to Brendan Paddick, cable guru and Nalcor Board Chair, testifying at the
Muskrat Falls Inquiry two weeks ago, constituted one of those “pinch me”
moments when people esteemed for their successes, broad range of business and
life experience, simply disappoint. 

That is not to dismiss or diminish Mr.
Paddick’s accomplishments. Indeed, he may well be an inspiration to
entrepreneurs seeking to discover the dimensions of their business acumen. And, it is right to acknowledge his and the Board Member’s pro bono service which, while poor public policy, especially on heavily demanding Boards, still carries the obligation of their best work. 

live in in a post-megaproject era, a time when a fiscally-challenged NL society
reluctantly comes to grips with the trepidation of financial insecurity. The
Crown Corporation of which Mr. Paddick is Chair has played an integral role in fomenting
that condition, a fact not fully quantified at this stage and, for that reason,
not the full spectre of mitigation costs either.

Nalcor Board Chair, Brendan Paddick

addition, Mr. Paddick’s arrival before the Commissioner occurs not at the start
but very nearly the end of nine months of gripping and often disturbing
testimony. The Commission has heard evidence of how the Nalcor Board and the
Government were kept ignorant of cost overruns, including during project
sanction and “Financial Close” when it was possible to re-think the scheme.

has heard testimony of interference in independent reviews and analysis — all
of which have been held out as benchmarks of approval by Nalcor and by an
intellectually-impoverished government (equally as deceptive in its
disclosures) — when they ought to have been judged a debasement of both ethical
and best practices.

most fundamentally, we have heard of a thoroughly concocted business case, godawful
management decisions including the composition of the project management team, the
choice of contractors, secrecy under the aegis of “commercial sensitivity” and
a self-aggrandizing leadership willing to be reckless.

testimony is not related to some third-world despotic regime but to the body
corporate Brendan Paddick now serves.

Also related:
What would you lose losing Nalcor? (Part I)
Why we should dismantle Nalcor (Part II)

indisputable facts — often repeated — ought to have influenced Paddick’s
appraisal of all matters Nalcor and, hence, his narrative on the Witness Stand .

the role of Chair is merely an opportunity for ego to compete with nonsense,
then his suggestion of Nalcor as a ‘downtrodden organization’ that should be
returned, ostensibly, to its former unearned glory makes as much sense as does his
suggestion that “everyone put the jersey on.” The troubling part is that that very
idea requires the acceptance and support of a corruptible paradigm in which
less-than-admirable ethics and mind-numbingly stupid business practices are not
just condoned but applauded.

addition — and Mr. Paddick seems to forget this most obvious fact — even when fans
“put the jersey on” and engage in the testosterone-driven hoopla of fraternities,
whether in the Raptors’ boardroom or in other such corporations (public and
private) — the noise of fandom is banished to the exigencies of the balance
sheet, to oversight, to best practices and, of course, to the future if, in the
case of a publicly-owned Corporation like Nalcor, the Government warrants it such
a destiny.

any such context, however, the Chair is not expected to be a cheerleader. They
are a mentor — to the Board Members and to the CEO — providing leadership that
is weighed with wisdom, reflection, and guidance. The Chair will, when asked,
provide advice to the Government, too, preferably the kind laden with
experience, focussed within a public policy framework, and with the knowledge
that that their election to high office confers on those politicians far more
responsibility than it does wisdom. The public, by and large, expects no less.

it gets to the point where a transport truck blows over in Wreckhouse and
that’s Nalcor’s fault, or it’s raining on May 24th weekend, that’s Nalcor’s
fault, and nobody wants Nalcor to succeed for whatever reason… guess what? It’s
not going to succeed,” Mr. Paddick told Commissioner Richard LeBlanc in what
must have seemed a huge distortion of the public distrust of Nalcor and a cringeworthy
moment for him.

for anyone — especially the Chair of the Nalcor Board — to suggest that Nalcor’s
woes are the product of simple-minded or negative thoughts exposes a shallowness
of comprehension best characterized as subterranean in its judiciousness.

particular, Paddick’s assertion of the requirement for Nalcor’s success is that
everyone has to want it to work, speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of how
wealth is created — including the essential requirement of accountability for
other people’s money, and prudent behaviours that invite oversight rather than repudiate
it, as Nalcor has done. Besides, so far, Nalcor has created nothing, unless we
include the Muskrat debacle.

Nalcor reports annual earnings, every asset it holds has either been
transferred from another government-owned entity or government has given it
taxpayers’ money (equity) for the purpose. In short, Nalcor has performed more
poorly what could have been performed by a Government Department. It has
engaged in capital destruction on a massive scale, which will manifest when responsible
auditors transfer to the “Net Debt” of the province much of the amount
currently classified as “self-supporting”.

the Inquiry, Mr. Paddick spoke of “image” studies being undertaken by Nalcor’s communications
team and of “changing the narrative, when the time was right.” Those comments
are as unfortunate as they are sad. The very idea that the image and reputation
of a Crown Corporation whose management decisions have devastated the public
Treasury can be remediated with a new logo — and possibly a new jersey — isn’t
funny, though I don’t think it was meant to be. It does, however, reflect a misunderstanding
of why Nalcor employees are dispirited, along with everyone else.

this is a crossroads time in Newfoundland and Labrador. Because of Nalcor’s failure
to consider essential risk/reward consequences in the mandate it was given,
every member of the public will be need to be a policy wonk soon, all of the
choices unpalatable.  

too bad that someone of Paddick’s experience is not engaged in helping make
that public policy road easier. Playing Chair — rather than cheerleader — would
have been a better place for him to begin.

