Wells unbound
Well, he certainly was a bull in an inquiry china shop. Former Public Utilities Board chairman Andy Wells was on the stand at the Muskrat Falls inquiry Thursday, and he didn’t hold back.
In testimony that ranged from arguing that this province had descended into “soft fascism” by 2011 — an argument he qualified by saying that “if the jackboots weren’t marching in the streets, they were marching in the suites,” Wells testified that the PUB had been bullied by the Conservative government of Kathy Dunderdale, extending all the way to the top.
Wells echoed comments from other PUB officials, saying, “We all thought we were going to be fired.” He said then-premier Kathy Dunderdale told him on a telephone call, “I am sick of you and your damn board” as the PUB struggled to complete a report on whether Muskrat Falls was the right choice to address the province’s power needs.
Wells echoed earlier testimony about the difficulty in getting information about the project from Nalcor.
In all, coupled with the testimony of board member Dwanda Newman and senior board staff Maureen Greene and Fred Martin, the problems facing the PUB review of the project seem clear: Nalcor was in no rush.
But Wells’ testimony didn’t stop there. Wells opined about the role of carbon dioxide in climate change, discussed the impacts of power rate changes on families, and gave his own analysis of where power rates were likely to go as a result of the Muskrat Falls project — rates that, to his mind, will be considerably higher than the numbers being suggested by Nalcor.
He presented a dire scenario about how those with the least financial flexibility will face energy poverty, having to choose between electricity and other expenses.
In notes he kept that were entered as an inquiry exhibit, he wrote, “(Muskrat Falls) is a monument to the concentrated wealth for the few… with the rest of the population drowning in obligations from a stolen future.”
As witnesses go, Wells was in a category all his own, showing clear distaste for some of the province’s political elite, often derisively referring to them only by their last names.
The question now is what role Wells’ testimony will play in the overall inquiry.
Even as he was on the stand, it was clear that Justice Richard Leblanc intends to stay focused on the terms of the inquiry.
Leblanc limited questioning of Wells to areas that were strictly on point, and would not allow some avenues of inquiry to go ahead.
It’s a signal, perhaps, that some of Wells’ more rhetorical flourishes may be taken with a grain of salt.
As for the picture of the process of the PUB’S review of the project? The provincial government wanted the PUB to hurry up and give the government the answer they desired — that the project should go ahead, regardless of the absence of important supporting evidence.