DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT І LOWER CHURCHILL HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Regulatory Context ........................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Organization of the Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... 4 2.0 THE PROPONENT ..................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Commitment to the Environment ................................................................................................................. 6 2.2 Commitment to Consultation ........................................................................................................................ 8 2.3 Commitment to Labrador .............................................................................................................................. 9 3.0 THE PROJECT.......................................................................................................................................... 11 3.1 Rationale and Need for the Project ............................................................................................................. 11 3.1.1 Benefits of Hydroelectricity ............................................................................................................ 12 3.1.2 The Lower Churchill River Potential and Benefits to the Province ................................................ 13 3.2 Schedule and Workforce ............................................................................................................................. 13 3.3 Gull Island Facility Overview........................................................................................................................ 14 3.4 Muskrat Falls Facility Overview ................................................................................................................... 16 3.5 Reservoir Clearing........................................................................................................................................ 16 3.6 Transmission Line ........................................................................................................................................ 19 3.7 Operation .................................................................................................................................................... 19 3.8 Environmental Management ...................................................................................................................... 20 3.8.1 Compliance with Regulatory and Corporate Requirements .......................................................... 20 3.8.2 Designed-in Mitigation/Key Project Features ................................................................................ 21 3.8.3 VEC and Project-Specific Mitigation, Compensation and Enhancements ...................................... 23 3.8.4 Environmental Protection Planning ............................................................................................... 23 3.8.5 Safety, Health and Environmental Emergency Response Plans ..................................................... 23 4.0 CONSULTATION AND ISSUES SCOPING .................................................................................................... 25 4.1 Stakeholder Consultation ............................................................................................................................ 25 4.2 Aboriginal Consultation ............................................................................................................................... 25 4.2.1 Labrador Innu ................................................................................................................................. 26 4.2.2 Labrador Inuit ................................................................................................................................. 26 4.2.3 Labrador Métis ............................................................................................................................... 27 4.2.4 Quebec Innu ................................................................................................................................... 27 4.3 Issues Identification ..................................................................................................................................... 27 4.4 Selection of Valued Environmental Components and Key Indicators ......................................................... 28 5.0 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY ....................................................... 31 5.1 Innu Traditional Knowledge ........................................................................................................................ 32 5.2 Local Knowledge .......................................................................................................................................... 33 5.3 Assessment Methods .................................................................................................................................. 33 6.0 REGIONAL SETTING ................................................................................................................................ 35 6.1 Ecological Setting ......................................................................................................................................... 35 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE i ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT І LOWER CHURCHILL HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION PROJECT 6.1.1 Wildlife ........................................................................................................................................... 36 6.1.2 Fish and Fish Habitat ...................................................................................................................... 37 6.2 Socio-economic Context .............................................................................................................................. 37 6.2.1 Recent History ................................................................................................................................ 38 6.2.2 Communities .................................................................................................................................. 38 6.2.3 Land Use ......................................................................................................................................... 39 7.0 THE BIOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENT .............................................................................................................. 