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. And while, yes, much has been revealed (and much confirmed) as a result of this inquiry, what about the elephant in the room — the North Spur?

    Why hasn't the inquiry commissioned an expert review of that?

    • The denial is endless. They ignored Bernander and his students and the Geological Survey of Canada who were terrified by the slumping upstream. SNC are engineers of record according to Nalcor, no need for caution Maurice!

      WHAT COULD GO WRONG????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • When I asked inquiry co-counsel "How can the Commission arrive at a rational, well-grounded, evidence-based decision as to whether or not "the Government of this Province was fully informed and made aware of the risks and anticipated problems with the Muskrat Falls Project so as to enable it to have accurate and sufficient information to appropriately decide to sanction the Project…." — when the public record shows that there are significant, credible and documented concerns about the safety risks associated with the North Spur, and yet the Commission failed to obtain an INDEPENDENT, properly credentialed and experienced EXPERT audit of the COMPLEX North Spur geotechnical works utilized (and relied) on by both Nalcor and government (Nalcor's 2013 geotechnical investigations showed an increased number/complexity of Kettle Lakes area soil/clay layers)?", ———- I was advised that "the Commissioner has stated from the outset that paragraph 54 applies to the North Spur issue".

      Para. 54 states "[54] I will also investigate what analyses, risk assessments, etc., were done as regards environmental concerns and whether these were appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances based upon accepted industry standards and the knowledge that the parties had at the various times when the analyses or risk assessments were completed. Included in this will be a review of the measures taken, if any, to address any legitimate environmental concerns. I will not, however, assess the correctness of the positions taken by the various parties. As well, I am satisfied that the Terms of Reference do not permit me to conduct any further environmental assessment and nor does the time I have to conclude this Inquiry permit this."

      Seems to me that Section 54 did not and does not preclude the commission from doing what it has done for other aspects of the inquiry —- commission (not parties to this inquiry) but independent experts to inform the commission (not on environmental) but on safety, stability, reliability matters related to the North Spur (and also keeping in mind a number of the transmission line towers are anchored in the sand/silt/clay layers of the NS).

    • "based upon accepted industry standards and the knowledge that the parties had at the various times when the analyses or risk assessments were completed"

      Sadly Maurice his quote provides cover for the vermin when the spur fails. It also provides spiritual absolution to Da Judge when the spur fails.

      A pox upon their kind!

    • Perhaps, but I would argue that this inquiry has NOT done ANYTHING to 'independently' assess what constitutes "accepted industry standards", i.e geotechnical, etc.

      The inquiry has done that, e.g to assess whether the 'little people' (workers, etc.) might have pilfered personal protective gear, e,g.) and even did their own independent expert forensic audit, but what rational, independent evidence or expert opinion has the inquiry itself sought and on which can it therefore form a sound judgement/decision? —– NONE!.

      It is incumbent on the inquiry, I would suggest, (not to rely on only one parties evidence), but on its own independent expert evidence.

      Otherwise, even the judicial system itself will be suspect.

  2. Well, well I'll be damned! The "intelligentsia" have become "woke"!

    "Playing Chair — rather than cheerleader — would have been a better place for him to begin" for Paddick. It is a bit late for clear eyes after 15 billion have escaped the treasury!

    You all bowed down to a corrupt emperor who has destroyed the future for generations, now live with it! Too late to send Paddick to the paddock!

  3. Kudos to Uncle Gnarley!

    Pretty well sums up NALCOR!

    All this from a company that hasn’t even admitted that they did anything wrong?

    Not to mention how NALCOR routinely dismissed anyone who dared to question the Muskrat Falls Project since Day 1!


    I’m sure we are all ready to throw on a “jersey” to support NALCOR?

    • My guess is that the probability of the weighted average of the truth spoken by witnesses at the inquiry is well below P50 and perhaps as low as P10. If the commissioner sticks to the truth spoken, he may have less than 10 pages to write for a report.

  4. One of the problems with the Musktrat Falls project was having people with no experience in hydro or mega-projects as board members. Danny put a cable tv executive, Ken Marshall, as Chairman and Dwight Ball put cable tv executive Brendan Paddick there. Almost a joke except for the consequences that have yet to arrive.

  5. "Put on the jerseys"??

    That Paddick individual must have rocks in his head if he thinks the collective victims of the largest bait-and-switch scheme ever perpetrated on NLers should become Nalcor cheerleaders after such a vile stunt as that.

    Look… that bloody monstrosity NALCOR has to be dismantled lock-stock-and-barrel and the entire shambles sold off to the private sector, and then that corrupted MRF cabal has to be rounded up by the authorities and hauled into court.

