Natural Resources Committee on April 25th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Ladies and gentlemen, I think we shall begin. We have a couple of late arrivals expected, but we will commence the 45th meeting of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

We're pleased today to welcome our witnesses in our study of the greening of electricity consumption in Canada, electricity distribution and integrated networks. From the Northeast Power Coordinating Council, we have Philip A. Fedora, who is the assistant vice-president, reliability services.

I should say for the record that the Northeast Power Coordinating Council is a not-for-profit New York corporation acting as the international regional reliability organization for northeastern North America. Its purpose is to promote the reliable and efficient operation of international interconnected bulk power systems in northeastern North America. I'm sure we'll get into it in your testimony, Mr. Fedora, but the total population served is about 56 million people, covering approximately a million square miles, so that will be fascinating to hear about. We welcome you from New York City.

We also have Ed Martin, president and chief executive officer of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. As you are aware, we are visiting your facility at Churchill Falls, and looking forward to that in the coming week, I believe—next Monday.

Without further ado, our standard procedure is to have you make a brief presentation—I'm sure you've been so instructed by the clerk—to give us a bit of background on your organization and responsibilities, and then we will move to questioning by the committee. I suggest maybe a 10-minute opening each. We'll hear both of you, and then go to questions.

Mr. Fedora, would you like to begin?

[Philip A. Fedora, Assistant Vice-President, Reliability Services, Northeast Power Coordinating Council]

Certainly. Thank you very much for asking me to appear today.

I do have a brief write-up that I've submitted, so it can be translated and distributed later.

You mentioned some of the statistics. From an electric load perspective, about 20% of the eastern interconnected load is served within the NPCC, and with respect to Canada, that represents about 70% of the Canadian load. This is based on the net energy flow within the NPCC region.

NPCC consists of five geographic areas: the six New England states—Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine—the state of New York; the provinces of Ontario and Quebec; and the maritime provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island.

In response to the U.S. energy legislation, and in preparation for the certification of North American Electric Reliability Corporation as the electric reliability organization, NPCC began restructuring in 2006. The membership interests in NPCC were transferred to a regional reliability assurance, not-for-profit corporation, now known as the Northeast Power Coordinating Council Inc.; and a separate and independent affiliated not-for-profit corporation was created, the Northeast Power Coordinating Council: Cross-Border Regional Entity Inc., or CBRE.

NPCC Inc. provides its members with regional reliability assurance services and acts as the vehicle through which states and provinces can fulfill their political mandates with respect to resource adequacy, as well as overseeing the northeastern North American electric infrastructure through development, assessment, and enforcement of regionally specific reliability criteria, the coordination of system planning, design and operations, and assessment of reliability.

The purpose of NPCC's cross-border regional entity is to enhance the reliability of the international interconnected bulk power systems in northeastern North America through the development of regional reliability standards and compliance assessment and enforcement of continent-wide and regional reliability standards pursuant to the execution and implementation of a regional delegation agreement with the ERO and Canadian provincial memoranda of understanding, backstopped through the ERO by the FERC and the Canadian provincial authorities.

On our website at www.npcc.org, you can find our business plans for 2007. They outline a comprehensive and flexible strategy for NPCC Inc. and NPCC CBRE to be able to respond to emerging reliability and organizational issues. For instance, during 2007 the electrical reliability assurance structure will continue to be refined, and we will continue to transition as FERC compliance orders and Canadian memoranda of understanding are implemented.

The reliability standards activity planned for 2007 include developing a regional reliability standards development process that conforms with the statutory requirements and takes a design basis approach to the establishment of reliability requirements; and promoting and facilitating open process review and balloting of regional reliability standards.

Entity registration and compliance enforcement activities planned for 2007 include registration of all users, owners and operators of elements of the bulk power system within northeastern North America, determined using NPCC's reliability impact-based methodology; and implementation of the NERC compliance monitoring and enforcement program within the United States, and with the compliance programs within Canada, consistent with the memoranda of understanding with the provincial regulatory and governmental authorities.

