9603 MANITOBA PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD Re

9603

MANITOBA PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD

Re: MANITOBA HYDRO

NEEDS FOR AND ALTERNATIVES TO

REVIEW OF MANITOBA HYDRO'S

PREFERRED DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Regis Gosselin - Chairperson

Marilyn Kapitany - Board Member

Larry Soldier - Board Member

Richard Bel - Board Member

Hugh Grant - Board Member

HELD AT:

Public Utilities Board

400, 330 Portage Avenue

Winnipeg, Manitoba

May 1, 2014

Pages 9603 to 9991

PUB re NFAT 05-01-2014

DIGI-TRAN INC. 1-800-663-4915 or 1-403-276-7611 Serving Clients Throughout Canada

9604

1 APPEARANCES

2 Bob Peters (np) )Board Counsel

3 Sven Hombach )

4

5 Patti Ramage )Manitoba Hydro

6 Marla Boyd (np) )

7 Douglas Bedford (np) )

8 Helga Van Iderstine (np) )

9 Jennifer Moroz (np) )

10 Odette Fernandes (np) )

11 Janet Mayor (np) )

12 Jack London (np) )

13

14 Byron Williams )CAC

15 Meghan Menzies )

16 Aimee Craft (np) )

17

18 William Gange )GAC

19 Peter Miller )

20

21 Antoine Hacault )MIPUG

22

23 George Orle )MKO

24 Michael Anderson (np) )

25



9605

1 APPEARANCES (Con't)

2

3 Jessica Saunders )MMF

4 Corey Shefman (np) )

5

6 Christian Monnin )IEC

7 Michael Weinstein (np) )

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



9606

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

2 Page No.

3 List of Exhibits 9607

4 Undertakings 9610

5

6 GAC LOAD FORECASTING, FUEL SWITCHING, WIND PANEL:

7 PAUL CHERNICK, Affirmed (Qual.)

8 WESLEY STEVENS, Affirmed (Qual.)

9 Qualification of Witnesses 9614

10 Examination-in-chief by Mr. William Gange 9630

11 Cross-examination by Ms. Meghan Menzies 9691

12 Cross-examination Mr. Antoine Hacault 9699

13

14 Presentation by Mr. David Barber 9715

15

16 GAC LOAD FORECASTING, FUEL SWITCHING, WIND PANEL,

17 RESUMED:

18 PAUL CHERNICK, Resumed (Qual.)

19 WESLEY STEVENS, Resumed (Qual.)

20 Cross-examination by Ms. Jessica Saunders 9737

21 Cross-examination by Ms. Patti Ramage 9750

22 Cross-examination by Mr. Sven Hombach 9791

23 Re-cross-examination by Ms. Patti Ramage 9828

24

25



9607

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Con't)

2 Page No.

3 MANITOBA HYDRO PANEL 3, RESUMED:

4 DALE FRIESEN, Previously Affirmed

5 LLOYD KUCZEK, Previously Sworn

6 LOIS MORRISON, Previously Sworn

7 ED WOJCZYNSKI, Previously Sworn

8 DAVID CORMIE, Previously Sworn

9 JOANNE FLYNN, Previously Sworn

10 Continued Cross-examination by Mr. Sven Hombach 9854

11 Continued Cross-examination by Mr. Byron Williams 9935

12

13 Certificate of Transcript 9991

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



9608

1 LIST OF EXHIBITS

2 NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE NO.

3 GAC-22 Paul Chernick's PowerPoint

4 presentation 9613

5 GAC-23 Wesley Stevens's PowerPoint

6 presentation 9613

7 MH-189 Book of documents 9742

8 MH-190 Response to GAC Pre-ask 4b 9743

9 MH-191 Overview of climate change impacts

10 and what it means to Manitoba 9743

11 MH-104-3-2 Supply and demand tables for Plan 4 9845

12 MH-104-3-3 Supply and demand table for Plan 12 9845

13 MH-104-4-3 Economic summary tables for Plan 4

14 at the 5.4 and 4.65 percent

15 discount rates 9846

16 MH-104-4-4 Economic summary tables for Plan 12

17 at the 5.4 and 4.65 percent

18 discount rates 9846

19 MH-104-15-REVISION-3

20 Update for Plan 12 9846

21 MH-104-16-REVISION-3


23 MH-171-REVISION-4


25 MH-192 Update to Figure 14.2 9847



9609

1 LIST OF EXHIBITS (Con't)


3 MH-193 Manitoba Hydro's chart 9858

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



9610

1 LIST OF UNDERTAKINGS


3 134 Paul Chernick to give examples of

4 initiatives of fuel switching

5 measures that have been used in other

6 jurisdictions and provide examples as

7 best he can of initiatives that have

8 worked well and initiatives that have

9 worked less well 9652

10 135 Paul Chernick to provide Board with

11 a number of good examples of

12 jurisdictions that have done good

13 integrated resource planning; will

14 provide links to both those plans

15 and the Board orders relating to

16 those plans if available 9698

17 136 Wesley Stevens to ask developer if

18 the time estimate includes the time

19 period for land acquisition 9814

20 137 Manitoba Hydro to provide information

21 on the assumptions for DSM beyond

22 2028 and 2029 9863

23 138 Manitoba Hydro to provide the

24 most recent progress report on DSM 9864

25



9611

1 LIST OF UNDERTAKINGS (Con't)


3 139 Manitoba Hydro to confirm when, if

4 the diversity agreements were

5 extended beyond 2024/'25, the

6 earliest required in-service date

7 for Keeyask would be, both from an

8 energy and capacity perspective 9888

9 140 Manitoba Hydro to confirm if it has

10 considered extending the diversity

11 agreements, and whether doing so

12 would be feasible; and if not, to

13 provide some background information

14 as to why not 9890

15 141 Manitoba Hydro to indicate if it's

16 feasible to have the 750 megawatt

17 line constructed before Keeyask is

18 placed in service 9890

19 142 Manitoba Hydro to provide the

20 section they are relying on in

21 saying the contract will terminate 9935

22

23

24

25



9612

1 --- Upon commencing at 9:01 a.m.

2

3 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. I

4 believe that we're in a position to begin today's

5 proceedings. And Mr. Hombach, please.

6 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Yes, good morning,

7 Mr. Chairman, and good morning, members of the panel.

8 Today is reserved for the evidence of Paul Chernick and

9 Wesley Stevens. Both of them are expert witnesses for

10 the Green Action Centre.

11 I'd also remind the parties in the room

12 that following the evidence of Mr. Chernick and Mr.

13 Stevens, Manitoba Hydro's DSM panel will be recalled

14 later in the afternoon to address some additional

15 questions.

16 I am not sure if Manitoba Hydro needs to

17 speak to any undertakings this morning. If not, I

18 suggest we turn it over to Mr. Gange to have his

19 witnesses sworn and qualified.

20 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr.

21 Hombach. Mr. Williams, please -- Mr. Gange, please,

22 sorry. I apologize. Aren't you in some ways?

23 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: Thank you. I'm not

24 sure who's going to take more offence at that, Mr.

25 Chair. It's probably a 50/50 split. But, yes, thank



9613

1 you. Today is the evidence of -- of the Green Action

2 Centre. And we have the -- the Green Action Centre

3 retained two (2) expert firms: Resource Insight Inc.,

4 which is represented this morning by Mr. Chernick; and

5 Power Advisory, which is represented by Mr. Stevens.

6 As -- as the Board members may recall,

7 there -- there also was a suggestion that we might

8 bring Mr. Dalton in to -- to assist in the presentation

9 of the evidence by Mr. Stevens, but the logistics of

10 this worked out that he's someplace else on -- on May

11 1st rather than Winnipeg.

12 So I'm going to -- I -- I can advise

13 that we have two (2) PowerPoint presentations for --

14 that -- that will be relied upon. And I would ask that

15 Mr. Chernick's presentation be marked as GAC number 22.

16

17 --- EXHIBIT NO. GAC-22: Paul Chernick's PowerPoint

18 presentation

19

20 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: And that Mr.

21 Stevens's PowerPoint presentation be marked as GAC

22 number 32.

23

24 --- EXHIBIT NO. GAC-23: Wesley Stevens's PowerPoint

25 presentation



9614

1 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: For people that --

2 well, I sent those out this morning. And apparently I

3 attached the wrong document to GAC number 22, but we

4 now have the correct one. And I will remedy that

5 situation later in the day so that the -- the proper

6 one has been sent out to all the parties. But I

7 believe that Mr. Simonsen has the correct documents.

8 So, Mr. Simonsen, we may want to swear

9 the witnesses.

10

11 GAC LOAD FORECASTING, FUEL SWITCHING, WIND PANEL:

12 PAUL CHERNICK, Affirmed (Qual.)

13 WESLEY STEVENS, Affirmed (Qual.)

14

15 QUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES:

16 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: Thank you. I'm

17 going to start with Mr. Stevens in terms of the

18 qualifications. Mr. Stevens, first of all, you're a

19 native of Winnipeg.

20 Is that correct?

21 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: I am.

22 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: We like to get that

23 on the record on this --

24 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: Okay.

25 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: -- this process.



9615

1 And, sir, you are an economist by trade, is -- by

2 training.

3 Is that correct?

4 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: I am.

5 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: Could you advise

6 the Board of your educational background, sir?

7 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: I attended

8 University of Winnipeg and Manitoba for a period, but I

9 got my degree -- my bachelor's degree from Carleton

10 College in -- in Minnesota. I then went to University

11 of Toronto, where I got a master's degree in economics.

12 And after that, I studied for and passed the chartered

13 financial analyst exam with the Chartered Financial

14 Analyst Institute.

15 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: And -- and can you

16 advise the Board what a chartered financial analyst

17 does?

18 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: You would most

19 often find them as stock analysts, for example, or

20 working for a pension fund, advising on -- on

21 investments.

22 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: And in essence your

23 job as a financial analyst -- analyst is crunching

24 numbers.

25 Is that correct?



9616

1 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: I am a number

2 cruncher, and essentially what I'm doing here today is

3 advising on investments.

4 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: Thank you. You

5 have been involved with -- as an economist and

6 financial analys -- analysts for Acres International

7 Limited, is that correct, sir?

8 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: That's correct.

9 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: And you were also

10 with Navigant Consulting LTD.

11 Where is that based?

12 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: The head office is

13 in Chicago. It's spread across North America with

14 offices in Europe and Asia. My office was in Toronto.

15 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: And your position

16 with Navigant?

17 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: My last position

18 was associate director.

19 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: Thank you. You

20 also were the CFO of Solar Power Network.

21 Is that correct, sir?

22 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: Yes. That's a

23 small company in Ontario that -- that builds solar

24 plants.

25 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: You -- presently



9617

1 you are the president of TeraTrends Consulting.

2 Is that correct?

3 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: Yes. I -- I am

4 technically a subconsultant to Power Advisory.

5 However, we have, you might call it, a very close

6 relationship. I am a -- I'm -- I essentially work

7 almost full time for Power Advisory.

8 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: And so with Power

9 Advisory, your relationship -- that -- you -- you've

10 done a number of projects with Power Advisory.


12 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: Yes. I work for

13 them all -- as I said, almost full time.

14 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: Okay. And -- and I

15 understand that you're about to change that so that you

16 have -- actually have a formal position with Power

17 Advisory?

18 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: I believe the

19 press release went out this morning announcing their

20 association with four (4) individuals. I am one of

21 them. My title is, as of I guess this morning, manager

22 of quantitative analysis.

23 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: And as the manager

24 of quantitative analysis, can you advise the Board what

25 you would be doing?



9618

1 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: Financial analysis

2 like -- like this, financial projections, electricity

3 price forecasting, some demand forecasting, anything

4 involving electricity that also involves number

5 crunching.

6 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: Okay. Thank you.

7 And with Power Advisory, I understand that you took

8 part in hearings before the Nova Scotia Energy Board.

9 Is that correct?

10 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: Yes, the Utilities

11 (sic) and Review Board. I was there with John Dalton.

12 This was regarding the -- the Nova Scotia's

13 participation in the Maritime Link. John and I wrote

14 the report together. It was about 50/50, and I

15 attended the Board with him. I did not -- I was not on

16 the stand but consulted with him before and after.

17 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: You have undertaken

18 the analysis of electrical projects, including nuclear,

19 wind, and other renewable technologies.



22 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: And -- and again,

23 that would be doing the number crunching?

24 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: Yes. I am not an

25 engineer, but I -- I dig deeply into the engineering



9619

1 analysis and then carry that through to financial

2 analysis.

3 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: I understand, sir,

4 that you reviewed the Ontario and New Brunswick

5 electricity markets in support of a proposed new

6 hydroelectric plant in Eastern Canada.

7 And that would have included an analysis

8 of costs with respect to nuclear, wind, and other

9 renewable technologies, correct, sir?

10 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: Yes. I reviewed

11 the cost of all of those, and also looked at markets in

12 Ontario and just south of the border.

13 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: I understand that

14 you also have undertaken an estimation of the capital

15 and operating costs of developing new generation

16 capacity in Ontario based on a wide range of

17 technologies, which would include gas, hydro, wind,

18 combined heat and power, and solar -- and solar on

19 behalf of the Ontario Power Authority?


21 That was used as input to Ontario's Integrated Power

22 System Plan.

23 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: And -- and this is

24 your first appearance on your own in front of --

25 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: Yes.



9620

1 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: -- a -- a board

2 such as the Manitoba Public Utilities Board?

3 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: It is, yes.

4 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: With that, Mr.

5 Chair, I'm going to ask that Mr. Stevens be qualified

6 as an expert with respect to the analysis of the cost

7 of electrical -- the construction of electrical

8 projects, including wind.

9 I will then move to Mr. Chernick.

10

11 (BRIEF PAUSE)

12

13 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: Mr. Chernick, your

14 slightly out of date CV is attached as part of Exhibit

15 14 that's been filed before the Board. And I say it's

16 slightly out of date, because it ends in -- number 277

17 of your presentations as an expert witness before

18 various boards took place in January 2013?

19 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: That's correct. I

20 -- I haven't updated it since then.

21 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: Since January of

22 2013 you've been involved in -- in a number of other

23 hearings, qualify -- been -- have been qualified as an

24 expert in front of other boards.




9621

1 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Yes, I have.

2 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: And you have

3 appeared with us on behalf of Green Action Centre, or -

4 - or its predecessor, Resource Conservation Manitoba

5 and Time to Respect Earth's Ecosystem, in hearings in

6 February 2008, November 2008, and December 2010.


8 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Yes.

9 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: You were qualified

10 as an expert on each of those occasions and gave

11 evidence on behalf of the Green Action Centre?

12 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: I was.

13 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: And your

14 educational background, if you could go through that

15 briefly, sir?

16 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: I hold a bachelor's

17 Degree from the Civil Engineering Department of the

18 Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a master's in

19 Technology and Policy, also from MIT.

20 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: I'm going to try to

21 shorten this process somewhat by -- sir, by advising

22 the Board that I'm going to ask that you be qualified

23 as an expert in a number of areas, and I'm going to go

24 through them and review previous times when you've been

25 qualified as an expert in each of those areas.



9622

1 So we're going to ask that you be

2 qualified as an expert with respect to load forecasting

3 regarding power systems. And I understand, sir, that

4 you've been qualified as an expert with respect to load

5 forecasting in the Manitoba hearing -- Manitoba Hydro

6 hearing before the Public Utilities Board in November

7 2012, and in front of the Massachusetts board in June

8 2011.


10 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Yes, among other --

11 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: And -- and, Mr.

12 Chair, just so that you know, I haven't gone through,

13 and I don't intend to go through, all two hundred and

14 seventy-seven (277) things that are on the CV. I'm

15 just going to take the most recent for each of these

16 topics, but there are other qualifications.

17 THE CHAIRPERSON: Could you give me the

18 reference to the exhibit again, please?

19 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: It's Exhibit number

20 14 -- GAC-14.

21 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

22 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: Which has the

23 combined -- and -- and thank you, Diana. You'll see

24 that that's the ending, number 277. I'm also going to

25 ask, Mr. Chair, that Mr. Chernick be -- be qualified as



9623

1 an expert to give expert testimony with respect to fuel

2 switching.

3 And, Mr. Chernick, again, you've given

4 evidence before this Board previously in -- in hearings

5 with respect to fuel switching. You've also given a

6 report amongst others before the Arkansas board in

7 March of 2010.



10 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: You've also -- I'm

11 going to ask that you be accepted as an expert with

12 respect to DSM programming. You've given evidence

13 before this Board with respect to DSM programming.

14 You've given evidence, amongst others, before the

15 Kansas board in December 2012, before the Oklahoma

16 board November 2011, before the Nova Scotia board May

17 2009.

18 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Yes, and many

19 others.

20 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: You've -- I'm going

21 to ask, Mr. Chair, that Mr. Chernick be qualified as an

22 expert with respect to commentary on integrated

23 resource planning.

24 And, Mr. Chernick, amongst others,

25 you've testified and been acc -- accepted as an expert



9624

1 in front of the Arkansas board in September 2012, the

2 Kentu -- Kentucky board December 2011, the City of New

3 Orleans December 2010, and Connecticut September 2008.


5 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: And I'm also going

6 to ask, Mr. Chair, that Mr. Chernick be accepted as an

7 -- as an expert with respect to rate design.

8 And, Mr. Chernick, you've testified

9 before this Board in December 2010 and November 2008 on

10 rate design. You've also testified with respect to

11 rate design in front of the Nova Scotia board August

12 2011, the Ontario Board August 2010, the Arkansas board

13 March 2010, and the Maryland Board January 2009.



16 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: So, Mr. Chair,

17 those are the areas that I'm going to ask that Mr.

18 Chernick be qualified to give commentary with respect

19 to load forecasting, with respect to fuel switching,

20 with respect to DSM programming, with respect to

21 integrated resource planning, and with respect to rate

22 design.

23 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Gange.

24 Me. Hacault, s'il vous plait.

25 MR. ANTOINE HACAULT: Bonjour, M.



9625

1 President. MIPUG has no objection to the

2 qualifications of these witnesses as experts in the

3 fields outlined by Mr. Gange.

4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Merci, Me. Hacault.

5 Ms. Saunders, please.

6 MS. JESSICA SAUNDERS: The MMF has no

7 objections as well. Thank you.

8 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms.

9 Saunders. Me. Monnin, s'il vous plait.

10 MR. CHRISTIAN MONNIN: Merci, M.

11 President. We have no objections.

12 THE CHAIRPERSON: Merci, Me. Monnin.

13 I'm sorry I -- I overlooked you, Ms.

14 Menzies.

15 MS. MEGHAN MENZIES: No worries. Good

16 morning. CAC (Manitoba) has no objections to the

17 qualifications -- to these experts being qualified in

18 the areas that were outlined by Mr. Gange.


20 Menzies. And, Manitoba Hydro, please. Ms.

21 Ramage, good morning.

22 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Good morning.

23 Manitoba Hydro just have a few questions of the

24 clarification. I -- I would say by way of general

25 comment with respect to Mr. Chernick, while I would



9626

1 normally be cautious simply accepting that someone was

2 qualified in another jurisdiction as proof of their

3 expertise because we don't know what basis that was or

4 whether it was subject to weight, as often happens

5 here.

6 Mr. Chernick has appeared here a number

7 of times and we've crossed swords before and I have no

8 -- no questions for Mr. Chernick. And -- and we do

9 accept his qualifications as identified because we've -

10 - we've seen them here in prior hearings.

11 I have not, however, had the pleasure of

12 meeting Mr. Stevens before, so I just had a few

13 questions. You mentioned you have been doing work with

14 Power Advisory.

15 What type of projects would that be? Is

16 that primarily wind projects?

17 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: No -- no, it's a -

18 - a range of projects. They include some wind. There

19 was a pro -- a project recently in Ontario that looked

20 at -- it was a detailed look at some of the contracts

21 that the -- that wind projects there have, and in

22 particular the -- the frequency of very low prices. So

23 it was a co -- it was looking at wind, but also looking

24 at price forecasting.

25 I've been involved in some -- some other



9627

1 regulatory work. The -- the Nova Scotia work was --

2 was mentioned by -- by Mr. Gange. Currently involved

3 in -- in some rate work in Alberta. If you give me a

4 minute, I'll pull up another dozen or so projects that

5 I've been...

6 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: I -- I can maybe

7 shorten.

8 Have any of those projects dealt with

9 the construction of large hydro?

10 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: No, they have not.

11 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Okay. And I heard

12 Mr. Gange mention --

13 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: Oh, sor -- sorry.

14 The Nova Scotia project, the Maritime Link, the -- that

15 did relate to Muskrat Falls. I certainly did not

16 advise on the cost of Muskrat Falls. I did -- I did

17 have -- have something to -- to say about the value of

18 hydro power being exported.

19 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: And this is the

20 point I - I'm trying to clarify. And I think it may be

21 just being loose with language as opposed to an

22 objection, but I -- my note says Mr. Gange requested

23 you be qualified in the cost of construction of

24 electrical projects.

25 And I just want to clarify that the



9628

1 construction cost isn't the construction of the nature

2 -- we had parties, like Knight Piesold, dealing with

3 construction costs in terms of -- of the large hydro.

4 That is not the intention?

5 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: That is not the

6 intention, Ms. Ramage, no. Mr. Stevens's analysis is

7 with respect to the -- to the financial analysis of

8 construct -- of -- of doing wind power construction.

9 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Okay. And with that

10 clarification, we accept the -- the qualifications as -

11 - as restated by Mr. Gange, but the part we were

12 concerned with was the construction as it related to

13 large hydro. So I think with that qualification,

14 Manitoba Hydro does not have an objection.

15 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Gange, that's not

16 quite what you asked initially. My -- according to my

17 notes, you had asked that he be qualified with respect

18 to the analysis and construction of electrical

19 projects, including wind. And now I think you revised

20 that a little.

21 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: I've -- I've

22 narrowed that, Mr. -- Mr. Chair, because the -- the

23 report does deal with -- with the cost of wind, and

24 that's what Mr. Stevens is here to talk about. So I --

25 I have narrowed it. And -- and I think that the



9629

1 narrowing is satisfactory to Ms. Ramage. And it's

2 certainly satisfactory to GAC.

3 THE CHAIRPERSON: So with that, Mr.

4 Gange, Mr. Hombach, please.

5 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: If I could just ask

6 a few follow-up questions to Mr. Stevens, as well. I

7 understand from your resume that -- that you don't work

8 as a construction estimator, per se?

9 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: I do not --

10 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: So when -- when

11 you're analyzing the cost of wind, what sources do you

12 base on to conduct those analyses?

13 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: I do what a

14 financial analyst would do, which -- which is I look as

15 deeply as I can into engineering reports. I -- I

16 compare them to other sources. I exercise some

17 judgment about balancing information from different

18 sources.

19 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: So you look at

20 different sources and you base your analysis based on

21 the inputs that you gather from those other sources?

22 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: Exactly.

23 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Okay. Thank you.

24 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr.

25 Hombach. Just a second, please.



9630

1 (BRIEF PAUSE)

2

3 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We've had

4 the opportunity to caucus. And we will -- the panel

5 has agreed that we'll accept both Mr. Stevens and Mr.

6 Chernick as experts for the areas that have been

7 outlined by Mr. Gange. So welcome to these

8 proceedings.

9

10 EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR. WILLIAM GANGE:

11 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: Thank you, Mr.

12 Chair. Mr. Chernick, I'm going to start with you.

13 And, Diana, if...

14

15 (BRIEF PAUSE)

16

17 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: If -- your evidence

18 has been filed. And I can advise that it is part of

19 number -- GAC number 13 was the combined evidence of

20 Resource Insight Inc. and Power Advisory. And you have

21 a presentation today that we've marked as GAC number

22 22, and it's now on the screen.

23 And so, Mr. Chernick, go ahead.

24 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Thank you. The --

25 the subjects that I'll be discussing are the fuel



9631

1 switching and -- and the DSM issues in our evidence.

2 And just to give you an outline of -- of what I'll be

3 talking about, the fuel choice, fuel switching issues

4 that -- that I deal with are just the electric versus

5 gas choices. There are, of course, other options

6 available, such as biomass for space heating and so on,

7 that I'm -- I don't look at here.

8 And while we often refer to this area as

9 -- as fuel switching -- and by 'we', I mean myself and

10 -- and Manitoba Hydro and other parties -- that it --

11 well, this is switching from gas uses to electric and

12 from electric to gas that are worthy of consideration -

13 - can be important, there's also the issue of choosing

14 the fuel for new buildings, which is not really

15 switching anything. It's just making a decision as you

16 build the building.

17 And then I'll be talking appropriate DSM

18 targets very briefly based on comparisons with other

19 jurisdictions and the effect of DSM on the need for --

20 for new facilities for retail load.

21 So for end-use fuel choice, the -- the

22 basic question is: Which is the preferable fuel in

23 various situations? And I'll talk about Hydro's

24 projections of future fuel switching, the drivers of --

25 of uneconomic fuel choices, and then how Manitoba Hydro



9632

1 can respond to the market failures.

2 So first, which fuel is preferable?

3 Basically, every analysis that's been done, including

4 Hydro's own fuel switching study and my own analyses,

5 indicate that gas reduces costs, it reduces emissions,

6 it reduces -- excuse me, it improves the cashflow that,

7 in terms of the efficiency at which gas -- gas is used,

8 it's better to use gas at the burner tip in a home or

9 business in Manitoba and free up the electricity to

10 turn down a -- a gas-fired plant in -- in the US

11 because the end-use efficiency of -- say, for heating

12 is over 90 percent for -- for the gas used directly.

13 And the gas generator that's turned down, including the

14 line losses, is less than 50 percent efficient in

15 delivering heat to the -- the homes in -- in Minnesota,

16 for example, and perhaps, as little as 25 percent

17 efficient.

18 So any way that anybody's looked at

19 this, gas is preferable.

20 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Chernick --

21 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: And I -- I

22 summarize --

23 THE CHAIRPERSON: Can I interrupt you

24 for a second. I just want to, you know, just make --

25 make sure we frame this one adequately because this is



9633

1 very much a North American view, isn't it? I mean, for

2 example, gas reduces emissions. That's appropriate to

3 a -- a North America view of the world, as opposed to a

4 Manitoba view of the world, where electricity is

5 actually less pollute -- polluting then gas.

6 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Yes. The -- the

7 emission of concern here is carbon dioxide. And in

8 terms of the effect on Manitoba, it doesn't matter

9 whether the carbon dioxide is released from a -- a

10 furnace flue in Manitoba, or a -- a stack for a

11 combined cycle plant, or a peaker in -- in Minnesota or

12 Wisconsin or Iowa or anywhere else.

13 If you -- if you posit some kind of --

14 of isolated greenhouse gas -- a cap or requirements

15 that only affect Manitoba and gives no credit for or

16 charges for -- for cross-border flows, then you might

17 want to think just about Manitoba emissions, the ones

18 that occur within the borders of Manitoba.

19 But that would be -- that would not

20 represent any environmental benefit, in terms of -- of

21 global warming. It simply would be a matter of

22 Manitoba saying, Well, we're clean, but you're still

23 going to be dealing with a climate change as a result

24 of the gas and, for that matter, the coal plants

25 operating south of the border.



9634

1

2 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM GANGE:

3 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: And, Mr. Chernick,

4 you're now going to move to slide number 6, "Results

5 from the Hydro Study"?

6 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Right. I'm not

7 going to go through these numbers. I just want to

8 point out that in each case a positive number is a

9 benefit for gas, a cost for moving to electricity. And

10 you see only one (1) negative number, which would be a

11 net benefit from the electric. And that's with a very

12 high efficiency ground-source heat pump, and low

13 equipment costs.

14 Every other measure -- global carbon

15 emissions, the TRC, the customers' bills, the utility

16 test -- they all come out to be better with -- with gas

17 than with electricity for an electric furnace, for

18 ground-source heat pumps, and for hot water.

19 And the -- the question has -- has been

20 raised in a number of places about whether the current

21 advantage of gas, economically and environmentally,

22 could reverse over time. And the -- the things that

23 people think about are, Well, could gas prices rise

24 fast enough that what's now less expensive could become

25 more expensive? And as I'll explain, that's not really



9635

1 likely.

2 Could lower renewables costs have a

3 dramatic effect on what's at the margin in the US and

4 therefore the -- the value and benefit of exporting?

5 And that's possible, and I'll talk about that in a

6 moment also. And what happens if the US, or at least

7 the -- the MISO portion of it, adopts some kind of CO2

8 pricing?

9 Well, first of all, on slide...

10 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: Slide 8.

11 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Thank you. I'm not

12 sure where it...

13

14 (BRIEF PAUSE)

15

16 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: The print is very

17 small on my screen. On slide 8, the effect of higher

18 gas prices, higher gas prices would raise the cost of

19 gas heating, for example, but also is going to increase

20 the prices in the electric energy markets, making

21 exports more valuable.

22 So, yes, it costs more to run the -- the

23 gas heater furnace in -- in Manitoba, but it also makes

24 the electricity freed up more valuable. And because of

25 the difference in efficiency, the higher gas prices



9636

1 rise, the greater the -- the net benefit of being able

2 to export and save 2 or 3 or 4 cubic metres of gas for

3 every cubic metre you're using for the furnace.

4 Lower -- moving onto slide 9, lower

5 renewables costs, and -- and this is something that's

6 likely to happen because both wind and solar costs have

7 -- have fallen substantially in the past and are likely

8 to continue falling, while hydro's -- hydroelectric

9 project costs have tended to rise over time.

10 More renewables could gradually push out

11 the MISO coal and peakers, leaving mostly efficient gas

12 plants at the margin, which will reduce the -- the

13 global warming benefit and possibly the -- the economic

14 benefit of exporting the electricity.

15 But it may also have the effect of

16 pushing the coal up in the loading order, so coal is at

17 the margin more often and the gas in the US is being

18 used less often, which would mean that environmentally

19 it was even a better deal to burn the gas at the end

20 use in -- in Manitoba and trim down a coal plant more

21 often in -- in the US.

22 And a very large price decline would be

23 necessary in the renewables to make them so inexpensive

24 that they would be -- it would be cheaper to serve ele

25 -- electric load with renewables in the US than to



9637

1 serve them with Manitoba energy freed up by using gas

2 at the end use in Manitoba.

3 Moving on to slide 10, if CO2 is -- is

4 priced in MISO, this is also a sort of ambiguous

5 effect. It would increase the cost of burning coal.

6 So the effect might be that some coal plants would shut

7 down and be replaced by more gas plants. And so

8 therefore the emissions that the -- the burning gas in

9 -- in Manitoba is voiding in the US would conceivably

10 decline, although there's still a big difference

11 between even the best gas fired generation and the

12 efficiency of a -- an end-use gas appliance.

13 But it could also have the effect, as --

14 as has actually occurred in some places in these

15 periods of very low gas prices, where some of the

16 efficient gas plants, the combined cycle plants, are

17 dispatched before the coal plants.

18 So the coal plants are actually the

19 marginal units much of the time. And therefore any

20 electricity they free up by using gas for heating and

21 water heating, for example, would be backing out those

22 marginal coal plants, making them even less cost

23 effective, making them more -- more likely to retire,

24 and would have even larger global warming benefits.

25 And certainly, however the details of



9638

1 dispatch in MISO work out and in terms of retirement of

2 -- of plants, pricing of CO2 would raise the export

3 prices that Manitoba Hydro would receive for the

4 electricity that's freed up and therefore make

5 conversion to gas or selection of gas more attractive

6 economically.

7 Slide 11, since I filed my evidence,

8 Hydro has filed a -- a study by the Brattle Group of

9 CO2 displacement in the US as a result of -- of exports

10 of hydro. And the -- they find that the -- in the

11 early period mostly coal is avoided, because that's the

12 dominant fuel on the -- on the system in -- in the US

13 part of MISO, and that later, at some point about

14 twenty (20) years out, the retirement of -- they --

15 they peg it to the retirement of -- of -- excuse me --

16 to nuclear plants results in more gas plants being

17 built and gas being out on the margin more of the time.

18 And that would bring down the avoided emission rates

19 considerably, although still above the incremental

20 emissions from the -- the use of gas in Manitoba

21 directly.

22 So based on -- on their -- on the

23 Brattle analysis, I asked the question: Well, at -- at

24 what emission rate -- or for comparison with that, I'd

25 asked: What emission rate would the various end uses



9639

1 that Hydro looked at break even for global warming

2 purposes?

3 So as -- as we saw in -- in an earlier

4 slide, the efficient ground source heat pump has --

5 replacing efficient ground source heat pump has a --

6 reduces carbon emissions only a little bit currently.

7 And if it falls very much, it's -- it's assuming

8 emission rates of about point eight-five (.85).

9 Now, it would not have to fall very much

10 before -- on an environmental basis; those high

11 efficiency heat pumps would be producing less carbon

12 than -- than the gas. But with a standard efficiency

13 ground source heat pump, it would have to fall to -- to

14 levels that Brattle is not expecting until after 2030,

15 about 2035, and with a -- the water heater and the

16 furnace it would have to fall much, much lower below

17 the emission rates of a gas plant.

18 Oh, and my next slide ,I -- it says

19 exactly what I just said, describing the -- the

20 previous ones -- the previous slide.

21 On slide 14, I -- I look at the policy

22 implications just with regard to greenhouse gasses and

23 without looking at the other cost effectiveness tests

24 for the moment. At this point, it makes sense to

25 encourage gas for space and water heating and to keep



9640

1 an eye on what's happening with MISO marginal

2 emissions. And if the emission rate falls and -- it

3 would be appropriate to assess whether a -- high

4 efficiency heat pumps would not be preferable to gas

5 and then to look at the cost of those high efficiency

6 heat pumps and see whether it's a -- a cost of -- of

7 reducing carbon emission makes sense and whether

8 Manitoba wants to bear that cost for the -- the benefit

9 of the -- of the global environment.

10 With larger declines in emission rates,

11 standard ground source heat pumps should be reexamined.

12 But for -- the -- the competing choice is an electric

13 furnace. Baseboard heating or a -- a gas water heater,

14 gas is -- is likely -- excuse me, gas versus an

15 electric water heater, gas is likely to be preferable

16 for many decades beyond the -- the Brattle analysis.

17 Interestingly, despite the fact that

18 Hydro found that -- that gas is preferable to

19 electricity in almost every situation and by any

20 measure it could come up with, both the fuel switching

21 report and the 2012 load forecast projected conversion

22 to electricity to a very significant extent, with

23 electricity dominating a new construction even where

24 gas is available and with many buildings converting

25 from gas to electricity.



9641

1 The 2013 load forecast reduces that

2 trend but still has hundreds of gig -- gigawatt hours a

3 year of load growth due to the -- due to the fuel

4 choice moving from gas to electric. And the 2013

5 forecast explained the change from 2012 in terms of a

6 Manitoba Hydro initiative on -- on fuel choice.

7 And when asked about why the --

8 electricity was being used to replace gas in so many

9 situations despite the advantages of gas, Hydro's

10 explanation was basically that developers for new

11 buildings choose a fuel source and they prefer to

12 minimize their first costs. That they -- they think

13 they can sell the -- the building for the same price

14 regardless of whether it's electrically heated or gas

15 heated, and they have to -- they put less investment

16 into it. That contractors who are brought in to

17 replace a gas water heater that's failing prefer the

18 electric water heater because they don't have to check

19 the status of chimney flue or whatever.

20 Customers, even when they're making

21 their own decisions, may have a short time horizon.

22 And they may be worried about their cashflow. They may

23 be concerned that they won't be in the house long

24 enough to get back the benefits that this whole -- this

25 -- that gas would provide over many years, and so they



9642

1 go with the -- the alternative that's cheaper up front.

2 And then there's a direct quote from --

3 from Hydro, that -- that,

4 "Customers do not consider the total

5 cost of ownership."

6 And another issue that -- that Manitoba

7 Hydro at least alludes to in various places is that

8 customers assume that electricity is environmentally

9 benign.

10 On slide 17, I go into a little detail

11 about the -- the choice of how developers choose their

12 fuel source. Another point that I didn't mention

13 previously was that Manitoba Hydro says that developers

14 are reluctant to -- to use gas because they have to

15 bring in yet another crew to do the gas piping and

16 installation, and that's additional coordination.

17 Slide 18, the -- the chimney condition

18 and getting involved with that causes contractors to

19 say, Why don't we just put in an electric water heater

20 and not -- not fool around with whether we can continue

21 using gas in this house.

22 And then the -- slide 19 lists again the

23 -- the reasons that customers may choose electricity

24 over gas.

25 So that brings us to how one might



9643

1 respond to these market failures in fuel choice. We

2 can measure what the alternatives cost to customers.

3 We can measure what they cost to the province. We can

4 measure what they cost to the utility system. We can

5 measure what they cost to the environment.

6 Electricity fails all those tests, and

7 yet Manitoba Hydro sees a substantial amount of

8 electricity being chosen over gas applications. And

9 Manitoba Hydro has announced an initiative to

10 discourage electric use where gas is an alternative.

11 And there are more robust alternatives to what Manitoba

12 Hydro has in place.

13 This Manitoba Hydro initiative, I'm not

14 really clear on when the Company thinks it started the

15 -- the initiative. It's on slide 21. One of their

16 exhibits indicates that it started in about 2010, but

17 the 2012 forecast apparently didn't incorporate it

18 because that was the rationale for the big drop in --

19 in fuel switching; from the 2012 forecast to 2013

20 forecast was that the initiative was going to cut into

21 that trend.

22 And I'm not entirely clear on what --

23 what this initiative consists of, but it seems to be

24 mostly or entirely information based. And some of the

25 -- the materials relating to the -- the information



9644

1 program are -- are in the record. But there doesn't

2 seem to be any -- anything else, any technical

3 assistance or -- or incentives. And it's only in the

4 transcript of the -- of the hearing that we learned

5 that -- that Hydro is considering now going beyond the

6 education approach, but is still thinking about it.

7 And this is after many years of -- of fuel switching

8 being on the agenda for Hydro to -- to deal with.

9 Now, on slide 22, I -- I list the -- the

10 mechanisms that would be useful as an -- or useful as

11 an addition to or in consort with the information

12 program. And there's nothing wrong with information,

13 and it helps prepare customers, get them interested in,

14 make them more willing to go along with some of these

15 other programs. But information by itself does not

16 have a good track record, in terms of changing customer

17 behaviour.

18 So one alternative is to provide cash

19 incentives. If you've got an electric water heater and

20 you put in a gas water heater, to act -- to give the --

21 the customer some money to help pay for the difference

22 in -- between just replacing the electric with electric

23 when it fails, and putting in a gas water heater.

24 Another alternative would be inclining

25 block rates for -- for customers so that the electric



9645

1 heat and hot water that they're choosing are more

2 expensive, and they can -- they see even more clearly

3 that gas is beneficial. And to give the signal that

4 Manitoba Hydro and the Board believe that the high

5 users in -- certainly in the winter, the heating users

6 in areas where there are gas -- there's gas available,

7 are imposing a cost on the system. And they should be

8 looking at alternatives.

9 For large customers, inclining block

10 rates are more difficult to design, but reducing demand

11 charges and imposing higher time-of-use energy charges

12 may help discourage gas use -- excuse -- discourage

13 electric use and encourage gas use for -- for those

14 customers.

15 And -- oops, I just lost control of my

16 slides here.

17 And now I come to the problem of the

18 developers, and -- and new housing in particular, and

19 the fact that they tend to think about how much it's

20 going to cost them to build the house and not how much

21 it's going to cost to run the house. And that could be

22 -- that problem could be diminished and the developers'

23 interests could be brought to coincide more closely

24 with the interests of their buyers or renters, and with

25 the -- the province, and with the utility systems by



9646

1 increasing the initial cost of putting in electric heat

2 with higher hook-up charges and decreasing the initial

3 cost for gas heat with lower extension and hook-up

4 charges.

5 Moving on now to the DSM targets on page

6 23. Again I -- I just list the -- the three (3) topics

7 that I'll be discussing. Page 24, I just point out

8 that the -- Hydro's current DSM plans are very modest.

9 They average, in terms of the program savings, about .3

10 percent a year over the next fifteen (15) years. And

11 if you include some part of the fuel switching

12 initiative, which may eventually include program

13 components beyond the educational portions, then

14 perhaps we're talking about 0.4 percent a year.

15 And other jurisdictions have achieved

16 much greater savings than that. There are several

17 states that have -- and -- and provinces, for that

18 matter -- that have achieved over 1.3 percent of -- of

19 energy saved per year, and some are planning for over 2

20 percent in coming years.

21 And on slide 25, I lay out what we had

22 in the evidence, in terms of reasonable goals for

23 ramping up from the rather modest levels of efficiency

24 that the Company is pursuing now, in terms of the

25 efficiency programs, to about 1 1/2 percent a year by



9647

1 2018/'19, and then keeping it there.

2 Page 26, which is my last slide, I just

3 briefly discuss the effect of a vigorous energy

4 efficiency program on need for new facilities. With

5 the 1 1/2 percent efficiency program, you'd have net

6 load -- net retail load declining slightly over time,

7 the existing resources would meet all of the retail

8 load, all of the contracted exports, and the proposed

9 exports through the Wisconsin Public Service 308

10 megawatt sale, another additional proposed sales in the

11 works. But this is about far as you could go just with

12 the existing resources.

13 And additional resources may well be

14 justified by the benefit of exports, but they'd have to

15 analyzed as export projects. And it may well be worth

16 while, in terms of dollars and in terms of -- of

17 environmental benefits, for Manitoba Hydro to continue

18 developing Keeyask and beyond and wind to increase the

19 -- their level exports.

20 And that concludes my summary.

21 MS. MARILYN KAPITANY: Mr. Chernick,

22 could you go back to slide 25 for a minute, please?


24 MS. MARILYN KAPITANY: You talk about

25 ramping up DSM and then annually, post-2018/'19, you



9648

1 say maintain it. And we've quite a bit about DSM and

2 how there's only so many furnaces you can replace and

3 so many insulation improvements that you can make.

4 What is it that you see as the

5 possibilities for not only the ramping up, but for the

6 maintaining DSM into the future?

7 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Well, there --

8 there a number of -- of utilities and jurisdictions

9 that have been pursuing energy efficiency fairly

10 vigorously for decades now. And they still find that

11 there are large opportunities. And some of that is

12 because there are opportunities that we didn't have

13 twenty (20) years ago. You could -- didn't have LED

14 lighting, for example.

15 And the efficiency of equipment

16 continues to rise, the cost falls. So that's one

17 aspect that -- that allows you to keep going beyond the

18 -- the narrow window of -- of what you could get if you

19 ran out today and did everything immediately that you

20 could.

21 The other thing is that over time,

22 buildings are renovated. An office building, for

23 example, will go through a -- a gut rehab or a major

24 renovation. And you can do things that you couldn't do

25 as a simple retrofit. You can go through and just take



9649

1 out the -- out the fluorescent lights in -- in this

2 room, for example, and put in more efficient ballasts,

3 and you can put in occupancy sensors and a few other

4 things.

5 But if you're talking about an office

6 space where you could bring in more of the natural

7 daylight into the interior of the -- the building, that

8 usually would require ripping everything out, putting

9 in appropriate kinds of louvres and -- and reflectors

10 and so on to -- to bring the light in, rearranging the

11 entire space. And you're not going to do that as an

12 energy conservation measure.

13 But on the other hand, when it's time to

14 clear out the 1970s vintage space and make it into more

15 of whatever is useful for the next tenant coming into

16 that building or the new use of the -- the owner wants

17 to put to -- it to -- you have an opportunity to do

18 things you haven't had before.

19 So that gives you something like twenty

20 (20) years of sort of natural opportunities. And by

21 the time you've gone through those twenty (20) years,

22 you may have another set of options open when the --

23 the building that was renovated in 2015 is renovated

24 again in 2035 that give you even more savings.

25 And, of course, you have your continuing



9650

1 new construction. You have turnover in -- in

2 appliances. Every -- every time your refrigerator

3 dies, you can replace it with a more efficient one.

4 And that's been true for the last thirty (30) some

5 years and will probably continue to be true into the

6 future.

7 So I don't think we're anywhere close to

8 peak conservation, if you will, any -- any more than --

9 than it turned out we were close to peak oil because

10 you keep finding new ways to do things and new places

11 to -- to get savings. And, for example, now, you know,

12 there is gradually a trend towards higher efficiency in

13 devices that consumers have little control over, such

14 as the transformers that -- that charge their -- their

15 cell phones and -- and many other devices, the set-top

16 boxes on their cable TVs and...

17 So programs that shift the efficiency of

18 those devices upwards will also keep arising as the

19 manufacturers and government and the utilities and

20 other program administrators look harder at ways to --

21 to squeeze savings out.

22

23 (BRIEF PAUSE)

24

25 THE CHAIRPERSON: Could you explain to



9651

1 me or tell me about fuel switching programs that apply

2 in other jurisdictions specifically targeting shifting

3 consumers from electricity to gas?

4 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Well,

5 interestingly, I've just started a program to -- to do

6 that, gather those examples for another client. But it

7 might be most efficient for me to -- to respond to that

8 as an undertaking, rather than my trying to retrieve

9 the -- the details from -- from memory. I mean, I

10 could give you a couple, but then I start to get fuzzy

11 about which -- which utility does what.

12 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, I think that

13 would be useful if you could frame it as an

14 undertaking. And what I'm particularly looking for is,

15 and I don't know if you can with a limited sample set,

16 what works and what doesn't work in a fuel switching

17 initiative. I think that would be useful for the panel

18 to understand that.

19 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: I'll -- I'll do

20 what I can in however much time I -- I have to -- to

21 respond to this.

22 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: I think that the

23 undertaking -- and, Mr. Chernick, if -- if you disagree

24 with this -- but as I understand it Mr. Chernick will

25 give examples of initiatives of fuel switching measures



9652

1 that have been used in other jurisdictions and provide

2 examples as best he can of initiatives that have worked

3 well and initiatives that have worked less well.

4 Is that -- is that fair, Mr. Chair?

5 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's exactly

6 what I think would be useful.

7 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Mr. Chairman, if I

8 could jump in, in a hope to make this -- to improve the

9 undertaking. I think likely everyone in the room has

10 been educated onto initiatives. It would be helpful if

11 Mr. Chernick could provide programs where utilities

12 have put together the various initiatives. That's what

13 I'm hearing from Ms. Morrison that would be -- probably

14 enhance the record.

15 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: I'll -- I'll

16 provide whatever level of detail I can on -- on each of

17 the programs

18

19 --- UNDERTAKING NO. 134: Paul Chernick to give

20 examples of initiatives of

21 fuel switching measures

22 that have been used in

23 other jurisdictions and

24 provide examples as best he

25 can of initiatives that



9653

1 have worked well and

2 initiatives that have

3 worked less well

4

5 MR. RICHARD BEL: Mr. Chernick, the

6 conclusion that net domestic load slightly declines is

7 based on your assumption -- or your target of 1.5

8 percent a year --


10 MR. RICHARD BEL: -- over the next

11 twenty (20) years?


13 MS. MARILYN KAPITANY: When you're

14 looking at that, I'm looking at your slide 26 where you

15 say, All Manitoba load and all contracted exports could

16 be met with existing resources, what consideration...

17

18 (BRIEF PAUSE)

19

20 MS. MARILYN KAPITANY: When you're

21 looking at slide 26 and you're looking at your

22 assertion that all Manitoba load and all contracted

23 exports can be met with existing resources, what

24 consideration have you taken of potential increases?

25 For example, pipeline growth or large industry coming



9654

1 in, or we've got a huge small business industry in

2 Manitoba. It's a real driver of our economy.

3 So that part of the economy increasing?

4 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: I -- I was

5 referring here to the -- to Manitoba Hydro's current

6 domestic load forecast. There would be room for some

7 additional retail load, both in terms of energy and

8 capacity, but I haven't looked at exactly how much that

9 would be.

10 Actually you can determine that by

11 looking at the tables at the end of our evidence, but I

12 haven't tried to assess how large any of the factors

13 you -- you've discussed might be or how much lead time

14 Manitoba Hydro would have for adding wind, for example,

15 to fill in small shortages of -- of energy.

16 DR. HUGH GRANT: I was just curious

17 about this uneconomical fuel choice use. We had an

18 expert witness from the Consumers' Association of

19 Canada that came in the other day and said that all

20 consumers were stupid and couldn't make rational

21 choices if they tried, including the panel apparently

22 but, so...

23

24 (BRIEF PAUSE)

25



9655

1 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: You -- you may

2 wonder about your -- the rationality of your choices as

3 you sit there on this project.

4 DR. HUGH GRANT: Just between me and

5 you, yeah. Anyway, about a couple months ago I carried

6 home the Manitoba Hydro little brochure that says, You

7 should be switching your hot water tank over. And I

8 was thinking about this. And it's like, Well, wait a

9 minute, you know, I -- I'm old enough now to live

10 through the volatility of natural gas prices, and --

11 and I'm not sure that consumers are all that irrational

12 in their -- in their switch between natural gas and

13 electricity.

14 You live through a period of very low

15 and stable electricity prices, and you see this high

16 beta in what's going on with natural gas. And then if

17 it comes to me making a large -- not a large, but a

18 capital purchase that may last ten (10), fifteen (15),

19 twenty (20) years, I'm not sure it is all that foolish,

20 depending on how people formulate their expectations.

21 Now, is there -- are there programs then

22 that essentially shift the risk, share the burdens? So

23 in other words, if -- if the electricity supplier had

24 different forecasts about relative prices in the future

25 than I do that somehow they, you know, share the risk



9656

1 with me, if you like.

2 Is there...

3 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: I'm not aware of

4 any, but as you were describing that particular problem

5 I -- I was thinking, Well, yes, your gas bill could go

6 up if gas prices spiked again. But then so would

7 export revenues. So taken as a whole the gas and

8 electric customers of -- of Manitoba would be better

9 off with you using gas.

10 But -- but you might be worse off

11 because you'd be paying for expensive gas and the

12 valuable electricity that you've freed up, which is now

13 more valuable, that would -- the benefits of that would

14 be spread out over all electric customers.

15 So if that is, in fact, a major

16 deterrent in -- in this env -- environment, then I -- I

17 certainly can see how between them, which is very

18 convenient that they're owned by the same entity,

19 Centra and -- and Manitoba Hydro could -- could,

20 essentially, guarantee a gas price or -- or put a cap

21 on the gas price and say, If our -- if the purchased

22 gas cost goes above so much per cubic metre then we'll

23 give you a rebate of this amount for every dollar per

24 cubic metre it goes above that.

25 And that would then be funded out of the



9657

1 additional economy purchases that the -- or sales that

2 the -- that Hydro would be able to make at higher

3 prices because, of course, the Americans would be

4 paying for that higher gas for their generation.

5 So I think you could do that. I don't

6 know of anybody else who has done it, but then I --

7 there aren't many jurisdictions that are in your

8 situation of looking at that fuel choice and saying,

9 It's good for us because if gas prices go up somebody

10 else's prices are -- are going to go up even more and

11 our -- we'd be able to get more for our electricity.

12 So I don't know that this issue has ever

13 really arisen. And I -- I also don't know what

14 percentage of customers would react the way that --

15 that you have. Some of them would probably just say,

16 Well, it's such a nuisance. I have to find this

17 contractor, I have to find somebody to in -- inspect

18 the chimney and I'm going to have to -- to figure out

19 whether the contractor's any good and can I trust him.

20 And will -- and if the utility has a program that pre-

21 screens the contractors and -- and gives you sort of

22 one (1) stop shopping that might overcome a lot of

23 people's issues.

24 But if there are a fair number who are

25 saying, Well, I would do it. I have no problem with



9658

1 gas, but I'm just concerned about what if it goes back

2 up to the prices from 2007 and stays there for five (5)

3 years or ten (10) years, then you could certainly

4 institute that kind of a -- a guarantee.

5 DR. HUGH GRANT: I think, too, where

6 there's a large initial capital outlay to switching --

7 and I know there's programs where the -- particularly

8 targeting lower income groups where the capital cost

9 can be spread out over the life of your -- your bill

10 and such. But you'd feel pretty stupid, or I would

11 feel -- well, as the consultant mentioned, you'd feel

12 pretty stupid switching over and then a year later

13 finding natural gas prices have spiked up and now you

14 want to switch back. And so...

15 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Well, again, if the

16 -- if -- if that's a concern that's holding people back

17 then the kind of -- of guarantee of hedge that you're

18 talking about would -- could be appropriate. The other

19 thing is that if you -- you have an on-bill financing

20 sort of scheme you could say, And in any year where the

21 -- the price of -- of ga -- of gas is more than this

22 much above electricity, we'll -- we'll just write off

23 your -- your payment.

24 And so there's a -- a specific dollar

25 amount that you're not going to be paying for; that



9659

1 might also help with -- with those concerns. So you

2 could structure it various ways and I think this is the

3 kind of thing where people use focus groups and -- and

4 interviews with -- with consumers to get a better sense

5 of what exactly would work in terms of program design.

6 The -- you know, I think we're still a

7 couple steps away from that in that I don't get the

8 feeling that Hydro has been pushing customers to do

9 this and getting push-back like you've suggested, and

10 they're scratching their heads about, well, what do we

11 do about this issue.

12 And, you know, if -- first we have to

13 get to the point where we have a commitment to a

14 vigorous direct intervention kind of program, not just

15 information. And I don't think consumers are stupid,

16 but they have a bunch of issues that are not the same

17 kinds of issues that -- that we're looking at here.

18 They're the -- the nitty-gritty kinds of -- of concerns

19 about how much time is this going to take me to figure

20 out how to get it done.

21 And -- and if I do this and it doesn't

22 work right, is my wife going to be yelling at me. And

23 overcoming those barriers requires more than just

24 telling people about the -- the advantages.

25 DR. HUGH GRANT: Have you heard of the



9660

1 term 'paternalistic libertarianism'? Well, you want

2 people to have choices and yet some -- perhaps you

3 think they're not making the correct ones. I guess the

4 example is you're in charge of cafeteria and you want

5 people to eat healthy. You put the healthy food first

6 and then the desserts later. So you're still letting

7 them make the choice, but you're trying to guide their

8 choice in it.

9 So I guess we wouldn't even portray

10 Hydro's decision making at -- even at that stage yet,

11 right? It's -- it's very passive as opposed to trying

12 to do --

13 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Yes, I -- I think

14 it's -- it's more that there's a -- there's one (1)

15 line that has the desserts right up front and there's

16 another line that has the green beans up front. And

17 they're saying, Well, let people choose whichever one

18 (1) they want. And funny thing, people are going over

19 to the cupcakes.

20 DR. HUGH GRANT: Okay. Thanks.

21 THE CHAIRPERSON: I have a few

22 questions in relation to some of the things that we

23 heard from Philippe Dunsky. And -- and I'll try to

24 paraphrase what I understood he said.

25



9661

1 And fundamentally he suggested to us --

2 he posited to us that with a -- with a sound DSM

3 program extended over time, we could actually flatten

4 the load forecast curve. Actually, even suggested you

5 could actually turn into a negative slope on that

6 curve.

7 Do you agree with that? I mean, do you

8 -- do you agree --


10 THE CHAIRPERSON: -- do you -- you are

11 prepared to say that in -- in the Manitoba jurisdiction

12 aggressive DSM would actually address all of the needs

13 of Manitobans for the next generation?

14 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: I think that's very

15 likely. Now, if you have some massive new industrial

16 loads coming in then that -- you might need additional

17 resources to meet those. But for sort of the normal

18 growth and the -- and -- of the existing population and

19 businesses and the kinds of things that -- that arise

20 over time, yes, that should be possible.

21 We've seen -- I -- I don't think we've

22 seen any -- any load growth in New England in -- in the

23 last several years as a result of a couple of the

24 States being very aggressive in their energy efficiency

25 programs and all of them having at least middle of the



9662

1 road programs, sort of, Manitoba Hydro kind of -- what

2 -- what Power Smart has done historically. And that's

3 held the New England load flat or declining for a

4 decade or more, I believe.

5 THE CHAIRPERSON: You did preface your

6 statement by saying that with the arrival of a large

7 industrial load that throws that projection out of --

8 out of kilter, doesn't it?

9 I mean, if it's a brand new industry

10 that comes to Manitoba and you didn't encompass that as

11 part of your load forecast, you could be unable to

12 supply the -- the electricity needs of that -- of that

13 load?

14 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Yes. If -- if

15 somebody wants to move in or -- or a couple of things

16 happen, a pipeline compressor loads and the -- an

17 additional some kind of mining operations or something

18 and it's going to increase your load 10 percent, then

19 finding ways of -- of accommodating that would -- would

20 be very challenging.

21 And, you know, fifteen (15), twenty (20)

22 years from now you may have saved enough to -- to fit

23 them in with your existing resources, but you're going

24 to have some period where you can build load faster

25 than you can conserve, and so you may need some



9663

1 additional resources.

2 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms.

3 Menzies, do you have any questions for these witnesses,

4 please?

5 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: Mr. Chair, I'm just

6 wondering, do you -- would you -- would you rather go

7 and we'll -- we'll do Mr. Stevens's evid -- evidence,

8 as well? And then both panel members could be cross-

9 examined at -- at one time. That -- that was what I

10 was expecting.

11 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, let me just

12 check with my panel mates to see if they have any

13 questions for Mr. Stevens immediately. Yeah, it was my

14 view as well that we would expect the Intervenors to

15 cross-examine both individuals at the same time.

16 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: Okay.

17 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, I'm just

18 wondering, looking at the clock, whether it would be

19 best if we took a ten (10) minute break. I think it

20 might be better if we took a ten (10) minute break.

21 And -- and then we could start with you, Ms. Menzies,

22 if you have any questions.

23 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: Mr. Chair, wouldn't

24 we then come back and have Mr. Stevens give his

25 presentation?



9664

1 THE CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes,

2 you're right. I'm sorry. I apologize.

3 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: That's what I was

4 thinking.

5 THE CHAIRPERSON: But I'm -- I

6 apologize for that. Let's do that.

7 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: And I think your

8 timing is right for a break. We could break now. And

9 Mr. Stevens would -- would give his presentation after

10 the break. Thank you, sir.

11

12 --- Upon recessing at 10:24 a.m.

13 --- Upon resuming at 10:44 a.m.

14

15 THE CHAIRPERSON: I believe that

16 everyone's in position. So I'll turn the microphone

17 over to you, Mr. Gange.

18

19 CONTINUED BY MR. WILLIAM GANGE:

20 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: Thank you, Mr.

21 Chair. The second part of the Green Action Centre

22 evidence is being presented by Wesley Stevens, of Power

23 Advisory. And Mr. Stevens will make reference to his

24 PowerPoint presentation, as well.

25 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: Okay, can you go



9665

1 to the next slide, so slide 2. As you -- members of

2 the panel, as you well know, Power Advisory's mandate

3 in this was strictly limited to wind. Our findings in

4 this respect, two (2) main ones, that Manitoba Hydro's

5 application significantly overestimated the cost of

6 wind generation in several ways.

7 And secondly, that the potential for

8 wind generation was not adequately explored in the

9 fifteen (15) development plans considered in the

10 application.

11 Go to slide 3. First of all, we found

12 that Manitoba Hydro has significantly overestimated the

13 cost of wind in several ways. Their assumptions

14 included an overnight capital cost of twenty-one

15 hundred dollars ($2,100) per kilowatt. The schedule --

16 the construction schedule is pessimistic. Their

17 assumptions about how wind prices will change over time

18 is pessimistic. Their -- the project life is

19 pessimistic and their wind integration cost is -- is

20 pessimistic.

21 I should mention that all of these

22 assumptions are taken from one (1) source. There was a

23 spreadsheet which was in response to Round 1 IR from --

24 from La Capra, number 38 -- no, sorry, 308. Manihoba -

25 - Manitoba Hydro provided a spreadsheet as an



9666

1 attachment to their response to that IR. And that

2 contains the best source I found of their -- the wind

3 assumptions used.

4 There was some confusion at first in the

5 application itself. There was a correction issued

6 about capital costs. It turns out that the operating

7 and maintenance cost listed in the application was not

8 what was actually used in the analysis. So I have

9 relied on this -- this spreadsheet as -- as a source.

10 I call -- I refer to that as the LCOE spreadsheet, the

11 levelized cost of energy spreadsheet.

12 Slide 4, please. So, first of all, the

13 -- the capital cost of wind, Manitoba Hydro has used an

14 assumption of twenty-one hundred dollars ($2,100) a

15 kilowatt specifically excluding transmission costs,

16 which they add in separately.

17 Various sources they've -- they've cited

18 supported this, specifically in their rebuttal

19 evidence, they cited two (2) -- two (2) reports: one

20 (1) from the US Environmental Information Agency, one

21 (1) from the National Renewable Energies Lab.

22 Digging into to these, both of these

23 reports turn out to be overviews of many kinds of

24 generation: one (1) covering twenty-two (22) kinds of

25 generation ranging from coal to solar, another eighteen



9667

1 (18) kinds of generation in which wind only accounts

2 for a few pages each. The -- these are not in-depth

3 studies for -- of wind. One of them is also dated --

4 is -- provides an estimate of 2009 costs, so we're

5 talking about costs which are already four (4) year --

6 five (5) years out of date.

7 So digging into that, I did not consider

8 those to be particularly reliable sources, whereas

9 there is an excellent source on what a wind actually

10 costs. It's issued by the -- the US Department of

11 Energy. It's called, "The 2012 Wind Technologies

12 Market Report." They survey most of the wind capacity

13 completed in each year. In -- in this particular one,

14 that covers something like 9,000 megawatts, 72 percent

15 of the capac -- of the wind capacity completed in the

16 United States. So it's not a sample survey. It's --

17 it -- it covers a large majority of projects act --

18 actually completed.

19 And they found that the cost -- the

20 average cost of wind across all of these projects was

21 not twenty-one hundred dollars ($2,100) a kilowatt; it

22 was nineteen hundred and forty dollars ($1,940) per

23 kilowatt, including transmission interconnection costs.

24 So to make that comparable to Manitoba

25 Hydro -- Hydro's number, you either have to take



9668

1 twenty-one hundred (2,100) and add fifty dollars ($50)

2 or some number, or you take the nineteen forty (1,940)

3 and subtract fifty dollars ($50) or some other numbers

4 to make -- so you're talking -- talking apples and

5 oranges.

6 I thought it was simpler to simply take

7 the nineteen forty (1,940),, accept Manitoba Hydro's

8 assumption of fifty dollars ($50) per kilowatt for

9 connection costs and say -- and -- and come up with a

10 plant cost eighteen ninety (1,890).

11 Now, if you've -- for those of you who

12 bothered to read our report, this is -- this is a

13 different number than we put in our report. There is

14 evidence in the -- in this -- in the 2012 Wind

15 Technologies Market Report that costs in the Midwest

16 are significantly lower then are elsewhere in -- in the

17 US.

18 And for our report we -- we used that

19 number, the lower number for -- on reflection, I can't

20 say that I know that -- I can't say with confidence

21 that I understand why costs are lower in the Midwest.

22 So we thought it was certainly more conservative to use

23 the average for all of the US rather than the -- the

24 average specifically for -- for the Midwest. I am

25 considering doing some more digging on that and I'll --



9669

1 we'll report back if I find -- find anything.

2 Slide 5, please. Manitoba Hydro also

3 made some interesting assumptions about their

4 construction schedule. They assumed a three (3) year

5 construction schedule, which is reasonable. They

6 assumed a small amount of costs in the first year for

7 monitoring, permitting, you know, putting up a wind

8 tower and mea -- measuring wind speed, you know, things

9 like that, which is very reasonable.

10 However, they assumed that almost all of

11 the work, the actual work of putting up the project --

12 the full costs of the turbines, the civil work, you

13 know, site prep, roads, buildings, everything, even

14 commissioning -- would happen in the second year, which

15 is, you know, between twenty (20) -- twenty-four (24)

16 and thirteen (13) months before commercial operation

17 date. And then almost nothing would happen in the --

18 in the last twelve (12) months.

19 That seemed odd to me, so we, Power

20 Advisory, we went back and talked to some of our -- our

21 developer clients and asked them what do they actually

22 do. And they said -- and this is an average of -- of

23 across about three (3) responses -- that, yes, first

24 year reasonable. They actually said a bit more

25 spending in the first year, 5 -- 5 percent.



9670

1 In the next year, the only major expense

2 was turbine deposits, which came down to about 35

3 percent of the total. Maybe a bit of site, but in

4 total 35 percent. And that the bulk of the cost, the

5 remaining 60 percent, was in the last twelve (12)

6 months before COD.

7 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: Mr. Stevens, before

8 you go on, why is that important to you?

9 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: This is important

10 because we are comparing costs on net present value

11 basis. So when costs are incurred earlier, that

12 increases the levelized cost of energy. That increases

13 the net present value in the economic analysis. In

14 this case, these costs increase the cost of wind by

15 about 3 percent, which is not that much. But if you --

16 but if you're talking about a -- say a 10 percent

17 difference between two (2) kinds of generation 3

18 precent is a third of the difference.

19 So can you go to slide 6, please? So

20 what about -- and this is probably the biggest issue.

21 What about project life? Manitoba Hydro has been --

22 has -- has assumed twenty (20) years, and they -- they

23 have cited a number of studies in support of that: BC

24 Hydro, three (3) different ones by National Renewable

25 Energy Lab, something called Irena, and also Vestas.



9671

1 They referred to the warranty period on one -- one of

2 Vestas's wind turbines. Vestas is a wind turbine

3 manufacturer.

4 Digging into these, again what I found

5 is that with one (1) exception they simply give the

6 statement of, We assume twenty (20) years, without

7 justification. And that one (1) exception was one of

8 the NREL studies where they said, There is actual

9 evidence on this; we've looked -- there -- there --

10 we've accumulated evidence over -- over the years, and

11 the evidence says the expected life of a turbine is

12 twenty (20) to thirty (30) years. They went on to use

13 twenty (20) years as project life but never explained

14 why they chose the -- the lower number.

15 Manitoba Hydro also made an interesting

16 statement in their rebuttal evidence that they are not

17 aware of any wind turbines greater than 1 megawatt in

18 nameplate capacity that have operated for more than

19 twenty (20) years, seeming to imply that, you know, we

20 just don't know how long they'll last.

21 There were no 1 megawatt turbines twenty

22 (20) years ago. The first one was introduced a few --

23 few years after that, about seventeen (17), eighteen

24 (18) years ago, and would have gone into service about

25 seventeen (17) years ago. So we're looking at a



9672

1 technology that is not that old. And you can -- and for

2 a new technology, it's reasonable to be -- to be

3 conservative about expected life. And it seems to me

4 that that's what -- that's what -- what has happened.

5 Earlier on in -- when wind was first

6 being put into service in the -- in large quantities,

7 people didn't really know how long it would last. They

8 assumed twenty (20) years. That went into studies,

9 which were cited by other studies, which were cited by

10 other studies, which -- which were cited by Manitoba --

11 Manitoba Hydro.

12 Now, after a few large wind turbines

13 have been in service for fifteen (15), sixteen (16),

14 seventeen (17) years, and many of them -- and quite a

15 few for -- for somewhat shorter periods, we have some

16 evidence. And what does that evidence actually say?

17 Well, the first piece of evidence is in

18 Manitoba. There are two (2) -- two (2) wind farms in

19 service. They have terms of twenty-five (25) and

20 twenty-seven (27) years. Just one point of reference.

21 The second one, one of the -- I

22 mentioned this already. One of the reports cited by

23 Manitoba Hydro actually refers to research on wind

24 projects and says, The wind turbines have a useful life

25 of twenty (20) to thirty (30) years.



9673

1 The third piece of evidence, while

2 Manitoba Hydro was correct that Vestas, the wind

3 turbine manufacture, that some of its wind turbines

4 come with warranties of twenty (20) years, others, the

5 newer -- some newer larger ones come with warranties of

6 twenty-five (25) years.

7 Now, warranties is not the same thing as

8 useful life. But it is indicative that the -- the

9 turbine manufacturers, who are in a place to know and

10 are in a place to, you know, they're putting their

11 money where their mouth is, that they are becoming more

12 confident that wind turbines are lasting for a longer

13 time.

14 And finally, we went and asked some of

15 the same developers that we asked earlier about

16 construction schedule. We asked them: What do you

17 use? And they said, without exceptions, We -- we do

18 our financial analysis based on twenty-five (25) years.

19 We do it, the developers do it, the

20 investors do it. Investors are not known to be

21 particularly flighty when it comes to financial

22 analysis. In fact some investors also look at thirty

23 (30) years, though that's not the -- not -- that's not

24 their primary focus. Their primary focus is on twenty-

25 five (25) years. And none of them mentioned twenty



9674

1 (20) years.

2 So our conclusion is that while twenty

3 (20) years has been somewhat of a tradition, that the

4 evidence actually points to a useful life of twenty-

5 five (25) years.

6 So can you go to slide 7, please?

7 Manitoba Hydro also assumed that there would be no --

8 no improvement in wind costs over time, either wind

9 capital costs or in -- or in wind capacity factor.

10 That makes them a distinct outlier among experts.

11 Another excellent study by NREL

12 focussing entirely on wind looked at -- did a survey of

13 eighteen (18) different scenarios by an -- by -- I'm

14 not sure, thirteen (13) or so -- from thirteen (13) or

15 so different sources and graphed them. That graph

16 actually appears in Manitoba Hydro's application. It's

17 -- it appears in one (1) of the -- one (1) of the

18 appendices of the Brattle report, I believe. So

19 Manitoba Hydro must have been aware of it in -- in

20 developing their application.

21 The midpoint of expert opinions is a --

22 a decline of something like 25 percent by 2030. This

23 is a combination, by the way. The improvements and

24 costs are on a dollars per megawatt hour basis. A

25 combination of lower costs, much of it linked to larger



9675

1 tower sizes. So a lower -- lower unit. A larger tower

2 costs more than a smaller tower, but on a unit cost

3 basis it's less expensive.

4 As well, larger towers, if they're

5 higher, and there's a move to go from the current 80

6 mega -- 80 metre standard to a hundred metres, larger

7 towers have access to stronger and steadier winds. So

8 that -- that improves the amount of wind -- that --

9 that improves the capacity factor and the capacity of

10 the wind plants.

11 This can be modelled. I guess, perhaps

12 ideally, you would have different projections of

13 capital costs: capital costs going down over time and

14 capacity factors going up over time. It's actually

15 simpler to simply model this as a decline in capital

16 cost, to take this -- this improvement in -- in wind

17 cost per megawatt hour and simply model it as -- as an

18 improvement in capital cost. But I want to acknowledge

19 that it is in fact a combination of capital cost

20 declines and capacity factor improvements.

21 Next slide, please. Now, we come to

22 wind integration costs. And this, I've got to say, was

23 a difficult one because there's such little information

24 available in the application. Manitoba Hydro started

25 with a study done -- done in 2005, so it's nine (9)



9676

1 years ago, that said that wind integration will vary

2 with electricity price and with how much wind is

3 already on the system.

4 Those are reasonable statements, and

5 they gave numbers -- the -- the report gave numbers:

6 four dollars and twenty-two cents ($4.22) per megawatt

7 hour for -- at the five hundred (500) -- if -- if you

8 have 500 megawatts on your system and four-ninety-nine

9 (4.99) if you have a thousand megawatts on your system.

10 Manitoba Hydro then made a number of

11 assumptions about electricity prices and how much wind

12 capacity would be ins -- installed. And one (1) of

13 their assumptions is that this nine (9) year old study

14 is the best and most current source of information on

15 wind integration costs.

16 Manitoba Hydro applied these

17 assumptions, did some kind -- some kind of calculation,

18 and came out with a number. The number they came out

19 with was eight (8) -- eight dollars and forty-five

20 cents ($8.45) a megawatt hour, which is twice what the

21 2005 study came up with. I thought that was odd,

22 because one (1) of the prime drivers of wind

23 integration costs, according to this study, is

24 electricity -- electricity prices. Electricity prices

25 are lower now than they were in 2005. They are



9677

1 significantly lower, and it will be many years before

2 they will be higher.

3 But if there's anything that can be

4 taken from the 2005 study it's that wind integration

5 costs really cannot be brought down to a single number.

6 If you're looking at adding a couple of hundred

7 megawatts of wind in 2022, that is taking your total

8 install capacity from two-sixty (260) not even -- but

9 taking it up to the five hundred (500) level, that's

10 different from talking about what's going to happen in

11 2040 if somehow you have -- already have 2,000

12 megawatts on -- on your system and you're going to add

13 another -- add additional capacity on that. You can't

14 really bring it down to one (1) number. But that's --

15 that's the approach taken.

16 Manitoba Hydro was asked, as an

17 undertaking, to explain the difference between the wind

18 integration costs shown in Appendix 9.3 -- that is, the

19 four twenty-two (422) -- and the wind integration cost

20 as taken from LCA/MH I-308. That is the eight forty-

21 five (845). That was Undertaking number 40. The

22 response, which is Exhibit 136, while it consisted

23 almost entirely of information already available in the

24 application, did not really provide much explanation.

25 It did -- did include one (1)



9678

1 interesting phrase, that their wind integration costs

2 are for a sign -- significant wind build-out. In other

3 words, buried in this number appears to be the

4 assumption that there's already a lot of wind on the

5 system. How much? We don't know.

6 I would suggest that, particularly for a

7 screening exercise, which is what the levelized cost of

8 energy calculations are about, it's more appropriate to

9 look at wind integration costs applicable to the next

10 few projects -- what's going to be happening in 2022

11 when you go from two-sixty (260) to five hundred (500)

12 or something like that -- than it is to be talking

13 about what happens if you already have 2,000 megawatts

14 on the system.

15 That's particularly relevant if you're

16 talking about -- hold on. I lost my train of thought.

17 It also matters whether we're talking about adding wind

18 to the system as is or if we're talking about

19 additional capa -- hydro capacity. Wind and hydro are

20 a good match in many ways. One (1) of them is that the

21 more hydro you have, the lower your wind integration

22 costs.

23 Also, are we talking about a system with

24 more transition -- transmission, interties with -- with

25 neighbouring systems? Again, that's a factor which



9679

1 tends to decrease wind integration costs. So are we

2 talking about the system as is, adding wind to it

3 without interties in hydro, or are we talking about a

4 system with more hydro and more wind, or more

5 transmission and more wind? All that makes a

6 difference.

7 But the biggest problem that I have with

8 the eight forty-five (8.45) number is we just don't

9 know what Hydro did. It's a black box, and a black box

10 that came out with what seems to be a very high number.

11 We do know, however, because they say so in their

12 report, that Manitoba Hydro's wind integration

13 experience is generally consistent with the 2005 study

14 results. I mean, what does that mean?

15 We're in a situation with very little

16 wind. We're in a situation with low power costs. So

17 'consistent with the 2005 study' would imply that

18 Manitoba Hydro has some experience with actual wind

19 integrations costs and they're pretty low.

20 Ideally, I would have liked to have seen

21 Manitoba Hydro provide information on actual costs, not

22 a -- not a nine (9) year old study, but actual costs.

23 In the absence of -- of that, I'd like to know how the

24 numbers were derived, the assumption of the analysis

25 behind them, and whether -- whether they're -- those



9680

1 assumptions and analysis are -- are reasonable.

2 However, in the absence of that, I have

3 to say that the only number we have, the only actual

4 number we have is the four twenty-two (4.22) to four

5 ninety-nine (4.99) number in the 2005 study. The four

6 twenty-two (4.22) number is -- is at a 500 megawatt

7 level. We're below that. We don't have 500 megawatts.

8 We have something less than that. So it would have to

9 be the -- the lower end. And I choose that regret --

10 regretfully but only because it's the only number we

11 have.

12 The next slide, please. So where does

13 that put us? If you do all these things, if you take a

14 capital cost that's based on what it actually cost to -

15 - to build wind in 2012, if you apply to that

16 reasonable assumptions about the expert consensus about

17 how wind costs will change between now and, let's say,

18 2022, 2020, 2022, around there, if you go -- if you ask

19 developers about how money will be spent during

20 construction and if you put in the only number -- the

21 only evidence-based number we have wind integration

22 costs, where do you end up?

23 You end up at about sixty-five dollars

24 ($65) a megawatt -- a megawatt hour, which is a lot

25 lower than Manitoba Hydro's number from IR Response --



9681

1 the -- the response to IR 308, which was eighty-four

2 dollars ($84). And it actually makes it lower than the

3 cost -- cost of energy from either Keeyask or Conawapa.

4 I don't want to make a big deal about

5 the fact that it's lower. I want to make a big deal

6 about the fact that it's in the ballpark. What that

7 means is that it's too -- if it's too close to call, it

8 deserves to be looked at in some detail.

9 The next slide, please. That will be

10 slide 10. Looking -- in looking at the development

11 plans, Wind was not technically screened out. It does

12 appear in some of the plans. It appears in two (2).

13 There's a Wind/Gas Plan and a Wind/Conawapa Plan.

14 However, even there, as La Capra noted,

15 these plans were not optimized, so. And it's -- these

16 are not my words. These are La Capra words, but

17 they're -- they're worth repeating, so I'm going to

18 read them.

19 "Rather than abandoned wind as a

20 resource option, it would have been

21 reasonable for Manitoba Hydro to

22 evaluate alternative plans with

23 different sequencing and timing of

24 the wind and gas generation, plans

25 with alternative capacity resources,



9682

1 such as CCGTs and in demand response

2 measures and plans that varied the

3 amount of wind developed."

4 So to -- if you're going to include, at

5 least optimize the plan. Optimize it in combination

6 with -- optimize the timing of wind. Optimize how it's

7 combined with gas. That's for those two (2) plans.

8 There were no other plans that included

9 wind. In particular, there are no plans that

10 considered combining wind with new transmission

11 interties or combining it with new export contracts or

12 combining it with -- with -- well, they did consider

13 combining with -- with Conawapa, but perhaps combining

14 with Keeyask; smaller amounts, larger amounts. They

15 just -- the -- the range of -- of plans they looked at

16 was just very, very narrow.

17 The next slide, please. That's slide

18 11. One (1) of the things -- one (1) of the questions

19 raised that -- that I raised is: Could wind, in fact,

20 be paired with hydro to serve export markets? If

21 export prices are so high and if the export potential

22 is so great, what about wind plus hydro? What about

23 either wind plus the existing system or wind plus a new

24 system?

25 I'm not talking about using wind for



9683

1 firming. Well, you could consider it a bit -- a bit of

2 firming. I'm talking about looking at it on an --

3 really on a integrated basis where when -- when there

4 is wind, when the wind is high, there is wind

5 generation, you cut back on the hydro. The reservoirs

6 stay higher. When -- when export prices are high you

7 have that much more hydro to export.

8 So you're not so much generating --

9 you're not -- not so much exporting wind as you're

10 using wind to enable the export of hydro. Is this

11 feasible or not? We don't know. Manitoba Hydro was

12 asked about this in Information Request from the Board,

13 26A. Their response was a list of reasons why they

14 didn't want to consider it, and particularly because

15 they seemed to be looking at wind in Manitoba as

16 competing head to head with wind in -- in the US

17 states, rather than looking at wind plus hydro together

18 in Manitoba competing with wind in -- in the US.

19 Next slide, please, which is number 12.

20 Actually, can you go back for just -- I seem to have --

21 can you go back one more? No, okay. I'm on track.

22 One other thing that should be

23 considered with respect to wind relates to what Mr. --

24 Mr. Chernick just said, that -- that Manitoba Hydro --

25 that Manitoba's needs for electricity can be met



9684

1 through -- through conservation. There are always

2 errors in load forecasts. Conservation programs may be

3 more or less effective. A new industry could come

4 along. It could be argued that we need to build these

5 large hydro plants just in case demand increases later.

