thermal peak less than 500 MW. To get that declining forecast requires a very bad economy or deliberate CDM, moderate to aggressive conservation with EE. In that situation, the amount of additional island hydro could be less than for option 2, and the amount of additional wind could be less than option 2. CDM and EE permits rates to increase some but power use to decline so yearly power bill may remain stable.

Wind can be brought on in about 18 months, island hydro about 3 years, and conservation starting in year 1, ramped up and to last for 10 years. But all 3 progressing at the same time.
Island hydro could include additional generation at Bay d Espoir and Cat arm, to help meet winter cold snaps, so limits the thermal surge at Holyrood now needed for this.

These various options were available, and +0.8% could have been avoided.

You have to discard reasonable options and fudge the numbers to assure the 0.8 % and then go with MFs to meet that load.

A close examination of the forecasting and supply options will expose the false assumptions, I strongly feel.

My number of 1.7 billion for island hydro and moderate wind addition plus CDM to give no increase in yearly power bills for electic heated houses (with 300% efficient space heat), if not far off, a detail analysis should show it,(could show it in 2012 or now) would you agree?
And if so, why was the analysis not done?
And the analysis that was done was tailored to the result desired, this can be shown by the Numbers Game, as Russell says.

Winston

Yes, and once sanction is oked , all other negative effects, the North Spur, methyl mercury,reliability, etc while drastic, it is, like on the Simpsons, with sideshow Bob, they are all sideshows taking up tremendous Inquiry time, but not the root cause of how and why this proceeded. The root cause may be Danny's Dream, but the how is with the numbers game of forecasting and supply options to address that fudged forecast.
WA

MA @ 20:49:

No, what I typed doesn't concur with what you said; and I think you haven't considered the ToR correctly as to what can be examined at the Inquiry.

Clause 4a(ii):
"Nalcor considered and reasonably dismissed options other than the Muskrat Falls Project and the Isolated Island Option, and"

The Isolated Island option definition is key here – it includes 'all' options of island generation. Options not considered as the MF Project (as per MF definition in Clause 2) or Isolated Island would include connecting the island with transmission but no generation at MF or GI – ie transmission from UC and buying power from HQ, or a NS link and importing power from mainland NA.

At the end of the day, all that matters is if Nalcor prematurely dismissed even 1 of theses options – the decision is the same, MF was not adequately considered.

PENG2

PENG2 —- my last comment onthis.

It is patently obvious that Nalcor considered and dismissed options other than the 2 that the PUB reviewed.

It is also this bottom-feeders view that Nalcor did not consider and dismiss ALL options other than those two.

It is also not clear that Nalcor 'reasonably' dismissed the options this it did dismiss.

It is also not clear that it was Nalcor's consideration of those options that it did consider that "informed" it to recommend sanction.

That is a false (non-evidence based) premise (Nalcor could have been directed by government to do Muskrat —- PERIOD, and if that were so, then its consideration of options was a ruse.

I will leave it there.

Dunderdale said "tell us where the gaps or flaws are"
She can say the same right now, or can she?
Flaws for forecasting are:
1……
2…….
3……
4……
5……
6……
7……
8……
9……
10…..
Fill in some of the blanks, or Kathy gets out of jail free. One piece of evidence she requested, that was not much .Russell said "garbage in, garbage out".That's not proof, nor the balance of probability standard even. Russell is no Socrates, as he admits. Surely UG readers can do better than just garbage in , garbage out.
Winston

Let me start with one.
Stratton is not only not an electrical engineer, but not an engineer at all. In the 70s,Fred Wilcox was in planning and forecasting, an electrical engineer. Even then forecasting was challenging, and no 57 year shit.
Stratton cannot calculate a heat loss for a house I bet, nor measure a end-use of a home appliance. And no course or upgrade of his training for 25 years. I am sleepy, so maybe I remember this wrong? If not, this guy forecasting for multibillion dollar electric power project? Staggers the mind. I need rest.
Winston

Nice to be remembered, Winston, I remember the 70’s well. No surprise; I’ve followed this blog for 3+ years now. I am currently focusing on the chrolnology and activities prior to MF sanction regarding natural gas options offshore NL. Blessings to you and Gert.

