Above the letter to the editor by Bernard Coffey in your Aug. 18 issue is the following headline: “Manitoba PUB order should be required reading.”
To quote from the excerpts included by Mr. Coffey: “(Manitoba Hydro’s) business model includes building new generating stations in the expectation of being able to export the energy generated by these stations prior to the output being gradually required by Manitoba consumers.”
Contrast the Manitoba business model with that of Nalcor for Muskrat Falls.
The Muskrat Falls business model does not include a single dollar for potential export sales.
In other words, Mr. Coffey is trying to compare apples to oranges. Or in local terms, Mr. Coffey, Manitoba is a different kettle of fish when compared to the Muskrat Falls development.
Mr. Coffey winds up his article with the statement, “In view of the foregoing, what confidence can the public have in MHI’s assessment of Nalcor’s Decision Gate 3 numbers?”
Manitoba Hydro International is a wholly owned subsidiary of Manitoba Hydro.
I have re-read the excerpts that Mr. Coffey included and nowhere does the PUB question or comment on information, if any, supplied to the PUB by MHI.
Would Mr. Coffey have us believe that because the parent company has presented a plan the Manitoba PUB does not approve of, that should somehow reflect adversely on a subsidiary's ability?
Would anyone try to argue, in a court of law, that a son’s case should be affected by the actions of the father?
Mr. Coffey, based on your presentation, I have two words for you: “Case dismissed.”