3928 1 MANITOBA CLEAN ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION 2 3 VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT 4 Volume 17 5 6 Including List of Participants 7 8 9 10 Hearing 11 12 Wuskwatim Generation and Transmission Project 13 14 Presiding: 15 Gerard Lecuyer, Chair 16 Kathi Kinew 17 Harvey Nepinak 18 Robert Mayer 19 Terry Sargeant 20 21 Wednesday, April 7, 2004 22 Radisson Hotel 23 288 Portage Avenue 24 Winnipeg, Manitoba 25 3929 1 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 2 3 Clean Environment Commission: 4 Gerard Lecuyer Chairman 5 Terry Sargeant Member 6 Harvey Nepinak Member 7 Kathi Avery Kinew Member 8 Doug Abra Counsel to Commission 9 Rory Grewar Staff 10 CEC Advisors: 11 Mel Falk 12 Dave Farlinger 13 Jack Scriven 14 Jim Sandison 15 Jean McClellan 16 Brent McLean 17 Kyla Gibson 18 19 Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation: 20 Chief Jerry Primrose 21 Elvis Thomas 22 Campbell MacInnes 23 Valerie Matthews Lemieux 24 25 3930 1 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 2 3 Manitoba Conservation: 4 Larry Strachan 5 6 Manitoba Hydro/NCN: 7 Doug Bedford, Counsel 8 Bob Adkins, Counsel 9 Marvin Shaffer 10 Ed Wojczynski 11 Ken Adams 12 Carolyn Wray 13 Ron Mazur 14 Lloyd Kuczek 15 Cam Osler 16 Stuart Davies 17 David Hicks 18 George Rempel 19 David Cormie 20 Alex Fleming 21 Marvin Shaffer 22 Blair McMahon 23 24 25 3931 1 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 2 3 Elizabeth May - Sierra Club of Canada 4 Robert Hornung - Canada Wind Energy Association 5 Dan Soprovich - Blue Stem Wildlife Services 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3932 1 2 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 3 4 Number Page 5 CNF-1013: Submission from the 6 Sierra Club of Canada to Manitoba Clean 7 Environment Commission Public Hearing on 8 the subject of the Wuskwatim Generation 9 and Transmission Projects 4018 10 CNF-1014: Incorporating climate 11 change considerations and environmental 12 assessment, general guidance for 13 practitioners prepared by 14 federal/provincial territorial committee 15 on climate change and environmental 16 assessment November 2003 4019 17 CNF-1015: Trends in Canadian 18 stream flow from water resources research 19 volume 37, number 4, April 2001 4019 20 21 CNF-1016: Presentation slides to the 22 Manitoba Clean Environment 23 Commission, April 7, 24 Robert Hornung, Canada Wind 25 Energy Association 4055 3933 1 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 2 3 Number Page 4 5 CAC/MSOS-1005: Reference material for 6 examination of Canadian Wind 7 Energy Association 4094 8 MH/NCN-1031: Clarification of Wind 9 Turbine Cold Weather 10 Considerations, Manitoba 4109 11 CNF-1017: Presentation 12 slides, Manitoba Hydro's use of 13 wildlife habitat models, by Dan 14 Soprovich 4206 15 CNF-1018: Valuation of 16 wildlife habitat, Manitoba Hydro's 17 assessment of the Wuskwatim 18 development, presentation to the 19 Manitoba Clean Environment Commission 20 by Dan Soprovich 4206 21 22 23 24 25 3934 1 INDEX OF UNDERTAKINGS 2 3 UNDERTAKING NO. PAGE 4 5 CNF-58: Produce copy of proposal Ms. 6 May put to the Ontario Energy Minister 3956 7 CNF-59: Produce study of American 8 Wind Energy Association 9 CNF-60: Provide documentation 10 which show trends re future costs in 11 wind energy 4082 12 CNF-61: Provide background 13 information re claim that domestic manufacturing 14 could further reduce costs between 5 and 10 15 percent 4082 16 CNF-62: Provide article from Wind 17 Power Monthly 4098 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3935 1 WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 2004 2 Upon commencing at 10:10 a.m. 3 4 THE CHAIRMAN: All right, ladies and 5 gentlemen, good morning. I'm sorry that we could not 6 provide the sun that we had yesterday. But think 7 about it this way, instead of wanting to be outside, 8 you're going to want to be inside and that's what 9 gives us the pleasure of having your presence here. 10 And Hydro always welcomes additional water. 11 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yes. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: We begin this morning by 13 continuing with the presentation from Manitoba 14 Wildlands and Canadian Nature Federation. And if I'm 15 correct, we will first begin with the presentation 16 from Ms. Elizabeth May. Good morning. 17 MS. MAY: Good morning. And to members 18 of the Panel, thank you very much for allowing Sierra 19 Club of Canada to present in the context of the 20 presentations from Manitoba Wildlands Canadian Nature 21 Federation. We had some concerns with scheduling and 22 I appreciate the fact that you were able to fit us 23 in. I wasn't entirely sure until recently that we'd 24 be able to attend, particularly in person. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. Grewar. 3936 1 MR. GREWAR: It's necessary for us to ask 2 you a couple of questions before we begin. If you 3 can state your name for the record? 4 MS. MAY: My name is Elizabeth May. 5 MR. GREWAR: M-A -- 6 MS. MAY: Y. 7 MR. GREWAR: Ms. May, are you aware that 8 in Manitoba, it is an offence to knowingly mislead 9 this Commission? 10 MS. MAY: I wasn't aware but I think 11 that's a very good idea. 12 MR. GREWAR: Knowing that, do you promise 13 to tell only the truth in proceedings before this 14 Commission? 15 MS. MAY: Yes, I do. 16 MR. GREWAR: Thank you very much. 17 MS. MAY: Thank you. 18 19 (ELIZABETH MAY: SWORN) 20 21 MS. MAY: Thank you. Again, I appreciate 22 the opportunity to present before the Manitoba Clean 23 Environment Commission on the subject of the 24 Wuskwatim Dam transmission lines proposal that are 25 before you. Just a bit of background. You have my 3937 1 written brief. I think I won't go into great detail 2 on the Sierra Club of Canada's background on these 3 sorts of issues, just to say that we have a long 4 history in Canada since the 1960s of concern with 5 energy issues, hydroelectric issues, issues relating 6 to biological diversity, protection of forests. We 7 are a national non-profit environmental group. We 8 are membership-based and governed by volunteers 9 through direct election. 10 I am here in the capacity of Executive 11 Director of the national organization and also of our 12 prairie chapter which includes our members in 13 Manitoba. 14 We've been very engaged on the climate 15 change issue in particular and it is the climate 16 change impacts that most of our brief is addressed. 17 Sierra Club of Canada concerns in this 18 regard, we are aware of and have reviewed the 19 Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the 20 proponents for the Wuskwatim Generation Project. We 21 are aware that it is a 200 megawatt generation 22 station, extensive transmission system with 23 additional station and lines involving clearing of 24 forests along differing size of rights of ways 25 between 60 and 110 metres, depending on whether it's 3938 1 a single or double transmission line. The clearing 2 actually is two metres short of that, so 58 and 108 3 metres of largely undisturbed boreal forest, flooding 4 of an area of half a square kilometre with water 5 fluctuating to maintain a one metre lake storage of 6 impounded water. We are concerned because of course 7 this flooding is additional to the flooding from 8 existing hydroelectric projects in this river system 9 and in Northern Manitoba. 10 And I see from today's newspaper that you 11 have heard some of the heart-wrenching experiences of 12 other communities that have already experienced this 13 sort of flooding. 14 It is referred to in the Environmental 15 Impact Statement as "modified run of the river." 16 This is I think a curious definition although the 17 Environmental Impact Statement refers to this as a 18 compromise, it could as easily be referred to as a 19 slightly modified conventional dam. There is no 20 similarity between the Wuskwatim Dam project and true 21 run of the river which, by most definitions, does not 22 create permanent impoundments. 23 Our second concern relates to the 24 adequacy of the environmental review process and the 25 approach taken by the proponents. Sierra Club of 3939 1 Canada wishes to note as a significant failure of the 2 process, the failure to apply the guidance document 3 from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 4 titled "Incorporating Climate Change Considerations 5 in Environmental Assessment: General Guidance for 6 Practitioners." I have provided this document in 7 advance. As well, it was prepared by the 8 federal/provincial territorial committee on climate 9 change and environmental assessment and was released 10 November 2003. But drafts of this document have been 11 on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 12 website for over a year before that. So proponents 13 preparing an EIS should have been aware of it. 14 While the Environmental Impact Statement 15 does take note of possible greenhouse gas emissions, 16 which is part of what's required under the CEAA 17 document, the EIS fails to incorporate potential 18 impacts of climate change as they could affect the 19 project. 20 In another province, the Alberta Energy 21 and Utilities Board has concluded that it will ensure 22 the CEAA guidelines are followed in future Alberta 23 hearings. The failure of Manitoba Hydro and Manitoba 24 Conservation to follow the Canadian Environmental 25 Assessment Agency climate change guidelines is 3940 1 disappointing not to mention a serious gap in a 2 proper review of a project reliant on predictable 3 water flows. 4 Moreover, the project assessment did not 5 include a true review of alternatives to meet energy 6 needs. This is also required under CEAA. The thrust 7 of the Manitoba Hydro energy planning appears to be 8 the export of hydroelectric generated electricity to 9 the United States while continuing to operate fossil 10 fuel burning electric stations for electricity for 11 domestic provincial consumption. 12 If the goal is long-term energy 13 sustainability for Manitobans, the creation of 14 ongoing obligations to maintain high levels of 15 exports to the United States through the energy 16 chapter of the North America Free Trade Agreement, 17 the current energy policy is problematic. The 18 approach also fails to deliver on a serious 19 commitment to reducing greenhouse gases. 20 The review of alternatives to meet the 21 energy delivered by the proposed Wuskwatim Dam should 22 have considered demand-side management, sometimes 23 just known as conservation, renewable sources of 24 energy, true run of the river, solar and wind and 25 significant co-generation or district energy 3941 1 opportunities. The Pembina Institute, contracted to 2 assess the lifetime greenhouse gas emissions from the 3 project, was not asked to assess demand-side 4 management or co-generation delivering the same 5 energy reducing greenhouse gases far more and 6 avoiding the ecological costs of flooding 7 clear-cutting and fragmentation of remote boreal 8 forests. 9 Prior to licensing decisions, the 10 proponents should be required to conduct a thorough 11 review of alternatives to aid the citizens of 12 Manitoba in making a decision in the long-term 13 interests of the province. The Environmental Impact 14 Statement should be redone to include the climate 15 change impacts on the viability of the project. 16 We also have concerns as an organization 17 about protected areas and biological diversity. 18 Because you have had other witnesses and will have 19 other witnesses on this topic, we just note briefly 20 that we are concerned about the impact of 21 fragmentation of the boreal forest through clearing 22 of rights of way, construction of transmission lines 23 and do not see that this has been adequately assessed 24 in the Environmental Impact Statement. The impact of 25 opening up remote areas in this fashion is often to 3942 1 invite other users, whether hunters, off-road 2 vehicles or others into a previously inaccessible 3 area. This phenomenon increases significantly the 4 impact on biodiversity of construction of 5 transmission lines. 6 Clearly public policy for protected areas 7 establishment has not received the technical 8 treatment expected including by the EIS guidelines 9 themselves. 10 Now the bulk of what we wish to address 11 as an organization is the climate change portions of 12 this EIS. As previous presenters have spoken to a 13 number of other issues of concern and there has been, 14 as far as we can see from the transcripts, little 15 attention to the science of climate change, it is the 16 climate change issue to which we do wish to direct 17 most of our comments. 18 Given the political leadership for which 19 is an organization, I'll add parenthetically, we are 20 grateful from the Doer Government on the Kyoto 21 Ratification issue, it is quite shocking that the 22 Environmental Impact Statement prepared largely by 23 Manitoba Hydro is so cavalier and sloppy regarding 24 the state of the science. 25 Throughout the Impact Statement, there 3943 1 are references to climate change as though the 2 scientific community was in some large degree of 3 doubt about the relative role played by solar and 4 volcanic activity versus human caused emissions of 5 greenhouse gases in causing climate change. The 6 characterization of the issue is simply misleading. 7 I'll also note that it seems to be 8 pointless because it isn't germane to what Manitoba 9 Hydro may or may not be able to do with this project 10 but it is disturbing. 11 The international community recognized in 12 1992 that human generated greenhouse gases, as well 13 as land use changes, were a threat to the stability 14 of global climate. The United Nations Framework 15 Convention on Climate Change, signed and ratified by 16 Canada in 1992 as well as by approximately 180 other 17 countries including the United States sets forth key 18 propositions on this issue. These propositions 19 include that human interference with global 20 atmosphere is a serious problem, that the 21 precautionary principle applies. In other words, 22 action could not wait for 100 per cent proof which 23 would likely only be available through a planetary 24 post mortem, that all parties to the convention must 25 aim to reduce greenhouse gases so that greenhouse 3944 1 gases stabilize in the atmosphere prior to reaching 2 levels described in the convention as "dangerous". 3 The subsequent Kyoto Protocol, which is a 4 creature of the umbrella Framework Convention on 5 Climate Change, sets out targets and deadlines. 6 Canada has ratified the Kyoto protocol, once again 7 accepting that the science is clear that human caused 8 greenhouse gas emissions are more than a probable 9 small contributor to global climate change as 10 Manitoba Hydro's EIS would suggest, but are actually 11 driving the climate system in new and dangerous ways. 12 The international scientific consensus 13 can be set out as follows: The world has been 14 warming and will continue to warm for the foreseeable 15 future; that warming is largely due to human 16 activity; the consequences of rising temperature are 17 grave enough to warrant global action. 18 The consensus of scientific opinion on 19 which I will draw key points for your consideration 20 comes from a United Nations body established in 1988. 21 Canada played an important role in its creation 22 through a number of United Nations agencies. That 23 body, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on 24 Climate Change, or IPCC, is comprised of 25 approximately 2,000 scientists and experts appointed 3945 1 by governments from around the world. The IPCC 2 reviews all the peer-reviewed scientific literature 3 and periodically negotiates a consensus view. It is 4 important to underscore that the IPCC consensus, 5 while viewed by some as overstating the threat from 6 human-generated greenhouse gases, is equally viewed 7 by many other scientists as seriously underestimating 8 the risk. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. May, would you just go 10 a little slower for the record. 11 MS. MAY: Oh, I'm sorry. One of the key 12 differences between natural climate changes and what 13 we are now experiencing is the rate of change. The 14 rate of average temperature increase in the last 15 century is unprecedented in the past 1,000 years. 16 The actual chemistry of our atmosphere is changing 17 and changing fast. 18 Prior to the industrial revolution, the 19 atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide was 20 approximately 275 parts per million. That level has 21 been remarkably stable over the last 20 million years 22 or so as determined through a number of sources. 23 Carbon-dated Antarctic ice core data, going back 24 160,000 years, in which they actually isolate the air 25 pockets and then are able to actually test how much 3946 1 CO2 was in the air going back 160,000 years. Proxy 2 data from tree rings and corals take us back further 3 than 160,000 years. And then there's more recent 4 historical record. 5 But in the last century, and particularly 6 in the period since the second World War, human 7 activity has been changing the atmosphere's chemical 8 balance. The emission rates have shot through the 9 roof with global carbon dioxide emissions growing 10 four-fold between 1950 and 1994. The carbon cycle of 11 green plant life in ocean and forest stores much of 12 that carbon. After all the netting out of carbon 13 through natural processes, the actual concentration 14 in the atmosphere has risen from the 275 parts per 15 million before the industrial revolution to 16 approximately 370 parts per million today, more than 17 a 30 per cent increase. 18 Changes in the planet's atmosphere 19 chemistry are largely irreversible. The atmosphere 20 is nearly unfathomably large and complex as a system. 21 There are very long lag times between when action is 22 taken for good or for ill by humanity and when it 23 reaches a new equilibrium in the atmosphere. For 24 example, in the most recent IPCC assessment, it is 25 stated that if humanity were able to reduce global 3947 1 emissions of greenhouse gases by fully 60 per cent 2 below 1990 levels and do so immediately, this would 3 of course be magical. But if that were possible, it 4 would take a century for temperature levels to 5 stabilize, more than a century for greenhouse gas 6 concentrations in the atmosphere to stabilize and 7 1,000 years for sea level rise to stop. 8 Of course if greenhouse gases were 9 reduced by 60 per cent below 1990 levels, the end 10 point at which temperature, greenhouse gas 11 concentrations and sea level rise would be arrested 12 would be far lower than if we fail to reduce 13 emissions. But in fact, reductions in the order of 14 60 per cent below 1990 levels are essential according 15 to the IPCC consensus if we are to avoid a doubling 16 of atmospheric concentrations, thus reaching 550 17 parts per million. 18 The 550 part per million mark has been 19 used as a rough estimate of an unacceptable level of 20 extreme danger for human activity on the planet. The 21 lag times are important and that's why I've raised 22 them here. The lag times between action and when the 23 planet's atmosphere can respond. Knowledge is 24 important in keeping the hubris of human activity in 25 some sort of context. The carbon dioxide we emit 3948 1 today will be impacting our global climate for the 2 next 100 years. 3 Another significant misunderstanding in 4 the Manitoba Hydro EIS is in its dismissal of climate 5 change science as having anything useful to tell us 6 about climate change impacts on this particular 7 project as the proponent has been directed through 8 the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency document 9 to do. The proponents are urged to examine the 10 impacts of climate change on their particular 11 project. 12 Manitoba Hydro absolves itself of this 13 significant obligation with the bald statement, 14 "Due to the level of uncertainty 15 relating to the potential effects of 16 climate change, Manitoba Hydro cannot 17 project a specific climate change 18 scenario for the Wuskwatim Generation 19 Project area." 20 Now it is no doubt true that the greater the 21 level of detail as to specific location, the more 22 local your predictive capacity, in other words, your 23 requirements, the more difficult and the less certain 24 is the result. Nevertheless, there are some observed 25 existing trends. These trends are consistent with 3949 1 the larger scale general circulation global climate 2 models. And one of the emerging areas that gives 3 increased confidence about our understanding of the 4 relationship between human-generated greenhouse gases 5 and the destabilization of global climate comes as a 6 result of finding that models of climate change track 7 very well along observed impacts. 8 There has not been a great deal of work, 9 at least that we were able to find before this 10 hearing, on observed impacts on water resources. Now 11 that's a typo, from, as opposed to "form", from 12 existing levels of climate change in Northern 13 Manitoba, but there has been some work. 14 And I have attached for you a paper 15 prepared by a team of scientists who work within the 16 Environment Canada Meteorological Service. Dr. Zhang 17 is a lead researcher and published the work of his 18 team in April 2001 in the Journal of Water Resources 19 Research. The paper is found with the title "Trends 20 in Canadian Stream Flow." 21 Their research has demonstrated that 22 generally across Canada, annual mean stream flow has 23 decreased in the periods of time in which they have 24 been studying. This was particularly a factor in 25 southern Canada due to increased evaporation, 3950 1 northern rivers such as the Athabasca, which are 2 glacier-fed, also shows significant decline. 3 In the study, there were some measuring 4 stations in Northern Manitoba. They are found in the 5 paper. Northern Manitoba is also showing signs of 6 changes in stream flow. Between 1957 and 1996, there 7 are seasonal trends in monthly mean stream flow with 8 declines, although weaker statistically than in 9 Athabasca for instance, with declines in April and 10 small increases in September. The same trends hold 11 true for daily mean stream flow. 12 The Sierra Club of Canada contacted Dr. 13 Zhang for clarifications on the trends in Northern 14 Manitoba. We would urge the Manitoba Clean 15 Environment Commission to do the same and engage a 16 number of independent experts to review the available 17 data, the global climate general circulation models 18 and set out a range of likely climate scenarios. Or 19 if more appropriate than suggesting the Commission 20 should do it, the Commission could instruct Manitoba 21 Hydro to do it. 22 Dr. Zhang would not assert that past 23 stream flow data can be used to draw a direct line to 24 predict stream flow in the future. However he, like 25 most climate scientists, would agree that it is a 3951 1 near certainty that temperature in the region will 2 continue to increase. As temperature does so, it is 3 likely that evaporation will also increase. The 4 greater the evaporation, the more stream flow will be 5 negatively impacted. The Wuskwatim dam project is 6 dependent on reliable and predictable levels of water 7 flow. Climate change science suggests that future 8 climate will be anything but predictable. 9 It is not possible to assert at this 10 point that the levels of climatic disruption of the 11 system will render the project non-viable. But 12 absent any attempt by the proponent to analyze coming 13 climatic impacts on the region, it is equally 14 impossible to say that they will not. 15 The document "Manitoba and Climate 16 Change: A Primer," co-produced by this Commission and 17 the International Institute for Sustainable 18 Development in December 2001 anticipates the 19 potential threat to projects such as this due to 20 climate change impacts. And I quote, 21 "The increased summer temperatures 22 together with reduced precipitation 23 and higher evaporation might reduce 24 the amount of water available for 25 Manitoba's hydroelectric production." 3952 1 The Canadian Environmental Assessment 2 Agency guidelines on climate change should have been 3 applied to the Environmental Impact Statement so that 4 at least some reasonable attempt given the best 5 science available was made to assess future impacts 6 on the project. 7 In conclusion, it is beyond the scope of 8 this brief to comment on all aspects of the proposed 9 project and Environmental Impact Statement. Sierra 10 Club of Canada's role here is to focus greater 11 attention on the urgent need to develop an adaptation 12 strategy for Manitoba Hydro's operations in general 13 and this proposal in particular. Climate change 14 impacts are real and will increase in the future. 15 For a project anticipating a 100 year life span, this 16 need is even more compelling. 17 There are other alternatives to meet 18 Manitoba's energy needs. These alternatives 19 contribute directly to reducing greenhouse gas 20 emissions, protect biological diversity and stimulate 21 the economy. Those alternatives should have been 22 addressed by the proponent in this Environmental 23 Impact Statement. Thank you very much. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Questions? 25 Mr. Sargeant. 3953 1 MR. SARGEANT: Ms. May, just on the very 2 last point where you talk about alternatives to meet 3 Manitoba's energy needs, what are you specifically 4 referring to? 5 MS. MAY: A number of them have been 6 suggested in various other policy documents like the 7 report of Manitoba Climate and Change Task Force. 8 For all of Canada, and it applies as well for 9 Manitoba, there are huge opportunities in what we 10 call co-generation which I mentioned are district 11 energy where if Manitoba Hydro were to change the 12 policy of only buying power based on their cost of 13 production but were to aggressively encourage large 14 industrial users who have waste heat to capture that 15 waste heat as energy and sell that energy back into 16 the grid, that's a very large pool of potential 17 energy that's currently wasted. 18 I know that Manitoba Hydro has a 19 PowerSmart program. There's much more that can be 20 done in what is referred to as demand-side management 21 reducing the demand for electricity through use of 22 higher efficiency, lighting, heating, cooling, and 23 other industrial operations. Those are and -- those 24 are the ones to which there doesn't seem to have been 25 any analysis in preparation for this EIS. 3954 1 MR. SARGEANT: But what we've heard over 2 the last few weeks is that Manitoba Hydro, 3 particularly on the demand-side management, seems to 4 be doing a fair bit and seems to have, at least 5 according to them, seems to be committed to doing 6 more or as much as possible in the future on 7 demand-side management. 8 MS. MAY: Canada as a whole, none of our 9 utilities have begun to tap the potential of 10 demand-side management. I didn't bring it with me 11 but if you wanted an undertaking to provide it later, 12 we just did an analysis for the Energy Minister in 13 Ontario, his request of the demand-side management, 14 the best practices found throughout a number of 15 states in the United States. The potential for 16 significantly, and I mean so significantly that you 17 wouldn't need to even be considering -- Manitoba 18 Hydro wouldn't need to be considering any new kind of 19 production facilities, the mechanisms and the policy 20 tools to get far more significant reductions in 21 energy demand than what we're currently doing can be 22 found in other jurisdictions in both the United 23 States and in Europe. Ontario I think may end up 24 being further along on this because of the crunch 25 that comes from the McGinty government's commitment 3955 1 to shut down all its coal plants and the reluctance 2 to spend billions of dollars re-tubing nuclear plants 3 that aren't particularly reliable. 4 So while Manitoba Hydro, like B.C. Power, 5 like Nova Scotia Power Corporation, has a number of 6 programs that suggest they are doing more with 7 demand-side management than they used to, they are 8 just scraping the surface at this point. It's a good 9 direction that they acknowledge it has potential but 10 there's much more that can be done. 11 An aggressive program of demand-side 12 management would, in our view, mean there's no need 13 to develop any further new supply-side solutions and 14 the supplies right across Canada. 15 We did a study with an expert that I 16 believe another intervenor is going to bring before 17 you, Ralph Torrie. We did a study through the 18 climate action network in conjunction with the David 19 Suzuki Foundation titled "Kyoto and Beyond." And 20 based on existing technologies, nothing new needing 21 to be invented, just deploying what was available 22 now. Mr. Torrie and his consulting firm concluded 23 that we could reduce greenhouse gases in Canada by 50 24 per cent, shut down all the existing coal and nuclear 25 plants, not bring on any new hydro and meet all our 3956 1 energy needs including for a Canada with increasing 2 population and increasing economic activity. So the 3 potential is huge. 4 Another benefit of what Mr. Torrie's 5 study did for us was in back-casting and looking at 6 saying if we had not had the energy efficiency 7 measures that were put in place just by the nature of 8 an economy that's more competitive by being more 9 efficient, the energy saved in the last 30 years 10 through that just incremental efficiency improvement 11 is larger than all the new power that was brought on 12 stream in that 30 year period in Canada. The 13 potential is huge. 14 MR. SARGEANT: I for one would be 15 interested in a copy of that proposal that you put to 16 the Ontario Minister. I think that would be of some 17 interest to us. 18 19 (UNDERTAKING CNF-58: Produce copy of proposal Ms. 20 May put to the Ontario Energy Minister) 21 22 MR. SARGEANT: On the co-generation 23 matter, are you aware of the economics? I plead 24 ignorant on the economics of co-generation. Is it 25 economically feasible? 3957 1 MS. MAY: Actually I'm more familiar with 2 the situation in Ontario because I know more people 3 in the pulp and paper industry in Ontario who have 4 been beating their heads against the wall with 5 Ontario Hydro for years to sell energy into the grid. 6 It's economically attractive to both the waste heat 7 providers who tap their electricity and it's a cheap 8 source of energy to utilities. 9 MR. SARGEANT: I mean one thing about 10 Manitoba is that we're a much less industrialized 11 economy than Ontario. 12 MS. MAY: That's true. 13 MR. SARGEANT: I am not sure how many 14 large industries we would have that could get into 15 such an arrangement. 16 MS. MAY: The amount of waste heat, even 17 on a conventional office building, can be surprising 18 in terms of its ability to create if that energy is 19 tapped and then made available to a secondary or sold 20 into the grid. Even small amounts of waste heat are 21 valuable. Obviously the bigger -- the pulp and paper 22 mills are an obvious source and I know you have some 23 of those. But there is potential even in small 24 amounts of waste heat. 25 MR. SARGEANT: Thank you. 3958 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mayer? 2 MR. MAYER: Ms. May, Manitoba Hydro has 3 argued that firstly hydroelectric power is a 4 renewable source in light of their partnership with 5 NCN, the phrase so long as the rivers shall flow 6 comes immediately to mind. The water being used or 7 proposed to be used should Wuskwatim be constructed 8 is already flowing. They acknowledge significant 9 damage from Churchill River Diversion, but it's 10 already flowing. It will continue to flow through 11 there whether or not Wuskwatim is constructed to 12 power or at least to provide basically fuel for the 13 very large hydroelectric generation stations on the 14 Lower Nelson. 15 Hydro further argues that this renewable 16 energy being exported to the States will 17 significantly displace the existing or -- the 18 existing fossil fuel plants, coal or gas, or will 19 help prevent the construction of any further coal or 20 gas in the northern states. They argue and they 21 haven't completely dismissed the issue of climate 22 change, they argue that in fact, the production and 23 export of Wuskwatim power will provide a significant 24 net reduction in greenhouse gases in North America 25 and they argue, and I would suggest correctly so and 3959 1 I would like your comments on this, that climate 2 change is global and if we can significantly reduce 3 greenhouse gases being emitted in the northern 4 states, we are doing the world at least some good. 5 MS. MAY: Thank you, Mr. Mayer. Those 6 are all good points and I hope I've captured them all 7 to respond. 8 Yes, the river will flow and one of the 9 reasons that there have been extensive debates, I'm 10 not sure if this has come before you, about what 11 should be considered renewable energy and green 12 energy for purposes of renewable portfolio standards 13 throughout the states. In the United States, as you 14 probably know, a great many states have requirements 15 for renewable portfolio standards and large 16 impoundments of hydro are explicitly excluded in many 17 states as being green or renewable. Run of the 18 river, smaller scale hydro without impoundments is 19 generally -- well not generally, is always considered 20 renewable and green for purposes of the renewable 21 portfolio standards. 22 I was on a panel convened by the North 23 American Commission for Environmental Cooperation 24 with members from Canada, U.S. and Mexico looking at 25 the impacts of greater deregulation of electricity 3960 1 sales and transmission in the NAFTA countries. And 2 this was one of the topics of debate and some fairly 3 arcane and fiercely held views on definitions. So I 4 don't mean to gloss over it. I know there are a lot 5 of debates over which states will consider power such 6 as Wuskwatim's as green and which would say no, 7 there's an impoundment that's not truly renewable. 8 Where we have rivers running where we can tap with 9 true run of the river, that is in fact renewable. 10 Larger scale hydro that involves dams 11 and, as you've mentioned, the proponent acknowledges 12 the damage done through the Churchill River 13 Diversion, larger scale hydro is not neutral in 14 greenhouse gas terms. The proponent did, as I 15 mentioned, commission the Pembina Institute to review 16 the greenhouse gas emissions from a number of 17 competing sources of production. As I mentioned, 18 they didn't look at the demand-side management 19 option. Clearly, the hydro project proposed here 20 produces less greenhouse gases than a coal plant. 21 But it's uncertain over the long term and the Pembina 22 Institute study acknowledges that it's quite 23 uncertain how much methane will be produced from 24 rotting vegetation, what the levels of decay will be 25 in real life and so on. So it's not climate neutral 3961 1 as a source of power. It is not in the view of my 2 organization. Sierra Club of Canada does not view a 3 dam impoundment on a river as a green or renewable 4 source of energy because the damage done to the local 5 ecosystem and the production of greenhouse gases are 6 not neutral role or benign. 7 The other argument is much harder to deal 8 with because it certainly has an appeal that if we 9 sell relatively greener power to the United States, 10 we could be displacing the clearly undesirable 11 coal-powered fire plant -- coal and other fossil fuel 12 fire electrical generating facilities. The problem 13 with this argument is and it's exactly because of the 14 way that the grids are now interlocked, the way power 15 is wheeled from one jurisdiction to another, that 16 it's not at all possible to say that Manitoba Hydro's 17 power being sold to the states displaces anything. 18 Given the current energy strategy of the 19 Bush/Cheney administration which calls for more coal 20 plants, more oil plants, more nuclear plants, it's 21 just part of a large system which has renounced 22 conservation as a goal at a national level. 23 Although, as I've mentioned earlier, a number of 24 states such as California and New York and others are 25 doing a lot to advance the issue of demand-side 3962 1 management. But as a nation, the United States is 2 not looking to shut down coal plants, they are 3 building more. 4 So if Manitoba Hydro were theoretically 5 able to obtain from the purchaser a commitment that 6 this power will in fact replace less desirable power 7 and we will use this power in ways that maximize 8 energy efficiency conservation and thus the consumers 9 and the taxpayers in Manitoba have some sense of 10 reality that their exports actually do reduce 11 greenhouse gases. It's essentially a theoretical 12 argument which may or may not be valid. 13 MR. MAYER: Are you aware, ma'am, that a 14 good -- well, at least I know the organization that 15 you are here on behalf of, the Canadian Nature 16 Federation is aware that I think it's something like 17 60 per cent of Manitoba's exports go to Excel in 18 Northern Minnesota. Is it 40? A significant amount. 19 And we have heard from witnesses, again called by the 20 Nature Federation, from Minnesota indicating that 21 they have certain requirements regarding renewable 22 energy. We have also heard from witnesses who say, 23 one particularly who was a proponent of wind power, 24 indicating that the hydroelectric power that 25 Minnesota imports is necessary in order to shape the 3963 1 wind power because the wind power is not as reliable. 2 We are also aware or at least the 3 testimony we have is that the power used by Excel, 4 and we have evidence that in fact it has prevented 5 the construction of at least one or two of the fossil 6 fuel plants. So we have that evidence before the 7 Commission. And it seems to be credible. 8 The other thing I was wondering if you 9 were aware, the evidence of flooding which is before 10 the Commission is what we call the immediate Forebay 11 between the two sets of falls, the one-half hectare, 12 acre. 13 MS. MAY: Half square kilometre. 14 MR. MAYER: That Hydro has undertaken to 15 clear that whole area so that the issue of rotting 16 vegetation will be very minimal. Were you aware of 17 that? 18 MS. MAY: Yes, and I've read the 19 background documents that were prepared for them by 20 the Pembina Institute. But even with clearing, if 21 you read the actual lifecycle analysis, well you 22 probably have read it, but when you look at the 23 lifecycle analysis prepared for the proponent by the 24 Pembina Institute, the Pembina Institute acknowledges 25 large degrees of uncertainty about the amount of 3964 1 methane that will be produced from the material on 2 the site, depending on the soil, depending on the 3 rate of decay. And they also acknowledge that they 4 accepted all of Manitoba Hydro's assumptions about 5 what was there. It wasn't an independent piece of 6 field work. But, yes, I am aware they planned to 7 clear the vegetation to reduce as much as possible 8 the methane production from rotting vegetation but it 9 is acknowledged there will still be some as the 10 project is not greenhouse gas neutral. 