Fred

Okay. I’ll try once more. Island options only considered pipeline for NG. Look at technology today for FLNG and FSRU for stranded gas. Combined cycle gas turbines in combination with efficiency and mini- splits would have worked wonders. And then a LNG industry would have been born that would have competed with baseboard electric heat. OMG. Fred

Winston, the first two items you can add on Dunderdale's flawed list are; 1) did we need the power 2) and was it the least cost option. She always glazed over the first one (1) when she said do we need the power without defining how much power, was it 800 MW and in what year, or was it 200 MW, and in what year.? Or if alternatives were used like CDM, holyrood changed to gas turbines, and wind, as we needed it. Least cost option, they just figured out what what muskrat would cost, and put their finger in the wind to figure out how much the island isolated option would cost. And of course you can add number (3) as Locks numbers and opinion were flawed. This thing on experts, those we discredit Vardy and penny as non – experts, may want to tell us in what area was Dunderdale an expert, I think her CV may be rather slim as an expert in anything, yes, I know she was human resource minister for a number of years, a deputy mayor in Burin, don't think there was a lot to add beyond that, except work experience. And she was the main John in the sanction of muskrat. Cheers, average Joe.

Agree that : Did we need the power, and was MFs the least cost are the 2 main general questions.
But to get the answer to the first, recall that Stratton said yes we need the power. He produced the forecast to show it. That is the technical analysis that allowed Dunderdale, Kennedy and other MF promoters to announce :Yes , we need the power. It was then a hop , skip and jump to Muskrat as least cost.
Of course, I and others said : Hold on, we do not need that power, and Nalcor has not reasonably shown how we need that 6 billion dollar project to supply what seems an imaginary power need.
Yet Stratton pulled a rabbit out of his hat to allow Dunderdale to spout her nonsense, and Kennedy and other all in that choir.
So, how did Stratton get that rabbit?
The devil is in the details of how he did that, Joe.
If we don't examime the details, 1 to 10, the devil will stay hidden. So Russell at the Tely is finally on the right track: it's a numbers game alright. He could have produced a long term forecast of 0.8% which he did, or 0% , or -0.5 %. Only the first provided a change for MFs, if Saint Steve had kept his mouth shut, it was a no brainer Danny said. With forecast of 0% or -0.5%, then CDM and wind and small hydro would put MF as no contender.
So, Stratton: the Rabbit Man. How did he do it?
Winston

Fred Wilcox,(for UG readers) a Nflder now living in BC, I think, and now closer to Nfld engineer Robert Holmes, or to Peckford, than to Gander, Fred's home town, I think.
At Nova Scotia Tech ,where we studied engineering, Fred was a couple of doors from mine on the same floor of the residence. Fred Wilcox, Fred Martin, Sam Banfield, ad I worked with Nfld Hydro in the 70s, some for much later. Testimony at the Inquiry said that when Ed Martin came the experienced staff at Hydro most retired or moved on. Guess Gil Bennett, the Cable Guy, knew everything, took no advise from experienced hydro and power engineers, as he could even build pyramids bigger than those in Egypt.

Look at Fred 's short comment at 00:52, to see a likely least cost alternative to MFs, aligning much with my view, Suggest Fred expand on this, and stay engaged on UG.
Good to hear from you Fred.
Winston

WA @ 12:24:
Are your NST acquaintances the same Fred Martin and Sam Banfield as those that acted as consultants to the PUB in 2011?

To all:
Also, my understanding is that the Inquiry ToR definition of 'Isolated Island' references the 2011 PUB reference questions, that is it includes wind and small island hydro as options to MF. So, except for CDM, isnt the Inquiry expected to look at all options for alternate generation?

MA @ 21:41:
I agree with what you say then, just not your interpretation of the ToR.

PENG2

PENG2, yes. I saw Sam and spoke to him briefly at the PUB, and understood he did some part time work for the PUB. I was not aware Fred did also, and have not seen him in many years, but saw his name on the Inquiry witness list. In 1974 Fred and I were doing commissioning of an extension of the 230 kv terminal station, extremely cold and living in a trailer on site, and grumbling that electricians were getting paid more than we engineers, despite going in debt for our education! The old oil furnace was going non stop.

