ED MARTIN’S OVERDUE COMEUPPANCE

That sums it up. Cheers to you.

Agreed. It turns my stomach to know Ed Martin and others like him are getting millions of dollars, all the while sick people in this Province, those with cancer of all types, young and old have to have fundraisers on a weekly basis. To help them get through their illness.
Those who let this happen should be ashamed of themselves.

I like your Coady analogy Maurice. Good that someone is keeping an eye to the rearview mirror, while most of us are glued to the main event. You may be right about the current Gull talks, but we will never be duped like that again, unless Danny, I mean the real Danny, assumes the mantel again, then some of the people will stick to him again, like shit to a blanket says average Joe.

Yes Maurice there should be an uproar already about Gull and if I may reuse a bad pun there are still plenty of Gull(ible)people who hope the next mega project will make their fortune or allow them to stay home to watch their kids grow up.

I doubt that without a strongman to overwhelm regulatory function Gull could never happen. The reality of 23 cent power will steel the senses of rate/taxpayers.

The bungling at MF is about to become public as they attempt to get MF up and running. Let the games begin!

Joe, —- "never…like that again"?

Isn't that what we said after the Upper Churchill giveaway?

We learned nothing, even though the naysayers were pointing out over and over and as early as 2011 what the inquiry is only now confirming.

Let's not be bamboozled — again — by the Liberal version of Danny's playbook.

I agree, it is a sharp analogy, but its frightening to think that Dwight might someday try to hand the reigns to Coady the way Danny did to Dunderdale. When Coady isn't reciting her script, she has a permanent blank look on her face.

I still believe Minister Parsons would have a bright future as a leader if he wasn't sitting with the current lame duck government, he will have to try to separate himself from that pack.

As for the opposition, they are also a bunch of lame ducks. They won't go near the Muskrat conversation in the house, and the government itself is too lame to force the debate. Anyone who isn't sleepwalking already knows who created the monster, and we all know the current government continued to feed the monster, so in the meantime Joyce is getting all the airtime. Ches Crosbie is more worried about lease agreements and personal conflicts to get into any risky debates even if the political back-pay would be lucrative – if he thinks he will make it to the Premiers chair by playing it safe he is sadly mistaken, I think the politically prudent NLers out there (which there are few) have an appetite for a bolder leader.

As for the Upper Churchill "giveaway", I still feel the only thing it has in common with Muskrat is the river they share. CF may not have been the cash cow it could have been for NL, but it never cost us a dime, and provided a return, albeit somewhat meager. Unless the Maritimes come to the bargaining table in good faith regarding hydro, the Quebec boogie man is our only option. Sure we're somewhat in a position of weakness, but that can only be taken advantage of if the person doing the negotiating is weak as well.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, it is time to let go of the CF grievances and move on with our lives. It's ironic that people have come to recognize they were sold a spoiled bag of goods by Danny on the Muskrat calls debacle, but will not admit to buying into the Quebec boogie man narrative offered by countless NL politicians. All boogie men have one thing in common, when you turn the lights on, and check under the bed, you realize it is in your imagination. I have my own grievances regarding Quebec and other provinces (Equalization mainly – now that could be a winner for Ches if he can prove he understand how it does work vs. how it should work), but CF is not one of them.

Upper Churchill / Muskrat Similarities

• CF — In the negotiations which … led to the eventual signing of a Letter of Intent in 1966 and the Power Contract in 1969, it was recognized that the purchase of power by Hydro-Québec (which … was the only possible purchaser) was essential to the feasibility of the project;

• MF — In its negotiations which led up to the eventual signing of the Term Sheet in 2010 and the Memorandum of Agreement with Emera in 2012, it was recognized that the purchase of power by NL Hydro alone (whose captive island ratepayers were the only assured purchasers) was essential to the feasibility of Muskrat Falls

• CF — It was apparent that if CFLCo, as a private company, was to be able to raise the necessary financing, a long-term contract with a credit worthy purchaser, willing to enter into a “take-or-pay” arrangement, was essential. This would provide the security that would be required by the bond markets …

• MF —-It was apparent that if Nalcor, as a non-regulated company, was to be able to raise the necessary financing, a long-term contract with a credit worthy purchaser, willing to enter into a "take-or-pay" arrangement, was essential. A "take-or-pay" contract with its wholly owned subsidiary, NL Hydro, combined with a loan guarantee from the Government of Canada, would provide the security that would be required by the bond markets

• CF —- The Power Contract is unique, indeed unprecedented, in a number of ways:

(i) It has an extraordinarily long term: 44 years with an automatic renewal for an additional 25 years on different terms, essentially a new contract. It does not expire until 2041;

(ii) Reflecting the then current belief that energy prices would likely decline over the long-term the base rate is fixed on a declining scale for the whole 69-year term…

(iii) Because of the refusal by its sole shareholder, the Government of Québec, to permit access through Québec to US or other Canadian markets, Hydro-Québec became the only potential purchaser

• MF — The Muskrat Falls Project is unique, indeed unprecedented, in a number of ways:

(i) It has an extraordinarily long term: 50 years, which does not expire until 2067;

(ii) Reflecting the current belief that oil prices would likely increase over the long-term and that island demand would continue to increase at an average compound growth rate of 0.8 per cent annually, energy prices are fixed on a generally increasing scale of 2 per cent annually in accordance with an escalating supply price scheme for the whole 50 year term

(iii) Because of the decision by Emera to take until July 2014 to decide whether or not to "opt in" to the Muskrat Falls Project, and with no firm contract from the mining companies in Labrador, and in any event, with energy sales to the mining companies expected to be considerably less than 10 per cent of the cost of production, Nalcor's own subsidiary (NL Hydro) with its small number of captive island ratepayers became the only locked-in purchaser

Maurice,

Allow me to clarify my comment, as I realize there are similarities in the way both projects were agreed upon and executed, perhaps not as well as you, but I get the jist of it. When I said they have little in common besides the river, I was speaking more from a political standpoint, as your original point seemed more political in nature then technical. Politically, I see CF more so as a "It could be much better" scenario, whereas MF is a "It can't get much worse" scenario. CF may not have made us rich, but didn't almost bankrupt us either, as MF very well could.