    "Put on the jerseys" indeed… "lock'em all up" more like it.

  6. Yes, I think the new chairman of the BOD may be barking up the wrong tree. The Frankeinstein monster cannot be transformed into the Return of the Prodical son and kill the fatted calf, rejoice and be one happy family again. The faithful brother is not willing to join the feast and celebrate his return, reincarnation and don the robe or jersey. Nalcor not only asked for his share of the provincial treasury and squandered it, but took the entire fortune, and now the chairman wants totall forgiveness for his return. Nalcor may be under stricter control with the current government than with the previous government but is still and will continue to be a big time spender. And no, it is not nalcor's fault that it is raining again today as well as on July 1st. or why we don't get enough sunshine or moonshine, but it is responsible for DarkNL, and for any future blackouts or brownout in the future. Joe blow.

  7. What does Mr. Paddick know, regarding the current Cost to Complete Estimate, that he is unwilling to divulge to the actual shareholders? (Rate payers). Same obfuscation games seem to be at play, years after sanction.

  8. SOOOOOOOOO……the alternative cost for an Isolated Option would be what?…….drum roll as we await the reply from Stan Marshall…..and her folks is the number, kept secret up to now : 2 billion dollars cost!
    Did someone suggest that number before? Thank you Stan.
    Now the Inquiry can assess the difference :14 billion less 2 billion , so Nalcor over spent 12 billion dollars. SO far this Inquiry used 8 billion for the Isolated Option and has completely skipped a deep dive in this 6 billion fraud of 8 billion for the Isolated. And Stan has not even included the benefit of CDM to the picture!
    Winston Adams

  9. Have to give Irene credit for her effective and logically line of questioning this morning. Have to give Stan credit for his line of reasoning, overall all knowledge experience coming to play and common scense approach. Agree with most of what he said, not so sure about the Spur, as he sorta dismissed Berendar, rather than taking him as an adviser as he did with many others, like Hatch, SNC etc. On advise on the Spur. Agree with his definition of the boondoggle, not because of the over runs, that was really the real cost, 10$ billion. But the conceived plan, and the high risk we assumed for the entire project that we did not need. Cost of muskrat at at transmission point was about 7 cents, and transmission cost should have been borne by all not just the rate payers, and tax payers of the province, which makes it around 45 cents to us. If everyone was paying 15 cents for power delivered to their door, or end user, then the burden would have been shared equally. But then who wants to pay even 15 cents. So the problem originated in the original term paper plan, we were on the hook and everyone else would benifit including NS at our expense. Too much risk for a maga project we did not need, beyond our composite, too expensive too much risk and unknowns. The only positive outcome may be a generation of new well trained experts in hydro transmission, expertise etc. That may be needed before 2041. Joe blow.

  10. Nalcor was studying 10,000 Mw of wind (called Big Wind Project) in Labrador, they spent tons of money with consultants and erecting met towers etc. Then ED killed it ! ………… wonder why ?

  11. Marshall says an Isolated Option would be about 2 billion;
    Bay de Espoir added capacity of 150 MW about 500 million cost he says, and later , I think used 450 million number.
    Gas turbines at Holyrood , about 300 MW, about 600 million cost( he used 2 million per MW). Together those cost about 1.1 billion.
    This leaves about 900 million for wind development which has a cost of produced power at 5-7 cent kwh range he says. But he noted wind can be contracted and supplied by others. Therefore not a capital cost to Nfld Hydro/Nalcor, you just buy their energy. He did not say the capacity needed, but I suggest 300-400 MW range ( we presently have only 54 MW.)
    If wind is contracted,supplied by others, then the capital cost in not 2 billion but no more than 1.1 billion, so he should use that number. Upon questioning Nalcor's assessments of wind that was acceptable, there were restraints, and whether this approach would remove those restraints. Absolutely Stan says.
    This suggests, that the Hatch report on wind was crafted to limit our wind potential and drive up the cost of the Isolated option, as I have stated here before. Also this shows the AJ too, who was always sceptical about our wind not being properly assessed was right. This needs to be investigated by this Inquiry how the Isolated Option went from 1.1 billion to 8 billion as claimed by Nalcor.
    Winston Adams

    • Adding the 150 MW capacity, by installing new unit #8 at Bay D'Espoir, might be useful to help fix or help with the vibration problems with unit #7. It will not however add any energy to the grid unless water is added by say the Lloyd's River diversion or by the addition of wind turbines. Not sure if $500 million will do that.

    • 150 Mw at BDE does NOT add energy to the system but it allows flexibility. You get the new energy from wind. When the wind is right you get the energy, store water at BDE. When no wind, flow water at BDE and use that energy !

    • Yes, and he mentions also Cat Arm where capacity and energy benefits. Extra capacity handles much of our peak loads, due to baseboard heat. Surprised he was not familiar with some recent charts shown as to our grid peaks loads and transmission restraint, I have seen them months ago, and now being assessed by the PUB……so Stan not in the forefront with some of this now, and lagging behind? But he is a busy man.