6 You can look at wind as a form of risk

7 management. Going back to the wind schedule, once

8 you've invested the first 3 percent, 5 percent in

9 project development, 95 percent of the costs don't

10 happen until one (1) and two (2) years before the

11 project is put in -- in service. So if -- if demand is

12 tracking higher than expected, if there is a large

13 mining development happening in Northern Manitoba and

14 you know you will need more energy, you don't need

15 eight (8) years' notice of that. You need two (2)

16 years. You can put wind projects in.

17 If you need capacity, you can also put

18 in gas projects on -- on the same sort of notice. So

19 you can look at wind not -- not just from the long-term

20 development plan perspective, but you can look at wind

21 as a -- as a risk -- as a form of risk management.

22 That's also something that -- I think that should be

23 considered.

24 Now, the last slide, which is number 13.

25 So my conclusion, just to summarize is, wind should be



9685

1 considered more seriously in any long-term plan of

2 Manitoba's electricity system. It is the lowest --

3 lowest cost type of generation on an energy basis; less

4 expensive, as I calculate it, than Keeyask, Conawapa,

5 gas, solar, geothermal, anything else. It is the

6 lowest cost of energy.

7 As such, it should be conspired in a

8 wide range of development plan -- plans, with the

9 timing of -- of wind and other types of generation

10 fully optimized. It may be possible to pair wind with

11 either existing or new -- new hydro to serve -- to

12 serve export markets. That should be explored. And it

13 may be possible to use it as risk management, to hold

14 it in reserve to deal with unexpected changes in demand

15 with a -- with a two (2) year construction period

16 rather than a six (6) to twelve (12) year construction

17 period.

18 That concludes my -- my presentation.

19 Thank you.

20 THE CHAIRPERSON: I have a few

21 questions, I guess, in relation to the costs that you

22 have proposed for the cost of wind. And I guess one of

23 the concerns I have is around the blend of US

24 costs/Canadian costs.

25 Could you talk about that, please?



9686

1 Have you attempted to compensate for the

2 fact that some of these costs are -- are based on US

3 dollars and -- and we are in a Canadian jurisdiction?

4 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: I actually haven't

5 done that. It's true that the -- the costs I -- I gave

6 were in US dollars. I have not convert -- converted

7 those Canadian dollars, either current prices or

8 whatever the exchange rate is.

9 Bill, do you happen to remember the

10 exchange rate assumed application?

11 So it -- it would -- it would actually

12 be reasonable to -- to convert those numbers using

13 whatever exchange rate -- what -- whatever long-term

14 exchange rate --

15 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yeah, I mean --

16 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: -- not necessarily

17 the point nine (.9) that -- you know, the ninety (90)

18 cents on the dollar that it is now -- it is now.

19 THE CHAIRPERSON: So that would address

20 the exchange rate, but it wouldn't address the issue of

21 whe -- whether costs for constructing wind in the US is

22 different than the cost in Manitoba. In other words,

23 my intuition tells me that it probably would be more

24 expensive in Manitoba than it is in the US, but I don't

25 know that for a fact.



9687

1 And I -- I -- can you comment?

2 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: I don't have any

3 solid information on that. I have thought about that.

4 And my thought was actually the -- the opposite, that

5 you have -- in Manitoba, you would largely be -- be

6 developing wind in the southern part on -- and you're

7 not in the -- in the Canadian Shield, so -- so you --

8 so you're looking at fairly easy foundation

9 construction compared to what you see in many places in

10 the United States.

11 That may be one (1) reason why wind

12 costs in -- in the Midwest were lower than they were

13 elsewhere in the -- in the -- US, although there are

14 other -- other reasons. There could be other reasons

15 for that as well. It might be that you would have

16 higher costs to deal with harsher winters, but winters

17 get pretty harsh and snowy in -- in many parts of the

18 US.

19 So I've looked at that. I don't have

20 any -- any basis for saying that they would be higher

21 in Manitoba. And that was part of -- actually part of

22 my reason for going with the US national price rather

23 than the Midwestern -- the US Midwestern price, is to

24 kind of allow some -- some fudge factor in there.

25 THE CHAIRPERSON: I didn't understand



9688

1 the suggestion you made that you create wind sites in

2 reserve.

3 Could you explain that a little bit

4 more? Are you suggestion you -- you pour a pad and...

5 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: No, no, no. You -

6 - you choose a site, acquire the land, put up a wind --

7 a -- a wind -- like a monitoring tower to confirm that

8 the wind is there. You can even go so far as

9 permitting. And then you sit on it.

10 If -- if a big mining complex comes in

11 that's going to need energy -- and something like that

12 would typically need energy around the clock. It needs

13 -- it needs more than capacity. Then, you know, call

14 up the, you know, call up the wind turbine

15 manufacturer. I need -- I need turbines. And two (2)

16 years later, you can have a site commissioned.

17 But you have to do the prep work. Prep

18 work costs -- essentially you have to do the year 1

19 work, the -- what -- what we estimate to be about 5

20 percent of the cost. And there would be some small

21 costs of just sitting on the land rather than

22 developing it. But it's pretty low cost risk

23 management.

24 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, part -- part of

25 what Manitoba Hydro has suggested and -- and obviously



9689

1 included in their plans is, you know, the fact they --

2 they would be importing US wind, storing water, and --

3 and shipping back the power at -- at an alternative

4 time. So in effect, instead of having wind in

5 Manitoba, you'd be using wind US and -- and enjoying

6 the increased reliability that stems from two (2)

7 different systems that are intertied and so on.

8 So you examined wind purely as a

9 resource that might be available in Manitoba and didn't

10 consider the broader gains that might be yielded by an

11 intertied system.

12 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: I think that that

13 is something that should be looked at. That would --

14 that would fall under the category of taking a much

15 more serious look at wind, including importing wind

16 from -- from the US. My -- this is a gut feel, I have

17 to say.

18 My gut feel is it's -- it's likely to be

19 more efficient to generate the wind in Manitoba and

20 then -- then export it, rather than import it from the

21 US and export again. It's -- it's more complicated.

22 You have -- if -- if it's in with -- if it's in

23 Manitoba, it's easier to -- to integrate more closely,

24 integrate on a one (1) minute basis rather than

25 scheduling -- schedule imports thirty (30) minutes or



9690

1 an hour ahead.

2 So I -- I think there are benefits, but

3 again that's something that I think should be worked --

4 looked at.

5 MS. MARILYN KAPITANY: My question is

6 more mundane than the Chair's, but I've done some

7 reading about wind. And one (1) of the things that I

8 saw is that it doesn't do very well at really cold

9 temperatures.

10 Is that information out of date, or

11 could you comment on that at all?

12 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: That's -- that's

13 getting into information -- I'm not an engineer. I --

14 but I have educated myself about this, because that's

15 my responsibility. There are issues with icing, and

16 that relates back to M. Gosselin's question about

17 additional costs in Manitoba.

18 There -- for an additional cost -- I

19 think it's small, but I'm -- I -- I don't know what it

20 is -- you can get wind turbines at -- that are

21 particularly good at dealing with icy conditions.

22 On the other hand, basic physics, cold

23 air is more dense. So they're -- the colder it is, the

24 more wind power you have.

25 MS. MARILYN KAPITANY: Even if it's a



9691

1 dry cold?

2 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: That's actually an

3 interesting question -- an interesting phy -- physics

4 question: Does wet cold air weigh more than dry cold

5 air? I don't know.

6

7 (BRIEF PAUSE)

8

9 THE CHAIRPERSON: I think that's all

10 the questions the panel has for the time being. So,

11 Ms. Menzies, please, on behalf of CAC.

12

13 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. MEGHAN MENZIES:

14 MS. MEGHAN MENZIES: Good morning.

15 Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chernick and Mr. Stevens.

16 I'm just back here. Mr. Chernick, I met you this

17 morning at break, but I don't believe that I met you,

18 Mr. Stevens. So by way of introduction, my name is

19 Meghan Menzies, and I represent the Consumers'

20 Association of Canada, Manitoba branch.

21 And I don't have many questions for

22 today, but the ones that I do have are primarily

23 targeted at Mr. -- at Mr. Chernick. But as I think

24 we've always been aware, we're definitely open to

25 responses from both of you where -- where appropriate.



9692

1 Mr. Chernick, this morning you were

2 qualified in a number of areas, and one (1) of those

3 area was integrated resource planning.

4 Is that correct?


6 MS. MEGHAN MENZIES: And I believe that

7 Mr. Gange explained that you had previously been

8 qualified as an expert in integrated resource planning

9 in a number of jurisdictions. And my understanding was

10 the jurisdictions that Mr. Gange spoke to were

11 Arkansas, Kentucky, Contentic -- Connecticut, and the

12 City of New Orleans.

13 Am I recalling that correctly?

14 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Yes, and there are

15 several others I've been appearing as a -- a witness on

16 integrated resource planning since the 1980s.

17 MS. MEGHAN MENZIES: So before I was

18 born. Maybe I shouldn't have said that. Moving on

19 from that. Although, your presentation this morning

20 was not largely focussed on integrated resource

21 planning, because you've been qualified in the area and

22 clearly have a lot of experience speaking to it, I

23 would like to explore the topic with you a little bit

24 this morning.

25 To begin with, could you provide the



9693

1 Board and myself with some insight on what good

2 integrated resource planning consists of?

3 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Well, that --

4 that's a question sort of better suited for a -- a

5 research paper or a primer on -- on integrated resource

6 planning. And I -- I think some of those have been

7 developed.

8 But basically the idea is to look at all

9 of the tools at the disposal of the electric utilities

10 system or the electric and gas utilities system, and to

11 search for the best plans going forward, including, in

12 the case of an electric utility, adding generation,

13 retiring generation, switching fuels, purchases from

14 other utilities -- non-utility generators, sales -- in

15 this case of Manitoba, it would be exports -- energy

16 efficiency, fuel choice issues, and -- and the whole

17 range of potential solutions to your future supply

18 problems or conditions that may arise, including both

19 the -- the expected cost and the risk involved in the

20 various alternatives.

21 MS. MEGHAN MENZIES: And to use some

22 language of -- of Mr. Stevens this morning, my

23 understanding would then be is that you -- you take all

24 these different resources that you've looked at and --

25 and try to create an optimized plan? Is that -- sound



9694

1 appropriate, or -- or am I --

2 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Yes, that's your --

3 your objective, and -- and the -- the point is not so

4 much to lay out a blueprint that you'll follow

5 faithfully for the next twenty (20) years as to lay out

6 what you're going to be doing in the foreseeable future

7 and how that will -- relates to what you expect in the

8 longer term.

9 In the -- so you -- there are things

10 that you need to do now in order to bring resources

11 online over the next three (3), four (4), five (5)

12 years. But as you're making those decisions, you want

13 to be thinking about a much longer time frame and what

14 you expect to have happen, and how you will change your

15 plans if your expectations change.

16 MS. MEGHAN MENZIES: Thank you. And --

17 and when you -- when I first posed this very general

18 question to -- to you, you provided that -- that you

19 look at a number of different resources. And something

20 that we've been discussing here at the hearing within

21 the last two (2) months has been portfolio analysis; so

22 not just individual plans, but -- but also portfolio

23 analysis within integrated resource planning.

24 Is -- is that something that's familiar

25 to you or something that you can expand on?



9695

1 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Yes, I -- I think

2 what you're alluding to is, while it's often helpful to

3 focus on a particular resource, and how adding that

4 would change the rest of your -- your plans and change

5 the economics of the system, integrated resource

6 planning doesn't just look at one (1) or two (2)

7 decisions normally. It looks at your overall mix of --

8 of resources and -- and how that -- 'portfolio' is a

9 good word for it -- how that set of resources and the

10 policies that may be developed to complement your

11 resources, how those perform under a variety of

12 conditions.

13 Just as with a financial portfolio you

14 look at balancing stocks and bonds and domestic and --

15 and foreign holdings, and so on, so that you aren't

16 excessively vulnerable to any particular shift in the

17 market.

18

19 (BRIEF PAUSE)

20

21 MS. MEGHAN MENZIES: And so something

22 that was brought up this morning to some degree was

23 energy efficiency. And -- and our understanding, or

24 the understanding that I've been able to glean from the

25 presentations thus far is that at the heart of



9696

1 integrated resource planning is that optimized energy

2 efficiency is just as important to consider as

3 optimized generation.

4 Is -- is that -- is that statement

5 correct, in your opinion?

6 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Yes. One of the

7 major resources available to both gas and electric

8 utilities is energy efficiency for providing the energy

9 services to their consumers at the lowest possible

10 cost, and reducing the risk.

11 MS. MEGHAN MENZIES: Thank you. And I

12 just have one (1) last question for you, and it's just

13 -- because of the number of places that you've worked

14 and that you've provided expert evidence on regarding

15 integrated resource planning, it would be helpful if

16 you could provide some direction or examples of

17 jurisdictions that have undertaken what you would

18 consider to be good integrated resource planning, if

19 they're out there.

20 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Oh, there -- there

21 are, and there -- there may be -- if you're looking for

22 models for Manitoba, you might take different pieces

23 from -- from different jurisdictions.

24 And while -- say the treatment of -- of

25 demand-side options, efficiency, in particular, for



9697

1 that you might look to say Connecticut, which has a --

2 I think a fairly clear and straightforward development

3 of -- of that side of the IRP. But Connecticut is a

4 restructured state, so the utilities aren't making

5 decisions about purchasing resources, for the most

6 part. They -- they make some exceptions to resolve

7 problems that the market's not taking care of, but for

8 the most part for the supply side you'd have to look to

9 another model.

10 I -- I think I'd prefer to respond to

11 this in -- in detail in a -- in an undertaking, if that

12 would work for you?

13 MS. MEGHAN MENZIES: I would be glad to

14 -- to have an undertaking on that.

15 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: So this would be a

16 few examples of integrated resource planning that I

17 think work fairly well. And I'll get you the links to

18 the specific documents that lay out the -- the plan and

19 perhaps the Regulatory Board's order on the subject.

20 MS. MEGHAN MENZIES: That would be

21 great. And for -- for the benefit of the court

22 reporter, would you like me to repeat that undertaking?

23

24 (BRIEF PAUSE)

25



9698

1 MS. MEGHAN MENZIES: So my

2 understanding, and please interject if I'm restating

3 this incorrectly, but Mr. Chernick will provide -- will

4 provide an undertaking to provide the Board with a

5 number -- or a number of good examples of jurisdictions

6 that have done good integrated resource planning and

7 will provide links to both those plans and the Board

8 orders relating to those plans, if available.

9 Does that sound satisfactory to you, Mr.

10 Chernick?


12 MS. MEGHAN MENZIES: Thank you.

13

14 --- UNDERTAKING NO. 135: Paul Chernick to provide

15 Board with a number of good

16 examples of jurisdictions

17 that have done good

18 integrated resource

19 planning; will provide

20 links to both those plans

21 and the Board orders

22 relating to those plans if

23 available

24

25 MS. MEGHAN MENZIES: And that concludes



9699

1 my questioning for this morning.


3 Menzies. I'm going to call upon Me. Hacault. Just to

4 let you know, Me. Hacault, that our intention is to

5 recess at approximately five (5) to 12:00. So I hope

6 that helps you a bit.

7 MR. ANTOINE HACAULT: That should be

8 okay. I expect that the questions I have will have

9 been dealt with before that time.

10

11 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ANTOINE HACAULT:

12 MR. ANTOINE HACAULT: I'd like to cover

13 one (1) area with Mr. Chernick and just provide a

14 little bit of background before I get into the

15 questioning. One (1) issue that has been raised in

16 this hearing is when you build new generation for hydro

17 you'll know the cost of that. And I want to explore

18 how that -- your views on that and how that compares to

19 DSM and whether in twenty (20) years we'll know the

20 cost of the saving plans that you're talking about at

21 the 1.5 percent. So that's the subject area.

22 Let's try and break that down a little

23 bit. Sir, with respect to economic DSM, can you

24 identify the most common cost components of those DSM

25 programs? For example, labour might be one (1) of them



9700

1 and physical components of different things might be

2 others, but I'm just giving you that as an idea before

3 you answer, sir?

4 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Well, that varies a

5 lot from one (1) program to another. Sometimes the

6 program expenditures are almost entirely for technical

7 assistance. For example, in new construction for large

8 buildings, there's a tendency for there to be a market

9 failure where the -- the owner doesn't ask the

10 architect or the lighting engineer, or the -- the HVAC

11 engineer for a -- a lowest total cost system. And the

12 -- the charge is more to minimize first costs, because

13 that's something that the owner can understand and --

14 and monitor more closely.

15 Even if the various professionals would

16 like to do something more with efficiency, they have to

17 do that work on their own time, and then explain to the

18 owner why they should spend more, or, in some cases,

19 why it saves them money because if you improve the

20 lighting efficiency and the use of date lighting you

21 can reduce the size of the cooling equipment, for

22 example, in a high-rise building. But that means that

23 the -- the architects and the -- the lighting engineers

24 have to talk to the -- to the HVAC engineers across

25 connections that are -- that -- that may not be made



9701

1 normally.

2 So sometimes you're mostly paying to

3 bring in an outside expert to work with the various

4 parties and come up with a proposal for how to build a

5 building that does what the owner wants to do and does

6 it with a lot less energy use. And then there's a

7 small cost perhaps for a plaque to put on the front of

8 the building to let everybody know how amazingly

9 efficient the building is when it's actually built as -

10 - as designed. So --

11 MR. ANTOINE HACAULT: And I'll let you

12 continue.

13 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Yeah.

14 MR. ANTOINE HACAULT: But I just want

15 to break -- break -- the first component that you've --

16 identify then is the nature of labour, either

17 professional engineers, architects, or the people that

18 are installing it.

19 And would it be fair to suggest that we

20 could expect that people over the years, if we're

21 projecting twenty (20) years, that cost will not stay

22 fixed over a twenty (20) year time period; all things

23 being normal, labour costs will increase in each year

24 over the twenty (20) year time period?

25 Is that a fair assumption, sir?



9702

1 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Yes. You'd --

2 you'd expect it to rise roughly with inflation.

3 Although as -- as you get some -- some buildings built

4 and as the architects get familiar with the techniques,

5 that they're able to research because you're either

6 paying for their time or bringing in somebody else to -

7 - to help them through the process, it may be much

8 easier to do the -- the second one or the third on and

9 the forth, one and so on. But there would some --

10 certainly be some escalation in fees.

11 And for both that kind of project and --

12 and ones where you're blowing in insulation or

13 replacing windows, or that kind of thing, there would

14 also be escalation in -- in labour costs. And there --

15 there would be escalation in -- in material's costs in

16 general where you're replacing one (1) kind of

17 equipment with -- either putting in new equipment

18 early, for example, taking out a refrigerator that's

19 still working but is using way too much energy and

20 putting in a more efficient one.

21 On the other hand, the -- the premiums

22 for an efficient refrigerator over the standard

23 refrigerator may also decline over time as those

24 efficient models become more commonly used. They're

25 not special order anymore. They're now stocked



9703

1 locally. They're easy to get a hold of. The

2 manufacturers are producing more of them. They've

3 spread their development costs out over more units.

4 They're competing with one another to -- to capture

5 this growing market.

6 So the incremental costs of some kinds

7 of capital investments will go down. The incremental

8 costs of others may go up with inflation, but you would

9 expect some -- some upward trend in many of those

10 activities. And in -- in terms of the costs of the

11 measures, whether you're talking about costs that are

12 being expended directly by the utility or being expe --

13 expended by customers, and then the utility provides a

14 rebate, an incentive, or whatever, that, in general,

15 costs will tend to rise with inflation. Although,

16 there are other factors, as I've outlined, that would

17 push back against that.

18 MR. ANTOINE HACAULT: Okay. And thank

19 you for that answer, sir. I appreciate with respect to

20 materials, which is kind of second area that you

21 covered, that there can be a wide range as to whether

22 or not there might be actual increases that match

23 inflation, depending, as you say, on the competitive

24 nature of the market and whether new things come out.

25 But is it fair to say that, in general -- I think I



9704

1 understood you to say that there probably would be some

2 measure of increase for materials overall? For

3 example, insulation -- is insulation -- probably you

4 won't pay the same price for insulation in twenty (20)

5 years from now as you do today.

6

7 (BRIEF PAUSE)

8

9 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: There are prob --

10 there are probably some specific materials that you use

11 in -- in energy efficiency programs that you continue

12 to use that would rise with the -- the cost of -- of

13 other commodities. I -- I'm thinking about -- in the

14 insulation case, at one (1) point the -- the cost of

15 adding a layer of -- of foam insulation on the outside

16 of the wood framing before you put on the siding, that

17 was just an additional cost. Now, there are -- there's

18 insulation integrated with the sheathing so that the --

19 the cost -- the incremental cost of doing that has gone

20 down considerably.

21 So as the technology improves, as the

22 foam insulation replaces blown in cellulose or -- or

23 fibreglass, you may have lower costs to get the same

24 efficiency levels. You may also be pushing for higher

25 efficiency levels.



9705

1 I guess my answer is it's complicated,

2 but there certainly are areas in which -- in -- general

3 inflation will tend to push up costs. And while you

4 may get a little more efficient in how you -- you do

5 the -- the blowing of the foam, you're going to have

6 somebody there controlling the -- the equipment. And

7 he's certainly going to hope that his -- his wages rise

8 with inflation.

9 MR. ANTOINE HACAULT: And you had an

10 exchange with Board member Kapitany on new technology,

11 and you said while we can't necessarily predict what it

12 will be. Does it follow that you also can't predict

13 the price of that new technology with any measure of

14 certainty?

15 Is -- like, in twenty (20) years from

16 now, what is the technology that we're speculating

17 about and what's going to be the cost of that

18 technology to maintain that level of efficiency, or

19 increased efficiency, of the one-point-five (1.5) that

20 you have -- you have identified, sir?

21 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Yes. And you may

22 have new technologies that allow you to squeeze

23 additional savings out at about the cost that you've --

24 we've been doing it in the past, or about that cost

25 plus inflation, or at a lower price, or potentially at



9706

1 a higher price. But in my conversation with the

2 Chairman I was speaking about the technologies that

3 would be cost effective. But they may be -- instead of

4 costing two (2) cents a kilowatt hour, they may cost

5 four (4) cents a kilowatt hour, or -- it's true that we

6 -- we don't know exactly what will happen in the future

7 with a lot of these things.

8 MR. ANTOINE HACAULT And, sir, I'm

9 going to suggest to you that once you've built a major

10 generating station and associated transmission such as

11 Keeyask that once that construction is finished your

12 costs are pretty well fixed except for ongoing

13 maintenance and some support. And that's actually been

14 a criticism that there's very little ongoing permanent

15 jobs related to a generating station.

16 With respect to the statement I made,

17 sir, that most of your costs will be fixed once that

18 generating stations has been built, do you agree with

19 that?

20 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Yes. Although,

21 there -- there are situations in which hydroelectric

22 systems and major transmission systems require large

23 investments. There's situations in which the dams are

24 -- experience some kind of -- of problem, or you can

25 have a generator fire which can knock out a big piece



9707

1 of equipment for quite a while until you get it

2 repaired, and it can be an expensive business.

3 So it's -- it's not necessarily the case

4 that you don't have to spend any money on the

5 facilities after you've built them, but there may be

6 many years in which you're spending very little.

7 MR. ANTOINE HACAULT: And all things

8 being equal, sir, I would suggest to you that if you

9 spend say $6 billion in today's dollars, in twenty (20)

10 years -- we don't know that the inflation will be, but

11 in -- the dollars that'll be used to pay down that $6

12 billion, in twenty (20) years from now, if we use a

13 time -- twenty (20) year metric, it'll be easier to pay

14 that $6 billion because of the natural effect of

15 inflation.

16 So you get an inflation hedge when you

17 build a generating station, correct?

18

19 (BRIEF PAUSE)

20

21 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: I'm just making

22 sure that I understand what -- what you're asking. If

23 -- if you -- you borrow a certain amount of money this

24 year and you pay it off with straight-line depreciation

25 then you're going to be paying less in the future, and



9708

1 people -- the bills will be getting paid in inflated

2 dollars. And so it -- the repayment goes down in real

3 terms, if --

4 MR. ANTOINE HACAULT: Yes --

5 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: -- I think that's

6 the point you were trying --

7 MR. ANTOINE HACAULT: -- that's a

8 point. For example, and I -- I don't want to show my

9 age, but the first hearing I did before this Board was

10 the Limestone Project, and a lot of people were

11 complaining about the cost at that time. And when we

12 consider the cost and -- and the amount of rates needed

13 to pay -- and -- and out of my pocket in today's

14 dollars, people are starting to think it's a pretty

15 good deal. And they say, Well, it's a legacy that's

16 been left to us by the people who had the foresight of

17 doing that Limestone Generating Station.

18 So getting back to my question, sir, all

19 things being equal a big generating station would have

20 inherent in it some kind of an inflation hedge because

21 a big part of the fixed costs are put there and don't

22 change over time.

23 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Yes. And -- and

24 any capital investment that you make now has that --

25 that -- with a long life has that kind of advantage.



9709

1 If you spend money on energy efficiency today, then --

2 and it saves energy in that building for forty (40)

3 years, then, you know, thirty (30), forty (40) years

4 from now you're getting those benefits. You probably

5 aren't paying anything for it out of that end of the --

6 of the period, and -- but even if you borrowed money to

7 do it with it's -- it's a very good deal.

8 So energy efficiency, hydro, wind,

9 solar, all have very high -- or, you know, a high

10 percentage of their costs are front-loaded, and

11 therefore they look particularly good over time.

12 MR. ANTOINE HACAULT: Sir, I'd like to

13 understand better your last statement, that energy

14 efficiency has a lot of front-load costs. As I

15 understood the evidence that you lead, in each year if

16 we're going to get incremental savings of 1.5 percent

17 in each year we need to spend money. And that money,

18 we've talked about --

19 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Right.

20 MR. ANTOINE HACAULT: -- will be

21 increased labour costs, and -- and perhaps depending on

22 the type of DSM --

23 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: M-hm.

24 MR. ANTOINE HACAULT: -- increase

25 material costs. So I'm trying to understand why you're



9710

1 saying that we spend a lot of up-front costs. Maybe in

2 any given year, but that expense has to be repeated in

3 each year to achieve those targets, correct?

4 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Yes. To continue

5 getting savings you have to continue spending money.

6 It's sort of as if you could take Keeyask and split it

7 into a thousand little pieces and -- and add just as

8 many as you needed each year. As time went by, those

9 additional little pieces of Keeyask would -- would be

10 costing you more.

11 And the DSM, which you don't have to --

12 to spend your -- all of your money on today, you can --

13 you can put it in over time, it does inflate. But on

14 the other hand, you don't pay anything until you

15 actually start getting some benefits from it.

16 MR. ANTOINE HACAULT: And I'll finish

17 with that. The difference is life -- we're talking

18 about life of a generating station somewhere between

19 sixty-five (65) and seventy-eight (78) years on average

20 with the components, correct?

21 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Yeah, the life of

22 hydro electric facilities is -- can -- can be very

23 long.

24 MR. ANTOINE HACAULT: Thank you. The

25 next set of questions are to Mr. Stevens with respect



9711

1 to the life of the wind towers.

2 Are you aware, sir, and you may not be,

3 whether the assessment department in this province or

4 other provinces, for purposes of valuation and then

5 depreciation, as to what life they attribute to wind

6 towers?

7 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: I don't know that.

8 MR. ANTOINE HACAULT: Okay. So if I

9 suggested to you that in this province they use an

10 eighty (80) year life, you wouldn't know whether in

11 fact the valuation and depreciation is based on that

12 length of time?

13 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: I wouldn't -- I

14 wouldn't know that. That eighty (80) years would

15 surprise me, but I -- I don't know anything about that.

16 MR. ANTOINE HACAULT: Well, sir, with

17 respect to the life that you've attributed, you know,

18 for example, the cement on which the pedestal is put.

19 What's the life of -- of that component of the

20 construction?

21 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: That's an

22 engineering question which I'm certainly not qualified

23 to answer. I -- I look at things more from a top down

24 view.

25 MR. ANTOINE HACAULT: And the hundred



9712

1 met -- metre tower on which the generating unit is put,

2 do you know what the life of that component is, sir?

3 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: I don't know about

4 the -- the difference between an 80 metre and a hundred

5 metre tower. My understanding is that the -- that it's

6 the turbine that's more likely to be the limiting

7 factor than the -- than the tower itself. The tower is

8 concrete and steel, which buildings are made out of.

9 MR. ANTOINE HACAULT: Okay.

10 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: But here again I'm

11 -- I'm speaking from common knowledge, not from an

12 engineering expertise.

13 MR. ANTOINE HACAULT: I was trying to

14 understand the component issue because a generating

15 station will have certain components that need to be

16 replaced; like the turbines will have to be replaced,

17 and it's shorter than the concrete structure itself.

18 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: Typically, after

19 some point, twenty (20) -- twenty-five (25) years,

20 thirty (30) years, something -- something like that,

21 you would take down the -- take down the tower -- the

22 towers and the turbines and replace them with new

23 towers and turbines potentially of a different size,

24 potentially a hundred or, who knows, perhaps, by that

25 time, higher towers. But usually the -- my -- my



9713

1 understanding is that the towers and the turbines go

2 together. That if you're -- you wouldn't use the same

3 towers to put new turbines on.

4 MR. ANTOINE HACAULT: Than you, sir.

5 And the last question: Did you make any inquiries,

6 sir, as to how much land has in fact been blocked off,

7 so to speak, by Manitoba Hydro and investors in this

8 province for wind farms?

9 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: I don't know

10 anything about that.

11 MR. ANTOINE HACAULT: Okay. Thank you.

12 THE CHAIRPERSON: I do have a question

13 in relation to what Me. Hacault was asking. It's in

14 relation to, you know, once the life of the windmill is

15 done, your levelized cost does not include taking down

16 that windmill?

17 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: That's actually an

18 interesting question. The -- in my -- my levelized

19 cost calculations, and to explain, I took Manitoba

20 Hydro's spreadsheet and I adjusted it for my

21 calculations, including a longer life. One (1) of the

22 changes I made was to -- to look at things -- look at a

23 sixty-eight (68) year study period after COD. So

24 that's time for -- to replace the wind plant, and then

25 replace it again. It's also time to replace the -- the



9714

1 transmission equipment.

2 So the question of what does it cost to

3 replace a -- a wind plant does come up, and I have

4 inquired about that. There's a cost of taking down the

5 towers. There is a -- a salvage value to the metal and

6 the turbines in the towers. And in talking with

7 developers, those more or less balance out. They --

8 they're not concerned about having significant disposal

9 costs at the end. The cost of replacement -- sorry?

10 THE CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr. Stevens.

11 Perhaps we can come back to this after -- after recess

12 --

13 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: Sure.

14 THE CHAIRPERSON: -- if you don't mind.

15 We have a commitment that we have to fulfill. So let's

16 -- let's agree that we'll talk about this after --

17 after lunch.

18 So for the benefit of those are still

19 here, you know, we would -- we would resume the

20 proceedings at ten (10) after 1:00 this afternoon.

21 Thank you.

22 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: And, Mr. Chairman,

23 if I -- if I can remind the parties there's currently a

24 plan to have a presentation by Mr. David Barber at

25 12:45 today. It may be possible to push him back, but



9715

1 we're certainly at the panel's guidance.

2 THE CHAIRPERSON: We'll -- we'll think

3 about that over lunch and -- and I'll let you know as

4 quickly as possible.

5

6 (PANEL RETIRES)

7

8 --- Upon recessing at 11:57 a.m.

9 --- Upon resuming at 1:01 p.m.

10

11 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon. I

12 believe that everyone is in position, so we can

13 commence the proceedings. I'd like to welcome

14 Professor Barber. And are you coming to address the

15 panel on behalf of yourself or on behalf of the Centre

16 for Earth Observation?

17

18 PRESENTATION BY DR. DAVID BARBER:

19 DR. DAVID BARBER: I'm a professor at

20 the University of Manitoba, so my comments are as an

21 academic at that institution. Okay.

22 So I've got a presentation that I wanted

23 to present to the Public Utilities Board about the

24 aspects of climate change, and how they're affecting

25 Manitoba. To advance the slide I'll just go like this



9716

1 maybe? There we go.

2 So as you know, the intergovernmental

3 panel on climate change is one of the authoritative

4 voices on the planet that looks at what's going on with

5 climate change at a global scale. And the fourth

6 assessment report just came out a few -- actually just

7 a few weeks ago.

8 And four (4) of the main pieces of

9 evidence for a changing global climate are indicated

10 here on this slide in front of you. There's Northern

11 Hemisphere snow cover. There's change in global

12 average upper ocean heat content. There's global

13 average sea level change. And there's change in the

14 Arctic summer sea ice extent. I'm a specialist in sea

15 ice. I've been working on sea ice for about thirty

16 (30) years in the high Arctic. There was even a rumour

17 going around that I was phoning in today from the

18 Arctic, but I'm actually here in Manitoba.

19 And I wanted to present on what we're

20 finding in the Arctic and how it connects to the

21 climate here in Manitoba, and generally to the more

22 tempered parts of the planet -- of our planet. I'll

23 talk a lot about sea ice to begin my presentation.

24 Then I'll move very quickly into what the impacts are

25 to be expected in places like the Manitoba, the



9717

1 prairies, that kind of thing.

2 So if we go to the next slide. This

3 didn't come out right, but it's suppose to be animated.

4 The reason the fifty dollar ($50) bill is there is it's

5 over top of a whole bunch of people's names. The whole

6 bunch of people's names are my lab at the University of

7 Manitoba. There's about a hundred and fifteen (115) of

8 us there that work on sea ice and climate change

9 related aspects of the high Arctic.

10 And also teleconnections, or these are

11 the connections between the Arctic climate and what's

12 happening more temperately. A lot of our research work

13 is quite high viability. That's the fifty dollar ($50)

14 bill that was just announced about a year ago that has

15 the Amundsen, which is our research icebreaker on the

16 back of the fifty dollar ($50) bill.

17 Next slide. This is an indication as to

18 what's going on with global temperatures on our planet.

19 These are measured temperatures. So it starts in 1880

20 and goes through to 2012. And you can see the

21 variability in the global temperatures over that

22 period. And you'll see the temperature are normally in

23 degrees 'C' indicated on the left side on the axis.

24 We basically come to a point in our

25 global climate temperatures where we've increased the



9718

1 global temperature by about .6 degrees Celsius. And

2 this is increased from a period towards the end of the

3 second World War quite significantly, and we're now in

4 a stable situation, in the sense that we're not seeing

5 a rapid increase or decrease over the last several

6 years at a global level.

7 If I take a look at the one (1) circle

8 that's there, that's 2005. I'll have a look -- I'll

9 show you next -- in the next slide what the average

10 temperature looks like across the planet that created

11 that single box that's indicated by that round circle.

12 So next slide. This is the average

13 conditions for 2005. And I put this slide up to

14 illustrate a couple of things for you. One of them is

15 you'll see the red temperatures towards the high

16 latitudes of the planet in the Arctic where I work,

17 this is called the Arctic amplification of climate

18 change. So we basically see that a -- a signal of a

19 warming global climate increases by about a factor of

20 three (3) in the polar regions of the planet relative

21 to the rest of the globe.

22 And what you see there also across the

23 planet is variability. So you see some areas are

24 cooling, some areas are warming; there's lots of

25 variability across that system. I'm going to return to



9719

1 these two (2) ideas later on in my presentation. To

2 remind you, one of them is polar amplification, which

3 means the Arctic is warmer than the rest of the planet,

4 and increased variability in the temperature across the

5 planet surface.

6 Next slide. As you all know, we use a

7 lot of fossil fuels to drive our economies. In 1990,

8 we were using about 20 billion tonnes; well, that's

9 what we emitted in 1990. It's going up; we're about 32

10 billion tonnes in 2013. The important parts of this

11 are the rate at which we're liberating greenhouse gases

12 into the atmosphere through our reliance on fossil

13 fuels.

14 The natural increase is about 0.0001

15 parts per million per year. Now we're somewhere around

16 2 1/2 parts per million per year, and we're increasing

17 the rate at which we liberate carbon and increase

18 greenhouse gases into the atmosphere towards a peak of

19 around 5 parts per million somewhere by 2030, unless we

20 get things under control.

21 Next slide. This idea of a warming

22 planet is something that people pay a lot of attention

23 to when they're sitting underneath one these cells,

24 it's very warm. If you're sitting underneath a cell

25 that's very cold you think: What's happened to global



9720

1 warming? It's disappeared. It's now global cooling.

2 Well, in fact, it's all part of the same

3 thing. And when you look at the record of our

4 industrial activity on the planet, the simplest thing I

5 think of is over the last thirty (30) years, each of

6 those decades has been the warmest on record, and each

7 of them has been warmer then the subsequent one. So

8 we're moving forward into a warming climate with

9 variability that's associated with that.

10 Next slide. When I look at the sea ice

11 in the Arctic and what's been going on, when I started

12 my career in the Arctic in the early '80s, there was

13 not much variability in the minimum extent of sea ice.

14 That went through the decade of the '80s, the decade of

15 the '90s; we started to see quite an increase in

16 things. Once we got into the decade of the 2000s and

17 the 2010, we started to see a very precipitous drop off

18 in the amount of sea ice that exists in the Northern

19 Hemisphere.

20 That red line is the scientifically

21 appropriate relationship in a decline like this. And

22 it's basically caused by the fact you have an ice cover

23 there, or used to have an ice cover there. You now

24 have open ocean, and all the sunlight that enters into

25 that system is now being absorbed by the ocean, instead



9721

1 of reflected by the sea ice.

2 Next slide. These kind of changes

3 are extremely significant in the Arctic to such an

4 extent that we really talk now about the

5 industrialization of a new ocean for our planet. We

6 never used to think of how to develop the Arctic

7 because it was inaccessible to us. It is no longer

8 inaccessible to us.

9 In 2010 you could have taken an ice

10 reinforced vessel right across the pole on that blue

11 transit that you see there, which is across the pole.

12 The Northeast Passage route has been open for the last

13 seven (7) years or so. I've been personally through

14 the Northwest Passage route seven (7) times myself, and

15 one (1) of those times I could have went through in a

16 rubber dinghy.

17 Of course, the Murmansk Manitoba Bridge

18 is the red one (1), and that is of particular interest

19 here in Manitoba with our desires and aspirations for

20 the Port of Churchill and what may happen in the future

21 with that.

22 Next slide. One (1) of the other things

23 that's going on in the Arctic is this very pretty

24 looking blue graphic. It represents the polar vortex.

25 People that went through the cold of Manitoba here this



9722

1 year will have heard the term a lot, the polar vortex

2 and what's going on with the polar vortex.

3 The polar vortex is something we've

4 known about for about thirty (30) years now

5 scientifically. We've been studying it very

6 intensively for the last ten (10) or fifteen (15)

7 years. And what is happening is because the sea ice in

8 the Northern Hemisphere is being reduced, we're getting

9 a lot more heat from the ocean into the atmosphere.

10 That is causing the gradient between the Arctic and the

11 temperate parts of our planet to become more -- less

12 steep.

13 If you go to the next slide. This has

14 led to a hypothesis called a warm ocean/cold continent

15 hypothesis. You can see on that graphic that is in

16 front of you there a representation of the -- the

17 Rossby waves that move around the Northern Hemisphere.

18 Those Rossby waves are steeper now. They are more

19 loopy, is how we call them, a very technical term for

20 what the structure of them is.

21 But they move much more slowly around

22 the planet. So there -- there's a tendency to get

23 persistence in the climate now. And that persistence

24 leads to persistence in precipitation. It leads to

25 persistence in temperature, and the variability that



9723

1 are associated with those.

2 The hypothesis we're working on right

3 now, and it is a hypothesis; it's not a scientific fact

4 yet, but there seems to be a lot of evidence for it --

5 is that a lot of our climate and the variability we're

6 seeing in the climate system is driven by what's

7 happening in the Arctic and the relationship between

8 the Arctic and more temperate parts of the planet.

9 Next slide. Here's just a -- a graph

10 that I pulled off of my computer at 7:32 in the morning

11 on April 25th, which was when I was preparing the

12 presentation for this Public Utilities Board hearing.

13 And it shows you the surface temperature actually

14 measured from the pole down over North America.

15 And I put this up just to illustrate

16 what a lot of people don't appreciate on first

17 instinct. And that is that the climate we have here in

18 Canada is driven by what happens in the Arctic. You

19 can see it in this graphic very clearly.

20 If you look over on the Russian side,

21 the depth of the cold water over the Russian continent

22 is not nearly as large it -- as it is over the North

23 American continent, and that's largely because of

24 Hudson Bay. Hudson Bay is frozen at this time of year,

25 and it continues to propagate that cold weather and



9724

1 cold air down from the Arctic, down over top of what

2 happens with us here in North America.

3 Next slide. One (1) of the research

4 staff in my lab has been looking at the cold winter

5 we've had this past year, and the results are just

6 about to be published in a paper that she's submitted

7 to one (1) of our academic journals. And it shows that

8 because of the reduction in the ice cover in the high

9 Arctic, this caused a change in pressure patterns,

10 which is very consistent with this warm ocean/cold

11 continent hypothesis.

12 The breaking down of the polar vortex

13 that occurred over the winter allowed this cold air to

14 spill out over North America and kept the persistence

15 of this cold air over North America for a very long

16 period of time. Long enough for us to say we should

17 get winter over with here in Manitoba. It's been too

18 long; let's get on with spring and summer already.

19 If you're slightly to the west or

20 slightly to the east of that, on the western seaboard

21 of North America, they were outside of this Rossby wave

22 that created this persistence over North America, and

23 they had a very hot, and very dry summer in places in

24 Southern California.

25 Next slide please. This variability in



9725

1 the climate system has to do with two (2) things: both

2 change and variability. That's why you'll hear

3 scientists quite often talk about climate change versus

4 climate variability.

5 The climate change is represented by the

6 top graph. It's a shift in the mean. And if you just

7 had a shift in the mean, you would expect more hot

8 weather, more record hot weather, less cold weather,

9 with changes in the temperature. So, for instance,

10 that's the situation we have with .6 degrees Celsius.

11 But the problem is the variability in

12 the climate system changes at the same time. So if you

13 take that distribution and you squish it down, you

14 increase the variability in that second graph.

15 Therefore, you get more extremes at both ends of that

16 situation: more extreme cold weather, more extreme warm

17 weather. You could make the same arguments for

18 precipitation as well.

19 The problem is the reality of our

20 changing climate is really 'C' -- the 'C' graph, which

21 is a change in variance and a change in mean. And this

22 leads to increases in extreme weather, in particular an

23 extreme variability in the climate system, which is

24 something I'll return to later on in the presentation.

25 Next slide. Of course, Manitoba is not



9726

1 immune to this. Manitoba sits right in the middle of

2 it. We're right in the middle of the prairies in

3 Canada. We're very much part of a continental climate

4 system. Our climate system is driven by the Arctic, to

5 a large extent, and to an even greater extent by Hudson

6 Bay, and then the -- the westerlies that are associated

7 with the Coriolis force across the interior of North

8 America.

9 Manitoba can affect -- can expect a

10 number of different impacts, from rising permafrost

11 temperatures, thinning ice, forest fires, ecological

12 change, extreme weather, less soil moisture, and, of

13 course, flooding and drought.

14 The next slide. One (1) of the key

15 things in Manitoba and one (1) of the key connections

16 between climate change and what's going on here in

17 Manitoba is represented by the water cycle. The

18 hydrological cycle is increasing in variability. It's

19 increasing in power. So as the temperature of the

20 planet goes up, there's a nonlinear relationship to how

21 much moisture the atmosphere can hold. And that leads

22 to increases in extremes in precipitation and drought

23 and aspects of the hydrological cycle.

24 Of course, we interface as a society

25 with this as well, complicating how that water cycle



9727

1 manifests itself with us and our societies and our

2 economies.

3 The next slide. Just to give you one

4 (1) example, here's a situation in Southern Manitoba

5 where you can take a small increase in precipitation.

6 But depending on when that precipitation occurs and

7 where it occurs, it can translate into a very large

8 change in runoff. So the runoff is a function of the

9 landscape in which the precipitation is received, how

10 that's been manipulated and managed, and what time of

11 year that moisture makes itself available to that

12 surface.

13 The next slide. Of course, Manitoba

14 Hydro is directly involved with this because it is

15 affected by aspects of a change in climate, both from

16 the perspective of variability and change. One (1) of

17 the key benefits of our hydroelectric system in

18 Manitoba is the large watershed over which it derives

19 its water so that you can average out some of the

20 variability in space and in time.

21 But, of course, it's also susceptible to

22 a number of other things that are associated with this;

23 in particular, extreme weather events and the impacts

24 it would have on built infrastructure that's associated

25 with the hydroelectric infrastructure that we have here



9728

1 in the Province.

2 The next slide. Of course, agriculture

3 is also not immune to such a thing. You can imagine,

4 given a number of presentations over the years to

5 farmers and farm groups here in Southern Manitoba --

6 and they are a group of people that I find are actually

7 quite tuned into climate because their livelihood

8 relies on it. They pay attention to what goes on with

9 the water cycle. They pay attention to what goes on

10 with the temperature cycle.

11 And the idea that agriculture is going

12 to be affected positively or negatively is very much up

13 in the air scientifically. There's a number of

14 potential impacts on the negative side, with increased

15 insect infestations, crop damages, problems with

16 reliable weather forecasts, soil erosion, weed growth,

17 things like that.

18 There are also positive impacts. With

19 more CO2 in the atmosphere, you're seeing a potential

20 for increased productivity, longer growing seasons, the

21 idea that warmer temperatures are going to be of

22 assistance to that, and potentially decreased soil

23 moisture stress depending on what kind of soils you

24 talk about in our Manitoba landscape.

25 The next slide. Another key thing



9729

1 that's happening with disasters, of course, is what's

2 happening with the frequency of natural disasters and

3 the cost of these natural disasters. There was just a

4 conference recently held by the Centre for Catastrophic

5 Loss Reduction and the University of Waterloo, where

6 they were looking at the impacts of climate-induced

7 disasters on our economy. And all signs are pointing

8 to the same thing. We're getting an increase in the

9 number of natural disasters worldwide, and we're

10 getting an increase in the cost of those disasters.

11 So if you go to the next slide, that

12 shows the accumulated cost of these natural disasters.

13 Now, these natural disasters are associated with our

14 inability to predict what's happening with the

15 variability in the climate system and how that

16 superimposes itself upon the built infrastructure that

17 we live in and how that translates into economic costs

18 for us as a society.

19 The next slide. So one (1) of the

20 things that bothers me a little bit is that this is the

21 fifth intergovernmental panel on climate change

22 assessment report. There is now overwhelming evidence

23 that our climate is warming. We're seeing increased

24 variability. There are some organizations that are

25 starting to pay attention to this and start to plan for



9730

1 the future for it, and there are other organizations

2 that are not. And by 'organizations', I mean

3 everything from public companies to private companies

4 to governments.

5 When you look at this graph that came of

6 the IPCC assessment report, the different colours are

7 interpreted this way. So if you look at the Arctic,

8 that blue band that's there, that's what should be

9 going on in the Arctic in terms of sea ice if there was

10 no anthropogenic influence, if there was no influence

11 by increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

12 The kind of orange-pinkish colour is one

13 where it's been modelled with those effects in place.

14 And then the red line is what we're actually seeing.

15 So if you go to the North American one

16 to the left, this is a terrestrial response now. So if

17 the terrestrial environment was not being impacted by

18 human-induced CO2, that blue shaded area would be what

19 we would expect to find. The sort of pink/orange

20 shaded area is with CO2 accounted for. And then the

21 actual observations of temperature change in black.

22 You just need to let your eyes wander

23 over those for the entire planet and you'll see a very

24 consistent story being told by those small, little

25 graphs. Those small little graphs tell us that if we



9731

1 don't account for human-induced CO2 in the atmosphere

2 and we just have our environments move forward

3 unaffected by our own human activities, we would expect

4 those blue shaded areas.

5 All of our observations though show that

6 all of these areas are changing and they're all

7 changing by what we see with those black lines. Those

8 black lines overlap with all of the pink areas, which

9 are model projections of what should be happening to

10 our climate system given a CO2 enhanced atmosphere.

11 So with that, I would take the last

12 slide, which is basically just close this off. And I

13 just wanted to come to reenforce the fact that I'm a

14 scientist who's at the front edge of climate change.

15 I'm at the front edge in the sense I'm in the Arctic

16 working on sea ice and I see these impacts every day.

17 The connections between what we're seeing in the Arctic

18 and what we're seeing at the temperate parts of the

19 planet are not an esoteric exercise. They're very

20 real.

21 They are going to make, and they will

22 continue to make, a change in how we unfold the society

23 that we have in front of us and the economic decisions

24 we have to make for the next ten (10) years, twenty

25 (20) years, thirty (30) years, fifty (50) years.



9732

1 My job is an easy one. I have to

2 understand the physics of how the natural system works.

3 Your job is the complex one. You've got to decide how

4 we're going to move forward as a society when we make

5 investments and how we're going to deal with these kind

6 of things. So that was my purpose in coming here

7 today. Thank you very much.

8 MR. RICHARD BEL: So the take away from

9 the climate change with respect to the dams is --

10 DR. DAVID BARBER: Well, I think from

11 my perspective the -- oh, not too close to the

12 microphone she says. My perspective is that people

13 talk a lot about the cost of energy to drive our

14 societies. One (1) of the things we don't put a cost

15 onto is how much greenhouse gasses we're putting into

16 the atmosphere.

17 If you were to put a coal powered plant

18 here in Manitoba instead of use hydroelectric power,

19 you'd be making a very serious mistake. If you were to

20 put a natural gas plant here instead of a hydroelectric

21 plant, you'd be making a very serious mistake, because

22 these have real costs into the future and what the

23 contributions of these greenhouse gasses are to the

24 atmosphere. We happen to have one (1) of the more

25 green forms of energy in our province.



9733

1 And from my perspective, this is an

2 extremely important thing as we look about to move

3 forward, because we're going to have to get ourselves

4 off these fossil fuels. We cannot keep this rate

5 going. We're going to be -- well, we're already

6 starting to see the impacts, but those impacts are

7 going to get larger, and larger, and larger. So what

8 I'd like to see is a preservation and an expansion of

9 our hydroelectric capabilities, because they're the

10 least impactful of the different kinds of major systems

11 that we can have to power our economies. That's the

12 relationship, yeah.

13 DR. HUGH GRANT: Just curious to know

14 if you've looked at the hydrology record at all,

15 because one (1) of the interesting thing that -- thing

16 that's come out is the -- I think the description was

17 we've been fairly wet here in the last twenty (20)

18 years or so.

19 Have you -- is there any pattern, have

20 you seen?

21 DR. DAVID BARBER: Yeah, there is.

22 There's -- there's -- the hydrological part of the

23 climate change thing is the more complicated part. The

24 temperature is the simpler part. Modelling and

25 projecting the hydrological cycle is difficult. Now,



9734

1 it's getting better. The models are getting better.

2 We can use what we call paleoclimate records to look

3 at, you know, wet cycles and dry cycles. We can look

4 at teleconnections. And some of the models now are

5 getting these teleconnections quite good.

6 You can actually see that, you know, an

7 ENSO event is going to drive a certain climate pattern

8 which includes the hydrological cycle over North

9 America. And so the variability that's associated with

10 this, the climate models we have now, the best ones we

11 have all tell us the same thing.

12 As we increase the variability, we can

13 expect an increase in variability of these hydrologic

14 events. That means increased probability of droughts,

15 increased probability of floods. But it really depends

16 on how those interface with the landscape. Like our

17 landscape is managed when it comes to water. We manage

18 it, right. Manitoba Hydro manages it, essentially.

19 And so that can be a positive things, or it can be a

20 negative thing, depending on how the interpretation of

21 that is done by the regulatory agencies and how you

22 regulate that watershed system.

23 When you think about it from an

24 agricultural perspective, if you happen to be sitting

25 underneath, like that graph I showed you, or the



9735

1 diagram of the planet where you have these little blobs

2 of temperature change, you also have those little blobs

3 of precipitation change. If you happen to sit under

4 two (2) of them, you're under a drought if it's dry;

5 you're under a flood if it's wet. And it depends where

6 you're receiving it from. So it's very complicated to

7 get people to understand the variability in the

8 precipitation.

9 I also threw that other graph in there

10 to kind of show you the difference between

11 precipitation and runoff. Just because you're getting a

12 lot of precipitation doesn't necessarily mean it

13 translates into runoff. If you put it in right after

14 you've had a dry spell and the soil is able to absorb a

15 lot of it, a lot of it goes into the soil. If you put

16 it in the fall when the ground just starts to freeze,

17 you put it in on top and it all runs off into the

18 watershed. So precipitation and runoff are very

19 different things.

20 The uncertainty associated with those

21 are high, but the reality of it is, a lot of our

22 requirements as a society are driven by water and what

23 we do with water and how we manage it.

24 THE CHAIRPERSON: I think -- thank you

25 very much, Dr. -- Professor Barber. We have limited



9736

1 time available. A very interesting topic. And I want

2 to thank you for taking the time and trouble to prepare

3 your presentation and come to talk to us. I thank you

4 very much. Also for accommodating us in our schedule.

5 I know you waited for us, so thank you very much.

6 Appreciate that.

7 DR. DAVID BARBER: My pleasure.

8 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thanks much. Have a

9 good balance of the day. With that, I think we will

10 resume the regular proceedings.

11 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

12 If we can stand down for two (2) minutes we can get the

13 witnesses back into position.

14

15 --- Upon recessing at 1:24 p.m.


17

18 THE CHAIRPERSON: Is it your intention

19 to acknowledge some documents immediately, or...

20

21 (BRIEF PAUSE)

22

23 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: She's right. It's

24 not on. In an attempt not to disrupt the proceedings I

25 was going to suggest let Ms. Saunders go, and then I'll



9737

1 come on the mic and do everything. Ms. -- Mr.

2 Wojczynski can speak to the exhibits and then we'll

3 begin our cross.

4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for that.

5 So without further ado, Ms. Saunders, please, on behalf

6 of the Manitoba Metis Federation.

7

8 GAC LOAD FORECASTING, FUEL SWITCHING, WIND PANEL,

9 RESUMED:

10 PAUL CHERNICK, Resumed (Qual.)

11 WESLEY STEVENS, Resumed (Qual.)

12

13 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. JESSICA SAUNDERS:

14 MS. JESSICA SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr.

15 Chair. So thank you for your presentations this

16 morning, Mr. Stevens and Mr. Chernick. As the Chair

17 said, I represent the Manitoba Metis Federation. And

18 we filed evidence on the socioeconomic implications of

19 additional wind resources. We have a few questions for

20 Mr. Stevens on his presentation on wind.

21 Mr. Stevens, you're aware in the NFAT

22 filing that Manitoba Hydro has indicated that other

23 resources not specified as being included in the PDP

24 may well be added, and Hydro provides customer self-

25 generation, wind, biomass, solar, and additional



9738

1 enhancement of existing Manitoba Hydro generation as

2 examples.

3 Are you aware of that?


5 MS. JESSICA SAUNDERS: And, so based on

6 your review of Manitoba Hydro's assumptions on the cost

7 of wind generation and Manitoba Hydro's consideration

8 of the plans that include wind, what is your view of

9 Manitoba Hydro's statement that they may well consider

10 adding wind in the future?

11 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: It's my view that

12 wind at least -- that wind at least should -- should

13 receive more consideration in a long-term planning

14 process. It should not just be something that might be

15 added later. But in considering whether and when to

16 make very large investments, very large long -- long-

17 term investments such as Keeyask and Conawapa, that you

18 should from the beginning take a very serious look at

19 wind and how that could fit in, either instead of or in

20 addition to either replacing or enhancing those

21 investments.

22 MS. JESSICA SAUNDERS: Thank you. And

23 in response to questions from the Chair on the cost of

24 wind in Canada versus other jurisdictions, did I hear

25 correct in that you said that research on the subject



9739

1 would comprise a certain percentage of overall project

2 costs?

3 And was it 5 percent, or so?

4 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: I'm not sure what

5 you're referring to in regard to Canadian versus US

6 costs. I -- I didn't really have a conclusion.

7 MS. JESSICA SAUNDERS: Okay.

8 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: I did say 5

9 percent, but that was in connection with the

10 construction schedule.

11 MS. JESSICA SAUNDERS: Construction

12 schedule.

13 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: In a three (3)

14 year -- in a three (3) year construction schedule about

15 5 percent would be sent -- would be spent in the first

16 year, three (3) years before commercial operation day.

17 MS. JESSICA SAUNDERS: Okay. Thank you

18 for clarifying that. What I will ask you, I -- I just

19 want to get a sense of timing and further study that

20 may be involved in some of the matters you spoke to in

21 your presentation.

22 So in slide 13 of your presentation, you

23 indicate that it may be possible to pair wind with

24 either existing or new hydro to serve export markets,

25 and that this has not been adequately studied, correct?



9740

1 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: That's what that -

2 - yes.

3 MS. JESSICA SAUNDERS: I'm wondering if

4 you could give us an estimate as to the timing and cost

5 of the research that would be involved in order to

6 adequately look into that?

7 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: That's something

8 that Manitoba Hydro is in the best position to do.

9 MS. JESSICA SAUNDERS: M-hm.

10 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: They have -- they

11 have models that -- that would do that. I -- it would

12 be a fairly major undertaking.

13 MS. JESSICA SAUNDERS: M-hm.

14 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: I don't know how

15 long it would take. At a guess, more than a month,

16 less than a year.

17 MS. JESSICA SAUNDERS: And I guess why

18 I was asking for some comments on you was just based on

19 your view of the costs that have been provided in the

20 current filing, just any comments that you may have

21 based on the information that you've reviewed that's

22 currently available for -- for wind costs and such and

23 -- and what, if anything, you think would be required

24 to give it more serious consideration.

25 That -- that was all I was asking for.



9741

1 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: Are you asking now

2 about the capital cost of installing wind or about the

3 integration of wind -- of -- of wind and hydro?

4 MS. JESSICA SAUNDERS: The integration

5 of wind and hydro and how seriously that's been

6 considered and how -- how much, say, research and time

7 would be needed in order to -- to look further into

8 that?

9 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: I can't really

10 give you a good estimate partly because that would be -

11 - that's not something that I or my firm could do. We

12 don't have the models. It's a study. It's not --

13 you're not building something, so it's -- it's not a

14 huge amount of money. But it -- it would -- it would

15 take some, you know, I would say months -- a few months

16 to -- to look at seriously.

17 MS. JESSICA SAUNDERS: Okay. And that

18 was -- that was all I was asking. Thank you very much.

19 Those are all my questions.


21 Saunders.

22 Me. Monnin, any questions on behalf of

23 the independent consultants?

24 MR. CHRISTIAN MONNIN: Merci, M.

25 President. We have no questions. Thank you.



9742

1 THE CHAIRPERSON: Merci, Me. Monnin.

2 Ms. Ramage, please.

3 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: We seem to be

4 waiting for Ms. Ramage, so.

5

6 (BRIEF PAUSE)

7

8 THE CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I overlooked

9 Mr. Orle. I didn't realize you were there, Mr. Orle.

10 Do you have any questions for these witnesses?

11 MR. GEORGE ORLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

12 No, I don't have any questions at all.


14

15 (BRIEF PAUSE)

16

17 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: I think it -- yes,

18 it's on. Prior to Ms. Saunders, Manitoba Hydro handed

19 out three (3) documents. The first one is its book of

20 documents for its cross-examination of this panel. And

21 that should be noted as Manitoba Hydro Exhibit 189.

22

23 --- EXHIBIT NO. MH-189: Book of documents

24

25 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: The second is



9743

1 Manitoba Hydro's response -- well, the second and

2 third, actually, are Manitoba Hydro's response to GAC's

3 pre-asks of Manitoba Hydro. And the first of those,

4 which is headed, "April 25th GAC Pre-ask of Manitoba

5 Hydro Question 4b," that should be marked as Exhibit

6 190. It is a two (2) page document.

7

8 --- EXHIBIT NO. MH-190: Response to GAC Pre-ask 4b

9

10 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: And then the second

11 Manitoba Hydro Exhibit, number 191, is an overview of

12 climate change impacts and what it means to Manitoba.

13

14 --- EXHIBIT NO. MH-191: Overview of climate change

15 impacts and what it means

16 to Manitoba

17

18 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: And so those are the

19 documents we filed. And I think Mr. Wojczynski was

20 going to explain the documents before I commence the

21 cross-examination.

22 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: Yes. First of all,

23 Exhibit 190 is a second half of the response to the GAC

24 pre-ask related to taking the externality value of CO2

25 and applying it to the plan evaluations. We had



9744

1 provided an exhibit earlier. And they had asked us

2 also to add it to the exhibit -- previous Exhibit 171.

3 So if you'd turn to page 3, that's what

4 we did. Similarly to the other exhibit, where you have

5 the market, the dark blue is the market evaluation. If

6 you -- and then the light blue is the embedded ROE.

7 And then we have the provincial transfers. That --

8 that would be the top set where we're looking at Plans

9 1, 2, 5, and 14.

10 And if you go to the next set of bars,

11 that's exactly the same plans and evaluations, except

12 what we've done is added in the cost of CO2 or -- or

13 greenhouse gas emissions on the assumption that the

14 province instituted or the federal government

15 instituted some sort of -- of capital -- of CO2 tax or

16 charge or something where any emissions emitted had to

17 go into some sort of mitigation fund or some such

18 arrangements. And this was the request from GAC.

19 And in effect what that becomes is part

20 of the market evaluation. It's no longer an

21 externality. What happens, you internalize the

22 externality, and that's a little bit like BC. BC has a

23 -- a carbon tax. Alberta has a -- has a partial carbon

24 tax if you go above a certain limit. So there -- those

25 kind of things are being instituted on a provincial



9745

1 basis.

2 So as per GAC's request we took the

3 values that have been used in Chapter 13 from the EPA

4 as estimates of externality costs for greenhouse gas

5 emissions and then applied them to emissions in

6 Manitoba, not ones in the US. And if you see what it

7 does then compared to the All Gas, it takes the market

8 evaluation and in the case of Keeyask Gas increases its

9 benefit on an NPV basis by around 200 million; and then

10 Keeyask Gas around 400 million. And then the Preferred

11 Plan, Keeyask/Conawapa, around 500 million. Those are

12 very approximate numbers, but just to give an

13 indication of how the significance of that compared to

14 the other numbers we've been dealing with.

15 So that was Exhibit 190. The other

16 Exhibit 191 is related to this, and that was that GAC

17 had a pre-ask on us providing a compendium or

18 collection of -- of scientific literature on the

19 impacts of climate change on Manitoba. Not globally,

20 but on Manitoba. This actually -- we timed this a

21 little bit to -- to suit the presentation that you just

22 heard. Obviously, they're strongly connected.

23 And I'm not going to go through this

24 whole thing. I will start by saying the reference, the

25 scientific references are all in this compendium that



9746

1 Kristina Koenig had prepared with a whole bunch of

2 others. If anybody -- if anybody wants to peruse it or

3 a copy, we can make that. We didn't think we would

4 suggest you read it over the weekend.

5 But what I -- if I could just very

6 briefly highlight if you turn to page 1 of the summary,

7 which is the exhibit we handed out. And I won't repeat

8 -- go through it all. And it's got some more detail in

9 there.

10 But I'll just highlight that if you go

11 to the third bullet, we're talking about the health and

12 well-being of Manitoba's freshwater ecosystems, and the

13 fish communities, their population size range and

14 diversity are being and will be affected. A -- a loss

15 of habitat for cold water fish species, northward

16 expansion of warm water species. These things are

17 already happening and going to be more extreme.

18 The permafrost is melting. The winter

19 roads in northern communities are being affected.

20 Caribou are being affected by climate change and that

21 will increase. Polar bears, everybody's heard about

22 polar bears in the Arctic, so I can't not mention them.

23 Migratory birds, including endangered species, are

24 being affected.

25 Agriculture is positive and negative.



9747

1 You've heard that. Forest fires; West Nile virus is

2 spreading in Manitoba as well as elsewhere. And the

3 First Nation people are already adapting to various

4 forms of climate change, but that will increase.

5 And I'll just -- one (1) more reference

6 out of here on page 4. There's the Lake Winnipeg

7 Consort -- Foundation who are very concerned about Lake

8 Winnipeg and what's happening there. And they have a -

9 - a position statement that global climate warming is -

10 - is impacting the Lake Winnipeg system. And if you

11 turn the page over:

12 "Increasing water temperatures are

13 contributing to the proliferation of

14 toxic blue-green algae and to

15 invertebrate species changes which

16 ultimately influence the Winnipeg --

17 Lake Winnipeg fish community, et

18 cetera."

19 So these are climate changes, a Manitoba

20 issue. And last night while I was reading The Globe, I

21 can't but help not mention this. There was an article

22 -- there was a series of articles on climate change

23 being put out by The Globe. And they're quoting some

24 scientific papers that say that:

25 "Climate change is a health threat no



9748

1 less consequential than cigarette

2 smoking."

3 Which surprised me. And they're

4 relating it to asthma, and allergies, and things. And

5 the other -- last comment I'll make before getting off

6 the mic is that Dr. Oliphant noted that:

7 "The most vulnerable Canadians,

8 including families on low incomes and

9 many Aboriginal people, those that

10 are more likely to live closer to

11 industrial areas, highways, or forest

12 that could be swept by fire, are

13 currently feeling the effects the

14 most."

15 And that's from The Globe on --

16 actually, on Tuesday. Thank you.

17 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for that

18 information. I -- I'm having a tough time in my mind

19 reconciling what I heard from the expert from Quebec

20 regarding the consideration of hydrological change

21 flowing from the perceived climate change. Remember

22 that evidence? He indicated that it was too uncertain

23 to be able to say that there would be definitive

24 hydrological changes that need to be considered as part

25 of the PDP.



9749

1 I'm having trouble reconciling what that

2 individual said to what I'm reading here. And so...

3 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: I could comment

4 briefly, but perhaps we need to provide a more full

5 explanation, but -- and we -- and we will do that. But

6 I -- I -- let me give a preliminary answer, not being

7 an -- an expert on this, but certainly as being an --

8 an area being in -- of much interest. And I -- I don't

9 think I mentioned this before, but I have presented to

10 United Nations meetings on climate change and -- and

11 how to deal with GHG management, so this has been a

12 particular topic of interest to me.

13 The -- in the modelling, there was some

14 indication of the possibility of increased runoff, but

15 there is not enough indication to definitively say, and

16 I -- on -- on how much increase there might be and

17 whether -- what degree of certainty we have on that.

18 But the other part is will there be increased droughts

19 or not compared to what we're looking at.

20 I think there's a general trend in the

21 climate change science if they say there'll be greater

22 variability, for example, in precipitation. But as Dr.

23 Barber just said, precipitation and runoff aren't the

24 same thing. They're -- the soil and the water system

25 mitigates some of that.



9750

1 So whether or not the droughts will be

2 worse or the floods will be worse, it's distinctly a

3 directional tendency, but right now, the models don't

4 have enough certainty to say that is what will happen

5 or not. It's not that the models are saying it won't

6 happen.

7 It's saying that the -- the -- I'm now

8 looking at Kristina to see if I'm -- okay, she's

9 nodding, yes. It's that the models are not saying that

10 won't happen. They're saying the models right now, to

11 the degree they can model these things and a degree

12 there's enough information, they can't definitely

13 conclude that it will go in that direction.


15 I guess we're ready to proceed with the cross from

16 Manitoba Hydro.

17

18 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. PATTI RAMAGE:

19 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Thank you. I'm

20 going to begin the cross at the end, Mr. Chernick. If

21 I could have you turn to slide 25 of your presentation

22 this morning. The savings referenced in slide 25 begin

23 at .6 percent and ramp up to 1.5 percent annually.

24 Would I be correct that that would

25 include, in order to achieve those savings, a



9751

1 combination of program savings, fuel switching for

2 electric heat and hot water, and the potential for non-

3 program savings, as well as conservation rates?

4 Would that be the combined effect of

5 those?

6 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: No. That -- that

7 would just be program savings. And fuel switching

8 might -- some of the fuel switching activities might be

9 programs.

10 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: I'm sorry, could you

11 repeat that -- those?

12 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Some of the fuel

13 switching might be included in the efficiency programs

14 where you're providing incentives or other support that

15 cause specific customers to switch or to choose gas

16 over electric. This would not include codes and

17 standards. It would not include rate design,

18 encouraging customers to generate some of their own

19 power.

20

21 (BRIEF PAUSE)

22

23 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Are you aware that

24 Manitoba Hydro has filed information on three (3)

25 levels of enhanced DSM?



9752

1 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Yes, I am.

2 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Okay. And if I

3 could get you to turn to page 31 of Manitoba Hydro's

4 rebuttal evidence, which we've provided at Tab 2, page

5 7, of the book of documents.

6

7 (BRIEF PAUSE)

8

9 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Okay. The chart at

10 the top of the page summarizes the savings projected

11 under each of the three (3) levels of DSM. And we can

12 see here that including the non-program savings, such

13 as codes and standards, that the ten (10) year average

14 savings as a percentage of sales is 1.3 percent for

15 Level 2 and 1.5 percent for Level 3.

16 Do you see that?

17 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Yes, that's what's

18 shown at the top of the page.

19 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: And these Manitoba

20 Hydro projected savings are quite different than the .3

21 percent referenced in slide 25 of your presentation,

22 correct?

23 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: That's correct.

24 These include codes and standards implemented by the

25 province, not by Manitoba Hydro. They include load



9753

1 reductions assumed to occur from rate designs yet to be

2 developed and that other utilities do not include in

3 part of the -- as part of their conservation savings,

4 as their energy efficiency savings. And it includes

5 non-utility generation, which is also not generally

6 considered to be a -- an efficiency program.

7 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: They also include

8 fuel switching, correct?

9 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: And it includes

10 fuel switching. As -- as I said when I referenced the

11 -- the point three (.3), that some of that fuel

12 switching may be in the form of programs, but so far

13 the Company is only talking about informational

14 programs and has only implemented informational

15 programs, and it's not clear exactly what the company

16 has in mind for the future.

17 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Now, you'd agree

18 that DSM savings are generally built up year by year,

19 correct?

20 MR. RICHARD BEL: Could I ask a point

21 of clarification? You mentioned non-hydro generation?

22 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Non-utility

23 generation.

24 MR. RICHARD BEL: Non-utility. What

25 did you mean by that?



9754

1 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: The -- under load

2 displacement, the -- the Company is including a -- a

3 slice of -- of energy that they apparently believe they

4 can get from encouraging customers to generate their

5 own electricity to meet some of their own load; to not

6 sell to Hydro -- to Manitoba Hydro, as I understand it,

7 but to -- to displace loads, to -- to serve loads that

8 otherwise would be served by Hydro.

9 MR. RICHARD BEL: Thank you.

10

11 (BRIEF PAUSE)

12

13 CONTINUED BY MS. PATTI RAMAGE:

14 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Okay. So we've

15 agreed that DSM savings are generally built up year by

16 year.

17 Would you agree there is inevitably a

18 degree of uncertainty as to whether those savings will

19 be realized every year as projected?

20 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Yes, programs under

21 perform and over perform depending on a number of

22 factors. The -- the skill of the utilities and its

23 contractors in recruiting trade allies into a program,

24 for example, getting the -- the developers, the

25 builders, the plumbers to participate, that can go



9755

1 faster or slower than you thought.

2 The -- the market size, a program for

3 new construction, for example, will not have much in

4 the way of savings in a -- a real estate downturn when

5 there's not much new construction, and it may then boom

6 a couple years later when building catches up again.

7 And then there are other factors such as

8 weather. If you have a really nasty, snowy winter,

9 then the insulation trucks may have a harder time

10 getting around to -- to do their work. There are all

11 kinds of factors that can cause you to -- to spend more

12 or less and -- and save more or less then expected the

13 year before.

14 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: So if I could have

15 you turn to Tab 3, page 11 of the book of documents.

16

17 (BRIEF PAUSE)

18

19 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Here we have

20 provided an excerpt from Manitoba -- Manitoba's Clean

21 Energy Strategy. And if you look at page 40, which is

22 page 11 of the book of documents, and you look at the

23 third paragraph down on the right-hand side of the

24 page, there is a statement, and I quote:

25 "Nonetheless, for most Manitobans the



9756

1 opportunity to move from conventional

2 fossil fuel use to clean energy, and

3 even on to fossil freedom, is

4 increasingly a reality."

5 Do you see that?


7 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: And then if we go

8 back one (1) page in the Clean Energy Strategy to page

9 39, you'll see that this section -- which discusses

10 freedom from fossil fuels. And on the -- if you look at

11 the right hand side of the page, there it says:

12 "These Manitobans will achieve fossil

13 fuel freedom through a simple three

14 (3) step process. And one of the

15 steps, steps number 2, is that heat

16 will be provided for thousands of

17 Manitobans through clean, renewable

18 energy systems which eliminate the

19 need for fossil fuels like natural

20 gas."

21 Do you see that paragraph number 2?

22 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: I do.

23 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: And you're aware

24 that the fifteen (15) year supplemental report to the

25 2014 to '17 Power Smart Plan, which is Manitoba Hydro



9757

1 Exhibit 180, includes fuel switching in the fifteen

2 (15) year plan?

3 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: I believe it's

4 discussed in there. I haven't looked at it since

5 yesterday, so I'm not quite sure.

6 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: You accept, subject

7 to check?

8 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: I believe it is,

9 yes.

10 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: And you'd

11 acknowledge then there's a potential that some of the

12 programs in that plan may ultimately not be approved or

13 even cancelled at a later date?

14 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Well, it's -- for a

15 number of -- of the line items in the tables at the end

16 of the -- or -- or on page 56 of the Exhibit 180, there

17 are -- they represent programs or initiatives that

18 either haven't been formulated or that the Company's

19 talking about changing dramatically and would have to

20 be approved by the Board. And therefore, they're all

21 subject to uncertainty.

22 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: And I think -- I'll

23 clarify for you -- it may help -- that pursuant to the

24 Energy Savings Act, Manitoba Hydro must, in

25 consultation with its minister, not the Board, prep --



9758

1 prepare an energy efficiency plan. So the same party

2 who has written the Clean Energy Strategy is a the

3 party who -- who Manitoba Hydro consults with in

4 preparing its -- its DSM plan.

5 And that was -- given that, do you see

6 that there the is the potential that some of the

7 programs might not ultimately go forward?

8 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Well, I would

9 certainly hope that Manitoba Hydro would be able to

10 explain to the minister the -- the benefits of using

11 the high-quality electricity to displace more gas in

12 the US and to make Manitoba more money, rather than

13 using it for a low value, low carbon offsetting purpose

14 of -- of reducing gas heating in the province.

15 But if the -- if Manitoba Hydro cannot

16 explain that and is precluded by law from implementing

17 a program that is not approved by the minister, then

18 that would be an obstacle to pursuing least-cost

19 planning.

20 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: If we could move to

21 page 12 in the book of documents, here we have Manitoba

22 Hydro Exhibit 95, which was part of Manitoba Hydro's

23 direct evidence. It's slide 129. And it deals with

24 the economics of the various levels of DSM.

25 Have you had the opportunity to review



9759

1 this slide before?

2 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: I -- I have gone

3 through this -- this pack, so I guess I have looked at

4 this.

5 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: We'll just walk

6 through it quickly.

7 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: And I -- I do -- I

8 understand how it's laid out.

9 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: You'd agree then

10 when we move from base DSM to Level 1 DSM, incremental

11 NPV increases for each of the three (3) plans shown?

12 For example, in the All Gas Plan, the NPV increases by

13 535 million, it increases 497 million for the

14 Keeyask/Gas/750 line, and by 285 million for the

15 Preferred Development Plan? That's --

16 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Yes, I --

17 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Okay.

18 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: -- those are the

19 numbers that Manitoba Hydro put in there.

20 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Right. And

21 similarly, when we move from Level 1 DSM to Level 2,

22 you see a positive NPV effect for each of the plans,

23 correct?


25 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: And the analysis



9760

1 then goes on to demonstrate when you move from Level 2

2 DSM to Level 3, it does not result in a positive NPV

3 impact for any of the plans. It's negative 49 million

4 for the All Gas Plan, negative 86 million for the

5 Keeyask/Gas/750 line, and negative 102 million for the

6 Preferred Development Plan?

7 You see that?

8 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Yes. That's

9 Manitoba Hydro's conclusions based on their assumptions

10 about the -- the programs and the avoided costs.

11 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: And so based on

12 Manitoba Hydro's conclusions, it -- one would -- if --

13 if one adopts those conclusions, it would indicate that

14 DSM Level 2 provides the greatest benefit --

15 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Well, given only

16 these choices of -- of bundles and without relaxing

17 Manitoba Hydro's constraints based on rate impacts and

18 whatever other limitations have been put on DSM at the

19 -- within Level 1, that would be the case.

20 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: What rate impacts

21 are you referring to?

22 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Basically, the --

23 the Company takes the position that it's appropriate to

24 pursue all DSM that passes the RIM test, but anything

25 that doesn't pass the RIM test is subject to an



9761

1 undefined and undocumented truncation limitation

2 reduction because of the fear of raising rates even

3 though you're lowering bills.

4

5 (BRIEF PAUSE)

6

7 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Mr. Chernick, I'm

8 advised that there's no rate impacts considered in this

9 analysis. So would that change --

10 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Oh, not in this

11 analysis.

12 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: -- your conclusion?

13 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: This -- there's --

14 it's not in this analysis because it's all done at

15 earlier stages, when you decide what you'll put into

16 the programs in Level 1. The Company's explanation is

17 that they look at the -- the rate effects and other

18 things which are very difficult to understand exactly

19 what they are, and comes up with the portfolio.

20 And it's not intended to be everything

21 that's cost effective under the TRC. It's everything

22 that's cost effective under the RIM to the extent that

23 the RIM is a cost-effectiveness test, and it's in some

24 of the other things.

25



9762

1 (BRIEF PAUSE)

2

3 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Mr. Chernick, I'm

4 advised that there was no RIM test applied to this

5 information; that it -- that unlike, perhaps, past

6 materials you've seen, this has been done based solely

7 on TRC. So with -- I'm asking you to either accept

8 that subject to teck -- check, or provide us with the

9 analysis that supports the position you are making, or

10 identify where in the record that that information --

11 you're deriving that information from.

12 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Okay. If we're

13 going to be taking an afternoon break at some point,

14 perhaps I could go through the documents then rather

15 than holding us up right now to find the Company's

16 explanation of its use of the RIM test.

17 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Okay. That'll be

18 fine, and then we'll determine if we need to look at

19 this any further. If I could have you to turn to page

20 13 in the book of documents. And that is Manitoba

21 Hydro a hundred -- Exhibit 156. And this is where

22 Manitoba Hydro assumed flat load beyond 2022/'23. I

23 don't think the right -- this should be tab -- this

24 should be page 13. Oh, it's there now? Okay.

25 We assume flat load. And we compared



9763

1 the NPVs of a Keeyask with a 750 Line Plan with a No

2 New Generation Plan.

3 And if you turn the page to page 14,

4 would you accept that the analysis demonstrates the

5 incremental NPV of the Keeyask/750 Line Plan is $402

6 million superior to the No New Generation case?


8 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: And if you accept

9 that evidence, you would agree that there is a sound

10 case for proceeding with Keeyask, despite your concerns

11 regarding alleged untapped potential of DSM.

12 Would you agree?

13 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Well, actually, I -

14 - I think in -- in my initial presentation I pointed

15 out that adding additional resources, wind and/or

16 Keeyask, might make sense based on the -- the potential

17 for export revenues even without load growth.