I appreciate the informative reply nonetheless.

And I appreciate both your informative posts as well (and agree with much of what you have said),

For the record, my grievance is with our own failure to protect the interest of our own citizens.

While I agree that we have made some money off the Upper Churchill and it was of no risk for us, broadly speaking it was for us a terrible deal.

But its failures/weaknesses pale in comparison to Muskrat — all of which could have been avoided.

A really well written piece Maurice; you laid out extremely well the similarities / distinctions between MF and CF.

Again, I'm still puzzled when you bring back that "refusal by the Government of Québec, to permit access through Québec to US or other Canadian markets…"

The only other market that ever showed any interest was Con Ed. But they were only interested in a smaller portion of CF production, and more importantly the price they were willing to pay did not even pay the cost of bringing it to the NY state line. Still, HQ kept negotiating with them in an attempt to share/mitigate somewhat the risks of the whole project. (Like in case electricity prices crashed)

Eventually the US government put regulatory road blocks into importation of electricity. That ended Con Ed interests for good.

——————————————————–

But let's say that Con Ed was willing to enter into a “take-or-pay” arrangement, at a price (and quantity) that would have enabled CFLCo to raise the necessary financing at a competitive rate.

Who the hell would have paid for the transmission lines up to the NY state line? (over 1600km?)
Using which technology, 415Kv? (at what, 8 times the power losses? Winston can correct me here).

———————————————————

I find it extremely counter-productive to continually floating around that deceiving notion of Quebec blocked NL from accessing imaginary "lucrative" export (or domestic) markets.

There were just no other lucrative markets for CF.

My apologies, I meant to state upfront that I originally (some years ago) prepared that comparison and had extracted (and may have paraphrased slightly for readability) the CH comments from "CF(L)Co's MOTION TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS in a Quebec court IN SUPPORT OF ITS ACTION, THE PLAINTIFF, CHURCHILL FALLS (LABRADOR) CORPORATION LIMITED v. HYDRO-QUÉBEC, Defendant, (2009)"

So that portion was not intended to be consider my own work.

Again, a posting error on my part (and your comments/corrections, as applicable, is appreciated).

Who's going to finance gull island? Not NL. I imagine our AAA credit rating does not exist anymore. Ridiculous to consider another megaprojects before we've finished this one.

Thanks Danny for your comments, perhaps you should threaten to sue them

Well perhaps not Danny, but Dan's beneficiaries, those most afraid of phase 2 (the very rich and overpaid Project Management Team)

Agreed … And this farce of a process is just another political agenda by a different gang of shysters.

I don't see the inquiry as a farce. I have learned a great deal from watching. I was shocked at some of the incompetence. Before I could only speculate that it was a political exercise implemented by yes men.

Some vengeance is required as a future deterrent. Letting everyone get away with it and keeping their fortunes intact sends the wrong message.

Moving forward we need to rebuild a professional civil service. It is obvious that political appointments and cronyism are a problem. We need to change the law to force balanced operational budgets, require massive capital projects be approved by referendum and start negotiating a way out of any debt that cannot be repaid.

Good thoughts. The colonial authority, civil strife and class struggle needs to end and reconstruction could very well be the most positive outcome of the General Inquiry.

We need to stop electing assholes. If we do that the rest will work out for itself.

Yes, that too. But where are the forward thinkers and The Plan? Tor, where is The Plan?
As dependence on petroleum must decline, as supply depletes, how are your grandkids going to keep the heat and lights on? Maurice, Winston, others, short of one big igloo, (Buckmaster dymaxion bubble dome somewhere up on the Trans Canada), with renewable source heat pump, etc. put brains to The Plan! Bruno?

Some day oil will be too expensive to waste by burning it because it will be too valuable as a chemical feed stock. We should be planning for a lower energy future. Long term, humans living in northern climates will have to adapt to the cold. First step is better housing – and that means more insulation, less glass and solar passive designs. This could be phased in slowly via a Newfoundland specific building code. MUN should be leading the charge, building reference designs (cheap to build / cheap to heat / cheap to maintain homes) that builders can copy. If we don't do this, energy poverty will be the norm.

You get a three star my friend. So take St.Johns as an energy demand centre; how dependent are you on non-renewable energy? How would you go about having a mandated plan to build sustaining urban growth around renewable energy? Does any such plan exist? What can you and your peers do to correct this obvious gap in sustainable growth? Don't bother with asking politicos until you have a comprehensive plan. Next step, who best and what mechanisms will get the job done?

For Robert:
For a comprehensive plan, I'd have to set up a discussion forum on-line and have local experts contribute and develop a concensus on the fine details. The basics would be:

1) The City would be directed to demand that new subdivisions be layed out in a grid so that homes can use the south facing exposure for windows and have a roof with a southern exposure for solar panels. We currently have random layouts with crescents and cul-de-sacs which wastes a few percent overall and sometimes makes installing solar panels cost prohibitive.

2) Lots cannot be too small. You should be able to put a heat pump on the side of a house and have a small vegetable garden and garden shed. Park area / light commercial should be interconnected with paths to encourage walking to the convenience store, restaurant, schools.

3) Mandate a minimum standard for exterior walls, better than the national energy code, that would force builders to eliminate north facing windows and judiciously position and size other windows.

4) MUN engineering should be provided funding to build a model reference home every two years. Plans would be free. Based on builder feedback, construction techniques could be improved in the next reference design. There should be funding for a local architect each year to help design a family oriented interior as opposed to the snobby, expansive, glass covered "dream homes" we often see. Special attention to using local forrestry materials, perhaps wood chips, as a replacement for fiberglass insulation.

Goals for the reference design would be: affordable to build, net-zero or better with regards to energy, cheap to maintain, great engineering, family friendly designs from architects, 100 year + projected lifeplan. They should be part of a permanent infrastructure.

5) A provincial law would prevent any restrictive covenant that thwarts sustainability (e.g. banning clothes lines, mandatory decorations like pine trim that rots, restricting heat pump location, wood stoves, egg laying ducks, flower gardens in the front yard etc.).

So a mix of urban planning, free reference designs, energy targets to guide design decisions, etc.