  12. Collins questioned him on Isolated options, and that there is 200 MW of island hydro that is constrained from getting to the Avalon. If you use a bigger gas turbine , then you don't need that extra island transmission says Marshall. So, two options there, one or the other.
    Then Collins asks : What about CDM?
    What do you mean CDM? Stan replied.
    That was a most intriguing reply from Stan, and so was Collin's reply " Customer demand management". Pay industrial customer not to use power, I think Collins replied and Marshall said , "We do that"

    The term CDM has been tossed around on this blog and at the Inquiry many times, but no deep dive.
    What does it mean, that an experienced power utility man like Stan Marshall has to ask ….What do you mean CDM? ,and then that curious false explanation by Collins?

    Here in Nfld , as I stated months ago, the officials have "invented" a fake from of the meaning of CDM, to again mislead and confuse and screw the consumer and residential customer, that is my take.
    Maybe our lawyer Budden or CA Hogan will straighten them out?

    CDM is Conservation Demand Management, not Consumer Demand Management, nor specifically Industrial Customer Demand Management.
    CDM is a term widely adopted in the power utility business to curtail new power generation assets by having customers, especially residential customers adopt conservation measures.
    Here, perhaps right out of Orwell's 1984, we develop a new meaning for CDM. CDM impacts power sales and profits. Stan has to ask the meaning of CDM? That is laughable, and suggests conflict of interest, to me, as to Fortis and Nfld Power's aversion to CDM that benefits residential customers.
    A deep dive needed, not a high level chat as happened here today.
    Winston Adams

  13. Conservation Demand Management has the potential here to reduce peak demand by 600 MW, I suggest, but if half of this is achieved that is 300 MW. That is twice the capacity of Stan's added capacity of Bay de Espoir. It is equal to the 300 MW of gas turbines proposed , it is equal to 600 MW of wind that operates at 50 % capacity.
    Yet Stan has ZERO allowance for residential customer CDM! ZERO.
    Nova Scotia is aiming for about 500 MW reduction from CDM, and acheiving about 40MW reduction per year. NS CDM costs about 2 cents per kwh, ad is much lower than even wind power costs. And it reduces yearly power bills to customers. Is Stan ignorant of this? Has he read the Synapse report?
    Winston Adams

  14. Don't you all just love Stan's management style; Tell it like it is. Typically, it can be said in this sorry affair: the solution is/was the problem. The problem was the wasting of energy on the Avalon. The solution was to drain Canada and NL Treasury, for the benefit of some Cable Guys and Offshore oil "Professionals".

  15. Stan says not the fault of project team, but the executive, all the present workers are fine, so put on the jersey, under his leadership and all is fine there.
    Consider this: Stan gave an Isolated cost of 2 billion that is 1.1 billion if wind is purchased, and costs will be lower than 1.1 billion if customer CDM is also used. TO do that, the forecast for power comes down, and means of power additions is different from Nalcor plans.
    Yet recall the trio first at this Inquiry, Stratton the forecaster and the other chap, system planning, who considered the Isolated options and at 8 billion cost vs Stan's 1.1 billion cost or lower. Yet at the end these guys said they would do the same forecasting and chose the same method and means all over again….they learned nothing. Yet Stan says those guys are first rate, keep them. So they learned nothing even from Marshall's insights. Laughable that Stan supports all this incompetence.
    Winston Adams

  16. Harold Smith suggests plans were in tact to feed CFs power as Marshall claims was his idea. Smith refers to engineers DeBurke and Kean.
    DeBurke, as I have said was a mechanical engineer holding a job that should have been electrical engineer. Kean too on transmission, I thought was civil, and I believe PENG2 says was also mechanical. So both of these guys quit…….I suggest they little understood the issues of power integration , software issues and single or bipole operation, and as Stan says, GE says these issues were not brought to their attention.
    Again……wrong people with no utility experience.
    Winston Adams

  17. Smith grasping for straws: says power rates of 21.5 cents is not double rates of 11 cents. Stan says that's the math. Essentially double ,so Smith about as bright as Ed Martin it seems. I think about the least competent lawyer there.

  18. Smith glosses over the fact that Stan paid at least 500 million on contracts above that might have been prudent, but Stan says at least we got the work done. A month of Inquiry time spent on the 300 million that was hidden, not 10 minutes on this 500 million……Stan gets an easy ride on this from Smith.

  19. 2 and 1/2 pages is missing from the publicly available copy of Hatch's Cold Eye Review of Design and Technical Specifications, North Spur Stabilization Works Final Report, dated January 8, 2014.

    Although the thumbnails show that there should be a section 4.2 (Items of Cost Exposure), and clicking on that take you to a blank bottom half of page 16 and NO pages 17 and 18, but then jumps to page 19.

    Shouldn't counsel have requested that these be made available to the them and to the public?

    Do they describe aspects or other works that should be done with respect to the North Spur?

    What (and who) is keeping this from the public eye? And is the Commission doing its due diligence?