18 This particular case does include load

19 growth through 2022/'23, so it's only part of the way

20 towards what I think we could achieve. But it

21 certainly is possible that if -- even if you did that,

22 that you would find that the export opportunities and

23 the -- the benefits of the transmission interconnection

24 would -- would justify their cost, even without any

25 domestic need for the -- the generation.



9764

1 (BRIEF PAUSE)

2

3 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Mr. Chernick, this

4 morning you spoke of some of the unique opportunities

5 Manitoba Hydro has because of its ownership of Centra

6 Gas. And I'm not sure if you are aware, but my co-

7 counsel, Ms. Boyd, and I are the survivors of a number

8 of PUB hearings over the last decade and a half where

9 the primary topic was putting measures in place to

10 prevent cross-subsidization as between gas and electric

11 customers.

12 So would you accept that your

13 recommendations to using electric benefits to create

14 incentives for the gas side of the business would

15 require a fundamental shift in the thinking with

16 respect to the treatment of gas and electric costs in

17 this province?

18 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: I don't believe so.

19 The -- I'm sure the Board would not be happy if -- if

20 Manitoba Hydro were paying some of the -- the overhead

21 costs for a plumbing supply firm just because there was

22 some kind of business connection between them. But if

23 you're buying a service from that plumbing supply firm

24 to -- for one (1) of your conservation programs, then

25 that's a perfectly reasonable and -- and laudable



9765

1 business expense.

2 In the same way, I -- I don't think it

3 would be appropriate to increase total costs for

4 electric customers to lower costs for gas customers.

5 But as the Company's own analysis has found, moving

6 electric loads over to gas or preventing new loads from

7 winding up on electricity rather than gas would make

8 the electric customers better off. It would make the

9 individual consumer better off. It would make the gas

10 consumers better off. It's a win/win/win.

11 So you want to make sure that you do it

12 in some fair manner, something that would be reasonable

13 if you didn't have a business link. Unfortunately, a

14 lot of places where the electric and gas utilities are

15 separately owned, and -- and even some places where

16 they're jointly owned, there's a great deal of

17 competition between them, which makes it hard for them

18 to work together even where it's in both of their

19 interests.

20 I would hope that Manitoba Hydro would

21 be able to overcome any institutional barriers there

22 and -- and work for the common benefit of the consumers

23 of both electricity and gas.

24

25 (BRIEF PAUSE)



9766

1 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: I'm now going to

2 change topics and move to the topic of wind. Mr.

3 Stevens, you'd agree that both capital costs and

4 capacity factors are important to -- or capacity factor

5 are important factors in deriving the overall cost of

6 wind?

7 Is that correct?


9 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: And if I could have

10 you turn to Tab 2, page 8, of the book of documents.

11

12 (BRIEF PAUSE)

13

14 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: You see here there

15 are seven (7) sites identified in the -- or I should

16 start by saying that this is page 63 of Manitoba

17 Hydro's rebuttal evidence.

18 Did you have a chance to review the

19 rebuttal evidence?

20 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: Yes, I did.

21 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: And you see in Table

22 2 in the middle of the page it's headed, "Average wind

23 speed and capacity factors." It's seven (7) sites.

24 And it's St. Leon/Darlington -- Darlingford area.

25 Can you confirm, to the best of your



9767

1 knowledge, this is Manitoba specific information?

2 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: This certainly

3 looks like Manitoba specific information.

4 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: And there are seven

5 (7) sites identified in the first column of that table,

6 correct?


8 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: And the second

9 column of the table shows the average wind speed at 80

10 metres, measured in metres per second, correct?

11 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: As -- as reported

12 in a study by Helimax, I believe, which was dated 2008,

13 yes.

14 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: And the third column

15 provides capacity factors for two (2) different sized

16 80 metre wind turbines installed at each site, correct?

17 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: Yes. Again, as

18 based on a study by Helimax in 2008.

19 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Site 1 has a

20 capacity factor for the GE 1.5sle turbine of 37.4

21 percent and 36.1 percent for the MWT-95/2.4 turbine.

22 Do you see that?

23 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: I see that.

24 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Site 6, by way of

25 contrast, has corresponding factors of thirty point



9768

1 seven (30.7) and twenty-nine point two (29.2) for the

2 two (2) turbines?

3 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: I see that.

4 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Okay. So is it fair

5 to say that for a given size turbine, the capacity

6 factor varies across sites?

7 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: Certainly the same

8 turbine at different sites will -- will produce

9 different amounts.

10 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: All right. So what

11 we would expect to see is that as the better sites are

12 developed, we would expect a drop in the capacity

13 factors, for example, these 80 metre turbines?

14 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: Holding everything

15 else constant, yes.

16 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: And if hub heights

17 were to remain at 80 metres, Manitoba Hydro's

18 assumption of a constant capacity factor into the

19 future in its NFAT analysis would result in effectively

20 assuming an increase in capacity factor as less

21 productive wind sites are developed, correct?

22 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: As less productive

23 wind sites are -- are developed, it depends on -- on

24 what scale we're talking about. If we're talking about

25 the second -- or the third thousand megawatts, that



9769

1 would certainly be true. If we're just talking about

2 the next few hundred megawatts, that's -- that might

3 not be true. It also depends on whether you're looking

4 at a small area or a very large area.

5 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Now, at page 4-2 of

6 your report you raise the concern that --

7 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: Is there -- is

8 there -- do you have that in the -- in the documents?

9

10 (BRIEF PAUSE)

11

12 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: I don't. It's been

13 brought up here. It's -- it's not critical, because I

14 was just going to -- to provide you some context where

15 I'm going.

16 You raised the concern that Manitoba

17 Hydro did not analyze any development plans that

18 included both new wind generation and new intertie

19 capacity?


21 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: And what I wanted

22 you to do then is to turn to page 54 in the book of

23 documents.


25



9770

1 (BRIEF PAUSE)

2

3 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: And this is Manitoba

4 Hydro's response to a -- a PUB Information Request.

5 It's PUB/Manitoba Hydro First Round 26a Revised.

6 And I guess first off, have you reviewed

7 this --

8 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: I have, yes.

9 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: -- Information

10 Request before?


12 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Okay. The part I'd

13 like to look at is on page 2, part C. And here it

14 says:

15 "New wind generation development in

16 Manitoba would not enable the

17 construction of new transmission for

18 Manitoba's benefit in the US. As

19 indicated in the MISO Wind Synergy

20 Study, only new hydro generation

21 provides dispatchable capacity and

22 storage services which are needed in

23 the MISO market to accommodate US

24 wind integration. New Manitoba wind

25 generation for export would



9771

1 exacerbate the issues associated with

2 developing US wind resources and

3 would result in increased integration

4 costs rather than lower costs. To

5 the extent US utilities invest in new

6 transmission for wind, it will be to

7 support the development of local wind

8 resources that qualify for RPS

9 recognition."

10 So first off, I always ask, did I read

11 it correctly?

12 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: Yes, you read it

13 correctly.

14 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Now, in terms of

15 wind resources, would you agree that the states of

16 Minnesota and North Dakota both have good wind

17 resources of their own?


19 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: And are you aware

20 that Minnesota has 68 megawatts of wind under

21 construction with a 2014 in service date and North

22 Dakota has 205 megawatts, also with an in service date

23 of 2014?

24 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: I'm not aware of

25 the -- of the specific numbers. However, that -- those



9772

1 numbers would not surprise me.

2 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Okay. Would you

3 accept also -- then subject to check that a further 213

4 megawatts of wind is in the advanced stages of

5 development in Minnesota and 460 megawatts are in the

6 advanced stage of development in North Dakota?

7 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: For the sake of

8 argument, I would accept that. Those -- those numbers

9 would not surprise me.

10 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: And those numbers

11 would be in addition to the recent completion of 266

12 megawatts of wind constructed in Minnesota and 211 in

13 North Dakota since 2012.

14 Would you accept that subject to check?

15 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: With the same

16 proviso, yes.

17 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: All right. And then

18 finally, would you accept subject to check that with

19 these recent and upcoming additions, Minnesota will

20 have 2,901 megawatts of wind by 2015, and North Dakota

21 1,808 megawatts in that same time frame?

22 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: Again, I -- I

23 can't confirm those specific numbers. It's certainly

24 my understanding that a substantial amount -- amounts

25 of wind exist and are under construction in those



9773

1 states.

2 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: So given those

3 substantial amounts of -- that substantial amount of

4 wind and the fact that export customers in Minnesota

5 and North Dakota have access to their own wind

6 resources, do you accept that it's highly unlikely that

7 they're going to be interested in purchasing a wind-

8 based product from Manitoba Hydro?

9 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: If by 'wind-based

10 product' you mean having a contract with a -- with a

11 wind farm in Manitoba under which they accept whatever

12 -- whatever the output of that wind farm is at the time

13 that it is generated by that wind farm, I -- I would

14 certainly agree with that.

15 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: You'd agree that

16 they -- it -- it's also highly unlikely they would

17 support an interconnection to facilitate Manitoba Hydro

18 generated wind, a supply of that into their region?

19 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: Again, if you're

20 talking about exports of -- of electricity from --

21 directly from a wind plant as generated, I -- I don't

22 see much benefit to -- to Minnesota -- Minnesota,

23 Wisconsin, US states, of taking wind from Manitoba at

24 the time generated.

25



9774

1 (BRIEF PAUSE)

2

3 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Okay. Just to

4 clarify, when you say, "the developer," what if the

5 developer is Manitoba Hydro?

6 Does that change your answer?

7 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: No. I'm -- I'm

8 talking about the -- the fact that wind -- wind

9 exported on the variable basis. When -- when a

10 megawatt hour of wind is generated in Manitoba, it's

11 immediately exported. Whoever owns that, I don't see

12 much benefit. It would -- it would only be if wind was

13 working -- basically working to free up hydro

14 generation in Manitoba.

15 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: So it would

16 effectively have to be backed by hydro. Is that --

17 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: It would -- I

18 would say it would effectively have to be integrated

19 with hydro.


21

22 (BRIEF PAUSE)

23

24 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Now, on slide 6 of

25 your presentation, which is not in the book of



9775

1 documents, you challenge Manitoba Hydro's practice as

2 well as the practice of BC Hydro, the National

3 Renewable Energy Laboratory, the International

4 Renewable Agency, and Vestas of using a twenty (20)

5 year life for evaluating wind. And in your materials

6 you raise the term of Manitoba Hydro's wind farm

7 contracts as part of the evidence for a longer term.

8 Can you confirm -- you haven't reviewed

9 the terms and conditions of the St. Leon or St. Joseph

10 purchase agreements.

11 Is that right?

12 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: That's right, I

13 have not seen those contracts. I would in -- just

14 regarding your question, Vestas -- with regards to

15 Vestas, that was a reference to a warranty offered.

16 That was not a recommendation of a -- of a term for

17 evaluating wind projects. But -- but the others -- the

18 other, I think it's, five (5) studies did use twenty

19 (20) years for evaluating wind projects.

20 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Can you provide any

21 real operational examples of a turbine greater than 1

22 megawatt exceeding a twenty (20) year life?

23 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: My understanding

24 is that the first turbine -- wind turbine greater than

25 -- of greater than 1 megawatt was offered in 1996 or



9776

1 1997. So there has been no chance for a wind project

2 to -- of greater than 1 megawatt -- with turbines of

3 greater than 1 megawatt to last for more than twenty

4 (20) years. There simply hasn't been enough time.

5 However, there has been ample time to --

6 to monitor their performance, notice how they -- notice

7 their failure rates and the cost of -- of repairs, and

8 to come -- come to some conclusions about how long

9 they're likely to last. And I would refer you to

10 Jiminez, one of -- one of the NREL studies which again

11 refers to -- unfortunately without referencing it, it's

12 very frustrating -- refers to a research on actual wind

13 farm operations and says that wind turbines typically

14 last for twenty (20) to thirty (30) years.

15 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: And was I -- did I

16 hear correctly that you grew up in Winnipeg?

17 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: I did.

18 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: So you're prepared

19 to accept that it gets cold here?

20 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: It -- it has.

21 Although, I have to say I live in Toronto now, and I

22 like Winnipeg winters a lot more than I like Toronto

23 winters. Toronto winters are miserable. Winnipeg

24 winters are sunny and beautiful.

25 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: I like your style.



9777

1 But with respect to our cold weather and recognizing

2 you're not an engineer, would you acce -- accept that

3 the impact of cold weather on a wind farm is brittle

4 component failure due to microfracturing, especially

5 under extremely cold conditions?

6 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: That certainly

7 sounds reasonable. I -- I -- I can't -- I can't really

8 spea -- speak to that. I have heard -- actually, I --

9 I can't -- I cannot to those specific words.

10 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: M-hm.

11 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: But I have in my

12 investigations run across reference to special cold-

13 weather packages for wind turbines, implying that some

14 special measures may be -- may be advisable for

15 particularly cold weather.

16 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: But you'd accept

17 that cold weather would be a consideration in --

18 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: Absolute

19 consideration. It's also -- as -- as I mentioned, it's

20 also a consideration in that cold weather is denser

21 and, therefore, has more energy content. But that may

22 well be -- already taken into consideration in the

23 studies of the capacity factors.

24 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Just to make sure,

25 you filed any analysis detailing the basis for your



9778

1 extending of the life to twenty-five (25) years. Your

2 evidence is based on comments of wind --

3 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Wind developers.

4 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: -- wind developers.

5 Right.

6 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: It's -- it's based

7 on a -- on -- on these four (4) factors that I list,

8 one of which is -- and, I -- I have to say, the most

9 convincing one of which to me is conversations with --

10 with wind developers where I -- where I -- we -- it

11 wasn't actually me. It was one of our -- one of our

12 staff who talked to them, asked them questions which I

13 had written out.

14 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Okay. Those are

15 the same people though who profit from building the

16 wind and selling the wind?

17 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: They would be. I

18 -- I have no reason to think that they were actually

19 lying about -- lying in their answers.

20 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Well, I wouldn't

21 suggest that, but they -- they are motivated to promote

22 wind development, correct?

23 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: Certainly, but

24 they were -- and they were also very definitive about

25 what they do.



9779

1 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: In your presentation

2 this morning, you also -- oh, we're slide 6, so that's

3 perfect. You raised the concern that Manitoba Hydro

4 provided a cost of four dollars and twenty-two cents

5 ($4.22) and four dollars and ninety-nine cents ($4.99)

6 per megawatt hour for wind integration cost.

7 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: That would-- yes,

8 and that's a different slide.

9 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Sorry, I wrote down

10 slide 6 --


12 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: -- I'm sorry, it's

13 slide 8. There we go; there it's up now. I was only

14 bringing it up to get us to the topics, so if I could

15 now -- Diana, could you bring up Manitoba Exhibit 136?

16 It's not in the book of documents.

17

18 (BRIEF PAUSE)

19

20 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: This -- Manitoba

21 Hydro Exhibit 136 is a response to an undertaking.

22 Have you had the opportunity to review

23 this before?

24 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: I have gone over

25 this in some detail.



9780

1 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Okay, good. Well,

2 if -- we will now again. If we look to the paragraph

3 under the two (2) bullets which says:

4 "It should be noted that the above

5 costs are in 2005 dollars. As

6 explained in Appendix 9.3, Section

7 .1, these values are used in the

8 calculation of wind integration costs

9 for varying levels of wind

10 development and are impacted by

11 changing export prices over the

12 detailed study period."

13 And under -- I'll ask, did I read it

14 correctly?


16 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: No. Section 1.7.

17 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Did I not say 1.7?

18 MR. WILLIAM GANGE: You just said --

19 you just said section 1 -- that -- that -- just a tiny

20 little mistake, Ms. Ramage, but I don't want you to be

21 too much of a roll here.

22 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Yeah. Be careful,

23 Mr. Gange, or I'll -- I'll read the whole thing over

24 again. We'll accept your correction.

25



9781

1 CONTINUED BY MS. PATTI RAMAGE:

2 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: But now rather than

3 reading it, would you agree the next paragraph says

4 that:

5 "The wind integration costs

6 represents an average cost over the

7 detailed study period."

8 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: I have not had an

9 opportunity to look at Manitoba Hydro's calculations.

10 I agree that that's what Manitoba Hydro has -- has said

11 in this undertaking. And it was clear from IR response

12 to -- the response to IR-308 that they were using one

13 (1) single number for the entire period. I don't know

14 how they -- how good they calculated that, and in -- in

15 particular I don't know whether it was calculated

16 correctly.

17 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: You can see by the

18 materials that are here that the four dollar and

19 twenty-two cents ($4.22) per megawatt hour for the 500

20 megawatts of wind generation was in 2005 dollars, as

21 was the four dollars and ninety-nine cents ($4.99) per

22 megawatt hours for the thousand megawatts, also in 2005

23 dollars?

24 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: Yes, and I was

25 wondering about that. There's a mention of 2005 US



9782

1 dollars three (3) times on this page, and then 2012

2 Canadian dollars once. As -- as I understand it, the

3 four-twenty-two (4.22) and four-ninety-nine (4.99) are,

4 according to the 2005 study, are to be escalated based

5 on elec -- electricity export prices, not based on

6 inflation.

7 So it really made me wonder why there

8 was this emphasis on 2005 dollars and 2012 dollars.

9 And again, I would have to review their calculation to

10 make sure that there wasn't -- there wasn't an

11 application of, say, both inflation and price

12 escalation. I don't know. I haven't reviewed it.

13 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: I'm advised that

14 it's -- it's based on both, the -- the price -- the

15 export price escalation and the -- and the change in

16 dollars.

17 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: If that's true,

18 then that would constitute double counting and would --

19 would be -- and could explain how you got to such a

20 high number. But I -- I don't know.

21

22 (BRIEF PAUSE)

23

24 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: But if you do the

25 forecast every year and recalculate, it's in the --



9783

1 it's in the year of the current dollars, and therefore

2 it's in both. So if you redo your forecast and you're

3 working from a 2005 forecast, then if we move up to a

4 2012 forecast --


6 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: -- we're not going

7 to be in 2005 dollars any more.


9 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Does that make sense

10 then?

11 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: Yes, that -- it

12 could well be that Manitoba Hydro did the calculation

13 correctly. I don't know. I cannot tell from the --

14 the words you've used have not -- have not inspired

15 confidence in me that it was done correctly, but I

16 don't know.

17

18 (BRIEF PAUSE)

19

20 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: And -- and based on

21 the fact that we -- it's using the export price

22 forecast, would you accept then, subject to check, that

23 Manitoba Hydro used, as wind in -- as wind integration

24 cost, an average for the thirty-five (35) year period

25 of the price forecast?



9784

1 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: I -- I can see

2 from IRs -- from the LCA spreadsheet as response to IR-

3 308 that they used some kind of average price.

4 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Wind integration

5 values would also be affected by the amount of wind on

6 the system.

7 Is that correct?

8 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: When you --

9 certainly when you get to large quantities of wind,

10 that's been the experience in -- in other

11 jurisdictions. It depends on a number of factors.

12 It's the proportion of wind to the system as a whole.

13 It's whether the system is entirely thermal based or

14 hydro based with costs in hydro-based systems being

15 much lower than in thermal-based systems. A question

16 of how integrated the system is with -- with other

17 nearby systems, especially if those systems themselves

18 have hydro.

19 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Thank you for that,

20 Mr. Stevens.

21 Mr. Chernick, back to you. I was only

22 going to do this if I was moving along, and I've moved

23 along quickly enough that I think the Board can handle

24 my next question because it's a time consuming one (1)

25 I'll say, but an entertaining one (1) at the same time.



9785

1 If you turn to page 3 of the book of documents.

2

3 (BRIEF PAUSE)

4

5 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: And at page 3 you

6 critique Manitoba Hydro's corporate heating website

7 page. And in particular, if you look at the footnote

8 at the bottom of the page, you say that -- that the

9 video on that site simply explains geothermal heating.

10 Do you recall that evidence?



13 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: I wrote that.

14 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: And I have to tell

15 the Board, I struggled with this one because I couldn't

16 come up with a way of putting this information to you

17 other than actually watching that short video. And I

18 can tell the Board it's only about four (4) minutes

19 long, but I -- I think it's worth seeing what's on that

20 website. And I talked to Mr. Simonsen to see if he

21 could bring it up. And if he could go to

22 www.hydro.mb.ca.

23 Oh, he's already there. He's two (2)

24 steps ahead of me.

25



9786

1 (VIDEO PLAYED)

2

3 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: This didn't happen

4 at my house.

5

6 (BRIEF PAUSE)

7

8 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: I -- I think we're

9 probably close enough. The...

10

11 (VIDEO PLAYED)

12

13 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: I think we're done.

14 Yes. So, Mr. Chernick --

15 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: That's a very nice

16 video.

17 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Is this the video --

18 this is the video on the web page under heating cost

19 comparisons. Is this the video that you suggest --

20 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: This is not the

21 video that I -- that I saw.

22 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: -- concerning

23 geothermal systems?

24 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: The -- no, the --

25 the one (1) that -- that I got to was actually the same



9787

1 website, but -- and under

2 'your_home/geothermal_heat_pumps/index.shtml'. And my

3 apologies, I see that you do have a very nice

4 informational video on the -- the benefits of -- of gas

5 water heating and...

6

7 (BRIEF PAUSE)

8

9 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Thank you, Mr.

10 Chernick, and I'm glad you liked the video. It hurt my

11 feelings that you thought it was --

12 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: I understand.

13 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: -- all about

14 geothermal.

15 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: I'm very sorry. I

16 -- I think for somebody of my age I do a pretty good

17 job of searching the web, but every once in a while I -

18 - I don't find exactly what I'm looking for.

19 MR. RICHARD BEL: Mr. Chernick, I just

20 have a -- a clarification. I'm not sure I understand.

21 That was with -- the question was put to you about

22 Manitoba Exhibit 156?

23

24 (BRIEF PAUSE)

25



9788

1 MR. RICHARD BEL: It was page 13 in

2 this last book of documents. Yeah, okay. I think

3 that's it.

4 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: All right. Thank

5 you.

6 MR. RICHARD BEL: So my question is:

7 There's a reference here to flat load growth. And I'm

8 not sure if this is the kind of flat load growth that

9 you were discussing in your -- is that -- is that the

10 import of your answer?

11 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: No, it -- it -- one

12 (1) of those things that I -- I said in my answer was,

13 well, this is -- this particular case was for load

14 growth through 2022/'23 and then flat thereafter. And

15 the conclusion was that it still made sense to build

16 Keeyask and the transmission line.

17 And as I pointed out, I said in -- in my

18 -- my initial presentation that the -- the fact that

19 there's no domestic need for Keeyask doesn't mean that

20 there isn't an export value to it. And the

21 transmission line will certainly have some benefits in

22 terms of improving reality and access to lower cost

23 energy at -- in -- in drought conditions and so on.

24 So I -- I didn't -- I wasn't suggesting

25 that even if you had flat load from, say, 2014 on, that



9789

1 Keeyask would necessarily be inappropriate. But you

2 have to look at it in the kind of context that they --

3 the Company did in this exhibit to see whether, as a

4 purely export operation, Keeyask was -- was cost

5 effective. And it's entirely possible that it would

6 be.

7 MR. RICHARD BEL: What was the

8 reference to exports and -- when you were discussing

9 that? Can you --

10 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Well, if there's --

11 if you're meeting all of your domestic load with

12 existing resources and you're meeting all of your

13 committed sales, then there's -- there's no reason to

14 build Keeyask for domestic load.

15 But if you build Keeyask and can sell

16 the power, and you also get the benefit of the intertie

17 which allows you to sell more economy power when you

18 have it, to buy power off peak, reduce your -- your

19 usage at -- at those times, the -- the usage of the

20 dams at those times, and then increase generation at

21 high cost times and sell power down to the States in --

22 in greater quantity is basically using Manitoba's dams

23 as a storage battery for MISO, and -- with Manitoba

24 Hydro pocketing the difference between the cost of the

25 electricity in the middle of the night and the value of



9790

1 the electricity in the daytime, all of those things

2 combined might very well make Keeyask and the

3 transmission line a good investment even without the

4 domestic load.

5 There -- Manitoba is not an island, and

6 you have an unusually good opportunity here to do the

7 right thing and reduce environmental damage and make

8 money at the same time, and -- and help out your

9 neighbours to the south, as well. And it's entirely

10 possible that Keeyask and -- and the transmission line

11 will be part of a long-term strategy to do that.

12 It's a different kind of analysis than

13 that that the -- the Company presented in its original

14 filing. Does that help?

15 MR. RICHARD BEL: Yes, thank you.

16

17 (BRIEF PAUSE)

18

19 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Sorry, Mr. Chairman,

20 I'm -- subject to anything that arises during Mr.

21 Hombach's cross-examination and the materials that Mr.

22 Chernick said he would look at at the break, I think I

23 -- I've completed my cross. It was the highlight of a

24 video. I haven't ever done that before.

25 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: I'm glad I gave you



9791

1 the opportunity.


3 Ramage.

4 Mr. Hombach, please...?

5 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: I anticipate that

6 I'll be fifteen (15) to twenty (20) minutes, Mr.

7 Chairman. Would you like me to finish before the

8 break, or would you like to take the break before I

9 start?

10 THE CHAIRPERSON: I think the

11 preference would be to -- to have a break now, so we'll

12 take ten (10) minutes, and we'll continue after the

13 break.

14 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Certainly.

15



18

19 THE CHAIRPERSON: I believe that we're

20 ready to continue with the proceedings, so Mr. Hombach,

21 please.

22

23 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SVEN HOMBACH:

24 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Thank you. Good

25 afternoon, Mr. Chernick and Mr. Stevens. The bad news



9792

1 first, I won't have a video, but I'll try to be just as

2 rivetting as the one that we just saw.

3 Mr. Chernick, if it's acceptable to you,

4 we'll start with you. You were qualified as an expert

5 in integrated resource planning, and I'd like to get a

6 better understanding from you on what test for

7 evaluating DSM you recommend as part of integrated

8 resource planning?

9 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: I'm -- I'm sorry,

10 what -- oh, what test?

11 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: What test.

12 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Well, basically I

13 would say that the total resource cost test, including

14 all the costs and benefits that are identifiable is the

15 -- the appropriate test, both in -- in resource

16 planning and then in the detailed design and

17 implementation of the programs.

18 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: And were you able to

19 satisfy yourself during the break that Manitoba Hydro

20 uses the total resource cost test?

21 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Oh, I don't think

22 there was any question that they use it to some extent,

23 but I looked through the documents and found that what

24 I was talking about is sort of embodied most clearly in

25 the -- about -- what I was talking about with regard to



9793

1 RIM is expressed most clearly in Exhibit MH-87,

2 starting on page 67 where Mr. Kuczek says that Manitoba

3 Hydro uses the RIM. It uses it to compare between

4 programs as a measure of the value of a DSM

5 opportunity, looks also at the levelized cost to the

6 utility.

7 And then a few pages later, on page 71,

8 looks at what happens when the -- under certain

9 circumstances nonparticipant bills can go up even

10 though the participants' bills are going down. And

11 they pick an example in which the participants save

12 seven dollars ($7) and the nonparticipants pay an extra

13 seventy-three dollars ($73), indicating something like

14 99 percent of the customers are participants.

15 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: But when you hear

16 references to economic DSM, what does that mean to you,

17 and specifically what test does that mean to you?

18 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: That would be

19 economic under the TRC.

20 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Would you consider

21 fuel switching to be a DSM measure that would be given

22 the same status as other DSM measures in an integrated

23 resource plan?


25 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: And you recall My



9794

1 Friend, Ms. Ramage, asking you about the spending of

2 electric money to convince people to switch to gas?


4 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Would you consider

5 that to be an electric DSM measure, as well?

6 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Yes. If you spend

7 electric money to convince people to switch from

8 electric resistence heat to a heat pump, you reduce the

9 amount of -- of electricity that you use. There are

10 other costs incurred. If it's cost effective, it's a --

11 it should be included in the DSM program in the same

12 way if you -- they're switching to a -- a gas furnace

13 and reducing their -- the electric heating use down to,

14 I guess, some fans, then their -- and that's -- that's

15 -- that also can be a cost-effective DSM issue.

16 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: So to summarize that

17 answer, as long as there is a benefit in the elect --

18 to the electric utility from a switch to DSM, you

19 consider it to be appropriate for the electric utility

20 to incur fuel switching costs?

21 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: I'm assuming that

22 the measure is cost effective overall.

23 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Let's go to slide 8

24 of your presentation from this morning.

25



9795

1 (BRIEF PAUSE)

2

3 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: You spoke about how

4 higher gas prices would improve gas end-use economics.

5 Would that necessarily apply to residential customers?

6 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: No. What I meant

7 there was that the cost to the residential customer

8 would go up, but the benefit to Manitoba Hydro of

9 having the extra electricity to sell into the United

10 States would also go up.

11 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: But at the

12 individual customer level, it may not necessarily be a

13 benefit to that customer?

14 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Yes. And as I

15 discussed with the Board, it may be necessary if

16 customers are very concerned about that; it may be

17 necessary to offer them a -- a guarantee in which Hydro

18 essentially says, Well, if the price of gas goes up

19 beyond some point, then we'll share with you the

20 windfall that we will get from our increased export

21 sales that you, the fuel switching customer, has made

22 possible. And that could be just a -- a guaranteed

23 payment each year to the extent that the -- that the

24 gas price goes over some benchmark. It could be

25 structured a number of ways.



9796

1 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Are you aware of any

2 such programs in other utilities you've worked with?

3 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: For that kind of --

4 of hedging for the -- for a customer who -- who

5 converts?

6 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Yes.

7 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: No, I'm not. And

8 as I think I said to the Board, Manitoba's in a very

9 unusual position where the electric utility stands to

10 gain quite a bit if gas prices rise while customers who

11 choose gas and help Manitoba Hydro make additional

12 money could be put at -- at risk under high gas prices.

13 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: It's my

14 understanding you've testified before the PUB

15 previously?

16 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Yes, three (3)

17 times I believe.

18 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Are you familiar

19 with the Affordable Energy Fund?

20 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: I'm -- I'm aware

21 that it exists. I'm not aware of the --

22 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Yeah.

23 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: -- the details of

24 its mechanism.

25 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: I was going to ask



9797

1 you whether you consider that to be such a program, but

2 I -- I don't need an undertaking to that if you're not

3 familiar with it at -- at this time.

4 Let's go to slide 14 of the

5 presentation. For a fuel switching customer how long

6 do you expect a commitment to gas to be if somebody

7 installs a new gas furnace or a new gas water tank?

8 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Water tanks -- the

9 water heaters tend to last on the order of twelve (12)

10 to fifteen (15) years I believe. And furnaces, I

11 think, are on the -- around twenty (20) years.

12 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Is it fair to say,

13 though, that there's some resistance to change?

14 Meaning once somebody has a gas furnace they're

15 unlikely to then switch back to an electric furnace the

16 next time, or vice versa?

17

18 (BRIEF PAUSE)

19

20 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Well, in a house

21 that's -- that's go the -- the necessary supply, the --

22 the service line drop for the electricity, the breaker

23 box being large enough to -- to cover the -- the load,

24 I don't know how much resistance there would be. I --

25 I would think that a -- a customer who's been aware



9798

1 that gas prices have risen above electric prices, if

2 that's the case, would -- would look at that --- at the

3 aging of his furnace as an opportunity to switch back

4 to electricity if that seemed like a good idea.

5 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: If there was to be a

6 larger percentage of solar energy or wind energy in

7 MISO over the next fifteen (15), twenty (20), or even

8 thirty (30) years, would that presumably change your

9 conclusions about the greenhouse gas implications of

10 people in Manitoba switching to gas?

11 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Well, I -- I think

12 those percentages will rise. The question is what does

13 it do to the market prices and the -- the marginal

14 emissions? And on slide 9 I discussed that, that wind

15 and solar costs are likely to decline, and that more

16 renewables in MISO might result primarily in the

17 retirement of coal plants and the -- and less use of --

18 of the gas peakers which are less efficient.

19 But it could also result in the coal

20 plants being more expensive to -- to run than the gas

21 combined cycles and -- but staying on the system. And

22 I'm sorry, that was the wrong example.

23 It could push the -- the coal up in the

24 loading order. So at a given load level in MISO, more

25 of the load is met with renewables and then coal, and



9799

1 maybe you don't need any gas at all. So you're backing

2 out coal at the margin and that would make the

3 environmental benefits greater. It might make the

4 economic benefits less, depending upon the relative

5 pricing of coal and -- and gas.

6 I'm sorry I got that answer a little

7 garbled in the middle. If you'd like me to run through

8 it again I'll do my best.

9 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: No, I think that's

10 okay. Thank you. Have you turned your mind to how

11 large an impact on domestic electricity demand a

12 concerted campaign to switch end-use heating to gas

13 would have?

14 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Well, I -- I think

15 that Hydro has done that for us.

16 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: And if it helps, if

17 we could go to Manitoba Hydro Exhibit 122. That, Mr.

18 Chernick, is an answer that was provided in response to

19 an undertaking calculating that the existing fuel

20 switching initiative, if 100 percent successful, would

21 reduce demand by approximately 903 gigawatt hours.

22 But first of all, it's my understanding,

23 sir, that the fuel switching initiative is only in the

24 south gas area and only applies to new construction and

25 retrofits?



9800

1 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Well, the new --

2 new construction and retrofit's basically what the --

3 the market consists of.

4 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: So --

5 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: And -- and you --

6 you can't very well switch to gas in an area where you

7 don't have gas. And just hang on it for a second.

8 The -- Exhibit 180, page 56, provides an

9 -- an estimate of 286 gigawatt hours from the fuel

10 choice program being contemplated by the Company at

11 this point. So whether it's three hundred (300) or

12 nine hundred (900), it's a substantial amount of -- of

13 energy.

14 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Are you suggesting

15 that, aside from encouraging people to switch electric

16 furnaces that have reached the end of their useful

17 life, Manitoba Hydro should encourage people to switch

18 otherwise still functional electric furnaces to gas?

19 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Well, that's a cost

20 effectiveness question. And let me take a quick look

21 at the summary of the economics.

22 For a furnace -- this is on page 6 --

23 slide 6, of -- of my presentation this morning.

24 Switching from an electric furnace to a gas furnace has

25 an NPV, net -- net present value, under the TRC,



9801

1 according to the Company, of about fifteen thousand

2 dollars ($15,000).

3 So -- or I believe that's the choice

4 between the two (2), assuming you'd have to either buy

5 a furnace or -- either electric furnace or a gas

6 furnace. And so even if you take out the -- the cost

7 of the -- the electric furnace, or you -- you discount

8 it, because if the electric furnace is only ten (10)

9 years old and you think it'll last another fifteen (15)

10 years, then some day you would have to replace it so

11 you can -- you've delayed that -- you've -- you've

12 avoided that replacement out there.

13 But even if you took the entire cost of

14 the -- the electric furnace out of a couple thousand

15 dollars, you'd still have a very large savings. So I

16 suspect that it would be cost effective to -- to do

17 early retirement and replacement for electric furnaces.

18 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: So that's a yes?

19 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Oh, yes. I'm

20 sorry. I was actually thinking it through while --

21 while I was answering your question, so.

22 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: If we could go to

23 PUB Exhibit 58-2.

24 While we're waiting for that, do you

25 recall the chart in the video that walked people



9802

1 through the historic gas and electrical cost up to the

2 present time?


4 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Vaguely?

5 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Yes, vaguely.

6 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: If we could go to

7 page 92 of Exhibit 58-2. Sir, this is a chart that was

8 put to Manitoba Hydro's load forecast of DSM panel and

9 projected into the future.

10 Have you had an opportunity to review

11 this chart before?

12 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: I don't believe

13 I've seen this specific chart, but I've seen similar

14 comparisons.

15 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: If Manitoba Hydro

16 agreed with the directionality of the chart, and they

17 did advise that they did, in your view, would it be

18 helpful to show customers the projected future prices

19 of gas and electricity to encourage fuel switching?

20 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: That might be

21 helpful, but as -- as I think I've indicated, that's --

22 it's not necess -- necessarily sufficient, but it

23 certainly would help. And if Hydro were willing to

24 provide the kind of guarantee that we were talking

25 about, if gas prices actually get above electric prices



9803

1 on an equivalent delivered basis, then some of that at

2 windfall to -- to Hydro would be split with the -- the

3 customers who have agreed to the fuel switching.

4 Then it -- it seems like that's a very

5 low risk proposition for -- for Hydro to undertake.

6 And I think that might be more of a comfort than

7 looking at the -- the history and -- and the projected

8 values.

9 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Now, we also

10 discussed the need for builder incentives. And I'm

11 wondering if you could give the panel some example of

12 what types of incentives for home builders you're

13 thinking of?

14 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Can I interject just

15 for a second, Mr. Hombach? Just for the record, 'cause

16 we're -- I'm trying to figure out here, the chart

17 that's on the screen, can you give me the reference? I

18 -- whose evidence that is, or --

19 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: That is the chart

20 that was prepared by PUB advisors. It forms -- it is

21 page 92 of PUB Exhibit 58-2. It was put to Manitoba

22 Hydro's DSM panel and Manitoba Hydro was asked about

23 whether or not the utility agreed with the

24 directionality.

25 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Okay. Thank you. I



9804

1 was just trying to -- so I could follow along, for the

2 record. Thank you.

3

4 CONTINUED BY MR. SVEN HOMBACH:

5 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Mr. Chernick, I was

6 asking you about your recommendations for builder

7 incentives.

8 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Oh, yes. Thank

9 you. Well, with -- with builders there's opportunities

10 for using both carrots and sticks. The carrots would

11 be: If you put in a gas water heater and -- and

12 furnace we will waive certain fees that we would

13 otherwise charge you for the -- the hookup, or we'll

14 contribute some hundreds of dollars towards the cost of

15 doing that.

16 And we'll maybe give you a nice little

17 medallion to put on the -- the front of your model home

18 to let people know that this development is going to be

19 economic and -- and environmentally efficient. And

20 Centra (sic) can offer a discount on its usual

21 extension to the builder.

22 Another alternative would be for -- for

23 Hydro to say if you put in resistence heating, or you

24 put in a -- a ground source heat pump below a certain

25 efficiency, then the hookup charge will be larger



9805

1 because you're going to force us to give up export

2 revenues, or to procure additional resources. And, you

3 know, we'll refund that to the customers over a period

4 of time, but it'll show up as -- as something that the

5 developer has to pay out of pocket and then get back

6 through the sale price of the house. And that seems to

7 be a strong motivator for the developers in general.

8 So that kind of stick might chase them away from

9 electricity towards gas.

10 If their customers really want

11 electricity, of course they can do it and they'll get

12 paid -- paid back. But for the vast majority of -- of

13 customers who either would prefer gas 'cause they know

14 it's cheaper or don't care, then you can overcome the -

15 - the developer's reluctance to spend his own money

16 and, of course, be at risk of how long it's going to

17 take to sell that house.

18 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: In your report,

19 specifically on page 2-14, you also discuss rate design

20 and inclining block residential rates. You're aware

21 that Level 2 DSM, as proposed by Manitoba Hydro,

22 actually includes such inclining rates?

23 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Yes. I don't know

24 the -- the detail of the conservation rates that the

25 Company modelled for Level 2, but it sounds like, to



9806

1 some extent, we're on the same wavelength in terms of

2 believing that would be an appropriate way to go.

3 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: And when you're

4 thinking about inclining block or inverted rates, are

5 you envisioning that the block sizes would be the same

6 for electric heat customers and gas heat customers in

7 order to provide an increased incentive, or are you

8 envisioning that electric heat customers be a --

9 provided with a larger initial load price block?

10 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Well, that's a

11 complicated question because there are a lot of

12 considerations involved, and among them the statutory

13 limitations on the extent to which Hydro and the Board

14 can differentiate rates between groups of customers.

15 But ideally you would protect customers

16 who have electric heat, and put it in -- in the past,

17 and not by giving them some larger block in the winter.

18 And either not do the same thing for new electric

19 heating customers or give them a smaller block, except

20 those who do not have access to gas. And exactly how

21 you design the -- the rates is, as I said, somewhat

22 complicated and something I haven't looked at for

23 Manitoba in a few years now.

24 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: You critique the

25 2013 Power Smart Plan for not discouraging -- sorry,



9807

1 for not encouraging fuel switching to gas.

2 Have you had an opportunity to review

3 the 2014 Power Smart Plan?

4 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: I have looked

5 through it, and there is a section on fuel choice, at

6 least in the long-term plan. I don't really recall

7 whether the short-term plan has fuel choice broken out.

8 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: If you can accept,

9 subject to check, that the short-term plan does not

10 address it?

11 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: I think that's

12 correct.

13 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Okay. In your view,

14 does the long-term plan address your criticism?

15 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Well, it's hard to

16 tell exactly what -- what kind of a program, or

17 portfolio of programs, is included in the long-term

18 plan. The long-term plan is certainly a step in the

19 right direction, and I'd be very interested in seeing

20 how Manitoba Hydro intends to implement what's in the

21 plan: the numbers that they project.

22 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: What you're saying

23 is essentially the proof will be in the pudding?

24

25 (BRIEF PAUSE)



9808

1 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: I didn't realize

2 that would be such a controversial question.

3 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Well, actually,

4 it's not so -- so much whether the proof of the pudding

5 will be in the eating, which implies that you have to

6 wait until they've done it, but we haven't even seen

7 the recipe yet. And so I would say the -- yes, the

8 ultimate proof is -- is when we see the switching from

9 electric to gas going up and gas to electric going

10 down.

11 But the -- the initial -- 'proof' may be

12 too strong a word, but the initial indication that

13 they're on the right track would be when we see the

14 recipe and they talk about what kinds of incentives

15 they're planning on giving and to whom and how fast

16 they -- they expect to be shifting over various usages.

17 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Let's go to slide 24

18 of your presentation from this morning. You list on

19 that slide that you have several examples of other

20 utilities that are budgeting for 1.3 percent of DSM

21 savings per year or more.

22 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Yeah.

23 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Just to be clear,

24 those were incremental savings?

25 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Those are



9809

1 incremental savings and the one point three (1.3),

2 those are reported actual savings after the fact.

3 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Okay.

4 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: The -- the

5 projections go over 2 percent.

6 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: And are those 2

7 percent projections in perpetuity, or is there a

8 declining incremental DSM savings?

9 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Well, I don't know

10 of anybody who forecasts anything for the utilities in

11 perpetuity.

12 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Let me ask you this

13 way.

14 Have -- have you reviewed the evidence

15 of Mr. Dunsky?

16 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: I have.

17 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: And you're aware of

18 the fact that Mr. Dunsky's recommending a gradual ramp

19 up of DSM savings followed by a sustained annual

20 incremental DSM savings of 1.5 percent per year?


22 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: And you're aware

23 that Manitoba Hydro projects significantly larger

24 savings in the short term and then declining

25 incremental savings over time?



9810

1 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Yes, and -- and I

2 think Manitoba Hydro has projected that pattern for a

3 number of years now, always with a -- a couple of years

4 of relatively high savings and then having savings drop

5 off.

6 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Right. So -- so

7 your recommendation -- is your recommendation to follow

8 the Manitoba Hydro model of shoot high first and then

9 have declining savings, or the Dunsky model?

10 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: I would -- I, and I

11 think Mr. Dunsky would say --

12 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Or your own model?

13 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: -- I -- I think Mr.

14 Dunsky would agree with this -- start where Manitoba

15 Hydro is for its plans for the next year or so and go

16 up from there. And I don't know whether you can then

17 maintain that level for, you know, fifteen (15) years

18 or twenty (20) years. And we'll find out how

19 technology changes and the markets change over time.

20 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Thank you, Mr.

21 Chernick.

22 Mr. Stevens, I have a few questions for

23 you as well.

24 First of all, you'll recall My Friend,

25 Ms. Ramage, asking you about wind exports and whether



9811

1 or not there would be interest in buying Manitoba wind

2 -- Hydro wind?

3 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: I do.

4 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Now, when a US

5 utility is purchasing energy they are not purchasing

6 specific electrons, are they? They're purchasing

7 either firm energy or opportunity energy?


9 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Okay. In your

10 expertise, is there any way for a utility to

11 distinguish what the source of that energy is if there

12 is a supply mix consisting of more than one (1) source?

13 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: No. Well, hold

14 on. Let me -- let me think about that. In some

15 circumstances there -- there could be agreements about

16 a generator injecting a certain -- injecting energy

17 into the system from a certain source and then the

18 utility extracting the same -- the same amount of

19 energy or that energy without -- minus losses from the

20 system at another point. So it is possible to relate

21 exports to a specific type. And -- but -- but those

22 are not the same type. They -- they are obviously not

23 the same electrons.

24 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: And if Manitoba

25 were exporting to New England, for example, and the



9812

1 buyers wanted the energy to qualify for renewable

2 energy credits, the energy would have to be tagged to

3 generation from wind or small hydro, not Keeyask, or

4 various other categories for renewables. And hour by

5 hour the same amount would have to be delivered to the

6 -- into the ISO for -- for that to be counted in that

7 way. I mean, that's really a bookkeeping transaction.

8 But the intent is to sort of, in some way, keep the

9 suppliers honest and make sure that you really are

10 getting more renewables into the system as you're

11 paying for more of them.

12 And it sort of ignores the fact that

13 with hydro you can -- you can store them. As a

14 practical matter, even if you had to do that for -- to

15 meet a state renewable portfolio standard and you

16 wanted to have the wind tag on the power that was devel

17 -- being delivered, you could always work out an

18 arrangement where essentially you were -- the US

19 utility was selling energy to Manitoba Hydro when it --

20 when there was excess and buying it back when it needed

21 it to sort of firm up that -- that wind delivery.

22 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: Short answer:

23 It's complicated.

24 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: And it would be a

25 matter of contractual arrangements as to whether or not



9813

1 somebody would want to specify that bookkeeping

2 exercise, to use Mr. Chernick's words?


4 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Mr. Stevens, let's

5 go to page 5 of your presentation for a moment. You

6 referenced the time frames that several wind developers

7 provided you with, and you included testing and you

8 included permitting.

9 The three (3) year time frame that we

10 see on the slide, does that include a land acquisition

11 and approaching people to obtain various options to

12 place turbines?

13 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: I don't know that.

14 It -- it might. This -- this is a reference to

15 significant spending. I don't think that time spent on

16 -- on land acquisition and approaching people would

17 involve significant spending, so I can't say from this

18 whether or not that time is -- that activity is

19 included in the three (3) years.

20 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Are you able to

21 undertake fairly easily to obtain an answer to that?


23 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Okay. Then I'd like

24 an undertaking for you to approach the developer and

25 ask whether that time estimate includes the time period



9814

1 for land acquisition.


3

4 --- UNDERTAKING NO. 136: Wesley Stevens to ask

5 developer if the time

6 estimate includes the time

7 period for land acquisition

8


10 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Let's go to the next

11 slide, page 6. There was some back and forth about the

12 assumed lifespan of -- of wind farms.

13 And is it your understanding that, from

14 a Crown utility perspective, that is really more of an

15 issue of the contractual arrangements rather than the

16 lifetime of the physical equipment?

17 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: It depends. When

18 it comes to Crown utilities buying -- buying wind

19 power, they usually set the term. Ontario has various

20 contracts which are set to twenty (20) years. My

21 understanding is that, in cases -- and this is from

22 talking with developers -- that in cases where the

23 utility has set a term of twenty (20) years, where the

24 contract is for a term of twenty (20) years, the

25 developers look at the value of the wind project



9815

1 following for the next five (5) and, in some cases, ten

2 (10) years, but -- but mostly five (5) years.

3 They assume that the proj -- that the

4 wind project will in fact last for twenty-five (25)

5 years, of which the first twenty (20) years will be

6 covered by contract and that there will be some

7 additional value to them in the last five (5) years.

8 So there would be nothing to stop a utility from

9 setting a term of -- of twenty-five (25) years for

10 contractual purposes.

11 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Have you seen any

12 Crown utility similar to Manitoba Hydro develop wind

13 power directly, or are these usually arrangements with

14 independent power producers under a power purchase

15 agreement?

16 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: I believe that

17 Nova Scotia does a mix. It does -- it -- it's

18 developing that -- the utility is developing some wind

19 itself and it's -- it's contracting some out. I'm just

20 running through the other utilities; for -- for the

21 most part, they're contracting out, but certainly

22 there's nothing stopping a utility from doing it

23 itself.

24 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Let's go to page

25 8 of your slides. The four dollars and twenty-two



9816

1 cents ($4.22) per megawatt hour in 2012 dollars that

2 you were recommending, what assumption is that making

3 for the technology that's used to back up or firm up

4 wind power?

5 Specifically, is that linked to building

6 hydro power to firm up wind or to go with gas?

7 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: That is a number

8 based on the 25 -- 2005 study, which looked at the --

9 at Manitoba Hydro's system which is primarily hydro.

10 So that would -- that would be a number based on hydro.

11 If -- if you were talking about using

12 gas to -- to firm up wind -- well, not to firm it up,

13 but for wind integration costs, then a number on the

14 order of eight forty-five (8.45) would not have

15 surprised me. But for a system like Manitoba Hydro's,

16 where you're using wind and it -- sorry, we're using

17 hydro and existing hydro, eight forty-five (8.45) seems

18 like a very high number and four twenty-two (4.22)

19 seems like a more reasonable number.

20 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: So let me ask you a

21 follow-up question.

22 Do you know whether this number would

23 assume that no new hydro generation would have to be

24 built and that existing generation is used, or does it

25 include an assumption that some new hydro power would



9817

1 have to built to firm up wind?

2 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: I don't know that

3 because the 2005 study was considered confidential.

4 I've not been able to review it.

5 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: In terms of the

6 overall wind costs, it's fair to say that you

7 essentially agree with La Capra's recommendations, or

8 close to it?

9 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: Close to it. I --

10 I think the essential point about the wind costs is

11 that on several fronts, Manitoba Hydro's assumptions

12 have led to higher wind costs than -- than is

13 reasonable.

14 And while La Capra and I may choose

15 different specific assumptions, the point is that

16 Manitoba Hydro's number is substantially too high. And

17 if you put in more reasonable assumptions, then wind --

18 then wind -- wind is in the same ballpark as -- as new

19 hydro.

20 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Have you had an

21 opportunity to review La Capra's wind economics?

22 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: I have reviewed

23 their Appendix 3A and 'B', and I have -- I have looked

24 at their report.

25 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Do you agree with



9818

1 the wind economics, or is that something outside your

2 sphere of expertise?

3 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: We -- we have

4 slightly different takes. For example, they -- they

5 were recommending a capacity factor of 43 percent.

6 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Right.

7 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: I recommended, for

8 modelling purposes, taking the improvements in capacity

9 factors that could reasonably come from new technology,

10 specifically high -- higher towers, and for modelling

11 purposes rolling that into the capital cost.


13 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: There are minor

14 differences, but I think we come -- come out to about

15 the same place and we have the same concerns. I -- I

16 looked at a number of -- I looked at a few factors that

17 La Capra did not seem to look at, or at least they do

18 not write about. For example, I looked in detail at

19 wind integration, which is on slide 8, and I didn't see

20 anything in La Capra's report -- I may have missed it,

21 but I didn't see anything in La Capra's report about

22 wind integration.

23 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Let's have a quick

24 look at La Capra's economics. It's Exhibit 45 -- La

25 Capra Exhibit 45, slide 70.



9819

1 And I appreciated it, sir, that those

2 are the actual NPV numbers that La Capra came up with.

3 But are you able to address

4 directionally on whether or not you agree with those

5 numbers or whether, based on your points of

6 disagreement with La Capra, you would expect those

7 numbers to go up or down?

8 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: Okay. In my

9 previous que -- in -- in my answer to your previous

10 question, I was thinking more of La Capra's look at

11 wind costs with var -- varying the capital costs,

12 capacity factors, and so on. I wasn't thinking of the

13 -- the next step, which is when they took that and

14 translated into NPV -- NPV terms. Yes, I --

15 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Is there something

16 in --

17 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: -- I have looked

18 at this --


20 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: -- and while I

21 have not tried to replicate it or -- or not get into it

22 in detail, certainly directionally and in order of

23 magnitude their numbers look very reasonable. Their --

24 their approach, their analysis, and their numbers look

25 -- look very reasonable.



9820

1 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: One (1) last

2 question on the issue of wind integration, sir.

3 You're aware that over the recent past,

4 water levels in the Lake Winnipeg basin have been quite

5 high?

6 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: I actually didn't

7 know that, but -- but, yes.

8 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Would wind -- would

9 the ability of wind to allow more water to be kept in

10 the reservoir and be made available for hydroelectric

11 generation be diminished in a situation where the water

12 levels are already high?

13 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: It -- that's not a

14 question I can really ask -- or I can -- I can answer.

15 That would be the kind of question that I would highly

16 recommend be looked at. If you're going to take -- if

17 you're going -- going to -- wind -- wind, I believe,

18 should receive more serious consideration, and it's

19 exactly those kinds of questions that need to be asked

20 --

21 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: And I was going to -

22 - I was going to ask you the same question with respect

23 to drought.

24 I assume the answer would be the same?




9821

1 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Okay. Thank you,

2 sir. Those are all my questions.

3

4 (BRIEF PAUSE)

5

6 MR. RICHARD BEL: Mr. Chernick, I have

7 one (1) question before you're released. And because

8 we're going to have a DSM panel coming up, it's not

9 really -- really related to your testimony

10 tangentially. And that was the question of risk and

11 DSM. And it's really a question about an opinion.

12 We've had two (2) experts on DSM:

13 Elenchus and Dunsky. And there was a slight -- or a

14 big difference in the way they viewed DSM, depending on

15 your point of view. It's slide 51 of Dunsky.

16

17 (BRIEF PAUSE)

18

19 MR. RICHARD BEL: And I -- I guess I'm

20 asking for your commont -- your comment on this issue.

21 It -- it's Elenchus -- Elenchus saying that, in fact,

22 DSM could be risky because you can't really predict how

23 well those targets are estab -- you can't tell how well

24 you can meet the targets in the future. And then Mr.

25 Dunsky is saying that, in fact, DSM is the least risky



9822

1 option.

2 So do you have a comment on that? Are

3 you familiar with...

4 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Yes, I -- I agree

5 with Mr. Dunsky. The Elenchus discussion of DSM in

6 general, and of risk in particular, I -- I didn't think

7 really reflected much understanding of how DSM programs

8 actually work.

9 One (1) of the important things about

10 DSM is, unlike a major construction project, like a --

11 a major hydroelectric facility, you don't make the

12 decision to go ahead and then find out five (5) or ten

13 (10) years later how much it cost and when it came on.

14 You find out year by year, and often month by month,

15 how the -- the program is going and whether you need to

16 correct something.

17 And so Elec -- Elenchus's concerns about

18 risky DSM and -- and counting only part of what you

19 think you found in the -- in the potential just struck

20 me as being sort of off target. So I wouldn't put a

21 lot of weight on the Elenchus's view of -- of risk of

22 DSM.

23 DR. HUGH GRANT: Can I just ask you one

24 (1) thing?

25 Are you aware of this literature that



9823

1 says that utilities systematically overstate DSM

2 savings and understate the cost?

3 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Well, there are

4 people who say that.

5 DR. HUGH GRANT: There are people that

6 test it fairly robustly. I'm just worried -- I just

7 wanted to know how widespread that literature was and--

8 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Well, if you -- if

9 you leave a utility on its own to run the programs

10 without any real supervision, without independent

11 monitoring and evaluation.

12 There will, of course, be a tendency to

13 -- to want to look good, and to hence perhaps overstate

14 the -- the benefits. And if you are giving the utility

15 a reward, or you're going to penalize them if they

16 don't meet their targets, and you trust them to self-

17 report whether they met their targets, they'll meet

18 their targets.

19 So you need to discount to some extent

20 the claimed savings by some of the utilities in the mid

21 to low part of the -- the pack, in -- in term -- across

22 jurisdictions, some of whose regulators really don't

23 pay much attention to -- to whether they're really

24 producing what they say they are. In the high

25 performing areas -- well, any of the New England



9824

1 states, for example, the monitoring and evaluation

2 programs are -- are quite -- quite rigorous, and I

3 don't believe that the utilities are -- have much room

4 to-- to pad their -- their reported values.

5 DR. HUGH GRANT: Just one (1) other

6 thing. This concept of selection bias, is that

7 commonly discussed, and does -- do people try to

8 discount -- so the -- I guess the way I understand it

9 is that you put in a DSM program to replace your

10 refrigerator.

11 I was going to replace mine a year --

12 you know, a year from now anyway, so I decide I might

13 as well take advantage of this opportunity. So that

14 the actual DSM savings are smaller than -- right, so

15 it's not like there's a -- the utility can go back and

16 say, Oh look, we got rid of an efficient refrigerator

17 for twenty (20), thirty (30) years. It was really only

18 one (1) year of savings in that respect.

19 Does that -- you know, in -- if it's

20 Dunsky or other people and they're throwing figures

21 around, what kind of number are they using? I guess

22 that's what I'm wondering, if there's selection bias

23 arguments.

24 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Well, again if

25 there is adequate monitoring and evaluation for the



9825

1 refrigerators, for example, then one (1) of the things

2 that would be studied would be, How long do people keep

3 refrigerators in at -- the absence of programs? And

4 it's not that hard to -- to do that kind of study.

5 One (1) of the things that you can do is

6 when -- for example, when my house was last audited by

7 the -- the firm working for -- for our electric and gas

8 utilities, they checked out the -- the refrigerator

9 model, and looked up its efficiency and could tell us

10 what size rebate we were -- we were eligible for. As

11 they're doing those audits, they get a lot of data on

12 how many refrigerators are left in 2012 of 1984

13 vintage, for example. And so they have -- and in 1980

14 vintage, and 1976 vintage, and so on, so that they can

15 -- they can work out how -- how fast refrigerators seem

16 to turn over naturally.

17 DR. HUGH GRANT: But do they actually

18 do that in program monitoring?

19 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Yes, I've --

20 DR. HUGH GRANT: Do you think --

21 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: -- I've seen -- I

22 mean, I haven't tended to read the studies in -- in

23 gruesome detail about how they gathered all the data

24 and so on, but there are -- independent evaluators are

25 often brought in to look at -- at data from before the



9826

1 -- the program, from other jurisdictions that don't

2 have such rigours programs, other kind of controls to

3 try and figure out really what the remaining life is.

4 And also to look at whether you're selectively

5 replacing the refrigerators that have already begun to

6 whine and knock and bang.

7 Now, I know that my refrigerator was

8 working just fine. The food was cold. It was quiet.

9 It was a wonderful machine. But it was wasting some

10 hundreds of kilowatt hours a year, and we were offered

11 a three hundred dollar ($300) rebate to -- to buy an

12 energy efficient refrigerator, and basically send them

13 the severed cord of -- from the old one. And -- and we

14 did that.

15 And it was already a pretty old

16 refrigerator. I don't know whether it had five (5)

17 years or ten (10) years left statistically but, you

18 know, it's sort of like working out life insurance

19 premiums and guessing how much longer you're going to

20 live. There's a -- a lot of statistical background

21 that goes into taking the data that's available and

22 projecting out what the -- what the remaining life is.

23 And it's not that those are perfect, but

24 the important thing is that somebody uses the available

25 data to come up with the best estimate. And -- and



9827

1 that it's not the utility and you're not just trusting

2 them to tell you what a wonderful job they're doing.

3 And I'm not a -- an expert specifically

4 in evaluation, but I do see a fair amount of -- of the

5 -- at least the titles of the evaluation reports that

6 go back and forth, and good programs involve a lot of

7 evaluation.

8 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: Can I just add

9 something even though this is not technically within my

10 area of expertise. I have done some work on DSM

11 programs, a tiny fraction of Mr. Chernick has. That

12 has include -- included looking at program savings and

13 estimating program savings, only -- only a few such

14 studies. And we specifically put into our calculations

15 an adjustment factor for what would have happened

16 anyway without the program. That was normal practice.

17 DR. HUGH GRANT: I'm just reading

18 academic literature that did a pretty robust

19 econometric study of US data for three hundred and

20 forty (340) utilities using panel data with eleven (11)

21 years included in it, and finds that the utilities

22 reporting average costs of DSM at two (2) to three (3)

23 cents. And when they control for every other factor

24 they're getting an average cost between six (6) and

25 twelve (12) cents, so.



9828

1 But it's -- one (1) thing is the -- the

2 data's probably about -- you know, it's stretching over

3 a period that's -- it was five (5) years old at the

4 time of the study. So there may have been improvements

5 in the form of the monitoring, but it would be -- it's

6 interesting.

7 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Well, the other

8 thing is, I don't think that that's -- I -- I believe

9 I've seen that study and that basically it was trying

10 to look just at the reported sales of a -- of each

11 utility and their reported energy efficiency savings,

12 and somehow tried to -- to project what their sales

13 would have been if they had been just like all the

14 other utilities in the country. And I think that was a

15 very ambitious econometric exercise, and one (1) that

16 probably didn't work very well.

17 DR. HUGH GRANT: Different study.

18 That's not what they did.

19 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Okay.

20 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: I'm not sure if

21 Manitoba Hydro has any questions arising out of the

22 examination?

23

24 RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. PATTI RAMAGE:

25 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: For Mr. Stevens.



9829

1 Now, Mr. Hombach got you to say that you agreed with La

2 Capra's wind costs.

3 Do you recall that? Their assessment of

4 wind costs?

5 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: We're talking --

6 there's -- okay. There are two (2) things in La

7 Capra's report. One (1) is a levelized cost of energy

8 calculation, a -- a questioning of when specific costs,

9 and there's also a revision to the NPV calculation.

10 Which one are you referring to?

11 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: I was looking at the

12 average cost of the project. Your report says nineteen

13 hundred and forty dollars ($1,940) per kilowatt?

14 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: Yes. As I said, I

15 think directionally La Capra and Power Advisory agree

16 that the appropriate costs are lower than Manitoba

17 Hydro's. We -- we have different opin -- somewhat

18 different opinions about the exact number that should

19 be used.

20 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: I -- I just want to

21 clarify that because La Capra is two hundred dollars

22 ($200) -- roughly two hundred dollars ($200) a kilowatt

23 less than yours.

24 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: Yes. That's -- I

25 believe their number came from the same study that I



9830

1 used, the 2012 Department of Energy Study. They used,

2 as I -- as I used in our report, they used a Midwest

3 number. I've decided to back off from that a bit. I

4 just didn't feel absolutely sure that that was the

5 right number to use.

6 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: I'm going to correct

7 you there. I -- I believe they used what was called

8 the Interior number, and that would include states like

9 Texas and Mex -- and New Mexico.

10 Do you recall that?

11 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: You are right. I

12 believe that they called it -- I -- I've been call --

13 I've been saying -- using the word 'midwest'. And yes,

14 I believe it is Interior and it stretches -- stretches

15 all the way down to Texas.

16 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Right. And your

17 number uses the average of the states, which includes

18 the west, California --


20 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: -- the southeast,

21 Florida, the Carolinas, the northeast, New York, Main,

22 the Great Lakes?


24 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: So it includes all

25 of those?



9831


2 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: And each one of

3 those regions would have differences -- would be

4 distinct from Manitoba, correct? Each area has their

5 own distinct attributes and --


7 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: And in particular,

8 in some of the areas that you've mentioned the wind

9 resource is concentrated on mountains and ridges,

10 places that are much more expensive to -- to work on

11 and around than the plains of North Dakota, or the

12 Texas Panhandle, or -- or Manitoba.

13 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: And I'd like to

14 add that. What I would love to see or have seen is a

15 reasonable cost -- a reasonable estimate for a North

16 America wide cost, and then an adjustment factor for --

17 for Manitoba; why -- how is Manitoba different from the

18 North America as a whole. That would have been a very

19 reasonable approach.

20 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: So if I understand

21 you correctly, your preferred approach would be one

22 that's taken the North America-wide costs and adjusted

23 for Manitoba, something that was specifically done?

24 MR. WESLEY STEVENS: Yes. Starting out

25 with a reasonable number for the North America-wide



9832

1 cost.

2 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Okay. Thank you.

3 We have another request. And this is just like the

4 video. I've never done this before, but -- and I don't

5 know if it's possible. But we were very interested in

6 the study that Dr. Grant was referring to, and I'm not

7 sure if he's able to provide us; that's not one we're

8 familiar with.

9 We'd like to -- Dr. Grant to consider an

10 undertaking to let us know what that study is.

11 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: I admire your

12 procedural creativity, Ms. Ramage. And I'm certain

13 that is something that -- the name of the study is

14 something that can be provided.

15 DR. HUGH GRANT: Yeah, just in my

16 literature review right now is the sum of two (2)

17 papers, so -- but certainly I will. Hard copy.

18 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Thank you.

19 THE CHAIRPERSON: I want to go back to

20 the risk issue. This is back -- I wonder if Diana

21 could bring up slide 51.

22 I'm a bit concerned about this one

23 because it's one thing to be right about the cost of

24 DSM, or wrong about the cost of DSM, relative to an

25 alternative, but what we're doing here is we're, in



9833

1 theory, supplanting regular generation for DSM.

2 Now, if you're wrong about the ability

3 to achieve expected DSM savings, you haven't got

4 generation. In other words, if you're saying on a

5 portfolio level we're going to supplant generation by

6 using DSM, so if you're right, then it turns out to be

7 a good decision, but if you're wrong, you didn't

8 achieve the savings you expected, you don't have

9 generation. You have no alternative. You know, there

10 isn't -- there isn't something you can look to to

11 supplant the expected DSM savings.

12 So it seems to me that that's a far more

13 significant risk than just a cost issue.

14

15 (BRIEF PAUSE)

16

17 THE CHAIRPERSON: And correct me if I'm

18 wrong. I mean, because we are talking at the -- you

19 know, we're kind of mixing decisions at the individual

20 program level with portfolio decisions. And so being

21 wrong at the portfolio level is one (1) thing. Being

22 wrong at the generation level is quite another thing.

23 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: Well, the point I

24 was making was, even if you thought that the DSM had

25 some significant probability of not working for some



9834

1 reason, you would find that out within the next year or

2 two (2). So that might mean that if -- if you decided

3 that DSM was sufficient to meet requirements and that

4 Keeyask was not needed and not cost effective for

5 exports, and then two (2) years later you found that

6 for some reason these models of energy efficiency

7 programs that have worked in other places can't be

8 scaled up to work in Manitoba, and you're getting much

9 lower savings, then you can go back to the generation

10 alternative. And that may delay the beginning of the

11 sale by a year or so.

12 Remember, you're going to get something

13 out of the DSM. It's not like every measure is going

14 to fail, every program is going to fail.

15 But let's suppose that you get 80

16 percent of what you expected. That's going to mean

17 that after five (5) years you're one (1) year behind

18 schedule on the energy efficiency. And if that's

19 enough to make the difference about -- in sufficiency,

20 then in the process you can decide to develop a wind

21 farm to give you a little bit more energy; you can sign

22 a purchase contract with somebody in MISO to give you

23 energy and perhaps sell them back capacity; you can

24 start Keeyask, if that's what you've deferred.

25 So DSM is not this kind of all or



9835

1 nothing prospect that you have with a major power plant

2 where you hope to be done in five (5) years but maybe

3 it's seven (7) years, and you hope that it's going to

4 cost 5 billion but it cost 7 billion. Or -- it's

5 something that you can monitor year-by-year and decide

6 whether conditions have changed and you need to do

7 something different. And you'll -- you may have some -

8 - some little gaps that you need to fill in, but it's -

9 - it's not a disaster.

10 It's not like you're going to wake up in

11 December of -- of 2019 and realize, Oh, my goodness,

12 all that energy efficiency we thought we were going to

13 get since 19 -- since 2014 hasn't materialized, and

14 we're several percentage short on our energy supply.

15 It's something that develops gradually and you can

16 adapt to over time.

17

18 (BRIEF PAUSE)

19

20 MR. RICHARD BEL: Promise, last

21 question. Those states -- there was a report

22 introduced by Hydro yesterday -- I don't think we need

23 it. Anyways, those states that have mandated

24 incremental DSM programs, the report seems to suggest -

25 - or suggests that they meet their targets very close



9836

1 to their targets in most cases.

2 Is that your experience if you separate

3 out utilities that have mandated programs, as opposed

4 to ones that aren't mandated? Mandated and monitored,

5 let's say.

6 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: M-hm. I think

7 there have been -- been some situations where utilities

8 have far exceeded the -- their targets. Often what

9 happens is that there's a -- an interplay -- a

10 collaboration of some sort between maybe the regulators

11 or the equivalent of the -- of the energy ministry,

12 environmentalists, consumer representatives, who look

13 at the options and bring in the consultants to design a

14 program and say, Yes, we think that you can get a

15 hundred gigawatt hours of savings over this time

16 period, and that becomes the target because they've put

17 together the programs and they can see how they could

18 do it.

19 And then the utility actually has to go

20 out and hire the right contractors, and write good

21 educational materials for the -- for the trade allies,

22 and twist the right arms to get the -- more efficient

23 equipment into the stores, and so on, but it's

24 something that they've already seen a path to do. And

25 if they're being pushed hard, they're not going to be



9837

1 able to beat that by a whole lot. And if they're

2 watching out for their shareholders, they're not going

3 to agree to targets that are much more than they can --

4 they can achieve. So it wouldn't surprise me that for

5 -- in many states, in particular, the -- the targets

6 and the -- and the achieved values tend to be pretty

7 close, because it's based on a -- a fairly detailed

8 projection of what they can get.

9 There are other states that basically

10 say, Give us .75 percent savings or else we'll get

11 annoyed with you. And the utility says, Well, we don't

12 want our regulator annoyed with us, so let's -- let's

13 beat that by a little bit so we look good, but we did -

14 - we really aren't committed to doing this and that's

15 all we're going to do. So you have that kind of

16 situation as well.

17 MR. RICHARD BEL: And you've seen that

18 -- you've seen the -- the Dunsky diagram with the

19 Manitoba Hydro DSM curve? It rises up to 3 percent and

20 then it falls off in 2018, and then he counterposes his

21 on, the incremental 1.5 percent -- or 1.3 percent a

22 year. So the -- that's a troubling diagram, because

23 it's -- it looks like two (2) different views of what

24 DSM is.

25 So that pattern -- the Hydro pattern,



9838

1 and I'm assuming it's achievable. I'm just saying, is

2 that a -- a typical pattern of DSM implementation

3 or...?

4 MR. PAUL CHERNICK: No. I -- it's --

5 it's very unusual. And I -- I can't really think of

6 another example that -- that's quite so vivid in terms

7 of a utility saying over and over again, We can do a

8 lot in the next few years, but then there's nothing

9 after that.

10 And it -- it looks like the Utility is -

11 - is willing and interested in doing some energy

12 efficiency in the near term, but is reluctant to

13 interfere with long-term construction plans by

14 committing to a long-term energy efficiency program, so

15 the numbers always go down.

16 And there's never a real explanation of

17 why the numbers go down, and there are always these

18 illusions to -- to rate effects, or, Oh, you've run out

19 of opportunities, but there's never any data, any real

20 analysis to back that up in -- that I've seen anyway.

21 MR. RICHARD BEL: Okay. I'm -- I'm

22 out. Thank you. Thank you.

23 THE CHAIRPERSON: I think that

24 completes the questioning from the -- from the panel.

25 So I think that we'll probably allow the witnesses to



9839

1 stand down, so we can have the Manitoba Hydro panel

2 move over. Before you -- before we -- before the

3 departure of the -- of the witness, I'd like to thank

4 you, Mr. Chernick and Mr. Stevens, as well, for your

5 contribution to the proceedings of this panel and --

6 and the work you're likely to do in the future.

7 So thank you very much and have a safe

8 trip home, both of you. Thank you.

9

10 (PANEL STANDS DOWN)

11

12 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Before we disband

13 for the day I was hoping to briefly address an

14 administrative matter. I've had an opportunity to

15 speak to Mr. Orle during the break who has advised that

16 tomorrow there will not be any MKO presenters here.

17 MKO presenters will be fielded in Thompson on the 14th

18 during the presentations day in Thompson, which means

19 we can start with Mr. Bowman immediately in the morning

20 tomorrow.

21 That likely will mean that Saturday

22 morning will not be necessary for that panel to sit.

23 That is to be seen. There will also be a presenter at

24 8:45 in the morning.

25 THE CHAIRPERSON: One (1) presenter or



9840

1 two (2), Mr. --

2 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: There's a presenter

3 at 8:45 and another one at lunch tomorrow. And I see

4 Mr. Hacault is in the back wanting to address Mr.

5 Bowman, no doubt.

6 MR. ANTOINE HACAULT: Thank you very

7 much. Mr. Bowman will be ready to present at nine

8 o'clock. The point I wanted to address immediately is

9 we had, in anticipation of his presentation, made a

10 pre-ask of Manitoba Hydro with respect to the plans and

11 pathways. And we're hoping that Manitoba Hydro can

12 address that issue before tomorrow morning, so that --

13 that we can have that information before we start our

14 presentation.

15 So, just to let you know, it was made

16 last week and I think they're -- they may be able to do

17 that, but I wanted to advise all present that we had

18 made that pre-ask.

19 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Perhaps Mr. Hacault

20 can clarify because I believe Manitoba Hydro emailed

21 that information. Are you just simply saying you want

22 -- it was emailed this afternoon. They're -- are you

23 suggesting you want paper copies distributed by

24 Manitoba Hydro?

25 MR. ANTOINE HACAULT: Well, we can



9841

1 distribute them, but it would be useful if there would

2 be a short explanation with respect to the results of

3 that pre-ask.

4 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: I'm sure we can

5 accommodate that. We're just moving faster than I can

6 keep up right now of throwing information and trying to

7 satisfy people, so.

8 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Ms. Ramage, why

9 don't the lawyers talk to you in the break, and then we

10 can regroup in a few minutes.

11 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: I think it's fairly

12 straightforward. Mr. Wojczynski can go on the mic

13 first thing in the morning to -- to file that as an

14 exhibit.

15 THE CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if Mr.

16 Hacault heard that. Did you hear that? Did you want

17 to know...

18

19 (BRIEF PAUSE)

20

21 THE CHAIRPERSON: Is it possible for

22 Mr. Wojczynski to address it right now?

23 MS. PATTI RAMAGE: Yeah, it's just a

24 matter of copies. I -- I didn't realize Mr. Hacault

25 needed it for before we could get started.



9842

1 THE CHAIRPERSON: Why don't we take a

2 break and -- and then we can have copies made -- so

3 take ten (10) minutes.

4



7

8 THE CHAIRPERSON: I believe that

9 everyone's in position, so we will resume the

10 proceedings. I'd like to thank the -- the members of

11 the Hydro DSM panel for coming back, and we had some

12 questions that we wanted to -- to have addressed.

13 And so I'll turn the microphone over to

14 -- to you, Mr. Hombach, or is it Mr. Williams?

15

16 MANITOBA HYDRO PANEL 3, RESUMED:

17 DALE FRIESEN, Previously Affirmed

18 LLOYD KUCZEK, Previously Sworn

19 LOIS MORRISON, Previously Sworn

20 ED WOJCZYNSKI, Previously Sworn

21

22 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: I just have a

23 humble request, and I'm not sure it's often that My

24 Learned Friend, Ms. Ramage, and I think the same way,

25 but we're certainly appreciative of getting the link to



9843

1 the -- the article Board member Grant was referring to.

2 I know in past proceedings the Public

3 Utilit -- like, the payday lending proceeding, for

4 example, the Public Utilities Board shared a -- had a

5 list of res -- research that it -- that it had been

6 gathered independently by its staff and that it -- it

7 had referred to -- or that it was reading.

8 And -- and I simply make a suggestion,

9 if the Board was so inclined, it would be -- it would

10 be helpful to parties if there is a -- a list of -- of

11 kind of documents -- and I leave that for your

12 deliberations, but we found it helpful to see what else

13 the Board was referring to.

14 THE CHAIRPERSON: I think that's a fair

15 request, and we'll certainly consider it.

16 And, Mr. Hombach, please.

17 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Thank you, Mr.

18 Chairman, and good afternoon to the members of Manitoba

19 Hydro's load forecasting and DSM panel. I bet you

20 thought you were done. I do apologize that you're not.

21 A lot of new evidence was filed since

22 you were examined by all of the parties at the end of

23 March, and the panel, in listening to the recent

24 evidence and in reviewing the new evidence that has

25 filed by Manitoba Hydro, had a number of follow-up



9844

1 questions.

2 Procedurally, the -- the panel is in

3 position to request that Manitoba Hydro panel would be

4 called back. I've spoken to Ms. Boyd, and it appears

5 you're still sworn as witnesses, so you won't have to

6 re-swear an oath.

7 The panel has decided that questions

8 will be asked primarily though Board counsel and then

9 certainly afterwards if Intervenors have any follow-up

10 questions, they'll will be given an opportunity to

11 address them.

12 Before we get started, I do understand

13 that Manitoba Hydro would like to speak to the pre-ask

14 of MIPUG?

15 MS. MARLA BOYD: Thank you for picking

16 up my little cue. I do have a number of things that

17 have been circulated to be filed. So the -- there's

18 only the last one that the Mr. Wojczynski will speak to

19 very briefly, but just to keep the record up-to-date,

20 you're aware our -- our staff has been working very

21 hard to try and put together the information that we

22 were looking for in your list of information. So

23 there's a series of exhibits that I'd like to

24 introduce. They are the product of long nights and

25 short weekends. And Mr. Miles tells me he doesn't cry,



9845

1 but I would have said, Blood, sweat, and tears.

2 So I suspect I'll be telling you

3 something very similar again tomorrow when we plan to

4 file some financial analysis. But what I have here is

5 the economic analysis. The first one is Manitoba Hydro

6 Exhibit 104-3-2, which is the supply and demand tables

7 for Plan 4. That's Keeyask19/Gas40/250 megawatt line

8 hypothetical with DSM Level 2.

9

10 --- EXHIBIT NO. MH-104-3-2:

11 Supply and demand tables

12 for Plan 4

13

14 MS. MARLA BOYD: The second one is

15 Manitoba Hydro Exhibit 104-3-3, the supply and demand

16 tables for Plan 12, DSM analysis K19 --

17 Keeyask19/Conawapa40/750 megawatt line and DSM Level 2.

18

19 --- EXHIBIT NO. MH-104-3-3:

20 Supply and demand table for

21 Plan 12

22

23 MS. MARLA BOYD: The third one is

24 Manitoba Hydro Exhibit 104-4-3. This is the economic

25 summary tables for Plan 4 and at the 5.4 and 4.65



9846

1 percent discount rates.

2

3 --- EXHIBIT NO. MH-104-4-3:

4 Economic summary tables for

5 Plan 4 at the 5.4 and 4.65

6 percent discount rates

7

8 MS. MARLA BOYD: Next is Manitoba Hydro

9 Exhibit 104-4-4. That is the economic summary tables

10 for Plan 12, again using the 5.4 and the 4.65 percent

11 discount rates.

12

13 --- EXHIBIT NO. MH-104-4-4:

14 Economic summary tables for

15 Plan 12 at the 5.4 and 4.65

16 percent discount rates

17


19 Exhibit 104-15, revision 3. This is an update to our

20 Exhibit 104-15, page 2, for Plan 12.

21

22 --- EXHIBIT NO. MH-104-15-REVISION-3:

23 Update for Plan 12

24




9847

1 Exhibit 104-16, revision 3, again, an update to our

2 Exhibit 104-16, page 2, for Plan 12.

3

4 --- EXHIBIT NO. MH-104-16-REVISION-3:


6

7 MS. MARLA BOYD: Finally, we have

8 revision 4 for Manitoba Hydro Exhibit number 171. This

9 is an update to page 2 of Manitoba Hydro's Exhibit 171,

10 again, for Plan 12, showing Level 2 DSM added to the

11 chart.