The only thing holding this back is time and money. Those with great wealth generally don't care and have a vested interest in the status quo. Empowering people to be self sufficient seems to scare government.

Very good comments. I assume that NL takes a hunk of oil based revenues, (Heritage funding), and dedicates it towards Green projects. Supplementing this funding at the municipal level with development levies, dedicated to green funding. Municipalities across the country need to leverage their authority towards the main goal. Who gets to decide which Green projects get approved?

MA @ 10:58:

The biggest miss is that the 2 projects are vastly different in execution and design characteristics.

What should have been done is accurately compare 2 projects is to calculate the required schedule and financial risk for a series of p-factors for both projects (say p=50, 60, 70, 80 and 90). What usually happens is that as the p-factor goes up, there will be a different relationships to the increases to schedule and cost for each project. In effect, the %ages of schedule float/contingency to overall cost are not relative or indicative to those at p=90 – more or less, the supposed advantage of MF at say p=50 disappears at maybe p=80 and shows isolated being preferred at p=90.

My guess, is that maybe a singular p-factor approach is used for benchmarking in oil works (and is relative if both projects are the same), and they blindly carried that practice over not realizing the limitations or how is skews analysis of projects with different characteristics.

PENG2

I think that the skewing of analysis was well understood and intended. PERIOD.

MA @ 14:38:

The reason I say blindly is that there is no risk management or analysis taught at MUN (so any informal learning by the MF players would have been company and project specific) – though there is a single Engineering course offered now. I haven't seen RA as being a major part of the CV of most of the key players – though there was a email from Gov asking for a something of a recent 'range of hydro cost overruns' which could have lead to a crude distribution.

It is not unusual to use a p=50 as a benchmark when comparing say 2 roads, 2 dams etc – the key is to have the proper distribution of costs curve for the project (ie is the distribution normal/poission/Cauchy etc, how much and direction of distribution skew etc). By reading/watching the Inquiry, it seems as if a simple benchmarking analysis was used without the background knowledge necessary to make relevant across different project characteristics.

So you know – skew is a technical term, not applicable as you quoted above.

PENG2

But applicable as I meant it.

They simply put together idiotic foolishness to generate a model that gave them the project costs and timelines needed for sanction. There was no point in doing it properly because 1) that would take time and expertise 2) it wouldn't give them the number they wanted 3) A better model that was suppressed / ignored might reappear at a future inquiry.

Thanks Maurice, my very point. But think the learned judge can see through all that too. But just a couple of other points, as Hogan continued his questioning. Can he not see the difference between the little bit of power we needed and a maga project costing billions and and the returns that should be generated from that in a maga project. It must be economical as a stand alone project, otherwise forget it. But the little bit of power we need or don't need, with proper DMS, has to be the least cost power under their mandate, or the govt. should make it so through simple legislation. On further questioning on emergency power, I would place Eddies answers on the same level as my own, average Joe layman, or lower. His answers were more theoracially than realistic. So if we needed power in an emergency we would just get it from NS, NB or New England. If we were in an emergency right now how long would it be before substancial power was coming in. First we would have to stop sending power to NS, assuming muskrat was up and running, and find some power where?? Probably have to find power for NS, under the contract to fill in for what we just shot off or lost. If muskrat were down from an event, what event would that be, can only imagine. How long would it take to bring in power from CFLco//HQ?? Then he says you can't start up Holyrood with the flick of your finger, it takes time. How much time compared to bring in power both ways, as Eddie terms it. So basically the guy in charge of a maga project has no more idea, or even less in a practical way than the average Joe. But I still put my confidence in the learned judge that he will see right through those phony and illogical answers, thank god.

Don't stress. Ed seems incapable of human conscience, humility and empathy for those he may have hurt. Poor chap. He is blinded by his own self image. He is out to pasture, without career path and rich contracts. King in his counting house.

Last night I watched Wall Street on Netflix. I was struct by the human qualities exhibited by stock traders. Human frailty, self importance, ego, perceived infallibility, greed, corruption of the mind.

Robert, Wall Street exhibited the same human frailties of greed, arrogance, hubris and a self confidence born of being above the law demonstrated most recently in this article.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/leaked-nalcor-2016-documents-1.4943011

You're going places that Lebanc does not have the balls to go. Far better to try to pin this on the career civil servants and Nalcor employees. Leblanc, O'Brien and Learmonth are doing the public a huge disservice in how they are pursuing this.

FYI Trimper greased the skids for Nalcor as minister, it was quite disturbing to watch.

15:00 Yes Leblanc, O'Brien and Learmonth are doing a public disservice. Yes they are blaming the civil servants without a glance to the top of the pyramid who demanded absolute loyalty from the civil servants.

Clever, Clever

RGH —- crafted similarly to move the issue under consideration to one predetermined objective, decision or outcome (slightly different but similar to the TOR written, essentially, to force (what the drafters thought) the PUB to only one of two choices —- but it was not to be.

Exactly MA – and by extension the judge and co-counsel are either (1) unwitting dupes who are too stupid to see they are being used or (2) willing accomplices in this political collusion to place the blame on everyone but the politicians then and now. Shame on them either way.

Anon 21:22 I have a rather inelegant way of making the same point.

Da Judge has a rubber chicken
Here come da judge:<)

Should be interconnected option low-balled(p100).

They conveniently left out the 8.4% rate of return on equity. Think of this as a mil rate to determine how much tax you pay each year fo 50 years. This is where Ed Martin gets his billions of dollars. Now remember that MF has only one customer. The enquiry should be concentrated how we got to this mess, not how it went over budget. The fact that the polletitions kept bragging about all the money coming in the future, proves they knew that the money was coming from this tax grab fraud.
Gerry Goodman

Should read ;saves 20-30 % on power bills,(so likely >50% on heat bills.
WA

It is terribly unfortunate that the utilities are running the CDM program, they are asking the questions, they are interpreting the data, and they are advising the PUB.

My mshp experience is that with full heating substitution, my winter energy is halved and the heating portion down by two-thirds.

The utilities don't want this type of experience to be broadcast. If enough people did this, there would be no Muskrat or Holyrood.