  20. Smith says Humpheries had a team that assessed the Isolated option, but Stan says they used assumptions that were not good assumptions. Stan defends the team, but not the results of the Isolated assessment, and the results were very wrong we know. Were assumptions reasonable or best practise? Not at all…… the team players were not innocent of these blunders, were they? No deep dive into that aspect of this blunder.Stan says BDE and Cat Arm were good options, Cat Arm also adds energy and capacity. Small hydro has environmental issues (compare that to MFs though)
    Stan also refers to Hatch on wind where more wind could be utilised.
    Smith ……did little to show Ed Martin was competent,I think, Maybe should have been fired with cause, but collects a windfall.

  21. Dunderdale's lawyer tried to pin Stan down on his 2 billion Isolated figure, he says cost of fuel is not included, and she asks what would rates be with his suggestions of options . At one point he says 14 cents, but then backs away, saying it would take a week to do a good figure, and he can get himself into trouble with quick figures. She harps on high fuel costs, that to her that might make MFs seem ok. He explains that no, we could only use only 1/3 of MFs power so that is a fundamental problem. To Smith too he explained that MFs provides no flexibility if things change, that flexibility s very important, as a management approach, not just his opinion.

    He fails to mention to her that his Hydro options permits addressing peak load, and his wind options can address peak but also provides energy and that can also be stored by saving water.
    So his options are very valid….and likely it allows 14 cents and too, much reduced fuel use.
    The "gravy", whether intentionally avoided by Stan is: CDM, customer conservation and demand management: cuts energy use for customers about 35 % savings a year on power bills on electric heated houses, so 14 cents rates is equal to no more than 11 cent rates from efficient heat and other CDM savings, on the yearly bill; end result would have been stable power costs on a yearly basis. Never forget the gravy of real CDM………yet it is NOT in Stans scope of options! Can PENG2 explain that? Is it the Fortis/Nfld POwer bias? Less profits for shareholders?
    The silence on real CDM is silencing at this inquiry,especially as to the Isolated options.
    If only a week to work up accurate figures, Leblanc should request this. Maybe our CA tomorrow will pin him down on the benefits of CDM, real CDM?
    Winston Adams

    • WA @ 17:36:

      Its not really an answer, but when SM came on board MF was committed to – the GT report (P1677) and exhibit P3589 are clear in that stopping, pausing or changing the scope of MF wasn't an option without initiating default. So, perhaps the implementation of real DSM is probably best for the PUB because policy makers and governments have already failed 1x on this.

      Why CDM (and there are a couple definitions, so maybe DSM is a better term to avoid confusion) wasn't considered pre-MF is a question best asked to the planners and politicians of the day.

      Again, I cant see your argument as to how a reduction in power consumption affects Fortis profits – unless the reduction was on the order of 20, 30 or 40% or there was areas of total withdrawal of NL Power customers and their operating expenses are significantly reduced. Profit is not based on the cost NL Hydro charges NL Power /kWhr – its a pass through on the cost sheet.


    • PENG2, Stan is no dummie, and Serious CDM has been around for decades now, and our neighbour NS was big into it since 2008, so for Stan not to have considered it in 2012 or even now does not add up. Granted that policy and the PUB are the main vehicles for implementing, and even preventing Nfld Power from being involved for conflict of interest reasons is prudent. Stan just has to acknowledge that it is a powerful tool, and to save the province 13 billion, he could just say he would have recommended that to government and /or the PUB in addition to his other options mentioned.
      You acknowledged that profit is based on return on investment in infrastructure, and CDM reduces infrastructure costs, and as mentioned, NP added nearly o.5 billion over recent years in expanding substations and transmission.NP has aggressively opposed CDM at all hearings where this is discussed. The Consumer advocate brings no energy expert to testify that they fail at CDM, then they use that to say to the PUB that no evidence was called, claim they are doing fine, and the PUB then has no choice but side with them. That is the record and history of us being 2nd worse in Canada. You can not make them smell like a rose or plead ignorance, it is deliberate avoidance. And too, deliberate misleading with measures that transfer reduced lighting loads to the heating in a house, interactive effect.
      As a pyramid configurations put DSM at the peak: Demand Side Management, you you want to manage the peak demand, caused mostly by baseboard heater loads.
      Under that would be CDM: Conservation Demand Management, which reduced both peak demand and energy use, via insulation, heatpumps etc.
      Adjacent to that would be Demand Management by time shifting loads, that reduces peak demand for short periods, hours or a day or so, , but not reducing energy sold. Example, Corner Bk paper mill delays production for a day, they get paid for shutting down, and then make up their production later. Other small industry can do that. Also residential hot water tanks, delay the time for 6 hrs to avoid and reduce the peak load, and then kick in later. These methods the power companies like because they recoup and sell the energy a little later. I call these basically time shifting DSM
      The good beneficial Conservation Demand Management does both; reduces demand, not for hours , but permanently, and also saves the customer a lot of energy, (if insulation, permanently,if heat pumps, for 15-18 year life) . So many power companies hate aggressive CDM, the Conservation type.
      Here now recently, they INVENT a new style of CDM they call Customer Demand Management, which can be the low grade time shifting residential,to suggest it is Conservation type, as both using the term CDM.
      This term seems now employed by Nfld POwer, Nfld Hydro and the Consumer Advoacte to mislead and confuse the residential consumer. If most all were mislead by MFs, it is so easy to mislead them on this.
      Is the Leblanc Inquiry part of this sowing seeds of misleading the public?
      That's my take. SM pausing or stopping is a different argument. Point is he knew and has admitted 2 of the 3 prong approach as lowest cost power, and correct on that . I am convinced he is and was fully aware of real residential customer CDM,and has kept silent on that, maybe because he was not asked by counsels, but could have offered it, as he certainly knows it. I would underestimate his knowledge to suggest he is/was ignorant of that.
      Winston Adams