12

13 --- EXHIBIT NO. MH-171-REVISION-4:


15

16 MS. MARLA BOYD: And finally, is the

17 diagram that is an update to Figure 14.2 from Manitoba

18 Hydro's filing. I tell Mr. Wojczynski that this is my

19 picture of how engineers think. I'd propose that it be

20 marked as Manitoba Hydro Exhibit number 192.

21

22 --- EXHIBIT NO. MH-192: Update to Figure 14.2

23

24 MS. MARLA BOYD: It was requested by

25 MIPUG. And I understand they're looking for a larger



9848

1 version of this to be discussed tomorrow, so we will

2 have larger versions of it produced tomorrow on a

3 storyboard for the room. But in the meantime, if Mr.

4 Wojczynski can perhaps walk you through how engineers

5 think, it will help people understand the -- the

6 diagram that's there. And I understand it will be used

7 tomorrow.

8 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: Our wonderful court

9 reporter doesn't think I can do this in two (2)

10 minutes. Has someone got a stopwatch? This was the

11 pre-ask from MIPUG. They ask that Figure 14.2, which

12 showed all five (5) pathways, that, recognizing how

13 things have evolved, they ask that we, if possible,

14 update it, and also provide these storyboards that will

15 facilitate Mr. Moore's presentation, direct evidence

16 tomorrow.

17 What we have done here is -- first of

18 all, it's based on Exhibit 104-1 loosely in terms of

19 the capacity energy tables and the like, assuming DSM

20 Level 2 in the pipeline load, 2013 load forecast. And

21 recognizing the reality of where we are today, what we

22 have done is combined pathways 1 and 2, recognizing

23 that one (1) of the decisions possibilities or paths to

24 go down is in the -- is at this point in time not to

25 decide to advance Keeyask or to commit anything to



9849

1 construction or any -- and to drop the export sales

2 that we have signed, the -- the 250 MP and the 308 WPS,

3 by not committing these and not proceeding with the

4 projects.

5 Effectively, we lose all those options.

6 And then down the road, we would have to make decisions

7 on what would be needed for domestic load. Based on

8 the particulars assumed in these capacity energy

9 tables, we would need something in 2024. And that

10 means in 2019, you would have to -- Manitoba Hydro

11 would have to commit construction of Keeyask, which

12 would mean backing things up; that roughly three (3)

13 years from now we'd have to restart the NFAT process

14 all over again for that.

15 There -- a choice that could be made in

16 2019 is we would commit Keeyask for that 2024 in-

17 service date, or we could decide not to commit Keeyask

18 and instead go with gas generation. And we recognize

19 all kinds of other things will happen in that time:

20 DSM, continued negotiation of export sales, load

21 growth.

22 And the little blue sort of caterpillar

23 that's at the bottom there is meant to reflect that

24 every year we were doing our review of our load

25 forecast, the latest DSM information, latest export



9850

1 contracts, all those things, what this is depicting is

2 the assumption that the load forecast doesn't change,

3 the DSM level doesn't change, we don't get any new

4 export contracts, et cetera.

5 It's a simplification of reality,

6 because otherwise you have a thousand lines here. So

7 this is assuming that we go ahead as per what is in

8 Exhib -- Exhibit 104-1. Then in '24 you could build

9 the gas turbine and then you'd have to make choices

10 around then: Do we later on put in Conawapa as well,

11 do we later on put in Keeyask, or do we not protect

12 those options and commit those options and go with gas

13 or something else for the later date?

14 So that -- those are pathways -- Pathway

15 1 and 2 which evolve into Pathway 1 or Pathway 2, as we

16 described before. And these include Plans 7 and 8.

17 They include Plan 1. They also include the Gas/Keeyask

18 Plan that we have talked about in the hearing process

19 and is in the IR process, LCA/Manitoba Hydro I-336.

20 Then we drop in the bottom here to

21 Pathway 4 and 5, which at the front end has -- has now

22 combined into one (1) pathway, because fundamentally,

23 the choice is, do we adv -- if that pathway occurs --

24 if -- if a choice is made to advance Keeyask to 2019

25 and proceed with the 750 interconnection line. We



9851

1 already have the MP sale signed. We have the WPS sale

2 signed. And effectively, it will -- by the time the

3 decisions are made, December, all those sales will --

4 not only would they have been signed, but all the

5 approvals will be in place.

6 And what they are waiting for is the

7 conditions precedent as to whether or not the

8 generation gets built or not, because those are the

9 conditions precedent, and the interconnection line.

10 Assuming that we -- that this -- these choices are

11 made, then the -- the 750 line is expected to receive

12 approval by 2017, both in Canada and the United States.

13 Then Keeyask comes into service in 2019, the tie-line a

14 year later.

15 You see below that again we have that

16 blue caterpillar. And that is every year we would

17 review again all those same issues of DSM and load and

18 everything else, whether the Great River Energy,

19 SaskPower, NSP, or some other contracts we're

20 negotiating, whether they come to fruition, what are

21 the capital costs, what happens -- and all of those

22 things would be reviewed.

23 And in this situation here what we're

24 looking at now in 2022, we would have to make by then a

25 decision if we want to get Conawapa in time for meeting



9852

1 the WPS sale requirements. So -- and if you just stay

2 on that line you carry on, Conawapa comes in, in 2030

3 and just in time to meet the WPS sale contract

4 requirements.

5 In this one, the assumption is that in

6 all those reviews earlier, in the blue caterpillar,

7 there were no new export contracts and nothing that

8 would cause Conawapa to come earlier. But this assumes

9 we would have been protecting Conawapa for an earlier

10 in-service date, but that nothing new gets negotiated

11 successfully, and that's sufficiently attractive for

12 proceeding and that we stick with just the -- the

13 Preferred Plan, Plan 14, and we end up having Conawapa

14 2030 in that case.

15 In that 2022 time frame, we have a

16 choice not to commit Conawapa. Remember, if you commit

17 Conawapa, the WPS sale then goes ahead, because that

18 was the pre-condition. If we do not commit Conawapa

19 then or earlier and we follow the end, which is the

20 'no' out of that green decision, that -- then you get

21 that purple thing that says, "Renegotiate WPS sale."

22 At that point, as Mr. Cormie, and

23 myself, and Ms. Flynn has discussed, we would be in a

24 position to discuss with any of the WPS whether we

25 mutually agree to carry on with having gas generation



9853

1 or whatever, meet the requirements of the energy and

2 capacity that would be required for that sale.

3 And in that case you'd have a -- if we -

4 - if it was successful on our side or their side, you

5 get the 'Y', the 'yes', and we have the Keeyask/Gas

6 Plan, which is Plan 5. Or if due to Manitoba Hydro not

7 wanting to or WPS not wanting to, then you go with the

8 'N' on the top and you end up in Plan 6 or Plan 12,

9 where you have Keeyask and -- and Gas eventually, but

10 not on -- not on the time frame of this chart. And

11 that's Plan 6 or Plan 12. That is our sort of

12 depiction of the decisions we have and the flexibility

13 in the future to change as we go along.

14 Obviously, there's a whole bunch of

15 other in-service date possibilities. There's also a

16 few started. Conawapa and a year later you wanted to

17 cancel it or something, you could always do those

18 things. But we're not trying to get into the thousand

19 and one (1,001) possibilities there actually could be.

20 We just -- these are just a general indication. Thank

21 you.

22 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, just -- just a

23 question here in respect of looking at the very first

24 pathway, Keeyask 2024.

25 That date was selected based on pipeline



9854

1 load?

2 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: Yes, as per the --

3 some of the -- the analysis we've provided in -- in

4 Exhibit 104. The assumption here with the 2013 load

5 forecast, DSM Level 2, and the pipeline load.

6 Recognizing that the load forecast could be higher or

7 lower, DSM could be higher or lower, pipeline load

8 could be higher or lower; I mean, there's all those

9 possibilities.

10 But we have the capacity energy tables

11 in Exhibit 104 for this one (1). We've provided

12 economic analysis of some of this. So that's why we --

13 we chose to use that out of the many possibilities.

14

15 (BRIEF PAUSE)

16

17 CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SVEN HOMBACH:

18 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Ms. Ramage earlier

19 made reference to the Energy Savings Act. And if I

20 could ask Ms. Villegas to put Section 7 of that statute

21 up on the screen for a moment. Since this panel has

22 last been examined, Manitoba Hydro has filed its two

23 (2) Power Smart plans. It's filed the three (3) year

24 plan as Exhibit 153, and the fifteen (15) year

25 supplement as Exhibit 180.



9855

1 Were both of these prepared in

2 consultation with the minister under the Energy Savings

3 Act?

4 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: Well, the thr -- the

5 -- the overall plan was prepared in consultation. We -

6 - we decided -- the first year we did it we presented

7 the fifteen (15) year plan and it was -- as a draft.

8 And it was decided that their preference was to have a

9 three (3) year plan. So that -- that's how that one

10 (1) evolved.

11 And then after we concluded what would

12 be in the three (3) year plan, we suppl -- or --

13 consequently later we developed the fifteen (15) year

14 plan, but it was more of a formal -- it was more of a

15 formal process just to document what was in the fifteen

16 (15) year plan previously with some adjustments. So --

17 and it was done later on.

18 This year we -- we consulted with them

19 again to -- to see if they wanted a three (3) year plan

20 and a fifteen (15) year plan as well. And it was

21 concluded that we would proceed with the three (3) year

22 plan, and so we developed that. And then subsequent to

23 that we developed the fifteen (15) year plan.

24 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: So just to clarify,

25 the province asked you to develop a three (3) year



9856

1 plan. Manitoba Hydro then developed a supplementary

2 fifteen (15) year plan?

3 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: Well, the issue was

4 what -- what period of time they wanted to focus on.

5 And their preference was to focus on the three (3) year

6 plan. And so that -- that was the -- the conclusion of

7 our consultations to develop a plan in accordance with

8 the Act. And -- and the fifteen (15) year plan we

9 developed then and -- and provided it to government as

10 well, because we needed it for integrated resource

11 planning purposes.

12 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Has Manitoba Hydro

13 ever considered going with a longer range plan, such as

14 some other jurisdictions are doing? For example, the

15 Ontario Long-term Energy Plan?

16 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: We've had some brief

17 discussions, but generally we've had a -- I believe we

18 had a twelve (12) year plan at one (1) time. We

19 extended it to fifteen (15) years. It wasn't always

20 fifteen (15) years. It was a ten (10) year plan, and -

21 - and then we extended it to fifteen (15). And we've

22 had some discussions, but we've -- we've concluded to -

23 - it's best to stay with the fifteen (15) year for --

24 at this point.

25 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: You're no doubt



9857

1 familiar with the slide from Mr. Dunsky's presentation

2 that shows Manitoba Hydro's incremental DSM savings

3 going up quite rapidly and then going down.

4 Is that an intended effect of the plan,

5 or is that simply a side effect of the measures that

6 you focussed on?

7 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: Mr. Dunksy's

8 diagrams were based on the information that he had

9 available, and what -- what we -- I have here, and we'd

10 like to provide you with, is a -- a graph that depicts

11 what's actually in our 2014 Plan. So the information

12 that Mr. Dunsky had -- was -- it was based on the Level

13 2 DSM numbers that were provided, but that wasn't our -

14 - what ended up being within our approved plan. So the

15 peak that you'll see in Mr. Dunsky's diagram will not

16 be as peaky, for example.

17 If you -- if you had the information in

18 the 2000 -- the approved plan, it would show that. The

19 other thing that it would show is is that in the longer

20 term period, it's -- doesn't drop off as much.

21 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Did you say you have

22 a chart available at this point? Could it be put on

23 the screen?

24

25 (BRIEF PAUSE)



9858

1 THE CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry, Mr.

2 Kuczek, the -- the data that Mr. Dunsky used for his

3 graph was...? What time frame are we -- prior to the

4 Plan? The...

5 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: We -- we can't

6 duplicate exactly what Mr. Dunsky developed, but we

7 assumed that he used the -- the data that he had

8 available from the Level 2 DSM, and then he added the

9 codes and standards from our 2013 plan. So the codes -

10 - energy savings that -- that are going to be achieved

11 through Codes and Standards got adjusted considerably

12 in our 2014 plan so that it -- that explains the

13 difference in the longer term.

14 MS. MARLA BOYD: Sorry to --

15 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: We --

16 MS. MARLA BOYD: -- sorry to interrupt.

17 I'm just wondering if we should mark that as an exhibit

18 before I forget. It would be Manitoba Hydro 180 -- 183

19 -- 193. Thank you.

20

21 --- EXHIBIT NO. MH-193: Manitoba Hydro's chart

22


24 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Thank you, Ms. Boyd.

25 So if I'm reading this chart correct, then Hydro



9859

1 projects that after 2022, there's going to be annual

2 incremental savings in the approximately 1 percent

3 range to 2028?

4 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: Correct.


6 given any thought as to what's going to happen beyond

7 that date, whether that's going to be extended at a

8 similar level?

9 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: The component from

10 the Codes and Standards should extend beyond that, and

11 it depends on which of the -- which Codes and Standards

12 that we're referring to. I'm -- I'll just give you an

13 example which will help explain things.

14 So -- so when we work towards modifying

15 the Codes and Standards of new construction in the --

16 in the commercial sector, for example, and once you've

17 got that in place, what happens as you go forward into

18 the future is every new building that gets built, you -

19 - you capture the -- those incremental energy savings

20 that result from that code going into the future, so

21 every year you will capture that. So that's why you

22 see the flatlining into the future a significant...

23

24 (BRIEF PAUSE)

25



9860

1 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: So a significant

2 component of the savings at the back end is related to

3 Codes and Standards.

4 MR. RICHARD BEL: Could I ask -- can I

5 just jump in, because it's about --

6 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Absolutely.

7 MR. RICHARD BEL: -- it's about the

8 forecast. So when I was looking at this again last

9 night, a question that jumped up at me was when you

10 integrated the DSM Level 2 into all the net present

11 value economic analysis plans, am I correct in assuming

12 that after 2023, in that analysis, DSM drops to point

13 five (.5) forever? So is it this one (1) hit in the

14 DSM Level 2 economic adjustments, or -- or is it

15 continuing along at 1 percent? I'm just curious.

16

17 (BRIEF PAUSE)

18

19 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: You -- that's the

20 graph that Mr. Dunsky developed that showed the point

21 five (.5), I believe. So we couldn't recreate that --

22 that graph that Mr. Dunsky provided, but again, you

23 know, in fairness, I mean, Mr. Dunsky didn't have -- we

24 just filed our 2014 Plan, I believe, the day before.

25 MR. RICHARD BEL: Yeah, I was clear on



9861

1 that. I was asking about when -- we're seeing the

2 plans were updated in the economic analysis for DSM

3 Level 2. What level of DSM was carried forward into

4 the future? Was it point -- point zero-five (.05)?

5 Because after 2018, the original DSM level dropped

6 down, and is that what was carried forward, or did it

7 drop to zero, or...?

8


10 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: And -- and maybe if

11 I can try to clarify. Manitoba Hydro provided economic

12 analysis of various plans with DSM Level 2 over a

13 seventy-eight (78) year timeframe, so presumably, for

14 every single year a DSM assumption was made. We're not

15 currently aware of what assumption you're making after

16 the end of the fifteen (15) year Power Smart Plan going

17 forward for purposes of that economic analysis.

18 So if that data could be provided either

19 right now or by undertaking, it would be helpful.

20 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: We did provide the

21 capacity energy tables for the DSM Level 2, and that

22 provided the load and the DSM in it. Now, I don't have

23 a handy graph for that, but that is part of the

24 exhibits we have filed. Let me just see if I can --

25 even some of the ones we filed today.



9862

1 THE CHAIRPERSON: It would be simpler,

2 I think, Mr. Wojczynski, if we could have an

3 undertaking from Manitoba Hydro to provide the

4 information to address Mr. Bel's question. I think

5 that'll be best for you and best for us so that we have

6 a complete answer.

7 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: So the undertaking

8 is -- or, Lloyd, do you want to say something? Do you

9 have something there?

10 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: Well, I just want to

11 be -- we have to be a little careful, because you need

12 to look at both the load forecast and the DSM numbers,

13 because we -- we've provided you with a modified load

14 forecast, and within that, we provided you with an

15 adjustment due to the codes.

16 So that adjustment got transferred into

17 the Power Smart Plan that we developed. So you got to

18 look at both, and you kind of have to understand what's

19 going on.

20 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay --

21 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: If --

22 THE CHAIRPERSON: -- and that's fair.

23 I understand the difficulties involved. I just want to

24 make sure that we have a complete answer. I mean,

25 you're -- you're projecting -- this graph is suggesting



9863

1 a 1 percent savings until 2028/'29.

2 And I -- I guess the question is what --

3 what's happening beyond that, assuming DSM Level 2, and

4 so on? So I -- I think a, you know, an undertaking

5 from your part would be satisfactory for us.

6 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: We -- we'll provide

7 a -- an undertaking to provide you with the information

8 that the assumptions for DSM beyond '28/'29 that were

9 used.

10

11 --- UNDERTAKING NO. 137: Manitoba Hydro to provide

12 information on the

13 assumptions for DSM beyond

14 2028 and 2029

15



18 prepared an annual report under Section 8 of the Energy

19 Savings Act yet?

20 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: Our first

21 requirement under the Act will be March 31st, 2015 --

22 '15, yes, to do that.

23 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: So it hasn't been

24 prepared yet, so that's going to be prepared closer to

25 the deadline?



9864

1 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: It usually takes us

2 close to a year to actually prepare that report, but

3 having said that, we prepare -- without the

4 legislation, we prepare that report every year anyways.

5 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Are you prepared to

6 file the most recent report on the record of the NFAT

7 if that has not been filed yet?

8 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: We'll do that.

9 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Thank you. That's

10 an undertaking to file the most recent progress report

11 on DSM on the record.

12

13 (BRIEF PAUSE)

14

15 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: We'll provide --

16 provide that.

17


19 the most recent progress

20 report on DSM

21



24 ever considered having an independent auditor evaluate

25 DSM progress, as opposed to Manitoba Hydro evaluating



9865

1 it internally?

2 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: Yes, we've had a

3 number of discussions about doing that, and you can do

4 that for individual programs and you could do that for

5 your entire program, or portfolio. It's a fairly

6 expensive venture to do and we're currently hiring Mr.

7 Dunsky to do a review of just the process component at

8 this point of our Lower Income Program.

9 We have talked to BC Hydro, because they

10 -- they went down that road within their processes and

11 there's advantages and disadvantages to undertaking --

12 or using external evaluations, but they're usually

13 fairly expensive.

14 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: You spoke of

15 disadvantages. Is -- is really the main disadvantage

16 price, or are there other concerns that you have?

17 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: Price and resource

18 commitments, because, you know, even when you hire

19 somebody to undertake a deman -- or a market potential

20 study, a DSM market potential study, it takes up a lot

21 of resources internally to do that.

22 It would be the same thing with

23 undertaking an external review and the dat -- we have

24 the data. It would just be a question of working with

25 an external consultant to explain what the data is,



9866

1 provide them with the -- the information, and they

2 would do their analysis.

3 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Manitoba Hydro filed

4 a table that indicated that there would be a positive

5 NPV of going to Level 2 DSM and a drop off going to

6 Level 3.

7 Does that mean that Manitoba Hydro

8 considers Level 2 DSM to be economic?


10 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: In your view, does

11 the Utility currently have the necessary infrastructure

12 to deliver economic DSM or to, for that matter, deliver

13 Level 2 DSM and, if not, what resources would be

14 needed?

15 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: We -- we believe we

16 need some additional resources. And we have plans in

17 place to -- to get those resources. And we've already

18 moved down that path.

19 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: When you discuss

20 additional resources, does that mean additional

21 personnel resources, or is it really a matter of having

22 the -- the funding available?

23 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: We have the funding

24 approved and we need additional resources internally.

25 And we're also open to using external resources where



9867

1 it makes sense, such as using the AKI Energy

2 Organization that we've been working with with First

3 Nations.


5 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: That's very helpful.

6 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: During the last GRA

7 there was discussion about two (2) community DSM

8 delivery programs. I believe they were called 'build',

9 where people go door to door, specifically with respect

10 to low income programs.

11 Is Manitoba Hydro considering using

12 additional third-party organizations to assist it in

13 delivering DSM programs?

14 MS. LOIS MORRISON: One (1) of the

15 initiative -- yes, we are. We are -- one (1) of the

16 initiatives recently approved involves a greater

17 outreach in electric heat communities to increase the

18 number of people uptaking insulation upgrades. So

19 essentially, yeah. We are definitely going to be going

20 out to the community.

21 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: But -- but just to

22 add to that, we currently do outsource some -- some of

23 our programs today, like the Refrigerator Buyback

24 Program. We're using an external entity to help us

25 there. The Water and Energy Savers Program, we're



9868

1 using an external organization there. Build and Beep,

2 we've been working with them. Those are two (2)

3 community-based organizations, but there's also the AKI

4 Energy organization that we referred to, so.

5 Manitoba Hydro is open to working with

6 an external party for any of our programs where it

7 makes sense.

8 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: What do you

9 currently actually see as the main barriers then to

10 achieving DSM?

11 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: Each program has

12 different barriers. So that -- that would be -- to an

13 -- answer that question in -- in general is -- is

14 difficult. But the opportunities are out there and

15 it's really a question of -- in getting customers to

16 participate in the programs. In a very simple -- to

17 give you -- provide you with a simple answer, in terms

18 of financial constraints we have financial services

19 that we offer customers through loans and our PAYS

20 Program.

21 So that -- that addresses that concern.

22 But even though that addresses the financial concern,

23 there's all sorts of other barriers, you know, that

24 customers have and they're just not motivated to -- to

25 incorporate those measures.



9869

1 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Okay. Getting back

2 for a moment to the chart that was introduced as

3 Manitoba Hydro Exhibit 193.

4 Do I understand you correctly that

5 Manitoba Hydro does see it as its mandate to pursue all

6 economic DSM, or at least it sees it as its strategy?

7 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: I would view it as a

8 strategy, close to a policy, but it's our overall

9 strategy.

10 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: So are you assuming

11 then that after 2023/'24 there will not be any economic

12 DSM available to achieve incrementally more than 1

13 percent?

14 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: There's a lot of

15 uncertainty to what is going to be available in that

16 time frame. What's included in our pro -- our plan

17 today is our best estimate of what we're going to

18 achieve. And we've had discussions about whether or

19 not there potentially could be more in that time period

20 beyond there. And we do believe there could be.

21 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: And if you've heard

22 Mr. Dunsky's evidence on new technology becoming

23 available, it just might not be here yet. He used the

24 example of CFLs versus LEDs for example.

25 Is there any specific reason that



9870

1 Manitoba Hydro is more cautious in its projections?

2

3 (BRIEF PAUSE)

4

5 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: You -- you know when

6 -- to forecast when a -- and Mr. Dunsky threw out the

7 examples of shale gas and the fracking as an example of

8 what can happen in the future. And he's correct there.

9 But that -- that's a disruptive technology event. And

10 those are very difficult to forecast. And I wouldn't -

11 - I wouldn't want to count on those things happening.

12 What we do is we monitor emerging

13 technologies as -- as there's developments that take

14 place. And we incorporate those opportunities into our

15 plan as -- as the risks become lower. And we were more

16 conservative in the past than we likely will be in the

17 future.

18 An example would be the LED technology

19 for residential applications and road -- roadway

20 lighting and -- and commercial as well. We were

21 monitoring that market. We didn't think it was going

22 to happen as quick as it did, but it did. But that

23 doesn't mean all opportunities will unfold quicker than

24 what some people are forecasting, so.

25 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Now, there's been



9871

1 quite a bit of discussion during the course of the

2 hearing as to whether DSM should be considered at the

3 load forecast level or at the integrated resource plan

4 level.

5 Is there any specific reason why

6 Manitoba Hydro did not use DSM as a resource as part of

7 a plan? Let's say, for example, DSM plus gas, or DSM

8 plus wind?

9 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: I'd like to answer

10 that one.

11 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: And I'll supplement

12 that answer.

13 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: Could we turn to

14 Exhibit 104-16, please, page 2? The one we just did --

15 it -- I believe that was just done this afternoon.

16

17 (BRIEF PAUSE)

18

19 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: This is an

20 integrated resource planning analysis of DSM along with

21 the different supply options that were available to us

22 in terms of gas and hydro.

23 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: So you're saying

24 essentially DSM is part of all of the resource plans?

25 That's...



9872

1 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: Well, let me

2 explain.

3 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Sure.

4 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: If you take a look

5 at the -- and I did try and explain this once when we

6 were doing a number of undertakings and we didn't dwell

7 on it a lot. But I think there's been a lack of

8 appreciation of what this involves. So I think it

9 would be worthwhile if we spent two (2) minutes on

10 this.

11 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: We won't time you,

12 Mr. Wojczynski. Please go ahead.

13 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: Now, first of all

14 this does not have solar. This does not have wind

15 mixed in. And we acknowledge that with a full scale

16 IRP you look at all the options. And we did other

17 analyses earlier that effectively screened those out.

18 And so this -- this analysis is -- is an

19 IRP, but it's an IRP that looks at gas, looks at hydro,

20 looks at interconnections with its associated imports,

21 exports, and everything and looks at DSM levels that

22 are different. We have the three (3) levels of --

23 well, actually if you look here and I'll explain how we

24 do that.

25 We have under the DSM levels --



9873

1 effectively we have four (4) levels of DSM. And then

2 we have the different plans. And -- and you know the

3 plans. I don't have to go through them all. And these

4 are all comparable against each other. You'll notice

5 that we have in the All Gas Base DSM we have a zero

6 there. But all the others we have an -- an NPV number

7 which is relative to that point.

8 And this is using the TRC analysis, so

9 this is the -- the TRC analysis. We've talked about

10 benefits and costs previously. So all of these can be

11 compared against each other.

12 One of the concerns that people have

13 expressed, and it's a -- it's a justified issue that

14 you have to address, is it could be with one plan --

15 one mixture of supply options that DSM would be more

16 attractive than in another supply option mix, or

17 portfolio, or plan. They're all the same thing. A

18 plan is really a portfolio.

19 And, so you can do that here. You can

20 compare DSM Level 2 let's say with Keeyask/Gas versus

21 at-base DSM, and you can compare it against having

22 Conawapa, as well, and you can compare the numbers

23 against each other. So if you -- and you look at --

24 look at the All Gas.

25 One concern might be that DSM looks



9874

1 better in an All Gas scenario. So maybe DSM Level 3

2 would not look good in the Preferred Plan but maybe it

3 would look good in an All Gas Plan. And if you did not

4 do a full-scale mix of all the possibilities, you

5 wouldn't have that information. This tells you, when

6 you look at it, that you have the direct analysis of an

7 NPV, and you can compare directly All Gas with Level 3

8 DSM against the Preferred Plan, or one of the other

9 plans.

10 So you have a direct comparison of

11 different amounts of DSM with different supply

12 resources. Now, have we got every single plan with

13 every single level of DSM? No. But we think that this

14 is a reasonably sufficient amount of information to

15 tell us that we have that -- that optimized mix.

16 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: That was helpful,

17 Mr. Wojczynski, thank you. If we could go to Hydro

18 Exhibit 95, slide 4.

19

20 (BRIEF PAUSE)

21

22 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: That is the chart

23 that sets out the need for new dependable energy, and

24 the need for new capacity under the various DSM

25 scenarios, and the with and without pipeline load



9875

1 scenarios.

2 To clarify, these dates do not assume

3 new export contracts, do they?

4

5 (BRIEF PAUSE)

6

7 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: This does not

8 assume new exports, no.

9 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: If the Minnesota

10 Power contract, as well as the Wisconsin Public Service

11 contract were included, what would be the need for new

12 generation under a DSM 2 scenario -- the earliest in-

13 service dates?

14 Is that something we can glean from the

15 demand and capacity tables, or the demand and energy

16 tables?

17 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: Sorry, could you

18 repeat that? I --


20 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: -- I missed one of

21 your components.

22 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: If we make the

23 assumption that the Minnesota Power and Wisconsin

24 Public Service contracts were included under a DSM 2

25 scenario, what would be the earliest required date for



9876

1 new energy and for new capacity?

2 And if Manitoba Hydro would like to

3 address that by way of undertaking, I'd be happy to

4 accept an undertaking.

5 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: We have -- you can

6 get those right from the tables we just looked at, even

7 the exhibit we just looked at where it has the in-

8 service dates. And, so I could just look at that for

9 one second.


11 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: If you look here at

12 Level 2 DSM and Plan -- well, we could look at Plan 5.

13 In that one, with Level 2 DSM and it doesn't -- without

14 the pipeline load, you -- you would need -- after

15 Keeyask, you would need a new resource in 2031.

16 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: And -- and just

17 perhaps let me clarify, Mr. Wojczynski. Plan 5 in

18 Exhibit 104-16 assumes that Keeyask is being advanced

19 to 2019 --

20 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: Yes.

21 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: -- and then deals

22 with subsequent gas. My question was actually: If you

23 assumed that there was no advancement in Keeyask to

24 2019, when would the earliest date for new generation

25 be, assuming that those two (2) contracts are



9877

1 continued?

2 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: Okay. And I think

3 what you're asking me is a very particular question

4 that, based purely on the capacity energy tables and

5 nothing else, when would we first show a deficit of --

6 of capacity or energy in that scenario. That, I don't

7 --

8 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Yes, with the

9 contract.

10 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: That information, I

11 don't have, but I will answer the question in a more

12 general sense. If we don't have Keeyask at the front

13 end, we will not have the MP sale, and we will not have

14 the WPS sale, because the whole contractual package

15 with MP is that we have to have Keeyask to get the line

16 and the pack -- and the sale.

17 But we can provide you the answer of

18 when we first hit a dependable energy deficit, but

19 that's a different question than, When would we need

20 Keeyask?

21 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: I'm mindful that we

22 can't go into CSI, Mr. Wojczynski, so I will tread

23 carefully, but are you in a position to state whether

24 that is something that -- that is written in stone, or

25 whether those contracts could be completed if Keeyask



9878

1 wasn't built? And if you can't answer it on the public

2 record --

3 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: I can state that

4 the contracts cannot be -- I can state at this point

5 that the contracts cannot be fulfilled as the packages

6 they are with Keeyask not being part of the mix

7 already. I can point to one (1) particular thing, but

8 I -- we may want to have a broader discussion that

9 includes Mr. Cormie and Ms. Flynn.

10 But -- but as a first piece of

11 information, I can point to the certificate of need

12 with the -- the transmission line specifically states

13 Keeyask being part of the package, because part of the

14 benefits that Minnesota Power looks for and -- and the

15 whole regulatory system are the benefits associated,

16 not with just having the interconnection, but having

17 the additional generation that provides the kind of

18 benefit to the region, including assisting with wind,

19 for example.

20 I also point to the condition precedent

21 in the contract, the MP contract, 250 contract that has

22 Keeyask. Now that is a condition precedent favourable

23 to Manitoba Hydro, but it was part of the context for

24 Minnesota Power, and there's some other elements that

25 would be CSI that I can't get into.



9879

1

2 (BRIEF PAUSE)

3

4 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: And maybe this is a

5 topic that -- on the day, I don't know what day has

6 been chosen yet, but where the finance and economics

7 panel are back up. That -- and I believe there's going

8 to be a CSI portion to that, that that, perhaps, might

9 be a time to address that more fully.

10 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: I -- I agree with

11 that suggestion. I certainly have a few more

12 questions, but we'll leave those for the CSI panel.

13 THE CHAIRPERSON: But I guess that, you

14 know, just to -- to address that issue in a public

15 forum without delving into the specifics of the

16 contract, there are some people out there who believe

17 that you have sufficient power to supply that Minnesota

18 Power without new generation, for example. Yeah. I --

19 I could recognize that it's contingent upon Keeya --

20 Keeyask/Gas and a new US interconnection, but there are

21 people out there who believe you can supply that

22 contract with existing resources and no intertie.

23 And -- and you are suggesting that it's

24 a contract term, admittedly, but you have the power to

25 be able to supply that contract, don't you?



9880

1 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: Yes, there are --

2 there are two (2) different questions. If you just

3 look at the amount of capacity in the energy tables,

4 the amount of surplus power we have, and you look at

5 the amount of power required for the Minnesota Power

6 sale, with enough DSM, for example, and if the load

7 forecast doesn't go up, then there could be enough

8 surplus power, I'm talking about dependable power here,

9 to meet the requirements, say, just of the MP sale.

10 Let's -- let's leave WPS or any other sale alone.

11 But when MP are entering into the

12 arrangement, including with the interconnection, they

13 are doing so with the express interests in the package

14 that includes additional hydro on Manitoba Hydro's

15 system to help fill the tie-line, and also provide more

16 general benefits to them, so -- as part of an economic

17 package, and -- and a whole economic package is not

18 just the sale in isolation by itself. I don't know if

19 that helps.

20 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Are you in a

21 position, Mr. Wojczynski, to address on the public

22 record whether the construction of Keeyask is a

23 condition precedent for Minnesota Power?

24 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: We're -- I -- I

25 think we're getting into the CSI portion. Mr. Cormie



9881

1 is here. If...

2

3 (BRIEF PAUSE)

4

5 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: We know that a

6 portion -- at least a -- a good portion of this is CSI,

7 so from that point of view, it's probably better to

8 have that full discussion there, but I -- but I -- I --

9 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, you know, I

10 think -- I think, Mr. Wojczynski, let me just intervene

11 here just to make sure that we understand where we're

12 going here. Like, what you tell us, we don't expect

13 you to reveal any CSI. You -- you -- we expect you to

14 talk in general terms so that all the Intervenors can

15 hear you, and the public can hear you, and so on.

16 If you confirm it by going to CSI, we

17 can delve into the contracts to confirm what you're

18 saying, but for the standpoint of talking in general

19 terms, let's -- let's have a conversation so that

20 everybody can hear it and we can confirm your -- the

21 details in a CSI portion.

22


24 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: And for the record,

25 Mr. Wojczynski, I don't believe that the condition



9882

1 precedent on the Minnesota Power Contract are actually

2 CSI. I believe those are set out in the public

3 version, but perhaps your lawyers can confirm that. I

4 can move on in the meantime.

5

6 (BRIEF PAUSE)

7

8 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: Perhaps the other

9 questioning on the DSM could proceed and we have a

10 small caucus to see what we can say in -- in this very

11 important topic. It's not that we have any doubts that

12 Keeyask is a condition of the MP -- arrangement for MP,

13 but how we can explain that better than I'd explained

14 it without getting into the CSIs is the issue. So

15 maybe a -- a few of us could caucus and at least do --

16 do that to -- in a short while, while the DSM questions

17 continue.

18 THE CHAIRPERSON: Speaking of

19 shareholders, which you are through the government of

20 Manitoba, we don't -- we want to -- we don't want to

21 harm Manitoba Hydro competitive positions, so let's all

22 agree on that point.

23 I -- I don't want anything about,

24 really, the CSI being revealed here, but I -- I do want

25 to have a general discussion in public about the issues



9883

1 that you face, and -- and I think that everybody need -

2 - everybody deserves to hear that discussion, I think.

3 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: And I think

4 Manitoba Hydro shares that. Our preference that we be

5 able to have as much transparent discussion of that and

6 the ability for the -- the general public, as well as

7 the stakeholders, because the more we can share

8 publicly, the more people will understand and accept

9 and minimize what's in CSI, and we fully share that

10 with you, Mr. Chair.

11 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: Mr. Chair, if I

12 just might say before Mr. Wojczynski disappears for his

13 caucus, we certainly would like to ask him some

14 questions related to the material that was filed today,

15 which relates to both DSM and his -- the calculations.

16 So I hope he's not disappearing for -- for too long.

17 MS. MARLA BOYD: I don't think he's

18 intending to disappear at all. We'll just, at some

19 convenient point in the -- the proceeding, take a bit

20 of a break and come back and discuss it after.

21


23 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: I can move on in the

24 meantime. You referred to the demand and capacity

25 tables earlier, Mr. Wojczynski, and I'd actually like



9884

1 you to take you to -- to one of them. If we could go

2 to Manitoba Hydro Exhibit 104-3, page 57 of the

3 document? If we could zoom to the core page level.

4

5 (BRIEF PAUSE)

6

7 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: That was my musical

8 interlude for the day. This is the table for the K19

9 Gas 750 Plan, Mr. Wojczynski, and can you please

10 confirm that under the contracted exports, this

11 includes the Minnesota Power and the Wisconsin Public

12 Service contracts?


14 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: And if I'm reading

15 the table correctly, if you look at the 2025/'26 year,

16 about two-thirds (2/3s) on the right side of the page,

17 the new energy for -- the new capacity from Keeyask in

18 that year would be 630 gigawatt hours.

19 Do you see that?

20 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: Yeah.

21 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Sorry, the 630

22 megawatts. We're dealing with capacity now, not

23 energy?


25 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: And on the bottom



9885

1 there is an exportable surplus of 648 gigawatt hours,

2 sorry megawatt.

3 So slightly more than that?


5 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: If we move over one

6 (1) year to 2026/'27, we see that the exportable

7 surplus is less than the 630 megawatts provided by

8 Keeyask?


10 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: So that means that

11 under this scenario the earliest required in-service

12 date for Keeyask for capacity would be 2026/'27,

13 including the Minnesota Power and Wisconsin Public

14 Service contracts?


16 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Leaving aside the

17 contractual issue that we just discussed?

18 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: From a capacity

19 point of view, yes.

20 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Right. If you look

21 in the middle of the page on the left side you see the

22 line about contracted imports? Under 'base supply

23 power resources'?


25 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Those are the



9886

1 diversity agreements, are they not?



4 considered extending the adversity agreements beyond

5 2024/'25? That -- that would push back the in-ser --

6 the required in-service date for Keeyask, would it not?

7 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: And that would

8 require -- Mr. Cormie could answer better than me, but

9 subject to check I know we certainly talked about it,

10 but it's also something we'd have to have negotiation

11 with MSP about.

12 And --and my -- my understanding subject

13 to Mr. Cormie confirming it is that that's something we

14 would have with them when they're in the -- the time

15 frame of thinking about that far into the future. It's

16 also the time frame they are starting to think about

17 the diversity exchange in that time frame. They'd also

18 be thinking about extending the MSP sale which also

19 terminates ar -- in 2020 -- after 2025, so.

20 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: For a moment let's

21 go two (2) pages down to the energy table for the same

22 plan. Page 59. And if we could zoom to the page level

23 again.

24 The way I'm reading that chart, Mr.

25 Wojczynski, from an energy perspective under this plan



9887

1 the earliest required in-service date would be

2 2029/2030, so three (3) years after the required need

3 date for capacity?

4 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: You've got --

5 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Specifically -- let

6 -- let me take you through it. If --

7 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: You're -- you're

8 taking -- you're having -- you're subtracting Keeyask

9 energy out?

10 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Correct. If we look

11 at the top right of the chart we see that in 2029/'30,

12 Keeyask adds 3,003 gigawatt hours of energy?


14 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: And if we go to the

15 very bottom of the 2029/2030 year we see exportable

16 surplus of 2,699 gigawatt hours?


18 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: So less than

19 Keeyask? If you go to the left one (1) year to

20 2028/'29, we see that the exportable surplus is

21 actually more than the energy provided by Keeyask?


23 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: So based on that,

24 the earliest required in-service date from an energy

25 perspective would be '29/'30?



9888

1 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: Yes, that's what I

2 was saying. You -- you're subtracting Keeyask out and

3 coming to that conclusion, yes.

4 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Given your comments

5 about the need to consult with Mr. Cormie, I would like

6 to request two (2) undertakings from Manitoba Hydro.

7 Firstly, to confirm when, if the diversity agreements

8 were extended beyond 2024/'25, the earliest required

9 in-service date for Keeyask would be, both from an

10 energy and capacity perspective.

11

12 (BRIEF PAUSE)

13

14 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: That's acceptable?


16

17 --- UNDERTAKING NO. 139: Manitoba Hydro to confirm

18 when, if the diversity

19 agreements were extended

20 beyond 2024/'25, the

21 earliest required in-

22 service date for Keeyask

23 would be, both from an

24 energy and capacity

25 perspective



9889


2 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: And secondly, to

3 provide additional confirmation as to whether Manitoba

4 Hydro has considered extending the diversity

5 agreements, and whether doing so would be feasible.

6 And if not to -- to provide some background information

7 as to why not.

8

9 (BRIEF PAUSE)

10

11 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: Yes, so we got

12 these two (2) undertakings that we will take on. But

13 perhaps before I go off the mic, I should add that when

14 you subtracted out the Keeyask energy from that, the

15 calculation we just did, what was still left in there

16 was the additional dependable energy our system obtains

17 by having the -- the 750 megawatt tieline available

18 with the exports.

19 So you -- if you're looking at a

20 situation of not Keeyask and not the new tieline, then

21 you're -- you can't count on all that dependable

22 energy, because you'd have lost the depend -- the

23 increased dependable energy that we could get with the

24 tieline.

25



9890

1 --- UNDERTAKING NO. 140: Manitoba Hydro to confirm

2 if it has considered

3 extending the diversity

4 agreements, and whether

5 doing so would be feasible;

6 and if not, to provide some

7 background information as

8 to why not

9

10 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: It looked like you

11 were going to ask me something on that.

12


14 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: It is. Would it be

15 feasible for Manitoba Hydro to have the 750 megawatt

16 line constructed before Keeyask is placed in service?

17 And if not, why not?

18 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: I think that's

19 another undertaking.

20 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: I'd be happy to

21 treat it as such.

22

23 --- UNDERTAKING NO. 141: Manitoba Hydro to indicate

24 if it's feasible to have

25 the 750 megawatt line



9891

1 constructed before Keeyask

2 is placed in service

3

4 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: Yeah, you know,

5 perhaps rather than us go off and do a -- a caucus in

6 which to give a -- a full discussion that we -- we

7 probably require. Mr. Cormie could at least provide

8 what he -- what he can just off the top of his head and

9 why don't we see if that --

10


12 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Because I understand

13 that Mr. --

14 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: -- is a faster

15 response than having to do a caucus.

16 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: As I understand, Mr.

17 Cormie's also still sworn, so that certainly would be

18 acceptable. Welcome back, Mr. Cormie.

19

20 DAVID CORMIE, Previously Sworn

21

22 MR. DAVID CORMIE: Well, it's good to

23 be back. I put on my tie for you.

24 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: What wisdom do you

25 have to share with us?



9892

1 MR. DAVID CORMIE: I -- I want to speak

2 about the arrangement with Minnesota Power and -- and

3 the conditions under which the new interconnection will

4 be dealt.

5 It has been clear since we began

6 negotiations with Minnesota Power back in 2007 that

7 there needed to be a package, a package of new

8 generation associated with new transmission. And

9 that's what was necessary in order to have the

10 interconnection built. Building an interconnection

11 without new generation was never -- was never

12 anticipated, was never part of the understanding of the

13 Minnesota Regulator of Minnesota Power at -- at any

14 time. It was always seen as a package.

15 We did negotiate in the agreement the

16 possibility that Keeyask could be delayed for regul --

17 regulatory reasons, but it was always everyone's

18 understanding that if Keeyask is not built, there will

19 be no interconnection. Keeyask can be flayed and we

20 negotiated the ability to delay that into the

21 contracts, but there will be no interconenction if

22 there is no associated construction of Keeyask in the

23 2020/'21/'22 time frame.

24 Minnesota Power is filing with -- with

25 their Regulator. The discussions we've had with the



9893

1 Minnesota Regulator, the -- the negotiations that we've

2 had with Minnesota Power have alway -- always been

3 premised on that there will be new hydro generation.

4 We were able to negotiate a -- a contract with Min --

5 Minnesota Power that gave us the flexibility to -- with

6 conditions prece -- precedented in Manitoba Hydro's

7 favour that -- that -- which Manitoba Hydro could

8 waive.

9 But if you read through the iss --

10 through the contract and you -- you look at the -- how

11 the environmental attributes are handled and the

12 subsequent negotiations that led to the upsizing of the

13 250 megawatt line to 750 megawatts, that whole package

14 is based upon the construction of Keeyask and the

15 delivery of not only the power and the energy, but in

16 Minnesota Power's ability to invest in new

17 transmission, the wind synergy benefits that they would

18 achieve, the lower LNP prices that they would see as a

19 result of the delivery of new hydro into the region.

20 And that was all part of the package

21 that led them to cont -- and -- and leads them to

22 continue to believe that this is a good deal for -- for

23 their customers. For Manitoba Hydro to now say that

24 we're not building new generation, we just want the new

25 transmission line, it's a -- it's a non-starter. And -



9894

1 - and we still have to go through the Minnesota

2 regulatory process in order to get that line permitted.

3 To go there now and say that we want the line but we

4 don't want to build new generation, I think that that -

5 - that would be -- that would be a surprise, and -- and

6 it probably would put the project at extreme risk.

7

8 (BRIEF PAUSE)

9

10 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: I want to be clear,

11 when you talk about not building new generation, we're

12 -- my earlier question was about not advancing Keeyask

13 to 2019 but advancing it to when it would be needed for

14 energy and capacity, does your same answer hold true

15 for that? Are you -- was your answer based on not

16 building any new generation?

17 MR. DAVID CORMIE: Minnesota Power

18 requires the new generation early in -- either in 2020.

19 They can -- they can cope with a delay up to '22. The

20 contract reflects that. Anything beyond that date does

21 not work to meet their -- their load requirements, and

22 -- and a delay to 2031 or -- or some later date, it's

23 not -- it's not part of the -- of the contract.

24 And the -- the reason that we have

25 negotiated the ability to delay was for regulatory



9895

1 reasons, not because Manitoba Hydro was choosing an --

2 a later in-service date. Our objective was to have an

3 in-service date of 2019, but to cover off the

4 possibility that there were -- there were delays

5 associated with -- in getting the environmental

6 approvals, or going through regulatory approvals. It

7 wasn't that Manitoba Hydro had the choice of choosing a

8 later in-service date.

9

10 (BRIEF PAUSE)

11

12 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Have you had an

13 opportunity to caucus about my earlier question about

14 the conditions precedent, or is that something that

15 will have to be addressed later?

16 MR. DAVID CORMIE: I understand the

17 conditions precedent, so if you have questions I'm

18 prepared to answer those.

19 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: It's your

20 understanding they're public?

21 MR. DAVID CORMIE: Yes.

22 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Okay. Is it a

23 condition precedent for the benefit of Minnesota Power

24 that Keeyask go?

25 MR. DAVID CORMIE: No, it's a condition



9896

1 precedent in favour of Manitoba Hydro.

2 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Which means Manitoba

3 Hydro could waive it?

4 MR. DAVID CORMIE: Yes.

5 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Okay. So then based

6 on that comment, on what are you basing the assumption

7 that the transmission line may not get permitted if

8 Keeyask is not advanced?

9 MR. DAVID CORMIE: If you read -- if

10 you read Minnesota Power's Certificate of Need filing

11 with the Minnesota regulator, the -- the premise of the

12 entire project is that the line is needed to deliver

13 new hydro, and the new hydro will be used to served

14 mani -- Minnesota Power's new load requirements. And -

15 - and to now say that we are not prepared to build new

16 generation would be a distortion of the bargain that

17 was struck between the companies.

18 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Is it a condition

19 precedent of constructing the transmission line that

20 Keeyask gets built, or are you basing this purely on

21 the proceeding before the regulator in Minnesota?

22 MR. DAVID CORMIE: The -- the line is

23 necessary to deliver the new hydro from Manitoba. The

24 Power Purchase Agreement and the investment in

25 transmission are -- are linked contractually, and they



9897

1 will not -- they can't be -- they can't be separated.

2 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Okay. So let's be

3 clear on this. You -- you indicated that building

4 Keeyask is a condition precedent for the benefit of

5 Manitoba Hydro that Manitoba Hydro could waive. You

6 also indicated that the transmission line would be at

7 risk if Keeyask is not built. That is why I asked

8 you if it is a condition precedent of building the

9 transmission line that Keeyask is actually constructed.

10 MR. DAVID CORMIE: The -- the Minnesota

11 Power contract terminates if Manitoba Hydro does not

12 commit to building Keeyask within the window that's

13 provided in the contract.

14

15 (BRIEF PAUSE)

16

17 MR. DAVID CORMIE: Manitoba Hydro has

18 the option of proceeding with the first rock in -- in

19 the river in the summer of 2014. We can delay that by

20 up to two (2) years, and that would delay the in-

21 service date of Keeyask by two (2) years, and the

22 contract allows for that. A delay in putting the first

23 rock beyond two (2) years in -- in the river for

24 Keeyask will result in the termination of the

25 agreement.



9898

1 (BRIEF PAUSE)

2

3 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Let's move on for a

4 -- a moment. The -- the 2014 load forecast, that's not

5 going to be provided in time for the -- the NFAT

6 concluding, is it?

7 MS. LOIS MORRISON: No, it will not be

8 available.

9 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Are you, at this

10 point, in a position to advise whether it's generally

11 consistent with the 2013 forecast or whether it's going

12 to be revised upwards or downwards?

13 MS. LOIS MORRISON: At this point, the

14 only information that we can provide is what we've

15 already put on the record in terms of some of the

16 adjustments that were mentioned in the presentation

17 done by Mr. Kuczek. In terms of -- we are anticipating

18 to make some adjustments related to reflect price

19 elasticity. We will be making an adjustment to reflect

20 increased activity or response to our fuel -- our fuel

21 choice initiative, and also for codes and standards.

22 And we are, as Mr. Friesen has

23 previously testified, in discussions with the top

24 consumers to have a better understanding as to what

25 their future load requirements are.



9899

1

2 (BRIEF PAUSE)

3

4 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Do the updated load

5 for -- sorry, the updated population forecasts that

6 were filed as Exhibit Manitoba Hydro 93 suggest that

7 residential forecasts will also be lower as a result of

8 lower than anticipated population growth?

9

10 (BRIEF PAUSE)

11

12 MS. LOIS MORRISON: At this point in

13 our analysis, they are approximately the same.


15

16 (BRIEF PAUSE)

17

18 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: The 2014 Power Smart

19 Plan that's been filed, I looked for the words 'Level

20 1' or 'Level 2', and -- and they are not in there. It

21 -- does it assume Level 2?

22 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: No. Level 2 was

23 developed for the purpose of the sensitivity analysis,

24 so our 2014 Power Smart Plan is not equal to any of the

25 levels. The only thing you could -- it -- I can say is



9900

1 it's -- in terms of energy savings that we're planning

2 to achieve, it's close to Level 2.

3 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Can you be slightly

4 more specific when you say, "close to Level 2," where

5 between the two (2) it is?

6 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: You know, it's so

7 close, I -- I don't think it -- it would be -- there's

8 much of a difference. It might be slightly lower in

9 the further years, but it's -- it's fairly close. We

10 made adjustments within the program to individual

11 programs, so that's why, you know, I'm saying it's --

12 it's different, but it's similar, and it's -- it's

13 close to Level 2.

14 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Now, you did provide

15 the costs that were assumed collectively in the

16 economic analysis in Manitoba Hydro Exhibit 104-4. The

17 fifteen (15) year Power Smart Plan does not provide the

18 cost of individual measures beyond the fifteen (15)

19 year date.

20 Has Manitoba Hydro conducted any

21 analysis at this point as to what the cost on a

22 measure-specific basis are going to be beyond the

23 fifteen (15) years?

24 MS. LOIS MORRISON: Are you referring

25 to by a program-by-program basis beyond the fifteen



9901

1 (15) years?


3 MS. LOIS MORRISON: That information is

4 in the background spreadsheets or in the background

5 Excel files as -- as to what we provide or what we will

6 eventually provide to resource planning, so we do have

7 that information.

8

9 (BRIEF PAUSE)

10

11 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Now, Level 2 DSM, as

12 I understand it, that includes Level 1 DSM plus fuel

13 switching, conservation rates, and load displacement,

14 and when you're discussion conservation rates, that

15 means inclining rates?

16 MS. LOIS MORRISON: Yes, we are

17 modelling a structure based upon an inclining rate --

18 inclining block rate structure.

19 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: And you've assumed

20 that that's going to be phased in in 2019?

21

22 (BRIEF PAUSE)

23

24 MS. LOIS MORRISON: In terms of Level 2

25 DSM, ir are you looking at our '14 plan?



9902

1 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: I'm looking at the -

2 - the '14 year plan.

3

4 (BRIEF PAUSE)

5

6 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Which is Exhibit

7 Hydro-180. Will you accept it subject to check that

8 you're assuming 2019?

9 MS. LOIS MORRISON: Yes, I will.


11 MS. LOIS MORRISON: There's a number of

12 dates floating around, so yes, I'll -- I'll accept

13 that.

14 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: Just add a comment,

15 though, the -- the 2014 plan, when we're talking fuel

16 switching and conservation rates, those programs are

17 not improved -- approved internally. These programs

18 and the energy savings that we have within the plan are

19 placeholders at this point, and we have to do further

20 analysis to -- and consultations with the government

21 before a -- a decision is made to move forward with

22 those initiatives.

23 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: And they would also

24 have to approved externally by the PUB?

25 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: The rates, yes.



9903

1 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Inclining rates

2 would be a first in Manitoba, would it not?

3 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: No, we actually had

4 inclining rates, very insignificant inclining rates,

5 for a short period of time.

6 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: It must have been

7 before my time in the province.

8 Do you recall when that was?

9 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: Five (5) years ago.

10 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Are you making any

11 specific assumptions on what the sizes of the blocks

12 would be, or what the difference in pricing between the

13 blocks would be in reaching your Level 2 projections?

14 MS. LOIS MORRISON: In preparing the

15 estimates of the placeholder, as Mr. Kuczek referred to

16 it, we modelled it after what BC Hydro has in place,

17 and so essentially assumed similar -- if we were to

18 apply a similar structure, what would be the

19 corresponding energy savings that we might realize? We

20 have not done, as Mr. Kuczek mentioned, a specific

21 detailed analysis or rate design that would be

22 reflected in the Manitoba market.

23 There's a lot of factors that we have to

24 consider, specifically that were raised by this Board

25 under the previous hearings when we did have the



9904

1 previous inclining structure related to recognizing

2 customers with elect -- electric heat and some -- a

3 number of other issues. So what we put in, as -- as I

4 mentioned, is a -- is a placeholder as to what we think

5 the savings could be based on, a analysis -- of the BC

6 Hydro initiative.

7 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Let's actually maybe

8 put the chart up for a moment. It's Manitoba Hydro

9 Exhibit page 56.

10

11 (BRIEF PAUSE)

12

13 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Mani -- Manitoba

14 Hydro Exhibit 180, page 56.

15

16 (BRIEF PAUSE)

17

18 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: On the bottom, you

19 see the conservation rates and you're seeing the

20 assumptions.

21 If we look all the way on the right,

22 you're assuming that conservation rates would account

23 for approximately 14 percent of the savings?

24 MS. LOIS MORRISON: That is correct.

25 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: So if for any



9905

1 reason, whether internally or externally, you could not

2 get inclining rates approved, your savings would go

3 down by approximately 14 percent?

4 MS. LOIS MORRISON: If all else stayed

5 the same, yes.

6 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Can you provide the

7 panel with an explanation of what assumed changes to

8 the fuel switching program are included in the new

9 report?

10

11 (BRIEF PAUSE)

12

13 MS. LOIS MORRISON: The fuel choice

14 initiative -- or sorry, the Fuel Choice Program that's

15 presented here is a -- a broadly designed program based

16 upon an incentive, where we pay the customer a

17 substantial amount of money to support them changing to

18 a natural gas furnace. I believe we used a value of

19 about three thousand dollars ($3,000) in putting

20 together the -- the projections for the savings and the

21 program uptake.

22

23 (BRIEF PAUSE)

24

25 MS. LOIS MORRISON: And I should



9906

1 mention, this is in addition to the savings that we are

2 anticipating to -- or the reduction in load

3 requirements that we're expecting to see from our fuel

4 choice -- our heating costs -- heating education

5 campaign, or the heating education initiatives, working

6 with -- which -- where we, as previously mentioned,

7 focussed primarily on new developments and encouraging

8 people not to make a switch to electric, but to stay

9 with gas.

10 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Okay. And the --

11 the third component of Level 2 would be the load

12 displacement, correct?


14 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Let's go to page 42

15 of the document for a moment. Sorry, actually, let's

16 go to page 42 of Manitoba Hydro Exhibit 153.

17

18 (BRIEF PAUSE)

19

20 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Page 42. The

21 Customer-sided Load Displacement Program that's

22 contained in the 2014 Power Smart Plan, is that the

23 Load Displacement Program that's assumed under Level 2

24 DSM?

25 MR. DALE FRIESEN: It is a -- a more



9907

1 refined version of what we proposed, yes.

2 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: And that is a new

3 program, is it not? It wasn't in the 2013 plan?

4 MR. DALE FRIESEN: That is correct.

5 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Okay. Let's scroll

6 down to the bottom of the page. You're assuming a

7 three (3) year energy savings of about 335 gigawatt

8 hours?


10 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: And the customers

11 are listed on the top that you're signing up, the

12 eleven (11) in 2014, fourteen (14) in 2015, and seven

13 (7) in 2016/'17. Those are all incremental, are they

14 not?


16 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Are you confident

17 that you can actually achieve this target?

18 MR. DALE FRIESEN: The -- the targets

19 that we've identified here are based on opportunities

20 that we feel are relatively well established. They're

21 customers that we currently have engagement with and

22 are working with to evaluate and substantiate the

23 business case, so we feel that the opportunity is

24 there. There may be some year-to-year variations due

25 to timing of construction, permitting, other issues,



9908

1 but we feel that these savings are achievable, if not

2 exactly within the three (3) year timeline that's given

3 here, but they are -- they are achievable, yes.

4 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Collectively, then,

5 are you confident that you can actually achieve Level 2

6 DSM, provided that you can obtain conversation rates?

7 Yeah, let me re-ask the question, Ms. Morrison.

8 Collectively, then, is Manitoba Hydro

9 reasonably confident that it can actually achieve Level

10 2 DSM, provided that you can get conservation rates

11 improved --

12 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: We've had a number

13 of discussions about our plan and -- with regards to

14 our confidence, and at this point, we are confident

15 that they're -- we're going to achieve the -- the

16 energy projections within our plan.

17 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: And please remind

18 us, Manitoba Hydro is not discounting DSM. It's

19 assuming that 100 percent of DSM is going to be

20 dependable and can be relied upon?

21 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: Yes, and -- and it's

22 -- our view is similar to what some of the other

23 witnesses have testified. With the plan, we make

24 adjustments every year. So as we move forward, each

25 program is reviewed in terms of how well it's



9909

1 performing, and -- and we may be off in terms of the

2 year that we're going to get the savings, but we mig --

3 and we might have to make adjustments to the program

4 designs. The adjustments could be -- could include

5 increasing incentives. It could be changing where

6 we're targeting incentives from the customer to,

7 potentially, a supplier, but overall, we've been doing

8 this for a number of years, and each year we review the

9 plans, the individual programs, we make adjustments.

10 There'll be changes from one plan to

11 another going forward, and generally, we believe this

12 is our best estimate of what we're going to achieve

13 going forward and it's similar to a load forecast.

14 There will be changes as we -- as we move forward, and

15 we'll make those changes accordingly each year.

16 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: I need to

17 supplement that. From a decision on the future supply

18 point of view, we are not going to discount the DSM,

19 and what -- if you remember the definition of

20 'discount' that was provided by the consultant -- and

21 now I can't remember which one it was, there have been

22 so many good consultants. Where that is the definition

23 of 'discount' in there is where you -- you reduce it by

24 10 percent or 20 percent or such -- such thing to

25 account for uncertainty.



9910

1 Manitoba Hydro is certainly not going to

2 do that, and everything Mr. Kuczek said is accurate,

3 but -- but also, just like load forecast has

4 uncertainty, there's some uncertainty associated with

5 it. There's also some uncertainty associated with DSM,

6 and we've heard various DSM witnesses, including Mr.

7 Dunsky, saying the same thing.

8 So when -- from a resource planning

9 point of view, when we're looking into the future

10 deciding what the in-service dates are and what are the

11 risks, we consider -- particularly when it's in the

12 longer term, not just a couple years out, we consider

13 the uncertainty in load forecast.

14 We also will be considering the

15 uncertainty in DSM, and particularly, when we're doing

16 the middle of this ramping up of DSM and -- and there

17 have been many agreed that this is a dramatic ramping

18 up of DSM that we will be considering the fact that ten

19 (10) years out, we don't even have all those programs

20 fully designed yet, and the program will be updated as

21 we go along.

22 So we're not going to discount it, but

23 we will consider the fact there's some fundamental

24 uncertainty, and it -- just like there is in the load

25 forecast.



9911

1 DR. HUGH GRANT: Sven, can I?


3 DR. HUGH GRANT: I'm just -- while

4 you've got this table up, I'm wondering, can I look at

5 this and try to figure out what the utility cost per

6 kilowatt hour saved is to the utility or to the

7 customer, because this -- I take it the energy savings

8 is cumulative, is it? So I've got, say, for 2014,

9 that's the investment undertaken by the utility, but

10 it's going to provide this stream of benefits?

11 MS. LOIS MORRISON: When we calculate

12 the levelized costs per kilowatt hour of, say, the

13 utilities investment or the resource cost investment,

14 we look at the program as whole. We wouldn't look at

15 just the three (3) years. So to -- to determine what

16 the levelized utility cost is, it's best to go to the

17 fifteen (15) year supplemental document, and it's all

18 of those --

19


21 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: That's Hydro Exhibit

22 180. MS. LOIS MORRISON: And Mr.

23 Williams has very

24 nicely told that it's on page 42, so he's apparently

25 skipped ahead.



9912

1 So on page 42 are the metrics that

2 you're looking for in terms of the Utility's

3 perspective metrics, and if you go back to page 38, you

4 would see the integrated perspective metrics that we've

5 talked to at quite a bit of length in this -- this

6 hearing in terms of looking at the total resource

7 costs, benefit analyses, looking at the levelized

8 resource costs.

9 And then going to page 42, you would

10 find for each program proposed, you would find the

11 levelized utility costs also included. So if we go

12 down just a little bit further please, you can find the

13 load displacement and alternative energy. There, you

14 can see that the levelized utility cost is one (1) cent

15 a kilowatt hour.

16 DR. HUGH GRANT: Total resource cost?

17 MS. LOIS MORRISON: The total resource

18 cost, you have to go back to page 38.

19 DR. HUGH GRANT: Just give me a

20 ballpark, because I can't find -- I'm getting a

21 headache trying to follow the scroll, there.

22 MS. LOIS MORRISON: It's five (5)

23 cents.

24 DR. HUGH GRANT: I want to get a

25 question in. Maybe this is just as good as time as



9913

1 any. I'm still struggling to try to figure out this

2 remarkable gap between apparently the cost in some US

3 states of generating capacity and the apparent -- how

4 cheap DSM apparently is. So we could all just go to

5 Hawaii, where they're spending what, thirty-one (31)

6 cents to generate a kilowatt hour of electricity.

7 We could go in and tell them that for

8 three (3) cents a kilowatt hour, we could save them all

9 this money, and I'm still trying to, you know,

10 understand this large gap. And I understand -- I -- I

11 get that there's a incentive problem in -- in some

12 case.

13 But -- but could you enlighten me on

14 this, why there -- there would be -- why you would have

15 these utilities producing power at thirty (30) cent --

16 thirty-one (31) cents a kilowatt hour, extreme case

17 obviously, when we could go and enlighten them and tell

18 them we could, you know, save them that cost?

19 MR. DALE FRIESEN: Okay. If you don't

20 mind, I'll address that question. The premise of the

21 load displacement program, as we've indicated in our

22 literature, is on a no-cost or low-cost fuel basis. So

23 essentially, what we're dealing with here is the

24 original or the originating energy source for load

25 displacement is based on byproducts or waste products



9914

1 that are coming from various industrial and

2 agricultural processes.

3 So initially we have a very low fuel

4 cost, so that in and of itself has a tremendous impact

5 on the levelized resource cost. The actual

6 technologies that we are using to convert these energy

7 sources into electricity are priced in the range of

8 thirty-five hundred (3,500) to five thousand dollars

9 ($5,000) per kilowatt. These are not exotic

10 technologies. These are proven technologies that are

11 in the marketplace today and have well-established

12 costs. So that's the basic premise.

13 Now, the difference between the

14 levelized resource cost and the utility cost is

15 premised on the fact that the customer has an immediate

16 benefit, which is the marginal value of the energy that

17 they're no longer required to purchase from the

18 electric utility.

19 And when you compare those three (3)

20 values, you look at a levelized cost in the range of

21 five (5) cents, you look at a marginal return to the

22 customer on energy not purchased being in the range of

23 four (4) cents, you're left with about a cent. And

24 that's where the levelized utility cost component comes

25 from.



9915

1 DR. HUGH GRANT: Okay. What I was

2 struggling with is so presumably my concern here should

3 be about the social costs and the social benefits. I

4 don't care if it's, you know, from the point of view of

5 who's going to actually pay for it. If it makes sense

6 to undertake the investment from a social perspective,

7 we should do it.

8 So if I were to use total resource cost

9 as my metric, why in the world would we not -- you

10 know, why shouldn't Hawaii shut down half of their

11 generating stations and put DSM in? It seems like a

12 lot -- you know, there's megawatt, megawatt comparison,

13 whatever.

14 If I can save a kilowatt hour, you know,

15 for five (5) cents total reserves cost instead of

16 spending thirty-one (31) cents to produce it, why

17 aren't we doing this?

18 MR. DALE FRIESEN: I'm struggling a

19 little bit the -- the thirty-one (31) cent kilowatt --

20 cost per kilowatt hour in the context of Manitoba. And

21 -- and --

22 DR. HUGH GRANT: I just picked an

23 extreme case. I mean, I thought we could go -- you

24 know, go consult in Hawaii and make a fortune doing

25 this. It just seems it's such a gap --



9916

1 MR. DALE FRIESEN: Like --

2 DR. HUGH GRANT: -- it's such an

3 enormous gap, why isn't it --

4 MR. DALE FRIESEN: Yes. So if -- if

5 you look at the -- again, if you return to the premise

6 of our program, our program is -- is based on what is a

7 mutually beneficial case for both Manitoba Hydro and

8 our customers. They have waste streams. They have

9 byproducts that may or may not have a cost to them to

10 dispose of today. In some cases, there may not be a

11 cost today but there may be a cost in the future.

12 So by using that energy in a productive

13 way, or that waste energy in a productive way, we're

14 providing a benefit to them that factors into this

15 equation. So not every jurisdiction, not every

16 customer in other jurisdictions has that same

17 opportunity. And that opportunity is really derived

18 from the type of industry that you have, and many other

19 jurisdictions are pursuing load displacement, and their

20 resource costs are very similar to ours.

21 DR. HUGH GRANT: I just don't

22 understand why they're not doing it more. So in other

23 words, we could sit here and talk about building a dam

24 which, let's for the sake of argument say would -- is

25 going to cost us ten (10) cents per kilowatt hour,



9917

1 provided that -- just --

2 MR. DALE FRIESEN: The supply of waste

3 product and -- or no-cost or low-cost energy to convert

4 to electricity is not unlimited. It's dictated by the

5 level of industrial activity and the type of industrial

6 activity that you have available in your jurisdiction.

7 So I'll give you a representation. We

8 have a customer that, for every kilowatt hour -- or for

9 every 10 kilowatt hours of energy that they consume,

10 they produce the equivalent of about 25 kilowatt hours

11 of waste energy. It's a product that they dispose of

12 today.

13 So I can't expand my capability to

14 generate beyond that 25 kilowatt hours even if I had a

15 hundred percent efficiency, which I can't achieve. So

16 of that 25 kilowatt hours that I have available, if I

17 have a conversion of efficiency of, let's say, 50

18 percent, I get 12 1/2 kilowatt hours. That's the

19 absolute theoretical limit of what I can accomplish and

20 what can -- what I can achieve.

21 So it's -- there is an upper limit as to

22 what you can achieve based on the resource you have

23 available to you. And that resource is dictated, like

24 I said, by the type and quantity of energy supply you

25 have available, which is related to the type of



9918

1 industry you have.

2 DR. HUGH GRANT: It's not you. It's

3 either the time of day or my cognitive limitations.

4 Thanks for at least -- I'll get back to you on this.

5 MR. DALE FRIESEN: Okay.

6 DR. HUGH GRANT: Thanks.

7 THE CHAIRPERSON: I'd like to attack

8 things from a slightly different perspective. And, you

9 know, I want to frame it from the perspective of the

10 householder or the small business owner out there who

11 is faced with potentially rate increases of 4 percent

12 over an extended period of time.

13 And it seems to me that we should be

14 able to tell that small business owner or householder

15 that, you know, despite these increases, there are

16 opportunities for you to reduce your cost if you

17 undertake certain things. And we've already described,

18 you know, if I switch my furnace to a gas furnace I

19 save six hundred dollars ($600) a year. If I change my

20 water heater, I'll save eighty dollars ($80) a year.

21 So is there a way in which we can tell

22 that householder or the small business owner that, you

23 know, sure you'll get 40 percent rate increases or, you

24 know, over and above what you're paying now, but you

25 can save 20 percent, or you can save 16 percent, or...?



9919

1 Is there in some way we could put it in

2 those terms to the householder?

3 MS. LOIS MORRISON: Much of the

4 advertising and the communication that we do to date,

5 and we -- we do try to -- when we're -- when we're

6 communicating to our customer we're trying to tell them

7 what they can save on their bill, and that's a very

8 strong message for when we talk to customers about

9 improving the insulation on their home or making a

10 change to -- you know, to their water heating

11 equipment.

12 When we're messaging though we -- when

13 we're out in the general public we -- in terms of

14 advertising the Power Smart programs, we usually try

15 not to say, Oh, by the way, we're going to hit you with

16 a rate increase and this is what you can do to -- it --

17 it's how we message.

18 What we -- what we would expect to be

19 doing as we go forward is having a stronger message out

20 to the public about what they can do to reduce their

21 energy bill and, therefore, see a reduction in -- in

22 their overall -- the overall impact to their bill.

23 But we -- we don't normally try to mix

24 those messages, because they're aren't usually well

25 received. We -- we -- they -- they don't -- customers



9920

1 won't focus on the message that would help them.

2 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: But -- but, you

3 know, overall, if you -- if you're involved in the DSM

4 industry, whether it's the load displacement

5 opportunities or residential or commercial, there's all

6 sorts of people out there, and they're -- they're all

7 different.

8 And so to achieve the -- the

9 opportunities in the DSM industry we are with our plan

10 over a number of years achieving significant numbers in

11 terms of gigawatt hours. I think it'll work out to

12 over 6,000 gigawatt hours over by the end of this

13 fifteen (15) year period. That is -- that's not

14 insignificant.

15 Part of that is through codes and

16 standards. Changing codes and standards is a long-term

17 process. We have people involved in that that work on

18 it for a number of years. And then it takes a while

19 before they're actually implemented. And as you see in

20 our graph, it takes a number of years before you even

21 reap the benefits from that.

22 But just individuals themselves, within

23 my own family -- and I've used this as an example

24 before, and I'll just put this on the table because

25 there's many more types of people out there, but it



9921

1 helps to understand what we're dealing with.

2 So I have a brother that's a

3 millionaire. He does not care about energy efficiency.

4 So no matter what we do and what the incentives are,

5 not likely to get him ever, right. You -- you almost

6 wait -- you have to wait till he sells his home, his

7 cottage, the next person moves in might make -- make

8 the changes. That's over decades.

9 My father, he's now in his 70s -- or

10 80s, actually but, you know, when I started in this he

11 was in his 70s. When I talk to him about energy

12 conservation he -- he comes back with: Lloyd, I don't

13 know how long I'm going to be here. Why -- why do I

14 care about pay backs of six (6), seven (7) years,

15 right?

16 So -- so the -- the seniors think

17 differently. My sister is on the low income side of

18 the category, and she's got all sorts of other things

19 she's focussing on. And so you -- you don't talk to

20 her about energy efficiency unless you're going to give

21 it to her, just like we're doing with our program. So

22 -- and, you know, I have another brother that's a blue

23 collar worker, and he's implementing some of the

24 measures because he can afford to.

25 And -- and so each one of you would be



9922

1 different and each one of us are different. Ms.

2 Morrison didn't change her fridge and -- or furnace. I

3 mentioned that earlier, right? You -- you know, and

4 she understood the economics.

5 You know, so it -- it -- what -- what

6 I'm really communicating -- the message is it's a --

7 it's a challenge, but there's an opportunity there.

8 And as a utility we should pursue the opportunity

9 because it's economic. And -- and so we've had a

10 program in place and we're wrapping it up, more

11 aggressive, captured more opportunities and we think it

12 makes sense.

13 THE CHAIRPERSON: But you realize the

14 dilemma you're -- I -- I -- you realize the dilemma

15 you're -- you know, the -- the public -- what the

16 public has in -- in their head is 3.95 percent

17 increases over the next twenty (20) years. That's --

18 that's what's sticking in people's mind. And it seems

19 to me we should be able to tell the typical householder

20 can save 20 percent of their bill by adopting an

21 available set of -- of energy measures.

22 I -- I think you're doing that, but you

23 know, is there some way we can quantify what a typical

24 householder can save by adopting the measures that are

25 available from Manitoba Hydro?



9923

1 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: Well, not everybody

2 has opportunities to save 20 percent, you know, right?

3 So a lot of people, the opportunities are minimum.

4 Like, you could change to CFLs or LEDs today, but if we

5 told them how much they're saving per month they

6 probably wouldn't even do it because it -- it's not a

7 big savings.

8 Changing their fridge, if they've got a

9 really old fridge makes sense. But if your -- if

10 you've got a fridge that you bought even ten (10) years

11 ago and you -- you know, even if it's consuming 650

12 kilowatt hours a year and you're going to buy something

13 that's going to do five-fifty (550), do people really

14 care? Do they want to go through that inconvenience?

15 So -- so the opportunities are there,

16 but the bigger ones are with insulation. That's a big

17 measure. And not everybody wants to do insulation. It

18 depends on, again, you know, all those categories I

19 talked about. You know, it depends where they are in

20 life, what they're planning to do, whether they're

21 going to stay, whether they're going to move.

22 Do you want to add to that?

23 MS. LOIS MORRISON: We -- I -- I

24 believe we did file as an undertaking some examples of

25 what the possible savings might be. And -- and we were



9924

1 very challenged -- for a residential customer if they

2 did -- if their house was this and if they did this and

3 if they did this. And -- and our challenge in trying

4 to respond to that undertaking is, as Mr. Kuczek

5 mentioned, we don't -- there's the average house, but

6 no one lives in that average house.

7 So when we do our -- our advertising for

8 -- so -- so here's an example. We did a mailing to the

9 Interlake area a little while ago. And in that

10 communication to the customer we said, You could save

11 this much on your home based on the fact that the

12 majority of them -- some of the -- the houses we

13 targeted were electrically heated. And they -- they

14 could have installed a water and energy saver package

15 and save a certain amount.

16 So what we did was we looked at the

17 homes that might be more likely for that area, picked

18 out what we think they might be best benefited from,

19 and then we put together a communication as to what

20 they could save. We don't talk about percentage, but

21 what we said was you could save 'X' amount of money,

22 dollars, on your -- your monthly energy bill by doing

23 this.

24 So it's -- it's hard to say the average

25 home because I said the -- the savings in the average



9925

1 home don't really reflect what the -- what the Man --

2 the -- the ratepayers are going to see. So what we

3 want to do is try to target it.

4 And -- and I do believe, as I said, we

5 had the one (1) undertaking where we identified if the

6 home is electrically heated and they upgrade their

7 insulation from -- I think it was 'R' -- their attic

8 insulation from R30 to R50, and if they add -- if they

9 undertake the water and energy saver package, and if

10 they do these components they could save this much on

11 their average bill.

12 Like, we -- we tried to give you an idea

13 as to what that might be. But to give you the one (1)

14 number is difficult because we wouldn't do that. We

15 would target it to the individual -- to those groups to

16 more represent what they would realize because those

17 people that are going to see the greater savings, as

18 Mr. Kuczek mentioned, are the ones that need to upgrade

19 their insulation. So we're going to target the older -

20 - the home -- the areas that have older homes and have

21 more opportunity.

22 MS. MARILYN KAPITANY: So, Ms.

23 Morrison, I haven't been involved with PUB for very

24 long, but we did talk about this as the gas rate

25 hearing that -- that I was involved in. And I don't



9926

1 see what's changed since then. And yet, you've

2 expanded your -- the plans that you have for DSM and

3 you've built it into NFAT. I'm not sure what the

4 impetus for that was, but I'm happy to see it.

5 But I don't see what's changed that's

6 going to allow you to reach your targets now when you

7 haven't been in the past. And -- and I look at some of

8 the jurisdictions that have had really good success and

9 I expect that you probably have talked to those people

10 in Washington, in Vermont, and asked them, like, what

11 is it that they're doing that's not happening in

12 Manitoba and what is it that's going to get us up that

13 ramp and actually have us meet these targets?

14 We talk about it being dependable

15 energy. How is that going to happen?

16 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: Well, first of all,

17 I'll let Ms. Morrison elaborate on that, but I'll just

18 point out, with the new plan, first of all, we've

19 identified some new opportunities, or we're pursuing

20 some new opportunities that aren't necessarily new,

21 like conservation rates. We've talked about that for a

22 while.

23 So now what we've put on the table is an

24 -- an aggressive rate structure that's going to

25 actually achieve some results. The previous



9927

1 conservation -- or inclined blocked rate structure that

2 we had in place was -- an I even said that in our shop,

3 you know, it's not going to do anything, right.

4 So we put a serious rate program in

5 place to -- or we're proposing one. Fuel switching, we

6 think there's opportunities there. We've talked about

7 that at -- at these hearings for a number of years, so

8 that's on the plate but again has to be discussed

9 further.

10 Load displacement, we were pursuing load

11 displacement with one (1) of our customers in 2005 for

12 a period of time when the export market was very

13 lucrative. We've since -- recently these other

14 opportunities have surfaced. This is something that --

15 that I had in mind in -- in 2005, but they've surfaced

16 and they were brought forward and we've put them in the

17 plan.

18 If you look at the numbers associated

19 with those three (3) components, they're fairly

20 significant. That's going from, you know -- so it's --

21 it's not similar to the other programs that we have

22 within our portfolio. So the other thing that we did

23 do is we -- we didn't extend our programs beyond

24 '17/'18. We had our plan that ended at that point. So

25 our staff had programs that designed and -- and were



9928

1 going to end at that time. So when we updated this

2 plan, we said, Well, why are you stopping at '17/'18?

3 Like there's probably still more opportunities.

4 So another significant component was

5 added just by extending the programs further in time,

6 because some of the people that I talked to will change

7 homes and they will implement those measures. So you

8 still capture those opportunities. It's just -- it

9 takes time for -- for things to happen and things to

10 change within a -- a home, or within people's lives.

11 And adding to that we modified some of

12 our programs to be more aggressive. So and -- so we --

13 Ms. Morrison could talk to, you know, the discussions

14 we've had with other utilities, but those programs that

15 we're talking about, those typical programs, we're

16 quite confident that we're going to achieve the results

17 from those programs. I'm not too concerned about that.

18 Load displacement, Mr. Friesen and his

19 staff are working on that. They're -- we've talked

20 about the confidence level there. They're fairly

21 confident. The two (2) that require further discussion

22 are the conservation rates. We've talked to BC Hydro

23 and -- and their staff about what they've achieved.