11 And they also, which I think is to their 12 credit, included the greenhouse gas implications of 13 clearing forest areas. That was also part of the 14 formula they looked at. So it was as a lifecycle 15 analysis using the information from Manitoba Hydro, 16 it was a pretty fair attempt at figuring out how much 17 greenhouse gas will be produced both during the 18 construction and operation of the dam. 19 I don't find fault with that. The 20 problem is that when you read the actual report, they 21 make it very clear that there are large degrees of 22 uncertainty about the rates of decay, how much 23 methane gas will be produced and so on. 24 And there are certainly worse ways to 25 build dams such as not clearing the trees first but 3965 1 there are also better ways to produce electricity 2 that don't generate the greenhouse gases in question. 3 And in answer to your question about wind 4 power and the specifics of Minnesota's energy grid, 5 I'm not going to pretend to know exactly how that 6 sorts itself out in Minnesota. I do hope that the 7 wind as a viable energy and renewable source of 8 energy for Manitobans as well as for Minnesotans will 9 be taken on board by Manitoba Hydro. And I know 10 later today, I believe there's another witness who 11 speaks from the wind energy industry and I'd like to 12 leave the specifics of your question, perhaps you can 13 address them to Mr. Hornung. 14 MR. MAYER: Thank you very much. I have 15 no further questions. 16 MS. MAY: Thank you, Mr. Mayer. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Other questions? 18 MR. WILLIAMS: Ms. May, I can assure you 19 and also Mr. Mayer that I won't be that long. But I 20 have introduced myself to you prior to you submitting 21 your presentation. But for the benefit of the 22 record, my name is Byron Williams. I'm an attorney 23 with the Public Interest Law Centre and I'm 24 representing the Consumers' Association of Canada and 25 The Manitoba Society of Seniors. 3966 1 And just by way of starting, Ms. May, I 2 am a bit of a rookie in the Clean Environment 3 Commission process but a process I am more familiar 4 with is the Public Utilities Board of Manitoba or the 5 CRTC. And usually the first question that a witness 6 is asked in those tribunals is was this, was your 7 evidence, was your submission prepared by you or was 8 it prepared by others under your direction? So that 9 would be my first question to you, would be was this 10 submission prepared by you or was it prepared by 11 others under your direction? 12 MS. MAY: It was prepared by me. I'd 13 love to have a life where I could have others who did 14 things under my direction. Sorry, I shouldn't be 15 facetious. 16 MR. WILLIAMS: It's something we all 17 aspire to. 18 MS. MAY: Yes. 19 MR. WILLIAMS: Now, in terms of the -- 20 you are aware that there's a fairly voluminous record 21 in this proceeding; is that right? 22 MS. MAY: Yes, I am aware of that, Mr. 23 Williams. 24 MR. WILLIAMS: And you are aware that 25 there were submissions by Manitoba Hydro both on what 3967 1 you have referred to as an EIS and also on the Need 2 For and Alternatives To Wuskwatim. Were you aware of 3 that? 4 MS. MAY: Yes, I am. 5 MR. WILLIAMS: When you said that we have 6 reviewed the EIS submission, again were you saying 7 that I have reviewed the EIS submission? 8 MS. MAY: I have reviewed the EIS 9 submission. 10 MR. WILLIAMS: And you have reviewed as 11 well the first and second round interrogatories in 12 terms of the EIS submission? 13 MS. MAY: I reviewed the interrogatories 14 as far as they were answered. I think there were 15 some interrogatories that weren't answered. 16 MR. WILLIAMS: And these are the 17 interrogatories of all parties or just the 18 interrogatories of the Canadian Nature Federation? 19 MS. MAY: No, I just reviewed the 20 interrogatories of the Canadian Nature Federation. 21 MR. WILLIAMS: And, for example, would 22 you have reviewed the interrogatories of the Clean 23 Environment Commission? 24 MS. MAY: No, I'm sorry, I have not. 25 MR. WILLIAMS: That's in terms of the 3968 1 EIS. And just so I am clear, in terms of the Need 2 For and Alternative submission, did you review the 3 initial submission of Manitoba Hydro in April of 2003 4 regarding the Need For and Alternative To Wuskwatim? 5 MS. MAY: No, I just read the Need For 6 Alternatives sections within the EIS. 7 MR. WILLIAMS: Just in terms of your 8 submission, I did promise you that my questions would 9 be fairly brief, I am referring to page 3 of the 10 submission from the Sierra Club. Under section 3, 11 the environmental review process, and in the second 12 paragraph there, there is a line, the second line, 13 the second sentence actually which suggests that, 14 "The thrust of the Manitoba Hydro 15 energy planning appears to be the 16 export of hydroelectric generated 17 electricity to the United States, 18 while continuing to operate fossil 19 fuel burning electric stations for 20 electricity for domestic provincial 21 consumption." 22 And that's a statement you prepared and that's based 23 upon your review of the EIS? 24 MS. MAY: That's right. And also 25 knowledge of Manitoba Hydro's system. I am aware 3969 1 through news coverage and other sources that Manitoba 2 Hydro is operating more natural gas, phasing out 3 coal, which is a good thing, but there will still 4 remain fossil fuel sources. 5 MR. WILLIAMS: And I just did want to 6 explore for a minute your knowledge of the Manitoba 7 Hydro system. Have you reviewed any of the recent 8 annual reports of Manitoba Hydro, the 2003, 2002 or 9 2001 annual reports? 10 MS. MAY: No, I haven't. 11 MR. WILLIAMS: Have you taken a look at 12 the 2002 or 2003 Power Resource Plan? 13 MS. MAY: No, I haven't. 14 MR. WILLIAMS: In terms of the Need For 15 and Alternatives submission, have you reviewed 16 chapter five, pages 12 and 13 relating to the 17 planning criteria for capacity and energy? 18 MS. MAY: I believe I already answered 19 that question when I said I had not reviewed the Need 20 For and Alternatives submissions separate from what's 21 stated in the Environmental Impact Statement. 22 MR. WILLIAMS: Just so I am clear, I 23 believe it's stated you did not review the CEC 24 interrogatories. But would I be right in assuming 25 that you have not reviewed CEC interrogatory and the 3970 1 Need For and Alternative 61-A which discusses how 2 Manitoba Hydro plans and operates its system on an 3 integrated basis? 4 MS. MAY: Having not reviewed them in 5 general, I would be very surprised to find I was 6 aware of them specifically. 7 MR. WILLIAMS: And just in terms -- I'm 8 going to ask you to confirm that you have not also 9 read from the status update hearing of 2002 any of 10 the interrogatories from that? 11 MS. MAY: No. 12 MR. WILLIAMS: Is that right? 13 MS. MAY: That's correct. 14 MR. WILLIAMS: So if I were to suggest to 15 you that Manitoba Hydro plans and operates its system 16 on an integrated basis looking at domestic load plus 17 firm commitments, based upon your review of the 18 record, would you be in any position to dispute that? 19 MS. MAY: Manitoba Hydro, from what I am 20 aware, is currently importing power from fossil fuel 21 sources outside the province while exporting Hydro 22 power to the United States and while maintaining 23 plants in Manitoba to produce electricity using 24 fossil fuel sources. So my point in the context in 25 which the sentence you have referred to from my brief 3971 1 appears is related specifically to the implications 2 for Manitobans in the future under the North American 3 Free Trade Agreement and the energy chapter of NAFTA. 4 And therefore by operating with increased exports to 5 the United States, Canada's energy system, as a 6 whole, not just Manitoba Hydro's, because the 7 obligations are federal, to maintain in perpetuity 8 whatever proportion of our total energy mix is 9 exported to the U.S. must be maintained as a 10 proportion thereof ad infinitum. That was the point 11 that's being made there. So Manitoba Hydro, as I 12 understand it, is committed to export of power to the 13 United States grid. 14 MR. WILLIAMS: Just so I'm clear. In the 15 sentence proceeding that, you seem to be expressing a 16 concern that Manitoba Hydro is continuing to operate 17 fossil fuel burning electric stations for electricity 18 for domestic provincial consumption; is that right? 19 MS. MAY: Yes. 20 MR. WILLIAMS: Would it be your 21 understanding or are you in a position to dispute the 22 fact that in terms of meeting its resource needs, 23 it's Hydro resources which are dispatched first by 24 Manitoba Hydro in terms of domestic consumption? 25 MS. MAY: I am not in a position to 3972 1 dispute that. 2 MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. Would you be in a 3 position to dispute the assertion that thermal 4 resources are operated as a last resort to meet 5 domestic load and firm export requirements? 6 MS. MAY: The term "last resort" seems a 7 bit extreme because it is more routine than 8 occasional. But how Manitoba Hydro, relatively 9 speaking, manages the power sources to which I have 10 referred, I am not going to dispute what you've read. 11 MR. WILLIAMS: Right. Would you dispute 12 the assertion that over the long term, the thermal 13 generating stations operate only 10 to 16 per cent of 14 the time? 15 MS. MAY: I wouldn't think that was out 16 of line with my understanding of their system, no, 17 not at all. 18 MR. WILLIAMS: And would you assert the 19 suggestion that over the past five years, thermal 20 generation accounted for about 2.2 per cent of 21 Manitoba's load supply? 22 MS. MAY: I think that -- I didn't quite 23 catch actually the last part of your sentence, 2.2 24 per cent of what? 25 MR. WILLIAMS: Manitoba's load supply? 3973 1 MS. MAY: Load supply? I'm surprised if 2 it's as low as 2.2. My understanding was that the 3 fossil fuel plants and the hydro plants did not 4 provide the majority of power in Manitoba, that there 5 is a mix. And I didn't think it was as low as 2.2. 6 So the technical term "load supply" may be the 7 problem. 8 MR. WILLIAMS: Let's put it a different 9 way. You haven't reviewed the annual reports of 10 Manitoba Hydro. Would you accept, subject to check, 11 that for the 2003 year, the total supply was 32,210 12 gigawatt hours? Would you accept that subject to 13 check? 14 MS. MAY: Yes. 15 MR. WILLIAMS: And would you accept, 16 subject to check, of that total of 32,210, the total 17 thermal supply was only 600 gigawatt hours? 18 MS. MAY: Yes, okay. So that would -- 19 yeah. 20 MR. WILLIAMS: And just to look at it 21 again in a different perspective, would you accept, 22 subject to check, that the domestic sales in terms of 23 2003 were 18,953 gigawatt hours? 24 MS. MAY: Yes, I had seen that, yeah. 25 MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. Mr. Chairman, those 3974 1 are all my questions. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Williams. 3 Other questions? Mr. Mayer. 4 MR. MAYER: Mr. Chair, arising out of Mr. 5 Williams' questions, how many thermal units do you 6 think Manitoba Hydro has? 7 MS. MAY: I'd like to give that as an 8 undertaking and get back to you because I know that 9 they are currently shifting them over to other units. 10 MR. MAYER: Well, no. We've had Brandon 11 units and Selkirk. But has somebody led you to 12 believe that it's a significant portion of what 13 Manitoba Hydro produces? 14 MS. MAY: It's not -- no one had led me 15 to believe it was a significant portion. I know they 16 were maintained because actually I had been visiting 17 people in Selkirk who had been complaining of the air 18 pollution from their coal plant. So I visited that 19 one. I haven't visited the one in Brandon. I am 20 aware of local air pollution issues when they were 21 operating with coal. I am not sure how far the coal 22 conversion to natural gas has gone at this stage. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Other questions? Peter 24 Miller. 25 MR. MILLER: I have one arising from an 3975 1 answer you gave to Byron Williams because it has to 2 do with NAFTA requirement for continuous supply. 3 Obviously in a Hydro system that doesn't work very 4 well, that is that if there's a growing domestic load 5 because it bumps up as you create a new supply source 6 and then you taper it off. And that's been the 7 standard way that they have operated. And I raised 8 the same question of Hydro. And their response was 9 that the NAFTA rules apply to governments not to 10 corporations. So in other words, a government can 11 create contracts that have a limited term for supply 12 and then they don't have to renew them and the 13 only -- that the NAFTA rules prevent governments from 14 intervening in private contractual relations to limit 15 that export. I wonder if you would comment on that 16 interpretation of NAFTA. 17 MS. MAY: I actually reviewed that 18 portion of the transcripts. I was surprised at 19 Manitoba Hydro's answer. It is true that 20 corporations are not directly bound by NAFTA. The 21 three national governments of Canada, the U.S. and 22 Mexico are bound by NAFTA. The energy provisions of 23 the energy chapter of NAFTA would apply equally to 24 Canada or the U.S. But since it's Canada that 25 exports power to the United States, it's generally 3976 1 understood to be applying primarily to restraining 2 Canada's options in the future. And the federal 3 Government of Canada is under an obligation to 4 maintain the same proportion of all power sold from 5 our total power supply. 6 So as we, for instance, export about 60 7 per cent of our natural gas right now to the U.S., no 8 matter how much natural gas we produce in the future, 9 60 per cent would always be going to the United 10 States. The same applies to hydro. There's a 11 commitment to maintain proportional sharing with the 12 United States. That commitment is a commitment of 13 the Federal Government and there would be NAFTA 14 sanctions against Canada if, for instance, Canada's 15 electricity suppliers suddenly chose to sell less. 16 Our natural gas suppliers sold less than the 17 proportional amount of the total. So it's not by 18 gigawatt hours, it's by percentage. And that 19 obligation under NAFTA is one where Canada, as a 20 nation, could receive significant trade sanctions and 21 penalties. 22 You and I can imagine what would happen 23 if Canada was receiving trade sanctions and 24 penalties. I don't think Manitoba Hydro would be in 25 a position to say doesn't apply to us. I think that 3977 1 all the energy suppliers in Canada in that situation 2 would be subject to the kinds of policy mechanisms 3 and pressures and so on to ensure that we remove 4 trade sanctions from the United States and complied 5 with continuing to sell them the power. That's the 6 nature of the restriction. It is a nation state to 7 nation state obligation but there are domestic tools 8 to ensure that Canadian suppliers and distributers of 9 energy of all types maintain that proportional 10 sharing. Unless of course the Canadian Government 11 decides to give six months notice and leave NAFTA, 12 which of course is another thing that any body like 13 the Clean Environment Commission might want to 14 consider in terms of the significance of this 15 restriction on Canadian energy, planning and autonomy 16 in our decision-making about sustainable energy for 17 the future. It's an option but I don't actually see 18 any major political party espousing that option at 19 this point. 20 MR. MILLER: The government is not in the 21 production business itself and so it's difficult to 22 see how it could guarantee a supply. 23 MS. MAY: Well, the Federal Government 24 did exactly that when it signed the energy chapter of 25 NAFTA. It guarantees that, and only on energy, this 3978 1 does not apply to other commodities and trade, but 2 the energy chapter of NAFTA ensures that whatever 3 proportion of energy we are currently selling in the 4 United States, we will continue to do so. So that if 5 we conserve domestically within that total envelope 6 of conservation, if the pie gets smaller, the 7 proportion of the pie that has to go to the United 8 States is constant in terms of NAFTA. 9 How that's operationalized, if one 10 utility says, well, we have to maintain our domestic 11 production for domestic use, we no longer are in a 12 position to export, we want to keep the energy local. 13 If that's started being a trend across Canada, the 14 Federal Government and all the Canadian economy would 15 be subject to trade sanctions by the U.S. in an 16 effort to ensure that we lived up to our NAFTA 17 commitments for energy export. 18 MR. MILLER: Thanks very much. I hope on 19 re-examination people who have that power will 20 redirect to Hydro on that issue? 21 MS. MAY: Thank you. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Miller. 23 Other questions? Mr. Bedford. 24 MR. BEDFORD: Good morning, Ms. May. 25 MS. MAY: Good morning. 3979 1 MR. BEDFORD: My name is Doug Bedford and 2 I am one of the counsel for Manitoba Hydro. I'd like 3 us to begin, you and I, with establishing what 4 exactly it is that you have read in the Environmental 5 Impact Statement. There is a series of volumes that 6 deals with the transmission project, a series of 7 volumes that deals with the generation station 8 project and a series of volumes that constitute 9 appendices to each, two supplementary filings, one in 10 August of 2003 and a second in October of 2003. And 11 then as someone else noted, there's a whole series, I 12 think over 2,000 interrogatory questions. What 13 portions of the EIS have you read? 14 MS. MAY: I read all the volumes in the 15 initial EIS. I'm not certain I read the subsequent 16 ones. I can't tell you, Mr. Bedford, that I've 17 memorized them. And I paid more attention to the 18 ones that have a direct application for us. 19 MR. BEDFORD: When you say all volumes in 20 the initial EIS, I would conclude that you read both 21 the transmission project volumes and the generation 22 station volumes? 23 MS. MAY: That's correct. 24 MR. BEDFORD: When did you read them? 25 MS. MAY: I read them in the last 10 3980 1 days. I carried them with me to various places. My 2 suitcase weighed a tonne. 3 MR. BEDFORD: Have you also had occasion 4 to read the transcript of the testimony that was 5 given yesterday? 6 MS. MAY: No, I have not. 7 MR. BEDFORD: The subject of the Canadian 8 Environmental Assessment Association Guidelines on 9 Climate Change and the Environmental Impact Statement 10 and whether or not they were incorporated came up in 11 testimony yesterday. But given that you haven't read 12 that testimony -- 13 MS. MAY: Perhaps I could just make sure 14 the record is correct. It's the Canadian 15 Environmental Assessment Agency, not association. 16 It's a Federal Government department within 17 Environment Canada. 18 MR. BEDFORD: My mistake. 19 MS. MAY: Sorry. 20 MR. BEDFORD: Could you turn for a moment 21 to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 22 Guidelines on Climate Change which I was given I 23 think at six o'clock yesterday as part of your 24 initial draft presentation. My copy is opened at 25 page 6. Could you turn to page 6 which has at the 3981 1 top article 2 or section 2. I'd like to focus on 2 just the first little part of section 2 which to me 3 seems to capture the substance of what the guideline 4 is all about. I quote, 5 "This section presents two practical 6 approaches for incorporating climate 7 change considerations in EA," 8 meaning environmental assessment. 9 "1. Greenhouse gas considerations 10 where a proposed project may 11 contribute to greenhouse gas 12 emissions. 13 2. Impacts considerations where 14 climate change may affect a proposed 15 project." 16 Now with that open in front of you and in 17 everyone's mind, can I ask you whether or not you 18 have read the guidelines that were issued for 19 preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement 20 that is before this Commission? 21 MS. MAY: No, I have not. 22 MR. BEDFORD: Those guidelines, and I 23 quote, include the statement, 24 "The Environmental Impact Statement 25 shall describe general climate 3982 1 conditions with sufficient data 2 provided to predict the effect of the 3 project on climate and the potential 4 effects of climate on the project." 5 Now, given the portion of the Canadian 6 Environmental Assessment Agency Guidelines that we've 7 all just read and compared with what I've just read 8 to you that comes from the guidelines that were 9 issued for the Environmental Impact Statement that 10 was filed before this Commission, aren't the two 11 objectives that are outlined virtually identical? 12 MS. MAY: I wasn't speaking to the 13 objectives and the Environmental Impact Statement 14 Guidelines either that were handed to the proponent 15 but to your client's compliance with them and the 16 section of the Impact Statement which I quoted in my 17 brief, you know, which Manitoba Hydro concluded they 18 could only do the first of these tasks and did not 19 attempt to do the latter. 20 MR. BEDFORD: One of the documents that I 21 gather you were able to read was the Pembina 22 Institute study that forms one of the appendices to 23 the Environmental Impact Statement? 24 MS. MAY: That's correct. 25 MR. BEDFORD: You will have read, as I 3983 1 did when I read that report, that hydro produces less 2 greenhouse gases than wind. Do you recall that? 3 MS. MAY: In the lifecycle analysis, they 4 said the two were very similar. 5 MR. BEDFORD: But in the case of the 6 Wuskwatim project, which is the project that's before 7 this Commission, the conclusion was that Wuskwatim 8 will produce less greenhouse gases than the wind 9 alternative? 10 MS. MAY: With the uncertainties in 11 relation to the greenhouse gas productions in the 12 ongoing reservoirs. 13 MR. BEDFORD: Could you turn, please, to 14 page 3 of the paper that you've read portions of for 15 us this morning? 16 MS. MAY: Which paper is that, Mr. 17 Bedford? 18 MR. BEDFORD: The one that has the logo 19 "Sierra Club of Canada." 20 MS. MAY: Oh, my brief. 21 MR. BEDFORD: Yes. 22 MS. MAY: Thank you. 23 MR. BEDFORD: I'm on page 3. I'm working 24 with the draft copy that was handed to me at six 25 o'clock yesterday, but as near as I can tell when you 3984 1 read from your brief this morning, they are virtually 2 identical although not quite identical? 3 MS. MAY: There are some significant 4 changes. I decided not to submit certain references 5 to documents that I learned were not currently in 6 evidence before the Commission. So you should be 7 aware of that. But the climate change portions are 8 virtually the same. 9 MR. BEDFORD: This Commission to this 10 point has heard four weeks of testimony. Several 11 witnesses who have testified before the Commission 12 have described how the Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation 13 and Manitoba Hydro jointly selected, through a very 14 rigorous process, an independent team of 15 environmental consultants. Four senior 16 representatives of those environmental consulting 17 firms have given a lot of testimony to this date 18 regarding the work which they, and the people in 19 their companies who worked for them and people in 20 independent consulting firms whom they in turn 21 retained, put together an Environmental Impact 22 Assessment which you and I have both read, how they 23 wrote that Environmental Impact Statement and 24 essentially did virtually all of the work in putting 25 that Environmental Impact Statement together. 3985 1 I turn to page 3 of your brief and I read 2 the following words which you wrote apparently very 3 recently, 4 "Given the political leadership from 5 the Doer Government on the Kyoto 6 Ratification issue, it is quite 7 shocking that the EIS prepared largely 8 by Manitoba Hydro is so cavalier and 9 sloppy regarding the state of the 10 science." 11 Are you suggesting, Ms. May, that the 12 evidence that the Commission has heard to date is 13 false when we have heard continual testimony that a 14 team of independent, jointly-retained environmental 15 consultants wrote the EIS? 16 MS. MAY: I am afraid that the words I 17 read in the Environmental Impact Statement submitted 18 by your client as to the state of climate changed 19 science are sloppy and cavalier. I am not impressed 20 by whatever consultants wrote those words or however 21 much they were paid by your client. They are 22 inaccurate and do not reflect the science. 23 It may have been that they were not 24 specialists in climate change. They've done an 25 admirable job in other areas of the EIS. 3986 1 MR. BEDFORD: Thank you. I gather you 2 have not read the Need For and Alternatives volumes? 3 MS. MAY: That's correct. 4 MR. BEDFORD: Demand-side management or 5 conservation of energy and wind energy were 6 extensively covered in those volumes and the 7 Commission has to date heard extensive evidence on 8 both the subject of demand-side management and wind 9 energy. I gather from the comments that you made 10 earlier and what I read in the brief, that you simply 11 weren't aware of that? 12 MS. MAY: In terms of the EIS where I 13 expected to see a review of alternatives, I did not 14 see adequate treatment of the issue. And I have not 15 read the Needs and Alternatives document, you're 16 correct. 17 MR. BEDFORD: Could we go to page 5 of 18 your brief. I read in the central paragraph the 19 following quote: 20 "Northern rivers such as the Athabasca 21 which are glacier fed also show 22 significant decline." 23 Now when I read that and I see it in a 24 brief prepared for the Wuskwatim project, I have to 25 assume that you're not aware that the inflow to 3987 1 Wuskwatim Lake does not include any glacier fed -- 2 MS. MAY: I'm entirely aware of that. 3 And if you have taken that implication or inference 4 from the way I've drafted this, then I apologize 5 because I am entirely aware that it is not a 6 glacier-fed system and I was merely pointing out the 7 state of the science. I do not assume that the 8 rivers in Southern Canada either are glacier-fed and 9 I pointed out that Northern Manitoba is a separate 10 case and that's the way in which I intended to 11 reflect Dr. Zhang's work. 12 MR. BEDFORD: Let's look at Dr. Zhang's 13 work. Can you put that in front of you, please? My 14 copy is opened at page 990. On page 990, Dr. Zhang 15 and his colleagues have set out figure 2, three maps 16 of the country in which we all live. And the purpose 17 of the three maps, one below the other, is to set out 18 trends in annual mean stream flow. Do you have that 19 before you? 20 MS. MAY: Yes, I do. 21 MR. BEDFORD: And when I look at figure 22 number 2, what I glean from it is over the last 50 23 years, and I'm focusing obviously on the section 24 that's Northern Manitoba and because we all know that 25 that's where Wuskwatim is located, I see no change in 3988 1 trends in annual mean stream flow over the last 50 2 years. I see no change in trends in annual mean 3 stream flow over the last 40 years. And over the 4 last 30 years, I in fact see an increase in annual 5 mean stream flows in the general region that drains 6 into the Wuskwatim area. And I'm of course looking 7 at the little triangles in northeastern Saskatchewan 8 which are pointed up and which, according to figure 9 2, means increase in mean annual stream flows. 10 MS. MAY: Do you have a question or do 11 you want me to comment? 12 MR. BEDFORD: Were you aware of that when 13 you submitted the paper? 14 MS. MAY: I submitted the paper 15 specifically referring to changes in monthly and 16 daily stream flows which do suggest some changes in 17 Northern Manitoba and I further qualified it by 18 saying that Dr. Zhang, whom we contacted, felt that 19 we wouldn't draw direct parallels but what we are 20 seeing suggests changes in northern Manitoba's 21 precipitation, changes in evaporation rates and 22 certainly changes in temperature. So you will find 23 that my brief does not say anything contrary to what 24 you've just read out from the paper. 25 The significance of stream flow changes 3989 1 in Northern Manitoba to the extent we're seeing them, 2 just to be very clear, is less striking than those 3 other areas I highlighted. Those that are northern 4 rivers fed by glaciers where the change is quite 5 striking and in southern Canada where the temperature 6 increases have caused increased evaporation and 7 reduced stream flow. Northern Manitoba falls 8 somewhere in the middle, as you can imagine, of the 9 areas showing the most marked changes in the last 50 10 years. However, given the climate models that we 11 know of, temperature in Manitoba, in Northern 12 Manitoba is going to continue to rise, evaporation 13 will continue to increase and changes in stream flow 14 are entirely likely to be more striking than the last 15 50 year trends. 16 MR. BEDFORD: Would you agree that when 17 you are planning projects, the numbers that matter 18 are average annual stream flows as opposed to 19 monthly? 20 MS. MAY: I submit that average is if you 21 rely on averages, you can be in very large trouble 22 because the extremes are what are often significant. 23 Particularly in terms of climate change data, you can 24 have a place like Mozambique which received the same 25 annual average rain fall but had nine months of 3990 1 drought followed by all its annual rain fall in one 2 short period causing significant drought -- I mean 3 for causing a huge flood. 4 So what you look at in climate change 5 models, I think averages are a source of -- averages 6 can be misleading. I am not suggesting that the fact 7 that there isn't a trend annually means that Manitoba 8 Hydro has nothing to learn from this paper. They 9 have quite a lot to learn from this paper. They have 10 quite a lot to learn from existing and I would hope 11 more aggressive work in the future. Try to figure 12 out what the implications of climate change will be 13 on Manitoba's hydro facilities. 14 And I think it's significant that the 15 Clean Environment Commission has already noted even 16 more than your client has that this is a concern for 17 the future of Manitoba's hydroelectric facilities. 18 MR. BEDFORD: I am assuming given what 19 you have read that you are aware that a number of 20 sensitivities regarding the Wuskwatim projects were 21 run? 22 MS. MAY: Yes. 23 MR. BEDFORD: Notwithstanding Dr. Zhang's 24 work in figure 2 and given the concerns that you 25 express in your brief, a sensitivity was run assuming 3991 1 a 10 per cent lower average inflow to Wuskwatim Lake 2 than what's on the historical record. Were you aware 3 of that? 4 MS. MAY: Yes. 5 MR. BEDFORD: And given that the 6 sensitivity was run, are you aware that the result 7 was that the Wuskwatim projects are still viable? 8 MS. MAY: At 10 per cent. But we don't 9 know that that's within the range. Having failed to 10 look at global climate circulation models, having 11 failed to assemble a team of people who are in a 12 position to anticipate given, as I understand it, the 13 anticipated life span of this project to be as much 14 as 100 years, we're looking at very significant 15 potential climate change impacts which could exceed a 16 10 per cent annual stream flow change. Therefore, 17 it's not entirely reassuring to know that that was 18 the level of sensitivity that was assessed. 19 Just for purpose of comparison, I've been 20 working with people at Imperial Oil who are looking 21 at the assessment of the McKenzie Valley Pipeline and 22 they have convened a team of experts to assess the 23 general climate change circulation models. They then 24 brought together a group to try to assess within a 25 narrow band what were the most likely temperature 3992 1 ranges that would be experienced in that region over 2 the next 100 years. And then at that point, we part 3 company because various permafrost experts will take 4 different views of what that temperature increase 5 will mean. But it doesn't seem, unless there's a 6 document on global climate change circulation models 7 that Manitoba Hydro has produced, the statement in 8 the EIS suggests that they didn't think it was worth 9 trying to figure out what the climate change impacts 10 for the future of the project region would be. And 11 having failed to investigate it, they can't possibly 12 have any reason to think that 10 per cent sensitivity 13 was enough to assess. That may or may not be useful 14 based on the past trends but the future, given 15 climate change impacts, may exceed those parameters. 16 MR. BEDFORD: The future, as we all know, 17 is uncertain, correct? 18 MS. MAY: I am not going to disagree with 19 you. 20 MR. BEDFORD: No. 21 MS. MAY: But one certainty we have is 22 that the climate change scenarios, the climate change 23 impacts from our existing interference with global 24 planet atmosphere are such that we can predict one 25 thing, which is that the climate in the future will 3993 1 be much more variable with many more extremes. 2 MR. BEDFORD: Accordingly, a sensible 3 thing to do is to run the sensitivity? 4 MS. MAY: Based on first assessing what 5 are the range of climate impacts that we foresee for 6 this region and that step was, as far as I know, 7 missed. 8 MR. BEDFORD: Well, the debate would 9 really boil down to what was done in this case was 10 10 per cent. You might have been more aggressive and 11 done 20 per cent or 30 per cent? 12 MS. MAY: I wouldn't have done anything 13 until we had assessed what the range of temperature 14 increases are given the models that we have given a 15 number of different scenarios. And then from that, 16 conclude what's the increased level of evaporation 17 that's likely. And then from that, figure out what 18 are the levels of percentage sensitivities that 19 should be assessed. Ten per cent it seems to me was 20 an attempt at a conservative estimate based on past 21 experience, not future climate change projections or 22 models. 23 MR. BEDFORD: Ten per cent based on 24 assuming that the historical record would -- that the 25 future would be worse than the historical record. 3994 1 You do understand that? 2 MS. MAY: I understand that. 3 MR. BEDFORD: I also understand that one 4 of the important things to recognize with respect to 5 climate change, and particularly water, is that 6 annual stream flows may be going up or they may be 7 going down depending as you observe in what part of 8 the world we're living, Mozambique or Manitoba for 9 example? 10 MS. MAY: Yes. 11 MR. BEDFORD: I understand that the 12 essence of climate change at least as you're using 13 the expression is a conviction on the part of many, 14 that it's getting warmer? 15 MS. MAY: It's not a conviction on the 16 part of many, it's based on tracked observed trends 17 globally. 18 MR. BEDFORD: Looking at the historical 19 record? 20 MS. MAY: And proxy data going back 20 21 million years. 22 MR. BEDFORD: And climate change I think 23 as one of the Commissioners was observing 24 parenthetically doesn't magically stop at the 25 Canada/U.S. border? 3995 1 MS. MAY: Absolutely. It's a global 2 problem. 3 MR. BEDFORD: Okay. The experience that 4 we've heard about in testimony, but some of us didn't 5 even need to hear the testimony here, we are 6 generally aware of it through our life experiences, 7 is that when it gets warmer in the big country to the 8 south of us, the demand of American citizens for 9 energy goes up? 10 MS. MAY: There is an exception to that 11 that occurred in the time of the oil shock when the 12 Nixon administration was faced with a choice which 13 actually has recently been released for public 14 consumption. They actually considered whether they 15 should invade a country in the Middle East or bring 16 in fuel efficiency standards for automobiles. They 17 chose wisely to bring in fuel efficiency standards 18 for automobiles, thus reducing the demand for energy. 19 And for the first time ever in the early 1970s, U.S. 20 demand for energy and the U.S. GNP departed as lines 21 so that GNP continued to rise while energy demand per 22 capita went down. 23 MR. BEDFORD: Let's focus on electrical 24 energy because what I had in mind in very simple 25 practical terms is the experience of Manitoba Hydro 3996 1 has been that in the summertime, the peak demand goes 2 up in the United States for energy consumption. 3 MS. MAY: Okay. 4 MR. BEDFORD: Because Americans turn on 5 their air-conditioning machines. 6 MS. MAY: And that also was anticipated 7 in the document that I have referred to earlier. I 8 didn't enter it to the record because I thought the 9 Commission could take judicial notice or 10 quasi-judicial notice of their own publication. But 11 the sentence right after the one I quote at page 10 12 actually says Manitoba's hydro resources could also 13 be stretched -- this is the section on climate change 14 impacts -- as a result of greater electricity demand 15 for air-conditioning during summers. So this is 16 widely acknowledged. 17 MR. BEDFORD: One of the documents that 18 the Canadian Nature Federation submitted about three 19 weeks ago in this hearing, Mr. Grewar may have the 20 exhibit that was filed, is a document called 21 "Environmental Challenges and Opportunities of the 22 Evolving North American Electricity Market." And I 23 noticed with interest that you are one of several 24 people who was an advisor to the writing of this 25 particular report. 3997 1 MS. MAY: That's the report of the North 2 American Commission for Environmental Cooperation, 3 correct, yes. 4 MR. BEDFORD: So I thought it very 5 consistent with the evidence that the Commission has 6 heard when I see written in that report the 7 conclusion that cross-border trade in electricity is 8 growing. I thought it very consistent with what I've 9 just put to you that the demand for electricity 10 consumption in the country to the south of us 11 increases as it gets warmer, is reflected in the 12 conclusion in this report that from the years 1999 to 13 2007, there was an expectation that in the States of 14 Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, there would be 15 increased demand generating capacity of some 19,000 16 megawatts. When I read all of that, I suggest to you 17 are you aware that the demand apparently will be 18 increasing partly through climate change and global 19 warming in the country to the south of us, all of 20 that simply makes the Wuskwatim projects even more 21 viable? 22 MS. MAY: The document from which you 23 have quoted is one in which we discussed the reality 24 of what the current electrical grid looks like. And 25 in fact, yes, the transborder conveyance of 3998 1 electricity has been increasing. And we certainly 2 had that brought painfully home in Ontario this 3 summer when the failures of a deregulated electrical 4 system south of the border to maintain basic tree 5 trimming resulted in the largest ever blackout. So 6 the interconnectedness of our grids is a fact of life 7 and that's what the document you have quoted refers 8 to. 9 Our task as a tripartite group of experts 10 was to try to identify where the NAFTA Commission for 11 Environmental Cooperation could assert some policy 12 tools that would improve the environmental impacts of 13 that increased trade. One of the key areas where 14 your statement is distressing slightly is that if the 15 U.S. continues, if we are totally parochial about 16 this and we regard any bad news from the U.S. as good 17 news for Wuskwatim, we fail to see the big picture. 