Paul Humphries, the VP of System Operations and Planning at Newfoundland Hydro
until his retirement two years ago, recently appeared as a Witness at the
Muskrat Falls Inquiry. Humphries was one of the primary architects of the
project, as he stated during the 2012 PUB hearings with this declaration: 

I’m Paul Humphries, manager of system planning and ultimately the decision on
the requirement to move forward and the alternative for the best alternative,
and the determination of the cumulative present worth of those alternatives is
the responsibility of my department.”

Cumulative Present Worth (CPW), to which Mr. Humphries refers, is a methodology
used to discount to present value, for comparison purposes, the Isolated Island
and the Muskrat Falls options. Of course, the calculation is meaningless if the
inputs used aren’t prepared rigorously. In such a case, the boosters of the
preferred option always win.

Paul Humphries, former V-P Newfoundland Hydro

believe that Nalcor favoured the Muskrat Falls option from the beginning. They
argue that bias crept into multiple inputs including the project estimates, the
oil price forecast, and the value of conservation and demand management
programs — all of which would have negatively impacted the CPW in relation to
the less-risky Isolated Island option.

upon his testimony, Paul Humphries may have held preconceived notions regarding
the effectiveness of conservation and demand management (CDM) programs as well
as the importance of interconnectedness which, ostensibly, all except island
grids have achieved. Unfortunately, his views were not tamed by considerations
of cost or risk, even if an interconnected grid – with the mainland – makes
sense from a strictly utility perspective. The thinking likely fed into a
disposition held by a management team at Nalcor in favour of the Muskrat Falls

are several posts that could and should be written on Mr. Humphries’ testimony
including the lack of consideration given to variability in the demand
forecast, how it was derived, and his seeming failure to challenge the forecast
prior to Nalcor undertaking a megaproject.

one position taken by Mr. Humphries will be challenged in this post. That is
his exclusion of potential CDM savings from the CPW for the Isolated Island
option.  Remember that this option
included small hydro, wind and the refitting of Holyrood with Combined-Cycle
Turbines (thermal).

contrast to the Interconnected option (Muskrat Falls), the Isolated Island
option would have afforded Nalcor the opportunity to add energy capacity slowly
— as growth in demand warranted additional investment.

as noted, Humphries sought interconnectedness. He argued that larger grids are
also stronger, adding that there are “lots of interconnections. Lots of

did acknowledge , however, that the maximum load that can be returned over the
Maritime Link, during an emergency, is 300 MW. He could not be certain either
who would produce that power nor how the Nova Scotia block of power, committed
under the MF deal, would be replaced.

offered no view of the cost vs. benefit of interconnection. More striking for a
systems planner, he failed to acknowledge that the best security is found when
power generation capacity is located close to the demand — in this case, the
Avalon Peninsula.

Humphries held strong views, and on a human level one might wonder if his was a
closed mind that helped reinforce other views equally fixed about the direction
Nalcor was determined to take in order to replace Holyrood.

was prepared, for example, to place his faith in a 50-year demand forecast – a
guess at best – because that was what the financing plan for Muskrat required.
But as to savings from Conservation and Demand Management, he suggested that “…
if we were counting on that load reduction [from CDM] to serve the load, it
could effectively be the end of the world from a utility perspective.”
Humphries was arguing that you could not reliably exclude savings from
conservation because it might not materialise. 

view contrasted with that of the Inquiry Forensic Auditor, Grant Thornton, who
suggested that such a stance (and other factors) may have resulted in an
“overstatement” of the island’s electricity needs. The CBC also properly noted
that Humphries’ position got pushback from an earlier Inquiry “Fact Witness”,
Phil Raphaels, who stated that “he’s not aware of any North American utility
company excluding CDM savings when developing a power plan.”

only reference to Hydro’s use of CDM was the “Take Charge” program, via Hydro
and Newfoundland Power, which offers rebates on energy-efficient light bulbs
and thermostats.

any measure, “Take Charge” is more façade than serious CDM program. A
well-planned and funded CDM would be designed to permanently remove significant
demand in order to mitigate the necessity for additional high risk, high cost
infrastructure, especially when there is no population growth forecast for the
Province.  Doesn’t weak policy virtually
guarantee a weak outcome?

serious CDM program might have justified generous rebates to encourage
homeowners to replace their electric baseboard heaters – the genesis of a short
peaking problem in Winter – with heat pump technology, as one suggestion. Along
with marginal pricing in concert with 
time-of-day pricing — to make people think twice before putting on their
wash at 7AM — CDM programs needed mostly enlightened public policy.

required was the removal of CDM programs from management by the utilities which
have no vested interest in allowing any diminishment of consumers’ reliance big
power utilities. That would be neither in Hydro’s nor Newfoundland Power’s

is one perspective, but there is another that has an even greater relationship
with the institutional bias to which Mr. Humphries may have been a party.

seems he had forgotten that building capacity and burning oil are two different

course, the building of the required capacity, plus some margin, should
naturally have been a part of the inputs. But CDM, properly designed, would
have caused a reduction in fuel consumption which, in turn, would have resulted
in a material reduction in the cost of the Isolated Island option — because of
its impact on the CPW. It might have even afforded sufficient operating margin
to ensure there was no repeat of DarkNL. 

Humphries went unchallenged in his comments, and it’s a shame.  

said on many occasions that his department made the best decision based on the
information available to him at the time. But neither a multitude of options
nor proof that (real) CDM programs work can pry open a closed mind.

unlikely as it was that his deaf superiors would listen, it seems that
Humphries didn’t even try. 

an organization like Nalcor can’t see that a 50% growth in electricity rates
would curb demand, there is little point in employing the virtues of Professor
Flyvbjerg’s theory of “Optimism Bias”. 
For Nalcor it would have to be a megaproject – Come Hell or High

Des Sullivan
Des Sullivan
St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada Uncle Gnarley is hosted by Des Sullivan, of St. John's. He is a businessman engaged over three decades in real estate management and development companies and in retail. He is currently a Director of Dorset Investments Limited and Donovan Holdings Limited. During his early career he served as Executive Assistant to Premier's Frank D. Moores (1975-1979) and Brian Peckford (1979-1985). He also served as a Part-Time Board Member on the Canada-Newfoundland Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB). Uncle Gnarley appears on the masthead representing serious and unambiguous positions on NL politics and public policy. Uncle Gnarley is a fiscal conservative possessing distinctly liberal values and a non-partisan persusasion. Those values and opinions underlie this writer's views on NL's politics, economy and society. Uncle Gnarley publishes Monday mornings and more often when events warrant.