41 7.1 The Biophysical Environment and Effects ................................................................................................... 41 7.2 Effects Management ................................................................................................................................... 42 7.3 Residual Environmental Effects ................................................................................................................... 45 7.3.1 Atmospheric Environment ............................................................................................................. 45 7.3.2 Aquatic Environment ...................................................................................................................... 45 7.3.3 Terrestrial Environment ................................................................................................................. 46 7.3.4 Accidents and Malfunctions ........................................................................................................... 46 7.4 Biophysical Cumulative Environmental Effects ........................................................................................... 46 7.5 Monitoring and Follow-up ........................................................................................................................... 47 8.0 THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................................... 49 8.1 The Socio-economic Environment and Effects ............................................................................................ 49 8.2 Effects Management ................................................................................................................................... 50 8.3 Residual Environmental Effects ................................................................................................................... 52 8.3.1 Economy, Employment and Business ............................................................................................. 52 8.3.2 Communities .................................................................................................................................. 52 8.3.3 Land and Resource Use .................................................................................................................. 53 8.3.4 Cultural Heritage Resources ........................................................................................................... 53 8.3.5 Accidents and Malfunctions ..........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Environmental Study of the George River Watershed (Nunavik, Québec) Impacts of Climate and Societal Changes
    Environmental study of the George River watershed (Nunavik, Québec) Impacts of climate and societal changes Dedieu J.P. 1*, Franssen J. 2, Monfette M. 2, Herrmann T.M. 2, MacMillan G.A. 3, Grant E. 3, Amyot M. 3, Lévesque E. 4, Housset J. 4, Gérin-Lajoie J. 4, Dubois G. 4, Bayle A. 5, Snowball H. 6 (Photo M. Monfette, 2017) 1 IGE-CNRS / Université Grenoble-Alpes, France 4 Dept Environmental Science – Université du Québec à Trois Rivières, Québec, Canada 2 Dept Geography – Université de Montréal, Québec, Canada 5 LECA-CNRS / Université Grenoble Alpes, France 3 Dept Biological Sciences – Université de Montréal, Québec, Canada 6 The Northern village of Kangiqsualujjuaq, Québec, Canada International Symposium of LabEx DRIIHM Inter-Disciplinary Research Facility on Human-Environment Interactions - ANR-11-LABX-0010 October 7th-9th, 2019 – ENS Lyon (France) OUTLINE Background Scientific application and results • A climate change and societal evolution context • Water quality and chemistry (contaminants) • Research in Nunavik digest • Ecological study (Arctic greening) • Interactive mapping (CBEM) Motivation Conclusions and outlook • OHMI-Nunavik and Imalirijiit project design • Take home message International Symposium of LabEx DRIIHM 2 Inter-Disciplinary Research Facility on Human-Environment Interactions - ANR-11-LABX-0010 October 7th-9th, 2019 – ENS Lyon (France) Background Climate trends • A worrying context for Arctic and Subarctic regions : Since 2000, Arctic surface air T° increased at more than double the global average. Winter (January-March) near-surface temperature positive anomalies of +6°C (relative to 1981-2010) recorded in the central Arctic during both 2016 and 2018. Tomorrow (2050): +4-7°C mean annual year T° in the Arctic Winter pan-Canadian temperatures, long-term-trend 1948-2016 Source : Summary Report, Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC), IPCC, Sept 2019.
    [Show full text]
  • IR# JRP.166 Downstream Effects Below Muskrat Falls INFORMATION REQUESTS RESPONSES| LOWER CHURCHILL HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION PROJECT
    IR# JRP.166 Downstream Effects below Muskrat Falls INFORMATION REQUESTS RESPONSES| LOWER CHURCHILL HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION PROJECT Requesting Organization – Joint Review Panel Information Request No.: JRP.166 Subject – Downstream Effects below Muskrat Falls References: EIS Guidelines, Section 4.5.1 (Environmental Effects General) Related Comments / Information Requests: IR # JRP.43, IR # JRP.149, IR # JRP.153 Information Requested: a. Nalcor hydrology studies indicate the Churchill River exerts a strong influence on the estuarine regime in Goose Bay and concerns have been expressed by a number of participants regarding the downstream effects of the Project. Explain the specific criteria used in Nalcor's response to Information Request (IR) JRP.43 to predict no measurable effect on downstream total phosphorus and total suspended solids, transport distances, fish productivity, salinity, velocity and thermal profiles from Goose Bay to Lake Melville, ice dynamics, ringed and harbour seal use of Lake Melville, bank stability, fish habitat utilization and fish migration. Identify whether and how these predictions apply to the period of reservoir impoundment, and the post‐impoundment transitional period before water quality stabilizes. Response: The influence of the lower Churchill River freshwater hydrology on Goose Bay and Lake Melville is recognized by Nalcor Energy (Nalcor) and has been central to limiting downstream effects to the extent possible. The minimal change in flow regime below Muskrat Falls as a result of the Project as described in IR# JRP.43, IR# JRP.149 and IR# JRP.153 mitigates most potential effects in terms of changes in salinity, circulation/current influenced by freshwater flows of the Churchill River, shoreline erosion (due to changes in water levels), tributary access, fish movements, habitat utilization and transportation distances.
