Winnipeg Free Press - ONLINE EDITION

Does the PUB matter?

  • Print

The Public Utilities Board came out with its long-awaited decision in the Manitoba Hydro general rate application on Tuesday.

Within hours Manitoba Hydro said it was appealing it and the Selinger government quickly brushed it off.

That’s unfortunate, even sad, but here’s why:

For the past two years the PUB and Manitoba Hydro have locked horns over the PUB’s desire to examine the financial risk facing Hydro and its plan to build Bipole III and the Keeyask and Conawapa generating stations.

The estimated total price tag will be more than $20 billion and the PUB fears that if something goes wrong with Hydro’s planning, like a drought or a prolonged economic recovery in the U.S., Manitobans could be saddled with a boatload of debt if lucrative export markets go bust.

Nothing wrong with that. It’s all good, in fact. For the most part, Hydro and the government welcomed the PUB’s scrutiny to get Hydro’s plan out there.

Over the past two years that scrutiny has included at my count three separate, independent reviews of Hydro and elements of its development plan, each looking at whether Hydro has all its ducks in a row. There were four reviews if you include a New York consultant who now, for the most part, has been written off as not credible.

The reviews were done by KPMG, ICF International and McMaster University economists Atif Kubursi and Lonnie Magee. Their reports and testimony have been posted on the PUB’s website for your scrutiny for quite some time.

While each found things Hydro could be doing better, none of them raised any alarm bells that Manitoba Hydro was being run by a bunch of buffoons rampaging in the monkey house.

So it came as a bit of a surprise that the PUB wants the government to order another "independent" review of Manitoba’s Hydro’s risks as Hydro gears up for Clean Environment Commission hearings on Bipole III and Lake Winnipeg Regulation: Hydro uses the lake as a reservoir to power its northern dams during peak months.

Board chairman Graham Lane and vice chair Robert Mayer say there’s too much at stake for there not to be another, more in-depth review that can also look at building more wind farms and building plants to burn cheap natural gas to make electricity instead of dams.

Throwing another wrench into things is that board chairman Graham Lane and vice chair Robert Mayer don’t agree on the scope of this supposed independent review.

Lane, a chartered accountant, is the former vice-president of Public Investments of Manitoba, CEO of Manitoba Public Insurance and University of Winnipeg’s vice-president of finance. Mayer is a lawyer from Thompson.

Lane wants Bipole included in the review with the two dams; Mayer does not.

Here’s a snippet from their 232-page order:

"The Chairman is of the view that MH’s assumptions, which support a requirement of Bipole III if Keeyask is built, should be

fully tested prior to MH making a final commitment to both Keeyask and Bipole III. The Board’s Vice Chair is of the view that Manitoba Hydro has established that Bipole III would be required for reliability purposes in any case."

Some more:

"Both the Chairman and Vice Chair believe that absent Keeyask, the construction of Bipole III can be expected to increase domestic rates. The question that remains is whether if Keeyask is built, the construction of Bipole III will still increase domestic rates.

"The Chairman is hopeful that both capital projects will be subjected to a full NFAAT (Needs For And Alternatives To) hearing. The Chairman notes that if an economic case can be made for the deferral of Bipole III, Manitoba ratepayers would be the beneficiaries of lower electricity rates, as 100 per cent of Bipole III’s costs (not only the capital costs, but also the finance and operating costs associated with it) will, under MH’s cost allocation, be borne by MH’s domestic consumers.

"The Vice Chair does not share this view, and believes that while an NFAAT may be warranted for any new generation capacity, Bipole III should not be delayed."

Critics of Hydro will say there’s plenty more in the board’s order that justifies another review. The board’s order doesn’t touch on Bipole III on the west side of the province one way or the other.

What it does deal with is its gripe Hydro won’t willingly give in to their request to see confidential export agreements it has with power utilities in Wisconsin and Minnesota. Whether that’s ever to happen is now up to the Manitoba Court of Appeal to decide. Hydro went to court saying the PUB has no business examining the contacts as to do so could potentially reveal and harm its deals with the two states and future deals. Hydro also says the PUB has no business determining its development plans—cabinet does that.

Anyway, the PUB isn’t prepared to wait for appeal court’s decision.

"Therefore, the Board remains of the view that to date MH has either failed or refused, and continues to fail or refuse, to provide information that the Board considers critical to its mandate of fixing just and reasonable rates for the services provided by MH," Lane and Mayer say in their order.

So, it seems to me that this order isn’t so much based on what the independent consultants had to say or anything else submitted during the lengthy rate application hearing, which started in earnest a year ago.

It boils down to Lane and Mayer’s non-access to the contacts.

And that’s sad. Because even if they do get a peek at those documents, it won’t change things one bit.

If you’ve paid any attention to Premier Greg Selinger and Gary Doer before him, Manitoba Hydro is the key in getting Manitoba off the teet of federal transfers and shedding its rep as a have-not province.

That means Bipole III down the west side of the province. It means Keeyask. It means Conawapa down the road.

And the PUB is powerless to do anything about it. It was since Day One.

Fact Check

Fact Check

Have you found an error, or know of something we’ve missed in one of our stories?
Please use the form below and let us know.

* Required
  • Please post the headline of the story or the title of the video with the error.

  • Please post exactly what was wrong with the story.

  • Please indicate your source for the correct information.

  • Yes

    No

  • This will only be used to contact you if we have a question about your submission, it will not be used to identify you or be published.

  • Cancel

Having problems with the form?

Contact Us Directly
  • Print

You can comment on most stories on winnipegfreepress.com. You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is be a Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscriber to join the conversation and give your feedback.

You can comment on most stories on winnipegfreepress.com. You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is be a Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscriber to join the conversation and give your feedback.

Have Your Say

New to commenting? Check out our Frequently Asked Questions.

Have Your Say

Comments are open to Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscribers only. why?

Have Your Say

Comments are open to Winnipeg Free Press Subscribers only. why?

The Winnipeg Free Press does not necessarily endorse any of the views posted. By submitting your comment, you agree to our Terms and Conditions. These terms were revised effective April 16, 2010.

letters

Make text: Larger | Smaller

LATEST VIDEO

Your Vote: The Blue Bombers All-Time Team

View more like this

Photo Store Gallery

  • Down the Hatch- A pelican swallows a fresh fish that it caught on the Red River near Lockport, Manitoba. Wednesday morning- May 01, 2013   (JOE BRYKSA / WINNIPEG FREE PRESS)
  • A goose cools off Thursday in water at Omands Creek Park-See Bryksa 30 day goose challenge- Day 25– June 21, 2012   (JOE BRYKSA / WINNIPEG FREE PRESS)

View More Gallery Photos

Poll

Do you plan on attending any of the CMHR opening weekend events? (select all that apply)

View Results

View Related Story

Ads by Google