Collaborative inaction by N Power provided Nalcor the flimsy rationale to validate Muskrat. NP is an enabler. Will Alteen deny this? Let's hope some counsel give him a rough ride over this.

Exactly, anon, NLP was an enabler to MFs. And as a subsidiary of Fostis, Fortis is an enabler. I stated to two NLP employees 2 years ago that Nfld Power was as much at fault for MFs fiasco as was Nalcor, and they were shocked. I then stated that being as much at fault was likely not accurate, but that they werein large part at fault, especially about in their role to minimize CDM efforts, and misleading the public on very little real saving on many of the measures they promote, and their SILENCE on the whole MFs scheme, puts a large fault factor on them. They, like Ed Martin, refused to agree on any of that, and to this day continue their bad habits. During this Inquiry they are constantly present, but ask no questions, not even to Ed Martin yesterday. They hope no light shines on them, and others get all the blame. The "Light and Power Boys" have an excellent reputation, but that is mostly the linemen and field workers. The company and shareholders is a different story, if looked at closely. Time we separate the wheat from the chafe.
Your 2/3 reduction on heat energy is what should be achieved by a full substitution and good sizing, good units and good installation. Do the math to see the implication for the whole island. But to reducing grid peak demand, they suggest all units will fail in adverse weather, so they say, NO reduction of peak demand. This bullshit has been the official position of all power companies here, and damn well past time that these laywers at the Inquiry bluntly challenge the power companies on this. NS , NB and other jurisdictions intentionally give incentives for these to reduce winter peak demand, in jurisdictions with colder winters than we have. Nfld power has used every delay tactic to keep Nflders a decade being Nova Scotia is adopting this technology to benefit ratepayers. Even now they promote second rate units, not Cold Climate models, which are ideal for Nfld.
So Ed martin is not alone in using fuzzy math do fool the public.
Winston Adams

Winston can you tell us some of the better cold climate models please ?

So far this Inquiry has not, I think, referenced Efficiency NS as a primary example of prudent application of CDM since 2008, so now a decade in NS, and over 100,000 installed, starting in 2008, and 4 years prior to MF sanction. So is NLP or Nfld Hydro on the ball to help customers ?
Cold Climate models in not something you find on a label or by Manufacturers. It was a method adoped by prudent USA power companies to separate good units for cold climates and other units for mild climates.
So they set criteria of a minimum COP (coefficient of performance) in cold temperatures. So this requires assessing each mfg and looking at charts etc, that even contractors generally don't do.
Nova Scotia went further to set a requirement of minimum COP of 1.75 @ -15C. In fact many mgfs well exceed this , some @ COP of 3.0 @ -15C. Many of these operate to -20C or colder. I have measured a COP of 2.7 @ -17C on the Avalon for a CC model. Another less critical factor is a seasonal rating ( which Nfld Power uses) but this gives no assurance of goo cold temperature operation, as many, if not most of these peter out at -5C.
Google "Efficiency NS Cold Climate minisplits", for a comprehensive list of mfgs and models . So EFF NS has done this work which NLP here could just copy and benefit us here. But they have refused to do this. Need to wonder why?
There are 4 or 5 makes on the list which meet Cold Climate specs which I know are bieng used in Nfld. Not sure what present here are CC models, but ALL should be to bring down the grid load, and best savings for power bills. Customers are little aware of this, and Take Charge seems to want customers in the dark as to what achieves best savings and suitable for our climate.
Winston

WA – I posted at 11:37. Here's my view on peak demand based on my own observations using an energy monitor.

Heating my house with baseboard, I'd have 6kW of heat on. During a cold day it could run that way for many hours seldom cutting out.

With mshp, typical load is around 2kW. Peak load during any given hour could be 50% for a few minutes. If the temp setting is raised that will drive it up for a few minutes. If I really hammer both my units simultaneously I can get +100% (about 2/3 of the old baseboard draw) but that's never normal operating practice for me.

While WA surely knows, many others here may not have heard of the concept of diversity of electrical loads. Let's use the example of 100 identical homes heated with identical mshp systems like mine. Would everyone's peak load be coincident, all occurring at the same time? Of course not. In fact the grid would see a constant unvarying load. Just add up everyone's 2kW in this example to get 200kW total load. To account for people who might hammer their temperature settings add another 10%. If you want to assume -15C makes the peaks last longer, add another 10% or so and the total load is closer to 250kW.

The point is while a single mshp will exhibit very peaky behaviour, the effect is muted at the grid level where it averages out among many thousands of units. The typical power usage should be assumed to be 66% less than baseboard in normal heating conditions and diminishing to around 55-60% less than baseboard in more adverse conditions. 50% would be extremely conservative (P90 or higher if Ed is reading) I'd suspect.

For NP to suggest the aggregated coincident demand of mshp is the same as baseboard is idiotic and not credible of a firm based on electrical engineering. They are in as big a need of flogging as Hydro and Nalcor.

If SNC overpaid, perhaps it was a bribe in disguise.

http://rocksolidpolitics.blogspot.com/2013/01/danny-williams-and-sale-of-atlantic-xl.html

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

We need to crowd source a list of people connected to DW and the senior positions they held or hold. I believe the network is far more extensive than we realize. Brad's blog as well as this one mention dozens of them. It reminds me of Goldman Sachs — the vampire squid. We might discover that some of his network nodes have their own networks.

Connecting these dots seems to lead down a bottomless rabbit hole. I always thought Cabana was a bit of a wingnut, mainly due to his Russian TV appearances, but perhaps he is sharper than I believed him to be. I used to follow Cabanas blog quite regularly, but NL politics seems to have jaded him, and he seems to have signed off for good. After the legal limbo Danny brought down upon him, I'd be jaded too.

Interestingly, that article has a name that has been in the news a fair bit lately – Dean MacDonald. Isn't funny how seemingly unconnected plots have such similar casts of characters?

There is also the Alderon board appointment of DW directly after his departure from Government. The private industry who lobbied like Mark Morabito should also be on the stand in this inquiry.

And the high salary while in office as well as the $6 million payout( the cheque was authorized by board and company executives some of whom Martin lambasted while on the stand at the inquiry ) on the way out the door with the volunteer board of directors. Did any of them bump their arses on the door knob on the way out, I wonder?