NPCC Inc. has a comprehensive set of regional reliability criteria developed and periodically revised and published on our publicly accessible website. These criteria represent over 40 years of experience and technical expertise specific to northeastern North America and, along with NPCC guidelines and procedures, state what is required to ensure the reliable operation and adequacy of the international bulk power system. The development and continual review of NPCC criteria is done by technical groups of experts in an open, inclusive, and transparent process that allows participation through a web-based comment forum.

The criteria have been developed to be consistent with the former NERC operating policies, planning standards, and subsequently, the NERC reliability standards recently filed and approved by FERC. Our criteria in some cases represent more stringent and more specific requirements, which the NPCC membership has agreed to, that are necessary to meet all northeast reliability objectives. NPCC Inc.'s membership is currently bound, through the execution of its bylaws, to adhere to these criteria. Enforcement of compliance with the criteria is achieved through the NPCC enforceable compliance program, with the support of the state and provincial authorities.

The NERC reliability standards define the reliability requirements for planning and operating the North American bulk power system. NERC's ANSI-accredited standards development process is defined in its reliability standards development procedure and is guided by reliability and market interface principles. The reliability functional model defines the functions that need to be performed to ensure that the bulk electric system operates reliably and is the foundation upon which the reliability standards are based.

NPCC has a mapping of its of more stringent regionally specific NPCC criteria that indicates where NPCC has more stringent requirements than the NERC reliability standards, or in the case of resource adequacy, for example, where we have criteria that exist with no related NERC reliability standards requirements. This mapping document will serve us as the foundation on which NPCC Inc.'s future compliance will rest. It will be a critical source of information in determining the need to revise our documents to be consistent with the standards as we move forward.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Fedora.

Now we'll hear from Ed Martin.

[Ed Martin, President and Chief Executive Officer, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro]

Good afternoon. It's my pleasure to join you here today for this discussion on the greening of energy consumption in Canada.

I can assure you that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro fully supports this concept, given the abundance of clean energy resources the province has to offer the rest of the country. I believe our goals and objectives are very much aligned, and I would hope that after this discussion we can work together to achieve greener energy consumption in Canada.

I'll begin today by providing you with some information as to who we are at Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Hydro is a crown corporation with a mandate to deliver reliable, least-cost energy to residents and industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. We generate, transmit, and distribute electric power and energy to utility, residential, and industrial customers throughout the province. In addition, NLH is currently in the process of expanding its mandate to take advantage of emerging opportunities in oil and gas developments and alternate green energy sources, including wind energy, and research and development.

The company is responsible for leading development of the significant untapped renewable and non-renewable energy resources of Newfoundland and Labrador and is leading the development of the 2,824-megawatt lower Churchill hydroelectric development in Labrador.

Conditions for hydroelectric development in Canada have never been better. The Government of Canada is in a position to take steps to help facilitate these large-scale projects and create a made-in-Canada solution to GHG emissions in the electricity sector that will also assist in building a greener economy and reducing electricity prices for all Canadians.

The lower Churchill project is a significant national investment that can displace an estimated 16 megatonnes of GHG emissions from comparable coal generation. To put that in perspective, that's enough clean electricity to power all of the private dwellings in Pickering, Ajax, Whitby, Oshawa, and Calgary, with enough power left over to power up the provinces of Saskatchewan and New Brunswick in total.

Hydro power fuels the Canadian economy by creating tens of thousands of jobs annually in Canada; by supporting industry, agriculture, and businesses; and by enabling Canadians to take advantage of the many comforts arising from an affordable and clean source of electricity. With an abundance of hydroelectric, wind, and petroleum resources, Newfoundland and Labrador is positioned to be a strategic long-term supplier of energy to meet the growing demands in all of eastern North America. The lower Churchill River hydroelectric resource is one of the key elements of the province's energy warehouse.

