I am looking forward to seeing Nalcor’s response to the questions Russell Wangersky posed in his article “Something is missing” in the Jan. 22 issue of The Telegram. He was referring to the U.S.-based Power Advisory, LLC report for the Nova Scotia government that suggested power from Hydro-Québec would be $402 million more than the Muskrat Falls power over the 35-year period of the contract. Wangersky revealed that the consultants had not even spoken to Hydro-Québec about the price of its electricity before dismissing it as being more expensive than power from Muskrat Falls.
The pertinent question that he raised is how could the consultants possibly come to the conclusion that the cost of Hydro-Québec power would be $402 million more than Muskrat Falls power without knowing what Hydro-Québec was prepared to offer?
Nalcor may have a logical explanation for this and, if so, I feel it is incumbent on them to publically state what that explanation is. If they can’t, it would imply that the report is seriously flawed and if the consultants have been paid a fee for their report, the Nova Scotia government should take steps to recover the fee.
The article also raised another interesting question. “How much, per kilowatt hour, will it cost Nova Scotian energy firm Emera for power from Muskrat Falls?”
The article points out that it should not be too difficult for Emera to provide this information, but that Emera refused to reveal it when its executives were asked directly about it in a Nova Scotia legislative committee session. It is an important number that the Power Advisory must have known in order to make its comparison and yet must have been deliberately left out of the final document.
All this raises another interesting question. “Should Nalcor shareholders be given access to this pertinent information?” The shareholders in this case, of course, are the Newfoundland and Labrador taxpayers.