18 And the big picture is that the United States' use of 19 energy and an expansionist energy policy from the 20 current U.S. government is a very profound threat to 21 survival in many parts of Canada and globally, 22 particularly in the Canadian Arctic where permafrost 23 is already melting and territorial governments are 24 particularly aware that they will need compensation 25 in order to move whole communities through ground 3999 1 subsidence, in coastal areas where we see increased 2 sea level. And in a project with a life span of 100 3 years such as Wuskwatim, it may in fact actually 4 impinge on the project's ability to survive if what 5 we do when it gets hotter is merely turn up the 6 air-conditioning without bothering to assess what can 7 we do to reduce the demand for energy through 8 demand-side management, through the use of renewables 9 and through an aggressive statement from the Canadian 10 Government through our friends and neighbours to the 11 south that their energy strategy is a threat to 12 survival for the whole planet and future generations. 13 So I can't answer your question with a 14 simple yes because it presumes that a very dangerous 15 energy strategy south of the border is only really of 16 interest if we can sell them more power. 17 MR. BEDFORD: I think if there's one 18 thing that five commissioners are certainly quite 19 cognizant of by now is that there's nothing simple 20 about the Wuskwatim projects. 21 Let's finish on a good news note. 22 Somebody has already observed that for those of us, 23 and there are many in this room, who care about this 24 planet, is it not good news that at least some of the 25 appetite that Americans have for electrical energy in 4000 1 the future can and will be met by a Hydro project 2 called Wuskwatim as opposed to them building more 3 coal burning or gas burning or nuclear plants? 4 MS. MAY: As in my earlier answer I 5 believe to Mr. Mayer, the concern that we would have 6 is that Manitoba has the best energy strategy 7 possible to reduce greenhouse gases and to plan for 8 future sustainability locally in terms of protecting 9 the interests of local communities including 10 Aboriginal peoples. Yes, in the abstract, if we knew 11 that every unit of energy sold south of the border 12 displaced coal, that would be good news. 13 MR. BEDFORD: Thank you. 14 MS. MAY: Mr. Bedford, I hope I wasn't 15 boring you. 16 MR. BEDFORD: Ms. May, my conclusion is 17 that you would never bore me. 18 MS. MAY: Thank you. 19 MR. BEDFORD: I hope I wasn't offending 20 you. 21 MS. MAY: No. I'm just teasing you. You 22 have a laid-back style. 23 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: His client likes that. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mayer. 25 MR. MAYER: Ms. May, I don't know what 4001 1 the relevance of this is but there was a discussion 2 between you and Mr. Bedford about the Athabasca River 3 and its glacial-fed characteristics. And both of you 4 appear to agree that no part of the Manitoba Hydro 5 system is glacial-fed. 6 MS. MAY: Further upstream. 7 MR. MAYER: I was led to believe that the 8 North Saskatchewan River originated west of Rocky 9 Mountain House out of the glaciers of the Rocky 10 Mountains. 11 MS. MAY: You are absolutely correct. 12 MR. MAYER: Thank you. I was wondering 13 about my geography. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: That compels Mr. Bedford 15 to come back. 16 MR. BEDFORD: Sometimes it's a little 17 alarming if I discover that commissioners have not 18 paid rapt attention to every word I have used. The 19 discussion related to the waters that feed into 20 Wuskwatim Lake as opposed to the Manitoba Hydro 21 system. Mr. Mayer is entirely correct that the 22 Saskatchewan River is, to some degree, glacier-fed. 23 But none of the waters that flow into Wuskwatim Lake 24 I am assured come from melting glaciers. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Now that we all understand 4002 1 what we're talking about, I think we've got that 2 settled. Any further questions? Ms. Gaile Whelan 3 Enns. 4 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Good morning. I have a 5 few questions. I think they are quick. And the 6 context of course being largely climate change. 7 You have on a few occasions in your 8 presentation this morning made clear reference to 9 "our view." So this is simply to ask you whether 10 when you are saying "our view" you're referring to 11 Sierra Club Canada? 12 MS. MAY: I thank you for the 13 clarification because it is, I am appearing through 14 the auspices one might say of Canadian Nature 15 Federation, Manitoba Wildlands, but in the brief that 16 I prepared and in everything I've said, I'm speaking 17 only for the Sierra Club of Canada. Whether other 18 groups choose to ascribe themselves to those views, 19 that's their choice. 20 And I came -- obviously we weren't funded 21 intervenors. I've come because I'm concerned about 22 this project and the only assistance was the airfare. 23 So I wish I had had more time to read absolutely 24 everything. I would like to add that. 25 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Thank you. I wanted to 4003 1 ask a couple of questions specific to Canada and 2 Kyoto, and then specifically the steps in Manitoba in 3 respect to fulfilling Kyoto. 4 MS. MAY: Um-hum. 5 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Do you think that 6 Manitoba as a province should meet its Kyoto 7 obligations at home? 8 MS. MAY: Absolutely. 9 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Do you think that's 10 doable? 11 MS. MAY: Absolutely. 12 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Do you think then that 13 that would be the best basis for -- that that would 14 be the best basis for Manitoba Government's public 15 sector programming under Kyoto? 16 MS. MAY: Yes, I do. We've expressed 17 these views to the Manitoba Government. Again, I 18 do -- at a political level, this government has been 19 immensely influential nationally in assisting with 20 ratification of Kyoto. The delivery of programs on 21 the ground, while better than other provinces in many 22 ways, is not the best Manitoba can do, not yet. 23 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Thank you. Would you 24 then recommend to Manitoba that the province maintain 25 its current carbon stocks? 4004 1 MS. MAY: Yes. 2 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Do you believe that 3 Manitoba could succeed with a climate change policy 4 of no net loss of carbon and no net increase in 5 emissions? 6 MS. MAY: Absolutely. In other words, 7 policies around energy can be made climate neutral 8 both through more energy efficiency, less greenhouse 9 gas emission and, if needed, off-sets. 10 MS. WHELAN ENNS: You make a reference in 11 your paper, in your brief, to large significant 12 developments. 13 MS. MAY: Um-hum. 14 MS. WHELAN ENNS: And in respect to 15 climate change. So I would be inclined to ask you 16 the question again in terms of the ability then to 17 have the province succeed with a policy that's no net 18 loss of carbon and no net increase in emissions in 19 respect to other significant land use decisions, 20 environment decisions. Another example that comes to 21 mind would be the Manitoba Floodway project. Do you 22 think that's doable? 23 MS. MAY: The future -- and this is one 24 thing that I alluded to at the beginning of my brief, 25 the fact that this is one of many proposals for 4005 1 expansion in the Hydro grid bore developments in the 2 region for more capacity for hydroelectric power all 3 suggest a kind of a cumulative -- the need for a 4 cumulative assessment of how expansion of Hydro 5 facilities and capacity in Northern Manitoba really 6 affects the greenhouse gas productions overall. Also 7 how that impacts on Kyoto commitments and what other 8 alternatives exist to get there without those land 9 use changes which have losses for biodiversity 10 implicit within them and also which are not climate 11 neutral. 12 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Thank you. Did you 13 notice in your reading of the Axworthy Tax Force 14 Report on Climate Change, the recommendations 15 regarding Manitoba Hydro? 16 MS. MAY: Yes, I have reviewed this as 17 well some time ago and reviewed it again. It's the 18 full name the report on the Manitoba Climate Change 19 Task Force. It was chaired by Lloyd Axworthy who 20 will be coming back to Winnipeg soon to Chair the 21 University. It's so nice. Anyway, page 39 lists the 22 recommendations to Manitoba Hydro and they are all 23 very very sound and they are not all fully 24 implemented. 25 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Thank you. Have you 4006 1 had any questions, and I know that this is not 2 specific to climate change, but have you had any 3 questions in your mind about the combined cost of the 4 Wuskwatim Generation Project and the Wuskwatim 5 Transmission Projects, the three segments? It's, you 6 know, 900 million, maybe going to go to a billion 7 dollars for a project that's 200 megawatts? 8 MS. MAY: That was my understanding. 9 It's not a small undertaking and it also, it occurred 10 to me to wonder where the double transmission lines 11 are headed, whether that was part of an ultimate 12 east/west grid. And if that is an ultimate goal of 13 this as an incremental step, I think it would be good 14 to have that out on the table so people can assess 15 that. In other words, there is a tendancy generally 16 across Canada when undertaking megaprojects to assess 17 them one step at a time. And it certainly is 18 preferable from a public policy point of view and an 19 environmental point of view to know exactly where 20 we're headed to assess the whole long-term project so 21 that the cumulative effects don't sneak up on you. 22 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Thank you. The next 23 question is again fairly self-evident but I think 24 important for the record. Is it correct to say that 25 our office informs you about this hearing, this 4007 1 project, project proposal and asks you whether you 2 would be available to present here to provide 3 independent information specific to climate change? 4 MS. MAY: That's correct. 5 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Thank you. I know how 6 full your days are but there's probably a need to ask 7 you whether or not you remember then the conversation 8 that you and I had where we identified for you that 9 climate change was in fact one of the standards in 10 the EIS guidelines both for transmission and 11 generation? 12 MS. MAY: Yes, we discussed that. 13 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Could I ask you how 14 many, and if it's too long a list then we'll be 15 simple about the answer, how many sets of 16 environmental hearings you've participated in and/or 17 give us examples in terms of nature of 18 decision-making and project. 19 MS. MAY: I don't want to bore the 20 Commissioners. I can tell you the first 21 environmental assessment panel process I participated 22 in was before we had a Canadian Environmental 23 Assessment Act. We were operating under the 24 Environmental Assessment Review Process Guidelines 25 under an Order in Council. And it was the review of 4008 1 the Retco hydroelectric project in 1974. I've been 2 involved in at least one a year since then. I don't 3 want to list them unless you want to make me. At 4 both as an individual and through my organization, 5 involved in a lot of environmental assessment 6 hearings and processes and court cases related to 7 them. 8 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Thank you. My working 9 assumption in our discussions is that the same is 10 true then specific to your activities about climate 11 change. We have had the information in terms of the 12 Commission on Environmental Cooperation Committee. 13 Would you give us a couple of other examples of 14 recent activity, national or international? 15 MS. MAY: Okay. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Whelan Enns, I believe 17 that we have the curriculum vitae for Ms. May. 18 MS. WHELAN ENNS: All right. Fair 19 enough. I will go on. Thank you. 20 Do you think it's possible that changes 21 in stream flows in rivers in Northern Manitoba 22 specific to the Churchill River Diversion could in 23 fact be having increases in stream flows as a result 24 of the existing Hydro project? 25 MS. MAY: Well, the impact of the 4009 1 Churchill River Diversion is obviously significant in 2 terms of the whole hydrology of the region. It's 3 caused a lot of changes in erosion rates. It's 4 caused a complete change in stream flow in the 5 immediate location. I mean that was its purpose. So 6 yes, stream flows would be altered by existing Hydro. 7 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Do you have a 8 suggestion then in terms of what determination is 9 best for baseline data? What the challenges might be 10 then in Northern Manitoba? 11 MS. MAY: Baseline data is very important 12 to get a baseline preferably before the first 13 hydroelectric facility was built. If that was 14 prepared at the time, that really is your baseline. 15 Anything other has been -- is the subject of human 16 interference. But the current -- and also looking at 17 stream flow in rivers that have never been dams and 18 those will be very very useful as guidance in 19 determining the kind of work that Dr. Zhang has 20 already undertaken. What are the changes? How fast 21 are they occurring? Are they only seasonal? Do they 22 only occur in certain months? In other words, you 23 need to have a good awareness and tracking and 24 scientific capacity to observe the changes that will 25 inevitably occur. 4010 1 I mean that's the key message here if I 2 can leave you with one thought is that climate change 3 isn't a big question mark. We know this region will 4 be very very different 20 years from now, 30, 50, 100 5 years from now. It will be very different than what 6 it is now. And the ability to track that, the 7 ability to predict with all the limitations of 8 existing science so that you can be adapting projects 9 in advance to live with the shifts in climate and to 10 protect yourself against what is clearly an uncertain 11 degree of risk but which is unquestionably coming at 12 you. 13 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Thank you. I have, Mr. 14 Chair, three quick questions and I'll be done. 15 We have a ruling from the Clean 16 Environment Commission in respect to the presence of 17 or panel of government experts in certain areas for 18 these hearings that's coming up. And the climate 19 change area was identified as being important in that 20 ruling. Would you have any recommendations then for 21 the Commission in respect to Federal Government 22 experts in climate change areas? Now I mean not just 23 modelling but also impacts? 24 MS. MAY: Yeah. There is extensive 25 expertise in the Government of Canada fortunately. 4011 1 Now there's some very good people who have recently 2 retired. So someone who has done a lot of work on 3 water resources in the prairies, for instance, is Dr. 4 James Bruce who is now retired from the Government of 5 Canada but served as one of the Chairs of one of the 6 working groups at the IPCC. Obviously there is a 7 significant group of people who work in this area in 8 meteorological service of Canada which is based in 9 Downsview, Ontario but which is a branch of 10 Environment Canada. There are also some expert 11 modellers who are based out of Saskatchewan and work 12 with Environment Canada. 13 And then there are people like Dr. Gordon 14 McBain who is the former Assistant Deputy Minister 15 and responsible for the Canadian Meteorological 16 Service but who currently chairs a group in the 17 University of Western Ontario on the Centre for 18 Catastrophic Loss Reduction. That's an interesting 19 group. It's funded by the insurance industries and 20 created an academic centre for looking at what's very 21 germane for this project, the impacts of climate 22 change particularly on human activity and planning 23 ahead to avoid catastrophic loss. So I would think 24 Dr. McBain, although no longer with government, would 25 be exactly the kind of clear communicator and renowned 4012 1 expert who could be helpful. 2 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Thank you. I wanted to 3 ask you one question in respect to the Pembina 4 Institute report. 5 MS. MAY: Um-hum. 6 MS. WHELAN ENNS: And that is whether 7 there was enough data and detail there? 8 MS. MAY: Well enough is a good question. 9 There's probably never enough. But what I found and 10 I did speak with the chief researcher who undertook 11 this project because I wanted to make sure I 12 understood exactly what they had done. It doesn't 13 provide a lot of data because it's more of a summary 14 of their conclusions than actual data even when you 15 go to the appendix, which is a little disappointing. 16 And we know that the Pembina itself has made sure in 17 their disclaimer that it's clear that their 18 instructions were from Manitoba Hydro in terms of 19 what kinds of projects to assess and that they 20 received the factual information on the project and 21 all major assumptions were provided by the 22 proponents. 23 So as I said earlier, given its 24 limitations, it's a pretty fair lifecycle assessment 25 but it's got limitations. 4013 1 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Thank you. Thank you, 2 Mr. Chair. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 4 MR. MAYER: Mr. Chair, just one question 5 arising out of a comment. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mayer. 7 MR. MAYER: Ms. May, in answer to one of 8 Ms. Whelan Enns' questions, you referred to the term 9 megaproject. This is a 200 megawatt dam. What do 10 you consider a megaproject? 11 MS. MAY: A 200 megawatt dam with the 12 transmission lines and stations associated with this 13 is a very large project. 14 MR. MAYER: Are you aware of the size and 15 expanse of the Lower Nelson project? 16 MS. MAY: We've worked on -- I mean this 17 is obviously not great whale. We worked on the Hydro 18 Quebec environmental assessment of the flooding of 19 many thousands of hectares of land. This is not in 20 that scale of megaproject but it certainly isn't a 21 run of the river renewable facility either. It 22 involves extensive additional ancillary facilities as 23 described in the EIS. I don't want to -- 24 MR. MAYER: The term megaproject just 25 didn't seem to fit with the evidence we've heard. 4014 1 MS. MAY: It's a mini megaproject? I 2 don't know. 3 MR. MAYER: All right. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 5 MS. MAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Avery Kinew. 7 MS. AVERY KINEW: Ms. May, I'd like to 8 congratulate you on being one of the intervenors, 9 witnesses that have read more than others, 10 considerably more than others. On page five, I'm 11 just wondering if you can give me a reference. 12 Halfway down the page, it says one of the emerging 13 areas of increased confidence about our understanding 14 of the relationship between human generated GHG and 15 destabilization of global climate comes as a result 16 of finding that models of climate change track very 17 well along observed impacts. And that's one of the 18 ones you didn't reference. I was wondering if you 19 can reference? 20 MS. MAY: You'd find that repeatedly 21 through the intergovernmental panel on climate change 22 reports through their advice for policy makers. Just 23 parenthetically, and I don't want to take up more of 24 your time, but I started working on this issue when I 25 was in government and Environment Canada scientists 4015 1 were briefing the Minister I worked for in the 2 mid-eighties about the threat of climate change. And 3 it was at that point not accepted that we were 4 already experiencing the impacts. And so I looked at 5 models then. And I've been working along this issue 6 since the mid-eighties. 7 And the scientists who are in this full 8 time and very knowledgeable are always saying how 9 striking they find it that we're seeing the impacts 10 in roughly -- well, the models have been remarkably 11 accurate, that the surprises have been that things 12 are occurring sooner than we would have hoped perhaps. 13 And there is still of course as recently identified 14 by, of all institutions, the Department of Defence in 15 the United States. The Pentagon assessed a plausible 16 scenario for what they have termed abrupt climate 17 change. The models tend to give you probably a 18 misleading sense of comfort that we're looking at 19 changes that occur gradually over a 100 year period. 20 Scientists are unanimous in saying we don't understand 21 climate system well enough to think that we don't -- 22 that we can't anticipate nasty surprises. And the 23 Pentagon concluded it was a plausible scenario that in 24 the year 2010, the Gulf Stream could stall. 25 This kind of thing is far beyond the 4016 1 normal media political understanding of what this 2 issue is about. The Pentagon concluded it was far 3 more dangerous than terrorism. That's a fair 4 conclusion. 5 MS. AVERY KINEW: On just one other along 6 observed impacts, it would seem to me that 7 traditional knowledge of Aboriginal Peoples is 8 immensely important. Do you have any reference to 9 that? 10 MS. MAY: Absolutely. There is a very 11 good project actually by the International Institute 12 for Sustainable Development. One of the areas in the 13 world -- actually, there were two pieces of key 14 evidence that pursuaded the second summary for policy 15 makers. So there have been a series of every couple 16 of years, the IPCC goes through this agonizing 17 consensus negotiation process. It was in the second 18 iteration, they said we are now seeing human impacts 19 of climate change. The two pieces of evidence that 20 led them to say that, one was from Antarctica and one 21 was from the Western Arctic of Canada, the McKenzie 22 basin. They saw a rate of warming three times faster 23 than the global average. 24 And in that region, the ISD worked 25 with -- I should confess at this point because I'm 4017 1 talking about an organization for which I'm on the 2 Board, but one of the other Board members being from 3 Sachs Harbour in Banks Island did a program, a very 4 very interesting traditional ecological knowledge 5 approach to what changes in the environment were 6 already being observed by Inuit in Sachs Harbour in 7 Banks Island. And it's a very very useful and 8 important study and the work is continuing there. 9 What First Nations people and Inuit 10 observations of climate change are in many ways much 11 more dramatic by way of scientific evidence than what 12 you get by looking at temperature. When you know 13 that people at Banks Island have seen a robin and 14 have no word in the Inuit language for robin, when 15 they see a thunder and lightening storm and are 16 confidently told by the Edmonton weather station, you 17 can't be seeing thunder and lightening, it isn't warm 18 enough in Banks Island for you to be having 19 lightening. So these traditional ecological 20 knowledge sources of information are extremely 21 important to understanding what's happening to our 22 climate. 23 MS. AVERY KINEW: Thank you very much. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. May. 25 MS. MAY: Thank you. I'm glad you didn't 4018 1 open up any traps for Mr. Bedford to come back. So 2 I'm going to slip away while I can. 3 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman, if we might 4 enter exhibits as submitted by Ms. May. CNF-1013 5 would be Submission from the Sierra Club of Canada to 6 Manitoba Clean Environment Commission Public Hearing 7 on the subject of the Wuskwatim Generation and 8 Transmission Projects. 9 10 (EXHIBIT CNF-1013: Submission from the 11 Sierra Club of Canada to Manitoba Clean 12 Environment Commission Public Hearing on 13 the subject of the Wuskwatim Generation 14 and Transmission Projects) 15 16 MR. GREWAR: As Exhibit CNF-1014 would be 17 Incorporating climate change considerations and 18 environmental assessment, general guidance for 19 practitioners prepared by federal/provincial 20 territorial committee on climate change and 21 environmental assessment November 2003. 22 23 24 25 4019 1 (EXHIBIT CNF-1014: Incorporating climate 2 change considerations and environmental 3 assessment, general guidance for 4 practitioners prepared by 5 federal/provincial territorial committee 6 on climate change and environmental 7 assessment November 2003) 8 9 MR. GREWAR: And finally, as CNF-1015, 10 Trends in Canadian stream flow from water resources 11 research volume 37, number 4, April 2001. 12 13 (EXHIBIT CNF-1015: Trends in Canadian 14 stream flow from water resources research 15 volume 37, number 4, April 2001) 16 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Grewar. 18 Ms. Whelan Enns, your next presenter is scheduled to 19 be Mr. Robert Hornung and he is to present via the 20 telephone. Have you any indication of the length of 21 his presentation? 22 MS. WHELAN ENNS: My conversations with 23 Mr. Hornung have been to aim for 20 minutes. Now, 24 people who aim for 20 minutes sometimes go a bit 25 longer. I have been through the final version of his 4020 1 slides and I would say that's doable, just. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: It is five to 12:00. We 3 could carry on, hear the presentation and proceed 4 with the questioning or the cross-examination after 5 we return from lunch. Is that possible? 6 MS. WHELAN ENNS: I would have to check 7 with my staff at the back of the room. I've asked 8 them to phone him along the way. And I also need to 9 check I think with Mr. Grewar in terms of the CD. 10 MR. GREWAR: In addition, Mr. Chairman, 11 I'm just concerned that the Court Reporter perhaps 12 needs a bit of a break. It's been two hours. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: We'll have everybody do 14 the checks while we take this five minute break for 15 nature. We'll break for lunch. 16 17 (PROCEEDINGS RECESSED AT 12:00 P.M. 18 AND RECONVENED AT 1:00 P.M.) 19 20 21 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman, would you 22 like me to place the call to Mr. Hornung now? 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Let me ask everyone to 24 find their place and some people are in the main 25 hall over there waiting for me to say we are about 4021 1 ready to begin. We have one minute to go. Maybe, 2 Mr. Grewar, it is time to place that call. And 3 people will file in in the interval. 4 (TELEPHONE CALL TO MR. HORNUNG) 5 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Hornung, can you 6 hear us? 7 MR. HORNUNG: I can hear you. 8 MR. GREWAR: I am going to, as I 9 suggested, turn you over to the Commission 10 Chairman, Mr. Gerard Lecuyer. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon, Mr. 12 Hornung. We are about ready to begin the 13 presentation that you will be making to us. I 14 think everything is set up in here. I will simply 15 ask Mr. Grewar to proceed by swearing you in. 16 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Hornung, I'm going to 17 ask you two straightforward questions. Please, 18 could you state your name for the record? 19 MR. HORNUNG: Robert Hornung. 20 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Horning, are you 21 aware that in Manitoba it is an offence to 22 knowingly mislead this Commission? 23 MR. HORNUNG: Yes. 24 MR. GREWAR: Knowing that, are you 25 prepared to only tell the truth in proceedings 4022 1 before this Commission? 2 MR. HORNUNG: Yes, I am. 3 MR. GREWAR: Thank you, sir. 4 5 (ROBERT HORNUNG: SWORN) 6 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Grewar. 8 Mr. Hornung, you are ready to go? 9 MR. HORNUNG: Thank you very much, 10 Mr. Chairman. My name is Robert Hornung. I'm the 11 president of the Canadian Wind Energy Association. 12 I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak 13 with you today. My presentation will run for 14 probably about 20 minutes, and I will then be 15 available to answer questions. I'm willing to 16 make myself available at a future date to answer 17 any additional questions that come up, if that is 18 required. 19 And I wanted to make a few 20 introductory comments before diving into the 21 presentation. The first one is I apologize for 22 the delay in getting a copy of my presentation to 23 you. When I was scheduled to speak a couple of 24 weeks ago I wasn't planning to do a formal 25 presentation. I just scribbled down some notes, 4023 1 and I thought it wasn't really appropriate to send 2 that in, and it has taken me a while to actually 3 formalize it and put it in a format. So although 4 I was pestered for it on numerous occasions, it 5 took me a while to get that in. I apologize for 6 that. I hope people have it in front of them now. 7 A request was given to me, I believe 8 yesterday, for a CV which I could not forward at 9 that time because I was unable to access it. I 10 did send in a short bio, but I would be happy to 11 provide any more information that people require 12 on background and credentials. I can tell you 13 just briefly that my academic background is in 14 political science and economics. I'm a policy 15 specialist and not a technical specialist. And 16 prior to coming into this role with the Canadian 17 Wind Energy Association in August of 2003, I 18 worked for about 14 years on issues related to 19 climate change policy, in both the Federal 20 Government, international organization, the 21 Organization for Economic Cooperation and 22 Development, and a couple of environment 23 non-governmental organizations. So that is all in 24 terms of backdrop. 25 I just want to let you know that in 4024 1 the presentation today, I'm really just hoping to 2 provide you with information on the wind energy 3 industry that will be useful in your 4 deliberations. I will talk a little bit about the 5 status of wind energy globally, the status of wind 6 energy in Canada, some of the reasons why we as 7 the Wind Energy Association think that wind energy 8 is a good fit for Canada. And finally a little 9 bit of speculation on the future prospects for 10 wind energy in Canada. 11 I feel it is important to state that I 12 have not reviewed any of the materials associated 13 with this hearing, and I'm not in a position to 14 comment on the specific project under review. 15 Really what I'm hoping to do is provide you with 16 some information that, as I said, I hope will be 17 useful in your deliberations. 18 So moving into the presentation, slide 19 3, talking a little bit about the global status of 20 wind energy. Wind energy is the fastest growing 21 source of electricity in the world. It is making 22 a substantial and growing contribution to 23 electricity supply. For many people wind energy 24 is still perceived to be a kind of niche 25 technology, something that will just provide a 4025 1 little minuscule amount of power, and that is 2 constantly being proven otherwise now with the 3 experience around the world. 4 In 2003, at the end of 2003 there were 5 39,000 megawatts of installed wind energy capacity 6 in the world. Triple the amount of five years 7 ago, which is demonstrative of the growth rate 8 that we are seeing in wind energy. We are also 9 starting to see the development of wind energy 10 projects offshore. The vast majority of projects 11 to this point have been on shore, but we now have 12 540 megawatts offshore, and there is significant 13 interest, particularly in Europe, in doing a lot 14 more. 15 In 2003 there were 8,000 megawatts 16 installed globally. And just to give an example 17 of how rapidly some countries are moving, in 18 Germany in 2003, 50 megawatts a week were 19 installed of wind energy capacity over the course 20 of the year. The five leading countries right now 21 in terms of installed capacity for wind energy, 22 Germany, the United States, Spain, Denmark and 23 India. And as you see Germany is at the top of 24 the heap with 14,600 megawatts of installed 25 capacity. The U.S. and Spain both have over 4026 1 6,000 megawatts. Denmark despite it's small size 2 has over 3,000 megawatts and India has 3 2,000 megawatts. 4 In 2003 the industry was a six billion 5 dollar industry with 70,000 jobs worldwide. 6 20,000 in Denmark, which reflects the fact that 7 many of the world wind turbine manufacturers are 8 based in Denmark. 14,000 jobs in Germany and 9 10,000 jobs in Spain. 10 On the next slide it is looking a 11 little bit ahead and seeing where countries want 12 to go. Germany is increasingly looking offshore. 13 It has taken advantage of many of its best wind 14 resource areas on shore at this time. They have 15 an initial target of 3,000 megawatts offshore by 16 2010. They have an unofficial target of 25,000 17 megawatts offshore by 2030. Spain is hoping 18 essentially to double by 2010 up to 19 13,000 megawatts. And India wants to more than 20 double by 2012 to 5,000 megawatts. Those are 21 among the leading countries that I talked about 22 earlier, the five that are currently at the top of 23 the heap. 24 But the real prospects in some ways 25 for growth are in countries that haven't yet sort 4027 1 of moved aggressively forward but are planning to. 2 So if you look at some of these other nations and 3 their targets, Japan, 3,000 megawatts by 2010, 4 China, 4,000 by 2010, France, 6,000 by 2007, the 5 U.K. is looking at 6,000 megawatts offshore by 6 2010, Italy 2,500 megawatts by 2010. Of those 7 targets I would say the only one that, from our 8 perspective, appears probably a bit too ambitious 9 given where countries are at the moment, is the 10 French target. I think the others are well on 11 pace to accomplish. 12 Globally, BTM Consult, there is an 13 error on the slide, it should not be consulting, 14 the firm is called BTm Consult, it is a leading 15 Danish firm, looking at the wind energy industry. 16 Their projections are that by 2008 we will have 17 95,000 megawatts of installed capacity worldwide, 18 so more than doubling from today. And by 2013, 19 194,000 megawatts, which is another doubling of, 20 in essence, more than doubling again. So as you 21 can see, wind energy is growing quite rapidly and 22 the prospects for growth tend to be very, very 23 strong. 24 The next slide shows where we are in 25 Canada. Canada has 327 megawatts of installed 4028 1 wind energy capacity. This currently ranks us 2 13th in the world behind countries, not only just 3 the five big ones I mentioned earlier, but other 4 countries like Sweden, Greece, the Netherlands, 5 are other countries that have more installed wind 6 energy capacity than Canada. As you can see, it 7 is distributed throughout the country, not every 8 where, but many different jurisdictions have some. 9 But the bulk of it, half of it is in Alberta, 10 170 megawatts, and another big chunk in Quebec, 11 104 megawatts, and we have smaller projects in a 12 few other provinces. 13 Going to the next slide, while 14 327 megawatts is not that big on a global scale, 15 it does actually reflect significant growth in the 16 Canadian context, and over the last five years we 17 have had an average annual growth rate of about 27 18 and a half percent in Canada. 2003 was a record 19 year. We had 86 megawatts installed. And 2004 20 is, I would say, certain actually to break the 21 record at this point. The question will be by how 22 much. We think that at minimum 140 megawatts will 23 be installed. That assumes two projects that are 24 currently under construction will be completed and 25 two others will be partially completed. There 4029 1 are, however, other additional opportunities 2 available in jurisdictions like Ontario which may 3 drive this number up higher. 4 At any rate, as you can see, 5 140 megawatts alone would be a 43 percent increase 6 over 2003, and we have a high degree of confidence 7 that 2005 will be even a bigger year than 2004. 8 Now why wind energy in Canada? I'm 9 going to the next slide. Well, Canada has an 10 excellent wind resource. We have the world's 11 second largest land mass, we have the world's 12 longest coast line, and when you think about what 13 is likely going to be Canada's wind resource 14 potential compared to other countries that are 15 quite active in wind energy like Denmark or 16 Germany or the Netherlands, you get a sense that 17 we may be sitting on a potential gold mine in 18 terms of resources that we are not exploiting. 19 And in fact, as the next bullet points out, that 20 we don't even fully understand at this point. 21 Canada does not have a national wind 22 resource map, which is unlike most developed 23 countries. The U.S. has a very good one. There 24 have been wind resource maps of Europe for many, 25 many years. Environment Canada is producing such 4030 1 a map at this time. It is expected to come out in 2 the fall of 2004. And I think that will help to 3 illustrate the scope and the scale of potential 4 for wind energy in Canada. We are quite confident 5 that what it is going to demonstrate is that the 6 availability of the resource is not the issue. 7 Environment Canada has already released some early 8 findings from the wind mapping exercise which 9 describe 100,000 megawatts of potential simply in 10 northern Quebec and the Nunavut region. We think 11 there is probably good wind resource in most 12 regions of the country and most jurisdictions in 13 the country. So we think that number will turn 14 out to be pretty big. 15 Of course that number in terms of what 16 the wind resource is isn't the most important 17 number. The most important number is what is 18 practical in terms of economics and given 19 transmission and interconnection issues, and we 20 have been working very hard to push the Federal 21 Government to ensure that when its wind resource 22 map comes out that it is overlaid with things like 23 the transmission grid within Canada, so we can get 24 a really accurate sense of the practical wind 25 energy potential and the costs associated with 4031 1 that going forward. 2 It is clear from the experience in 3 other countries that wind energy can provide 4 significant amounts of electricity. In Denmark it 5 provides between 15 to 20 percent; Spain, 4 to 6 6 percent; and Germany 3 to 5 percent. And in all 7 of those countries those numbers are going up as 8 expansion of the wind energy industry increases. 9 The Canadian Wind Energy Association has advocated 10 an initial target for Canada of 10,000 megawatts 11 by 2010, which we believe would then produce about 12 4 to 5 percent of Canada's electricity needs. 13 Now, wind energy, going to the next 14 slide, is another reason why Canada is a good fit, 15 and in fact why wind energy is a good fit 16 presumably in Manitoba is the linkage between wind 17 and hydro. Wind is an intermittent resource, that 18 is absolutely true. And hydro is an excellent 19 match for wind in a couple of ways. In terms of 20 providing a mechanism of storage for energy, in 21 essence when the wind is blowing you can be 22 essentially storing energy in hydro reservoirs by 23 allowing them to fill. This might be of 24 particular interest in years where drought is an 25 issue in terms of having that flexibility to allow 4032 1 the reservoir to fill up. And, of course, when 2 the wind is not blowing or production declines 3 significantly, you can allow the water to flow. 4 We think there is a good mix between wind and 5 Hydro. 60 percent of Canada's electricity 6 approximately does come from hydroelectricity, and 7 therefore we think that the potential for this 8 linkage is quite significant in Canada. 9 Wind is also a good compliment to 10 Hydro in that wind energy production is peak in 11 the winter, both in terms of the wind resource, 12 the winds blow stronger in the winter and the cold 13 air means that the air is denser and it contains 14 more energy. Again that is a nice compliment to 15 hydro, because generally hydro is producing the 16 least in the winter and they hope to compliment 17 each other. 