The potential of the lower Churchill resource, one of the most highly valued undeveloped hydro resource projects in North America, is immense. Combined, Gull Island, with a magnitude of 2,000 megawatts, and Muskrat Falls, with an additional 824 megawatts, have the capacity to power 1.5 million homes. Combined with the existing Churchill Falls generating station that you're going to visit next week, the three developments—the upper Churchill, Gull, and Muskrat together—have the ability to produce the electrical equivalent of 225,000 barrels of oil per day, forever. This much-needed source of clean, cost-efficient renewable energy will allow Newfoundland and Labrador to play an important part in meeting Canada's growing energy demand and reducing the country's greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition to lowering greenhouse gas and air emissions and enhancing the national economic landscape, the lower Churchill project can reduce dependency on fossil-fuel-based generation, resulting in Canadians' experiencing fewer increases in electricity prices as a direct impact from fuel supply shortages. The impact of gas prices on the cost of electricity was clearly demonstrated by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, contributing to an average market price in Ontario in September 2005 of $99.70 per megawatt-hour, a significant increase from Ontario's average price in 2004 of $52 per megawatt-hour, an increase that was directly felt by every homeowner in Ontario.

Thanks to hydro power, Canada has the lowest cost of electricity production and one of the most reliable generating systems in the world, providing Canadians with a clean, affordable, dependable electrical supply.

To say I'm excited about the opportunity the potential development of the lower Churchill presents for our province and Canada is an absolute understatement. We have an opportunity to develop a product from which our province and our country will reap benefits for many generations to come. We have an opportunity to assist our neighbours to the west and south in meeting their growing needs for energy demand. We have an opportunity to provide long-term renewable, predictably priced electricity supply in eastern North America. This clean, sustainable, secure power is in high demand, and it's a demand that will only continue to grow as time passes.

Currently, the lower Churchill project team is vigorously pursuing the project development on multiple fronts. It is building on project planning and execution experience gained from the development of large hydro projects within Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as well as megaprojects that have been completed successfully in the province, including Hibernia, Terra Nova, White Rose, and Voisey's Bay.

A comprehensive planning schedule is in place, leading to project sanction in 2009, with first power expected in 2015—and we're on schedule. As with any development project of this magnitude, there are many components being addressed. These include the environmental assessment process, the review of previous engineering design work and preparation for further studies and field work, negotiations for an impact and benefits agreement with the Innu Nation of Labrador, analysis of market access options and market destinations, development of a financing strategy, and determination of the optimum project configuration.

As I'm sure you are aware, the development of the lower Churchill project has been under consideration for quite some time. Therefore, significant engineering and environmental studies have already been completed. To build on the work already done, we are moving the project along on several fronts.

A considerable amount of effort this year has led to the completion of a variety of baseline environmental studies in preparation for the environmental assessment process. These studies complement and update the previous ones conducted.

In December we registered the project with the required federal and provincial environmental regulatory agencies, and that has kick-started a considerable amount of consultation on the project, which is leading us to the filing of an environmental impact statement most likely later this year.

Our negotiations are continuing with the Innu Nation of Labrador towards an impact and benefits agreement, and these talks are progressing well.

Also ongoing is the overall project execution strategy and engineering work, including the review of previous engineering design work, along with the determination of labour force requirements, which by the way, are expected to be, at peak construction of the lower Churchill, an average of 2,000 persons on site.

Last month we announced the award of preliminary engineering service contracts to three firms: Hatch Energy, SNC-Lavalin, and Fugro Jacques. This preliminary engineering work will allow hydro to prepare for environmental and engineering activities leading to project sanction. These external resources will assist the internal hydro engineering team in completing the field work, optimization, and engineering studies necessary to prepare for front-end engineering and design work to begin in 2008. As well, work continues to develop a financing strategy, assess market access, and analyze market destinations.

In terms of market access options, a variety of market opportunities exist, including Ontario, Quebec, the maritime provinces, and the northeast United States. Several options remain under consideration, including both the maritime submarine route from Newfoundland on through to New Brunswick and into the U.S., and the transmission through Hydro-Québec's transmission system. There are two routes under consideration. Transmission service requests have been submitted to Hydro-Québec and the New Brunswick system operator under their open access transmission tariffs in Quebec and New Brunswick, respectively.