If the Inquiry blocks good assessment of CDM then it is a farce, as that is key to the optimum Isolated Option, combined with wind and island hydro. This was intentional to not include that as part of the alternatives, and may be intentional now to exclude it's impact if it had been considered then.
There has been some discussion on that issue already. This past week they tried to keep out information on wind costs, an objection by Charles Bown's lawyer, and Kate seemed to go along with that , to keep it out, but thankfully Leblanc did not agree, and the testimony continued. Whether you took notice PENG2?
So, with that I put a bit more faith in Leblanc to get to the bottom of the manipulation of the forecasting and alternatives included and those that were not.
Winston

PENG2 , this may interest you. I suggested a forecaster could select a growth rate of +0.8, or 0.0 , or -o.5

Here it is for Ontario: Twh
2007;157
2010:142
2016:137
2017:132.1
This shows -2% per year over the decade. From 2016 to 2017 it is down 3.6 %

Reductions there are mandated and they happen via CDM or else.

So let that be a guide for Leblanc to say why was that not considered here?
Winston

PENG2, for Ont, the peak load was set in 2004 at 27,005 MW, now it is down to 21,787 MW, so down 19.5 %, and generally inline with the energy use reduction.

There winter and summer peak is almost balanced with less than 10 % difference, and highest actually in summer,
Here our winter is almost 300% of our summer peak and Hlyrood used to meet that, which is rather insane not to cut the winter peak, needing all that expensive thermal assets and fuel.
No mention by Stratton or anyone as to that problems and how to address it; except MORE POWER, MORE POWERlike Tim the Toolman.
Put that title on BOB who selected our supply options!
Winston
Winston

Joe – using your numbers, the other important interpretation of this policy is that it is not rate design, it is a ratepayer poll tax in disguise. Because the high rate applies to power that people can't do without, it's the near-equivalent of putting a $1000 annual surcharge on people's bills. Raising the monthly connection fee from $16/month or whatever it is today up to $100/month would do exactly the same thing.

PlanetNL talked about the optics. The optics of raising the monthly connection fee would be political suicide for government so they won't do it that way. The optics of them having Hydro and the PUB turn it out as "rate design" provides the government with cover – thus the very restricted terms the PUB has been given to assess future rates. Just like Muskrat sanction, you can choose any answer you like as long as it's the one the grand leaders desire. Government and Nalcor want to make the PUB look accountable for this mess.

As for the 5 c/kwh heating power and your question about would people use baseboard, I'd think a lot of people would do so and that would minimize the elasticity effects. If you're in the upper 10% or so who have got the big houses and loads of electric demand, enjoy. If you're poor, then the increase on the first 1000 kwh is coming out of some other necessary budget (food, car, insurance, health care, kids?) – life gets $1000/yr harder. And maybe taxes and fees go up too because of so-called rate mitigation. How many residential ratepayers are already poor – 30%, 40%, maybe 50%? Perhaps a few will burn wood because every dollar saved is so damned important even if electricity to heat your house has never been cheaper.

I'm one of the bunch who already chose minisplits and I'm wondering whether I would just shut off the breaker, maybe wrap the condensers in burlap for the winter and go back to baseboard. The difference in power cost might be just $50/month and perhaps that might extend the life of the systems by several years. Sometimes disuse actually shortens equipment life so maybe it isn't the smart thing to do. If not outright shutting them down maybe I'll consider using a few baseboards so the units don't work quite as hard. It's all hypothetical until we discover what actual rates we end up.

BTW – I think this was maybe too long a response that took a load of time to write. I don't know how all you frequent regulars keep up with this!

BTW…lol, some of us are retired so have some time on our hands,,so sometimes we write too much, but keeps the blog interesting, or it appears there is always activity on the blog. Hopefully we have something that is correct and keeps the discussion going. Not sure if UG would agree with that. Yes, agree with you that appears to be a surcharge of around a 1000 $, and that applies to everyone, rich or poor or somewhere in the middle. Maybe that is why it is unfair. Also, as you say we won't know until, which ever govt. is in power at the time, or a minority govt will make the decision, regardless of what nalcor or the pub says. The govt of the day will have to take responsibility as it applies here and now and directly to the pocket book of the rate payers or taxpayers. It won't be like muskrat sanction where it was pushed way down the road, and no one understood it, not even nalcor. But everyone understands their power bill, but in political terms, remains to be seen. The 5 cents is really 9 cents to the consumer, I think after NL's power gets their cut of 4 cents. And no matter where you are wood is not cost free, to buy a pickup load of wood is, maybe 50 to 100$, and others know more about that than I do. Or if you cut your own, requires, chainsaws, quads, pickups, which are not free either, lol. But that is usually an individual thing. As for mini splits, I haven't installed one yet myself, sorta holding off till I get my new bill in a year or two, so will leave that discussion up to Winston. Ball and Danny says rates won't double, or the rate payer or tax payer won't pay for it, so maybe uncle Ottawa will, or Santa clause, or maybe all of the above. Don't think the banks will. Cheers, average Joe.