    [Show full text]
  • ARTICLE Having Covered Over 8700 Km Including 1600 Km on Foot, Over 4700 Km in Canoe, 800 Km by Dog Team and 1600 Km by Steam- Er
    GEOSCIENCE CANADA Volume 45 2018 43 ARTICLE having covered over 8700 km including 1600 km on foot, over 4700 km in canoe, 800 km by dog team and 1600 km by steam- er. The report from the expedition provides a compendium on the natural history of the region as well as the first geological maps. In terms of economic and scientific results, the greatest was documentation of the vast iron ore deposits of western Labrador; a world-class mining district that has been produc- ing for sixty-three years since 1954. Low’s account also pro- vides details on the essence of such an epic journey, which stands as a classic in the annals of Canadian geological survey- ing. RÉSUMÉ En 1893–1894, Albert Peter Low de la Commission géologique du Canada, accompagné du D.I.V. Eaton et quatre assistants autochtones ont exploré la péninsule du Labrador, Albert Peter Low in Labrador– alors perçue comme l'une des dernières grandes étendues A Tale of Iron and Irony sauvages inexplorées d’Amérique du Nord. L’équipe a quitté le Lake St. John (aujourd'hui le lac Saint-Jean) le 17 juin 1893, a traversé la bordure nord-est du continent nord-américain en Derek H.C. Wilton canoë, et est arrivé à Fort Chimo (aujourd'hui Kuujjuaq) le 27 août 1893. À l'automne de 1893, ils ont quitté Fort Chimo à Department of Earth Sciences bord d'un vapeur pour Rigolet, sur la côte du Labrador, et le Memorial University of Newfoundland poste de la Compagnie de la Baie d'Hudson sur la rivière St.
    [Show full text]
  • P-00352 Page 1
    CIMFP Exhibit P-00352 Page 1 Paper of Grand Riverkeeper Labrador, Inc. and Labrador Land Protectors for the Commission of Inquiry Respecting the Muskrat Falls Project October 1st, 2018 Muskrat Falls, Labrador 2014 "many have touched these rocks and felt its power, when the dam is finished, it will be felt no more" – Denise Cole CIMFP Exhibit P-00352 Page 2 (PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK) CIMFP Exhibit P-00352 Page 3 Commissioner Justice Richard LeBlanc Beothuk Building, Suite 502, 20 Crosbie Place St. John’s, NL A1B 3Y8 October 1st, 2018 Dear Commissioner LeBlanc, RE: Paper for the Commission of Inquiry Respecting the Muskrat Falls Project We enclose the paper of Grand Riverkeeper prepared pursuant to the request of the Commissioner by his letter of May 20, 2018 with respect to the pre-sanction phase of the Muskrat Falls Project. The request set out the scope as follows: We are interested in having GRL/LLP prepare a paper describing its involvement with the Muskrat Falls Project pre-sanction. Specifically, we would like the paper to: • Describe GRL/LLP involvement with the Project prior to its sanction on December 17, 2012. This would include, without limitation, their involvement in the Joint Review Panel process and any involvement they had with Government or Nalcor officials. • Describe the key issues that GRL/LLP raised in relation to the Project prior to sanction. • Describe Nalcor’s and/or the Government’s response to GRL/LLP’s efforts We have endeavoured to include as much information as possible in relation to key issues raised regarding the project prior to December 17, 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • Du Sable, Caniapiscau, and Koksoak Rivers
    Du Sable, Caniapiscau, and Koksoak Rivers Du Sable We were lucky to obtain an excellent 1980 trip report from Ed The Du Sable (also known as Sand River) is an important tributary Gertler before we embarked on our trip (Ed lists also Tim of the Caniapiscau River. The Du Sable has been at the heart of a Zecha's brother Terry as a trip participant). Thus, it seems to us geographical and toponymic confusion, both about its source and that ours was the first documented descent of the whole Du about its name. Contrary to the map of Mrs. Mina Adelaine Sable from its source. Benson Hubbard (1908) describing her George River expedition, the ninth report of the Commission on Geography of Canada Caniapiscau (James White, 1911) as well as maps of the province of Quebec The Caniapiscau River is a tributary of the Koksoak River. published by the Ministry of Lands and Forests in 1914 and 1935, Through history, the river was known under different spellings: the Du Sable does not originate at Sand Lake, although both the Kaniapiskau (Albert Peter Low, 1898), Canniappuscaw (William Du Sable and Sand Lake outflows do belong to the Caniapiscau Hendry, 1828) and Caniapuscaw (James Clouston, 1820). The name watershed. The Commission de Géographie du Québec accepted in Cree language means "rocky point". The Inuit call the river the name 'Rivière du Sable' in 1944, replacing the name Sandy Adlait (or Allait) Kuunga (meaning: Indian River). It was also River, in the belief that the river originated from Sand Lake. The known as Wauguash River.