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. Right on again UG. That bugger was allowed to get away with blue murder right there on the stand before your own eyes, and convince you it was your own fault. Now, will gillies do the same. I suspect so. There are so many areas where he can be nailed on his testimony, where with the Bible in their hand they lie like Trumpie at their own convenience. Get gillies to explain in great detail what are the benefits for us in having the NS link besides to give NS free or dirt cheap power.Get him to explain in great detail in what kind of circumstances we could bring power in from NS and where in the hell are they going to get it, while they are freezing in the dark with a deep freeze gripping eastern Canada, and at the same time having lost power that we were sending them. Isn't that like trying to pull yourself up by your own boot straps as you sink through thin ice. Nail the bugger and flog the hell out of him, and don't take any of his BS says Joe blow.

  2. Lower Churchill has been a corporate obsession within NL Hydro and later Nalcor since government created NL Hydro in the 1970s. It was their stock answer to any request for anything and after 1998, dominance of the LCP in Hydro's corporate thinking was cemented firmly in place.

    Hydro's concern should have been for the electricity policy set out in the Electrical Power Control Act: delivering reliable power to consumers at reasonable rates. Instead, it became an obsession with building the LCP. The question was always "how do we build the LCP?" or "does this compete with the LCP?" Anything that interfered with the primacy of the LCP construction was shunted aside.

    That's why Hydro officials didn't want to talk about demand management and conservation. They understood their real numbers and things didn't look good. After 40 years of forecasting an imminent need for 800 MW of new generation and 40 years of no such demand appearing, Hydro official knew full-well that CDM would basically meet the policy goal but scuttle the corporate obsession in the meantime.

    Even the creation of the isolated island option posed the choice as being "Build LCP or Not build LCP (Isolated Island)?" It wasn't about how to meet anticipated local demand cheaply and reliably. Nalcor never examined domestic needs and alternatives to meet those. All the discussion about this in 2011 and since misses the point that the details are irrelevant. The choice itself is wrong.

    In 2010, Nalcor deliberately shelved an extra line to the Avalon that would have helped during darknl with the excuse that LCP was right around the corner. Right around the corner was more than 10 years after. We know from PUB hearings that Nalcor deliberately neglected regular system maintenance and system upgrades because… LCP.

    LCP was in Nalcor's corporate interest but it had no visible connection to the public interest. Period. Ever. All Nalcor officials have ever offered, including the oil and gas guy, is a string of rationalisations for every aspect of LCP. No one was immune from the obsession, which is why Humphries never tried. It never occurred to him to do anything but share the obsession.

    And for the record, the increase in electricity rates is 100%. You judge the size of the increase from the starting point, not the end point.

  3. "The choice itself is wrong" — correct, and I have believed so since early 2011.

    Also, a good partial focus on the problems with the CPW (and I would also add that the 50+ year time frame is also a key bias in favour of the Muskrat fiasco and should never have been used as a basis for comparison).

    • Agree totally with the above two comments. But let's simplify it a little more:

      1) Given ..we needed 2 or 3 hundred mgw of power.

      2) There was attached economic value. Just give NS some power for the used extension cord 35 years, and sell a bother block of power at a lost.

      3) And it would cost us 6 to 8 billion, and pay off in 50 years.

      Now I ask you to make your decision based on these simple facts. And it was no more complicated than that.

  4. The idea of a 50 year forecast is ridiculous. Talk about a wild assed guess. As anyone over 50 can tell you, a lot of things changed over the last 50 years. We aren't all speaking Russian, there was no nuclear war, world population didn't explode with mass starvation, the internet was invented, smart phones, GPS, we never returned to the moon and still haven't cured cancer.

    Imagine yourself in 1970 trying to predict the population of Newfoundland fifty years later and the need for electricity. It is an absurdity.

    • Gifting people senior positions in the last few years serves two purposes.
      1) It rewards good sycophants.

      2) People in those positions will not rock the boat. Each year is significantly increasing their best 5 or 6 year salary upon which their pension is based. They will do whatever they are told.

  5. The "obsession" with the LCP allowed a politician looking for a legacy to railroad regulatory oversight, overcome resistance in the civil service with overt and covert threats to career prospects, and manufacture the "least cost" lie with cooked data.

    Gil Bennett looks very much like the villain he is, beady eyes peering over glasses. He is the principal architect of this disaster and of course takes no responsibility for any decisions.

    • I note that Co-counsel O'Brien is making the case that an isolated island option until 2041 and then a power purchase from Quebec (essentially my Vision2041 option) would be $1.2 billion cheaper than the isolated island option used by Nalcor .

    • Of course your Vision2041 option was cheaper. So were a number of other options including slow buildup of wind as the demand slowly grew after aggressive DSM and incentives for mini splits, etc.

      Gil will lie and hold his ground I am afraid.

    • Yes, and as appropriate, wind, conservation, demand management, small hydro, etc. were included in that Vision2041 description. But government/Nalcor was determined to craft a 'justification' for Muskrat. Everything else was pushed aside.

    • It was difficult to convince ratepayers that this will double rates for a project that is not needed. We sounded unreasonable in what seemed outlandish claims. Turns out we were understated! By the time this disaster ends the early stated costs will seem low, if the dam holds!

    • Nice thought dm but it will never happen. Ed made off with the loot covering for crooked politicians. He will not be held to account and it will cost ratepayers for 57 years, especially your grandkids if you are unlucky enough to live in NL. The costs are strongly backloaded to appear reasonable in the near term.

  6. I repeat an early MF post.

    We know who did it.
    Now, What are we going to do?

    Give up on the inquiry, many of you are skeptical anyway, and remember Margaret Mead, swarm thinking, and that 3.5 percent of a population, committed and organized, can topple the most ruthless of totalitarianism. Goodness, NALCOR and the political party system in NL would be easy compared to Robert Mugabe or Vladimir Putin or those Saudi Royal Princes.

    As we sang so exuberantly in ARHS Boys Choir under the able direction of Miss Graham,

    Oh, give me some men who are stout-hearted men,
    Who will fight, for the right they adore,
    Start me with ten who are stout-hearted men,
    And I'll soon give you ten thousand more.
    Shoulder to shoulder and bolder and bolder,
    They grow as they go to the fore.