  22. OK, I just searched CBC and the Telegram looking for the headline; Marshall says lowest cost alternative was 2 billion.
    Terry Roberts has a good piece but never mentioned this.
    Ashley Fitzpatrick has a better piece in terms of saying what Marshall's Plan would have been, what he "envisioned" She noted the 150 MW hydro additions at Bay de Espoir, and new gas turbines, about 300 Mw, and added wind power, and also correctly mentions he indicated this could be private financed wind. But then she says he made no mention of cost! No mention?
    Did I dream the figure of 2 billion he estimated, including wind, and one could come to 1.1 billion without it. He said the hydro component was about 500 million and the gas turbines at 2 million per MW. Was Ashley sleeping then?
    Later when a lawyer tried to pin him down on rates as he envisioned , he said 14 cents , but withdrew that. But on capital cost he said 2 billion with wind in ……did he not?
    Are both these media not want the public to know the extent of the boondoggle? 12.7 billion where 2 billion or less would have done it. And too MFs is far from operational and reliable.
    Should not the media jump on this 2 billion figure? What gives? Media part of the problem how MFs got sanctioned, I wonder?
    Bruno says I have a poor memory…can someone coem to my recuse here…did they hear the 2 billion figure mentioned by Stan, the Straight Shooter. No one here corrected me yet on this, if I dreamed it.
    Winston Adams

  23. As noted by anon above and numbers today displaced: at the Inquiry, Island hydro additions that were economic;
    Bay de Espoir add = 154 Mw
    Cat Arm add…….= 68 Mw
    3 small hydro considered by Nalcor was total 78 MW.
    So these 3 equals 300 MW.
    Now too, Nfld Hydro adds 3 more small hydro, I forget the capacities but assume 50 MW total for these giving 350 MW island hydro additions was economic…..Nalcor went with 78 MW
    So too for wind, to add 25 MW I think, where 300 could be added.
    And they assumed 700 Million to upgrade the old Holyrood , just for polution control, and we could go with 300 MW of new gas turbines for 600 million, and these very compatible with wind energy use,
    The incompetence of Nalcor for the Isolated option is beyond belief, and all could be done for less than 2 billion. Collusion or what ? No utility experience does not fully explain it. School kids was make less blunders, but they were competent oil/gas people, so not idiots.
    Winston Adams

  24. I am not at all comforted by Stan's assurance that the North Spur is safe. He would camp there year round he says. He called Bernander an older gentleman, and his statement that the North Spur being unsafe as a "theory"
    Now as I understand it , analysis for quick clay is different than for other natural soils. If depend on the quantity and nature of the soil, and that, I think, inadequate sampling and testing has been done. Bernander approach is not just a theory, it is THE BEST PRACTISE, for quick clay. It moved from theory to practical application years ago, did it not? Stan words of "an older gentleman, and his theory" seems similar to William's shot at Dave Vardy.
    I suppose my suggestion that all minisplits will NOT shut down in our winter weather on the Avalon is a theory too, as NlfdPower/Hydro say all will shut down (the ICF report).
    Where does PENG2 now stand on the issue of North Spur safety? Has his opinion changed?
    Winston Adams

    • WA @ 23:06:

      My opinion is not changed – there is not enough advanced geotechnical testing completed to say the Spur is safe or it is not.

      The unfortunate part is that there is the ideal center in St John's to complete this testing – as I have said, a comprehensive field sampling with shear box, tri-axial and centrifuge testing is the only way to be certain. I also have said that silt/sand is the issue not clay – I'd say 99.99% don't even know the practical difference in clay vs silt and the construction issues with each. At the end of the day, the causeway over the Churchill was completed 10yrs ago and the river is still finding its equilibrium – we don't know how its going to react over the next 50yrs, and I said this before.

      Take my words for what they are…


  25. Yes, one of the lawyers, maybe the consumer adovocate should take a deep dive in questioning Stan on all aspects of CDM, as Winston has pointed out. Not so much in terms of what he might do now or recommend to govt. as CEO of nalcor, but in terms of being on the record of all the variations of CDM, benefits, energy saved, power reductions, and cost savings. Now if he declines to eleberate and claims he has no real expertise in that field, well then he will be on the record for that too. And the commissioner can take that into account, and maybe call in a real expert. Maybe from NS on all aspects of CDM and how it might work here. Yes Stan did say the isolated option could be done for around 2B but did not explain in great detail, and wind would be dine by private business and purchased at around 7 cents. On the Avalon, I guess, and very little lost in transmission and short power line construction. Maybe Trapassey Barrens. Joe blow. Those doing the questioning on what they had supposedly studied back in 2010 in terms of the isolated option are full of BS. Trying to make out that they considered seriously all options. That is the crowd with oil on the brain, and thought when oil spiked for a couple of years back then, that it was going up, and up and never to come down. The fools, oil like very thing else fluctuates, and what goes up must come down.