18 Even though I admitted earlier that 19 wind is an intermittent resource, it is important 20 to understand what intermittent means. It does 21 not mean -- when you hear people talk about the 22 capacity factors for wind energy and they throw 23 out numbers of 35 percent or 40 percent, they are 24 not saying that the wind turbine is only working 25 35 or 40 percent of the time. They are saying 4033 1 that over the course of a year the wind turbine is 2 producing 35 percent of the energy that it would 3 have produced if it was working sort of at full 4 capacity for the whole year. 5 In fact what we have seen, for 6 example, in the Gaspe region in Quebec, is that 7 the wind turbines are producing wind energy 8 somewhere between 85 and 90 percent of the time 9 and it is the level of production that varies. So 10 there is some variability, it does go up and down, 11 but we think that the variability is relatively 12 minor compared to the type of variability that we 13 see regularly in the electricity grid in terms of 14 swings of demand associated with just over the 15 course of the day, and different levels of 16 consumption. So we think it is quite manageable. 17 And in fact we feel quite confident that wind 18 energy could easily, if it is producing ten 19 percent of the electricity in the grid, that that 20 is not really an issue in terms of integration, 21 particularly that it should be quite easy to 22 manage that. And in fact again some jurisdictions 23 are already demonstrating that. 24 I should maybe make one more note 25 about capacity factors. We are often asked what 4034 1 is the capacity factor for wind energy. And 2 clearly it depends on the site and depends on the 3 wind resource. We know of areas in Canada where 4 we sort of say the best of the best wind energy 5 capacity factors is upwards of 50 percent. We 6 know there are areas like that in Newfoundland. 7 And we know there are a number of areas in Canada 8 where there are capacity factors of 40 percent. 9 In fact the North Cape Wind Farm in Prince Edward 10 island is one that has published results that 11 demonstrate that. So when we are asked what do we 12 think the capacity factor is, we think a safe 13 number to say is 35 percent. 14 Another bit of evidence to support 15 that is that the wind power production incentive, 16 which is a Federal government program, which I 17 will speak to later, that provides financial 18 attainment for wind power generation, that program 19 was designed on the assumption that the wind 20 projects and farms that it would be supporting 21 would have a capacity factor of 30 percent. 22 Indeed what has happened is that the program will 23 run out of money before it meets its 24 1,000-megawatt goal because the projects that it 25 is actually supporting have capacity factors 4035 1 significantly above 30 percent. So we have a lot 2 of new world experience demonstrating that in 3 Canada. 4 Now the variability associated with 5 wind power production, the fact that the level of 6 production does go up and down in response to 7 changing wind speeds, and the force of the wind, 8 it can be managed in a couple of ways. Clearly it 9 is more challenging to manage it if you are only 10 talking about one wind turbine and one location. 11 But one of the strengths of wind energy is it is a 12 distributed form of electricity generation, and it 13 is possible to have wind farms put out over 14 several locations. And if you had, for example, 15 six wind farms, it is highly unlikely that wind 16 speed will drop at all six of them at the same 17 time. It may drop at some, it may be picking up 18 at others, and that provides you with sort of a 19 natural hedge and management tool in terms of 20 minimizing variability. 21 The other thing is wind forecasting. 22 And as wind is taking on a larger role in 23 electricity grids around the world, the issue of 24 forecasting is becoming more and more important. 25 There is a tremendous amount of energy and work 4036 1 going into this right now. And really what we are 2 finding in terms of the ability of the grid to 3 manage large amounts of wind energy, it depends a 4 little bit on what the grid's requirements are in 5 terms of having certainty. There are some 6 locations in the world where essentially a wind 7 power producer has to let the grid know an hour or 8 two before what it expects in terms of wind power 9 production. And clearly that sort of forecasting 10 is not a big issue, the areas are relatively 11 small. In other jurisdictions grid operators are 12 asking for that information a week in advance, and 13 clearly that is a challenge for the wind energy 14 industry no matter what wind forecasting tool you 15 have. So we are seeing different jurisdictions 16 manage this issue differently. And I think as we 17 go forward we will find that within reasonable 18 time frames when forecasting does allow a wind 19 energy producer to again limit the uncertainty and 20 the variability for grid operators. 21 So once again I summarize on this 22 point just to say that we think Canada is in a 23 pretty unique position because of its large hydro 24 base and we are certainly actively promoting 25 Canada to take advantage of that opportunity going 4037 1 forward. 2 Now, wind energy in Canada, going to 3 the next slide, is also attractive in an era where 4 we are seeing a significant switch across the 5 country, and this may be a little less relevant in 6 the Manitoba context, but certainly on a national 7 context this is important. Three or four years 8 ago the assumption was that all new electricity 9 generation in almost every part of the country was 10 going to be coming from natural gas. And of 11 course natural gas prices have increased 12 significantly and essentially thrown that 13 assumption out of the window, or at least made it 14 highly questionable. And those higher natural gas 15 prices made all electricity alternatives more 16 attractive. 17 Now where wind stands relative to 18 other alternatives, it is one of the few 19 alternatives where cost is still projected to 20 continue to decline for at least another decade. 21 Where there is an opportunity to reduce costs 22 significantly simply by developing a domestic 23 manufacturing capacity in the country. Right now 24 for many wind farms, five to ten percent of the 25 cost is simply the freight costs of bringing the 4038 1 equipment to Canada from overseas, from turbine 2 manufacturing installations overseas. Those costs 3 could be significantly reduced with domestic 4 manufacturing in Canada and, of course, the 5 availability of domestic manufacturing in Canada 6 would also ensure that a greater proportion and 7 percentage of the economic benefits and economic 8 activity generated by the wind energy industry 9 would remain in Canada, which is something that we 10 are also keen to see happen. 11 Wind, of course, has no fuel costs 12 which makes it increasingly attractive as a hedge 13 in many parts of the country, faced with the 14 uncertainty that exists about natural gas prices 15 going forward. And if I could use one 16 illustrative example in this case; the Alberta 17 Government two or three years ago was making a 18 commitment to purchase green power for its own 19 facilities. What they first wanted to do was 20 match the Federal Government commitment. And they 21 said we will make sure that 20 percent of the 22 electricity used in Alberta Government facilities 23 will come from renewable energy sources. They put 24 out an RFP for that, and they got all of the bids 25 in, and when they received all of the bids, they 4039 1 actually ended up increasing their target to 2 90 percent. And they had bid largely wind to meet 3 that 90 percent target, and the primary reason was 4 its attractiveness as a hedge and attractiveness 5 given future outlooks for natural gas prices. So 6 this is a factor that is already playing into 7 decision making in at least some jurisdictions. 8 In other parts of Canada we are moving 9 into a situation where we have shortages of supply 10 emerging, in Ontario and Quebec and Atlantic 11 Canada. And wind energy is attractive I think in 12 terms of addressing that because it is modular. 13 Historically I think in Canada a lot of new 14 electricity generation has been built on the basis 15 of long term forecasts, sort of projections of 16 what a electricity demand would be 20 years from 17 now, ten years from now, and then you try and 18 build the two or three big plants that will allow 19 you to meet that demand. 20 Now, unfortunately the one thing that 21 we know about any sort of forecast is that it is 22 always going to be wrong. And it is much easier 23 in a sense to be accurate if you are forecasting 24 over shorter periods. And wind energy can meet 25 sort of shorter term demand needs in terms of 4040 1 smaller increases. It is also quick to put in 2 place. The actual construction of a wind farm 3 obviously does not include the sort approvals 4 process and everything else, but the actual 5 construction of a major wind farm is something 6 that can happen in anywhere from nine months to a 7 year, which is quite rapid relative to a number of 8 alternative generation options. So for these 9 reasons we think that wind energy has some growing 10 attractiveness in Canada, and we think that is 11 actually evidenced by the types of initiatives we 12 are seeing on the policy front by Federal and 13 Provincial governments. 14 If you go to the next slide, the other 15 key factor I guess for us in terms for potential 16 reasons why Canada might have an interest in wind 17 energy is economic benefits. According to data 18 from the American Wind Energy Association every 19 installation of one megawatt produces one and a 20 half million dollars in investment, 2.5 direct job 21 years of employment and 8 indirect job years of 22 employment. Also it produces tax revenue for 23 governments. And many of these benefits are in 24 rural areas. And we think this is another 25 potentially significant selling point for wind 4041 1 energy in Canada. The fact that many of our good 2 wind resources are in rural areas and communities 3 that have been long dependent on natural 4 resources, several of whom are hitting hard times 5 because of specific issues, for example, within 6 the agricultural sector, and this might provide an 7 alternative source of income for those communities 8 that could make a difference. 9 And I put here in the next slide, how 10 one example of that, the Canadian Wind Energy 11 Association this year produced three case studies 12 available on our website looking at the local 13 economic benefits of wind energy. And we will be 14 producing more going forward. 15 But I have illustrated sort of one 16 here. Pincher Creek in southwestern Alberta. The 17 municipal district has a population of almost 18 7,000. It has been very much historically an 19 agricultural economy, beef industry. It got its 20 first wind farm in 1983, and indeed 30 percent of 21 Canada's current wind energy capacity is found in 22 that municipal district. There are another 23 68 megawatts under construction and three new 24 projects have been approved, another 25 155 megawatts. So this is a community that feels 4042 1 it has gained some benefits from the existence of 2 wind energy in the community, and is trying to get 3 more. 4 And those benefits are outlined on the 5 slide. Developments so far have contributed 10 6 million dollars directly into the economy, three 7 wind energy companies have established head 8 offices or field offices in the municipal 9 district. It has created 21 full time jobs. You 10 see the payroll statistics. $900,000 in annual 11 taxes to the municipality for a community that 12 size is quite significant. It has provided 13 significant income, supplementary source of income 14 to land owners, on average about $3,000 per 15 turbine for an annual lease payment. And it has 16 provided a boost to local tourism. 17 Just as an aside, another area where 18 there has been a boost for local tourism in Prince 19 Edward Island is the North Cape Wind Farm. When 20 it was first constructed there was some discussion 21 about having an information centre for visitors 22 because they felt some people might want to come 23 by and have a look at it. Last year the North 24 Cape Wind Farm had 70,000 visitors in PEI to come 25 and look at it, and has been a significant boost 4043 1 to the local economy there just in terms of 2 visitors coming through. 3 Now going to the next set of slides, I 4 will spend a couple of minutes talking about 5 policy, because in wind energy policy matters, 6 policy is important. And it will have a lot to 7 say about the extent to which the industry 8 continues to grow in Canada going forward. Right 9 now the current policy framework, the main Federal 10 measure is something called the Wind Power 11 Production Incentive. Essentially what the Wind 12 Power Production Incentive does is it is trying to 13 get 1,000 megawatts of wind power installed in 14 Canada by 2007, by providing a payment for 15 production of wind power. Essentially if someone 16 goes through the program, is approved and applies 17 and gets a wind farm setup before 2007, they are 18 guaranteed a payment per kilowatt hour of between 19 1.2 and .8 cents for a ten year period. And that 20 variation deals with when you enter the program. 21 For people who entered the program right at the 22 beginning they got guaranteed a 1.2 cent payment 23 for the full 10 year period. And now we are in 24 the 1 cent phase, and in 2006 we move into the .8 25 cent phase. 4044 1 Now the Federal Government, even 2 though the program has a target of only 3 1,000 megawatts, it has received letters of intent 4 for 6300 megawatts of projects, people who hope to 5 be able to access this program. Now those are 6 just letters of intent. I don't think we would 7 say or anyone would say that we would expect all 8 6300 megawatts of those projects to go forward. 9 On the other hand, I think we would feel confident 10 saying that there is an extremely high probability 11 that more than 1,000 megawatts of those projects 12 would go forward. In fact, the program is moving 13 along at such a pace that the Federal Government 14 now projects that the program will be fully 15 subscribed prior to its current end date of 2007, 16 and it will be fully subscribed by 2006. 17 Now when the Federal Government put 18 the Wind Power Production Incentive program in 19 place, it did that sort of looking at the gap 20 between the cost of wind power and the cost of 21 what it was being asked to compete against in 22 different parts of the country. 23 Now in some parts of the country wind 24 is competing, where there is a supply shortage, 25 wind is competing against other forms of new 4045 1 generation, a new natural gas plant for example. 2 In other parts of the country wind is competing 3 against depreciated assets that have been in 4 existence for 20 years and therefore have a 5 significantly lower cost. The Federal Government 6 assumed at the time that it produced the wind 7 power production incentive that, at the time it 8 created that program, that the gap was about 2 and 9 a half cents. And the Federal Government very 10 clearly chose the number 1.2 to start the program 11 because it was sending a signal to Provincial 12 Governments. It was saying, look, we are willing 13 to go halfway and we want to see a few provinces 14 pick up the ball. Well, from our perspective what 15 has actually happened in the end is that provinces 16 have picked up the ball and they are actually now 17 thinking in much bigger terms than the Federal 18 Government about what wind energy can do for 19 Canada. 20 I will go through some of these, and 21 I'm sure the panel members may be aware of some of 22 these, but I will go through them anyway. Ontario 23 is right now drafting legislation for a renewable 24 portfolio standard which would see 10 percent of 25 Ontario's electricity come from renewable energy 4046 1 resources by the year 2010. And in fact, as the 2 first step in that the Ontario Government is going 3 to be issuing shortly a 300-megawatt request for 4 proposals for renewable energy. Now by our 5 calculations that 10 percent target would require 6 about 3,000 megawatts of renewable energy 7 capacity. There is a lot of scope still for some 8 small hydro development in Ontario. And we think 9 that wind would probably capture about half of 10 that total renewable portfolio standard. So you 11 are looking at about 1500 megawatts of new 12 installed wind capacity in Ontario. 13 Prince Edward Island already gets 14 5 percent of its electricity from wind energy. 15 And they have clearly stated that they are aiming 16 for 10 percent by 2010. That is really the only 17 renewable energy source they are looking at in 18 that context. 19 Nova Scotia is looking at a 5 percent 20 renewable portfolio standard by 2011. Nova Scotia 21 Power has a voluntary commitment already of 22 1.25 percent. So a renewable portfolio standard 23 that is being drafted in legislation in Nova 24 Scotia would add 3.75 percent to that, and would 25 total probably about another, again if wind took 4047 1 about half of it, probably 70 to 80 megawatts in 2 the Nova Scotia context. 3 Alberta has a proposal that has been 4 developed by its Clean Air Strategic Alliance and 5 has now been approved by cabinet in Alberta to 6 have 3.5 percent of electricity in the year 2008 7 come from new renewable energy sources. In the 8 Alberta context that is likely to be mainly wind. 9 That would be another 560 megawatts of capacity in 10 Alberta by 2008, coupled with the essentially 250 11 that are already either in place or being 12 constructed this year, and that brings you to 13 about 800 megawatts by 2008 in the Alberta 14 context. 15 Alberta is also very interesting 16 because the government has actually made a 17 commitment at this point to build new transmission 18 capacity solely to exploit the wind energy 19 resource in southwestern Alberta, the area of 20 Pincher Creek that I was talking about, and more 21 broadly around that. 22 Right now, after we get through the 23 projects that are being constructed this year, we 24 are starting to run into transmission constraints. 25 We won't have the capacity to get a lot more 4048 1 energy out of there. So the Alberta Government 2 has taken the decision that a new transmission 3 line will be built and that the cost of that 4 transmission line will be borne by all ratepayers 5 because it seemed to be in the general interests 6 of all Albertans that this energy comes on line. 7 I guess just to flag on to that, it is 8 important to note how different provinces have 9 different perspectives and rationales for 10 proceeding with the development of wind energy. 11 In Ontario the key driver is clearly concerns 12 about air quality. The Ontario Government, as you 13 probably know, has also made a commitment to shut 14 down its coal fired generation, and renewables are 15 seen as one part of the response to that. But the 16 driver there is air quality. 17 Prince Edward Island knows that it has 18 a very good wind resource and wants to position 19 itself to be a leader in the hydrogen economy in 20 the Canadian context, and it wants to use its wind 21 resource to produce hydrogen, and it is doing that 22 because it believes and feels that hydrogen 23 produced through other means, for example, from 24 natural gas, does not have the same level of 25 environmental benefit and, therefore, there may 4049 1 well be an opportunity and a market for hydrogen 2 produced via wind energy. 3 In Alberta the concern is largely the 4 fact that natural gas prices are uncertain and 5 variable and, therefore, wind energy is a useful 6 hedge going forward. So there are different 7 reasons why provinces are moving forward. But 8 nonetheless, they all appear to be moving forward 9 as I will continue to explain. 10 The New Brunswick Government set up a 11 Commission to provide it with advice on how to 12 restructure its electricity sector going forward. 13 One of the recommendations of that process was to 14 develop a renewable portfolio standard. The 15 Government is committed to that, but has not yet 16 talked about the level or the timing of such a 17 standard. 18 If you go to the next slide, you will 19 see some other initiatives that are underway. 20 Some provinces have not adopted a renewable 21 portfolio standard or are not in the process of 22 developing one, but instead have issued specific 23 requests for proposals for wind energy. The 24 largest of these is in Quebec, being a proposal 25 for 1,000 megawatts of wind energy to be installed 4050 1 by 2012. That bidding process is going to close 2 in June of this year. In theory the winners are 3 supposed to be announced in the fall of this year 4 so that construction can start some time in the 5 following year. And what is interesting here is 6 another rationale why different governments are 7 moving forward with this. 8 Quebec has an interest in moving 9 forward with wind energy for two reasons 10 primarily. First, it wants to pursue local 11 economic development. If you look at the request 12 for proposals associated with the Quebec RFP, you 13 will see that there are strict local content 14 requirements in terms of manufacturing and in 15 terms of investments. And the Quebec Government 16 clearly sees this as an opportunity to provide an 17 economic development option for a region of Quebec 18 that has gone through some tough times 19 economically. Quebec is also interested in this 20 because a lot of markets that they export 21 electricity to are moving forward with renewable 22 portfolio standards. Not all of those renewable 23 portfolio standards consider large hydro as part 24 of that mix, and therefore, they want to have 25 access to those markets and therefore are looking 4051 1 at other opportunities. 2 A third reason may be emerging in 3 Quebec. A natural gas plant was recently proposed 4 in the province and generated actually significant 5 public protest, so much so that the Quebec 6 Government directed the Quebec Energy Board to 7 hold special hearings on the future of electricity 8 supply in Quebec and to determine whether or not 9 moving to natural gas plants was indeed necessary. 10 Saskatchewan has already issued and 11 awarded a 150-megawatt RFP for wind energy. New 12 Brunswick just last fall issued a 20-megawatt RFP 13 for wind energy. New Brunswick Power has a target 14 of 100 megawatts of wind energy by 2010, and they 15 have essentially told any one bidding who is 16 bidding for the RFP, that although it is for 17 20 megawatts, if people come forward with 18 proposals for more than that, they are willing to 19 look at that, given their broader target. 20 In other jurisdictions we have the 21 negotiation around at least some significant first 22 projects. In Manitoba, the St. Leon project, 99 23 megawatts, I know it says 100 megawatts on here, 24 but this was a presentation, or a slide from a 25 presentation for a different audience where I 4052 1 rounded the numbers off. I recognize it is a 2 99 megawatts project that we are talking about. 3 And Manitoba also has -- Manitoba Hydro has made 4 its commitment to look for 250 megawatts in total 5 of wind energy going forward sometime over the 6 next five to ten years. It is my understanding 7 that no specific date has been set for that, but 8 that target is out there. 9 There is the Newfoundland Labrador 10 Hydro currently negotiating with a developer for a 11 25-megawatt project. And British Columbia has 12 issued proposals for its own sort of voluntary, 13 they call it a clean energy standard as opposed to 14 a renewable portfolio standard, and one of the 15 winning bids in that process was a 50-megawatt 16 wind farm. And now discussions are going on about 17 that and how to move that forward. 18 I guess the point that I wanted to 19 make with these slides is that five years ago or 20 even less than that, when the Federal Government 21 first came out with its Wind Power Production 22 Incentive program, which was in the fall of 2001, 23 most Provincial governments were not in any 24 serious way looking at wind energy. And since 25 that time we now see developments underway in 4053 1 every province in the country. And I think this 2 is again indicative of the fact that there are a 3 number of potential benefits of moving forward 4 with wind energy, and I tried to outline how some 5 provinces are moving forward for some reasons 6 ahead of others, while others might be choosing 7 different reasons, but they are all going forward. 8 And that in the end, as I said earlier, this means 9 that Provincial governments have moved 10 significantly past the Federal Government in terms 11 of thinking about wind energy. 12 So, I just wanted to close by pointing 13 out that if all of these initiatives are 14 implemented and, you know, I have to be up front, 15 I mean some of these are still under development, 16 we haven't yet seen the Ontario legislation, for 17 example, although we are expecting that to come 18 out this month. If all of these initiatives are 19 implemented, we believe it would lead to 20 3600 megawatts of installed wind energy capacity 21 in Canada by 2010, a ten-fold increase over where 22 we are today. 23 As a result of that the Canadian Wind 24 Energy Association and several Provincial 25 Governments, including the Manitoba Government, 4054 1 have asked the Federal Government to expand its 2 Wind Power Production Incentive, not in terms of 3 the level of the incentive, but in terms of the 4 scope of the program, to match Provincial 5 aspirations and illustrate that the Federal 6 Government is willing to be a partner in moving 7 forward with the sort of thinking bigger about 8 wind energy in Canada. We did not see in this 9 most recent Federal budget a decision to expand 10 the incentive. We are, however, still quite 11 optimistic that this is something that we will get 12 probably by no later than the next budget. 13 So that would close my presentation. 14 I will just say once more that my background is 15 more policy than technical. I will answer 16 whatever questions you may have to the best of my 17 ability. If there are questions I'm unable to 18 answer at this time but can answer at a future 19 date, I would be happy to do that as well. Thank 20 you very much for listening to a box on a table 21 for this long. Thank you. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Hornung. 23 I will have a very close perusal of every one 24 around me and the first one that gives me the high 25 sign will get the opportunity to ask their 4055 1 question. 2 MR. GREWAR: While we are waiting, 3 Mr. Chairman, we will enter Mr. Hornung's 4 presentation, presentation slides to the Manitoba 5 Clean Environment Commission, April 7, Robert 6 Hornung, Canada Wind Energy Association, CNF1016. 7 8 (EXHIBIT CNF-1016: Presentation 9 slides to the Manitoba Clean 10 Environment Commission, April 7, 11 Robert Hornung, Canada Wind Energy 12 Association) 13 14 THE CHAIRMAN: There will be some 15 questions, Mr. Hornung. 16 Mr. Byron Williams. 17 MR. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon, 18 Mr. Hornung, my name is Byron Williams. You don't 19 have to call me Mr. Byron, just Byron will do. I 20 am a lawyer with the Public Interest Law Centre 21 and I represent the Consumers Asociation of 22 Canada, the Manitoba branch, and the Manitoba 23 Society of Seniors. 24 Mr. Hornung, I think an associate of 25 mine gave you a heads up that I might be referring 4056 1 to a few documents that were either produced by 2 the Canadian Wind Energy Association, or which you 3 had a role in producing; is that right? 4 MR. HORNUNG: Yes, that's correct. I 5 have dealt with all of those documents in the 6 past, I haven't had an opportunity to review them 7 all in detail right now, but I will do the best 8 that I can. 9 MR. WILLIAMS: That is fair. Just so 10 you know, I have shared either the documents or 11 excerpts from the documents with the panel that we 12 have here, as well as individuals in the room. 13 And Mr. Hornung, this is a public participant 14 process, so there were some left out in the table, 15 they appear to have disappeared, so I guess there 16 is people in the audience that have them as well. 17 Where I would like to start is just to 18 understand who the Canadian Wind Energy 19 Association is. And my understanding is that you 20 were their first executive director and you were 21 hired in August of 2003; is that right? 22 MR. HORNUNG: Yes. The Canadian Wind 23 Energy Association has actually been in existence 24 for 20 years. Let me explain a little bit more 25 than that. We essentially are an industry 4057 1 association that has right now I think just short 2 of 100 corporate members. These corporate members 3 are utilities, for example, Manitoba Hydro is a 4 member; also wind energy developers, wind energy 5 project developers; service providers to the wind 6 energy industry, people who do wind resource 7 mapping, et cetera; other types of providers of 8 services, for example, legal firms and others are 9 also members of the association. We also have an 10 individual, a category of individual membership 11 for people who are just interested in supporting 12 the wind industry going forward. 13 It is 20 years old. In the past it 14 has not had sort of senior permanent staff 15 positions, it has always had a board of directors. 16 And the work of the association in the past has 17 been led on a volunteer basis by members of the 18 board of directors who are elected by the members 19 of the association. 20 Last year, in 2003, the board of 21 directors felt that they were now in a position to 22 be able to secure the resources to be able to hire 23 a permanent staff person at a senior level, and 24 that decision was taken by the board, a hiring 25 process held, and I came on in 2003. 4058 1 MR. WILLIAMS: Congratulations on your 2 appointment. Eventually you became president; is 3 that right? 4 MR. HORNUNG: The board of directors 5 ultimately passed a resolution to change the title 6 because they felt it would be more affective in 7 assisting me, frankly, in moving forward some of 8 the agenda with a variety of different 9 stakeholders. 10 MR. WILLIAMS: I was recently named 11 director as opposed to lawyer. I am not sure that 12 that has given me any more credibility either. 13 But if the president title helps, good luck with 14 that. 15 It was very helpful of you to give the 16 summary of your membership. If I could 17 characterize it, some of your members are major 18 producers such as Shell or Suncor. Would that be 19 right? 20 MR. HORNUNG: That's correct. 21 MR. WILLIAMS: And other of your 22 members would be equipment manufacturers, like 23 General Electric Wind Energy; would that be right? 24 MR. HORNUNG: That's correct. 25 MR. WILLIAMS: And then my 4059 1 understanding is you also have a range of emerging 2 wind energy producers, as well as advocates and 3 ordinary folk who are members of your association; 4 is that right? 5 MR. HORNUNG: Correct. 6 MR. WILLIAMS: I was trying to get a 7 sense of how your organization operates or is 8 governed, and I noticed from your website that 9 there were a series of bylaws proposed for 10 approval in the 2003 annual general meeting. And 11 I guess my question is, are those the operative 12 rules, were those bylaws approved, sir? 13 MR. HORNUNG: They were approved by 14 the annual general meeting. As you are probably 15 aware, when that happens with a non-profit 16 association that is registered, we provide those 17 then to Industry Canada, they have to sign off on 18 those bylaws. They came back to us with a series 19 of, what I think would be fair to describe as 20 fairly minor changes. We recently re-presented 21 those to the board, I believe in our February 22 board meeting, where those changes were adopted. 23 We have now forwarded that back to Industry Canada 24 for approval, and we have to hold another vote by 25 mail of our members to formally ratify those, 4060 1 which I presume will be happening within the next 2 month or so. So right now they are not 3 operational. Our existing bylaws are the ones 4 that preceded those which we have on file and 5 which all members have from when we took the 6 decision on the new ones. 7 MR. WILLIAMS: Just so I am clear on 8 your governance, I am assuming that you answer to 9 the board of directors and that the board of 10 directors are selected by a vote at the annual 11 general meeting; is that right? 12 MR. HORNUNG: That's correct. And the 13 annual general meeting is held in conjunction with 14 our annual conference every year. 15 MR. WILLIAMS: I also understand that 16 you have a variety of different types of 17 memberships. For example, you have the 10 by 10 18 Leading Edge Group which is described as the elite 19 group supporting the wind industry in Canada. And 20 for that kind of membership, for the paltry sum of 21 $12,500 you can enter that group; is that correct? 22 MR. HORNUNG: That's correct, the 10 23 by 10 category was created the year before I came 24 on board. And what it did essentially was, we 25 have three levels of corporate membership, 1, 2 4061 1 and 3, and corporate 1 is the level with the 2 highest cost associated with it, $2,500 per year. 3 And what we did is we set up this 10 by 10 4 category to identify if there were any members who 5 were willing to come forward, in essence, and make 6 a commitment to provide an additional $10,000 a 7 year, to provide the organization with the 8 financial stability and resources that it required 9 to do things like make an investment in a 10 permanent staff position. And that is indeed what 11 has happened. 12 MR. WILLIAMS: Now, if I am not part 13 of that elite group, if I am kind of a plebeian 14 public interest lawyer, I could join as an 15 advocate or an individual for $100; is that right? 16 MR. HORNUNG: That's correct. 17 MR. WILLIAMS: So you are getting some 18 free advertising out of this. 19 Am I right that as an advocate or 20 individual, in terms of the vote for the board of 21 directors, I don't have a vote? 22 MR. HORNUNG: That's correct. We have 23 voting members and non-voting members. And the 24 voting members are restricted to the corporate 25 members, all of the categories, 1, 2 and 3, as 4062 1 well as the 10 by 10. 2 MR. WILLIAMS: And the leading edge 3 category, they get two votes, is that right, in 4 terms of electing the board of directors? 5 MR. HORNUNG: That's correct. 6 MR. WILLIAMS: Now, Mr. Hornung, I was 7 curious about your status here today. Are you 8 here today -- obviously you are volunteering your 9 services to the Canadian Nature Federation, but 10 are you here today as the president of the 11 Canadian Wind Energy Association, or are you here 12 as Robert Hornung, private citizen? 13 MR. HORNUNG: I am here as president 14 of the Canadian Wind Energy Association. It is 15 indeed part of my mandate, essentially, to provide 16 individuals and others within in Canada with 17 information on the wind energy industry, where it 18 is at, some of the challenges it faces, some of 19 the opportunities it provides. 20 I was invited by the Canadian Nature 21 Federation to participate in this process, and I 22 thought it was a good opportunity, as I said at 23 the beginning of the presentation, to bring some 24 information to the panel that I thought might be 25 useful in their deliberations -- it will 4063 1 ultimately be their decision as to whether it was 2 or not -- not to comment on the specific project 3 or anything like that because that is not my role. 4 But really I thought this was an opportunity to 5 simply put information on the table that may or 6 may not be of interest. 7 MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Hornung, just so I 8 am clear, on behalf of my clients I can express 9 their appreciation for the information that you 10 have provided, but just so I understand your role, 11 your job is to present the views of your 12 association and to represent their interests; is 13 that fair? 14 MR. HORNUNG: Yes, that's correct. 15 MR. WILLIAMS: I do want to thank you 16 as well for the background material that you 17 provided in terms of your personal background. I 18 was -- one of my associates was the person who 19 asked for your CV at a rather late date, so I 20 apologize for that. 21 Just for greater clarity, you 22 mentioned a background both in Economics and in 23 Political Studies. For your BA, was that a dual 24 major in Political Studies and Economics, or was 25 that a Political Studies major? 4064 1 MR. HORNUNG: It was a three year BA 2 in Political Studies and Economics with an honours 3 fourth year in Political Studies. 4 MR. WILLIAMS: And the Masters, that 5 was in Political Studies; is that right? 6 MR. HORNUNG: Political Science, yes. 7 MR. WILLIAMS: And you describe 8 yourself as a policy specialist, not a technical 9 specialist. So I take it one of your jobs, as the 10 executive director and now the newly titled 11 president, has been to familiarize yourself with 12 the positions taken by your organization prior to 13 the time you came on board. Is that fair? 14 MR. HORNUNG: That's correct. 15 MR. WILLIAMS: I think you have said 16 this already, but you are familiar with the 17 document, the June 2001 document, "A Wind Vision 18 for Canada," is that right? 19 MR. HORNUNG: Yes. 20 MR. WILLIAMS: You have probably 21 memorized it? 22 MR. HORNUNG: I don't know that I can 23 claim to have memorized it, but I am familiar with 24 it. 25 MR. WILLIAMS: I will be coming back 4065 1 to that in a few minutes but I just wanted to 2 establish your familiarity. While I am doing 3 that, you would also be familiar with the 4 document, to at least a certain degree, 5 "Generating Investment in Ontario," which is a 6 December 12, 2002 document. Is that right? 7 MR. HORNUNG: I am familiar with it, 8 but I will be honest and state that I am less 9 familiar with it. It is not a document that was 10 produced by the Canadian Wind Energy Association. 11 It is something called the Renewable Energy Task 12 Team in Ontario which had some members of the 13 association participating, but it was not a 14 document of the association, so I won't claim to 15 be as familiar with that. 16 MR. WILLIAMS: That is fair and I 17 appreciate that. Just so I am clear, if my 18 understanding is correct, the Chair of that 19 organization was David Boileau, and he is a vice 20 president of Superior Wind Energy Inc., is that 21 right? 22 MR. HORNUNG: That's correct. He is 23 also involved in a lot of small hydro development 24 in Ontario, yes. 25 MR. WILLIAMS: Another participant was 4066 1 Glen Estill, who was at that point in time, before 2 you took his job, president of the Canadian Wind 3 Energy Association; is that right? 4 MR. HORNUNG: Yes, although I should 5 just clarify, because of the title change, what 6 president meant at that time now refers to board 7 chair. 8 MR. WILLIAMS: That is fair, and I was 9 just making a very poor joke there. 10 And if I understand this report, you 11 also produced it in cooperation with the Ontario 12 Waterpower Association, and Paul Norris, who was 13 president at the time, was one of the members as 14 well; is that right? 15 MR. HORNUNG: That's correct. 