    [Show full text]
  • CE 54 (R1) (Public)
    Muskrat Falls Project - CE-54 Rev. 1 (Public) Page 1 of 66 Muskrat Falls Project - CE-54 Rev. 1 (Public) Page 2 of 66 Nalcor Energy - Lower Churchill Project GI1141 - Upper Churchill PMF and Flood Handling Procedures Update Final Report - August 28, 2009 Table of Contents List of Tables List of Figures Executive Summary 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1.1 Project Location ................................................................................................................1-1 1.1.2 Summary of GI1140 Study ................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1.3 Rationale for Smaller PMF Estimate ................................................................................... 1-2 1.2 Probable Maximum Flood Definition .......................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Approach .................................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.3.1 Review of Previous Studies................................................................................................ 1-3 1.3.2 Update of PMF Estimate ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Caribou (Rangifer Tarandus) and Inuit Nutrition Security in Canada
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by R-libre EcoHealth https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-018-1348-z Ó 2018 EcoHealth Alliance Original Contribution Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) and Inuit Nutrition Security in Canada Tiff-Annie Kenny ,1 Myriam Fillion,2 Sarah Simpkin,3 Sonia D. Wesche,4 and Hing Man Chan1 1Department of Biology, University of Ottawa, 30 Marie Curie, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada 2Faculte´ de Me´decine, Universite´ Laval, Que´bec, Canada 3Geographic, Statistical and Government Information Centre, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada 4Department of Geography, Environment and Geomatics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada Abstract: Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) has been fundamental to the diet and culture of Arctic Indigenous Peoples for thousands of years. Although caribou populations observe natural cycles of abundance and scarcity, several caribou herds across the Circumpolar North have experienced dramatic declines in recent decades due to a range of interrelated factors. Broadly, the objectives of this study are to examine food and nutrition security in relation to wildlife population and management status across Inuit Nunangat (the Inuit homeland, consisting of four regions across the Canadian Arctic). Specifically, we: (1) characterize the contribution of caribou to Inuit nutrition across northern Canada and (2) evaluate the population and management status of caribou herds/populations harvested by Inuit. Dietary data were derived from the 2007–2008 Inuit Health Survey, which included dietary information for Inuit adults (n = 2097) residing in thirty-six communities, spanning three regions (the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, Nunavut, and Nunatsiavut) of the Canadian North. Published information regarding the range, abundance, status, and management status of caribou herds/ populations was collected through document analysis and was validated through consultation with northern wildlife experts (territorial governments, co-management, and/or Inuit organizations).