  7. Prior to Nalcor, NLH has the mandate to produce Least cost Power and meet Demand on the Island and had done good job since 60's. Someone in NL Govt had Vision to Develop Lower Churchill to generate Revenue. Due to lack of demand or access they could not develop Gull Island a preferred and cheaper source Option but still wanted to do a Project just to show that it can be done and hence LCP Project team combined forces with NLH System Planning to justfy MF. As we all know even for MF Power there were no buyers which resulted in Free Power for NS and Legislation that Island consumers must pay the full cost of the Power produced at MF which includes free power to NS any sold out side NL.I am loosing Faith in Democracy.

  8. Yes I was Director of Generation Engineering, on arrival new CEO Mr Martin, let go some VP's and all Directors. My impression was that he was planning to make NLH more efficient so I accepted it and never looked back at Hydro. Alas I was wrong. By the way I joined Brinco in 1973 as Commissining Test Engineer and was Manager Operations & Engineering from 1985 to 89( 16 years in Labrador) and was offered to move to St John's as Director Of System Operations and Telecontrol and I moved to St John's with NLH. I must add I had a very successful career and after leaving NLH did two Hydro Projects in Malaysia.

    • You should be called as a witness. Given the lack of generation experience within the MF team, why would they have been letting go of people with the required experience? I'd like to hear from Mr Martin why he fired experienced VP's and directors. Was it stupidity or malice?

    • Martin made no bones about the fact that he was sent from the premier of the province(the messiah) at the time he arrived at Hydro and immediately created fear and turmoil in the organization by taking out several VP's and later the director level of engineers which he must have seen as people smart enough to stand in the way of their plan, which is now well known to be seriously flawed and against the people they were hired to serve. The highly experienced fleet of engineers could have been a tremendous asset to help build a hydro-electric project but not if they could understand the folly of the grand plan, the seriously flawed energy plan. Hydro from then onward strayed from its number one goal of keeping the lights on and number two, keeping the lights on at the least cost.

    • In brutal right wing dictatorships in Latin America after a coup the middle class is systematically "detained" and "disappeared" regardless of political views to ensure there will be no resistance.

      Anonymous27 November 2018 at 07:27, firing anyone competent was step one in this plan to implement an unneeded and uneconomic project. From the top eliminating anyone who would say WTF was the plan.

    • Nice thought Anonymous27 November 2018 at 12:59 but this inquiry may look into this but may do zero, zilch about it if you read the TOR.

      Is this list of VP's moved out of the way not evidence of the fraud committed? Will anyone investigate and prosecute? Fat chance!

      As I have previously commented da judge has a rubber chicken, here come da judge!

  9. Hi guys,

    Just to let you know that I am about to give up on this. It is impossible to help the one who does not want to be helped and clearly, UG does not want to be helped out of his pro-hate mentality.

    At the same time, UG blames Qc for doing all possible to block / to harm NL while also blaming Qc for not doing enough to get the FLG blocked. At least make your mind UG.

    After depicting Qc as clearly no friend to NL, UG refrained from doing it while we were exposing evidence of the opposite on the blog. Despite this, he came back with his anti-Qc statements, always without evidence.

    After readers told him about it, he did not react.

    When filtering the blog, UG removed polite and moderated comments from people like Bernard Lahey while leaving many posts of nothing but disrespectful and non constructive insults, for the first being pro-Qc while the others, against it.

    When challenged for evidence and fact, UG remains silent and passive.

    When provided with counter-evidence, UG ignores them.

    I always considered a leader must eat his own dog food and so I do. Facing the choice of Stay-N-Pay or Leave-N-Live, so far I stayed and paid, investing myself in the blog and doing my best to inform and support people here. If I am happy to have helped some of you better understand the situation, it remains that with such a leader so resolute to his hate mentality, not much can be achieved. For that reason, I will now Leave-N-Live despite I know that by doing so, I accelerate NL downfall just like the most economically capable newfoundlanders do when they leave their province.

    As a last note for those of you who will reply with anything like "good riddance", yes, be happy and keep that hate mentality so precious to newfoundlanders. As for the others, know that it is now time for you to take your own decision. Will you keep staying-N-paying or will you also leave-N-live ?

    In all cases, my best wishes to you all, haters or not, and should UG change his mind and be interested for help to brake free from his hate mentality, he knows how to join me.

    • Adieu Heracles31. Your comments were always cogent and thought-provoking. As I can see above the barking crackies will be happy with your absence, but thinking people not so much. Take care and I hope you look in every now and then

    • Like Heracles, I am pretty close to giving up on this community.

      I had hypothesized that Muskrat Falls and related mega-boondoggles arose from the fact that Newfoundland identity, as a whole, is perceived in a very negative fashion by Newfoundlanders themselves: Many if not most see no reason to oppose such projects and the long-term harm they cause to The Rock's fiscal outlook, since the benefits (jobs) are immediately present: as for the price, they obviously hope that by the time the chickens come home to roost they themselves (or their children) will no longer be living in Newfoundland and thus will not pay said price.

      I stand by this analysis. I suspect part of the reason this negative self-image remains an unidentified problem in NL relates to the fact that, in the English-speaking world, most studies relating to negative group self-image involve racial minorities, and because Newfoundlanders are a white ethnic group, such studies are (erroneously, I believe) deemed irrelevant to Newfoundland.

      Such a negative self-image, unfortunately, is entirely compatible with an even more negative perception of others: hatred can be simultaneously directed inwards and outwards. And the latter can be effectively harnessed and manipulated by an elite to blind its social subordinates to realities relating to class privilege.

      Which brings me (can you guess?) to anti-Quebec sentiment in NL in general and among members of this community especially. "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt" sums up my thoughts perfectly: Considering the fact that an internal memo from Nalcor recommended (very explicitly) using anti-Quebec sentiment to shore up support for MF, it is disingenuous (to put it mildly) on the part of various comment-writers here to either deny its existence (by means of anecdotal evidence whose irrelevance to the matter a normal twelve-year old would grasp) or to attack those of us who have denounced its presence (In this case, not needing to bother with things as utterly supererogatory as facts, arguments or indeed even basic logic).

      What will the future bring? If present trends continue the total depopulation of NL seems the likeliest outcome at present. At one level I find this quite sad: culture death is never a pretty sight: the thought that all of the accents, songs and traditions of NL will be no more, will be as extinct as Beothuk culture in a few generations horrifies me. More than it horrifies most Newfoundlanders, if my theory above is correct.