16 MR. WILLIAMS: Just in trying to get a 17 bit of a feel for your background, Mr. Hornung, I 18 know that you made a presentation on behalf of 19 your association in January of 2003 to Pollution 20 Probe, and that you also made one in February 2004 21 to the Ontario Wind Policy Summit. Is that right? 22 MR. HORNUNG: That's correct. 23 MR. WILLIAMS: Have you prepared any 24 publications on the economics of wind for any 25 refereed or peer review publications? 4067 1 MR. HORNUNG: No. Myself personally 2 you say? 3 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. 4 MR. HORNUNG: No. 5 MR. WILLIAMS: Now, I guess the 6 starting point, after that lengthy background, you 7 were also the author of the December 19, 2003 8 letter to the Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister 9 of Finance; is that right, Mr. Hornung? 10 MR. HORNUNG: That's right. 11 MR. WILLIAMS: On behalf of the 12 Canadian Wind Energy Association -- for the 13 benefit of the panel and for the crew here who are 14 observing, that is found at tab 6 of the CAC/MSOS 15 reference document. 16 And when I look at that letter, in 17 particular attachment 2 to that letter -- which is 18 found for the benefit of the panel, the second 19 last page of the book of references -- it seems to 20 me that, and I also make reference to slide nine 21 of your presentation today titled "Why Wind Energy 22 in Canada," but it seems to me that your 23 association is presenting wind as an attractive 24 alternative to natural gas as a major source of 25 new electricity generation in Canada. Is that 4068 1 fair? 2 MR. HORNUNG: That is fair. 3 MR. WILLIAMS: And in some ways 4 natural gas is who wind sees itself as kind of one 5 of your major competitors; would that be right? 6 MR. HORNUNG: Yes, that is true. I 7 think the other reason why natural gas is 8 highlighted in presentations like this one is 9 because, on a national basis, as I was saying in 10 the presentation, the working assumption until 11 very recently was that natural gas would be in 12 most parts of Canada the sort of new build for 13 electricity generation going forward. That's the 14 reason it was highlighted. 15 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you for that, 16 Mr. Hornung. 17 Just so I understand, by contrast, 18 your association -- and it is set out in 19 attachment 2 as well -- your association sees 20 hydro and wind, in fact, you see wind as an ideal 21 compliment to Canada's abundant large scale hydro 22 resources. Would that be fair? 23 MR. HORNUNG: Yes, we think there are 24 a tremendous amount of opportunities for synergy 25 there. 4069 1 MR. WILLIAMS: Would it be fair to say 2 that rather than viewing hydro as a competitor, 3 you view it as an excellent match, or I think you 4 said today a very good mix with wind. Would that 5 be fair? 6 MR. HORNUNG: Yes, I think that is 7 true, I think it is certainly true with respect to 8 existing hydro capacity, because we have so much 9 of it in Canada. I mean, clearly in terms of new 10 generation, I mean, wind is going to be competing 11 against all forms of new generation. There are 12 only limited resources available to invest in new 13 electricity generation going forward, so in that 14 sense there is some competition I presume. But, 15 no, we see wind and hydro as complimentary in 16 terms of being able to provide electricity. 17 MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Hornung, I will -- 18 MR. GREWAR: It just disconnects to 19 prevent fraud. We will have to recall you back, 20 Mr. Hornung. 21 MR. WILLIAMS: You are not suggesting 22 that either Mr. Hornung or myself are perpetuating 23 any fraud, Mr. Grewar? 24 MR. GREWAR: Not at all. So we will 25 just hang up and call you right back, sir. Thank 4070 1 you very much. 2 MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Hornung, it is 3 Byron Williams again. The allegations of fraud 4 have been cleared up and I have been encouraged to 5 proceed expeditiously -- but I might be a little 6 while longer. 7 You've used in your, you -- and by you 8 I mean the Canadian Wind Energy Association as 9 well as yourself -- in your presentation today, 10 there has been some terms used that I just want 11 to, for the benefit of my client, get a better 12 idea of what you mean by them, and also who pays 13 for them. One you referred to is renewable 14 portfolio standards, and I wonder if you could 15 define that for me, sir? 16 MR. HORNUNG: Generally, a renewable 17 portfolio standard is a policy measure that 18 requires either producers, or distributors, or 19 retailers of electricity to ensure that a specific 20 percentage of the electricity that they are 21 dealing with is produced by renewable energy 22 sources, and different jurisdictions sometimes 23 have different definitions of what is renewable, 24 there are different sort of targets and timetables 25 associated with them, but this is a policy measure 4071 1 that has now been implemented in 14 States in the 2 United States. And as I noted in my presentation, 3 it is under consideration in several jurisdictions 4 in Canada. 5 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. And just so 6 I am clear, to the extent that wind power is at 7 this point in time more expensive than some of the 8 other competitors, at least in terms of existing 9 plant, or perhaps even new plant, this kind of 10 process, does that oblige the producer or 11 distributor to pay that additional cost, or is 12 there a contribution from Government towards that? 13 MR. HORNUNG: It depends on the 14 jurisdiction. There are examples of both. There 15 are some jurisdictions where Government plays no 16 role in terms of financing, it is simply a 17 requirement on the electricity retailer, producer, 18 distributor, whatever level it is, and those costs 19 are borne there. Presumably, in at least some 20 cases it would be passed on to consumers. In some 21 jurisdictions there will be -- in competitive 22 jurisdictions, with competitive electricity, that 23 may happen through the market. In others it may 24 or may not happen through approval from the 25 regulator. There are other jurisdictions where 4072 1 Government has indeed essentially contributed to 2 the cost, any increased or incremental cost 3 associated with implementation of renewable 4 portfolio standard. 5 MR. WILLIAMS: That is helpful, and I 6 am going to move along that kind of path in a 7 couple of seconds. In your paper on page 5, you 8 also refer to something called "request for 9 proposals." How does that differ from a renewable 10 portfolio standard and who pays for it? 11 MR. HORNUNG: The request for 12 proposals that I mentioned defer in the fact that 13 they are technology specific, they are only 14 looking at wind energy, whereas a renewable 15 portfolio standard is looking at a range of 16 technologies, including wind. And the request for 17 proposals essentially requires the -- well, 18 essentially when a utility, for example, in Quebec 19 puts out a request for proposals, they are 20 signalling that they are engaged in a competitive 21 process, or that they are launching a competitive 22 process whereby different people will bid projects 23 in, and the utility will presumably choose the 24 least cost projects to go forward. Incremental 25 costs associated with that will be borne by the 4073 1 utility, presumably through the power purchase 2 agreement negotiated around that. 3 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. And my 4 understanding as well is that in Ontario at least 5 there has been debate around a procurement policy, 6 which I understand to be something by which the 7 Government may agree to utilize a certain amount 8 of, purchase a certain amount of wind for its 9 needs. Is that right? 10 MR. HORNUNG: I don't believe it is 11 wind specific. I believe it relates to renewable 12 energy technology, and again there are several 13 governments that have initiated initiatives like 14 that, including the Federal Government, the 15 Alberta Government. And the Ontario Government, I 16 have to admit, I don't actually know whether it 17 has been implemented or simply been committed to 18 at this point. 19 MR. WILLIAMS: Just to follow up on 20 that, to the extent that the current price of wind 21 is higher than some of the competitive options, 22 that presumably would be a cost that would be 23 borne by either the Provincial or Federal 24 taxpayers; is that right? 25 MR. HORNUNG: That would be borne by 4074 1 Government in terms of, again, terms of the power 2 purchase agreement. They did point out in some 3 jurisdictions, for example in Alberta, given the 4 mix of electricity sources that the Government of 5 Alberta is currently purchasing from, in the end 6 they felt they were actually getting a deal that 7 saved them money in the end. That will depend 8 clearly on the bids that come in and what the 9 competition is. 10 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Hornung. 11 I am going to change pace just a little bit. I 12 would like to refer you to the document 13 "Generating Investment in Ontario" which appears 14 for the benefit of the panel at tab 3 of the 15 resource materials that we have provided, we being 16 CAC/MSOS. And specifically, Mr. Hornung, I wanted 17 to direct your attention to page 18 of that 18 document. Do you have that? 19 MR. HORNUNG: I am looking for it 20 right now. 21 MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Hornung, while you 22 are scrolling, just so I am clear what I am doing, 23 I would like to get an idea of what wind power, 24 the estimates of what it costs now, and then we 25 will move forward to kind of where your 4075 1 association thinks its costs are going. Okay? 2 MR. HORNUNG: Okay. Do you want me to 3 tackle that question about costs now? 4 MR. WILLIAMS: I guess perhaps, I 5 thought a useful starting point for this might be 6 the suggestion based on -- in the third paragraph 7 of page 18, that the water power and wind power 8 industries have estimated that it will cost only 9 1.5 to 3 cents per kilowatt over the price of new 10 natural gas generation, estimated to require 6 to 11 7 cents to bring on renewables sufficient to meet 12 the 375 megawatt per year objective. Is that a 13 good starting point? 14 MR. HORNUNG: Yes. Let me tackle that 15 in more detail. 16 MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. 17 MR. HORNUNG: Well, the simple answer 18 is a complex answer. When people say how much 19 does wind power cost, there is no one answer. It 20 depends, I mean, it depends on a number of things. 21 It depends on the quality of the wind resource. 22 It depends on the technology that you are using, 23 the size of the wind turbine. It depends on 24 transmission and interconnection issues, if new 25 transmission is required, who is paying for that? 4076 1 It depends on the cost of electricity in the 2 jurisdiction. Wind turbines use a little bit of 3 electricity when there is no wind in order to keep 4 operating. It depends on the terms of the power 5 purchase agreement. Is it an agreement for five 6 years, is it an agreement for 15 years? That 7 makes a difference in terms of the ability to 8 secure financing. The cost of that financing, so 9 that will obviously have an impact. There are 10 some location specific things related to, for 11 example, the cost of road building or the cost of 12 foundations, that may vary from place to place. 13 There is an economy of scale question. Larger 14 projects will be able to drive down costs a little 15 more. Another thing will be sort of issues 16 related to line losses and how far the facility is 17 away from the area of demand. 18 So, when you look at all of that, we 19 will say that the cost of wind energy in Canada 20 can range anywhere from between 6 cents a kilowatt 21 hour to 11 cents a kilowatt hour, depending on 22 what mix of those factors is in place. 23 MR. WILLIAMS: In terms of Ontario, or 24 in terms of the figures set out in this table, do 25 you dispute that they are representative of the 4077 1 cost to bring wind on up to the, up to -- at least 2 given the limitations set out in that sentence, is 3 this a reliable figure? 4 MR. HORNUNG: I would say it is a 5 reliable figure. 6 MR. WILLIAMS: Just so I am clear 7 then, when they say it is only 1.5 to 3 cents per 8 kilowatt over the price of new natural gas, does 9 that mean that I would add 7 cents plus 1.5 cents, 10 or 7 cents plus 3 cents? In other words, are we 11 talking a range of between 8 and a half and 10, 12 based upon the study in Ontario, sir? 13 MR. HORNUNG: Yes, although the one 14 thing, I guess the qualifier that I have to put on 15 that, and I have to reference this in terms of 16 lack of familiarity with the assumptions 17 underlying the document about natural gas prices, 18 so I would have to revisit what those assumptions 19 were at that time. Clearly, yes, at that time, 20 relative to what natural gas prices were at that 21 time, I think it is a reasonable thing. But, of 22 course, if natural gas prices are changing, then 23 it has an impact. I would have to revisit what 24 those assumptions are. 25 MR. WILLIAMS: If I am just reading 4078 1 this paragraph correctly, it seems to be 2 suggesting that wind would be towards the upper 3 end of that assumption, being closer to 10 than 4 closer to 8 and a half. Would that be right? 5 MR. HORNUNG: I don't know that one 6 can say that actually. There will be some that 7 cover all aspects of that range. What the 8 relative weight is at what end of the range I 9 don't actually know. But I do think that the 10 natural gas -- sorry, I lost the thought, it is 11 going to come back in one second, I reserve the 12 right to come back to that. 13 MR. WILLIAMS: You may not know this, 14 but do you know if the costs found in this table 15 included transmission costs or firming and shaping 16 costs? 17 MR. HORNUNG: I don't actually know 18 that. I know that in the Ontario context there is 19 still room within the grid. Hydro One just 20 released a report indicating that for at least a 21 good chunk of the wind that they are looking for 22 under the renewable portfolio standard, that they 23 can manage that with existing transmission. 24 However, they were also clear that to get the full 25 amount, they will need new transmission. And I 4079 1 don't know what the assumptions were under there. 2 The one other point which I had 3 forgotten, which I just remembered -- the other 4 thing that needs to be taken into account when 5 considering those costs in Ontario is that 6 Ontario, within the context of Canada, is 7 generally considered to have a relatively poor 8 wind resource. There are better spots and worse 9 spots within Ontario, just like everywhere else, 10 but looking at the country as a whole, I have 11 certainly had a lot of the wind energy community 12 tell me that Ontario is one where the wind 13 resource is less strong than in some other parts 14 of the country. 15 MR. WILLIAMS: That being said, given 16 the relatively small amount of wind being here, 17 you would probably be looking at some of the 18 better sites, would you not, for this figure? 19 MR. HORNUNG: Could you repeat the 20 question? 21 MR. WILLIAMS: You are looking at a 22 relatively small amount in terms of megawatts 23 shared between wind and water power, so this would 24 probably be looking at some of the better options 25 in terms of Ontario; correct? 4080 1 MR. HORNUNG: That is probably fair, 2 yes. 3 MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Hornung, I am going 4 to direct you to page 3 of your submission, slide 5 9, why wind energy in Canada. And you may have to 6 take an undertaking or two on this area. But the 7 first kind of hyphen, it says, 8 "Wind is one of the few where costs is 9 projected to continue to decline 3 to 10 5 percent per year for at least 11 another decade." 12 Can you tell me the source of that data, or that 13 assertion? 14 MR. HORNUNG: That is drawn from a 15 study that the American Wind Energy Association 16 did, in discussions with turbine manufacturers 17 going forward. There are numerous sources out 18 there that speculate about the future cost of wind 19 energy. And while they may differ in terms of the 20 absolute number, the trend is quite consistent, I 21 think, across a broad range of studies that have 22 been undertaken. 23 MR. WILLIAMS: You use the word 24 "speculate." Is that how you are referring to the 25 study, that it is speculation in terms of where 4081 1 wind energy costs will be? 2 MR. HORNUNG: Well, let's put it this 3 way, it is a forecast I suppose is a better word 4 than speculate. It is not a guarantee in the 5 sense that no one can say with absolute certainty 6 what kind of changes technology will bring going 7 forward. 8 MR. WILLIAMS: Would you mind 9 undertaking to provide that to my client, sir? 10 MR. HORNUNG: I can do that. 11 12 (UNDERTAKING # CNF-59: Produce study of American 13 Wind Energy Association) 14 15 MR. WILLIAMS: Just so I am clear, was 16 this study published in some sort of peer review 17 or academic study, or is it a publication merely 18 of the American Wind Energy Association? 19 MR. HORNUNG: That is a publication of 20 the American Wind Energy Association. However, I 21 am quite sure that I can find you some documents 22 that would show similar trends from organizations 23 like the International Energy Agency. So what I 24 would commit to do is to provide you with in fact 25 several sources that document this trend. 4082 1 2 (UNDERTAKING # CNF-60: Provide documentation 3 which show trends re future costs in wind energy) 4 5 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. Also, in 6 terms of domestic manufacturing could further 7 reduce costs between 5 and 10 percent, what is the 8 source of that assertion? 9 MR. HORNUNG: Both wind energy project 10 developers and wind energy turbine manufacturers. 11 MR. WILLIAMS: Could you provide, for 12 the benefit of my consultants, the background 13 information in terms of those claims, sir? 14 MR. HORNUNG: I could. 15 16 (UNDERTAKING # CNF-61: Provide background 17 information re claim that domestic manufacturing 18 could further reduce costs between 5 and 10 19 percent) 20 21 MR. WILLIAMS: Moving up to slide -- 22 still on page 3, moving up to slide 7, again which 23 is also titled "Why Wind Energy in Canada?" but it 24 has a question mark behind it, unlike slide 9. 25 And you note that Canada has no shortage of wind 4083 1 resources, and in the written text it says, 2 "The issue is what is practical given 3 transmission and interconnection 4 costs." 5 I believe in your oral evidence you also mentioned 6 economic issues; is that right? 7 MR. HORNUNG: In the sense that the 8 transmission and interconnection issues have an 9 impact on economics, yes. 10 MR. WILLIAMS: Can you discuss what 11 your association means by what is practical? 12 MR. HORNUNG: Practical in terms of 13 being able to compete at a level that is 14 acceptable within society. I mean, frankly, you 15 know, we may have 100,000 megawatts of wind 16 potential in Nunavut. Capturing that potential 17 and bringing it down to energy demand centres in 18 southern Canada, we expect would imply a level of 19 cost in terms of transmission infrastructure, et 20 cetera, that would not be acceptable, and 21 therefore, it is not practical in the sense it is 22 not something that will happen. 23 MR. WILLIAMS: Do you have a dollar 24 figure, or a cents per kilowatt figure in terms of 25 your association's position on what is practical? 4084 1 MR. HORNUNG: No. I think ultimately 2 that is a decision that is not something that will 3 be taken by an association or anything like that. 4 That is a decision that presumably will be taken 5 by government, taking into account varying 6 perspectives. 7 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Hornung. 8 We are getting relatively near to the end. I 9 haven't seen any of the panel nodding off yet, but 10 I haven't been looking that closely. 11 So I would draw your attention to tab 12 4 of the CAC book of references, which is the 13 letter to the Honourable Ralph Goodale written by 14 you. Specifically, the very first page of that 15 document, the last paragraph on that first page, 16 you reference the gap that currently exists 17 between the cost of wind energy and competing 18 sources of electricity, and suggest ways to close 19 that gap more completely, either through a higher 20 incentive payment under WPPI, or significant new 21 Provincial actions. Have I roughly paraphrased 22 that correctly, sir? 23 MR. HORNUNG: Sorry, while you were 24 talking, I was just calling it up here. Could you 25 reference the paragraph? 4085 1 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I apologize for 2 that, I should have made sure you had it. The 3 very last paragraph on page 1, and I am just 4 referring you to, there is a reference to the gap 5 that currently exists between the cost of wind 6 energy and competing sources of electricity. Do 7 you see that? 8 MR. HORNUNG: Okay. 9 MR. WILLIAMS: In terms of the gap, 10 were you referring to natural gas specifically, or 11 competition in general? 12 MR. HORNUNG: It is competition in 13 general. But, again, this comes back to the issue 14 of, just as there is no single cost for wind 15 energy, there is also no single gap. It depends 16 where you are, and it depends what the competition 17 is. And what we have, you know, what we have 18 done, and what the Government did in the past when 19 it created the wind power production incentive 20 program, was to look at the gap in all different 21 parts of the country and say, well, if you had to 22 say something that represented a gap for wind 23 energy on a national basis, what would it be? So 24 the -- and so I guess there is no single gap, and 25 the number that is there is not necessarily 4086 1 reflective of one situation, it may be a 2 reflection, in fact it is a reflection of a blend 3 of the situations that wind energy faces across 4 the country. 5 There are some jurisdictions where, 6 for example, electricity power prices are higher, 7 where the gap is quite a bit smaller. For 8 example, Alberta is one of those jurisdictions, 9 and that is one of the reasons why Alberta is 10 currently the leading jurisdiction in terms of 11 wind energy development. 12 MR. WILLIAMS: Where I am going with 13 this, Mr. Hornung, is, I think on the second page 14 of that letter, CanWEA makes a proposal for the 15 Federal Government to expend $50 million a year 16 for 16 years. I was trying to get a sense, is 17 there any magic to that figure of 16 years? 18 MR. HORNUNG: The reason that is there 19 is because what the proposal describes, what the 20 proposal has called for in total is for -- the 21 current wind power production incentive program is 22 to end in 2007, we have asked the program to be 23 expanded, essentially quadrupled in size in terms 24 of the target that is trying to be achieved. And 25 we suggested that to ensure that that target would 4087 1 be met that the program should be extended three 2 years to 2010. The program, as it is designed, 3 provides funding for a 10-year period. Therefore, 4 somebody building in the last year of the program 5 in our proposal of 2010 would receive funding 6 through to 2020, which is 16 years from now. So 7 that is where that number comes from. 8 I should point out that the average 9 expenditure of 50 million a year is quite 10 literally that, it is an average. Under the 11 proposal, as we have put it forward, there is 12 actually no expenditures in the first two years, 13 because the Federal Government would make use of 14 funds that already have been allocated to the 15 existing program. Then the funding requirement 16 would slowly ramp up until 2010. In 2010 the 17 maximum sort of payment in the year would be in 18 the order of 75, $78 million. That would continue 19 for a few years after 2010 and then it would 20 decline down to zero by 2020. 21 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Hornung. 22 Just moving on about three pages, which is 23 attachment 1 to this document, it is the last page 24 of attachment 1 before the Provincial Wind Energy 25 Renewable Energy Policy proposals. 4088 1 MR. HORNUNG: Yes. 2 MR. WILLIAMS: It is not numbered. I 3 see a suggestion that while technological advances 4 and increasing natural gas prices are likely to 5 ensure this happens in the next 10 to 20 years, 6 and it is referring to the sentence above, closing 7 the cost gap between wind energy and competing 8 sources of electricity. So, is that the position 9 of CanWEA, that the gap that exists right now is 10 likely to endure for between 10 and 20 years, but 11 it will close over the course of that due to 12 technological advances and increasing natural gas 13 prices? 14 MR. HORNUNG: Yes. 15 MR. WILLIAMS: Just a few short 16 snappers. If you go down to tab 8, and you have 17 referenced this in your oral evidence, this is 18 titled -- slide 8, still on page 3, there is the 19 wind/hydro link, and you reference wind 20 forecasting. Where does the science of wind 21 forecasting compare in terms of accuracy, versus 22 the science of weather forecasting? 23 MR. HORNUNG: The honest answer is it 24 depends on the time frame. I guess in a sense 25 there is a strong correlation, but not one to one, 4089 1 because with wind forecasting you are only -- 2 well, you are essentially considering only one 3 output and not trying to address the whole weather 4 system. So I would say it is more specific in 5 that sense, and therefore somewhat more accurate. 6 But clearly the issue of timing is important. And 7 as I said in the presentation, there is a big 8 difference in the accuracy of wind forecasting, if 9 you are asked to do it one week before or one hour 10 before. 11 MR. WILLIAMS: It was a short snapper. 12 Moving on to page 4, you see the heading "Economic 13 Benefits of Wind," and under that you reference 14 tax revenues for Government as a result of wind 15 investment. Can you identify for me which tax, 16 sources of tax revenue you are referring to? 17 MR. HORNUNG: You mean tax revenue on 18 the -- tax revenue associated with the corporate 19 entities that are engaged in the production of 20 wind energy? 21 MR. WILLIAMS: Am I right, I thought 22 reading from, at least your position in Ontario, 23 that the association was advocating that there be 24 relief in terms of corporate income tax as well as 25 corporate capital tax on the short term for wind? 4090 1 Is that right? 2 MR. HORNUNG: That is true in the 3 Ontario context. You have also seen when you 4 looked at the Ontario thing that there was a 5 request to remove municipal property taxes, but to 6 have, if governments were indeed to take that 7 initiative, to replace those funds for 8 municipalities, so that the municipalities would 9 not receive sort of a negative hit in their 10 revenue stream. And we are actually right now 11 actively sort of working to finalize that 12 arrangement in Ontario. 13 MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Hornung, moving to 14 the Manitoba policy situation, am I right that 15 there is no -- there are not only no proposed 16 renewable portfolio standards in Manitoba, there 17 are also no, there is no express government 18 procurement policy on the part of the Province of 19 Manitoba; is that right? 20 MR. HORNUNG: I am certainly not aware 21 of anything related to renewable portfolio 22 standard. The only thing that I am aware of is 23 Manitoba Hydro's commitment to pursue 24 250 megawatts of wind energy over the next five to 25 ten years. 4091 1 MR. WILLIAMS: In your work I guess 2 you have had an opportunity to look at what you 3 consider to be best practices, whether in Europe 4 or in the United States or in Canada. Would it be 5 fair to say that the best practices involve a 6 commitment in terms of the cost gap that exists, 7 by levels of Government, i.e. the Federal, State 8 levels of Government, as well as by ratepayers? 9 Would that your view of the best policy 10 environment to encourage wind development, sir? 11 MR. HORNUNG: It is hard to -- I mean, 12 CanWEA doesn't have a position per se on what 13 represents the best. Different jurisdictions have 14 taken different approaches. There are some 15 jurisdictions that have relied largely on 16 government in the form of, for example, production 17 incentives, or incentives for consumers to 18 purchase. There are other jurisdictions that are 19 passing the cost on to ratepayers; for example, 20 through some forms of renewable portfolio 21 standards. 22 So for us, you know, I think from the 23 perspective of the wind energy industry, you know, 24 we obviously have a strong interest in seeing the 25 gap closed. But I think that we acknowledge that 4092 1 there are many different ways to do that and, you 2 know, that the correct way in a sense is context 3 dependent and will depend on the particular 4 culture that you are working within and the range 5 of objectives that you are trying to meet. 6 As I pointed out in my presentation, 7 governments across the country are moving forward 8 with initiatives to support wind energy, you know, 9 not just because wind energy sounds nice, but 10 because they see some tangible benefits coming, 11 whether it is in terms of protection against 12 future electricity price uncertainty or increases, 13 or whether they see it in terms of local economic 14 development, or whether they see it in terms of 15 environmental protection benefits. So those, you 16 know, I think when governments -- governments that 17 we have seen around the world that have provided 18 support to wind energy, I think have tended to 19 describe that support in terms of an investment to 20 secure a range of benefits, and also to, in many 21 cases, create a range of economic benefits for the 22 society that will have, you know, a long-term 23 benefit. 24 MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Hornung, thank you 25 for that answer. It's a thoughtful one. I would 4093 1 ask you for one minute only to take off your 2 CanWEA hat? You have described yourself as a 3 policy guy. You worked for years for the Pembina 4 Institute. Not speaking for your organization, 5 but speaking for yourself, would it be your view 6 that a good model, perhaps the best model to 7 advance wind energy would be one that requires, 8 that asks for a commitment, not only from 9 ratepayers, but from Provincial taxpayers and from 10 Federal taxpayers? Would that seem to -- assuming 11 that the goal in the long term is a valid and an 12 important one, would that be, in your personal 13 view, the best way to share the responsibility so 14 that all may share in the benefit? 15 MR. HORNUNG: In my personal view, 16 yes, a mix of initiatives essentially that 17 distributes the cost and shares that benefit 18 across, essentially across citizens. I mean, 19 recognizing, I mean, this is sort of a similar 20 debate that you have with the carbon tax or 21 something like that, which is an instrument that I 22 personally in the wind energy association don't 23 have anything to say about. But, clearly, policy 24 design is important in terms of any policy that 25 imposes costs, and you want to ensure that in any 4094 1 policy design you don't impose unfair burdens, for 2 example, on -- if you have policies that increase 3 the cost of electricity, presumably you are going 4 to design mechanisms that help to protect and 5 shield low income earners from those costs, and to 6 provide some assistance in that regard. So it is 7 important to, when talking about questions like 8 this, it is important that you actually talk about 9 details of design, and not just sort of at a very 10 high level, because the details really matter. 11 MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Hornung, I thanked 12 you before on behalf of my clients, I want to 13 thank you again. That concludes my questions, and 14 we made it before we got another beep from the 15 telephone operator, so I thank you for that. 16 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman, it may be 17 helpful to identify Mr. Williams' 18 cross-examination reference book as CAC/MSOS 1005, 19 reference material for the examination of the 20 Canadian Wind Energy Association. 21 22 (EXHIBIT CAC/MSOS-1005: Reference 23 material for examination of Canadian 24 Wind Energy Association) 25 4095 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Miller. 2 MR. MILLER: Hello, Mr. Hornung, my 3 name is Peter Miller and I am representing one of 4 the intervenors, Time to Respect Earth's 5 Ecosystems, or TREE, and Resource Conservation 6 Manitoba, RCM. 7 I have basically one type of question. 8 We have heard the question of economics and costs 9 and so on. Another question that has been 10 advanced in Hydro's justifying the level of 11 250-megawatt commitment is that the system could 12 absorb that much, but beyond that there might be 13 technical difficulties in absorbing it, that go 14 beyond just transmission supply, as I understand 15 it, but some kind of reaction with the system. 16 Are you -- has your association made any study of 17 proportions of wind relative to base load supply, 18 and some of the technical difficulties that might 19 arise in hooking up wind to a more steady base 20 load? 21 MR. HORNUNG: We, as an association, 22 have not undertaken such studies. There are 23 certainly a large number of such studies now 24 underway around the world, in different 25 jurisdictions, particularly the jurisdictions that 4096 1 already have a lot of wind on the grid. 2 This is a gross generalization, but, 3 you know, I think that what those studies tend to 4 indicate is that there is a level where technical 5 issues are going to play a role, where the sort of 6 benefits of being a distributed energy source and 7 diverse are not enough to sort of overcome some of 8 the fluctuations that you would see. But that 9 that level is, you know, I have seen it presented 10 on several occasions as sort of 20 percent. I 11 have seen many, many studies that say that 12 certainly up to 10 percent, people don't really 13 anticipate there are many problems. So it is 14 still, you know, it is still an area that is under 15 investigation and under development, but clearly 16 we do have jurisdictions in the world that have 17 demonstrated, like in large countries, that 18 5 percent is not an issue, and smaller countries 19 like Denmark, that 15 or 20 percent is not an 20 issue in terms of that. 21 Now, they are connected to a larger 22 grid in many cases. And when we are looking at 23 the Canadian situation, we are also looking at 24 being connected into huge grids that cross borders 25 and things like that as well. But, I guess, we 4097 1 would feel that we are so far away from being at a 2 level where it is an issue that we think we 3 actually have the time, certainly in the Canadian 4 context, to do the work required to assess what 5 the exact level is, but we think we are a long way 6 from that. 7 MR. MILLER: Thank you for that. Do 8 you have any sort of review article or source that 9 might summarize some of these issues and were the 10 state of the art at the present? 11 MR. HORNUNG: I know there is a 12 magazine called Wind Power Monthly, which I 13 believe just a couple of issues ago, maybe in 14 February, had a special feature, several pages on 15 the cost of integrating wind. It looked at sort 16 of what the implications are in terms of, you 17 know, how much sort of surplus capacity do you 18 need to address the fact that you have higher 19 concentrations of wind on the grid, et cetera. 20 And I think that -- I actually have that in front 21 of me because I thought someone might ask about 22 that. I would be happy to provide this article to 23 the committee. 24 Just one quote from the article here. 25 "Data from the U.S. National Renewable 4098 1 Energy Laboratory reveals that only 2 modest extra reserves are required. 3 With wind capacity equal to 5 percent 4 of peak demand, the extra reserve 5 capacity is around 3 percent of the 6 wind capacity, not of the total 7 capacity. With 10 percent wind 8 capacity, the extra reserve needs are 9 around 5 percent of the wind capacity. 10 With 20 percent wind, just under 11 10 percent of the wind capacity of 12 extra reserve is required. Other 13 studies have yielded even lower 14 estimates." 15 I can provide this. There is some references and 16 things in here as well that people could look to 17 for further information. 18 MR. MILLER: Thank you. I would be 19 grateful if you could supply that to the 20 proceedings? 21 MR. HORNUNG: Will do. 22 23 (UNDERTAKING # CNF-62: Provide article from Wind 24 Power Monthly) 25 4099 1 MR. MILLER: That is all I have, 2 thanks. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Miller. 4 Other questions? Mr. Bedford? 5 MR. BEDFORD: Good afternoon, 6 Mr. Hornung, my name is Doug Bedford, I work at 7 Manitoba Hydro. 8 Just as Mr. Williams was looking at 9 your slide number 7, I was doing the same. I 10 notice that some of the information that you 11 provide there is that leading edge countries, such 12 as Germany, have 3 to 5 percent apparently of 13 their generation capacity devoted to wind; Spain, 14 4 to 6 percent. And as I read that, I took out my 15 pocket calculator, and I can tell you -- you may 16 not be aware of this -- that presently in Manitoba 17 there is 5,400 megawatts of capacity. This 18 project that we have been talking about here for 19 four weeks proposes that a further 200 megawatts 20 of capacity be added to that. And as you have 21 noted, Manitoba Hydro presently has plans to build 22 250 megawatts, or to cooperate with ventures that 23 are building 250 megawatts of wind energy. 24 So I added up all of those numbers and 25 I assume that all of this building will be done, 4100 1 and I came up with 5,850 megawatts, of which 250 2 would be wind. And that results in a percentage 3 of 4.3 percent of Manitoba's generating capacity 4 devoted to wind. 5 Then I put that 4.3 percent beside the 6 data on your slide number 7, and I thought to 7 myself, you know, in about five to ten years, 8 Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro are going to look pretty 9 good beside leading edge countries like Germany 10 and Spain. Do you agree? 11 MR. HORNUNG: Well, I have to qualify 12 it a little bit, because the data in my slide does 13 not refer to capacity, it refers to actual power 14 production. So if you assume that wind energy is 15 working at a 30 to 35 percent capacity factor, 16 that means that you need sort of triple that 17 amount in capacity if you are going to do it by 18 capacity measurement. 19 The other thing to note of course is 20 that these countries are not stopping here, they 21 are expanding. Spain expects to more than double 22 its wind energy capacity by 2010 presumably. 23 Assuming some electricity growth, that is not 24 going to be a doubling necessarily of the 25 contribution to electricity, but it is going to be 4101 1 a significant increase. 2 The other thing to note is that I did 3 have a look -- I was trying to figure out as well 4 how the 250 megawatts sort of fit in. And I went 5 to the Canadian Electricity Association site and 6 got data on electricity production in all of the 7 provinces. And the data that they had on there 8 was 2001, so it is not completely up-to-date. I 9 sort of took the different Provincial, sort of 10 targets that are on the table right now, like the 11 250 megawatts in Manitoba, the 800 megawatts in 12 total in Alberta, the 1500 megawatts in Ontario, 13 and I assumed a 35 percent capacity factor. When 14 you look at that and try to figure out, well, what 15 percentage of that 2001 total would it be, because 16 that is the numbers I was working with. And I 17 found for Manitoba the number is about 2 percent; 18 for Ontario it was about 3 percent; and for 19 Alberta it was about 4 percent. And I found that 20 interesting, given the fact that both Ontario and 21 Alberta are less fortunate in the sense of having 22 the hydro resources available to help compliment 23 the wind energy. 