    [Show full text]
  • Quebec-Newfoundland and Labrador's Relationship Valérie
    Uneasy Neighbours: Quebec-Newfoundland and Labrador's Relationship Valérie Vézina Faculty, Political Science Kwantlen Polytechnic University [email protected] Note: This is a work in progress. Please do not cite without the permission of the author. Newfoundland and Labrador only has one direct territorial contact with another province: Quebec. The harsh and often unwelcoming territory of Labrador has been the centre of the animosity between the two provinces. In the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding Churchill Falls, the Court, in a 7-1 decision, ruled that Quebec had no obligation to renegotiate the contract. Despite the reassuring words of the Newfoundland and Labrador Premier, Dwight Ball, that the two provinces have much more to gain collaborating and that he would do so with Quebec Premier, François Legault, the general comments in both provinces by citizens does not tend towards collaboration and friendship. Why is that so? What are the factors that have contributed in the past to so many tensions between the two neighbours? What contributes today to such feelings among the public despite the willingness of political actors to move on, to develop partnerships? This paper will explore these questions. It will be revealed that 'historical' collective memories as well as cultural products (songs, humour, slogans) have helped perpetuating an uneasy relationship among Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador. Resentment can be an individual emotion, an anger felt towards a perceived injustice. However, as Stockdale (2013) argues, resentment is certainly individual but can also be collective. She demonstrates that "the reasons for resentment in cases of broader social and political resentments will often be tied to social vulnerability and experiences of injustice." (Stockdale, 2013: 5) Furthermore, "collective resentment is resentment that is felt and expressed by individuals in response to a perceived threat to a collective to which they belong.
    [Show full text]
  • Kangiqsualujjuaq 2020 EN
    History Kangiqsualujjuaq, often called George River, is the easternmost village in Nunavik. It is located 160 km away from Kuujjuaq KANGIQSUALUJJUAQ and 1675 km away from Montreal. In the 19th century, a trading post of the Hudson Bay Company was established 12 km south of the current location of the village, which was created only in 1962 when the Inuit decided to settle there, especially Address: PO Box 120, Kangiqsualujjuaq for arctic char trade. Kangiiqsualujjuaq Quebec J0M 1N0 Tel: 819-337-9090 Access Population Economic activities: Arts and crafts, businesses and Kangiqsualujjuaq can be reached by Kangiqsualujjuaq means "the very large bay" in Inhabitants: around 1200 services, tourism, construction, Inuktitut, dut to its position at the end of George plane by taking a Canadian North flight from Montreal/Quebec to Kuujjuaq then Languages spoken: Inuktitut, transport, outfitters, traditional caribou, River bay. an Air Inuit flight from Kuujjuaq to English seal and beluga hunting, fishing Kangiqsualujjuaq. Services Clinic Coop grocery store Coop hotel Community centre Niriviapik restaurant Temperatures Other services: 30 Arena (with gym and swimming-pool) 20 Northern Store Museum 10 Daycare 0 Post office -10 Full Gospel Christian Fellowship (Pentecostal church) St-Andrews Anglican Church -20 FM community radio -30 Junior Rangers (Canadian Armed Forces) January April June October Address: PO Box 120, Kangiqsualujjuaq Quebec J0M 1N0 The clinique Tel: 819-337-9090 Nursing staff: 6-7 Home Care Fax: 819-337-9004 Activities and attractions 1 E-mail: [email protected] Expanded COVID-19 role & TB Sports 4 1-2 Arena, mini-gym and swimming-pool Hours: CLSC open from Monday to Friday from 9am to 5pm, emergency services evening/night/weekend.
    [Show full text]
  • Demography of the George River Caribou Herd: Evidence of Population Regulation by Forage Exploitation and Range Expansion F
    ARCTIC VOL. 41. NO. 4 (DECEMBER 1988) P. 279-287 Demography of the George River Caribou Herd: Evidence of Population Regulation by Forage Exploitation and Range Expansion F. MESSIER,’ J. HUOT,* D. LE HENAFF3 and S. LUTTICH4 (Received 22 December 1987;accepted in revised form 20 July I988) ABSTRACT. The George River caribou herd in northern QuebeclLabrador increased from about 5000 animals in 1954 to472 200 (or 1.1 caribou.km.’) prior to the 1984 calving season. The range used by the herd expanded from 160 O00 to 442 O00 km2 forthe period 1971-84. The exponential rate of increase (r)was estimated at O. 11 in the 1970s. Calkfemaleratio in autumn was relatively constant (x = 0.52) from 1973 to 1983, but decreased to about 0.39 in 1984-86. The harvest rate was relatively low in the 1970s (about 3%.yr”), but seemingly increased in the mid-1980s to 5-7% as a result of more liberal regulations and a greater impetus to exploit caribou for subsistence. The cumulative impact of lower calf recruitment and more intensive hunting may have appreciably depressed the growth rate of the herd in 1984-86. A greater year-round competition for food resources and a greater energy expenditure associated with range expansion are presented as probable regulatory factors for the George River herd. It is argued that the nature of caribou-habitat interactions in continental regions generate long-term fluctuations in caribou numbers if human exploitation remains low. At present, wolf predation does not appear to be an important mortality factor capable of regulating the George River herd.