The New Brunswick request involves two delivery points: one via the Hydro-Québec system and the other via a subsea, high-voltage direct cable system. In other words, in New Brunswick we have two applications in, one application to bring in megawatts through Quebec, and the other application bringing in the megawatts from the subsea link. In addition, a request for an interconnection assessment has also been filed in Ontario with the IESO.

Several of the resulting system impact studies are now being completed, which will provide us with information on the impacts of releasing lower Churchill power into the markets and the costs of any upgrades required. We have received the first of our system impact study information from Hydro-Québec. A second one is expected this week, and the remainder are on schedule throughout 2007.

In addition to the transmission service requests in New Brunswick and in Quebec, we are engaging expertise in the study of the HVDC—the high-voltage direct current—subsea system from Labrador to the island portion of the province and then into New Brunswick. So to get from the lower Churchill through to New Brunswick, step one is to come from Labrador onto the island portion of the province, and then we cross over and go subsea from there. So there are two subsea links: a small link from Labrador connecting the island, and then a larger link going from the island to New Brunswick.

We know the maritime subsea route is technically feasible; there's no question about that. We have several examples of situations in Europe—two key examples from many. One is a line called NorNed, which connects Norway and the Netherlands; and a second example is the Baltic Cable, which connects Germany and Sweden—similar distances, similar capacity.

We have more barriers to energy trade in Canada than in the United States. While physical interconnections exist, an open, transparent interprovincial electricity market has not been encouraged or developed in Canada. This issue should be addressed in order to effectively meet central Canada's energy supply needs, in particular with a renewable source such as ours. If we do not address the development of a robust interprovincial market and the creation of an effective east-west transmission grid, we will continue to encourage a situation where Canada's electricity continues to follow the path of least resistance, into a receptive market in the United States.

While we wish to be good neighbours with our U.S. friends, unless we address this issue, Canada stands to minimize or lose a distinct competitive advantage in North America and the world. The Churchill River development is the equivalent of 225,000 barrels of oil a day: clean, stable, secure energy, forever. The value of this development cannot be understated in the current global and regional context, and it is certainly one of the most attractive and economic hydroelectric developments left in North America today. The lower Churchill will significantly contribute to the country becoming a clean energy superpower. The project has the potential to generate significant financial rewards and investment returns, in addition to being a key contributor to Canada's increased concern regarding greenhouse gas emissions.

In conclusion, I'd just like to note that we're looking forward to seeing everyone next week in Churchill Falls. Gilbert Bennett, our vice-president of the project, is at home, working hard and getting ready, and we hope to show you a good time. If anyone wants to stay overnight for a little extra fun, I just want to extend that invitation. We can look after that as well. We're certainly looking forward to seeing everybody, and we really do appreciate your coming down to see our project. It's great for us to be able to have the opportunity to showcase what Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro can do and what Newfoundland and Labrador can do.

Take the upper Churchill project. It's the eighth largest in the world. We operate it at a world-class standard. For the last two months of winter, availability has actually been 100%, and we are so proud of the fact that we are operating such a huge facility and doing such a great job. It's a chance for us to showcase that, plus we can give you a bit more information on the lower Churchill and give you the feeling that we're coming and we're going to do a good job of this project, and we can take all the help we can get.

So thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Martin and Mr. Fedora.

I think we're all looking forward to it. We had the opportunity, in a recent study, to visit the oil sands, and in that we got an idea of the magnitude of it. So I think we're all looking forward to doing the same thing in terms of it being very difficult to take what we're about to see off a page, I'm sure. So thank you for your invitation to come, and we'll look forward to it.

With that, I'm going to start questioning. I think our resident expert is going to begin the questioning today.

Mr. Russell.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

It was resident, anyway. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to our witnesses.

Of course, Mr. Martin, it's good to see you again and talk about a potential and exciting project right in the heart of my particular riding, Labrador. I want to thank you as well for the work that you and your staff have done in helping us organize the tour. All of my colleagues are looking forward to spending the day in Churchill Falls. It was probably one of the greatest engineering feats of its time. So you'll get a chance to see that. One of the biggest underground power-generating stations in the world is in Churchill Falls. And you'll get a little taste of Labrador as well.