I wondered all week, what evidence does he have to back up any of his claims? We have his word and nothing else.

He made up 4 new benefits yesterday afternoon. One he elaborated on was using hydro storage to import power overnight on the cheap and resell it next day at a premium. I crunched some numbers and I figure the profit on that scheme would be less than $1million per year. By the time administrative fees are paid it's worth nothing. It wouldn't be worth the wear and tear on the system either which has to be counted for something.

The guy just spilled unintelligent BS all week. He sees supposed value lurking where none exists. An uninformed dreamer given unbridled power is a very dangerous character.

Let's ask, where is there anybody backing him up with some analysis to say he's right? Anyone please? There's nobody. His claims are indefensible and reprehensible.

I was disappointed that the redirect yesterday did not include a question or two requiring him to cite the study that may prove the feasibility of his claims. Should've asked because they don't exist. Hopefully the Judge recognizes that the claims are unsubstantiated.

By the time it got to redirect all the judge and the legal beagles could think about was the big party they were going to today to celebrate the political elevation of one of their peers to a comfy seat in the judiciary.

Incidentally, does anyone know whether the Daniel M. Boone who is being sworn in a our newest judge is the associated with the liberal political contributions made by Daniel M. Boone PLC (see ntv.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/2015-Political-Contributions.xlsx). BTW, I'm sure that this had nothing to do with his selection.

Making sure that the testimony of Martin was rushed so that everyone could enjoy the Friday swearing-in party serves as a timely reminder to the co-counsel and the other legal beagles how political loyalty, either through cash or in-kind contributions, does not harm your chances of getting a seat on the bench.

Good to see some on this Shadow Inquiry noting the Eds bullshit. That bit yesterday may me laugh. First of all, NS is short of energy and has to import,whether from NL or NB, to displace coal. NB has little to offer, and no significant capacity connection to transfer if power existed. And often in winter a cold snap hits them at the same time as NL so no surplus power, especially from NS. And they have a long way to go to eliminate coal fired generation. And it has already been established that there are no contracts in place for importing power, even in an emergency.
What was more amazing than Martin adding 4 new fake benefits, was Leblanc, seeming to take him serious and taking notes on this, rather than pointing out what was obvious :BS. This after Leblanc saying he has heard too much already on so called benefits of MFs, but Ed got over him to illustrate that Ed, not Leblanc was still running this show.
Leblanc even used the word SHOW in his rebuke of Ed Martin. That the Inquiry is actually a SHOW, is a big admission, I suggest from the judge: That this is a show more than an in depth inquiry. Yet even a show has value, including some entertainment. Fitzgerald could be seen laughing regularly,a few days ago,(and leaning over chatting to Bernard Cofey as the lawyer for the Grand River group was addressing issues as to contamination to food supply, and risk of flooding that may kill residents. So, is this Inquiry just another big joke at the expense of our citizens?
They say the proof is in the pudding. We are at least seeing some of the ingredients, and neither Nalcor nor this Inquiry seems world class. But, it's not over til it's over.
When does Tom Johnson get added to the witness list?
Did Martin get questioned on whether SNC actually handed him a risk list that got buried for 3 years, and Martin says he never received it. I missed parts, so maybe that was addressed?
Winston Adams

NB is a key to green energy self sufficiency on the Atlantic grid. Imported oil and natural gas is not an answer for the usual list of negatives. HQ green pipe electricity would allow the transfer from coal fired generation in NB and NS. NL could and should be providing strong support for an Atlantic grid, utilizing green energy. But Dwight has gone mute and missing from the discussion. Oh but Ches is breaking with Kenny on right wing agenda. Maybe he is the long awaited messiah for renewable collaboration.

WA @ 14:21:

The SNC Risk Report receipt/refusal was post sanction – not really relevant yet.

As for TJ – not sure why he wasn't called. But there are avenues under the PA acts for any involved counsel to move witnesses – so I guess no one else though he had anything to add at this point either.

PENG2

And Benefit #1 ……

Liberal-connected lawyers get rich watching each other rag the puck at the MF Inquiry.

Signed Poor Danny (L'il Trump) and all his ambulance-chasing friends

So we don't really deserve transfer payment since we have great revenue. However we spend like drunken sailors and have racked up odious debt.

28. The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador generates more revenue, on a per capita basis, than every other province. Newfoundland and Labrador also has one of the highest tax burdens on a per capita basis in the country. However, per capita spending in this Province is substantially higher than per capita spending in every other province and is also higher than the Province’s per capita revenues. This suggests that revenue is not the primary issue creating the deficits but the level of spending. Continued emphasis on sustainably reducing the province’s per capita spending will remain important.

The financial statements will look pretty bad when MF is no longer seen as a self supporting asset.

p 51. "The existing Muskrat Falls business, regulatory and financing structure ensures costs, expenses or be recovered, in full, from ratepayers in the Province. Because this structure ensures there will be sufficient revenue generated from ratepayers over the life of the project to cover the capital and operating costs of Muskrat Falls, it is unlikely that the Muskrat Falls assets would be considered impaired in value on the financial statements of Nalcor.

However, Government has indicated that it is examining options
to mitigate the impact of expected electricity rate increases resulting from Muskrat Falls. There has been no decision on the specifics of mitigation measures. On September 5, 2018, Government requested the Public Utilities Board to examine options to mitigate impacts of the Muskrat Falls project with an interim report to be provided to Government by February 15, 2019 and a final report by January 31, 2020. The impact of any Government measures to effectively reduce electricity rates will have to be evaluated to determine whether the substance of these measures have any potential impact on the Consolidated Summary Financial Statements of the Province. Our Office will continue to monitor this matter."

Massive borrowing ahead. I thought the MF borrowing was behind us. … what a mess … (remember, only half a million people here)

Over the period 2018-19 to 2022-23, the Province expects to borrow up to $6.7 billion in the capital markets, which will have associated debt expenses.

Borrowings are required to:

Re-finance existing debt as it comes due.

Satisfy commitments under the promissory notes issued as part of the pension reform process.

Finance deficits and infrastructure spending.