24 They've implemented them for a number of years.

25 And so we feel our numbers that we're



9929

1 estimating, if we implement the rate structure we're

2 talking about, are reasonable. And then with fuel

3 switching, you've seen the slide or the video, the

4 opportunity there, the economics associated with that

5 are so substantial, how could you not capture some

6 opportunities there?

7 So in terms of confidence and -- and our

8 ability to achieve these results, and I -- I think the

9 witness testified this afternoon, you might not get 100

10 percent in all the programs. There's one (1) program,

11 the Geothermal Community Initiative, I'm concerned on

12 that one (1). But as a package, there'll be pluses and

13 minuses.

14 MR. RICHARD BEL: Could I ask about --

15 I just want to carry on this for a bit. The -- the new

16 package you put in here, 2014/2017, and could we look

17 at slide 57 from Dunsky?

18

19 (BRIEF PAUSE)

20

21 MR. RICHARD BEL: So Mr. Dunsky's

22 yellow lines are at one point three (1.3) and one point

23 five (1.5) and he's going out to, what, 2025 there and

24 you're at 1 percent. So what we're having is load

25 forecasting in this range. Am I right? So you're sort



9930

1 of Level 2 extended, and not exactly that because that

2 was based on his calculation, but must be close to

3 that.

4 Am I -- am I correct?

5

6 (BRIEF PAUSE)

7

8 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: It's very difficult

9 for me to -- to speak to the numbers that went into Mr.

10 Dunsky's graphs here.

11 MR. RICHARD BEL: He's one point --

12 he's -- he's one point three (1.3) incremental, his --

13 his low case.

14 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: I'm sorry, what's

15 the question?

16 MR. RICHARD BEL: Well, the question

17 is: So -- so we are flattening load based on the

18 scenario here. Am I -- am I right? Because this is

19 about flattening load. If we're carrying out -- that's

20 what he's showing here.

21

22 (BRIEF PAUSE)

23

24 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: We can't give a

25 precise answer there. I know.



9931

1 MR. RICHARD BEL: I get it. I get it.

2 No, I -- I wasn't asking for an exact. I'm not -- I

3 was just saying, but we're in that kind of -- if we're

4 incrementally moving forward, we -- we must be in this

5 region. But I'll leave that point. That's an

6 observation, I think.

7 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: You know, generally

8 what I know is, with our updated Power Smart Plan, with

9 the -- what we know -- expected at this point to happen

10 with our load, we -- we are still expecting our load to

11 grow at 0.9 percent, as -- as I recall it, so.

12 And I think Mr. Dunsky, if I'm looking

13 at that, is suggesting it's going to be flat, and

14 that's not what we're thinking with our numbers in our

15 plan.

16 MR. RICHARD BEL: I think, to be fair,

17 he said, "near flat." Anyways.

18 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: We'll have to look.

19 But I'm not thinking that we're there.

20


22 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Mr. Kuczek, to

23 follow up on that point, one (1) of the issues that was

24 raised is the risk of underestimating the load.

25 Based on that, if the load ever was



9932

1 underestimated and new generation needed to be brought

2 online quickly, what's the approximately lead time to

3 bring a small gas plant into service? The panel has

4 heard different years.

5 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: My apologies. I

6 was trying to keep up with the other preparations.

7 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: I'd be happy to re-

8 ask the question.

9 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: If you could,

10 please.

11 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Certainly. There's

12 been some discussion about the risks of underestimating

13 load with reliance on DSM. And the panel apprec --

14 certainly appreciates that hydroelectric developments

15 have a long lead time.

16 What's the equivalent lead time for

17 bringing a small gas plant into service, how many

18 years?

19 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: Ones that would be

20 practical for the kind of purpose we were talking about

21 -- you can have smaller area derivatives that have very

22 short lead times, of a year. But -- but for the

23 industrial kind, we're talking about -- and not

24 combined cycle -- simple cycle -- something in the

25 order of three (3) years probably makes sense, assuming



9933

1 you've done some pre-work for that and the transmission

2 is available. So that -- that's assuming you've done

3 some pre-work.

4 Of course, you've got now the issues of

5 you're using that as your resource and -- and the cost

6 associated. But in terms of lead time, it could be a

7 bit longer. It could be a little bit shorter.

8 Combined cycle would take a bit longer.

9 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Is the 2014 forecast

10 making any assumptions that would see advancements in

11 off-grid technologies like solar, like small-scale

12 residential wind turbines, or the likes?

13

14 (BRIEF PAUSE)

15

16 MR. DALE FRIESEN: Those types of

17 measures would be addressed in our DSM Plan. They

18 would not be addressed in our load forecast. So we

19 would -- we would examine the impact of those measures

20 within the context of our DSM plan.

21 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Have you considered

22 installing smart meters as part of the DSM Plan? And

23 if not, why not?

24 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: We're currently --

25 we have been for a number of years looking at smart



9934

1 metres, and we're still looking at smart meters. The -

2 - the business case for smart meters is -- it's a

3 challenge. At this point we think there is a business

4 case, and at some point within the -- the next decade

5 we would expect to have smart metres in place.

6

7 (BRIEF PAUSE)

8

9 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: I don't have

10 additional questions to the DSM panel. I do have one

11 for you though, Mr. Cormie. We discussed the Minnesota

12 Power contract earlier, and you indicated that if

13 Keeyask is not proceed with or if it's delayed beyond

14 more than two (2) years, that the contract would

15 terminate. And I believe you indicated that

16 constructing Keeyask was a condition precedent for

17 Hydro but not for Minnesota Power.

18 Can you point us to the section that

19 you're relying on in saying the contract will

20 terminate?

21 MR. DAVID CORMIE: Yes. We'll -- we'll

22 take that as an undertaking, and --


24 MR. DAVID CORMIE: -- provide that

25 tomorrow, or shortly. Yeah.



9935

1 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Certainly. Thank

2 you, Mr. Cormie.

3


5 the section they are

6 relying on in saying the

7 contract will terminate

8

9 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Now, I am advised by

10 Mr. Williams that he has about forty-five (45) minutes

11 of questions, so given that the MKO will not be

12 fielding presenters tomorrow morning, I'm seeking the

13 panel's guidance as to whether the panel would like to

14 break for the day and then continue briefly with the

15 DSM panel in the morning or...

16

17 (BRIEF PAUSE)

18

19 MR. SVEN HOMBACH: Perhaps we could

20 stand down for a -- for a minute.

21



24

25 CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BYRON WILLIAMS:



9936

1 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: Mr. Chair, I'm a

2 little afraid to speak unless the court reporter gives

3 me permission, and I do apologize for that. And it --

4 just a bit of house -- housekeeping to start with.

5 In -- there was a discussion Mr. Hombach

6 had with -- in terms of Manitoba Exhibit 153, page 40.

7 Mr. Friesen, that's probably your part of the world.

8 Okay. And if we scroll down to the bottom of that page

9 -- and I'm just trying to reconcile some math here,

10 sir. We see the -- in terms of load -- customer-sided

11 load displacement we have incremental savings starting

12 from a 2013/'14 base of 335.6 gigawatt hours.

13 Is that right?

14 MR. DALE FRIESEN: Did you say

15 2013/'14?

16 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: Well, to back up,

17 our baseline -- our base zero is presumably 2013/'14?

18 MR. DALE FRIESEN: Correct, yes.

19 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And if we move out

20 what this is showing us is, as you discussed with Mr.

21 Hombach, we've got 335.6 gigawatt hours cumulative as

22 of 2016/'17 from that base?


24 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And if we could

25 just, Diana, please turn to Hydro Exhibit 180, Appendix



9937

1 A2 and scroll down to the middle of the page. A2,

2 Appendix A2. Scroll down a bit more, please.

3 And Mr. Friesen, if we see about on the

4 -- on the -- the screen in front of us, about two-

5 thirds (2/3) of the way down the page, you'll see the

6 heading "Load Displacement and Alternative Energy"?

7 MR. DALE FRIESEN: Correct.

8 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And if we move out

9 to the blue, being the 2016/'17 year, you'll see for

10 customer-sided load displacement the figure of 305.1

11 gigawatt hours.

12 MR. DALE FRIESEN: Correct.

13 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And that would be

14 the analogous figure to the -- to the page we saw

15 previously in the three (3) year power plan, would it?


17 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And is the

18 difference, sir, between the two (2) figures generation

19 versus meter, or -- or what is the difference, sir?

20 MR. DALE FRIESEN: It is the difference

21 between generation and meter. That is correct.

22 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And if we can stay

23 on this page and scroll to the left? And -- and look

24 to the -- in the bottom right-hand corner, and this may

25 go to Ms. Morrison, or -- or to Mr. Kuczek, but we'll



9938

1 see the figure 2,739 gigawatt hours.

2 Do you see that, Ms. Morrison?

3 MS. LOIS MORRISON: Yes, I do. Thank

4 you.

5 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And what I

6 understand that to be is starting with the base year of

7 2013/'14, that is the forecast cumulative savings for

8 the Power Smart '14 Plan, leaving aside codes and

9 standards and regulations.

10 Is that right?

11 MS. LOIS MORRISON: Yes, that is

12 correct. It would not include any savings that were

13 projected to have been achieved in '13/'14. It would

14 only include the savings expected to be achieved in

15 '14/'15 going forward to '28/'29.

16 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: Okay. Thank you.

17 And if we could turn, Diana, to Hydro Exhibit 87, slide

18 80? Hopefully I've got that page right.

19 Ms. Morrison or Mr. Kuczek, you

20 recognize this page being the projected energy savings

21 for -- from different levels of DSM that was presented,

22 I believe, way back in week 1 of this hearing?


24 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And so if we look

25 at the red line, we will see finishing in the 2028/'29



9939

1 year a projection for Level 2 DSM, I'll suggest to you,

2 of 2,961 gigawatt hours.

3 Would that be right?

4 MS. LOIS MORRISON: that is correct.

5 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: So would that be

6 an apples to apples comparison with the figure that we

7 just discussed in terms of Power Smart '14 being 2,739

8 gigawatt hours?

9

10 (BRIEF PAUSE)

11

12 MS. LOIS MORRISON: Generally, for the

13 purposes of comparison, it would be about the same,

14 because this is fiscal year ending '27/'20 -- sorry,

15 fiscal year ending '28. So this would be '13/'14 to

16 '27/'28, so it's -- it's a -- still a fifteen (15) year

17 time frame.

18

19 (BRIEF PAUSE)

20

21 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: So just so I

22 understand, the calculation of Level 2 DSM that's

23 presented here runs from the 2013/'14 year to the

24 2027/'28 year and achieves 2,961 gigawatt hours as --

25 or at least, it forecasts that achievement?



9940


2 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And it is -- what

3 you're telling me is it is not strictly analogous to

4 the figure of 2,739 gigawatt hours I presented to you,

5 because that figure -- that forecast starts a year

6 later, being 2014/'15, and runs a year farther.

7 Would that be fair?

8 MS. LOIS MORRISON: That is correct,

9 though there is an offset.

10 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: Okay, and by

11 'offset', Ms. Morrison, you can help me out, what do

12 you mean by that?

13 MS. LOIS MORRISON: Just that one (1)

14 starts a year later than the other, and goes a year

15 later than the other.

16 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: Okay. Yeah. Fair

17 enough. And sticking with Level 2 DSM for a moment,

18 leaving aside codes and standards, is there incremental

19 DSM savings forecast beyond the '27/'28 year for Level

20 2?

21

22 (BRIEF PAUSE)

23

24 MS. LOIS MORRISON: We have to find the

25 exhibit number, however, we did provide an undertaking



9941

1 where we identified specifically what was assumed after

2 the '27/'28 year. It was under -- Manitoba Hydro

3 Undertaking number 12.

4 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: I can't even

5 remember that far back, Ms. Morrison, but.

6 MS. LOIS MORRISON: Well, you -- you

7 unfortunately have spent much more time here than I

8 have, so I -- I can appreciate that.

9 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: Well done, though.

10

11 (BRIEF PAUSE)

12

13 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: So what -- so what

14 you're suggesting here is that with the exception of

15 the Refrigerator Retirement Program, you did not assume

16 -- well, why don't you explain what you're saying here?

17 I'm not brave enough, Ms. Morrison.

18 MS. LOIS MORRISON: I don't know if I

19 am either. It -- like you said, it's been a while.

20 What we were identifying here was the assumptions that

21 were included in the analysis, and specifically, we

22 identified that the Refrigerator Retirement Program

23 savings ended. However, all the other savings

24 continued on for measures, and we assumed reinvestment.

25 Then we identified where additional



9942

1 incremental energy savings were being presented pra --

2 past the 2027/'28 fiscal year, and those initiatives

3 are listed following as the Residential Geothermal

4 Incentive Program, the Commercial Lighting Program,

5 Commercial -- or the Power Program, Commercial Building

6 Code, and the Conservation Rates Initiative all

7 presented savings that had incremental savings passed

8 either a year, or a few years past the '27/'28 date.

9 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And just so I

10 understand, are you suggesting to me that the pace of

11 incremental DSM savings post-'27/'28 under DSM Scenario

12 2 was roughly the same or somewhat lower than it was up

13 to '27/'28?

14

15 (BRIEF PAUSE)

16

17 MS. LOIS MORRISON: You are correct

18 that past the '27/'28 fiscal year, under the DSM Level

19 2, there were fewer incremental or new initiatives

20 being brought in, or new savings, or new projects being

21 undertaken under that -- in -- in that timeframe as

22 compared to the timeframe leading up to that period.

23 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: Could we go back

24 to Exhibit 87, slide 80 for just a second?

25



9943

1 (BRIEF PAUSE)

2

3 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: So, Ms. Morrison,

4 if I looked at the -- the red line as it ends at

5 2027/'28, what you're suggesting to me is that it

6 flattens out somewhat past the 2027/'28 year. Is that

7 what you're telling me?

8 MS. LOIS MORRISON: Its slope would be

9 a little lower, yes.

10

11 (BRIEF PAUSE)

12

13 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: So just to get a

14 sense of the magnitude of difference between DSM plan -

15 - excuse me, DSM Scenario 2 and Power Smart Plan 14.

16 The two (2) figures that I -- I had given you

17 previously being the twenty-nine sixty-one (2,961) for

18 Level 2 ended at '27/'28. And the two thousand seven

19 hundred and thirty-nine (2,739) for Power Smart 14

20 ended in '28/'29.

21 If I'm trying to get a sense of the

22 magnitude of the difference of the plans, would I be

23 for -- of course, for the first time in my life far too

24 simplistic in -- in subtracting the two (2)?

25 MS. LOIS MORRISON: There would some --



9944

1 looking at the program level strictly, you -- there --

2 there are some nuances because the fact that there is

3 savings in the '13/'14 year versus the '27/'20 --

4 because of that offset there's some nuances. So there

5 -- it is a little bit over simplified, but generally

6 it's pretty close.

7 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: So it would be

8 about a 7 percent difference between the two (2) plans?

9 MS. LOIS MORRISON: I'm -- I'm hesitant

10 to accept that without checking it and -- and doing a

11 further detailed look. It -- it's -- yes, as Mr.

12 Kuczek is whispering to me, it's close, because we tend

13 to look at the overall package of codes and standards

14 and such when we're -- we're looking at our analysis,

15 but from just the program level, per se, yes.

16

17 (BRIEF PAUSE)

18

19 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: So is Manitoba

20 Hydro telling me, subject to check, I can rely upon an

21 assumption of 7 percent difference?

22 MS. LOIS MORRISON: Yes.

23 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: It depends what

24 you're using it for, like I -- I think when I talked

25 about this before when I was testifying that, you know,



9945

1 I -- I don't like to get too detailed in terms of the

2 specific numbers. There's -- there's a lot of -- this

3 is an art, it's not a science so if you talk twenty-

4 nine sixty-one (2,961) or twenty-nine hundred (2,900),

5 you know. To talk twenty-nine sixty-one (2,961) is --

6 to me doesn't mean a lot. We're going to get roughly

7 2,900 gigawatt hours and -- and you know, or twenty-one

8 sixty-one (2,161) as we say, that's what we're

9 targeting but...

10 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: Did -- did you

11 misspeak?

12 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: What -- what did I --

13 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: You might've said

14 twenty-one sixty-one (2,161), sir, but that -- that's

15 probably a --

16 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: I misspoke.

17 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: Okay.

18 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: I have progressives.

19 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: Here's my

20 challenge -- and Mr. Wojczynski, you can feel free to

21 chip in, as well.

22 What I'm trying understand for my client

23 is given that there appears to be some difference

24 between Power Smart 2014 and DSM Scenario 2, can I --

25 can I rely upon that 7 percent difference in -- in



9946

1 considering the implications for a net present value of

2 the comparison between the plans?

3

4 (BRIEF PAUSE)

5

6 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: I heard your

7 question. And maybe because it's 6:44, but I don't

8 think I understand it. So if --

9 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: Well, let -- let

10 me ask it better --

11 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: Okay.

12 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: -- if I could?

13 Sir, in doing the net present value calculations,

14 whether it's in Exhibit 104-15, or 104-16 Revised, you

15 relied upon DSM Scenario 2, correct?

16 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: Yes. And the other

17 levels, but for this discussion, yes.

18 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And I believe the

19 evidence that I have from Manitoba Hydro in terms of

20 the difference between DSM Level 2 and Power Smart 14

21 is, subject to check, in the range of 7 percent?

22 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: In terms of

23 gigawatt hours.

24 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: In terms of

25 gigawatt hours.



9947

1 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: Yeah, but then you

2 talked about NPV, that's the part I was having trouble

3 with.

4 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: What I'm trying to

5 understand is: Would we expect if we did a calculation

6 of 104-15, for example, using Power Smart 14 gigawatt

7 hour savings, all other things being equal, that the

8 results would be different?

9 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: Sorry, that the

10 results would be...? And you trailed off at the end.

11 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: It is 6:45, I did

12 trail off. I apologize.

13 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: Yeah.

14 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: We would expect

15 the results to be different?

16 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: They'll be

17 different but -- but there wouldn't be 7 percent

18 different. I mean, if you look at the level -- if you

19 look at, for instance, Plan 5, going from base DSM to

20 Level 1 DSM to Level 2 DSM, the numbers actually

21 increased. Then Level 3 they go down slightly, but

22 they're -- they're essentially bouncing around with

23 that plus/minus called 40 million or something that I,

24 at the beginning of this whole process, called noise.

25 So essentially, we're seeing for Plan 5



9948

1 at least, 400 million -- or just under 400 million net

2 present value benefit with the 2013 assumptions. You

3 also saw on the flat load sensitivity we did that was

4 related to Mr. Thomson's statement on day one, we got

5 over 400 million for a flat load. So as earlier

6 indicated, Plan 5 at least really, whether it's Level 2

7 DSM or 7 percent more, I don't expect we're going to

8 see anything different than around 400 million for that

9 scenario. It is true, the Preferred Plan is a

10 different story.

11 And -- and that one we could

12 simplistically right now assume that it would be part

13 of the way between 45 million positive under Plan 14

14 and minus seven (7). So -- but it -- it's -- so

15 somewhere between those for the Preferred Plan. So I -

16 - I don't know if that helps you.

17 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: It helps. And --

18 and the point you're making, sir, is that the impact of

19 different levels of DSM does have an impact on the

20 relative change in the plans?

21 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: It does for the

22 Preferred Plan, but not for the Keeyask/750 Plan.

23 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And as compared to

24 the Keeyask/Gas plans, more DSM would -- would tend to

25 disadvantage the Preferred Plan?



9949

1 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: Could you repeat

2 that? I think you referred the Preferred Plan and the

3 Keeyask/Gas Plan.

4 Were you comparing the Preferred Plan to

5 the Keeyask/Gas Plan?

6 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: Sir, all I was

7 saying is -- is as compared to Keeyask/Gas plans,

8 whether it's Plan 6 or Plan 5, am I correct in

9 suggesting to you that they tend to perform somewhat

10 better under more DSM as compared to Plan 14?


12 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: Now, just -- just

13 a couple of small points for you, Mr. Wojczynski, and

14 then I -- I think I will be done with you and be

15 focussing on the lord -- load forecast.

16 But if we could pull up Hydro Exhibit

17 104-15, which I believe was filed earlier today. Or is

18 that it right there, that was quick.

19 Mr Wojczynski, and -- and just so you

20 know, I'm going to want to kind of reconcile this with

21 Manitoba Hydro Exhibit 192.

22 So, sir, if I looked at Plan 6 under DSM

23 Scenario 2, I've got a gas in 2040?


25 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And -- and if I



9950

1 were to go to Manitoba Hydro Exhibit 192 under pathway

2 4, we see that new resources are kind of -- or are

3 anticipated around 2037, is that right?

4 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: Under which path

5 was that, sorry?

6 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: Pathway 4, sir.

7 You see if you fol --


9 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: Okay. And is the

10 difference between the timing of Plan 6 is portrayed on

11 Manitoba Hydro Exhibit 104-15, and here being some

12 three (3) years earlier - being Manitoba Hydro Exhibit

13 192 - is that the pipeline influence, sir?

14 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: Subject to check,

15 yes. Let me just think about that for a sec. I

16 sometimes answer too quickly and --

17 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: That's the way we

18 like it, Mr Wojczynski.

19 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: Yeah, yeah, I've

20 learned that. Okay, so the question was with Plan 6 in

21 DSM Level 2 in the -- we have it at -- gas coming in at

22 2040. And then on this pathway one, we have it coming

23 in on 20 -- we say 2037 and that is Plan 6, as well, so

24 I would say yes, subject to check, that -- that is

25 right.



9951

1 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And so subject to

2 check, if I'm trying to reconcile the timing between,

3 let's say, Exhibit 104-15 of some of the supplemental

4 generation sources as compared to Manitoba Hydro

5 Exhibit Number 192, I'm likely to understand that any

6 timing differences are primarily related to a -- a

7 difference in terms of including the pipeline load?

8 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: I -- I would say

9 generally that's true, yes.

10 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And just one (1)

11 second before we leave Manitoba Hydro Exhibit 192. Mr

12 Wojczynski, you'll re -- recall earlier in the hearing

13 we were talking about a decision point for Conawapa

14 being on or about 2018.

15 Would that be fair, sir?

16 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: Yes, that was for

17 '26 in-service date.

18 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: Okay. And so when

19 I look at Manitoba Hydro Exhibit 192 and go down to

20 pathway -- just below pathway 5, we see a -- a

21 different timing for Conawapa -- the decision point

22 being 2022.

23 Is that right, sir?

24 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: Yeah, I can't this

25 see this proper -- I need my glasses, I got --



9952

1 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: That's --

2 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: -- floaters so I

3 need this thing, so.

4 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: That's also how we

5 like it.

6 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: So 2022, is what we

7 have in there and that is to protect a 2030 in-service

8 date, or to commit for a 2030 in-service date.

9 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And if we go up to

10 pathway 1, we see a commit to Conawapa -- a

11 construction under that as being the 2023 year?


13 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And just so I

14 understand, sir, and -- and to assist our clients, when

15 we're thinking of the timing for the Conawapa decision

16 point, are we now really thinking about 2022/'23?

17 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: Only in the

18 scenario where we are not giving any consideration to

19 other export sales than a WPS and NP. As when I

20 introduced this earlier this afternoon, I discussed how

21 at the bottom of Exhibit 192, I believe it was -- the

22 one up here -- if you'd go at the very bottom, there's

23 the blue caterpillar, and the blue caterpillar, the

24 very first box says,

25 "Review Conawapa 2026 in-service date



9953

1 and DSM level."

2 And then -- and then the idea was with

3 the arrow that every year we -- we review our Power

4 Resource Plan, the load forecast DSM, and then when you

5 get to 2018 we'd explicitly say in that year, which --

6 pardon me, 2019. In 2019 we are considering whether we

7 would want to commit Conawapa for 2027.

8 But -- but given that we're saying

9 there's no other sales in this -- assumed right now, we

10 let it slip. Then we let it slip another year. Then

11 we let it slip another year. To protect the WPS sale,

12 you need to be committing by 2030. If we had the MSP

13 500 sale. If we had something from Great River Energy,

14 the 600 megawatts. If we had an -- if we had the

15 SaskPower. If we had -- there's some other

16 negotiations underway.

17 If any of those, or some of those

18 happened then we would -- we would -- at those other

19 blue boxes we would then commit Conawapa at that point,

20 assuming that it was attractive to do so. We...

21 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: That's helpful.

22 And -- and thank you for going through that. And I

23 apologize if I missed it the first time through.

24 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: There's a lot of

25 material here.



9954

1 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: If we could go

2 back to Manitoba Hydro Exhibit 180, and Appendix A-2,

3 and Mr. Wojczynski you're always welcome to stay around

4 but I think I'm on load forecasts, and --

5 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: I wouldn't want to

6 leave this fun place.

7 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: None of us really

8 do, sir. If we -- if we focus on the energy efficiency

9 subtotal, if we could scroll down a bit on the page,

10 you'll see just under 'Industrial' the energy

11 efficiency subtotal.

12 And does this go to you, Ms. Morrison?

13 MS. LOIS MORRISON: Depends on what the

14 question is.

15 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: Mr. Kuczek is --

16 is nodding his head, so. Just -- I want to work my way

17 across this table with you. So we see the -- let's

18 just take an example.

19 As we go across this table, these are

20 cumulative figures; is -- is that right?

21 MS. LOIS MORRISON: Yes. They

22 represent the cumulating energy savings year to year as

23 new projects and new participants enter.

24 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: So if I wanted to

25 understand the incremental additional savings between



9955

1 two (2) -- two (2) particular years, I would take the -

2 - the figure for the second year and sub -- and

3 subtract from it the -- the savings from the first

4 year. Would that be fair?

5

6 (BRIEF PAUSE)

7

8 MS. LOIS MORRISON: Generally, yes.

9 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And you can --

10 we're not going to go through every year, and you can

11 either pull out a calculator or -- or accept my

12 calculations subject to check, but if I were to look at

13 the incremental difference between 2015 -- going from

14 2014 to 2015/'16, would you accept, subject to check,

15 that it is about 114.2 gigawatt hours being the

16 difference between two thirty-five point one (235.1)

17 and one fifteen point nine (115.9)?


19 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And if I were to

20 go out a few more years to the 2018/'19 year and seek

21 to calculate the difference between the '18/'19 and the

22 '17/'18 year, would you accept, subject to check, that

23 that would be 103.3 gigawatt hours, being the

24 difference between the '18/'19 cumulative figure and

25 the 2017/'18 cumulative figure?



9956


2 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And if I were to

3 go out three (3) more years to 2021/'22, can we agree,

4 subject to check, that the difference between the

5 '21/'22 year and the '20/'21 year would be 77.6

6 gigawatt hours?


8 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And let's go out

9 three (3) more years to 2024/'25, and you would accept,

10 subject to check, that the difference between the

11 2024/'25 year and the '23/'24 year would be about 51.5

12 gigawatt hours?


14 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And, so just kind

15 of -- what we're seeing in the early years are

16 incremental growth in savings in excess of 100 gigawatt

17 hours per year.

18 By the time we get out to the 2024/'25

19 year, we would have say incremental savings on a year-

20 to-year basis of about half that?

21 MS. LOIS MORRISON: Looking at the

22 efficiency programs alone, yes. And some of that would

23 be reflected by the nature of the programs. The

24 program that comes to mind is the roadway lighting

25 conversion program where we know there are only so many



9957

1 roadway lights out there, and we plan to convert them

2 within that first period of time.

3 Once they're converted to LED, we will

4 have to wait until something better comes along, and

5 given that we waited fifteen (15) to twenty (20) years

6 before something better came along last time, that's

7 reasonable.

8 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: Okay. And there

9 you -- there you see the philosophical difference

10 presumably between Mr. Chernick and Mr. Dunsky and --

11 and Hydro.


13 MS. LOIS MORRISON: To a certain

14 extent, yes. There are diminishing savings -- in terms

15 of the energy efficiency component of our plan, each

16 time you go out to look at a new technology the slice

17 gets thinner.

18 Again, going back to the roadway

19 lighting program, in the early '90s, and I -- I hate to

20 admit I -- I was around for that, we converted all of

21 our roadway lighting from incandescent and mercury

22 vapour -- we still had a few incandescents but

23 primarily mercury vapour to high pressure sodium.

24 And when we did that program, we saved

25 about 50 gigawatt hours, going back on memory here, by



9958

1 converting all those lights. And those light -- we had

2 fewer lights then. We have more lights now. This time

3 around when we're going to do the conversion, we're

4 anticipating going from HPS to LED to save about 35

5 gigawatt hours. So we have more lights in place,

6 however, even with the substantial savings with LED

7 that slice is smaller than when we went from

8 incandescent mercury vapour to HPS.

9 So when you're looking at efficiency

10 components of -- of equipment, you're -- you're --

11 every time you take a slice that slice gets smaller.

12 When we talk about some of the other initiatives that

13 are going in further down, such as what Mr. Friesen

14 spoke to in terms of load displacement, that's more

15 those newer technologies that are introduced here.

16 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And -- yeah,

17 'cause I was just -- we're going to come to load

18 displacement --

19 MR. DALE FRIESEN: No, actually I'm

20 talking on efficiency, and that phenomena that Ms.

21 Morrison spoke to, about the slice getting smaller,

22 affects Codes and Standards as well. So I'll give you

23 an example.

24 If your refrigerator or other device

25 went from 90 to 92 percent efficiency, the next time



9959

1 you only have 8 percent losses. If you go from ninety-

2 two (92) to ninety-five (95), next time you only have 5

3 percent losses. You can't take away more than your

4 losses essentially. That's your limiting factor. It's

5 the law of science.

6 'Cause I think we can all agree that

7 we're not going to get greater than 100 percent

8 efficiency. And as we approach that threshold, the

9 challenge becomes progressively larger from both a cost

10 perspective and a technical perspective.

11 So it's something we always have to keep

12 in our minds, that we can't fundamentally ignore

13 science here. We have to look at that in the

14 efficiency spectrum, in particular, whether it's Codes

15 and Standards or -- or whether it's programs, that we

16 have some limitations there that we have to recognize.

17 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And we'll -- we'll

18 come to that. Let -- let's go to load displacement for

19 a moment, and let's look at Hydro Exhibit 153, page 40

20 again. And you had a bit of a conversation -- if we

21 can scroll up on the page a little bit.

22 You had a bit of a conversation with My

23 Learned Friend -- thank you -- Mr. Hombach about this

24 program. And just without asking you to elaborate, in

25 -- in the short-term under 'load displacement,' you're



9960

1 looking at the conversion of waste streams and

2 byproducts into useful energy.



5 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And of course

6 you're targeting some major customers segments

7 including forestry, chemistry, chemicals, metals, et

8 cetera.


10 MR. DALE FRIESEN: That is fair.

11 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: As you look to the

12 future, you note that other emerging sources, such as

13 wind and solar, may have potential in certain in --

14 instances to offset purchase energy.


16 MR. DALE FRIESEN: There's been

17 considerable discussion about solar at this hearing in

18 many different parts of the hearing. And I think

19 there's also been a lot of discussion about grid

20 parity. So all of us recognize, I believe, that there

21 is a future opportunity for solar, small wind, et

22 cetera; it's a question of timing.

23 And in our current plan, the uncertainty

24 is if you -- if you look at the evidence that's

25 presented by various presenters, the uncertainty with



9961

1 respect to when solar becomes cost competitive, it's a

2 pretty big window.

3 And then there's the discussion of

4 competition to solar, and that competition could be

5 existing generation sources, and solar may not have a

6 significant advantage over them.

7 So as Mr. Dunsky pointed out, and

8 several others have pointed out, grid parity is one (1)

9 discussion point, adoption rate is a completely second

10 and almost separate discussion point and the rate at

11 which these technologies get adopted.

12 Given all of these uncertainties, we

13 have not included solar in our 2014 Plan.

14 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And just to follow

15 that through, if I was looking for solar or a -- an

16 alternative energy to show up, I would probably expect

17 it to be in the customer's sited load displacement

18 line.


20 MR. DALE FRIESEN: That would be a

21 logical place for it to -- to be, you know, depending

22 on the -- the type of customer you're addressing it, we

23 may create separate programs. So for instance it could

24 be a residential program for rooftop PV, and there

25 could be a commercial program but, essentially, you're



9962

1 correct.

2 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: If we could turn

3 to Manitoba Hydro 180, Appendix A-2 again. And if we

4 can scroll down to load displacement and alternative

5 energy and, Diana, it's on the page, but if you could

6 pull it up a little bit more -- oh, I think that's too

7 far. That's lovely, thank you.

8 And, Mr. Friesen, if -- let's pick the

9 year 2021 and go down to the customer's sited load

10 displacement, you'll see cumulative savings of 580.6

11 gigawatt hours out to that point in time.



14 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And if I moved

15 arou -- along that line each year out to 2028/'29, I

16 would see that same figure of 580.6 gigawatt hours.

17 Would that be correct?


19 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And what the

20 constants of that figure suggests is past 2021 there

21 are no incremental savings built into the 2014 DSM Plan

22 related to customer sited load displacement.


24 MR. DALE FRIESEN: That is what the

25 numbers say, yes.



9963

1 (BRIEF PAUSE)

2

3 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And if I just went

4 up one (1) line, sir, that is the Bio Energy

5 Optimization Program, correct?


7 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And if we turn to

8 the 2019/'20 year, we see -- we -- just one (1) second,

9 please. We see the cumulative savings to that point in

10 time of 61.9 gigawatt hours. Is that correct?

11 MR. DALE FRIESEN: That is correct, as

12 well.

13 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And if I move

14 along that line out to 2028/'29, as well, that -- that

15 number remains constant?

16 MR. DALE FRIESEN: That is also

17 correct.

18 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And that suggests

19 to me that past 2019/'20, there is no incremental

20 savings related to this built into the forecast.


22 MR. DALE FRIESEN: That is what the

23 numbers say, yes.

24

25 (BRIEF PAUSE)



9964

1 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: Mr. Cormie, you're

2 here. And, Mr. Cormie, a big part of your business is

3 monitoring what's hot, what's happening in -- in the

4 American marketplace.


6 MR. DAVE CORMIE: Those are your --

7 your words, not mine.

8 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: But it -- it would

9 be fair that in -- in your constant efforts to optimize

10 export revenues for Manitoba Hydro, it would be

11 important for you to keep your finger on the pulse of

12 the American marketplace?

13 MR. DAVE CORMIE: My -- my priorities

14 are with several of our major customers and that's

15 where I focus.

16 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: Okay. You would

17 keep your mind, sir, on the -- what's going on in terms

18 of generation in the American marketplace.

19 Would that be fair, in terms of new

20 generation, what the sources of new generation are?

21 MR. DAVE CORMIE: I understand what our

22 customers view their alternatives to be.

23 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: Okay. And you're

24 saying, sir, that you go no father than just your

25 customers?



9965

1 MR. DAVE CORMIE: Those are the ones

2 that are important to me. Others I -- I can't sell to

3 them and then so I -- I don't necessarily pay attention

4 to them.

5 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: So your evidence

6 is that you have no reference to the office of energy

7 projects, energy infrastructure updates in --

8 MR. DAVE CORMIE: I don't follow that,

9 no.

10 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: So just to confirm

11 then, you're not in a position to comment on what is

12 the number one new generation in -- in-service for the

13 first three (3) months of 2114 (sic) among American

14 generation sources?

15 MR. DAVE CORMIE: No, I can't comment

16 on that.

17 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: But there are

18 others who monitor that in Manitoba Hydro.

19 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: Mr. Wojczynski, is

20 that you?

21 MR. DAVID CORMIE: No, I think that

22 would be Ms. Flynn's area that monitors what's

23 happening in the MISO market in general.

24

25 JOANNE FLYNN, Previously Sworn



9966

1 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: Subject to check,

2 would Manitoba Hydro agree that the number one source

3 of new generation in-service in -- in the United States

4 between January and March 2014 was solar?

5 MS. JOANNE FLYNN: Subject to check,

6 yes.

7 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And accounting for

8 roughly 51 percent of installed capacity in terms of

9 megawatts in that time period?

10 MS. JOANNE FLYNN: Subject to check,

11 yes.

12

13 (BRIEF PAUSE)

14

15 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And, Ms. Flynn, I

16 -- I think I can just confirm your --- your check. So

17 I'll just -- with your counsel's permission, show that

18 to you.

19

20 (BRIEF PAUSE)

21

22 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: I think I heard

23 evidence from Manitoba Hydro that you can never get

24 past 100 percent efficient.

25 Was -- was that Hydro's evidence?



9967

1 MR. DALE FRIESEN: That was a statement

2 that was attributed to me, yes.

3 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And would it be

4 fair to say that in terms of heat -- heat pumps, one

5 might expect somewhere between 200 and 400 percent

6 efficiency?

7 MR. DALE FRIESEN: Generally, you

8 wouldn't refer to that as an efficiency, that's a co-

9 efficient of performance. It's a -- it's a different

10 measure of explaining the relationship between

11 electricity input and energy output. It doesn't -- the

12 co-efficient of performance doesn't account for the

13 energy that you utilize from the ground source or air

14 source that you're using.

15 So if you would take all the energy

16 that's drawn into the heat pump and measure that

17 against the energy that's delivered by the heat pump,

18 you would have an efficiency of less than 100 percent.

19 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: Okay. Fair

20 enough. Now, just a couple last questions, I think.

21 I'm going to have a -- in a little bit a couple for

22 you, Mr. Kuczek. You can't give Ms. Morrison all the

23 hard work after making fun of her purchasing decisions.

24 But in Manitoba Hydro Exhibit 180, 42 --

25 page 42. This is actually for you probably, Ms.



9968

1 Morrison. If we scroll down to -- towards the bottom

2 of that page. And, Ms. Morrison, you'll recall that

3 this is the levelized utility cost metric that you had

4 some discussion with with Board Member Grant.

5 Do you recall that discussion?


7 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And if I looked at

8 the overall portfolio metric for the 2014 Plan, would I

9 be correct in suggesting that the LUC, or levelized

10 utility cost, is one point eight (1.8) cents per

11 kilowatt hour?


13 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And I apologize

14 for making you flip around a bit, Diana, but if you

15 could go back to Appendix A-2.

16 To Mr. Kuczek, or -- or Ms. Morrison, if

17 I look through the energy efficiency programs for

18 Manitoba Hydro in the 2014 Power Smart Program, would I

19 be correct in suggesting that there is no home energy

20 report type project -- product, or O Power type

21 product? Would that be fair?

22 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: It's hidden.

23 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: Is it, Mr. Kuczek?

24 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: You -- well, you now

25 found it, I guess, but... So we're unsure if we're



9969

1 going to pursue that program, but what we did do is put

2 some dollars aside to pursue the program. So the

3 dollars are aside, and -- or set aside, and -- and

4 we're evaluating whether or not we will pursue it, in

5 time.

6 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: I'm pretty happy

7 to hear that, Mr. Kuczek. Now, in terms of the

8 marketplace that that could potentially benefit, what

9 are we talking, three hundred and seventy thousand

10 (370,000) houses or so?

11 MS. LOIS MORRISON: Actually in all of

12 our discussions to-date with 'O' Power, they have not

13 encouraged us to pursue all three hundred and seventy

14 (370) --


16 MS. LOIS MORRISON: What they've

17 recommended is that we focus on the high energy users

18 because we can identify those people, and specifically

19 target them. And, so it's a much smaller group than

20 the three hundred (300) and some --

21 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: Fair --

22 MS. LOIS MORRISON: -- thousand

23 customers.

24 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: -- fair enough.

25 If I look at 'O' Power actually being ruled out, would



9970

1 I be fair to say that one of the markets across Canada

2 that it's been ruled out would be in Nova Scotia?

3 MS. LOIS MORRISON: You may know this

4 better based upon your discussions with your expert,

5 Mr. Dunsky. Last discussions we had with Nova Scotia

6 is they were -- they were in discussions and exploring

7 the -- the idea of.

8 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: We can do this one

9 (1) of two (2) ways. Would you accept, subject to

10 check, that it's currently available in Nova Scotia, or

11 would -- or would you undertake --

12 MS. LOIS MORRISON: My counterpart

13 behind me has indicated that, yes, they -- we are aware

14 of it. I just didn't know yet.

15 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And I just found

16 out today myself, Ms. Morrison.

17 And would it be fair to say that it --

18 it would be your expectation that there are many --

19 excuse me, a number of other jurisdictions in Canada

20 that are about to launch 'O' Power?

21 MS. LOIS MORRISON: Yes. Based on our

22 conversations with 'O' Power, they have indicated to us

23 that they are very active in the marketplace, and

24 seeking out additional clients.

25 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: Subject to check,



9971

1 would you agree that generally where 'O' Power is

2 applied savings of 1 to 3 percent per year are

3 reported?

4 MS. LOIS MORRISON: Those are the

5 numbers that they have indicated to us. We have --

6 we're -- we're somewhat hesitant, given that those

7 savings have to be re-earned every year and also given

8 that we are looking at a number of other initiatives,

9 including conservation rates and such.

10 Our concern was related to double

11 counting and -- and what -- where -- where do you start

12 assigning those savings into what programs and that.

13 And I understand that 'O' Power is very good at doing

14 the analytics and such, but in our discussions with

15 them we were a little bit hesitant still just because

16 of some of the initiatives we were looking at. And

17 they weren't -- we didn't have definitive answers at

18 that time from the -- from that supplier.

19 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And -- and just so

20 I -- I understand your evidence and I -- and I -- I

21 appreciate it, you -- you've confirmed that in -- 'O'

22 Power has advised you that they're, on an annual basis,

23 achieving savings of 1 percent to 3 percent. You're

24 not quite at the stage where -- where you're accepting

25 that as an expectation for Manitoba.



9972

1 Is that fair?

2 MS. LOIS MORRISON: It's one (1) of the

3 initiatives that we feel is subject to a little more

4 investigation. And that investigation would have to be

5 in consideration of the other initiatives that are

6 being undertaken.

7 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: Okay. And just so

8 I understand your evidence, Mr. Kuczek, I believe you

9 said there's some money in the budget for 'O' Power?

10 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: Or another program,

11 but there's -- there's a contingency line for -- in the

12 doll -- dollars. And that was one (1) of the

13 opportunities that we thought we should assess further.

14 And we weren't comfortable including the energy savings

15 associated with that initiative yet to include it in

16 this plan.

17 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: Sir, yeah, and I'm

18 sorry I -- I lost attention just for a minute.

19 So the -- there's some money in the

20 budget, but you -- as of yet you haven't put in the

21 anticipated savings into the plan?



24

25 (BRIEF PAUSE)



9973

1 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And, sir, in -- in

2 conversation either with the Board -- I can't remember

3 any more -- or My Learned Friend, Mr. -- Mr. Hombach, I

4 believe you said earlier today, Smart meters, we think

5 there is a business case.

6 Do you recall that statement, sir?

7 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: Yes.

8 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: Currently within

9 Power Smart 2014 are anticipated savings from powers --

10 from smart meters built into the forecast?

11

12 (BRIEF PAUSE)

13

14 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: We -- we don't -- we

15 -- we don't have any dollars or energy estimated that

16 could be saved through AMI within this plan at this

17 point.

18 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: Okay. Now, just

19 so I understand the terminology that all you DSM

20 brilliant experts thrown around, if I use -- if you use

21 the term 'smart meters' and I use the term 'smart

22 thermostats', i.e. Nest or Honeywell products, are

23 using -- are we talking the same thing?

24 MS. LOIS MORRISON: No, we are not.

25 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: Okay. Well, let's



9974

1 go to smart thermostats, then.

2 If I were to look through your list of

3 energy efficiency programs would I -- in the 2014 Power

4 Smart program, would I see smart thermostats there?

5 MS. LOIS MORRISON: No, those were not

6 one (1) of the initiatives included within the 2014

7 plan. But the home monitors and the smart thermostats

8 and that were one (1) of the measures that were

9 included in the DSM Potential Study.

10 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: Okay. Am I right

11 in suggesting to you that smart thermostats, as offered

12 by -- by firms such as Nest and Honeywell, the early

13 experience is suggesting savings between 5 and 15

14 percent?

15

16 (BRIEF PAUSE)

17

18 MS. LOIS MORRISON: Subject to check,

19 that is their claim. But I would -- I would state that

20 we would probably want to do further analysis before we

21 were to accept their projection for savings in -- in

22 our own marketplace.

23 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: And just to add to

24 that. Anytime we're dealing with salespeople trying to

25 sell a program, whether it's 'O' Power or Nest, you're



9975

1 generally -- you're likely getting a projection that's

2 on the high side.

3 So it's the same thing with the

4 geothermal industry. When we -- the industry's out

5 selling the geothermal units we -- our feeling is, is

6 they're suggesting the savings is greater than really

7 what's been achieved in the marketplace. And that's

8 what we've observed with geothermal, as well. So one

9 has to be a little careful with those numbers.

10 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: Okay. Mr. Kuczek,

11 I -- I can show the reference if you would like.

12 But would it be fair to say that in the

13 general rate application last year, Manitoba Hydro was

14 suggesting that the DSM targets presented in the 2011

15 Power Smart Plan were declining but was suggesting that

16 it was a reflection of Hydro's consistent long-term

17 engagement in DSM and the diminishing availability of

18 economic energy efficiency opportunities remaining in

19 the Manitoba market?

20 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: That was our

21 statement.


23

24 (BRIEF PAUSE)

25



9976

1 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: This can go to

2 either Mr. Kuczek or -- or Ms. Morrison. Leaving aside

3 the Manitoba specifics, when we talk about -- when you

4 see the term 'conservation rates', would it be fair to

5 say that, as used generally, it might include inclining

6 rate structures, it might include time of use, or --

7 and it also might include incentive programs?

8 MS. LOIS MORRISON: Traditionally, when

9 we've referred to conservation rates, what we refer to

10 are the inclining block structure, time of use rate,

11 critical peak pricing. It's not traditionally, as far

12 as we're aware, is referred to an incentive-based

13 program for rates --

14 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And the answer was

15 better --

16 MS. LOIS MORRISON: -- unless you...

17 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: I do believe some

18 utilities have offered incentives for customers to stay

19 -- or to reduce their consumption by 10 percent over a

20 period of time, so there are some of those programs out

21 there.

22 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And -- and thank

23 you. And -- and the -- the answers were better than

24 the question. I apologize for the quality of the

25 question.



9977

1 But, Mr. Kuczek, what you're telling me

2 is that in some jurisdictions you're aware of -- after

3 normalizing for weather, there are incentives offered

4 to consumers if they achieve savings beyond a certain

5 threshold?

6 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: I just recall

7 Ontario Hydro offering a program like that for a period

8 of time, and I'm not sure if it was over a long period

9 or just a specific period. So in our case, we're

10 looking for energy conservation -- or energy savings

11 that would last over an extended period as opposed to

12 just a temporary period.

13 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And in terms of

14 conservation rates as contemplated in Manitoba, it's

15 based upon an inclining rate -- rate structure.

16 Is that correct?


18 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And without

19 getting into the specifics of Manitoba yet, just

20 notionally one would pay a certain level for, let's

21 say, the first certain number of kilowatt hours, and

22 then a higher rate for the next level of kilowatt

23 hours?

24 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: That's correct.

25 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And is -- now



9978

1 moving to Manitoba, are we anticipating that the

2 inclining rate structure would be applied equally to

3 homes that both light and heat their homes with

4 electricity?

5 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: That would not be

6 the way I would approach it. And we've had discussions

7 internally about that then, as well as I -- I believe

8 at the hearings here. Our general rate in --

9 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: That's probably my

10 wife, Mr. Kuczek. And -- and if you have room on your

11 couch for the next month. No?

12 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: I do, but no.

13 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: So, sir, you're

14 saying that as currently contemplated in Manitoba, you

15 wouldn't anticipate -- maybe you can give us some

16 insight into what you're looking at.

17 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: I'll -- I'll give

18 you some background. So -- so what we did last time is

19 we did offer it and there was no difference between

20 customers that heated with electricity and natural gas.

21 And I was a proponent in the company not to do that.

22 So I -- I seen where there were issues, and we had some

23 customers that came before the -- the Board here and

24 explained those same issues and why we shouldn't be

25 doing that.



9979

1 But generally speaking, the threshold

2 for natural gas customers, or people that heat with

3 natural gas and electricity, are different. So you --

4 if you want to incent customers to conserve energy, you

5 have to have different thresholds for it to be

6 meaningful for those customers. So if you had too high

7 of a level for electric heated customers, the natural

8 gas customers aren't going to be incented because

9 they're never going to get there, because they don't

10 use a lot of electricity.

11 And the other issue that was evidence

12 was -- is there's a fairness issue, in terms of who's

13 going to pay for -- or where we're going to get our

14 revenue. So we need to address -- sorry. Okay.

15 So -- so we realize that there's issues

16 and -- and we need to address some of those issues as

17 well as who's going to be impacted by whatever we

18 propose. And we need to address that before we come

19 forward with it. But we do believe it's important to

20 address the -- the different types of customers and --

21 and at least in terms of the heating source.

22 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And -- and with

23 Ms. Desorcy to my right and Dr. Miller at my back,

24 you'll no doubt expect my next question which is: I'm

25 presuming you intend to extend to consult extensively



9980

1 with community organizations as you consider methods to

2 roll out that plan?

3 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: We think it's going

4 to be important to consult with some individuals

5 external to Manitoba Hydro. We haven't decided who

6 those people would be yet, but it certainly would be

7 yourselves and -- and your client and -- and Mr. Miller

8 as well.

9 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: If I was sleeping

10 on the couch, Mr. Kuczek, it would be a lot easier to

11 talk about these issues.

12 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: Well, we think we

13 have to get your client and Mr. Miller maybe to agree

14 as well, so.

15 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: Just a couple of

16 last questions. Ms. Morrison, you will recall we had a

17 discussion of savings with regard to 'O' Power.

18 And I was suggesting to you they were in

19 the range of 1 to 3 percent annually?

20 MS. LOIS MORRISON: That's what 'O'

21 Power puts on their literature, yes.

22 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: Would you accept,

23 subject to check, that these are independent

24 evaluations -- these figures are based upon independent

25 evaluations conducted for utilities and their



9981

1 regulators?

2

3 (BRIEF PAUSE)

4

5 MS. LOIS MORRISON: Yes, subject to

6 check. Recognizing that there may be differences in

7 jurisdictions and differences in -- in the approaches.

8 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And similarly, in

9 terms of smart thermostats, you'll recall we discussed

10 savings between -- of between 5 and 15 percent?


12 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And rather than

13 suggesting their manufacturers' claims, would you agree

14 that they are the results of independent evaluations

15 conducted for utilities and their regulators?

16 MS. LOIS MORRISON: Yes, I would. But

17 I would also qualify that, that it really does depend

18 on the market that it's being sold into. We previously

19 had a Programmable Thermostat Program that we offered.

20 And what we found is, and through our residential

21 energy use surveys and through other surveys, found

22 that there's a large number of people who already had

23 them. And then there's a large number of people who

24 manually set back their thermostats.

25 And so when we did our independent --



9982

1 our own evaluations, sorry, of -- of that program we

2 found that there were -- there -- the savings were

3 limited because of this preexisting behaviour in our

4 marketplace, being that we're quite climatically

5 challenged.

6 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And just to

7 finish, you mentioned -- you almost mentioned

8 independent evaluations.

9 And, Mr. Kuczek, you'll recall in prior

10 General Rate Applications you've had some conversations

11 with me about independent evaluations, not just at the

12 program level but at the portfolio level?


14 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And in discussion

15 with My Learned Friend, Mr. Hombach, you -- you made

16 the statement that they can be expensive.

17 Do you recall that?


19 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: And, sir, just

20 ballpark when you use the term 'expensive' to describe

21 a portfolio independent evaluation, one would assume,

22 first of all, that one wouldn't do one every year.

23 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: My discussions were

24 referring to just individual program evaluations. I

25 never contemplated doing an overall portfolio



9983

1 evaluation.

2

3 (BRIEF PAUSE)

4

5 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: Maybe I should just

6 add some clarification to that. We did hire Mr. Dunsky

7 to -- to undertake an overall -- overall a review of

8 our portfolio. You don't drill down into the

9 evaluations. This was an evaluation of our -- our

10 plans and so slightly different there than evaluating

11 the results you achieve.

12 MR. BYRON WILLIAMS: Yeah. And the --

13 again the -- your answer is better than the question.

14 Focussing on the evaluation of individual programs, can

15 you give me -- actually, I'm going to scratch -- scrap

16 that question, because I'm thinking we'll get in -- we

17 might be getting into some commercial arrangements, so

18 I'm going to scrap that question.

19 And I will thank the panel for the time

20 this evening. It's much appreciated. And Manitoba

21 Hydro, as well.

22 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Dr. Miller,

23 have you got any questions for this panel? No? Thank

24 you.

25 Me. Hacault, any questions at all?



9984

1 (BRIEF PAUSE)

2


4 I just have one (1) very set -- set of questions I want

5 to address, which is related to the testimony that we

6 heard from Mr. Dunsky. Specifically we were talking,

7 he and I, about what makes for success in energy

8 efficiency programs and DSM programs, and so on.

9 And, you know, he mentioned having a

10 suitable framework in place to -- to ensure success,

11 and he mentioned independent evaluation programs we

12 just talked about, and oversight mechanism which is not

13 clear it exists in this -- in Manitoba. And he also

14 talked about manded obli -- mandated obligations.

15 I combine that with a report that was

16 tabled by Manitoba Hydro that was produced by the

17 American's Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, and

18 it referred to one of the major -- major reasons for

19 success is for the utilities or the states to have an

20 energy efficiency resource standard, a mandate or

21 standard.

22 And I guess the question is, you know,

23 from my perspective, and given that we're expected to

24 give advice to the government, I'm asking the question

25 whether or not the framework that's in place in



9985

1 Manitoba is adequate to ensure success for DSM programs

2 by Manitoba Hydro?

3 And I -- I put that question out there

4 because obviously given the evidence that we've heard

5 from Mr. Dunsky, and given the report that I've -- that

6 all of us -- all the panel members have read, I think,

7 it's pretty clear that -- that there has to be a

8 suitable framework in place. And I -- that's the

9 question that I think we need to address at some point,

10 whether it's now or it's through closing arguments.

11 But I -- we need to hear from Manitoba Hydro what its

12 views are about the notion of a -- of a changed

13 framework that would ensure success.

14 And I think the reason why we've spent

15 so much time in DSM is, you know, in -- in addition to

16 the issues around, you know, its importance to a

17 portfolio and its importance to meeting future needs

18 and so on, there's also the -- the harsh reality, which

19 I've addressed already, which is the notion that people

20 are facing significant rate increases. And -- and it

21 seems to me we have to an array of tools available to

22 them that will allow them to mitigate some of that

23 exposure that they're having to deal with in the future

24 -- exposure to increased rates.

25 And so I -- I think that I would like to



9986

1 hear from Manitoba Hydro its views about what I've just

2 proposed and what we've heard as a panel from -- from

3 Mr. Dunsky and -- and what we've read, as well, so I --

4 I wonder if that you -- you can address it now, or we

5 can address it later and give you an opportunity to

6 think about that.

7

8 (BRIEF PAUSE)

9

10 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: I'll -- I'll provide

11 a few comments with regards to that, and so I'd been

12 involved on the demand-side management side at Manitoba

13 Hydro since about 2000, so. And I've talked to other

14 utilities -- I monitor market sim -- similar to what

15 Mr. Cormie does on the export market, and so I used to

16 monitor it a lot closer when I had more concerns.

17 Generally speaking, I think it's

18 important that Manitoba Hydro pursue all economic oppor

19 -- DSM opportunities. I think that's very important,

20 but in that context, we also have to consider some

21 considerations associated with some of those

22 opportunities, like a rate design. Is it really worth

23 pursuing or having a -- a rate structure -- a

24 conservation rate structures, because there's other

25 issues that need to be considered?



9987

1 So I don't think just looking at it from

2 an -- being an economic opportunity alone, it makes

3 sense. You have to look at that from a broader

4 perspective.

5 Fuel switching, I think government

6 policy comes into play with that particular

7 opportunity. So that has to be looked at from a

8 broader perspectives, as well.

9 So I think the framework in Manitoba

10 with the legislation that they have in place deals with

11 -- deals with the issues from the government's

12 perspective at least, and the -- and the Utility's

13 perspectives. The hearings allow for other parties to

14 present their views, as well, and I think that is good.

15 In terms of the evaluations that Mr.

16 Dunsky's suggestion -- suggesting that we do, I -- we

17 have concluded a few times in the past that we should -

18 - probably should do some third-party evaluations of

19 programs. We did do the overall portfolio with Mr.

20 Dunsky. We'd seen some value in doing that, so.

21 With the third-party evaluations, what's

22 been a barrier in the past, and I don't mean this in a

23 negative way, has actually been the regulatory

24 hearings. We -- we seem to be here more than -- or

25 just as often as we are in the office, but I had



9988

1 instructed our evaluation team to actually undertake a

2 third-party evaluation of at least one (1) program, and

3 this has got to back two (2) or three (3) years ago.

4 And a year would go by and we would

5 never get to it because of other interference with the

6 regulatory hearings. And -- and again, I don't mean

7 that in a bad way, but that's what's happened.

8 But even as I sat here and we talked

9 about it, I did text the supervisor resp -- or the

10 manger responsible for the program, and I said, We --

11 we really need to do this to provide people with some

12 comfort. So I think that is probably necessary for

13 everyone here.

14 THE CHAIRPERSON: I guess I'm -- I'm

15 concerned about the disincent -- the disincentive

16 facing Manitoba Hydro when it comes to DSM programs,

17 because if you manage to -- if I save a few kilowatt

18 hours, it's costing you seven (7) or eight (8) cents a

19 kilowatt hour -- costing Manitoba Hydro. You take a --

20 you turn around and you take that kilowatt and sell it

21 in the US for four (4), five (5), six (6) cents,

22 perhaps.

23 I'm not talking about the -- the

24 reliable energy. I'm talking about the energy that

25 would be freed up short-term from DSM programs. I -- I



9989

1 -- guess it's a built in disincentive for Manitoba

2 Hydro to -- to sort of really take hold of this DSM

3 program and really sell that to Manitoba -- 'sell' is

4 probably the wrong word, but make sure that Manitobans

5 are given ample opportunity to take advantage of that.

6 And -- and I guess -- could you comment

7 on that issue?

8 MR. LLOYD KUCZEK: We -- we actually

9 don't view it from the short-term perspective, so, you

10 know, when I did my presentation I talked about the

11 resource cost test that we used that filter.

12 So we're not looking at -- and -- and I

13 also caution the Board about that proxy number for the

14 marginal value, because the marginal value -- that

15 proxy number is just one (1) number. The value's

16 different in the winter, it's different in the summer,

17 it's different into the future.

18 So what we do is we look at -- we have a

19 -- a spreadsheet that -- that takes that into account,

20 and when we're looking at the opportunity with DSM. We

21 input the energy that we're projecting to be saved and

22 you capture that, then you do your analysis.

23 So our perspective is not to look at it

24 from that short-term perspective, but to look at it

25 from a long-term perspective, to use the marginal



9990

1 value, measure that against the resource cost. And if

2 that resource cost is lower than the marginal value --

3 if the resource cost is lower than the marginal value

4 we should be pursuing that.

5 Then the question is: How aggressive

6 and what is the design in terms of how we do that? So

7 that's our philosophy at Manitoba Hydro in terms of

8 pursuing economic opportunities.

9 MR. ED WOJCZYNSKI: And then maybe just

10 to support that, when we evaluated the different levels

11 of DSM, we don't just use opportunity costs for the

12 surplus energy, we do use the -- the firm prices as

13 well.

14 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I think

15 that completes the proceedings for today. So thank you

16 all -- everyone for having stayed for such a long

17 period of time, but it was with intended -- with the

18 objective of making sure we didn't have to sit on

19 Saturday, so.

20 So have a good evening everyone. We'll

21 see each other again tomorrow morning at a quarter to

22 9:00, some of us at least.

23

24 --- Upon adjourning at 7:45 p.m.

25



9991

1

2 Certified correct,

3

4

5

6 _______________________

7 Cheryl Lavigne, Ms.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

PUB re NFAT 05-01-2014 Page 9992 of 10098


$

$1,940

9667:229829:13

$15,000

9801:2

$2,100

9665:159666:149667:21

$200 9829:22

$3,000

9905:19

$300 9826:11

$4.22 9676:6

9779:59781:199816:1

$4.99 9779:5

9781:21

$402 9763:5

$5,000

9914:9

$50

9668:1,3,89717:4,13,16

$6

9707:9,11,14

$600 9918:19

$65 9680:24

$7 9793:12

$73 9793:13

$8.45

9676:20

$80 9918:20

$84 9681:2

0

0.0001

9719:14

0.4 9646:14

0.9 9931:11

05 9861:4

1

1 9603:24

9634:109646:259647:59657:229660:14,189665:22,239666:20,21,249671:5,7,17,219674:179676:12,229677:14,259678:209682:189684:109687:119688:189689:249690:79692:29695:69696:129699:13,15,25 9700:59702:169704:149713:219718:79721:15,18,229724:3,79726:14,159727:4,169729:199732:14,249733:159744:99746:69747:59756:89759:10,219760:199761:169764:249767:199775:21,259776:2,39780:7,19

9781:139784:24,259786:259788:129811:129820:19821:79822:9,249824:5,189825:1,59828:1,159829:79833:219834:179839:259848:22,239850:15,17,229854:119855:109856:189859:29860:13,159863:19867:14,159869:129878:79885:69887:199899:209901:129912:149925:5,139927:119929:10,12,249931:239938:229940:139947:209951:109952:109961:89963:4,89970:99971:2,239972:2,129974:6,89980:199984:49988:29989:15

1,001

9853:19

1,808

9772:21

1,890

9668:10

1,940

9668:2,7

1.3 9646:18

9752:149808:209809:19837:219929:229930:12

1.5 9653:7

9699:219705:199709:169750:239752:159809:209837:219929:23

1.5sle

9767:20

1.7

9780:16,17

1.8 9968:10

1/2 9646:25

9647:59719:169917:18

1:00 9714:20

1:01 9715:9

1:24 9736:15

1:28 9736:16

10 9637:3

9655:189658:39662:189663:19,209670:169681:109714:209722:69731:249752:139791:12

9801:89815:29822:139826:179842:39856:209909:249910:199916:259917:99923:109976:19

10:24

9664:12

10:44

9664:13

100 9799:20

9908:199929:99956:169959:79966:249967:18

102 9760:5

103.3

9955:23

104

9854:4,11

104-1

9848:189850:8

104-15

9846:19,209946:149947:69949:179950:119951:3

104-16

9847:1,29871:149876:189946:14

104-3 9884:2

104-3-2

9845:6

104-3-3

9845:15



104-4

9900:16

104-4-3

9845:24

104-4-4

9846:9

11 9638:7

9682:189755:15,229827:209907:12

11:57 9715:8

114.2

9955:15

115 9717:7

115.9

9955:17

12

9608:12,16,20,22,249669:189670:59683:199685:169758:219797:99827:259845:16,219846:10,15,20,239847:2,5,10,149853:8,119856:189917:189941:3

12:00 9699:5

12:45

9714:25

122 9799:17

129 9758:23

13 9630:19

9669:169674:149684:249739:229745:39762:20,24

9788:1

13/'14

9938:139939:159944:3

134 9610:3

9652:19

135 9610:10

9698:14

136 9610:17

9677:229779:15,219814:4

137 9610:20

9863:11

138 9610:23

9864:18

139 9611:3

9888:17

14 9620:15

9622:209639:219744:99763:39797:49852:139901:259902:29904:239905:39907:129938:89939:79943:15,199946:209947:69948:139949:10

14.2 9608:25

9847:17,229848:11

14/'15

9938:15

140 9611:9

9890:1

141 9611:15

9890:23

142 9611:19

9935:4

14th 9839:17

15 9646:10

9655:189662:219665:99672:139722:69756:249757:29791:69797:109798:79801:99810:179854:249855:7,13,16,20,239856:2,8,19,20,21,239861:169863:229900:17,18,23 9901:19911:179920:139939:169957:59974:139981:10

153 9854:24

9906:169936:69959:19

156 9762:21

9787:22

16 9672:13

9918:25

17 9642:10

9671:23,259672:149756:25

17/'18

9927:249928:29955:22

171 9744:2

9847:8,9

18 9642:17

9667:1

9671:249674:13

18/'19

9955:21,24

180

9757:1,169800:89854:259858:189904:149911:229936:259954:29962:39967:24

183 9858:18

1880 9717:19

189 9742:21

19 9642:22

9835:13

190

9743:6,239745:15

191 9743:11

9745:16

192 9847:20

9949:219950:1,139951:5,11,19 9952:21

193 9858:19

9869:3

1970s

9649:14

1976 9825:14

1980 9825:13

1980s

9692:16

1984 9825:12

1990

9719:7,9

1996 9775:25

1997 9776:1

1st 9613:11

2

2 9613:3,13

9636:29646:199665:1,49666:199670:179672:189681:129682:79684:10,159685:159688:159689:69694:219695:69706:49719:1,169725:19735:49736:129743:69744:99752:4,159756:15,219759:219760:1,149766:10,229767:159768:29770:139780:39785:239801:49805:21,259809:5,69821:129827:229829:69832:169834:2,59837:239840:19845:8,179846:209847:2,9,109848:9,20,22 9850:159854:5,239857:139858:89860:10,14



9861:3,12,21 9863:39866:5,8,13 9867:79868:29871:149872:99873:209875:12,249876:12,13,25 9880:29886:219888:69889:129897:20,21,239899:20,21,229900:2,4,5,139901:11,249903:139906:11,239908:5,109928:219930:19934:149937:189939:1,229940:17,209942:12,199943:15,16,18,249944:89945:249946:15,209947:209948:69949:239950:219955:19970:99988:3

2,000

9677:119678:13

2,100 9668:1

2,161

9945:8,14

2,699

9887:16

2,739 9938:1

9939:79940:49943:19

2,900

9945:4,7

2,901

9772:20

2,961

9939:2,249943:179945:4,5

2/3 9937:5

2/3s 9884:16

2:46 9791:16

20 9638:14

9648:139649:20,219653:119655:199662:219669:159670:229671:6,12,13,19,229672:8,259673:49674:1,39694:59699:199701:21,22,24 9704:49705:159707:9,12,13 9712:199719:89731:259733:179775:4,19,229776:4,149791:69797:119798:79810:189814:20,23,24 9815:59824:179909:249918:259922:17,209923:2

9950:239957:5

20/'21

9956:5

200 9745:9

9967:5

2000 9857:18

9986:13

2000s

9720:16

2005 9675:25

9676:21,259677:49679:13,179680:59718:8,139780:59781:20,22,259782:4,89783:3,79816:89817:39927:11,15

2007 9658:2

9892:6

2008 9621:6

9624:3,99767:12,18

2009 9623:17

9624:139667:4

2010 9621:6

9623:79624:3,9,12,139643:169720:179721:9

2011 9622:8

9623:169624:2,129975:14

2012 9622:7

9623:159624:19640:219641:59643:17,19

9667:119668:149680:159717:209772:139782:1,89783:49816:19825:129830:1

2013

9620:18,229641:1,49643:199719:109806:259848:209854:49858:99898:119907:39948:2

2013/'14

9936:12,15,17 9938:79939:23

2014 9603:24

9756:259771:21,239788:259807:39835:139857:119858:129860:249897:199898:49899:18,249902:159906:229907:129911:89933:99945:249955:149961:139962:219966:49968:8,189973:99974:3,6

2014/'15

9940:6

2014/2017

9929:16

2015 9649:23

9772:209863:219907:129955:13

2015/'16

9955:14

2016/'17

9907:139936:229937:9

2017 9851:12

2017/'18

9955:25

2018 9837:20

9861:59951:149953:5

2018/'19

9647:19955:20

2019 9835:11

9849:10,169850:249851:139876:19,249894:139895:39901:209902:89953:6

2019/'20

9963:8,19

2020 9680:18

9886:199894:18

2020/'21/'22

9892:23

2021

9962:9,20

2021/'22

9956:3

2022 9677:7

9678:10



9680:189851:249852:159859:19951:229952:6

2022/'23

9762:229763:199788:149952:16

2023 9860:12

9952:11

2023/'24

9869:11

2024

9849:9,169853:24

2024/'25

9611:59886:59888:8,209956:9,11,18

2025 9886:19

9929:23

2025/'26

9884:15

2026 9952:25

2026/'27

9885:6,12

2027 9953:7

2027/'28

9939:249942:29943:5,6

2028 9610:22

9859:39863:14

2028/'29

9863:19887:209938:259962:159963:14

2029 9610:22

9863:14

2029/2030

9887:2,15

2029/'30

9887:11

2030 9639:14

9674:229719:199852:2,149952:7,89953:12

2031 9876:15

9894:22

2035 9639:15

9649:24

2037

9950:3,23

2040 9677:11

9949:239950:22

205 9771:22

21 9643:15

21/'22

9956:5

211 9772:12

2114 9965:13

213 9772:3

2-14 9805:19

22 9613:15

9614:39630:229644:99666:249894:19

23 9646:6

23/'24

9956:11

235.1

9955:16

24 9646:7

9669:159808:179850:8

25 9632:16

9646:219647:22

9672:199673:6,18,259674:5,229712:199750:21,229752:219778:19815:4,99816:89917:10,14,16

250 9849:2

9878:219893:13

25th 9723:11

9743:4

26 9647:2

9653:14,219951:17

260 9677:8

9678:11

266 9772:11

26a 9683:13

9770:5

27 9672:20

27/'20

9939:149944:3

27/'28

9939:169940:199941:29942:8,13,18 9943:18

277 9620:16

9622:14,24

28 9939:15

28/'29

9863:89938:159943:20

285 9759:14

286 9800:9

29.2 9768:1

29/'30

9887:25

3

3 9607:3

9636:29646:6,99665:119669:4,239670:15,17,24 9684:89694:119718:209739:13,14,169742:199744:39751:249752:11,15,209753:119755:159756:149759:119760:29782:19785:1,59796:169813:9,199827:229837:199842:169846:199847:19849:129854:239855:9,12,19,21,259856:59866:69872:229874:1,79887:29907:79908:29911:159913:89914:199927:199932:259937:159947:219950:129956:3,9

9965:139971:2,239980:199988:3

3,003

9887:12

3,500 9914:8

3.95 9922:16

3:01 9791:17

30 9650:4

9671:129672:259673:239689:259709:39712:209716:169720:59722:49731:259776:149798:89824:179913:15

30.7 9768:1

300 9800:11

9969:20

305.1

9937:10

308 9647:9

9665:249681:19784:39849:2

31 9752:3

9913:5,169915:16,19

31st 9863:21

32 9613:22

9719:9

330 9603:22

335 9907:7

335.6

9936:12,21

340 9827:20

35 9670:2,4



9783:249958:4

36.1 9767:21

37.4 9767:20

370 9969:14

370,000

9969:10

38 9665:24

9912:3,18

39 9756:9

3A 9817:23

4

4 9608:11,13

9617:209636:29666:129667:59694:119706:59716:89747:69778:79785:189845:7,12,25 9846:59847:89850:219873:19874:189914:239918:119950:2,69988:21

4.22

9680:4,69782:39816:18

4.65

9608:14,179845:259846:5,10,15

4.99 9676:9

9680:59782:3

4:14 9842:5

4:24 9842:6

40 9677:21

9709:2,39755:219918:239936:69947:239959:19

400 9603:22

9745:109948:1,5,89967:5

42

9906:14,16,209911:249912:1,99967:24,25

4-2 9769:5

422 9677:19

43 9818:5

45

9818:24,259935:109948:13

460 9772:5

49 9760:3

497 9759:13

4b 9608:8

9743:5,8

5

5 9658:2

9667:69669:2,259684:89688:199694:119699:59719:199739:3,8,15 9744:99775:189813:59815:1,2,79822:129826:169828:39834:179835:2,4

9848:129850:219853:69860:13,219876:12,179903:99912:229914:219915:159947:19,259948:69949:89951:209959:29974:139981:109988:21

5.4

9608:14,179845:259846:5,10,15

50 9632:14

9731:259917:179957:25

50/50

9612:259618:14

500 9676:7,8

9677:99678:119680:6,79745:119781:199953:13

51 9821:15

9832:219966:8

51.5 9956:11

535 9759:13

54 9769:22

550 9923:13

56 9757:16

9800:89904:9,14

57 9884:2

9929:17

580.6

9962:10,16

58-2 9801:23

9802:79803:21

59 9886:22

6

6 9634:4

9670:199685:169718:19725:109750:239767:249774:249779:2,109800:22,239814:119827:249853:8,119921:149949:8,229950:10,20,239988:21

6,000

9920:12

6:22 9935:22

6:27 9935:23

6:44 9946:7

6:45 9947:11

60 9670:5

600 9953:14

61.9 9963:10

63 9766:16

630

9884:18,219885:7

648 9885:1

65 9710:19

650 9923:11

67 9793:2

68 9713:23

9771:20

7

7 9674:6

9721:13,149752:59766:15,239767:59835:3,49850:169854:209907:139921:149944:8,219945:259946:219947:179948:7,149988:18

7:32 9723:10

7:45 9990:24

70 9818:25

70s

9921:9,11

71 9793:7

72 9667:14

75 9837:10

750 9611:16

9763:19850:259851:119884:99889:179890:15,259893:13

77.6 9956:5

78 9710:19

9861:13

8

8 9635:10,17

9676:199684:159766:109779:139794:239815:259818:199850:169863:18



9959:19988:18

8.45 9679:8

9816:14,17

8:45 9839:24

9840:3

80 9675:5,6

9711:10,149712:49767:9,169768:13,179834:159938:189942:24

80s

9720:12,149921:10

845 9677:21

85 9639:8

86 9760:4

87 9938:17

9942:24

9

9 9636:4

9675:259676:139679:229686:179798:14

9,000

9667:14

9.3 9677:18

9780:6

9:00 9990:22

9:01 9612:1

90 9632:12

9686:179958:25

900 9800:12

903 9799:21

90s 9720:15

9957:19

92 9802:7

9803:219958:25

9959:2

93 9899:6

95 9684:9

9758:229874:189959:2

9603 9603:25

9607 9606:3

9610 9606:4

9613

9608:4,6

9614 9606:9

9630 9606:10

9652 9610:9

9691 9606:11

9698 9610:16

9699 9606:12

9715 9606:14

9737 9606:20

9742 9608:7

9743

9608:8,10

9750 9606:21

9791 9606:22

9814 9610:19

9828 9606:23

9845

9608:11,12

9846

9608:15,18,20,22

9847

9608:24,25

9854 9607:10

9858 9609:3

9863 9610:22

9864 9610:24

9888 9611:8

9890

9611:14,18

99 9793:14

9935 9607:11

9611:21

9991 9603:25

9607:13

A

a.m 9612:1

9664:12,139715:8

A2 9937:1,2

A-2 9954:2

9962:39968:15

abandoned

9681:19

ability

9820:99833:29883:69892:209893:169894:259929:8

able 9636:1

9657:2,119695:249702:59735:149748:239758:99765:219792:189813:209817:49819:39832:79837:19840:169879:259883:59893:49918:149922:19

Aboriginal

9748:9

absence

9679:239680:2

9825:3

absolute

9777:189917:19

absolutely

9830:49860:6

absorb

9735:14

absorbed

9720:25

academic

9715:219724:79827:18

acc 9623:25

acce 9777:2

accept

9626:99628:109630:59668:79757:69762:79763:4,89764:129772:3,8,14,189773:6,119776:199777:2,169780:249783:229807:89876:49883:89902:7,129944:109955:11,14,22 9956:99970:99974:219980:22

acceptable

9792:39888:149891:18

accepted

9623:11,25

9624:6

accepting

9626:19971:24

access

9675:79773:59788:229806:20

accommodate

9770:239841:5

accommodatin

g 9662:19

9736:4

accomplish

9917:19

accordance

9856:7

according

9628:169676:239782:49801:1

accordingly

9909:15

account

9731:19904:229909:259967:129989:19

accounted

9730:20

accounting

9966:7

accounts

9667:1

accumulated

9671:109729:12

accurate

9910:2

achievable

9838:19908:1,3

achieve



9710:39750:259756:129763:209833:3,89837:49869:12,189893:189900:29907:179908:5,9,15 9909:129917:15,20,22 9920:89926:259928:169929:89977:49983:11

achieved

9646:15,189837:69858:109928:239938:13,149975:7

achievement

9939:25

achieves

9939:24

achieving

9868:109920:109971:23

acknowledge

9675:189736:199757:119872:15

acquire

9688:6

acquisition

9610:199813:10,169814:1,7

Acres 9616:6

across

9616:139667:209669:23

9700:249718:10,22,25 9719:49721:10,119726:79768:69777:129823:219954:17,199970:1

act 9644:20

9667:179757:249854:199855:39856:89863:19,21

Action

9612:109613:1,29621:3,119664:21

active

9970:23

activities

9703:109731:39751:8

activity

9720:49813:189898:209917:5,6

actual

9669:119671:89679:18,21,22 9680:39703:229730:219776:129809:29819:29824:149914:5

actually

9617:169633:59637:14,189654:109661:3,4,5

,12 9666:89667:9,189669:21,249672:16,239674:4,169675:149680:149681:29683:209686:4,119687:4,219691:29701:99706:139710:159713:179716:6,189723:139728:69730:149734:69743:29745:209748:169763:139777:89778:11,189785:179786:259801:209802:259805:229808:39820:69822:89825:179836:199853:199857:119864:29868:99872:239876:229882:19883:259887:219897:99903:39904:79906:159907:179908:5,99915:59920:19

9921:109926:13,259947:209958:199967:259969:11,259983:159987:239988:19989:8

adapt

9835:16

adapting

9747:3

add 9666:16

9668:19677:12,139710:79744:29827:89831:149867:229889:139902:149923:229925:89974:239983:6

added

9737:249738:159744:129847:109858:89928:5

adding

9654:149677:69678:179679:29693:129695:39704:159738:109763:159928:11

addition

9644:119738:209772:119906:1

9985:15

additional

9612:149642:169647:10,139654:79657:19661:169662:179663:19677:139678:199690:17,189704:179705:239710:99737:19,259763:159796:119805:29815:79866:16,20,249867:129878:179880:149889:3,169934:109941:259954:259970:24

additions

9772:19

address

9612:149661:129686:19,209715:149807:10,149819:39839:139840:4,8,12 9841:229844:119862:49873:149876:39879:9,149880:219913:209979:14,16,18,20