I tried to get them to stay overnight and they said they didn't like to rough it. I said, “For God's sake, man, we're staying in a hotel.” So you wonder where some of these guys and gals come from.

I have a couple of questions on this particular project. Of course, it has particular interest to us in Labrador.

Very quickly, on the environmental process, you registered it through both the federal government and the provincial government. Where is the federal process right now in terms of the environmental process?

[Ed Martin]

The two processes, as you are probably well aware, are different.

In Newfoundland, the process is time driven. It's built into the legislation that certain things have to happen on certain days, and it's very tight, timing-wise. It has moved along more quickly just because they have deadlines to meet legislatively.

On the federal side, the submission has been made, and we're waiting to hear—we expect imminently to hear—where they are. The next step in the process is for the federal government to come back and say that they understand and that this is what they recommend. They will sit then with the province and do a harmonization. That would be the obvious thing—they would agree to do this together and merge both processes. After that they will instruct us as to timelines.

Right now we're waiting, but I think we're still within the timeframes we've expected. Hopefully over the next week or two we're going to get some answers and we'll be able to maintain our schedule.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

They haven't responded yet.

[Ed Martin]

They haven't responded yet, but as I said, in our understanding, there's dialogue going on between the province and the federal government. We understand that dialogue is happening; we're just not sure of the timing yet.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

I raised this issue with you before, and that is that when the project was submitted they talked about the generation of power, but they didn't talk about the transmission of power. I thought that might be problematic from a project splitting perspective, which is not applicable under federal law. So I'll just make that comment.

In terms of the relationship between the lower Churchill and reducing dependence on diesel generating stations, particularly on the coast of Labrador, what do you anticipate there? We have a lot of small communities that depend solely on diesel. It's expensive, you know. It's a fossil fuel burner. Is there any link between the coast of Labrador getting off that dependence and the lower Churchill project? We're talking about reducing greenhouse gas emissions with this green energy.

[Ed Martin]

Well, I have two pieces to answer that.

With respect to the link between the lower Churchill and the coastal communities of Labrador with respect to diesel, we've done extensive studies in terms of what it would cost to run transmission lines up the north and south coasts of Labrador. And we have compared that with what it costs to operate diesel generation. There's such a huge disparity in cost with respect to this that it's not something, essentially, that is feasible for us from a cost perspective. We can't defend that. That being said, it doesn't mean we're not looking at that kind of thing, not only for the remote communities in Labrador but also for the island portion of the province.

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has been successful recently in putting together a consortium of two universities, Memorial University and University of New Brunswick, with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro in the lead, and we've brought in some private partners. We're doing a research and development project, a pilot project we started several years ago, in a remote community called Ramea. It was and still is being driven by diesel, similar to some of the communities on the coast of Labrador.

Several years ago we brought in wind and hired someone to come in and put up a pilot project to marry wind with diesel. Naturally, when the wind blows, you are providing cleaner power; and when the wind isn't blowing, diesel kicks in. We've perfected the technology to make that happen in a manner that gives the customer reasonable reliability.

In this most recent study, we've introduced a new piece, and that is hydrogen storage. This is a research project we're leading in which we've brought hydrogen into the mix. What we want to do now is that when the wind is blowing, even if we need diesel for voltage support, we want to take the excess power that's being generated by the wind, which we can't control, and store it in hydrogen. It's a five-year project, and we're hoping to commercialize that process. We're sinking a lot of time, effort, and money into it. Not only are we hoping it will benefit our own remote communities, from a greening perspective and potentially from a reliability perspective, but if we get this right, we think we may be able to patent something we can market to the rest of the world--in places such as Australia and Greenland and other areas where they have a situation similar to what we have.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you for that.

On the financing side, the province said that it may go it alone. I don't know what that actually means. Are they going to totally assume the risk of this? During the last election, the premier asked the Prime Minister of Canada if he would consider a loan guarantee for the development of the lower Churchill. The premier has been quoted as saying that this is a done deal, or it is very close to being a done deal, or something in that particular vein—I can get the quotes. I know the request has been made.

What has the response of the Prime Minister been to that particular request from the province?