Joe – the 5 cent rate is end-user. This is why PlanetNL pointed out that Hydro will only get 0.5 cents. Thus the writer's theory that it isn't really being done to generate revenue but just to use up power rather than letting it go unused. This allows the politicians of the past and future to then say shame about the cost but at least we are using it and its proven we needed it. I'd go so far as to say their version will go in the history books unless the Inquiry reaches really strong conclusions resulting in actions by a subsequent future government. Bankruptcy of the province might be hard to rewrite though should that occur.

Yes , over 60 cent cost per kwh to get MFs power to Soldier Pond and they get 0.5 cents and then Nfld power cost of 4.5 cent and sell for 5 cents, mostly to benefit the monster house owners. So this a 12,000 % loss? HQ makes about +700 % on CF power. Our cost for CF was zero, so 75 million a year return to Nfld is an infinite % profit, right Heracles?
This is economic genius for Ball and Nalcor.
Yet as most houses are small or medium size and all paying about 1000 dollars more a year for the initial tier rates, all those (about 85 % of customers) will consume less power.
I believe Wade Locke said he was now working on an ideal rate for elasticity effect for maximum revenue, did I hear right from his testimony? And he would not reveal that until he is fully sure he got it right.
How can Ball trust Locke after this massive frig up on Muskrat?
Winston

Hi Winston,

As of now, HQ's is paying 2 mills and HQ average sell price, from exports during the week-end as low as 4 cents to the heritage pool and up to the winter exports above 15 cents, the average I think is between 6 and 8 cents. So if we use 7 cents, that means re-selling at 35 times the paid price, so 3 500%. But remember that HQ offered the GWAC to CFLCo and that it basically doubles the price paid. So that takes the price of 2 mills up to 4 mills, so rate of return of 1 750% instead of 3 500%. Add the transmission loss of a few % and it would end up around 1 700%.

The 700% figure you estimated would give only 1.4 cents. Considering the average production cost alone is between 2 and 3 cents, your 700% is significantly under-estimated.

As for the price you pay for UC power (recall power and twinco block), it is at CFLCo's generation cost because CFLCo must pay for its costs before paying its dividends. Considering the average 2.5 mills paid by HQ was not enough to cover these costs (that's why HQ offered the GWAC to CFLCo) and that GWAC is often described as doubling CFLCo's revenu, that let me estimate CFLCo's generation cost of about 4 – 5 mills.

After selling the power, paying for its generation and the transport paid back to HQ, CFLCo keeps a benefit of about 1 cents.

From that, I would say that CFLCo is making about 250% – 300% benefits on power exported over HQ's line from Twinco & Recall blocks. As for the benefit on the power sold to Labrador, I have no clue for that one.

Finally, for the yearly income of 75 millions, that means about 50% (Newfoundland bought back Brinco for 160 Millions in the 1970s). But for that, it must be compared to a GIC, because that is the kind of low risk situation Brinco had, so that's what Newfoundland bought back. But in all cases, a GIC of about 50% return annually, renewed every year for 65 years, is way above being exceptional, even more when a 20 billions power plant is delivered at the end.

So, set me straight Winston again. So from PlanetNL, the two tier rates that he suggested in his earlier posting was 22 cents for the first 1000kw and then 9 cents for any power used by the home owner beyond that. So in his last posting, the rates suggested were 22 cents and 5 cents. The break even point to not install MSHP was 9 cents, guess that includes purchase and installation cost and power used. So I was suggesting that might be the break even point for alternate heating sources like wood and oil furnace. So was asking those users to comment, as it can vary considerable especially for wood users. But at 5 cents, then it would be a no brainer, that it would be cheaper to use base board heating than any of the alternatives. But of course those who might have a wood stove or propane f/p, like I do, would just use it occasionally for convenience or nice to have. Cheers, average Joe.