9984:59985:99986:4,5

addressed

9842:129895:159933:17,189985:19

addresses

9868:21,22

addressing

9961:22

adds 9887:12

adequate

9824:259985:1

adequately

9632:259665:89739:259740:6

adjourning

9990:24

adjusted

9713:209831:229858:11

adjustment

9827:159831:169862:15,169898:19

adjustments

9855:169860:149898:16,189900:109908:249909:3,4,9

administrati

ve 9839:14

administrato

rs 9650:20

admire

9832:11

admit

9957:20

admittedly

9879:24

ado 9737:5

adopted

9961:11

adopting

9922:20,24

adoption

9961:9

adopts

9635:79760:13

adv 9850:23

advance

9715:259848:259850:24

advanced

9772:4,69876:189896:8

advancement

9876:23

advancements

9933:10

advancing

9894:12,13

advantage

9634:219708:259824:139961:69989:5

advantages

9641:99659:249865:11

adversity

9886:4

advertising

9919:4,149924:7

advice

9984:24

advisable

9777:14

advise

9613:129615:5,169617:249627:169630:189802:179840:179898:10

advised

9761:89762:49782:139839:159935:99971:22

advising

9615:209616:39621:21

advisors

9803:20

Advisory

9613:59617:4,7,9,10,179618:79626:149630:209664:239669:209829:15

Advisory's

9665:2

affect

9633:159726:9

affected

9727:159728:129746:14,19,20,249784:5

affecting

9715:24

affects

9958:22

Affirmed

9606:7,8

9607:49614:12,139842:17

afford

9921:24

Affordable

9796:19

afraid

9936:2

afternoon

9612:149714:209715:119762:139791:259840:229843:189871:159929:99952:20

afterwards

9844:9

against

9703:179873:4,11,21,239874:89967:179990:1

age 9708:9

9787:16

agencies

9734:21

Agency

9666:209775:4

agenda

9644:8

aggressive

9661:12,249922:119926:249928:129990:5

aging 9798:3

ago 9648:13

9655:59671:22,24

,25 9676:19716:79717:149903:99923:119924:99988:3

agreed

9630:59754:159802:169803:3,239829:19910:17

agreement

9815:159892:159896:249897:25

agreements

9611:4,119775:109811:159886:1,49888:7,199889:59890:4

agricultural

9734:249914:2

agriculture

9728:2,119746:25

ahead

9630:239690:19785:249822:129850:79852:179872:129911:25

Aimee

9604:16

air 9690:23

9691:4,59724:1,13,15 9728:139967:13

AKI 9867:1



9868:3

Alberta

9627:39744:23

algae

9747:14

alleged

9763:11

allergies

9748:4

allies

9754:239836:21

allow

9687:249705:229820:99838:259926:69985:229987:13

allowed

9724:13

allows

9648:179789:179897:22

alludes

9642:7

alluding

9695:2

alone

9880:109956:229987:2

already

9667:59672:229676:39677:11,239678:4,139724:189733:59746:179747:39777:229785:239820:12

9826:5,159836:249851:19866:179878:79898:159918:179981:229985:19

alternative

9642:19643:109644:18,249681:22,259689:39804:229832:259833:99834:109912:139937:69961:169962:4

alternatives

9603:89643:2,119645:89693:209964:22

alway 9893:2

am 9612:16

9614:219615:49616:19617:3,6,20 9618:249668:249692:139694:19752:19860:119929:259930:4,189935:99941:199949:89974:10

amazingly

9701:8

ambiguous

9637:4

ambitious

9828:15

America

9616:139633:39723:149724:2,14,15,21,229726:89734:99831:16,18

American

9633:19723:239730:159964:4,12,18 9965:13

Americans

9657:3

American's

9984:17

America-wide

9831:22,25

AMI 9973:16

among

9622:109674:109806:129965:13

amongst

9623:6,14,24

amount

9643:79656:239658:259669:69675:89682:39707:239708:129720:189741:149772:249773:39784:59794:99800:129811:189812:5

9827:49874:149880:3,4,59905:179924:15,21

amounts

9682:149768:99772:249773:39874:11

ample 9776:5

9989:5

amplificatio

n 9718:17

9719:2

Amundsen

9717:15

analogous

9937:149940:3

analys

9616:6

analyses

9629:129632:49872:179912:7

analysis

9617:22,249618:1,189619:1,2,79620:69628:6,7,18 9629:209632:39638:239640:169666:89670:139673:18,229679:249680:19694:21,239759:259761:9,11,14 9762:99763:49765:59768:19

9777:259790:129819:249838:209845:4,5,169854:3,129860:11,129861:2,12,17 9866:29871:209872:189873:8,99874:69899:13,239900:16,219902:209903:219904:59941:219944:149974:209989:22

analyst

9615:13,14,16,239629:14

analysts

9615:199616:6

analytics

9971:14

analyze

9769:17

analyzed

9647:15

analyzing

9629:11

and/or

9763:15

Anderson

9604:24

animated

9717:3

announced

9643:99717:14

announcing

9617:19



annoyed

9837:11,12

annual

9809:199859:19863:189971:22

annually

9647:259750:239980:19

answer

9700:39703:199705:19711:239749:69774:69788:10,129794:179799:6,189812:229813:219819:99820:14,249862:6,249868:13,179871:9,129877:11,179878:19886:89894:14,159895:189930:259950:169976:149983:13

answering

9801:21

answers

9778:199971:179976:23

anthropogeni

c 9730:10

anticipate

9791:59978:15

anticipated

9892:12

9899:89950:39972:219973:9

anticipating

9898:179906:29958:49978:1

anticipation

9840:9

Antoine

9604:219606:129624:259699:7,11,129701:11,149703:189705:99706:89707:79708:4,79709:12,20,249710:16,249711:8,16,259712:9,139713:4,119840:6,25

anybody

9657:69746:29809:10

anybody's

9632:18

anymore

9702:25

anything

9618:39631:159644:29669:19677:39685:59709:59710:149711:159713:109740:23

9760:249790:209809:109818:20,219848:259882:239894:209927:39948:8

Anytime

9974:24

anyway

9655:59824:129827:169838:20

anyways

9835:239864:49931:17

anywhere

9633:129650:7

apologies

9787:39932:5

apologize

9612:229664:2,69843:209936:39947:129953:239968:139976:24

apparent

9913:3

apparently

9614:29643:179654:219754:39911:249913:2,4

appear

9681:12

appearance

9619:24

APPEARANCES

9604:19605:1

appeared

9621:39626:6

appearing

9692:15

appears

9674:16,179678:39681:129844:49945:23

appendices

9674:18

Appendix

9677:189780:69817:239936:259937:29954:29962:39968:15

apples

9668:49939:6

appliance

9637:12

appliances

9650:2

applicable

9678:9

application

9665:5,109666:5,79674:16,209675:249677:249686:109782:119975:13

applications

9643:89870:199982:10

applied

9676:16

9745:59762:49971:29978:2

applies

9799:24

apply 9651:1

9680:159795:59903:18

applying

9743:25

apprec

9932:13

appreciate

9703:199723:169736:69941:89971:21

appreciated

9819:19983:20

appreciates

9932:14

appreciation

9872:8

appreciative

9842:25

approach

9644:69677:159813:249819:249831:19,219959:89978:6

approaches

9981:7

approaching

9813:11,16

appropriate

9631:179633:29640:39649:99658:189678:8



9691:259694:19720:219760:239765:39792:159794:199806:29829:16

approval

9851:12

approvals

9851:59895:6

approved

9757:12,209758:179857:14,189866:249867:169902:17,249905:2

approximate

9745:12

approximatel

y 9699:5

9799:219859:29899:139904:239905:39932:2

April

9723:119743:4

ar 9886:19

architect

9700:10

architects

9700:239701:179702:4

Arctic

9716:14,16,18,209717:9,119718:16,179719:39720:11,12

9721:3,6,23 9722:109723:7,8,18 9724:1,99726:49730:7,99731:15,179746:22

area 9631:8

9692:3,219699:13,219703:209730:18,209749:89766:249769:49799:249800:69827:109831:49924:9,179932:219965:22

areas

9621:23,259624:179625:189630:69645:69692:29705:29718:23,249731:4,6,89748:119823:259831:89925:20

aren't

9612:229657:79695:159697:49709:59749:239836:49837:149915:179919:249926:209979:8

argued

9684:4

argument

9772:89916:24

arguments

9725:179824:239985:10

arise

9661:199693:18

arisen

9657:13

arises

9790:20

arising

9650:189828:21

Arkansas

9623:69624:1,129692:11

arms 9836:22

arou 9962:15

arrangement

9812:189880:129882:129892:2

arrangements

9744:189812:259814:159815:139983:17

array

9985:21

arrival

9662:6

arrow 9953:3

art 9945:3

article

9747:219843:1

articles

9747:22

Asia 9616:14

aside

9800:159885:169938:89940:189969:2,39976:2

aspect

9648:17

aspects

9715:249717:99726:239727:15

aspirations

9721:19

assertion

9653:22

assess

9640:39654:129972:13

assessment

9711:39716:69729:229730:69829:3

assigning

9971:12

assist

9613:89867:129952:14

assistance

9644:39700:79728:22

assisting

9878:18

associate

9616:18

associated

9706:109720:99723:19726:69727:22,24

9729:139734:99735:209771:19872:209878:159892:8,229895:59910:4,59927:189929:49933:69972:159986:21

association

9617:209654:189691:20

assume

9642:89671:69762:259815:39816:239820:249875:2,89899:219941:159948:129982:21

assumed

9669:4,6,10 9670:229672:89674:79686:109753:19762:229814:129849:89858:79876:239900:159901:199903:179905:79906:239941:1,249953:9

assumes

9852:89876:18



assuming

9639:79768:209794:219801:49838:19848:199850:79851:109860:119863:39869:109876:259902:89904:229907:69908:199932:259933:29953:20

assumption

9653:79666:149668:89678:49679:249701:259744:139768:189816:2,259850:29852:59854:49861:14,159875:239896:69944:21

assumptions

9610:219665:13,17,22 9666:39669:39676:11,13,179680:1,169738:69760:99817:11,15,179863:8,139903:119904:209933:10

9941:209948:2

asthma

9748:4

at-base

9873:21

atmosphere

9719:12,189722:99726:219728:199730:119731:1,109732:16,24

attached

9614:39620:14

attachment

9666:1

attack

9918:7

attempt

9736:24

attempted

9686:1

attended

9615:79618:15

attention

9719:229728:8,99729:259823:239965:39972:18

attic 9925:7

attractive

9638:59852:119873:169953:20

attribute

9711:5

attributed

9711:179967:2

attributes

9831:59893:11

audited

9825:6

auditor

9864:24

audits

9825:11

August

9624:11,12

authoritativ

e 9716:3

Authority

9619:19

availability

9975:17

available

9610:169631:69640:249645:69675:249677:239689:99696:79698:8,239727:119736:19740:229820:109826:21,249857:9,229858:89866:229869:12,15,239871:219889:179898:89917:6,16,23,259922:21,259933:29970:109985:21

Avenue

9603:22

average

9646:9

9667:209668:23,249669:229710:199716:12,139718:9,129727:199752:139766:229767:99781:69783:249784:39827:22,249829:129830:179924:5,6,24,259925:11

avoided

9638:11,189760:109801:12

aware 9656:3

9671:179674:199691:249711:29737:219738:39751:239756:239764:69771:19,249796:1,20,21 9797:259805:209809:17,229820:39822:259844:209861:159970:139976:129977:2

away 9659:7

9732:89805:89959:3

axis 9717:23

B

bachelor's

9615:99621:16

backed

9774:16

background

9611:139615:69621:149699:149826:209889:69890:79901:49978:18

backing

9637:219799:19849:12

backs

9921:14

bad 9791:25

9988:7

balance

9714:79736:9

balancing

9629:179695:14

ballasts

9649:2

ballpark

9681:69817:189912:209982:20

band 9730:8

bang 9826:6

Barber

9606:149714:249715:14,18,199732:109733:219735:25



9736:79749:23

bargain

9896:16

barrier

9987:22

barriers

9659:239765:219868:9,12,23

bars 9744:10

base

9629:12,209759:109873:59885:229936:12,17,22 9938:69947:19

Baseboard

9640:13

based

9616:119619:169629:209631:189638:229643:249653:79673:189680:149686:29711:119738:59740:18,219760:9,11,17 9762:69763:169767:189773:89778:2,69782:4,5,14 9783:209784:13,149816:8,109819:59837:79848:189849:79853:25

9857:8,129877:49887:239893:149894:159896:59901:179904:59905:159907:199913:259916:69917:229924:119930:2,179931:259970:4,219977:159980:24

baseline

9936:17

basic

9631:229690:229914:12

basically

9632:39641:109693:89717:249718:189720:229731:129760:229774:139789:229792:129800:29826:129828:99837:9

basin 9820:4

basing

9896:6,20

basis 9626:3

9639:109670:119674:249675:39683:39685:3

9687:209689:249745:1,99774:99777:259803:19900:22,259913:229956:209971:22

battery

9789:23

Bay 9723:24

9726:6

BC 9670:23

9744:229775:29865:99903:169904:59928:22

beans

9660:16

bear 9640:8

bears

9746:21,22

beat

9837:1,13

beautiful

9776:24

become

9634:249702:249722:119870:15

becomes

9744:199836:169959:99961:1

becoming

9673:119869:22

Bedford

9604:7

Beep 9868:1

begin 9612:4

9692:25

9716:239737:39750:20,22

beginning

9738:189834:109947:24

begun 9826:5

behalf

9619:199621:3,119691:119715:159737:59741:22

behaviour

9644:179982:3

behind

9679:259834:179970:13

Bel 9603:16

9653:5,109732:89753:20,249754:99787:199788:1,69789:79790:159821:6,199835:209837:179838:219860:4,7,259929:14,219930:11,169931:1,16

believe

9612:49614:79617:189645:49662:49664:159674:189691:179692:69715:12

9754:39757:3,89764:189767:129791:199796:179797:109801:39802:129815:169820:179824:39828:89829:259830:7,12,14 9840:209842:89856:179860:21,249866:159867:89869:209871:159879:7,16,21 9881:259882:29893:229905:189909:119923:249925:49934:159938:229946:189949:179952:219960:209972:89973:49976:179978:79979:19

believing

9806:2

Bel's 9862:4

benchmark

9795:24

beneficial

9645:39916:7

benefit

9633:20



9634:9,119635:49636:1,13,14 9640:89647:149697:219714:189745:99760:149765:229770:189773:229774:129789:169794:179795:8,139878:189895:239897:49912:79914:169916:149948:29969:8

benefited

9924:18

benefits

9637:249641:249647:179656:139690:29709:49710:159727:179758:109763:239764:139787:49788:219792:149799:3,49823:149873:109878:14,159880:169893:179911:109915:39920:21

benign

9642:9

best 9610:7

9637:119652:2,249663:199666:29676:149693:119734:109740:89766:259799:89826:259856:239862:59869:179909:129911:169924:18

bet 9843:19

beta 9655:16

better

9632:89634:169636:199656:89659:49663:209693:49709:139734:19765:8,9,10 9768:119792:69874:19881:79882:139886:89898:249946:109949:109957:4,69970:49976:15,239983:13

beyond

9610:219611:59640:169644:59646:139647:189648:17

9762:229795:199859:6,109863:3,8,13 9869:209886:49888:8,209894:209897:239900:18,22,259917:149927:239934:139940:199977:4

bias

9824:6,22

bigger

9923:16

biggest

9670:209679:7

bill 9656:5

9658:99686:99717:4,14,169919:7,21,22 9922:209924:229925:11

billion

9707:9,12,149719:8,109835:4

bills

9634:159708:19761:39793:9,10

Bio 9963:4

biomass

9631:69737:25

birds

9746:23

bit 9639:6

9648:19669:249670:39683:19688:39692:239699:6,14,23 9729:209744:229745:219796:109830:39832:229834:219837:139871:19883:199912:5,129915:199929:159933:7,89936:49937:29944:59954:99959:20,21,22 9962:69967:219968:149971:15

black 9679:9

9730:219731:7,8

blend

9685:23

blobs

9735:1,2

block

9644:259645:99805:209806:4,5,9,17,199901:189976:10

blocked

9713:69927:1

blocks

9903:11,13

Blood 9845:1

blowing

9702:129705:5

blown

9704:22

blue

9721:10,249730:8,189731:49744:5,69849:229851:169852:69921:229937:99952:239953:19

blue-green

9747:14

blueprint

9694:4

board

9603:3,14,15,16,17,21 9604:29610:10,159613:69615:6,169617:249618:8,11,159620:1,2,15 9621:229622:6,79623:4,6,13,15,169624:1,2,9,11,12,139645:49683:129693:19698:4,7,15,219705:109708:99715:239723:129757:20,259764:199784:23



9785:15,189795:159796:89806:139843:1,4,9,13 9844:89903:249968:49973:29978:239989:13

boards

9620:18,24

Board's

9697:19

Bob 9604:2

bonds

9695:14

Bonjour

9624:25

book 9608:7

9742:19,239752:59755:15,229758:219762:209766:109769:229774:259779:169785:19788:2

bookkeeping

9812:79813:1

boom 9755:5

border

9619:129633:25

borders

9633:18

born 9692:18

borrow

9707:23

borrowed

9709:6

bothered

9668:12

bothers

9729:20

bottom

9785:89849:239850:209884:259887:159904:189907:69936:89937:249952:21,229968:1

bought

9923:10

bouncing

9947:22

Bowman

9839:199840:5,7

box 9679:9

9718:119797:239952:24

boxes

9650:169953:19

Boyd 9604:6

9764:79844:4,159845:14,239846:8,18,259847:7,16,249858:14,16,249883:17

branch

9691:20

brand 9662:9

Brattle

9638:8,239639:149640:169674:18

brave

9941:17

break 9639:1

9663:19,209664:8,109691:179699:229701:159762:139790:229791:8,11,13 9792:199839:159841:99842:29883:209935:14

breaker

9797:22

breaking

9724:12

Bridge

9721:17

brief

9620:119630:1,159635:149650:239653:189654:249691:79695:199697:249704:79707:199736:219742:6,159751:219752:79754:119755:179761:59762:19764:19765:259766:129769:109770:19774:1,229779:189782:22

9783:189785:39786:69787:7,249790:179795:19797:189807:259821:4,179833:159835:189841:199854:159856:169857:259859:249860:179864:139870:39871:179874:209875:59879:29881:39882:69884:59888:129889:99894:89895:109897:159898:19899:2,10,169901:9,229902:49904:11,169905:11,239906:189929:199930:6,229933:149934:79935:179939:10,199940:229941:119942:159943:1,119944:179946:49955:69963:1,259966:13,20

9972:259973:129974:169975:249981:39983:39984:19986:8

briefly

9621:159631:189647:39746:69749:49839:139844:199935:14

brilliant

9973:20

bring 9613:8

9638:189642:159649:6,109677:149694:109701:39779:159785:219832:219836:139932:3

bringing

9702:69779:149932:17

brings

9642:25

brittle

9777:3

broader

9689:109878:89987:3,8

broadly

9905:15

brochure

9655:6

broken

9807:7



brother

9921:2,22

brought

9641:169645:239677:59695:229769:139825:259927:169932:19942:20

Brunswick

9619:4

budget

9972:9,20

budgeting

9808:20

build

9631:169645:209662:249680:159684:49699:169701:49707:179788:159789:14,159850:89867:89868:19894:49896:15

builder

9803:109804:6,21

builders

9754:259803:129804:9

building

9631:169641:139648:229649:7,16,23 9700:229701:5,8,99709:29741:13

9755:69778:159816:59859:189892:109893:249894:11,169897:3,8,12 9916:239942:5

buildings

9631:149640:249641:119648:229669:139700:89702:39712:8

build-out

9678:2

builds

9616:23

built

9638:179701:99702:39706:9,189707:59727:249729:169753:189754:159816:249817:19851:89859:189878:19892:10,189896:209897:79926:39962:219963:209973:109989:1

bulk 9670:4

bullet

9746:11

bullets

9780:3

bunch

9659:169717:5,69746:19853:14

bundles

9760:16

burdens

9655:22

buried

9678:3

burn 9636:19

burner

9632:8

burning

9637:5,8

business

9632:99654:19707:29764:14,229765:1,139907:239918:10,14,229934:2,39964:29973:5

businesses

9661:19

buy 9789:18

9801:49826:119923:12

Buyback

9867:23

buyers

9645:249812:1

buying

9764:239811:19812:209814:18

byproducts

9913:259916:9

9960:2

Byron

9604:149607:119842:229883:119935:259936:1,16,19,249937:8,13,17,229938:5,16,249939:5,219940:2,10,169941:4,9,139942:9,239943:3,139944:7,199945:10,13,17,199946:9,12,18,249947:4,11,149948:17,239949:6,12,259950:6,9,179951:1,10,189952:1,4,9,139953:219954:1,7,15,249955:9,199956:2,8,14 9957:89958:169959:179960:5,119961:149962:2,14,199963:3,7,13,189964:1,8,16,239965:5,10,

199966:1,7,15,229967:3,199968:7,13,239969:6,15,21,249970:8,15,25 9971:199972:7,17,239973:1,8,18,259974:109975:10,229976:1,14,229977:13,18,259978:9,139979:229980:9,15,229981:8,129982:6,14,19 9983:12

C

cable

9650:16

CAC 9604:14

9625:169691:11

cafeteria

9660:4

calculate

9685:49911:119955:21

calculated

9781:14,15

calculating

9799:19

calculation

9676:179780:89782:99783:129829:8,99889:15



9930:29939:229947:5

calculations

9678:89713:19,219781:99827:149883:159946:139955:12

calculator

9955:11

California

9724:249830:18

campaign

9799:129906:5

Canada

9619:69654:199691:209723:189726:39738:249851:129970:1,19

Canadian

9686:3,79687:79739:59782:2

Canadians

9748:7

cancel

9853:17

cancelled

9757:13

cap 9633:14

9656:20

capa 9678:19

capabilities

9733:9

capability

9917:13

capac

9667:15

capacity

9611:89619:169654:89667:12,159671:189674:99675:9,14,20 9676:129677:8,139678:199681:259684:179688:139766:4,239767:15,209768:5,12,18,209769:199770:219777:239818:5,89819:129834:239848:199849:89853:29854:109861:219874:249875:159876:19877:4,69880:39883:249884:17,229885:12,189887:39888:10,249894:149913:39966:8

capital

9619:149655:189658:6,89665:149666:6,139674:99675:13,15,18,199680:14

9703:79708:249741:29744:159766:39818:119819:119851:21

Capra

9665:249681:14,169817:149818:17,259819:2,69829:15,21

Capra's

9817:7,219818:20,21,249819:109829:2,7

capture

9703:49859:19,219928:89929:59989:22

captured

9922:11

carbon

9633:7,99634:149639:6,119640:79719:179744:239758:13

care 9697:7

9805:149915:49921:3,149923:14

career

9720:12

careful

9780:229862:119975:9

carefully

9877:23

Caribou

9746:20

Carleton

9615:9

Carolinas

9830:21

carried

9655:59861:3,6

carrots

9804:10

carry 9619:1

9852:2,259929:15

carrying

9930:19

case 9634:8

9670:149684:59693:12,159704:149707:39745:89760:199763:6,10,18 9788:139798:29852:149853:39907:239913:12,169915:239916:79930:139934:2,49973:59977:9

cases

9700:189814:21,229815:19836:19916:10

cash 9644:18

cashflow

9632:69641:22

Catastrophic

9729:4

catches

9755:6

categories

9812:49923:18

category

9689:149921:18

caterpillar

9849:229851:169852:69952:23

caucus

9630:49882:10,159883:139891:5,159895:13

cause

9751:159755:119803:159805:139852:89958:179959:6

caused

9720:229724:9

causes

9642:18

causing

9722:10

caution

9989:13

cautious

9626:19870:1

CCGTs 9682:1

cell 9650:15

9719:24

cells

9719:23

cellulose



9704:22

Celsius

9718:19725:10

cement

9711:18

cent 9912:14

9913:159914:239915:19

Centra

9656:199764:59804:20

Centre

9612:109613:29621:3,119664:219715:159729:4

cents

9676:6,209686:189706:4,59779:4,59781:19,219816:19827:23,259912:239913:6,8,169914:21,239915:15,169916:259968:109988:18,21

certain

9707:239712:159734:79739:19744:249793:89804:12,249811:16,179832:129918:179924:159957:139960:13

9977:4,20,21

certainly

9627:159629:29637:259645:59656:179658:39668:229702:109705:2,79711:229715:19749:79758:99763:219767:29768:79769:19772:239773:149777:69778:239784:99788:219791:149802:239807:189815:219819:229832:179842:259843:159844:99879:119883:139886:99891:179910:19932:11,149935:19980:6

certainty

9705:149749:179750:4

certificate

9607:139878:119896:10

Certified

9991:2

cetera

9747:189850:49960:8,22

CFLs 9869:24

9923:4

CFO 9616:20

Chair

9612:259620:59622:12,259623:219624:6,169628:229630:129652:49663:5,239664:219737:15,169738:239742:119883:10,119936:1

Chairman

9612:79652:79706:29714:229736:119790:199791:79843:18

Chairperson

9603:139612:3,209622:17,219624:239625:4,8,12,199628:159629:3,249630:39632:20,239650:259651:129652:59660:219661:109662:59663:2,11,

179664:1,5,15 9685:209686:15,199687:259688:249691:99699:29713:129714:10,149715:2,119735:249736:8,189737:49741:209742:1,8,13 9748:179750:149791:2,10,19 9832:199833:179838:239839:259841:15,219842:1,89843:149853:229858:19862:1,20,22 9879:139881:99882:189918:79922:139983:229984:39988:149990:14

Chair's

9690:6

challenge

9775:19922:79924:39934:39945:209959:9

challenged

9924:19982:5

challenging

9662:20

chance

9766:189776:1

change

9608:99617:159633:239641:59665:179680:179694:14,159695:49708:229715:249716:3,5,11,139717:89718:189724:99725:2,3,5,219726:12,169727:8,15,16 9729:219730:219731:14,229732:99733:239735:2,39743:12,149745:199746:209747:4,22,259748:20,219749:10,219761:99766:29774:69782:159797:139798:89810:199850:2,39853:139918:199919:109922:29923:49928:6,109948:20

changed

9835:6



9926:1,59985:12

changes

9685:149713:229721:29725:9,129747:15,199748:249810:199905:79909:10,14,15 9921:8

changing

9644:169716:99725:209731:6,79757:199780:119905:179909:59920:169923:8

Chapter

9745:3

charge

9650:149660:49700:129744:169804:13,25

charges

9633:169645:119646:2,4

chart 9609:3

9752:99801:259802:7,11,13,169803:16,199847:119853:109857:229858:21,259869:29874:229886:249887:119904:8

chartered

9615:12,13,16

chase 9805:8

cheap 9913:4

cheaper

9636:249642:19805:14

check

9641:189663:129757:79762:89772:3,14,18 9783:229807:99886:99902:79944:209946:219950:14,249951:29955:12,14,229956:4,109966:1,5,10,169970:10,259974:189980:239981:6

checked

9825:8

checking

9944:10

chemicals

9960:7

chemistry

9960:7

Chernick

9606:7,189610:3,109612:8,129613:49614:129620:9,13,199621:1,8,12,16

9622:10,259623:3,9,18,21,249624:4,6,8,15,189625:259626:6,89630:6,12,23,249632:20,219633:69634:3,69635:11,169647:21,239648:79651:4,19,23,249652:11,15,199653:5,9,12 9654:49655:19656:39658:159660:139661:9,149662:149683:249691:15,16,239692:1,5,14 9693:39694:29695:19696:6,209697:159698:3,10,11,149699:139700:49701:139702:19704:99705:219706:209707:219708:5,239709:19,239710:4,219737:10,169750:209751:6,129752:1,17,23

9753:9,229754:1,209756:6,229757:3,8,14 9758:89759:2,7,16,18,249760:8,15,229761:7,10,139762:3,129763:7,139764:3,189778:39784:219785:11,139786:14,15,20,249787:10,12,15,199788:4,119789:109790:22,259791:259792:3,9,12,219793:18,249794:3,6,219795:6,149796:3,7,16,20,239797:8,209798:119799:14,189800:1,5,19 9801:199802:3,5,12,209804:5,89805:239806:109807:4,11,159808:3,22,259809:4,9,16,219810:1,10,13,219811:249821:69822:4

9823:3,89824:249825:19,219827:119828:7,199831:79833:239836:69838:49839:49957:10

Chernick's

9608:39613:15,179813:2

Cheryl

9991:7

Chicago

9616:13

chimney

9641:199642:179657:18

chip 9945:21

choice

9631:3,219640:129641:4,69642:119643:19654:179657:89660:7,89693:169800:109801:39807:5,79849:159850:23,249852:169895:79898:219905:13,149906:4

choices

9631:5,259654:219655:29660:29760:169850:9



9851:10

choose

9641:119642:11,239660:179680:99688:69751:159796:119817:14

choosing

9631:139645:19895:1,7

chose

9671:149854:13

chosen

9643:89879:6

Christian

9605:69625:109741:24

Churchill

9721:20

cigarette

9748:1

circle

9718:7,11

circulated

9844:17

circumstance

s 9793:9

9811:15

cited

9666:17,199670:239672:9,10,22

City 9624:2

9692:12

civil

9621:179669:12

claim

9974:19

claimed

9823:20

claims

9981:13

clarificatio

n 9625:24

9628:109753:219787:209983:6

clarify

9627:20,259757:239774:49829:219840:209855:249861:119875:29876:17

clarifying

9739:18

clean

9633:229755:209756:2,8,17 9758:2

clear

9643:14,229649:149697:29753:159781:119808:239860:259892:59894:109897:39984:139985:7

clearly

9645:29692:229723:199792:249793:1

client

9651:69945:229980:7,13

clients

9669:219952:149970:24

climate

9608:99633:239715:249716:3,5,9,219717:8,11,259718:17,199720:89722:239723:5,6,179725:1,3,4,5,12,20,239726:3,4,16 9727:159728:79729:15,21,239731:10,149732:99733:239734:7,109743:12,149745:199746:209747:4,9,19,22,259748:219749:10,21

climate-

induced

9729:6

climatically

9982:4

clock

9663:189688:12

close 9617:5

9650:7,99681:79731:129732:119786:99817:8,9

9835:259837:79864:29869:89900:2,4,7,9,139930:29944:6,12

closely

9645:239689:239700:14

closer

9748:109863:249986:16

closing

9985:10

co 9626:23

9764:69967:8

CO2 9635:7

9637:39638:2,99728:199730:11,18,209731:1,109743:249744:12,15

coal 9633:24

9636:11,16,209637:5,6,17,18,229638:119666:259732:179798:17,19,23,259799:2,5

COD 9670:6

9713:23

code 9859:20

9942:6

codes

9751:169752:13,249858:9,119859:10,11

,15 9860:39862:159898:219920:15,169938:89940:189944:139958:229959:14

co-efficient

9967:12

cognitive

9918:3

coincide

9645:23

cold

9690:8,229691:1,49719:259721:259723:21,259724:1,4,13,159725:8,169746:159776:199777:1,3,5,12,15,17,20 9826:8

colder

9690:23

collaboratio

n 9836:10

collar

9921:23

collection

9745:18

collectively

9900:159908:4,8

College

9615:10

colour

9730:12

colours

9730:6

column

9767:5,9,1



4

combination

9674:23,259675:199682:59751:1

combine

9984:15

combined

9619:189622:239630:199633:119637:169682:79751:49790:29798:219848:229850:229932:249933:8

combining

9682:10,11,12,13

comes

9655:179662:109673:219688:109734:179761:199814:189851:139852:29914:249921:129956:249957:49987:69988:16

comfort

9803:69988:12

comfortable

9972:14

coming

9646:209649:159653:25

9661:169715:149732:69821:89842:119888:39914:19950:21,22

commence

9715:139743:20

commencing

9612:1

comment

9625:259687:19690:119748:59749:39821:209822:29896:69902:149965:11,159989:6

commentary

9623:229624:18

comments

9715:209740:18,209778:29888:49986:11

commercial

9669:169739:169859:169870:209920:59942:4,59961:259983:17

commissioned

9688:16

commissionin

g 9669:14

commit

9848:259849:11,16

,179850:129852:16,189897:129952:8,109953:7,19

commitment

9659:139714:159797:6

commitments

9865:18

committed

9789:139837:14

committing

9838:149849:39953:12

commodities

9704:13

common

9699:249712:119765:22

commonly

9702:249824:7

commont

9821:20

communicatin

g 9919:6

9922:6

communicatio

n 9919:4

9924:10,19

communities

9746:13,199867:17

community

9747:179867:7,209929:119980:1

community-

based

9868:3

companies

9730:39896:17

company

9616:239643:149646:249753:13,159754:29760:239789:39790:139800:109801:19805:259978:21

Company's

9757:189761:169762:159765:5

comparable

9667:249873:4

compare

9629:169793:39873:20,21,22 9874:79914:19

compared

9687:99745:7,139749:199762:259873:119942:229948:239949:7,109951:4

compares

9699:18

comparing

9670:109949:4

comparison

9638:249874:109915:129939:6,13

9946:2

comparisons

9631:189786:199802:14

compendium

9745:17,25

compensate

9686:1

competing

9640:129683:16,189703:4

competition

9765:179961:4

competitive

9703:239882:219961:1

complaining

9708:11

complement

9695:10

complete

9862:6,24

completed

9667:13,15,189790:239877:25

completely

9961:9

completes

9838:249990:15

completion

9772:11

complex

9688:109732:3

complicated

9689:219705:19733:239735:69806:11,22



9812:23

complicating

9726:25

component

9701:159711:199712:2,149777:49859:99860:29865:79906:119914:249928:49957:15

components

9646:139699:249700:19710:209712:159875:219925:109927:199958:10

compressor

9662:16

comprise

9739:1

computer

9723:10

Conawapa

9681:39682:139685:49738:179850:109851:259852:2,8,9,13,16,17,18 9853:169873:229951:13,219952:10,15,259953:7,19

conceivably

9637:9

concentrated

9831:9

concept

9824:6

concern

9633:79658:169769:6,169779:39868:21,229873:259915:29971:10

concerned

9628:129641:239658:19714:89747:79795:169832:229928:179929:119988:15

concerning

9786:22

concerns

9659:1,189685:239763:109818:159822:179865:169873:129986:16

concerted

9799:12

conclude

9750:13

concluded

9855:11,219856:229987:17

concludes

9647:209685:189698:25

concluding

9898:6

conclusion

9653:69674:29684:259739:69761:129788:159856:69888:3

conclusions

9760:9,12,13 9776:89798:9

concrete

9712:8,17

condition

9642:179878:20,229880:239881:259882:129895:23,259896:189897:4,89934:16

conditions

9690:219693:189695:129718:139775:99777:59788:239835:69851:7,99892:39893:69895:14,17

conduct

9629:12

conducted

9900:209980:259981:15

conference

9729:4

confidence

9668:209783:159908:149928:20

9929:7

confident

9673:129907:169908:5,9,149928:16,21

confidential

9817:3

confirm

9611:3,99688:79766:259772:239775:89881:16,17,20 9882:39884:109888:7,179890:19965:109966:16

confirmation

9889:3

confirmed

9971:21

confirming

9886:13

confusion

9666:4

connected

9745:22

Connecticut

9624:39692:119697:1,3

connection

9668:99739:99764:22

connections

9700:259717:119726:159731:17

connects

9716:20

consensus

9680:16

consequentia

l 9748:1

consequently

9855:13

conservation

9621:49649:129650:89684:1,29751:39753:39764:249805:249901:13,149902:169904:19,229908:109921:129926:219927:19928:229942:69971:99976:4,99977:10,149986:24

conservative

9668:229672:39870:16

conserve

9662:259979:4

consider

9642:49667:79682:129683:1,149689:109696:2,189708:129738:99793:209794:4,199797:19832:99843:159903:249910:11,12,23 9980:1



9986:20

considerable

9960:17

considerably

9638:199704:209858:11

consideratio

n 9631:12

9653:16,249738:7,139740:249748:209777:17,19,20,229820:189952:189972:5

consideratio

ns 9806:12

9986:21

considered

9611:109665:99682:109683:239684:239685:19741:69748:249753:69761:89817:39856:139864:249871:29886:49889:49890:29933:219986:25

considering

9644:59668:259738:159867:119910:14,189946:19953:6

considers

9866:8

consisted

9677:22

consistent

9679:13,179724:109730:249898:119975:16

consisting

9811:12

consists

9643:239693:29800:3

consort

9644:119747:7

conspired

9685:7

constant

9768:15,189963:159964:9

constants

9962:20

constitute

9782:18

constraints

9760:179868:18

construct

9628:8

constructed

9611:179772:129890:169891:19897:9

constructing

9686:219896:199934:16

construction

9620:79627:9,239628:1,3,8,12,18

9629:89640:239650:19665:169669:4,59673:169680:209685:15,169687:99700:79706:119711:209739:10,11,149755:3,59770:179771:219772:259799:249800:29822:109838:139849:1,119859:159880:229892:229893:149907:259952:11

consult

9888:59915:249979:259980:4

consultant

9658:119865:259909:20

consultants

9741:239836:139909:22

consultation

9757:259855:2,5

consultation

s 9856:7

9902:20

consulted

9618:169855:18

Consulting

9616:109617:1

consults

9758:3

consume

9917:9

consumer

9765:99836:12

consumers

9650:139651:39654:18,209655:119659:4,159691:199696:99765:10,229898:249977:4

consuming

9784:249923:11

consumption

9976:19

cont 9893:21

Con't 9605:1

9607:19609:19611:1

contained

9906:22

contains

9666:2

contemplated

9800:109977:149978:149982:25

content

9716:129777:21

Contentic

9692:11

CONTENTS

9606:1

9607:1

context

9769:149789:29878:239915:209933:209986:20

continent

9722:149723:21,239724:11

continental

9726:3

contingency

9972:11

contingent

9879:19

continue

9636:89642:209647:179650:59701:129704:119710:4,59731:229791:12,209882:179893:229935:14

continued

9607:10,119634:29664:199754:139781:19804:49814:99849:209854:179858:239861:99863:169864:229877:19881:239883:229889:19890:139891:11



9911:209931:219935:259941:24

continues

9648:169723:25

continuing

9649:259860:15

contract

9611:219773:109814:249815:69834:229852:39875:10,119877:99878:219879:16,22,24,259882:19893:4,109894:20,239897:11,13,229934:12,14,19 9935:7

contracted

9647:89653:15,229884:109885:22

contracting

9815:19,21

contractor

9657:17

contractors

9641:169642:189657:219754:239836:20

contractor's

9657:19

contracts

9626:209682:119775:7,13

9814:209850:1,49851:199852:79875:3,249876:259877:259878:4,59881:179884:129885:149892:21

contractual

9812:259814:159815:109877:149885:17

contractuall

y 9896:25

contrast

9767:25

contribute

9804:14

contributing

9747:13

contribution

9839:5

contribution

s 9732:23

control

9645:159650:139719:209827:23

controlling

9705:6

controls

9826:2

controversia

l 9808:2

convenient

9656:189883:19

conventional

9756:1

conversation

9706:19881:199908:69959:20,229973:2

conversation

s 9778:9

9970:229982:10

conversion

9638:59640:219917:179956:259958:39960:1

convert

9686:6,129914:69917:39957:1

converted

9686:69957:3,20

converting

9640:249958:1

converts

9796:5

convince

9794:2,7

convincing

9778:9

cooling

9700:219718:249720:1

coordination

9642:16

cope 9894:19

copies

9840:239841:249842:2

copy 9746:3

9832:17

cord 9826:13

core 9884:3

Corey 9605:4

Coriolis

9726:7

Cormie

9607:89852:229878:99880:259886:8,139888:59891:7,18,20,229892:19894:179895:16,21,259896:4,9,229897:10,179934:11,21,24 9935:29964:1,2,6,13,219965:1,8,15,219986:15

Cormie's

9891:17

corner

9937:24

corporate

9785:6

correct

9614:4,7,209615:3,259616:7,8,219617:2,119618:9,20,219619:9,209620:19,259621:79622:99623:89624:149660:39673:29692:4

9696:59707:179710:3,209738:259739:259750:249752:22,239753:8,199759:239766:79767:6,10,16 9768:219778:229784:79807:129822:169830:69831:49833:179858:259859:49860:119866:99870:89887:109904:249906:12,139907:4,9,15 9930:49936:18,239937:7,12,16,219938:12,239939:49940:1,89942:179946:159949:89956:7,139960:49962:1,13,17,189963:5,6,10,11,179968:9,12,19 9972:229977:16,249991:2

correction

9666:59780:24

correctly

9692:13



9771:11,139776:169780:149781:169783:13,159831:219869:49884:15

correspondin

g 9767:25

9903:19

cost 9619:11

9620:69627:16,239628:1,239629:119634:99635:189637:5,229639:239640:5,6,89642:59643:2,3,4,59645:7,20,219646:1,39648:169656:229658:89665:5,13,14,199666:7,11,139667:19,209668:109670:4,12,149675:2,16,17,18,199677:199678:79680:149681:39685:3,6,22 9686:229688:20,229690:189693:199696:109699:17,20,249700:11

9701:7,219704:12,14,17,199705:17,23,249706:3,49708:11,129713:15,199714:2,4,99729:3,10,129732:13,149738:6,239740:49741:29744:129761:21,229763:249766:59776:79779:4,69781:69783:249786:189788:229789:4,21,249792:13,209793:59794:10,229795:79800:199801:6,13,16 9802:19804:149818:119822:139823:29827:249829:7,129831:15,169832:1,23,24 9833:139834:49835:49900:18,219911:5,13,169912:14,16,189913:2,189914:4,5,14,20,249915:8,15,

209916:9,11,25 9918:169933:59959:99961:19968:3,109989:119990:1,2,3

cost-

effective

9794:15

cost-

effectiven

ess

9761:23

costing

9706:49710:109988:18,19

costs

9619:8,159628:39632:59634:139635:2,229636:5,6,99641:129666:6,159667:4,5,10,239668:9,15,219669:6,129670:10,11,149674:8,9,24,259675:2,13,229676:15,239677:5,189678:1,9,229679:1,16,19,21,229680:17,229684:99685:21,249686:2,5,219687:12,16

9688:18,219690:179700:129701:239702:14,159703:3,6,8,10,11,159704:239705:39706:12,179708:219709:10,14,21,259710:19714:99729:179732:229739:2,69740:19,229745:49760:109764:16,219765:3,49766:39771:49780:5,89781:59784:149792:149794:10,209798:159816:139817:6,10,12 9819:119827:229829:2,4,8,169831:229851:219873:109900:159906:49911:129912:7,8,11 9914:129915:39916:209990:11

costs/

Canadian

9685:24

cottage

9921:7

couch

9978:119980:10

Council

9984:17

counsel

9604:29764:79844:8

counsel's

9966:17

count

9870:119889:21

counted

9812:6

counterpart

9970:12

counterposes

9837:20

counting

9782:189822:189971:11

country

9828:14

couple

9651:109655:59659:79661:239662:159677:69718:149755:69801:149810:39910:129949:139967:20,219980:15

course

9631:59649:259657:39721:179725:25



9726:13,249727:13,219728:29729:19805:11,169823:129871:19933:49943:239960:5

court

9697:219848:89936:2

cover

9699:129716:119720:22,239724:89797:239895:3

covered

9703:219815:6

covering

9666:24

covers

9667:14,17

Craft

9604:16

create

9688:19693:259764:139961:23

created

9718:109724:22

creativity

9832:12

credit

9633:15

credits

9812:2

crew 9642:15

critical

9769:139976:11

criticism

9706:149807:14

critique

9785:69806:24

crop 9728:15

cross 9663:8

9737:39750:15,209790:23

cross-border

9633:16

crossed

9626:7

cross-

examinatio

n

9606:11,12,20,21,229607:10,119691:139699:119737:139742:209743:219750:189790:219791:239854:179935:25

cross-

examine

9663:15

cross-

subsidizat

ion

9764:10

Crown

9814:14,189815:12

cruncher

9616:2

crunching

9615:239618:5,23

cry 9844:25

CSI 9877:22

9878:259879:8,129880:259881:6,13,16,219882:2,249883:9

CSIs 9882:14

cubic

9636:2,39656:22,24

cue 9844:16

cumulating

9954:22

cumulative

9911:89936:219938:79954:209955:24,259962:109963:9

cupcakes

9660:19

curious

9654:169733:139860:15

current

9634:209646:89654:59675:59676:149686:79740:209783:19960:23

currently

9627:29639:69714:239740:229748:139861:159865:69866:119867:229868:99907:21

9933:249970:109973:89978:14

curve

9661:4,69837:19

customer

9644:16,219737:249795:7,12,13,219796:49797:5,259905:169909:69911:79914:15,229916:169917:89919:69924:1,109961:229962:22

customers

9634:159642:8,239643:29644:13,259645:9,149656:8,149657:149659:89703:139751:15,189754:49764:119765:4,89773:49793:149795:5,169796:109802:189803:39805:3,10,139806:6,8,14,15,199868:15,19,249893:239904:2

9907:10,219916:89919:8,259927:119960:69964:14,22,259969:239976:189978:20,239979:2,4,6,7,8,20

customer's

9961:179962:9

Customers

9641:209642:4

customer-

sided

9906:219936:109937:10

cut 9643:20

9683:5

CV 9620:14

9622:14

cycle

9633:119637:169726:17,18,23,259728:9,109733:259734:89932:249933:8

cycles

9734:39798:21

D

Dakota

9771:16,229772:6,13,20 9773:59831:11

DALE 9607:4

9842:179906:25



9907:4,9,15,189913:199915:189916:1,49917:29918:59933:169936:14,18,239937:7,12,16,209958:199960:4,10,16 9961:209962:13,18,249963:6,11,16,229967:1,7

Dalton

9613:89618:11

dam 9916:23

damage

9790:7

damages

9728:15

dams 9706:23

9732:99789:20,22

dark 9744:5

Darlingford

9766:24

dat 9865:23

data

9825:11,23,259826:21,259827:19,209838:199858:2,79861:189865:24,25

data's

9828:2

date 9611:6

9620:14,169667:6

9669:179690:109700:209757:139771:21,229849:179850:139852:109853:15,259859:79875:259876:249885:129886:69887:1,3,249888:9,229894:20,229895:2,3,89897:219900:199919:49942:89951:179952:8,25

dated 9667:3

9767:12

dates

9875:2,139876:89902:129910:10

DAVE

9964:6,13,219965:1,8,15

David

9606:149607:89714:249715:18,199732:109733:219736:79891:20,229892:19894:179895:16,21,259896:4,9,22

9897:10,179934:21,249965:21

day 9614:5

9654:199731:169736:99739:169801:109839:13,189860:249879:59884:89918:39935:149948:4

daylight

9649:7

daytime

9790:1

deadline

9863:25

deal 9628:23

9631:49636:199644:89681:4,59685:149687:169708:159709:79732:59749:119765:169893:229985:23

dealing

9628:29633:239690:219745:149884:229913:239921:19974:24

deals

9758:239876:219987:10,11

dealt 9627:8

9699:99892:4

decade

9662:49720:14,169764:89934:4

decades

9640:169648:109720:69921:8

December

9621:69623:159624:2,3,99835:119851:3

decide

9732:39761:159824:129834:209835:59848:259849:17

decided

9830:39834:29844:79855:6,89980:5

deciding

9910:10

decision

9631:159660:109822:129833:79851:259852:209902:219909:179951:13,219952:15

decisions

9641:219694:129695:79697:5

9731:239833:19,209848:239849:69851:39853:129967:23

decline

9636:229637:109674:229675:159702:239720:219798:15

declines

9640:109653:69675:20

declining

9647:69662:39809:8,249810:99975:15

decrease

9679:19718:5

decreased

9728:22

decreasing

9646:2

deeply

9618:259629:15

deferred

9834:24

deficit

9877:5,18

definitely

9691:249750:129867:19

definition

9909:19,22

definitive

9748:239778:24



9971:17

definitively

9749:15

degree

9615:9,119621:179695:229749:179750:119754:18

degrees

9717:239718:19725:10

delay

9834:109892:209894:19,22,259897:19,20,22

delayed

9801:119892:169934:13

delays

9895:4

deliberation

s 9843:12

deliver

9866:129896:12,23

delivered

9803:19812:5,179967:17

delivering

9632:159867:13

delivery

9812:219867:89893:15,19

delve

9881:17

delving

9879:15

deman

9865:19

demand

9608:11,129618:39645:109682:19684:5,119685:149799:11,219845:6,11,15,209875:159883:24

demand-side

9696:259986:12

demonstrate

9760:1

demonstrates

9763:4

dense

9690:23

denser

9777:20

department

9621:179667:109711:39830:1

departure

9839:3

depend

9889:229981:17

dependable

9874:239877:189880:89889:16,21,239908:209926:14

depending

9655:209703:239709:219727:69728:239734:20

9754:219799:49821:149961:21

depends

9734:159735:59768:239769:39784:119814:179859:119923:18,199944:239954:13

depicting

9850:1

depiction

9853:12

depicts

9857:10

deposits

9670:2

depreciation

9707:249711:5,11

depth

9723:21

derivatives

9932:21

derived

9679:249916:17

derives

9727:18

deriving

9762:119766:5

describe

9982:20

described

9850:169918:17

describing

9639:199656:4

description

9608:29609:29610:29611:29733:16

deserves

9681:89883:2

design

9624:7,10,11,229645:109659:59751:179792:169805:199806:219836:139903:219986:229990:6

designed

9701:109905:159910:209927:25

designs

9753:19909:4

desires

9721:19

Desorcy

9979:23

despite

9640:179641:99763:109918:15

desserts

9660:6,15

detail

9642:109652:169681:89697:119746:89779:259805:249818:189819:22

9825:23

detailed

9626:209780:129781:79792:169837:79903:219944:119945:1

detailing

9777:25

details

9637:259651:99796:239881:21

determine

9654:109762:189911:15

deterrent

9656:16

devel

9812:16

develop

9721:69815:129834:209855:259856:7

developed

9682:39693:79695:109753:29768:12,21,239855:13,22,239856:1,99858:69860:209862:179899:23

developer

9610:179669:219774:4,59805:5



9813:249814:5

developers

9641:109642:11,139645:18,229673:15,199680:199714:79754:249778:3,4,10 9805:79813:69814:22,25

developer's

9805:15

developing

9619:159647:189674:209687:69688:229771:29815:18

development

9603:109665:99681:109684:9,13,20 9685:89697:29703:39759:159760:69769:179770:159771:79772:5,69778:229780:109804:18

developments

9870:139906:79932:14

develops

9835:15

device

9958:24

devices

9650:13,15,18

diagram

9735:19837:18,229847:179848:69857:15

diagrams

9857:8

Diana

9622:239630:139779:159832:209936:259938:179962:59968:14

dictated

9917:4,23

dies 9650:3

difference

9635:259637:109644:219670:17,189677:179679:69710:179712:49735:109789:249821:149834:199858:139900:89903:129914:139937:18,19,209943:14,229944:8,219945:23,259946:209950:109951:79955:13,16,21,249956:4,109957:9

9978:19

differences

9818:149831:39951:69981:6,7

different

9629:17,209655:249668:139670:249674:13,159675:129677:109681:239686:229689:79693:249694:199696:22,239700:19712:239726:109730:69733:109735:199752:209767:159768:8,99779:89790:129817:159818:49828:179829:17,189831:179835:79837:239868:129871:219872:229873:29874:119877:199880:29900:129918:89920:79922:19932:49938:219947:8,15,17,18

9948:8,10,19 9951:219960:189967:99979:3,5,20 9983:109989:16,179990:10

differentiat

e 9806:14

differently

9921:17

difficult

9645:109675:239733:259761:189868:149870:109925:149930:8

difficulties

9862:23

dig 9618:25

digging

9666:229667:79668:259671:4

dilemma

9922:14

diminished

9645:229820:11

diminishing

9957:149975:17

dinghy

9721:16

dioxide

9633:7,9

direct

9642:29659:149758:239848:159874:6,10

direction

9696:169750:139807:19

directional

9750:3

directionali

ty 9802:16

9803:24

directionall

y

9819:4,229829:15

directly

9632:129638:219703:129727:149773:219815:139874:7

director

9616:18

disadvantage

9865:159948:25

disadvantage

s

9865:11,15

disagree

9651:23

disagreement

9819:6

disappear

9883:18

disappeared

9720:1

disappearing

9883:16

disappears

9883:12

disaster

9835:9

disasters

9729:1,2,3,7,9,10,12,13

disband



9839:12

discount

9608:15,189801:79804:209823:199824:89846:1,6,11,169909:18,20,239910:22

discounting

9908:18

discourage

9643:109645:12

discouraging

9806:25

discuss

9647:39805:199852:249866:199883:20

discussed

9654:139757:49795:159798:149803:109824:79848:19852:239885:179927:89934:119936:209939:79952:209981:9

discusses

9756:9

discussing

9630:259646:79694:209788:99789:8

discussion

9822:59867:79871:19878:89881:89882:259883:2,59891:69901:149928:219932:129936:59946:179960:17,199961:3,9,10 9968:4,59980:179982:14

discussions

9856:17,229865:39869:189892:259898:239908:139928:139969:129970:4,5,69971:149978:69982:23

disincent

9988:15

disincentive

9988:159989:1

dispatch

9638:1

dispatchable

9770:21

dispatched

9637:17

displace

9754:79758:11

displacement

9638:99754:29901:139906:12,21

,239912:139913:21,259916:199920:49927:10,119928:189936:119937:6,109958:14,189959:18,259961:179962:4,10,22

disposal

9693:99714:8

dispose

9916:109917:11

disrupt

9736:24

disruptive

9870:9

distinct

9674:109831:4,5

distinctly

9750:2

distinguish

9811:11

distortion

9896:16

distribute

9841:1

distributed

9840:23

distribution

9725:13

diversity

9611:4,109746:149886:1,179888:7,189889:49890:3

document

9614:3

9743:69855:159884:39906:159911:17

documents

9608:79614:79697:189736:199742:19,20,239743:19,209752:59755:15,229758:219762:14,209766:109769:8,239775:19779:169785:19788:29792:239843:11

doll 9972:12

dollar

9656:239658:249686:189717:4,13,16 9781:189826:11

dollars

9647:169665:159666:149667:21,229668:1,3,89674:249676:6,199680:239681:29686:3,6,79707:9,119708:2,149779:4,59780:59781:20,21,239782:1,2,8,16

9783:1,79793:12,139801:2,159804:149815:259816:19829:13,21,229905:199914:89918:19,209924:229969:2,39972:129973:15

domestic

9653:69654:69695:149763:259788:199789:11,149790:49799:119849:7

dominant

9638:12

dominating

9640:23

done 9610:12

9617:109632:39657:69659:209662:29675:259686:59690:69698:6,179713:159734:219744:129761:149762:69783:159786:139790:249799:159808:69827:109831:239832:4



9835:29843:209848:17,229855:179871:159898:179903:209933:1,29941:99949:14

door 9867:9

double

9782:189971:10

doubt 9840:5

9856:259979:24

doubts

9882:11

Douglas

9604:7

downturn

9755:4

downwards

9898:12

dozen 9627:4

Dr 9654:16

9655:49658:59659:259660:209715:18,199732:109733:13,219735:259736:79748:69749:229822:239823:59824:59825:17,209827:179828:179832:6,9,15 9911:1,39912:16,19,249915:1,229916:2,21

9918:2,69979:239983:22

draft 9855:7

dramatic

9635:39910:17

dramatically

9757:19

drawn

9967:16

drill 9983:8

drive 9719:7

9732:139734:7

driven

9723:6,189726:49735:22

driver

9654:2

drivers

9631:249676:22

drop 9643:18

9720:179768:129797:229810:49849:19850:209857:209861:79866:5

dropped

9861:5

drops

9860:12

drought

9726:13,229735:49788:239820:23

droughts

9734:149749:189750:1

dry 9691:1,4

9724:239734:39735:4,14

DSM

9610:21,249612:139623:12,139624:209631:1,17,199646:5,89647:259648:1,69661:2,129699:19,23,249709:229710:119751:259752:119753:189754:159758:4,249759:10,219760:2,14,18,249763:119792:79793:4,16,21,229794:5,11,15,189802:89803:229805:219808:209809:8,19,209821:8,11,12,14,22,259822:5,7,10,18,229823:19824:9,149827:10,229832:249833:1,3,6,11,249834:3,13,25 9835:249837:19,24

9838:29842:119843:199845:8,16,17 9847:109848:199849:20,259850:39851:179854:5,79857:2,139858:89860:10,12,149861:2,3,5,12,14,21,22 9862:129863:3,8,139864:11,20,259865:209866:5,8,12,139867:7,139868:109869:6,129871:2,6,7,20,249872:21,259873:1,5,15,20,21,259874:1,8,11,13,249875:12,249876:12,139880:69882:9,169883:159901:11,12,259906:249908:6,10,18,199909:189910:5,6,15,16,189913:49915:119920:3,99926:29932:139933:17,20,22

9934:109935:159938:219939:1,229940:17,199942:11,189943:14,159945:249946:15,209947:19,209948:7,19,249949:10,229950:219953:1,49962:219973:199974:99975:14,179984:89985:1,159986:199988:16,259989:2,209990:11

due 9641:3

9777:49853:69862:159907:24

Dunksy's

9857:7

Dunsky

9660:239809:159810:9,11,149821:13,15,25 9822:59824:209837:189857:129858:2,69860:20,22,23 9865:79870:69910:79929:179931:129957:109961:79970:5



9983:69984:69985:59986:39987:20

Dunsky's

9809:189857:1,159869:229929:219930:109987:16

duplicate

9858:6

during

9680:199790:209792:199839:15,189867:69871:1

dwell 9872:6

E

earlier

9639:39670:119672:59673:159744:19761:159852:6,8,9,199854:189872:179883:259894:129895:139922:39934:129948:59949:179950:129951:129952:209973:4

earliest

9611:69875:12,259876:249885:11

9887:1,249888:8,21

early

9638:119702:189720:129801:179894:189956:159957:199974:12

Earth

9715:16

Earth's

9621:5

easier

9689:239702:89707:139980:10

easily

9813:21

east 9724:20

Eastern

9619:6

easy 9687:8

9703:19732:1

eat 9660:5

eating

9808:5

ecological

9726:11

econometric

9827:199828:15

economic

9608:13,169636:139670:139699:239729:179731:239793:16,199799:49804:199845:5,249846:4,9,1

4 9854:129860:11,149861:2,11,179866:8,129869:6,119880:16,179900:169922:99975:189986:189987:29990:8

economically

9634:219638:6

economics

9615:119695:59758:249795:49800:219817:219818:1,249879:69922:49929:4

economies

9719:79727:29733:11

economist

9615:19616:5

economy

9654:2,39657:19729:79789:179984:17

Ecosystem

9621:5

ecosystems

9746:12

ED 9607:7

9743:229749:39842:209848:89854:2

9861:209862:79871:9,13,199872:1,4,139875:7,17,209876:5,11,209877:2,109878:39879:49880:1,249881:59882:89883:39884:13,20,249885:4,9,15,18,249886:2,79887:4,7,13,17,229888:1,159889:119890:10,189891:4,149909:169932:5,9,199946:6,11,16,229947:1,9,13,169948:219949:1,11,249950:4,8,14,199951:8,16,249952:2,6,12,179953:249954:59965:179990:9

edge

9731:14,15

educated

9652:10

9690:14

education

9644:69906:4,5

educational

9615:69621:149646:139836:21

effect

9631:199633:89635:3,179636:159637:5,6,13 9647:39689:49707:149744:199751:49759:229857:4,5

effective

9637:239684:39706:39761:21,229789:59794:10,229801:169834:4

effectively

9768:199774:16,189849:59851:29872:179873:1

effectivenes

s 9639:23

9800:20

effects

9730:139748:139761:179838:18

efficiency

9632:7,119634:129635:25



9637:129639:11,129640:4,59646:23,259647:4,59648:9,159650:12,179661:249693:169695:239696:2,8,259700:16,209704:11,24,259705:18,199709:1,8,14 9751:139753:4,69758:19804:259825:99828:119834:6,189835:129838:12,149917:15,179921:3,209954:8,119956:229957:159958:9,20,259959:8,149967:6,8,18 9968:179974:39975:189984:8,20

efficient

9632:14,179636:119637:169639:4,59649:29650:39651:79689:199701:99702:20,22,24 9705:49798:189804:19

9824:169826:129836:229966:249967:99984:17

efforts

9964:9

eight

9676:199677:209679:89684:159816:14,179968:109988:18

eighteen

9666:259668:109671:239674:13

eight-five

9639:8

eighty

9711:10,149918:20

eighty-four

9681:1

either

9667:259674:89681:39682:239685:119686:79701:169702:5,179738:19,209739:249757:189762:79801:4,59805:139806:189811:79861:189894:189918:39941:199942:89955:11

9973:29976:2

elaborate

9926:179959:24

elasticity

9898:19

ele 9636:24

elec 9782:5

9822:17

elect

9794:179904:2

electric

9631:4,11,129634:11,179635:209636:259640:12,159641:4,189642:199643:109644:19,22,259645:139646:19656:8,149693:9,10,12 9696:79710:229751:2,169764:10,13,169765:4,6,8,149794:2,5,7,8,13,18,19 9796:99797:159798:19800:15,18,249801:5,7,8,14,179802:259806:6,8,16,189808:99825:79867:17

9904:29906:89914:189979:7

electrical

9618:189620:79627:249628:189802:1

electrically

9641:149924:139925:6

electricity

9618:2,49619:59632:99633:49634:9,179635:249636:149637:209638:49640:19,22,23,259641:89642:8,239643:6,89651:39655:13,15,239656:129657:119658:229662:129676:2,11,24 9683:259685:29754:59758:119765:7,239773:209782:59789:259790:19794:99795:99797:229798:49799:119802:19

9805:9,119913:69914:79917:49967:119978:4,209979:3,10

electrons

9811:6,23

elements

9878:24

Elenchus

9821:13,219822:5

Elenchus's

9822:17,21

eleven

9827:209907:12

eligible

9825:10

eliminate

9756:18

else 9613:10

9633:129644:29657:69685:59702:69768:159837:109843:129850:139851:189877:59905:4

else's

9657:10

elsewhere

9668:169687:139747:2

emailed

9840:20,22

embedded

9744:6

embodied

9792:24



emerging

9870:129960:12

emission

9633:79638:18,24,259639:8,179640:2,7,10

emissions

9632:59633:2,179634:159637:89638:209639:69640:29744:13,169745:59798:14

emitted

9719:99744:16

emphasis

9782:8

enable

9683:109770:16

encompass

9662:10

encourage

9639:259645:139800:179802:19

encouraged

9969:13

encouraging

9751:189754:49800:159807:19906:7

endangered

9746:23

end-use

9631:219632:11

9637:129795:49799:12

Energies

9666:21

energy

9611:89618:89635:209637:19645:119646:199647:39648:99649:129654:7,159661:249666:119667:119670:12,259678:89681:39684:149685:3,69688:11,129693:159695:239696:1,89701:69702:199704:119709:1,2,8,139732:13,259753:49754:39755:219756:2,8,18 9757:249758:1,29775:39777:219788:239796:199798:69800:139811:5,7,11,16,199812:1,2,19 9826:129828:119829:79830:1

9834:6,18,21,239835:12,149836:119838:11,149848:199849:89851:189853:19854:10,199855:29856:159858:109859:199861:219863:189867:1,259868:49874:239875:159876:19877:4,6,18 9880:39884:17,239886:21,259887:9,12,21,249888:10,249889:14,16,22,239893:159894:149900:19902:189903:199907:79908:169911:79912:139913:249914:6,16,229916:12,139917:3,9,11,249919:219921:3,11,20 9922:219924:14,229925:99926:159937:69938:209942:1

9953:139954:8,10,22 9957:159960:2,149961:169962:59963:49965:6,79967:11,13,15,179968:17,199969:179972:149973:159974:39975:189977:109979:49981:219984:7,17,20 9988:249989:219990:12

engagement

9907:219975:17

engineer

9618:259690:139700:10,119777:2

engineering

9618:259621:179629:159711:229712:12

engineers

9700:23,249701:179847:199848:4

England

9661:229662:39811:259823:25

enhance

9652:14

enhanced

9731:10

9751:25

enhancement

9738:1

enhancing

9738:20

enjoying

9689:5

enlighten

9913:13,17

enormous

9916:3

ENSO 9734:7

ensure

9984:109985:1,13

enter

9954:23

entering

9880:11

enters

9720:24

entertaining

9784:25

entire

9649:119730:239781:139801:139865:59896:12

entirely

9643:22,249674:129677:239700:69784:139789:59790:9

entity

9656:189867:24

env 9656:16

environment

9640:99643:59656:16



9730:17

environmenta

l 9633:20

9639:109647:179666:209790:79799:39893:119895:5

environmenta

lists

9836:12

environmenta

lly

9634:219636:189642:89804:19

environments

9731:2

envisioning

9806:5,8

EPA 9745:3

equal 9707:8

9708:199899:249947:7

equally

9978:2

equation

9916:15

equipment

9634:139648:159700:219702:179705:69707:19714:19814:169836:239919:119958:10

equivalent

9803:19836:119917:10

9932:16

erosion

9728:16

errors

9684:2

escalated

9782:4

escalation

9702:10,14,159782:12,15

esoteric

9731:19

especially

9777:49784:17

essence

9615:22

essential

9817:10

essentially

9616:29617:69655:229656:209688:189734:189795:189807:239812:189817:79867:199871:249903:179913:239947:22,259959:49961:25

estab

9821:23

established

9907:20

estate

9755:4

estimate

9610:189667:49688:19

9740:49741:109800:99813:259814:69826:259831:159869:179909:12

estimated

9973:15

estimates

9745:49903:15

estimating

9827:139929:1

estimation

9619:14

estimator

9629:8

et 9747:17

9850:49960:7,21

Europe

9616:14

evaluate

9681:229864:249907:22

evaluated

9990:10

evaluating

9775:5,17,19 9792:79864:259969:49983:10

evaluation

9744:5,209745:89823:119824:1,259827:4,5,79982:219983:1,9,14 9984:119988:1,2

evaluations

9743:259744:119865:129980:24,259981:149982:1,8,11,249983:99987:15,18,21

evaluators

9825:24

evening

9983:209990:20

event 9734:7

9870:9

events

9727:239734:14

eventually

9646:129853:99901:6

everybody

9701:89881:209883:1,29923:1,17

everybody's

9746:21

everyone

9652:99715:129988:139990:16,20

everyone's

9664:169842:99892:17

everything

9648:199649:89669:139730:39737:19761:20,219768:14

9851:189872:219910:2

evid 9663:7

evidence

9612:8,129613:1,99621:119623:4,12,149630:17,199631:19638:79646:229654:119663:79664:229666:199668:149671:9,10,11,169672:16,179673:19674:49696:149709:159716:99723:49729:229737:189748:229752:49758:239763:99766:17,199775:79778:29785:109803:189809:149843:21,249848:159869:229946:199960:249965:59966:23,259971:209972:89979:119985:4

evidence-



based

9680:21

evolve

9850:15

evolved

9848:139855:10

exacerbate

9771:1

exact

9829:189931:2

exactly

9629:229639:199652:59654:89659:59706:69744:119753:159761:189787:189806:209807:169820:199858:69908:29930:1

exam 9615:13

examination

9828:22

Examination-

in-chief

9606:109630:10

examine

9933:19

examined

9663:99689:89843:229854:22

example

9615:199632:169633:29635:199637:21

9648:14,239649:29650:119653:259654:149660:49699:259700:7,229702:189704:39708:89711:189727:49749:229754:249755:39759:129768:139793:119798:229803:119811:259818:4,189824:19825:1,6,13 9838:69843:49856:149857:169859:13,169869:249870:7,189871:79878:199879:189880:69920:239924:89947:69954:189958:23

examples

9610:3,6,119651:6,259652:2,20,24 9696:169697:169698:5,169738:29775:219808:199870:7

9923:24

exceeded

9836:8

exceeding

9775:22

Excel 9901:5

excellent

9667:99674:11

except

9706:129744:119806:19

exception

9671:5,79941:14

exceptions

9673:179697:6

excerpt

9755:20

excess

9812:209956:16

excessively

9695:16

exchange

9686:8,10,13,14,209705:109886:17

excluding

9666:15

excuse

9632:69638:159640:149645:129943:159970:19

exercise

9629:169678:79731:199813:29828:15

Exhib 9850:8

exhibit

9613:17,249620:149622:18,199677:229742:21,239743:5,8,11,14,239744:1,2,49745:15,169746:79757:1,169758:229762:219779:15,219787:229789:39793:19799:179800:89801:239802:79803:219818:24,259841:149845:6,10,15,19,249846:3,9,13,19,20,229847:1,2,4,8,9,13,20,229848:189850:89854:4,11,24,259858:17,219869:39871:149874:189876:7,189884:29899:69900:169902:69904:9,149906:169911:219936:6,259938:179940:259942:249946:149949:16,21

9950:1,11,129951:3,5,11,199952:219954:29959:199967:24

exhibits

9606:39608:19609:19643:169737:29844:239861:24

exist

9772:25

existing

9647:7,129653:16,239661:189662:239682:239685:119738:19739:249789:129799:199816:17,249879:229961:5

exists

9720:189796:219984:13

exotic

9914:9

expand

9694:259917:13

expanded

9926:2

expansion

9733:89746:16

expe 9703:12

expect

9663:14



9694:7,149699:89701:209702:29703:99725:79726:99730:199731:39734:139768:11,129797:69808:169819:69881:12,139919:189926:99934:59947:5,149948:79961:169967:59979:24

expectation

9970:189971:25

expectations

9655:209694:15

expected

9671:119672:39684:129693:199716:259755:129833:3,8,11 9834:169851:119931:99938:149984:23

expecting

9639:149663:109906:39931:10

expended

9703:12,13

expenditures

9700:6

expense

9670:19710:29765:1

expensive

9634:24,259645:29656:119675:39685:49686:249707:29798:209831:109865:6,139982:16,20

experience

9679:13,189692:229706:249784:109836:29974:13

expert

9612:99613:39620:6,17,249621:10,23,259622:2,49623:1,11,22,259624:79654:189674:219680:169692:89696:149701:39748:199749:79792:49827:39970:4

expertise

9626:39712:129811:109818:29827:10

experts

9625:2,179630:69674:109821:129973:20

explain

9634:259650:259677:179688:39700:179713:199743:209758:10,169782:199859:139865:259872:2,5,23 9882:139941:16

explained

9641:59671:139692:79780:69882:139978:24

explaining

9967:10

explains

9785:99858:12

explanation

9641:109677:249749:59761:169762:169838:169841:29905:7

explicitly

9953:5

explore

9692:239699:17

explored

9665:89685:12

exploring

9970:6

export

9636:29638:29647:159656:79682:11,20,219683:6,7,10 9685:129689:20,219739:249763:17,229770:259773:49780:119782:5,159783:219788:209789:49795:209805:19849:1,20,25 9850:49852:79875:39927:129952:199964:109986:15

exportable

9885:1,69887:15,20

exported

9627:189774:9,11

exporting

9635:49636:149683:99811:25

exports

9635:219638:99647:8,9,14,199653:15,239693:159773:209789:8

9810:259811:219834:59872:219875:89884:109889:18

exposure

9985:23,24

express

9880:13

expressed

9793:19873:13

extend

9859:109927:239979:25

extended

9611:59661:39856:19,219859:79888:8,199918:129930:19977:11

extending

9611:109778:19886:4,189889:49890:39928:5

extension

9646:39804:21

extensively

9979:25

extent

9640:229716:149720:139721:49726:59761:229771:59792:229795:239806:1,13



9823:199957:14

external

9865:12,23,259866:259867:249868:1,69980:5

externality

9743:249744:21,229745:4

externally

9902:249905:1

extra

9793:129795:9

extracting

9811:18

extreme

9725:16,22,239726:129727:239746:179894:69913:169915:23

extremely

9721:39733:29777:5

extremes

9725:159726:22

eye 9640:1

eyes 9730:22

F

face 9883:1

faced

9918:11

facilitate

9773:179848:15

facilities

9631:209647:49707:59710:22

facility

9822:11

facing

9985:209988:16

fact 9640:17

9645:199656:159673:229675:199681:5,69682:199686:2,259689:19711:119713:69720:2,229723:39731:139773:49774:89783:219788:189809:2,189812:129815:49821:21,259910:18,239914:159924:119944:2

factor

9674:99675:9,209678:259687:249712:79718:199766:49767:209768:6,18,20 9818:59827:15,239831:169959:4

factors

9654:129675:149703:169754:229755:7,119766:4,5,239767:15,259768:139777:239778:79784:119818:9,169819:129903:239916:14

fail 9834:14

failing

9641:17

fails 9643:6

9644:23

failure

9700:99776:79777:4

failures

9632:19643:1

fair 9652:4

9657:249701:19,259703:259765:129768:49797:129817:69827:49843:149862:229931:169940:7,169951:159955:49957:129960:3,9,10,159961:199962:12,239963:219964:5,9,19

9967:4,199968:219969:21,249970:1,179972:19975:129976:4

fairly

9648:99687:89697:2,179733:179740:129813:219823:69837:79841:119865:5,139900:99927:199928:20

fairness

9860:239979:12

faithfully

9694:5

fall

9639:9,13,16 9689:149735:16

fallen

9636:7

falling

9636:8

falls

9627:15,169639:79640:29648:169837:20

familiar

9694:249702:49796:189797:39822:39832:89857:1

families

9748:8

family

9920:23

fans 9794:14

farm 9728:5

9773:11,12,13 9775:69776:139777:39834:21

farmers

9728:5

farms

9672:189713:89814:12

farther

9940:6

fast 9634:24

9808:159825:15

faster

9662:249755:19841:59891:14

father

9921:99964:24

favour

9893:79896:1

favourable

9878:22

fear 9761:2

feasible

9611:12,169683:119889:59890:5,15,24

February

9621:6

federal

9744:14

Federation



9737:6,17

feel

9658:10,119689:16,189830:49907:20,239908:19928:259945:209972:3

feeling

9659:89748:139975:5

feelings

9787:11

fees 9702:10

9804:12

Fernandes

9604:10

fewer

9942:199958:2

fibreglass

9704:23

fielded

9839:17

fielding

9935:12

fields

9625:3

fifteen

9646:109655:189662:219665:99672:139717:79722:69756:249757:19791:69797:109798:79801:1,99810:179854:249855:7,13,15,20,23

9856:2,8,19,20,21,239861:169900:17,18,23,259911:179920:139939:169955:179957:5

fifth

9729:21

fifty

9668:1,3,89717:4,13,16 9731:25

figure

9608:259657:189659:199803:169826:39847:17,229848:119911:59913:19937:10,149938:19939:69940:4,59955:2,24,259962:16,20

figures

9824:209937:189943:169954:209980:24

file 9841:13

9845:49864:6,109923:24

filed

9620:159630:189638:7,89737:189743:199751:249777:25

9843:21,259844:179854:22,239860:249861:24,259864:79866:39883:149899:6,199949:17

files 9901:5

filing

9737:229740:209790:149847:189892:249896:10

fill 9654:15

9835:89880:15

filter

9989:11

finally

9673:149772:189847:7,16

finance

9879:6

financial

9615:13,16,23 9616:69618:1,29619:19628:79629:149673:18,219695:139845:49868:18,22

financing

9658:19

finding

9650:109658:139662:199716:20

findings

9665:3

finds

9827:21

fine 9762:18

9826:8

finger

9964:11

finish

9710:169791:79982:7

finished

9706:11

finishing

9938:25

fire 9706:25

9748:12

fired

9637:11

fires

9726:119747:1

firm 9741:11

9764:21,239811:79812:219816:3,6,12 9817:19825:79990:12

firming

9683:1,2

firms 9613:3

9974:12

first

9614:189619:249632:29635:99641:129659:129660:59665:119666:4,129669:6,23,25 9671:229672:5,179684:89694:17

9700:129701:159708:99723:169739:159742:199743:3,229747:39767:59770:5,69771:109775:249792:19799:229810:8,249815:59841:139845:59848:179853:239855:69863:209867:29872:139877:5,189878:109897:18,229903:29926:16,189943:239952:249953:239955:39957:29965:139977:219982:22

Firstly

9888:7

fiscal

9939:14,159942:2,18

fish

9746:13,159747:17

fit 9662:22

9738:19

five 9658:2

9667:69673:259674:59676:7



9677:9,219678:119694:119699:59775:189815:1,2,79822:129826:169828:39834:179835:29848:129860:13,219903:99912:229914:8,219915:159929:239988:21

five-fifty

9923:13

fixed

9701:229706:12,179708:21

flat 9662:3

9762:22,259788:7,8,14,259931:13,179948:3,5

flatlining

9859:22

flatten

9661:3

flattening

9930:17,19

flattens

9943:6

flayed

9892:19

flexibility

9853:129893:5

flighty

9673:21

flip 9968:14

floaters

9952:2

floating

9902:12

flood 9735:5

flooding

9726:13

floods

9734:159750:2

Florida

9830:21

flowing

9748:21

flows

9633:16

flue 9633:10

9641:19

fluorescent

9649:1

Flynn 9607:9

9852:239878:99965:259966:5,10,15

Flynn's

9965:22

foam

9704:15,229705:5

focus 9659:3

9673:249695:39856:4,59920:19954:89964:159969:17

focussed

9692:209857:69906:7

focussing

9674:129921:199949:159983:14

fol 9950:7

follow-up

9629:69816:219843:259844:9

food 9660:5

9826:8

fool 9642:20

foolish

9655:19

footnote

9785:7

force 9726:7

9805:1

forecast

9640:219641:1,59643:17,19,20 9654:69661:49662:119782:259783:2,3,4,22,259802:89848:209849:259850:29854:5,69860:89862:12,149870:6,109871:39880:79898:4,119909:139910:3,13,259933:9,189938:79940:5,199949:159953:49963:209973:10

forecasting

9606:6,169614:119618:3

9622:2,59624:199626:249737:89843:199870:249929:25

forecasts

9655:249684:29728:169809:109899:5,79939:259954:4

foreign

9695:15

foreseeable

9694:6

foresight

9708:16

forest

9726:119747:19748:11

forestry

9960:7

forever

9860:13

forget

9858:18

form

9684:6,219753:129828:5

formal

9617:169855:14,15

forms

9732:259747:49803:20

formulate

9655:20

formulated

9757:18

forth 9702:9

9814:11

9827:6

fortune

9915:24

forty

9667:229668:2,79677:209709:2,39827:209829:13

forty-five

9676:199679:89816:14,179935:10

forum

9879:15

forward

9693:119720:89731:29732:49733:39758:79859:179861:3,6,17 9902:219908:249909:11,13,149919:199927:169931:49938:159979:19

fossil

9719:7,129733:49756:2,3,10,12,19

foundation

9687:89747:7

four-ninety-

nine

9676:89782:3

fourteen

9907:12



fourth

9716:5

four-twenty-

two 9782:3

fracking

9870:7

fraction

9827:11

frame

9632:259651:139694:139772:219813:99852:159853:109858:39869:169886:15,16,179892:239918:99939:17

frames

9813:6

framework

9984:10,259985:8,139987:9

framing

9704:16

free 9632:9

9637:209774:139945:20

freed

9635:249637:19638:49656:129988:25

freedom

9756:3,10,13

freeze

9735:16

frequency

9626:22

9729:2

freshwater

9746:12

fridge

9922:29923:8,9,10

Friend

9794:19810:249842:249959:239973:39982:15

Friesen

9607:49842:179898:229906:259907:4,9,15,189913:199915:189916:1,49917:29918:59928:189933:169936:7,14,18,239937:3,7,12,16,209958:13,199960:4,10,16 9961:209962:8,13,18,249963:6,11,16,229967:1,7

front

9619:249620:249622:79624:1,119642:19660:15,169701:79716:109722:169731:14,15,23

9804:179850:219877:129937:4

front-load

9709:14

front-loaded

9709:10

fronts

9817:11

frozen

9723:24

fruition

9851:20

frustrating

9776:12

fudge

9687:24

fuel

9606:6,169610:49614:119623:1,59624:199630:259631:3,9,14,21,22,24,259632:2,49638:129640:209641:3,6,11 9642:129643:1,199644:79646:119651:1,16,25 9652:219654:179657:89693:169737:89751:1,7,8,129753:8,10,119756:2,139757:19793:219794:20