Fund the Province’s currently expected share of equity for the
Muskrat Falls project. Any additional cost overruns on the Muskrat Falls project would require additional equity and borrowings by the Province.

It would be timely, for a complete project cost update from NALCOR. Clear the air so to speak, before NL gets into re-election mode provincially and Federally. How about Dwight?

Lots of billion plus deficits ahead until the lights go out both figuratively and literally. The alternative is for a political party to impose fiscal conservatism which needs to be so deep now it will be an impossible sell. Nothing will change until the repo men come knocking and we end up with high tax austerity. We won't be able to afford to die here, let alone live here.

WA @ 19:31:

I was also surprised initially – but considering this weeks goings on and the revelations, maybe there was nothing else to have stated and thus no real reason to prolong a gong show. All the redirects/crosses were short, so the others lawyers also thought the same.

I guess the distinction needs to be made in what is the value/burden in 'putting the shyster in his place' vs showing consideration wasn't made towards other plausible options or acting in due care. To me, more than enough has already been presented showing Nalcor/government didn't act in accordance with the standard of care expected in ToR clause 4(a) already – nothing else to be gained in reality.

PENG2

PENG2
Put in his place might be just a public flogging before the cameras,of limited satisfaction, or, some might suggest, if his place, pending other sufficient evidence later can show cause,might be behind bars?
But I disagree that enough evidence has been presented as to standard of care, by engineers especially for forecasting. Much evidence and discussion on risk analysis and P factors. Nothing, essentially, on End -use vs econometric modeling, or what technology change factor used for forecasting, as if these concepts are too difficult to grasp by Leblanc, the lawyers, or even ordinary people.
Recall that Leblanc stated that that evidence was well explained by the trio, who then posed for CBC and Telegram photos secure that their work of forecasting was fine, and would do the same all over.
Such incompetence or deliberate avoidance by Nalcor paved the road to give us false demand forecasting. THat was aided by: no end use best practise modeling, no optimizing wind and small hydro, no consideration of elasticity effect to drive down demand, no CDM consideration. Negative growth could have, and should have, been forecasted, I susggest. Once the false forecasting was done, it was a 12 lane highway for Nalcor to apply and fall victim to all the other missteps.
For the Inquiry to not scrutinise the forecasting more is a very big error,and a repeat of Nalcor's approach. I wonder if it is deliberate? I think so.
Kate, nor the others put the trio under much intense questioning, and I wonder why not.
Winston

WA @ 21:25:

Being investigative, I think all that is required is for LeBlanc to determine what was done – the onus is then on him to determine if the processes Nalcor employed were best practice, reasonable or not. In the same way you determined there was no consideration to CDM, elasticity etc, so does LeBlanc – the basis is now what is reasonable, no necessarily the optimum. I think most need to realize the difference in an Inquiry and a trial – questions, evidence and standards are quite different.

There is no need to assess every measure or every detail- just show that there was 1 measure or alternative prematurely dismissed or not considered (LNG was prematurely dismissed) and that forecasting was reasonable or not.

To me, there is enough to demonstrate non-compliance with clause 4 – whether my standard is reasonable or closer to best practice is TBD. Id offer that the discussion on risk, p-factors etc has shown reasonable efforts were not employed and the costs were not adequately compared.

The definition of best practice vs reasonable is defined under the FLG and what is required – it is not defined at the Inquiry.

PENG2

PENG2
I agree that best practises is the reasonable standard instead of optimum. I agree that discussion on risk factors and P factors have been sufficiently addressed.
I agree that CDM and elasticity has been addressed with a wide difference of opinion. That CDM and elasticity was ignored but should not have been. Nalcor says neither was material to proper analysis, so omitted it. Others suggest they MAY be material, but little or no expert evidence to quantify reasonable effects for Leblanc, whether small or large factors for Isolated case.
As to what you refer to "etc", these being END- USE forecasting model, and "technological change" factor: these issues are critical to decide what is reasonable for CDM, as inputs for CDM and also affecting elasticity result. Both of those are black boxes, I suggest, for Leblanc, lawyers, and most of the public. Without an understanding of that, then what is reasonable for CDM and elasticity is largely unknown, and open to opinion, Where Ed and Gil's opinion that CDM is not material is not refuted by evidence. There has been no Energy Efficiency Consultant as expert witnesses for this inquiry. Several witnesses has stated that to quantify reasonable CDM that such experts should be heard.
How can Leblanc weigh what is reasonable for our Isolated Option for CDM without understanding END USE Methods, technological change factor used, and seeking no guidance from experts as what constituted best practises for these for our Isolated Options?
Not even any discussion of what NS was achieving for energy saving and demand reductions by CDM from 2008 to 2012 (pre sanction), or since then, nor other jurisdictions.
Same goes for best practises for wind additions. Not optimum but what should have been best practise. We have Nalcor's opinions, and that of their consultants, tailored to be of little value. No true independent wind analysis as to best practise.
So, Leblanc almost entirely subjected to Nalcors data and opinions, not on reasonable best practise.
Your thoughts?
Winston

I don't even know who the current NL minister responsible for Energy and Environment is.
Can someone give me a brief overview of any progressive action that the current government has taken with regards; 1) commitment to low carbon future. Green Energy Funding and project execution.

Don't bother with Strategic Planning docs and propaganda. Tell us the facts please.

WA @ 13:53:

I don't disagree with anything you have said – but I would say that LeBlancs role at this point is to determine what Nalcor and Government did. Once he determines what was done, he can commission reports to verify what was done was indeed best practice (refer to forensic audit), consult with experts(see persons called after the initial list was drawn) or even reopen Phase I of the inquiry among other actions in support of his decision making as required. LeBlanc will likely consider more than just what has been presented when rendering his decision.

I never thought the December 2019 deadline was achievable to do the Inquiry right and now I think this is even more true, though most wanted a shorter timeline and called December 100% political. I also supported something closer to Berger with intermediate findings that would have allowed greater public intervention in Phases – we wont get this now.

I have few concerns about how the Inquiry is hearing evidence to date, but I am becoming more concerned with the deadline daily. We are only 40% into Phase I, a lot more to come yet and I don't think most realize just how much effort and behind the scenes work gets done at an Inquiry.