24 So I think the statement that you made 25 in terms of how it relates to the Spanish and 4102 1 German examples is incorrect in the sense that 2 while you are talking about capacity, I am talking 3 about electricity production. As I pointed out, 4 just doing it, and I admit that these are sort of 5 back of the envelope calculations that I did, but 6 in terms of that, it seems that within the 7 Canadian context there are other jurisdictions 8 that, if they proceed with the initiatives they 9 are talking about, will be looking at putting 10 significantly more on to the grid than Manitoba. 11 MR. BEDFORD: You have told us that 12 the Canadian Wind Energy Association is asking the 13 Federal Government to expand the Federal wind 14 power production incentive to 4000 megawatts by 15 2010. If I try, as I am, to allocate that 16 incentive by Provinces and Territories in Canada, 17 and simply allocated it on region by region basis, 18 I calculate that the Manitoba allocation would be 19 something less than 400 megawatts. Would I be 20 right? 21 MR. HORNUNG: I haven't done the math, 22 but I have no reason to question your math. I 23 don't know whether you did it on the basis of 24 population or electricity production or whatever 25 but -- 4103 1 MR. BEDFORD: Region by region, but I 2 am happy you have mentioned population, because if 3 I allocate it on the basis of population, or 4 electrical load, the allocation to Manitoba would 5 then be in the order of about 150 megawatts; 6 correct? 7 MR. HORNUNG: Again, I don't have the 8 numbers in front of me, but I have no reason to 9 dispute your numbers. 10 MR. BEDFORD: Which to my mind makes 11 the 250 megawatt target by 2010 look certainly 12 respectable; right? 13 MR. HORNUNG: Well, how would I say 14 this -- I mean, obviously the metric of 15 measurement is important. So I think by the 16 metric that you've used, I can't disagree with 17 you. By the metric that I was talking about in 18 terms of what it is actually contributing to 19 electricity production, it seems less aggressive. 20 Now, admittedly, what I was talking 21 about is not sort of an equitable distribution of 22 4000 megawatts based on population, or whatever. 23 I was just describing what other jurisdictions are 24 actually planning to do. So in that sense it is 25 not so hypothetical, I guess, it is more based in 4104 1 terms of what the aspirations of different 2 jurisdictions are at this time. 3 MR. BEDFORD: I know that last week 4 Manitoba Hydro sent to you a package of materials 5 relating to the cold weather operation of 6 turbines. Did you receive it? 7 MR. HORNUNG: That is correct. I 8 should have said at the start -- I neglected to 9 say -- when I said that I had not seen anything 10 related to this hearing, that is the one 11 exception. I did receive this set of materials 12 from Manitoba Hydro. 13 MR. BEDFORD: My assistant, Mr. Ed 14 Wojczynski, is now going to ensure that Mr. Grewar 15 gets a copy, as well as other people. 16 Mr. Hornung, I am not going to spend 17 much time with the package, notwithstanding the 18 size of the package, and my watch tells me you are 19 going to leave us again in about 10 minutes. What 20 I would like to do, however, particularly for the 21 benefit of those who don't have the package in 22 front of them, is read to you simply the first 23 paragraph of the package as follows, and I quote: 24 "There are cold weather issues which 25 must be addressed when evaluating wind 4105 1 generation in climates such as that of 2 Manitoba. These issues can largely be 3 mitigated through the purchase of a 4 cold weather package. Manitoba Hydro 5 is confident these issues can be 6 accommodated and managed, meaning 7 backed up, through the flexible 8 operation of the Manitoba Hydro 9 hydroelectric system and that wind 10 generation is technically viable in 11 Manitoba. Manitoba Hydro anticipates 12 that wind generation ultimately will 13 be economically and financially viable 14 and thus includes 250 megawatts of 15 wind generation in its plans." 16 Can you tell me, Mr. Hornung, whether 17 you agree generally with the paragraph that I have 18 just read into the record? 19 MR. HORNUNG: I agree generally with 20 the paragraph, yes. 21 MR. BEDFORD: I know you have had the 22 opportunity to read the balance at least of the 23 initial attachment of some five to six pages. Can 24 you tell us all, without me reading it all into 25 the record, whether you generally agree with the 4106 1 remainder of the points? And in so saying I would 2 make a qualification that point number 6 referred 3 rather vaguely to low temperatures. I would have 4 preferred, and you can treat it as referring to 5 temperatures below minus 30 degrees centigrade. 6 MR. HORNUNG: Yes, I do generally 7 agree with what is in here. The way I took this 8 document, and what I think is an accurate 9 representation, is that the issues about operating 10 in cold weather are not technical issues per se, 11 but they are economic issues that need to be 12 considered in the sense of whether or not the 13 costs of cold weather packages and actions that 14 would allow wind turbines to operate in the 15 significantly colder temperatures, whether that 16 investment is warranted by the amount of wind 17 resource that you would lose and the amount of 18 energy that you would fail to produce if you were 19 not operating at those temperatures. And 20 presumably that needs to be assessed on a case by 21 case basis. 22 So the fact that there is an economic 23 consideration here I think is absolutely correct. 24 And as I said, that can only be assessed on a case 25 by case basis. 4107 1 MR. BEDFORD: We here in Manitoba of 2 late have been reading and hearing about problems 3 that the Province of Ontario is having meeting its 4 needs for electricity. We have read about a 5 possibility of an expansion in east/west 6 transmission between Manitoba and Ontario to 7 enable more export. Are you aware of such plans 8 and discussions? 9 MR. HORNUNG: Yes. 10 MR. BEDFORD: Does the Canadian Wind 11 Energy Association think that if such east/west 12 transmission plans come to fruition, the 13 enhancement would be positive, given the 14 possibility then of exporting both hydro and wind 15 power out of Manitoba and into the Province of 16 Ontario? 17 MR. HORNUNG: I have a difficult time 18 answering as the Wind Association, because it is 19 not an association that -- it is not an issue that 20 the association per se has taken a position on. I 21 would be happy to answer in a personal capacity, 22 based on what I have seen, which is to say that I 23 think there are many potential benefits associated 24 with expansion of east/west transmission capacity 25 in Canada, as opposed to the north/south 4108 1 transmission capacity which dominates our 2 transmission network at the current time. Those 3 benefits relate to both opportunities in terms of 4 doing things like greenhouse gas emission 5 reduction opportunities by making more use within 6 Canada of our existing low greenhouse gas emission 7 generation sources. And also there is at least, 8 again depending on the design, there is a 9 possibility I think that extension of such 10 transmission east/west may well allow us to access 11 some more of our wind resource in some parts of 12 the country, for example, in Northern Ontario. 13 But I have to state again that those are my 14 personal views, as the association has not really 15 taken any position on that issue. 16 MR. BEDFORD: Mr. Hornung, thank you 17 very much. That is all of the questions that I 18 have. I certainly am pleased to tell you that 19 what you have been able to tell us today about 20 wind energy in Canada, at least seems to me to 21 have been very consistent with the material that 22 the proponents have put forward at this hearing. 23 Thank you. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bedford. 25 Ms. Gaile Whelan Enns, do you have questions? 4109 1 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman, before we 2 move beyond this, I am just wondering, perhaps we 3 should assign an exhibit number to these 4 documents, but perhaps we can do it by way of 5 indicating it as from Manitoba Hydro, 6 "Clarification of Wind Turbine Cold Weather 7 Considerations, Manitoba Hydro Summary," and with 8 attached reference material, because there is 9 quite a number of documents that would need to be 10 listed. And if we could assign that as MH/NCN 11 1031. 12 13 (EXHIBIT MH/NCN-1031: Clarification of 14 Wind Turbine Cold Weather 15 Considerations, Manitoba Hydro Summary 16 with attached reference material) 17 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Whalen Enns. 19 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Thank you. 20 Mr. Hornung, I wanted to ask you a 21 quick question. We have been hearing about 22 renewable portfolio standards today from Elizabeth 23 May from the Sierra Club in Mr. Williams' 24 questions of you, and of course in your slides. 25 Can you tell us quickly what steps you would 4110 1 recommend or identify as needed for Manitoba to 2 put renewable portfolio standards in place? 3 MR. HORNUNG: Sorry, you have to 4 repeat that, I didn't get all of that? 5 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Sorry, I will try 6 the mike a little closer. Sorry about that. 7 We have been hearing about renewable 8 portfolio standards two or three different ways 9 today, and you made a reference in your remarks to 10 I think at least 12 States in the U.S. and some 11 jurisdictions in Canada moving towards this. 12 Would you tell us what steps you would recommend 13 or identify for Manitoba to adopt renewable 14 portfolio standards? 15 MR. HORNUNG: Well, I think the first 16 issue in terms of design of a renewable portfolio 17 standard is defining what is renewable, for the 18 purposes of the standard. And in most 19 jurisdictions that has, that definition has been 20 applied to what are called more commonly sort of 21 emerging renewable energy resources. So there is 22 a need to define your objective in that regard. 23 And I think, as I said, most jurisdictions have 24 done it as emerging renewable energy resources. 25 Then there is a need to essentially 4111 1 adopt, look at capacity, look at what is possible, 2 adopt a target, and make your assessments about 3 any incremental costs associated with that, and 4 decisions about whether one is willing to take on 5 those costs or not. 6 Certainly, we do see in some 7 jurisdictions, as I said earlier, we have some 8 jurisdictions in Canada, including our biggest 9 one, Ontario, in terms of electricity generation 10 looking at a 10 percent renewable portfolio 11 standard. We have jurisdictions in the U.S. over 12 a longer time frame, like California, that are 13 looking at a 20 percent renewable portfolio 14 standard. So there is certainly some, I would say 15 aggressive thinking going on in that regard. 16 When considering the development of a 17 renewable portfolio standard, I presume it is also 18 important to recognize and acknowledge the purpose 19 behind it. I described earlier sort of the range 20 of issues that different jurisdictions are using 21 in Canada to justify and to support and provide a 22 rationale for moving forward. And I expect that 23 many of those rationales are applicable in most 24 parts of the country. 25 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Thank you. I am 4112 1 aware that the Saskatchewan Power Corporation 2 has -- I am not exactly sure how to describe this 3 program, you may know more about it -- but there 4 is a first wind turbine in operation by the 5 Saskatchewan Power Corporation, and I understand 6 that there is an optional purchasing system where 7 Saskatchewan residents can choose to buy, if you 8 will, that energy from that turbine which costs 9 more. Now that is describing it in a very basic 10 sense and I am not fully knowledgeable on the 11 program. 12 What I wanted to ask you is whether 13 you know of any similar kinds of, shall we say 14 reverse incentives, where the public and/or the 15 consumer is supporting wind energy by paying a 16 higher rate? 17 MR. HORNUNG: There are a number of 18 what we call green power marketing programs in 19 Canada. The major ones are in Alberta. For 20 example, the utility in the City of Calgary has 21 quite an aggressive green energy promotion 22 program. Ontario Power Generation has such a 23 program for commercial customers, it doesn't have 24 it yet for individual customers. Nova Scotia 25 Power has a similar program like that for 4113 1 individual customers, and you said Sask Power has 2 something similar. Other generators offer what 3 are called green tags, where they essentially 4 offer the opportunity for consumers to purchase in 5 a sense the environmental -- to purchase the 6 environmental attributes associated with the 7 renewable energy generation, and that ranges from 8 individual companies like Vision Quest Wind 9 Electric to Provincial utilities like BC Hydro. 10 So there are a number of these 11 programs in Canada. There are even more in the 12 United States. And particularly in the Alberta 13 context, they have been a very helpful mechanism 14 to help drive the renewable and wind energy 15 industries forward. 16 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Thank you. I will 17 pass on most of what is in front of me in terms of 18 your call going away again, but I wanted to ask 19 you to just clarify -- I heard you say there will 20 be a Canada wind survey available late 2004. Will 21 it be public? Will it be available to everyone? 22 MR. HORNUNG: My understanding is yes. 23 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Thank you very much 24 for joining us today. We appreciate your time. 25 MR. HORNUNG: Thank you for the 4114 1 opportunity. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Hornung. 3 We are down to the wire, and I believe those were 4 the last questions. So on behalf of everyone 5 here, we thank you very much. 6 MR. HORNUNG: Thank you very much. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Now, this being just 8 after 3:00 o'clock, liquids imbibed an hour or two 9 ago, mother nature having its way, and gravity 10 having its pull, we shall have a break of 10 to 15 11 minutes. 12 (PROCEEDINGS RECESSED AT 3:05 P.M. 13 AND RECONVENED AT 3:25 P.M.) 14 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, 16 if we can find our places. 17 Ladies and gentlemen, hopefully the 18 technicalities are resolved. Reservoirs are 19 emptied and refilled. We can proceed. 20 Mr. Soprovich, I gather? 21 MR. SOPROVICH: Yes. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Grewar will proceed 23 to the swearing in. 24 MR. GREWAR: Sir, if you can state 25 your name for the record, please. 4115 1 THE WITNESS: Dan Soprovich, 2 s-O-P-R-O-V-I-C-H. 3 4 (Dan Soprovich: sworn) 5 6 MR. SOPROVICH: I can proceed? 7 THE CHAIRMAN: You may proceed. 8 MR. SOPROVICH: Okay, if I look a 9 little bit squirrely, I got these new glasses and 10 I have never had glasses before. They say it is 11 either a sign of advancing age or widsom. I am 12 hoping it is the latter. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: A combination. 14 MR. SOPROVICH: A combination, yeah. 15 I just really want to give you a sense, perhaps. 16 I happen to be here on March 16th. I was 17 originally slated to speak on March 16th. I think 18 that was a very long day. I think it was a long 19 day for all of us. I remember looking at the 20 commissioners and they had been looking like they 21 had been earning their money. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: That doesn't take long. 23 MR. SOPROVICH: I just want to give 24 you a sense that is based on some of the 25 discourse, the discussion that occurred there. I 4116 1 just want to give you a sense of what happens 2 with -- sometimes with us consultants and other 3 people who are involved in environmental issues. 4 I was budgeted eight hours to put my 5 presentation together. Things kind of got away on 6 me. It was the biologist taking over and the 7 businessman wasn't working so good there. I 8 actually ended up putting in about 30 hours that 9 was not paid for. That is volunteered time. I do 10 a lot of that kind of stuff and I want to give 11 people a sense of that. My business manager, who 12 is my wife, sometimes tries to put an end to that, 13 but she is not always successful. 14 Hello. Thank you very much for 15 letting me be with you here today. 16 This presentation is about the places 17 where a given species of wildlife lives or its 18 habitat. Understanding the relative value of 19 different kinds of habitats to a species is the 20 purview of the habitat scientists and habitat 21 biologists. At it's very rudimentary, this 22 understanding represents a constructive model of a 23 species habitat use. Beyond this, formal wildlife 24 habitat models can range from something as basic 25 as a verbal description of key elements and their 4117 1 relative importance, to models that have a high 2 degree of analytical complexity and are based on 3 local, relevant data. 4 The focus of this presentation is on 5 the models used for the transmission assessment. 6 For assessment of the transmission line, Hydro 7 used the Manitoba Habitat Suitability Index or HSI 8 models that were developed by the Manitoba 9 Forestry Wildlife Management Program. For the 10 generation component, Hydro developed their own 11 models. 12 Now, habitat models are generally 13 mathematical abstractions of the real world and 14 technical discussion of such models speaks in a 15 language of modelling statistics. That's a 16 language of those few people who are strongly 17 analytical by nature, but it is not the language 18 of the majority of us. Such talk can only act as 19 a sedative rather than means of communication. 20 So, I hope I won't put myself to sleep here. I am 21 trying to keep things basic. 22 Because each member of the commission 23 has years of experience and expertise in his or 24 her own areas of interest, you will understand the 25 importance of common sense. Therefore, it is the 4118 1 goal of this presentation to provide information 2 in a form that will allow you to apply the common 3 sense to your deliberations on the subject at 4 hand. 5 Now, I just want to briefly review my 6 relevant experience, just to give the commission a 7 sense of where I come from. 8 One of my past lives was as the 9 Population Ecology Biologist for the Manitoba 10 Wildlife branch. This role as an applied 11 researcher ended up primarily of reviews of 12 ongoing data collection to determine if they are 13 relevant and of value. 14 For example, one of my tasks was to 15 examine something called the Verme Weather 16 Severity Index, as it was being applied by 17 Manitoba Natural Resources. The Verme WSI was 18 modelled in Michigan on the survival of 19 white-tailed deer. 20 Now, between 1991 and 1995, I was the 21 regional wildlife biologist for the western region 22 of Manitoba Natural Resources out of Swan River. 23 While in that position, I represented the regions 24 on a technical advisory committee and I was 25 charged with the development of HSI models for 4119 1 forest wildlife. I embraced this task 2 enthusiastically with the hope that we would be 3 able to develop habitat models that would truly 4 value different types of forest wildlife and, 5 therefore, be able to reasonably predict the 6 impact of forestry operations. 7 However, the process for development 8 of these models had already been set and there was 9 limited opportunity to modify the overall 10 modelling approach. During my time on the TAC, I 11 participated actively by conducting tests on the 12 first models, using data from my region, making 13 presentations, making recommendations to contract 14 species experts to help with the development and 15 cooperatively designing a test of the American 16 marten model. 17 However, after being involved in the 18 development of eight models, I left the project 19 for several reasons, one being that I had come to 20 the conclusion that these habitat models were 21 unlikely to perform to the level necessary for use 22 in a management application. 23 The main point that I wish to make 24 here is I went into the process of developing 25 these models with an optimistic and open mind and 4120 1 on the basis of the evidence over time on the TAC, 2 I came to the conclusion that these models were 3 unlikely able to perform adequately. 4 The Manitoba HSI models were developed 5 according to a method of the Fish and Wildlife 6 Service. The method requires that the HSI has a 7 minimum value of zero, which represents totally 8 unsuitable habitat -- I will give this thing a try 9 here. So, we are talking about -- is that showing 10 up at all? 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 12 MR. SOPROVICH: Okay. Down here, you 13 can see we have habitat that is at zero value and 14 it is rated as zero by the habitat suitability 15 index. The habitat that is of good value up here 16 should receive a 1.0 rating. That 1 -- that 17 represents the optimum habitat. The best habitat. 18 Also, the method requires that an HSI 19 model produces a zero to one index with the 20 assumption there is a direct linear relationship 21 between the HSI value and carrying capacity. All 22 that means is that we have to have a line from 23 zero up to one. So, if we have a curve -- if the 24 relationship is what we call curve or linear, it 25 would be something like this and that would not be 4121 1 adequate. It has to be straight like that and it 2 has to go through the origin; through zero. 3 Now, Hydro applied the Manitoba HSI 4 models according to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife 5 Service method known as HEP, which requires that 6 the HSI model relationship be linear and through 7 the origin, exactly the way it is seen here. 8 That is, the methodology states that 9 specifically the use of HEP assumes that, for any 10 evaluation species, a unit change in HSI will 11 always have the same significance, that is always 12 corresponding to the same change of carrying 13 capacity units. 14 Now, the goal in Manitoba was to use 15 variables from something called the Forest 16 Resource Inventory -- or FRI. This is the data 17 that is used -- the map data and so on that is 18 used to manage forest resources in Manitoba. They 19 describe the forest. We were going to use this 20 FRI data to predict habitat values or HSIs for a 21 number of species. 22 Now, the HEP method of assessment uses 23 the HSI model and the land areas involved to 24 determine something called the number of habitat 25 units, "HUs". Hydro called these things prime 4122 1 habitat equivalencies. They kind of jazzed it up 2 a little bit, but it is exactly the same thing. 3 How does it this work? Well, 4 essentially it works in this fashion, what you do 5 is you take the area. So, if we are looking at a 6 2 hectare area and that has a habitat suitability 7 index of 1, we would simply multiply the 2 8 hectares times the 1 and that gives you two 9 habitat units. 10 So, similarly, if we look at this 11 relationship here, if we had 5 hectares of 12 habitat, that was valued at 2, five times 0.2 is 1 13 and that would be the equivalent of 1 hectare 14 valued at 1, because If you multiply each of 15 those, you end up with 1. 16 Now, one of the questions that 17 Manitoba Wildlands posed to Hydro was for each of 18 the species for which HSI models were applied, 19 what evidence is there on the basis of tests in 20 Manitoba to demonstrate that the model works or 21 does not work? 22 Hydro's responses were the absolute 23 nature of the question, with respect to whether 24 the model works or does not work, is inappropriate 25 with respect to the application of the HSI models; 4123 1 none of the models will absolutely fail. 2 Well, we are all familiar with models 3 that do not work, do not perform as required, 4 fail. It was once thought that the earth was flat 5 and I think we all have rejected that model. 6 Hydro's perspective is that there can 7 be no such thing as failure in the world of 8 habitat wildlife modelling. A world view where 9 the concept of failure does not exist. 10 For example, I go moose hunting, do 11 not see a moose and shoot myself in the leg. 12 Hydro's view would be that I have not failed, but 13 rather just not succeeded as well as I might have. 14 Or I build a house, fail to understand 15 the concept of load-bearing walls and the house 16 falls down. Hydro's view is I have not failed 17 because I have learned something about 18 load-bearing walls. 19 Dr. Fred Bunnell in an 1989 20 publication, one of the grandfathers of wildlife 21 habitat models, stated that: One cannot evaluate 22 the success or failure of a design attempt without 23 specifying the demands. Note the word "failure". 24 "What task is the model to perform?" What a 25 contrast in views between this and Hydro. 4124 1 In the context of HSI models, what 2 task is the model to perform? Given that Hydro 3 has used the Manitoba HSI models to apply the HEP 4 method, these models must be able to separate the 5 good habitat from the poor and the relationship 6 must be linear and through the origin. If this is 7 not the case, then the models do not work for the 8 task at hand. 9 The following provides the commission 10 with an example of what a test might look like 11 where a Manitoba HSI model has failed in its 12 ability to predict habitat quality. 13 Let us say we are interested in 14 determining the effect of a development on the 15 American marten. This is a member of the weasel 16 family that, in scientific literature, tends to 17 prefer old-growth conifer forest. 18 Let us say that instead of consulting 19 an expert on marten biology, using an available 20 habitat model or developing a habitat model, we 21 instead rate the value of various forest stands by 22 pulling a number out of a hat. 23 Let us assume that we are rating 11 24 stands that are of zero value to marten. 11 of 25 value 1, 11 of value 2, et cetera, up to 11 stands 4125 1 a value 10. Let us assume that for each of these 2 121 forest stands, we determine their HSI is zero, 3 0.1, 0.2, et cetera, up to 1.0 when we pull the 4 numbers out of our hat. Essentially, what we are 5 doing is taking our hat and we have got 11 numbers 6 in here between zero and 1.0, incrementing by 0.1 7 each time. We go and look at this forest stand 8 that has a value of 1 for marten and we pull a 9 number out of the hat and we say, that's the value 10 according to the habitat model. Throw it back in 11 and mix it up and we go to another stand, pull 12 another number out of the hat. 13 Well, if we did that, we would expect 14 the relationship between the true habitat value, 15 which is what we call "carrying capacity" here, 16 and our HSI to look something like this. Now, 17 realistically, if we were to go through this as an 18 exercise, if you look at this particular figure, 19 you will see that it is completely balanced. But, 20 realistically, if we were looking at, say, 21 carrying capacity through random chance, we might 22 not get a zero, okay? But, you would have 23 something that would look very similar to this. 24 If you did this enough times, you would have 25 something that looked exactly like this. 4126 1 The thing that is important here is 2 what we call the line of best fit. This thing 3 here. This line that goes across. You can see it 4 is flat, it has no slope and does not go through 5 the origin, okay? It does not go through 6 zero-zero. This is what would see if we had 7 random variation. 8 This is the kind of relationship that 9 we would expect to see whether there is absolutely 10 no relationship between the true habitat value or 11 of a species and its HSI model habitat value. 12 Now, several years after leaving the 13 Manitoba Forest Wildlife Management Project, I 14 began to examine the scientific literature on HSI 15 models. Respecting the ability to apply HSI 16 models in the manner done by Hydro, the literature 17 indicated almost universal failure. In many of 18 these tests, the models were not even capable of 19 separating good habitat from poor. 20 Therefore, we see statements like the 21 following: Risenhoover and White, 1992, stated 22 that: Many felt that the value of the habitat 23 suitability index technology, currently employed 24 by the many federal and state agencies -- so this 25 is from the states -- is flawed and of limited 4127 1 use. 2 Also Maurer in 1986: The performance 3 of HEP models when tested with actual field data 4 has been poor at best and the results of the 5 present study should raise serious considerations 6 regarding the use of qualitative models such a HEP 7 in monitoring and predicting response to bird 8 species and perhaps other wildlife species to 9 changes in their habitat. 10 Laymon and Barrett 1986: In tests of 11 HSI models for the spotted owl, marten and Douglas 12 squirrel, we experience poor results even though 13 they were based on what was believed to be good 14 information. 15 Now, for the purpose of this 16 presentation, the recent scientific literature on 17 HSI models was briefly examined. What I did was I 18 went to a search data base called "Zoological 19 Record" and looked at recent citations and it 20 appears that nothing has changed. 21 For example, we observe the following: 22 For test of a HSI model for mink, Loukmas and 23 Halbrook, 2001 stated: Correlation analyses 24 determined that HSI values were not associated 25 with the mink activity, indicating that the model 4128 1 is not well suited to predict overall habitat 2 quality in these areas. Our study indicated that 3 the current mink HSI model cannot predict amount 4 of mink activity along riverine systems in the 5 Great Lakes basin of Wisconsin and the current HSI 6 model was not validated for use. 7 For white-tailed deer, the HSI model 8 developed by a forestry company in Saskatchewan, 9 Rothley in 2001 stated: The unreliable, 10 predictive ability of the model tested in this 11 study emphasizes the caution with which HSI models 12 should be applied. 13 A Louisiana waterthrush HSI model 14 exhibited a general poor ability to separate used 15 from unused habitat and an inability to separate 16 good from optimal habitat. That is Prosser and 17 Brooks 1998. 18 In my brief perusal of that 19 literature, the only HSI model that seemed to 20 predict adequately was the one for black bear, 21 that is Mitchell, et al, 2002. However, that 22 particular model is a result of what appears to be 23 years of data collection and modelling work by 24 experts, which is considerably different from the 25 majority of HSI models and, particularly so, the 4129 1 Manitoba HSI models. 2 In response to a proposal by myself to 3 test the Manitoba HSI models, a number of biology 4 professors from Manitoba universities provided 5 letters of assessment. The following are some of 6 the comments of these scientists. 7 Dr. Albert Bush, professor and chair, 8 Department of Zoology, Brandon University, 1999: 9 As an individual with some modelling experience, 10 models in the hands of those who do not understand 11 their limitations scare me. I say this because 12 too few people understand that models are 13 simplifications of the real world. It is, 14 unfortunately, a truism that equations and models 15 impress many people who lack quantitative skills 16 and variables and assumptions are just what their 17 names imply. They must, on the one hand, be shown 18 to be influential and on the other hand, must be 19 ground-truthed to show that they apply in real 20 world situations. 21 The uncritical application on untested 22 models can be a very dangerous thing. To my 23 knowledge, HSI models are very weak and quite 24 suspect. 25 Dr. Mark Abrahams, associate 4130 1 professor, Department of Zoology, University of 2 Manitoba, 1999: In my opinion, HSIs are indices, 3 not models. This is a very important distinction 4 because the role of an index has always been to 5 collapse a description into a single number, 6 whereas a model is a general approach that seeks 7 to describe and predict how an ecological system 8 functions. Should HSI models really be considered 9 a model that is an important management tool, they 10 must be subjected to standard rigours required. 11 And throughout the HSI literature, reference is 12 often made to validation. The implication is that 13 after the validation process, the model is now 14 valid. Individuals further removed from the 15 development of the model, particularly managers 16 and politicians will then be misled into believing 17 that the model has now achieved some magical 18 property that makes it accurate and reliable. 19 Dr. James Hare, assistant professor, 20 Department of Zoology, University Manitoba, 1999: 21 I echo your concerns regarding the application of 22 such models in resource management. Indeed, the 23 assumption of linearity and pooling of 24 multidimensional habitat data into single 25 dimensionless indices seem naive at best. Further 4131 1 as you -- that should be "assert" -- the repeated 2 failure of such models to map into observed 3 differences in abundance across habitat of 4 markedly different quality raises legitimate 5 concern. 6 Now, also in response to a proposal by 7 myself to test and develop the Manitoba American 8 marten HSI model, Dr. Ian Thompson of the Canadian 9 Forest Service provided a letter of assessment. 10 Dr. Thompson is probably "the" expert on marten 11 from a scientific perspective in North America. 12 Dr. Thompson said: Insufficient 13 testing of these models has been done, especially 14 in Canada. You might want to look at the Wildlife 15 2000 and Wildlife 2001 books for a few tests of 16 HSI models. Most of these tests fail. Generally, 17 I am not supportive of HSI as an approach to 18 forest management. However, in the absence of 19 more elaborative tools it is an approach that can 20 work as one component of a forest management 21 program, that also includes coarse filters, if the 22 models predict correctly. 23 So, these are the perspectives of 24 scientists who have reach the pinnacle of 25 expertise in the biological sciences in contrast 4132 1 to Hydro's perspective. 2 One of the questions that Manitoba 3 Wildlands posed to Hydro was why did Manitoba 4 Hydro/NCN apply the HSI model method, when there 5 is ample evidence that the models for Manitoba not 6 work? Hydro's response was: Evidence to support 7 the statement that the models do not work is not 8 available. The following will provide the 9 commission with a sense of the performance of the 10 Manitoba HSI models. The evidence of which 11 clearly refutes Hydro's response and which has 12 been available for years. 13 It is first important to illustrate 14 why it is of fundamental importance to examine the 15 performance of the Manitoba HSI models. 16 Well, the scientific literature 17 reports general failure of these models. There 18 are HSI models and then there are HSI models. The 19 amount of time, resources, use of relevant data 20 and expertise dedicated to the development of a 21 HSI model varies substantively. 22 Therefore, even if the literature 23 indicates general failure of these models, it is 24 not outside the realm of possibility that the 25 Manitoba HSI models might achieve the necessary 4133 1 predictive capability. Similarly, the fact that 2 the odd HSI model reported in the literature might 3 predict adequately is no assurance that the 4 Manitoba HSI models will do so. 5 While involved in the Manitoba 6 Forestry Wildlife Management Project, a colleague 7 and myself designed a test of the American marten 8 model. We chose to use habitat evaluations by the 9 trappers as our test variable. Essentially, we 10 felt that trappers, by virtue of them going out 11 and spending a lot of time on the land, searching 12 for marten as a species that was preferred to be 13 trapped, they would have a good sense of what was 14 good habitat and what poor habitat; where those 15 marten were found and where they were not. 16 On a scale from zero to ten, trappers 17 rated various forest stands on their trapline as 18 to their habitat value for marten, and the HSI 19 values of those stands were calculated according 20 to the model. 21 Now, the following slide represents 22 the results from four trappers from the Manitoba 23 Model Forest. We can see this line. It is a flat 24 line that does not go through the origin. In 25 essence, what this analysis tells us is that we 4134 1 could have predicted habitat quality just as well 2 by pulling numbers out of a hat. That model had 3 failed to predict habitat quality. 4 Similarly, when TetrES applied -- this 5 is 1995 -- the marten model to a forest 6 development, they concluded that in general, model 7 results were inconsistent with impacts anticipated 8 on the basis of the professional literature. The 9 marten model, in particular, does not conform to 10 expected impacts. 11 Now, Berger and Ehnes in 1995 used 12 bird occurrence data from the Manitoba Model 13 Forest and surrounding area to test ten of the HSI 14 models. They concluded that none of the models 15 performed adequately when evaluated against 16 expected patterns of habitat use, use accuracy or 17 when mean station density per stand was regressed 18 against HSI value. 19 Now, the black and white warbler is a 20 small bird, primarily found in broadleaf and mixed 21 wood forests. 22 As with the American marten, we 23 observe no relationship between the test 24 variable -- in this case, some kind of density 25 estimate -- and the HSI. And again, the HSI model 4135 1 predicted habitat quality no better than if we had 2 drawn numbers out of a hat. So, again, you can 3 see the flat line that does not go through the 4 origin; very little slope. 5 Now, four of the bird models exhibited 6 this kind of a relationship. The hairy woodpecker 7 is a medium-sized woodpecker found forests 8 environments throughout Manitoba. For this 9 species, there appears to be some relationship 10 between the test variable and the HSI, although 11 the analysis indicated that there was a reasonable 12 probability that this result was due simply to 13 random chance. 14 However, the figure also strongly 15 suggests that the line for the true relationship 16 does not go through the origin. It doesn't look 17 to be close to zero-zero and, therefore, the model 18 does not meet the requirement for its use 19 according to the HEP method. Three of the bird 20 models exhibited this kind of a relationship. 21 Now, of the other models tested -- oh, 22 here we go again. Excuse me, I am having a little 23 bit of technical problems here, but ... there we 24 go. That's what I am looking for. 25 Okay, so for the ruffed grouse model, 4136 1 it suggests, yes, we do have a linear relationship 2 here. It looks like it is pretty well through the 3 origin. But, when we look at this data a little 4 bit closer, we see realistically this is really 5 not an appropriate model for this data. 6 Now, let's take a look at -- if we are 7 using a linear model, we expect to see that these 8 points should be distributed evenly above and 9 below the line. If they are not distributed 10 evenly above and below the line, analysis 11 indicates that that is not an appropriate model to 12 be used. If we look at the area between both 0.2 13 and about 0.45 -- this area here -- we can see 14 that all those points are below the line. So, 15 this tells us that this is a linear model and this 16 particular case would not be appropriate. 