      Yet on the other, I can only hope that whoever next settles Newfoundland (From whence? Fleeing war, environmental degradation, social + political oppression, all of the above, none of the above? Speaking what language, practicing what religion? Who knows…) will establish and maintain their relations with their Quebec neighbor on the basis of our actual deeds, on the basis of who we really are (warts and all!) rather than on the basis of unthinking prejudice.

      This may be my last comment: I will keep on reading, but will make no further comments unless directly asked about something, or unless I find a sufficiently blatant factual error which needs to be rectified.

      I wish NL well. As we say in these parts, Bonne chance.

    • Etienne, Heracles and Bernard; please keep reading the blog. I'll need your extremely valuable and relevant expertise on occasion.

      I indeed noted that lately the discussions here are getting more and more about attacking the messengers (particularly if they are Quebecers…) and less about debating the arguments and recognising facts.

      But hey, my old military skin makes me still enjoying reading and participating (when appropriate) on UG.

    • Hi Ex-mil,

      This is not about having or not the skin to endure typical BS (here, typical BS meaning typical Bruno's Statements). It is about respect.

      To respect ownership of the blog. The blog is UG's and he chose typical BS over facts as content to be published under his authority.

      To respect his decision to propagate the root cause of the MF fiasco instead of trying to fix it.

      To respect his freedom of hating and expressing that hate despite all the harm that causes to himself and his fellow Newfoundlanders.

      WA compared the anti-Qc subject with his own fixation about HP. Let just make a significant difference: HP and efficiency have been addressed by UG in past articles, like one titled Paying Twice for Muskrat Falls. As opposed, UG never published a single fact or analysis on why anti-Qc mentality is justified and to be preserved beyond MF, even after mentioning that a goal of MF was to give Qc the finger.

      So I completely disapprove UG and his hate mentality, but I still have to respect him. As such, the last way I can respect him is by letting him do as he wish while telling all others know why I move to what is more constructive for me and more beneficial.

      Should you need support, I am pretty sure you will be able to find a lot of infos in all of my previous posts on the site. I will also try to trace you back and contact you directly.

      Hoping that respect will prevail over hate despite UG's resolution for the opposite,

    • Hi Heracles,

      I must admit I can't refute any of your arguments you just mentioned.

      Again, I still wish you (and Etienne/Bernard) keep participating. The least I can say, this blog gained a lot by diversifying its information sources. And you brought great intel, disturbing for some, but real.
      Here's my email: at gmail dot com

    • Heracles & Etienne, I'm of a younger generation (43 years old) and I do not seem to have the biases most here have.

      I welcome your point of view and hate to see you go. I'm confident NL could have a mutually beneficial working relationship with Quebec if they could just admit that Quebec has no fault and is abiding by a deal made in good faith despite NL's insistence to the contrary. I guarantee you to a person every one here calling you out would have the same opinion if the roles in CF were reversed which is sad.

      I don't agree with Quebec's perpetual milking of transfer payments among other things, but I can find no fault in her living with a deal in which she took all the risk. The day a court overturns that is a sad day for negotiation as far as I'm concerned. I have said that the NL woe is me attitude is our biggest downfall since I was old enough to think about such things.

    • Anon 22:27: You have unwittingly confirmed why I was right not to see any point in participating here any longer (and, although I am somewhat older than you, we both belong to the same generation).

      "I don't agree with Quebec's perpetual milking of transfer payments": I have already quoted a source (which, being in French, might as well be in Classical Babylonian as far as most NL readers are concerned) here arguing that this is a myth (Taking a global view, Quebec contributes about 2 billion more into federal coffers than it receives, transfer payments included). See my comment here:

      Despite your willingness to look upon NL critically (which I applaud), you nevertheless seem incapable of getting rid of an anti-Quebec bias. And most participants here never will, as most deny even having such a bias in the first place.

      More broadly, over the past few months I have proposed various ideas and have asked other participants to prove me wrong. I got many messages as replies, but nobody even once tried to *prove* me wrong.

      Ex-Mil: I'm thick-skinned enough to read through unfriendly or hostile messages (I've done so on several on-line fora)…IF there are issues of substance being discussed. Such, alas, is not the case here. Since I am thick-skinned, and not masochistic, I see no point in continuing.

      It is clear to me, indeed, that discussions here are only possible if they fit within certain rather narrow presuppositions, and unfortunately I do not accept these presuppositions as valid.

      So: I will continue reading and (may) answer a direct query/correct a demonstrable untruth. Otherwise, I am done.

    • Great to see you again Etienne!

      About that $2Bs net deficit, that doesn't surprise me. In my different federal jobs, I witnessed who gets the big bucks (contracts/consultants/suppliers/shipbuilding); and they are not from Quebec. FWIW, I personally could see the spending data of three different federal departments (employee salaries + good/services expenditure); all spent way below 17% of their budget in Quebec.

      So when we get into that "milking of transfer payments", it really gets me… (I just wished those individuals spoke their mind, as opposed to attend that fake love-in Montréal some years)

      About being thick-skinned, sorry I was not implying anything here. But you definitely brought an excellent point here; unless there are issues of substance being discussed, no points of intervening. And even then indeed, it gets us many replies but none with substantiated arguments or even attempting to prove you wrong. It's just way easier to disrespectfully attack / discredit the messenger…

      Oh well.

    • Etienne, I'm anon from 22:27.

      Alas you may well be correct and my understanding of what Quebec contributes and takes may well be the result of hearsay and bias. I do my best to explore things for myself and appreciate being set straight in this regard and I will take that as a learning experience. I'll look to be more informed in this regard.

      From your comments here and the older thread you linked, no doubt what we in NL do with so much more per capita to gain so much less is appalling. It frequently gets blamed on geography but from my perspective it is rooted in some deep idea in many people that they are owed something having contributed nothing. No willingness to understand the expense and just understand basic economics. People who frequently lament that they can't squeeze blood from a turnip expect the government to do just that.

      Couple that with weak, in it for themselves leadership, and you get the current boondoggle.

      Thanks for you perspective and for sticking up for the HQ side. I spent 12 months inside the sacred halls of Nalcor and the fever I saw on a daily basis for getting over HQ was bile inducing. Best decision I ever made was to just leave there.