[Ed Martin]

I can't speak on behalf of the province. We're obviously running the lower Churchill project as a business, and I'm sitting back from that situation.

At the request of our shareholder I've been asked, from a business commercial perspective, to take this project and come together with two or three combinations of options to produce financing and give us a reasonable return, as well as protect our upside in the long haul with respect to what we could make on this project.

Our job is to bring those pieces forward, lay them in front of the province, and give them two to three options to hopefully say, this works, this works, and this works; which one suits you from a policy perspective? At that point we'll be indifferent, because hopefully we will put together a business case where all of those options will be financeable and will provide reasonable returns.

As far as the loan guarantees go, that is a discussion between the province and the federal government. I think it has been publicized. The papers have been pretty clear. There has been a request by the province. The Prime Minister indicated he would support the project in that fashion. As far as Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro goes, that's a piece of business we've incorporated into our business case. There's no question about that.

As far as pulling the trigger on that piece of it goes, it's there and we're incorporating it, but it's not something we're saying must be signed right now. I need to get these business cases together and be able to demonstrate to the federal government that there's a loan guarantee commitment there. We appreciate that, but this is the type of project that's a tremendous investment. It's a tremendous investment for Newfoundland, but it's also a tremendous investment for the country. We want to make the business case and show why it's good for the country. We want to say that this is not a situation where we're looking for a handout or assistance. This is a huge investment opportunity for the country, and we want to present it in that fashion.

We hope and expect that the federal government and financiers and anyone else who is constantly knocking on our doors to invest in this project because it's such a good project, are going to look at this and say it's something they want to invest in because it just makes so much sense.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

Monsieur Ouellet.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The map you gave us does not show Lower Churchill, but I can see Churchill Falls. Where is Lower Churchill? Is it the same thing as Churchill Falls? If I understand correctly, the dams are lower down at Churchill Falls and there may not be any hydroelectric facilities there. Is that correct?

[Christian Ouellet]

From Lower Churchill and the other place, what is the voltage of your electrical transmission lines?

[Ed Martin]

I apologize, I missed the first part of the question.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

I'm referring to transmission line voltage.

I'm sorry, I'll have to ask you in French.

What is the voltage for the high-tension wires?

[Ed Martin]

The lines from the upper Churchill into Quebec right now are transmitting 735 kilovolts. If you come down the river from the upper Churchill, Gull Island is first and then Muskrat Falls. We'll connect Muskrat and Gull most likely with 230 kilovolt lines. The plan is to do a 735-kilovolt connection to upper Churchill. Then there will likely be a 735-kilovolt connection, but which direction we go is still under study.

So there'll be a link from Muskrat to Gull, and from Gull to upper Churchill. But there'll also be a redundancy of a new link, which will be a 735-kilovolt link into Quebec, if that's the way we choose to go. If we choose to go south, it'll be another 735-kilovolt link to the island and through.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

In the House of Commons, we must speak French, so that is what I'm doing, although I more comfortable in English here.

If you use a 735 kV link is there less power loss? Is that the reason why you use 735 kV rather than 230 kV?

[Ed Martin]

Yes, that's the optimum configuration for the amount of power that we will be transmitting.

From an engineering perspective, because there's less at Muskrat Falls, with 824 megawatts of capacity, the 230-kilovolt lines are sized in such a fashion that this is the most efficient, most cost-effective transfer to Gull. At Gull they'll take that and merge it with the Gull power. The engineers have determined that the size of lines—technically and most cost-effectively, would be the 735s, moving on from there.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Do you know how much power is lost per line kilometre on 735 kV wires?

[Ed Martin]

It ranges, but as a rule of thumb we're probably looking at anywhere from 3% to 4% to 7% line losses over the distance to market. Naturally we understand that. Our engineers have given us the ranges, and we've put that into our economic modelling. For any type of return that we are showing, any type of market analysis, we incorporate all that.

It's pretty normal for a project of this size.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

You sell a significant amount of power to Montreal. I would like to know what the line loss is between Churchill Falls and Montreal. Ten per cent, 15% or more?

[Ed Martin]

Approximately 5%, or around 5% to 7%.