I would also offer that there is a room full of lawyers (for all sides so to speak) – if they had evidentiary concerns, I am sure it would have been brought up by now.

PENG2

PENG The Shadow Inquiry has heard enough to write a report in 6 weeks including edits. Bottom line; Flawed Energy Plan led to corrupt players making $millions, at expense of the ratepayers.

Robert @ 16:59:

Not sure that having a determination before the Inquiry is completed is in the best interest of anybody – that is exactly the type of thinking that got us MF in the first place.

PENG2

Peng2, likely leblanc will produce a report of 100s of pages and cost 10s of millions, but in the end can be condensed to: flawed energy policy, corrupt players making millions at expense of ratepayers,if Leblanc tells the truth.
What more do you expect? Undisclosed documents handed to police for criminal assessment?

Seems I may need to disagree with myself, (where I flipped and agreed with you that best practise is better than optimum.My prior comment stated there was no optimising wind and small hydro for the Isolated Option, which I actually thought was prudent to do.
Now I read the Knight report sent to Tom Johnson, and they go into detail on the benefit of optimising wind and small hydro, and say this was not done. And so optimising also with CDM is obviously even better to reduce thermal generation.
So optimising seems to imply best practise, which also seems common sense. Have you read the Knight report P- 01530 ? Please comment.
I suggest Leblanc send the sheriff and have Tom Johnson appear after Kathy Bennett, before Xmas, or to start the New year. Johnson, the defender of the poor and middle class as consumer advocate! Why did he bury this report, there is much in that which evades all the lawyers it seems, as briefly mentioned. PlanetNL should do a piece on it, as a follow up on their last piece. Did Johnson share this with Nalcor, NLP or the PUB?
Winston

PENG2, 00;14 for you, and should also read Kathy Dunderdale , not Bennett.

Knight's supply costs for power, his calculations:cents per kwh
MFs…13.1(now >60 cents)
Island small hydro, 3 sites, 7.0 cents, 4.7 cents, 7.9 cents
Wind …. 7 cents
Conservation 3.2 cents.
Island small hydro /wind average, 6.7 cents
gas turbine 27.3 cents.
Winston

From above: "Don't bother with Strategic Planning docs and propaganda. Tell us the facts please."

Facts: Verbal (not in writing) moratorium on heat pumps and hot water based heating systems, actively converting oil heated buildings to electric baseboard. Some funding available from the federal government to reduce CO2 — this will be used to reduce CO2 (say getting rid of oil furnaces) AND satisfy the desire to increase the electrical load.

On the ground, everything is still very much trying to retroactively justify Muskrat Falls and consume any external funding that might be available from things like the low carbon energy fund.

Natural Resources is still very much in control of any low carbon initiatives. Natural Resources = Nalcor = business interests. NL Power is in the business of selling electricity — so they aren't motivated to reduce demand for electricity.

I supposed that if we wanted to do our part to reduce global CO2, we could shut down our offshore production and use that as our CO2 sequestration contribution to the world.

WA @ 00:14:

Still going over the Knight report, but immediate questions are 2 fold:
1) did the CA distribute to Nalcor and Government – I separate NLPower from the equation more than most and consider them somewhat of being bystanders as they are primarily distributors of power
2) why did CA disregard a report he commissioned when announcing his support of the position that CDM or a mix of new island generation was not a possible competitor to MF

I am not necessarily sure that best practice is always better than optimal or vice versa – I can think of situations where either might be better for the people. No matter, we need consider what is reasonable – this is defined in the FLG section 4.13.

Clear to me alternate options to MF were 'unreasonably' disqualified – thus non-compliance with section 4(a)ii of the ToR.

PENG2

Anon 10:50
See what you started? Progressives are gaining in St. Jawns for —-st's sake!:-)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/climate-change-coordinator-st-johns-1.4945980

Just think of the possibilities, had the Plan reviewer for Galway had directed M. Williams to contribute to a Green Fund , (Say 15% of estimated construction costs), to offset the "Free polluting by carbon footprint" for the sprawl development? Such a climate change coordinator would have paid for his salary maybe 15 times over!!

Too much resource time is being expended to "nail" the perpetrators of Muskrat. The damage is done. Let's get on with fixing the real problem; Bad climate change management and policy. Polluters must pay forward for the damage they continue to propagate. Low carbon development, or pay back society, and the grand children.

How much restitution payment should we require NALCOR, (negative bonuses and dividends), to support the climate change fund? Suggest, $1m/year minimum. What could this benefit a low carbon initiative? Winter Solstice is Friday, how many solar GJ will St. John's collect by next December?

PENG2, agree that what is reasonable is the best standard, often optimum is best practise, sometimes not, and agree that what was reasonable was ignored for Isolated Options.
In the last CDM report filed with the PUB, the consultant stated all minisplits would fail in adverse weather. This almost slipped by me, except I noticed this explanation in a footnote, when not seeing Demand reduction on a chart.
The consultant, ICF, said this was a "conservative assumption" and then countered it's own argument by saying St John's on the Avalon has a relatively mild average winter low temp , about -8C , so many units would be expected to stay running.
Yet that approach permitted showing ZERO reduction on the grid peak.
Johnson asked me "if I thought that the consultant was asked to make that statement, that way". Seems from this Inquiry that that approach is standard procedure.
This issue was for a Nfld Power rate application, so power distributors yes, but seems to have most to say on CDM in the PUB hearings.
Then too, their own MINI SPLIT Report, it took them 3 years to do, and when questioned by Tom Johnson if it was "authorative" Lorne Henderson of Nfld Power replied NO. Our public ratepayer money spent by them to do a fake report. And NO engineer put their name to it!
If that report is not an Exhibit, it should be.
Winston

Not sure but perhaps there is 4.7 billion of the Muskrat 12.7 estimated cost already sent over to Nalcor and is included in the 14.7 billion provincial debt? Can anyone clarify this? Tom Osborne or the AG possibly?

If this is correct then we have a large "already been spent on Muskrat Falls problem" in addition to a current spending problem. The AG should address this in order to present a good picture of the whole problem.

Anon @ 17:29

You neglected to mention the mastermind of "the biggest mistake and attempted coverup" in our history–DANNY WILLIAMS!!!!