  10. I like to reduce things to their lowest common demoniator. Yesterday I commented on the boondoggle, with 3 main points. 1) We needed 2 or 3 hundred mgw of power for 3 or 4 months of the year. 2) we were giving NS 20 percent of muskrat for the link, to be given to us after 35 years, and we were going to sell them another block of power at 5 cents a kWh. Just for this arguement, there is no lost or gain for us, so sum game equals …zero, for the maratime link.. 3) the cost predicted at the time of scanction was 6 to 8 billion. Then I asked you to make a decision based on these basic, fundamental. Facts. And it was no more complicated than that, until a barrel of red herring was thrown in and then they brought on all kinds of so called experts, to confuse the hell out of everyone including themselves. So to tske my assumptions one step further, can someone like Winston, maybe others who like to play around with numbers, throw in a few numbers. How many terra watts of power did we need, at the cost of 7$ billion or so, and to pay of in 57 years. And what would be the cost per kWh?? ask Joe blow.

  11. I watch Gilbert from my hotel room in Houston; he denies, under oath, that CDM can be meaningful in Nfld for energy reduction and reducing cost for the Isolated option
    He says turning off a light bulb in not meaningful.
    I met Gilbert Bennett at the Nalcor Holiday Inn PR event. We discussed heat pumps. He stated he had a heat pump in his house. Heatpumps generally reduce energy use for heating by 60 %. Is that not meaningful? He also stated correctly that his ducted system in cold weather uses backup electric duct heater, so does not reduce peak load at extreme cold events. That is correct. I informed him of minisplits that solves that problem and operates without back electric heat. He seemed not interested. He was present at the PUB when I presented a paper on my monitoring of such a unit during the PUB hearings. I saw him holding and reading my paper , but asked no questions.
    I believe Bennett is dishonest to say he does not see CDM to be meaningful for energy reduction. If can reduce our peak load by 100s on megawatts, and is being widely adopted for energy savings.
    Winston Adams

    • so …

      Danny Williams and friends (fill in the blanks – hockey buddies, Cable Atlantic buddies) wanted this project for personal gains. Many people stood to profit. PennyCon (contracts), Dunderdale (Sunny Corner Enterprises), "winners" of sole sourced subprojects (like the transmission line), consulting and head hunting (NSB Energy, Normatec, Upstream Solutions), executive jobs, ego, recipients of kickbacks etc.

      Danny puts his henchman Ed Martin into Nalcor. Ed exterminates engineering directors and VP's whose professionalism might get in the way of his evil plan.

      Ed is the front man for the MFers lies required to get sanction and the loan guarantee. Public demands for information is thwarted by "commercial sensitivity" excuses. Shortall, Ken Marshall and Tom Clift were all long-serving members of the Nalcor board, and all three have close personal and business connections to Williams. With this, Danny had Nalcor under his control. The misrepresentation of financial information is a technical default of the federal loan guarantee.

      When Ed Martin quit, the Nalcor board took care of Ed trigging a huge payout despite the deceptions and total project failure.Advance hush money perhaps or payment for being the scapegoat so that he can be exiled in luxury?

      Other obstacles were dealt with: legislation was changed to give Nalcor a monopoly. The public utility board was prevented from completing an analysis by withhold evidence and then sidelining them. An external consultant was hired to write a bogus report to counter Dr. Bruneau's professional presentation on using natural gas. Nalcor modified external reports to make the project look better.

      The auditor general did nothing about Muskrat Falls while in office but then Terry Paddon was Deputy minister of finance during sanction and he did not review the estimates for Muskrat Falls and admitted it would have been a good idea in retrospect. This likely discourage him from probing it later as Auditor General since it might reflect poorly on himself.

      A lot of other professionals kept silent, profited and will now blame their bosses.

      .. please add to or correct this …

    • Oops .. not Dunderdale, Cathy Bennett was part owner of Sunny Corner which in turn had some MF contracts. It amazes me how local business people and politicians seem to have their tentacles into everything.

      "Cathy Bennett … is CEO and owner of Bennett Group of Companies, leading Bennett Restaurants with franchises for eight St. John’s area McDonald’s Restaurants; BGI, a small construction company and a commercial property company with the Business Suit(es)in St. John’s and Mount Pearl; a joint venture partnership with Diamond Global International Recruitment; and a partner in New Brunswick based Sunny Corner Enterprises Inc. which also operates Northern Industrial Inc. in Labrador City"

    • Sooo, You have pretty much hit the nail on the head with this post anon.

      The only thing you missed was the author of this disgrace suing people like me to back off any brave souls who might find the courage to say
      1.We don't need the power
      2.MF is NOT the least cost option

      We have the facts now elegantly laid out in this post. What if any action will come of these damning facts?

      PS. There is not a hint of PQ or HQ bias in this elegant summary. Will the trolls that have been haunting this blog stirring up hatred with their bigotry please leave the building now?

    • Anonymous27 November 2018 at 13:32 it just donned on me that this will make an excellent obituary for a tragically failed project after the dam breaks.

      The federal hydrogeologists' terror was palpable when they described the glaciomarine geology of the Churchill that is prone to rapid failure.They warned of the quick clay risks and showed examples upriver of a massive failure that the said may have happened in as little as a half hour!

      This is no time to have a single judge who can't assign blame!
      Da judge has a rubber chicken, here come da judge!

    • Much talk about the big benefits to NL businesses from MF but nothing could be further from the truth. The two big players in construction on MF were Astaldi and Andritz Hydro. Both companies have project head office in Montreal and both pulled on their Quebec based networks for subcontractors, service providers and suppliers. NL companies were more like beggars picking up the scraps for low prices. Local business in Goose Bay were stripped out of workers and managers to work for Nalcor or contractors, and most companies got no commerce from MF project. Ironic that the businesses who pay provincial taxes that help fund the project mostly saw no benefit from the project while Quebec based contractors and businesses took by far the lion share, including most of the crumbs.

  12. According to Ron Penney on CBC radio this morning with Fred Hutton, Gilbert Bennett got his job because he worked at Cable Atlantic, knew former premier Williams and former chair of hydro, Dean MacDonald. He got the job because of who he knew and has no experience which qualifies him to lead a hydro-electric project.
    So far we have a former CEO that came from the upper bowel of Exxon Mobile, a VP that came from a cable TV company and a project director that came from the lower bowel of Exxon Mobile. The top three positions in the organization with zero hydro-electric project experience.
    Is it any wonder that we are where we are with this project? Oh yes but we had those world class people at Hydro that they got rid off to count on, right Kathy.

    • Any way we can get the full list and force them to use the money they earned to help pay for there ultra-expensive on the job training program at Muskrat and thereby help pay for the big boondoggle they worked on and that we will all have to pay for, most of us without the financial benefits from working there.