9795:219797:59799:19,239800:99802:199803:39807:1,5,79898:209901:129902:159905:8,13,14 9906:39913:229914:39927:59929:29987:5

fuels

9693:139719:7,139733:49756:10,19

fulfill

9714:15

fulfilled

9878:5

full

9617:7,139669:129749:49872:159881:89891:6

full-scale

9874:4

fully

9685:109879:99883:99910:20

fun 9954:6

9967:23

function

9727:8

functional

9800:18

fund 9615:20

9744:179796:19

fundamental

9764:159910:23

fundamentall

y 9661:1

9850:229959:12

funded

9656:25

funding

9866:22,23

funny

9660:18

furnace

9633:109634:179635:239636:39639:169640:139794:129797:7,14,15 9798:39800:22,249801:5,6,7,8,149804:129905:189918:189922:2

furnaces

9648:29797:109800:16,189801:17

future

9631:249648:69650:69655:249693:179694:69706:69707:259721:209730:19732:229738:109753:169768:199802:9,18



9821:249839:69853:139859:18,20,22 9861:49870:8,179886:159898:259909:179910:99916:119960:12,219985:17,239989:17

fuzzy

9651:10

G

ga 9658:21

GAC 9604:18

9606:6,169608:89613:15,219614:3,119629:29630:19,219737:89743:4,8,23 9744:189745:16

GAC-14

9622:20

GAC-22

9608:39613:17

GAC-23

9608:59613:24

GAC's 9743:2

9745:2

gain 9796:10

gains

9689:10

Gange

9604:189606:109612:18,21,239613:20

9614:1,16,22,259615:5,15,229616:4,9,15,19,259617:8,14,239618:6,17,229619:3,13,239620:1,4,13,219621:2,9,13,209622:11,19,229623:10,209624:5,16,239625:3,189627:2,12,229628:5,11,15,219629:49630:7,10,11,179634:2,39635:109651:229663:5,16,239664:3,7,17,19,209670:79692:7,109780:16,18,23

gap

9913:2,109915:259916:3

gaps 9835:8

garbled

9799:7

gas 9619:17

9631:5,11,129632:5,7,8,12,13,19

9633:2,5,14,249634:9,16,21,239635:18,19,23,259636:2,11,17,199637:1,7,8,11,12,15,16,209638:5,16,17,209639:12,17,259640:4,13,14,15,18,24,259641:4,8,9,14,17,259642:14,15,21,249643:8,109644:20,239645:3,6,12,139646:39651:39655:10,12,169656:5,6,7,9,11,20,21,229657:4,99658:1,13,21 9681:249682:79684:189685:59693:109696:79732:209744:139745:4,7,8,109751:159756:209758:11,149759:129760:49764:6,10,14,169765:4,6,7,9,14,23

9787:49794:2,129795:4,18,249796:10,11,129797:6,7,149798:1,9,10,18,209799:1,5,12,249800:6,7,18,249801:59802:1,19,25 9804:119805:9,139806:6,209807:19808:99816:6,129825:79849:189850:9,129852:259853:99870:79871:7,229872:199873:5,249874:1,3,79876:229884:99905:189906:99918:189925:249932:3,179949:239950:219978:209979:2,3,8

Gas/Keeyask

9850:17

gases

9719:11,18

gas-fired

9632:10

gasses

9639:229732:15,23

gather

9629:219651:6

gathered

9825:239843:6

GE 9767:20

general

9625:249694:179702:169703:14,259705:29749:209805:79822:69853:209868:139877:129880:169881:14,189882:259883:69919:139965:239975:139978:89982:10

generally

9679:139716:219753:5,189754:159856:179898:109909:119931:79939:129944:59951:99955:89967:79971:19975:19976:59979:19986:17

generate

9689:199751:189754:4



9913:69917:14

generated

9773:13,18,21,249774:10

generating

9683:89706:10,15,189707:179708:17,199710:189712:1,149913:39915:11

generation

9619:159637:119657:49661:139665:6,89666:24,259667:19670:179681:249683:59685:3,99693:12,139696:39699:169737:259738:1,79753:5,21,239763:2,6,25 9769:189770:15,20,259774:149781:209789:209812:39816:23,249820:119833:1,4,5,9,229834:99849:189851:89852:259875:12

9876:249878:179879:189892:8,119893:3,249894:4,11,16,189896:169932:19937:18,219951:49961:59964:18,209965:12,149966:3

generator

9632:139706:259811:16

generators

9693:14

George

9604:239742:11

geothermal

9685:59785:99786:239787:149929:119942:39975:4,5,8

gets 9776:19

9851:89852:109859:189896:209957:179958:11

getting

9642:189659:99690:139708:1,189709:49710:5,159722:89729:8,109734:1,59735:119748:5

9754:249755:109812:109827:249834:89842:259868:159869:19880:259882:149895:59912:209958:219975:19977:199983:17

GHG 9749:11

gig 9641:2

gigawatt

9641:29799:219800:99836:159884:189885:19887:12,169907:79920:11,129936:12,219937:119938:19939:2,8,24 9940:49945:79946:23,259947:69955:15,239956:6,12,16 9957:259958:59962:11,169963:10

given

9623:3,5,12,149710:29728:49731:109758:59760:159768:59773:2

9793:219798:249844:109859:69888:49908:29935:119943:169945:239953:89957:59961:129971:6,79984:239985:4,59989:5

gives

9633:159649:199657:219936:2

giving

9700:29806:179808:159823:149952:18

glad 9697:13

9787:109790:25

glasses

9951:25

glean

9695:249875:14

global

9633:219634:149636:139637:249639:19640:99716:5,9,11,129717:18,21,259718:1,6,19 9719:259720:19747:9

globally

9745:19

globe

9718:219747:20,239748:15

goals

9646:22

gone 9622:12

9649:219671:249704:199759:29779:24

goodness

9835:11

Gosselin

9603:13

Gosselin's

9690:16

government

9650:199744:149856:99882:199902:209984:249987:5

governments

9730:4

government's

9987:11

GRA 9867:6

gradient

9722:10

gradual

9809:18

gradually

9636:109650:129835:15

Grant

9603:179654:169655:49658:59659:259660:209733:13



9822:239823:59824:59825:17,209827:179828:179832:6,9,15 9843:19911:1,39912:16,19,249915:1,229916:2,219918:2,69968:4

graph

9674:159723:99725:6,14,20 9730:59734:259735:99857:109858:39860:20,229861:239862:259920:20

graphed

9674:15

graphic

9721:249722:159723:19

graphs

9730:259930:10

great

9682:229697:219765:169830:229851:189953:13

greater

9636:19646:169671:179726:59749:219775:21,24

,259776:2,39789:229799:39867:169925:179959:79975:6

greatest

9760:14

green

9612:109613:1,29621:3,119660:169664:219732:259852:20

greenhouse

9633:149639:229719:11,189732:15,239744:139745:49798:9

grew 9776:16

grid 9960:19

9961:8

ground

9639:4,5,13 9640:119735:169804:249967:13

ground-

source

9634:12,18

group 9638:8

9728:69969:19

groups

9658:89659:39728:59806:149925:15

grow 9931:11

growing

9703:59728:20

growth

9641:39653:259661:18,229728:169763:17,199788:7,8,14 9849:219899:89956:16

gruesome

9825:23

guarantee

9656:209658:4,179795:179802:24

guaranteed

9795:22

guess

9617:219660:3,99675:119685:21,229705:19740:15,179750:159759:39770:69794:149821:199824:8,219863:29879:139968:259984:229988:149989:1,6

guessing

9826:19

guidance

9715:19935:13

guide 9660:7

gut 9648:23

9689:16,18

H

habitat

9746:15

Hacault

9604:219606:129624:24,259625:49699:3,4,7,11,129701:11,149703:189705:99706:89707:79708:4,79709:12,20,249710:16,249711:8,16,259712:9,139713:4,11,139840:4,6,19,259841:16,249983:25

half 9743:23

9764:89915:109956:20

hand 9649:13

9690:229702:219710:149756:11

handed

9742:189746:7

handle

9784:23

handled

9893:11

handy

9861:23

hang 9800:7

happen

9636:6

9662:169669:14,179677:109684:109686:99694:149706:69721:209732:249734:249735:39750:4,6,10 9786:39849:199859:69870:8,229926:159928:99931:9

happened

9672:49719:259827:159953:189988:7

happens

9626:49635:69678:139723:189724:29744:219793:89836:99851:219859:17

happy

9764:199876:39890:209926:49932:79969:6

hard 9765:17

9807:159825:49832:179836:259844:219924:249967:23

harder



9650:209755:9

harm 9882:21

harsh

9687:179985:18

harsher

9687:16

hate 9957:19

haven't

9620:209622:129649:189654:8,129686:49757:4,189775:89782:129790:249806:229808:69825:229833:39925:239926:79972:209980:5

having

9661:259689:49714:89748:189749:19773:109795:99810:49852:13,259864:3,249866:219873:219878:169887:89889:179891:159919:199929:249947:29984:99985:239986:239990:16

Hawaii

9913:59915:10,24

head 9616:12

9683:169891:89922:169954:16

headache

9912:21

headed

9743:49766:22

heading

9937:6

heads

9659:10

health

9746:119747:25

healthy

9660:5

hear 9725:2

9738:249776:169793:159841:169881:15,209883:29969:79985:119986:1

heard

9627:119659:259660:239722:19745:229746:219747:19748:199777:89841:169869:219910:69932:49946:69966:229984:69985:4

9986:2

hearing

9622:5,69644:49652:139694:209699:169708:99723:129850:189871:29912:69925:259938:229951:129960:17,18

hearings

9618:89620:239621:59623:49626:109764:89903:259927:79978:89987:13,249988:6

heart

9695:25

heat 9619:18

9632:159634:12,189639:4,5,11,139640:4,6,11 9645:19646:1,39716:129722:99751:29756:159794:89804:249806:6,8,16 9867:179904:29967:4,16,17 9978:39979:2

heated

9641:14,15

9924:139925:69978:209979:7

heater

9635:239639:159640:13,159641:17,189642:199644:19,20,239804:119918:20

heaters

9797:9

heating

9631:69632:119635:199637:20,219639:259640:139645:59758:149785:6,99786:189787:59794:139799:129804:239806:199906:4,59919:109979:21

hedge

9658:179707:169708:20

hedging

9796:4

heights

9768:16

held 9603:20

9662:39729:4

Helga 9604:8

Helimax

9767:12,18

help 9644:21

9645:129659:19702:79747:219757:239790:8,149796:119802:239848:59859:139867:249880:159920:19940:11

helpful

9652:109695:29696:159802:18,219843:10,129861:199867:59874:169953:21

helps

9644:139699:69799:169880:199921:19948:16,17

Hemisphere

9716:119720:199722:8,17

hence

9823:13

here's

9723:99727:49924:89945:19

he's 9613:10

9705:79785:239832:79870:89883:16,179911:249921:9,23



9929:239930:11,12,20

hesitant

9944:99971:6,15

hidden

9968:22

high 9634:12

9639:109640:3,59645:49655:159679:109682:219683:4,69709:99716:169717:9,139718:159724:89735:219782:209789:219796:129810:4,89816:189817:169818:109820:5,129823:249957:239969:179975:29979:6

higher

9635:17,18,259645:119646:29650:129657:2,49675:59677:29683:69684:129687:16,209704:249706:19712:259795:49817:12

9818:109854:6,7,89977:22

highlight

9746:6,109790:23

highly

9773:6,169820:15

high-quality

9758:11

high-rise

9700:22

highways

9748:11

hire 9836:20

9865:189983:6

hiring

9865:6

historic

9802:1

historically

9662:2

history

9803:7

hit 9860:13

9877:189919:15

hold 9621:16

9678:169685:139703:19726:219811:139894:149989:2

holding

9658:169762:159768:14

holdings

9695:15

Hombach

9604:39606:229607:10

9612:5,6,219629:4,5,10,19,23,259714:229736:119742:39791:4,5,14,20,23,249792:11,189793:15,20,259794:4,16,239795:3,119796:1,6,13,18,22,259797:129798:59799:9,169800:4,149801:18,229802:4,6,159803:9,15,199804:4,59805:189806:3,249807:8,13,229808:1,17,239809:3,6,12,17,229810:6,12,209811:4,99812:249813:4,20,239814:9,109815:11,249816:209817:5,20,259818:6,12,239819:15,199820:1,8,21 9821:19828:209829:19832:11

9839:129840:29841:89842:149843:16,179854:17,189855:249856:12,259857:219858:23,249859:59860:69861:9,109863:16,17,239864:5,9,22,239865:149866:3,10,199867:4,69868:89869:1,10,21 9870:259871:239872:3,119874:16,229875:9,19,229876:10,16,219877:8,219879:109880:209881:23,249883:22,239884:7,14,21,259885:5,10,16,20,259886:3,209887:5,10,14,18,239888:4,149889:1,29890:13,14,209891:11,12,16,249894:109895:12,19,229896:2,5,18 9897:2

9898:3,99899:4,14,189900:3,149901:2,11,199902:1,6,10,239903:1,6,109904:7,13,18,259905:69906:10,14,209907:2,5,10,169908:4,179911:2,20,219931:21,229932:7,119933:9,219934:9,239935:1,9,199936:5,219959:239973:39982:15

Hombach's

9790:21

home 9632:8

9655:69803:129804:179839:89919:99921:69924:11,259925:1,6,20 9928:109968:199974:7

homes

9632:159924:179925:209928:79978:3

honest

9812:9



Honeywell

9973:229974:12

hookup

9804:13,25

hook-up

9646:2,3

hope 9652:8

9699:59705:79758:99765:209835:2,39883:16

Hopefully

9938:18

hoping

9839:139840:11

horizon

9641:21

hot 9634:18

9645:19655:79724:239725:7,89751:29964:3

hour 9674:24

9675:179676:7,209680:249690:19706:4,59774:109779:69781:199812:4,59816:19911:6,129912:159913:6,8,169915:14,209916:259917:89947:79968:119988:19

hours 9641:2

9781:229799:219800:99826:109836:159884:189885:19887:12,169907:89917:9,10,14,16,189920:11,129923:129936:12,219937:119938:19939:2,8,24 9940:49945:79946:23,259955:15,239956:6,12,17 9957:259958:59962:11,169963:109977:21,239988:18

house

9641:239642:219645:20,219786:49797:209805:6,179825:69924:2,5,69936:4

householder

9918:10,14,22 9919:29922:19,24

housekeeping

9936:4

houses

9924:129969:10

housing

9645:18

HPS 9958:4,8

hub 9768:16

Hudson

9723:249726:5

huge 9654:1

9741:14

Hugh 9603:17

9654:169655:49658:59659:259660:209733:139822:239823:59824:59825:17,209827:179828:179832:159911:1,39912:16,19,249915:1,229916:2,219918:2,6

human 9731:3

human-

induced

9730:189731:1

humble

9842:23

hundred

9622:139665:159666:149667:21,229668:19675:69676:79677:6,99678:119711:259712:4,249717:79762:219769:29800:11,129826:119827:19

9829:13,21,229836:159914:89917:159918:199943:199945:49969:9,13,20

hundreds

9641:29804:149826:10

hurt 9787:10

HVAC

9700:10,24

hydro 9603:7

9604:59607:39610:20,239611:3,9,15,199612:169619:179622:59625:20,239627:9,189628:3,13,149631:10,259634:59638:3,8,10 9639:19640:189641:69642:3,7,139643:7,9,12,139644:5,89645:49647:179654:149655:69656:199657:29659:89662:19665:12,259666:139667:25

9669:29670:21,249671:159672:11,239673:29674:7,199675:249676:10,169677:169678:19,219679:3,4,9,18,219681:219682:20,229683:5,7,10,11,17,249684:59685:119688:259699:169709:89710:229713:79727:149734:189737:22,249738:19739:249740:89741:3,59742:18,219743:3,5,11 9750:169751:249752:20,259754:6,89756:259757:249758:3,9,15,229759:199762:21,229764:5,209765:209769:179770:5,209773:8,179774:5,13,16,199775:29779:3,219781:109783:12,239784:14,18



9789:249792:199793:39795:8,179796:119799:15,179800:179802:15,239803:2,5,22 9804:239805:219806:139807:209809:239810:2,8,15 9811:29812:3,13,19 9815:129816:6,9,10,17,23,259817:199828:219835:229837:19,259839:19840:10,11,20,249842:11,169843:259844:3,139845:5,15,249846:8,18,259847:8,209849:109850:199853:69854:229856:1,129858:18,259859:59861:119862:39863:11,179864:18,23,25 9865:99866:3,79867:119868:59869:3,59870:19871:6,229872:19

9874:179876:29878:239880:149882:219883:49884:29886:39888:6,179889:49890:1,15,239893:3,7,19,239895:1,79896:1,3,13,239897:5,11,17 9899:69900:16,209903:169904:6,8,14 9906:169908:8,189910:19911:219916:79922:259928:229934:179935:49936:259938:179941:29944:209946:199949:16,219950:1,11,129951:4,11,19 9954:29957:119959:199962:39964:109965:189966:2,239967:249968:189975:139977:79980:59983:219984:16

9985:2,119986:1,13,189988:16,199989:29990:7

Hydro-180

9902:7

hydro-based

9784:14

hydroelectri

c 9619:6

9636:89706:219727:17,259732:18,209733:99820:109822:119932:14

hydrologic

9734:13

hydrological

9726:18,239733:22,259734:89748:20,24

hydrology

9733:14

hydro's

9603:99609:39612:139631:239632:49636:89641:99646:89654:59660:109665:49667:259668:79674:169679:129680:259713:209738:6,7,99743:1,29752:39758:22

9760:9,12,17 9766:179768:179770:49775:1,69781:99785:69802:89803:229816:9,159817:11,169829:179843:199847:9,189857:29858:219880:149893:69966:259975:16

hypothesis

9722:14,159723:2,39724:11

hypothetical

9845:8

I

i.e 9973:22

I-308

9677:20

I-336

9850:19

ice

9716:14,15,23 9717:89720:10,13,18,22,239721:1,99722:79724:89726:119730:99731:16

icebreaker

9717:15

icing

9690:15

icy 9690:21

I'd 9612:11

9638:249679:239697:109699:129709:129715:139733:89770:129792:59807:199813:239831:139839:39842:109844:239847:199871:99876:39882:139883:259890:209918:79932:79986:11

idea 9693:8

9700:29719:219728:11,219798:49925:129953:29970:7

ideally

9675:129679:209806:15

ideas 9719:1

identifiable

9792:14

identified

9626:99705:209766:159767:59907:199925:59926:199941:1,22,25

identify



9699:249701:169762:109969:18

identifying

9941:20

Iderstine

9604:8

IEC 9605:6

ignore

9959:12

ignores

9812:12

I'll 9627:4

9630:259631:2,17,23 9634:259635:59646:79651:199652:159660:239664:169668:259697:179701:119710:169715:3,259716:22,249718:89725:249736:259746:109747:59748:59757:229780:13,239784:259791:69792:19799:89842:139845:29859:129871:119872:239902:129913:209917:79918:4,209920:24

9926:179931:59939:19958:229966:179978:179986:10

illusions

9838:18

illustrate

9718:149723:15

I'm 9612:23

9613:129614:169616:29617:69620:59621:20,22,239622:14,249623:10,209624:5,179625:139627:209630:129631:79634:69635:119643:13,229651:149652:139653:149655:9,11,19 9656:39657:189658:19663:5,179664:1,2,59674:139681:179682:259683:2,219690:13,199691:169698:29699:39700:29704:139706:89707:219709:25

9711:229712:10,119715:199716:14,189718:259731:13,159739:49740:39745:239748:189749:1,29750:7,8,19 9751:109757:59761:79762:3,79764:6,199766:19769:159771:249774:79779:129782:139787:10,15,18,209788:79790:20,259792:99794:219796:7,20,21 9798:229799:69801:199803:10,169815:199821:199823:69824:229827:3,179828:209830:69832:6,12,22 9833:179838:1,219841:49842:239858:1,17,25 9859:129860:159877:219880:89884:149886:249895:17

9900:119902:19911:3,49912:209913:1,99915:189921:139922:69926:3,49928:179929:119930:149931:2,12,19 9935:129936:1,99941:179943:219944:99945:229947:49949:209951:2,59954:49958:199967:219969:69972:179977:89979:249983:15,16,189984:249988:14,23,24

imagine

9728:3

immediate

9914:15

immediately

9648:199663:139736:199774:119839:199840:8

immune

9726:19728:3

impact

9760:39777:39799:11

9914:49919:229933:199948:18,19

impacted

9730:179780:109979:17

impactful

9733:10

impacting

9747:10

impacts

9608:99716:249726:109727:239728:14,189729:69731:169733:69743:12,159745:199760:17,209761:8

impetus

9926:4

implement

9807:209928:79929:1

implementati

on 9792:17

9838:2

implemented

9752:249753:149920:199928:24

implementing

9758:169921:23

implications

9639:229737:189798:99946:1

implies



9808:5

imply

9671:199679:17

implying

9777:13

import

9689:209788:10

importance

9985:16,17

important

9631:139670:8,99696:29719:109733:29766:4,59822:99826:249882:119964:119965:29979:199980:49986:18,19

importing

9689:2,15

imports

9689:259872:209885:22

imposing

9645:7,11

improve

9652:89700:199795:4

improved

9902:179908:11

improvement

9674:89675:16,18

improvements

9648:39674:239675:20

9818:89828:4

improves

9632:69675:8,99704:21

improving

9788:229919:9

inability

9729:14

inaccessible

9721:7,8

inappropriat

e 9789:1

Inc 9613:3

9630:20

incandescent

9957:219958:8

incandescent

s 9957:22

incent

9979:4

incented

9979:8

incentive

9703:149806:79905:169913:119942:49976:7

incentive-

based

9976:12

incentives

9644:3,199751:149764:149803:10,129804:79808:149909:5,69921:49976:189977:3

inclined

9843:99927:1

inclining

9644:249645:99805:20,229806:49901:15,17,189903:1,49904:19905:29976:5,109977:159978:2

include

9619:179626:189646:11,129677:259682:49713:159738:89750:259751:16,179752:24,259753:2,79763:189813:109816:259827:129830:89850:16,179909:49938:12,149972:159976:5,6,7

included

9619:79665:149682:89689:19737:239751:139769:189794:119807:179813:7,8,199827:12,219869:16

9875:11,249905:89912:119941:219961:139974:6,9

includes

9610:189734:89753:4,99757:19805:229813:259814:69830:17,249878:99880:149884:119901:12

including

9618:189620:89628:199632:3,139654:219667:239689:159693:11,189713:219746:239748:89752:129754:29792:139878:189880:129885:139910:69951:79960:79971:99972:14

income

9658:89865:89867:109921:17

incomes

9748:8

inconvenienc

e 9923:14

incorporate

9643:179868:259870:14

incorrectly

9698:3

increase

9635:199637:59647:189662:189670:149701:239704:29709:249718:59719:14,179720:159725:149727:59729:8,109734:12,139746:219747:49749:169765:39768:209789:209867:179919:16

increased

9689:69705:199709:219717:259718:29719:49728:14,209729:239730:119734:14,159749:14,189771:39795:209806:79889:239898:209947:219985:24

increases

9653:249670:12



9684:59703:229718:199725:229726:229745:89759:11,12,139918:11,15,239922:179985:20

increasing

9646:19654:39719:169726:18,199747:129909:5

increasingly

9756:4

incremental

9638:199703:6,79704:199709:169759:109763:59808:249809:1,8,20,259835:249837:219857:29859:2,199907:139930:129936:119940:189942:1,7,11,199954:259955:139956:16,199962:219963:19

incrementall

y 9869:12

9931:4

incur

9794:20

incurred

9670:119794:10

independent

9741:239815:149823:109825:249864:249980:23,249981:14,259982:8,11,21 9984:11

independentl

y 9843:6

in-depth

9667:2

indicate

9611:159632:59739:239760:139890:23

indicated

9716:99717:239718:119737:229748:229770:199802:219866:49897:3,69913:219934:12,159948:69970:13,229971:5

indicates

9643:16

indicating

9793:13

indication

9717:179745:139749:14,159808:129853:20

indicative

9673:8

individual

9694:229749:29765:99795:129833:199865:49900:10,189909:99925:159982:249983:14

individuals

9617:209663:159920:229980:4

industrial

9661:159662:79720:49748:119914:19917:59932:239954:10

industrializ

ation

9721:5

industry

9653:259654:19662:99684:39916:189918:19920:4,99975:4

industry's

9975:4

inevitably

9754:17

inexpensive

9636:23

infestations

9728:15

inflate

9710:13

inflated

9708:1

inflation

9702:29703:8,15,239705:3,8,259707:10,15,169708:209782:6,11

influence

9730:109747:169950:13

information

9610:209611:139629:179643:24,259644:11,12,159659:159666:209675:239676:149677:239679:219683:129687:39690:10,139740:219748:189750:129751:249762:5,10,119767:1,39770:4,99785:169840:13,219841:69844:21,229849:259857:8,11,17 9862:49863:7,129866:19874:5,149877:109878:11

9889:69890:79898:149901:3,7

informationa

l

9753:13,149787:4

infrastructu

re

9727:24,259729:169866:119965:7

inherent

9708:20

initial

9646:1,29658:69763:149788:189806:99808:11,12

initially

9628:169914:3

initiative

9641:69643:9,13,15,20,239646:129651:179799:20,239867:159898:219904:69905:149929:119942:69972:15

initiatives

9610:4,7,89651:259652:2,3,10,12,20,259653:29757:179867:169902:229906:59942:2,19



9958:129971:8,169972:3,59974:6

injecting

9811:16

input

9619:219967:119989:21

inputs

9629:21

inquired

9714:4

inquiries

9713:5

ins 9676:12

insect

9728:15

in-ser

9886:5

in-service

9611:69852:109853:159885:119886:69887:1,249888:99895:2,3,89910:109951:179952:7,8,25 9965:129966:3

insight

9613:39630:209693:19978:16

insignifican

t 9903:4

9920:14

inspect

9657:17

inspired

9783:14

install

9677:8

installation

9642:16

installed

9676:129767:169924:149966:8

installing

9701:189741:29933:22

installs

9797:7

instance

9725:99947:199961:23

instances

9960:14

instead

9689:49706:39720:259732:18,209738:199849:189915:15

instinct

9723:17

institute

9615:149621:189658:4

instituted

9744:14,15,25

institution

9715:21

institutiona

l 9765:21

instructed

9988:1

insulation

9648:39702:129704:3,4,14,15,18,22

9755:99867:189919:99923:16,179925:7,8,19

insurance

9826:18

integrate

9689:23,24

integrated

9610:139619:219623:229624:219683:39692:3,8,16,209693:2,59694:239695:59696:1,15,18 9697:169698:6,189704:189774:189784:169792:5,79793:229856:109860:109871:3,209912:4

integration

9665:199675:229676:1,15,239677:4,18,199678:1,9,219679:1,129680:219741:3,49770:249771:39779:69780:89781:59783:239784:4

9816:139818:19,229820:2

integrations

9679:19

intend

9622:139979:25

intended

9761:209857:49990:17

intending

9883:18

intends

9807:20

intensively

9722:6

intent

9812:8

intention

9628:4,69699:49736:18

interconenct

ion

9892:21

interconnect

ion

9667:239763:239773:179850:259851:99878:169879:209880:129892:3,10,19

interconnect

ions

9872:20

interest

9721:189749:8,129811:1

interested

9644:13

9773:79807:199832:59838:11

interesting

9669:39671:159678:19691:39713:189733:159736:19828:6

interestingl

y 9640:17

9651:5

interests

9645:23,249765:199880:13

interface

9726:249734:16

interfere

9838:13

interference

9988:5

intergovernm

ental

9716:29729:21

interior

9649:79726:79830:8,14

interject

9698:29803:14

Interlake

9924:9

interlude

9884:8

internalize

9744:21

internally

9865:1,219866:249902:17



9905:19978:7

Internationa

l 9616:6

9775:3

interplay

9836:9

interpretati

on 9734:20

interpreted

9730:7

interrupt

9632:239858:16

intertie

9769:189789:169879:22

intertied

9689:7,11

interties

9678:249679:39682:11

intervene

9881:10

Intervenors

9663:149844:99881:14

intervention

9659:14

interviews

9659:4

introduce

9844:24

introduced

9671:229835:229869:29952:209958:15

introduction

9691:18

intuition

9686:23

invertebrate

9747:15

inverted

9806:4

invest

9771:59893:16

invested

9684:8

investigatio

n 9972:4

investigatio

ns 9777:12

investment

9641:159708:249790:39896:249911:9,139915:6

investments

9615:219616:39703:79706:239732:59738:16,17,21

investors

9673:20,229713:7

involve

9813:179827:6

involved

9616:59620:229626:259627:29642:189693:199727:149739:209740:59806:129862:239920:3,179925:23,259986:12

involves

9618:49867:169872:8

involving

9618:4

Iowa 9633:12

IPCC 9730:6

ir 9665:23

9666:19680:259681:19781:119784:29850:199901:25

IR-308

9781:12

Irena

9670:25

IRP 9697:3

9872:16,19

irrational

9655:11

IRs 9784:2

island

9790:5

isn't 9628:1

9633:19788:209833:109916:3

ISO 9812:6

isolated

9633:14

isolation

9880:18

iss 9893:9

issue

9631:139642:69657:129659:119670:209686:209699:159712:14

9747:209794:159814:159820:29821:209832:209833:139840:129856:39873:139879:149882:149885:179979:11,129989:7

issued

9666:59667:10

issues

9631:1,39657:239659:16,179690:159693:169771:19851:179882:259904:39907:259931:239933:49978:22,249979:15,169980:119985:169986:259987:11

items

9757:15

it'll

9707:139801:99805:49920:11

it's 9611:15

9612:259616:139620:159622:199626:179629:19630:22

9631:159632:89639:79640:69641:149643:159644:39645:19,219649:139654:29655:89657:9,169660:11,149662:9,189667:10,11,16 9672:29674:169675:3,14,25 9677:49678:89679:99680:109681:5,6,7,15 9682:69686:59688:229689:18,21,22,239690:19,259695:29696:129701:99705:19706:59707:39708:14,159709:79710:69712:5,179713:13,259717:3,49719:9,249720:1,2,22 9723:39724:179725:69726:189727:219730:139734:19735:4,5,69736:239738:119741:12,13



9742:189744:209746:89750:2,5,7,9 9753:159757:3,149758:239759:89760:3,239761:14,20,21,239762:249763:199765:10,189766:22,23,249769:12,139770:59772:239773:6,169774:109775:189776:119777:199778:69779:12,13,169782:14,259783:1,2,219784:12,13,249785:18,199789:59790:9,129792:39794:109796:139799:229800:11,129802:229805:14,169807:159808:49812:239815:17,199817:69818:249820:189821:8,11,15,219824:15,199825:49826:18,23

9827:19828:1,2,59832:5,239834:139835:3,4,8,9,10,159836:239837:7,239838:1,4,59841:11,239842:239848:189850:59854:239856:239857:209860:5,79865:59868:159869:89872:199873:139879:19,239881:79882:119886:10,159890:249891:229893:259894:22,239895:19,259898:10,119900:1,2,6,9,11,129904:89908:18,21,259909:139910:119911:10,16,17,249912:229915:4,259916:29917:4,11,21 9918:29919:179920:49922:6,7,99923:6,119924:249927:3,20,21 9928:89930:8

9931:139934:2,139939:169941:199944:6,11,12 9945:39946:7,149948:6,149949:89959:4,11,14,159960:229961:19962:59967:99968:229969:199970:2,109972:29974:259975:39976:119977:149979:199980:39981:189983:209985:7,109986:179988:189989:1,16,17

I've 9626:25

9627:59628:219651:59675:229687:199690:69692:159695:249703:169715:229716:159721:139784:229790:239802:13,219817:49825:19,219828:99830:3,12,13 9832:4

9838:209839:149844:49911:89920:239938:189949:239950:199985:5,199986:1,13

J

Jack 9604:12

Janet

9604:11

January

9620:18,219624:139966:4

Jennifer

9604:9

Jessica

9605:39606:209625:69737:13,149738:5,229739:7,11,179740:3,9,13,179741:4,17

Jiminez

9776:10

JOANNE

9607:99965:259966:5,10

job 9615:23

9732:1,39787:179827:2

jobs 9706:15

John

9618:11,13

jointly

9765:16

Joseph

9775:9

journals

9724:7

judgment

9629:17

jump 9652:8

9860:5

jumped

9860:9

June 9622:7

jurisdiction

9626:29661:119686:39916:159917:6

jurisdiction

s

9610:6,129631:199646:159648:89651:29652:1,239657:79692:9,109696:17,239698:5,169738:249784:119823:229826:19856:149916:16,199926:89970:199977:29981:7

justificatio

n 9671:7

justified

9647:149873:13

justify

9763:24

K

K19 9845:16



9884:8

Kansas

9623:15

Kapitany

9603:149647:21,249653:13,209690:5,259705:109925:22

Keeya

9879:19

Keeyask

9611:7,179647:189681:39682:149685:49706:119710:6,99738:179745:8,109763:1,10,169788:16,199789:1,4,14,159790:2,109812:39834:4,249848:259849:11,16,179850:11,249851:139853:9,249876:15,18,239877:12,15,20,259878:6,13,22 9880:229882:129884:179885:8,129886:69887:8,12,19,219888:2,9,229889:14,209890:16

9891:19892:16,18,19,229893:149894:129895:249896:8,209897:4,7,9,12,21,249934:13,16

Keeyask/750

9763:59948:22

Keeyask/

Conawapa

9745:11

Keeyask/Gas

9853:59873:209879:209948:249949:3,5,7

Keeyask/

Gas/750

9759:149760:5

Keeyask19/

Conawapa40

/750

9845:17

Keeyask19/

Gas40/250

9845:7

Kentu 9624:2

Kentucky

9624:29692:11

key

9726:14,159727:179728:25

kilowatt

9665:159666:159667:21,239668:89706:4,59826:109829:13,22

9911:6,129912:159913:6,8,16 9914:99915:14,19,209916:259917:8,9,10,14,16,189923:129968:119977:21,229988:17,19,20

kilter

9662:8

kinds 9649:9

9659:17,189661:199666:23,249667:19670:179703:69733:109755:119808:149820:199849:19

Knight

9628:2

knock

9706:259826:6

knowledge

9712:119767:1

known

9673:209722:4

Koenig

9746:1

Kristina

9746:19750:8

Kuczek

9607:59793:29842:189855:49856:3,16

9857:79858:2,5,15 9859:4,99860:1,199862:10,219863:6,209864:1,8,159865:2,179866:9,15,239867:5,219868:119869:7,149870:59871:119898:179899:229900:69902:14,259903:3,9,15,209908:12,219910:29920:29923:19924:49925:189926:169930:8,14,249931:7,18,22 9933:249937:259938:199944:12,239945:12,16,189954:159967:229968:16,22,23,249969:79972:8,10,229973:7,149974:239975:10,209976:2,179977:1,6,17,249978:5,10,12,179980:3,10,

129982:9,13,18,239983:59986:109989:8

L

La 9665:24

9681:14,169817:7,14,219818:17,20,21,249819:2,6,109829:1,6,15,21

lab 9666:21

9670:259717:69724:4

Laboratory

9775:3

labour

9699:259701:16,239702:149709:21

lack 9872:7

laid 9759:8

Lake

9747:6,7,10,179820:4

Lakes

9830:22

land 9610:19

9688:6,219713:69813:10,169814:1,7

landscape

9727:99728:249734:16,17

language

9627:21



9693:22

large 9627:9

9628:3,139636:229645:99648:119653:259654:129655:179658:69662:69667:179672:6,129684:5,129700:79706:229723:229726:59727:7,189738:169769:49784:99797:239799:119801:159913:109981:22,23

largely

9687:59692:209723:23

larger

9637:249640:109673:59674:259675:1,4,69682:149733:79798:69804:259806:9,179809:239847:259848:29959:9

Larry

9603:15

last 9616:17

9647:29650:49655:18

9661:239669:189670:59671:209672:79684:249694:219696:129709:139713:59718:59720:59721:129722:69731:119733:179747:209748:59764:89776:3,9,14 9788:29797:99801:99815:4,79820:19825:69835:209840:169844:189854:229860:89867:69957:69967:209970:59975:139977:119978:189980:16

lasting

9673:12

later

9612:149614:59638:139658:129660:69684:59688:169719:19725:249738:159755:6

9757:139793:79822:139834:59850:10,11,139851:149853:169855:13,179894:229895:2,8,159940:6,14,15 9986:5

latest

9849:25

latitudes

9718:16

laudable

9764:25

launch

9970:20

Lavigne

9991:7

law 9758:16

9959:5

lawyers

9841:99882:3

lay 9646:21

9694:4,59697:18

layer

9704:15

LCA 9784:2

LCA/Manitoba

9850:19

LCA/MH

9677:20

LCOE 9666:10

lead 9654:13

9709:159932:2,15,16,229933:6

leading

9942:22

leads

9722:249725:229726:219893:21

learned

9644:49842:249950:209959:239973:39982:15

least 9635:6

9642:79661:259682:59733:109738:129807:69818:179821:259827:59869:69881:69882:159891:79918:49939:259948:1,69979:219987:129988:29990:22

least-cost

9758:18

leave 9823:9

9843:119879:129880:109931:59951:119954:6

leaving

9636:119885:169938:89940:189976:2

led 9648:13

9722:149817:12

9870:189893:12,219957:39958:4,6

LEDs 9869:24

9923:4

legacy

9708:15

legislation

9864:49987:10

lending

9843:3

length

9711:129912:5

Leon 9775:9

Leon/

Darlington

9766:24

less 9610:9

9632:149633:59634:249636:189637:229639:119641:159652:39653:39675:39680:89684:39685:39701:69707:259714:79722:119725:89726:129740:169748:19755:129768:20,229798:17,189799:49829:239885:79887:189967:18



let's 9664:6

9680:179699:229714:15,169724:189794:239797:49808:179813:49814:109815:249818:239834:159836:59837:129871:79873:209880:109881:199882:219886:209897:29898:39904:79906:14,159907:59916:249917:179951:39954:179956:89959:18,199962:89973:259977:20

letting

9660:6

level

9647:199652:169677:99680:79705:189716:139718:69752:159759:10,219760:1,2,14,199761:169795:129798:249805:21,25

9810:179833:5,20,21,229845:8,179847:109848:209850:39854:59857:129858:89859:89860:10,149861:3,5,12,219863:39866:5,6,8,139871:3,49873:209874:1,7,139876:12,139884:39886:229899:19,20,21,229900:2,4,139901:11,12,249903:139906:11,239908:5,99917:59928:209930:19939:1,229940:17,199942:189943:189944:1,159946:209947:18,20,21 9948:69950:219953:19977:20,229979:79982:12

levelized

9666:119670:129678:7

9713:15,189793:59829:79911:12,169912:7,11,149914:5,14,20,249968:3,9

levels

9639:149646:239704:24,259751:259752:119758:249780:99820:4,129872:21,22,25 9873:19899:259938:219946:179948:199990:10

liberate

9719:17

liberating

9719:11

libertariani

sm 9660:1

life 9658:9

9665:189670:219671:11,139672:3,249673:89674:49708:259710:17,18,219711:1,5,10,17,199712:29713:14,219775:5,229778:19800:179826:3,18,22 9923:209943:23

lifespan

9814:12

lifetime

9814:16

light

9649:109744:69958:19978:3

lighting

9648:149700:10,20,239870:209942:49956:249957:19,21

lights

9649:19957:19958:1,2,5

likely

9635:19636:6,79637:239640:14,159652:99661:159689:189712:69748:109776:99798:159839:6,219870:169921:59924:179951:59975:1

Limestone

9708:10,17

limit

9744:249917:19,21

limitation

9761:1

limitations

9760:189806:139918:3

9959:16

limited

9616:79651:159665:39735:259982:3

limiting

9712:69959:4

line 9611:17

9632:149660:15,169720:209730:149757:159759:149760:59763:1,59788:16,219790:3,109797:229845:7,179850:259851:9,119852:29877:159878:129885:229890:16,259893:13,259894:2,39896:7,12,19,229897:6,99938:259943:49961:189962:159963:4,149972:11

lines

9731:7,89850:69929:22

link 9618:13

9627:149765:139842:25

linked

9674:25



9816:59896:25

links

9610:149697:179698:7,20

list 9606:3

9608:19609:19610:19611:19644:99646:69683:139778:79808:189843:5,109844:229974:2

listed

9666:79907:119942:3

listening

9843:23

lists

9642:22

literature

9745:189822:259823:79827:189832:169913:229980:21

little

9628:209632:169639:69642:109650:139655:69675:239679:159688:39692:239699:14,229705:49706:149707:69710:7,9

9729:209730:24,259735:1,29744:229745:219780:209799:69804:169834:219835:89837:139844:169849:229862:119912:129915:199924:99933:79936:29943:99944:59959:219962:69967:219971:159972:39975:9

live

9655:9,149729:179748:109776:219826:20

livelihood

9728:7

lives 9924:6

9928:10

Lloyd 9607:5

9842:189855:49856:3,169857:79858:5,159859:4,99860:1,199862:8,10,219863:6,209864:1,8,159865:2,179866:9,15,

239867:5,219868:119869:7,149870:59871:119899:229900:69902:14,259903:3,99908:12,219920:29921:129923:19926:169930:8,14,249931:7,189933:249944:239945:12,16,189968:22,249972:10,229973:7,149974:239975:209976:179977:6,17,249978:5,12,179980:3,129982:13,18,23 9983:59986:109989:8

LNP 9893:18

load

9606:6,169614:119622:2,49624:199631:209636:259640:219641:1,39647:6,89653:6,15,229654:6,79661:4,229662:3,7,1

1,13,18,249684:29737:89752:259754:1,59762:22,259763:17,189788:7,8,13,259789:11,149790:49797:239798:24,259802:89806:99843:199848:209849:7,20,24 9850:29851:179854:1,4,5,6,79861:229862:12,139871:39874:259876:149880:69894:219896:149898:4,259899:49901:139906:2,11,21,239909:139910:3,13,24 9912:139913:21,249916:199920:49927:109928:189929:249930:17,199931:10,24,259932:139933:189936:10,119937:6,109948:3,59949:159951:7

9953:49954:49958:14,179959:18,259961:179962:4,9,22

loading

9636:169798:24

loads

9661:169662:169754:79765:6

loans

9868:19

local 9771:7

locally

9703:1

logical

9961:21

logistics

9613:9

LOIS 9607:6

9842:199867:149898:7,139899:129900:249901:3,16,249902:9,119903:149904:249905:4,13,25 9906:139911:11,229912:17,229919:39923:239938:3,11,239939:4,129940:1,8,13,249941:6,189942:179943:8,259944:9,22



9954:13,219955:8,189956:1,7,13,219957:139968:6,129969:11,16,229970:3,12,21 9971:49972:29973:249974:5,189976:8,169980:209981:5,11,16

London

9604:12

long 9641:23

9671:209672:79708:259710:239724:15,16,189738:169740:159776:89785:199794:179797:59805:169825:29844:249883:169921:139925:249932:159977:89990:16

longer

9673:129694:8,139713:219721:79728:209744:209775:79826:199856:139857:19

9858:139910:129914:179933:7,8

long-term

9684:199685:19686:139738:139790:119807:6,14,17,189838:13,149856:159920:169975:169989:25

loopy

9722:19

loose

9627:21

loosely

9848:18

lord 9949:15

lose 9849:5

loss 9729:5

9746:14

losses

9632:149811:199959:1,3,4

lost 9645:15

9678:169889:229972:18

lot 9657:22

9678:49680:249692:229700:59701:69706:79708:109709:149710:19716:239717:129719:7,229722:1,9

9723:4,5,16 9732:139735:12,15,219765:149776:229806:119822:219825:119826:209827:69837:19838:89843:219865:209869:149872:79903:239915:129923:39945:2,69953:249960:199979:109980:109986:16

lots 9718:24

louvres

9649:9

love 9831:14

lovely

9962:7

low 9626:22

9634:129637:159655:149679:16,199688:229748:89758:139803:59823:219867:109914:39921:179930:13

low-cost

9913:229917:3

lower 9635:2

9636:4

9639:169646:39658:89668:16,19,219671:149674:259675:19676:259677:19678:219680:9,259681:2,59687:129704:239705:259765:49771:49784:159788:229829:169834:99854:7,89865:89870:159893:189899:7,89900:89942:129943:99990:2,3

lowering

9761:3

lowest

9685:2,3,69696:99700:11

LTD 9616:10

LUC 9968:9

lucrative

9927:13

lunch

9714:179715:39840:3

lying

9778:19

M

machine

9826:9

magnitude

9819:239943:14,22

mailing

9924:8

main 9665:4

9716:89830:219865:159868:9

maintain

9648:19705:189810:17

maintaining

9648:6

maintenance

9666:79706:13

major

9648:239656:159670:19696:79706:9,229733:109740:129822:10,119835:19960:69964:149984:18

majority

9667:179805:129924:12

Man 9925:1

manage

9734:179735:239988:17

managed

9727:109734:17

management

9684:7,219685:13



9688:239749:119986:12

manager

9617:21,23

manages

9734:18

mandate

9665:29869:59984:20

mandated

9835:239836:3,49984:14

manded

9984:14

manger

9988:10

mani 9896:14

9904:13

manifests

9727:1

Manihoba

9665:24

manipulated

9727:10

Manitoba

9603:3,7,9,23 9604:59607:39608:109609:39610:20,239611:3,9,15,199612:13,169615:89620:29621:49622:59625:16,20,239628:149631:10,259632:99633:4,8,10,15,17,18,22

9635:239636:209637:1,2,99638:3,209640:89641:69642:6,139643:7,9,11,139645:49647:179653:15,229654:2,5,14 9655:69656:8,199661:119662:1,109665:4,12,25 9666:139667:249668:79669:29670:219671:159672:10,11,18,239673:29674:7,16,19 9675:249676:10,169677:169679:12,18,219680:259681:219683:11,15,18,249684:139686:22,249687:5,219688:259689:5,9,19,239690:179691:209693:159696:229713:7,199715:20,259716:18,21,25 9717:79721:17,19,259724:17

9725:259726:1,9,15,179727:4,13,189728:5,249732:189734:189737:6,17,229738:1,6,7,9 9740:89742:18,219743:1,2,3,4,11,12,169745:6,19,209747:2,199750:169751:249752:3,19,25 9754:69755:209756:259757:249758:3,9,12,15,21,229759:199760:9,12,179762:20,229764:5,209765:209766:169767:1,39768:179769:169770:3,16,249773:8,11,17,239774:5,10,149775:1,69779:3,15,209781:9,109783:12,239785:69787:229789:239790:59792:19

9793:29795:89796:119798:109799:179800:179802:8,159803:21,229805:219806:239807:209809:239810:2,8,149811:1,249812:199815:129816:9,159817:11,169828:219829:169831:4,12,17,239834:89837:199839:19840:10,11,20,249842:169843:18,259844:3,139845:5,15,249846:8,18,259847:8,9,17,209849:109853:69854:229856:1,129857:29858:18,219859:59861:119862:39863:11,179864:18,23,259866:3,79867:119868:59869:3,59870:1

9871:69876:29878:239880:149882:20,219883:49884:29886:39888:6,179889:39890:1,15,239893:6,7,23 9895:1,79896:1,2,239897:5,11,17 9899:69900:16,209903:2,229904:8,139906:169908:8,189910:19915:209916:79922:259926:129935:49936:69941:29944:199946:199949:219950:1,11,129951:4,11,19 9954:29962:39964:109965:189966:2,239967:249968:189971:259975:13,199976:39977:14,199978:1,149980:59983:209984:13,169985:1,2,11



9986:1,12,18 9987:99988:16,199989:1,39990:7

Manitobans

9661:139755:259756:12,179989:4

Manitoba's

9683:259685:29746:129755:209770:189789:229796:8

manner

9765:12

manually

9981:24

manufacture

9673:3

manufacturer

9671:39688:15

manufacturer

s 9650:19

9673:99703:29981:13

March 9623:7

9624:139843:239863:219966:4

margin

9635:39636:12,179638:179799:2

marginal

9637:19,229640:19798:139914:16,219989:14,259990:2,3

Marilyn

9603:149647:21,249653:13,209690:5,259925:22

Maritime

9618:139627:14

mark 9858:17

marked

9613:15,219630:219743:59847:20

market

9632:19643:19667:129668:159695:179700:89703:5,249744:5,209745:79755:29770:239798:139800:39865:19,209870:219903:229927:129965:239975:199981:189986:14,15

marketplace

9914:119964:4,12,18 9969:89970:239974:229975:79982:4

markets

9619:5,119635:209682:209685:129739:24

9810:199970:1

market's

9697:7

Marla 9604:6

9844:159845:14,239846:8,18,259847:7,16,249858:14,169883:17

Maryland

9624:13

Massachusett

s 9621:18

9622:7

massive

9661:15

master's

9615:119621:18

match

9678:209703:22

material

9709:259883:149953:25

materialized

9835:13

materials

9643:259703:209704:2,109762:69775:59781:189790:219836:21

material's

9702:15

mates

9663:12

math 9936:9

matter

9633:8,21,

24 9646:189812:14,259839:149841:249866:12,219921:4

matters

9678:179739:20

may 9603:24

9613:6,109614:89623:169627:209636:159641:21,229642:239645:129646:129647:13,159649:229655:1,189662:22,259684:29685:10,139687:119693:189695:109696:219700:259702:7,239703:89704:23,249705:4,219706:3,49707:59711:29714:259721:209737:249738:99739:20,239740:209753:129755:5,99757:12,239777:14,219795:12,15,169808:119817:149818:209828:4

9834:109835:79840:169878:89896:79907:249909:19916:9,10,11 9937:249960:139961:5,239970:39981:6

maybe 9627:6

9670:39692:189710:19716:19799:19804:169835:29836:109861:109874:1,29879:49882:159904:79912:259946:79978:159980:139983:59990:9

Mayor

9604:11

mea 9669:8

mean 9631:9

9633:19636:189651:99661:79662:99679:149686:159725:6,7,21 9730:29735:129753:259773:109788:199793:16,179812:7



9825:229833:189834:2,169839:219849:129854:89860:239862:249866:7,209870:239915:239940:129945:69947:189987:229988:6

Meaning

9797:14

meaningful

9979:6

means

9608:109681:79700:229719:39734:149743:12,159839:189849:109885:109896:29901:15

meant 9795:6

9849:23

meantime

9848:39882:49883:24

measure

9634:149640:209643:2,3,4,5 9649:129704:29705:139793:4,219794:5,229834:139923:179967:10,169990:1

measured

9717:199723:149767:10

measures

9610:59651:259652:219682:29703:119764:99777:149793:229857:59868:259900:189921:249922:21,249928:79933:17,199941:249974:8

measure-

specific

9900:22

measuring

9669:8

mechanism

9796:249984:12

mechanisms

9644:10

medallion

9804:17

meet 9647:7

9661:179754:59812:159821:249823:16,179834:39835:259852:39853:19880:99894:219926:13

meeting

9626:129789:11,12

9851:259985:17

meetings

9749:10

mega 9675:6

megawatt

9611:169647:109671:17,219674:249675:179676:6,209680:6,249774:109775:22,259776:2,39779:69781:19,229816:19845:7,179885:29889:179890:15,259893:139915:12

megawatts

9667:149676:8,99677:7,129678:139680:79768:259769:29771:20,229772:4,5,12,20,219781:20,229884:229885:79893:139953:149966:9

Meghan

9604:159606:119625:159691:13,14,199692:6,179693:219694:169695:21

9696:119697:13,209698:1,12,25

melting

9746:18

member

9603:14,15,16,179705:109843:19968:4

members

9612:79613:69663:89665:19842:109843:189985:6

memory

9651:99957:25

mention

9627:129642:129665:219746:229747:219781:259906:1

mentioned

9626:139627:29658:119672:229673:259749:99753:219777:199831:89898:169903:209904:49906:69922:39924:59925:189982:79984:9,11

Menzies

9604:159606:119625:14,15,209663:3,219691:11,13,14,199692:6,179693:219694:169695:219696:119697:13,209698:1,12,25 9699:3

Merci

9625:4,10,12 9741:249742:1

mercury

9957:21,239958:8

message

9919:8,17,19 9920:19922:6

messages

9919:24

messaging

9919:12

met

9653:16,239683:259691:16,179712:19798:259823:17

metal 9714:5

metals

9960:7

meter

9937:19,21

meters

9933:229934:1,29973:4,10,21

methods

9980:1



Metis

9737:6,17

metre 9636:3

9656:22,249675:69712:1,4,59767:169768:13

metres

9636:29675:69767:109768:179934:1,5

metric

9707:139915:99968:3,8

metrics

9912:1,3,4

Mex 9830:9

Mexico

9830:9

MH-104-15-

REVISION-3

9608:199846:22

MH-104-16-

REVISION-3

9608:219847:4

MH-104-3-2

9608:119845:10

MH-104-3-3

9608:129845:19

MH-104-4-3

9608:139846:3

MH-104-4-4

9608:169846:13

MH-171-

REVISION-4

9608:239847:13

MH-189

9608:79742:23

MH-190

9608:89743:8

MH-191

9608:99743:14

MH-192

9608:259847:22

MH-193

9609:39858:21

MH-87 9793:1

M-hm 9709:23

9740:9,139777:109836:6

mic 9737:1

9748:69841:129889:13

Michael

9604:249605:7

microfractur

ing 9777:4

microphone

9664:169732:129842:13

mid 9823:20

middle

9661:259726:1,29766:229789:259799:79885:219910:169937:1

midpoint

9674:21

midwest

9668:15,21

,249687:129830:2,13

Midwestern

9687:23

mig 9909:2

might've

9945:13

Migratory

9746:23

Miles

9844:25

Miller

9604:199979:239980:7,139983:22

million

9719:15,16,199745:9,10,119759:13,149760:3,4,59763:69947:239948:1,5,8,13

millionaire

9921:3

Min 9893:4

mind 9714:14

9748:189753:169799:109913:209922:189927:159956:249964:17

mindful

9877:21

minds

9959:12

mine 9824:11

9964:7

minimize

9641:12

9700:129883:9

minimum

9720:139923:3

mining

9662:179684:139688:10

minister

9757:259758:10,179855:2

ministry

9836:11

Minnesota

9615:109632:159633:119771:16,209772:5,12,199773:4,229875:9,239878:14,249879:179880:5,239882:19884:119885:139892:2,6,13,249893:1,2,5,169894:1,179895:239896:10,11,14,219897:109934:11,17

minor

9818:13

minus

9811:199948:14

minuses

9929:13

minute

9627:49647:22

9655:99663:19,209689:249935:209972:18

minutes

9689:259736:129785:189791:6,129841:109842:39848:109872:99935:10

MIPUG

9604:219625:19844:149847:259848:11

miserable

9776:23

MISO 9635:7

9636:119637:49638:1,139640:19770:19,239789:239798:7,16,24 9834:229965:23

missed

9818:209875:209953:23

misspeak

9945:11

misspoke

9945:16

mistake

9732:19,219780:20

MIT 9621:19

mitigate

9985:22

mitigates

9749:25



mitigation

9744:17

mix 9695:7

9811:129815:179873:169874:4,159878:69919:23

mixed

9872:15

mixing

9833:19

mixture

9873:15

MKO 9604:23

9839:16,179935:11

MMF 9605:3

9625:6

model

9675:15,179697:99731:99750:119804:179810:8,9,12 9825:9

modelled

9675:119730:139805:259903:16

modelling

9733:249749:139818:8,109901:17

models

9696:229702:249734:1,4,10 9740:119741:129750:3,5,9,10 9834:6

modest

9646:8,23

modified

9862:139928:11

modifying

9859:14

moisture

9726:12,219727:119728:23

moment

9635:69639:249813:59854:219869:29886:209898:49904:89906:159940:179959:19

money

9644:219673:119680:199700:199707:4,239709:1,6,179710:5,129741:149758:129790:89794:2,79796:129805:159905:179913:99924:219972:9,19

monitor

9700:149776:69835:59870:129965:189986:14,16

monitored

9836:4

monitoring

9669:7

9688:79823:119824:1,259825:189828:59870:219964:3

monitors

9965:229974:7

Monnin

9605:69625:9,10,129741:22,249742:1

month

9740:159822:149923:59978:11

monthly

9924:22

months

9655:59669:16,189670:69694:219741:159965:13

Moore's

9848:15

morning

9612:3,6,7,17 9613:49614:29617:19,219625:16,21,229691:14,15,179692:1,19,24 9693:229695:229699:19723:109737:169750:229764:49779:29794:24

9800:239808:189839:19,22,249840:129841:139935:12,159990:21

Moroz 9604:9

Morrison

9607:69652:139842:199867:149898:7,139899:129900:249901:3,16,249902:9,119903:149904:249905:4,13,25 9906:139908:79911:11,229912:17,229919:39922:29923:239925:239926:179928:139937:259938:2,3,11,19,239939:4,129940:1,8,11,13,249941:5,6,17,189942:179943:3,8,259944:9,229954:12,13,219955:8,189956:1,7,13,219957:139958:219967:22

9968:1,2,6,12,169969:11,16,229970:3,12,16,219971:49972:29973:249974:5,189976:2,8,169980:16,209981:5,11,16

mostly

9636:119638:119643:249701:29815:2

motivated

9778:219868:24

motivator

9805:7

mountains

9831:9

mouth

9673:11

move 9620:9

9634:49662:159675:59716:249722:17,219731:29732:49733:29756:19758:209759:10,219760:19766:29783:39839:29882:49883:239885:59898:39902:21



9908:249909:149923:219936:199937:89963:13

moved

9784:229866:189962:14

moves 9921:7

moving

9634:99636:49637:39641:49646:59692:189720:89765:59784:229841:59931:49978:1

MP 9849:2

9851:19877:13,159878:219880:9,119882:12

MSP

9886:11,189953:12

mundane

9690:6

Murmansk

9721:17

musical

9884:7

Muskrat

9627:15,16

mutually

9852:259916:7

MWT-95/2.4

9767:21

myself

9631:9

9690:149693:19721:149852:239970:16

N

nameplate

9671:18

narrow

9648:189682:16

narrowed

9628:22,25

narrowing

9629:1

nasty 9755:8

Nation

9747:3

national

9666:219670:249687:229775:2

Nations

9749:109867:3

native

9614:19

natural

9649:6,209655:10,12,169658:139707:149719:149729:2,3,9,12,139732:2,209756:199905:189978:209979:2,3,7

naturally

9825:16

nature

9628:19701:16

9703:249956:23

Navigant

9616:10,16

nearby

9784:17

nearly

9723:22

necess

9802:22

necessarily

9686:169705:119707:39735:129789:19795:5,129802:229926:209965:3

necessary

9636:239795:15,179797:219839:229866:119892:99896:239988:12

negative

9634:109661:59728:149734:209746:259760:3,4,59987:23

negatively

9728:12

negotiate

9892:159893:4

negotiated

9852:109892:209894:25

negotiating

9851:20

negotiation

9849:209886:10

negotiations

9892:69893:1,129953:16

neighbouring

9678:25

neighbours

9790:9

Nest 9973:22

9974:12,25

net 9634:11

9636:19647:5,69653:69670:10,139800:259860:109946:1,139948:1

Network

9616:20

newer 9673:5

9958:15

news 9791:25

NFAT 9737:21

9768:199849:139864:69898:59926:3

nice 9786:15

9787:39804:16

nicely

9911:24

night

9747:209789:259860:9

nights

9844:24

Nile 9747:1

nine 9675:25

9676:13

9679:229686:179800:129840:79945:49955:17

nineteen

9667:229668:2,79829:12

ninety

9668:109686:179959:1

ninety-five

9959:2

ninety-nine

9680:59779:59781:21

nitty-gritty

9659:18

no-cost

9913:229917:3

nodding

9750:99954:16

noise

9947:24

non 9751:2

none 9673:25

9954:7

Nonetheless

9755:25

non-hydro

9753:21

nonlinear

9726:20

nonparticipa

nt 9793:9

nonparticipa

nts

9793:12

non-program

9752:12



non-starter

9893:25

non-utility

9693:149753:5,22,24

normal

9661:179701:239827:16

normalizing

9977:3

normally

9626:19695:79701:19717:229919:23

North

9616:139633:1,39723:14,229724:2,14,15,21,229726:79730:159734:89771:16,219772:6,13,20 9773:59831:11,15,18,22,25

northeast

9721:129830:21

northern

9684:139716:109720:189722:8,179746:19

northward

9746:15

Northwest

9721:14

note 9627:22

9960:12

noted

9681:14

9742:219748:69780:4

notes

9628:17

nothing

9644:129669:179815:8,229835:19838:89852:7,109877:5

notice

9684:15,189776:69873:4

notion

9985:12,19

notionally

9977:20

Nova

9618:8,129623:169624:119627:1,149815:179970:2,5,10

November

9621:69622:69623:169624:9

np

9604:2,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,16,249605:4,79952:19

NPV 9745:9

9759:11,12,22 9760:29763:59800:259819:2,149829:99866:59873:69874:7

9947:2

NPVs 9763:1

NREL 9671:8

9674:119776:10

NSP 9851:19

nuances

9944:2,4

nuclear

9618:189619:89638:16

nuisance

9657:16

O

oath 9844:6

objection

9625:19627:229628:14

objections

9625:7,11,16

objective

9694:39895:29990:18

obli 9984:14

obligations

9984:14

observation

9715:169931:6

observations

9730:219731:5

obstacle

9758:18

obtain

9813:11,219908:6

obtains

9889:16

obviously

9688:25

9745:229811:229853:149913:179985:4

occasions

9621:10

occupancy

9649:3

occur

9633:189753:1

occurred

9637:149724:13

occurs

9727:6,79850:23

ocean

9716:129720:24,259721:59722:9

ocean/cold

9722:149724:10

o'clock

9840:8

odd 9669:19

9676:21

Odette

9604:10

offence

9612:24

offer

9795:179804:209868:199978:19

offered

9775:15,259826:109974:119976:189977:39981:19

offering

9977:7

off-grid

9933:11

office

9616:12,149648:229649:59965:69987:25

offices

9616:14

offset

9940:9,119944:49960:14

offsetting

9758:13

oh 9627:13

9639:189664:19696:209732:119761:109762:249779:29785:239792:10,219801:199804:89824:169835:119838:189919:159962:6

oil 9650:9

okay 9614:24

9617:149618:69627:119628:99629:239660:209663:11,169664:259683:219699:89703:189711:89712:99713:11



9715:219739:7,179741:179750:89752:2,99754:149759:179762:12,17,24 9768:49769:249770:129772:29774:3,209778:149779:119780:19785:129788:29799:109803:259807:139809:39811:99813:239814:29818:129819:8,199821:19828:199829:69832:29838:219862:209867:49869:19877:29895:229896:59897:29899:149902:109906:109907:59913:199915:19918:59934:239936:89938:169940:10,169945:179946:119950:9,209951:18

9957:89964:16,239967:199969:159972:7,239973:18,259974:109975:10,229979:149983:22

Oklahoma

9623:15

old 9655:9

9672:19676:139679:229801:99826:13,159828:39923:9

older

9925:19,20

Oliphant

9748:6

on-bill

9658:19

one-point-

five

9705:19

ones 9633:17

9639:209660:39665:49670:249673:59691:229702:129734:109745:69836:49861:259923:169925:189932:199965:1

ongoing

9706:12,14

online

9694:11

9932:2

Ontario

9616:239619:4,12,16,199624:129626:199814:199856:159977:7

Ontario's

9619:21

onto 9636:4

9652:109732:15

oops 9645:15

open 9649:22

9691:249720:249721:129866:259868:5

operated

9671:18

operating

9619:159633:259666:6

operation

9669:169739:169789:4

operational

9775:21

operations

9662:179776:13

opin 9829:17

opinion

9696:59821:11

opinions

9674:219829:18

oppor

9986:18

opportunitie

s

9648:11,129649:209763:229764:49804:99838:199868:149870:14,239907:199918:169920:5,99922:119923:2,3,159926:19,209927:6,149928:3,89929:69972:139975:189986:19,229990:8

opportunity

9630:49649:179756:19758:259779:229781:99790:69791:19793:59798:39802:109807:29811:79817:219824:139839:149844:109895:139907:239916:179922:7,89925:219929:49960:219986:59987:2,79989:5,209990:11

opposed

9627:219633:39660:119836:39864:259977:11

opposite

9687:4

Optimization

9963:5

optimize

9682:5,69964:9

optimized

9681:159685:109693:259696:1,39874:15

option

9681:209822:19873:169897:18

options

9631:59649:229696:259813:119836:139849:59850:129871:219872:169873:15

orange-

pinkish

9730:12

oranges

9668:5

order

9636:169694:109697:199702:259740:59741:79750:259797:99798:24



9806:79816:149819:229892:99894:29932:25

orders

9610:159698:8,21

organization

9867:29868:1,4

organization

s 9729:24

9730:1,29867:129868:39980:1

original

9790:139861:59913:24

originating

9913:24

Orle 9604:23

9742:9,119839:15

Orleans

9624:39692:12

others

9623:6,14,19,249673:49692:159700:29703:89746:29775:179873:69961:89965:2,18

otherwise

9754:89800:189804:139850:6

ours 9916:20

ourselves

9733:3

outlay

9658:6

outlier

9674:10

outline

9631:2

outlined

9625:3,189630:79703:16

output

9773:129967:11

outreach

9867:17

outside

9701:39704:159724:219818:1

outsource

9867:22

overall

9695:79704:29739:19766:59794:229817:69855:59869:89909:79919:229920:39944:139968:89982:259983:79987:19

overcome

9657:229765:219805:14

overcoming

9659:23

overestimate

d

9665:5,12

overhead

9764:20

overlap

9731:8

overlooked

9625:139742:8

overnight

9665:14

oversight

9984:12

overstate

9823:1,13

overview

9608:99743:11,14

overviews

9666:23

overwhelming

9729:22

owned

9656:189765:15,16

owner

9649:169700:9,13,18 9701:59918:10,14,22

ownership

9642:59764:5

owns 9774:11

P

p.m 9715:9

9736:15,169791:16,179842:5,69935:22,239990:24

pace 9942:10

pack 9759:3

9823:219877:16

package

9877:149878:139880:13,179892:7,149893:13,209924:149925:99929:12,169944:13

packages

9777:139878:5

pad 9688:4

9824:4

page 9606:2

9607:29608:29609:29610:29611:29646:5,79647:29743:69744:39746:69747:6,119752:3,4,10,189755:15,21,22,249756:8,119757:169758:219762:19,249763:39766:10,16,229769:5,229770:139782:19785:1,5,7,8 9786:189788:19793:2,79800:8,229802:79803:219805:199813:59814:119815:24

9846:209847:2,99871:149884:2,3,16 9885:219886:229904:9,149906:14,16,20 9907:69911:249912:1,3,9,189936:6,89937:1,5,14,239938:18,209954:99959:19,219962:59967:259968:2

pages

9603:259667:29793:79886:21

paid 9708:1

9805:12

pair 9685:10

9739:23

paired

9682:20

paleoclimate

9734:2

panel

9606:6,169607:39612:7,139614:119630:49651:179654:219663:8,129665:29691:109715:6,159716:39729:219737:89742:209802:8



9803:11,229821:89827:209838:249839:1,5,10,229842:11,169843:19,239844:2,3,79854:219879:7,129905:79932:3,139934:109935:13,159983:19,239985:69986:2

panel's

9715:19935:13

Panhandle

9831:12

paper 9693:5

9724:69840:23

papers

9747:249832:17

paragraph

9755:239756:219780:29781:3

paraphrase

9660:24

pardon

9953:6

parity

9960:209961:8

partial

9744:23

participants

9793:10,11,149954:23

participate

9754:25

9868:16

participatio

n 9618:13

particular

9626:229645:189656:49667:139682:99695:3,169696:259721:189725:229727:239749:129763:189781:159785:79788:139822:69831:79837:59877:39878:79955:19959:149987:6

particularly

9651:149658:79667:89673:219678:6,159683:149690:219709:119777:159910:11,15

particulars

9849:8

parties

9612:119614:69628:29631:109701:49714:239843:10,229987:13

partly

9741:10

party

9758:1,39868:6

pass 9760:25

Passage

9721:12,14

passed

9615:129942:7

passes

9760:24

passive

9660:11

past 9636:7

9705:249724:59762:59806:169820:39843:29870:169926:79942:2,8,18 9943:69962:209963:199966:249987:17,22

paternalisti

c 9660:1

path 9836:24

9866:189950:4

paths

9848:23

pathway

9850:14,15,21,22,239853:249950:1,6,22 9951:209952:10

pathways

9840:119848:12,229850:14

pattern

9733:19

9734:79810:29837:259838:2

patterns

9724:9

Patti 9604:5

9606:21,239625:229627:6,11,19 9628:99652:79736:239742:17,259743:10,189750:18,199751:10,239752:2,9,199753:7,179754:13,149755:14,199756:7,239757:6,10,22 9758:209759:5,9,17,20,259760:11,209761:7,129762:3,179763:89764:39766:1,9,14,219767:4,8,14,19,249768:4,10,169769:5,12,219770:3,9,129771:14,199772:2,10,179773:2,159774:3,15,20,249775:209776:15,18,259777:10,16,24

9778:4,14,209779:1,9,12,209780:1,17,229781:1,2,179782:13,249783:6,9,209784:4,199785:5,12,149786:3,8,13,17,229787:9,139790:199803:14,259828:24,259829:11,209830:6,16,20,249831:2,209832:2,189840:199841:4,11,23

Paul

9606:7,189608:39610:3,109612:89613:179614:129620:199621:1,8,12,169622:109623:9,189624:4,159630:249632:219633:69634:69635:11,169647:239648:79651:4,199652:15,199653:9,129654:49655:1



9656:39658:159660:139661:9,149662:149692:5,149693:39694:29695:19696:6,209697:159698:11,149700:49701:139702:19704:99705:219706:209707:219708:5,239709:19,239710:4,219737:109751:6,129752:1,17,239753:9,229754:1,209756:6,229757:3,8,14 9758:89759:2,7,16,18,249760:8,15,229761:10,139762:129763:7,139764:189778:39785:11,139786:15,20,249787:12,159788:4,119789:109790:259792:9,12,219793:18,249794:3,6,219795:6,149796:3,7,1

6,20,239797:8,209798:119799:149800:1,5,19 9801:199802:3,5,12,209804:89805:239806:109807:4,11,159808:3,22,259809:4,9,16,219810:1,10,13 9811:249822:49823:3,89824:249825:19,219828:7,199831:79833:239836:69838:4

PAUSE

9620:119630:1,159635:149650:239653:189654:249691:79695:199697:249704:79707:199736:219742:6,159751:219752:79754:119755:179761:59762:19764:19765:259766:129769:109770:1

9774:1,229779:189782:229783:189785:39786:69787:7,249790:179795:19797:189807:259821:4,179833:159835:189841:199854:159857:259859:249860:179864:139870:39871:179874:209875:59879:29881:39882:69884:59888:129889:99894:89895:109897:159898:19899:2,10,169901:9,229902:49904:11,169905:11,239906:189929:199930:6,229933:149934:79935:179939:10,199940:229941:119942:159943:1,119944:179946:49955:6

9963:1,259966:13,209972:259973:129974:169975:249981:39983:39984:19986:8

pay 9644:21

9704:49707:11,13,249708:139710:149719:229728:8,99729:259793:129805:59823:239905:169915:59921:149965:39977:209979:13

payday

9843:3

paying

9656:119657:49658:259701:29702:69707:259709:59764:209812:119918:24

payment

9658:239795:23

PAYS 9868:19

PDP 9737:23

9748:25

peak

9650:8,99719:189789:18

9857:159976:11

peaker

9633:11

peakers

9636:119798:18

peaky

9857:16

pedestal

9711:18

peg 9638:15

penalize

9823:15

pension

9615:20

people

9614:19634:239655:209658:169659:3,249660:2,5,17,189672:79701:17,209708:1,10,14,169719:229721:259723:169728:69732:129735:79747:39748:99778:159794:2,79798:109800:15,179801:259804:189813:11,169823:4,59824:7,209825:29841:79848:59867:9,189870:24



9873:129879:16,219883:89906:89920:6,17,259923:3,139925:179926:99928:69969:189979:29980:69981:22,239985:199988:11

people's

9657:239717:5,69922:189928:10

per 9629:8

9646:199656:22,239665:159667:229668:89674:249675:179676:69719:15,16,19 9745:29767:109779:69781:19,219808:219809:209816:19829:139850:79854:29911:5,129914:99915:209916:259923:59944:159956:179968:109971:2

perceived

9748:21

percent

9608:14,179632:12,14,169646:10,14,18,20,259647:59653:89662:189667:149669:259670:3,4,5,15,169674:229684:8,99688:209699:219709:169739:3,9,15 9750:239752:14,15,219767:219793:149799:209808:209809:5,7,20 9818:59834:169837:10,19,219846:1,6,10,169859:29860:159863:19869:139904:239905:39908:199909:249917:15,189918:11,23,259922:16,209923:29929:10,249931:119944:8,219945:259946:219947:179948:79958:25

9959:1,3,79966:8,249967:5,189971:2,239974:149976:199980:199981:10

percentage

9657:149709:109739:19752:149798:69835:149924:20

percentages

9798:12

perfect

9779:39826:23

perfectly

9764:25

perform

9695:119754:219949:9

performance

9776:69967:9,12

performing

9823:259909:1

perhaps

9632:169646:149660:29675:119682:139697:199701:79709:219712:249714:119749:49762:5,149823:139834:239840:199848:4

9876:179879:89882:3,89889:139891:59935:199988:22

period

9610:199615:89638:119655:149662:249671:19685:15,179701:22,249709:69713:239717:229718:29724:169780:129781:7,139783:249805:39813:259814:79828:39836:169856:49857:209869:199903:59918:129920:139927:129942:229957:29966:99976:209977:7,8,9,11,129990:17

periods

9637:159672:15

permafrost

9726:109746:18

permanent

9706:14

permission

9936:39966:17

permitted

9894:29896:7

permitting

9669:79688:99813:89907:25

perpetuity

9809:7,11

persistence

9722:23,24,259724:14,22

person

9921:7

personally

9721:13

personnel

9866:21

perspective

9611:89684:209727:169732:11,129733:19734:249814:149886:259887:259888:10,259912:3,49915:69918:8,99959:109984:239987:4,129989:9,23,24,25

perspectives

9987:8,13

peruse

9746:2

pessimistic

9665:16,18,19,20



Peter

9604:19

Peters

9604:2

phased

9901:20

phenomena

9958:20

Philippe

9660:23

philosophica

l 9957:9

philosophy

9990:7

phones

9650:15

phoning

9716:17

phrase

9678:1

phy 9691:3

physical

9700:19814:16

physics

9690:229691:39732:2

pick 9793:11

9962:8

picked

9915:229924:17

picking

9844:15

picture

9847:19

piece

9672:179673:19706:259878:10

pieces

9696:229710:7,9

9716:8

Piesold

9628:2

pink 9731:8

pink/orange

9730:19

pipeline

9653:259662:169848:209853:259854:5,79874:259876:149950:139951:7

piping

9642:15

placed

9611:189890:169891:2

placeholder

9903:159904:4

placeholders

9902:19

places

9634:209637:149642:79650:109687:99696:139716:259724:239765:14,159831:109834:7

plains

9831:11

plait

9624:249625:9

plan 9603:10

9608:11,12,13,16,20,22,24

9619:229681:139682:59684:209685:1,89693:259697:189714:249729:259743:259745:119756:259757:2,129758:1,49759:12,159760:4,69763:1,2,59793:239806:259807:3,6,7,9,14,18,219845:3,7,12,16,21,259846:5,10,15,20,239847:2,5,10,149850:17,189852:139853:6,8,11 9854:249855:5,7,9,12,14,16,19,20,22,239856:1,2,6,7,8,13,15,18,209857:4,11,14,189858:4,9,12 9860:249861:169862:179869:169870:159871:3,79873:14,17,189874:2,3,8,129876:12,179884:9

9886:22,259899:19,249900:179901:259902:2,15,18 9906:229907:39908:13,16,239909:109920:99926:189927:17,249928:29931:8,159933:17,20,229937:159938:89943:14,159947:19,259948:6,9,13,15,22,259949:2,3,4,5,8,10,229950:10,20,23 9953:49957:1,159960:239961:139962:219968:89972:16,219973:169974:79975:159980:2

planet

9716:4,229717:189718:10,16,20,239719:3,5,22 9720:49721:59722:11,229723:89726:209730:239731:199735:1

planning

9610:13

9623:239624:219646:199692:3,8,16,219693:2,69694:239695:69696:1,15,18 9697:169698:6,199738:139758:199792:5,8,16 9808:159856:119871:209900:19901:69910:89923:20

plans

9610:14,169646:89665:99681:11,12,15,22,249682:2,7,8,9,159685:89689:19693:119694:15,229695:49698:7,8,20,229699:209738:89744:8,119759:11,229760:39769:179810:159838:139840:109850:169854:239860:119861:2,129866:169871:249873:2,39874:9



9909:99926:29943:229944:89946:29948:20,249949:79983:10

plant 9619:6

9632:109633:119636:209639:179668:109713:249714:39732:17,20,219773:219835:19932:3,17

plants

9616:249633:249636:129637:6,7,16,17,18,229638:2,169675:109684:59798:17,20

plaque

9701:7

plate 9927:8

play 9987:6

PLAYED

9786:1,11

please

9612:5,219622:189625:5,209629:4,259647:229663:49666:129669:29670:199674:69675:219680:129681:9

9682:179683:199685:259691:119698:29724:259737:59742:29791:4,219843:169871:149872:129884:99908:179912:129932:109936:259937:29963:9

pleasure

9626:119736:7

plumbers

9754:25

plumbing

9764:21,23

plus

9682:22,239683:179705:259871:7,89901:12

plus/minus

9947:23

pluses

9929:12

pocket

9708:139805:5

pocketing

9789:24

point

9627:209634:89638:139639:8,249642:129646:79659:139672:20

9686:179694:39704:149708:6,89712:199717:249753:11,209762:139767:259768:19795:199800:119809:19811:209817:10,159821:159833:239840:89848:249852:229856:249857:229860:12,209861:49865:89873:79878:4,7,11,209881:79882:229883:199885:199898:10,139899:129900:219902:199908:149909:189910:99915:49926:189927:249929:229930:11,129931:5,9,239934:3,4,18 9948:189951:13,219952:169953:199955:16,179961:9,109962:11

9963:99968:109973:179985:9

pointed

9763:149788:179961:7,8

pointing

9729:7

points

9674:49819:59949:13

polar

9718:209719:29721:249722:1,2,39724:129746:21,22

pole

9721:10,119723:14

policies

9695:10

policy

9621:199639:219869:89987:6

pollute

9633:5

polluting

9633:5

population

9661:189746:139899:5,8

Port 9721:20

Portage

9603:22

portfolio

9694:21,229695:8,139761:199807:179812:15

9833:5,20,21 9865:59873:17,189927:229968:89982:12,21,25 9983:89985:179987:19

portion

9635:79879:89880:259881:6,21

portions

9646:13

portray

9660:9

portrayed

9950:10

posed

9694:17

posit

9633:13

posited

9661:2

position

9612:49616:15,179617:169664:169715:129736:139740:89747:99760:239762:99796:99842:99844:39852:249877:239880:219898:109965:11

positions

9882:21

positive

9634:8



9728:189734:199746:259759:229760:29866:49948:13

positively

9728:12

possibilitie

s 9648:5

9848:239853:15,199854:9,139874:4

possibility

9749:149892:169895:4

possible

9635:59661:209685:10,139696:99714:259715:49739:239763:219789:59790:109795:229811:209832:59841:219848:139923:25

possibly

9636:13

post-2018/'1

9 9647:25

post-'27/'28

9942:11

potential

9653:249665:79682:219693:179728:14,199751:29757:11

9758:69763:11,169822:199865:19,209960:139974:9

potentially

9705:259712:23,249728:229869:199909:79918:119969:8

pour 9688:4

power 9613:5

9616:209617:4,7,8,10,169618:79619:18,19,21 9622:39626:149627:189628:89630:209662:29664:229665:29669:199679:169689:39690:249726:199732:189733:119751:199756:259789:16,17,18,219806:259807:39812:169814:199815:13,149816:4,6,25 9829:159835:19854:239861:169862:179875:10,23