17 There is one comment that I have to 18 make with this particular slide and all these 19 slides that came from this report from Berger and 20 Ehnes, that I just reproduced it as it was in the 21 original report. When we look at each one of 22 these points, conceivably one point could 23 represent two pieces of data or ten pieces of 24 data, I don't be about that. But, this is exactly 25 the way it looked, okay. 4137 1 One other point about this, this is -- 2 the way this -- you see all these zero values, the 3 zero density values between about 0.2 and about 4 0.45. This is fairly consistent when you start to 5 really look at these HSI models. This is a 6 consistent observation and there is a good reason 7 for it. When you start to understand how these 8 HSI models work, for the most part, the way they 9 are put together is that each one of the 10 variables -- and typically there is three 11 variables. One is called the cutting class, which 12 is the size of trees or the age of the trees. The 13 other one is crown closure, which is the openness 14 of the forest and the other one is the species 15 composition. These are typically the primary 16 variables that are used to develop these HSI 17 models. 18 What we find is that often -- in part, 19 this related to how things developed within the 20 modelling team that developed these models. The 21 modelling team often didn't want to give a zero 22 value to anything. What would actually happen is 23 often you might have a habitat that would be a 24 very, very low value. Let's say a spruce forest 25 that is of low value, essentially, for a given 4138 1 species. It might be given a value of 0.1 because 2 the modelling team really didn't want to ascribe a 3 value of zero to them. 4 Well, the problem is then what happens 5 when you look at these other variables and if they 6 given high values, it tends to pull that thing up. 7 So, what we are seeing is HSI values of 0.2 or 8 0.45 for habitat that is of no value whatsoever. 9 Again, like I said, this is a common occurrence. 10 I have seen this with a black and white warbler, 11 and with some other animals. 12 In a different analysis -- this was 13 from a 1997 analysis by Berger and Ehnes. I used 14 ruffed grouse data from a report from Berger, 15 1995, and in that particular analysis, the model 16 didn't perform as well as this particular one. 17 Further to this, in 1997, I observed 18 model failure for some of the Manitoba bird HSI 19 models for an area near the Porcupine Hills of 20 west-central Manitoba. 21 Other Manitoba HSI models that have 22 been tested in one manner or another, include the 23 moose, caribou, barred owl and great grey owl 24 models. However, none of these models has been 25 tested in a way that would support their 4139 1 application as Hydro has done. 2 Not surprisingly, the use of Manitoba 3 models in a management application is viewed to be 4 highly risky, and I cite Brooks 1997 on this. 5 Laymen and Barrett in '86 said: We 6 strongly discourage the use of untested models 7 because they lack credibility. 8 Similarly, Berger and Ehnes 1997, 9 cited three authorities when they stated that: 10 These authors recommend that models should not be 11 applied for management purposes until their 12 predictive accuracy has been established for local 13 conditions. 14 I just might point out Rob Berger is 15 one of the consultants working for Hydro on this 16 particular project as is James Ehnes. 17 Despite the fact there has been no 18 testing of the Manitoba beaver, red squirrel and 19 white-tailed deer models, Hydro used these models 20 in their assessment. 21 Let's look at some of the recent 22 occurrences with Manitoba Conservation. Now, 23 despite the lead role of conservation in 24 developing the Manitoba HSI models, there are a 25 number of recent examples that demonstrate 4140 1 implicit or explicit rejections of these models by 2 Conservation staff. I must point out that this is 3 my perspective on this. I am looking at what has 4 developed over the last while and this is my 5 perspective with respect to implicit or explicit 6 rejection. 7 What we see is the staff of the 8 northwestern region out of the Pas are using 9 locally collected data to develop a habitat supply 10 model, rather than using the HSI model for 11 woodland caribou and I cite Kent Whaley, who is 12 the Regional Wildlife manager. 13 Rather than using the moose HSI model, 14 Conservation staff have developed a different 15 methodology to develop a new model for the western 16 region, and I cite Greg Carlson and Peter 17 Hildebrand on that particular one. 18 The Manitoba marten HSI model is not 19 being used because people felt uncomfortable that 20 the model was developed in the absence of 21 objective or local irrelevant data and I cite Dean 22 Berezanski from Manitoba Conservation on that. 23 Now, with respect to that particular 24 one -- and I will provide you with the 25 specifics -- I did provide these people with 4141 1 exactly what I have written and Dean preferred the 2 following citation: The Manitoba marten HSI model 3 has not extensively been used after validation, 4 largely because the FRI format has been changed 5 and the model still needs to be re-tooled to be 6 able to use this FRI. At the same time, I believe 7 additional works from other jurisdictions suggest 8 that we may need to also reevaluate our marten 9 model. So to be fair to Dean, I wanted to pass 10 that on and I can't provide that. 11 Now, the question that must come to 12 mind is: Why do these Manitoba HSI fail or 13 perform poorly? Habitat models will only be as 14 good as the applicability and quality of the 15 available knowledge, and the ability of those 16 building a model to apply that knowledge 17 appropriately. We have issues of what I call 18 process problems and limitations of the driving 19 variables. 20 In terms of process problems, as 21 individuals with many years of experience, members 22 of the commission will recognize the critical 23 relationship between process and success. Some 24 process problems that relate to the development of 25 the Manitoba HSI models are as follows: With 4142 1 respect to the process of developing habitat 2 models, we can turn to the wisdom of Dr. Fred 3 Bunnell. Dr. Bunnell might be considered a 4 godfather of modern wildlife habitat modelling. 5 In 1999, in one his publications, he 6 noted that: Most models are developed by teams 7 for managers -- teams or for managers by 8 researchers. Where models are developed by teams, 9 there are two key players, these are the manager 10 and the researcher. 11 Now, the manager has a problem. He is 12 seeking a model to help him or her make decisions. 13 However, the manager does not have the technical, 14 quantitative modelling skills to successful model 15 building. 16 The researcher is a special kind of 17 scientist who has the necessary quantitative 18 modelling skills. The strength of such a 19 modelling team is twofold. The researcher brings 20 the skills necessary to develop models that are 21 technically sound. The manager has specific 22 knowledge and focus and because the researcher's 23 inquiring mind may wander, it serves to keep the 24 researcher on track. 25 The tools make the man. Those of you 4143 1 who have made things with your hands will 2 understand the wisdom of this saying: One needs 3 the right tool for the right job. In the context 4 of habitat models, the researcher is the principal 5 and indispensable tool. 6 When the Manitoba HSI models were 7 developed, there was no one to fulfil the 8 researcher role. The key tool for model 9 development was missing. Further, because a 10 determination had been made to develop the habitat 11 models according to the HSI model process, there 12 existed little flexibility with respect to 13 modelling. 14 When embarking on a study, a scientist 15 will first examine the scientific literature. It 16 appears that there was no comprehensive literature 17 search prior to embarking on the development of 18 the Manitoba models. There is no report 19 documenting and assessing the literature. Even a 20 cursory examination of the available literature 21 would have demonstrated that scientists had found 22 problems with these models and perhaps a more 23 rigorous approach for the development of habitat 24 models would have been selected. 25 Also, relevant local data have often 4144 1 been used in the development of HSI models. 2 The Manitoba HSI models were almost 3 exclusively developed using information in 4 publications from the scientific literature. 5 Unfortunately, often the literature was not 6 directly relevant to our Manitoba ecosystems. 7 So, for example, with respect to the 8 marten model, we might see publications from the 9 mountains where there was 4 metres of snow and 10 from Maine where temperatures are much warmer than 11 here. 12 Elsewhere, HSI models might take years 13 of development by species experts and/or modelers. 14 In contrast, the marten models were developed over 15 very short time periods and sometimes with the 16 involvement of species experts -- actually, often 17 with the involvement of species experts, but often 18 in the absence of species experts. 19 Let's just take a look at some of the 20 driving variables. 21 The general poor and unacceptable 22 performance of the Manitoba HSI models is also a 23 function of the limitations of the Forest Resource 24 Inventory. HSI models that have been developed 25 elsewhere will often include levels of detail that 4145 1 are simply not available within our Manitoba FRI. 2 For example, Louisiana waterthrush HSI model uses 3 stream clarity and substrate in the presence of 4 overturned root masses, measures that would be 5 collected during on-the-ground data collection. 6 In contrast, the variables available 7 for the Manitoba HSI models were restricted to 8 those interpreted from summer aerial photographs. 9 For forested sites, these are essentially measures 10 in the size of the trees, tree species composition 11 and quality of the site for growing trees. So, we 12 observe the following kinds of things that would 13 have a bearing on the accuracy of model 14 predictions. 15 Burned and log forests exhibited 16 tremendous differences. So, for example, a high 17 density of standing dead trees is found after a 18 burn, while there will often be only a few live 19 trees remaining after a forest is logged. There 20 is no question that animals can detect the 21 differences, but the Manitoba HSI models make 22 absolutely no distinction between these two kinds 23 of forest disturbances. 24 Under natural conditions, white spruce 25 will often come up below aspen and eventually may 4146 1 become dominant as the aspen dies. 2 Because the FRI was based on summer 3 photography, understory white spruce components 4 were never detected and such forests have been 5 typed by Conservation as pure aspen stands. For 6 the purpose of modelling the value of habitat for 7 wildlife, a pure aspen stand with no white spruce 8 understory is different from that of one with a 9 white spruce understory. 10 Now, for their assessment of the 11 generation component in the proposed 12 development -- all my previous discussion has been 13 related to the transmission component. 14 For their assessment of the generation 15 component of the proposed development, Hydro did 16 not use the Manitoba HSI models to assess habitat 17 values or the HSI model development process. 18 Rather, they built their own models. 19 The habitat models built for the 20 generation assessment were similar to the Manitoba 21 HSI models in that scientific literature and 22 expert-based opinion form their basis, as well as, 23 I believe, traditional ecological knowledge. 24 Hydro stated on page 9-14 of volume 6 25 of the Wuskwatim Generation Project, the sample 4147 1 design precluded the development of a quantitative 2 model for each species, although not tested 3 specifically. Of fundamental importance is that 4 Hydro provided absolutely nothing to demonstrate 5 that these models would work. 6 Do you remember the previous quotes 7 from Laymon and Barrett, '86, Berger and Ehnes '97 8 and Brooks 1997 to the effect that untested models 9 should not be used, and that to do so for 10 management purposes carries great risk. In fact, 11 Hydro did not even provide verbal descriptions of 12 these models and is, therefore, not even possible 13 to evaluate these habitat models in any manner 14 whatsoever. 15 Hydro's approach on their assessment 16 of generation impacts is so foreign to the 17 scientific method that it simply cannot be 18 construed to represent science. Fundamental to 19 the scientific method is the clear, open and 20 honest provision of methods and data for the 21 purpose of objective peer examination. 22 Let me just for the sake of 23 comparison, here's a document that was produced on 24 one of the Manitoba forestry wildlife management 25 project models. It is entitled "Habitat 4148 1 Suitability Index Models Within the Manitoba Model 2 Forest Region, Moose, Version 2.0." If we examine 3 this document, we will see all kind of charts and 4 the like that tell us something, show us something 5 about what are the guts of model, what is the 6 model? 7 In this particular case, figure 4A, 8 page 52, it is providing the suitability index 9 value between zero and one in relation to 10 something called cover type, which is a species 11 composition thing. Okay. So this is the type of 12 thing that the Manitoba Forestry Wildlife Project 13 put in, completely open, we know what the model is 14 all about. We can evaluate this. 15 Hydro have not provided their methods 16 because they have not provided the guts of the 17 models, chose not to test their models 18 statistically, and therefore, unlike the situation 19 for some of the Manitoba HSI models at least, 20 there is absolutely nothing to demonstrate whether 21 the models work or fail. Under these conditions 22 we can only trust their information, as no data, 23 no statistical test, no description, or maybe -- 24 trust me -- not science 25 Now, to summarize, the following 4149 1 points are important. The scientific literature 2 indicates an almost universal failure of HSI 3 models. Manitoba scientists and other Canadian 4 experts recognize the failure of HSI models and 5 caution against their use. Hydro's view is out of 6 touch with that of the scientific community. This 7 relates, I make this comment in terms of failure 8 versus success. It is well understood in the 9 examples that I have given to you that models can 10 indeed fail. 11 For HSI to be used as Hydro has done, 12 the method requires that the HSI models exhibit 13 linear relationships through the origin. Hydro 14 has ignored the abundant evidence that the HSI 15 models fail. Generally, the evidence is that we 16 often could predict habitat values just as well by 17 picking numbers out of a hat. 18 Hydro has applied untested models to 19 their assessment, a practice that is not 20 recommended. Recently, Manitoba Conservation 21 staff have implicitly or explicitly rejected the 22 use of the Manitoba HSI models. 23 Given our understanding of how models 24 should be developed, there is reasonable evidence 25 to explain why the Manitoba HSI models would fail. 4150 1 That's when the transmission side. 2 On the generation side, the generation 3 assessment, the process applied in assessment of 4 the generation component can not be construed to 5 be applied science. This is so because Hydro has 6 provided absolutely no means by which anyone could 7 assess what they have done. 8 Therefore, the findings of Hydro's 9 assessment on transmission and generation can only 10 be rejected. 11 Now, to end this somewhat lengthy 12 presentation -- and I apologize for that -- I 13 wanted to conclude by addressing a question that 14 the Commissioners, and probably many of you here 15 have likely asked themselves at times, and that 16 is: Why am I here? From my perspective, the 17 short answer is rather obvious. And it is that 18 Manitoba Hydro have evaluated the impact of the 19 proposed development using methods that are 20 clearly flawed, do not meet very basic standards 21 of science, and that in all likelihood 22 substantively underestimate the impact of their 23 development on wildlife. I am concerned about 24 wildlife and the need for decision makers to have 25 at their disposal the two impacts of development 4151 1 proposals. But it is the big picture that I want 2 to address at the moment. From that perspective 3 my answer is, I do not know why I am here. Hydro 4 had many years to do this right. Yet with respect 5 to the generation component, Hydro has relied on 6 the trust me approach. With respect to the 7 transmission component, Hydro chose an inexpensive 8 approach using HSI models developed according to a 9 method that has been demonstrated to fail 10 repeatedly within the scientific literature. 11 Particularly troubling, Hydro chose to use the 12 Manitoba HSI models where all the available 13 evidence was that they were inappropriate for 14 Hydro to use as they did. 15 Hydro have transmission lines 16 throughout the north and could have collected some 17 of the basic data required to evaluate their 18 impacts. For example, with respect to migratory 19 birds, one can only wonder, where were they all 20 that time? I should not have had to have been 21 here. Thank you very much. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Questions? 23 Mr. Mayer. 24 MR. MAYER: Sir, we heard evidence, I 25 think it was yesterday, from the Hydro panel about 4152 1 how they did actual ground research, how they 2 strung 20 odd kilometers of string across the 3 access areas to the existing rights-of-way. Did 4 you hear any of that evidence? 5 MR. SOPROVICH: I wasn't here 6 yesterday. 7 MR. MAYER: That sounds something -- 8 the evidence we heard yesterday sounds like it is 9 something that is substantially different than you 10 have assumed they have done in your paper. 11 MR. SOPROVICH: My assumptions are 12 based on what I read in the appropriate sections 13 of the EIS. If you want, I can pull those out and 14 provide those to you. 15 MR. MAYER: You don't have to pull 16 them out, you can probably just tell us which 17 volumes of the EIS you had access to? 18 MR. SOPROVICH: I believe I had access 19 to everything. 20 MR. MAYER: They are sitting on a 21 counter behind you. 22 MR. SOPROVICH: I had it on CD-ROM. 23 MR. MAYER: Okay. You don't know how 24 big they were? 25 MR. SOPROVICH: I been through these 4153 1 things before and I have measured weights and 2 widths, and I really wouldn't want to know. 3 MR. MAYER: What are you telling the 4 Commission? You are telling us Hydro used the 5 wrong model. Assuming for a moment you are 6 correct, what is your evidence to the Commission, 7 and your recommendation to the Commission, in so 8 far as whether or not we should recommend to the 9 Minister that we permit the project to proceed? 10 MR. SOPROVICH: That's a question that 11 is far broader than what I have addressed here. I 12 believe I was fairly clear when I said that you 13 should reject their habitat analysis. I can't go 14 beyond that. I have not sat down and read the 15 EIS. I have read components of it. And you're 16 asking me for a question that is simply far too 17 broad, that incorporates all kind of social 18 dimensions and all kind of things. 19 MR. MAYER: Okay. We have evidence 20 again from Hydro that there should be -- now let 21 me get the terminology correct -- no substantial 22 bad effects -- that's not the terminology -- 23 adverse effects, significant adverse effects to 24 the habitat as a result of the construction of the 25 power lines. And we have evidence that, quite 4154 1 frankly I didn't hear a lot of evidence about the 2 models, I heard a lot of evidence about the field 3 research, indicating that it is unlikely to 4 severely disrupt any caribou habitat or caribou 5 movements. Caribou was the one that most 6 particularly interested me, so I paid most 7 attention to it. So, you can't shed any further 8 light on that, other than the methods that you 9 read about aren't sufficient? 10 MR. SOPROVICH: What I am saying here 11 is that the evidence is that they should never 12 ever have applied these models. I would suggest 13 that any independent objective person would come 14 to that conclusion. The evidence is that the 15 models fail. 16 The fact that you didn't read about it 17 in the EIS is probably indicative of the fact that 18 they didn't want to put that in the EIS, the fact 19 that the literature indicates major failure. 20 If you look in this EIS, the part I 21 read, exactly, you will not find any mention of 22 the problems in the scientific literature with 23 these models, or the evidence for Manitoba. And 24 that's the evidence that I am bringing to the 25 table. 4155 1 MR. MAYER: Can you cast any light on 2 whether or not the construction of the 3 transmission line, which you said was your major 4 focus, would in fact significantly impact on 5 wildlife species in the area? 6 MR. SOPROVICH: Define significant? 7 MR. MAYER: That's a good question 8 too -- substantial, significant. 9 MR. SOPROVICH: Now you are talking 10 very subjective things. What I can say? Let me 11 put it in this context, I have been also working 12 with respect to cross-examination and I was 13 involved in the interrogatories. Okay. So I put 14 together a number of interrogatories. Just 15 looking at this particular thing, for example, if 16 we looked at birds, I would say just take the 17 whole distance, the whole area of the transmission 18 line, and take that as a loss of habitat, plus 19 some amount beyond that to allow for edge effects. 20 I believe you heard from Erin Bain about edge 21 effects. I was involved in putting some 22 interrogatories together that dealt with edge 23 effects. I would say -- again, we are going well 24 beyond this particular presentation, but I would 25 say that when we look at caribou, there is good 4156 1 evidence, or there is various evidence to suggest 2 that there could at times be very significant 3 impacts that are not directly related to the line. 4 Again, this relates to things like edge effects. 5 I have got a -- I won't pull it out -- 6 but I have got a paper here that I could provide 7 to you. It is based on a study on woodland 8 caribou in Ontario. In this particular study it 9 was -- they were looking at the effects of haul 10 roads, where people are hauling logs, on woodland 11 caribou, okay. There may be weaknesses to the 12 study. It has been a year or two since I read it. 13 Essentially what happened is the authors had a 14 control area, they looked at an area before the 15 haul road, and they had another area where there 16 was no haul road. During the period of that log 17 hauling, the authors found that the caribou 18 avoided that area within I believe five 19 kilometers. That's considerably more than I 20 believe than -- what is it a 100 or 250 metres? I 21 believe it is a 100 metres that Hydro has thrown 22 out as an area of influence. I will give you 23 another perhaps example. 24 MR. MAYER: Just a second, before you 25 do that. I happen to live up there and I happen 4157 1 to see the caribou south of highway 6 at Ponton, 2 and where they have already crossed, never mind a 3 logging road, they have crossed a provincial trunk 4 highway and two hydro rights-of-way to get there. 5 MR. SOPROVICH: Sure. That's not the 6 issue here. 7 MR. MAYER: Okay. What is the issue? 8 MR. SOPROVICH: Just to maybe preface 9 this, I might say that I am working right now, 10 contracted to Tolko, working on an analysis of 11 caribou data in a different area. 12 MR. MAYER: Okay. 13 MR. SOPROVICH: The issue is nobody -- 14 basically, the type of thing you are talking about 15 when you are talking about crossing a linear 16 corridor, or transmission line, road, whatever you 17 want to call it, there is an issue there. Okay. 18 So I can tell you that caribou will get whacked by 19 logging trucks and other vehicles on roads, as 20 well as moose. You know that as well. There is 21 that kind of an impact. 22 MR. MAYER: I understand that. 23 MR. SOPROVICH: Roads can actually be 24 quite -- you probably know this -- for moose, you 25 have probably seen them wandering along the edge 4158 1 of the road browsing in the winter. 2 MR. MAYER: That's where the caribou 3 were as a matter of fact. 4 MR. SOPROVICH: It could be, that is 5 right. You know, salt can be an issue. I don't 6 think there is an issue of crossing roads, but 7 there is data to support avoidance. I can provide 8 you with this paper, and I can provide you with 9 other papers, and I can give you some various 10 other evidence that indicates good reasons for why 11 they might avoid linear corridors, including 12 transmission lines. 13 I had an opportunity to spend a day 14 looking at some of Hydro's transmission lines in 15 October. Some of these areas are very good moose 16 areas, because of the cover adjacent to the food, 17 just like along the road where the moose walks 18 along the road and feeds on that browse. Those 19 could be quite good areas for moose. 20 Some of the scientific literature 21 suggests that part of the way caribou survive is 22 by staying away from the moose, habitat 23 partitioning it is called. 24 So what are we doing? If we look at 25 this from a theoretical context, if that corridor 4159 1 in fact does lead to high moose densities, not 2 just along the corridor, but to some variable 3 distance away from that direct corridor where we 4 have seen the trees removed, that could have a 5 major impact. The caribou may avoid -- I don't 6 have a number, but it would be probably 7 considerably further than perhaps 100 metres. 8 MR. MAYER: Sir, you have to 9 understand that hypotheticals and philosophical 10 arguments make it difficult for the Commission to 11 come to any conclusions as to the value of the 12 particular evidence we are hearing. I am at a 13 loss to understand exactly what it is you are 14 telling us, other than you are of the opinion that 15 the models used by Manitoba Hydro should be 16 ignored completely. Am I correct in surmising 17 that that appears to be your conclusion? 18 MR. SOPROVICH: That's it in a 19 nutshell, yeah. 20 MR. MAYER: Thank you, sir. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Sir, typically we will 22 find in the EIS, whether it is for birds or 23 animals, a sentence to the effect that potential 24 construction or operation effects on muskrat are 25 expected to be neutral, small, site specific, long 4160 1 term, and therefore insignificant, or potential 2 construction and operational effects on beaver are 3 expected to be negative to neutral, small, site 4 specific, long term, and therefore insignificant. 5 Similarly with the other species that are there. 6 I am not too sure I understood, I am 7 not a scientific person myself, that I understood 8 everything you made reference to. But if I -- 9 just to test whether I hear you correctly -- am I 10 hearing you say that these statements cannot be 11 made or have no value because the model on which 12 these statements are made or these judgments are 13 made are not valid? 14 MR. SOPROVICH: With respect to the 15 transmission, exactly, I would say that. With 16 respect to the generation, I have no way of even 17 evaluating what their models -- they didn't 18 describe the models. So, for example, again, I 19 held up a publication for the Manitoba Forest 20 Wildlife Management type models and it tells about 21 what the models are. In the generation component 22 they don't tell us what those models are. We have 23 no way of evaluating those. I can't even answer 24 your question because I haven't been able to 25 evaluate them. 4161 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any other 2 questions? Other questions? Mr. Bedford. 3 MR. BEDFORD: Good afternoon, 4 Mr. Soprovich. 5 MR. SOPROVICH: Good afternoon. 6 MR. BEDFORD: My name is Doug Bedford, 7 I am employed by Manitoba Hydro. Let's begin by 8 establishing precisely what it is you have read 9 and what you haven't read. You said you have read 10 portions of the EIS. There is a set of volumes 11 that deal with the transmission project. There is 12 a set of volumes that deal with the generation 13 station project. Was your reference with respect 14 to both sets of volumes or only one? 15 MR. SOPROVICH: Okay. In, I believe 16 it was September some time, I very briefly went 17 through some of the stuff and I identified some of 18 the key areas of concern. But specific to this, 19 which is the HSI models, on the generation end, I 20 read section 9.2.5.6, habitat analysis. That's 21 page 9 to 14 to 9 to 15. That's about the sum 22 extent of the information on the models. 23 With respect to the transmission 24 project, supporting volume 4, Wuskwatim 25 Transmission Project Wildlife Environment, section 4162 1 1.2, pages 2, 4, 5, and I have a few unnumbered 2 ones, 15, 21, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, and appendix C, 3 it is called Habitat Suitability Index Models, 4 pages 1 to 3, and then there is a table, table 5 5.4, 5-4, and the reference is section, pages 56 6 and 57, I took a look at that. That was relevant 7 to something else, actually. 8 MR. BEDFORD: That's it. 9 MR. SOPROVICH: That was the relevant 10 section, as far as I could tell, and per some 11 support staff help. 12 MR. BEDFORD: You have made reference 13 to a whole series of interrogatories. I am aware 14 there were over 2000, almost 3000 questions asked. 15 How many of those did you read? 16 MR. SOPROVICH: Interrogatories -- 17 jeez, how many -- 100 maybe, I don't know, 150, 18 maybe more. 19 MR. BEDFORD: There were supplementary 20 filings in August of 2003 and October of 2003. 21 Did you read those? 22 MR. SOPROVICH: I did not. 23 MR. BEDFORD: I conclude from what you 24 have told us about what you have read that you 25 focused, when you looked at these volumes, on a 4163 1 subject that has been a great interest of yours 2 for a number of years, and that is HSI modeling, 3 otherwise called Habitat Suitability Index 4 modeling? 5 MR. SOPROVICH: That's correct. 6 MR. BEDFORD: Now, I can tell you that 7 I am not a wildlife biologist. 8 MR. SOPROVICH: I am not a lawyer. 9 MR. BEDFORD: But if I was a 10 Commissioner of the Clean Environment Commission 11 of the Province of Manitoba, sitting and reviewing 12 the Wuskwatim projects, I suggest to you that a 13 proper question for me to be asking myself would 14 be as follows: How will the Wuskwatim projects 15 affect the long-term viability of mammals and 16 birds in the boreal forest. Is that a fair 17 question that as I a Commissioner ought to be 18 asking myself? 19 MR. SOPROVICH: I believe it was 20 posed, yes. 21 MR. BEDFORD: And not being a wildlife 22 biologist, I can tell you that Doug Bedford would 23 have thought that the most important thing I could 24 do to go about answering the question would be to 25 consult people who live in the vicinity of the 4164 1 generation station project, and who live in the 2 vicinity of the proposed routes for the 3 transmission lines. Would that be a smart thing 4 for me to do when I go about answering my 5 question? 6 MR. SOPROVICH: Absolutely, there are 7 weaknesses to science, traditional western 8 science. 9 MR. BEDFORD: Although, you don't 10 appear to have read about it, I am sure you will 11 be most pleased to learn that that was in fact 12 done extensively. 13 MR. SOPROVICH: I understand it was 14 done, yes. 15 MR. BEDFORD: And I know you haven't 16 been present for four weeks, like I have been, 17 throughout this hearing, but I can assure you that 18 we have heard evidence that the Nisichawayasihk 19 Cree people have lived in the vicinity of the 20 proposed generation station, some of their members 21 have told us they believe for 7,500 years. It is 22 my understanding that the people in this community 23 bring to this project and to this environmental 24 assessment their collective experience of living 25 there for 7,500 years, which experience has been 4165 1 handed down through oral traditions. Mr. Thomas 2 corrects me quite properly and says, not just 3 7,500 years, but since time immemorial. This 4 experience is embodied, I understand, in their 5 oral traditions, their experience of surviving, 6 observing, and thriving in the boreal forest. 7 Would you agree with me that it would 8 be critical to listen to what the Nisichawayasihk 9 Cree people have to say about the mammals and the 10 birds in the boreal forest, and take that into 11 account in any evaluation of the impacts of the 12 Wuskwatim projects? 13 MR. SOPROVICH: Absolutely. 14 MR. BEDFORD: I have more good for 15 you. 16 MR. SOPROVICH: You are making it 17 easy. 18 MR. BEDFORD: That was done. 19 Further, I am told, but I can read 20 about it in those many volumes, that the 21 consultations that took place, not just with the 22 Nisichawayasihk Cree people, but with trappers, 23 Metis trappers, and others in communities like 24 Comorant, Snow Lake, and The Pas, led to aerial 25 surveys being done over two winters of the 4166 1 proposed transmission routes, which aerial surveys 2 included in the helicopters and the airplanes 3 observers who are members of the Nisichawayasihk 4 Cree Nation, as well as trappers from communities 5 like those I mentioned. 6 Would you agree with me that aerial 7 surveys are a good thing to do when you are 8 planning projects like the Wuskwatim projects? 9 MR. SOPROVICH: Certainly, aerial 10 surveys are a good thing to do, but maybe to put 11 it in a perspective reference, I will reference 20 12 years of study done. It has been a long going 13 study of wolves and moose, and published in many 14 books. About the first 8 years, you know what 15 they found out, they found out that age class 16 moose 1 to 5 just never showed up that wolf kill, 17 8 years of study, and that was their conclusion 18 after 8 years. Then along came some hard winters, 19 and guess what, all those former invincibles 20 started to show up. 21 So, you are talking about western 22 science, aerial surveys, it is valuable, but we 23 must recognize its limitations. I am pretty 24 familiar with survey methodologies and I have 25 designed a number of surveys. There is a lot of 4167 1 difficulties with them. Some of the early surveys 2 on moose, 25 percent of the moose we are seeing. 3 So it is good, but recognize the limitations. 4 MR. BEDFORD: I am told that the 5 environmental consultants who listened to members 6 of the Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation heard them 7 describe that they believed that caribou calving 8 took place in the vicinity of the generating 9 station, and upon hearing that they did something 10 called GPS collaring, and in addition, as has been 11 noted, they strung some 20 kilometers worth of 12 string through the bush in order to determine what 13 pathways the caribou tended to follow in the 14 vicinity of the generating station. 15 Would you agree with me that those 16 were good things to do? 17 MR. SOPROVICH: I would agree with 18 that, yes. 19 MR. BEDFORD: If, not being a wildlife 20 biologist, I want to set out on the task of 21 answering the question I posed a short while ago, 22 would it not be an intelligent thing to do for me 23 to retain wildlife biologists, experienced people 24 in their field, to assist in answering the 25 question? 4168 1 MR. SOPROVICH: If you have the 2 appropriate people with the appropriate skills and 3 background, yes. 4 MR. BEDFORD: In particular, with 5 respect to the Wuskwatim projects, Mr. Rob Berger 6 of Wildlife Resources Consultants, Mr. James Ehnes 7 of Ecostem, those two names you yourself have 8 mentioned, Mr. Blair McMahon of TetrES, were all 9 retained. Are you able to agree with me that 10 those are three experienced people in this field? 11 MR. SOPROVICH: I would say that these 12 are three experienced people in this field. I 13 wouldn't suggest that any of them are particularly 14 habitat modelers, which is basically the thrust of 15 my presentation. 16 MR. BEDFORD: The question I pose to 17 myself, in my pretend exercise of being a 18 Commissioner on the Clean Environment Commission 19 of the Province of Manitoba was, how will the 20 Wuskwatim projects affect the long-term viability 21 of mammals and birds in the boreal forest? And in 22 the process of answering that question, I am told, 23 you really have to ask yourself, well, what does 24 affect the long-term viability of mammals and 25 birds in the boreal forest? The answer to what 4169 1 does affect that long-term viability focuses on, 2 well, will the habitat change, will the death rate 3 be affected, will it increase or decrease because 4 of the proposed project activities, and so on and 5 so forth? Do you agree with that? 6 MR. SOPROVICH: In general, yes. 7 MR. BEDFORD: If one is looking at 8 something like the death rate of mammals, and 9 whether or not it is affected by project 10 activities like building a transmission line 11 through the boreal forest, or constructing a hydro 12 power dam, would you agree with me that it would 13 be useful to know what the experience of a company 14 like Manitoba Hydro may have been on a project 15 called Limestone, which was much larger than the 16 proposed Wuskwatim projects? 17 MR. SOPROVICH: The experience in 18 terms of what? 19 MR. BEDFORD: Number of animals that 20 died accidentally because of the number of workers 21 running -- 22 MR. SOPROVICH: Absolutely, and we 23 asked those questions and we never got responses 24 to them in the interrogatories. I will give you 25 the numbers if you want. 4170 1 MR. BEDFORD: I am pleased to give you 2 the number, and I am told that one moose died 3 accidentally on the Limestone project. 4 MR. SOPROVICH: Actually, I will take 5 this back. We didn't ask specifically for that. 6 We asked what were your estimates, and we never 7 got a response, other than a very general 8 response, no numbers. 9 MR. BEDFORD: Would it be appropriate 10 if one were proceeding to answer the question I 11 posed to do some field studies? 12 MR. SOPROVICH: Field studies never 13 hurt. 14 MR. BEDFORD: Aside from the aerial 15 surveys and stringing the cord through the bush, 16 and doing the GPS collaring, I am advised when I 17 read through all the volumes of the EIS that 18 ground surveys were done, bird surveys were done, 19 an aerial survey was done. Those were good 20 things, were they not? 21 MR. SOPROVICH: They were good things. 