How the Coalition perceives the goals of the Inquiry
On February 9, 2018 the Coalition presented its interpretation of the terms of reference of the Muskrat Falls Inquiry, including 40 questions that need to be answered.
One of the principal goals of the Coalition is to ensure that the Inquiry deals fully with these 40 questions relating to various aspects of the Muskrat Falls project.
In addition there are certain other goals that are no less important which we believe should be adopted by the Commission. These include the following:
1. Explanation of Finances
We call upon the Commission to provide a full explanation of the financial arrangements underlying the project in simple language that is easily understood by the public.
The financial models used by Nalcor should be tabled with the Inquiry, making them available for the first time for public examination, and should be subject to review by the Inquiry’s technical experts and to cross examination during Inquiry hearings.
Examinations and presentations by Inquiry experts should be designed to inform the public and to ensure that citizens can become informed of the key elements of the project, the assumptions made, the forecasts, risk assessments and options considered.
2. Assessment of Agreements
We call upon the Commission to provide the public with an assessment of the many agreements, contracts and commitments conducted by Inquiry staff and advisors in a format which will allow citizens to be informed of the scope and magnitude of the commitments made and the penalties to the province for non-compliance.
3. Accountability for Best Practices
We call upon the Commission to consider whether best practices were followed in the steps leading up to the sanctioning of Muskrat Falls - and the extent to which departure from best practices in energy planning, public policy design, and regulatory oversight contributed to the present situation.
To this end we recommend that the Commission engage technical experts on the following issues:
4. Accountability for Sanctioning
We call upon the Commission to consider the extent to which energy planning, public policy decision-making and regulatory oversight were manipulated or contrived to advance sanctioning of Muskrat Falls without due consideration of options.
5. Accountability for Management
We call upon the Commission to consider whether best practices were followed in project management, once the project was sanctioned - and the extent to which departure from best practices in project management contributed to the high risk position in which the province finds itself.
To this end we recommend the Commission engage technical experts dealing with the following:
6. Accountability for Execution and Continuance
We call upon the Commission to consider the extent to which best practices in project management were subverted or manipulated in order to execute the project and to resist its reconsideration in light of changed circumstances.
7. Risk Mitigation
We call upon the Commission to identify the decisions, both prior to sanctioning and during construction, which contributed to the high risk exposure facing the province and advise on the public policy decisions which can be taken to mitigate the risks, including, among other things, decisions relating to rate design and options to recover costs which cannot be recovered through increased power rates.
8. Reporting and Response
In addition to completing its final report on or before December 31, 2019, we recommend that the Commission should produce interim reports on a timely basis that allow project management changes to occur and to advise on policy and regulatory decisions which need to be taken well in advance of full power.
One of the principal goals of the Coalition is to ensure that the Inquiry deals fully with these 40 questions relating to various aspects of the Muskrat Falls project.
In addition there are certain other goals that are no less important which we believe should be adopted by the Commission. These include the following:
1. Explanation of Finances
We call upon the Commission to provide a full explanation of the financial arrangements underlying the project in simple language that is easily understood by the public.
The financial models used by Nalcor should be tabled with the Inquiry, making them available for the first time for public examination, and should be subject to review by the Inquiry’s technical experts and to cross examination during Inquiry hearings.
Examinations and presentations by Inquiry experts should be designed to inform the public and to ensure that citizens can become informed of the key elements of the project, the assumptions made, the forecasts, risk assessments and options considered.
2. Assessment of Agreements
We call upon the Commission to provide the public with an assessment of the many agreements, contracts and commitments conducted by Inquiry staff and advisors in a format which will allow citizens to be informed of the scope and magnitude of the commitments made and the penalties to the province for non-compliance.
3. Accountability for Best Practices
We call upon the Commission to consider whether best practices were followed in the steps leading up to the sanctioning of Muskrat Falls - and the extent to which departure from best practices in energy planning, public policy design, and regulatory oversight contributed to the present situation.
To this end we recommend that the Commission engage technical experts on the following issues:
- Public utility regulation, including integrated resource management, rate design, return on investment, load growth planning, and demand side management.
- Environmental assessments, including management of contaminants and evaluation of risks associated with liquefaction of glacio-marine clays.
- Energy marketing and transmission costs.
4. Accountability for Sanctioning
We call upon the Commission to consider the extent to which energy planning, public policy decision-making and regulatory oversight were manipulated or contrived to advance sanctioning of Muskrat Falls without due consideration of options.
5. Accountability for Management
We call upon the Commission to consider whether best practices were followed in project management, once the project was sanctioned - and the extent to which departure from best practices in project management contributed to the high risk position in which the province finds itself.
To this end we recommend the Commission engage technical experts dealing with the following:
- Engineering design
- The North Spur
- Project management
- Project financing
- Procurement
6. Accountability for Execution and Continuance
We call upon the Commission to consider the extent to which best practices in project management were subverted or manipulated in order to execute the project and to resist its reconsideration in light of changed circumstances.
7. Risk Mitigation
We call upon the Commission to identify the decisions, both prior to sanctioning and during construction, which contributed to the high risk exposure facing the province and advise on the public policy decisions which can be taken to mitigate the risks, including, among other things, decisions relating to rate design and options to recover costs which cannot be recovered through increased power rates.
8. Reporting and Response
In addition to completing its final report on or before December 31, 2019, we recommend that the Commission should produce interim reports on a timely basis that allow project management changes to occur and to advise on policy and regulatory decisions which need to be taken well in advance of full power.