    • Many MUN engineering grads squeaked through with the minimum passing grades and brag about it. They would fail a science degree, but do manage to get through engineering as part of a herd.

      I've seen resumes from work term students with single digit grades that got promoted anyway. One student was kicked out of MUN for two years for plagiarism but the engineering faculty graduated him anyway. Some faculty (like Dr. Bruneau) are world class, while others should have been fired years ago. There are great MUN engineering graduates — but they are great because they are hard working and smart, not because of Memorial is like MIT.

  13. What do you have in Newfoundland to regulate professional engineering? It seems to me the P. Engs managing this project should be kicked from the association. The VP in charge and project manager can lead the way and resign or be dismissed.

    • PEG-NL is the licencing body for Professional Engineers. They are entrusted with protecting the public from unscrupulous practitioners. They have a discipline board which will investigate complaints against any of their members. If you or any other member of the public believe that an engineer has behave unethically, make a complaint, or shut up.

    • PEGNL is useless and gives the public a false sense of security. Unlike architects which generally have two degrees and have to prove experience in many areas with detailed logs, you can pretty much do anything for four years and get your P.Eng. A total idiot can get their P.Eng. and do anything they think they are competent to do, although that has changed recently for structural engineering work. PEGNL has had a lot of Nalcor people on its board, so filing a complaint could get you in trouble if you worked for Nalcor. The ethics exam is a farce. I am a member of PEGNL and have many colleagues that feel the same way. I would like to see it eliminated and let APEGA or PEO take over. My iron ring hides in shame in a box.

    • How is this for pathetic:

      "Chair – Complaints Authorization Committee Professional Engineers and Geoscientists Newfoundland and Labrador (PEGNL)"

      Vice President, Engineering Nalcor Energy

      Manager, Project Execution (Non-Regulated)Nalcor Energy Execution of capital projects in electrical energy production, transmission and distribution.

      ALL THE SAME PERSON. Yup, Gerard Dunphy, P. Eng., M. Eng., MBA, PMP, SMIEEE, FEC

      Now tell me: You work for Nalcor and wish to file an ethics complaint against Nalcor. Dare you?

    • So only Nalcor people can file complaint? Anybody can file a complaint, thus if you don't have the balls to do so, get some retired person to file for you. It's easy to diss the organization/profession from the peanut gallery, but if you have proof of wrongdoing, go for it.

    • Anony @ 23:11:

      I have doubts you are a PEGNL member – if you were you would know the Iron Ring isn't a Newfoundland tradition but started in Upper Canada. Also, maybe you should realize Engineering and internship is an accredited program and effectively the same across the country – any member in PEGNL can register in PEO / APEGA by paying a fee or vice versa. Only Quebec is an exception due to a language requirement.

      Finally, the structural guideline came into effect in 2011 – so you know geotechnical guidelines came into effect in 1995; several other sub disciplines of civil engineering also predate structural engineering.

      Please quote correctly.


    • Serious question for the engineers out there: Would you report unethical behaviour above you to PEGNL if your boss was on the PEGNL board of directors and you needed your job? Do you think PEGNL would really discipline someone like Gerard Dunphy or an assistant deputy minister in government? Would filing a complaint be as useless as the Dumphy inquiry and get you labelled as a troublemaker? There is clearly wrongdoing with Muskrat Falls. If PEGNL cared, they wouldn't need anyone to file the complaint. Heck, Gerard Dumphy could do it himself — he ought to know.

      The previous citizens rep stated that whistle blower protections are ineffective. The former AG was not willing to investigate Nalcor. We need a wholesale purge of the status quo. The mechanisms currently in place serve more to protect the status quo than to protect the public.

    • Anon 00:26
      Engineers are bound by law to report unethical behaviour of fellow engineers. If you file a complaint, PEG-NL must investigate and inform you of the results. So for all you, non-Nalcor arm-chair quarterbacks, put your pen where your mouth is and complain to Nalcor if your are so sure there was unethical behaviour. And you could actually get two shots for one, if you suggest that some engineer behaved unethically and some other engineer ignored that behaviour. So Bruno do something instead of wanking, you too AJ. And don't come back with it's all fixed, try it first and if it doesn't then complain.

    • "Engineers are bound by law to report unethical behaviour of fellow engineers" In NL made me choke on my coffee! This is the province that held the Dunphy inquiry is it?

      Complaining to PEG-NL is a death sentence professionally in NL and you well know that! Only a principal of this disgrace called MF would make such a claim to goad folks into a useless and dangerous dead end (professionally) to ones health.

  14. I don't think Heracles31 or Bernard Lahey or anyone else should be discouraged from posting their comments on this blog.

    Part of the reason NL is in the total mess it is.. the tortured northern banana republic it has become.. is due to rabid demagoguery and xenophobic close-minded intolerance of the opinions and views of others.

    That's not how the Greeks and Alexandrians operated.

    I would encourage one and all to post on the UG blog… we have a kernel of intelligent and open-minded discourse here by very learned and sensible individuals… you know who you are.

    This is very anathema the the political bastards and their cronies who would seek to shut down forums such as this so as to carry out their insidious agendas unobstructed.

    Keep it up I say, add your voice to the chorus!

    The more Graydon Pelleys the better…

  15. hILARIOUS COMMENT FROM ANON! Trolls are not to be encouraged, they are best ignored. Lahey et al stir up hatred, are misinformed, are self important and demand attention. In short amuse them if you will but if you don't yet doubt the quality of their masturbatory missives there is little hope for you.

    • Bruno says there was not a single anti PQ/HQ aspect to the Inquiry testimony, so Heracles must go.
      Yet Gil Bennett said he did not see value in seeking to clarify the 2041 option by buying power from CFs. Yet this showed more than 1 billion cheaper than the Isolated option as they assessed it. This seems no small anti Quebec attitude, and more than twice that of the hidden risk estimate of 497 million.
      I suggest that the true least cost Isolated option would be less than 2 billion in cost, so the 2041 option can be taken with a grain of salt, but still: to ignore it as Bennett tried to defend his reasoning is indeed anti Quebec, and Bruno is wrong, I suggest.
      Yet I agree with many of Bruno's statements, but not that one.
      As for Heracles, I think he will find it hard to stay away from UG as a commentator, maybe a week or so. He threatened to quit over my mini-splits monitoring, some might remember, but broke his promise.
      So, come back Heracles. You quit on converting Des Sullivan too soon, maybe? And you indeed make much too much over the anti Quebec issue.
      Winston Adams

