Letter: Where has all the fresh produce gone?
I write this during our second holiday visit to Newfoundland and we have travelled the whole island.
In 2014, the Public Utilities Board issued a procedural order stating what issues would be addressed in its investigation and hearing into the supply issues and power outages on the island interconnected system. The proceeding would be comprised of two phases and would address adequacy and reliability issues before and after interconnection with Muskrat Falls.
The procedural order (complete with five sections and 19 subsections outlining the scope of the review) was seven pages in length.
Notwithstanding the broad scope of the issues identified, the order allowed the board to amend the issues (the scope of the review) “by letter of the board.”
To date there has been no “letter of the board” amending the issues that would be addressed.
While it is clear that assessing “Hydro’s management of” the system’s adequacy and reliability is only one part of the broader scope of the proceeding, the board ordered the expert reports filed by the Grand Riverkeeper of Labrador struck from the official record because, according to the board, they were “not relevant” to “Hydro’s management of” the system’s adequacy and reliability (one part of the broader scope of the review).
Striking one or more of the Grand Riverkeeper expert reports because they did not address one part of the much broader (un-amended) scope of the proceeding constitutes, I would submit, an error of fact or an error of law.
Accordingly, the board’s order to strike the Grand Riverkeeper expert reports should be rescinded or amended, as appropriate.
Maurice E. Adams