    [Show full text]
  • TB1066 Current Stateof Knowledge and Research on Woodland
    June 2020 A Review of the Relationship Between Flow,Current Habitat, State and of Biota Knowledge in LOTIC and SystemsResearch and on Methods Woodland for Determining Caribou Instreamin Canada Low Requirements 9491066 Current State of Knowledge and Research on Woodland Caribou in Canada No 1066 June 2020 Prepared by Kevin A. Solarik, PhD NCASI Montreal, Quebec National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. Acknowledgments A great deal of thanks is owed to Dr. John Cook of NCASI for his considerable insight and the revisions he provided in improving earlier drafts of this report. Helpful comments on earlier drafts were also provided by Kirsten Vice, NCASI. For more information about this research, contact: Kevin A. Solarik, PhD Kirsten Vice NCASI NCASI Director of Forestry Research, Canada and Vice President, Sustainable Manufacturing and Northeastern/Northcentral US Canadian Operations 2000 McGill College Avenue, 6th Floor 2000 McGill College Avenue, 6th Floor Montreal, Quebec, H3A 3H3 Canada Montreal, Quebec, H3A 3H3 Canada (514) 907-3153 (514) 907-3145 [email protected] [email protected] To request printed copies of this report, contact NCASI at [email protected] or (352) 244-0900. Cite this report as: NCASI. 2020. Current state of knowledge and research on woodland caribou in Canada. Technical Bulletin No. 1066. Cary, NC: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. Errata: September 2020 - Table 3.1 (page 34) and Table 5.2 (pages 55-57) were edited to correct omissions and typos in the data. © 2020 by the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) is a species of deer that lives in the tundra, taiga, and forest habitats at high latitudes in the northern hemisphere, including areas of Russia and Scandinavia, the United States, and Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Churchill: Can We Legalwait Until Options: 2041? S92A, Good Faith and Regulatory Proceedings in Quebec
    Upper Churchill: Can we Legalwait until Options: 2041? S92A, Good Faith and Regulatory Proceedings in Quebec Department of Natural Resources October 2012 Department of Natural Resources November 2012 Key Factors In the debate surrounding the development of Muskrat Falls, it has been suggested that Newfoundland and Labrador has the option of refurbishing the Holyrood Thermal Generating Station and/or taking other stop gap measures until 2041 when the Upper Churchill power contract expires and energy from the Upper Churchill become available for domestic and export use. This option is not realistic for a variety of reasons: • CFLCo is owned by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro (NLH) and Hydro-Quebec (HQ) jointly, with NLH owning 65.8% of the common shares and HQ 34.2% of the common shares. In 2041, NLH will not have absolute authority over the corporate actions of CFLCo. • It is not appropriate to simply assume that Newfoundland and Labrador will receive cheap or free power when the HQ Power Contract expires in 2041. It is entirely possible that the province will be required to purchase power from CFLCo at prevailing applicable market rates. • It is doubtful that life extension efforts at Holyrood could continue to provide reliable power for an additional 30 plus years. At that time the first two units would be 70 years old.1 • Deferring Muskrat Falls will mean increased reliance on oil and volatile prices for electricity as rates will be tied to fuel prices. (Note: See accompanying paper on electricity rates for a description of oil forecasts and other issues pertaining to fuel pricing).
    [Show full text]