    • Gilbert Bennett: their internal PR people said Nalcor should NOT be evasive in dealing with questions during the PUB hearings.
      Yet, at this Inquiry, I have never seen anyone work so hard to avoid a clear and direct answer to most every question posed to him by Kate. Mr Evasive, I suggest. If his brain was monitored in real time with PET imaging, he would light up like a Christmas tree. Not unusual for Kate to have to ask the question 4 or 5 times. He tends to reply "WE" when she asks for "His" opinion. He most often tries to re-frame the question and and go on a tangent to avoid the question asked. Sometimes he pauses for a long time in his attempts to be evasive: you can almost smell the neurons overheating and about to short circuit: a sorry state for an electrical engineer.
      Ed Martin never had the technical smarts to pull off a boondoggle exceeding 10 billion for so long. Gil seems the mastermind on all things technical. Heck, about 6 hrs before Mud Lake flooded, he emailed a KSB? engineer, who was concerned of the potential for a ice jam and a flood. Gil, all knowing, emailed back saying not to worry, all was fine.
      Maybe the Inquiry second phase will deal with that. If MFs was DWs vision, his man Bennett was more than the the chief engineer, but also the architect. He saw himself like the builders of pyramids of Egypt. Some say they too were make work projects, and we still don't understand the purpose. And maybe too MFs risks being a stranded asset, never to operate.
      Winston Adams

    • I hope things are going well for your wife.

      Yes Gil is the "mastermind" behind MF. He is the worst example of an engineer whose incompetence disgraces the iron ring. I asked him when he was on the stand at the JRP what that ring symbolizes? He recoiled and went into his act and refused to answer the question. After asking four or five times I finally had to ask is it not to remind you of the hubris of your profession leading to the PQ bridge collapse? Gil is as smarmy as persons get.

    • Yes I do. It is getting to the truth. I have the unfortunate habit of sniffing out lies, particularly ones that may sweep away my friends in a deluge as a result of the evil incompetence on display at MF. I can't stop giving that one a rub!

      Meanwhile what or who are you stroking?

  16. I see BENNETT, GILBERT J., P. Eng. listed in the PEGNL membership list. He has admitted that the financial numbers were manipulated in order to manipulate sanction. This is a technical default of the loan guarantee and large scale financial malfeasance. He was part of a conspiracy.

    Bylaw 3 of PEGNL states:
    Professional engineers and geoscientists shall uphold the values of truth, honesty and trustworthiness .. present clearly to employers and clients the possible consequences if their professional decisions or judgments are overruled or disregarded;

    (g) report to their association or other appropriate agencies any illegal or unethical engineering or geoscience decisions or practices by engineers, geoscientists or others

    (h) endeavour to interpret engineering and geoscience issues to the public in an objective and truthful manner.

    Professional Misconduct, Conduct Unbecoming and other Conduct Deserving of Sanction of a Professional Member or Permit Holder 2.1 Conduct of a professional member or permit holder that is:

    (a) detrimental to the best interests of the public;

    (b) represents a serious contravention of the Code of Ethics made by this By-Law;

    (c) harms or tends to harm the standing of the profession of engineering or of
    geoscience generally; or

    (d) displays a lack of knowledge or skill or judgment in the practice of the profession or in carrying out of a duty or obligation undertaken in the practice of the profession,constitutes professional misconduct

    It isn't much of a stretch for PEGNL to see that some of its members are destroying the public image of engineering.

    The chair elect of PEGNL as well as a former member of the complaints committee is System Planning Engineer, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro 2015-Present. He should understand and be able to suggest other NALCOR engineers to discipline. If he has ethical questions, I am sure the past PEGNL chair Gerald Dunphy, Vice President, Engineering Nalcor would be eager to assist.

    • There are lots to share part of the blame for this debacle but don't forget that its genesis and shameful promotion came from politicians and their henchman who showed very poor business acumen on behalf of the people of the province.
      The falsification of estimates and cost projections and ignoring risks to cost and schedule as well as the wrongful manipulation of the reports of so called independent consultants is another matter altogether.
      Qualifications and experience is yet another matter.
      We should stay tuned and not assign various shares of the blame for the fiasco too early in the process.

    • Even tongue in cheek this suggestion is disturbing coming from an anon post. NL is a very small pond and the big fish have immunity from prosecution. You well know that.Stop lying, show your face and get involved in the struggle to save the Churchill.

    • To the victims, the people of NL, clearly major crimes must have been committed with the Muskrat. The inquiry has no mandate to prosecute those crimes so all I am saying is that we should await the conclusion of the inquiry. I don't believe that PEGNL is any more guilty than the PUB, that was powerless to right the wrong that they must have known was unfolding. The 'search for the guilty phase' of this project will take a little longer however the court of public opinion is always in session and the results are unfolding daily on the witness stand and as we comment.

  17. I note that lawyer Bern Coffey raised the issue with Gil Bennett that in the Reference Question to the PUB, that government made it clear to this quasi-judicial body what its position was, i.e. that it has already determined that Muskrat was the least-cost option.

    Below is an excerpt from my February 2012 Written Submission to the PUB:

    The Terms of Reference states, in part, that:

    “It has been determined that the least-cost option for the supply of power to the Island interconnected system over the period of 2011-2067 is the development of the Muskrat Falls generation facility and the Labrador-Island Link transmission line, as outlined in Schedule "A" attached hereto (the "Projects"), as compared to the isolated Island development scenario, as outlined in Schedule "B" attached hereto (the "Isolated Island Option"), both of which shall be outlined further in a submission made by Nalcor Energy ("Nalcor") to the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities… (emphasis added)”.

    It is noted therefore that even before the Board could do its own due diligent investigations and evaluations, the TOR itself had already answered its own Reference Question.

    Accordingly, it is submitted that in answering its own Reference Question (as shown in the Terms of Reference itself), the TOR has unduly and inappropriately prejudiced the review process and the preparation of an objectively valid report.

    Furthermore, the Public Utilities Board Media Release “Backgrounder” dated February 1, 2012, under the headline “Scope of the Review”, stated that the “The parameters of these two options are set out in the Terms of Reference and Nalcor’s Submission (emphasis added)”.

