- Pierre Neary
- November 14, 2012 - 16:56
Phantom or not Mr. Coffey was just pointing out the fact that with billions of our tax dollars on the line this may be an issue. Sounds like due diligence to me. Mr. Jackson needs to get over himself.
- Maurice E. Adams
- November 14, 2012 - 09:04
Hydro Quebec's 2009 response (in part) says:------ "Hydro-Quebec wishes to express to the Board its position that any water management agreement to be established by the Board must recognize that the CF(L)Co/Hydro-Quebec Power Contracts have the benefit of Section 5.7 of the EPCA. We note that the Nalcor Application, as well as the Nalcor and CF(L)Co submissions of December 10, 2009, acknowledge that the CF(L)Co/Hydro-Quebec Power Contracts are protected by Section 5.7 of the EPCA, as does the water management agreement proposed by both Suppliers to the Board." --------- So, when you say that "HQ did make a brief submission to the PUB noting that the proposed WMA recognizes its contractual rights and therefore it has no desire to intervene."---- It is clear that "it has no desire to intervene" --- AT THIS TIME. Why would they? They will intervene, not before an Newfoundland quasi-judicial body, but at the place and time of THEIR choosing, that is, before the Quebec courts, where BY LAW, all matters related to Upper Churchill contracts MUST BE HEARD.
- Maurice E. Adams
- November 14, 2012 - 07:18
Pretty superficial and misleading representation of both the facts and much of the key arguments/concerns expressed by the 2041 Group. .........You fail to mention that (as I understand it) Hydro Quebec would have first rights to any additional power generated as a result of the Muskrat Falls/Water Management Agreement. Also, you misrepresent HQ's response. HQ said instead that it relied on its overriding/pre-existing rights as confirmed by this province's own section 5.7 of its own Electrical Power Control Act..... Intervening in the province's Water Management Agreement at this point would and could only weaken their own legal position later on ---- so that in itself (the very fact that HQ intentionally chose not to intervene at this point), not to weaken its legal position, shows that if and when necessary --- when it is to the best advantage of HQ, it will (as they have said when they say they will rely on their existing legal/contractual rights) exercise the rights that it believes that it clearly has. .... It will be too late to find that out AFTER Muskrat Falls is built. ..... Not your best work Peter.