  26. With all due respect to Stan Marshall, both the media and the inquiry counsel seems to see him as some kind of "Yoda", who I think was the wise oracle in Star Wars.

    He makes the "pronouncement" that Muskrat was much more, much too large for what we needed, that we didn't need it.

    He makes the "pronouncement" that approving Muskrat was too much to much risk for the province.

    He makes the pronouncement that Muskrat is a boondoggle.

    I would suggest that any and all such pronouncements were able to be readily seen at least as early as 2011 (after government and Nalcor started giving their weak justifications/arguments, through their presentations, AGMs, etc).

    In early spring of 2011 (when asked what I thought of the project), I gave the CBC this short answer —- "we don't need it, we can't afford it, and it's too high a risk".

    Evidence that that was easily able to be seen by the 'average joe'.

    So, the Commissioner should take that into account.

    As far back as 2011 a room full of "Yodas" was not needed to see that this MF project was a contrived, politically driven delusion.

    While it is not something that has only recently been 'discovered' by Stan Marshall, it is helpful for the public generally to see the politically driven, delusional aspect of this fiasco confirmed.

  27. PENG2, Stan this morning, beign questioned by the Consumer Advocate counsel, displayed his ignorance of CDM (Conservation type), and in particular ignorance of heatpumps especially cold climate models, or his bias as a Fortis shareholder to oppose CDM in principle. Amazing and disappointing. Either ignorant or biased or not really s Straight Shooter (if he really knows the advantages but displays ignorance.
    Winston Adams

    • Stan disagrees with Humphries as to the Isolated options, and value of island hydro and wind,via Stan's "MARSHALL PLAN"
      But Stan seems aligned with Humphries on CDM and too with Gilbert on heatpumps.
      In 2012 as to my conversation with Gilbert: he correctly stated that ducted hp systems typically switch over to baseboard or resistance duct heater during cold weather. This does not apply to cold climate heatpumps especially minisplits. Gilbert knew nothing about them, and seemed not wanting to know, didn't suit his biases.
      Stan seems of the same mindset, hard to believe, but possible, he is not aware of that technology. well on the market for 2 decades!

      Under NP questioning Stan acknowledges the existence of Integrated Resource Plan. This, to my understanding, accepts CDM (Conservation and Efficiency ) as a major component for energy planning.

      Lowest cost options would be 3 prong:
      1. Island hydro , about 350 MW currently identified, some for meeting grid peak load and some to address peak and adds energy.
      2. Wind, about 400 MW, = 200 MW at 50% capacity to help meet peak , and for storage by conserving water resource.
      3. Conservation and Efficiency, 600 potential, but 300 MW likely achievable over 10 years (Integrated Resource Plan )
      Each of these about 1/3 each in overall benefit, and item 3 is cheaper than others and actually saves customers at least net 25% on yearly power bills.

      Nfld Power may be at odds with Stan on item 3 now, given Synapse has identified HPs and CDM as very important?

      Stan said at the Inquiry HPs switch over at cold temperatures and this fake news passed as "gospel" to the commissioner.
      Here are the facts for cold climate units, as monitored here:
      COP at -17C =2.7
      COP lowest 2.0 at +2C to -2C range, during high humidity and snow conditions.
      Cold temperature is not the critical issue, but defrosting at milder moderate temperatures.
      ICF consultant stated that units would not generally be expected
      to shut down in St John's -8C avg winter night temperatures (despite likely being instructed to say otherwise by Nfld Power). Read the report to see that.
      So Stan is stating false opinions or assumptions to the the Commissioner on this……a rerun of false assumptions by Humpheries and Bennett and Stratton etc to get MFs to sanction. Unbelievable.
      Winston Adams

    • At the risk of being wrong on a quick calculation, what is the power grid reduction if all our residential units units are fully heated with cold climate air source heatpumps?
      If memory served, our island electric domestic load is 650 MW at peak.
      At -17 C, this would need only 250 MW, so a reduction of 400 MW.
      At 0 C, this would need 325 MW, so a reduction of 325 MW
      Stan suggested there would be no reduction at peak load times in winter. New Brunswick a few years ago started giving incentives for cold climate models specifically for reducing their grid peak load in winter. NB winter temperatures are colder than ours.
      If Stan is a Yoda, then he should get better informed. If anyone sees an error in my figures, from COP to MW savings, please advise.
      Winston Adams

  28. As to wetland capping, Stan says " since flooding last year, whatever methylmercury was there is now gone" ……is that factual? Agree no increase detected in Lake Melville and not surprising. But does it not take decades for flooded areas to lose all the methylmercury produced?
    That aside, he says "but surely God, we can do something better with the money to help them," Previously he mentioned 15 million, but today I think said wetcapping would not exceed 30 million, seemingly to imply more than 15 million might be provided …..he says talks in progress.
    This seems a positive direction.
    Winston Adams