    It is further submitted therefore that it is difficult if not impossible for a review process to be fair and objective where the proponent (Nalcor), who supports one option over the other, is party to determining the “scope” of the review itself by, in effect, not only determining the two options that are under review, but also (by way of “Nalcor’s Submission”) determining their “parameters”. As the TOR and the Media Notice confirms, the ‘parameters’ are “set out” both in the TOR Schedules A and B and in Nalcor’s Submission. These Nalcor documents thereby improperly, unfairly and unjustly become key determining factors in identifying the scope, the issues for consideration, investigation, evaluation and relevancy — and they influence practically all matters where the Board is to decide what is appropriate and what is relevant to inform, or better inform the matter before it. UNQUOTE

    • Agree Maurice, so that's why I say, the inquiry needs to throw out the tons, and tons of reports by nalcor, the barrels and barely or red herring, plus govt. baloney. And use a bit of common sense.1) for the little bit of power we need ther is no justification to go 1100 mms and spend 6 to 8 billion, with 57 years to pay for it. 2) there is no business economic case to be made in our favor to export power to NS or New England where we can make a dollar. 3) if 1 and 2 are combined there is still no logically, rational, common scenes case to be made for muskrat. And that case has been made since the 1960's, and nothing has changed since then, except we had oil money. End of story says Joe blow. So call for the inquiry to deal with those basic, fundemental facts, and let the chips fall where they may.

    • The General Inquiry has pretty well confirmed what was suspected; that Muskrat was indeed a preemptive strike on the Treasury, for the benefit of the few, for a huge stranded asset, which can never recover the debt. The Shadow Inquiry should continue its good work, guided by the Concerned Citizens Coalition with expanded mandate: Feds and Provs are known to be negotiating in secret, the disposition of the Muskrat spoils. MFCCC should continue to pry open the secretive process so that the Public purse cannot again be raided. Those on this blog who supported Seamus, and presumable will do so next election, must open up the trio gov. ongoing negotiations with QC interests over the Grand River Energy Asset collaboration.

    • And so we go on, and on, and on, as to the 497 million hidden risk amount, and who was kept in the dark and by whom? Interesting but not the big issue needing to be exposed.
      No one on this blog has challenged my figures of 1.7 billion as least cost for: small hydro and wind generation addition, and including gas turbines to replace obsolete Holyrood units, and with a robust CDM plan. Those figures included the capital cost of wind generators and its transmission. If the generators are by others and Nfld Hydro or Nfld Power did the transmission, maybe the total cost would be reduced to 1.5 billion.
      If 2 % is added for retail rates for every 100 million, then 10 cent rates jumps to 13 cents to pay for that. With all converted via CDM and EE to efficient electric HP heat, by consumers with incentives, consumption drops 30 percent, and so cancels the 3 cent rate hike, so yearly bills stay constant. That is standard how it should work, and as Kate says most jurisdictions employ such measures.
      Now even if my figures are off some, I suggest that the real least cost power is at least 10 billion less than the 12.7 billion.
      So, on this Kate got Gilbert to very reluctantly acknowledge that CDM "WILL" (not might) reduce energy use, but she went no further to press as to effectiveness,to quantify it, so it just hangs there, so Gilbert suggests it is questionable if it is meaningful. Yet Ontario reduced their grid demand 2 % a year for 10 years just by a Directive to the power companies to do that. Here that 20% would be 340MW reduction, and our opportunities to reduce, with electric heat loads, far surpasses Ontario.
      So, again, it appears this Inquiry TOF may be limited to evaluate what Nalcor did not want evaluated, as was the PUB.
      Did Navigant not want to investigated CDM etc for the Isolated option, but Bennett said switching to MHI as the consultant,this was avoided, so not assessed?
      My laptop here at Houston often loses the audio, and I missed considerable parts of the testimony.
      But Joe state it plainly, what was the true least cost to serve our small needs? Will the Inquiry avoid this question, tied up with o.5 billoin while ignoring 10 billion waste?
      Winston Adams

    • To employ robust CDM as part of IRP, Gilbert stated that the onus is on the PUB to do that, not the power companies.
      Kate suggested, I believe, the onus was on Nalcor, the parent company of Nfld Hydro. It is my understanding the onus is on government, the Department of Natural Resources. In Ontario the Deputy Minister of Natural Resource sends out the written Directive to the power companies to reduce power demand and by how much each year.
      So here it would fall on Charles Bown( not a stranger to Gilbert) to do that. Maybe it requires government policy decision. Did Bennett ever ask who has jurisdiction and authority to do that?
      The PUB has stated it is government who decides such issues, not the PUB. So why the merry go round as to who calls for CDM? Most jurisdiction do it, and it is not a secret process. We have an existing small ineffective CDM. Robust, effective CDM is treated as if it is toxic, why? Nfld Poweris keeping their head low on this issue. Wonder why? Shareholder dividends?

    • The correct answer is the shareholder, (ratepayers), represented by the elected gov. sets the appropriate energy policy, crown corp. follows the gov. directive. Simple. Why is it that NL gov. has not delivered on energy policy?

    • In 2011 Dunderdale had a Conservation policy that was to deliver 20 % reduction by 2020. At the same time if had the MFs plan, and stated that island energy savings would permit more export sales of power to NS. But the Conservation policy was a sham, as was everything connected with MFs plan. NS on the other hand brought in Efficiency NS, with generous incentives, and reduced remand by 40 MW a year, with a goal of nearly 500 MW reduction. Yet Bennett cannot admit that there can be meaningful saving with CDM in Nfld.
      CDM just don't fit with the MFs plan. Is that tunnel vision, or wilful ignorance to deny the sound engineering principles of CDM? And he said he has a HP in his own house, but denies it can,( as in NS), reduce fossil fuel burning and reduce grid loads in a meaningful way in Nfld. What a bill of goods this man has sold to the province. He went from handling a 100 million project in the cable business to over 10 billion hydro mega project, so over 100 times bigger. Like going from cutting toe nails to heart surgery. Any wonder he has given birth to a boondoggle? His ambition far outstripped his ability and training, but not his ego. But he can still blame Ed Martin, and does so, as the buck stops there. Or does Ed pass it to Dunderdale?

    • Again, NS has Ecology Action, and a little more enlightened public on energy conservation. Not perfect, but more proactive with the leadership. This Blog, MFCCC, you and a few others can work for the same cause. Hold the leaders accountable going forward.

    • Winston, A utility that avoids building new capacity by DSM and peak shaving saves billions. In this case 12 to 15 billion. Any utility that cares about the bottom line will do this on its own.

      BC Hydro used to brag that it saved money by paying for consumers DSM. Any utility that cares about consumers and the bottom line will insist that the utility use aggressive DSM.