22 I don't think I saw anything in there, any 23 estimates of a number of a given species that 24 would be eliminated as a consequence of this 25 particular project. Maybe it is in there, but 4171 1 what I see is habitat equivalencies. I can tell 2 you that I have been involved in a project in 3 Northern BC, Northern Alberta/BC, where we have 4 quantified those kinds of things on a pipeline 5 transmission right-of-way. 6 MR. BEDFORD: As I sat here listening 7 to testimony, I heard Mr. Dave Hicks of ND Lea say 8 on several occasions that just because the EIS was 9 filed in April 2003, people didn't lay down their 10 tools and their methodologies, but that studies 11 will continue and are through this year, 2004, 12 through next year, 2005, and through 2006. Those 13 are good things, are they not? 14 MR. SOPROVICH: We would generally 15 expect they would be good things. The studies 16 have to be properly designed and have to have good 17 objectives and good goals, and the data that is 18 collected has to relate to the objectives. You 19 know, just having paper doesn't necessarily mean 20 it is good. I have seen thick mounds of paper 21 that -- just because you have volumes, et cetera, 22 that doesn't necessarily mean it is good. 23 Collecting data doesn't mean it is good. I have 24 seen examples -- when I was working as what was 25 called the population ecology biologist, I saw 4172 1 examples of Manitoba Government, Natural Resources 2 at that time, collecting reams of data, and it 3 went on and on and on. Often it was for no 4 purpose. When you started to look at the stuff, 5 it was not valuable. So collecting data just in 6 and of itself -- we have to assume it is done 7 well. 8 MR. BEDFORD: I have heard you make 9 reference in your presentation to the importance 10 of being familiar with relevant literature in 11 one's field. Volume 4 of the transmission line, 12 to which I gather you had access, but which I must 13 conclude you didn't read, has a section which 14 lists some 400, 400 citations of literature that 15 was reviewed and read by individuals, including 16 Mr. Ehnes, Mr. McMahon and Mr. Berger. I have to 17 assume, in all fairness to you, that you missed 18 that? 19 MR. SOPROVICH: I might have glanced 20 through it looking for pertinent references. 21 MR. BEDFORD: Are you familiar with 22 the Province of Manitoba's forest resource 23 inventory? 24 MR. SOPROVICH: Quite familiar, yes, I 25 have worked with it extensively. 4173 1 MR. BEDFORD: I know through a review 2 of the EIS that those who prepared it made use of 3 the forest resource inventory. I understand that 4 it includes maps and aerial photographs that the 5 province maintains and they are available to 6 professionals such as yourself, such as Mr. Ehnes, 7 Mr. Berger, Mr. McMahon. 8 MR. SOPROVICH: That's correct. You 9 can access them actually off the Provincial 10 website. 11 MR. BEDFORD: It is quite appropriate 12 that tool, that resource was made use of by those 13 who prepared the EIS? 14 MR. SOPROVICH: Only if it works. 15 Absolutely, use it. It is the main tool that is 16 there. In terms of the modeling approach, it is 17 only useful if the tool works. 18 MR. BEDFORD: Useful as well to plan 19 field studies to make use of the forest resource 20 index? 21 MR. SOPROVICH: Absolutely. There are 22 limitations, but bottom line, at the broad level, 23 it is all we have. Some of those inventories are 24 30 years old. There are various debates going on 25 between government and forestry companies about 4174 1 who pays to upgrade them, but it is what we have, 2 in general. 3 MR. BEDFORD: Now, I accept the 4 obvious, your observation that you're not the 5 lawyer, I am, you are the wildlife biologist. Let 6 me tell you and others in the room that as a 7 lawyer over the last 20 years, when I have had to 8 work on a professional opinion, when I have had to 9 prepare evidence for a trial, I would frequently 10 talk to other lawyers. I would test my thinking 11 on the opinion or the preparation for trial. I 12 would try and see if my thinking was sound, if the 13 methodology I was using was appropriate as I went 14 along. It was a good testing ground for me to 15 speak to other professionals in my field. 16 Can I fairly conclude that the same 17 applies for wildlife biologists, that peer review, 18 as you work through your project is a useful thing 19 to do? 20 MR. SOPROVICH: Absolutely. 21 MR. BEDFORD: I have more good news 22 for you. This environmental management team of 23 consultants, as they progressed through preparing 24 the EIS and before it was filed, they reviewed 25 their thinking with a group of people whom we call 4175 1 TAC, who I understand was a group of similar 2 professionals, third party professionals, not 3 employed to prepare the EIS, but certainly part of 4 whose function in life was to test the thinking of 5 what was going to go in and was going in to the 6 EIS. Were you aware of that? 7 MR. SOPROVICH: Are you talking about 8 the TAC that involves Provincial people? 9 MR. BEDFORD: I think there were some 10 Provincial people. 11 MR. SOPROVICH: I am aware of that, 12 yes. 13 MR. BEDFORD: Those of you in the room 14 who have been keeping track of this will have 15 noted I have now identified nine separate tools or 16 methodologies that were used in preparing this 17 Environmental Impact Statement with respect to 18 answering the simple question that I suggested 19 Commissioner's of the Clean Environment Commission 20 ought to have in mind on this particular aspect of 21 the EIS. I am now going to turn to a tenth. 22 MR. SOPROVICH: Can I respond to the 23 question on the TAC, with respect to the HSI 24 models? There is a question in the TAC notes that 25 relates specifically to the HSI models. Is it 4176 1 appropriate for me to respond? 2 THE CHAIRMAN: You were asked the 3 question. 4 MR. SOPROVICH: Okay. There is a 5 question, I believe it is -- in the pages that I 6 got, it is on page 3. It is a question that -- it 7 is a comment that came from Manitoba Conservation. 8 It was specifically with respect to the HSI 9 models. That comment, to summarize it, went 10 something along the lines of: Where is the 11 evidence that you have tested these models for 12 your area? In other words, you should have tested 13 them. And there is no -- the models are not to be 14 used out of -- used from the area they were 15 developed for, which was in some cases the model 16 forest, Manitoba model forest, Eastern Manitoba, 17 they were not to be used out of that area without 18 validation testing, that is specifically what it 19 said. So it is exactly what I have said in my 20 presentation. That's one of the TAC comments. 21 MR. BEDFORD: I appreciate that and I 22 am so glad you thought to mention it to us, 23 because I would now like to go to page 10 of your 24 written report. 25 My copy of page 10 show two of these 4177 1 charts or graphs. It is not apparent from the 2 written commentary, but I made a note as you went 3 through the slide show that the top relates to a 4 hairy woodpecker model, the lower one to a ruffed 5 grouse model. 6 MR. SOPROVICH: That's correct, yes. 7 MR. BEDFORD: These two charts, I am 8 told, came from a progress report that Mr. Ehnes 9 and Mr. Berger prepared. And I believe you 10 identified as you went through your presentation 11 they came from a report prepared by Mr. Ehnes and 12 Mr. Berger; correct? 13 MR. SOPROVICH: That's correct, yes. 14 MR. BEDFORD: Are you aware, 15 Mr. Soprovich, that Mr. Ehnes and Mr. Berger did 16 not use, in their final report, these charts, 17 because like you they had concerns about drawing 18 conclusions from the use of HSI models? 19 MR. SOPROVICH: This comes from the 20 final report, it is called final report. Maybe to 21 give you a little bit of background, this report 22 was getting buried in government, I managed to get 23 it out of government. It didn't seem to coming 24 forward, it was myself that pried this forward, 25 this report forward, so I know something about it. 4178 1 The copy I have is the final report, and those 2 figures are right from that final report. You can 3 check the figures, if you want, against what is in 4 here. 5 MR. BEDFORD: It is being done. 6 Revelation for you then that in fact it was a 7 progress report. 8 MR. SOPROVICH: It says final report. 9 If that was a progress report, I would have 10 assumed they would have put progress report on it. 11 What is -- can you tell me the relevance of that, 12 how that would change things? 13 MR. BEDFORD: They didn't use those 14 charts or the conclusions that might be drawn from 15 use of those models in their final report, 16 because, as I suggested to you, they shared the 17 same concerns that you have expressed today about 18 drawing conclusions from the use of HSI models. 19 MR. SOPROVICH: Well, that's good. I 20 am glad they agree with me. 21 MR. BEDFORD: Volume 4 -- I am glad 22 you agree with them -- volume 4 of the 23 transmission line EIS, page 3, which is part of 24 appendix C that you did mention, states the 25 following and I quote: 4179 1 "The Manitoba based HSI models 2 describe the potential value of a 3 definition of habitat and should not 4 be used as indicators of animal 5 populations." 6 Shortly below that and I quote again: 7 "Factors influence the population 8 distribution of animals and are not 9 accounted for by the models, and 10 include forest fragmentation, 11 predation, inter-species competition, 12 climate, human disturbance, natural 13 population cycles, and other variables 14 not specifically related to vegetative 15 forest structure. This is a major 16 limitation... " 17 I repeat, 18 "This is a major limitation of an HSI 19 assessment and limits any 20 interpretation of the results to 21 issues respecting the potential for an 22 animals to exist based on habitat 23 only." 24 Now, as I listen to your presentation, 25 that's not a whole lot different from the concerns 4180 1 you have expressed about careless or inappropriate 2 use of HSI models. Am I not correct? 3 MR. SOPROVICH: No, I would say you 4 are incorrect. I would say that's a way of saying 5 you can never test these models. That's what that 6 says. That's the bail out. It says we can never 7 test these models, we can never tell if they are 8 failing or working. I would say that, just to 9 provide further information to that, it might be 10 useful to recognize that when these models are 11 developed, and you can go and look at any of the 12 reports that were put forward by the Manitoba 13 Forestry Wildlife Management project, because at 14 the basis -- you know, there is no doubt that 15 there are things other than habitat per se that 16 affect these animals, but the basis for 17 constructing these models has been some kind of 18 relationship between animal abundance typically 19 and the characteristics of the vegetation. You 20 can see when you look at -- I will cite something 21 here, this actually comes from a response of Hydro 22 to one of our interrogatories, and they cited a 23 paper called "Evaluating Reliability of Habitat 24 Suitability," who looked at 17 studies of 58 HSI 25 models. Essentially, in all cases, they used some 4181 1 measure of abundance or density to evaluate these 2 models, which is consistent with the evidence I 3 put forward before you. I think that the 4 important thing here is, yes, you know what, some 5 of these other extraneous factors might affect a 6 test. For example, if we want to look at 7 something like snowshoe hare, I am sure we are 8 familiar with the ten year snowshoe hare cycle. 9 When snowshoe hares are very few in abundance, 10 when there is few numbers of them, you will find 11 them in certain types of habitat, whereas when 12 there is lots of them, you will find them in 13 different habitat. So when you actually collect 14 your data, it may affect your information, the 15 validity of applying that type of information. 16 So, yes, you could run into problems there if you 17 happen to apply a model at a high cycle, it might 18 be somewhat different. 19 Generally speaking, when we look at -- 20 again, when we look at all the models that have 21 been developed, some relationship between density 22 and the habitat has been the way -- the 23 information the models were developed for, 24 developed from, so therefore it makes sense to be 25 able to test them in that same fashion. 4182 1 MR. BEDFORD: The important thing, to 2 use your words, that I think we all need to 3 understand is that these HSI models were only one 4 of some ten tools or methods that were used in 5 this aspect of the EIS. 6 MR. SOPROVICH: I don't disagree with 7 that. My comments relate specifically to 8 rejecting the findings of the HSI model analysis, 9 and also the generation models. 10 MR. BEDFORD: Indeed, we can all see, 11 when we look at your written presentation, that 12 there was no suggestion there that any of the nine 13 other methods that were used gave you concerns the 14 way the use of HSI models gives you concern? 15 MR. SOPROVICH: That's not correct. I 16 didn't evaluate those things. I only again looked 17 at HSI models. 18 MR. BEDFORD: Well, I have one last 19 piece of good news for you. I have an answer to 20 your question. 21 MR. SOPROVICH: Which question? Why 22 am I here? 23 MR. BEDFORD: You are here today, in 24 my view, to assist the proponents in confirming 25 the soundness of the work that was done overall. 4183 1 MR. SOPROVICH: Well, if that's your 2 view, that's your view. I believe my presentation 3 was fairly narrow. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Sir, you have some 5 questions to ask, you indicated that you want 6 translation. 7 MR. HART: I will do my own 8 translation. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Do we have a translator 10 here? 11 MR. GREWAR: I think he has left the 12 room temporarily. Unfortunately, we didn't 13 realize there was a need for translation. We have 14 the facility available. 15 MR. HART: Can I do it in English 16 then? You don't want my translation? 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Sir, if you do the 18 translation, that means you are putting it in one 19 language and then translating afterwards, you are 20 doubling the time. 21 MR. HART: These guys were talking all 22 the time and I have been waiting all day. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: The questions of are of 24 this witness? 25 MR. HART: Whatever -- these people 4184 1 here, Hydro, or whoever wants to -- 2 THE CHAIRMAN: I am assuming you want 3 to ask questions of the witness? 4 MR. HART: Yes, witness or this other 5 person. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: You can only ask 7 questions of the witness. 8 MR. HART: Okay. What does the 9 witness have found so far in this gathering? 10 MR. SOPROVICH: Could you repeat that, 11 please? 12 MR. HART: What have you found in this 13 presentation so far? 14 MR. SOPROVICH: What have I said? 15 MR. HART: What have you found out? 16 MR. SOPROVICH: What I have found is 17 that the method that Hydro used was wrong. 18 MR. HART: Okay. 19 MR. SOPROVICH: It doesn't really tell 20 us what the impact will be. 21 MR. HART: Not only Hydro doesn't tell 22 you what is happening, our leaders are not even 23 telling us what is going on. I am from Nelson 24 House. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Sir, you can only ask 4185 1 questions about his presentation. 2 MR. HART: I just want to tell this 3 guy, I am just addressing this gentleman here. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: You can't make a 5 speech. 6 MR. HART: Okay, I am not trying to 7 make a speech either. What I wanted to say about 8 some of the presentations is about this ongoing 9 process, about not only the Churchill River 10 Diversion, but also the proposed Wuskwatim 11 project. Nobody has spoke about the spiritual 12 aspect about this particular area, Wuskwatim Lake 13 or Wuskwatim Lake -- 14 MR. SOPROVICH: I am sorry, I can't 15 speak to that. 16 MR. HART: Why not? 17 MR. SOPROVICH: I am not 18 knowledgeable. 19 MR. HART: Why are you here? 20 MR. SOPROVICH: I am talking about the 21 transmission lines, primarily. 22 MR. HART: You are talking about the 23 transmission line? 24 MR. SOPROVICH: Primarily, but also 25 the generation. It is just to do with the 4186 1 wildlife. 2 MR. HART: The wildlife? 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Sir, if you would like 4 to raise the points that you are raising, if you 5 would like to raise some of those questions to 6 Hydro, when Hydro is sitting in the panel there on 7 the EIS, you will have that opportunity to do 8 that. So if you want to raise questions on the 9 environmental impact to representatives of Hydro, 10 you can ask that of the representatives of Hydro 11 when they are sitting at the table over there. 12 Presently, the only questions you can raise are 13 questions based on what Mr. Soprovich has 14 presented or stated. You can question the 15 validity of his -- or clarification on what he has 16 said, but that's the only thing you can do right 17 now. 18 MR. HART: Okay. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: I am not trying to be 20 hard on you, I am just trying to make the rules 21 the same for everybody. I am making the rules the 22 same for everybody. 23 MR. HART: What I was going to say, it 24 wouldn't apply to anybody then. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Pardon me? 4187 1 MR. HART: What I was going to say, it 2 wouldn't apply to anybody then. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Pardon me? 4 MR. HART: It wouldn't apply to you, 5 or him, or Hydro. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Then you want to make a 7 presentation. For that you have the opportunity 8 to do that as well. Register with the secretary 9 or Mr. Grewar, and get on the list, and you can 10 come and make your presentation, but you can't 11 make it now. 12 MR. HART: Okay. What happened to my 13 human rights? 14 THE CHAIRMAN: It has nothing to do 15 with your human rights. There is a process, and 16 members of the public -- 17 MR. HART: I am sorry about wasting 18 your time. I am wasting your time. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Just to make sure it is 20 clear with you, because we had a bit of a run in 21 Thompson. 22 MR. HART: I am wasting your time. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Just listen to what I 24 am telling you, and if I am wrong you can tell me 25 after, but it won't matter because those will be 4188 1 the rules. Those are the rules that we have 2 established initially as part of these hearings. 3 There is a time when members of the public can 4 come and make a presentation. There is a time 5 when members of the public can question the 6 proponents. There is a time when members of the 7 public have an opportunity to come and question 8 the presenters. What we have just had is a 9 presenter, and you can come and question him on 10 what he has presented. So, that's the only thing 11 that is going on right now. 12 So, when we get into another portion 13 of the program, when Hydro is answering questions 14 on the Environmental Impact Statements, you can 15 come and ask questions. If you want to make your 16 presentation, you can make your presentation, but 17 not now. 18 MR. HART: Okay, that's fine with me. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. 20 MR. HART: This person that I asked 21 didn't have an answer for me. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, but it was not 23 related to his presentation. 24 MR. HART: Okay. I thought the people 25 up here are supposed to answer questions that the 4189 1 people from the public would ask? 2 THE CHAIRMAN: I haven't seen God come 3 and sit there yet. 4 MR. HART: You wouldn't see him. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: I didn't expect so. 6 MR. HART: Thank you for your time, 7 and I apologize for interrupting -- 8 THE CHAIRMAN: That's fine. 9 MR. HART: -- your time. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Ms. Avery 11 Kinew? 12 MS. AVERY KINEW: Hi, Mr. Soprovich. 13 MR. SOPROVICH: Hi. 14 MS. AVERY KINEW: In your 15 presentation, I didn't see in the written one, but 16 you did mention on the screens maybe -- or the 17 other way around. Anyway, it took a very long 18 time to get to technical ecological knowledge -- 19 traditional ecological knowledge. It was 20 mentioned throughout by NCN and Manitoba Hydro 21 that they worked very hard in involving resource 22 users, elders, et cetera. But it was mentioned 23 maybe in the first week of testimony by counsel 24 from CASIL that it wasn't really spelled out. Is 25 that part of your problem, you really didn't know 4190 1 when people were involved? 2 MR. SOPROVICH: This has nothing to do 3 with traditional ecological knowledge. This has 4 to do with science, this is just science, this is 5 western science, and it is dealing with the use of 6 their methodology to evaluate the habitat in terms 7 of their models. It is nothing more -- that's 8 what I was speaking to. 9 MS. AVERY KINEW: I understand that, 10 but you are getting -- at the bottom of page 14, 11 actually, about habitat models for generation 12 component -- you are talking about habitat models 13 built for generation assessment were similar to 14 the Manitoba HSI models and that scientific 15 literature and expert based opinion form their 16 basis, and then you mention TEK. 17 MR. SOPROVICH: Thank you for 18 correcting me. I was aware that the traditional 19 ecological knowledge was used in those ones, and 20 that is why -- unfortunately, I realized it when I 21 went through the presentation and added that, that 22 is correct. 23 MS. AVERY KINEW: It was also used 24 with transmission -- 25 MR. SOPROVICH: Not in terms of the 4191 1 habitat models. 2 MS. AVERY KINEW: But the habitat 3 models when you are using them, whether you are 4 disputing them or using them, you are relating it 5 to other fields studies, et cetera. 6 MR. SOPROVICH: No, I am not. There 7 is a narrow -- 8 MS. AVERY KINEW: I understand your 9 criticism is not -- but in the EIS there is 10 several different ways of gathering evidence and 11 coming to an impact assessment. 12 MR. SOPROVICH: Yes, I understand 13 that. I am just focusing on the sections that I 14 dealt with, which have to do with what are called 15 habitat models. With respect to the transmission 16 lines, they use the HSI models, and with respect 17 to the generation, they use these models that they 18 developed themselves that are a combination of 19 western science and traditional ecological 20 knowledge. The difficulty I have with that is, I 21 don't have a clue what those models were. There 22 was no verbal description of what they were or 23 anything. As a person trying to assess this, 24 there is absolutely no way I can assess it. 25 MS. AVERY KINEW: That's what I was 4192 1 wondering. Thank you. 2 The other thing is, I gather you have 3 been involved at least since last September, you 4 said? 5 MR. SOPROVICH: Yes, I think somewhere 6 in that neighbourhood, that's correct. 7 MS. AVERY KINEW: And you helped 8 develop some of the interrogatories? 9 MR. SOPROVICH: That's correct. 10 MS. AVERY KINEW: I was wondering if 11 you were involved with the Canadian Nature 12 Federation, Manitoba Wildlands, when there was a 13 series of meetings with Manitoba Hydro and 14 environmental groups? 15 MR. SOPROVICH: I believe that was, 16 for the most part, before I came on, but, no, I 17 was not. 18 MS. AVERY KINEW: I will save my 19 question until later then. Thank you very much. 20 MR. SOPROVICH: You are welcome. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Other 22 questions? Ms. Whelan Enns? 23 MS. WHALEN ENNS: Thank you. Just 24 checking the volume, it was a little low before. 25 Mr. Soprovich, I wanted to follow with 4193 1 a question based on the panelist's question of 2 you. Is the traditional environmental assessment 3 or statement identifiable, is it identifiable or 4 "findable" in the Wuskwatim documents? 5 MR. SOPROVICH: I am not sure what you 6 mean? 7 MS. WHALEN ENNS: Is there a 8 traditional environmental assessment or impact 9 statement within the Wuskwatim documents? 10 MR. SOPROVICH: I do not recollect 11 seeing that, but, again, I haven't read the whole 12 thing. 13 MS. WHALEN ENNS: Okay. 14 MR. SOPROVICH: There is evidence in 15 there, yes, I recollect reviewing some species 16 lists on some traditional ecological knowledge and 17 commenting on that, yes. 18 MS. WHALEN ENNS: The basis for my 19 question is because we are trying to, in working 20 on the first set of interrogatories, determine the 21 basis for questions and interrogatories about the 22 traditional ecological knowledge, and we were not 23 able to find a package, a portion that was clearly 24 the assessment. I know of course the communities 25 do this and it has been discussed. 4194 1 Mr. Bedford was describing to you 2 studies that are referred to in the EIS that are 3 ongoing, so that would then presumably mean 4 species studies before the EIS was built, 5 provided, and posted, and then ongoing and post 6 the EIS availability in documents. 7 Do you think that these reports should 8 be available and public? 9 MR. SOPROVICH: Yes. 10 MS. WHALEN ENNS: Thank you. 11 MR. SOPROVICH: Just following up on 12 Mr. Bedford's suggestion that peer review and 13 bouncing things off people's heads is a good idea, 14 I concur with that. 15 MS. WHALEN ENNS: Thank you. I want 16 to ask a couple of questions specifically in 17 relation to Canada's National Forest Strategy and 18 Forest Resource Inventories specific then to 19 Manitoba. Are you aware that each of the five 20 year reviews of Canada's National Forest Strategy 21 resulted, including through blue ribbon and 22 independent peer reviewed assessments at the five 23 junctions, that each of them in fact have found 24 significant deficiencies in Forest Resource 25 Inventory information? 4195 1 MR. SOPROVICH: I am not aware of that 2 but doesn't surprise me. I cited the Forest 3 Resource Inventory for Northern Manitoba. I 4 happened to, in somewhat of a voluntary, somewhat 5 of a paid position, sat on Tolko's Forest Resource 6 Advisory Committee, and I know they have been 7 battling back and forth for the last two years to 8 try and get some inventory stuff updated, and it 9 is a question of who pays for it. If one looks at 10 the annual allowable cut calculations, the manual 11 for Manitoba which uses this forest inventory data 12 to determine how much forest should be cut each 13 year, you will see in there that inventories are 14 supposed to be done about every 15 years. In 15 fact, if we look at some of that Northern Manitoba 16 stuff, perhaps even some of the stuff that was 17 used in the -- in fact, I would suspect some of 18 the stuff that was used in the transmission 19 assessment, some of that stuff is almost 30 years 20 old. So that doesn't surprise me in the least. 21 MS. WHALEN ENNS: Thank you. So, we 22 have had a commitment at five year intervals in 23 then the National Forest Strategy to have fairly 24 specific sharing of data, updating of data, and 25 improvement of forest resource inventory methods 4196 1 in Canada. Are you aware that Canada, again in 2 September 2003, made an international commitment 3 in this regard, in terms of updating and improving 4 forest resource inventories? 5 MR. SOPROVICH: No. 6 MS. WHALEN ENNS: That commitment was 7 made at the World Forest Congress that was held in 8 Quebec City last fall. 9 I wanted to ask you a question 10 regarding the set of interrogatories that were 11 prepared in November of last year, where, as we 12 all know, a good many of them were not answered. 13 Are you aware that one of tools that 14 we were working with in preparing those 15 interrogatories included the Technical Advisory 16 Committee minutes? 17 MR. SOPROVICH: That's correct, yes. 18 I had access to those minutes and that's where I 19 quoted from on page 3. 20 MS. WHALEN ENNS: Then you perhaps 21 would be aware also, and remember from 22 conversations in October and November, that we 23 were trying to take steps, in drafting those 24 interrogatories, based on deficiencies and 25 unanswered concerns and questions in the TAC 4197 1 minutes for Wuskwatim? 2 MR. SOPROVICH: Yes. 3 MS. WHALEN ENNS: Did you have access 4 to this second final report from Mr. Ehnes and Mr. 5 Berger that we have had some discussion about 6 today? 7 MR. SOPROVICH: Well, I had access to 8 the one report that was released. I followed up 9 on this, because I need to get this one verified. 10 I had access to just the one report. 11 MS. WHALEN ENNS: Thank you. Is the 12 report that Mr. Bedford was referring to as 13 provided with the EIS, or cited, did you take it 14 as the same report as you have? 15 MR. SOPROVICH: I cannot say it is 16 cited in the EIS. I would say the literature 17 cited, in terms of the section that I looked at 18 that related to habitat models, it is not cited. 19 MS. WHALEN ENNS: Thank you. Do you 20 work with First Nations with occupancy studies in 21 regards to ecological knowledge? 22 MR. SOPROVICH: Yes, I do. I have 23 been involved with Swampy Cree Tribal Council in 24 assisting them with a traditional land use and 25 occupancy study which began several years ago, and 4198 1 we are at the point where we are doing the mapping 2 work and the GIS work. 3 I have certain interactions with First 4 Nations people, and I have to say that I am one of 5 those western scientists who recognizes the value 6 of traditional ecological knowledge -- just not 7 the First Nations people, but many people who use 8 the land, but certainly First Nations people 9 traditional ecological knowledge. 10 I am often -- I shouldn't say often, 11 but at times First Nations peoples describe things 12 to me, observations that they have had, and often 13 it fits well with the western view. The great 14 advantage I see of traditional ecological 15 knowledge, and I cited it in my written 16 information -- I was talking about HSI models, 17 about models and prediction, and the fact we have 18 to predict accurately for these models be of use. 19 When we look at First Nations people, they have 20 been living on that land for so many years, they 21 have to predict accurately, predicting accurately 22 was a matter of life or death. You had to know 23 where the berries were, you had to know when they 24 were going to show up. You had to know where 25 those moose were going to be, you had to know what 4199 1 that moose was going to do when you got to him. 2 That was a matter of life or death. 3 Traditional science, and I cited a 4 problem of looking at even 2 year intervals, there 5 are completely different conclusions 8 years into 6 the study. That is one of the major weaknesses of 7 traditional science, what we call reductionism, 8 trying to boil it down to one thing. 7500 years 9 you said, since time immemorial, that's a lot of 10 observation, you can't discount that. Completely 11 valuable. 12 MS. WHALEN ENNS: I have one remaining 13 question. What recommendations or advice would 14 you have for Manitoba Conservation -- certainly, 15 HSI models come up in every class 2 or class 3 16 development proposal and review -- and for 17 Manitoba Hydro in terms of habitat suitability 18 indices and arriving at a more validated, I would 19 assume, more validated and more productive and 20 effective approach to using these models? 21 MR. SOPROVICH: My personal view is 22 that they are not going to work. There are 23 structural problems with these things that just 24 cannot be overcome. That's why we see them fail 25 over and over again in the scientific literature. 4200 1 What I would suggest, my view, having sat around 2 for a while and watched these things, is the 3 forestry wildlife project, the project that 4 developed these models spent perhaps a million 5 dollars doing this. This was in an austere time. 6 It is a lot of money for wildlife forestry 7 agencies to spend. As a consequence, it is 8 difficult now to say, well, these things don't 9 work, we will throw them away. But I think what 10 really needs to be done is -- you know, that's my 11 opinion, and they may or may not accept or reject 12 that opinion. I think what they have to do is go 13 to the experts. I would suggest that you take the 14 kind of evidence, all the evidence that I have, 15 and all the evidence attesting these models, and 16 the evidence of how they are put together, you 17 take all that information and you give it to an 18 expert, a guy like Fred Burnell, a guy that we 19 know is an expert. You ask him what he thinks of 20 it. Because Fred Burnell, I mean, my opinion is 21 that there is absolutely no way that Hydro should 22 have used these HSI models, I consider it to be 23 irresponsible, to be quite honest, that is what I 24 consider it to be. Take it to Fred Burnell. This 25 is an expert. If you don't believe me, go to the 4201 1 top, go to the best man. 2 MS. WHALEN ENNS: You are recommending 3 very specific independent review to figure out 4 what to do instead? 5 MR. SOPROVICH: Where do we go from 6 here? I mean, a million dollars or whatever has 7 been spent on developing and testing these models. 8 Who tests them? The evidence is that they fail 9 now. Who is going to do further testing into the 10 future? Who is going to pay for that? Is it 11 Hydro? I don't see any testing in your EIS. You 12 didn't test those models. You could have -- you 13 didn't. 14 The recommendation is, in the TAC 15 minutes, et cetera, is that you don't take models 16 from some place else and apply them in your area 17 without testing them. You could have tested them. 18 You didn't. Who is going to do it in the future? 19 I think you almost have to start from square one, 20 but I think you start with the process because 21 there is this conflict of opinion, you start with 22 that process by taking the question to the man 23 that really is at the top of the game and the best 24 person to do the analysis and evaluation and make 25 recommendations. 4202 1 MS. WHALEN ENNS: Thank you. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Other 3 questions? 4 MS. BRUYERE: I am Caroline Bruyere, I 5 am an elder from Sagkeeng First Nation. I find it 6 very difficult to sit there and watch an elder 7 attempt to come and voice his mind. I too have 8 great difficulty, because I too lack the type of 9 education that is needed to be able to be a 10 participant in this arena. But you are talking 11 about habitat suitability in the context of 12 animals, birds. Having to sit here already last 13 month and now this month again, I find that there 14 is very little content in here, or very limited 15 mention of us First Nations people in here. 16 Do you feel or do you believe, do you 17 think that there should also be a habitat 18 suitability study affecting First Nations people? 19 MR. SOPROVICH: Can you may be just 20 explain what you mean by that a little bit more? 21 MS. BRUYERE: Given the fact that we 22 have previous experience of the Churchill River 23 Diversion and the dams that have been built, and 24 the Regulation of Lake Winnipeg, with all the 25 algae that gets stuck all summer up north, Lake 4203 1 Winnipeg not draining, should it not be looked at? 2 Is our environment or our land now suitable for 3 our habitation? Like our -- the very things that 4 we lived off, that sustain us as human beings, 5 have been totally disrupted, ruined. 6 MR. SOPROVICH: I would say that, as I 7 understand it, yes, there is often many -- often 8 one needs to look at the impacts of all these kind 9 of things on Aboriginal people, in terms of how 10 they use the land, where they use the land, and 11 how it affects them. If that is what you mean, I 12 would agree with you. 13 MS. BRUYERE: Yes. Our food, our 14 clothing, our shelter, our medicines. 15 MR. SOPROVICH: Yes. 16 MS. BRUYERE: Nobody seems to be 17 considering that at all. Even the employment, I 18 was listening yesterday, that's so stringent now, 19 who is going to work -- somebody that has a 20 degree? The union is going to come in. 21 Can we not be studied -- are we people 22 that can be able to build a house without having 23 to have a journeyman papers? My grandfather used 24 to throw up a log cabin and I have never seen him 25 produce any papers that he is a log house builder. 4204 1 MR. SOPROVICH: I guess you started by 2 saying that you didn't have education, a certain 3 kind of education. My response to that would be 4 that we learn, if our minds are open, we learn 5 from all sources. 6 MS. BRUYERE: I wish I could say the 7 same for everybody sitting in here that their 8 minds are open. There seems to be a channel 9 vision here, a channel mind of knowledge here. I 10 would appreciate to hear that people do have open 11 minds, and I think you have tried to demonstrate 12 that yourself, but I hear such eloquent ways of 13 blocking information from us. We have to be well 14 informed about the whole thing here. 15 MR. SOPROVICH: I agree. 16 MS. BRUYERE: Yesterday I was so 17 heart-broken to hear that it is already set, all 18 the stringent requirements that it is going to 19 take for our people to be employed up north. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Elder. 21 MS. BRUYERE: Yes, I understand and, 22 yes, I am not supposed to be doing this, but I am 23 doing it. Because yesterday, all this time I hear 24 there is going to be jobs for people, going to be 25 jobs for people, there is going to be 4205 1 self-employment, self-sufficiency. Yesterday it 2 dammed near ruined me to listen to already -- the 3 union didn't even come and make a presentation 4 here and they have a piece of the cake already. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: There were 6 presentations by the union. 7 MS. BRUYERE: I am sorry, I didn't 8 hear them, but nevertheless -- okay, take it. 9 Thank you. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. It is very 11 difficult to interrupt the elders coming up, but 12 the point is, I repeat, we try to do things in an 13 orderly fashion, allowing some leeway, but there 14 is a presenter in front, and that is the person we 15 are addressing questions to. It is difficult to 16 see where the questions are when statements are 17 being made. And I remind the elder, Nelson Hart, 18 that came awhile ago who wanted to make a 19 presentation, I don't think he has made one yet, 20 if he has I don't recall, but there are 21 appropriate moments, and there will be again 22 tomorrow, so he can get himself on the list and 23 make his presentation at that time. 24 Are there further questions? Seeing 25 none, thank you, Mr. Soprovich. 4206 1 MR. SOPROVICH: Thank you for bearing 2 with me. 3 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman, if we might 4 enter as exhibit the presentation slides, Manitoba 5 Hydro's use of wildlife habitat models, as CNF 6 1017, and the valuation of wildlife habitat, 7 Manitoba Hydro's assessment of the Wuskwatim 8 development, presentation to the Manitoba Clean 9 Environment Commission, these are both of Dan 10 Soprovich, as CNF 1018. 11 12 (EXHIBIT CNF-1017: Presentation 13 slides, Manitoba Hydro's use of 14 wildlife habitat models, by Dan 15 Soprovich) 16 17 (EXHIBIT CNF-1018: Valuation of 18 wildlife habitat, Manitoba Hydro's 19 assessment of the Wuskwatim 20 development, presentation to the 21 Manitoba Clean Environment Commission 22 by Dan Soprovich) 23 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Can I ask whether Mr. 25 Will Gilmore is in the room? Mr. Gilmore, how 4207 1 long do you expect your presentation to be? 2 MR. GILMORE: 30 minutes. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Are you prepared to be 4 here tomorrow morning? 5 MR. GILMORE: I am. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, 7 the gentleman who is supposed to present next 8 expects that it would take half an hour at least 9 for his presentation, and then there would have to 10 be time for questioning. Based on that, just 11 talking with him, he has accepted to delay his 12 presentation until 10:00 o'clock tomorrow morning. 13 With that, we will adjourn for today. 14 15 (ADJOURNED AT 5:33 P.M.) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24