9878:14,249879:17,18,249880:4,5,8,23 9882:19884:119885:13,239892:2,6,13,249893:2,5,15 9894:179895:239896:249897:119899:18,249900:179906:229913:159919:149931:89934:12,179937:159938:89939:79942:59943:15,199945:249946:209947:69953:39968:18,209969:12,259970:20,229971:1,13,22 9972:99973:99974:3,259975:159980:17,21

powered

9732:17

PowerPoint

9608:3,59613:13,17,21,249664:24

powers

9973:9

Power's

9893:169896:10,14

pra 9942:1

practical

9812:149932:20

practice

9775:1,29827:16

prairies

9717:19726:2

pre 9657:20

pre-ask

9608:89743:4,8,24 9745:179840:10,189841:39844:139848:11

pre-asks

9743:3

prece 9893:6

precedent

9851:7,99878:20,229880:239882:19895:14,17,239896:1,199897:4,89934:16

precedented

9893:6

precent

9670:18

precipitatio

n 9722:24

9725:189726:229727:5,6,99735:3,8,11,12,189749:22,23

precipitous

9720:17

precise

9930:25

precluded

9758:16

pre-

condition

9852:18

predecessor

9621:4

predict

9705:11,129729:149821:22

preexisting

9982:3

preface

9662:5

prefer

9641:11,179697:109805:13

preferable

9631:229632:2,199640:4,15,18

preference

9791:119855:89856:59883:4

preferred

9603:109745:109759:159760:69831:219852:139874:2,89948:9,15,22,259949:2,4

preliminary

9749:6

premise

9896:119913:209914:129916:5

premised



9893:39914:15

premiums

9702:219826:19

prep 9669:13

9688:179757:25

preparations

9932:6

prepare

9644:139736:29758:19864:2,3,4

prepared

9661:119746:19776:189803:209855:1,59863:18,249864:59895:189896:15

preparing

9723:119758:49903:14

present

9670:10,139715:239716:199800:259802:29840:7,179860:109946:1,139948:29987:14

presentation

9606:149608:4,69613:8,15,18,21,259630:219663:259664:9,249685:189692:19

9714:249715:18,229716:239719:19723:129725:249736:39737:209739:21,229745:219750:219752:219763:149774:259779:19788:189794:249797:59800:239808:189813:59840:9,149848:159857:19898:169989:10

presentation

s 9613:13

9620:179695:259728:49737:159839:18

presented

9664:229749:99790:139855:69905:159938:219939:239940:49942:1,79960:259975:14

presenter

9839:23,259840:2

presenters

9839:16,179935:129960:25

presently

9616:25

preservation

9733:8

president

9617:19625:1,119741:25

press

9617:19

pressure

9724:99957:23

presumably

9798:89861:139915:29936:179957:10

presuming

9979:25

pretty

9658:10,129679:199687:179688:229706:129708:149721:239787:169826:159827:189837:69944:69961:29969:69985:7

prevent

9764:10

preventing

9765:6

previous

9621:249639:209744:29819:99903:259904:19926:25

previously

9607:4,5,6,7,8,99623:49642:139692:79796:159842:17,18,19,209855:169873:109891:209898:239906:69937:159943:179965:259981:18

pre-work

9933:1,3

price 9618:3

9626:249636:229641:139656:20,219658:219676:29687:22,239704:49705:13,259706:19782:11,14,159783:21,259784:39795:18,249805:69806:99865:16,179898:18

priced

9637:49914:7

prices

9626:229634:239635:18,20,259637:159638:39655:10,15,24 9656:6

9657:3,9,109658:2,139665:179676:11,249682:219683:69686:79780:119782:59795:49796:10,129798:1,139802:18,259893:189990:12

pricing

9635:89638:29799:59903:129976:11

primarily

9626:169691:229798:169816:99844:89906:79951:69957:23

primary

9673:249764:9

prime

9676:22

primer

9693:5

print

9635:16

prior

9626:109742:189858:39982:9

priorities

9964:13

private

9730:3



pro 9626:19

9869:16

prob 9704:9

probability

9734:14,159833:25

probably

9612:259650:59652:139657:159670:209686:239704:1,3,10 9709:49786:99828:2,169838:259881:79891:79894:69923:69926:99928:39932:259936:79945:159961:169967:259974:209978:99987:189988:129989:4

problem

9645:17,229656:49657:259679:79706:249725:11,199913:11

problems

9693:189697:79728:15

procedural

9832:12

Procedurally

9844:2

proceed

9750:159850:259855:219882:99934:13

proceeding

9763:109843:39849:39852:129883:199896:219897:18

proceedings

9612:59630:89714:209715:139736:10,249791:209839:59842:109843:29990:15

process

9614:259621:219702:79738:149756:149834:209849:139850:18,199855:159865:79894:29920:179947:24

processes

9865:109914:2

procure

9805:2

produce

9768:89915:169917:10

produced

9848:2

9984:16

producers

9815:14

producing

9639:119703:29823:249913:15

product

9773:8,109844:249917:3,119968:20,21

productive

9768:21,229916:12,13

productivity

9728:20

products

9913:259973:22

professional

9701:17

professional

s 9700:15

professor

9715:14,199735:25

profit

9778:15

program

9644:1,129646:9,129647:4,59650:209651:59657:209659:5,149661:39700:5,69751:1,3,79753:69754:239755:29758:179794:119797:19800:109807:16

9822:159824:99825:189826:19827:12,13,169833:209834:149836:149838:149865:5,89867:24,259868:11,209900:109905:8,14,15,219906:21,239907:39908:259909:39910:209911:149912:109913:219916:69921:219922:109927:49929:109941:15,229942:4,59944:1,159956:24,259957:19,249959:249961:24,259963:59968:189969:1,29972:109974:4,259976:139977:79981:199982:1,12,249988:2,109989:3

program-by-

program

9900:25

Programmable

9981:19

programming

9623:12,139624:20

programs

9644:159646:259650:179651:19652:11,179655:219658:79661:259662:19684:29699:259704:119751:9,139753:12,14,159754:209757:12,179758:79760:109761:169764:249792:179793:49796:29807:179822:79823:99824:29825:39826:29827:6,119834:79835:249836:3,179865:49867:8,10,13,239868:6,169900:119902:16,179909:99910:199919:149927:21,23,259928:5,12,14,15,179929:10



9956:22,239959:159961:239968:179971:129974:39976:7,209983:149984:8,119985:19987:199988:16,25

progress

9610:249864:10,19,25

progressivel

y 9959:9

progressives

9945:18

proj 9815:3

project

9626:199627:149636:99655:39665:189669:119670:219671:139684:9,119702:119708:109739:19776:19807:219814:259815:49822:109828:129829:129894:69896:129968:20

projected

9640:219752:10,209754:199802:9,189803:79810:2

9938:13,20

projecting

9701:219733:259826:229862:259989:21

projection

9662:79837:89939:19974:219975:1

projections

9618:29631:249675:129731:99809:5,79870:19903:139905:209908:16

projects

9617:109618:189620:89626:15,16,18,219627:4,8,24 9628:199647:159667:17,209672:249678:109684:16,189775:17,199809:239849:49859:19942:209954:239965:7

proliferatio

n 9747:13

Promise

9835:20

promote

9778:21

proof 9626:2

9807:239808:4,8,11

propagate

9723:25

proper

9614:59951:25

proponent

9978:21

proportion

9784:12

proposal

9701:4

propose

9847:199979:18

proposed

9619:59647:8,109685:229805:219907:19912:109986:2

proposing

9927:5

proposition

9803:5

prospect

9835:1

protect

9806:159850:119952:79953:11

protecting

9852:9

proven

9914:10

provide

9610:6,10,14,20,239611:13,199641:259644:189652:1,11,16,24

9677:249679:219692:259696:169698:3,4,7,14,199699:139749:49762:89769:149775:209802:249806:79832:79848:149857:109861:209862:39863:6,7,119864:15,16,18 9866:19868:179877:179880:159889:3,69890:69891:79898:149900:14,179901:5,69905:69911:109934:249935:49940:259986:109988:11

provided

9665:259694:189696:149740:199744:19752:49755:209756:169779:49799:189806:99813:79832:149854:3,11

9856:99857:139860:229861:11,18,229862:13,149885:79887:219897:139898:59908:6,109909:209917:1

provides

9667:49703:139737:249760:149767:159770:219800:89878:17

providing

9696:89745:179751:149916:14

province

9643:39645:259711:3,99713:89728:19732:259744:149752:259758:149764:179855:259903:7

provinces

9646:179711:4

provincial

9744:7,25

proviso

9772:16

proxy

9989:13,15

PUB 9764:8



9770:49796:149801:239803:20,219902:249925:23

PUB/Manitoba

9770:5

public

9603:3,219620:29622:69647:99715:239723:129730:39843:2,49875:10,249878:19879:149880:219881:159882:2,259883:69884:119885:139895:209919:13,209922:15,16

publicly

9883:8

published

9724:6

pudding

9807:239808:4

pull 9627:4

9949:169955:119962:6

pulled

9723:10

pulse

9964:11

pump 9634:12

9639:4,5,13 9794:89804:249967:16,17

pumps

9634:189639:119640:4,6,11 9967:4

purchase

9655:189775:109815:149834:229896:249914:179960:14

purchased

9656:219914:22

purchases

9657:19693:13

purchasing

9697:59773:79811:5,69967:23

purely

9689:89789:49877:49896:20

purple

9852:21

purpose

9732:69758:139899:239932:20

purposes

9639:29711:49815:109818:8,119856:119861:179939:13

pursuant

9757:23

pursue

9760:249869:5

9922:89969:1,2,4,139986:18

pursuing

9646:249648:99758:189916:199926:199927:109986:239990:4,8

push 9636:10

9703:179705:39714:259798:239886:5

push-back

9659:9

pushed

9836:25

pushing

9636:169659:89704:24

puts 9980:21

putting

9644:239646:19649:89669:7,119673:109702:17,209732:159764:99785:169897:229905:19

PV 9961:24

Q

Qual

9606:7,8,18,199614:12,139737:10,11

qualificatio

n 9606:9

9614:159628:13

qualificatio

ns 9614:18

9622:169625:2,179626:99628:10

qualified

9612:199620:5,239621:9,22,259622:2,4,25 9623:219624:189625:179626:29627:239628:179692:2,8,21 9711:229792:4

qualify

9620:239771:89812:19981:17

quality

9976:24

quantify

9922:23

quantitative

9617:22,24

quantities

9672:69784:9

quantity

9789:229917:24

quarter

9990:21

que 9819:9

Quebec

9748:19

question

9631:22

9634:199638:239690:5,169691:3,49693:49694:189696:129708:189711:229713:5,12,18 9714:29743:59775:149784:15,249787:219788:69792:229798:129800:209801:219806:119808:29816:219819:109820:2,14,15,229821:7,10,11 9835:219853:239860:99862:49863:29865:249868:13,159876:229877:3,11,19 9894:129895:139908:79912:259913:209930:15,169932:89946:79950:209954:149960:229976:24,259979:249983:13,16,189984:22,249985:3,9



9990:5

questioning

9699:1,159829:89838:249882:9

questions

9612:159625:239626:8,139629:69660:229663:3,13,22 9682:189685:219691:10,219699:89710:259737:199738:239741:19,22,259742:10,129778:129810:229820:199821:29828:219842:129844:1,7,10 9879:129880:29882:169883:149895:179934:109935:119967:209980:169983:23,259984:4

quick

9800:209818:239870:229949:18

quicker

9870:23

quickly

9715:49716:249759:6

9784:239932:29950:16

quiet 9826:8

quite

9628:169648:19672:149707:19717:139718:39720:159725:39728:79734:59752:209757:59796:109820:49824:29833:229838:69857:39871:19912:59928:169971:249982:4

quote 9642:2

9755:24

quoting

9747:23

R

R30 9925:8

R50 9925:8

raise

9635:189638:29769:69775:6

raised

9634:209682:199699:159769:169779:39903:249931:24

raising

9761:2

Ramage

9604:59606:21,239625:21,229627:6,11,199628:6,99629:19652:79736:239742:2,4,17,259743:10,189750:18,199751:10,239752:2,9,199753:7,179754:13,149755:14,199756:7,239757:6,10,22 9758:209759:5,9,17,20,259760:11,209761:7,129762:3,179763:89764:39766:1,9,14,219767:4,8,14,19,249768:4,10,169769:5,12,219770:3,9,129771:14,199772:2,10,179773:2,159774:3,15,20,249775:209776:15,18,259777:10,16,249778:4,14,

209779:1,9,12,209780:1,17,20,229781:1,2,179782:13,249783:6,9,209784:4,199785:5,12,149786:3,8,13,17,229787:9,139790:199791:39794:19803:14,259810:259828:24,259829:11,209830:6,16,20,249831:2,209832:2,12,18 9840:199841:4,8,11,239842:249854:18

ramp 9750:23

9809:189926:13

ramping

9646:239647:259648:59910:16,17

ran 9648:19

range

9619:169626:189682:159685:89693:179703:219746:139856:139859:39914:7,20,

22 9929:259946:219980:19

ranging

9666:25

rapid 9718:5

rapidly

9857:3

rate

9624:7,10,11,219627:39638:24,259640:29686:8,10,13,14,209719:11,179733:49751:179753:19760:17,209761:8,179805:199838:189901:17,189903:219918:11,239919:169925:249926:249927:1,49929:19961:9,109975:139976:6,109977:15,229978:2,89982:109985:209986:22,23,24

ratepayers

9925:2

rates

9608:15,189638:189639:8,179640:109644:259645:109708:12



9751:39761:29776:79805:20,22,249806:4,14,219846:1,6,11,169901:13,14,159902:16,259903:1,49904:19,229905:29908:6,109926:219928:229942:69971:99976:4,9,13 9977:149985:24

rather

9613:119646:239651:89663:69668:239681:199683:179685:169687:229688:219689:20,249758:129762:149765:79771:49781:29814:159891:59981:12

rational

9654:20

rationale

9643:18

rationality

9655:2

re 9603:7

9932:7

9951:12

reach 9926:6

reached

9800:16

reaching

9903:13

react

9657:14

reading

9690:79747:209749:29781:39827:179843:79858:259884:149886:24

ready

9750:159791:209840:7

real 9654:2

9708:29731:209732:229755:49775:219823:109838:16,19

reality

9725:199735:219756:49788:229848:219850:59985:18

realize

9742:99808:19835:119841:249903:199922:13,149925:169979:15

realized

9754:19

really

9631:149634:259643:149657:139672:79677:5,14,24 9683:39690:89721:49725:209734:159739:69741:99755:89777:79782:79805:109807:69812:7,99814:149820:149821:9,11,22 9822:79823:22,239824:179826:39837:149838:59865:159866:219868:159873:189882:249916:179922:69923:9,139925:19926:89948:69952:169954:79975:69981:179986:229988:119989:2,3

reap 9920:21

rearranging

9649:10

re-ask

9908:7

reason

9687:11,229717:49778:189789:139834:1,69869:259871:59894:249905:19985:14

reasonable

9646:229669:5,9,24 9672:29676:49680:1,169681:219686:129764:259765:129777:79816:199817:13,179819:23,259831:15,19,25 9929:29957:7

reasonably

9818:99874:149908:9

reasons

9642:239683:139687:149892:179895:19984:18

rebate

9656:239703:149825:109826:11

rebuttal

9666:189671:169752:49766:17,19

recalculate

9782:25

recall

9613:69785:109793:259801:259807:69810:249829:39830:109903:89931:119951:129968:2,59973:69977:69980:169981:99982:9,17

recalled

9612:13

recalling

9692:13

receive

9638:39738:139820:189851:11

received

9727:99919:25

receiving

9735:6

recent

9610:249622:159772:11,199820:39843:239864:6,10,19

recently

9626:199729:49867:169927:13

recess

9699:59714:11

recessing

9664:12



9715:89736:159791:169842:59935:22

recipe

9808:7,14

recognition

9771:9

recognize

9849:189879:199938:209959:169960:20

recognizing

9777:19848:12,21,22 9854:69904:19981:6

recommend

9792:79820:16

recommendati

on 9775:16

9810:7

recommendati

ons

9764:139804:69817:7

recommended

9818:79969:17

recommending

9809:189816:29818:5

reconcile

9936:99949:209951:2

reconciling

9748:199749:1

record

9614:23

9644:1,169652:149720:3,69725:89733:149762:109803:159804:29844:199864:6,119878:29880:229881:249898:15

records

9734:2

recreate

9860:21

Re-cross-

examinatio

n 9606:23

9828:24

recruiting

9754:23

red 9718:15

9720:209721:189730:149938:259943:4

redo 9783:2

reduce

9636:129700:219789:189790:79794:89799:219909:239918:169919:209976:19

reduced

9722:8

reduces

9632:5,69633:29639:69641:1

reducing

9640:79645:109696:109758:149794:13

reduction

9724:89729:59761:29906:29919:21

reductions

9753:1

re-earned

9971:7

reenforce

9731:13

reexamined

9640:11

refer 9631:8

9666:109776:99967:89976:9

reference

9622:189664:239672:209745:249747:59775:159777:129788:79789:89803:179813:149854:199965:69975:11

referenced

9750:229752:219753:109813:6

references

9745:259793:16

referencing

9776:11

referred

9671:19843:79868:49883:249903:159949:29976:9,129984:18

referring

9654:59739:59760:219829:109832:69843:1,139859:129900:249982:24

refers

9672:239776:11,12

refined

9907:1

reflect

9849:239898:18,199925:1

reflected

9721:19822:79903:229956:23

reflection

9668:199975:16

reflectors

9649:9

reflects

9894:20

refrigerator

9650:29702:18,22,239824:10,169825:89826:7,12,16 9867:23

9941:15,229958:24

refrigerator

s

9825:1,3,12,159826:5

refund

9805:3

regard

9639:229739:59792:259980:17

regarding

9618:129622:39696:149748:209763:119775:14

regardless

9641:14

regards

9775:149908:139986:11

region

9773:189878:189893:199931:5

regions

9718:209831:3

Regis

9603:13

regret

9680:9

regretfully

9680:10

regroup

9841:10

regul

9892:16

regular

9736:10



9833:1

regulate

9734:22

regulations

9938:9

regulator

9837:129892:13,259893:19896:11,21

regulators

9823:229836:109981:1,15

regulatory

9627:19697:199734:219878:159892:179894:2,259895:69987:239988:6

rehab

9648:23

reinforced

9721:10

reinvestment

9941:24

relate

9627:159811:20

related

9628:129706:159717:99743:249745:169821:99860:29883:149898:189904:19917:259948:49951:69962:229963:20

9971:109984:5

relates

9683:239690:169694:79883:15

relating

9610:159643:259698:8,229748:4

relation

9660:229685:219713:13,14

relationship

9617:6,99720:219723:79726:209733:129967:10

relative

9655:249718:209799:49832:249873:79948:20

relatively

9810:49907:20

relaxing

9760:16

release

9617:19

released

9633:99821:7

relevant

9678:15

reliability

9689:6

reliable

9667:89728:169988:24

reliance

9719:129932:13

relied

9613:149666:99908:209946:15

relies

9728:8

reluctance

9805:15

reluctant

9642:149838:12

rely 9944:20

9945:25

relying

9611:209934:199935:6

remain

9768:17

remaining

9670:59826:3,229975:18

remains

9963:15

remarkable

9913:2

remedy

9614:4

remember

9686:99748:219834:129852:169909:19,219941:59973:2

remind

9612:119714:239719:29908:17

Renegotiate

9852:21

renewable

9618:199619:99666:219670:249756:179775:3,49812:1,15

renewables

9635:29636:5,10,23,259798:16,259812:4,10

renovated

9648:229649:23

renovation

9648:24

renters

9645:24

repaired

9707:2

repairs

9776:7

repayment

9708:2

repeat

9697:229746:79751:119875:189949:1

repeated

9710:2

repeating

9681:17

replace

9641:8,179648:29650:39712:229713:24,259714:39801:109824:9,11

replaced

9637:79712:16

replacement

9714:99801:12,17

replaces

9704:22

replacing

9639:59644:229702:13,169738:209826:5

replicate

9819:21

report

9610:249618:149623:69628:239640:219667:129668:12,13,15,189669:19674:189676:59679:129716:69729:229730:69756:249769:69805:189817:249818:20,219823:179829:7,129830:29835:21,249863:189864:2,4,6,10,209905:99968:209984:159985:5

reported

9767:119809:29824:4



9828:10,119971:3

reporter

9697:229848:99936:2

reporting

9827:22

reports

9629:159666:19,239672:229827:5

represent

9633:209691:199737:179757:179925:169954:22

representati

on 9722:16

9917:7

representati

ves

9836:12

represented

9613:4,59725:59726:17

represents

9721:249781:6

request

9683:129744:189745:29770:4,109832:39842:239843:159844:39888:6

requested

9627:229847:24

require

9649:89706:22

9764:159886:89891:79928:21

required

9611:69740:239853:29875:259880:59885:119886:69887:1,2,249888:8,219914:17

requirement

9863:21

requirements

9633:149735:229834:39852:1,49853:19880:99894:219896:149898:259906:3

requires

9659:239894:18

res 9843:5

research

9672:239693:59702:59717:12,159724:39738:259740:59741:69776:129843:5

reserve

9685:149688:2

reserved

9612:8

reserves

9915:15

reservoir

9820:10

reservoirs

9683:5

residential

9795:5,79805:209870:199899:79920:59924:19933:129942:39961:249981:20

resistance

9797:13,24

resistence

9794:89804:23

resolve

9697:6

resource

9610:139613:39621:49623:239624:219630:209681:209689:99692:3,8,16,209693:2,59694:239695:3,59696:1,15,18 9697:169698:6,189792:5,8,13,15,209793:239831:99856:109865:179871:3,6,20,249876:159901:69910:8

9911:139912:6,8,16,179914:5,149915:89916:209917:22,239933:59953:49984:209989:119990:1,2,3

resources

9647:7,12,139653:16,239661:179662:239663:19681:259693:249694:10,199695:8,9,11 9696:79697:59737:19,239763:159771:2,8,15,179773:69789:129805:29865:219866:13,16,17,20,21,24,259874:129879:229885:239950:2

resp 9988:9

respect

9619:89620:69621:59622:2,49623:1,5,12,13,229624:7,10,18,19,20,21 9625:259628:7,17

9665:49683:239699:239703:199706:169710:259711:179732:99764:169777:19820:229824:189840:109841:29853:239867:99961:1

respond

9632:19643:19651:7,219697:109924:4

response

9608:89665:239666:19677:229680:259681:19682:19683:139730:169738:239743:1,2,8,23 9770:49779:219781:11,129784:29799:189891:159898:20

responses

9669:239691:25

responsibili

ty 9690:15

responsible

9988:10

rest 9695:4

9718:21



9719:3

restart

9849:13

restated

9628:11

restating

9698:2

restructured

9697:4

result

9633:239638:99661:239760:29768:199771:39798:16,199859:209893:199897:249899:7

results

9634:49638:169679:149724:59841:29926:259928:169929:89947:8,10,15 9981:149983:11

resume

9629:79714:199736:109842:9

Resumed

9606:17,18,19 9607:39737:9,10,11 9842:16

resuming

9664:139715:99736:169791:179842:6

9935:23

re-swear

9844:6

retail

9631:209647:6,79654:7

retained

9613:3

retire

9637:23

retirement

9638:1,14,15 9798:179801:179941:15,22

RETIRES

9715:6

retiring

9693:13

retrieve

9651:8

retrofit

9648:25

retrofits

9799:25

retrofit's

9800:2

return

9718:259725:249914:219916:5

reveal

9881:13

revealed

9882:24

revenue

9979:14

revenues

9656:79763:179805:29964:10

reverse

9634:22

review

9603:99618:119621:249738:69758:259766:189779:229782:99802:109807:29817:4,219832:169849:249851:179865:7,239909:89952:259953:39983:7

reviewed

9619:4,109740:219770:69775:89782:129809:149817:229851:229908:25

reviewing

9843:24

reviews

9852:6

revised

9628:199770:59898:129946:14

revision

9829:99846:199847:1,8

reward

9823:15

Richard

9603:169653:5,109732:89753:20,249754:9

9787:199788:1,69789:79790:159821:6,199835:209837:179838:219860:4,7,259929:14,219930:11,169931:1,16

rid 9824:16

ridges

9831:9

right-hand

9755:239937:24

rigorous

9824:2

rigours

9826:2

RIM

9760:24,259761:22,239762:4,169793:1,3

ripping

9649:8

rise 9634:23

9636:1,99648:169702:29703:159704:129705:79796:109798:12

risen 9798:1

rises

9837:19

rising

9726:10

risk

9655:22,259684:6,219685:13

9688:229693:199696:109796:129803:59805:169821:109822:6,219832:209833:139894:69897:79931:24

risks

9870:159910:119932:12

risky

9821:22,259822:18

river

9851:189897:19,239953:13

rivetting

9792:2

road 9662:1

9849:69865:109870:19

roads

9669:139746:19

roadway

9870:199956:249957:1,18,21

robust

9643:119827:18

robustly

9823:6

rock

9897:18,23

ROE 9744:6

roll 9780:21

9980:2



rolling

9818:11

rooftop

9961:24

room 9612:11

9649:29652:99654:69824:39848:39978:10

Rossby

9722:17,189724:21

roughly

9702:29829:229849:129942:129945:69966:8

round

9665:239718:119770:5

route

9721:12,14

RPS 9771:8

rubber

9721:16

ruled

9969:259970:2

rumour

9716:16

run 9635:22

9645:219777:129798:209799:79823:99838:18

running

9815:20

runoff

9727:89735:11,13,18

9749:14,23

runs 9735:17

9939:239940:6

Russian

9723:20,21

S

safe 9839:7

sake 9772:7

9916:24

sale 9647:10

9805:69834:119851:19852:1,3,17,219853:29877:13,14,169880:6,9,10,189886:189953:11,13

sales

9647:109657:19693:149752:149789:139795:219828:10,129849:1,209851:39952:199953:9

salespeople

9974:24

salvage

9714:5

sample

9651:159667:16

SaskPower

9851:199953:15

sat 9988:8

satisfactory

9629:1,29698:99863:5

satisfy

9792:199841:7

Saturday

9839:219990:19

Saunders

9605:39606:209625:5,6,99736:259737:5,13,149738:5,229739:7,11,179740:3,9,13,179741:4,17,21 9742:18

save 9636:2

9755:129793:119913:8,189915:149918:19,20,25 9919:79922:20,249923:29924:10,15,20,219925:109958:49988:17

saved

9646:199662:229911:69957:249973:169989:21

saver

9924:149925:9

Savers

9867:25

saves

9700:199709:2

saving

9699:209923:5

savings

9646:9,169649:249650:11,219705:239709:169710:59750:22,259751:1,3,79752:10,12,14,209753:3,4,189754:15,189755:49757:249801:159808:21,249809:1,2,8,19,20,24,259810:4,99823:2,209824:14,189827:12,139828:119833:3,8,11 9834:99836:159837:109854:199855:29857:29858:109859:2,199860:29863:1,199900:19902:189903:199904:5,239905:2,209906:19907:79908:19909:29911:79923:7,25

9924:259925:179936:119938:7,12,14,209940:199941:239942:1,7,11,209944:39947:79954:22,259955:39956:16,199957:149958:69962:10,219963:9,209971:2,7,12,239972:14,219973:99974:13,219975:69977:4,109980:179981:109982:2

saw 9639:3

9690:89786:219792:29937:149948:3

scale 9716:5

9768:249872:15

scaled

9834:8

scenario

9874:19875:12,259877:69885:119930:189942:119943:159945:249946:159948:99949:239952:18



scenarios

9674:139874:259875:1

schedule

9665:15,169669:4,59673:169684:79689:259736:49739:10,12,149834:18

scheduling

9689:25

scheme

9658:20

science

9749:219945:39959:5,13

scientific

9723:39745:18,259747:24

scientifical

ly 9720:20

9722:59728:13

scientist

9731:14

scientists

9725:3

Scotia

9618:89623:169624:119627:1,149815:179970:2,5,10

Scotia's

9618:12

scrap

9983:15,18

scratch

9983:15

scratching

9659:10

screen

9630:229635:179803:179854:219857:239937:4

screened

9681:119872:17

screening

9678:7

screens

9657:21

scroll

9907:59912:219936:89937:1,2,23 9954:99959:219962:49968:1

se 9629:8

9944:15

sea

9716:13,14,15,239717:89720:10,13,18 9721:19722:79730:99731:16

seaboard

9724:20

search

9693:11

searching

9787:17

seasons

9728:20

sec 9950:15

second

9629:259632:24

9664:219669:149672:219702:89703:209718:39725:149742:259743:1,10,239767:8,109768:259800:79803:159845:149876:99942:249951:119955:29961:99963:8

secondly

9665:79889:2

section

9611:209756:99780:6,16,19 9807:59854:209863:189934:189935:5

sector

9859:16

seeing

9718:49723:69728:199729:239730:149731:17,189785:199807:199861:19904:199947:259956:15

seek 9955:20

seeking

9935:12

9970:24

seem 9644:2

9683:209742:39818:179825:159987:24

seemed

9669:199683:159798:4

seeming

9671:19

seems

9643:239672:39679:109723:49803:49805:69816:17,199833:129835:249915:11,259918:139922:189985:21

seen 9626:10

9661:21,229679:209733:209762:69775:139802:139808:69815:119825:219828:99831:149836:249837:17,189838:209839:239892:149929:39978:229987:20

sees 9643:7

9869:6

segments

9960:6

selected

9853:25

selection

9638:59824:6,22

selectively

9826:4

self 9737:24

9823:16

sell 9641:13

9754:69789:15,17,21 9795:99805:179834:239965:29974:259988:209989:3

selling

9778:169812:199975:5

sells 9921:6

send 9826:12

seniors

9921:16

sense

9639:249640:79659:49718:49731:159739:199763:169783:99788:159867:19868:79877:129915:59922:129923:99932:259943:14,219987:3

sensitivity

9899:23



9948:3

sensors

9649:3

sent

9614:2,69739:15

separate

9836:29961:10,23

separated

9897:1

separately

9666:169765:15

September

9624:1,3

sequencing

9681:23

series

9747:229844:23

serious

9689:159732:19,219738:189740:249820:189927:4

seriously

9685:19741:5,16

serve

9636:249637:19682:209685:11,129739:249754:7

served

9754:89896:13

service

9611:189647:99671:249672:6,13,19 9684:119764:23

9771:21,229797:229849:179851:139875:10,13,24 9876:89884:129885:149888:229890:169891:29897:219932:3,17

services

9696:99770:229868:18

sets 9874:23

setting

9815:9

set-top

9650:15

seven

9721:13,149766:15,239767:49768:19793:129835:39907:129921:149943:189948:149988:18

seventeen

9671:23,259672:14

seventy

9969:9,13

seventy-

eight

9710:199861:13

seventy-

seven

9622:14

seventy-

three

9793:13

several

9646:169661:239665:6,139692:159718:59808:199813:69817:119835:149961:89964:14

severed

9826:13

shaded

9730:18,209731:4

shale 9870:7

share

9655:22,259795:199883:7,99891:25

shared

9843:4

shareholders

9837:29882:19

shares

9883:4

sheathing

9704:18

Shefman

9605:4

she's 9724:6

9736:239750:89921:18,19

Shield

9687:7

shift

9650:179655:229695:169725:6,79764:15

shifting

9651:2

9808:16

shipping

9689:3

shoot 9810:8

shop 9927:2

shopping

9657:22

short

9641:219785:179809:249812:229835:149841:29844:259882:169903:59932:22

shortages

9654:15

shorten

9621:219627:7

shorter

9672:159712:179933:7

shortly

9934:25

short-term

9807:7,99959:259988:259989:9,24

showed

9734:259848:129860:20

showing

9847:109930:209936:20

shown

9677:189752:189759:11

shows

9723:13

9724:79729:129767:99857:2

shut 9637:6

9915:10

sic 9618:11

9804:209965:13

siding

9704:16

sign 9678:2

9834:21

signal

9645:39718:18

signed

9849:29851:1,2,4

significance

9745:13

significant

9640:229678:29714:89721:39813:15,179833:13,259859:229860:19920:109927:209928:49961:69985:20

significantl

y

9665:5,129668:169677:19718:39809:23

signing

9907:11

signs 9729:7

s'il 9624:24

9625:9

sim 9986:14



similar

9802:139815:129845:39859:89900:129903:17,189908:229909:139916:209927:219986:14

similarly

9744:49759:219981:8

Simonsen

9614:7,89785:20

simple

9648:259756:139868:16,179932:24

simpler

9668:69675:159733:249862:1

simplest

9720:4

simplificati

on 9850:5

simplified

9944:5

simplistic

9943:24

simplistical

ly 9948:12

simply

9626:19633:219668:69671:59675:15,179776:49785:99840:219843:8

9857:5

single

9677:59718:119781:139861:149874:12,13

sir 9615:1,6

9616:7,219617:119618:209619:3,99620:259621:7,15,219622:3,99623:89624:149664:109699:239700:39701:259703:199705:209706:8,179707:89708:189709:129711:2,169712:29713:4,69799:239802:79819:19820:29821:29936:109937:18,199945:149946:139948:189949:6,229950:6,139951:15,239952:149954:89961:199962:129963:49964:5,17,24 9972:179973:1,69978:13

9982:19

sister

9921:17

sit 9655:3

9688:99735:39839:229916:239990:18

site 9669:13

9670:39688:6,169767:16,19,24 9785:9

sited

9961:179962:9,22

sites 9688:1

9766:15,239767:59768:6,8,11,21,23

sits 9726:1

sitting

9688:219719:23,249734:24

situation

9614:59640:199657:89679:15,169718:49725:10,169727:49820:119837:169851:239889:20

situations

9631:239641:99706:21,239836:7

six 9685:16

9827:249918:199921:149988:21

sixteen

9672:13

sixty-eight

9713:23

sixty-five

9680:239710:19

sixty-one

9943:179945:4,5,8,14

size 9700:21

9712:239746:139755:29768:59825:10

sized

9767:15

sizes 9675:1

9806:59903:11

skill

9754:22

skipped

9911:25

sleeping

9980:9

slice 9754:3

9957:169958:7,11,21

slide 9634:4

9635:9,10,17 9636:49637:39638:79639:4,18,20,219642:10,17,229643:159644:99646:219647:2,229653:14,219665:1,119666:129669:2

9670:199674:69675:219680:129681:9,109682:179683:199684:249715:259716:109717:2,179718:9,12,139719:6,219720:109721:2,229722:139723:99724:3,259725:259726:149727:3,139728:2,259729:11,199731:129739:229750:21,229752:219758:239759:19774:249779:2,8,10,139794:239797:49798:149800:239808:17,199813:109814:119818:19,259821:159832:219857:19874:189929:3,179938:179942:24

slides

9645:169815:25

slight



9821:13

slightly

9620:14,169647:69653:69724:19,209818:49885:39900:3,89918:89947:219983:10

slip

9953:10,11

slope 9661:5

9943:8

slower

9755:1

slowly

9722:21

small

9616:239635:179654:1,159669:69688:209690:199701:79727:59730:24,259769:49812:39882:109918:10,14,229932:3,179949:139960:21

smaller

9675:29682:149806:199824:149932:219958:7,11,21 9969:19

small-scale

9933:11

smart 9662:2

9756:25

9806:259807:39854:239861:169862:179899:18,249900:179906:229919:149931:89933:22,259934:1,2,59938:89939:79943:15,199945:249946:209947:69968:189973:4,9,10,219974:1,4,7,119975:159981:9

smoking

9748:2

snow 9716:11

snowy

9687:179755:8

social

9915:3,6

societies

9727:19732:14

society

9726:249729:189731:229732:49735:22

socioeconomi

c 9737:18

sodium

9957:23

soil 9726:12

9728:16,229735:14,15

9749:24

soils

9728:23

solar

9616:20,239619:189636:69666:259685:59709:99737:259798:6,159872:149933:119960:13,17,219961:1,4,5,13,159966:4

sold 9981:18

Soldier

9603:15

solely

9762:6

solid 9687:3

solutions

9693:17

somebody

9657:9,179662:159702:69705:69787:169797:6,149813:19826:249834:229865:19

somehow

9655:259677:119828:12

someone

9626:19848:10

someplace

9613:10

somewhat

9621:219672:159674:39806:219829:179942:129943:69949:99971:6

somewhere

9710:189719:15,199948:159967:5

sor 9627:13

sorry

9612:229625:139627:139664:1,29665:249714:9,109742:89751:109779:9,129787:159790:199792:99798:229799:69801:209806:259816:169858:1,14,16 9875:179884:219885:29899:59905:149906:159930:149939:149947:99950:59972:189979:149982:1

sort 9637:4

9649:209657:219658:209661:17

9662:19684:189693:49710:69730:199744:15,179792:249812:8,12,21 9822:209826:189836:109849:229853:119929:259989:2

sorts

9868:239920:69921:18

sound 9661:2

9693:259698:99763:9

sounds

9777:79805:25

source

9639:4,5,13 9640:119641:119642:129665:229666:2,99667:99676:149804:249811:11,12,179913:249966:29967:13,149979:21

sources

9629:11,16,18,20,219666:179667:89674:159914:79951:49960:129961:5



9964:209965:14

south

9619:129633:259790:99799:24

southeast

9830:20

southern

9687:69724:249727:49728:5

space 9631:6

9639:259649:6,11,14 9727:20

spea 9777:8

speak

9612:179713:79737:29777:89839:159844:13,189892:19930:99936:2

speaking

9692:229706:29712:119882:189979:19986:17

special

9702:259777:12,14

specialist

9716:14

species

9746:15,16,239747:15

specific

9658:249697:189704:10

9751:159767:1,39771:259772:239777:99802:139811:6,219817:159829:89869:259871:59900:49903:11,209945:29977:9

specifically

9651:29666:15,189668:249793:179805:199816:59818:109827:3,149831:239867:99878:129887:59903:249941:1,219969:189984:6

specifics

9879:159976:39977:19

specified

9737:23

specify

9813:1

spectrum

9959:14

speculating

9705:16

speed 9669:8

9766:239767:9

spell

9735:14

spend

9700:189707:4,99709:1,179710:1,129755:119794:69805:15

spending

9669:259707:69710:59794:19813:15,179913:59915:16

spent

9680:199739:159813:159872:99941:79985:14

sphere

9818:2

spiked

9656:69658:13

spill

9724:14

split

9612:259710:69803:2

spoke

9692:109739:209764:49795:39865:149958:14,21

spoken

9844:4

spread

9616:139656:149658:99703:3

spreading

9747:2

spreadsheet

9665:23,259666:9,10,11 9713:209784:29989:19

spreadsheets

9901:4

spring

9724:18

squeeze

9650:219705:22

squish

9725:13

St 9766:24

9775:9

stable

9655:159718:4

stack

9633:10

staff 9724:4

9778:129843:69844:209927:259928:19,23

stage

9660:109772:69971:24

stages

9761:159772:4

stakeholders

9883:7

stand

9618:169736:129839:19935:20

standard

9639:129640:119675:69702:229812:15

9984:20,21

standards

9751:179752:13,249858:9,119859:10,11,15 9860:39898:219920:169938:99940:189944:139958:229959:15

standpoint

9881:18

stands

9796:99839:10

start

9614:179630:129651:109663:219710:159729:259745:249766:169791:99792:49810:149834:249839:199840:139936:49971:11

started

9643:14,169651:59675:249720:11,15,179841:259844:129853:169921:10

starting

9708:149729:259733:69793:2



9831:249886:169936:119938:6

starts

9717:199735:169940:5,14

state 9697:4

9812:159877:239878:3,49974:19

statement

9662:69671:6,169696:49706:169709:139738:99747:99755:249948:49967:19973:69975:219982:16

statements

9676:4

states

9646:179661:249667:169683:179687:109771:159773:1,239789:219795:109824:19830:8,179835:21,239837:5,99851:129878:129913:39966:39984:19

station

9706:10,159707:17

9708:17,199710:189712:15

stations

9706:189915:11

statistical

9826:20

statisticall

y 9826:17

status

9641:199793:22

statute

9854:20

statutory

9806:12

stay 9683:6

9701:219852:19856:239906:89923:219937:229954:39976:18

stayed

9905:49990:16

staying

9798:21

stays 9658:2

steadier

9675:7

steel 9712:8

steep

9722:12

steeper

9722:18

stems 9689:6

step 9756:14

9807:189819:13

steps 9659:7

9756:159785:24

Stevens

9606:8,199610:179612:9,139613:5,99614:13,17,18,21,249615:4,7,189616:1,8,12,17,229617:3,12,189618:1,10,21,249619:10,20,259620:3,59626:12,179627:10,139628:249629:6,9,13,229630:59663:13,249664:9,22,23,259670:7,99686:4,169687:29688:59689:129690:129691:2,15,18 9693:229710:259711:7,13,219712:3,10,189713:9,179714:10,139737:11,16,20,219738:4,119739:4,8,139740:1,7,10,149741:1,99766:3,8,209767:2,7,11,17,23

9768:3,7,14,229769:7,20,249770:8,119771:12,18,249772:7,15,229773:9,199774:7,179775:12,239776:17,209777:6,11,189778:6,17,239779:7,11,24 9780:159781:8,249782:179783:5,8,119784:1,8,20 9791:259810:229811:3,8,13 9812:229813:3,4,13,229814:2,4,17 9815:169816:79817:2,9,229818:3,7,139819:8,17,209820:6,13,25 9827:89828:259829:5,14,249830:11,19,239831:1,6,13,249839:4

Stevens's

9608:59613:21,249628:6

9663:7

stick 9805:8

9852:12

sticking

9922:189940:17

sticks

9804:10

stock

9615:19

stocked

9702:25

stocks

9695:14

stone

9877:24

stop 9657:22

9815:8

stopping

9815:229928:2

stopwatch

9848:10

storage

9770:229789:23

store

9812:13

stores

9836:23

storing

9689:2

story

9730:249948:10

storyboard

9848:3

storyboards

9848:14

straightforw

ard 9697:2

9841:12

straight-

line

9707:24



strategy

9755:219756:89758:29790:119869:6,8,9

stream

9911:10

streams

9916:89960:1

stress

9728:23

stretches

9830:14

stretching

9828:2

strictly

9665:39940:39944:1

strong

9805:79808:129919:8

stronger

9675:79919:19

strongly

9745:22

struck

9822:199896:17

structure

9659:29712:179722:209901:17,189903:189904:19926:249927:19929:19976:109977:159978:29986:23

structured

9795:25

structures

9976:69986:24

struggled

9785:15

struggling

9913:19915:2,18

studied

9615:129739:259825:2

studies

9667:39670:239671:89672:8,9,10 9775:189776:109777:239825:229827:14

studying

9722:5

stupid

9654:209658:10,129659:15

style

9776:25

sub 9955:2

subconsultan

t 9617:4

subject

9626:49697:199699:219738:259757:6,219760:259762:89772:3,14,18 9783:229790:209807:99886:9,129902:79944:20

9946:219950:14,249951:19955:12,14,229956:4,109966:1,5,109970:9,259972:39974:189980:239981:5

subjects

9630:25

submitted

9724:6

subsequent

9720:79855:229876:229893:12

substantial

9643:79772:249773:39800:129905:179929:59958:6

substantiall

y 9636:7

9817:16

substantiate

9907:22

subtotal

9954:9,11

subtract

9668:39955:3

subtracted

9889:14

subtracting

9887:89888:29943:24

success

9926:89984:7,10,

199985:1,13

successful

9799:209853:4

successfully

9852:11

sufficiency

9834:19

sufficient

9802:229834:39874:149879:17

sufficiently

9852:11

suggest

9612:189678:69701:199706:99707:89736:259746:49778:219786:199835:249899:69939:1

suggested

9659:99661:1,49688:259711:9

suggesting

9788:249800:149840:239862:259879:239931:139941:149942:109943:59949:99968:9,199974:11,139975:6,14,15 9980:189981:13

9987:16

suggestion

9613:79688:1,49843:89879:119987:16

suggests

9835:259962:209963:18

suit 9745:21

suitable

9984:109985:8

suited

9693:4

sum 9832:16

summarize

9632:229684:259794:16

summarizes

9752:10

summary

9608:13,169647:209746:69800:219845:259846:4,9,14

summer

9716:149724:18,239897:199989:16

sunlight

9720:24

sunny

9776:24

superimposes

9729:16

superior

9763:6

supervision

9823:10



supervisor

9988:9

suppl

9855:12

supplant

9833:5,11

supplanting

9833:1

supplement

9854:259871:119909:17

supplemental

9756:249911:179951:3

supplementar

y 9856:1

supplier

9655:239909:79971:18

suppliers

9812:9

supply

9608:11,129662:129693:179697:89764:21,239773:189797:219811:129835:149845:6,11,15,209871:219873:15,169874:119879:17,21,259885:229909:179917:2,24

support

9619:59670:239706:139751:14

9771:79773:179905:179990:10

supported

9666:18

supports

9762:9

suppose

9717:39834:15

sure

9612:16,249632:259635:129655:11,199674:149707:229714:139739:49757:59764:6,199765:119777:249782:109787:209788:89812:99828:209830:49832:79841:49842:239862:249872:39881:119918:239926:39977:89989:49990:18

surface

9719:59723:139727:12

surfaced

9927:14,15

surplus

9880:4,89885:1,79887:16,20

9990:12

surprise

9711:159772:1,99837:49894:5

surprised

9748:39816:15

survey

9667:12,169674:12

surveys

9981:21

survivors

9764:7

susceptible

9727:21

suspect

9801:169845:2

sustained

9809:19

Sven 9604:3

9606:229607:109612:69629:5,10,19,239714:229736:119742:39791:5,14,23,249792:11,189793:15,20,259794:4,16,239795:3,119796:1,6,13,18,22,259797:129798:59799:9,169800:4,149801:18,229802:4,6,159803:9,19

9804:4,59805:189806:3,249807:8,13,229808:1,17,239809:3,6,12,17,229810:6,12,209811:4,99812:249813:4,20,239814:9,109815:11,249816:209817:5,20,259818:6,12,239819:15,199820:1,8,21 9821:19828:209832:119839:129840:29841:89843:179854:17,189855:249856:12,259857:219858:23,249859:59860:69861:9,109863:16,17,239864:5,9,22,239865:149866:3,10,199867:4,69868:89869:1,10,21 9870:259871:239872:3,119874:16,229875:9,19,

229876:10,16,219877:8,219879:109880:209881:23,249883:22,239884:7,14,21,259885:5,10,16,20,259886:3,209887:5,10,14,18,239888:4,149889:1,29890:13,14,209891:11,12,16,249894:109895:12,19,229896:2,5,18 9897:29898:3,99899:4,14,189900:3,149901:2,11,199902:1,6,10,239903:1,6,109904:7,13,18,259905:69906:10,14,209907:2,5,10,169908:4,179911:1,2,20,219931:21,229932:7,119933:9,219934:9,239935:1,9,19

swear 9614:8



sweat 9845:1

swept

9748:12

switch

9655:129658:149751:159794:2,7,18 9797:159798:39799:129800:6,15,17 9906:89918:18

switching

9606:6,169610:49614:119623:2,59624:199631:1,3,9,11,15,249632:49640:209643:199644:79646:119651:1,16,25 9652:219655:79658:6,129693:139737:89751:1,7,8,139753:8,10,12 9757:19793:219794:12,209795:219797:59798:109799:20,239800:249802:199803:39807:19808:89901:139902:169905:89927:5

9929:39987:5

swords

9626:7

sworn

9607:5,6,7,8,99612:199842:18,19,20 9844:59891:17,209965:25

synergy

9770:199893:17

system

9619:229638:129643:49645:79676:3,8,99677:129678:5,14,18,239679:2,49682:23,249685:29689:119693:109695:59700:119718:259720:259723:69725:1,12,23 9726:49727:179729:159731:109732:29734:229747:109749:249784:6,12,13,169798:219811:17,209812:109816:9,159878:159880:159889:16

systematical

ly 9823:1

systems

9622:39645:259678:259689:79706:229733:109756:189784:14,15,179786:23

T

tab 9752:4

9755:159762:239766:10

table 9606:1

9607:19608:129766:219767:5,99845:209866:49884:8,159886:219911:49920:249926:239954:17,19

tabled

9984:16

tables

9608:11,13,169654:119757:159845:6,11,16,259846:4,9,14 9848:199849:99854:109861:219875:15,169876:69877:49880:39883:25

tag 9812:16

tagged

9812:2

taking

9677:7,99689:149697:79702:189713:159714:49736:29743:249762:139773:239818:89826:219887:8

talk 9628:24

9631:239635:59647:249685:259700:249714:169716:239721:49725:39728:249732:139736:39808:149841:99881:149894:119916:239919:89921:11,199924:209925:249926:149928:139945:3,59958:129976:39980:11

talked

9669:209709:189778:129785:209850:189865:9

9873:99886:99912:59923:199926:9,219927:69928:6,19,22 9944:249947:29984:12,149986:139988:89989:10

talking

9631:3,179646:149649:59658:189667:59668:49670:169677:109678:12,16,17,18,239679:2,39682:259683:29699:209703:119710:179714:69746:119753:139757:199768:249769:19773:209774:89792:24,259802:249814:229816:119829:59833:189880:89881:189902:159928:159929:29932:20,239951:139958:209969:9



9973:239984:69988:23,24

tangentially

9821:10

tank 9655:7

9797:7

tanks 9797:8

target

9653:79822:209836:169907:179925:3,15,19 9969:19

targeted

9691:239924:13

targeting

9651:29658:89909:69945:99960:6

targets

9631:189646:59710:39821:23,249823:16,17,189835:259836:1,89837:3,59907:189926:6,139975:14

tax

9744:15,23,24

team 9988:1

tears 9845:1

technical

9644:29700:69722:199959:10

technically

9617:49681:119827:9

techniques

9702:4

technologies

9618:199619:9,179667:119668:159705:229706:29870:139914:6,109933:119958:159961:11

technology

9621:18,199672:1,29704:219705:10,13,16,189810:199816:39818:99869:229870:9,189957:16

teck 9762:8

teleconnecti

ons

9717:109734:4,5

temperate

9722:119723:89731:18

temperately

9717:12

temperature

9717:229718:1,109719:49722:259723:139725:99726:199728:109730:21

9733:249735:2

temperatures

9690:99717:18,19,21,259718:159726:119728:219747:12

tempered

9716:22

temporary

9977:12

ten 9655:18

9658:39663:19,209714:209722:69731:249752:139791:129801:89815:19822:129826:179842:39856:209910:189916:259923:10

tenant

9649:15

tend 9645:19

9703:159705:39797:99837:69944:129948:249949:9

tended

9636:99825:22

tendency

9700:89722:229750:39823:12

tends 9679:1

TeraTrends

9617:1

term 9660:1

9694:89722:1,199738:179775:6,7,16 9809:249814:19,23,24 9815:99823:219838:129857:209858:139879:249910:129973:219976:49982:20

terminate

9611:219934:15,209935:7

terminates

9886:199897:11

termination

9897:24

terminology

9973:19

terms

9614:179628:39632:79633:8,209638:19641:59644:169646:9,22,24 9647:169654:79659:59672:199703:109708:39730:99771:149775:99788:229806:1

9817:59819:149838:69848:189868:179871:229881:14,199898:15,179900:19901:249908:259909:19912:2,69919:2,139920:119929:79933:69936:6,109939:79945:19946:19,22,24 9951:79957:149958:149964:17,199966:89967:49969:79977:139979:12,219981:99987:159990:6,7

terrestrial

9730:16,17

test 9634:16

9760:24,259761:239762:4,169792:6,10,11,13,15,20 9793:179823:69989:11

testified

9623:259624:8,109796:149898:239908:239929:9

testifying



9944:25

testimony

9623:19821:99984:5

testing

9813:7

tests

9639:239643:6

Texas

9830:9,159831:12

text 9988:9

thank

9612:20,23,259614:169616:4,199618:69622:21,239624:239625:7,8,199629:23,249630:3,11,24 9635:119663:29664:10,209685:199691:159694:169696:119698:129699:29703:189710:249713:119714:219732:79735:249736:2,3,59737:4,14,15 9738:229739:179741:18,20,259742:11,139748:16,179750:14,199754:9

9784:199787:99788:49790:159791:2,249799:109803:259804:2,89810:209821:19832:2,189838:229839:3,7,89840:69842:109843:179844:159853:209858:19,249864:99874:179935:19938:3,169953:229959:239962:79976:229983:19,239984:39990:14,15

Thanks

9660:209736:89918:4,6

that'll

9707:119762:179862:5

that's

9616:8,229618:219619:209620:15,199622:249628:15,249632:3,139633:29634:11,259635:59636:59638:4,119641:17

9642:1,169648:169650:49652:5,129658:169661:149662:29664:39672:49673:239677:9,14,159678:15,259680:149682:7,179684:229688:119690:3,12,149691:2,99693:49694:2,249699:219700:139702:189706:139708:5,7,15 9711:219712:69713:17,249717:139718:8,119719:8,259720:99721:239723:239725:2,109727:10,249729:19730:89733:11,169734:99740:1,7,219741:5,119744:3,11,22 9748:159752:17,239759:159760:89761:21,229764:259769:29775:12

9779:2,89781:109782:179784:109786:159788:39794:149797:219798:29799:99800:199801:3,189802:219803:4,179806:109807:119812:79816:39820:139824:229826:219828:3,8,18 9829:249831:229832:79833:129834:16,18,249837:14,229838:69843:149845:79848:69849:239852:119853:119854:129855:99859:7,219860:199862:229863:249864:99867:59870:99871:259877:199886:139888:1,149890:189892:99897:129898:49899:19

9900:119901:209905:149906:21,239908:29911:9,219914:12,249917:189919:79920:139921:2,8,229922:17,189923:13,169926:5,11,12,249927:8,209930:199931:5,149933:29936:79939:229945:8,149947:29950:179951:99952:1,49953:219957:69958:149959:49960:249962:6,79964:149967:8,16,179975:1,79977:249978:99980:209984:259985:89986:199988:79990:7

themselves

9784:179920:22

theoretical

9917:19

theory

9833:1



thereafter

9788:14

therefore

9635:49637:8,199638:49709:119725:159757:209777:219783:19919:21

there'll

9749:219909:109929:12

there's

9631:139637:109642:29644:129645:69648:29658:6,7,249660:14,159675:5,239677:39678:49681:139700:89701:69704:179706:14,239714:4,239716:10,11,12,139717:79718:249722:229726:209728:139733:229747:69749:209750:129755:59757:119761:8,139765:169781:259788:7,19

9789:10,139797:139804:99815:229824:15,229826:209829:6,99836:99838:8,16,19 9840:29844:17,239853:14,159854:89859:19865:119868:3,239869:149870:13,259872:79878:249879:79900:79902:119903:239910:4,5,23 9913:119915:129920:5,259922:79924:59927:69928:39929:109932:119944:49945:29952:229953:9,15,249960:16,199961:39972:9,11,199979:12,159981:22,239985:189986:24

thermal

9784:13

thermal-

based

9784:15

Thermostat

9981:19

thermostats

9973:229974:1,4,7,119981:9,24

they'd

9647:149886:17

they'll

9671:209805:119823:179844:109947:16

they're

9641:209645:19656:189659:10,189660:3,179673:109675:49679:19,259681:179690:239696:199702:5,24,259703:1,49714:89715:249719:239731:6,199733:99745:229747:239748:39749:249750:109757:209765:169773:79776:99794:129797:149808:13,159811:69815:219823:239824:20

9825:119827:2,249836:259837:1,29840:16,229847:259865:129868:249873:179886:149895:209907:209908:159913:59914:179916:229919:249920:6,199923:5,20,21 9926:119927:199928:19,209947:229957:39971:229975:69979:99985:23

they've

9666:179703:29808:69836:16,249923:89927:159928:23,249969:16

thinner

9957:17

thinning

9726:11

third

9670:189673:19702:89743:29746:119755:239767:149768:259845:239906:11

third-party

9867:129987:18,219988:2

thirds

9937:5

thirteen

9669:169674:14

thirty

9650:49671:129672:259673:229689:259709:39712:209716:159720:59722:49731:259767:259776:149798:89824:179913:15

thirty-five

9783:249914:89955:16

thirty-nine

9943:19

thirty-one

9913:5,169915:16,19

Thompson

9839:17,18

Thomson's

9948:4

thousand

9676:99710:79768:259781:229801:1,149850:69853:189905:199914:89943:18



9969:9,22

thousands

9756:16

thr 9855:4

threat

9747:25

threshold

9959:89977:59979:1

thresholds

9979:5

threw 9735:9

9870:6

throwing

9824:209841:6

thrown

9973:20

throws

9662:7

thus 9695:25

tie 9891:23

tieline

9889:17,20,24

tie-line

9851:139880:15

till 9921:6

timeframe

9861:139942:21,22

timeline

9908:2

time-of-use

9645:11

tiny 9780:19

9827:11

tip 9632:8

title

9617:21

titles

9827:5

to-date

9969:12

today 9612:8

9613:19616:29630:219648:199691:229704:59709:19710:129714:259716:179732:79848:219861:259867:239869:179883:149914:119916:10,119917:129923:49949:179970:169973:49990:15

today's

9612:49707:99708:13

tomorrow

9839:16,209840:3,129845:39848:1,2,7,169934:259935:129990:21

tonnes

9719:8,10

tools 9693:9

9985:21

top 9711:23

9717:59724:19725:69735:179744:89752:10,18

9853:89887:119891:89898:239907:11

topic

9692:239736:19749:129764:99766:29879:59882:11

topics

9622:169646:69766:29779:14

Toronto

9615:119616:149776:21,22,23

total 9642:4

9670:3,49677:79700:119765:39792:13,209912:6,16,179915:8,15

tough

9748:18

towards

9650:129718:2,159719:189763:209804:149805:99859:149968:1

tower 9669:8

9675:1,29688:79712:1,5,7,21

towers

9675:4,7

9711:1,69712:22,23,259713:1,39714:5,69818:10

toxic

9747:14

to-year

9956:20

track

9644:169683:219808:13

tracking

9684:12

trade 9615:1

9754:239836:21

tradition

9674:3

traditionall

y

9976:8,11

trail

9947:12

trailed

9947:10

train

9678:16

training

9615:2

transaction

9812:7

transcript

9607:139644:4

transferred

9862:16

transfers

9744:7

transformers

9650:14

transit

9721:11

transition

9678:24

translate

9727:7

translated

9819:14

translates

9729:179735:13

transmission

9666:159667:239678:249679:59682:109706:10,229714:19763:239770:179771:69788:16,219790:3,109878:129892:89893:17,259896:7,19,259897:6,99933:1

transparent

9883:5

TRC 9634:15

9761:219762:79793:199800:259873:8,9

tread

9877:22

treat

9890:21

treatment

9696:249764:16

tremendous

9914:4

trend 9641:2

9643:219650:129703:9



9749:20

tried

9654:12,219819:219828:129925:12

trim 9636:20

trip 9839:8

trouble

9736:29749:19947:2

troubling

9837:22

trucks

9755:9

true

9650:4,59686:59706:59769:1,39782:179894:149948:99951:9

truncation

9761:1

trust

9657:199823:16

trusting

9827:1

try 9621:20

9660:239693:259699:229792:19824:79826:39844:219861:119872:59911:59913:19919:5,14,23 9925:3

trying

9627:20

9651:89660:7,119708:69709:259712:139803:169804:19828:99841:69853:189912:219913:99919:69924:39932:69936:99943:219945:229947:49951:29974:24

Tuesday

9748:16

tuned 9728:7

turbine

9670:29671:2,119673:3,99688:149712:69767:20,219768:5,89775:21,249850:9

turbines

9669:129671:2,17,219672:12,249673:3,129688:159690:209712:16,22,239713:1,39714:69767:169768:2,139776:2,139777:139813:129933:12

turn 9612:18

9632:109661:59664:169666:239744:39746:69747:119750:219752:39755:159762:199763:39766:109769:229785:19825:169842:139871:139936:259938:179962:29963:79988:20

turned

9632:139650:99799:10

turnover

9650:1

turns 9666:6

9833:6

TVs 9650:16

twelve

9669:189670:59685:169797:99827:259856:18

twenty

9638:149648:139649:19,219653:119655:199662:219669:159670:229671:6,12,13,19,21

9672:8,259673:4,24,259674:2,49694:59699:199701:21,22,24 9704:49705:159707:9,12,13 9712:199731:249733:179775:4,18,229776:3,149791:69797:119798:79810:189814:20,23,24 9815:59824:179922:179945:39957:5

twenty-five

9672:199673:6,189712:199778:19815:4,9

twenty-four

9669:15

twenty-nine

9768:19943:179945:4,5

twenty-one

9665:149666:149667:219668:19945:7,14

twenty-seven

9672:20

twenty-two

9666:249676:69677:199680:4,6

9779:49781:199815:259816:18

twice

9676:20

twist

9836:22

two-sixty

9677:89678:11

two-thirds

9884:16

type 9626:15

9685:39709:229811:21,229916:189917:5,24,25 9961:229968:20

types 9685:9

9803:129920:259933:169979:20

typical

9838:29922:19,239928:15

typically

9688:129712:189776:13

U

ultimate

9808:8

ultimately

9747:169757:129758:7

unable

9662:11

unaffected

9731:3

uncertain

9748:22



uncertaintie

s 9961:12

uncertainty

9735:209754:189757:219869:159909:259910:4,5,13,15,249960:23,25

undefined

9761:1

underestimat

ed 9932:1

underestimat

ing

9931:249932:12

underneath

9719:23,249734:25

understand

9617:159618:79619:3,139622:39629:79651:18,249668:219687:259700:139707:229709:13,259712:149732:29735:79754:69759:89761:189782:29787:12,209824:89831:209844:129847:259848:5,69862:18,239869:49881:119883:8

9891:12,169895:169901:129913:109916:229921:19938:69939:229942:109945:229946:89947:59951:59952:149954:259964:219971:13,209972:89973:19

understandin

g 9692:9

9693:239695:23,249698:29712:59713:19772:249775:239792:69796:149799:229814:13,219822:79886:129892:12,189895:209898:24

understate

9823:2

understood

9660:249704:19709:159922:4

undertake

9803:59813:219865:199915:69918:179925:99970:11

9983:79988:1

undertaken

9618:179619:149696:179911:99942:219972:6

undertaking

9651:8,14,239652:9,199677:17,219697:11,14,229698:4,149740:129779:219781:119797:29799:199813:249814:49832:109861:199862:3,79863:4,7,119864:10,189865:11,239876:3,49888:179890:1,19,23 9923:249924:49925:59934:229935:49940:259941:3

undertakings

9606:49610:19611:19612:179872:69888:69889:12

underway

9953:16

undocumented

9761:1

uneconomic

9631:25

uneconomical

9654:17

unexpected

9685:14

unfold

9731:229870:23

unfortunatel

y 9765:13

9776:119941:7

unique

9764:4

unit

9675:1,29712:1

United

9667:169687:109749:109795:99851:129966:3

units

9637:199703:39975:5

University

9615:8,109715:209717:69729:5

unless

9719:199921:209936:29976:16

unlike

9762:59822:10

unlikely

9773:6,169797:15

unlimited

9917:4

unsure

9968:25

untapped

9763:11

unusual

9796:99838:5

unusually

9790:6

upcoming

9772:19

update

9608:20,22,24,259846:19,239847:1,5,9,14,17,229848:14

updated

9620:209861:29899:4,59910:209928:19931:8

updates

9965:7

up-front

9710:1

upgrade

9925:6,18

upgrades

9867:18

upon 9612:1

9613:149664:12,139699:39715:8,99729:169736:15,169791:16,179799:49842:5,69879:199893:149901:179905:16



9908:209935:22,239944:209945:259946:159970:49977:159980:249990:24

upper

9716:129917:21

upsizing

9893:12

uptake

9905:21

uptaking

9867:18

up-to-date

9844:19

upward

9703:9

upwards

9650:189898:12

usage

9789:19

usages

9808:16

useful

9644:109649:159651:13,179652:69672:249673:89674:49800:169841:19960:2

users 9645:5

9969:17

usual

9804:20

usually

9649:89712:259814:19

9815:139864:19865:129919:14,24

Utilit

9843:3

utilities

9603:3,219618:109620:29622:69648:89650:199652:119693:9,10,14 9696:89697:49715:239723:129753:29754:229765:149771:59796:29808:209809:109814:189815:209823:1,209824:39825:89827:20,219828:149836:3,79843:49911:139913:159928:149976:189980:259981:159984:199986:14

utility

9634:159643:49645:259651:119657:209693:129703:12,139793:6

9794:18,199796:99803:239811:5,10,18 9812:199814:14,239815:8,12,18,229823:9,149824:159827:19828:119836:199837:119838:7,109866:119911:5,6,9,169912:11,149914:14,18,24 9922:89968:3,10

Utility's

9912:29987:12

utilize

9967:13

V

vaguely

9802:4,5

valuable

9635:21,249656:12,13

valuation

9711:4,11

value

9627:179635:49670:10,139714:59743:249758:139788:209789:259793:49800:259814:259815:79860:119905:18

9914:169946:1,139948:29987:209989:149990:1,2,3

values

9745:39780:79784:59803:89824:49837:69914:20

value's

9989:15

Van 9604:8

vapour

9957:22,239958:8

var 9819:11

variability

9717:219718:23,259719:49720:9,139722:259723:59724:259725:2,4,11,14,239726:189727:16,209729:15,249734:9,12,13 9735:79749:22

variable

9774:9

variance

9725:21

variations

9907:24

varied

9682:2

varies

9700:49768:6

variety

9695:11

various

9620:189631:239638:259642:79652:129659:29666:179693:209700:159701:39747:39758:249808:169812:49813:119814:199861:129874:249910:69914:19960:25

vary 9676:1

varying

9780:99819:11

vast 9805:12

venture

9865:6

Vermont

9926:10

versa

9797:16

version

9848:19882:39907:1

versions

9848:2

versus

9631:49640:149725:39738:249739:59869:249873:20



9937:199944:3

vessel

9721:10

Vestas

9670:259671:29673:29775:4,14,15

Vestas's

9671:2

viability

9717:13

vice 9797:16

video

9785:9,179786:1,11,16,17,18,19,219787:4,109790:249792:19801:259832:49929:3

view

9633:1,3,49663:149711:249738:8,119740:199802:179807:139821:159822:219866:109869:79881:79885:199908:229909:189910:99915:49964:229989:9

viewed

9821:14

views

9699:18

9837:239985:129986:19987:14

vigorous

9647:39659:14

vigorously

9648:10

Villegas

9854:20

vintage

9649:149825:13,14

virus 9747:1

vivid 9838:6

voices

9716:4

voiding

9637:9

volatility

9655:10

vortex

9721:249722:1,2,39724:12

vous 9624:24

9625:9

vulnerable

9695:169748:7

W

wages 9705:7

wait 9655:8

9808:69921:69957:4

waited

9736:59957:5

waiting

9742:49801:249851:6

waive

9804:129893:89896:39897:5

wake 9835:10

walk 9759:5

9848:4

walked

9801:25

wander

9730:22

War 9718:3

warm 9719:24

9722:149724:109725:169746:16

warmer

9719:39720:79728:21

warmest

9720:6

warming

9633:219636:139637:249639:19718:19,249719:219720:1,89729:239747:9

warranties

9673:4,5,7

warranty

9671:19775:15

Washington

9926:10

wasn't

9778:119782:109788:249819:129856:199857:139878:1

9895:79907:39931:2

waste

9913:259916:8,139917:2,119960:1

wasting

9826:9

watching

9785:179837:2

water

9634:189637:219639:15,259640:13,159641:17,189642:199644:19,20,23 9645:19655:79689:29723:219726:17,259727:199728:99734:179735:22,239746:15,169747:129749:249751:29787:59797:7,8,99804:119820:4,9,11 9867:259918:209919:109924:149925:9

Waterloo

9729:5

watershed

9727:189734:229735:18

wave 9724:21

wavelength

9806:1

waves

9722:17,18

ways 9612:22

9650:10,209659:29662:199665:6,139678:209795:259970:9

weather

9723:259725:8,16,17,229726:129727:239728:169755:89777:1,3,13,15,17,209977:3

web 9786:18

9787:17

website

9785:6,209787:1

we'd 9657:11

9832:99849:139857:99886:109953:59987:20

weed 9728:16

week 9840:16

9938:22

weekend

9746:4

weekends

9844:25

weeks 9716:7

weigh 9691:4

weight

9626:49822:21

Weinstein



9605:7

welcome

9630:79715:139891:189954:3

we'll 9630:5

9656:229658:229663:79669:19699:199714:169715:29737:29759:59762:189780:249791:11,129792:49795:199804:13,169805:39810:189837:109838:259843:159863:69864:8,159879:129883:189909:159931:189934:219937:259959:179983:169990:20

well-being

9746:12

well-

establishe

d 9914:11

we're 9612:4

9622:19633:229646:149650:79659:6,179667:49671:25

9678:17,189679:15,169680:79691:249701:209705:169709:169710:179715:19716:199718:3,49719:9,11,15,169720:89722:89723:2,59726:2,39729:8,9,23 9730:149731:17,189732:4,5,15 9733:3,59744:89746:119749:199750:159762:129768:249769:19779:29783:69786:8,139791:199801:249803:169806:19816:169821:89829:59832:7,259833:5,199835:149837:159840:119841:59842:259851:19,239853:189859:129861:1,149865:69866:259867:24,259869:17

9880:24,259881:119884:229893:249894:119900:19902:159906:39908:159909:2,6,129910:9,15,22 9913:239916:139919:5,6,12,13,159921:1,219922:109925:199926:199927:59928:15,16,259929:1,249930:199931:3,14,19 9932:239933:249934:19944:149945:6,89947:259948:79952:159953:89955:109956:159958:3,179959:79968:259969:49971:69974:249976:129977:99979:139982:49984:239989:12,20,21

Wesley

9606:8,199608:5

9610:179612:99613:249614:13,21,249615:4,7,189616:1,8,12,17,229617:3,12,189618:1,10,21,249619:10,20,25 9620:39626:179627:10,139629:9,13,229664:22,259670:99686:4,169687:29688:59689:129690:129691:29711:7,13,219712:3,10,189713:9,179714:139737:119738:4,119739:4,8,139740:1,7,10,149741:1,99766:8,209767:2,7,11,17,239768:3,7,14,229769:7,20,249770:8,119771:12,18,249772:7,15,229773:9,199774:7,17

9775:12,239776:17,209777:6,11,189778:6,17,239779:7,11,24 9780:159781:8,249782:179783:5,8,11 9784:1,89811:3,8,13 9812:229813:3,13,229814:2,4,17 9815:169816:79817:2,9,229818:3,7,139819:8,17,209820:6,13,25 9827:89829:5,14,249830:11,19,239831:1,6,13,24

west 9724:19

9747:19830:18

westerlies

9726:6

western

9724:20

wet 9691:4

9733:179734:39735:5

we've

9626:7,9,109630:3,219648:19654:19661:219671:9,10



9691:249694:209705:249709:189717:259722:3,59724:59733:179744:129745:149752:49754:149821:129854:3,119856:16,17,21,229862:139865:29866:179867:29868:29869:189873:99892:259893:19898:149907:199908:129909:79910:69912:49913:219918:179922:99926:18,21,239927:6,13,169928:14,19,229936:219975:89976:99978:69985:4,149986:2,3

whatever

9641:199649:159652:169686:8,139703:149760:18

9773:11,129853:19915:139979:17

whe 9686:21

whereas

9667:8

whether

9611:119626:49633:99634:209640:3,6,79641:149642:209657:199663:189678:179679:259686:219699:199703:11,21,249711:3,109738:159749:179750:19754:189769:39781:159784:139789:39797:19800:119803:239807:79808:49810:16,259812:259813:18,259816:229819:4,59822:159823:17,239826:4,169835:69851:7,18,20 9852:249859:79869:189871:29877:23,25

9880:229889:3,59890:49898:10,119905:19920:49923:20,219935:139946:149948:69949:89953:69959:14,159969:49974:259984:259985:10

whichever

9660:17

whine 9826:6

whispering

9944:12

Whoever

9774:11

whole

9641:249656:79693:169717:59745:249746:19780:239784:129831:189837:19853:149877:149878:159880:179893:139911:149947:24

whom 9808:15

who's

9612:249731:149797:259915:59979:12,17

whose

9803:189823:22

wide 9619:16

9685:89703:219831:16

widespread

9823:7

wife 9659:22

9978:10

William

9604:189606:109612:239613:209614:1,16,22,259615:5,15,229616:4,9,15,19,259617:8,14,239618:6,17,229619:3,13,239620:1,4,13,219621:2,9,13,209622:11,19,229623:10,209624:5,169628:5,219630:10,11,179634:2,39635:109651:229663:5,16,239664:3,7,19,209670:79780:16,18

Williams

9604:149607:119612:219842:14,22

9883:119911:239935:10,259936:1,16,19,249937:8,13,17,229938:5,16,249939:5,219940:2,10,169941:4,9,139942:9,239943:3,139944:7,199945:10,13,17,199946:9,12,18,249947:4,11,149948:17,239949:6,12,259950:6,9,179951:1,10,189952:1,4,9,139953:219954:1,7,15,249955:9,199956:2,8,14 9957:89958:169959:179960:5,119961:149962:2,14,199963:3,7,13,189964:1,8,16,239965:5,10,199966:1,7,15,229967:3,199968:7,13,



239969:6,15,21,249970:8,15,25 9971:199972:7,17,239973:1,8,18,259974:109975:10,229976:1,14,229977:13,18,259978:9,139979:229980:9,15,229981:8,129982:6,14,19 9983:12

willing

9644:149802:239838:11

win/win/win

9765:10

wind

9606:6,169614:119618:199619:8,179620:89626:16,18,21,239628:8,19,23 9629:119636:69647:189654:149665:3,6,8,13,17,199666:2,139667:1,3,9,11,12,15,20 9668:149669:7,89670:149671:2,179672:5,12,18,23,24

9673:2,3,129674:8,9,129675:8,10,16,229676:1,2,11,15,229677:4,7,17,199678:1,2,4,9,17,19,219679:1,2,4,5,12,16,189680:15,17,219681:11,19,249682:3,6,9,10,19,22,23,259683:4,9,10,15,16,17,18,239684:6,7,16,19,20,259685:9,10,22 9686:219687:6,119688:1,6,7,8,149689:2,4,5,8,15,199690:7,20,24 9709:89711:1,59713:8,249714:39737:8,19,20,259738:7,8,10,12,19,249739:239740:229741:2,3,59763:159766:2,6,229767:9,169768:21,239769:189770:15,19

,249771:2,6,7,15,16,209772:4,12,20,259773:4,5,7,11,12,13,18,21,239774:8,10,129775:5,6,17,19,249776:1,12,139777:3,139778:2,3,4,10,16,229779:69780:8,99781:5,209783:239784:4,5,9,129798:6,149810:259811:1,29812:3,16,21 9813:69814:12,18,259815:4,12,189816:4,6,12,13,169817:1,6,10,12,17,18,219818:1,19,22 9819:119820:2,8,9,179829:2,49831:89834:209871:89872:149878:189893:179933:129960:13,21

Wind/

Conawapa

9681:13

Wind/Gas

9681:13

wind-based

9773:9

windfall

9795:209803:2

winding

9765:7

windmill

9713:14,16

window

9648:189897:129961:2

windows

9702:13

winds 9675:7

Winnipeg

9603:239613:119614:199615:89747:6,8,10,16,179776:16,22,23 9820:4

winter

9645:59724:4,13,17 9746:189755:89806:179989:16

winters

9687:169776:22,23,24

Wisconsin

9633:129647:99773:239875:10,239884:119885:13

wisdom

9891:24

witness

9620:179654:189692:159839:39929:9

witnesses

9606:99612:9,199614:9,159625:29663:39736:139742:109838:259844:59908:239910:6

Wojczynski

9607:79737:29743:19,229749:39841:12,229842:209844:189847:189848:4,89854:29861:209862:2,79871:9,13,199872:1,4,12,139874:179875:7,17,209876:5,11,17,209877:2,10,22 9878:39879:49880:1,21,249881:5,10,25 9882:89883:3,12,259884:9,13,20,249885:4,9,15,18,249886:2,7,2



59887:4,7,13,17,229888:1,159889:119890:10,189891:4,149909:169932:5,9,19 9945:209946:6,11,16,229947:1,9,13,169948:219949:1,11,13,19,249950:4,8,14,18,199951:8,12,16,249952:2,6,12,179953:249954:3,59965:17,199990:9

wonder

9655:29782:79832:209986:4

wonderful

9826:99827:29848:8

wondering

9663:6,189740:39781:259803:119824:229858:179911:4

wood 9704:16

work

9617:6,129626:139627:1,39629:79638:19651:16

9659:5,229669:11,129688:17,18,199697:12,179700:179701:39717:8,129718:169755:109765:18,229812:179822:89825:159827:109828:169831:109834:89839:69859:149894:219920:11,179954:169967:23

worked

9610:8,99613:109652:2,39653:1,39690:39696:139796:29834:7

worker

9921:23

working

9615:209702:199716:159723:29731:169774:139783:39825:79826:8,189833:259844:209865:249867:29868:2,59906:59907:22

9928:19

works

9647:119651:169732:2

world

9633:3,49718:39915:99936:7

worldwide

9729:9

worried

9641:229823:6

worries

9625:15

worse

9656:109750:2

worth

9647:159681:179785:199986:22

worthwhile

9872:9

worthy

9631:12

WPS 9849:2

9851:19852:1,3,17,21,249853:79877:149880:109952:199953:11

wrapping

9922:10

write

9658:229818:189836:20

written

9758:29778:139877:24

wrong 9614:3

9644:129798:229832:249833:2,7,18,21,229989:4

wrote

9618:139779:99785:13

www.hydro.mb

.ca

9785:22

Y

year-by-year

9835:5

year-to-year

9907:24

yelling

9659:22

yellow

9929:22

yesterday

9757:59835:22

yet 9642:15

9643:79660:2,109723:49753:19808:79863:19,249864:79869:239879:69910:209926:19970:149972:15,209977:199980:6

yielded

9689:10

York 9830:21

you'll

9622:239694:4

9699:179717:229718:159725:29730:239756:99761:159810:249835:79857:159873:49918:239937:5,99951:129954:109962:109968:29979:249981:99982:9

your_home/

geothermal

_heat_pump

s/

index.shtm

l 9787:2

yours

9829:23

yourself

9715:159792:19

yourselves

9980:7

you've

9617:99620:229621:249622:49623:3,5,10,12,14,20,259624:8,109644:199649:219654:139656:129659:99668:119684:89692:219693:24



9696:13,149701:159705:239706:99707:59711:179732:39733:149735:149740:219747:19762:69783:149796:2,149801:119831:89834:249837:17,189838:189859:169869:219887:49901:199911:49923:109926:1,39929:39933:1,2,49971:219982:10

Z

zero 9861:7

9873:59936:17

zero-five

9861:4

zoom 9884:3

9886:22

9603 MANITOBA PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD Re

Documents

Transcript of 9603 MANITOBA PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD Re