Joe, 5 cent power for baseboard is like 2 cent power then for minisplits,(using 60 % less electricity) see my comment below to Tor. But it does discourage HPs due to the initial cost.
For apartment building now in NS and many places , minisplits are much valued and necessary for AC needs, not just heating. Baseboard cannot give you AC(air conditioning). Who would buy a car now without AC? Though we use here for only a month in summer.

Tor, no offence intended, but you appear not qualified to replace Stratton for forecasting our grid power needs or doing end-use analysis.
Hot water with an electric hot water tank is our second largest end-use. Power generated say at MFs, and then ends up being used for your bath, 1100 kw away, hence the little heard of term "END-USE". So to your toaster, kettle, light , fridge, miispllit(if you had one) are all END-USE products.
Manitoba Hydro International and others told Stratton that END-USE modeling was the BEST PRACTISE for forecasting, but that went in one of Straton's ears and out the other. His brain assessed that as garbage in, and so that input was ignored for his software program that he used.
Now, as to turning off your hot water tank, which I assume is electric?
These tanks typically lose about 40 watts continuous as heat loss. 40 watts is o.04kw, so for 24 hrs, this is 0.96 kwh. At 10 cent power, this is 9.6 cents a day. This gives $35.04 a year if your tank is left on continuous but not using any hot water.
You say your method of turning off the tank except when needed saves you $1000.00. Now, you might apply to Take Charge for some consulting work, as they too misinform the public big time, by avoiding proper end-use analysis. For you there is leeway, as you guess at the savings, but what is the excuse for Take Charge?
Now our legal beagle Budden asked if Stratton, in his forecasting, was guessing. You have the right to guess, and be wrong, but for Nalcor to guess!
Now further analysis as to your savings will likely show you do not save as much as 10 dollar a year by turning your tank off, unless you have leaky hot water taps. I could explain why that is so, if you want?
Winston

Tor, in 2010 I calculated the advantage of wood pellets vs electric baseboard heat, as to energy cost, and found the pellets was 30 % saving. I bought a pellet stove, to use occassionally in winter. I still have it sitting on a pallet, not installed.
Before installing it, I researched minisplits for our climate for heating. They showed a 60 % saving compared to baseboard heat, and double the saving of wood pellets.
Now once paid off, which typically is 5.5 years for minisplit, there is just the operating cost. So for baseboard using 10 cent power, a saving of 60 % is equal 4 cent power for the minispit.
So if they offer 5 cent power for baseboard heat, this is equal to 2 cent power for your minisplit then, so attractive. But it will deter most from installing minisplits because they are expensive to buy and install. So the economics is then not there, unless there is incentives from a carbon tax rebate say, or if you are concerned about climate change, and say I will do this for the environment , as baseboard heat is cheap but wasteful of a resource and also risks reliability, increasing our winter peak load . For me, yes for the environmental benefit. For you, wood is also a good option, like minisplits.
Winston

Heat loss from the hot water tank has to work its way through the interior of the household too, before being lost to the outside. So that heat lost from the HWT offsets the cost of interior heating to some small degree. Long and short of it… shutting off the hot water tank would save little to nil on overall electricity costs. You lose more money when that hot water flows down the drain… better off letting a sink full of hot water left over from washing dishes to cool before pulling the drain plug and letting all that heated water flow away…

Anon @ 11;14 is knowledgeable on that fact, and technically is called the INTERACTIVE EFFECT. So that 9.6 cents a day thought to be saved by turning off the tank, if left on, most of that reduces heating cost by about 6 or 7 cents, whether you use baseboard heat or wood or oil. So the net saving is only 2 or 3 cents a day , so about 10 dollars a year, not 1000 dollars.
And anon is correct too as to letting your dish water cool before going down the drain. Of course for new houses or retrofits you can get drain recovery and save about 60 % of that heat, but you must move to NS to get an incentive for that. It is in their list of goodies for household energy savings. Don't look to Take Charge for this , as they like things that save 2 % on energy , not 60 %. Must keep Fortis shareholders happy you know.
Winston

Hi Tor,

About us enjoying UC power… Know that :
Twinco block + Recall represent about 10% of the power and it is Newfoundland's. Considering Newfoundland's population is less than 10% of Qc, that means the benefit per capita of UC is greater on your side than here.

