Nalcor
V-P Gilbert Bennett's second response to the questions raised in two recent Articles posted on
this Blog, regarding operational issues at the Muskrat Falls Site, has been
posted. Mr. Bennett's reply is available on this Link.
I acknowledge the clarity of his comments and I will be paying particular
attention to how this matter unfolds especially in relation to the Project’s
schedule.
That
said, now that I have Mr. Bennett’s attention, perhaps he might respond to
some additional questions to which this Blogger and others have been attempting
to obtain answers.
These
questions relate especially to the Province’s ability to avoid ‘black-outs’ in
the future.
The
maximum output available to the Province, in the winter months will be a
maximum of 824 MW from Muskrat Falls, in addition to the 80 MW remaining of
Recall power from the Upper Churchill.
Once
transmission losses are accounted for, and the deliveries to Emera are made,
the Labrador Island Link will contribute 645 MW to the island grid at Soldiers
Pond. If Nalcor commits 80 MW to
Alderon, this will be reduced to about ~580 MW peak winter delivery at Soldiers
Pond. Following the decommissioning
of Holyrood there will only be a net increase of about 120 MW available to the
island grid.
During
the Muskrat Falls hearings the Maritime Link and subsequent deliveries were
omitted from the Terms of Reference. It
is unclear if the Muskrat Falls review included the 167 MW peak delivery to
Emera. Let me address the following questions directly to Mr. Bennett:
Could
you provide clarification on the following issues:
1) What Capacity (in terms of MW)
will be available to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro (NLH) at Soldiers Pond in
the months of January – May respectfully, and how does this compare to the
Strategist calculations performed by Nalcor in support of the Muskrat Falls
decision as the lowest cost option for ratepayers?
2) Does Nalcor’s obligations to
Emera (the peak delivery of 167 MW, or sales of any surplus energy) potentially
compromise the delivery to NLH?
3) What recourse (i.e. damages)
does NLH have against Nalcor in the event of non-delivery? Would any such damages be used to offset the
rates payable by the NL rate payer?
4) Contractually, does Nalcor have
a priority to deliver the 167 MW to Emera, or to NLH in the event of a
shortfall in island capacity?
5) What is the true impact in the
event that Hydro Quebec is successful in their court case in terms of peak
deliveries in the periods of Jan, February and March? Can 900 MW be guaranteed over the Labrador
Island Link, which served as the basis of Nalcor’s analysis in support of the
Muskrat Falls sanctioning?
6)
Is the firm winter capacity of Muskrat
as a run of the river plant 824 MW?
7)
Can Nalcor provide a status
regarding the supply of backup power from Nova Scotia? In the 15 legal agreements between Nalcor and
Emera, has the access and rate been agreed for this back up power?
With the departure of Premier Dunderdale
we hope a new era of transparency will unfold; one that includes the Provincial
Government and Nalcor, too. Let’s begin
right here, right now.
Your prompt reply is anticipated.