  29. The cable men, the intellectually impoverished MHAs and their contractor cousins alone with the Mega Project money pit. What could possibly go wrong?
    (no longer signing my name, a woman can't be too careful)

  30. So, Stan appears to want to stay around for a while; rebuild the Power team, following commissioning the rescued assets, etc. It would appear that a followup project to deal with Avalon peak loads is in the Works. Will this be outsourced or done in house?; Refurbish Holyrood, practice some form of Demand Management, setting up for 2041 . Will Ball come out looking like a Rose? Minority Gov. Leader, maybe tailored out of the Hamm, (NS), qualities of the early 2000s, (A Pearson Liberal?). Opportunity to look presidential, (prime ministerial), seek his Legacy before retiring to looking after his family and business interests. What are lessons learned? Can we restore faith in our young graduates and professionals, to see us through until a rapprochement deal with QC is secured. Will weather risks materialize, ice and wind take down the transmission lines? Will the Indigenous and whites of the Grande Riviere find peace and prosperity? The General Inquiry is winding down. The Shadow Inquiry can now set about the New Age citizens' concerns towards 2041. Summer and relaxation, October and a return of a mixed House looms. Bring it on.

  31. So it’s our fault Muskrat Falls happened? So says Stan Marshall. Well Stan I vehemently disagree with you, We the people were fed lies by charlatans. Charlatans disguised as politicians with visions of 15 billion dollars in their heads.

    • I agree. This is blaming the victim. It is adding insult to injury.

      We were lied to by civil servants. The independent engineer wasn't really independent. Risks were removed from reports. Journalism is almost extinct. MUN and the St. John's board of trade tried to suppress Bruneau's work (gas for Holyrood). Protesters were arrested. Nalcor fired people with hydro experience. Most politicians have no real power — they tow the party line or get expelled from cabinet and very few were willing to risk their minister salary.

      Our fault going forward is that we don't organize and fight the sociopaths that rules us. It isn't just us — this problem is everywhere. Fortunately, we outnumber them and have strength in numbers.

  32. I don’t know about the rest of you?

    After hearing Stan Marshall trying to spread the blame for Muskrat Falls on all the residents of the Province is a little “rich” for me, pun fully intended!

    We have Paddick trying to promote NALCOR jersey days to rally around our beloved NALCOR,
    and now Stan saying we should all shoulder some of the blame for Muskrat Falls!

    We were all collectively led down the garden path starting with Danny Williams and his NALCOR sidekicks.

    After King Danny left we were all told to mind our own business as our political leaders and NALCOR knew best!

    How dare the rest of us mere mortals question the “wisdom” of our Government including NALCOR?

    After hearing Stan Marshall I think I actually threw up in my own mouth!

    • That's right if that "click" of rich buggers wants to stick together like thieves, no matter from which direction and from what time, like shit to a blanket, then what is the average Joe and Jane supposed to do.???? Dig our heads in the sand, bow down to the rich and mighty, and beg for mercy and a pardon, for daring to support a party and all of givernment, when they ask for our vote and miss lead us in the Dardenells. The buggers, stand up for Christ sake Stan and be a man. Call a spade a spade, shoot straight as you reputation proceeds you rather than supporting those bloody buggers that led us way down the garden path. Average Joe.

    • Even co-counsel lawyer Irene seemed awe struck by Stan's immediate frankness and knowledge. She gazed adoringly as he suggested precise figures were not needed for power load forecasting,system planning or engineering analysis. No,not at all, not computer programs, electronic calculator, nor even slide rules. He gestured to her with both hands, thumbs pointing upward, with a disarming grin "The Rule of Thumb is sufficient, after all, it's only an estimate, and bound to be wrong". With those few words, we learn that all the work of Stratton, Kean, Gilbert, Humpheries, Power and dozens of other engineers, including geotechnical hot shots was all unnecessary and a big waste. Months of testimony at the Inquiry from them and hundreds of million spent on engineering analysis, all in vain. A runaway train form day one, and Stan again kept silent on this until all others had testified.
      Stan, I now see, as Maurice inferred, is indeed almost a clone of Yoda, who features was partly copied from Einstein. Yoda:a source of infinite wisdom, whose purpose is to pass the knowledge to the next generation.
      The young professionals at Nalcor, once under the force of evil, led by Ed Martin, will be transformed with the force of good by our Yoda, Stan, to challenge the mighty Hydro Quebec by 2041. And the primary tool will be the relentless application of the Rule of Thumb.
      Of course the Star Wars Yoda had very large ears. Stan's ears are small. But Yoda lived to be 900 and was 800 when Luke Skywalker received instruction and became a Jedi. Stan has plenty of time for his ears to grow, as he gets richer and wiser and older. In due course, we will cease to worry about DarkNL, and sleet and ice on power lines will be melted away, by increasing transmission losses, that too a simple application of the Rule of Thumb. Even a potential quick clay slide will be detected days in advance and remedies and mitigation deduced from the Rule of Thumb.
      Gil, now is almost a Jedi, after switching allegience from the Dark Force, in a tinkle of an eye.