Second, by itself the Robert Bourrassa dam (formerly known as LG-2) is slightly more powerful than UC. When you add all the plants in HQ's fleet, UC power is about 12% of that. As such, it is far to be the sole or even main reason why the prices we have here are low.

Third, about doubling the rate, I promise you that the one who would do a project like that in Qc would not live long enough to say "Sorry".

Last, I am part of the ones who recommend to increase the power rate in Qc because people just waste that power while insulation and others should be favored. But with rate that low, even I do not fix the insulation in my place because it does not worth it.

And about turning off your hot water tank, I strongly advise you against that. Not only for the reasons explained by Anon 11:14 and Winston, but also for medical reason.

There are bacteria that can not develop in water that is hot enough. A hot water tank is designed to keep the water above that temperature, so prevents these bacteria to form. When you turn it off, the water may cool down to low enough for these bacteria to develop and once they did, the only way to get rid of them is by replacing the tank. Purging / filling the tank will not do it. In French, this has long been called "La maladie du chauffe-eau", word-by-word translation being "The hot water tank's disease".

Very informative and interesting comments Hercules. Will just comment on your third point, about doubling rates in QC. Of course you don't literally mean, "would not live long enough to say sorry". But if it were to happen, how would you deal with it in a democratic way? No doubt vote them out of office, and that party would never be heard from again…banished. Would the people responsible, political or HQ, appear before the courts, charged for fraud against the people, treason, jailed?? Or would you care to be specific, if it were to happen. Now I know you will first give me all the reasons why it could not happen in QC. But as you said, the one who would do that project would not live, etc. So who do we blame the politicans, or the ones who supported and gave back up to the politicans, like nalcor people. Would be interesting to get an outside the province view. Cheers, AJ.

I overlooked the medical reason, and Heracles is right. I had researched this extensively about 10 years ago, as it can be a very big problems, not just for hot water tanks but in building piping systems, even commercial sprinkler say, but more so in equipment drain pans etc,on roof mounted equipment, and in summer especially, if not cleaned regular.
The disease is Legionere Disease, as in Quebec , I think in a building were vets were, many died, so it go that name.
The bacteria is found in ground water, and you can actually drink it and do no harm, but if you breathe the water mist, say from a shower, deep into your lungs, it is a deadly type of pneumonia.
To the fine points: the bacteria lives in water up to 122F, but cannot live at 125F. So if your tank temperature is set at 120, to try and save a little on energy heat loss, you risk growth of the bacteria. Many go as high as 140F. I use 130F
Also the tank temperature differs from to bottom, so if too low , bacteria may increase at the bottom.
Turning off the tank for short duration increases risk and almost no savings. If it is off for an extended period, the temperature is low enough that few bacteria survive, as they like a mid range to best multiply.
Some USA mfg of tanks recommend just 120 F setting, which is actually dangerous for medical reasons, Canada uses a higher recommended setting.
Winston

Hi AJ,

Not that there would be murder or criminal activity as a revenge, but the guy would loose his functions, be kicked out of everything and will never be able to find himself any new responsibility to assume.

There would not be any question of jail because his project would never materialized. He would be the only one suffering his own stupidity by loosing all trust and confidence from everyone else.

In last years, there has been a few city mayors who abused their position for personal benefit and indeed, some received jail time.

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1003244/le-juge-ordonne-incarceration-immediate-de-vaillancourt-maire-laval

So, AJ, I suggested we would probably be better off under PQ and NL as one province. They serve out justice better it seems, besides low power rates, and the best skidoos and the most fuel efficient airplane for its class. We just have to beef up our French language a bit, and invite Heracles and Etienne for a Screech and feed of fresh cod, and off to the races, 6 cent power for the first 1000kwh per month. Maybe they won't take us in? Certainly not Danny.
Winston

Well Winston, there is nothing that seperates people more than a language barrier, and we as a people have not put a lot of time and effort into becoming bilingual, at least our generation. And I have always said that every person that ever went to lab city area should be compelled to do conversational French. Not that you have to pass it or become a scolar but to try your best to be bilingual. I don't think Jean Chrétien, knew any more English than I know French, when he went to Ottawa in the sixties, and he became prime minister. And I always liked his dialiac, and the man too. But these days, any mother's son or daughter that can't get into a French class in grade one there is holy hell to pay. And they have been doing this for years, but I don't see a lot of young people that are bilingual here. Guess like the saying if you don't use it you loose it. So better brush up on our French Winston, like you said, if you want to join QC, or they will ignor you when you get there, lol cheers, average Joe