Also while watching the interview with EDMUND MARTIN on NTV, I almost lost my supper. The man is indeed repugnant.
Not one of the brave media even alluded to ask him how he thought the NL public was going to pay for his ineptitude and gross incompetance in allowing the MF boongoggle cost to get anywhere near what it now is (and counting)—Good for NL??? What a farcical statement to make! He and DW must be drinking from the same koolaid bottle.

Joe, PENG2
Further from Knight:
Nfld Hydro 1986 study by Shawmont : 196 small hydro sites on the island. 7 of these were actually considered in 1992/1993and costed about 10.2 cents per kwh in todays dollars. Knight says " it ommediately raised the question of why only 3 are considered for the the Isolated Option. Also no proper update on the cost of the island hydro was done, just esculated the cost from the past, so Nalcor did not compare apples with apples.
I would note that an engineer (who did a piece for UG) wanted to be party to this Inquiry, ( he has much knowledge on island samll hydro) but Leblanc turned that down. Now Leblanc adds Ball and Coady, all lawyered up at public expence, to be party.
I suspect the hidden truth of our small island hydro as a resource, is far more important than having another sitting and getting paid, but never asking any questions ,like most now doing likewise.
Of 24 parties, 4 ask meaningful questions to get at the truth of the boondoggle, 2 are neutral, so 18 paid for nothing but to defend the interests of the boondoggle enablers. Now one more added.
A ritual : Leblanc going through the long list of parties: "Do you have questions?" . Answer "NO"
PENG2 called it "gong show"! Maybe he could elaborate.
Winston

Agree with you Winston, sitting on their duffs, just in case someone may offend their client what asking a honest pertinent question. So maybe the commission should have just a half dozen lawyers, and only one to speak on behalf of all the boondoggle enablers. Agree the engineer that did the piece for UG on island options should be on the stand, to give some truth about the island lowest cost power, that nalcor and buddies clearly suppressed.

'Twas the Knights Report before Christmas, and all throughout Leblanc's court,
The buggers were lying and flogging for sport.
They were Arrogant, Depective, Abusive, Transulent …Defiant, all Grinches reindeers,
But all so apparent the boondoggle public privateers.
They rambled, misled, spent, behooved, the truth to spin,
But we the public, the commissioners and all to deceive and to win,
And if given the chance would do it all over again.
The buggers have no conseious, regrets, or remorse,
And the worst travesty ever inflected is par for the course. ( may be continued says average Joe)

Don't expect God listens to the plight of comfortable capitalists, duped by their own leaders!

I think, Robert, that the saying "God helps them who helps themselves" is a good one, much like like the Russian proverb, Trust but verify.
Now if the public is disengaged and not angry at this crowd who enabled the boondoggle, and to assure changes are made to prevent such things in the future, then God will not do it for us. God is on the side of truth, and we will not get the full truth by being disengaged, and saying God help us.
So to with Trust but Verify. We now see that little of what Nalcor said can be verified. False assumptions, opinions, and manipulation, not solid engineering nor best practises.
And the capitalists god is too often the Almighty dollar. Martin walked with 6 million of them, for what seems a Ponzy scheme, and many bought into it, leaving the ratepayer holding the bag.
Enough to turn your guts. Not only should one question how God operates, but I am even now questioning the reality of Santa.
By the way, Ed mentioned that Nfld was unique with an isolated island grid,not having the benefits of interconnection, except for Hawaii too like that, he said. No one countered that false statement. What of all the Carabean islands? Cuba, Jamaica, St Martin, Bermuda, dozens of these, even the Turks where Fortis operates. Is Fortis planning links to the USA power grid? Would Fortis hire Martin? Does Stan Marshall seek his advise?
PF

Right. Us islanders pay a heavier penalty for progress.

Well intended reports, based on fact and logic are somewhat like Strategic Plans. Until there is commitment to the hard work necessary to bring change, it is just words.
Sad 🙁

There were people within Fortis that though the project was very bad and that Nalcor was very incompetent. There was a decision to say nothing because of the fear that retaliation might adversely the shareholders. For example, Newfoundland Power publicly states they disagree with government, government modifies laws to harm them, shareholders get mad. I hope this gets explored.

I also wonder who actually set the goals for TakeCharge.

So, everyone is afraid of the big bad wolf, DW, Nalcor, Dunderdale, even Fortis shareholders. Nfld Power and Nfld operations is now only about 5 % of their revenue. Even during this Inquiry they have lied low and asked no questions. Perhaps Fortis shareholders and BOT members are often one and the same? Jackbooots were in the suites said Andy Wells, and still Fortis and Nfld power stayed quiet. They more than stayed quiet, they endorsed the feeble CDM and misled customers on the many of the near useless CDM measures they promoted. For CDM , Nfld Power is the public face, on TV, the radio, and internet. They own it. Their input for a decade before the PUB is public record. Show us evidence of documents that they wanted to do more? Who are the people within Fortis who thought the project very bad? Marshall said he wouldn't touch it, but where was their critical analysis? If Steve Burneau could speak up and prepare papers on gas alternatives, why not Nfld Power and other MUN engineers? A feudal state as Bruno says?
Winston

As Bruneau so aptly put it, Winston. "It was my professional duty." I would hope that others like you and I can measure up. Engineers, as well as other professionals and non-professionals alike.

PENG2, to continue our discussion back further on NLP and CDM:
Exhibit P-01640 page 1 refers to "an evaluation by Nfld Power to include an evaluation of the potential of Mini-split HPs in it's report, per PUB order PU13(2013)
This exhibit P-01640 item 5.3 page 11 : "HP research". It says Nfld Power did an "energy use modeling". However, the NLP report for this is missing from the Inquiry Exhibits. So too is missing the PUB transcripts of discussion of this report, and also missing is an alternative MSHP evaluation. The NLP research was acknowledged as NOT AUTHORATIVE" by NLP. They showed virtually no demand reduction ability , while the other research showed HUGE DEMAND REDUCTION , and that was admitted by NLP to be a much better method and result.
Strange that this supplemental data is missing from exhibits of the Inquiry, so not available to Inquiry lawyers interested in CDM options ignored.
Winston