Good point AG, and guess it's like the lady that peed in the ocean to help float the boat, every little drop helps. So we have to do our drop. But world wide who are the big polluters, you probably know much better than I do. Is it India, China, USA, or Canada. I think Canada hardly registers on that scale, and little NL doesn't even register. So when you have the most powerful person in the world, pulling out of the Paris agreement, and the GOP allows him to do it. He denies climate change, so guess the Americans support him on that. And they are getting swamped with bigger and better hurricanes every year, and they pay no attention to climate change. But still agree we should do our single drop, but it will not have much effect on the ocean water levels, or fosse fuel effects. Tell me more as I don't know a whole lot about climate change, but I certainly do not deny it, when something like 95 percent of climate change scientist and experts tell us what you are saying. Cheers, average Joe.

Per person, Canada is very high in emissions, worse than the USA and much worse than China and India. And Nfld is among the worse in Canada.
So what legacy to we hand down to our children and grand children? Ray Guy would say "Like the mosquito that spins in the ocean, every little bit helps". So we can reduce our populations or reduce our emissions per person to do our bit. And not just a bit, but a very large reduction is needed.
Now feedback loops, there are about 10 big ones; methane locked in perma frost is one, and that is starting to happen, and methane is 10 or times worse than CO2 from fossil fuel burning.
Another is the loss of the Arctic ice cover, so with the ice, sun's energy is reflected back out, but now that is absorbed into the ocean. So these things feed on itself and continues to get worse, and called feedback loops. Some scientists refer to them as Monsters in the closet, and about to show themselves, and no turning them back.
So a very bumpy ride ahead before the fatal crash. And when even the Pope Francis is ignored as to his warning on that , as well as Stephen Hawking, what chance is there? We call the alarm on Uncle Gnarley, and maybe Danny will hear, and shout the warning : STOP THE DRILLING! Fat chance.
AG

Yes, obviously AG you know more than I do about climate change than I do, and take more interest in it than I do. And there are many ways to use numbers and stats to make any point one may want to make. So guess you are referring to each individual carbon print on earth. So if you compare our population to USA, or China, we don't even register on the scale. The population of India and China is so hugh compared to our Half a million souls, that before they can count or record their true population it has changed by a number probably bigger than our entire opulation. So on a graph or any other measure show our combined carbon print to China's population combined carbon print and ours will be so small you can't se it. And what should you and I do tomorrow morning to go to work, rather than drive our car, we should walk, other than that there is not a hell of a lot we can do. It takes world leadership to make any dent at all and as you say in the last number of years very little has been done. And there wond be until world leadership takes their responsibility, like the leade of the free world and guides other nations in the right direction. So Trumpies world leadership carbon foot print is a hell of a lot bigger than mine or yours. So you can't place as much blame on UG or Danny as Trumpie, or the leader of China, etc. Says Joe blow.

You or I might commit to almost no emissions, but it is not of much value except that it might show others. But what is needed is public policy that makes big changes. In Nfld now 78% wants no carbon tax, and unless they understand how it can be beneficial to them , then nothing changes.
And oil attracts high wages, so the environment is secondary. So Trumpie is now better known, and maybe he loses next time, and if not, them more storms hitting them is the result of their choice, but hurts everyone on this planet also.
I think it reflects hypocrisy of humans to think it is some one else who should change their ways. So while we survived 400 years without mass use of fossil fuel, now it is seen as essential, and we avoid investing in alternatives, and put all our eggs here in the Muskrat fiasco. Dreams of continued oil wealth led to that, and some think oil will solve it, so again destroy the environment is accepted. A dangerous path we are on, and our environments ministers and opposition environment critics are cheer leaders for destroying the environment. So hypocrisy and we support such hypocrisy. Some parts of the world make good advances, but overall no gains, and getting worse. I suppose there is some hope,but nature has limits that is rapidly being reached, it seems to me. We are very backward on this issue. And Trump will be Trump. he cares not for his grandchildren, just himself. We should worry about Nfld and what we should do.
AG

Can't disagree with you on this one AG, cheers AJ.